edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 09 December 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.12.09
Seen
Alexandre Bertails, Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, Cody Burleson, Henry Story, John Arwe, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Roger Menday, Sandro Hawke, Steve Battle, Steve Speicher, Ted Thibodeau
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
Sandro Hawke
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-02 (with minor amendment) link
Topics
14:57:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/09-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/09-ldp-irc

14:57:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

14:57:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

14:57:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:35 <trackbot> Date: 09 December 2013
14:57:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes

14:58:30 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

14:58:37 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

14:58:44 <pchampin> zakim, ??P4 is me

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P4 is me

14:58:44 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it

15:00:16 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud

15:00:42 <Zakim> + +1.845.454.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.845.454.aaaa

15:00:50 <JohnArwe> zakim, aaaa s me

John Arwe: zakim, aaaa s me

15:00:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aaaa s me', JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'aaaa s me', JohnArwe

15:00:55 <Zakim> +SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS

15:01:21 <JohnArwe> zakim, aaaa is me

John Arwe: zakim, aaaa is me

15:01:21 <Zakim> +JohnArwe; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe; got it

15:01:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:01:33 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPCaller is me

Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPCaller is me

15:01:33 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it

15:01:35 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

15:02:39 <Zakim> +Alexandre

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre

15:02:42 <codyburleson> Hear no audio. Is anyone talking?

Cody Burleson: Hear no audio. Is anyone talking?

15:02:50 <codyburleson> There it is.

Cody Burleson: There it is.

15:03:09 <Zakim> +SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle

15:03:18 <SteveS> I can only do 1st 60 minutes, scheduling conflict

Steve Speicher: I can only do 1st 60 minutes, scheduling conflict

15:03:26 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra

15:05:03 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone?

15:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see pchampin, Arnaud, JohnArwe, SteveS, codyburleson, Sandro, Alexandre, SteveBattle, Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pchampin, Arnaud, JohnArwe, SteveS, codyburleson, Sandro, Alexandre, SteveBattle, Ashok_Malhotra

15:07:49 <Zakim> +bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish

15:08:08 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

15:08:12 <Zakim> +Roger

Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger

15:08:17 <bblfish> hi

Henry Story: hi

15:08:22 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:08:22 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it

15:08:26 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:08:26 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

15:08:30 <betehess> Zakim, mute bblfish

Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, mute bblfish

15:08:30 <Zakim> bblfish should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bblfish should now be muted

15:08:47 <sandro> scribe: sandro

(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)

<sandro> chair: Arnaud
<sandro> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.12.09
15:08:52 <bblfish> zakim, unmute bblfish

Henry Story: zakim, unmute bblfish

15:08:52 <Zakim> bblfish should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bblfish should no longer be muted

15:09:14 <sandro> Arnaud: Welcom everybody.   I hope we're close to resolving the few remaining issues.

Arnaud Le Hors: Welcom everybody. I hope we're close to resolving the few remaining issues.

15:09:20 <sandro> topic: Admin

1. Admin

<sandro> subtopic: Approve minutes of last meeting

1.1. Approve minutes of last meeting

15:09:34 <roger> zakim, mute me

Roger Menday: zakim, mute me

15:09:34 <Zakim> Roger should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Roger should now be muted

15:09:42 <betehess> they look fine to me

Alexandre Bertails: they look fine to me

15:10:17 <sandro> PROPOSED: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-02

PROPOSED: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-02

15:11:23 <sandro> sandro: clarify closing issue-85?

Sandro Hawke: clarify closing ISSUE-85?

15:11:45 <sandro> arnaud: I'll amend to clarify nothing needed to be done.

Arnaud Le Hors: I'll amend to clarify nothing needed to be done.

15:11:46 <sandro> +1

+1

15:11:49 <betehess> no objection

Alexandre Bertails: no objection

15:12:06 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-02 (with minor amendment)

RESOLVED: Approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-02 (with minor amendment)

<sandro> subtopic: Next meeting

1.2. Next meeting

15:12:12 <sandro> Arnaud: Meeting next week, dec 16

Arnaud Le Hors: Meeting next week, dec 16

15:12:21 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:12:30 <sandro> .. we'll discuss then whether to meet on Dec 23

.. we'll discuss then whether to meet on Dec 23

15:12:32 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:12:49 <sandro> bblfish: Regarding next F2F?     I can try to organize something in Paris

Henry Story: Regarding next F2F? I can try to organize something in Paris

15:13:31 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

15:13:40 <sandro> Arnaud: The bigger question is when....       Depends on LC comment period

Arnaud Le Hors: The bigger question is when.... Depends on LC comment period

15:13:59 <JohnArwe> since feb is now poss, I cannot do February 23-26, 2014

John Arwe: since feb is now poss, I cannot do February 23-26, 2014

15:14:01 <Ashok> Can we have f2f in March?

Ashok Malhotra: Can we have f2f in March?

15:14:11 <sandro> Arnaud: Cody also offered to host in Mexico.    When we figure out the time, we'll know better.

Arnaud Le Hors: Cody also offered to host in Mexico. When we figure out the time, we'll know better.

15:14:20 <codyburleson> Monterrey, Mexico

Cody Burleson: Monterrey, Mexico

15:14:23 <bblfish> Ok. I can ask around and let you know what options exist for Paris

Henry Story: Ok. I can ask around and let you know what options exist for Paris

15:15:04 <sandro> bblfish, I've had F2F meetings at the ILOG building, which is presumably now an IBM building.

bblfish, I've had F2F meetings at the ILOG building, which is presumably now an IBM building.

15:15:11 <sandro> subtopic: Tracking of actions

1.3. Tracking of actions

15:15:21 <bblfish> also have connections at Mozilla Paris

Henry Story: also have connections at Mozilla Paris

15:15:23 <sandro> Ashok: I got some email about access control

Ashok Malhotra: I got some email about access control

15:15:57 <sandro> Ashok: Miguel is returning now, and suggests trying use cases

Ashok Malhotra: Miguel is returning now, and suggests trying use cases

15:16:16 <bblfish> Yes, I'll try to add something on Access Control Use Cases too. (I have been wanting to do that for a while)

Henry Story: Yes, I'll try to add something on Access Control Use Cases too. (I have been wanting to do that for a while)

15:17:07 <sandro> Arnaud: 3 main issues remain

Arnaud Le Hors: 3 main issues remain

15:17:19 <sandro> Arnaud: We have three types of containers now.

Arnaud Le Hors: We have three types of containers now.

15:17:28 <bblfish> Issue-90?

Henry Story: ISSUE-90?

15:17:28 <trackbot> Issue-90 -- An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-90 -- An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph -- open

15:17:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/90

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/90

15:17:32 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D90

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D90

15:17:37 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-90 An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph

2. ISSUE-90 An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph

15:18:15 <sandro> Arnaud: Let's try to keep the issue separate, and I think it makes most sense to do ISSUE-90 first.

Arnaud Le Hors: Let's try to keep the issue separate, and I think it makes most sense to do ISSUE-90 first.

15:18:31 <sandro> Arnaud: Not we have the Graph Store Protocol, that already leverages Named Graphs

Arnaud Le Hors: Note we have the Graph Store Protocol, that already leverages Named Graphs

15:18:47 <sandro> .. so there is a precedent

.. so there is a precedent

15:19:01 <sandro> .. and we've already agreed we should be compatible when that works

.. and we've already agreed we should be compatible when that works

15:19:09 <TallTed> s/Not we have/Note we have/
15:19:50 <betehess> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D90

Alexandre Bertails: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D90

15:20:01 <sandro> betehess: I hope everyone had time to read http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D90

Alexandre Bertails: I hope everyone had time to read http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D90

15:20:11 <sandro> betehess: Here are the two proposals to address this issue.

Alexandre Bertails: Here are the two proposals to address this issue.

15:20:13 <JohnArwe> link's not in the issue either

John Arwe: link's not in the issue either

15:20:58 <sandro> betehess: Main thing is LDPG is a more specifc LDPR that's a graph.

Alexandre Bertails: Main thing is LDPG is a more specifc LDPR that's a graph.

15:21:18 <sandro> .. non-LDPR is called an LDPB

.. non-LDPR is called an LDPB

15:21:42 <sandro> .. When you interact with an LDPC, you are always creating an LDPR, it's just one of these three.

.. When you interact with an LDPC, you are always creating an LDPR, it's just one of these three.

15:21:59 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

15:22:11 <sandro> Ashok: What would be the difference between a "container" and a "named graph"

Ashok Malhotra: What would be the difference between a "container" and a "named graph"

15:22:15 <sandro> betehess: I'll come to that.

Alexandre Bertails: I'll come to that.

15:22:19 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

15:22:32 <sandro> SteveS: In your new defn of LDPR, does that include all resources on the web?

Steve Speicher: In your new defn of LDPR, does that include all resources on the web?

15:22:34 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

15:22:41 <sandro> betehess: No.

Alexandre Bertails: No.

15:23:00 <sandro> betehess: LDPRs are contained in an LDPC.

Alexandre Bertails: LDPRs are contained in an LDPC.

15:23:16 <sandro> Arnaud: This is a type of resource?

Arnaud Le Hors: This is a type of resource?

15:23:35 <sandro> betehess: Yes, created by interacting with container.

Alexandre Bertails: Yes, created by interacting with container.

15:23:40 <codyburleson> +q

Cody Burleson: +q

15:23:41 <sandro> q+

q+

15:23:48 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe

Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe

15:24:10 <sandro> JohnArwe: You said when you post to a container you create an LDPR

John Arwe: You said when you post to a container you create an LDPR

15:24:21 <sandro> .. what about a binary, with a metadata graph on the side

.. what about a binary, with a metadata graph on the side

15:24:40 <sandro> betehess: for ISSUE-89 I said the LDPR is always the same, and the metadata is linked, it's not in the container.

Alexandre Bertails: for ISSUE-89 I said the LDPR is always the same, and the metadata is linked, it's not in the container.

15:24:55 <sandro> JohnArwe: Agreed, that's what's in the spec.

John Arwe: Agreed, that's what's in the spec.

15:25:10 <sandro> betehess: The metadata is not an LDPR.

Alexandre Bertails: The metadata is not an LDPR.

15:25:30 <sandro> betehess: Yes, this changes the defn from the spec of what an LDPR is.

Alexandre Bertails: Yes, this changes the defn from the spec of what an LDPR is.

15:25:56 <sandro> SteveS: The current spec an LDPR doesn't have to be in a container

Steve Speicher: The current spec an LDPR doesn't have to be in a container

15:26:01 <sandro> betehess: RIght.

Alexandre Bertails: RIght.

15:26:05 <Arnaud> ack codyburleson

Arnaud Le Hors: ack codyburleson

15:26:06 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:26:50 <sandro> codyburleson: I was wondering this the other days.     "A successful post... results in a Named Graph".      Are you saying the container turns into a name graph?

Cody Burleson: I was wondering this the other days. "A successful post... results in a Named Graph". Are you saying the container turns into a name graph?

15:26:59 <JohnArwe> q+ to ask about non-post creates of various sorts

John Arwe: q+ to ask about non-post creates of various sorts

15:27:03 <sandro> codyburleson: Can we make the container be a named graph?

Cody Burleson: Can we make the container be a named graph?

15:27:13 <sandro> betehess: THat's part of proposal two.

Alexandre Bertails: THat's part of proposal two.

15:27:20 <sandro> Arnaud: Let's work on the hierarchy first

Arnaud Le Hors: Let's work on the hierarchy first

15:28:12 <Arnaud> ack

Arnaud Le Hors: ack

15:28:15 <Arnaud> q?

Arnaud Le Hors: q?

15:28:31 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

15:29:14 <sandro> sandro: what about non-contained LDPC?

Sandro Hawke: what about non-contained LDPC?

15:29:39 <sandro> betehess: Ah, yes, this is an error.

Alexandre Bertails: Ah, yes, this is an error.

15:29:50 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:29:54 <codyburleson> I have a proposal/idea for a "default root" container strategy, by the way; I think we need to address this - if not in spec - at least a "recommended approach". This is needed for pure LDP implementations.

Cody Burleson: I have a proposal/idea for a "default root" container strategy, by the way; I think we need to address this - if not in spec - at least a "recommended approach". This is needed for pure LDP implementations.

15:30:00 <sandro> betehess: My focus is on what's created when you post to an LDPC

Alexandre Bertails: My focus is on what's created when you post to an LDPC

15:30:27 <betehess> created resource *implies* it is an LDPR

Alexandre Bertails: created resource *implies* it is an LDPR

15:30:37 <sandro> bblfish: (not scribed -- couldnt follow)

Henry Story: (not scribed -- couldnt follow)

15:31:11 <sandro> Arnaud: This is trying to label the binary ones.

Arnaud Le Hors: This is trying to label the binary ones.

15:31:17 <sandro> q+

q+

15:31:22 <sandro> q-

q-

15:31:26 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe

Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe

15:31:26 <Zakim> JohnArwe, you wanted to ask about non-post creates of various sorts

Zakim IRC Bot: JohnArwe, you wanted to ask about non-post creates of various sorts

15:31:33 <bblfish> agree this is just a matter to try to name some containers

Henry Story: agree this is just a matter to try to name some types of resources

15:31:42 <bblfish> s/containers/types of resources/
15:31:46 <sandro> JohnArwe: Is that true?    That this is mostly about naming LDPBs?

John Arwe: Is that true? That this is mostly about naming LDPBs?

15:31:47 <sandro> q+

q+

15:31:56 <sandro> betehess: Yes

Alexandre Bertails: Yes

15:32:08 <sandro> JohnArwe: Does this go beyond POST, to non-http methods, out of band?

John Arwe: Does this go beyond POST, to non-http methods, out of band?

15:32:28 <sandro> JohnArwe: I can have a container that is maintained out-of-band, it's a view over some rdbms table

John Arwe: I can have a container that is maintained out-of-band, it's a view over some rdbms table

15:32:44 <sandro> JohnArwe: When something is added by that out of band process, does this all apply

John Arwe: When something is added by that out of band process, does this all apply

15:33:11 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:33:18 <sandro> betehess: do you have an example.     it's hard to talk about things not created through LDP spec.     I don't know

Alexandre Bertails: do you have an example. it's hard to talk about things not created through LDP spec. I don't know

15:33:51 <sandro> JohnArwe: A list of all my bugs, in a database, viewed via LDPC.

Steve Speicher: A list of all my bugs, in a database, viewed via LDPC.

15:34:10 <sandro> betehess: Do you make a distinction between membership and containment?

Alexandre Bertails: Do you make a distinction between membership and containment?

15:34:13 <JohnArwe> s/JohnArwe:/SteveSpeicher:/
15:34:41 <sandro> bblfish: The issue here is to distinguish certain types of resources.

Henry Story: The issue here is to distinguish certain types of resources.

15:35:11 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

15:35:12 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

15:35:13 <sandro> Arnaud: This is about more accurate naming in the spec.

Arnaud Le Hors: This is about more accurate naming in the spec.

15:35:14 <pchampin> q+

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+

15:35:56 <betehess> I'm fine with any isomorphic mapping

Alexandre Bertails: I'm fine with any isomorphic mapping

15:36:03 <betehess> con't care about names

Alexandre Bertails: don't care about names

15:36:09 <betehess> s/con/don/
15:36:48 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

15:36:49 <sandro> sandro: "LDPG" is LDPR-that-is-RDF-Source,   "LDPB" is LDPR-that-is-not-RDF-source

Sandro Hawke: "LDPG" is LDPR-that-is-RDF-Source, "LDPB" is LDPR-that-is-not-RDF-source

15:36:49 <bblfish> q-

Henry Story: q-

15:36:58 <pchampin> q-

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q-

15:37:11 <JohnArwe> thx for starting from "familiar" terms Alexandre, even if they're not final tnhey're a useful bridge

John Arwe: thx for starting from "familiar" terms Alexandre, even if they're not final tnhey're a useful bridge

15:37:15 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

15:37:47 <sandro> SteveS: To be more accurate in the defn, an LDPR is an LDPG-or-LDPB, and the LDPC is an LDPG.

Steve Speicher: To be more accurate in the defn, an LDPR is an LDPG-or-LDPB, and the LDPC is an LDPG.

15:38:05 <sandro> bete: Maybe, yeah.

Alexandre Bertails: Maybe, yeah.

15:38:51 <sandro> Arnaud: It's not clear how much of LDPR an LDPC inherits.

Arnaud Le Hors: It's not clear how much of LDPR an LDPC inherits.

15:39:46 <sandro> SteveS: So maybe LDPR and LDPC are disjoint

Steve Speicher: So maybe LDPR and LDPC are disjoint

15:40:04 <sandro> sandro: No, they're just partially overlapping, so LDPC can be in LDPC

Sandro Hawke: No, they're just partially overlapping, so LDPC can be in LDPC

15:40:05 <JohnArwe> "not" disjoint

John Arwe: "not" disjoint

15:40:31 <sandro> Arnaud: Hopefully we've discussed this enough that people understand what we're trying to achieve.

Arnaud Le Hors: Hopefully we've discussed this enough that people understand what we're trying to achieve.

15:40:46 <bblfish> btw, I had made a proposal similar to this some time ago. http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/images/b/b5/LDP-RCX.pdf

Henry Story: btw, I had made a proposal similar to this some time ago. http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/images/b/b5/LDP-RCX.pdf

15:40:56 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-90, Proposal-2 "LDP Named Graphs"

3. ISSUE-90, Proposal-2 "LDP Named Graphs"

15:41:12 <sandro> betehess: This is about where the triples go when you add them, eg via POST

Alexandre Bertails: This is about where the triples go when you add them, eg via POST

15:41:46 <sandro> TallTed, yes, a venn diag would be good

TallTed, yes, a venn diag would be good

15:42:00 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

15:42:27 <sandro> betehess: The LDPC would have some information about containment, as in ISSUE-89.   What's not clear in spec -- membership triples belong to COntainer Resource.

Alexandre Bertails: The LDPC would have some information about containment, as in ISSUE-89. What's not clear in spec -- membership triples belong to COntainer Resource.

15:42:46 <sandro> .. This spec says where the triples are supposed to be.

.. This proposal says where the triples are supposed to be.

15:42:53 <sandro> s/spec/proposal/
15:43:02 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

15:43:07 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe

Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe

15:43:31 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

15:43:54 <sandro> JohnArwe: I think you;'re contraining how the membership and containment triples are stored, what named graph they're part of.    that seems like it might be overreaching.

John Arwe: I think you;'re contraining how the membership and containment triples are stored, what named graph they're part of. that seems like it might be overreaching.

15:44:27 <sandro> JohnArwe: As an example, David Wood has said Callimachus puts all the server-managed properties in the same named graph as the application data.

John Arwe: As an example, David Wood has said Callimachus puts all the server-managed properties in the same named graph as the application data.

15:44:32 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

15:44:52 <sandro> .. It sounds like you're saying there must be a single NG that contains all the containment and membership properties.   THat might not be compatible.

.. It sounds like you're saying there must be a single NG that contains all the containment and membership properties. THat might not be compatible.

15:44:54 <Arnaud> q=steves

Arnaud Le Hors: q=steves

15:45:03 <Arnaud> queue=steves

Arnaud Le Hors: queue=steves

15:45:04 <sandro> .. it seems wrong to constrain where things are stored.

.. it seems wrong to constrain where things are stored.

15:45:29 <sandro> betehess: This is just about the server managed triples.  It doesn't forbid application-managed triples in the same graph.   The server just has to know which is which.

Alexandre Bertails: This is just about the server managed triples. It doesn't forbid application-managed triples in the same graph. The server just has to know which is which.

15:46:09 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

15:46:12 <sandro> betehess: And: Can the triples exist in multiple locations?  Yes, but that's outside this proposal.   THere's not expectation, after a DELETE, that a specific triple would disappear if it happens to be somewhere else.

Alexandre Bertails: And: Can the triples exist in multiple locations? Yes, but that's outside this proposal. There's no expectation, after a DELETE, that a specific triple would disappear if it happens to be somewhere else.

15:46:36 <sandro> s/THere's not/There's no/
15:47:01 <sandro> SteveS: If you're not attempting to constrain where the triples are served, then perhaps it's okay.

John Arwe: If you're not attempting to constrain where the triples are served, then perhaps it's okay.

15:47:25 <sandro> .. THe question is what is the Bare Minimum.     The LDPC MUST contain the membership and containment triples.

.. THe question is what is the Bare Minimum. The LDPC MUST contain the membership and containment triples.

15:47:31 <SteveS> s/SteveS/JohnArwe/
15:47:42 <sandro> betehess: this is about interface, not storage

Alexandre Bertails: this is about interface, not storage

15:48:05 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

15:48:10 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

15:48:33 <sandro> SteveS: The member says what container it's part of.

Steve Speicher: The member says what container it's part of.

15:49:10 <sandro> SteveS: You're saying there's an NG, the Container Resource, and you're saying it contains...    the In-Scheme relation ... is in That Graph?

Steve Speicher: You're saying there's an NG, the Container Resource, and you're saying it contains... the In-Scheme relation ... is in That Graph?

15:49:10 <sandro> betehess: Yes.

Alexandre Bertails: Yes.

15:49:33 <sandro> SteveS: So in your example 5 if you used TriG, then it could be enforced

Steve Speicher: So in your example 5 if you used TriG, then it could be enforced

15:49:52 <JohnArwe> cygri's ex: member resource includes triple T = <member, skos:inScheme, scheme-uri>

John Arwe: cygri's ex: member resource includes triple T = <member, skos:inScheme, scheme-uri>

15:49:54 <sandro> betehess: I've rewritten example 5 with several curl requests

Alexandre Bertails: I've rewritten example 5 with several curl requests

15:50:08 <sandro> .. that's equiv to TriG

.. that's equiv to TriG

15:50:16 <sandro> SteveS: No, it's not.    That's not testable.

Steve Speicher: No, it's not. That's not testable.

15:50:46 <sandro> betehess: The spec doesn't say anythign about where the triples are.   The member triples could still be part of the LDPG.

Alexandre Bertails: The spec doesn't say anythign about where the triples are. The member triples could still be part of the LDPG.

15:51:26 <sandro> Arnaud: In Ex 5 do you still get the liability and asset containers?

Arnaud Le Hors: In Ex 5 do you still get the liability and asset containers?

15:51:56 <Arnaud> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full

Arnaud Le Hors: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-full

15:52:04 <sandro> SteveS: Ex 5 shows the first curl...      How did the client know to get that URI?

Steve Speicher: Ex 5 shows the first curl... How did the client know to get that URI?

15:52:25 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:52:27 <sandro> SteveS: If you add example 5 B, curl get on TriG, THEN you can highlight the NG and differences.

Steve Speicher: If you add example 5 B, curl get on TriG, THEN you can highlight the NG and differences.

15:52:31 <JohnArwe> in spec ex 5, single GET returns netWorth asset + asset container triples + liab triples (shown on wiki page as 3 GETs)

John Arwe: in spec ex 5, single GET returns netWorth asset + asset container triples + liab triples (shown on wiki page as 3 GETs)

15:53:06 <bblfish> q-

Henry Story: q-

15:53:11 <sandro> betehess: I don't see any problem when you do a get on the container resource ...    the spec just says okay, but they don't belong to the container resource, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN YOU CANT RETURN THEM AS WELL.

Alexandre Bertails: I don't see any problem when you do a get on the container resource ... the spec just says okay, but they don't belong to the container resource, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN YOU CANT RETURN THEM AS WELL.

15:53:25 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:53:28 <sandro> betehess: I'm fine with using TriG to make that explicit in the example.

Alexandre Bertails: I'm fine with using TriG to make that explicit in the example.

15:53:45 <sandro> Arnaud: This touches on the inlining question.   inlining would be well-addressed by using TriG

Arnaud Le Hors: This touches on the inlining question. inlining would be well-addressed by using TriG

15:54:26 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

15:54:38 <sandro> Arnaud: GET returns a representation of NetWorth, if the server also wants to send along stuff about the asset container, that's okay.   I don't think I want the spec relying on TriG, even for documentation purposes.

Arnaud Le Hors: GET returns a representation of NetWorth, if the server also wants to send along stuff about the asset container, that's okay. I don't think I want the spec relying on TriG, even for documentation purposes.

15:55:09 <sandro> Ashok: I'm still trying to figure out what the relation is between a container and a graph.   I think you said a named graph can have a container and other LDPRs?

Ashok Malhotra: I'm still trying to figure out what the relation is between a container and a graph. I think you said a named graph can have a container and other LDPRs?

15:55:28 <JohnArwe> if worried about appearance of trig, could just show it both ways: as alexandre's wiki page has, and as spec currently has, both legal

John Arwe: if worried about appearance of trig, could just show it both ways: as alexandre's wiki page has, and as spec currently has, both legal

15:56:20 <sandro> betehess: The named graph is just a URI and an RDF Graph.   It's important...   when I read Arnaud's example with SPARQL, it didn't make sense since it assumed everything was part of the same Named Graph.    I'd think when I post something, I end up with another graph with another name.   When I have to remove a membership triple, I need to know where to look,.

Alexandre Bertails: The named graph is just a URI and an RDF Graph. It's important... when I read Arnaud's example with SPARQL, it didn't make sense since it assumed everything was part of the same Named Graph. I'd think when I post something, I end up with another graph with another name. When I have to remove a membership triple, I need to know where to look,.

15:56:29 <SteveS> I agree with JohnArwe, or we could even use JSON-LD ;)

Steve Speicher: I agree with JohnArwe, or we could even use JSON-LD ;)

15:56:49 <sandro> Ashok: Can a named graph have one or more containers or other resources?

Ashok Malhotra: Can a named graph have one or more containers or other resources?

15:57:07 <sandro> Ashok: Can a named graph have a container AND other resources?

Ashok Malhotra: Can a named graph have a container AND other resources?

15:57:11 <SteveS> I struggle with how we write this normatively, using named graphs this way sounds like good implementation guidance / best practice

Steve Speicher: I struggle with how we write this normatively, using named graphs this way sounds like good implementation guidance / best practice

15:57:15 <sandro> .. that are not within the container.

.. that are not within the container.

15:57:33 <sandro> betehess: What does it mean for a container to have a named graph?

Alexandre Bertails: What does it mean for a container to have a named graph?

15:58:03 <sandro> betehess: A named graph is just a pair of URI and graph.   Maybe you mean a Graph Store (a collection of named graphs).

Alexandre Bertails: A named graph is just a pair of URI and graph. Maybe you mean a Graph Store (a collection of named graphs).

15:58:07 <sandro> q?

q?

15:58:10 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:58:24 <bblfish> http://gist.github.com/anonymous/66c779451c94f90d271e

Henry Story: http://gist.github.com/anonymous/66c779451c94f90d271e

15:58:27 <sandro> bblfish: I think one can remove some of the issues here.   I just posed a gist.

Henry Story: I think one can remove some of the issues here. I just posed a gist.

15:58:57 <sandro> bblfish: People are asking if you can put information in membership triple graph about the containers.

Henry Story: People are asking if you can put information in membership triple graph about the containers.

15:59:17 <sandro> bblfish: You don't need TriG for this.

Henry Story: You don't need TriG for this.

15:59:39 <sandro> bblfish: I've added a description of the asset container and the liability container.

Henry Story: I've added a description of the asset container and the liability container.

16:00:07 <Zakim> -SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS

16:00:36 <sandro> Arnaud: To me, your gist looks exactly like what's in the spec.   Are you just telling us you can still do that?

Arnaud Le Hors: To me, your gist looks exactly like what's in the spec. Are you just telling us you can still do that?

16:00:41 <JohnArwe> I think Ashok is asking if a Single named graph's representation "be/have" both a container and other resources... which is hard to answer b/c we might look at that question from a data standpoint only, from an interaction  model view only, or both.

John Arwe: I think Ashok is asking if a Single named graph's representation "be/have" both a container and other resources... which is hard to answer b/c we might look at that question from a data standpoint only, from an interaction model view only, or both.

16:01:00 <sandro> bblfish: There's some info about containers.     No need for trig.

Henry Story: There's some info about containers. No need for trig.

16:01:17 <betehess> a good practice would be to have a triples from the ContainerResource to the LDPCs, living in the ContainerResource, so that the LDPCs are discoverable

Alexandre Bertails: a good practice would be to have a triples from the ContainerResource to the LDPCs, living in the ContainerResource, so that the LDPCs are discoverable

16:01:21 <sandro> Arnaud: Is what your gist still legal in betehess's new world?

Arnaud Le Hors: Is what your gist still legal in betehess's new world?

16:01:51 <JohnArwe> I've seen words in recent minutes appearing to say that a resource's type determines its interaction model, which strike me as "there be dragons"

John Arwe: I've seen words in recent minutes appearing to say that a resource's type determines its interaction model, which strike me as "there be dragons"

16:02:23 <sandro> betehess: If you want to follow GSP, that would be illegal

Alexandre Bertails: If you want to follow GSP, that would be illegal

16:02:42 <sandro> betehess: But I don't say anything about that.

Alexandre Bertails: But I don't say anything about that.

16:02:53 <JohnArwe> good catch sandro, I *was* hearing "legal"

John Arwe: good catch sandro, I *was* hearing "legal"

16:03:39 <sandro> Arnaud: RIght now the spec allows all this, but you might be containing to stop it.

Arnaud Le Hors: RIght now the spec allows all this, but you might be containing to stop it.

16:04:21 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

16:04:31 <sandro> betehess: I think it should be allowed, but a bad practice.

Alexandre Bertails: I think it should be allowed, but a bad practice.

16:04:49 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe

Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe

16:04:57 <sandro> Arnaud: Others will call it good practice, saving the client several round trips.

Arnaud Le Hors: Others will call it good practice, saving the client several round trips.

16:05:49 <sandro> JohnArwe: It should be possible, if it is useful to us, to write some of our language in terms of named graphs, without bringing in the whole GSP.    I have the impression that's where Alexandre is going.

John Arwe: It should be possible, if it is useful to us, to write some of our language in terms of named graphs, without bringing in the whole GSP. I have the impression that's where Alexandre is going.

16:06:21 <sandro> betehess: Yes.    It doesn't define the GET.    This is only about the Named Graph.

Alexandre Bertails: Yes. It doesn't define the GET. This is only about the Named Graph.

16:06:26 <sandro> (I have no idea what that means)

(I have no idea what that means)

16:06:47 <JohnArwe> so what's the next step  on 90?

John Arwe: so what's the next step on 90?

16:06:52 <betehess> sandro, it means that the GET may return *more* that the Graph part of the Named Graph

Alexandre Bertails: sandro, it means that the GET may return *more* that the Graph part of the Named Graph

16:07:21 <sandro> Arnaud: Next step on ISSUE-90 is let people think about it.

Arnaud Le Hors: Next step on ISSUE-90 is let people think about it.

16:07:52 <bblfish> Issue-89?

Henry Story: ISSUE-89?

16:07:52 <trackbot> Issue-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- open

16:07:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89

16:08:00 <sandro> JohnArwe: Maybe betehess wants to update his proposals based on discussion so far.

John Arwe: Maybe betehess wants to update his proposals based on discussion so far.

16:08:09 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D89

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue%2D89

16:08:15 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-89

4. ISSUE-89

16:08:35 <sandro> betehess: Call these Proposals 3, 4, 5

Alexandre Bertails: Call these Proposals 3, 4, 5

16:09:48 <sandro> .. So this just adds new triples, ldp:contains, and in the case of the simple container it would amend the proposal from two weeks ago so the simple container, the membership and containment triples are the same.

.. So this just adds new triples, ldp:contains, and in the case of the simple container it would amend the proposal from two weeks ago so the simple container, the membership and containment triples are the same.

16:10:24 <sandro> betehess: Lata para, LDPC has RDF representation, with Link hear.

Alexandre Bertails: Lata para, LDPC has RDF representation, with Link hear.

16:10:44 <JohnArwe> q+ to ask about indirect case

John Arwe: q+ to ask about indirect case

16:10:49 <bblfish> I renamed the proposals

Henry Story: I renamed the proposals

16:10:53 <bblfish> to 1,2,3

Henry Story: to 1,2,3

16:11:09 <sandro> sandro: You mean Link Header, rel=type, NOT rel-Link

Sandro Hawke: You mean Link Header, rel=type, NOT rel-Link

16:11:18 <sandro> betehess: I'll fix that.

Alexandre Bertails: I'll fix that.

16:11:23 <JohnArwe> henry, alexandre had said he wanted 3-5

John Arwe: henry, alexandre had said he wanted 3-5

16:12:25 <sandro> Arnaud: I the case of the simple container, this just renames the predicate.   It puts to rest what ought to be called "membership", and saying there's membership AND containment.

Arnaud Le Hors: I the case of the simple container, this just renames the predicate. It puts to rest what ought to be called "membership", and saying there's membership AND containment.

16:14:00 <sandro> Arnaud: In the case of the Indirect Container, there's two relation.  In the case of Direct Container, we only have one relation.     Direct Container to Member Resource.  You can INFER this Contains relationship.  Is it okay to keep it as something you can infer?   Earlier we said yes, but now betehess is proposing there be two triples.

Arnaud Le Hors: In the case of the Indirect Container, there's two relation. In the case of Direct Container, we only have one relation. Direct Container to Member Resource. You can INFER this Contains relationship. Is it okay to keep it as something you can infer? Earlier we said yes, but now betehess is proposing there be two triples.

16:14:16 <JohnArwe> q?

John Arwe: q?

16:14:54 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

16:14:54 <Zakim> JohnArwe, you wanted to ask about indirect case

Zakim IRC Bot: JohnArwe, you wanted to ask about indirect case

16:14:55 <sandro> Arnaud: Porposal 2 is about the same as ldp:created.  Two things.   We've been talking about two relations all along.   Sometimes they happen to be the same.   This is materializing both.

Arnaud Le Hors: Porposal 2 is about the same as ldp:created. Two things. We've been talking about two relations all along. Sometimes they happen to be the same. This is materializing both.

16:15:13 <sandro> JohnArwe: On proposal 1, I want to understand.  In the indirect case, how does this work?

John Arwe: On proposal 1, I want to understand. In the indirect case, how does this work?

16:15:37 <sandro> betehess: The location header is about the created resource, not the object of the membership triple.

Alexandre Bertails: The location header is about the created resource, not the object of the membership triple.

16:16:35 <JohnArwe> fwiw glad to see we agreed that this distinction betw membership and created/contains has crystallized

John Arwe: fwiw glad to see we agreed that this distinction betw membership and created/contains has crystallized

16:16:44 <sandro> betehess: Proposal 3 -- this needs more work.

Alexandre Bertails: Proposal 3 -- this needs more work.

16:16:53 <sandro> .. it depends on gathering some use cases.

.. it depends on gathering some use cases.

16:17:39 <sandro> .. if you add ldp:contains triples, in some cases you double the number of triples in the LDPC.    The worst case, a direct container, the membership subject is still the ldpc.

.. if you add ldp:contains triples, in some cases you double the number of triples in the LDPC. The worst case, a direct container, the membership subject is still the ldpc.

16:18:04 <sandro> .. so trying to deal with that.   non-member resource.

.. so trying to deal with that. non-member resource.

16:18:14 <sandro> .. in this proposal, you just ask for the properties of the resource.

.. in this proposal, you just ask for the properties of the resource.

16:18:24 <sandro> .. for this one, I invite people to think about this a little more.

.. for this one, I invite people to think about this a little more.

16:18:29 <sandro> q?

q?

16:18:50 <sandro> .. this proposal is in the spirit of the non-member resource approach

.. this proposal is in the spirit of the non-member resource approach

16:19:11 <JohnArwe> q+ to talk about use case

John Arwe: q+ to talk about use case

16:19:13 <sandro> Arnaud: We don;t need to get into the gory details.  Once we materialize the containment relation, in some cases we end up with double the triples.

Arnaud Le Hors: We don;t need to get into the gory details. Once we materialize the containment relation, in some cases we end up with double the triples.

16:19:51 <sandro> .. so this proposal is a revamp of non-member-property, that says we're going to give you a filtering mecahnism to not have to see the duplication.

.. so this proposal is a revamp of non-member-property, that says we're going to give you a filtering mecahnism to not have to see the duplication.

16:19:53 <sandro> q+

q+

16:20:11 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

16:20:11 <Zakim> JohnArwe, you wanted to talk about use case

Zakim IRC Bot: JohnArwe, you wanted to talk about use case

16:20:27 <sandro> JohnArwe: Conceptually, I'm okay with this, if we can truly get rid of duplicates

John Arwe: Conceptually, I'm okay with this, if we can truly get rid of duplicates

16:21:00 <betehess> in a nutshell: a GET on a DirectContainer could return both membership triples *and* containment triples. The idea would be to either filter out or ask explicitly some of the triples eg. property triples

Alexandre Bertails: in a nutshell: a GET on a DirectContainer could return both membership triples *and* containment triples. The idea would be to either filter out or ask explicitly some of the triples eg. property triples

16:21:01 <sandro> JohnArwe:We have implementations that plan to use this stuff, and the problem today is scale & performance.    We've gotten up to millions of members.   And we have throughput requirements.

John Arwe: We have implementations that plan to use this stuff, and the problem today is scale & performance. We've gotten up to millions of members. And we have throughput requirements.

16:21:20 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

16:21:23 <sandro> JohnArwe: So it's important to avoid the duplication.  Can't afford the 50% hit.

John Arwe: So it's important to avoid the duplication. Can't afford the 50% hit.

16:21:49 <sandro> sandro: Stupid question -- why do I want membership triples if I have containment triples.

Sandro Hawke: Stupid question -- why do I want membership triples if I have containment triples.

16:21:49 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

16:21:49 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

16:21:49 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

16:23:08 <SteveS> I think for DirectContainers it seems like too much overhead to ask to generate the duplication, if clients of direct containers need this..then they can generate it before handing off to some generic processing

Steve Speicher: I think for DirectContainers it seems like too much overhead to ask to generate the duplication, if clients of direct containers need this..then they can generate it before handing off to some generic processing

16:23:11 <TallTed> containment implies membership.  membership does not imply containment.

Ted Thibodeau: containment implies membership. membership does not imply containment.

16:23:24 <sandro> Arnaud: You either force the app to change its data, or you can say the direct container type of thing says how to client should interpret the data.

Arnaud Le Hors: You either force the app to change its data, or you can say the direct container type of thing says how to client should interpret the data.

16:23:35 <JohnArwe> Membership triples are ALL we normally care about.  And most of them would not be  not created through containers.

John Arwe: Membership triples are ALL we normally care about. And most of them would not be not created through containers.

16:23:39 <TallTed> this does require some reasoning

Ted Thibodeau: this does require some reasoning

16:24:37 <sandro> Arnaud: Look at the three different types of containers

Arnaud Le Hors: Look at the three different types of containers

16:24:44 <sandro> q?

q?

16:24:46 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

16:24:46 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

16:24:49 <JohnArwe> ...that's why i was probing on out of band creates/deletes before.

John Arwe: ...that's why i was probing on out of band creates/deletes before.

16:25:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

16:25:25 <TallTed> wishing more for graphical representations.  the intended meanings of the words we use are often very difficult to interpret.

Ted Thibodeau: wishing more for graphical representations. the intended meanings of the words we use are often very difficult to interpret.

16:25:45 <sandro> bblfish: You put the ldp:contains in the ldpc, then you have another resource that contains the membership triples.

Henry Story: You put the ldp:contains in the ldpc, then you have another resource that contains the membership triples.

16:25:52 <sandro> bblfish: works for me.

Henry Story: works for me.

16:25:59 <sandro> Arnaud: Needs more examples.

Arnaud Le Hors: Needs more examples.

16:26:05 <bblfish> and a link to the membership triples examples

Henry Story: and a link to the membership triples resource

16:26:13 <bblfish> s/examples/resource/
16:26:31 <sandro> Arnaud: betehess please improve the wiki pages and email when done.

Arnaud Le Hors: betehess please improve the wiki pages and email when done.

16:26:51 <sandro> betehess: I need more input on issue-89-proposal-3 before I do more on it.

Alexandre Bertails: I need more input on ISSUE-89-proposal-3 before I do more on it.

16:26:59 <sandro> Arnaud: Show how it will play out.

Arnaud Le Hors: Show how it will play out.

16:27:23 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

16:27:32 <sandro> sandro: Can;t you just use owl:samePropertyAs ?

Sandro Hawke: Can;t you just use owl:samePropertyAs ?

16:28:09 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Membership#Determining_the_membership_triples_to_be_added_when_a_new_member_is_created

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Membership#Determining_the_membership_triples_to_be_added_when_a_new_member_is_created

16:28:13 <sandro> sandro: That's a standard way to ask for this kind of client-side processing

Sandro Hawke: That's a standard way to ask for this kind of client-side processing

16:29:11 <sandro> bblfish: Even though it sounds like inferencing, sandro, from ldp:contains to some other predicate --- there's another way of interpreting it, where these things are only about creation.

Henry Story: Even though it sounds like inferencing, sandro, from ldp:contains to some other predicate --- there's another way of interpreting it, where these things are only about creation.

16:29:41 <JohnArwe> I didn't quite say unaccept to materialize them Sandro; if we did something like the non-memb props trick (define new resource), so that our clients just never ask for them, might be fine.

John Arwe: I didn't quite say unaccept to materialize them Sandro; if we did something like the non-memb props trick (define new resource), so that our clients just never ask for them, might be fine.

16:29:45 <bblfish>  here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Membership#Determining_the_membership_triples_to_be_added_when_a_new_member_is_created

Henry Story: here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Membership#Determining_the_membership_triples_to_be_added_when_a_new_member_is_created

16:29:58 <sandro> Arnaud: I added the SPARQL CONSTRUCT example to show how to do this.

Arnaud Le Hors: I added the SPARQL CONSTRUCT example to show how to do this.

16:30:22 <sandro> Arnaud: If we could have F2F *now* it would help us get through all this.

Arnaud Le Hors: If we could have F2F *now* it would help us get through all this.

16:30:28 <bblfish> I'll look for Paris meeting

Henry Story: I'll look for Paris meeting

16:30:41 <sandro> sandro: We could try a remote all-day meeting.

Sandro Hawke: We could try a remote all-day meeting.

16:30:51 <sandro> Arnaud: Maybe next week we can do 2-hours.

Arnaud Le Hors: Maybe next week we can do 2-hours.

16:30:59 <JohnArwe> if we can get to agreement before people poof for year, I can draft specs while they're gone

John Arwe: if we can get to agreement before people poof for year, I can draft specs while they're gone

16:31:26 <JohnArwe> being sick/injured now, i'll be here thru holidays mostly

John Arwe: being sick/injured now, i'll be here thru holidays mostly

16:31:51 <bblfish> I think we are making good progress

Henry Story: I think we are making good progress

16:31:58 <sandro> Arnaud: I'm really trying to get us to closure here.  We're getting behind schedule.      This could be a problem soon.

Arnaud Le Hors: I'm really trying to get us to closure here. We're getting behind schedule. This could be a problem soon.

16:32:18 <sandro> Arnaud: People need to make the effort to understand these issues.

Arnaud Le Hors: People need to make the effort to understand these issues.

16:32:23 <bblfish> very good progress. At least now we are starting to have vocabulary to speak of the issues, the SPARQL constructs are very helpful.

Henry Story: very good progress. At least now we are starting to have vocabulary to speak of the issues, the SPARQL constructs are very helpful.

16:32:59 <sandro> Arnaud: If we don't make a decision to have a F2F soon, then we're deciding not to have it soon.

Arnaud Le Hors: If we don't make a decision to have a F2F soon, then we're deciding not to have it soon.

16:33:09 <betehess> if the process says "meeting", we could have a "gathering" instead :-)

Alexandre Bertails: if the process says "meeting", we could have a "gathering" instead :-)

16:33:38 <sandro> Arnaud: If we're luck we'll finish the issues this month, have LC for February, so F2F would be around March 1.  Is that okay?

Arnaud Le Hors: If we're luck we'll finish the issues this month, have LC for February, so F2F would be around March 1. Is that okay?

16:33:50 <sandro> Arnaud: Are people okay for that timeframe?

Arnaud Le Hors: Are people okay for that timeframe?

16:33:52 <JohnArwe> once again: I will not make any f2f feb 23-26

John Arwe: once again: I will not make any f2f feb 23-26

16:34:14 <Ashok> How about early March?

Ashok Malhotra: How about early March?

16:34:18 <Arnaud> q?

Arnaud Le Hors: q?

16:34:21 <bblfish> q-

Henry Story: q-

16:34:24 <sandro> Week of March 17?

Week of March 17?

16:34:31 <JohnArwe> I'm fine few weeks on either side of that

John Arwe: I'm fine few weeks on either side of that

16:34:37 <sandro> ADJOURN

ADJOURN

16:34:43 <Zakim> -TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed

16:34:43 <Zakim> -bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish

16:34:45 <betehess> bye!

Alexandre Bertails: bye!

16:34:45 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra

16:34:47 <Zakim> -Alexandre

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre

16:34:47 <Zakim> -Roger

Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger

16:34:48 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

16:34:49 <Zakim> -codyburleson

Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson

16:34:51 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

16:34:53 <Zakim> -JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe

16:35:00 <Zakim> -SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle

16:40:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM

16:40:02 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

16:40:02 <Zakim> Attendees were pchampin, Arnaud, +1.845.454.aaaa, SteveS, JohnArwe, codyburleson, Sandro, Alexandre, SteveBattle, Ashok_Malhotra, bblfish, Roger, TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were pchampin, Arnaud, +1.845.454.aaaa, SteveS, JohnArwe, codyburleson, Sandro, Alexandre, SteveBattle, Ashok_Malhotra, bblfish, Roger, TallTed



Formatted by CommonScribe