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
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
<sandro> subtopic: 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
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
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?
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
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+
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+
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-
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
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"
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+
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+
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?
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
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?
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