13:57:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/18-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/18-ldp-irc ←
13:57:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:57:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:57:24 <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 ←
13:57:25 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:57:25 <trackbot> Date: 18 August 2014
13:59:05 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
13:59:12 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
13:59:18 <pchampin> zakim, ??P5 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
13:59:18 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
13:59:52 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
14:00:28 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
14:00:41 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steve_Speicher ←
14:01:00 <SteveS> Zakim, Steve_Speicher is SteveS
Steve Speicher: Zakim, Steve_Speicher is SteveS ←
14:01:00 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
14:01:02 <Zakim> + +1.857.928.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.857.928.aaaa ←
14:01:11 <betehess> Zakim, aaaa is Alexandre
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, aaaa is Alexandre ←
14:01:13 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre; got it ←
14:03:33 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:03:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see pchampin, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pchampin, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Alexandre ←
14:03:37 <Zakim> + +1.857.204.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.857.204.aabb ←
14:03:42 <ericP> Zakim, aabb is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, aabb is me ←
14:03:42 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
14:03:51 <JohnArwe> zakim not working so well
John Arwe: zakim not working so well ←
14:03:57 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:03:59 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
14:06:48 <betehess> scribe: Alexandre
(Scribe set to Alexandre Bertails)
14:06:56 <betehess> scribenick: betehess
<betehess> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.08.18
<betehess> chair: Arnaud
14:07:05 <betehess> topic: Admin
14:07:22 <betehess> Arnaud: can we approve minutes of last week?
Arnaud Le Hors: can we approve minutes of last week? ←
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-08-11
Arnaud Le Hors: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-08-11 ←
14:07:24 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
14:07:26 <sandro> scribenick: sandro
14:07:38 <sandro> arnaud: Minutes of last week? Some issues around paging, but we'll get back to that
Arnaud Le Hors: Minutes of last week? Some issues around paging, but we'll get back to that ←
14:07:50 <sandro> Resolved: Minutes of August 11 approved.
RESOLVED: Minutes of August 11 approved. ←
<sandro> Arnaud: meet next week?
Arnaud Le Hors: meet next week? ←
<sandro> ... yes
... yes ←
14:08:02 <sandro> topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
14:08:16 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:08:23 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:08:23 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
14:08:24 <sandro> arnaud: sandro sent email re action-145
Arnaud Le Hors: sandro sent email re ACTION-145 ←
14:08:26 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:08:26 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
14:08:36 <sandro> arn: So who is doing that work?
Arnaud Le Hors: So who is doing that work? ←
14:09:00 <sandro> arn: Someone needs to make the json-ld context -- mixed with the namespace document.
Arnaud Le Hors: Someone needs to make the json-ld context -- mixed with the namespace document. ←
14:09:23 <sandro> JohnArwe: Nandana said he could do it, according to minutes from last week
John Arwe: Nandana said he could do it, according to minutes from last week ←
14:09:28 <sandro> Arnaud: great.
Arnaud Le Hors: great. ←
14:09:29 <JohnArwe> regrets: cody
14:10:11 <sandro> topic: Paging
14:10:43 <sandro> Arnaud: Last week we decided to go to Last Call, making a few decisions. Then JohnArwe came back from his trip and pointed out some problems with the decisions we made.
Arnaud Le Hors: Last week we decided to go to Last Call, making a few decisions. Then JohnArwe came back from his trip and pointed out some problems with the decisions we made. ←
14:11:36 <ericP> Arnaud, btw, i think i screwed up 149 (meant to move it to pending review). plh sent http://www.w3.org/mid/1408370806.2900.13.camel@chacal to the apps WG chair
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Arnaud, btw, i think i screwed up 149 (meant to move it to pending review). plh sent http://www.w3.org/mid/1408370806.2900.13.camel@chacal to the apps WG chair ←
14:11:53 <sandro> Arnaud: Regarding units, we had number-of-triples and we decided to add more units.
Arnaud Le Hors: Regarding units, we had number-of-triples and we decided to add more units. ←
14:12:20 <sandro> Arnaud: John said I dont know how to specify multiple units
Arnaud Le Hors: John said I dont know how to specify multiple units ←
14:12:35 <sandro> Arnaud: MUST or MAY -- does the server have to support this
Arnaud Le Hors: MUST or MAY -- does the server have to support this ←
14:13:19 <sandro> JohnArwe: How intentfully do you take the first
John Arwe: How intentfully do you take the first ←
14:13:34 <sandro> ericP: Someone specified both number of bytes and number of triples
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Someone specified both number of bytes and number of triples ←
14:13:52 <sandro> eric: I though 7240 was talking about lexically first
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I though 7240 was talking about lexically first ←
14:14:13 <sandro> JohnArwe: Two consecutive headers
John Arwe: Two consecutive headers ←
14:14:27 <sandro> Arnaud: Could be client just specifies one.
Arnaud Le Hors: Could be client just specifies one. ←
14:14:53 <sandro> eric: I thought use case was machine that was both memory bound and wanted to display ten units to user
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I thought use case was machine that was both memory bound and wanted to display ten units to user ←
14:15:17 <sandro> eric: Whichever is smallest
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Whichever is smallest ←
14:15:30 <sandro> eric: Not whether we allow people to specify multiple units, but is server responsible for respecting multiple limits
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Not whether we allow people to specify multiple units, but is server responsible for respecting multiple limits ←
14:15:49 <sandro> JohnArwe: Also, what syntax the client uses, since the existing syntax doesn't obviously support it.
John Arwe: Also, what syntax the client uses, since the existing syntax doesn't obviously support it. ←
14:16:00 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
14:16:23 <sandro> Arnaud: Did people expect multiple units at the same time?
Arnaud Le Hors: Did people expect multiple units at the same time? ←
14:17:10 <sandro> strawpoll: 1=we need multiple syntaxes at the same time, 0=client just picks one
STRAWPOLL: 1=we need multiple syntaxes at the same time, 0=client just picks one ←
14:17:23 <SteveS> I don’t see need to support multiple (and server honors whichever is smallest), seems to be handling an edge case and adds more complication than needed. Be good to ensure we could support ti.
Steve Speicher: I don’t see need to support multiple (and server honors whichever is smallest), seems to be handling an edge case and adds more complication than needed. Be good to ensure we could support ti. ←
14:17:37 <sandro> JohnArwe: It sounds like it came up on the fly, without existing use cases
John Arwe: It sounds like it came up on the fly, without existing use cases ←
14:18:21 <JohnArwe> on the strawpoll, it's mult units not mult syntaxes that's the first order question
John Arwe: on the strawpoll, it's mult units not mult syntaxes that's the first order question ←
14:18:23 <sandro> Arnaud: I suggest caution
Arnaud Le Hors: I suggest caution ←
14:18:41 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
14:20:09 <sandro> sandro: Why are we using return=representation, instead of our own preference
Sandro Hawke: Why are we using return=representation, instead of our own preference ←
14:21:22 <sandro> JohnArwe: We could do multiple preferences, or just have our current one with an extended syntax
John Arwe: We could do multiple preferences, or just have our current one with an extended syntax ←
14:21:41 <JohnArwe> options in play for units are triples, bytes, members
John Arwe: options in play for units are triples, bytes, members ←
14:21:51 <sandro> JohnArwe: we just have a problem with repeating the same parameter
John Arwe: we just have a problem with repeating the same parameter ←
14:22:17 <sandro> JohnArwe: But it's just a should
John Arwe: But it's just a should ←
14:22:22 <betehess> somebody has an example of things that could be repeated?
Alexandre Bertails: somebody has an example of things that could be repeated? ←
14:22:36 <JohnArwe> ...a 2119 should, as in "unless you have Good Reason to do otherwise"
John Arwe: ...a 2119 should, as in "unless you have Good Reason to do otherwise" ←
14:23:03 <sandro> ericP: It seems like when you're parsing you have three slots, bytes, triples, records.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: It seems like when you're parsing you have three slots, bytes, triples, records. ←
14:23:12 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:23:22 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
14:23:26 <sandro> JohnArwe: Should use the first, should discard the others
John Arwe: Should use the first, should discard the others ←
14:23:49 <sandro> ericP: THat would be good if we're talking about the first/others on bytes, fr instance
Eric Prud'hommeaux: THat would be good if we're talking about the first/others on bytes, fr instance ←
14:23:53 <Ashok> q-
Ashok Malhotra: q- ←
14:23:58 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
14:24:04 <pchampin> zakim, ??P5 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
14:24:04 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
14:24:24 <sandro> JohnArwe: max-triple-count="500" (one option)
John Arwe: max-triple-count="500" (one option) ←
14:26:44 <JohnArwe> ...sandro intends for the sugg above to replace pagesize="500 triples"
John Arwe: ...sandro intends for the sugg above to replace pagesize="500 triples" ←
14:26:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: let's use max-triple-count, max-record-count, max-kbyte-count with parms being integers
PROPOSED: let's use max-triple-count, max-record-count, max-kbyte-count with parms being integers ←
14:26:53 <Ashok> +1 to Sandro's proposal
Ashok Malhotra: +1 to Sandro's proposal ←
14:27:14 <Arnaud> proposed: allow multiple units using separate parameters
PROPOSED: allow multiple units using separate parameters ←
14:27:15 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:27:22 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:27:24 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
14:27:25 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
14:27:28 <JohnArwe> +0
14:27:41 <SteveS> +0 fine with just triple count
Steve Speicher: +0 fine with just triple count ←
14:27:56 <sandro> RESOLVED: let's use max-triple-count, max-record-count, max-kbyte-count with parms being integers
RESOLVED: let's use max-triple-count, max-record-count, max-kbyte-count with parms being integers ←
14:29:23 <sandro> sandro: isnt there an overarching constraint that there can never be a MUST on the server on http PREFER
Sandro Hawke: isnt there an overarching constraint that there can never be a MUST on the server on http PREFER ←
14:29:42 <sandro> JohnArwe: I think we could say say every LDP server must support them.
John Arwe: I think we could say say every LDP server must support them. ←
14:30:25 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:30:25 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
14:30:47 <sandro> PROPOSED: Make the three units be MUST, AT RISK for server
PROPOSED: Make the three units be MUST, AT RISK for server ←
14:31:16 <sandro> JohnArwe: TallTed, can your code do this? How much implementation effort is this?
John Arwe: TallTed, can your code do this? How much implementation effort is this? ←
14:31:30 <sandro> TallTed: Byte-Range ?
Ted Thibodeau: Byte-Range ? ←
14:31:48 <sandro> JohnArwe: No one knows how to do that with RDF
John Arwe: No one knows how to do that with RDF ←
14:32:04 <sandro> TallTed: Clearly the right thing for the client is to allow byte limits
Ted Thibodeau: Clearly the right thing for the client is to allow byte limits ←
14:33:18 <sandro> sandro: Given the AT RISK, we can take it out if people don't implement it.
Sandro Hawke: Given the AT RISK, we can take it out if people don't implement it. ←
14:33:32 <sandro> SteveS: When all three are used.... what?
Steve Speicher: When all three are used.... what? ←
14:34:42 <sandro> sandro: I picture it as the server has three different checks of "have I reached the max-triple-count, if so then close up" "have I reached the number of bytes, then if so close up", etc
Sandro Hawke: I picture it as the server has three different checks of "have I reached the max-triple-count, if so then close up" "have I reached the number of bytes, then if so close up", etc ←
14:35:12 <JohnArwe> ...sandro, you also said that At Risk also lets us change the Musts (understand each unit, now keyword) to Mays
John Arwe: ...sandro, you also said that At Risk also lets us change the Musts (understand each unit, now keyword) to Mays ←
14:35:41 <sandro> Arnaud: it's not easy
Arnaud Le Hors: it's not easy ←
14:35:47 <sandro> sandro: its's easy
Sandro Hawke: its's easy ←
14:35:48 <sandro> :-)
:-) ←
14:35:56 <sandro> PROPOSED: Make the three units be MUST, AT RISK for server
PROPOSED: Make the three units be MUST, AT RISK for server ←
14:35:57 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
14:36:01 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:36:02 <ericP> +.3
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +.3 ←
14:36:17 <sandro> +0.791
+0.791 ←
14:36:19 <JohnArwe> I completely disagree that it's easy, with Jena and especially with built-in serializers.
John Arwe: I completely disagree that it's easy, with Jena and especially with built-in serializers. ←
14:37:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll including in the paging spec that we have AT RISK the three limits, first reached, and we might take out one, two, or all both before PR, or make them MAY instead of MUST.
PROPOSED: We'll including in the paging spec that we have AT RISK the three limits, first reached, and we might take out one, two, or all both before PR, or make them MAY instead of MUST. ←
14:37:54 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:37:58 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:38:03 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
14:38:10 <pchampin> +0
14:38:16 <betehess> /me concurs with JohnArwe re: Jena and other serializers
Alexandre Bertails: /me concurs with JohnArwe re: Jena and other serializers ←
14:38:17 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
14:38:32 <SteveS> -0 think it should be a should, I was fine with just triples
Steve Speicher: -0 think it should be a should, I was fine with just triples ←
14:38:32 <JohnArwe> +0 ok since at risk
John Arwe: +0 ok since at risk ←
14:38:43 <sandro> RESOLVED: We'll including in the paging spec that we have AT RISK the three limits, first reached, and we might take out one, two, or all both before PR, or make them MAY instead of MUST.
RESOLVED: We'll including in the paging spec that we have AT RISK the three limits, first reached, and we might take out one, two, or all both before PR, or make them MAY instead of MUST. ←
14:39:10 <sandro> JohnArwe: I think we're done, yeah.
John Arwe: I think we're done, yeah. ←
14:39:15 <sandro> topic: LD-PATCH
14:39:32 <sandro> Arnaud: We have a proposal, we had some pushback from Sandro and Eric with counter-proposals
Arnaud Le Hors: We have a proposal, we had some pushback from Sandro and Eric with counter-proposals ←
14:41:12 <sandro> Arnaud: we need to settle which direction we're taking, once and for all.
Arnaud Le Hors: we need to settle which direction we're taking, once and for all. ←
14:42:27 <ericP> sandro: i think it works but i'm skeptical that it will be adopted.
Sandro Hawke: i think it works but i'm skeptical that it will be adopted. [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
14:42:50 <ericP> ... i'm happy to see an FPWD after resolving the syntactical issues
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... i'm happy to see an FPWD after resolving the syntactical issues ←
14:43:23 <JohnArwe> hmmm... sounds like same argument (in reverse) we just used to add mult units into a LC draft for paging
John Arwe: hmmm... sounds like same argument (in reverse) we just used to add mult units into a LC draft for paging ←
14:43:28 <betehess> I personally agree on only one change s/-/^/g
Alexandre Bertails: I personally agree on only one change s/-/^/g ←
14:43:55 <betehess> all the rest is different from SPARQL, that's why I don't want to make it look like it
Alexandre Bertails: all the rest is different from SPARQL, that's why I don't want to make it look like it ←
14:44:20 <sandro> ericP: We should ask the community, and the best way to do that is to publish. so we can't decide before.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: We should ask the community, and the best way to do that is to publish. so we can't decide before. ←
14:44:33 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
14:45:08 <JohnArwe> is the assumption that the patch syntax has to fit w/in LDP's charter extension period, which IIRC is YE2014?
John Arwe: is the assumption that the patch syntax has to fit w/in LDP's charter extension period, which IIRC is YE2014? ←
14:45:25 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
14:45:42 <sandro> sandro: I'm not convinced the semantics are diff from sparql
Sandro Hawke: I'm not convinced the semantics are diff from sparql ←
14:46:02 <sandro> betehess: If the semantics are different the syntax sould be different
Alexandre Bertails: If the semantics are different the syntax sould be different ←
14:46:07 <sandro> sandro: Sure, of course.
Sandro Hawke: Sure, of course. ←
14:46:38 <pchampin> q+
14:46:46 <betehess> oh right, the slice operator :-)
Alexandre Bertails: oh right, the slice operator :-) ←
14:46:50 <betehess> will be ..
Alexandre Bertails: will be .. ←
14:47:18 <sandro> SteveS: If we can reuse syntax we should, community feedback is good, enumerate in draft the hot areas
Steve Speicher: If we can reuse syntax we should, community feedback is good, enumerate in draft the hot areas ←
14:47:32 <JohnArwe> q+
14:47:38 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
14:47:41 <sandro> SteveS: raise issues, and put them directly in WD
Steve Speicher: raise issues, and put them directly in WD ←
14:48:18 <sandro> pchampin: About the syntax - I also agree we should change the slice separator, because colon looked too much like pname, but dotdot would be a much better choice
Pierre-Antoine Champin: About the syntax - I also agree we should change the slice separator, because colon looked too much like pname, but dotdot would be a much better choice ←
14:48:24 <sandro> -1000 backslash
-1000 backslash ←
14:48:28 <betehess> ok ok
Alexandre Bertails: ok ok ←
14:48:32 <betehess> :-)
Alexandre Bertails: :-) ←
14:48:47 <sandro> pchampin: lets do dotdot before fpwd
Pierre-Antoine Champin: lets do dotdot before fpwd ←
14:48:52 <SteveS> also, I believe we should try hard to reuse existing syntax/semantics but think we should highlight and get community feedback. I haven’t gone through proposal in detail yet with my use cases
Steve Speicher: also, I believe we should try hard to reuse existing syntax/semantics but think we should highlight and get community feedback. I haven’t gone through proposal in detail yet with my use cases ←
14:48:56 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe ←
14:48:59 <betehess> so, let's publish with s/-/^/ and s/>/../
Alexandre Bertails: so, let's publish with s/-/^/ and s/>/../ ←
14:49:02 <ericP> backslashes suck in strings
Eric Prud'hommeaux: backslashes suck in strings ←
14:49:29 <sandro> JohnArwe: charter extension is to 6 months
John Arwe: charter extension is to 6 months ←
14:49:38 <betehess> ericP, they backsuck
Alexandre Bertails: ericP, they backsuck ←
14:49:45 <sandro> Arnaud: we're not thinking ld-patch will be done in this WG
Arnaud Le Hors: we're not thinking ld-patch will be done in this WG ←
14:50:02 <sandro> Arnaud: in re-chartered WG
Arnaud Le Hors: in re-chartered WG ←
14:51:00 <sandro> Arnaud: the hope is to recharter and continue it in followon WG
Arnaud Le Hors: the hope is to recharter and continue it in followon WG ←
14:51:11 <sandro> Arnaud: It would be hard to get it to REC by the end of the year
Arnaud Le Hors: It would be hard to get it to REC by the end of the year ←
14:51:23 <pchampin> q+
14:51:52 <sandro> Arnaud: Do we want to highlight in status that we're not 100% sure this is the way we want to go?
Arnaud Le Hors: Do we want to highlight in status that we're not 100% sure this is the way we want to go? ←
14:52:06 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
14:52:17 <sandro> +1 say that, yeah
+1 say that, yeah ←
14:52:34 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
14:52:44 <sandro> pchampin: Something that could help people understand the syntax. Include a section on rewriting LD-PATCH into SPARQL update
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Something that could help people understand the syntax. Include a section on rewriting LD-PATCH into SPARQL update ←
14:52:46 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
14:52:54 <SteveS> +1, should highlight in status yes
Steve Speicher: +1, should highlight in status yes ←
14:53:12 <betehess> this is called denotational semantics, and I completely agree
Alexandre Bertails: this is called denotational semantics, and I completely agree ←
14:53:19 <sandro> Arnaud: Yes, that'd be great
Arnaud Le Hors: Yes, that'd be great ←
14:53:25 <SteveS> +1 to LD-PATCH->SPARQL update section
Steve Speicher: +1 to LD-PATCH->SPARQL update section ←
14:53:58 <sandro> ericP: If we wrote up sandro or my proposal, we could include a reference to them in the document
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If we wrote up sandro or my proposal, we could include a reference to them in the document ←
14:54:16 <JohnArwe> +1 to pchampin
14:54:31 <sandro> eric: If "SPARQL UPDATE" is unconstrainted, then people will like it more than it deserves
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If "SPARQL UPDATE" is unconstrainted, then people will like it more than it deserves ←
14:55:01 <betehess> so we are basically rewriting the constraints
Alexandre Bertails: so we are basically rewriting the constraints ←
14:55:13 <betehess> current text says: [[
Alexandre Bertails: current text says: [[ ←
14:55:14 <betehess> The LD Patch format described in this document should be seen as an "assembly language" for updating RDF Graphs. It is the intention to confine its expressive power to an RDF diff with minimal support for blank nodes. For more powerful operations on RDF Graphs and Quad Stores, the LDP WG recommends the reader to consider SPARQL Update. ]]
Alexandre Bertails: The LD Patch format described in this document should be seen as an "assembly language" for updating RDF Graphs. It is the intention to confine its expressive power to an RDF diff with minimal support for blank nodes. For more powerful operations on RDF Graphs and Quad Stores, the LDP WG recommends the reader to consider SPARQL Update. ]] ←
14:55:44 <betehess> (should add support for list in this description as well)
Alexandre Bertails: (should add support for list in this description as well) ←
14:55:54 <betehess> Arnaud, can we vote withing the next 5 minutes??
Alexandre Bertails: Arnaud, can we vote withing the next 5 minutes?? ←
14:56:06 <betehess> publishing
Alexandre Bertails: publishing ←
14:56:10 <betehess> or not
Alexandre Bertails: or not ←
14:56:15 <betehess> then move on
Alexandre Bertails: then move on ←
14:56:52 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal
PROPOSED: Publish LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal ←
14:56:55 <betehess> well, it's a draft, can be updated
Alexandre Bertails: well, it's a draft, can be updated ←
14:57:37 <Ashok> Yes, that looks like a good option
Ashok Malhotra: Yes, that looks like a good option ←
14:57:47 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal (explaining we're asking feedback about which direction to go)
PROPOSED: Publish LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal (explaining we're asking feedback about which direction to go) ←
14:57:54 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:57:59 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:57:59 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:58:00 <sandro> +0
+0 ←
14:58:00 <pchampin> +1
14:58:05 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
14:58:18 <JohnArwe> +1
14:58:25 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal (explaining we're asking feedback about which direction to go)
RESOLVED: Publish LD-PATCH as FPWD with inverse path and slice syntax fixed, possibly other raised issues (eg slash syntax), links to sandro's and eric's proposal (explaining we're asking feedback about which direction to go) ←
14:58:27 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:58:55 <betehess> ok, I will come up with an updated draft for tomorrow or Wednesday
Alexandre Bertails: ok, I will come up with an updated draft for tomorrow or Wednesday ←
14:59:25 <sandro> issue: should LD-PATCH use a slash like SPARQL does, instead of as it currently does?
ISSUE: should LD-PATCH use a slash like SPARQL does, instead of as it currently does? ←
14:59:26 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-100 - Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does?. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/100/edit>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-100 - Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does?. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/100/edit>. ←
14:59:30 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
14:59:31 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
14:59:34 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
14:59:37 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
14:59:47 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
14:59:49 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
14:59:51 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
14:59:55 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
14:59:55 <Zakim> -Ericp
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ericp ←
14:59:56 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
14:59:56 <Zakim> Attendees were pchampin, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, +1.857.928.aaaa, Alexandre, +1.857.204.aabb, ericP, Sandro, JohnArwe, TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were pchampin, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, +1.857.928.aaaa, Alexandre, +1.857.204.aabb, ericP, Sandro, JohnArwe, TallTed ←
<sandro> Present: pchampin, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Alexandre, ericP, Sandro, JohnArwe, TallTed
16:26:06 <Arnaud> zakim, make log public
(No events recorded for 86 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, make log public ←
16:26:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make log public', Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'make log public', Arnaud ←
16:26:16 <Arnaud> zakim, make logs public
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, make logs public ←
16:26:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'make logs public', Arnaud ←
16:26:43 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, make logs public
Arnaud Le Hors: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe