14:00:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:00:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-ldp-irc
14:00:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:00:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:00:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:00:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:00:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:00:12 <trackbot> Date: 10 March 2014
14:00:23 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:00:30 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:00:39 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:00:44 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:00:54 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:01:14 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:01:24 <stevebattle15> stevebattle15 has joined #ldp
14:01:52 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
14:01:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:02:02 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
14:02:02 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
14:02:19 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
14:02:25 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
14:02:25 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:02:27 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:02:27 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:02:35 <Zakim> +Roger
14:02:47 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
14:02:57 <SteveS> Zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
14:02:57 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:03:03 <Zakim> +MIT531
14:03:18 <deiu> Zakim, +MIT531 is me
14:03:18 <Zakim> sorry, deiu, I do not recognize a party named '+MIT531'
14:03:22 <deiu> Zakim, MIT531 is me
14:03:22 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
14:03:36 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:03:52 <Ashok> zakim, IPcaller is me
14:03:52 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
14:05:31 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:05:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, codyburleson, TallTed (muted), Roger, SteveS, deiu, Ashok
14:06:26 <deiu> scribenick: Deiu
14:06:31 <deiu> scribenick Deiu
14:06:52 <deiu> Scribe: Deiu
14:06:57 <sandro> sandro has joined #ldp
14:07:02 <deiu> Topic: approval of last minutes
14:07:17 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-03-03
14:07:20 <deiu> Arnaud: minutes approved since there were no objections
14:07:50 <deiu> ... any problem with next week's meeting? Same time, same hour difference
14:07:58 <deiu> Topic: Actions and Issues
14:08:28 <deiu> Arnaud: I used to track issues during the call, but I dropped it for a while. Now we can go back to tracking issues.
14:09:00 <deiu> ... re. Actions, we're now done with the spec, so we have to get back to the other deliverables
14:09:25 <deiu> ... there are some actions that need attention, any open actions? Any progress on them? (only 7 open but still)
14:09:31 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:10:03 <deiu> ... is the spec supposed to be published tomorrow
14:10:12 <deiu> SteveS: everything is good to go for tomorrow
14:10:39 <deiu> Arnaud: it could have been April 1st, but we thought we should avoid that particular date
14:10:58 <deiu> ... we have 3 weeks at the beginning of April to finish the CR
14:11:15 <deiu> ... we don't have time to finish the spec before the group expires
14:11:29 <deiu> ... but we're pretty much done
14:11:47 <deiu> ... we can close shop at the beginning of June; it won't affect the spec too much
14:12:03 <deiu> ... we can get an extension though, in case we want to respond to comments
14:12:38 <deiu> ... if people are interested in continuing working on LDP, we still have a "wish list", so we can work on a new charter
14:13:18 <deiu> ... that will take some time to be approved, so maybe we can get an extension for the current group to try and deal with some of the points on that list
14:13:52 <deiu> ... we need to agree on the exit critera for CR
14:14:02 <deiu> ... at least 2-3 implementations
14:14:25 <deiu> ... it may take some time for people to implement the spec, after the latest changes
14:15:02 <deiu> sandro: we need implementations that are interoperable, and for that we need a test suite
14:15:31 <deiu> Arnaud: we should aim for demonstrating interop as much as possible, so the test suite is a priority
14:15:45 <Zakim> +??P12
14:15:48 <deiu> Topic: Use Cases and Requirements
14:15:49 <sandro> s/for that we need a test suite/which is often done with a test suite
14:16:02 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P12 is me
14:16:02 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:16:08 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
14:16:08 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:16:30 <deiu> Arnaud: there were improvements to the document, but we never got around to publishing it
14:16:48 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish the latest UC&R draft
14:16:54 <SteveS> +1
14:16:58 <Ashok> +1
14:17:27 <roger> +1
14:17:28 <TallTed> +1
14:17:30 <deiu> SteveS: I thought stevebattle15 started the process and he requested a date
14:17:36 <deiu> +1
14:17:36 <codyburleson> +1
14:17:52 <nmihindu> +1
14:17:55 <MiguelAraCo> +1
14:18:03 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Publish the latest UC&R draft
14:18:06 <JohnArwe> +1
14:18:19 <deiu> Arnaud: I will let everyone know when it's published
14:18:26 <deiu> Topic: Face-2-Face
14:18:58 <deiu> Arnaud: we had talked about having a 3 day meeting, and maybe reduce it to 2 days
14:19:19 <SteveS> maybe 3rd day can be test suite and other hacking
14:19:45 <deiu> ... I want to confirm that this will be a 3 day meeting (around 15-17 April)
14:19:47 <sandro> +1 3 day meeting, especially if we can be doing interop testing
14:19:52 <deiu> ... there is a list of items to discuss
14:20:02 <deiu> +1 for hacking
14:20:29 <codyburleson> +1 3 days (or more)
14:20:34 <deiu> ... we have two specs now (LDP + Pagind&Ordering), so we have to make sure that they move forward
14:20:47 <deiu> ... we also have PATCH details to discuss
14:21:18 <deiu> ... we can spend some more time to discuss PATCH format, if we don't have too many LC comments
14:21:40 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Confirm 3 day meeting: 15-17 April
14:21:48 <deiu> +1
14:22:02 <SteveS> +1
14:22:03 <MiguelAraCo> +1
14:22:05 <roger> +1
14:22:22 <TallTed> +1
14:22:37 <deiu> Arnaud: people can go to the page and indicate there if they want to participate to the 3 day f2f
14:22:47 <sandro> +1
14:22:53 <JohnArwe> +1
14:23:31 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Confirm 3 day meeting: 15-17 April
14:23:48 <codyburleson> That might be good, Sandro - if anybody cared to stay an extra day for extra "hackathon"
14:23:52 <deiu> Arnaud: so now back to paging
14:24:18 <deiu> ... based on feedback from sandro, we have agreed to separate paging from the main LDP spec
14:24:30 <deiu> ... paging and ordering are now in a new draft
14:24:53 <deiu> ... we need to make progress, following the discussions on the mailing list
14:24:58 <deiu> ... there is currently no stability
14:25:11 <deiu> ... how much can the client miss when walking the pages
14:25:25 <deiu> ... currently, the spec does not guarantee anything
14:25:49 <deiu> ... sandro made the point that we need more guarantees
14:25:50 <Zakim> +ericP
14:25:58 <deiu> ... we need to discuss this further
14:26:20 <stevebattle16> stevebattle16 has joined #ldp
14:26:25 <deiu> ... I want to make sure that since this is an important aspect of LDP, we should not forget about it
14:27:07 <Zakim> -deiu
14:28:45 <sandro> deiu, we hope you're dialing back
14:29:00 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
14:29:17 <Zakim> +TimBL
14:29:26 <ericP> sandro: to what extent will paging work for arbitrary graphs (vs. ldp:Containers)
14:29:31 <deiu> Zakim: TimBL is me
14:29:43 <deiu> Zakim, TimBL is me
14:29:43 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
14:29:52 <ericP> ... we always had it mind that it would work in LDPRs, but we never worked through e.g. ordering
14:29:58 <deiu> Arnaud: member submission was attached to containers
14:30:10 <ericP> scribenick deiu
14:30:18 <SteveS> FYI I created a new tracker "Product" for "LDP Paging Spec" https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/products/8
14:30:29 <JohnArwe> Note: internally, we had paging for everything.  it was easier to explain for containers only so we moved it there.
14:30:41 <deiu> sandro: paging makes sense if you have ordering, and ordering was not defined for arbitrary LDPRs
14:31:02 <deiu> Arnaud: should we open issues to start keeping track of these items more efficiently
14:31:40 <deiu> ... JohnArwe do you have any input?
14:32:09 <deiu> JohnArwe: we had paging for arbitrary LDPRs initially, but we moved it over to containers since it was easier to explain to people
14:32:32 <deiu> ... pages came back and the implementation would manage the rest
14:33:18 <deiu> sandro: you would order on the properties of the subject
14:33:32 <deiu> ... group by subject and order by a property (say foaf:name)
14:33:45 <deiu> ... for subjects that _have_ a foaf:name
14:34:09 <deiu> ... if you don't order the graph, then paging is just random sampling
14:35:09 <deiu> @@@: none of the serializers do any ordering now
14:35:53 <deiu> sandro: this would pose a problem for very large files
14:36:12 <deiu> ... there is also filtering (vs paging)
14:36:51 <deiu> Zakim: who is talking?
14:36:55 <Arnaud> john
14:37:05 <Arnaud> JohnArwe:
14:37:42 <deiu> JohnArwe: we weren't thinking about it in terms of a function that assigns resources to a page
14:38:13 <deiu> sandro: you want pages to be a fixed (or approx) byte size
14:38:34 <deiu> ... request more pages as you need them
14:39:05 <deiu> JohnArwe: you also want to be able to skip pages and/or support actions like "Home" or "Back" in the browser
14:40:00 <deiu> Arnaud: ok, so we need to capture the issues
14:40:27 <deiu> ... one: how lossy do we allow paging to be?
14:40:47 <deiu> ... two: how do we do paging if there is no ordering, since ordering is defined for LDPCs
14:41:23 <deiu> ... paging is defined for LDPRs
14:41:37 <deiu> ... we can argue about its usefulness
14:42:05 <deiu> JohnArwe: your client may not be only an LDP client, and so the client may know more (has support for extra features)
14:42:36 <deiu> ... it doesn't mean that is a problem if it isn't in the LDP spec
14:43:20 <deiu> Arnaud: because we don't have a solution now, it doesn't mean that we won't find one later
14:43:34 <SteveS> q+ to ask of there is any problem with paging spec just reusing LDP namespace
14:43:49 <deiu> sandro: is paging only used for flow control or does it allow for application grouping?
14:43:54 <Arnaud> ack steves
14:43:54 <Zakim> SteveS, you wanted to ask of there is any problem with paging spec just reusing LDP namespace
14:43:57 <ericP> Xon/Xoff
14:44:40 <JohnArwe> I think Steve is asking if the paging spec-defined elements get a different NSURI
14:44:50 <deiu> SteveS: we have some terms in the LDP namespace for paging
14:44:50 <Zakim> -Roger
14:45:19 <deiu> ... do extensions go into the LDP namespace?
14:45:39 <ericP> downside is that it's difficult to assert the stability policy
14:45:53 <deiu> sandro: you'd like people to play with extensions in a different namespace, but you'd also want to keep everything in the same space
14:46:10 <Zakim> +Roger
14:47:01 <deiu> Arnaud: with the spec the way it is, sandro, do you have a problem with the way things are now, or is it ok?
14:47:17 <deiu> ... if we don't define ordering, can we keep the paging in LDPR?
14:47:40 <deiu> sandro: I agree with JohnArwe about adding ordering later, but I'm not sure about how we will implement it
14:48:37 <deiu> JohnArwe: how do you talk about the next page when you don't know how to sort it?
14:49:20 <deiu> sandro: the server must figure out some kind or ordering so that it will not repeat things nor leave things out
14:49:58 <deiu> Arnaud: my point is that if in your implementation you don't care about paging, you can choose not to do paging on graphs, for which you don't have a defined order of pages
14:50:12 <deiu> sandro: the paging spec is optional, I agree
14:50:47 <deiu> Arnaud: if you say you do paging, you have to be compliant and do paging on all resource types
14:51:21 <deiu> sandro: you can ignore the requests to do paging
14:51:42 <deiu> ... the paging will be initiated by the client, say "Preferred page size: 10MB"
14:52:44 <deiu> Arnaud: the server is in charge of deciding what resources get paged
14:53:28 <deiu> sandro: we need to come up with an arbitrary way of doing paging
14:53:53 <deiu> ... so that if the server can do paging for one resource type, it will be able to do it for others too
14:55:24 <deiu> JohnArwe: if I have a small resource (1-2 triples), am I required to break those into multiple pages (by supporting paging)?
14:55:53 <deiu> sandro: if the client says "Max page size: 10MB" then the server will not send more than 10MB
14:56:08 <deiu> ... if a triple pushes you over the page size, you'll get another page
14:56:39 <deiu> Arnaud: I want to raise 2 issues
14:56:49 <deiu> ... 1) how lossy is paging?
14:56:52 <JohnArwe> The server-side issue with the size limit is that the size is not so easy to predict (with precision) when using OTS serializers.
14:57:04 <deiu> ... 2) what does it mean to have paging without ordering for LDPRs?
14:57:14 <sandro> sandro: the exception being literals over the page size -- the server still needs to send those as is
14:57:45 <deiu> sandro: the issue of how to page on LDPR is a different issue
14:57:54 <deiu> sandro: sorry, how to order?
14:58:06 <deiu> ... ordering arbitrary LDPRs
14:58:33 <JohnArwe> When you're near the page size, as a server you have to guess what fits, and when you're wrong you see a spike in overhead as you retry (remove a bit, re-serialize, test again), in pathological cases repeatedly
14:58:34 <SteveS> FYI I created a new tracker "Product" for "LDP Paging Spec" https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/products/8
14:58:37 <deiu> Arnaud: we need to make sure that raised issues match the right spec
14:58:38 <stevebattle16> stevebattle16 has joined #ldp
14:59:09 <deiu> Arnaud: we need to get back on progress on deliverables: test suite, etc.
14:59:37 <nmihindu> I can ping Raul and ask about that
14:59:51 <deiu> ... we also have the ACL document; best practices and guidelines
15:00:07 <deiu> ... it might be good to take another look at the primer to check that is in sync
15:00:30 <deiu> ... we need to identify how we can make progress
15:00:41 <codyburleson> After the last major update to the spec, I am guessing that all the docs need review and revision again. The last changes in spec were pretty dramatic.
15:00:43 <SteveS> sandro, erice, deiu, any idea why mercurial is so slow ?
15:00:56 <SteveS> ..much slower last couple of weeks
15:01:02 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
15:01:03 <Zakim> -Roger
15:01:05 <Zakim> -Ashok
15:01:06 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:01:07 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:01:07 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:01:08 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:01:09 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:01:11 <Zakim> -ericP
15:01:13 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:01:20 <deiu> SteveS: no idea really, you're the first person I know that complained about it
15:01:22 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:01:24 <Zakim> -deiu
15:01:25 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:01:25 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, codyburleson, TallTed, Roger, SteveS, deiu, Ashok, nmihindu, ericP
15:01:29 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
15:01:29 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:01:29 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:01:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:01:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
15:01:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:01:38 <RRSAgent> I see no action items