14:58:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/17-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/17-ldp-irc ←
14:58:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:58:51 <trackbot> Date: 17 February 2014
15:02:05 <codyburleson> zakim, who is here?
Cody Burleson: zakim, who is here? ←
15:02:05 <Zakim> sorry, codyburleson, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, codyburleson, I don't know what conference this is ←
15:02:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot ←
15:02:21 <Arnaud> Zakim, this will be LDP
Arnaud Le Hors: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
15:02:21 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Arnaud, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started ←
15:02:31 <codyburleson> zakim, who is here?
Cody Burleson: zakim, who is here? ←
15:02:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a], JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a], JohnArwe ←
15:02:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot ←
15:02:35 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:02:53 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:02:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:03:09 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is me ←
15:03:09 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:03:22 <codyburleson> 41#
Cody Burleson: 41# ←
15:03:31 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:03:41 <codyburleson> zakim, IPcaller.a is me
Cody Burleson: zakim, IPcaller.a is me ←
15:03:41 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
15:03:42 <sandro> Zakim, IPcaller.a is codyburleson
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, IPcaller.a is codyburleson ←
15:03:43 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller.a'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller.a' ←
15:04:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call ←
15:04:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro ←
15:04:05 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:04:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], codyburleson, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], codyburleson, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger ←
15:04:26 <sandro> Zakim, IPcaller is Ashok
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, IPcaller is Ashok ←
15:04:26 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok; got it ←
15:04:32 <Ashok> zakim, IPCaller is me
Ashok Malhotra: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:04:32 <Zakim> sorry, Ashok, I do not recognize a party named 'IPCaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Ashok, I do not recognize a party named 'IPCaller' ←
15:06:07 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
<sandro> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.17
<sandro> chair: Arnaud
15:06:31 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
15:07:16 <sandro> topic: Admin
15:07:01 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10 ←
15:08:10 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10 ←
15:08:10 <sandro> Arnaud: next meeting next week
Arnaud Le Hors: next meeting next week ←
15:08:14 <sandro> SteveS: regrets
15:08:27 <SteveS> s/SteveS/JohnArwe/
15:08:59 <sandro> Arnaud: anyone want to claim credit for work on an action?
Arnaud Le Hors: anyone want to claim credit for work on an action? ←
15:09:04 <sandro> action-134?
15:09:04 <trackbot> action-134 -- Arnaud Le Hors to [EDITOR] Update spec to reflect resolution 2/3.1 closing Issue-93 by adding text to BP&G -- due 2014-02-17 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-134 -- Arnaud Le Hors to [EDITOR] Update spec to reflect resolution 2/3.1 closing ISSUE-93 by adding text to BP&G -- due 2014-02-17 -- OPEN ←
15:09:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/134
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/134 ←
15:09:41 <sandro> topic: Predicate names
15:10:09 <sandro> Here are the proposed changes:
Here are the proposed changes: ←
15:10:09 <sandro> ldp:containerResource => ldp:membershipResource
ldp:containerResource => ldp:membershipResource ←
15:10:09 <sandro> ldp:containsRelation => ldp:hasMemberRelation
ldp:containsRelation => ldp:hasMemberRelation ←
15:10:09 <sandro> ldp:containedByRelation => ldp:isMemberOfRelation
ldp:containedByRelation => ldp:isMemberOfRelation ←
15:10:52 <sandro> Arnaud: we've been through several naming schemes. Since we have both containment and membership now, the 'contain' predicates were misnamed.
Arnaud Le Hors: we've been through several naming schemes. Since we have both containment and membership now, the 'contain' predicates were misnamed. ←
15:11:03 <sandro> Arnaud: so, this is the proposal from the editors.
Arnaud Le Hors: so, this is the proposal from the editors. ←
15:11:23 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't really want discussion at this point.
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't really want discussion at this point. ←
15:11:25 <codyburleson> FYI, I reassigned ACTION 134 to myself; I'll take a look.
Cody Burleson: FYI, I reassigned ACTION-134 to myself; I'll take a look. ←
15:11:44 <sandro> Arnaud: any process question?
Arnaud Le Hors: any process question? ←
15:12:00 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
15:12:13 <bblfish> can someone write up an example with these new predicates?
Henry Story: can someone write up an example with these new predicates? ←
15:12:25 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:12:29 <bblfish> ( after all this changes I am not longer sure what it all means )
Henry Story: ( after all this changes I am not longer sure what it all means ) ←
15:12:54 <sandro> roger: why not say membershipLDPR
Roger Menday: why not say membershipLDPR ←
15:12:56 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
15:13:16 <sandro> queue=
queue= ←
15:13:17 <codyburleson> q-
Cody Burleson: q- ←
15:14:19 <sandro> sandro: suggest memberRelation instead of hasMemberRelation, since some people like TimBL consider "has" an antipattern.
Sandro Hawke: suggest memberRelation instead of hasMemberRelation, since some people like TimBL consider "has" an antipattern. ←
15:15:22 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:15:26 <sandro> sandro: but I don't care myself.
Sandro Hawke: but I don't care myself. ←
15:15:44 <sandro> sandro: I kind of like the clarity of "has" myself.
Sandro Hawke: I kind of like the clarity of "has" myself. ←
15:15:59 <sandro> ericP: The League of Ontologists (tm) strongly advocates using has and is.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The League of Ontologists (tm) strongly advocates using has and is. ←
15:16:09 <sandro> ... but I don't personally agree with them.
... but I don't personally agree with them. ←
15:16:41 <ericP> +1 to leaving for has
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to leaving "has" ←
15:16:56 <ericP> s/for has/"has"/
15:16:59 <MiguelAraCo> q+
Miguel Aragón: q+ ←
15:17:13 <bblfish> This is probably an improvement over the one in the spec as it avoids confusion with container
Henry Story: This is probably an improvement over the one in the spec as it avoids confusion with container ←
15:17:13 <Arnaud> ack MiguelAraCo
Arnaud Le Hors: ack MiguelAraCo ←
15:17:53 <sandro> MiguelAraCo: maybe membershipRelation ?
Miguel Aragón: maybe membershipRelation ? ←
15:19:11 <sandro> Arnaud: I thinks hasMemberRelation reads well
Arnaud Le Hors: I thinks hasMemberRelation reads well ←
15:19:24 <sandro> +1 it does read well
+1 it does read well ←
15:19:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html
PROPOSED: rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html ←
15:19:47 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
15:19:48 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:19:52 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:19:55 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:19:58 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:20:06 <bblfish> +1 improves it from contains
Henry Story: +1 improves it from contains ←
15:20:18 <JohnArwe> +0 whatever
15:20:32 <sandro> RESOLVED: Rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html
RESOLVED: Rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html ←
15:20:41 <codyburleson> +1 (it isbetter)
Cody Burleson: +1 (it isbetter) ←
15:20:47 <sandro> topic: Resources types
15:21:00 <sandro> LDP RDF Resource (LDP-RR) => LDP RDF Source (LDP-RS)
LDP RDF Resource (LDP-RR) => LDP RDF Source (LDP-RS) ←
15:21:04 <sandro> LDP Binary Resource (LDP-BR) => LDP Non-RDF Source (LDP-NR)
LDP Binary Resource (LDP-BR) => LDP Non-RDF Source (LDP-NR) ←
15:21:11 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html ←
15:22:00 <sandro> Arnaud: last time, Sandro complained about "ldp rdf resource" being so different from "rdf resource", and pointed out "rdf source" as approximately what we want.
Arnaud Le Hors: last time, Sandro complained about "ldp rdf resource" being so different from "rdf resource", and pointed out "rdf source" as approximately what we want. ←
15:22:12 <sandro> Arnaud: and we've never liked "binary resource"
Arnaud Le Hors: and we've never liked "binary resource" ←
15:22:41 <sandro> Arnaud: Not the shortest, but it's accurate.
Arnaud Le Hors: Not the shortest, but it's accurate. ←
15:23:00 <Ashok> I'm happy with existing names
Ashok Malhotra: I'm happy with existing names ←
15:23:16 <ericP> +1 to explicity name for "binary"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to explicit name for "binary" ←
15:23:26 <ericP> s/explicity/explicit/
15:23:31 <sandro> PROPOSED: rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html
PROPOSED: rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html ←
15:23:37 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:24:07 <sandro> +1 I don't like calling html and css "binary"
+1 I don't like calling html and css "binary" ←
15:24:09 <bblfish> Mhh, did not follow that RDF1.1 terminological change
Henry Story: Mhh, did not follow that RDF1.1 terminological change ←
15:24:13 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:24:19 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
15:24:23 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:24:28 <Ashok> 0
Ashok Malhotra: 0 ←
15:24:45 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:24:50 <codyburleson> +1 (especially pointing out CSS and HTML are not binary)
Cody Burleson: +1 (especially pointing out CSS and HTML are not binary) ←
15:25:00 <JohnArwe> +1 why be willfully different
John Arwe: +1 why be willfully different ←
15:25:10 <bblfish> +0.8 ok for LDP-NR ( as binary is misleading) but not too keen on LDP-RS ( though ok if the RDF WG goes with it - information resource would have been better )
Henry Story: +0.8 ok for LDP-NR ( as binary is misleading) but not too keen on LDP-RS ( though ok if the RDF WG goes with it - information resource would have been better ) ←
15:25:16 <sandro> Arnaud: it may take some getting used to , but the RDF WG made this choice for us.
Arnaud Le Hors: it may take some getting used to , but the RDF WG made this choice for us. ←
15:25:30 <sandro> RESOLVED: Rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html
RESOLVED: Rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html ←
15:25:44 <sandro> topic: Container types
15:25:52 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html ←
15:26:21 <sandro> . Resource
. Resource ←
15:26:21 <sandro> . +- NR
. +- NR ←
15:26:21 <sandro> . +- RS
. +- RS ←
15:26:21 <sandro> . +- Container
. +- Container ←
15:26:21 <sandro> . +- DC
. +- DC ←
15:26:21 <sandro> . +- BC
. +- BC ←
15:27:04 <sandro> . +- IC ???
. +- IC ??? ←
15:27:45 <SteveS> sandro, not IC is left off (see proposal) where IC is now called Container
Steve Speicher: sandro, not IC is left off (see proposal) where IC is now called Container ←
15:28:00 <SteveS> ...there is no IC in the proposal
Steve Speicher: ...there is no IC in the proposal ←
15:28:15 <sandro> Arnaud: IC is the most flexible, BC is the least.
Arnaud Le Hors: IC is the most flexible, BC is the least. ←
15:28:32 <sandro> Arnaud: is ldp:Container abstract?
Arnaud Le Hors: is ldp:Container abstract? ←
15:28:49 <sandro> Arnaud: But now IC -> Container.
Arnaud Le Hors: But now IC -> Container. ←
15:29:19 <sandro> Arnaud: Direct Container sets some parameter, Basic Container sets even more.
Arnaud Le Hors: Direct Container sets some parameter, Basic Container sets even more. ←
15:29:34 <sandro> Arnaud: From a logical point of view this works.
Arnaud Le Hors: From a logical point of view this works. ←
15:29:56 <sandro> . Resource
. Resource ←
15:29:56 <sandro> . +- NR
. +- NR ←
15:29:56 <sandro> . +- RS
. +- RS ←
15:29:56 <sandro> . +- Container
. +- Container ←
15:29:56 <sandro> . +- DC
. +- DC ←
15:29:57 <sandro> . +- BC
. +- BC ←
15:30:08 <sandro> +1 I think.....
+1 I think..... ←
15:31:18 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:32:05 <JohnArwe> DC "fixes" the value of insertedContentRelation => ldp:MemberSubject
John Arwe: DC "fixes" the value of insertedContentRelation => ldp:MemberSubject ←
15:32:41 <JohnArwe> BC "fixes" (vs DC) the membership triple pattern to be ( LDPC, ldp:contains, ?member )
John Arwe: BC "fixes" (vs DC) the membership triple pattern to be ( LDPC, ldp:contains, ?member ) ←
15:32:57 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:33:07 <JohnArwe> ...since the membership triple pattern is described by 2 predicates, those are fixed by BCs.
John Arwe: ...since the membership triple pattern is described by 2 predicates, those are fixed by BCs. ←
15:33:14 <sandro> . Resource
. Resource ←
15:33:14 <sandro> . +- NR
. +- NR ←
15:33:14 <sandro> . +- RS
. +- RS ←
15:33:14 <sandro> . +- Container
. +- Container ←
15:33:14 <sandro> . +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves)
. +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves) ←
15:33:15 <sandro> . +- BC (member triple is container, ldp:member)
. +- BC (member triple is container, ldp:member) ←
15:33:55 <sandro> bblfish: I wonder about having DC be "Container". When you post to an indirect container to get these extra triples
Henry Story: I wonder about having DC be "Container". When you post to an indirect container to get these extra triples ←
15:34:38 <sandro> (I'm not following that.)
(I'm not following that.) ←
15:35:11 <JohnArwe> Henry related the same proposal I believe in Madrid in June.
John Arwe: Henry related the same proposal I believe in Madrid in June. ←
15:35:49 <sandro> . Resource
. Resource ←
15:35:49 <sandro> . +- NR
. +- NR ←
15:35:49 <sandro> . +- RS
. +- RS ←
15:35:49 <sandro> . +- Container
. +- Container ←
15:35:49 <sandro> . +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves)
. +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves) ←
15:35:50 <sandro> . +- BC (membership triples: <container> ldp:member <member>)
. +- BC (membership triples: <container> ldp:member <member>) ←
15:35:57 <bblfish> </shopping/cart/> a ldp:Container;
Henry Story: </shopping/cart/> a ldp:Container; ←
15:35:58 <bblfish> ldp:creationConsequence [ ldp:subject <#>;
Henry Story: ldp:creationConsequence [ ldp:subject <#>; ←
15:35:58 <bblfish> ldp:predicate order:wishes;
Henry Story: ldp:predicate order:wishes; ←
15:35:59 <bblfish> ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic],
Henry Story: ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic], ←
15:36:01 <bblfish> [ ldp:subject <#>;
Henry Story: [ ldp:subject <#>; ←
15:36:03 <bblfish> ldp:predicate order:like;
Henry Story: ldp:predicate order:like; ←
15:36:05 <bblfish> ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic ];
Henry Story: ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic ]; ←
15:36:07 <bblfish> ldp:member <member1>, <member2> . // <- it is easy to find the members
Henry Story: ldp:member <member1>, <member2> . // <- it is easy to find the members ←
15:36:09 <bblfish> <#> order:contains <urn:isbn:0470396792> ;
Henry Story: <#> order:contains <urn:isbn:0470396792> ; ←
15:36:11 <bblfish> order:wishes <urn:isbn:9781907974045> .
Henry Story: order:wishes <urn:isbn:9781907974045> . ←
15:36:13 <bblfish> ]]
Henry Story: ]] ←
15:36:17 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing#Think_in_terms_of_causal_consequence_instead_of_logical_consequence
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing#Think_in_terms_of_causal_consequence_instead_of_logical_consequence ←
15:36:20 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
15:37:21 <sandro> bblfish: it's when you POST that you create new types of relationships somewhere. you're adding new relations to some other place. there's a speech act, a document act consequence to doing something. then it becomes very simple.
Henry Story: it's when you POST that you create new types of relationships somewhere. you're adding new relations to some other place. there's a speech act, a document act consequence to doing something. then it becomes very simple. ←
15:38:26 <sandro> bblfish: When you post into a shopping cart, you're going to buy something. So the membership triples would be about what happens when you do something. Containers contain documents, like a physical object. But how does anyone know when they go to a shop, what they're liable for.
Henry Story: When you post into a shopping cart, you're going to buy something. So the membership triples would be about what happens when you do something. Containers contain documents, like a physical object. But how does anyone know when they go to a shop, what they're liable for. ←
15:38:46 <sandro> bblfish: The army case still isn't solved.
Henry Story: The army case still isn't solved. ←
15:38:54 <sandro> bblfish: How do I know what's going to happen when I post.
Henry Story: How do I know what's going to happen when I post. ←
15:39:09 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html
Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html ←
15:39:49 <sandro> sandro: If the container is a signup list for the army, then you sign up by posting.
Sandro Hawke: If the container is a signup list for the army, then you sign up by posting. ←
15:40:12 <sandro> bblfish: But what if you don't know every triple about it.
Henry Story: But what if you don't know every triple about it. ←
15:40:32 <sandro> bblfish: instead: you only need to understand the membership triple.
Henry Story: instead: you only need to understand the membership triple. ←
15:41:10 <sandro> Arnaud: We already know there is containment and membership.
Arnaud Le Hors: We already know there is containment and membership. ←
15:41:25 <sandro> Arnaud: I never understood the Army example.
Arnaud Le Hors: I never understood the Army example. ←
15:41:38 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
15:42:21 <sandro> bblfish: Is this now clear to user, that the membership triples they create they are bound to agree with?
Henry Story: Is this now clear to user, that the membership triples they create they are bound to agree with? ←
15:42:36 <sandro> bblfish: You need to understand what you're liable to if you post.
Henry Story: You need to understand what you're liable to if you post. ←
15:43:13 <sandro> Arnaud: We don't know what applications we'll have
Arnaud Le Hors: We don't know what applications we'll have ←
15:43:17 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:45:14 <sandro> roger: I undertand bblfish. You have containment, and then there's something that adds membership as a reaction. so there's ever only one container for an LDPR. my issue is ... my example is: if I'm posting ....
Roger Menday: I undertand bblfish. You have containment, and then there's something that adds membership as a reaction. so there's ever only one container for an LDPR. my issue is ... my example is: if I'm posting .... ←
15:45:56 <sandro> bblfish: let's go over it on mailing list.
Henry Story: let's go over it on mailing list. ←
15:45:58 <sandro> q-
q- ←
15:46:04 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:46:26 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:47:00 <sandro> SteveS: to be clear, this proposal does not change any behaviors or normative rules -- it's just about how we talk about them. This doesn't change anything that happens when you POST, etc.
Steve Speicher: to be clear, this proposal does not change any behaviors or normative rules -- it's just about how we talk about them. This doesn't change anything that happens when you POST, etc. ←
15:47:09 <sandro> PROPOSED: adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html
PROPOSED: adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html ←
15:47:11 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
15:47:36 <roger> +!
Roger Menday: +! ←
15:47:38 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:47:47 <SteveS> +1 !
Steve Speicher: +1 ! ←
15:47:51 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:48:21 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
15:48:27 <bblfish> +0 probably ok improvement, but the subscribing to the army use case has not yet I think been addressed, and that may change the decisions of this and the previous issue
Henry Story: +0 probably ok improvement, but the subscribing to the army use case has not yet I think been addressed, and that may change the decisions of this and the previous issue ←
15:48:49 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:48:55 <codyburleson> +0
Cody Burleson: +0 ←
15:49:18 <sandro> roger: I showed a guy here the big terminology list in the spec and he was not impressed.
Roger Menday: I showed a guy here the big terminology list in the spec and he was not impressed. ←
15:49:42 <sandro> .. if we are to appeal to lots of people, it would be good to make it look like a less-massive-list of different types of containers.
.. if we are to appeal to lots of people, it would be good to make it look like a less-massive-list of different types of containers. ←
15:50:19 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:50:21 <sandro> .. if the terminology section could make it more clear these are just simplified containers, ....
.. if the terminology section could make it more clear these are just simplified containers, .... ←
15:50:38 <sandro> Arnaud: The editors have not had much time on polishing the spec.
Arnaud Le Hors: The editors have not had much time on polishing the spec. ←
15:51:01 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:51:10 <sandro> sandro: They can do editorial changes during CR and LC
Sandro Hawke: They can do editorial changes during CR and LC ←
15:51:29 <sandro> Arnaud, are we resolved on that vote....?
Arnaud, are we resolved on that vote....? ←
15:51:52 <sandro> bblfish: Instead of three different kinds of containers, we could just have a relation to a rule.
Henry Story: Instead of three different kinds of containers, we could just have a relation to a rule. ←
15:52:22 <sandro> .. and that would be easier to explain. In terms of SPARQL or whatever.
.. and that would be easier to explain. In terms of SPARQL or whatever. ←
15:52:24 <bblfish> ldp:creationConsequence
Henry Story: ldp:creationConsequence ←
15:52:38 <sandro> Arnaud: I remember that well, but that's not what's on the table.
Arnaud Le Hors: I remember that well, but that's not what's on the table. ←
15:53:08 <sandro> RESOLVED: Adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html
RESOLVED: Adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html ←
15:53:52 <sandro> topic: Spec status update?
15:54:13 <sandro> SteveS: all normative text is correct
Steve Speicher: all normative text is correct ←
15:54:28 <sandro> Arnaud: One more week, agreed?
Arnaud Le Hors: One more week, agreed? ←
15:55:11 <sandro> Arnaud: Can everyone review spec this week, and make decision next week.
Arnaud Le Hors: Can everyone review spec this week, and make decision next week. ←
15:55:28 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:55:40 <sandro> sandro: when reading, people come up with issues.
Sandro Hawke: when reading, people come up with issues. ←
15:56:05 <codyburleson> +1 one more week of review for the WG
Cody Burleson: +1 one more week of review for the WG ←
15:56:10 <sandro> sandro: so any issues not raised by next week are out of order.
Sandro Hawke: so any issues not raised by next week are out of order. ←
15:56:12 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
15:56:50 <sandro> Ashok: If we end up adding stable-paging, would this require another last call, if we did it after last call?
Ashok Malhotra: If we end up adding stable-paging, would this require another last call, if we did it after last call? ←
15:56:53 <sandro> sandro: yes.
Sandro Hawke: yes. ←
15:57:26 <sandro> Arnaud: Be ready next week to support publication, or have specific comments.
Arnaud Le Hors: Be ready next week to support publication, or have specific comments. ←
15:57:42 <sandro> topic: Disposition of Comments
15:57:46 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/doc/\
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/doc/\ ←
15:58:08 <sandro> Arnaud: I pinged Mark Baker. He accepted our response. It's only the response to Tim's comments that haven't been ack'd
Arnaud Le Hors: I pinged Mark Baker. He accepted our response. It's only the response to Tim's comments that haven't been ack'd ←
15:58:17 <sandro> Arnaud: I think that means we're okay.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think that means we're okay. ←
15:58:20 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:58:55 <sandro> ericP: procedurally we're okay. And I have the impression Tim's okay if we try in good faith to do the 2xx.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: procedurally we're okay. And I have the impression Tim's okay if we try in good faith to do the 2xx. ←
15:59:44 <sandro> Arnaud: the main point is to make sure we're not ignoring commenters, and we're not ignoring Tim's.
Arnaud Le Hors: the main point is to make sure we're not ignoring commenters, and we're not ignoring Tim's. ←
15:59:50 <sandro> Arnaud: so I think we're okay.
Arnaud Le Hors: so I think we're okay. ←
16:00:00 <sandro> topic: Next F2F
16:00:13 <sandro> Mid April, location not chosen.
Mid April, location not chosen. ←
16:00:21 <sandro> MIT volunteers. anyone else?
MIT volunteers. anyone else? ←
16:00:47 <sandro> Arnaud: IBM Toronto might work.
Arnaud Le Hors: IBM Toronto might work. ←
16:00:57 <sandro> Arnaud: Do people want to go there?
Arnaud Le Hors: Do people want to go there? ←
16:01:02 <Ashok> I'm happy with MIT
Ashok Malhotra: I'm happy with MIT ←
16:01:23 <sandro> Arnaud: Raleigh and NYC have been offered, but don't seem to be the first choice.
Arnaud Le Hors: Raleigh and NYC have been offered, but don't seem to be the first choice. ←
16:01:47 <bblfish> Toronto could be interesting
Henry Story: Toronto could be interesting ←
16:01:58 <sandro> Arnaud: skipping status updates on other spec
Arnaud Le Hors: skipping status updates on other spec ←
16:02:10 <sandro> topic: Stable Paging
16:02:39 <sandro> Arnaud: sandro asking me first. :-) he says lossy paging sucks....
Arnaud Le Hors: sandro asking me first. :-) he says lossy paging sucks.... ←
16:03:05 <sandro> Arnaud: One possibility is to add something as at risk.
Arnaud Le Hors: One possibility is to add something as at risk. ←
16:03:06 <Zakim> -Ashok
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok ←
16:03:28 <sandro> Arnaud: That lets us pull something out of the spec later, without retreating along the process.
Arnaud Le Hors: That lets us pull something out of the spec later, without retreating along the process. ←
16:03:52 <sandro> .. we cannot add something like this later without coming back to LC. But we can add it, at risk, then take it out if it doesn't pan out.
.. we cannot add something like this later without coming back to LC. But we can add it, at risk, then take it out if it doesn't pan out. ←
16:03:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:04:08 <sandro> .. so it's easier to put it in now, kind of like putting our foot in the door.
.. so it's easier to put it in now, kind of like putting our foot in the door. ←
16:04:18 <Ashok> zakim, IPcaller is me
Ashok Malhotra: zakim, IPcaller is me ←
16:04:18 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok; got it ←
16:04:33 <SteveS> scribe: SteveS
(Scribe set to Steve Speicher)
16:05:28 <SteveS> sandro: Discussion around a twitter-like service that sends out updates and can't use the paging if lossly, so can't use LDP paging
Sandro Hawke: Discussion around a twitter-like service that sends out updates and can't use the paging if lossy, so can't use LDP paging ←
16:06:14 <SteveS> sandro: have proposal for stable paging, JohnArwe suggested boundary paging
Sandro Hawke: have proposal for stable paging, JohnArwe suggested boundary paging ←
16:06:39 <ericP> ack em
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack em ←
16:06:57 <SteveS> sandro: proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0045.html
Sandro Hawke: proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0045.html ←
16:07:27 <ericP> ack mew
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack mew ←
16:07:29 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
16:07:53 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
16:08:40 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
16:09:05 <SteveS> can't hear Ashok
can't hear Ashok ←
16:09:08 <JohnArwe> ashok breaking up much worse than normal
John Arwe: ashok breaking up much worse than normal ←
16:09:19 <SteveS> Ashok, can you type your question?
Ashok, can you type your question? ←
16:09:22 <JohnArwe> sounds like a reverb grabbing mic
John Arwe: sounds like a reverb grabbing mic ←
16:09:22 <bblfish> yes, can't hear you Ashok
Henry Story: yes, can't hear you Ashok ←
16:09:33 <Ashok> It's worth pointing out that page sizes will change
Ashok Malhotra: It's worth pointing out that page sizes will change ←
16:09:47 <Ashok> ... some might object to that
Ashok Malhotra: ... some might object to that ←
16:10:13 <SteveS> Arnaud: thinks that is ok
Arnaud Le Hors: thinks that is ok ←
16:10:22 <JohnArwe> Variable page sizes are CRITICAL for UI clients
John Arwe: Variable page sizes are CRITICAL for UI clients ←
16:10:38 <SteveS> Ashok: concern that on limited devices the page size matters
Ashok Malhotra: concern that on limited devices the page size matters ←
16:11:24 <ericP> you can also add the too-manyeth resource to a new page which is injected into the page sequence
Eric Prud'hommeaux: you can also add the too-manyeth resource to a new page which is injected into the page sequence ←
16:11:30 <SteveS> sandro: could be that page sizes could be adjusted per server and vary for requests
Sandro Hawke: could be that page sizes could be adjusted per server and vary for requests ←
16:11:47 <ericP> the cost is an extra round trip, but you never lose resources
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the cost is an extra round trip, but you never lose resources ←
16:12:57 <SteveS> JohnArwe: we have done something like this within OSLC, which has come up with pagination need and then have a syndication feed for changes in the Tracked Resource Set specificiation
John Arwe: we have done something like this within OSLC, which has come up with pagination need and then have a syndication feed for changes in the Tracked Resource Set specificiation ←
16:13:21 <SteveS> TRS spec http://open-services.net/wiki/core/TrackedResourceSet-2.0/
TRS spec http://open-services.net/wiki/core/TrackedResourceSet-2.0/ ←
16:14:10 <SteveS> sandro: has a way of signaling that needs to reset by sending 410 gone on a stale page request
Sandro Hawke: has a way of signaling that needs to reset by sending 410 gone on a stale page request ←
16:15:12 <SteveS> Arnaud: seems like a way to inform the client of failure, instead of going silent
Arnaud Le Hors: seems like a way to inform the client of failure, instead of going silent ←
16:16:02 <SteveS> JohnArwe: thought the 410 was optional and clients could continue to move along the pages
John Arwe: thought the 410 was optional and clients could continue to move along the pages ←
16:16:18 <SteveS> sandro: when server uses 410 it makes sure the client isn't getting the wrong thing
Sandro Hawke: when server uses 410 it makes sure the client isn't getting the wrong thing ←
16:17:57 <SteveS> JohnArwe: it would be good for a client could say which kind of paging it wants, lossy or not
John Arwe: it would be good for a client could say which kind of paging it wants, lossy or not ←
16:18:06 <SteveS> s/lossly/lossy/
16:18:34 <SteveS> sandro: could use a Prefer header for client to tell server it could do a lower cost paging model if it wants
Sandro Hawke: could use a Prefer header for client to tell server it could do a lower cost paging model if it wants ←
16:19:00 <JohnArwe> wrt the 410: from sandro's email I had the impression 410 was required in all cases, when he was talking it sounded more optional. The difference turns out to be how much the server is willing to spend on it.
John Arwe: wrt the 410: from sandro's email I had the impression 410 was required in all cases, when he was talking it sounded more optional. The difference turns out to be how much the server is willing to spend on it. ←
16:20:39 <SteveS> sandro: think we need a header to indicate which page we are paging
Sandro Hawke: think we need a header to indicate which page we are paging ←
16:21:09 <SteveS> JohnArwe: we originally talked about this, discussion about using rel='collection' as well
John Arwe: we originally talked about this, discussion about using rel='collection' as well ←
16:22:03 <SteveS> sandro: not sure that is the right header but think something like 'pageOf' esp in the case of 303
Sandro Hawke: not sure that is the right header but think something like 'pageOf' esp in the case of 303 ←
16:22:49 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
16:23:06 <bblfish> I have not implemented paging, so I think it makes sense to postpone it. Many others may not have implement it.
Henry Story: I have not implemented paging, so I think it makes sense to postpone it. Many others may not have implement it. ←
16:23:07 <SteveS> sandro: proposes teasing out the paging stuff into a separate spec or note to make sure we cover the non-lossy cases and get it right
Sandro Hawke: proposes teasing out the paging stuff into a separate spec or note to make sure we cover the non-lossy cases and get it right ←
16:23:15 <codyburleson> +1 (to move paging outside of core LDP)
Cody Burleson: +1 (to move paging outside of core LDP) ←
16:23:46 <bblfish> that would also allow the paging to be in sync with a 209 so
Henry Story: that would also allow the paging to be in sync with a 209 so ←
16:23:54 <bblfish> :-) LDP = Linked Data Paging
Henry Story: :-) LDP = Linked Data Paging ←
16:24:33 <SteveS> ...having it LDP could move ahead and paging spec could lag behind
...having it LDP could move ahead and paging spec could lag behind ←
16:25:02 <codyburleson> Linked Data Paging would have acronym LDP, which would interfere with our own acronym. Are you talking about Linked Data Platform or Linked Data Paging?
Cody Burleson: Linked Data Paging would have acronym LDP, which would interfere with our own acronym. Are you talking about Linked Data Platform or Linked Data Paging? ←
16:27:40 <SteveS> SteveS: would have to also tease out the container sort/ordering stuff as it is associated with paging
Steve Speicher: would have to also tease out the container sort/ordering stuff as it is associated with paging ←
16:27:47 <ericP> q+ to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues ←
16:27:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: move out paging and ordering into a separate spec
PROPOSED: move out paging and ordering into a separate spec ←
16:28:03 <bblfish> +1 makes sense to me.
Henry Story: +1 makes sense to me. ←
16:28:05 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
16:28:21 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:28:45 <codyburleson> +1 (the last edit already introduced the idea of add-on modules to the spec, I think)
Cody Burleson: +1 (the last edit already introduced the idea of add-on modules to the spec, I think) ←
16:28:47 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
16:28:56 <JohnArwe> +0.5 seems right, just more work for moi :-(
John Arwe: +0.5 seems right, just more work for moi :-( ←
16:29:27 <SteveS> +0.3 indifferent, not a bad idea...fixes things and breaks things
+0.3 indifferent, not a bad idea...fixes things and breaks things ←
16:29:38 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
16:29:45 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
16:29:59 <codyburleson> My team says "Paging and ordering need several changes."
Cody Burleson: My team says "Paging and ordering need several changes." ←
16:30:40 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Move out paging and ordering into a separate spec
RESOLVED: Move out paging and ordering into a separate spec ←
16:30:53 <codyburleson> (don't have details yet, sorry. Just quoting.)
Cody Burleson: (don't have details yet, sorry. Just quoting.) ←
16:31:07 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
16:31:08 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues ←
16:31:13 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
16:31:15 <SteveS> ACTION on Arnaud Create separate LDP-Paging specification
ACTION on Arnaud Create separate LDP-Paging specification ←
16:31:15 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>. ←
16:32:22 <SteveS> ericP: client needs to be able to demand to the server stable paging and adding headers after LDP, can we enforce it?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: client needs to be able to demand to the server stable paging and adding headers after LDP, can we enforce it? ←
16:33:10 <SteveS> Arnaud: it would be a different status code and would be good to delay until 2xx new code could come available
Arnaud Le Hors: it would be a different status code and would be good to delay until 2xx new code could come available ←
16:34:32 <SteveS> sandro: servers only do paging if clients prefer, which would mean clients would request it
Sandro Hawke: servers only do paging if clients prefer, which would mean clients would request it ←
16:35:05 <bblfish> no to, LDP user agetn strings! ( I suppose that was a joke )
Henry Story: no to LDP user agetn strings! ( I suppose that was a joke ) ←
16:35:24 <bblfish> s/no to,/no to/
16:35:27 <SteveS> Arnaud: prefer header is optional, so servers could decide on its own to return a page
Arnaud Le Hors: prefer header is optional, so servers could decide on its own to return a page ←
16:35:29 <JohnArwe> +1 bblfish == -1 user-agent strings
John Arwe: +1 bblfish == -1 user-agent strings ←
16:35:45 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:35:51 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:36:32 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:36:53 <SteveS> bblfish: thinks factoring out is a good idea even with the issue of server-initiated paying and clients not supporting paging
Henry Story: thinks factoring out is a good idea even with the issue of server-initiated paying and clients not supporting paging ←
16:38:06 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:38:13 <sandro> hit the wrong button
Sandro Hawke: hit the wrong button ←
16:38:25 <sandro> we can have a normative referecne going back one stage. we can try that, and put that at risk.
Sandro Hawke: we can have a normative referecne going back one stage. we can try that, and put that at risk. ←
16:38:28 <SteveS> sandro: notices there are no client MUSTs on paging, think we could add some normative language
Sandro Hawke: notices there are no client MUSTs on paging, think we could add some normative language ←
16:39:12 <sandro> (cant get back in since we're over time)
Sandro Hawke: (cant get back in since we're over time) ←
16:39:19 <Arnaud> yes, we expected that...
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, we expected that... ←
16:40:10 <SteveS> Arnaud: suggests editor to add "these are not the droids you are looking for" clause
Arnaud Le Hors: suggests editor to add "these are not the droids you are looking for" clause ←
16:40:22 <SteveS> ...but look at these
...but look at these ←
16:40:48 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:40:48 <SteveS> Arnaud: adjourns
Arnaud Le Hors: adjourns ←
16:41:52 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:42:40 <Zakim> -Ashok
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok ←
16:52:35 <Zakim> -codyburleson
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
16:55:12 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
17:02:12 <Zakim> -bblfish
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
17:02:14 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
17:02:16 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
17:02:16 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger, codyburleson, Ashok, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger, codyburleson, Ashok, ericP ←
Formatted by CommonScribe