06:59:21 <Arnaud> trackbot, start meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, start meeting ←
06:59:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
06:59:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
06:59:26 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
06:59:26 <trackbot> Date: 25 November 2013
06:59:33 <Ashok> Ashok join #ldp
Ashok Malhotra: Ashok join #ldp ←
07:01:52 <roger> roger join #ldp
Roger Menday: roger join #ldp ←
07:02:33 <SteveS> Zakim, who is here?
Steve Speicher: Zakim, who is here? ←
07:03:15 <codyburleson> Cody here, but Zakim did not recognize.
Cody Burleson: Cody here, but Zakim did not recognize. ←
07:03:15 <betehess> guys, no zakim today
Alexandre Bertails: guys, no zakim today ←
07:03:30 <betehess> we have had an important disk failure
Alexandre Bertails: we have had an important disk failure ←
07:03:41 <SteveS> I'm on IRC and the phone
Steve Speicher: I'm on IRC and the phone ←
07:03:42 <betehess> I mean, the bot is not here
Alexandre Bertails: I mean, the bot is not here ←
07:03:54 <betehess> same for rrsagent
Alexandre Bertails: same for rrsagent ←
07:04:13 <betehess> the systeam is working on it
Alexandre Bertails: the systeam is working on it ←
07:06:32 <betehess> down: MIT mail, Zakim bot, RRSAgent, Zakim scheduling, Windows shared drives
Alexandre Bertails: down: MIT mail, Zakim bot, RRSAgent, Zakim scheduling, Windows shared drives ←
07:08:06 <Arnaud> +Arnaud
Arnaud Le Hors: +Arnaud ←
07:08:13 <betehess> +Alexandre
Alexandre Bertails: +Alexandre ←
07:08:14 <roger> +roger
Roger Menday: +roger ←
07:08:15 <SteveS> +SteveS
Steve Speicher: +SteveS ←
07:08:17 <Ashok> +Ashok
Ashok Malhotra: +Ashok ←
07:08:20 <codyburleson> +Cody
Cody Burleson: +Cody ←
07:08:49 <Arnaud> regrets: sandro, john
07:10:24 <betehess> +ericP
Alexandre Bertails: +ericP ←
07:13:03 <svillata> svillata joined #ldp
Serena Villata: svillata joined #ldp ←
07:14:20 <SteveS> Scribe: SteveS
(Scribe set to Steve Speicher)
<SteveS> chair: Arnaud
<SteveS> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.25
07:14:46 <SteveS> Topic: Admin
07:14:53 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-18
http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-18 ←
07:14:59 <SteveS> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the November 18 teleconf
PROPOSED: Approve the minutes of the November 18 teleconf ←
07:16:32 <SteveS> RESOLUTION: Approve the minutes of the November 18 teleconf
RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the November 18 teleconf ←
07:16:38 <TallTed> +TallTed
Ted Thibodeau: +TallTed ←
07:17:27 <SteveS> Arnaud: next call Monday, December 2nd
Arnaud Le Hors: next call Monday, December 2nd ←
07:17:44 <svillata> +svillata
Serena Villata: +svillata ←
07:17:54 <SteveS> ...sticking with 90 minute meetings
...sticking with 90 minute meetings ←
07:18:00 <SteveS> Topic: Tracking of actions
07:18:14 <SteveS> Arnaud: no actions labeled pending review, anyone wanting to declare success?
Arnaud Le Hors: no actions labeled pending review, anyone wanting to declare success? ←
07:18:50 <SteveS> no one declares progress on open actions
no one declares progress on open actions ←
07:19:40 <SteveS> Topic: Discuss remaining issues
07:20:13 <SteveS> Arnaud: difficult to cover Henry's issues and proposals without him present, so will give summary
Arnaud Le Hors: difficult to cover Henry's issues and proposals without him present, so will give summary ←
07:21:35 <SteveS> people raised questions to mailing list on how to find the members. Henry raised issues with the relationship of members to containers, where you should make the relationship explicit (such as ldp:member)
people raised questions to mailing list on how to find the members. Henry raised issues with the relationship of members to containers, where you should make the relationship explicit (such as ldp:member) ←
07:21:45 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
07:22:40 <SteveS> Arnaud: further summarizes Henry's proposals found http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.25#Discuss_remaining_issues
Arnaud Le Hors: further summarizes Henry's proposals found http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.25#Discuss_remaining_issues ←
07:22:47 <ericP> eric joined #ldp
Eric Prud'hommeaux: eric joined #ldp ←
07:24:27 <SteveS> Arnaud: Published a summary of membership the way Henry did it, using SPARQL queries, just explaining what is currently in the spec at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Membership
Arnaud Le Hors: Published a summary of membership the way Henry did it, using SPARQL queries, just explaining what is currently in the spec at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Membership ←
07:25:18 <SteveS> Explains the various use cases that drove the design: default membership predicates, custom domain models and indirect membership to name a few
Explains the various use cases that drove the design: default membership predicates, custom domain models and indirect membership to name a few ←
07:26:24 <bblfish> sorry, forgot was at an LDP Workshop at Mozilla in Paris
Henry Story: sorry, forgot was at an LDP Workshop at Mozilla in Paris ←
07:26:29 <bblfish> is now known as bblfish
Henry Story: is now known as bblfish ←
07:27:04 <betehess> I wonder if ldp:containerResource was added at the same time
Alexandre Bertails: I wonder if ldp:containerResource was added at the same time ←
07:27:29 <SteveS> Arnaud: summarized the motivation for insertedContentRelation to handle Roger's cats but lost the relationship from container to the information resource, other than by using ldp:created
Arnaud Le Hors: summarized the motivation for insertedContentRelation to handle Roger's cats but lost the relationship from container to the information resource, other than by using ldp:created ←
07:27:52 <betehess> because it introduces similar problems than with ldp:containsRelation
Alexandre Bertails: because it introduces similar problems than with ldp:containsRelation ←
07:29:10 <bblfish> bblfish remembers: the reason for the ldp:insertedContentRelation was there because otherwise LDP seemed to be a system that pushes people to have relations from any object to only documents creating a confusion between objects and documents, seeming to take sides on the http-range-14 issue
Henry Story: bblfish remembers: the reason for the ldp:insertedContentRelation was there because otherwise LDP seemed to be a system that pushes people to have relations from any object to only documents creating a confusion between objects and documents, seeming to take sides on the http-range-14 issue ←
07:29:12 <codyburleson> q+
Cody Burleson: q+ ←
07:29:15 <SteveS> Arnaud: motivated a proposal for separating into 3 kinds of containers http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers
Arnaud Le Hors: motivated a proposal for separating into 3 kinds of containers http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers ←
07:29:51 <SteveS> q? On the q I see Ashok, Cody
q? On the q I see Ashok, Cody ←
07:30:17 <bblfish> cool for that one +1
Henry Story: cool for that one +1 ←
07:30:27 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
07:30:31 <Arnaud> ;-)
Arnaud Le Hors: ;-) ←
07:30:40 <codyburleson> Example 3? From what version of the spec? In the latest editor's draft, that's not example 3. ???
Cody Burleson: Example 3? From what version of the spec? In the latest editor's draft, that's not example 3. ??? ←
07:31:19 <codyburleson> Third Public Working Draft?
Cody Burleson: Third Public Working Draft? ←
07:31:23 <betehess> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-simple ?
Alexandre Bertails: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-simple ? ←
07:31:48 <codyburleson> thx
Cody Burleson: thx ←
07:32:07 <SteveS> Ashok: View of collections of simply being a view over RDF on the server?
Ashok Malhotra: View of collections of simply being a view over RDF on the server? ←
07:32:43 <SteveS> Ashok: How does it work when members are not RDF?
Ashok Malhotra: How does it work when members are not RDF? ←
07:33:32 <ericP> does the doc that has two collections, assets and liabilities <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full> exemplify Ashok's "view over RDF on the server" point?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: does the doc that has two collections, assets and liabilities <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full> exemplify Ashok's "view over RDF on the server" point? ←
07:33:43 <SteveS> Arnaud: Mentioned what Erik had said, take AtomPub and it defines a simple protocol for sharing the data, you need to transform the collection to be an atom collection
Arnaud Le Hors: Mentioned what Erik had said, take AtomPub and it defines a simple protocol for sharing the data, you need to transform the collection to be an atom collection ←
07:34:14 <SteveS> LDP provides a way to map the protocol data model to the application's data model
LDP provides a way to map the protocol data model to the application's data model ←
07:34:53 <betehess> me too :-) re: I find that weird
Alexandre Bertails: me too :-) re: I find that weird ←
07:36:30 <SteveS> Arnaud: resources make their way onto LDP servers on any number of ways, web forms, data imports, but some feel like it is a raw empty LDP server that gets populated only through LDP creation verbs
Arnaud Le Hors: resources make their way onto LDP servers on any number of ways, web forms, data imports, but some feel like it is a raw empty LDP server that gets populated only through LDP creation verbs ←
07:37:25 <betehess> the problem is when you're trying to relate the protocol data with the interaction model, because the notion of LDPC/LDPR gets fussy when messing with the membershipXXX triples
Alexandre Bertails: the problem is when you're trying to relate the protocol data with the interaction model, because the notion of LDPC/LDPR gets fussy when messing with the membershipXXX triples ←
07:37:47 <SteveS> ack Cody
ack Cody ←
07:38:31 <SteveS> codyburleson: Was curious why we had memberSubject? Think I understand based on Arnaud described
Cody Burleson: Was curious why we had memberSubject? Think I understand based on Arnaud described ←
07:38:53 <SteveS> Where you have an existing model on a server and you want to map the LDP concepts to the apps concepts
Where you have an existing model on a server and you want to map the LDP concepts to the apps concepts ←
07:38:58 <bblfish> myself: I always wondered why if people have data they can't just put it in an LDPR
Henry Story: myself: I always wondered why if people have data they can't just put it in an LDPR ←
07:39:28 <betehess> Example 5 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full
Alexandre Bertails: Example 5 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full ←
07:39:29 <ericP> -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full example 5
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full example 5 ←
07:39:34 <SteveS> Arnaud: Want to talk to direct container. There is an example 5, which has 2 containers assets and liabilities.
Arnaud Le Hors: Want to talk to direct container. There is an example 5, which has 2 containers assets and liabilities. ←
07:39:55 <codyburleson> My question was related to why memberSubject ever existed. The answer: Container is flexible in the sense that you can map a container to a pre-existing resource.
Cody Burleson: My question was related to why memberSubject ever existed. The answer: Container is flexible in the sense that you can map a container to a pre-existing resource. ←
07:39:56 <codyburleson> For example: you can create and associate the container to a resource after
Cody Burleson: For example: you can create and associate the container to a resource after ←
07:39:57 <codyburleson> some resource already exists. Then the LDP interaction model of a container is given to
Cody Burleson: some resource already exists. Then the LDP interaction model of a container is given to ←
07:39:58 <codyburleson> the resource.
Cody Burleson: the resource. ←
07:40:32 <SteveS> Arnaud: DirectContainer allows the ability to map to the predicate used in membership and which position the contained member resource is in
Arnaud Le Hors: DirectContainer allows the ability to map to the predicate used in membership and which position the contained member resource is in ←
07:40:38 <betehess> for the record, Example 5 should not be considered as "direct" because there is still an indirection between the Container and the containerResource
Alexandre Bertails: for the record, Example 5 should not be considered as "direct" because there is still an indirection between the Container and the containerResource ←
07:41:39 <SteveS> Arnaud: IndirectContainer is the type that uses insertedContainerRelation like the foaf:primaryTopic example
Arnaud Le Hors: IndirectContainer is the type that uses insertedContainerRelation like the foaf:primaryTopic example ←
07:41:44 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
07:42:09 <bblfish> cool
Henry Story: cool ←
07:42:56 <bblfish> rdfs:member is too abstract, and requires one to know that the subject is an LDPC. furthermore ldp:member would be an rdfs:member .
Henry Story: rdfs:member is too abstract, and requires one to know that the subject is an LDPC. furthermore ldp:member would be an rdfs:member . ←
07:43:33 <SteveS> Arnaud: continues to describe the containers proposed in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers
Arnaud Le Hors: continues to describe the containers proposed in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers ←
07:44:04 <bblfish> sounds good to me
Henry Story: sounds good to me ←
07:44:24 <SteveS> q? Sees betehess on the q
q? Sees betehess on the q ←
07:45:41 <SteveS> Arnaud: Wants to address betehess' question on direct container is not really direct.
Arnaud Le Hors: Wants to address betehess' question on direct container is not really direct. ←
<SteveS> ... it's true that the direct container has an indirection but, like simple container, the member directly links to the resource
... it's true that the direct container has an indirection but, like simple container, the member directly links to the resource ←
<SteveS> ... while with indirect container you have an indirection there
... while with indirect container you have an indirection there ←
<SteveS> ... so, direct container is more direct than indirect container :-)
... so, direct container is more direct than indirect container :-) ←
<SteveS> ... if anyone has better names they can always make a proposal
... if anyone has better names they can always make a proposal ←
07:45:49 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
07:46:31 <SteveS> betehess: agree that this is a good step in the right direction, think there is still an issue with indirect container and HTTP interaction
Alexandre Bertails: agree that this is a good step in the right direction, think there is still an issue with indirect container and HTTP interaction ←
07:47:58 <codyburleson> q+
Cody Burleson: q+ ←
07:48:25 <betehess> betehess: still concerned because the interactions are not defined for the member and ldp:Container
Alexandre Bertails: still concerned because the interactions are not defined for the member and ldp:Container [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Bertails ] ←
07:49:27 <bblfish> yes it is very weird
Henry Story: yes it is very weird ←
07:49:43 <bblfish> I took me a long time to understand how these membershipXXX relations work
Henry Story: I took me a long time to understand how these membershipXXX relations work ←
07:49:44 <bblfish> :-)
Henry Story: :-) ←
07:49:45 <bblfish> yes
Henry Story: yes ←
07:49:49 <bblfish> I am on the phone
Henry Story: I am on the phone ←
07:49:53 <bblfish> welcome
Henry Story: welcome ←
07:50:02 <betehess> then why would you do that? why not having two different resource and have everything aligned????
Alexandre Bertails: then why would you do that? why not having two different resource and have everything aligned???? ←
07:50:37 <betehess> q+ to ask what ldp:containerResource means
Alexandre Bertails: q+ to ask what ldp:containerResource means ←
07:50:54 <betehess> q+ to ask what ldp:containerResource means, I would argue this should be removed
Alexandre Bertails: q+ to ask what ldp:containerResource means, I would argue this should be removed ←
07:50:58 <TallTed>~Thud@public.cloak: TallTed has changed the topic to: (2013-11-25 - We have no Zakim, so please announce yourself) -- LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - Next call's agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.25
Ted Thibodeau: ~Thud@public.cloak: TallTed has changed the topic to: (2013-11-25 - We have no Zakim, so please announce yourself) -- LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - Next call's agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.25 ←
07:51:22 <SteveS> betehess, depends on how you want to model it...the example shows 3 resources: 1. net worth, 2 asset container 3 liability container. The membership statements subject is the net worth.
betehess, depends on how you want to model it...the example shows 3 resources: 1. net worth, 2 asset container 3 liability container. The membership statements subject is the net worth. ←
07:51:57 <SteveS> Arnaud: Want to ask bblfish what he thinks of the proposal of the containers
Arnaud Le Hors: Want to ask bblfish what he thinks of the proposal of the containers ←
07:52:02 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
07:52:46 <SteveS> bblfish: happy with this, though think the spec could get complicated
Henry Story: happy with this, though think the spec could get complicated ←
07:53:44 <SteveS> betehess: (didn't capture again what was said, sorry)
Alexandre Bertails: (didn't capture again what was said, sorry) ←
07:53:47 <betehess> +1 to go with the features+names
Alexandre Bertails: +1 to go with the features+names ←
07:54:08 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
07:54:22 <SteveS> +1 to making a proposal
+1 to making a proposal ←
07:55:32 <SteveS> codyburleson: Are the 3 containers sub classes from each other?
Cody Burleson: Are the 3 containers sub classes from each other? ←
07:55:42 <SteveS> Arnaud: proposal didn't elaborate on that
Arnaud Le Hors: proposal didn't elaborate on that ←
07:55:49 <SteveS> q+ SteveS
q+ SteveS ←
07:56:06 <Arnaud> ack codyburleson
Arnaud Le Hors: ack codyburleson ←
07:56:14 <Arnaud> ack Steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Steves ←
07:57:24 <SteveS> SteveS: think that there might be some issues if we have multi-typed containers in that we'd have to find all the types before knowing the true type, instead keep them disjoint
Steve Speicher: think that there might be some issues if we have multi-typed containers in that we'd have to find all the types before knowing the true type, instead keep them disjoint ←
07:59:08 <SteveS> codyburleson: asking about direct container, and how we used containerRelation and containsRelation...and the only difference to indirect being insertedContentRelation
Cody Burleson: asking about direct container, and how we used containerRelation and containsRelation...and the only difference to indirect being insertedContentRelation ←
07:59:13 <SteveS> Arnaud: correct
Arnaud Le Hors: correct ←
07:59:45 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
08:00:03 <bblfish> +q
Henry Story: +q ←
08:00:18 <SteveS> Arnaud: explains insertedContentRelation and hash URIs (real world objects on the web)
Arnaud Le Hors: explains insertedContentRelation and hash URIs (real world objects on the web) ←
08:00:21 <bblfish> q+ to add a twisty question
Henry Story: q+ to add a twisty question ←
08:00:47 <betehess> I think bblfish and I are happy with the ldp:SimpleContainer thing and the default membership predicate being ldp:member. We'll probably ignore the other cases in our respective implementations anyway. Can we vote? :-)
Alexandre Bertails: I think bblfish and I are happy with the ldp:SimpleContainer thing and the default membership predicate being ldp:member. We'll probably ignore the other cases in our respective implementations anyway. Can we vote? :-) ←
08:01:22 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
08:01:23 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
08:01:29 <SteveS> betehess, I like calling it ldp:Container instead of ldp:SimpleContainer...it makes it simpler
betehess, I like calling it ldp:Container instead of ldp:SimpleContainer...it makes it simpler ←
08:01:42 <betehess> +1 overly complex
Alexandre Bertails: +1 overly complex ←
08:02:00 <SteveS> roger: Think this proposal is making people happy, it is making it overly complex.
Roger Menday: Think this proposal is making people happy, it is making it overly complex. ←
08:02:03 <betehess> SteveS, yes, and remove the two other ones ;-)
Alexandre Bertails: SteveS, yes, and remove the two other ones ;-) ←
08:02:26 <bblfish> :-) to arnaud's question: you think this makes it more complex that what we have today
Henry Story: :-) to arnaud's question: you think this makes it more complex that what we have today ←
08:02:30 <SteveS> SteveS: I find it all quite simple and we have use cases for all these
Steve Speicher: I find it all quite simple and we have use cases for all these ←
08:02:35 <codyburleson> I think it IS simpler and better. What makes it complex is simply the lack of 2 things:
Cody Burleson: I think it IS simpler and better. What makes it complex is simply the lack of 2 things: ←
08:02:49 <codyburleson> 1. Formal definitions of the predicates/attributes
Cody Burleson: 1. Formal definitions of the predicates/attributes ←
08:03:17 <codyburleson> 2. A simple illustration or two (use case) for each that includes the WHY of such a situation.
Cody Burleson: 2. A simple illustration or two (use case) for each that includes the WHY of such a situation. ←
08:03:39 <SteveS> roger: don't really mind that much if we drop the old membershipObject
Roger Menday: don't really mind that much if we drop the old membershipObject ←
08:03:55 <SteveS> SteveS: so do we go down to 2 containers?
Steve Speicher: so do we go down to 2 containers? ←
08:03:58 <betehess> because of the interaction model, there is *no* ambiguity with the resources being documents supporting the interactions
Alexandre Bertails: because of the interaction model, there is *no* ambiguity with the resources being documents supporting the interactions ←
08:04:09 <nmihindu> for the spec compliance, can a server just implement one and be compliant with LDP (Simple), right ? May be different compliance levels or modules.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: for the spec compliance, can a server just implement one and be compliant with LDP (Simple), right ? May be different compliance levels or modules. ←
08:04:13 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
08:05:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
08:05:21 <SteveS> roger: the membership object idea feel like it was there for henry's case
Roger Menday: the membership object idea feel like it was there for henry's case ←
08:05:24 <SteveS> q+
q+ ←
08:07:08 <SteveS> bblfish: wants to remove other 2 container types, just keep simple
Henry Story: wants to remove other 2 container types, just keep simple ←
08:07:21 <SteveS> SteveS: needs the direct container case but can live with indirect one
Steve Speicher: needs the direct container case but can live with indirect one ←
08:07:30 <SteveS> roger: needs direct container as well
Roger Menday: needs direct container as well ←
08:07:33 <betehess> I think the problem with ldp:containerResource will shine with http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/90 -> where do the created triples go?
Alexandre Bertails: I think the problem with ldp:containerResource will shine with http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/90 -> where do the created triples go? ←
08:08:11 <SteveS> bblfish: (scribe lost)
Henry Story: (scribe lost) ←
08:08:32 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
08:09:06 <SteveS> bblfish: Will probably have clients not POST resources to these direct containers
Henry Story: Will probably have clients not POST resources to these direct containers ←
08:09:08 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
08:09:20 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
08:09:22 <betehess> http://cheezburger.com/7921083648
Alexandre Bertails: http://cheezburger.com/7921083648 ←
08:10:07 <codyburleson> ProxyContainer? DirectProxyContainer / IndirectProxyContainer? Just a thought.
Cody Burleson: ProxyContainer? DirectProxyContainer / IndirectProxyContainer? Just a thought. ←
08:10:48 <SteveS> roger: sees the filesystem analogy and could extend the simple container for that
Roger Menday: sees the filesystem analogy and could extend the simple container for that ←
08:11:23 <SteveS> bblfish: say you have a very long container, you'd need read all the triples to find the membership triples
Henry Story: say you have a very long container, you'd need read all the triples to find the membership triples ←
08:11:49 <SteveS> SteveS: bblfish you could also ask for the non-membershp triples first to find them you don't need to grab all the members
Steve Speicher: bblfish you could also ask for the non-membershp triples first to find them you don't need to grab all the members ←
08:12:42 <SteveS> bblfish: there is some things the client needs to know what happens when a POST happens
Henry Story: there is some things the client needs to know what happens when a POST happens ←
08:12:44 <Arnaud> Proposed: Adopt Arnaud's container proposal described at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/index.php?title=Containers&oldid=3233
PROPOSED: Adopt Arnaud's container proposal described at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/index.php?title=Containers&oldid=3233 ←
08:12:55 <bblfish> yes, you'd need to look through all the container to find the membershipXXX triples to know what you're liable to when posting
Henry Story: yes, you'd need to look through all the container to find the membershipXXX triples to know what you're liable to when posting ←
08:12:58 <bblfish> +!
Henry Story: +! ←
08:13:02 <betehess> +1, let's start with that
Alexandre Bertails: +1, let's start with that ←
08:13:02 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
08:13:07 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
08:13:10 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
08:13:13 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
08:13:16 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
08:13:18 <svillata> +1
Serena Villata: +1 ←
08:13:19 <SteveS> +1, would like to part ways with indirect one though
+1, would like to part ways with indirect one though ←
08:13:27 <Ashok> +1 as a start
Ashok Malhotra: +1 as a start ←
08:13:28 <bblfish> +0.9 <- ok it's a good step forward.
Henry Story: +0.9 <- ok it's a good step forward. ←
08:13:35 <Arnaud> Resolved: Adopt Arnaud's container proposal described at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/index.php?title=Containers&oldid=3233
RESOLVED: Adopt Arnaud's container proposal described at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/index.php?title=Containers&oldid=3233 ←
08:13:40 <roger> +0.5 as a step forward
Roger Menday: +0.5 as a step forward ←
08:14:05 <bblfish> I'd be very much against abandoning indirect container
Henry Story: I'd be very much against abandoning indirect container ←
08:14:09 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
08:14:42 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
08:15:50 <SteveS> Ashok: How do you identify the members without indirect container support and we have use cases?
Ashok Malhotra: How do you identify the members without indirect container support and we have use cases? ←
08:16:17 <bblfish> ( I'd be very much against removing Arnaud's indirect container unless we remove all except the simple container )
Henry Story: ( I'd be very much against removing Arnaud's indirect container unless we remove all except the simple container ) ←
08:16:37 <SteveS> Arnaud: yes we have a use case but we could decide it is handled outside of spec
Arnaud Le Hors: yes we have a use case but we could decide it is handled outside of spec ←
08:17:03 <Arnaud> Strawpoll: drop IndirectContainer
STRAWPOLL: drop IndirectContainer ←
08:17:08 <bblfish> -1
Henry Story: -1 ←
08:17:22 <Ashok> -1
Ashok Malhotra: -1 ←
08:17:29 <TallTed> -0.9
Ted Thibodeau: -0.9 ←
08:17:30 <betehess> +1 drop it
Alexandre Bertails: +1 drop it ←
08:17:34 <bblfish> -1 ( unless we remove all except the simple container )
Henry Story: -1 ( unless we remove all except the simple container ) ←
08:17:35 <codyburleson> 0
Cody Burleson: 0 ←
08:17:36 <SteveS> +1, not going to lay in the tracks but not sure I'd use it much in my impls
+1, not going to lay in the tracks but not sure I'd use it much in my impls ←
08:17:40 <codyburleson> (not sure)
Cody Burleson: (not sure) ←
08:17:41 <svillata> 0
Serena Villata: 0 ←
08:17:41 <nmihindu> -0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: -0 ←
08:17:49 <roger> i don't agree with bblfish end result (i.e. one container), but, I can see the logic which takes him there ...
Roger Menday: i don't agree with bblfish end result (i.e. one container), but, I can see the logic which takes him there ... ←
08:17:59 <roger> -1
Roger Menday: -1 ←
08:19:31 <SteveS> Arnaud: are issues 84, 85, 86 and 89 still valid?
Arnaud Le Hors: are issues 84, 85, 86 and 89 still valid? ←
08:20:23 <betehess> keeping IndirectContainer makes issue-89 still valid
Alexandre Bertails: keeping IndirectContainer makes ISSUE-89 still valid ←
08:20:35 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member ←
08:20:41 <betehess> issue-90 and issue-91 are not related
Alexandre Bertails: ISSUE-90 and ISSUE-91 are not related ←
08:20:49 <betehess> (not directly)
Alexandre Bertails: (not directly) ←
08:20:53 <SteveS> Topic: ISSUE-84
08:20:57 <SteveS> Arnaud: isn't ISSUE-84 really resolved indirectly by new 3 container proposal?
Arnaud Le Hors: isn't ISSUE-84 really resolved indirectly by new 3 container proposal? ←
08:21:19 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member ←
08:21:25 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/84
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/84 ←
08:21:30 <bblfish> ldp:member a rdf:Property;
Henry Story: ldp:member a rdf:Property; ←
08:21:30 <bblfish> skos:editorialNote "this relation could also be called ldp:manages."
Henry Story: skos:editorialNote "this relation could also be called ldp:manages." ←
08:21:30 <bblfish> rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member;
Henry Story: rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member; ←
08:21:32 <bblfish> rdf:domain ldp:Container;
Henry Story: rdf:domain ldp:Container; ←
08:21:34 <bblfish> rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it.
Henry Story: rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it. ←
08:21:36 <bblfish> rdfs:comment """
Henry Story: rdfs:comment """ ←
08:21:38 <bblfish> An ldp:member of a ldp:Container is a Resource which is created when a POST succeeds
Henry Story: An ldp:member of a ldp:Container is a Resource which is created when a POST succeeds ←
08:21:40 <bblfish> on it (creating also the membership triples in the LDPC) or which when DELETED
Henry Story: on it (creating also the membership triples in the LDPC) or which when DELETED ←
08:21:42 <bblfish> removes the membership triples as specified by the "Linked Data Platform 1.0" spec.""" .
Henry Story: removes the membership triples as specified by the "Linked Data Platform 1.0" spec.""" . ←
08:23:40 <SteveS> (scribe getting tired and having a little trouble following what is really "needed" yet)
(scribe getting tired and having a little trouble following what is really "needed" yet) ←
08:24:51 <SteveS> q+ SteveS
q+ SteveS ←
08:25:52 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
08:26:52 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close issue-84: add ldp:member to the spec
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-84: add ldp:member to the spec ←
08:27:09 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
08:27:11 <SteveS> +0
+0 ←
08:27:13 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
08:27:21 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
08:27:23 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
08:27:26 <svillata> +1
Serena Villata: +1 ←
08:27:35 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
08:27:36 <TallTed> +1 if I understand the conversational thread correctly...
Ted Thibodeau: +1 if I understand the conversational thread correctly... ←
08:27:42 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-84: add ldp:member to the spec
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-84: add ldp:member to the spec ←
08:28:15 <codyburleson> ldp:member has more semantic specificity than rdfs:member and I think that can be important
Cody Burleson: ldp:member has more semantic specificity than rdfs:member and I think that can be important ←
08:28:29 <SteveS> Topic: Talking about other open issues
08:28:39 <codyburleson> Because a container is also a resource and the resource may need to use rdfs:member to specify a more general membership.
Cody Burleson: Because a container is also a resource and the resource may need to use rdfs:member to specify a more general membership. ←
08:28:55 <codyburleson> whereas ldl:member is for the specific LDP interaction model.
Cody Burleson: whereas ldl:member is for the specific LDP interaction model. ←
08:29:04 <SteveS> Arnaud: I think that 85 and 86 may no longer be needed, then we have 89 and we can discuss more next week
Arnaud Le Hors: I think that 85 and 86 may no longer be needed, then we have 89 and we can discuss more next week ←
08:29:26 <SteveS> Topic: Status of disposition of Last Call comments
08:30:17 <SteveS> Arnaud: Want the staff to follow up with TBL on the server-initiated paging resolution, using 200 and 209
Arnaud Le Hors: Want the staff to follow up with TBL on the server-initiated paging resolution, using 200 and 209 ←
08:30:19 <betehess> Ashok, look at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/91 re: nested containers
Alexandre Bertails: Ashok, look at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/91 re: nested containers ←
<SteveS> Topic: 2nd Last Call timeline & F2F
08:31:05 <SteveS> Arnaud: we are getting behind on our schedule,
Arnaud Le Hors: we are getting behind on our schedule, ←
<SteveS> ... plan was to have a F2F the week of Jan 6 or the one after
... plan was to have a F2F the week of Jan 6 or the one after ←
<SteveS> ... but we may have to shift it to later to be after the 2nd LC comment period
... but we may have to shift it to later to be after the 2nd LC comment period ←
08:31:16 <bblfish> thanks.
Henry Story: thanks. ←
08:31:32 <SteveS> ... We'll get back to implementations to ericP
... We'll get back to implementations for ericP ←
08:31:47 <betehess> bye
Alexandre Bertails: bye ←
08:31:54 <SteveS> s/to ericP/for ericP/
08:32:58 <TallTed> I think someone will have to feed their local logs to sysreq or the like, to get minutes processed
Ted Thibodeau: I think someone will have to feed their local logs to sysreq or the like, to get minutes processed ←
08:33:32 <Arnaud> yes, I will take care of it, possibly calling on one of our dedicated staff contact for help :)
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, I will take care of it, possibly calling on one of our dedicated staff contact for help :) ←
Formatted by CommonScribe