13:00:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-irc ←
13:00:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:00:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:00:23 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot ←
13:00:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:00:24 <trackbot> Date: 15 April 2014
13:00:52 <Arnaud> zakim, room for 10 for 10 hours
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, room for 10 for 10 hours ←
13:00:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'room for 10 for 10 hours', Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'room for 10 for 10 hours', Arnaud ←
13:01:12 <Arnaud> zakim, room for 10 for 10h
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, room for 10 for 10h ←
13:01:12 <Zakim> I don't understand 'room for 10 for 10h', Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'room for 10 for 10h', Arnaud ←
13:01:58 <Arnaud> zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes ←
13:01:58 <Zakim> I don't understand 'room for 10 for 600 minutes', Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'room for 10 for 600 minutes', Arnaud ←
13:03:50 <sandro> Zakim, room for 10 people for 600 minutes?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, room for 10 people for 600 minutes? ←
13:03:51 <Zakim> ok, sandro; conference Team_(ldp)13:03Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 2303Z
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; conference Team_(ldp)13:03Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 2303Z ←
13:04:26 <Zakim> Team_(ldp)13:03Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(ldp)13:03Z has now started ←
13:04:33 <Zakim> + +1.617.715.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.715.aaaa ←
13:05:20 <sergio> guys, I cannot be all time connected by phone, at least today
Sergio Fernández: guys, I cannot be all time connected by phone, at least today ←
13:05:26 <sergio> so ping me if you need somethign from me
Sergio Fernández: so ping me if you need somethign from me ←
13:05:43 <Arnaud> hi everyone
Arnaud Le Hors: hi everyone ←
13:05:44 <sergio> I'll try to connect for tomorrow and the test cases slot
Sergio Fernández: I'll try to connect for tomorrow and the test cases slot ←
13:05:50 <Arnaud> we're still getting set up here
Arnaud Le Hors: we're still getting set up here ←
13:06:23 <sergio> ok
Sergio Fernández: ok ←
13:07:18 <Arnaud> we forgot to reserve the phone bridge so the code is 26631 instead of the usual ldpwg
Arnaud Le Hors: we forgot to reserve the phone bridge so the code is 26631 instead of the usual ldpwg ←
13:07:49 <Arnaud> Arnaud has changed the topic to: Teleconference code is 26631 (CONF1)!! LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F5#Agenda
Arnaud Le Hors: Arnaud has changed the topic to: Teleconference code is 26631 (CONF1)!! LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F5#Agenda ←
13:14:34 <sandro> video link for meeting -- http://bit.ly/swa-hangout
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: video link for meeting -- http://bit.ly/swa-hangout ←
13:16:24 <betehess> scribenick: Alexandre
(Scribe set to Alexandre Bertails)
13:16:31 <betehess> scribenick: betehess
13:16:37 <betehess> scribe: Alexandre
<betehess> guest: Tim (timbl) Berners-Lee, W3C
<betehess> Present: betehess, deiu, arnaud, ashok, cody, ericp, johnarwe, MiguelAraCo, nmihindu, roger, sandro, sergio, steves, tallted
<betehess> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F5#Day_1_-_Tuesday_April_15
<betehess> chair: Arnaud
<betehess> topic: Welcome, logistics, recap of meeting goals, agenda amendments.
13:19:46 <betehess> Arnaud: got a request from nandana to move the Primer
Arnaud Le Hors: got a request from nandana to move the Primer ←
13:20:06 <betehess> ... so I swapped Primer and BP
... so I swapped Primer and BP ←
13:20:26 <betehess> ... let's get started
... let's get started ←
13:20:29 <betehess> ... want to talk where we are
... want to talk where we are ←
13:20:35 <betehess> ... finished 2 LC period
... finished 2 LC period ←
13:20:41 <betehess> ... few comments, not too many
... few comments, not too many ←
13:20:48 <betehess> ... we have to dispose of them properly
... we have to dispose of them properly ←
13:21:09 <betehess> ... be prepared for the review w/ w3c management for later phases
... be prepared for the review w/ w3c management for later phases ←
13:21:15 <betehess> ... comments are part of the review
... comments are part of the review ←
13:21:26 <betehess> ... good to have some comments: people have looked at it!
... good to have some comments: people have looked at it! ←
13:21:49 <betehess> ... we do best effort to satisfy the comments
... we do best effort to satisfy the comments ←
13:21:55 <betehess> ... a bit confused with the tracker
... a bit confused with the tracker ←
13:22:10 <betehess> ... I forward the comments to the list but they don't appear in the tracker
... I forward the comments to the list but they don't appear in the tracker ←
13:22:47 <betehess> ... need a plan for addressing the comments before leaving the meeting
... need a plan for addressing the comments before leaving the meeting ←
13:22:55 <betehess> ... I was at WWW last week
... I was at WWW last week ←
13:23:06 <betehess> ... *many* people came to me to ask me the status of the spec
... *many* people came to me to ask me the status of the spec ←
13:23:15 <betehess> ... the community is waiting for me
... the community is waiting for it ←
13:23:26 <betehess> s/for me/for it/
13:23:38 <betehess> ... we split the spec
... we split the spec ←
13:23:46 <betehess> ... and make sure everybody wants it
... and make sure everybody wants it ←
13:24:07 <betehess> ... UC&R was republished as a Notee
... UC&R was republished as a Note ←
13:24:12 <betehess> s/Notee/Note/
13:24:26 <betehess> ... we won't talk about it unless you ask
... we won't talk about it unless you ask ←
13:24:37 <betehess> ... test suite and validator will be important for CR
... test suite and validator will be important for CR ←
13:24:42 <betehess> ... so we'll spend time on it
... so we'll spend time on it ←
13:24:51 <betehess> ... we have to show the spec can be implemented
... we have to show the spec can be implemented ←
13:25:10 <betehess> ... Access Control WG Note: there will be 1 hour
... Access Control WG Note: there will be 1 hour ←
13:25:17 <betehess> ... it was part of the Charter
... it was part of the Charter ←
13:25:27 <betehess> ... we may not do it, just have to explain
... we may not do it, just have to explain ←
13:25:54 <betehess> ... BP&R was not in charter but we have moved some stuff there
... BP&R was not in charter but we have moved some stuff there ←
13:26:01 <betehess> ... Primer is important
... Primer is important ←
13:26:15 <betehess> ... part of the feedback I had was about readibility of spec
... part of the feedback I had was about readibility of spec ←
13:26:27 <betehess> ... so the Primer is key
... so the Primer is key ←
13:26:33 <betehess> ... and then, what's next?
... and then, what's next? ←
13:26:56 <betehess> ... we had a request from W3C to know if we'll meet at TPAC
... we had a request from W3C to know if we'll meet at TPAC ←
13:27:05 <betehess> ... end of WG supposed to be in June
... end of WG supposed to be in June ←
13:27:12 <betehess> ... don't we'll be done in June
... don't we'll be done in June ←
13:27:18 <betehess> ... at best, we're in PR
... at best, we're in PR ←
13:27:29 <betehess> ... which means we're pretty much done
... which means we're pretty much done ←
13:27:45 <betehess> ... but we have to stick around, (like 2 months) just in case there are comments
... but we have to stick around, (like 2 months) just in case there are comments ←
13:27:53 <betehess> ... extension would be under same charter
... extension would be under same charter ←
13:28:02 <betehess> ... but the group may want to continue the work
... but the group may want to continue the work ←
13:28:10 <betehess> ... then there would be a _new_ charter
... then there would be a _new_ charter ←
13:28:32 <betehess> ... we have a page for wishlist for LDP Next
... we have a page for wishlist for LDP Next ←
13:28:42 <betehess> ... so we'll discuss what we want
... so we'll discuss what we want ←
13:28:58 <betehess> ... W3C needs to allocate resources, based on what's in the charter
... W3C needs to allocate resources, based on what's in the charter ←
13:29:12 <betehess> ... succeeding with the first charter is the best way to get another one ;-)
... succeeding with the first charter is the best way to get another one ;-) ←
13:29:36 <betehess> ... last but not least: Patch format
... last but not least: Patch format ←
13:29:37 <nmihindu> Zakim, what's the code?
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, what's the code? ←
13:29:37 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nmihindu ←
13:29:46 <betehess> ... the spec says you have to use Patch
... the spec says you have to use Patch ←
13:29:51 <betehess> ... but we don't say how
... but we don't say how ←
13:30:00 <betehess> ... we created a separate ML
... we created a separate ML ←
13:30:07 <betehess> ... had some mails, but not much
... had some mails, but not much ←
13:30:17 <betehess> ... hope we can have a resultion on that
... hope we can have a resultion on that ←
13:30:28 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
13:30:38 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
13:30:38 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
13:30:59 <nmihindu> thank you very much
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: thank you very much ←
13:31:02 <betehess> SteveS: ericP will participate to the Patch conversation
Steve Speicher: ericP will participate to the Patch conversation ←
13:31:04 <JohnArwe> if you're speaking nandana, we're not hearing you, fyi
John Arwe: if you're speaking nandana, we're not hearing you, fyi ←
13:31:12 <SteveS> from F2F5 wiki: “ericP (though I can attend occasionally, possibly for patch)”
Steve Speicher: from F2F5 wiki: “ericP (though I can attend occasionally, possibly for patch)” ←
13:31:39 <nmihindu> JohnArwe, I am trying to fix the mic, please move on.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: JohnArwe, I am trying to fix the mic, please move on. ←
13:31:42 <betehess> Arnaud: people were interested in interop testing
Arnaud Le Hors: people were interested in interop testing ←
13:31:50 <betehess> ... don't know how feasible it is
... don't know how feasible it is ←
13:31:58 <betehess> ... last afternoon is dedicated to doing that
... last afternoon is dedicated to doing that ←
13:32:08 <betehess> ... not sure how we'll make it happen
... not sure how we'll make it happen ←
13:32:23 <betehess> ... if there is any prep before we do it, please let me know
... if there is any prep before we do it, please let me know ←
13:33:26 <betehess> ... based on the discussions we'll have, I won't hesitate to shrink/extend time on some subjects
... based on the discussions we'll have, I won't hesitate to shrink/extend time on some subjects ←
13:33:56 <betehess> sandro: btw, the catering is provided by @@
Sandro Hawke: btw, the catering is provided by QCRI ←
13:34:02 <betehess> s/@@/QCRI/
13:34:29 <betehess> Arnaud: thank you
Arnaud Le Hors: thank you ←
13:34:43 <betehess> ... hard to know how much time we'll need
... hard to know how much time we'll need ←
13:35:14 <betehess> SteveS: was wondering haw many people we'll have implementations
Steve Speicher: was wondering haw many people we'll have implementations ←
13:35:26 <betehess> Arnaud: around 4?
Arnaud Le Hors: around 4? ←
13:35:35 <betehess> TallTed: all servers I guess
Ted Thibodeau: all servers I guess ←
13:35:58 <betehess> deiu: have a client as well
Andrei Sambra: have a client as well ←
13:36:09 <betehess> TallTed: curl is test suite, it's not interop
Ted Thibodeau: curl is test suite, it's not interop ←
13:36:18 <betehess> sandro: it's an alternative
Sandro Hawke: it's an alternative ←
13:36:25 <betehess> Arnaud: ok I see the point
Arnaud Le Hors: ok I see the point ←
13:36:53 <betehess> TallTed: I don't consider curl as an LDP client
Ted Thibodeau: I don't consider curl as an LDP client ←
13:37:14 <betehess> Arnaud: ok, let's just call it "testing"
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, let's just call it "testing" ←
13:37:33 <betehess> ... interop is reached when you can replace a component with another one
... interop is reached when you can replace a component with another one ←
13:37:47 <betehess> topic: LDP Specification
13:38:33 <deiu> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/
Andrei Sambra: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/ ←
13:39:49 <TallTed> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/
Ted Thibodeau: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ ←
13:40:02 <TallTed> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/
Ted Thibodeau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldp-20140311/ ←
13:40:32 <codyburleson> Do we need to engage the teleconference bridge? Right now, +1-617-761-6200, conf. code 53794#, returns "This passcode is not valid."
Cody Burleson: Do we need to engage the teleconference bridge? Right now, +1-617-761-6200, conf. code 53794#, returns "This passcode is not valid." ←
13:41:00 <sandro> codyburleson...
Sandro Hawke: codyburleson... ←
13:41:04 <sandro> Zakim, what is the code?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, what is the code? ←
13:41:04 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sandro ←
13:41:41 <sandro> codyburleson, code is 26631 for today, and there's a video-only link http://bit.ly/swa-hangout
Sandro Hawke: codyburleson, code is 26631 for today, and there's a video-only link http://bit.ly/swa-hangout ←
13:41:47 <betehess> Arnaud: trying to figure out how the tracker works
Arnaud Le Hors: trying to figure out how the tracker works ←
13:42:09 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Teleconference code is 26631 (CONF1)!! LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F5#Agenda VIDEO: http://bit.ly/swa-hangout
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: Teleconference code is 26631 (CONF1)!! LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F5#Agenda VIDEO: http://bit.ly/swa-hangout ←
13:43:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
13:43:32 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPcaller is me. ←
13:43:32 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
13:47:07 <betehess> Arnaud: there were 2 comments from Reto
Arnaud Le Hors: there were 2 comments from Reto ←
13:47:15 <betehess> ... one about multiple named graphs
... one about multiple named graphs ←
13:47:21 <betehess> ... thanks betehess for one!
... thanks betehess for that one! ←
13:47:28 <betehess> s/one/that one/
13:47:35 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Mar/
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Mar/ ←
13:47:51 <betehess> ... and then the null relative URI "hack"
... and then the null relative URI "hack" ←
13:48:00 <betehess> ... and then there is an extra one
... and then there is an extra one ←
13:48:05 <betehess> ... an issue we have to fix
... an issue we have to fix ←
13:48:14 <betehess> ... brought up by sergio
... brought up by sergio ←
13:48:29 <betehess> ... there is a problem with the use of the rel=describedBy header
... there is a problem with the use of the rel=describedby header ←
13:48:34 <betehess> ... for 2 different things
... for 2 different things ←
13:48:52 <betehess> s/describedBy/describedby/
13:52:14 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0037.html
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0037.html ←
13:52:32 <MiguelAraCo> Zakim, MiguelAraCo is with codyburleson
Miguel Aragón: Zakim, MiguelAraCo is with codyburleson ←
13:52:32 <Zakim> +MiguelAraCo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MiguelAraCo; got it ←
13:52:57 <betehess> Arnaud: does anybody have anything to add?
Arnaud Le Hors: does anybody have anything to add? ←
13:53:15 <betehess> SteveS: had a comment about @@ needing more clarity
Steve Speicher: had a comment about implementation feedback needing more clarity ←
13:53:39 <betehess> Arnaud: people need to forward comments to the list
Arnaud Le Hors: people need to forward comments to the list ←
13:53:43 <SteveS> s/@@/implementation feedback/
13:53:43 <betehess> ... so that we can track them
... so that we can track them ←
13:54:35 <betehess> sandro: external comments are still important for reviews
Sandro Hawke: external comments are still important for reviews ←
13:54:56 <betehess> Arnaud: let's agree we have 1 issue and 2 comments
Arnaud Le Hors: let's agree we have 1 issue and 2 comments ←
13:55:10 <betehess> ... and we need to make sure we have done the same for comments from 1st LC
... and we need to make sure we have done the same for comments from 1st LC ←
13:55:48 <betehess> ... timbl's comments are marked as ?? but we are in an ongoing discussion with him
... timbl's comments are marked as ?? but we are in an ongoing discussion with him ←
13:56:17 <betehess> ... mark baker said he's fine with the improvements we made
... mark baker said he's fine with the improvements we made ←
13:57:15 <betehess> ... are we in good share re: comments? do we need to do more?
... are we in good share re: comments? do we need to do more? ←
13:58:05 <betehess> ... note that we haven't had a real answer from timbl
... note that we haven't had a real answer from timbl ←
13:58:26 <betehess> ... and there is a comment not really addressed
... and there is a comment not really addressed ←
13:58:41 <betehess> sandro: timbl may join us 1 hour, we can ask at this point
Sandro Hawke: timbl may join us 1 hour, we can ask at this point ←
13:59:07 <betehess> ... in good shape? would be good to have more feedbacks from implementers
... in good shape? would be good to have more feedbacks from implementers ←
13:59:14 <betehess> ... having that by email is better
... having that by email is better ←
13:59:37 <betehess> Arnaud: Q for editors:
Arnaud Le Hors: Q for editors: ←
13:59:43 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2840
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2840 ←
14:00:26 <betehess> [[ 4.1 "burden of constraints for resource creation" - I feel that phrase needs more explanation ]]
[[ 4.1 "burden of constraints for resource creation" - I feel that phrase needs more explanation ]] ←
14:00:40 <betehess> JohnArwe: still part of the spec
John Arwe: still part of the spec ←
14:01:38 <betehess> TallTed: the question is "what do you mean?"
Ted Thibodeau: the question is "what do you mean?" ←
14:01:47 <betehess> ... not clear at first read
... not clear at first read ←
14:02:39 <betehess> [ people discussing possible resolutions ]
[ people discussing possible resolutions ] ←
14:05:22 <betehess> sandro: how about: how can the server make it easy for the client to create resources?
Sandro Hawke: how about: how can the server make it easy for the client to create resources? ←
14:05:32 <betehess> Arnaud: sounds nice
Arnaud Le Hors: sounds nice ←
14:05:40 <betehess> ... do we agree?
... do we agree? ←
14:05:51 <betehess> ... with editorial change?
... with editorial change? ←
14:06:14 <betehess> ... would allow us to dispose of that pending comment
... would allow us to dispose of that pending comment ←
14:06:15 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:06:19 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
14:06:23 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
14:06:23 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
14:06:26 <betehess> ... I don't hear objections
... I don't hear objections ←
14:06:33 <sandro> +1 :-)
Sandro Hawke: +1 :-) ←
14:07:31 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
<betehess> subtopic: Null relative URIs comment
14:10:16 <betehess> Arnaud: now we start with the null relative URIs hack comment
Arnaud Le Hors: now we start with the null relative URIs hack comment ←
14:10:45 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:10:56 <betehess> ... let's try restate what the issue is
... let's try restate what the issue is ←
14:11:01 <betehess> ... when we create a resource
... when we create a resource ←
14:11:04 <betehess> ... we send some RDF
... we send some RDF ←
14:11:07 <sandro> action-137?
14:11:07 <trackbot> action-137 -- Sandro Hawke to Contact yves and erik to make confirm with them that http-wg is okay with this reading of the link context -- due 2014-04-07 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-137 -- Sandro Hawke to Contact yves and erik to make confirm with them that http-wg is okay with this reading of the link context -- due 2014-04-07 -- OPEN ←
14:11:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/137
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/137 ←
14:11:18 <betehess> ... at that time, we don't know what the url of the resource will be
... at that time, we don't know what the url of the resource will be ←
14:11:24 <betehess> ... so we use the null relative uri
... so we use the null relative uri ←
14:11:30 <betehess> ... and everything is relative to it
... and everything is relative to it ←
14:11:47 <betehess> ... comment says: doesn't exist in RDF
... comment says: doesn't exist in RDF ←
14:11:57 <betehess> ... as RDF does not support this notion
... as RDF does not support this notion ←
14:12:10 <betehess> ... alternative is the client know the url before posting
... alternative is the client know the url before posting ←
14:12:19 <betehess> ... so there are 2 steps
... so there are 2 steps ←
14:12:33 <betehess> JohnArwe: there are other solutions
John Arwe: there are other solutions ←
14:12:40 <betehess> ... could have a placeholder
... could have a placeholder ←
14:12:51 <betehess> ... eg using a header to specify a place holder
... eg using a header to specify a place holder ←
14:13:16 <betehess> Arnaud: this was presented as an alternative
Arnaud Le Hors: this was presented as an alternative ←
14:13:58 <betehess> sandro: it's not a bnode, it's a node uri
Sandro Hawke: it's not a bnode, it's a node uri ←
14:14:08 <betehess> TallTed: it behaves like it
Ted Thibodeau: it behaves like it ←
14:14:17 <betehess> q+
q+ ←
14:14:51 <betehess> Ashok: RDF does not have the concept, can we fix it?
Ashok Malhotra: RDF does not have the concept, can we fix it? ←
14:15:05 <betehess> sandro: we can use relative graphs, not rdf graphs
Sandro Hawke: we can use relative graphs, not rdf graphs ←
14:15:16 <betehess> Arnaud: hold on
Arnaud Le Hors: hold on ←
14:15:27 <betehess> ... this was proposed as alternatives
... this was proposed as alternatives ←
14:15:51 <betehess> JohnArwe: you need to specify uri for the placeholder
John Arwe: you need to specify uri for the placeholder ←
14:16:26 <betehess> betehess: then the graphs are not isomorphic
Alexandre Bertails: then the graphs are not isomorphic ←
14:17:00 <betehess> Arnaud: issues is coming from people using libraries without relative uris
Arnaud Le Hors: issues is coming from people using libraries without relative uris ←
14:17:31 <betehess> ... people claim their tools don't support it
... people claim their tools don't support it ←
14:17:55 <betehess> TallTed: if the problem is the library, go fix the library
Ted Thibodeau: if the problem is the library, go fix the library ←
14:18:03 <betehess> q+
q+ ←
14:18:06 <ericP> RDF doesn't support it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: RDF doesn't support it ←
14:18:21 <ericP> i'd like it to, but RDF is all about absolute URIs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'd like it to, but RDF is all about absolute URIs ←
14:18:33 <betehess> Arnaud: RDF does not support it, my tools don't support it, what can I do?
Arnaud Le Hors: RDF does not support it, my tools don't support it, what can I do? ←
14:19:07 <betehess> ... one possible response: LDP uses Turtle, which support rel uris
... one possible response: LDP uses Turtle, which support rel uris ←
14:20:05 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
14:20:12 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
14:20:41 <deiu> betehess: I reported this issue a long time ago, saying that by changing from RDF mediatypes to something new (eg. application/ld) would help
Alexandre Bertails: I reported this issue a long time ago, saying that by changing from RDF mediatypes to something new (eg. application/ld) would help [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
14:21:07 <deiu> ... we can add something to the recs, telling the RDF processor to use a special namespace for the relative URIs and then you do the interpretation
Andrei Sambra: ... we can add something to the recs, telling the RDF processor to use a special namespace for the relative URIs and then you do the interpretation ←
14:21:17 <deiu> ... this is a way to deal with libs that don't support relative URIs
Andrei Sambra: ... this is a way to deal with libs that don't support relative URIs ←
14:21:23 <deiu> sandro: I don't understand
Sandro Hawke: I don't understand [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
14:21:44 <deiu> ... the client has no way to construct a turtle serialization
Andrei Sambra: ... the client has no way to construct a turtle serialization ←
14:22:03 <ericP> new URI scheme!
Eric Prud'hommeaux: new URI scheme! ←
14:22:16 <deiu> ... both problems exist, the server has the problem that it cannot properly parse turtle
Andrei Sambra: ... both problems exist, the server has the problem that it cannot properly parse turtle ←
14:22:24 <ericP> client uses a uri scheme which is understood to be changed by the server
Eric Prud'hommeaux: client uses a uri scheme which is understood to be changed by the server ←
14:22:39 <ericP> server, in the worst case, parses twice
Eric Prud'hommeaux: server, in the worst case, parses twice ←
14:23:36 <betehess> Arnaud: several options: either we stick with what we have
Arnaud Le Hors: several options: either we stick with what we have ←
14:23:37 <ericP> could also say that ldp:foo is the base URI
Eric Prud'hommeaux: could also say that ldp:foo is the base URI ←
14:23:38 <deiu> betehess: if you want to actually tell people that it's not exactly RDF we're working with
Alexandre Bertails: if you want to actually tell people that it's not exactly RDF we're working with [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
14:23:44 <betehess> ... we can create a note on relative graphs
... we can create a note on relative graphs ←
14:23:48 <betehess> ... or we just leave it as is
... or we just leave it as is ←
14:24:06 <betehess> ... or we use some placeholder uris that the server can recognize
... or we use some placeholder uris that the server can recognize ←
14:24:23 <betehess> ... or we give some control to the client to choose their own rel uri
... or we give some control to the client to choose their own rel uri ←
14:24:57 <ericP> interesting, we could use the slug for that (or some transform for that)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: interesting, we could use the slug for that (or some transform for that) ←
14:26:33 <betehess> deiu: can't we use the Slug as the placeholder?
Andrei Sambra: can't we use the Slug as the placeholder? ←
14:26:37 <sandro> OPTION 1: When the client wants to post a graph including self-reference, it MUST use the null-relative URI as the reference to itself. We clarify the spec, etc.
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 1: When the client wants to post a graph including self-reference, it MUST use the null-relative URI as the reference to itself. We clarify the spec, etc. ←
14:26:37 <sandro> OPTION 2: When the client wants to post a graph including self-reference, it MUST use some magic URL we pick, eg http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#self
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 2: When the client wants to post a graph including self-reference, it MUST use some magic URL we pick, eg http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#self ←
14:26:37 <sandro> OPTION 3: When the client wants to post a graph including self-reference, it MUST make up some placeholder URI, and tell the server which one it picked using Link: <placeholder URI> rel=selfReferencePlaceholder
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 3: When the client wants to post a graph including self-reference, it MUST make up some placeholder URI, and tell the server which one it picked using Link: <placeholder URI> rel=selfReferencePlaceholder ←
14:26:43 <betehess> TallTed: should not be an http uri
Ted Thibodeau: should not be an http uri ←
14:27:04 <betehess> ... because you don't have control over it, it's a server side thing
... because you don't have control over it, it's a server side thing ←
14:27:53 <ericP> the only requirement for the placeholder URI is that it have a sufficient number of '/'s
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the only requirement for the placeholder URI is that it have a sufficient number of '/'s ←
14:28:04 <betehess> [discussing sandro's options]
[discussing sandro's options] ←
14:30:23 <betehess> sandro: the client doesn't know the future "this" uri, that's the issue
Sandro Hawke: the client doesn't know the future "this" uri, that's the issue ←
14:30:30 <betehess> ... option 1 is what we have in LC right now
... option 1 is what we have in LC right now ←
14:30:47 <betehess> Arnaud: then we'd say "sorry, you have to make it work"
Arnaud Le Hors: then we'd say "sorry, you have to make it work" ←
14:30:58 <betehess> ... other options would require to change the spec
... other options would require to change the spec ←
14:31:23 <betehess> sandro: well processing is different
Sandro Hawke: well processing is different ←
14:32:39 <betehess> ... we'd need to ask every lib to fix that
... we'd need to ask every lib to fix that ←
14:34:04 <betehess> TallTed: which side we're putting the burden on: client or server
Ted Thibodeau: which side we're putting the burden on: client or server ←
14:34:24 <ericP> POST /containers/PeopleAndMovies << { ../foo a foaf:Person }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: POST /containers/PeopleAndMovies << { ../foo a foaf:Person } ←
14:34:38 <betehess> sandro: we may need a Relative Graph Note
Sandro Hawke: we may need a Relative Graph Note ←
14:34:48 <betehess> Ashok: would it be helpful to other people?
Ashok Malhotra: would it be helpful to other people? ←
14:35:02 <ericP> OPTION 1 is probably the easiest to optimize because the server doesn't ever have to crack potentially normalized IRIs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: OPTION 1 is probably the easiest to optimize because the server doesn't ever have to crack potentially normalized IRIs ←
14:35:38 <betehess> Arnaud: honestly, I am not really in favor in making new documents: too much effort
Arnaud Le Hors: honestly, I am not really in favor in making new documents: too much effort ←
14:35:40 <sandro> A "Relative RDF Graph" is hereby defined as being just like an RDF Graph except that IRIs are allowed to be Relative IRIs, not just Absolute IRIs.
Sandro Hawke: A "Relative RDF Graph" is hereby defined as being just like an RDF Graph except that IRIs are allowed to be Relative IRIs, not just Absolute IRIs. ←
14:36:45 <betehess> SteveS: there is always a base
Steve Speicher: there is always a base ←
14:37:01 <betehess> ... meaning the client can communicate the base it wanted
... meaning the client can communicate the base it wanted ←
14:37:11 <betehess> ... there is always some base
... there is always some base ←
14:37:30 <betehess> sandro: what you want is the Turtle serializer to make the graph relative to my own base
Sandro Hawke: what you want is the Turtle serializer to make the graph relative to my own base ←
14:38:05 <sandro> And then we suggest tool makers include this concept in their APIs. EG Turtle serializers should have a way to serialize relative graphs.
Sandro Hawke: And then we suggest tool makers include this concept in their APIs. EG Turtle serializers should have a way to serialize relative graphs. ←
14:38:37 <sandro> sandro: OR, lets just say RDF serializers SHOULD include a base parameter
Sandro Hawke: OR, lets just say RDF serializers SHOULD include a base parameter [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:40:26 <betehess> ericP: betehess and I tried to use Jena back then, had to do some hack
Eric Prud'hommeaux: betehess and I tried to use Jena back then, had to do some hack ←
14:40:46 <betehess> betehess: situation is much better now, a few lines of code to have a proper serializer
Alexandre Bertails: situation is much better now, a few lines of code to have a proper serializer ←
14:41:18 <betehess> sandro: may not speak about the relative graph, just say that we don't know the base
Sandro Hawke: may not speak about the relative graph, just say that we don't know the base ←
14:41:21 <ericP> "The POST or PATCH body may have relative IRIs. These IRIs are relative to the final document location. Note: Systems which parse the input document in order to determine the final document location may need to provide a temporary BASE (RFC3896) for parsing, determine the final document location, and parse the input again with that as the BASE
Eric Prud'hommeaux: "The POST or PATCH body may have relative IRIs. These IRIs are relative to the final document location. Note: Systems which parse the input document in order to determine the final document location may need to provide a temporary BASE (RFC3896) for parsing, determine the final document location, and parse the input again with that as the BASE ←
14:41:27 <ericP> ."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ." ←
14:41:28 <sandro> Sandro: Let's NOT use "Relative RDF Graph", but instead use "Deferred-Base RDF Graph Serialization".
Sandro Hawke: Let's NOT use "Relative RDF Graph", but instead use "Deferred-Base RDF Graph Serialization". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:41:39 <betehess> q+
q+ ←
14:42:00 <sandro> ericP, what are you quoting?
Sandro Hawke: ericP, what are you quoting? ←
14:42:06 <ericP> just proposing
Eric Prud'hommeaux: just proposing ←
14:42:06 <Arnaud> ack bete
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bete ←
14:42:16 <betehess> Arnaud: if we didn't have the LC already, I would push for option 3
Arnaud Le Hors: if we didn't have the LC already, I would push for option 3 ←
14:42:26 <ericP> but you probably have better text already, sandro
Eric Prud'hommeaux: but you probably have better text already, sandro ←
14:42:28 <deiu> betehess: I think we're just trying to make Reto happy
Alexandre Bertails: I think we're just trying to make Reto happy [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
14:42:37 <deiu> ... I've always been thinking of relative graphs
Andrei Sambra: ... I've always been thinking of relative graphs ←
14:42:53 <deiu> ... there is a time when we don't know the URI of the graph
Andrei Sambra: ... there is a time when we don't know the URI of the graph ←
14:43:12 <deiu> ... the LDP spec says the base URI will be chosen by the LDP container, so I don't see any issue
Andrei Sambra: ... the LDP spec says the base URI will be chosen by the LDP container, so I don't see any issue ←
14:43:27 <sergio> guys, not sure if you are still dicussing the issue, but rdflib (python has the base for serilizers: http://rdflib.readthedocs.org/en/latest/apidocs/rdflib.plugins.serializers.html, and probably sesame (java) too:
Sergio Fernández: guys, not sure if you are still dicussing the issue, but rdflib (python has the base for serilizers: http://rdflib.readthedocs.org/en/latest/apidocs/rdflib.plugins.serializers.html, and probably sesame (java) too: ←
14:43:37 <betehess> sandro: problem with rel graph as a concept, it means we have something new to be handled by libraries
Sandro Hawke: problem with rel graph as a concept, it means we have something new to be handled by libraries ←
14:44:15 <JohnArwe> @sergio are you unsure b/c you're having trouble hearing us/
John Arwe: @sergio are you unsure b/c you're having trouble hearing us/ ←
14:44:30 <deiu> betehess: libraries can be fixed today, and we stand to gain a lot more from using relative URIs
Alexandre Bertails: libraries can be fixed today, and we stand to gain a lot more from using relative URIs [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
14:44:39 <sergio> JohnArwe: I'm not connected by phone, sorry
John Arwe: I'm not connected by phone, sorry [ Scribe Assist by Sergio Fernández ] ←
14:44:51 <ericP> i wouldn't call that "fixed". i'd call it "extended".
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i wouldn't call that "fixed". i'd call it "extended". ←
14:45:09 <ericP> pretending otherwise will irk the ire of RDF hackers
Eric Prud'hommeaux: pretending otherwise will irk the ire of RDF hackers ←
14:45:46 <JohnArwe> ah no worries - yes lots of discussion back and forth about value/not of "relative graph" definitions
John Arwe: ah no worries - yes lots of discussion back and forth about value/not of "relative graph" definitions ←
14:46:38 <betehess> sandro: the real question is being able to make a serialization to a certain base
Sandro Hawke: the real question is being able to make a serialization relative to a certain base ←
14:46:43 <sandro> sandro: I don't think defining Relative Graph is a good idea, because it will make Jena, etc, think they should define serializers and parsers for this, would be be a waste.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think defining Relative Graph is a good idea, because it will make Jena, etc, think they should define serializers and parsers for this, would be be a waste. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:46:49 <betehess> s/to a/relative to a/
14:47:02 <sandro> sandro: We want serializers to have a MakeRelativeToThis IRI parameter.
Sandro Hawke: We want serializers to have a MakeRelativeToThis IRI parameter. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:47:56 <sandro> serialize(outputStream, graph, makeRelativeToThis)
Sandro Hawke: serialize(outputStream, graph, makeRelativeToThis) ←
14:48:23 <sandro> and note that servers may need to parse zero, one, or two times, depending on their design.
Sandro Hawke: and note that servers may need to parse zero, one, or two times, depending on their design. ←
14:48:24 <betehess> Arnaud: we have to acknowledge the problem
Arnaud Le Hors: we have to acknowledge the problem ←
14:48:32 <sandro> ... for very reasonable designs.
Sandro Hawke: ... for very reasonable designs. ←
14:48:54 <betehess> ... other people said this is a practical way to handle this situation (cygri, dwoods)
... other people said this is a practical way to handle this situation (cygri, dwoods) ←
14:49:02 <TallTed> TallTed: or rather, we need to be able to tell serializers to make serializations with relative IRIs which refer to that serialization... so s/makeRelativeToThis/makeRelative[ToOutputStream]/
Ted Thibodeau: or rather, we need to be able to tell serializers to make serializations with relative IRIs which refer to that serialization... so s/makeRelativeToThis/makeRelative[ToOutputStream]/ [ Scribe Assist by Ted Thibodeau ] ←
14:49:49 <betehess> sandro: we can add the MakeRelativeToThis thing in best practices
Sandro Hawke: we can add the MakeRelativeToThis thing in best practices ←
14:50:00 <betehess> Arnaud: then we don't do anything in the spec?
Arnaud Le Hors: then we don't do anything in the spec? ←
14:50:13 <betehess> ... would be reasonable to add something
... would be reasonable to add something ←
14:51:10 <betehess> ... the remark was based on how tools work, based on RDF is defined
... the remark was based on how tools work, based on RDF is defined ←
14:51:29 <betehess> sandro: we could link from the spec to uc&r
Sandro Hawke: we could link from the spec to uc&r ←
14:51:46 <JohnArwe> not to uc&r, to best practices
John Arwe: not to uc&r, to best practices ←
14:51:47 <betehess> Ashok: best practices is not normative
Ashok Malhotra: best practices is not normative ←
14:52:00 <betehess> Arnaud: sounds like we're getting to an agreement
Arnaud Le Hors: sounds like we're getting to an agreement ←
14:52:10 <sandro> "For a discussion of implementation issues around the use of relative IRIs during POST operations, see [BP]"
Sandro Hawke: "For a discussion of implementation issues around the use of relative IRIs during POST operations, see [BP]" ←
14:52:19 <sergio> +1
Sergio Fernández: +1 ←
14:52:33 <sergio> I'll try to provide some practical examples of different libs
Sergio Fernández: I'll try to provide some practical examples of different libs ←
14:52:47 <sandro> great, sergio
Sandro Hawke: great, sergio ←
14:52:53 <betehess> PROPOSAL: we stick with the spec, add a pointer to Best Practices, and add an implementation issues relative to this
PROPOSED: we stick with the spec, add a pointer to Best Practices, and add an implementation issues relative to this ←
14:53:19 <betehess> sandro: it'd be an informative dependency
Sandro Hawke: it'd be an informative dependency ←
14:54:04 <SteveS> BP https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html
Steve Speicher: BP https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html ←
14:54:25 <betehess> Arnaud: errr, BP not published yet
Arnaud Le Hors: errr, BP not published yet ←
14:54:44 <betehess> sandro: or we can have a non-normative appendix in main LDP spec
Sandro Hawke: or we can have a non-normative appendix in main LDP spec ←
14:55:26 <sandro> PROPOSAL: We stick with the current null-relative design, and we add a non-normative explanation of how that works, how to do it in some tools, etc, in a footnote, appendix, or (hopefully) BP.
PROPOSED: We stick with the current null-relative design, and we add a non-normative explanation of how that works, how to do it in some tools, etc, in a footnote, appendix, or (hopefully) BP. ←
14:55:43 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
14:55:45 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:55:45 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
14:55:47 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:55:48 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:55:50 <JohnArwe> +1
14:55:51 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
14:55:53 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
14:55:56 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:55:59 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
14:55:59 <ericP> +1 (hope it works)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 (hope it works) ←
14:56:10 <sandro> RESOLVED: We stick with the current null-relative design, and we add a non-normative explanation of how that works, how to do it in some tools, etc, in a footnote, appendix, or (hopefully) BP.
RESOLVED: We stick with the current null-relative design, and we add a non-normative explanation of how that works, how to do it in some tools, etc, in a footnote, appendix, or (hopefully) BP. ←
14:56:12 <sergio> +1
Sergio Fernández: +1 ←
14:56:17 <sergio> (late xD)
Sergio Fernández: (late xD) ←
14:56:32 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
14:56:33 <JohnArwe> @ericp, what part do you think might not work?
John Arwe: @ericp, what part do you think might not work? ←
14:57:11 <ericP> @JohnArwe, can we claim a media type of text/turtle if we don't know the base at the time of transmission?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @JohnArwe, can we claim a media type of text/turtle if we don't know the base at the time of transmission? ←
14:57:39 <ericP> i.e. should the client or an intermediary be able to know what graph was actually transmitted?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i.e. should the client or an intermediary be able to know what graph was actually transmitted? ←
14:57:45 <sandro> So using .. is a Wrost-Practice, UNLESS you know how the Server is assiging URIs.
Sandro Hawke: So using .. is a Wrost-Practice, UNLESS you know how the Server is assiging URIs. ←
14:59:02 <ericP> JohnArwe, you see my issue?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, you see my issue? ←
14:59:41 <ericP> could i, as a client, have an automagically filled cache of stuff-i've-told-the-world?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: could i, as a client, have an automagically filled cache of stuff-i've-told-the-world? ←
15:00:09 <ericP> (probably not a show stopper use case, but does illustrate what goes wrong when you cheat on specs)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (probably not a show stopper use case, but does illustrate what goes wrong when you cheat on specs) ←
15:00:17 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
<betehess> subtopic: Meaning of "../" in relative URIs
15:11:07 <betehess> Arnaud: resuming
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: resuming ←
15:11:33 <betehess> ... during the discussion, somebody brought the ../ "problem"
... during the discussion, somebody brought the ../ "problem" ←
15:11:42 <betehess> ... do we want to allow it? prevent it?
... do we want to allow it? prevent it? ←
15:12:17 <betehess> ... what does it know? you don't know where the document will be
... what does it know? you don't know where the document will be ←
15:12:28 <betehess> q+
q+ ←
15:13:08 <betehess> JohnArwe: it cannot be a reliable way to reference the container
John Arwe: it cannot be a reliable way to reference the container ←
15:13:18 <betehess> Arnaud: or even another resource eg. a sibling
Arnaud Le Hors: or even another resource eg. a sibling ←
15:13:35 <betehess> TallTed: sure
Ted Thibodeau: sure ←
15:13:42 <betehess> ... not necesseraly an issue
... not necesseraly an issue ←
15:14:00 <betehess> ... can have multiple container having multiple paths
... can have multiple container having multiple paths ←
15:16:02 <Arnaud> zakim, who's talking?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's talking? ←
15:16:14 <Zakim> Arnaud, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: nmihindu (45%), +1.617.715.aaaa (20%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Arnaud, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: nmihindu (45%), +1.617.715.aaaa (20%) ←
15:16:23 <Arnaud> zakim, mute nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, mute nmihindu ←
15:16:23 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
15:16:51 <nmihindu> Sorry. I thought I was already muted.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Sorry. I thought I was already muted. ←
15:18:09 <betehess> JohnArwe: interop could be limited
John Arwe: interop could be limited ←
15:18:45 <betehess> sandro: the ../ semantics is implied because of other specs
Sandro Hawke: the ../ semantics is implied because of other specs ←
15:19:39 <betehess> Arnaud: do we want to say something about it in the spec?
Arnaud Le Hors: do we want to say something about it in the spec? ←
15:20:05 <betehess> ... oh, the ../ issue was brought by cygri
... oh, the ../ issue was brought by cygri ←
15:20:16 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2014Mar/0051.html
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2014Mar/0051.html ←
15:20:47 <betehess> ... (may be discussed elsewhere as well)
... (may be discussed elsewhere as well) ←
15:21:00 <betehess> [[
[[ ←
15:21:00 <betehess> Because otherwise, it’ll be even less clear what “/“ or “/foo” or “..” refer to, as it’s unclear whether they will be resolved against your hack URI, or the container URI, or the new item URI.
Because otherwise, it’ll be even less clear what “/“ or “/foo” or “..” refer to, as it’s unclear whether they will be resolved against your hack URI, or the container URI, or the new item URI. ←
15:21:00 <betehess> ]]
]] ←
15:23:02 <betehess> JohnArwe: rel uris is application specific
John Arwe: rel uris is application specific ←
15:24:04 <betehess> sandro: so the question is about base uri, not just null uri
Sandro Hawke: so the question is about base uri, not just null uri ←
15:24:11 <betehess> ... the spec is already good
... the spec is already good ←
15:24:27 <sandro> 4.2.1.5 LDP servers MUST assign the default base-URI for [RFC3987] relative-URI resolution to be the HTTP Request-URI when the resource already exists, and to the URI of the created resource when the request results in the creation of a new resource.
Sandro Hawke: 4.2.1.5 LDP servers MUST assign the default base-URI for [RFC3987] relative-URI resolution to be the HTTP Request-URI when the resource already exists, and to the URI of the created resource when the request results in the creation of a new resource. ←
15:24:46 <betehess> SteveS: the spec is clear
Steve Speicher: the spec is clear ←
15:24:54 <betehess> ... BP might help explaining further
... BP might help explaining further ←
15:25:07 <betehess> Arnaud: so what are we doing? nothing to do?
Arnaud Le Hors: so what are we doing? nothing to do? ←
15:25:15 <betehess> ... add something in BP?
... add something in BP? ←
15:25:47 <sandro> "It follows from this definition that use of /../ and other non-null relative URI constructs during POST has application-dependent results"
Sandro Hawke: "It follows from this definition that use of /../ and other non-null relative URI constructs during POST has application-dependent results" ←
15:26:25 <betehess> JohnArwe: it's not ill-defined but it may limit interop
John Arwe: it's not ill-defined but it may limit interop ←
15:26:32 <betehess> betehess: I'd need an example where it limits interop
Alexandre Bertails: I'd need an example where it limits interop ←
15:29:27 <betehess> betehess: it's not application or implementation specific. the spec already says it's relative to the base uri, always defined in LDP, even during POST
Alexandre Bertails: it's not application or implementation specific. the spec already says it's relative to the base uri, always defined in LDP, even during POST ←
15:29:29 <sandro> "It follows from this definition that use of /../ and other non-null relative URI constructs during POST will cause the content to be referring to resources in a manner the client will not, in general, be able to predict."
Sandro Hawke: "It follows from this definition that use of /../ and other non-null relative URI constructs during POST will cause the content to be referring to resources in a manner the client will not, in general, be able to predict." ←
15:29:42 <betehess> ... but nobody can rely on it to refer to a parent or sibling
... but nobody can rely on it to refer to a parent or sibling ←
15:31:10 <betehess> Arnaud: people presumed to know where the resource is going to land in a POST and may use ../ in consequence
Arnaud Le Hors: people presumed to know where the resource is going to land in a POST and may use ../ in consequence ←
15:31:19 <betehess> TallTed: why do we presume people will do that?
Ted Thibodeau: why do we presume people will do that? ←
15:31:29 <betehess> SteveS: we may handled that in BP
Steve Speicher: we may handled that in BP ←
15:31:54 <betehess> Arnaud: it's just somebody referred to that, would like to be able to point people at a good answer
Arnaud Le Hors: it's just somebody referred to that, would like to be able to point people at a good answer ←
15:32:02 <betehess> q?
q? ←
15:32:03 <betehess> q-
q- ←
15:32:49 <betehess> roger: people will want to speak about hierarchy and may want to use ../ and stuff like that
Roger Menday: people will want to speak about hierarchy and may want to use ../ and stuff like that ←
15:32:57 <TallTed> "Other non-null relative URI constructs may not refer to the user's anticipated resource, due to variability in implementation and/or deployment. Tread with caution. Here be dragons."
Ted Thibodeau: "Other non-null relative URI constructs may not refer to the user's anticipated resource, due to variability in implementation and/or deployment. Tread with caution. Here be dragons." ←
15:33:00 <betehess> Arnaud: let me make a proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: let me make a proposal ←
15:33:13 <SteveS> roger, yes https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html#represent-container-membership-with-hierarchical-uris
Steve Speicher: roger, yes https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html#represent-container-membership-with-hierarchical-uris ←
15:33:25 <sandro> "It follows from this definition /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about IRIs are assigned."
Sandro Hawke: "It follows from this definition /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about IRIs are assigned." ←
15:33:45 <betehess> ... we should agree to add something in the BP doc about the danger of POSTing docs using rel uris
... we should agree to add something in the BP doc about the danger of POSTing docs using rel uris ←
15:35:37 <sandro> Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about IRIs are assigned.
Sandro Hawke: Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about IRIs are assigned. ←
15:35:50 <betehess> deiu: you should never try to refer to a uri that will exist later
Andrei Sambra: you should never try to refer to a uri that will exist later ←
15:36:10 <betehess> JohnArwe: we had a proposal to handle that in the BP doc
John Arwe: we had a proposal to handle that in the BP doc ←
15:36:34 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about IRIs are assigned.
PROPOSED: Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about IRIs are assigned. ←
15:36:42 <betehess> ... and we nail down the document
... and we nail down the document ←
15:36:48 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about how IRIs are assigned.
PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about how IRIs are assigned. ←
15:37:06 <TallTed> s/Add it BP/Add to BP/
15:37:06 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about how IRIs are assigned (by that particular server).
PROPOSED: Add it BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content unless the client has additional information about how IRIs are assigned (by that particular server). ←
15:37:10 <JohnArwe> +1
15:37:12 <SteveS> +../1
Steve Speicher: +../1 ←
15:37:17 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
15:37:18 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:37:27 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:38:17 <betehess> sandro: we can have an LDP extension using information that uris will be right under the container
Sandro Hawke: we can have an LDP extension using information that uris will be right under the container ←
15:39:24 <deiu> +0
Andrei Sambra: +0 ←
15:39:33 <betehess> -1
-1 ←
15:39:39 <sandro> betehess: i don't want people to consider the possibility that they MIGHT know more about how URIs are assigned by servers.
Alexandre Bertails: i don't want people to consider the possibility that they MIGHT know more about how URIs are assigned by servers. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:40:07 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that using /../ URLs in POSTed content may have unpredictable results.
PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that using /../ URLs in POSTed content may have unpredictable results. ←
15:40:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content
PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content ←
15:41:09 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:41:10 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
15:41:14 <JohnArwe> voting on sandro's...
John Arwe: voting on sandro's... ←
15:41:21 <deiu> +0
Andrei Sambra: +0 ←
15:41:28 <betehess> +0 (can leave with it, strongly prefer TallTed's wording)
+0 (can leave with it, strongly prefer TallTed's wording) ←
15:41:33 <JohnArwe> +0.5
15:41:34 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
15:41:38 <roger> +0
Roger Menday: +0 ←
15:41:44 <nmihindu> +0.5
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0.5 ←
15:41:53 <betehess> (we're currently voting on sandro's proposal)
(we're currently voting on sandro's proposal) ←
15:42:19 <Ashok> 0
Ashok Malhotra: 0 ←
15:42:20 <SteveS> +0.5 (think a general section and discussion in BP on this general topic is good)
Steve Speicher: +0.5 (think a general section and discussion in BP on this general topic is good) ←
15:42:33 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that using /../ URLs in POSTed content may have unpredictable results.
PROPOSED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that using /../ URLs in POSTed content may have unpredictable results. ←
15:42:41 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:42:44 <betehess> +1
+1 ←
15:42:45 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:42:45 <JohnArwe> +0.5
15:42:49 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
15:42:51 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:42:56 <codyburleson> -1
Cody Burleson: -1 ←
15:42:57 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:43:06 <MiguelAraCo> +0
Miguel Aragón: +0 ←
15:43:26 <SteveS> +0.5 (think a general section and discussion in BP on this general topic is good)
Steve Speicher: +0.5 (think a general section and discussion in BP on this general topic is good) ←
15:43:33 <TallTed> codyburleson - can you explain the -1?
Ted Thibodeau: codyburleson - can you explain the -1? ←
15:43:50 <codyburleson> I just am uncomfortable with ../ in graphs
Cody Burleson: I just am uncomfortable with ../ in graphs ←
15:43:50 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:43:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa, nmihindu (muted), codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa, nmihindu (muted), codyburleson ←
15:43:51 <Zakim> codyburleson has codyburleson, MiguelAraCo
Zakim IRC Bot: codyburleson has codyburleson, MiguelAraCo ←
15:43:52 <codyburleson> period
Cody Burleson: period ←
15:44:11 <Arnaud> ok, thanks
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, thanks ←
15:44:11 <betehess> Arnaud: then I think we'll go with sandro's proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: then I think we'll go with sandro's proposal ←
15:44:16 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content
RESOLVED: Add to BP that it follows from the specs that /../ URLs should not be used in POSTed content ←
15:44:18 <betehess> ... resolved!
... resolved! ←
15:44:38 <codyburleson> +q
Cody Burleson: +q ←
15:44:39 <betehess> ... should take care of all relative uris
... should take care of all relative uris ←
15:45:04 <Arnaud> ack codyburleson
Arnaud Le Hors: ack codyburleson ←
15:45:54 <betehess> Arnaud: that's the power you have: -1 is blocking
Arnaud Le Hors: that's the power you have: -1 is blocking ←
15:47:31 <betehess> ... that's how concensus should work!
... that's how concensus should work! ←
15:47:42 <betehess> ... let's move to next topic: named graphs
... let's move to next topic: named graphs ←
<betehess> subtopic: Named graphs comment
15:47:53 <TallTed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Mar/0000.html
Ted Thibodeau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Mar/0000.html ←
15:48:13 <betehess> ... we added the sentence in the spec lately
... we added the sentence in the spec lately ←
15:48:49 <betehess> .. in 5.2.3.4 [[ The created resource can be thought of as an RDF named graph ]]
.. in 5.2.3.4 [[ The created resource can be thought of as an RDF named graph ]] ←
15:49:10 <betehess> ... some people thought it was a great improvement
... some people thought it was a great improvement ←
15:49:25 <betehess> ... but other didn't like it, prefer to have one big graph
... but other didn't like it, prefer to have one big graph ←
15:49:42 <codyburleson> -q
Cody Burleson: -q ←
15:50:30 <betehess> betehess: has anybody said anything about the default graph as union of named graphs?
Alexandre Bertails: has anybody said anything about the default graph as union of named graphs? ←
15:50:35 <betehess> sandro: don't think so
Sandro Hawke: don't think so ←
15:51:20 <betehess> Arnaud: that's where I think the sparql store protocol does a good job
Arnaud Le Hors: the sparql protocol does make use of named graphs ←
15:52:34 <betehess> s/that's where I think the sparql store protocol does a good job/the sparql protocol does make use of named graphs/
15:53:00 <betehess> sandro: named graphs should rely on defining a dataset, which is not defiend
Sandro Hawke: named graphs should rely on defining a dataset, which is not defiend ←
15:54:23 <betehess> TallTed: the spec speaks about a preference to use a syntax supporting named graphs
Ted Thibodeau: the spec speaks about a preference to use a syntax supporting named graphs when `providing [a] resource and supporting containers in a single response representation.` ←
15:54:24 <betehess> q+
q+ ←
15:55:04 <betehess> Arnaud: also related to inlining
Arnaud Le Hors: also related to inlining ←
15:55:15 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:55:56 <deiu> betehess: the reason I introduced the named graph discussion is that there are two things to consider: inlining and named graphs are very related
Alexandre Bertails: the reason I introduced the named graph discussion is that there are two things to consider: inlining and named graphs are very related [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
15:56:00 <JohnArwe> TimBL: historically lots of discussion about named graphs, what they should be, etc. when you bring in that term you tend to raise a lot of questions
Tim Berners-Lee: historically lots of discussion about named graphs, what they should be, etc. when you bring in that term you tend to raise a lot of questions [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
15:56:06 <deiu> ... where can I look for info if I don't know where it is
Andrei Sambra: ... where can I look for info if I don't know where it is ←
15:56:39 <deiu> ... if I want to enable SPARQL for an LDPC, then how do I know which resources are members of a container
Andrei Sambra: ... if I want to enable SPARQL for an LDPC, then how do I know which resources are members of a container ←
15:57:00 <deiu> sandro: that can be part of an extension
Sandro Hawke: that can be part of an extension [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
15:57:27 <deiu> betehess: the triple in question is ldpContains
Alexandre Bertails: the triple in question is ldpContains [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
15:57:50 <deiu> ... basically, you are able to point to the named graphs so therefore you can explore the container
Andrei Sambra: ... basically, you are able to point to the named graphs so therefore you can explore the container ←
15:58:14 <deiu> sandro: you can't backhand into SPARQL, LDP doesn't say that LDP is a dataset
Sandro Hawke: you can't backhand into SPARQL, LDP doesn't say that LDP is a dataset [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
15:58:25 <deiu> ... there is no way to get to SPARQL from LDP
Andrei Sambra: ... there is no way to get to SPARQL from LDP ←
15:58:40 <deiu> betehess: how do you define dataset?
Alexandre Bertails: how do you define dataset? [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
15:58:41 <TallTed> s/TallTed: the spec speaks about a preference to use a syntax supporting named graphs/TallTed: the spec speaks about a preference to use a syntax supporting named graphs when `providing [a] resource and supporting containers in a single response representation.`/
15:58:53 <deiu> sandro: it's what you have in your SPARQL database
Sandro Hawke: it's what you have in your SPARQL database [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
16:00:23 <deiu> ... LDP doesn't care about SPARQL, so it's out of scope
Andrei Sambra: ... LDP doesn't care about SPARQL, so it's out of scope ←
16:00:34 <deiu> betehess: nothing tells me today where the triples live
Alexandre Bertails: nothing tells me today where the triples live [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
16:04:51 <betehess> JohnArwe: we never said that implementations had to rely on named graphs
John Arwe: we never said that implementations had to rely on named graphs ←
16:05:13 <betehess> sandro: just saying that the specification is not properly done when it comes to named graphs
Sandro Hawke: just saying that the specification is not properly done when it comes to named graphs ←
16:05:34 <betehess> ... I'd like to be able to do a GET with trig
... I'd like to be able to do a GET with trig ←
16:05:53 <betehess> sandro: 2 options:
Sandro Hawke: 2 options: ←
16:06:09 <betehess> ... 1. keep spec as is, and say we don't prevent him to have a one graph implementation
... 1. keep spec as is, and say we don't prevent him to have a one graph implementation ←
16:06:24 <betehess> ... 2. we remove mentions of named graphs in the spec, and make him happy
... 2. we remove mentions of named graphs in the spec, and make him happy ←
16:06:31 <sandro> sandro: Let's remove all usage of "Named Graphs" terminology in the spec, since we're not fully defining how it's all supposed to work.
Sandro Hawke: Let's remove all usage of "Named Graphs" terminology in the spec, since we're not fully defining how it's all supposed to work. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:06:40 <betehess> TallTed: not forbidden use of trig, it's still possible to return it
Ted Thibodeau: not forbidden use of trig, it's still possible to return it ←
16:06:47 <timbl> q+
Tim Berners-Lee: q+ ←
16:06:49 <betehess> ... if not supported, just return Turtle
... if not supported, just return Turtle ←
16:06:57 <betehess> ... options are still there
... options are still there ←
16:07:05 <Arnaud> ack timbl
Arnaud Le Hors: ack timbl ←
16:07:07 <betehess> Arnaud: are you saying you're speaking spec as is?
Arnaud Le Hors: are you saying you're speaking spec as is? ←
16:07:39 <betehess> timbl: conneg must be used for things that are the same
Tim Berners-Lee: conneg must be used for things that are the same ←
16:07:57 <betehess> ... so Turtle is not enough to return named graphs
... so Turtle is not enough to return named graphs ←
16:08:25 <betehess> TallTed: we said the server can return more than you ask for
Ted Thibodeau: we said the server can return more than you ask for ←
16:08:30 <betehess> ... so if you ask for trig, you just get more informations
... so if you ask for trig, you just get more informations ←
16:10:07 <betehess> timbl: would be a bad idea to return trig without saying it's not a full representation of the resource
Tim Berners-Lee: would be a bad idea to return trig without saying it's not a full representation of the resource ←
16:10:14 <betehess> ... maybe a different http code?
... maybe a different http code? ←
16:10:30 <betehess> ... in LDP thing, the conceptual thing is a graph
... in LDP thing, the conceptual thing is a graph ←
16:10:58 <betehess> sandro: in http, caching allows to use headers for variance
Sandro Hawke: in http, caching allows to use headers for variance ←
16:11:34 <betehess> ... could use link headers, like Prefer
... could use link headers, like Prefer ←
16:12:24 <betehess> ... meta point is: it's interesting work outside of this WG
... meta point is: it's interesting work outside of this WG ←
16:12:34 <betehess> ... let's not prejudge what the issue is
... let's not prejudge what the issue is ←
16:13:28 <betehess> Arnaud: maybe we can remove it?
Arnaud Le Hors: maybe we can remove it? ←
16:14:15 <betehess> ... in terminology section, we have LDP-RS
... in terminology section, we have LDP-RS ←
16:14:34 <betehess> sandro: can say it's a pair or IRI and graph in some dataset, but dataset is not defined
Sandro Hawke: can say it's a pair or IRI and graph in some dataset, but dataset is not defined ←
16:16:10 <TallTed> from RDF 1.1 Concepts -- "We informally use the term RDF source to refer to a persistent yet mutable source or container of RDF graphs. An RDF source is a resource that may be said to have a state that can change over time. A snapshot of the state can be expressed as an RDF graph. For example, any web document that has an RDF-bearing representation may be considered an RDF source. Like all resources, RDF sources may be named with
Ted Thibodeau: from RDF 1.1 Concepts -- "We informally use the term RDF source to refer to a persistent yet mutable source or container of RDF graphs. An RDF source is a resource that may be said to have a state that can change over time. A snapshot of the state can be expressed as an RDF graph. For example, any web document that has an RDF-bearing representation may be considered an RDF source. Like all resources, RDF sources may be named with ←
16:16:10 <TallTed> IRIs and therefore described in other RDF graphs."
Ted Thibodeau: IRIs and therefore described in other RDF graphs." ←
16:16:25 <betehess> ... was brought up by betehess saying that we have to clarify the spec
... was brought up by betehess saying that we have to clarify the spec ←
16:16:49 <betehess> SteveS: timbl said we could just remove "named" from "named graph" because it is what it is
Steve Speicher: timbl said we could just remove "named" from "named graph" because it is what it is ←
16:17:26 <betehess> sandro: the problem is that it contradicts the RDF spec
Sandro Hawke: the problem is that it contradicts the RDF spec ←
16:17:33 <betehess> Arnaud: yeah, it's a G-Box
Arnaud Le Hors: yeah, it's a G-Box ←
16:18:44 <betehess> timbl: the state of the resource is graph
Tim Berners-Lee: the state of the resource is a graph ←
16:18:50 <betehess> s/graph/a graph/
16:18:59 <betehess> Arnaud: so removing "named" would work then
Arnaud Le Hors: so removing "named" would work then ←
16:19:05 <sandro> The State of the Resource is a Graph, but the Resource itself is not a Graph.
Sandro Hawke: The State of the Resource is a Graph, but the Resource itself is not a Graph. ←
16:19:19 <timbl> yes
Tim Berners-Lee: yes ←
16:19:34 <betehess> ... the spec already speaks about spec
... the state already speaks about state ←
16:19:38 <betehess> s/spec/state/
16:19:54 <betehess> ... the spec already speaks about state
... the spec already speaks about state ←
16:20:15 <sandro> +1 An LDPR whose state is fully represented by an RDF Graph.
Sandro Hawke: +1 An LDPR whose state is fully represented by an RDF Graph. ←
16:20:19 <betehess> ... then let's go to Examples
... then let's go to Examples ←
16:20:56 <betehess> ... we may remove the paragraph about syntax and multiple named graphs
... we may remove the paragraph about syntax and multiple named graphs ←
16:21:29 <betehess> timbl: what's nice about LDP spec is that it defines solid things
Tim Berners-Lee: what's nice about LDP spec is that it defines solid things ←
16:22:08 <timbl> An LDPR’s state is an RDF Graph and is fully represented in RDF. See also the term RDF Source from [rdf11-concepts].
Tim Berners-Lee: An LDPR’s state is an RDF Graph and is fully represented in RDF. See also the term RDF Source from [rdf11-concepts]. ←
16:23:25 <betehess> Arnaud: so the question from SteveS was to consider moving that paragraph to BP
Arnaud Le Hors: so the question from SteveS was to consider moving that paragraph to BP ←
16:23:30 <betehess> ... I think it's fine
... I think it's fine ←
16:24:00 <betehess> ... we can remove the mention from 5.2.3.4
... we can remove the mention from 5.2.3.4 ←
16:24:05 <betehess> ... just a hint here
... just a hint here ←
16:24:12 <betehess> ... same for 5.2.4.2
... same for 5.2.4.2 ←
16:24:15 <betehess> ... and that's it
... and that's it ←
16:25:50 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: remove references to named graphs: remove "named" in terminology section, remove paragraph in examples, remove sentence in section 5.2.3.4 and 5.2.4.2
PROPOSED: remove references to named graphs: remove "named" in terminology section, remove paragraph in examples, remove sentence in section 5.2.3.4 and 5.2.4.2 ←
16:25:54 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:26:01 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:26:03 <betehess> +0.99
+0.99 ←
16:26:03 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
16:26:07 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
16:26:08 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
16:26:15 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
16:26:17 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
16:26:30 <JohnArwe> +1
16:26:41 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Remove references to named graphs: remove "named" in terminology section, remove paragraph in examples, remove sentence in section 5.2.3.4 and 5.2.4.2
RESOLVED: Remove references to named graphs: remove "named" in terminology section, remove paragraph in examples, remove sentence in section 5.2.3.4 and 5.2.4.2 ←
16:27:13 <sandro> break until 1:15
Sandro Hawke: break until 1:15 ←
16:27:25 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
16:27:27 <Zakim> -nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu ←
17:19:23 <deiu> scribenick: deiu
(No events recorded for 51 minutes)
(Scribe set to Andrei Sambra)
17:19:23 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0037.html
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0037.html ←
17:19:24 <deiu> scribe: Andrei
17:19:51 <deiu> subtopic: describedby
17:20:26 <deiu> Arnaud: when we POST a non-RDF source, the server may create an additional RDF source (with the meta data for the non-RDF source)
Arnaud Le Hors: when we POST a non-RDF source, the server may create an additional RDF source (with the meta data for the non-RDF source) ←
17:20:43 <deiu> ... to do that, we use describedBy
... to do that, we use rel=describedby ←
17:21:30 <deiu> s/describedBy/rel=describedby
17:22:05 <deiu> ... Sergio raised the question about a possible conflict with describedBy
... Sergio raised the question about a possible conflict with describedBy ←
17:22:41 <deiu> sandro: we should say what happens when there are two headers
Sandro Hawke: we should say what happens when there are two headers ←
17:22:56 <deiu> Arnaud: there is more than one thing that describes the resource, there's nothing wrong with that
Arnaud Le Hors: there is more than one thing that describes the resource, there's nothing wrong with that ←
17:23:30 <deiu> sandro: basically they are all true, so the best practice would be to merge
Sandro Hawke: basically they are all true, so the best practice would be to merge ←
17:23:53 <deiu> Arnaud: for a non-RDF you wouldn't have a shape
Arnaud Le Hors: for a non-RDF you wouldn't have a shape ←
17:24:06 <deiu> ... you have a piece of XML, meta data and a schema
... you have a piece of XML, meta data and a schema ←
17:24:23 <deiu> ... you need to follow the link to find what kind of information resource it is
... you need to follow the link to find what kind of information resource it is ←
17:24:54 <deiu> ... there is no way to guarantee that there will only be one
... there is no way to guarantee that there will only be one ←
17:25:16 <deiu> sandro: if it's something very specific, then you should sub-type the property
Sandro Hawke: if it's something very specific, then you should sub-type the property ←
17:25:51 <deiu> sandro: we can change rel=describedby to rel=serverconstraints
Sandro Hawke: we can change rel=describedby to rel=serverconstraints ←
17:26:26 <deiu> Arnaud: resource shape was submitted to W3C
Arnaud Le Hors: resource shape was submitted to W3C ←
17:26:36 <deiu> ... I expect discussion to start soon
... I expect discussion to start soon ←
17:27:07 <deiu> ... if I have a shape, I MUST use the rel=describedby link
... if I have a shape, I MUST use the rel=describedby link ←
17:27:37 <deiu> sandro: I would like to take this out
Sandro Hawke: I would like to take this out ←
17:27:52 <deiu> ... 4.2.1.6 that is
... 4.2.1.6 that is ←
17:28:11 <deiu> ... if the resource shape spec says something about this, then we don't need to have it in the LDP spec
... if the resource shape spec says something about this, then we don't need to have it in the LDP spec ←
17:29:29 <deiu> Arnaud: your client can figure out the constraints by following the link
Arnaud Le Hors: your client can figure out the constraints by following the link ←
17:29:50 <deiu> sandro: I agree it works to follow the link and do conneg
Sandro Hawke: I agree it works to follow the link and do conneg ←
17:30:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:30:49 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPcaller is me. ←
17:30:49 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
17:30:56 <deiu> Arnaud: you might end up using two Link headers, it's not a big deal
Arnaud Le Hors: you might end up using two Link headers, it's not a big deal ←
17:31:08 <deiu> ... one Link might become deprecated at some point
... one Link might become deprecated at some point ←
17:31:54 <deiu> TallTed: if you fail and don't say anything about the reason, then it's bad (as Timbl said)
Ted Thibodeau: if you fail and don't say anything about the reason, then it's bad (as Timbl said) ←
17:32:42 <deiu> sandro: unless there is something a client could do, why have the server provide the reason to the client
Sandro Hawke: unless there is something a client could do, why have the server provide the reason to the client ←
17:33:43 <deiu> Arnaud: we can either drop or keep the Link, but if we keep it, what rel value are we going to use?
Arnaud Le Hors: we can either drop or keep the Link, but if we keep it, what rel value are we going to use? ←
17:34:54 <sandro> OPTION 1: Use rel=describedby for as many things at once as needed; they are all types of description
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 1: Use rel=describedby for as many things at once as needed; they are all types of description ←
17:34:54 <sandro> OPTION 2: Use different rel= arguments for each different type of description the client might find useful
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 2: Use different rel= arguments for each different type of description the client might find useful ←
17:35:35 <deiu> Arnaud: Sergio said the "possible" conflict, when he referred to rel=describedby, and the one that is linking the binary resource to the RDF meta resource
Arnaud Le Hors: Sergio said the "possible" conflict, when he referred to rel=describedby, and the one that is linking the binary resource to the RDF meta resource ←
17:36:16 <deiu> JohnArwe: if you read the spec carefully, then you would see there is no conflict
John Arwe: if you read the spec carefully, then you would see there is no conflict ←
17:36:28 <deiu> ... some people may have a problem, others may not
... some people may have a problem, others may not ←
17:36:38 <deiu> sandro: how do you decide what is meta data and what is data?
Sandro Hawke: how do you decide what is meta data and what is data? ←
17:37:27 <deiu> ... these are the most important bits of the data, I don't want to have another request to get the meta data
... these are the most important bits of the data, I don't want to have another request to get the meta data ←
17:38:31 <deiu> Arnaud: there's a tradeoff of reusing existing terms, but sometimes those terms are used to refer to different things
Arnaud Le Hors: there's a tradeoff of reusing existing terms, but sometimes those terms are used to refer to different things ←
17:39:07 <deiu> sandro: the resource shape will say "this kind of shape is allowed here"
Sandro Hawke: the resource shape will say "this kind of shape is allowed here" ←
17:39:18 <TallTed> { :thing rel=describedby :a . :a a ldp:resourceShape }
Ted Thibodeau: { :thing rel=describedby :a . :a a ldp:resourceShape } ←
17:39:57 <deiu> Arnaud: the spec is not really broken, we can live with the way it is so
Arnaud Le Hors: the spec is not really broken, we can live with the way it is so ←
17:40:03 <sandro> I kind of think OPTION 2 is better, long term, but OPTION 1 is fine, and in the spec already.
Sandro Hawke: I kind of think OPTION 2 is better, long term, but OPTION 1 is fine, and in the spec already. ←
17:40:46 <deiu> Arnaud: the only downside is that if we come up with a better way, we still have to support the old rel=describedby link
Arnaud Le Hors: the only downside is that if we come up with a better way, we still have to support the old rel=describedby link ←
17:40:49 <sandro> Arnaud: worst case, we need to send around extra describedby links
Arnaud Le Hors: worst case, we need to send around extra describedby links [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:40:53 <deiu> ... it's not a big problem
... it's not a big problem ←
17:42:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: we'll use rel=describedby as in the spec currently, for both metadata on binary resources, and expressing constraints during server error messages. These are both descriptions and there may be lots of other kinds in the future, too.
PROPOSED: we'll use rel=describedby as in the spec currently, for both metadata on binary resources, and expressing constraints during server error messages. These are both descriptions and there may be lots of other kinds in the future, too. ←
17:43:02 <JohnArwe> +0 (don't care/fine either way)
John Arwe: +0 (don't care/fine either way) ←
17:43:03 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
17:43:04 <sandro> +0.9
Sandro Hawke: +0.9 ←
17:43:07 <deiu> +0
+0 ←
17:43:08 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
17:43:10 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
17:43:11 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
17:43:27 <MiguelAraCo> +0
Miguel Aragón: +0 ←
17:43:52 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: We'll use rel=describedby as in the spec currently, for both metadata on binary resources, and expressing constraints during server error messages. These are both descriptions and there may be lots of other kinds in the future, too.
RESOLVED: We'll use rel=describedby as in the spec currently, for both metadata on binary resources, and expressing constraints during server error messages. These are both descriptions and there may be lots of other kinds in the future, too. ←
17:44:11 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking ←
17:45:18 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-errata
John Arwe: http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-errata ←
17:45:48 <JohnArwe> within errata, search on: Misalignment of definition of wdrs:describedby cf. @rel describedby
John Arwe: within errata, search on: Misalignment of definition of wdrs:describedby cf. @rel describedby ←
17:46:00 <TallTed> better -- http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-errata#describedby
Ted Thibodeau: better -- http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-errata#describedby ←
17:48:32 <deiu> [people talking about defining describedby or linking to the right definition]
[people talking about defining describedby or linking to the right definition] ←
17:49:30 <sandro> Do we keep this: We define the RDF property wdrs:describedby, the meaning of which is identical to the describedby link relationship type defined above so that:
Sandro Hawke: Do we keep this: We define the RDF property wdrs:describedby, the meaning of which is identical to the describedby link relationship type defined above so that: ←
17:49:51 <sandro> ... if we're defining a spec for rel=describedby.
Sandro Hawke: ... if we're defining a spec for rel=describedby. ←
17:50:21 <deiu> sandro: I'm suggesting we change anything that would affect implementations, just editorially
Sandro Hawke: I'm suggesting we change anything that would affect implementations, just editorially ←
17:51:19 <deiu> ... we can defined describedby the way we want it, and still keep the link header definition from powder
... we can define describedby the way we want it, and still keep the link header definition from powder ←
17:51:26 <deiu> s/defined/define
17:52:03 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
17:52:17 <JohnArwe> The relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B provides a description of resource A.
John Arwe: The relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B provides a description of resource A. ←
17:52:17 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P0 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P0 is me ←
17:52:17 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
17:52:28 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
17:52:28 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
17:52:58 <JohnArwe> ...that's the normative definition of it based on the content of the errata linked to above
John Arwe: ...that's the normative definition of it based on the content of the errata linked to above ←
17:53:13 <deiu> sandro: the reference points to the powder spec which has a bad definition
Sandro Hawke: the reference points to the powder spec which has a bad definition ←
17:53:26 <deiu> sandro: the textual definition from Appendix D is fine
Sandro Hawke: the textual definition from Appendix D is fine ←
17:53:55 <deiu> ... unfortunately iana links to a different part of the spec
... unfortunately iana links to a different part of the spec ←
17:54:22 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s.rdf#describedby
John Arwe: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s.rdf#describedby ←
17:54:31 <sandro> sandro: Basically, http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD is fine.
Sandro Hawke: Basically, http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD is fine. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:54:31 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking ←
17:54:39 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#semlink ←
17:54:43 <JohnArwe> ...that's the link from the erratum to the RDF Schema document
John Arwe: ...that's the link from the erratum to the RDF Schema document ←
17:54:48 <deiu> Arnaud: so we are good from an LDP perspective, it's just the references that need to be fixed
Arnaud Le Hors: so we are good from an LDP perspective, it's just the references that need to be fixed ←
17:56:19 <TallTed> http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-maintenance.html
Ted Thibodeau: http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-maintenance.html ←
17:56:57 <deiu> sandro: can't we have LDP just repeat the same definition, instead of using the link from iana to powder
Sandro Hawke: can't we have LDP just repeat the same definition, instead of using the link from iana to powder ←
17:58:40 <deiu> ... basically copy the definition from Appendix D into LDP
... basically copy the definition from Appendix D into LDP ←
17:59:30 <sandro> PROPOSED: Copy http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD, more or less, to LDP, so that the link registry can avoid the powder errata situation, pending confirmation from IETF liaison that this is reasonable
PROPOSED: Copy http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD, more or less, to LDP, so that the link registry can avoid the powder errata situation, pending confirmation from IETF liaison that this is reasonable ←
18:00:00 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:00:02 <deiu> +1
+1 ←
18:00:06 <SteveS> +0.5
Steve Speicher: +0.5 ←
18:00:10 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
18:00:11 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
18:00:12 <nmihindu> +0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0 ←
18:00:23 <JohnArwe> +0.5
18:00:24 <Ashok> 1
Ashok Malhotra: 1 ←
18:00:37 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Copy http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD, more or less, to LDP, so that the link registry can avoid the powder errata situation, pending confirmation from IETF liaison that this is reasonable
RESOLVED: Copy http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD, more or less, to LDP, so that the link registry can avoid the powder errata situation, pending confirmation from IETF liaison that this is reasonable ←
18:00:39 <sandro> (the "more or less" is meant to cover the fact that the link will of course be different., as will the description of the process.)
Sandro Hawke: (the "more or less" is meant to cover the fact that the link will of course be different., as will the description of the process.) ←
18:00:54 <sandro> action: sandro follow up on resolution about moving rel=describedby text
ACTION: sandro follow up on resolution about moving rel=describedby text ←
18:01:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-138 - Follow up on resolution about moving rel=describedby text [on Sandro Hawke - due 2014-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-138 - Follow up on resolution about moving rel=describedby text [on Sandro Hawke - due 2014-04-22]. ←
<deiu> subtopic: Moving to CR
18:03:06 <deiu> Arnaud: let's talk about the LDP spec now, what do we need to move forward
Arnaud Le Hors: let's talk about the LDP spec now, what do we need to move forward ←
18:03:14 <deiu> ... what does it mean to go to CR?
... what does it mean to go to CR? ←
18:03:25 <deiu> ... it's an explicit call for feedback
... it's an explicit call for feedback ←
18:03:30 <SteveS> Process stuff http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#transition-reqs
Steve Speicher: Process stuff http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#transition-reqs ←
18:03:59 <deiu> ... as part of the process we have to define our exit criteria for CR
... as part of the process we have to define our exit criteria for CR ←
18:04:24 <deiu> Ashok: you want to go to CR on the spec (and only on the spec), no paging spec
Ashok Malhotra: you want to go to CR on the spec (and only on the spec), no paging spec ←
18:04:47 <deiu> ... paging is really important, so is patch
... paging is really important, so is patch ←
18:05:28 <deiu> Arnaud: at this point the spec is what it is, but as soon as we make progress on paging/patch we can update the spec and/or point to those documents
Arnaud Le Hors: at this point the spec is what it is, but as soon as we make progress on paging/patch we can update the spec and/or point to those documents ←
18:05:46 <deiu> Ashok: paging is a fundamental part of our scope
Ashok Malhotra: paging is a fundamental part of our scope ←
18:06:10 <deiu> ... it is one of the two big questions, so can we go to CR with only half the work?
... it is one of the two big questions, so can we go to CR with only half the work? ←
18:06:25 <deiu> Arnaud: we made a decision to move paging to the side for now
Arnaud Le Hors: we made a decision to move paging to the side for now ←
18:06:41 <deiu> ... I agree that is is on the charter and we will dedicate time to it
... I agree that is is on the charter and we will dedicate time to it ←
18:07:42 <deiu> timbl: paging is useful but patch is more vital
Tim Berners-Lee: paging is useful but patch is more vital ←
18:08:14 <deiu> Arnaud: paging is still on the table, we're not dropping it
Arnaud Le Hors: paging is still on the table, we're not dropping it ←
18:08:58 <SteveS> q+ ask about current “features at risk” in draft
Steve Speicher: q+ ask about current “features at risk” in draft ←
18:09:16 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
18:09:37 <deiu> Arnaud: it would be better to have something (LDP) even without paging, as opposed to not making it to CR at all due to paging
Arnaud Le Hors: it would be better to have something (LDP) even without paging, as opposed to not making it to CR at all due to paging ←
18:10:41 <deiu> Arnaud: we can delay Accept-Post
Arnaud Le Hors: we can delay Accept-Post ←
18:10:54 <deiu> ... we're waiting on progress from the IETF
... we're waiting on progress from the IETF ←
18:11:25 <deiu> ... we'll carry both features to CR for now
... we'll carry both features to CR for now ←
18:11:42 <deiu> ... CR is open-ended, we don't exit until we meet the criteria
... CR is open-ended, we don't exit until we meet the criteria ←
18:12:25 <deiu> ... going back to the CR discussion now
... going back to the CR discussion now ←
18:12:49 <deiu> sandro: the exit criteria is about either having two implementations that pass every test, or every test is passed by at least two implementations
Sandro Hawke: the exit criteria could be about either having two implementations that pass every test, or every test could be passed by at least two implementations ←
18:13:46 <Arnaud> s/is/could be/
18:16:25 <deiu> Arnaud: some parts of the spec are difficult to test (i.e. MUST vs SHOULD)
Arnaud Le Hors: some parts of the spec are difficult to test (i.e. MUST vs SHOULD) ←
18:17:40 <deiu> sandro: those are useful tests but they are not required for CR exit
Sandro Hawke: those are useful tests but they are not required for CR exit ←
18:18:31 <nmihindu> related section on non-testable parts in test suite document -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#test-suite-coverage
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: related section on non-testable parts in test suite document -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#test-suite-coverage ←
18:18:48 <deiu> timbl: test suits should be public, even though W3C does trust the spec implementors
Tim Berners-Lee: test suits should be public, even though W3C does trust the spec implementors ←
18:19:49 <codyburleson> We are implementing - with goal for Q3. So, we will have a lot of the internals within a month or two.
Cody Burleson: We are implementing - with goal for Q3. So, we will have a lot of the internals within a month or two. ←
18:19:50 <nmihindu> Arnaud, every test is passed by at least two implementations seems to be the better criteria
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Arnaud, every test is passed by at least two implementations seems to be the better criteria ←
18:19:53 <sandro> sandro: Are your implementations expecting to be feature-complete for LDP?
Sandro Hawke: Are your implementations expecting to be feature-complete for LDP? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:20:10 <deiu> Arnaud: let's go around the table to see who plans on implementing it
Arnaud Le Hors: let's go around the table to see who plans on implementing it ←
18:21:00 <deiu> [around 4-5 people]
[around 4-5 people] ←
18:21:16 <sandro> raised hands from: roger, steve, andrei, alexandre
Sandro Hawke: raised hands from: roger, steve, andrei, alexandre, TallTed ←
18:21:43 <Ashok> ... and Oracle
Ashok Malhotra: ... and Oracle ←
18:21:49 <sandro> roger: server and client library, focus on direct and indirect containers, written in Scala, not open source
Roger Menday: server and client library, focus on direct and indirect containers, written in Scala, not open source [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:22:16 <TallTed> s/alexandre/alexandre, TallTed/
18:23:30 <deiu> SteveS: a simple reference server, a thin layer to prove the entire spec (in java)
Steve Speicher: a simple reference server, a thin layer to prove the entire spec (in java) ←
18:23:46 <sandro> SteveS: a number of impls, including a simple reference server (jaxrs + jena), supporting everything in LDP, Open Source (Eclipse)
Steve Speicher: a number of impls, including a simple reference server (jaxrs + jena), supporting everything in LDP, Open Source (Eclipse) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:23:46 <nmihindu> nmihindu: we will have one implementation for the ALM iStack project from UPM http://www.centeropenmiddleware.com/news/overviewofthefirstyearofthealmistackproject and a variant of that combined with R2RML http://oeg-dev.dia.fi.upm.es/morph-ldp/. We plan to open source our implementation as soon as we figure out some bureaucratic stuff.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: we will have one implementation for the ALM iStack project from UPM http://www.centeropenmiddleware.com/news/overviewofthefirstyearofthealmistackproject and a variant of that combined with R2RML http://oeg-dev.dia.fi.upm.es/morph-ldp/. We plan to open source our implementation as soon as we figure out some bureaucratic stuff. [ Scribe Assist by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya ] ←
18:24:31 <sandro> SteveS: products at their own pace
Steve Speicher: products at their own pace [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:25:37 <sandro> andrei: open source server, personal data store, in PHP; working on another one in go.
Andrei Sambra: open source server, personal data store, in PHP; working on another one in go. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:25:59 <sandro> andrei: only basic containers.
Andrei Sambra: only basic containers. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:26:27 <sandro> andrei: also client (cimba), uses basic containers
Andrei Sambra: also client (cimba), uses basic containers [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:26:40 <nmihindu> nmihindu: in ALM iStack, we might not support all the features in the spec thought for the first version.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: in ALM iStack, we might not support all the features in the spec thought for the first version. [ Scribe Assist by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya ] ←
18:26:41 <sandro> betehess: Scala, supports basic containers
Alexandre Bertails: Scala, supports basic containers [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:28:18 <sandro> SteveS: indirectContainers is planned, but not done
Steve Speicher: indirectContainers is planned, but not done [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:28:34 <sandro> sandro: Don't implement it just for CR. Implement it if your users want it.
Sandro Hawke: Don't implement it just for CR. Implement it if your users want it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:29:07 <deiu> TallTed: we are working on an implementation (full featured) but we don't have an ETA
Ted Thibodeau: we are working on an implementation (full featured) but we don't have an ETA ←
18:29:38 <sandro> TallTed: Working on an implementation. I don't have ETA. Probably full features, client and servers. At least virtuoso engine able to act as client and server.
Ted Thibodeau: Working on an implementation. I don't have ETA. Probably full features, client and servers. At least virtuoso engine able to act as client and server. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:30:02 <deiu> Ashok: we've started working on an implementation
Ashok Malhotra: we've started working on an implementation ←
18:30:11 <sandro> Ashok: We might have two. Just starting, probably not ready in the 2-3 month timeframe.
Ashok Malhotra: We might have two. Just starting, probably not ready in the 3-6 month timeframe. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:31:24 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
18:31:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa, codyburleson, nmihindu (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa, codyburleson, nmihindu (muted) ←
18:31:33 <Ashok> s/2-3/3-6/
18:31:44 <nmihindu> Apache Marmotta which Sergio et al. are working on.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Apache Marmotta which Sergio et al. are working on. ←
18:32:28 <SteveS> http://wiki.apache.org/marmotta/LDPImplementationReport/2014-03-11
Steve Speicher: http://wiki.apache.org/marmotta/LDPImplementationReport/2014-03-11 ←
18:38:21 <sandro> sandro: I think at some point we'll have a much better, elegant thing for what DirectContainer and IndirectContainer do. But I'm okay with us proceeding with including them, since we don't have those elegant things yet.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: I think at some point we'll have a much better, elegant thing for what DirectContainer and IndirectContainer do. But I'm okay with us proceeding with including them, since we don't have those elegant things yet. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:41:35 <deiu> Arnaud: let's get back to the exit criteria
Arnaud Le Hors: let's get back to the exit criteria ←
18:41:48 <sandro> arnaud: I think we're in a fairly healthy situation on implementations
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we're in a fairly healthy situation on implementations [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:42:57 <deiu> Arnaud: each feature of LDP must be implemented by at least 2 implementations
Arnaud Le Hors: each feature of LDP must be implemented by at least 2 implementations ←
18:43:15 <deiu> ... we rely on people making a statement about it, say whether or not they have implemented it
... we rely on people making a statement about it, say whether or not they have implemented it ←
18:43:39 <sandro> Each Feature and Test has been implementation by at least two independent implementations
Sandro Hawke: Each Feature and Test has been implemented by at least two independent implementations ←
18:43:57 <TallTed> s/been implementation/been implemented/
18:44:14 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: define exit criteria as: Each Feature and Test has been implementation by at least two independent implementations
PROPOSED: define exit criteria as: Each Feature and Test has been implementation by at least two independent implementations ←
18:45:21 <codyburleson> Wouldn't 3 be better than 2, so that there can be a majority on one side of any issue rather than just 1 vs 1?
Cody Burleson: Wouldn't 3 be better than 2, so that there can be a majority on one side of any issue rather than just 1 vs 1? ←
18:45:47 <sandro> PROPOSED: Define exit criteria: Each feature implemented and each test passed by at least two independent implementations
PROPOSED: Define exit criteria: Each feature implemented and each test passed by at least two independent implementations ←
18:46:12 <codyburleson> OK
Cody Burleson: OK ←
18:46:33 <sandro> Arnaud: codyburleson we don't do majority -- if there's a disagreement we work it out, and come to consensus.
Arnaud Le Hors: codyburleson we don't do majority -- if there's a disagreement we work it out, and come to consensus. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:46:53 <betehess> +1 sounds good
Alexandre Bertails: +1 sounds good ←
18:46:59 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
18:47:00 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
18:47:03 <deiu> +1
+1 ←
18:47:13 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
18:47:35 <sandro> +1 but of course the details depend on the checklist of fatures and the test suite
Sandro Hawke: +1 but of course the details depend on the checklist of fatures and the test suite ←
18:48:12 <sandro> RESOLVED: Define exit criteria: Each feature implemented and each test passed by at least two independent implementations
RESOLVED: Define exit criteria: Each feature implemented and each test passed by at least two independent implementations ←
18:48:55 <deiu> Arnaud: let's talk about the BP&G
Arnaud Le Hors: let's talk about the BP&G ←
18:49:17 <sandro> topic: Best Practices & Guidelines document
18:49:08 <codyburleson> Status:
Cody Burleson: Status: ←
18:49:30 <codyburleson> All BPs in original wiki doc have been added (and words refined).
Cody Burleson: All BPs in original wiki doc have been added (and words refined). ←
18:49:47 <codyburleson> TO DO: Update to reflect new revisions in spec; specifically: containe rtypes and code examples
Cody Burleson: TO DO: Update to reflect new revisions in spec; specifically: containe rtypes and code examples ←
18:50:06 <Ashok> Pl. paste URL
Ashok Malhotra: Pl. paste URL ←
18:50:12 <deiu> Arnaud: cody, as the editor for the BP&G document, can you please give us an update
Arnaud Le Hors: cody, as the editor for the BP&G document, can you please give us an update ←
18:50:55 <deiu> codyburleson: now that the spec has changed, the document needs to be updated to reflect the changes (e.g. container type)
Cody Burleson: now that the spec has changed, the document needs to be updated to reflect the changes (e.g. container type) ←
18:51:04 <deiu> ... at least two things from today also need to be added
... at least two things from today also need to be added ←
18:51:33 <sandro> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html
Sandro Hawke: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html ←
18:51:34 <deiu> ... I could update the document to catch up with the spec in the next couple of days, but I think the document also needs a team review
... I could update the document to catch up with the spec in the next couple of days, but I think the document also needs a team review ←
18:51:46 <deiu> Arnaud: I'd rather ask people to review the spec when you think you're done
Arnaud Le Hors: I'd rather ask people to review the spec when you think you're done ←
18:52:06 <deiu> ... reviewing the document after every change is not efficient
... reviewing the document after every change is not efficient ←
18:52:13 <deiu> ... do you need people to review it *now*?
... do you need people to review it *now*? ←
18:52:19 <deiu> ... is there an immediate benefit?
... is there an immediate benefit? ←
18:52:28 <deiu> codyburleson: not really, I need to add today's items
Cody Burleson: not really, I need to add today's items ←
18:52:48 <deiu> ... after this meeting, I could use a few days to update the spec and present it for review
... after this meeting, I could use a few days to update the spec and present it for review ←
18:53:20 <deiu> ... I don't know if I have the right words for the changes right now, so I might need to talk to people
... I don't know if I have the right words for the changes right now, so I might need to talk to people ←
18:53:47 <deiu> Arnaud: if you're not sure, you could put some placeholders in the document and then signal when you're done so we can assign 2 people to review it
Arnaud Le Hors: if you're not sure, you could put some placeholders in the document and then signal when you're done so we can assign 2 people to review it ←
18:54:06 <deiu> ... this doc has never been officially published, and we need to get to that stage since this will be a WG note
... this doc has never been officially published, and we need to get to that stage since this will be a WG note ←
18:54:17 <Ashok> q
Ashok Malhotra: q ←
18:54:28 <deiu> ... we need to refer to it in the main spec, so it needs publishing
... we need to refer to it in the main spec, so it needs publishing ←
18:54:34 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
18:54:53 <deiu> codyburleson: I can notify the team by 28th to review the doc
Cody Burleson: I can notify the team by 28th to review the doc ←
18:55:13 <deiu> Arnaud: on the 21st we'll have a formal call, so 28th would be good
Arnaud Le Hors: on the 21st we'll have a formal call, so 28th would be good ←
18:55:30 <deiu> ... we can assign two people to look at it then and then hopefully publish it
... we can assign two people to look at it then and then hopefully publish it ←
18:55:49 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
18:56:47 <sandro> sandro; Section 2.3 "Use Relative URIs" obviously needs to be updated with a big EXCEPT ON POST.
Sandro Hawke: sandro; Section 2.3 "Use Relative URIs" obviously needs to be updated with a big EXCEPT ON POST. ←
18:56:47 <deiu> Ashok: as we've gone to the spec, we have said that some things need to be clarified and added to the BP&G so I want to be sure they've been caught and they'll be added to the doc
Ashok Malhotra: as we've gone to the spec, we have said that some things need to be clarified and added to the BP&G so I want to be sure they've been caught and they'll be added to the doc ←
18:56:52 <sandro> sandro: Section 2.3 "Use Relative URIs" obviously needs to be updated with a big EXCEPT ON POST.
Sandro Hawke: Section 2.3 "Use Relative URIs" obviously needs to be updated with a big EXCEPT ON POST. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:57:48 <deiu> codyburleson: I'll track people down and talk to them if I don't understand what's in the minutes
Cody Burleson: I'll track people down and talk to them if I don't understand what's in the minutes ←
18:59:57 <deiu> Arnaud: we've volunteered to do all these deliverables and we need to keep moving, because I feel that we're not really working on these documents
Arnaud Le Hors: we've volunteered to do all these deliverables and we need to keep moving, because I feel that we're not really working on these documents ←
19:00:26 <deiu> ... once we're done with the LDP spec I'll start hunting you! (fair warning)
... once we're done with the LDP spec I'll start hunting you! (fair warning) ←
19:00:38 <deiu> ... and haunting too!
... and haunting too! ←
19:02:42 <betehess> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0625.html
Alexandre Bertails: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0625.html ←
19:03:02 <betehess> [[
Alexandre Bertails: [[ ←
19:03:02 <betehess> The most relevant proposals were:
Alexandre Bertails: The most relevant proposals were: ←
19:03:02 <betehess> A. Opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs without server authentication -- a.k.a. "TLS Relaxed" as per draft-nottingham-http2-encryption.
Alexandre Bertails: A. Opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs without server authentication -- a.k.a. "TLS Relaxed" as per draft-nottingham-http2-encryption. ←
19:03:02 <betehess> B. Opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs with server authentication -- the same mechanism, but not "relaxed", along with some form of downgrade protection.
Alexandre Bertails: B. Opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs with server authentication -- the same mechanism, but not "relaxed", along with some form of downgrade protection. ←
19:03:04 <betehess> ]]
Alexandre Bertails: ]] ←
19:03:31 <deiu> Arnaud: in terms of timing, we need to look at the charter and the expiration date and see when and much of an extension we need to request
Arnaud Le Hors: in terms of timing, we need to look at the charter and the expiration date and see when and much of an extension we need to request ←
19:03:36 <deiu> sandro: "expires June 1st"
Sandro Hawke: "expires June 1st" ←
19:06:45 <deiu> [people discussing the W3C technical aspects of charter extension]
[people discussing the W3C technical aspects of charter extension] ←
19:07:37 <deiu> [break for 10-15 mins]
[break for 10-15 mins] ←
19:31:09 <deiu> [resuming meeting]
(No events recorded for 23 minutes)
[resuming meeting] ←
19:33:35 <deiu> Topic: Paging specification
19:35:17 <deiu> Ashok: we're trying to make the Web R/W
Ashok Malhotra: we're trying to make the Web R/W ←
19:35:27 <deiu> [Ashok presents slides]
[Ashok presents slides] ←
19:36:13 <deiu> ...databases have stuff that we haven't got on the Web, such as locking, transactions, etc.
...databases have stuff that we haven't got on the Web, such as locking, transactions, etc. ←
19:37:07 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
19:37:16 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
19:37:16 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
19:37:22 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
19:37:22 <Zakim> nmihindu was already muted, nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu was already muted, nmihindu ←
19:37:32 <deiu> ... you can have data in the databases that has not yet been computed
... you can have data in the databases that has not yet been computed ←
19:37:53 <deiu> ... what are we going to do about the http limitations
... what are we going to do about the http limitations ←
19:38:42 <deiu> ... some possible solutions are to have clients page through collections/graph knowing that it may change during this time
... some possible solutions are to have clients page through collections/graph knowing that it may change during this time ←
19:38:55 <deiu> ... the client may use ETags to check if the collection has changed
... the client may use ETags to check if the collection has changed ←
19:39:16 <deiu> ... client pages through snapshot of collection
... client pages through snapshot of collection ←
19:40:24 <deiu> ... the feedback we got was about snapshots and the fact that they cost almost nothing
... the feedback we got was about snapshots and the fact that they cost almost nothing ←
19:40:40 <deiu> ... the database guys are used to this system
... the database guys are used to this system ←
19:41:16 <deiu> ... the problem with snapshots is that we don't know when the snapshots are created and deleted
... the problem with snapshots is that we don't know when the snapshots are created and deleted ←
19:41:34 <deiu> ... the solution is to use locking and transactions instead
... the solution is to use locking and transactions instead ←
19:43:04 <deiu> Arnaud: we have no guarantee that as you walk the pages, you have seen all the resources in their current state
Arnaud Le Hors: we have no guarantee that as you walk the pages, you have seen all the resources in their current state ←
19:43:22 <deiu> ... with http there is no guarantee that a change has not been produced during this time
... with http there is no guarantee that a change has not been produced during this time ←
19:43:42 <deiu> ... Sandro requires guarantees that resources have not been missed
... Sandro requires guarantees that resources have not been missed ←
19:44:06 <deiu> ... it is a reasonable argument, but a difficult one to address
... it is a reasonable argument, but a difficult one to address ←
19:44:49 <deiu> Ashok: what happened to Sandro's variable page size proposal?
Ashok Malhotra: what happened to Sandro's variable page size proposal? ←
19:45:40 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0063.html
Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0063.html ←
19:45:44 <deiu> Arnaud: that proposal is guaranteeing that you're not going to miss triples, even through there might be new tripes, but between the time you started and the time you have finished the traversal, you know you won't miss triples from that range
Arnaud Le Hors: that proposal is guaranteeing that you're not going to miss triples, even through there might be new tripes, but between the time you started and the time you have finished the traversal, you know you won't miss triples from that range ←
19:46:02 <deiu> ... I still this this proposal is on the table
... I still this this proposal is on the table ←
19:46:13 <deiu> ... we got pushed back from Ted
... we got pushed back from Ted ←
19:46:49 <deiu> ... the question is: can we find something that is better than what we have now in the spec, which addresses Sandro's proposal
... the question is: can we find something that is better than what we have now in the spec, which addresses Sandro's proposal ←
19:49:33 <deiu> [debate over snapshots are expensive or not]
[debate over snapshots are expensive or not] ←
19:49:41 <betehess> also cost is not only in size, it's also computing power
Alexandre Bertails: also cost is not only in size, it's also computing power ←
19:49:59 <deiu> [Ashok is defending his take that they are not expensive]
[Ashok is defending his take that they are not expensive] ←
19:52:34 <betehess> scribenick: betehess
(Scribe set to Alexandre Bertails)
19:52:51 <betehess> Arnaud: if there was a snapshot feature, of course that'd solve the problem
Arnaud Le Hors: if there was a snapshot feature, of course that'd solve the problem ←
19:53:01 <betehess> ... not sure we want to do that
... not sure we want to do that ←
19:53:35 <betehess> ... there could be an LDP Snapshot spec
... there could be an LDP Snapshot spec ←
19:53:48 <betehess> sandro: do we want paging to depend on snapshot?
Sandro Hawke: do we want paging to depend on snapshot? ←
19:54:04 <betehess> Arnaud: or we can have paging like it is today, with its flaws
Arnaud Le Hors: or we can have paging like it is today, with its flaws ←
19:54:17 <betehess> TallTed: it's a best effort
Ted Thibodeau: it's a best effort ←
19:54:52 <betehess> ... when we start having snapshot, just advertise it
... when we start having snapshot, just advertise it ←
19:55:25 <betehess> Arnaud: at WWW last weeek, somebody presented how to do transactions with 2 phase commit, in a restful way
Arnaud Le Hors: at WWW last weeek, somebody presented how to do transactions with 2 phase commit, in a restful way ←
19:55:30 <betehess> ... including timeouts
... including timeouts ←
19:55:35 <betehess> ... clients can cancel
... clients can cancel ←
19:55:42 <betehess> ... so there are ways to do it
... so there are ways to do it ←
19:56:06 <betehess> ... totally doable
... totally doable ←
19:57:30 <betehess> TallTed: we need to study the database history
Ted Thibodeau: we need to study the database history ←
19:57:34 <betehess> ... to learn from it
... to learn from it ←
19:57:45 <deiu> scribenick: deiu
(Scribe set to Andrei Sambra)
19:57:52 <nmihindu> We identified at least 8 different transaction models proposed for REST including TCC which Arnaud mentioned http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submission_4.pdf
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: We identified at least 8 different transaction models proposed for REST including TCC which Arnaud mentioned http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submission_4.pdf ←
19:58:03 <deiu> Arnaud: isn't option 2 what we have already
Arnaud Le Hors: isn't option 2 what we have already ←
19:58:26 <deiu> sandro: not really, we need another header
Sandro Hawke: not really, we need another header ←
19:59:06 <deiu> Arnaud: the same comments from 2 also apply to 1
Arnaud Le Hors: the same comments from 2 also apply to 1 ←
20:00:13 <deiu> sandro: snapshot is a way to implement lossless paging
Sandro Hawke: snapshot is a way to implement lossless paging ←
20:01:34 <deiu> TallTed: all are viable options with different costs and tradeoffs
Ted Thibodeau: all are viable options with different costs and tradeoffs ←
20:01:46 <deiu> ... we should not force clients to choose one over another
... we should not force clients to choose one over another ←
20:01:56 <deiu> ... the negotiation is really important
... the negotiation is really important ←
20:02:15 <nmihindu> +1 TallTed, it is important if the client can negotiate that based on its needs
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 TallTed, it is important if the client can negotiate that based on its needs ←
20:02:43 <deiu> Arnaud: I think we should do option 2, to give the client a fair warning
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we should do option 2, to give the client a fair warning ←
20:03:33 <deiu> sandro: we just need another header (similar to ETag) but for the main resource that we apply paging to
Sandro Hawke: we just need another header (similar to ETag) but for the main resource that we apply paging to ←
20:03:37 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
20:04:21 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
20:04:52 <deiu> betehess: what about caching? if you add new headers that are not supported by proxies?
Alexandre Bertails: what about caching? if you add new headers that are not supported by proxies? ←
20:05:09 <deiu> sandro: it shouldn't be a problem if we expose that header in the Vary header
Sandro Hawke: it shouldn't be a problem if we expose that header in the Vary header ←
20:06:03 <sandro> OPTION 1: Undetectable Lossy
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 1: Undetectable Lossy ←
20:06:03 <sandro> OPTION 2: Detectable Lossy
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 2: Detectable Lossy ←
20:06:03 <sandro> OPTION 3: Lossless Paging (Sandro's)
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 3: Lossless Paging (Sandro's) ←
20:06:03 <sandro> OPTION 4: Use Snapshots
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 4: Use Snapshots ←
20:06:23 <sandro> OPTION 5: Transactions
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 5: Transactions ←
20:06:45 <roger> http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submission_7.pdf
Roger Menday: http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submission_7.pdf ←
20:06:47 <roger> ?
Roger Menday: ? ←
20:06:54 <nmihindu> The presentation that Arnaud mentioned TCC - http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submission_7.pdf
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: The presentation that Arnaud mentioned TCC - http://ws-rest.org/2014/sites/default/files/wsrest2014_submission_7.pdf ←
20:08:26 <TallTed> thanks, nmihindu!
Ted Thibodeau: thanks, nmihindu! ←
20:09:25 <deiu> sandro: my sense is that 2&3 are the only practical options
Sandro Hawke: my sense is that 2&3 are the only practical options ←
20:09:51 <deiu> ... people should be able to do paging without snapshots
... people should be able to do paging without snapshots ←
20:10:59 <sandro> sandro: I want snapshots, but I want paging even on servers that don't support snapshots. So -1 on 4.
Sandro Hawke: I want snapshots, but I want paging even on servers that don't support snapshots. So -1 on 4. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:11:06 <deiu> TallTed: we need to use common terminology instead of snapshots, so we do not alienate people
Ted Thibodeau: we need to use common terminology instead of snapshots, so we do not alienate people ←
20:11:46 <deiu> sandro: you actually want the state of the resource (of the members) not of the container
Sandro Hawke: you actually want the state of the resource (of the members) not of the container ←
20:12:35 <deiu> TallTed: the best thing to do now is to document what we have
Ted Thibodeau: the best thing to do now is to document what we have ←
20:13:38 <deiu> ... option 2 is fine with me
... option 2 is fine with me ←
20:13:56 <deiu> Arnaud: I would like to raise the bar and say that we should agree to do option 2
Arnaud Le Hors: I would like to raise the bar and say that we should agree to do option 2 ←
20:14:12 <deiu> ... and also to agree to eliminate option 1
... and also to agree to eliminate option 1 ←
20:14:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: At a minimum, on paging, we'll provide a way for clients to detect that a triple fell through the cracks during paging.
PROPOSED: At a minimum, on paging, we'll provide a way for clients to detect that a triple fell through the cracks during paging. ←
20:14:49 <sandro> (ie OPTION 2 as a minumum)
Sandro Hawke: (ie OPTION 2 as a minumum) ←
20:15:04 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
20:15:05 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:15:13 <deiu> +1
+1 ←
20:15:18 <MiguelAraCo> +1
Miguel Aragón: +1 ←
20:15:19 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
20:15:20 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
20:15:42 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
20:15:49 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
20:17:02 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
20:17:17 <sandro> RESOLVED: At a minimum, on paging, we'll provide a way for clients to detect that a triple fell through the cracks during paging.
RESOLVED: At a minimum, on paging, we'll provide a way for clients to detect that a triple fell through the cracks during paging. ←
20:19:25 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Any server claiming paging support must provide a way for clients to know that the resource/collection/whatever being paged has changed during the paging.
PROPOSED: Any server claiming paging support must provide a way for clients to know that the resource/collection/whatever being paged has changed during the paging. ←
20:19:38 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
20:20:16 <sandro> TallTed, that's the right spirit, but....
Sandro Hawke: TallTed, that's the right spirit, but.... ←
20:20:42 <deiu> roger: if the ETag header is not there, then the client falls back to option 1
Roger Menday: if the ETag header is not there, then the client falls back to option 1 ←
20:21:13 <deiu> ... it's the same as how ETags are used now, clients use it if it's there
... it's the same as how ETags are used now, clients use it if it's there ←
20:23:58 <deiu> Arnaud: we're starting to converge, so let's see if we can eliminate the transactions
Arnaud Le Hors: we're starting to converge, so let's see if we can eliminate the transactions ←
20:24:23 <nmihindu> we would like to have transaction but we have happy to do it outside the LDP spec
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: we would like to have transaction but we are happy to do it outside the LDP spec ←
20:24:40 <nmihindu> s/we have happy/we are happy/
20:24:50 <deiu> Arnaud: the LDP does not _require_ you to do transactions for paging
Arnaud Le Hors: the LDP does not _require_ you to do transactions for paging ←
20:24:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: We're not going to require use of transactions in order to have paging
PROPOSED: We're not going to require use of transactions in order to have paging ←
20:25:06 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
20:25:07 <JohnArwe> +1
20:25:08 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:25:08 <deiu> +1
+1 ←
20:25:19 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
20:25:24 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
20:26:16 <nmihindu> +0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0 ←
20:26:41 <Ashok> 1
Ashok Malhotra: 1 ←
20:26:46 <sandro> RESOLVED: We're not going to require use of transactions in order to have paging
RESOLVED: We're not going to require use of transactions in order to have paging ←
20:28:44 <sandro> PROPOSED: We're not going to require snapshots in order to have (better-than-undetectably-lossy) paging.
PROPOSED: We're not going to require snapshots in order to have (better-than-undetectably-lossy) paging. ←
20:29:26 <sandro> PROPOSED: We're not going to require snapshots in order to have paging.
PROPOSED: We're not going to require snapshots in order to have paging. ←
20:29:30 <JohnArwe> +1
20:29:37 <deiu> +1
+1 ←
20:29:38 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
20:29:48 <Ashok> -1
Ashok Malhotra: -1 ←
20:29:58 <TallTed> +0.5
Ted Thibodeau: +0.5 ←
20:30:04 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
20:30:05 <MiguelAraCo> +0
Miguel Aragón: +0 ←
20:30:42 <sandro> sandro: Possible design for snapshots: server can include a Link <> rel=snapshot
Sandro Hawke: Possible design for snapshots: server can include a Link <> rel=snapshot [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:36:25 <deiu> Arnaud: from what I understand the TAG is divided on the 209 code
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: from what I understand the TAG is divided on the 209 code ←
20:36:46 <deiu> ... http2.0 support won't happen soon either
... http2.0 support won't happen soon either ←
20:42:26 <sandro> JohnArwe: you can use Link with an Context (Anchor) to say this is a snapshot of the PagedResource
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
John Arwe: you can use Link with an Context (Anchor) to say this is a snapshot of the PagedResource [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:42:31 <sandro> +1 nice!
Sandro Hawke: +1 nice! ←
20:44:53 <sandro> deiu: Servers should not initiate paging. Sometimes you want the 2G resource and dont know how to do paging.
Andrei Sambra: Servers should not initiate paging. Sometimes you want the 2G resource and dont know how to do paging. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:46:28 <sandro> client Prefer: maxPageSize=20m
Sandro Hawke: client Prefer: maxPageSize=20m ←
20:49:44 <TallTed> PROPOSED: An LDP server claiming paging support MAY offer snapshots for paging, but snapshots are not required for paging compliance.
PROPOSED: An LDP server claiming paging support MAY offer snapshots for paging, but snapshots are not required for paging compliance. ←
20:50:57 <deiu> Arnaud: I wonder if we have to specify the 3 options and define mechanisms for each of them
Arnaud Le Hors: I wonder if we have to specify the 3 options and define mechanisms for each of them ←
20:51:56 <deiu> sandro: we can make it a note
Sandro Hawke: we can make it a note ←
20:52:25 <deiu> Ashok: you can also point to a set of best practices
Ashok Malhotra: you can also point to a set of best practices ←
20:54:15 <deiu> TallTed: the availability of having that option (3) is key to having paging support
Ted Thibodeau: the availability of having that option (3) is key to having paging support ←
20:54:49 <deiu> Arnaud: how does the client figure out which options are available?
Arnaud Le Hors: how does the client figure out which options are available? ←
20:55:23 <deiu> ... I'm trying to understand how simple/complicated things will be
... I'm trying to understand how simple/complicated things will be ←
20:55:44 <deiu> sandro: option 2 can be done with an extra header; the client doesn't need to request anything
Sandro Hawke: option 2 can be done with an extra header; the client doesn't need to request anything ←
20:56:33 <deiu> ... Link rels can be used for 3 and 4
... Link rels can be used for 3 and 4 ←
20:57:00 <TallTed> http://mementoweb.org/
Ted Thibodeau: http://mementoweb.org/ ←
20:57:06 <JohnArwe> http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7089
John Arwe: http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7089 ←
21:06:13 <TallTed> just noticed possibly useful... -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585 -- "428 Precondition Required"
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Ted Thibodeau: just noticed possibly useful... -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585 -- "428 Precondition Required" ←
21:11:56 <deiu> Arnaud: we should call it a day
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: we should call it a day ←
21:15:18 <TallTed> complete current HTTP status code list - http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml
Ted Thibodeau: complete current HTTP status code list - http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml ←
21:18:11 <Arnaud> meeting adjourned
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting adjourned ←
21:18:17 <codyburleson> Thanks!
Cody Burleson: Thanks! ←
21:18:32 <codyburleson> G'night.
Cody Burleson: G'night. ←
21:18:47 <Arnaud> bye
Arnaud Le Hors: bye ←
21:19:48 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
21:21:30 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
21:21:30 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
21:21:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.715.aaaa, nmihindu, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.715.aaaa, nmihindu, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, ericP ←
21:21:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
21:21:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
21:21:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
21:21:39 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-actions.rdf : ←
21:21:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: sandro follow up on resolution about moving rel=describedby text [1]
ACTION: sandro follow up on resolution about moving rel=describedby text [1] ←
21:21:39 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-irc#T18-00-54
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/15-ldp-irc#T18-00-54 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe