edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 05 May 2014

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.05.05
Present
Bart van Leeuwen, Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, John Arwe, Sandro Hawke, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Andrei Sambra, Henry Story, Ted Thibodeau, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya
Regrets
Alexandre Bertails, Sergio Fernández, Steve Speicher
Scribe
Sandro Hawke
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Approve the minutes of the 28 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-28 link
  2. Close issue-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in issue-98 ( i.e. 400 + rel=describedby) link
  3. Request publication of "ldp" (main spec) as CR link
Topics
13:57:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/05/05-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/05/05-ldp-irc

13:57:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

13:57:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

13:57:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes

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

13:57:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:57:36 <trackbot> Date: 05 May 2014
13:58:39 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

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

13:58:46 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2

13:59:26 <Arnaud> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.05.05
14:00:13 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

14:00:17 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??p3 is me

Bart van Leeuwen: Zakim, ??p3 is me

14:00:17 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +BartvanLeeuwen; got it

14:00:30 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud

14:01:49 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra

14:04:07 <Zakim> +??P10

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10

14:04:33 <Zakim> +JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe

14:05:04 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

14:05:06 <pchampin> zakim, ??P10 is me

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P10 is me

14:05:06 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it

14:05:59 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

14:06:06 <deiu> Zakim, ??P14 is me

Andrei Sambra: Zakim, ??P14 is me

14:06:06 <Zakim> +deiu; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +deiu; got it

14:06:14 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please

Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me please

14:06:14 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted

14:06:39 <Zakim> +bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish

14:06:42 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?

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

14:06:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, BartvanLeeuwen, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, JohnArwe, Sandro, deiu (muted), bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P2, BartvanLeeuwen, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, JohnArwe, Sandro, deiu (muted), bblfish

14:06:45 <sandro> scribe: sandro

(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)

14:06:55 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

14:07:16 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

14:07:16 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it

14:07:17 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

14:07:17 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

<sandro> topic: Admin

1. Admin

14:07:54 <Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 28 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-28

PROPOSED: Approve the minutes of the 28 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-28

14:08:13 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the 28 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-28

RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the 28 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-28

14:08:14 <bblfish> was not around for last month or so, due to moving house, computer breaking down, and other major headaches...

Henry Story: was not around for last month or so, due to moving house, computer breaking down, and other major headaches...

14:08:25 <sandro> Arnaud: meeting as usual next week

Arnaud Le Hors: meeting as usual next week

14:08:46 <sandro> issue-98?

ISSUE-98?

14:08:46 <trackbot> issue-98 -- HTTP status code for application specific errors -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-98 -- HTTP status code for application specific errors -- raised

14:08:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/98

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/98

14:08:49 <JohnArwe> regrets: alexandre, sergio, steve speicher
14:09:01 <Zakim> +??P17

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17

14:09:13 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P17 is me

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P17 is me

14:09:13 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it

14:09:23 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me

14:09:23 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted

14:09:46 <Zakim> -??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P2

14:09:57 <sandro> Arnaud: Any victory on open actions?

Arnaud Le Hors: Any victory on open actions?

14:10:19 <sandro> Arnaud: Cody?   ACTION-234?

Arnaud Le Hors: Cody? ACTION-234?

14:10:24 <sandro> Arnaud: Cody?   ACTION-134?

Arnaud Le Hors: Cody? ACTION-134?

14:10:53 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-98

2. ISSUE-98

14:11:32 <sandro> Arnaud: I proposed we close it along the lines of option 1 -- as a best practice.   The server should respond with "400" with rel=describedby

Arnaud Le Hors: I proposed we close it along the lines of option 1 -- as a best practice. The server should respond with "400" with rel=describedby

14:11:41 <sandro> sandro: 4xx or 400?

Sandro Hawke: 4xx or 400?

14:11:59 <sandro> Arnaud: The spec says 4xx, then the best practice says 400 is typically besty

Arnaud Le Hors: The spec says 4xx, then the best practice says 400 is typically besty

14:12:38 <sandro> JohnArwe: The real trick is if you decide you want to constrain the servers behavior, how to do avoid unnatural acts.

John Arwe: The real trick is if you decide you want to constrain the servers behavior, how to do avoid unnatural acts.

14:12:58 <sandro> JohnArwe: usually you want the constraint to only be active when you're rejecting a message for this particular reason ONLY

John Arwe: usually you want the constraint to only be active when you're rejecting a message for this particular reason ONLY

14:13:16 <sandro> JohnArwe: What if the message has three different problems?     Let the server pick one.

John Arwe: What if the message has three different problems? Let the server pick one.

14:13:58 <sandro> sandro: So best practice -- not a constraint -- but "here's a way to think about this problem"

Sandro Hawke: So best practice -- not a constraint -- but "here's a way to think about this problem"

14:14:02 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: close issue-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1

14:14:21 <sandro> issue-98?

ISSUE-98?

14:14:21 <trackbot> issue-98 -- HTTP status code for application specific errors -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-98 -- HTTP status code for application specific errors -- raised

14:14:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/98

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/98

14:14:21 <sandro> ISSUE-98?

ISSUE-98?

14:14:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-98 -- HTTP status code for application specific errors -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-98 -- HTTP status code for application specific errors -- raised

14:14:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/98

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/98

14:14:30 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: close issue-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in issue-98

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in ISSUE-98

14:14:44 <JohnArwe> i.e. 400 + rel=describedby

John Arwe: i.e. 400 + rel=describedby

14:14:52 <sandro> " 1. 400 + rel=describedby"

" 1. 400 + rel=describedby"

14:14:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: close issue-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in issue-98 ( i.e. 400 + rel=describedby)

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in ISSUE-98 ( i.e. 400 + rel=describedby)

14:15:10 <sandro> +1

+1

14:15:11 <TallTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

14:15:12 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

14:15:13 <deiu> +1

Andrei Sambra: +1

14:15:14 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

Bart van Leeuwen: +1

14:15:15 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

14:15:25 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

14:15:26 <bblfish> +0 Did not really follow this issue

Henry Story: +0 Did not really follow this issue

14:15:33 <JohnArwe> +1

John Arwe: +1

14:15:38 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close issue-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in issue-98 ( i.e. 400 + rel=describedby)

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-98 adding to the BP&G doc option 1, as described in ISSUE-98 ( i.e. 400 + rel=describedby)

14:15:46 <sandro> close ISSUE-98

close ISSUE-98

14:15:46 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-98.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-98.

14:16:03 <sandro> topic: Status of LDP spec

3. Status of LDP spec

14:16:21 <JohnArwe> I'm going to change the "product" field on issue-98 to match the resolution (from LDP spec to BP&G)

John Arwe: I'm going to change the "product" field on ISSUE-98 to match the resolution (from LDP spec to BP&G)

14:16:31 <sandro> Arnaud: commenter was happy about removal of named graphs, of course

Arnaud Le Hors: commenter was happy about removal of named graphs, of course

14:17:02 <sandro> .. on relative URIs for posting, he's not happy says we didn't given bnode approach proper consideration

.. on relative URIs for posting, he's not happy says we didn't given bnode approach proper consideration

14:17:33 <sandro> Arnaud: So I think we'd best make sure we have that topic properly discussed.

Arnaud Le Hors: So I think we'd best make sure we have that topic properly discussed.

14:17:47 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0077.html

Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0077.html

14:18:01 <sandro> Arnaud: That's the proposal from way back when

Arnaud Le Hors: That's the proposal from way back when

14:18:47 <sandro> q+

q+

14:19:23 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

14:19:55 <sandro> sandro: How does this work?

Sandro Hawke: How does this work?

14:20:29 <JohnArwe> ... sandro asks: if the input has 2 blank nodes, how does server know which one should be used?

John Arwe: ... sandro asks: if the input has 2 blank nodes, how does server know which one should be used?

14:20:45 <sandro> pchampin: The blank node that's the placeholder is highlighted by a triple.   It works pretty well.   You can create several resources at the same time

Pierre-Antoine Champin: The blank node that's the placeholder is highlighted by a triple. It works pretty well. You can create several resources at the same time

14:20:57 <sandro> .. I however accept the group deciding otherwise.

.. I however accept the group deciding otherwise.

14:21:37 <sandro> pchampin: So I'm fine with the relative URI solution

Pierre-Antoine Champin: So I'm fine with the relative URI solution

14:21:45 <JohnArwe> How does the server know to create >1 resource?  (fuzzy on this still)  would it be possible for the server to create an HTTP resource (assign a URL) that contains all of the posted bnodes?

John Arwe: How does the server know to create >1 resource? (fuzzy on this still) would it be possible for the server to create an HTTP resource (assign a URL) that contains all of the posted bnodes?

14:22:34 <JohnArwe> sandro: this is about ensuring your proposal was understood

Sandro Hawke: this is about ensuring your proposal was understood [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

14:22:39 <sandro> pchampin: I felt like my proposal was understood, but considered inelegant

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I felt like my proposal was understood, but considered inelegant

14:22:59 <sandro> pchampin: ... in part because some people don't like blank nodes

Pierre-Antoine Champin: ... in part because some people don't like blank nodes

14:23:08 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

14:23:08 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

14:23:39 <sandro> Arnaud: procedurally, lets clearly minute that we've discussed it now and in the past, so Reto knows we didn't miss it.

Arnaud Le Hors: procedurally, lets clearly minute that we've discussed it now and in the past, so Reto knows we didn't miss it.

14:24:50 <sandro> q+

q+

14:25:27 <sandro> JohnArwe: How does the server know it should create multiple resources?   And which triples goes into each resource?

John Arwe: How does the server know it should create multiple resources? And which triples goes into each resource?

14:25:45 <sandro> JohnArwe: Why would the server create three instead of one with three blank nodes

John Arwe: Why would the server create three instead of one with three blank nodes

14:26:03 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

14:26:03 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

14:26:34 <sandro> JohnArwe: So far, all our notions of POST is that it creates one resource.

John Arwe: So far, all our notions of POST is that it creates one resource.

14:27:11 <sandro> q+

q+

14:27:19 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

14:27:48 <sandro>  something:    <container> ldp:contains [ ... ]

something: <container> ldp:contains [ ... ]

14:28:01 <bblfish> The discussion is going on because pchampin said that the bnode proposal he put forward allowed a POST to create more than one resource...

Henry Story: The discussion is going on because pchampin said that the bnode proposal he put forward allowed a POST to create more than one resource...

14:28:27 <pchampin> q+

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+

14:29:08 <Arnaud> ack pchampin

Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin

14:29:36 <sandro> something:    <container> ldp:contains [ ... ], [ ... ].   <a> <b> <c>.                 BUT which one would the <a> <b> <c> triple go into?

Sandro Hawke: <container> ldp:contains [ ... ], [ ... ]. <a> <b> <c>. BUT which one would the <a> <b> <c> triple go into?

14:30:11 <sandro> pchampin: I can still have my own kind of ldp-ish container that accepts posts like this.    So I don't mind going a separate way on this.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I can still have my own kind of ldp-ish container that accepts posts like this. So I don't mind going a separate way on this.

14:30:19 <sandro> pchampin: I don't want to push this back again

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I don't want to push this back again

14:30:53 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

14:31:07 <sandro> pchampin: I would like us to be clear that using the null relative URI is not technically an RDF graph, so it requires some fiddling in some frameworks.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I would like us to be clear that using the null relative URI is not technically an RDF graph, so it requires some fiddling in some frameworks.

14:31:19 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

14:31:20 <sandro> Arnaud: Yes, the BP is to include instructions for how to do this in various tools.

Arnaud Le Hors: Yes, the BP is to include instructions for how to do this in various tools.

14:31:43 <sandro> s/something:/sandro:/
14:32:26 <sandro> bblfish: It depends how the specs are worded.     Is it a "document" that's being passed or a "graph"?   It's not a graph, yes.     So one needs to look closely at the spec.

Henry Story: It depends how the specs are worded. Is it a "document" that's being passed or a "graph"? It's not a graph, yes. So one needs to look closely at the spec.

14:33:00 <sandro> bblfish: maybe pchampin or Reto could find the actual bit in the spec that's wrong

Henry Story: maybe pchampin or Reto could find the actual bit in the spec that's wrong

14:33:12 <sandro> Arnaud: That was analyzed at the f2f.

Arnaud Le Hors: That was analyzed at the f2f.

14:33:27 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't hear anyone saying they prefer the bnode approach

Arnaud Le Hors: I don't hear anyone saying they prefer the bnode approach

14:33:48 <sandro> Arnaud: It seems like we have given this proper consideration.    Everyone agree?

Arnaud Le Hors: It seems like we have given this proper consideration. Everyone agree?

14:34:33 <sandro> sandro: ( also, I don't think we want the <container> ldp:contains [ ... ]  to have to be in the posted content. )

Sandro Hawke: ( also, I don't think we want the <container> ldp:contains [ ... ] to have to be in the posted content. )

<sandro> Arnaud: ok, hearing no disagreement, we'll leave it at that and I will follow up with Reto

Arnaud Le Hors: ok, hearing no disagreement, we'll leave it at that and I will follow up with Reto

14:34:56 <sandro> topic: Going to CR

4. Going to CR

14:35:12 <sandro> Arnaud: We have a spec ready....   Editors?

Arnaud Le Hors: We have a spec ready.... Editors?

14:35:21 <sandro> JohnArwe: It was ready last week

John Arwe: It was ready last week

14:35:33 <sandro> Arnaud: We have a test suite now, too.

Arnaud Le Hors: We have a test suite now, too.

14:35:40 <Zakim> -deiu

Zakim IRC Bot: -deiu

14:35:42 <sandro> Arnaud: We've disposed of comments

Arnaud Le Hors: We've disposed of comments

14:35:56 <sandro> Arnaud: I think we're set to go to CR.

Arnaud Le Hors: I think we're set to go to CR.

14:36:55 <sandro> sandro: Does the test suite show approved-ness.

Sandro Hawke: Does the test suite show approved-ness.

14:37:03 <pchampin> @bblfish: I'm not arguing that a precise sentence is wrong in the spec; my point is that the handling of relative URIs in POST is preventing you to work *purely* at the abstract syntax level (which does *not* allow relative URIs), and this should be stated explicitly. Indeed, to some readers (including me and, apparently, Reto), talking about RDF (vs. RDF/XML or Turtle) amounts to talking about the *abstract* syntax.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: @bblfish: I'm not arguing that a precise sentence is wrong in the spec; my point is that the handling of relative URIs in POST is preventing you to work *purely* at the abstract syntax level (which does *not* allow relative URIs), and this should be stated explicitly. Indeed, to some readers (including me and, apparently, Reto), talking about RDF (vs. RDF/XML or Turtle) amounts to talking about the *abstract* syntax.

14:37:29 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2

14:37:33 <deiu> Zakim, ??P2 is me

Andrei Sambra: Zakim, ??P2 is me

14:37:33 <Zakim> +deiu; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +deiu; got it

14:37:37 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please

Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me please

14:37:37 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted

14:37:40 <sandro> sandro: It's a bit iffy to issue a call for implementation until we have a set of APPROVED tests.

Sandro Hawke: It's a bit iffy to issue a call for implementation until we have a set of APPROVED tests.

14:39:08 <sandro> PROPOSAL: Request publication of "ldp" (main spec) as CR

PROPOSED: Request publication of "ldp" (main spec) as CR

14:39:20 <JohnArwe> +1

John Arwe: +1

14:39:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1

Bart van Leeuwen: +1

14:39:33 <JohnArwe> +1 (for steve speicher, per his email)

John Arwe: +1 (for steve speicher, per his email)

14:39:33 <TallTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

14:39:44 <deiu> +1

Andrei Sambra: +1

14:39:50 <sandro> +1  (but maybe we can get test approved before it actually goes out?)

+1 (but maybe we can get test approved before it actually goes out?)

14:40:54 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

14:40:55 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

14:41:03 <sandro> RESOLVED: Request publication of "ldp" (main spec) as CR

RESOLVED: Request publication of "ldp" (main spec) as CR

14:41:10 <JohnArwe> note that steve is out this week, and I've never done the "capture spec for WD" editor dance.  He was intending to do that when he returns next monday.

John Arwe: note that steve is out this week, and I've never done the "capture spec for WD" editor dance. He was intending to do that when he returns next monday.

14:41:26 <sandro> topic: Test Suite

5. Test Suite

14:41:53 <sandro> Arnaud: we have the github repo, we got IBM approval to contribute the IBM tests, Sergio has ball adding Marmotta tests

Arnaud Le Hors: we have the github repo, we got IBM approval to contribute the IBM tests, Sergio has ball adding Marmotta tests

14:42:20 <sandro> Arnaud: So it would be good to clarity about official test suite

Arnaud Le Hors: So it would be good to clarity about official test suite

14:43:16 <sandro> sandro: I'd suggest a simple machine-readable file listing each approved test (or each test a flag whether it's approved) and a link to where in the minutes it was approved.

Sandro Hawke: I'd suggest a simple machine-readable file listing each approved test (or each test a flag whether it's approved) and a link to where in the minutes it was approved.

14:43:30 <sandro> Arnaud: Maybe we can have that for test week

Arnaud Le Hors: Maybe we can have that for test week

14:44:48 <sandro> sandro: We could do it manually or automatically

Sandro Hawke: We could do it manually or automatically

14:45:26 <sandro> Arnaud: So let's have a PROPOSED batch to add, run them, and ACCEPT them as a batch.

Arnaud Le Hors: So let's have a PROPOSED batch to add, run them, and ACCEPT them as a batch.

14:45:51 <sandro> Arnaud: it becomes everyone's responsibility to run the test, and complain if there's a problem.

Arnaud Le Hors: it becomes everyone's responsibility to run the test, and complain if there's a problem.

14:46:12 <sandro> sandro: That's fine if we have enough people paying attention, willing to run the tests

Sandro Hawke: That's fine if we have enough people paying attention, willing to run the tests

14:46:40 <sandro> Arnaud: Steve was working to make sure all of Raoul's tests were included

Arnaud Le Hors: Steve was working to make sure all of Raoul's tests were included

14:46:45 <JohnArwe> Thinking of the test suite as a document, with editors and readers (in this case, machine-based readers) to catch and raise issues sounds like a good form of process re-use.

John Arwe: Thinking of the test suite as a document, with editors and readers (in this case, machine-based readers) to catch and raise issues sounds like a good form of process re-use.

14:46:55 <Arnaud> q?

Arnaud Le Hors: q?

14:47:30 <sandro> topic: Other Documents

6. Other Documents

14:47:43 <sandro> Arnaud: Are the other documents ready for review...???

Arnaud Le Hors: Are the other documents ready for review...???

14:48:02 <sandro> Arnaud: They were supposed to be ready last week!

Arnaud Le Hors: They were supposed to be ready last week!

14:48:11 <nmihindu> Primer is ready to be reviewed by the WG (not perfect) and we will send the email to the group today or tomorrow

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Primer is ready to be reviewed by the WG (not perfect) and we will send the email to the group today or tomorrow

14:48:25 <sandro> Arnaud: Access Control Requirements, Best Practice, Primer

Arnaud Le Hors: Access Control Requirements, Best Practice, Primer

14:48:54 <JohnArwe> based on commits from roger, he worked on it a week ago and then again on friday

John Arwe: based on commits from roger, he worked on it a week ago and then again on friday

14:48:54 <bblfish> I am looking at the thread on Access Control, I think it needs some discussion

Henry Story: I am looking at the thread on Access Control, I think it needs some discussion

14:48:55 <nmihindu> About the primer, Roger and I will do a small review ourselves and will send the email to the group asap.

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: About the primer, Roger and I will do a small review ourselves and will send the email to the group asap.

14:49:00 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

14:49:14 <sandro> Arnaud: Ashok and Henry agreed to review the Primer

Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok and Henry agreed to review the Primer

14:49:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

14:49:25 <sandro> bblfish: Okay

Henry Story: Okay

14:49:50 <sandro> bblfish: On access control, perhaps we should get together (Sandro?  Ashok?)  and go through that and be done?

Henry Story: On access control, perhaps we should get together (Sandro? Ashok?) and go through that and be done?

14:50:30 <sandro> Arnaud: Primer sounds like it's ready for review.    Henry, Ashok, can you do that and tell us before Monday if it's okay to go?    Everyone else is welcome to do that too.

Arnaud Le Hors: Primer sounds like it's ready for review. Henry, Ashok, can you do that and tell us before Monday if it's okay to go? Everyone else is encouraged to do that too.

14:50:37 <sandro> s/welcome/encouraged/
14:51:12 <sandro> Arnaud: NEXT MONDAY i'm expecting us to resolve to publish Primer, unless someone raises a problem before then.

Arnaud Le Hors: NEXT MONDAY i'm expecting us to resolve to publish Primer, unless someone raises a problem before then.

14:51:41 <sandro> Arnaud: Henry is suggesting side meeting on ACR

Arnaud Le Hors: Henry is suggesting side meeting on ACR

14:52:01 <sandro> Ashok: I'm fine with answering email or side meeting

Ashok Malhotra: I'm fine with answering email or side meeting

14:52:29 <bblfish> bblfish skype

Henry Story: bblfish skype

14:53:00 <sandro> Arnaud: Ashok do you have more work you're planning to do, or are you ready for reviews?

Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok do you have more work you're planning to do, or are you ready for reviews?

14:53:07 <sandro> Ashok: I want to answer Henry's email

Ashok Malhotra: I want to answer Henry's email

14:53:19 <sandro> Ashok: I *think* we agree, except on one issue

Ashok Malhotra: I *think* we agree, except on one issue

14:53:37 <sandro> Ashok: should just be a couple of paragraphs

Ashok Malhotra: should just be a couple of paragraphs

14:53:43 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

14:53:43 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

14:53:54 <sandro> Arnaud: Can Tedd review it for next week

Arnaud Le Hors: Can Ted review it for next week

14:54:02 <sandro> s/Tedd/Ted/
14:54:27 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControlTake2

Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControlTake2

14:55:28 <sandro> sandro: convert to respec?

Sandro Hawke: convert to respec?

14:55:38 <sandro> arnaud: soon-ish, not yet

Arnaud Le Hors: soon-ish, not yet

14:55:43 <sandro> Arnaud: BP?

Arnaud Le Hors: BP?

14:56:13 <sandro> sandro: I pointed out problems with relative uri

Sandro Hawke: I pointed out problems with relative uri

14:56:24 <sandro> topic: Paging?

7. Paging?

14:57:04 <sandro> Ashok: The problem with paging is that we have a number of ideas, but we haven't got one answer that's perfect.

Ashok Malhotra: The problem with paging is that we have a number of ideas, but we haven't got one answer that's perfect.

14:57:18 <sandro> Ashok: That's how it is.

Ashok Malhotra: That's how it is.

14:57:28 <sandro> Ashok: I don't know how to do better than that.

Ashok Malhotra: I don't know how to do better than that.

14:57:39 <sandro> Arnaud: I think that's okay and understood.  Is what we have useful enough>

Arnaud Le Hors: I think that's okay and understood. Is what we have useful enough>

14:58:18 <sandro> Arnaud: Maybe it'll be easier when we have an updated draft.

Arnaud Le Hors: Maybe it'll be easier when we have an updated draft.

14:58:51 <sandro> Arnaud: my take is we can boil the ocean, or just focus on the solution in the spec and see if it's useful.

Arnaud Le Hors: my take is we can boil the ocean, or just focus on the solution in the spec and see if it's useful.

14:59:49 <sandro> Arnaud: Trying to find sweet spot of something that can be implemented at reasonable cost.

Arnaud Le Hors: Trying to find sweet spot of something that can be implemented at reasonable cost.

15:01:00 <sandro> Ashok: When we spoke about this, we said "Okay, you're going to be paging, and ...    you can find out if it has changed, and if so, you can start again"   Turns out to be hard to find out of collection has changed.  etags on collection are kind of difficult.

Ashok Malhotra: When we spoke about this, we said "Okay, you're going to be paging, and ... you can find out if it has changed, and if so, you can start again" Turns out to be hard to find out of collection has changed. etags on collection are kind of difficult.

15:01:24 <JohnArwe> ashok, what is difficult about etags on collections?  is that an implementation issue or something general?

John Arwe: ashok, what is difficult about etags on collections? is that an implementation issue or something general?

15:01:29 <sandro> Arnaud: Interesting.   We're out of time, more later.

Arnaud Le Hors: Interesting. We're out of time, more later.

15:01:45 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra

15:01:50 <bblfish> bye

Henry Story: bye

15:01:50 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

15:01:51 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen

Zakim IRC Bot: -BartvanLeeuwen

15:01:53 <BartvanLeeuwen> bye

Bart van Leeuwen: bye

15:01:53 <Zakim> -JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe

15:01:55 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

15:01:56 <Zakim> -deiu

Zakim IRC Bot: -deiu

15:01:57 <Zakim> -bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish

15:01:58 <Zakim> -nmihindu

Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu

15:01:59 <Zakim> -TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed

15:02:09 <Zakim> -pchampin

Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin

15:02:10 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

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

15:02:10 <Zakim> Attendees were BartvanLeeuwen, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, Sandro, pchampin, deiu, bblfish, TallTed, nmihindu

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were BartvanLeeuwen, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, Sandro, pchampin, deiu, bblfish, TallTed, nmihindu

<sandro> Present: BartvanLeeuwen, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, Sandro, pchampin, deiu, bblfish, TallTed, nmihindu


Formatted by CommonScribe