06:55:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-irc ←
06:55:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
06:55:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
06:55:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 25 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 25 minutes ago ←
06:55:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
06:55:29 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2013
07:15:10 <Arnaud> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F3#Day_3_-_Thursday_June_20
07:15:16 <Arnaud> scribe: john
(No events recorded for 19 minutes)
(Scribe set to John Arwe)
07:15:19 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> present: JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, sandro, ericp, bblfish, cody, mesteban, roger, krp, stevebattle, AndyS
07:18:38 <JohnArwe> Topic: Next Face to Face meeting
07:18:46 <JohnArwe> to have or not to have, that is the question
to have or not to have, that is the question ←
07:19:28 <JohnArwe> done soon, Last Call in July, assuming 8 weeks review period, then question is what happens next
done soon, Last Call in July, assuming 8 weeks review period, then question is what happens next ←
07:19:44 <JohnArwe> better to plan for F2F and cancel if we decide it's unneeded, rather than the reverse
better to plan for F2F and cancel if we decide it's unneeded, rather than the reverse ←
07:21:22 <JohnArwe> Question if we should co-locate with RDF validation WG at MIT-Boston Sept 10-11 2013, so we'd meet Thu/Fri that week (12-13th)
Question if we should co-locate with RDF validation WG at MIT-Boston Sept 10-11 2013, so we'd meet Thu/Fri that week (12-13th) ←
07:23:25 <JohnArwe> W3C Team also had asked if we're going to attend TPAC in November.
W3C Team also had asked if we're going to attend TPAC in November. ←
07:24:23 <krp> http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/
Kevin Page: http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/ ←
07:24:40 <krp> ^ Semantic Web Conference in Sydney 21-25 Oct
Kevin Page: ^ Semantic Web Conference in Sydney 21-25 Oct ←
07:24:59 <nmihindu> http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/ ←
07:27:18 <JohnArwe> Resolved: Tentative plan is to have F2F4 at MIT in Boston Sept 12-13, which is Thu-Fri.
RESOLVED: Tentative plan is to have F2F4 at MIT in Boston Sept 12-13, which is Thu-Fri. ←
07:27:40 <JohnArwe> Arnaud will ask ericp/sandro if they're OK to host
Arnaud will ask ericp/sandro if they're OK to host ←
<JohnArwe> topic: LDP Specification Pending Issues - continues
07:28:48 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-66
07:29:54 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
07:30:24 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
07:40:08 <JohnArwe> Discussion about paging stability
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Discussion about paging stability ←
07:40:15 <JohnArwe> q?
q? ←
07:42:34 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close Issue-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later.
Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later. ←
07:42:55 <JohnArwe> i.e. for now it gets handled at the app level
i.e. for now it gets handled at the app level ←
07:43:02 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
07:43:07 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
07:43:10 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
07:43:11 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
07:43:18 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
07:43:25 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
07:43:56 <Arnaud1> Resolved: Close Issue-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later. ←
07:44:40 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-16
07:44:47 <JohnArwe> issue-16?
07:44:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Redirection of non-information resources to BPRs -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-16 -- Redirection of non-information resources to BPRs -- open ←
07:44:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/16
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/16 ←
07:48:27 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close issue-16 without making any changes (as is)
Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-16 without making any changes (as is) ←
07:48:44 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
07:48:49 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
07:48:52 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
07:48:53 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
07:49:08 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
07:49:08 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
07:49:09 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
07:49:13 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
07:49:18 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-16 without making any changes (as is)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-16 without making any changes (as is) ←
07:49:50 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-56
07:49:52 <JohnArwe> issue-56?
07:49:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 -- How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs? -- open ←
07:49:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56 ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> 2616 10.3.4 303 See Other
2616 10.3.4 303 See Other ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> The response to the request can be found under a different URI and
The response to the request can be found under a different URI and ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method
SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to
exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a
redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303
substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303 ←
07:51:58 <JohnArwe> response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second
response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second ←
07:51:59 <JohnArwe> (redirected) request might be cacheable.
(redirected) request might be cacheable. ←
07:52:10 <JohnArwe> ...
... ←
07:52:11 <JohnArwe> The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the
The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the ←
07:52:11 <JohnArwe> response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the
response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the ←
07:52:11 <JohnArwe> response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to
response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to ←
07:52:11 <JohnArwe> the new URI(s).
the new URI(s). ←
08:00:12 <JohnArwe> Proposal: Close Issue-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it.
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it. ←
08:01:12 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
08:01:14 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
08:01:15 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
08:01:15 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
08:01:16 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
08:01:22 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
08:01:26 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
08:01:28 <mesteban> +0.5
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0.5 ←
08:01:34 <bblfish> +1 (why could the described by header not be in the initial 303 ? )
Henry Story: +1 (why could the described by header not be in the initial 303 ? ) ←
08:01:54 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it. ←
08:04:24 <cody> subtopic: issue 37
08:05:11 <cody> The problem is that everyone has their own view of what "Data Model" and "Interaction Model" really means/implies
Cody Burleson: The problem is that everyone has their own view of what "Data Model" and "Interaction Model" really means/implies ←
08:06:59 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37
Henry Story: ISSUE-37">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37 ←
08:11:44 <JohnArwe> ashok: give me an action to work on it
Ashok Malhotra: give me an action to work on it ←
08:12:00 <JohnArwe> steves: has been open for 6 months; can reassign action 53
Steve Speicher: has been open for 6 months; can reassign ACTION-53 ←
08:12:21 <roger> Nandana: some of the issue 37 stuff will be in the primer too
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: some of the ISSUE-37 stuff will be in the primer too [ Scribe Assist by Roger Menday ] ←
08:12:26 <JohnArwe> nandana: some of the content would be appropriate for primer
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: some of the content would be appropriate for primer ←
08:12:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: have wiki page with input from several (url above)
Henry Story: have wiki page with input from several (url above) ←
08:13:23 <bblfish> wiki page on issue-37 is here http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37
Henry Story: wiki page on ISSUE-37 is here ISSUE-37">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37 ←
08:13:32 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close issue-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process.
Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process. ←
08:14:29 <bblfish> +1 It's non normative issue
Henry Story: +1 It's non normative issue ←
08:14:32 <JohnArwe> Note that this issue is not normative
Note that this issue is not normative ←
08:14:39 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
08:14:57 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
08:14:58 <SteveS> +!
Steve Speicher: +! ←
08:14:58 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
08:15:11 <SteveS> +1!
Steve Speicher: +1! ←
08:15:15 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
08:15:16 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
08:15:16 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
08:15:31 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process of informative content.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process of informative content. ←
08:17:00 <Ashok_> Hi Andy ... you there? I have a question
Ashok Malhotra: Hi Andy ... you there? I have a question ←
08:30:32 <AndyS> Hello.
(No events recorded for 13 minutes)
Andy Seaborne: Hello. ←
08:30:50 <AndyS> Askok_ : was that this "Andy"?
Andy Seaborne: Askok_ : was that this "Andy"? ←
08:31:06 <AndyS> Ashok_ : was that this "Andy"?
Andy Seaborne: Ashok_ : was that this "Andy"? ←
08:31:12 <roger> everyone is coffee'ing ....
Roger Menday: everyone is coffee'ing .... ←
08:31:14 <roger> apart from me
Roger Menday: apart from me ←
08:33:54 <Ashok_> Yes ... we were talking about RDF patch and you had an interesting idea about how to do it
Ashok Malhotra: Yes ... we were talking about RDF patch and you had an interesting idea about how to do it ←
08:34:05 <Ashok_> ... did you make any progress on it?
Ashok Malhotra: ... did you make any progress on it? ←
08:35:36 <JohnArwe> everyone was here at 9 too... apart from roger ;-)
everyone was here at 9 too... apart from roger ;-) ←
08:35:38 <AndyS> TriG based formats (or Talis changesets) don't scale, dont work with bnodes and don't work with datasets (latter less of a problem for LDP).
Andy Seaborne: TriG based formats (or Talis changesets) don't scale, dont work with bnodes and don't work with datasets (latter less of a problem for LDP). ←
08:35:47 <AndyS> and they don't stream so scaling problems.
Andy Seaborne: and they don't stream so scaling problems. ←
08:36:21 <AndyS> This analysis has lead to (early draft alert!) http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JENA/RDF+Delta
Andy Seaborne: This analysis has lead to (early draft alert!) http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JENA/RDF+Delta ←
08:36:48 <Ashok_> Sandro said that. So, that's where we are?
Ashok Malhotra: Sandro said that. So, that's where we are? ←
08:37:00 <AndyS> which is little more than n-triples + a add/delete marker.
Andy Seaborne: which is little more than n-triples + a add/delete marker. ←
08:37:02 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-62
08:37:06 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62 ←
08:37:16 <JohnArwe> Roger's issue. We wonder where his proposal, due yesterday, is.
Roger's issue. We wonder where his proposal, due yesterday, is. ←
08:37:25 <JohnArwe> Currently labeled "at risk"
Currently labeled "at risk" ←
08:37:48 <JohnArwe> Roger objects to dropping w/o more discussion.
Roger objects to dropping w/o more discussion. ←
08:38:06 <JohnArwe> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa
http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ←
08:38:54 <AndyS> That's where I am ... this is being developed for a need we have but I'm more than happy to work in LDP on it.
Andy Seaborne: That's where I am ... this is being developed for a need we have but I'm more than happy to work in LDP on it. ←
08:39:31 <Ashok> ok ... I think It's important, that's why I'm asking
Ashok Malhotra: ok ... I think It's important, that's why I'm asking ←
08:40:25 <AndyS> Great - let me know what the WG thinks after the F2F discussions.
Andy Seaborne: Great - let me know what the WG thinks after the F2F discussions. ←
08:41:38 <JohnArwe> issue-62?
08:41:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Creating containers associated with LDPRs -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-62 -- Creating containers associated with LDPRs -- open ←
08:41:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62 ←
08:44:48 <JohnArwe> SteveS: application can do that outside of LDP
Steve Speicher: application can do that outside of LDP ←
08:45:12 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: spec as it is today allows several ways... enumerates
Arnaud Le Hors: spec as it is today allows several ways... enumerates ←
08:45:23 <JohnArwe> ...App level, as SteveS said
...App level, as SteveS said ←
08:45:34 <JohnArwe> ...PUT to create the container
...PUT to create the container ←
08:45:57 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: natural for people to read spec and ask how the starting point came to be.
Arnaud Le Hors: natural for people to read spec and ask how the starting point came to be. ←
08:46:24 <JohnArwe> bblfish: the top level "off the screen" resource could be a container itself.
Henry Story: the top level "off the screen" resource could be a container itself. ←
08:46:46 <JohnArwe> roger: my assumption is that the starting point is a just an LDPR, not necessarily an LDPC
Roger Menday: my assumption is that the starting point is a just an LDPR, not necessarily an LDPC ←
08:47:14 <JohnArwe> pasting example from pirate pad area for minutes...
pasting example from pirate pad area for minutes... ←
08:47:25 <JohnArwe> Starting with
Starting with ←
08:47:25 <JohnArwe> <>
<> ←
08:47:25 <JohnArwe> a o:NetWorth ;
a o:NetWorth ; ←
08:47:25 <JohnArwe> o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;\
o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;\ ←
08:47:25 <JohnArwe> ... which doesn't have the liabilities and assets containers :(
... which doesn't have the liabilities and assets containers :( ←
08:47:34 <JohnArwe> If I want a way to create liabilities and assets, I need a way to make some LDPCs
If I want a way to create liabilities and assets, I need a way to make some LDPCs ←
08:47:34 <JohnArwe> <>
<> ←
08:47:34 <JohnArwe> a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;
a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container; ←
08:47:34 <JohnArwe> o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;
o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>; ←
08:47:34 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipSubject <>;
ldp:membershipSubject <>; ←
08:47:34 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc.
ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc. ←
08:47:44 <JohnArwe> Now after POSTing the following to <>
Now after POSTing the following to <> ←
08:47:44 <JohnArwe> a ldp:Container;
a ldp:Container; ←
08:47:44 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipSubject <.>;
ldp:membershipSubject <.>; ←
08:47:44 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.
ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset. ←
08:47:55 <JohnArwe> Now he gets
Now he gets ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> <>
<> ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;
a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container; ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;
o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>; ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipSubject <.>;
ldp:membershipSubject <.>; ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc;
ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc; ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> ldp:has_ldpc <assetContainer/>
ldp:has_ldpc <assetContainer/> ←
08:47:56 <JohnArwe> <assetContainer/>
<assetContainer/> ←
08:47:57 <JohnArwe> a ldp:Container;
a ldp:Container; ←
08:47:57 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipSubject <.>;
ldp:membershipSubject <.>; ←
08:47:57 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.
ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset. ←
08:48:18 <JohnArwe> comparing to ex 3 in LDP spec
comparing to ex 3 in LDP spec ←
08:49:59 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
08:50:14 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: what is the issue then?
Arnaud Le Hors: what is the issue then? ←
08:52:23 <JohnArwe> Roger: not saying its the best solution, but once you create from the LDPR I get an answer for the other issue I gave up on (links from LDPRs to the containers they use to manage sets of domain-specific links)
Roger Menday: not saying its the best solution, but once you create from the LDPR I get an answer for the other issue I gave up on (links from LDPRs to the containers they use to manage sets of domain-specific links) ←
08:54:25 <JohnArwe> SteveS: the RDF links in the membership triples do contain the information, although the links are in the opposite direction. if the server returns the container's triples (including membership triples) along with the LDPR's representation, you have what you need.
Steve Speicher: the RDF links in the membership triples do contain the information, although the links are in the opposite direction. if the server returns the container's triples (including membership triples) along with the LDPR's representation, you have what you need. ←
08:54:51 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: are you convinced the spec itself has no gap? perhaps we do need deployment info.
Arnaud Le Hors: are you convinced the spec itself has no gap? perhaps we do need deployment info. ←
08:55:43 <JohnArwe> steves: (1) uber container that server stitches together (2) morph LDPR into container ...server has to allow that (3) PUT-create as you showed in pad. Spec allows all of those today.
Steve Speicher: (1) uber container that server stitches together (2) morph LDPR into container ...server has to allow that (3) PUT-create as you showed in pad. Spec allows all of those today. ←
08:56:18 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if this is about how elegant the solutions are vs their feasibility, we could also put it on the wish list
Arnaud Le Hors: if this is about how elegant the solutions are vs their feasibility, we could also put it on the wish list ←
08:56:46 <JohnArwe> ...appear to have consensus in the room that primer/guidelines should clarify this set of possibilities
...appear to have consensus in the room that primer/guidelines should clarify this set of possibilities ←
08:58:20 <JohnArwe> Roger: 4th possibility is templatization ... LDPR links to template containers with no URLs, and to another resource that exists and is capable of instantiating templates.... that is what we did pre-LDP
Roger Menday: 4th possibility is templatization ... LDPR links to template containers with no URLs, and to another resource that exists and is capable of instantiating templates.... that is what we did pre-LDP ←
08:58:34 <JohnArwe> ... if looking to close this issue, pls action deployment guid
... if looking to close this issue, pls action deployment guid ←
08:59:46 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close issue-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this
Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this ←
08:59:55 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
08:59:58 <JohnArwe> ...e.g. as shown in (1)-(3) above
...e.g. as shown in (1)-(3) above ←
09:00:02 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
09:00:04 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
09:00:06 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
09:00:07 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
09:00:08 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
09:00:12 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
09:00:56 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this ←
09:01:56 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
09:01:57 <bblfish> Issue-51?
09:01:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers the resource is in) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers the resource is in) -- open ←
09:01:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51 ←
09:01:57 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-51
09:02:03 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
09:02:25 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
09:02:35 <JohnArwe> coming ericp
coming ericp ←
09:03:00 <JohnArwe> people here admiring your enthusiasm (or insomnia)
people here admiring your enthusiasm (or insomnia) ←
09:03:04 <SteveS> You can get the relation today, using the example from before as: <assetContainer/> ldp:membershipSubject <.>.
Steve Speicher: You can get the relation today, using the example from before as: <assetContainer/> ldp:membershipSubject <.>. ←
09:03:13 <Zakim> +m
Zakim IRC Bot: +m ←
09:03:18 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
09:03:47 <rgarcia> ericP, we just called
Raúl García Castro: ericP, we just called ←
09:04:21 <bblfish> <> a ldp:Container; ldp:created <child/> . <child/> a ldp:Container .
Henry Story: <> a ldp:Container; ldp:created <child/> . <child/> a ldp:Container . ←
09:04:37 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
09:04:46 <SteveS> ack bblfish
Steve Speicher: ack bblfish ←
09:05:28 <roger> @SteveS, does a child know who it's parent is, or is it a parent who knows who it's child is ?
Roger Menday: @SteveS, does a child know who it's parent is, or is it a parent who knows who it's child is ? ←
09:05:42 <JohnArwe> bblfish: is that it? roger: no (no, no, no, no)
Henry Story: is that it? roger: no (no, no, no, no) ←
09:06:49 <bblfish> Ah, I missed this notion of { <.> ldp:hasContainer <assetContainer>. }
Henry Story: Ah, I missed this notion of { <.> ldp:hasContainer <assetContainer>. } ←
09:07:19 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
09:07:20 <JohnArwe> Roger: I was looking for < LDPR , ... , LDPR's container > but see now that same info exists with subj/obj swapped
Roger Menday: I was looking for < LDPR , ... , LDPR's container > but see now that same info exists with subj/obj swapped ←
09:07:25 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
09:10:00 <JohnArwe> Discussion about separation of "interaction-related" triples and "domain triples", which people prefer/loathe to varying degrees based on mental models.
Discussion about separation of "interaction-related" triples and "domain triples", which people prefer/loathe to varying degrees based on mental models. ←
09:10:25 <JohnArwe> Roger mentions the evil blank-node word. scribe ducks.
Roger mentions the evil blank-node word. scribe ducks. ←
09:11:05 <JohnArwe> Henry: use ldp:contains, that's the right answer
Henry Story: use ldp:contains, that's the right answer ←
09:11:22 <JohnArwe> Arnaud separates the combatants
Arnaud separates the combatants ←
09:17:44 <JohnArwe> Roger reminds people that he's thought LDPRs were on top since before Christmas, and this shows through in his examples from back then, although did not expect anyone to support such a change.
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Roger reminds people that he's thought LDPRs were on top since before Christmas, and this shows through in his examples from back then, although did not expect anyone to support such a change. ←
09:18:11 <JohnArwe> ...Henry and Miel see how that could work, and might even in a perfect world be preferable.
...Henry and Miel see how that could work, and might even in a perfect world be preferable. ←
09:19:22 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
09:19:22 <JohnArwe> Roger: Containers are very constrained, cannot add just any properties. Mass confusion and shouts of "what about non-member properties then" from the crowd; constraint on contrainers is there's only one membership triple pattern.
Roger Menday: Containers are very constrained, cannot add just any properties. Mass confusion and shouts of "what about non-member properties then" from the crowd; constraint on contrainers is there's only one membership triple pattern. ←
09:19:27 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
09:20:01 <JohnArwe> Roger: we had 'value set' at F2F2, never really took hold
Roger Menday: we had 'value set' at F2F2, never really took hold ←
09:20:16 <JohnArwe> many respond with 'that's just a naming problem'
many respond with 'that's just a naming problem' ←
09:20:30 <SteveS> ack bblfish
Steve Speicher: ack bblfish ←
09:20:39 <JohnArwe> Henry: containers are just about creating members, and when you do that other relations get added elsewhere
Henry Story: containers are just about creating members, and when you do that other relations get added elsewhere ←
09:20:50 <JohnArwe> Roger: disagree with that strongly
Roger Menday: disagree with that strongly ←
09:20:57 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
09:21:00 <JohnArwe> ...several others chime in
...several others chime in ←
09:21:37 <JohnArwe> ...we have had the "are containers [just] about create, or about listing membership" several times already at this F2F
...we have had the "are containers [just] about create, or about listing membership" several times already at this F2F ←
09:22:14 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: so can we close the issue?
Arnaud Le Hors: so can we close the issue? ←
09:22:39 <bblfish> I said Containers are very simple at its core: they just create resources ( and describe metadata on the created resources or on in the future restrictions on the container, as well as perhaps how creating a resource creates a relation to something else )
Henry Story: I said Containers are very simple at its core: they just create resources ( and describe metadata on the created resources or on in the future restrictions on the container, as well as perhaps how creating a resource creates a relation to something else ) ←
09:22:40 <JohnArwe> Roger: we spend a half hour? I expected it to take 2 mins. [laughing] I was ready to close it before.
Roger Menday: we spend a half hour? I expected it to take 2 mins. [laughing] I was ready to close it before. ←
09:24:15 <SteveS> informative part of spec says: "…few simple non-member properties are retrieved. In real world situations more complex cases are likely, such as those that add other predicates to containers, for example providing validation information and associating SPARQL endpoints. [SPARQL-QUERY]"
Steve Speicher: informative part of spec says: "…few simple non-member properties are retrieved. In real world situations more complex cases are likely, such as those that add other predicates to containers, for example providing validation information and associating SPARQL endpoints. [SPARQL-QUERY]" ←
09:25:06 <JohnArwe> Proposal: Close issue-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC. ←
09:25:37 <bblfish> background talk: an ldlc is a controller
Cody Burleson: an LDPC is a controller [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
09:25:46 <JohnArwe> s/ldlc/LDPC/
09:26:19 <nmihindu> s/background talk/cody
09:26:56 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
09:27:01 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
09:27:02 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
09:27:02 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
09:27:04 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
09:27:05 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
09:27:10 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
09:27:19 <JohnArwe> editors happy to accept citations of sections where readers might be likely to read too narrowly.
editors happy to accept citations of sections where readers might be likely to read too narrowly. ←
09:27:37 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
09:27:43 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC. ←
09:27:47 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
09:28:48 <cody> I need to get my group photo before people start breaking for airport.
Cody Burleson: I need to get my group photo before people start breaking for airport. ←
09:28:54 <JohnArwe> @steveb: ashok suggests you look at issues closed yesterday, one of your loved ones was in there.
@steveb: ashok suggests you look at issues closed yesterday, one of your loved ones was in there. ←
09:29:00 <Ashok> stevebattle are you on the phone?
Ashok Malhotra: stevebattle are you on the phone? ←
09:29:20 <JohnArwe> ...the minutes are available already, although arnaud might not have finished polish-editing them
...the minutes are available already, although arnaud might not have finished polish-editing them ←
09:29:26 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-50
09:29:29 <JohnArwe> issue-50?
09:29:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open ←
09:29:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50 ←
09:30:09 <JohnArwe> bblfish: you can use relative URIs in POST, but cannot use others like . and .. because you don't know the path the server will choose
Henry Story: you can use relative URIs in POST, but cannot use others like . and .. because you don't know the path the server will choose ←
09:32:38 <roger> i think this cannot be in the spec, but, why not something for the deployment guide ?
Roger Menday: i think this cannot be in the spec, but, why not something for the deployment guide ? ←
09:33:02 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
09:33:11 <JohnArwe> ...suggesting adding subclass whose server-chosen URI will be the container's URI, a slash (if not present on the container's URI), and then a single URI path segment (as defined in RFC 3986), full stop.
...suggesting adding subclass whose server-chosen URI will be the container's URI, a slash (if not present on the container's URI), and then a single URI path segment (as defined in RFC 3986), full stop. ←
09:33:21 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
09:33:39 <krp> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa
Kevin Page: http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ←
09:33:49 <JohnArwe> @roger, spec allows a server to behave that way but LDP gives no way for a server to communicate that intent
@roger, spec allows a server to behave that way but LDP gives no way for a server to communicate that intent ←
09:34:13 <roger> that why it is guideline only !
Roger Menday: that why it is guideline only ! ←
09:34:38 <JohnArwe> @roger: not disagreeing, just clarifying what spec-as-it-stands permits
@roger: not disagreeing, just clarifying what spec-as-it-stands permits ←
09:34:41 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
09:35:05 <JohnArwe> Personally, I'm allergic to adding any hard constraints on how servers construct URIs
Personally, I'm allergic to adding any hard constraints on how servers construct URIs ←
09:35:37 <JohnArwe> Roger: do see use in this, just think it's guidelines not normative
Roger Menday: do see use in this, just think it's guidelines not normative ←
09:36:10 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
09:36:24 <JohnArwe> Ashok: what is base URI for these relative URIs?
Ashok Malhotra: what is base URI for these relative URIs? ←
09:37:17 <SteveS> See new spec section: "5.4.8.1 For RDF representations, LDPC servers must assign the base-URI for [RFC3987] relative-URI resolution to be the URI of the created subject resource."
Steve Speicher: See new spec section: "5.4.8.1 For RDF representations, LDPC servers must assign the base-URI for [RFC3987] relative-URI resolution to be the URI of the created subject resource." ←
09:38:13 <krp> q+
Kevin Page: q+ ←
09:38:50 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
09:38:54 <JohnArwe> bblfish: all relative to the document/resource created. the problem is that LDP allows the newly created resource's uri to be anything (including on another server). I want it to be within this container, so that if a client uses the .. notation in the input the results are fully predictable.
Henry Story: all relative to the document/resource created. the problem is that LDP allows the newly created resource's uri to be anything (including on another server). I want it to be within this container, so that if a client uses the .. notation in the input the results are fully predictable. ←
09:39:30 <JohnArwe> kevin: good impln choice, in guidelines.
Kevin Page: good impln choice, in guidelines. ←
09:39:50 <JohnArwe> bblfish: that's why I want a subclass
Henry Story: that's why I want a subclass ←
09:40:30 <JohnArwe> kevin: so why isn't that uri convention subclass something in your namespace?
Kevin Page: so why isn't that uri convention subclass something in your namespace? ←
09:40:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: idea is very simple, subclass adds this convention.
Henry Story: idea is very simple, subclass adds this convention. ←
09:41:10 <Arnaud> ack krp
Arnaud Le Hors: ack krp ←
09:41:14 <JohnArwe> kevin: you're talking about specifying this convention in the spec however
Kevin Page: you're talking about specifying this convention in the spec however ←
09:41:51 <JohnArwe> roger: how does this work with membership triples in the general case?
Roger Menday: how does this work with membership triples in the general case? ←
09:42:04 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
09:42:13 <JohnArwe> bblfish: same way; relative uri would be different
Henry Story: same way; relative uri would be different ←
09:43:15 <JohnArwe> ... you make a good point; many of the current examples assume you allocate URIs this way
... you make a good point; many of the current examples assume you allocate URIs this way ←
09:43:44 <JohnArwe> others point out that spec only uses . when creating resources
others point out that spec only uses . when creating resources ←
09:44:17 <SteveS> What would a server do with:
Steve Speicher: What would a server do with: ←
09:44:26 <JohnArwe> bblfish: you cannot use . on create to speak about your container if you assume the URIs can be fully arbitrary
Henry Story: you cannot use . on create to speak about your container if you assume the URIs can be fully arbitrary ←
09:44:37 <SteveS> POST with a Slug of foo/bar/abc
Steve Speicher: POST with a Slug of foo/bar/abc ←
09:45:47 <JohnArwe> nandana: not disputing it's a requirement, but you do have workaround already. you can add the triples you need after create finished and the resource's URI is known
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: not disputing it's a requirement, but you do have workaround already. you can add the triples you need after create finished and the resource's URI is known ←
09:46:10 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
09:47:10 <nmihindu> relative uri patterns - http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: relative uri patterns - http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt ←
09:47:18 <JohnArwe> Sandro, not sure if you're a 3986 weenie in particular, if so you joined in the middle of a spirited discussion of issue 50
Sandro, not sure if you're a 3986 weenie in particular, if so you joined in the middle of a spirited discussion of ISSUE-50 ←
09:48:04 <JohnArwe> careful nandana - 1808 superseded by 3986
careful nandana - 1808 superseded by 3986 ←
09:48:06 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
09:48:29 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
09:48:34 <nmihindu> JohnArwe, yeah. Just noticed your link. My rfc searches are not so good apparently :)
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: JohnArwe, yeah. Just noticed your link. My rfc searches are not so good apparently :) ←
09:48:38 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: not a gap in the spec; personally do not see new class being worthwhile.
Arnaud Le Hors: not a gap in the spec; personally do not see new class being worthwhile. ←
09:49:26 <JohnArwe> steves: could we fix this with more guidance on how servers process slug? or would we need one?
Steve Speicher: could we fix this with more guidance on how servers process slug? or would we need one? ←
09:49:38 <JohnArwe> bblfish: the slug value could not contain /s
Henry Story: the slug value could not contain /s ←
09:50:08 <JohnArwe> steves: see usefulness, kind of late, have the workaround nandana pointed out so "not now" is my preference
Steve Speicher: see usefulness, kind of late, have the workaround nandana pointed out so "not now" is my preference ←
09:50:26 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: add to wish list while bblfish gets more impln experience?
Arnaud Le Hors: add to wish list while bblfish gets more impln experience? ←
09:50:54 <JohnArwe> bblfish: can we add it to ontology now so the URL is stable?
Henry Story: can we add it to ontology now so the URL is stable? ←
09:51:12 <JohnArwe> steves: would have to mark it unstable
Steve Speicher: would have to mark it unstable ←
09:51:19 <JohnArwe> bblfish: ok with unstable
Henry Story: ok with unstable ←
09:52:26 <JohnArwe> ashok: would this new kind of container only allow creates via post?
Ashok Malhotra: would this new kind of container only allow creates via post? ←
09:53:01 <JohnArwe> John clarifies: POST narrorwly, or also PUT/PATCH-create? Ashok: all 3
John clarifies: POST narrorwly, or also PUT/PATCH-create? Ashok: all 3 ←
09:53:34 <JohnArwe> discussion - somewhat uneasy reserving name, creates expectation wg will deliver on it someday when we might not
discussion - somewhat uneasy reserving name, creates expectation wg will deliver on it someday when we might not ←
09:54:20 <JohnArwe> Proposal: close issue-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to find any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs ←
09:54:37 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
09:54:38 <JohnArwe> s/to any/to find any/
09:54:38 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
09:54:41 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
09:54:43 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
09:54:44 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
09:54:45 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
09:54:46 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
09:54:46 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
09:54:47 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
09:54:50 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
09:54:52 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
09:54:54 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs ←
09:55:34 <roger> so maybe, the LDPC is the controller, the LDPR is the view, and graph on the server is the model ?
Roger Menday: so maybe, the LDPC is the controller, the LDPR is the view, and graph on the server is the model ? ←
09:55:41 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
09:55:43 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-78
09:55:46 <JohnArwe> issue-78?
09:55:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- inferencing levels -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-78 -- inferencing levels -- open ←
09:55:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/78
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/78 ←
09:56:34 <bblfish> ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ]
Henry Story: ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ] ←
09:56:45 <bblfish> <> ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ]
Henry Story: <> ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ] ←
09:56:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: if you wanted to say [what bblfish posted above]
Henry Story: if you wanted to say [what bblfish posted above] ←
09:57:13 <ericP> the reason we don't use the OWL idiom for inverseMembershipPredicate is 'cause we're wusses and afraid to use the word "OWL"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the reason we don't use the OWL idiom for inverseMembershipPredicate is 'cause we're wusses and afraid to use the word "OWL" ←
09:57:43 <JohnArwe> bblfish: people reacted to that by saying "ick that drags OWL" and then Sir Robin soiled his armor
Henry Story: people reacted to that by saying "ick that drags OWL" and then Sir Robin soiled his armor ←
09:58:41 <JohnArwe> eric: slightly more parsing but would still be using standard terms
Eric Prud'hommeaux: slightly more parsing but would still be using standard terms ←
09:59:33 <JohnArwe> bblfish: intelligent clients can do as much inferencing as they want, question is how much to we require?
Henry Story: intelligent clients can do as much inferencing as they want, question is how much to we require? ←
10:01:08 <JohnArwe> arnaud: explains background ... members have been saying we don't want to require any reasonsers; bblfish feels that membershipPredicate etc is just a form of inferencing, not all members agree (in the sense that it's not requiring RDF/OWL reasoning)
Arnaud Le Hors: explains background ... members have been saying we don't want to require any reasonsers; bblfish feels that membershipPredicate etc is just a form of inferencing, not all members agree (in the sense that it's not requiring RDF/OWL reasoning) ←
10:02:26 <JohnArwe> ericp: do we need text = this document includes/defines a number of predicates/terms, and every client/server interaction should directly include those triples instead of relying on clients implementing inferencing to derive some of the triples from representations.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: do we need text = this document includes/defines a number of predicates/terms, and every client/server interaction should directly include those triples instead of relying on clients implementing inferencing to derive some of the triples from representations. ←
10:03:17 <JohnArwe> ... i.e. no inferencing required to get at data in the payload that's mentioned in the LDP spec.
... i.e. no inferencing required to get at data in the payload that's mentioned in the LDP spec. ←
10:05:12 <JohnArwe> ...it's fine if implementations want to use RDFS in "their" portions of the payloads, just not required to interpret the LDP portions
...it's fine if implementations want to use RDFS in "their" portions of the payloads, just not required to interpret the LDP portions ←
10:06:02 <JohnArwe> discussion of whether this is requirement or best practice ... unanimous(?) consensus that it's a normative reqt for client interop
discussion of whether this is requirement or best practice ... unanimous(?) consensus that it's a normative reqt for client interop ←
10:06:39 <JohnArwe> kevin notes that having text in spec does not prevent us from also having text in informative companion docs
kevin notes that having text in spec does not prevent us from also having text in informative companion docs ←
10:08:17 <ericP> PROPOSED: close issue-38 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-38 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference." ←
10:08:34 <ericP> PROPOSED: close issue-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference." ←
10:08:45 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
10:08:49 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
10:08:50 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
10:08:53 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
10:08:54 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
10:09:05 <bblfish> +1 "must not require inferencing on the client for the protocol to work successfully"
Henry Story: +1 "must not require inferencing on the client for the protocol to work successfully" ←
10:09:11 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
10:09:18 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
10:09:51 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
10:10:12 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference." ←
10:10:48 <mielvds> +1 (showing support anyway, ha)
Miel Vander Sande: +1 (showing support anyway, ha) ←
10:10:56 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
10:12:00 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle ←
10:14:25 <JohnArwe> subTopic: issue-71
10:14:29 <JohnArwe> issue-71?
10:14:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open ←
10:14:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71 ←
10:15:23 <JohnArwe> pause for group picture
pause for group picture ←
10:16:06 <JohnArwe> pardon, we're figuring out how many engineers it takes to take 1 group photo
pardon, we're figuring out how many engineers it takes to take 1 group photo ←
10:17:07 <JohnArwe> kevin leaves for the day
kevin leaves for the day ←
10:17:26 <JohnArwe> bblfish: back to piratepad for example to get feedback
Henry Story: back to piratepad for example to get feedback ←
10:19:16 <JohnArwe> ... basic idea is to wrap membershipXXX predicates in a blank node, to allow >1 such relation in the future
... basic idea is to wrap membershipXXX predicates in a blank node, to allow >1 such relation in the future ←
10:21:23 <JohnArwe> ...i.e. to do that now in LDP, rather than (in the future when someone wants >1 relation) having one syntax for the first one and a different syntax for subsequent ones; you'd need a different syntax, like a blank node to wrap the membershipXXX relations since they occur in pairs/triples
...i.e. to do that now in LDP, rather than (in the future when someone wants >1 relation) having one syntax for the first one and a different syntax for subsequent ones; you'd need a different syntax, like a blank node to wrap the membershipXXX relations since they occur in pairs/triples ←
10:21:49 <JohnArwe> for example (snapshot from pirate pad)
for example (snapshot from pirate pad) ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> <> a ldp:Container;
<> a ldp:Container; ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> ldp:rel [ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows;
ldp:rel [ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows; ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipSubject <#wife>;
ldp:membershipSubject <#wife>; ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ],
ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ], ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> [ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows;
[ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows; ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipSubject <#me>;
ldp:membershipSubject <#me>; ←
10:21:50 <JohnArwe> ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ] .
ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ] . ←
10:23:38 <JohnArwe> bblfish: this might also solve the [already closed, after yesterday] monotonicity problem in a different way
Henry Story: this might also solve the [already closed, after yesterday] monotonicity problem in a different way ←
10:23:40 <stevebattle4> Is Henry's argument one of reductio ad absurdum? - ie. this is so silly we should do away with it entirely - I can't gauge the level of irony remotely.
Steve Battle: Is Henry's argument one of reductio ad absurdum? - ie. this is so silly we should do away with it entirely - I can't gauge the level of irony remotely. ←
10:23:56 <JohnArwe> no irony that I can detect
no irony that I can detect ←
10:24:34 <JohnArwe> my sense is that he's pursuing a single common syntax for >=1
my sense is that he's pursuing a single common syntax for >=1 ←
10:25:07 <JohnArwe> q+ roger
q+ roger ←
10:26:41 <nmihindu> JohnArwe, it seems so. It is more generic and extensible. It would be nice to see what are the use cases for this.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: JohnArwe, it seems so. It is more generic and extensible. It would be nice to see what are the use cases for this. ←
10:27:44 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
10:27:52 <nmihindu> q+
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: q+ ←
10:28:09 <JohnArwe> raul: ...lost question sorry
Raúl García Castro: ...lost question sorry ←
10:28:26 <stevebattle4> Henry - you've convinced me we should do away with membershipXXX
Steve Battle: Henry - you've convinced me we should do away with membershipXXX ←
10:28:58 <JohnArwe> john: if client uses domain relations to enumerate members, would it have to union them or would either work?
John Arwe: if client uses domain relations to enumerate members, would it have to union them or would either work? ←
10:29:02 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
10:29:46 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
10:30:36 <JohnArwe> nandana: to keep track of what a container created, and these would be "other relations" outside of LDP
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: to keep track of what a container created, and these would be "other relations" outside of LDP ←
10:31:25 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
10:31:28 <JohnArwe> bblfish: agree; notes that he feels we already have this problem now
Henry Story: agree; notes that he feels we already have this problem now ←
10:32:32 <JohnArwe> Steves: do not see strong need for >1 based on my impln experience. client can always create those other relations. someone might next make the leap to insert a template generation rule so a bunch of side effects.
Steve Speicher: do not see strong need for >1 based on my impln experience. client can always create those other relations. someone might next make the leap to insert a template generation rule so a bunch of side effects. ←
10:33:18 <JohnArwe> ericp: I would have written all these implications (membershipXXX) in OWL because the interactions are getting complex.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I would have written all these implications (membershipXXX) in OWL because the interactions are getting complex. ←
10:33:34 <JohnArwe> bblfish: we're no more complicated than what we have today
Henry Story: this no more complicated than what we have today ←
10:33:45 <JohnArwe> s/we're/this/
10:34:24 <JohnArwe> ericp: what you're saying here now is that these act as conjoins (ANDs). easy to imagine that next I want disjoints (ORs).
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what you're saying here now is that these act as conjoins (ANDs). easy to imagine that next I want disjoints (ORs). ←
10:34:26 <nmihindu> ericP, +1 this is providing a contract
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: ericP, +1 this is providing a contract ←
10:35:03 <JohnArwe> bblfish: right, had not thought that through. no no no, ...
Henry Story: right, had not thought that through. no no no, ... ←
10:35:56 <JohnArwe> ericp: one interpretation is ... another...
Eric Prud'hommeaux: one interpretation is ... another... ←
10:36:09 <JohnArwe> bblfish: I can see why this is confusing, bug in the on-the-fly example
Henry Story: I can see why this is confusing, bug in the on-the-fly example ←
10:37:23 <JohnArwe> arnaud: issue in front of us is whether or not to remove membershipXXX, not how to add more of them. can we agree on how to deal with the issue in front of us (remove what's there or not), and assume we think through the extensions in a future version?
Arnaud Le Hors: issue in front of us is whether or not to remove membershipXXX, not how to add more of them. can we agree on how to deal with the issue in front of us (remove what's there or not), and assume we think through the extensions in a future version? ←
10:38:16 <JohnArwe> bblfish: this helps clarify what you're doing. this is much more general than container membership, we spent a lot of time misunderstanding each other already.
Henry Story: this helps clarify what you're doing. this is much more general than container membership, we spent a lot of time misunderstanding each other already. ←
10:38:43 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: companion docs (Primer etc) should handle this, late in version 1 to add this.
Arnaud Le Hors: companion docs (Primer etc) should handle this, late in version 1 to add this. ←
10:38:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: same as we have now
Henry Story: same as we have now ←
10:38:57 <JohnArwe> roger: does not work for me
Roger Menday: does not work for me ←
10:39:02 <JohnArwe> raul: concept is different
Raúl García Castro: concept is different ←
10:39:38 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if you want to open a new issue [soft sobs of "no, no" heard on phone]
Arnaud Le Hors: if you want to open a new issue [soft sobs of "no, no" heard on phone] ←
10:40:42 <JohnArwe> bblfish: if you object to the general form and we still have membershipXXX, not especially a problem
Henry Story: if you object to the general form and we still have membershipXXX, not especially a problem ←
10:40:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed. ←
10:41:05 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
10:41:06 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
10:41:07 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
10:41:09 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
10:41:09 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
10:41:15 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
10:41:17 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
10:41:19 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
10:41:20 <stevebattle4> 0 (I would cull membershipXXX)
Steve Battle: 0 (I would cull membershipXXX) ←
10:41:23 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
10:41:31 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed. ←
10:41:37 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
10:41:58 <JohnArwe> subTopic: issue-58
10:42:00 <JohnArwe> issue-58?
10:42:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open ←
10:42:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58 ←
10:48:14 <Arnaud> options previously put forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0085.html
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: options previously put forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0085.html ←
10:48:37 <JohnArwe> re-loading of wetware caches takes a few minutes
re-loading of wetware caches takes a few minutes ←
10:52:01 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
10:53:42 <JohnArwe> clarifying leads to info that bblfish is not objecting to the idea of avoiding the GETs, it's the form by which the examples did that.
clarifying leads to info that bblfish is not objecting to the idea of avoiding the GETs, it's the form by which the examples did that. ←
10:53:46 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
10:54:09 <JohnArwe> ericp can you recap your stmt?
ericp can you recap your stmt? ←
10:54:50 <nmihindu> +q to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that ←
10:55:50 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
10:55:50 <Zakim> nmihindu, you wanted to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu, you wanted to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that ←
10:56:32 <JohnArwe> 1 hour lunch break folks
1 hour lunch break folks ←
10:56:33 <Zakim> -m
Zakim IRC Bot: -m ←
10:56:39 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
10:56:46 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
10:56:48 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
10:56:48 <Zakim> Attendees were ericP, m, Sandro, SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ericP, m, Sandro, SteveBattle ←
10:57:06 <roger> my question is that, in ex 3 of the spec, is the defs of the LDPC's considered as "inlining" - just to clarify.
Roger Menday: my question is that, in ex 3 of the spec, is the defs of the LDPC's considered as "inlining" - just to clarify. ←
10:57:16 <roger> ... for after lunch.
Roger Menday: ... for after lunch. ←
12:06:30 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started
(No events recorded for 69 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
12:06:37 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle ←
12:09:01 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
12:29:43 <Zakim> +m
(No events recorded for 20 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +m ←
12:34:09 <JohnArwe> Scribe: Miel
(Scribe set to Miel Vander Sande)
12:35:29 <mielvds> Arnaud: resume with issue 58
Arnaud Le Hors: resume with ISSUE-58 ←
12:36:05 <mielvds> Ashok: I recommend to agree on having an indicator on the container and on each member
Ashok Malhotra: I recommend to agree on having an indicator on the container and on each member ←
12:36:43 <mielvds> JohnArwe: inline like in the examples is semantically broken from a semweb view
John Arwe: inline like in the examples is semantically broken from a semweb view ←
12:37:09 <mielvds> … henry and I discussed it over lunch, we found a way
… henry and I discussed it over lunch, we found a way ←
12:37:50 <mielvds> bblfish: looking at the pad. Essentially everything that does ldp:memberInlined <a1>, <a2>...
Henry Story: looking at the pad. Essentially everything that does ldp:memberInlined <a1>, <a2>... ←
12:38:14 <mielvds> …if a1 and a2 are somehow contradictory, this does not work
…if a1 and a2 are somehow contradictory, this does not work ←
12:38:43 <mielvds> second problem is that when merging information, you don't know which information came from which, unless they are disjunct
second problem is that when merging information, you don't know which information came from which, unless they are disjunct ←
12:39:20 <mielvds> EricP: no machine can enforce that nothing is contradictory
Eric Prud'hommeaux: no machine can enforce that nothing is contradictory ←
12:39:41 <mielvds> bblfish: remove memberinline and quote it
Henry Story: remove memberinline and quote it ←
12:40:48 <mielvds> … to the pad!
… to the pad! ←
12:40:51 <mielvds> <a2> log:semantics {
<a2> log:semantics { ←
12:40:51 <mielvds> <a2>
<a2> ←
12:40:51 <mielvds> a o:Bond;
a o:Bond; ←
12:40:51 <mielvds> o:value 20000.
o:value 20000. ←
12:40:51 <mielvds> }
} ←
12:41:29 <nmihindu> log semantics -> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: log semantics -> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach ←
12:41:52 <mielvds> using log:semantics to quote this. client can say: I believe this and take it out
using log:semantics to quote this. client can say: I believe this and take it out ←
12:42:12 <mielvds> Arnaud: we don't have a syntax supporting this, so it's a showstopper
Arnaud Le Hors: we don't have a syntax supporting this, so it's a showstopper ←
12:42:50 <mielvds> Atom also quotes the content and adds limited metadata
Atom also quotes the content and adds limited metadata ←
12:43:00 <stevebattle4> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
12:43:06 <mielvds> Arnaud: can you only do this by only quoting the whole content?
Arnaud Le Hors: can you only do this by only quoting the whole content? ←
12:43:49 <mielvds> bblfish: you create a relation ldp:content to quote everything
Henry Story: you create a relation ldp:content to quote everything ←
12:43:56 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
12:44:10 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
12:44:11 <mielvds> stevebattle4: would it be quicker to have a query parameter?
Steve Battle: would it be quicker to have a query parameter? ←
12:44:34 <JohnArwe> TallTed at F2F2 refused to admit anything less than member-granularity in-lining
John Arwe: TallTed at F2F2 refused to admit anything less than member-granularity in-lining ←
12:44:35 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
12:44:54 <stevebattle4> eg. http://mycontainer?inlined
Steve Battle: eg. http://mycontainer?inlined ←
12:45:01 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
12:45:19 <mielvds> EricP: the server has the best knowledge on this; if we look at a controlled system like bugtrakcing there is no issue
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the server has the best knowledge on this; if we look at a controlled system like bugtracking there is no issue ←
12:45:33 <mielvds> clients can tell where triples come from
clients can tell where triples come from ←
12:45:41 <mielvds> the issue comes up with generic triple stores
the issue comes up with generic triple stores ←
12:45:41 <JohnArwe> s/kcing/cking/
12:45:51 <SteveS> FYI, client requested "inlining" is on wish list http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext#Embedded_representations
Steve Speicher: FYI, client requested "inlining" is on wish list http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext#Embedded_representations ←
12:45:57 <mielvds> it can assert statements about resources that are not in its control
it can assert statements about resources that are not in its control ←
12:47:09 <mielvds> if you constrain the problem to risk-free cases only, we will end up with stating 'here is safe to inline', and others will be communicated with media type
if you constrain the problem to risk-free cases only, we will end up with stating 'here is safe to inline', and others will be communicated with media type ←
12:47:31 <mielvds> bblfish: bu example is more complex, they can contain info about other resources
Henry Story: bu example is more complex, they can contain info about other resources ←
12:48:01 <nmihindu> bblfish, The thread on the turtle data type discussion on the semantic-web@w3.org might be relevant here as well http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013May/0194.html
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: bblfish, The thread on the turtle data type discussion on the semantic-web@w3.org might be relevant here as well http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013May/0194.html ←
12:48:01 <mielvds> Arnaud: quetion I lost track of: is this application dependent question?
Arnaud Le Hors: question I lost track of: is this application dependent question? ←
12:48:13 <JohnArwe> s/quetion/question/
12:48:44 <mielvds> bblfish: if you get the quotation right, it will always be safe
Henry Story: if you get the quotation right, it will always be safe ←
12:48:50 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
12:49:14 <SteveS> q-
Steve Speicher: q- ←
12:49:22 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
12:49:32 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
12:49:33 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
12:49:48 <mielvds> roger: I said this before: inlining is about any resource, not only containers
Roger Menday: I said this before: inlining is about any resource, not only containers ←
12:50:13 <mielvds> linked data community should have some answer. We can do it for any resource
linked data community should have some answer. We can do it for any resource ←
12:50:17 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
12:50:23 <mielvds> it's a generic requirement
it's a generic requirement ←
12:50:44 <stevebattle4> And we might specify an inlining depth
Steve Battle: And we might specify an inlining depth ←
12:50:51 <stevebattle4> snap!
Steve Battle: snap! ←
12:50:52 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
12:50:53 <mielvds> Arnaud: the mapping between the rdf resources and the webresources are the problem here
Arnaud Le Hors: the mapping between the rdf resources and the webresources are the problem here ←
12:51:17 <JohnArwe> depth is orthogonal; nothing on the table talks about how clients request this
John Arwe: depth is orthogonal; nothing on the table talks about how clients request this ←
12:51:29 <ericP> there is still a large class of resources which can be safely inlined.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there is still a large class of resources which can be safely inlined. ←
12:51:51 <ericP> the question is whether we want to standardize a way for them to do that or let them invent it on their own.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the question is whether we want to standardize a way for them to do that or let them invent it on their own. ←
12:52:02 <JohnArwe> the question here is how the server tells clients which resources have been in-lined. that is a flat list, regardless of how the server constructed its list.
John Arwe: the question here is how the server tells clients which resources have been in-lined. that is a flat list, regardless of how the server constructed its list. ←
12:52:21 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
12:53:05 <mielvds> bblfish: I think there is a case where inlining is wanted
Henry Story: I think there is a case where inlining is wanted ←
12:53:15 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
12:53:28 <stevebattle4> This seems to point towards resource-centric inlining metadata, that works for both LDPC and LDPR.
Steve Battle: This seems to point towards resource-centric inlining metadata, that works for both LDPC and LDPR. ←
12:53:48 <mielvds> saying something about a resource defined somewhere else is important
saying something about a resource defined somewhere else is important ←
12:54:05 <mielvds> fully inlining however
fully inlining however ←
12:54:23 <mielvds> Arnaud: this does not say its about always fully inlined
Arnaud Le Hors: this does not say its about always fully inlined ←
12:54:37 <ericP> sandro, i think your reading is accurate and that we both understand the risks; i just think that it's worth giving folks more rope.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: sandro, i think your reading is accurate and that we both understand the risks; i just think that it's worth giving folks more rope. ←
12:54:53 <mielvds> bblfish: if one uses this, you need more information on the dangers
Henry Story: if one uses this, you need more information on the dangers ←
12:55:13 <mielvds> if you are not familiar with linked data, ..
if you are not familiar with linked data, .. ←
12:55:40 <JohnArwe> q+
12:55:45 <ericP> i think people are going to invent this semantics privately anyways; we may as well provide a standard handle for it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think people are going to invent this semantics privately anyways; we may as well provide a standard handle for it ←
12:56:03 <mielvds> Arnaud: can't we have this example in the spec?
Arnaud Le Hors: can't we have this example in the spec? ←
12:56:10 <mielvds> example 5
example 5 ←
12:56:48 <mielvds> Arnaud: it seems it would be reasonable to have a resolution for danger warning in best practices document
Arnaud Le Hors: it seems it would be reasonable to have a resolution for danger warning in best practices document ←
12:57:50 <mielvds> John: the spec could include ldp server should/must not do inlining if they meet contraints
John Arwe: the spec could include ldp server should/must not do inlining if they meet contraints ←
12:58:13 <mielvds> Arnaud: which normative section do we have now? => none
Arnaud Le Hors: which normative section do we have now? => none ←
12:58:30 <mielvds> JohnArwe: this was the proposal
John Arwe: this was the proposal ←
12:59:16 <mielvds> … at a minimum: "here are the problems that can arise" added to were the spec this introduces this
… at a minimum: "here are the problems that can arise" added to were the spec this introduces this ←
12:59:25 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
12:59:30 <JohnArwe> q-
12:59:50 <mielvds> roger: pierre-antoine had a proposal that was pretty good
Roger Menday: pierre-antoine had a proposal that was pretty good ←
12:59:54 <ericP> JohnArwe:'s text sounds good to me
John Arwe: 's text sounds good to me [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
13:00:23 <mielvds> JohnArwe: I thing that's a syntax q, not a semantics q (what is the case here)
John Arwe: I thing that's a syntax q, not a semantics q (what is the case here) ←
13:00:43 <mielvds> roger: he had an argument contradicting this
Roger Menday: he had an argument contradicting this ←
13:01:12 <mielvds> … networth linking to container or inverse
… networth linking to container or inverse ←
13:01:18 <mielvds> are they inlined?
are they inlined? ←
13:01:41 <mielvds> if you are linking to the container, it makes more sens to call that inlined
if you are linking to the container, it makes more sens to call that inlined ←
13:02:09 <mielvds> you not inlining something you are not pointing to, because you're not pointing to it
you not inlining something you are not pointing to, because you're not pointing to it ←
13:02:48 <mielvds> Arnaud: to clarify, there is a more fundamental issue behind this
Arnaud Le Hors: to clarify, there is a more fundamental issue behind this ←
13:03:14 <mielvds> Arnaud: seperate this, let's decide on the concept of inlining
Arnaud Le Hors: separate this, let's decide on the concept of inlining ←
13:03:40 <mielvds> Arnaud: we can have a best practice, baware OR we can have an informative section in the spec warning people
Arnaud Le Hors: we can have a best practice, beware OR we can have an informative section in the spec warning people ←
13:03:56 <mielvds> sould that address bblfish concerns?
should that address bblfish concerns? ←
13:04:01 <JohnArwe> s/seperate/separate/
13:04:04 <ericP> simplest failure mode: <C> ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:membershipPredicate ; ldp:membershipPredicate <r1> .
Eric Prud'hommeaux: simplest failure mode: <C> ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:membershipPredicate ; ldp:membershipPredicate <r1> . ←
13:04:12 <JohnArwe> s/baware/beware/
13:04:17 <JohnArwe> s/sould/should/
13:04:48 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources
PROPOSED: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources ←
13:04:54 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
13:04:57 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
13:04:58 <mielvds> +1
+1 ←
13:05:04 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
13:05:05 <stevebattle4> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
13:05:10 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
13:05:10 <JohnArwe> +1
13:05:37 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
13:05:50 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
13:05:58 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
13:06:02 <Arnaud> Resolved: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources
RESOLVED: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources ←
13:06:25 <JohnArwe> ericp's example reminds me of contests to see how much function can be included on a single source line (usually of C)
John Arwe: ericp's example reminds me of contests to see how much function can be included on a single source line (usually of C) ←
13:06:30 <mielvds> Arnaud: now we can go back to issue 58
Arnaud Le Hors: now we can go back to ISSUE-58 ←
13:07:00 <ericP> JohnArwe, would you be willing to judge an obfuscated RDF contest?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, would you be willing to judge an obfuscated RDF contest? ←
13:07:22 <mielvds> Arnaud: Do we do anything if I want to know if I got everything
Arnaud Le Hors: Do we do anything if I want to know if I got everything ←
13:07:34 <mielvds> Arnaud: we had several proposals
Arnaud Le Hors: we had several proposals ←
13:07:39 <JohnArwe> @ericp, sure, I like pain. although I rather thought that was a large component of the last 3 elapsed-time days
John Arwe: @ericp, sure, I like pain. although I rather thought that was a large component of the last 3 elapsed-time days ←
13:07:56 <ericP> q
13:08:52 <mielvds> Arnaud: proposal is all or nothing for all members
Arnaud Le Hors: original proposal is all or nothing for all members ←
13:09:47 <mielvds> JohnArwe: if we do anything with this, make it at risk, but I want it in there for scaling
John Arwe: if we do anything with this, make it at risk, but I want it in there for scaling ←
13:10:26 <Arnaud> s/proposal/original proposal/
13:11:16 <mielvds> ericP: we arived to the conclusion that the flag does not introduce more danger than before
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we arrived to the conclusion that the flag does not introduce more danger than before ←
13:11:37 <mielvds> s/arived/arrived/
13:11:56 <mielvds> roger: this is still container specific...
Roger Menday: this is still container specific... ←
13:12:24 <mielvds> JohnArwe: this could be a list saying: you have all the triples of these resources
John Arwe: this could be a list saying: you have all the triples of these resources ←
13:13:01 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
13:14:49 <stevebattle4> Alternatively, you could include the eTag for an LDPR so that the client can sniff the eTag for a resource and not re-download if it has all the data already. Even an inlined resource might change and we need to re-download.
Steve Battle: Alternatively, you could include the eTag for an LDPR so that the client can sniff the eTag for a resource and not re-download if it has all the data already. Even an inlined resource might change and we need to re-download. ←
13:15:56 <mielvds> bblfish: it is a page saying something about this resource
Henry Story: it is a page saying something about this resource ←
13:16:12 <mielvds> roger: you can't know if it is inlined
Roger Menday: you can't know if it is inlined ←
13:16:28 <mielvds> bblfish: you can only know when you use quotation
Henry Story: you can only know when you use quotation ←
13:16:30 <JohnArwe> Proposal: close issue-58 to add a new predicate; ldp:fullyInlinedContentForUri, the object of which is a URI for which the response representation includes all triples in the state of the resource named by the URI. Add a second new predicate, ldp:containerFullyInlined, domain ldp:Container, saying that all its membership triple objects' URIs have been inlined (i.e. it is a container-specific shortcut for listing each member URI using the first predicate).
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-58 to add a new predicate; ldp:fullyInlinedContentForUri, the object of which is a URI for which the response representation includes all triples in the state of the resource named by the URI. Add a second new predicate, ldp:containerFullyInlined, domain ldp:Container, saying that all its membership triple objects' URIs have been inlined (i.e. it is a container-specific shortcut for listing each member URI using the first predicate). ←
13:16:39 <stevebattle4> Nobody expects linked data to be quoted.
Steve Battle: Nobody expects linked data to be quoted. ←
13:17:03 <stevebattle4> 0 (I don't think we understand the issue enough to decide).
Steve Battle: 0 (I don't think we understand the issue enough to decide). ←
13:17:07 <mielvds> in O.O. you are never dealing in different point of information, only when working with graphs and interpretations
in O.O. you are never dealing in different point of information, only when working with graphs and interpretations ←
13:17:51 <mielvds> in SPARQL graphs are an example
in SPARQL named graphs are an example ←
13:18:06 <mielvds> JohnArwe: there is a proposal, go through it!
John Arwe: there is a proposal, go through it! ←
13:18:27 <bblfish> previous resolution: inlining can loose provenance information when inlined - especially if the information overlaps. ( But even otherwise it is not clear what triples came from what resource )
Henry Story: previous resolution: inlining can loose provenance information when inlined - especially if the information overlaps. ( But even otherwise it is not clear what triples came from what resource ) ←
13:19:23 <bblfish> ( one would need to make some very non-semanitc web constraints of how to interpret graphs - e.g.: if you said that RDF was not about graphs but about forward links between resources )
Henry Story: ( one would need to make some very non-semanitc web constraints of how to interpret graphs - e.g.: if you said that RDF was not about graphs but about forward links between resources ) ←
13:21:18 <JohnArwe> need to amend: domain should be either ldp:Container or ldp:Page
John Arwe: need to amend: domain should be either ldp:Container or ldp:Page ←
13:21:24 <JohnArwe> thx SteveS
13:21:58 <cody> s/SPARQL graphs/SPARQL named graphs
13:24:06 <stevebattle4> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
13:24:58 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
13:25:26 <mielvds> stevebattle: linked data can change, in general we need: do I have current version, did it change?
Steve Battle: linked data can change, in general we need: do I have current version, did it change? ←
13:25:53 <stevebattle4> Yes exactly
Steve Battle: Yes exactly ←
13:26:06 <mielvds> Arnaud: was raised before, ETag issue, it was fully inlined with this ETag
Arnaud Le Hors: was raised before, ETag issue, it was fully inlined with this ETag ←
13:26:54 <mielvds> isn't it always true that you get a bunch of triples and that they change
isn't it always true that you get a bunch of triples and that they change ←
13:27:28 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
13:29:01 <mielvds> bblfish: easily solved with quotation, go to turtle group and ask for way to do it
Henry Story: easily solved with quotation, go to turtle group and ask for way to do it ←
13:29:08 <stevebattle4> Can't we just drop inlining - it'd be simpler.
Steve Battle: Can't we just drop inlining - it'd be simpler. ←
13:30:29 <mielvds> Arnaud: 2things: 1) RDF working group is expiring, 2) limit amount of information, isn't that saying ... subject is container
Arnaud Le Hors: 2things: 1) RDF working group is expiring, 2) limit amount of information, isn't that saying ... subject is container ←
13:31:25 <mesteban__> q+
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q+ ←
13:31:31 <stevebattle4> No inlining, no problems :)
Steve Battle: No inlining, no problems :) ←
13:31:37 <mielvds> Arnaud: looks like you're saying: do not do inlining
Arnaud Le Hors: looks like you're saying: do not do inlining ←
13:31:40 <Arnaud> ack mesteban
Arnaud Le Hors: ack mesteban ←
13:31:42 <stevebattle4> ...and no quotation either
Steve Battle: ...and no quotation either ←
13:32:00 <sandro> We HAVE a quotation mechanism for graphs, bblfish. It's called RDF Datasets.
Sandro Hawke: We HAVE a quotation mechanism for graphs, bblfish. It's called RDF Datasets. ←
13:32:25 <sandro> ... which is the way to do inlining properly, IMHO.
Sandro Hawke: ... which is the way to do inlining properly, IMHO. ←
13:32:52 <mielvds> mesteban: is there really a need that the contents are merged within a single graph?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: is there really a need that the contents are merged within a single graph? ←
13:33:31 <mielvds> why not go for HTTP solution like multipart responses
why not go for HTTP solution like multipart responses ←
13:33:57 <mielvds> SteveS: it requires you to know entire size and chunk it
Steve Speicher: it requires you to know entire size and chunk it ←
13:34:11 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
13:34:13 <mielvds> server needs to know what the entire blob is
server needs to know what the entire blob is ←
13:34:18 <mielvds> client needs to keep track
client needs to keep track ←
13:34:39 <mielvds> JohnArwe: why is this different from one chunk?
John Arwe: why is this different from one chunk? ←
13:35:05 <mielvds> SteveS: its like paging ate byte level
Steve Speicher: its like paging ate byte level ←
13:37:10 <mielvds> Arnaud: this needs to be thought thru, that's clear
Arnaud Le Hors: this needs to be thought thru, that's clear ←
13:37:35 <mielvds> it would be unreasonable to keep building now
it would be unreasonable to keep building now ←
13:37:47 <stevebattle4> Yay to that
Steve Battle: Yay to that ←
13:38:11 <mielvds> ashok: don't want to put it to the wishlist; people are going to inline
Ashok Malhotra: don't want to put it to the wishlist; people are going to inline ←
13:38:32 <stevebattle4> They can inline outside the spec at their own risk.
Steve Battle: They can inline outside the spec at their own risk. ←
13:39:42 <mielvds> bblfish: we need an action to contact semweb community to find out how to do it
Henry Story: we need an action to contact semweb community to find out how to do it ←
13:40:14 <mielvds> mesteban: close it now, but discuss it in the best practices!
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: close it now, but discuss it in the best practices! ←
13:41:55 <mielvds> Arnaud: can we still go with John's proposal?
Arnaud Le Hors: can we still go with John's proposal? ←
13:42:35 <stevebattle4> The proposal bakes in too many misunderstandings.
Steve Battle: The proposal bakes in too many misunderstandings. ←
13:43:06 <JohnArwe> miel: kind of last minute/hasty
Miel Vander Sande: kind of last minute/hasty [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
13:44:32 <mielvds> Arnaud: we can do both parts of John's proposal or go for some parts of it (more or less original proposal)
Arnaud Le Hors: we can do both parts of John's proposal or go for some parts of it (more or less original proposal) ←
13:45:11 <mielvds> stevebattle: I think inlining is just the wrong proposal; do nothing
Steve Battle: I think inlining is just the wrong proposal; do nothing ←
13:46:29 <JohnArwe> q+ ericp
13:47:08 <stevebattle4> quotation isn't simple!
Steve Battle: quotation isn't simple! ←
13:47:18 <sandro> QUOTATION IS SOLVED
Sandro Hawke: QUOTATION IS SOLVED ←
13:47:30 <sandro> (it's called Datasets)
Sandro Hawke: (it's called Datasets) ←
13:48:01 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
13:48:34 <mielvds> ericP: we should have people implement their own solutions for this and deprecate them afterwards
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we should have people implement their own solutions for this and deprecate them afterwards ←
13:48:39 <stevebattle4> Sandro, what's a good URL for that?
Steve Battle: Sandro, what's a good URL for that? ←
13:49:44 <sandro> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-dataset
Sandro Hawke: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-dataset ←
13:49:48 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: close Issue-58, per Richard's proposal, marking the feature AT RISK
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-58, per Richard's proposal, marking the feature AT RISK ←
13:50:19 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
13:50:26 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
13:50:46 <mesteban__> -0
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: -0 ←
13:50:49 <mielvds> +0
+0 ←
13:50:53 <JohnArwe> issue-58?
13:50:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open ←
13:50:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58 ←
13:51:07 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
13:51:09 <JohnArwe> +1
13:51:11 <Ashok> +0.5
Ashok Malhotra: +0.5 ←
13:51:12 <stevebattle4> 0 (I'd rather close with no inlining prediciate - it's insufficient)
Steve Battle: 0 (I'd rather close with no inlining predicate - it's insufficient) ←
13:51:24 <sandro> richards proposal: PROPOSAL: Add a property ldp:membersInlined true/false. The default (if not specified) is false. If true, it means that a complete description of all members [on the current page] are inlined with the container document [or page], and therefore clients SHOULD NOT do GET on the member URIs to retrieve additional triples.
Sandro Hawke: richards proposal: PROPOSAL: Add a property ldp:membersInlined true/false. The default (if not specified) is false. If true, it means that a complete description of all members [on the current page] are inlined with the container document [or page], and therefore clients SHOULD NOT do GET on the member URIs to retrieve additional triples. ←
13:51:27 <nmihindu> 0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: 0 ←
13:51:30 <mesteban__> agree with stevebattle4
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: agree with stevebattle4 ←
13:51:38 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
13:51:43 <bblfish> mind you I did a find a bunch of urls for formats http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/
Henry Story: mind you I did a find a bunch of urls for formats http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/ ←
13:51:48 <rgarcia> -0 (also would prefer not to have it)
Raúl García Castro: -0 (also would prefer not to have it) ←
13:52:19 <roger> 0
Roger Menday: 0 ←
13:52:55 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-58, per Richard's proposal (described in the decription of the issue), marking the feature AT RISK
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-58, per Richard's proposal (described in the decription of the issue), marking the feature AT RISK ←
13:53:33 <stevebattle4> s/prediciate/predicate/
13:55:56 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined
PROPOSED: add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined ←
13:56:43 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined, marked as AT RISK
PROPOSED: add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined, marked as AT RISK ←
13:56:56 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
13:56:58 <stevebattle4> Didn't the zero's outnumber the 1's (and halves) on that last vote?
Steve Battle: Didn't the zero's outnumber the 1's (and halves) on that last vote? ←
13:56:59 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
13:57:04 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
13:57:04 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
13:57:17 <JohnArwe> +1
13:57:23 <rgarcia> -0
Raúl García Castro: -0 ←
13:57:26 <mielvds> +0
+0 ←
13:57:26 <mesteban__> -0
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: -0 ←
13:57:28 <stevebattle4> 0 (The predicate is still insufficient and we know that right now)
Steve Battle: 0 (The predicate is still insufficient and we know that right now) ←
13:57:28 <nmihindu> 0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: 0 ←
13:57:28 <bblfish> +0 for at risk, much happier if we move to quad store format, as that is the only really way to solve this problem.
Henry Story: +0 for at risk, much happier if we move to quad store format, as that is the only really way to solve this problem. ←
13:57:57 <Arnaud> Resolved: Add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined, marked as AT RISK
RESOLVED: Add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined, marked as AT RISK ←
13:58:04 <JohnArwe> @steveb 0's are usually taken to mean "don't care", hence things like -0.5 which I interpret as "not crazy about it, but not willing to lay in the tracks over it either"
John Arwe: @steveb 0's are usually taken to mean "don't care", hence things like -0.5 which I interpret as "not crazy about it, but not willing to lay in the tracks over it either" ←
13:58:15 <stevebattle4> Didn't the zeroes win?
Steve Battle: Didn't the zeroes win? ←
13:58:52 <stevebattle4> mmmm....
Steve Battle: mmmm.... ←
13:58:54 <Ashok> Zeroes mean abstain
Ashok Malhotra: Zeroes mean abstain ←
13:58:55 <ericP> the apathy vote caries
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the apathy vote caries ←
13:59:22 <stevebattle4> I'm going to use -1 a lot more in the future then.
Steve Battle: I'm going to use -1 a lot more in the future then. ←
14:01:02 <JohnArwe> subTopic: issue-5
14:01:06 <JohnArwe> issue-5?
14:01:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol -- postponed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-5 -- Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol -- postponed ←
14:01:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/5
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/5 ←
14:01:20 <stevebattle4> So we can't distinguish between a vote against and a veto?
Steve Battle: So we can't distinguish between a vote against and a veto? ←
14:01:44 <ericP> veto is -1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: veto is -1 ←
14:02:06 <stevebattle4> I thought zero was vote against
Steve Battle: I thought zero was vote against ←
14:02:16 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
14:02:22 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
14:02:27 <roger> -q
Roger Menday: -q ←
14:02:34 <stevebattle4> I never saw the zeros win before
Steve Battle: I never saw the zeros win before ←
14:02:36 <mielvds> Arnaud: we still have a postponed issue
Arnaud Le Hors: we still have a postponed issue ←
14:02:48 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
14:02:50 <mielvds> Graph store vs LDP
Graph store vs LDP ←
14:03:19 <mielvds> ericP: GSP thingy post adds more triples, while LDP creates something
Eric Prud'hommeaux: GSP thingy post adds more triples, while LDP creates something ←
14:03:39 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
14:03:43 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
14:03:47 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:03:49 <mielvds> I don't thing having a container is a problem for having graphs
I don't thing having a container is a problem for having graphs ←
14:04:07 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/ ←
14:04:18 <mielvds> Arnaud: it's a very basic spec that addresses HTTP spec
Arnaud Le Hors: it's a very basic spec that addresses HTTP spec ←
14:04:32 <mielvds> they address boundaries by graph names
they address boundaries by graph names ←
14:04:41 <mielvds> that's their advantage
that's their advantage ←
14:05:40 <mielvds> Arnaud: we go beyond. Compatibility distinction is on post
Arnaud Le Hors: we go beyond. Compatibility distinction is on post ←
14:06:05 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
14:06:36 <ericP> q+ to say that he's implemented BGP and LDP in the same server
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that he's implemented BGP and LDP in the same server ←
14:06:36 <mielvds> roger: could be wrong, but GSP is a protocol for manipultion graphs
Roger Menday: could be wrong, but GSP is a protocol for manipultion graphs ←
14:06:51 <mielvds> LDP manipulates is more, manipulating linked data
LDP manipulates is more, manipulating linked data ←
14:07:18 <mielvds> bblfish, what is missing from GSP for what you want to do?
bblfish, what is missing from GSP for what you want to do? ←
14:07:35 <mielvds> bblfish: I like the post for creating resources
Henry Story: I like the post for creating resources ←
14:08:06 <mielvds> could one use a search put to pose a sparql query on a container
could one use a search put to pose a sparql query on a container ←
14:08:48 <mielvds> if you want to do something on a graph, do it on the graph, not with ?graph-name
if you want to do something on a graph, do it on the graph, not with ?graph-name ←
14:09:24 <mielvds> Arnaud: LDP introduces containers and their functionality
Arnaud Le Hors: LDP introduces containers and their functionality ←
14:09:37 <roger> LDP is manipulating one graph, and GSP is manipulating multiple graphs - that's the way I'm viewing it anyway :)
Roger Menday: LDP is manipulating one graph, and GSP is manipulating multiple graphs - that's the way I'm viewing it anyway :) ←
14:09:43 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:10:05 <mielvds> ericP: to respond to ?graph-name
Eric Prud'hommeaux: to respond to ?graph-name ←
14:10:09 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
14:10:09 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that he's implemented BGP and LDP in the same server
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that he's implemented BGP and LDP in the same server ←
14:10:44 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
14:10:52 <mielvds> there is a difference in the URL
there is a difference in the URL ←
14:11:16 <sandro> (sorry, need to be in GLD WG meeting at this time)
Sandro Hawke: (sorry, need to be in GLD WG meeting at this time) ←
14:11:24 <mielvds> if I posted to ldp:Container, it appended triples to the graph
if I posted to ldp:Container, it appended triples to the graph ←
14:11:57 <mielvds> Arnaud: despite the name, it does not depend on SPARQL
Arnaud Le Hors: despite the name, it does not depend on SPARQL ←
14:13:15 <mielvds> ericP: using a post to append was controversial, so they called it SPARQL
Eric Prud'hommeaux: using a post to append was controversial, so they called it SPARQL ←
14:14:26 <mielvds> Arnaud: somebody who is knowledgeable in both specifications to take an action and compare
Arnaud Le Hors: somebody who is knowledgeable in both specifications to take an action and compare ←
14:14:50 <mielvds> ericP: didn't Steve already do that? => no, it was rather high level
Eric Prud'hommeaux: didn't Steve already do that? => no, it was rather high level ←
14:17:00 <mielvds> mielvds: I will take an action in comparing both specs
Miel Vander Sande: I will take an action in comparing both specs ←
14:17:12 <Arnaud> action: mielvds to take another look at how LDP and GSP compare and report back
ACTION: mielvds to take another look at how LDP and GSP compare and report back ←
14:17:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Take another look at how LDP and GSP compare and report back [on Miel Vander Sande - due 2013-06-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-82 - Take another look at how LDP and GSP compare and report back [on Miel Vander Sande - due 2013-06-27]. ←
14:17:45 <ericP> mielvds, maybe http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1211-egp-ldp/#(14) can serve as a starting point
Eric Prud'hommeaux: mielvds, maybe http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1211-egp-ldp/#(14) can serve as a starting point ←
14:18:09 <mielvds> thx ericP
thx ericP ←
14:18:56 <ericP> @JohnArwe, controversy was just that HTTP uses POST for many purposes and that saying that every RDF resource which gets RDF POSTed to it will append rules out lots of use cases
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @JohnArwe, controversy was just that HTTP uses POST for many purposes and that saying that every RDF resource which gets RDF POSTed to it will append rules out lots of use cases ←
14:19:01 <ericP> (like LDPCs)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (like LDPCs) ←
14:19:32 <stevebattle4> (claps)
Steve Battle: (claps) ←
14:21:24 <stevebattle4> Arnaud is trying to drum up additional attendees for his workshop :)
Steve Battle: Arnaud is trying to drum up additional attendees for his workshop :) ←
14:21:40 <nmihindu> mielvds, do you want to print your boarding pass too ?
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: mielvds, do you want to print your boarding pass too ? ←
14:22:04 <Arnaud> MEETING ADJOURNED
Arnaud Le Hors: MEETING ADJOURNED ←
14:22:39 <stevebattle4> bye all
Steve Battle: bye all ←
14:22:43 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
14:22:47 <Zakim> -m
Zakim IRC Bot: -m ←
14:23:05 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
14:23:06 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
14:23:06 <Zakim> Attendees were SteveBattle, ericP, m, Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were SteveBattle, ericP, m, Sandro ←
14:23:18 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
14:23:18 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
14:23:18 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
14:23:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
14:23:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
14:23:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
14:23:27 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-actions.rdf : ←
14:23:27 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mielvds to take another look at how LDP and GSP compare and report back [1]
ACTION: mielvds to take another look at how LDP and GSP compare and report back [1] ←
14:23:27 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-irc#T14-17-12
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-irc#T14-17-12 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe