13:59:35 RRSAgent has joined #ldp 13:59:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/31-ldp-irc 13:59:37 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:37 Zakim has joined #ldp 13:59:39 Zakim, this will be LDP 13:59:39 ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 13:59:40 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 13:59:40 Date: 31 March 2014 13:59:52 SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started 13:59:59 Zakim, who's here? 14:00:00 On the phone I see no one 14:00:01 +OpenLink_Software 14:00:01 On IRC I see RRSAgent, SteveS, codyburleson, deiu, betehess, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, nmihindu, jmvanel, sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, trackbot 14:00:04 +TimBL 14:00:14 Zakim, TimBL is me 14:00:14 +deiu; got it 14:00:16 Ashok has joined #ldp 14:00:20 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 14:00:20 +TallTed; got it 14:00:22 Zakim, mute me 14:00:22 TallTed should now be muted 14:00:46 +[IPcaller] 14:00:54 Zakim, IPcaller is me. 14:00:54 +codyburleson; got it 14:01:01 +Arnaud 14:01:08 +bblfish 14:01:23 +Sandro 14:01:45 MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp 14:01:46 +JohnArwe 14:01:46 +Ashok_Malhotra 14:02:09 Zakim: who's here? 14:02:14 Zakim, who's here? 14:02:14 On the phone I see TallTed (muted), deiu, codyburleson, Arnaud, bblfish, Sandro, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra 14:02:17 On IRC I see MiguelAraCo, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, SteveS, codyburleson, deiu, betehess, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, nmihindu, jmvanel, sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, trackbot 14:02:17 +ericP 14:03:24 + +1.919.306.aaaa 14:03:39 Zakim, aaaa is me 14:03:39 +SteveS; got it 14:05:08 Zakim, unmute me 14:05:08 TallTed should no longer be muted 14:05:49 For the record; MiguelAraCo is sharing voice with me on Skype. I dial in through Skype, then I add Miguel to the call. 14:06:18 ericp, did you ever poke at action-135? 14:06:31 ...still says open 14:07:08 JohnArwe, i've got stuff open 14:07:10 Zakim, mute me 14:07:10 TallTed should now be muted 14:07:31 SteveS thought i'd used some tool to generate the HTML but i actually just edited HTML 14:07:35 Zakim, codyburleson has MiguelAraCo 14:07:35 +MiguelAraCo; got it 14:07:44 i stole the template from another namespace doc 14:07:50 minutes seem ok 14:08:11 Resolved: Minutes of March 24th approved. 14:08:22 +??P24 14:08:29 Topic: Next meeting. 14:08:37 Zakim, ??P24 is me 14:08:37 +nmihindu; got it 14:08:48 Zakim, mute me 14:08:48 nmihindu should now be muted 14:09:35 Arnaud, I am unable to be there; I need someone to chair. After that, we have the F2F in Boston and we will likely NOT have the meeting just before that; I'd rather have the one next week (because I don't think we should skip 2 meetings). 14:09:47 Who is going to Seol? 14:09:50 10am Monday Boston == 11pm Monday in Seoul 14:09:51 I will be at LDPWG call next week 14:10:00 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/south-korea/seoul 14:10:24 Zakim, unmute me 14:10:24 TallTed should no longer be muted 14:10:26 bblfish, I will be there for WWW 14:10:43 Zakim, mute me 14:10:43 TallTed should now be muted 14:10:46 ericP, I can take the chair. 14:11:26 Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues 14:11:48 JohnArwe: 136 is resolved and closed. 14:12:32 there are tools to do ontologies 14:12:37 q+ 14:12:48 ericP: Either Steve or I can do it by hand again (fix the namespace thing); I haven't done it yet, but I looked at it. 14:13:28 We do this automatically with the cert spec http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert# 14:13:35 ack bblfish 14:13:37 Arnaud: I was hoping we'd have fresh documents to review for the Face-to-Face. The Guide, Primer, etc. So, please make progress on these befoire F2F. 14:14:12 What's Henry's id on this chat? 14:14:29 codyburleson, it is bblfish 14:14:33 thx 14:15:13 specgen is here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/file/18e2252e594d/ontologies/specgen 14:15:16 the one we used 14:15:21 there must be better ones out there by now 14:15:26 -bblfish 14:15:52 Arnaud: If you have newer documents ready for review, please e-mail the list so that we can read them before the next meeting. 14:16:03 +bblfish 14:17:30 Arnaud: I'm going to develop the tentative agenda for the next F2F. It is obviously going to be focused around addressing any Last Call comments received. As of now, I have not seen any public Last Call comments. Unless things change drastically, we may have very little to do in terms of comments. 14:18:15 Arnaud: I will build the agenda so that we have some padding towards the end, which we can dedicate to Interoperability Testing. 14:19:09 Topic: LDP Specification 14:20:09 Arnaud: A lot of the changes we made were in response to Tim BL's comments. It would be nice if one of you guys (Eric, Sandro) can help us get him to have another look. 14:21:17 Arnaud: Context URI for the Link Header. John sent an email suggesting 2 possible ways to deal with it. 14:21:56 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0083.html 14:23:46 JohnArwe: When creating resource using POST, the request URI is not what you're going to want because that will be URI of the container. We need to say on those create requests that we want the default URI for that context URI to be the created resource's URI. 14:24:44 JohnArwe: For the PUT create, I think the same is the same. But I hedge a little bit on this. 14:26:00 JohnArwe: The other thing that's different is what the client needs to do. If you say 'here's the syntax', then you're requiring the client to specify in the next request header to use that syntax. 14:26:00 q+ 14:26:00 q+ 14:26:32 ack MiguelAraCo 14:26:37 Concerning PUT 14:26:37 http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.6 14:26:37 In contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI, it MUST send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request. 14:27:44 ack bblfish 14:27:57 Ok so that says that the server does not have the freedom to assign a different URI, which is good. 14:28:15 ...That does not cause the 5988 context URI to become defined as the request URI, though. 14:28:17 Miguel, can you put that in writing? I did not type because I did not want to type over your talking. 14:29:34 bblfish: I think you don't need any special syntax because if you specify what the default context is then the rest falls out automatically (I put this / my response in the mailing list). 14:29:35 q+ 14:29:51 ack sandro 14:30:22 this was my response to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0085.html 14:30:23 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5.2 By default, the context of a link conveyed in the Link header field 14:30:23 is the IRI of the requested resource. 14:31:17 We also ran into the context problem, and what we did is that if the client specified a context (or @base in turtle) we did whatever we could to honor that context. If the client didn't specify a context, in a POST request we create a slug for the new resource and then assign that context to the request, and in a PUT request we took the request URI as the context to use. 14:31:28 Sandro: I don't understand how we have any perogative to change this. LDP is not an application, so I don't understand how… Hopefully, their meaning is the same as ours (other working group), but we may need to confer with them. 14:31:48 Sandro: It doesn't have a URI during the POST and it's up to the server to give it a URI later. 14:31:58 But I agree, that needs to be specified so we don't need to "assume" things. 14:32:25 Sandro: But before we clarify in the spec, I think we should check it with the Working Group. 14:32:42 Arnaud: So, it sounds like, if anything, Option 1 is what we want to do. 14:33:07 PROPOSED: clarify specification by adding that on POST the default context URI is the to-be-created resource's URI 14:33:25 +1 14:33:32 +1 14:33:42 +1 14:33:51 +1 14:34:00 +1 14:34:14 +1 14:34:14 +1 14:34:16 +1 14:34:18 +1 14:34:23 (well, really, it's the entity being transmitted --- but in LDP that's the same thing) 14:34:45 RESOLVED: clarify specification by adding that on POST the default context URI is the to-be-created resource's URI 14:35:01 agree this is clarity is compatible with what we intended and most saw it this way 14:35:07 Arnaud: Thanks. Somebody should take action to report to the HTTP guys. 14:35:24 Sandro: Please clarify: Are we only talking about posting to containers here? 14:36:07 Arnaud: John Arwe - you mean POST on containers, right? 14:36:18 sandro: if we made POST to a NON-Container mean something, we'd mean the Link Context to be the entity being sent. 14:36:25 yes post on containers, but if the IETF guys are ok with the context always being the to be created member than that makes our case even stronger 14:37:24 Arnaud: We need to check with Eric on what group to send the email to. And then Sandro, thanks for volunteering to send the e-mail. 14:37:38 Topic: Null-relative URIs 14:37:55 action: sandro to contact Yves and Erik to make confirm with them that HTTP-WG is okay with this reading of the Link Context 14:37:55 Created ACTION-137 - Contact yves and erik to make confirm with them that http-wg is okay with this reading of the link context [on Sandro Hawke - due 2014-04-07]. 14:38:31 q+ 14:38:40 ack bblfish 14:38:50 Arnaud: There was a lot of discussion over null-relative URIs, which is not endorsed by the RDF data model. The WG seems to be united on understanding the limit of this, but wanting to stick to it because of its usefulness. 14:39:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0091.html 14:39:43 Relative IRIs: Some concrete RDF syntaxes permit relative IRIs as a convenient shorthand that allows authoring of documents independently from their final publishing location. Relative IRIs must be resolved against a base IRI to make them absolute. Therefore, the RDF graph serialized in such syntaxes is well-defined only if a base IRI can be established [RFC3986]. 14:40:16 bblfish: There are 2 passages in the RDF Abstract Syntax 1.1 where it mentions relative IRIs. (Henry quotes the spec). We DO specify how base IRI can be established, so we're not going against the spec. We're leaving establishment of the base IRI for the server to do. 14:41:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0092.html 14:42:10 bblfish: In the next spec, I think maybe we should have 'intuitive containers', which I proposed a long time agao. 14:43:52 Sandro: What Henry is talking about should be on the list for nice consideration in future containers to add. 14:44:20 I think it might make sense to add some impl guidance (best practices) on '..' usage now 14:46:17 Arnaud: Bottom line… we're OK with our use of null-relative URIs. But when it comes to the dot-dot stuff, we add some guidelines (and we have a doc for this). Everybody agree to that? 14:46:49 Zakim, unmute me 14:46:49 TallTed should no longer be muted 14:47:16 Zakim, mute me 14:47:16 TallTed should now be muted 14:47:42 Sandro: Suggest we redirect the comments to the appropriate list. They were not sent to the right list initially. 14:48:00 q+ 14:48:08 bblfish: 14:48:20 Zakim, unmute me 14:48:20 TallTed should no longer be muted 14:48:41 Zakim, mute me 14:48:41 TallTed should now be muted 14:48:51 ack bblfish 14:48:52 Arnaud: I'll forward the original e-mail and then we can respond to that officially. 14:49:13 bblfish: Put the dot-dot thing in a different document? Is that wise? 14:50:04 Sandro: Unsure. Arnaud: I think the guide. 14:50:12 I think we should put in BP, once we have the text we may change our minds on target 14:50:37 Topic: Multiple Named Graphs 14:51:57 Arnaud: People have said 'Require support for Turtle, but then Turtle does not support named graphs.' 14:52:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0073.html 14:54:45 Arnaud: I take it that his question was answered in a way that satisfied him; I did not see any further comments. 14:55:15 Sandro: I don't know if he is now being silent to Henry because he agrees or doesn't want to argue. I don't know. 14:55:27 -bblfish 14:55:42 Topic: Test Suite 14:55:47 Raul is working on the Test Suite document. 14:55:50 +bblfish 14:55:53 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html 14:56:01 At the moment he is updating the current document based on the changes to the specification. 14:56:19 Arnaud: Raul said he is working on this to better match the specification. 14:56:27 He will continue with the current test vocabulary and add new tests following the same approach. 14:57:09 Arnaud: The proposal is that the HTML document would use RDFa so that the tests can be extracted from it as well. 14:57:31 Arnaud: It would be nice to have 1 official test suite for the group. We need to agree on what that is. 14:58:18 Sandro: I think Raul's document is "about" what we want. May be a little more detailed than what we need. There is a lot of work to be done updating it to current version of sp[ec, but then also the group validating. I imagine that taking a lot of time at the F2F. 14:59:01 Sandro: I'm not sure that the RDFa is worth it. 14:59:11 sandro, that is his plan. Develop the test suite in a way that it can be used by an executable tool. 14:59:21 q+ 14:59:29 ack ericP 14:59:34 -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#TC-C11 structured tests 15:01:00 Arnaud: We're out of time, but we should continue the discussion on mailing list so that we really have a plan going forward. 15:01:13 Sandro: Anbody planning to write a tool that runs these tests? 15:01:16 I should try to do that 15:01:31 ok 15:01:53 -JohnArwe 15:02:04 sandro, we will also develop a tool for one of our projects, The plan is to make it generic enough for other impls to use as well. 15:02:04 SteveS: I have someone actively investigating and planning to something. My IBM legal answer to whether it can be open-source "I'm working on it." 15:02:08 -SteveS 15:02:09 -deiu 15:02:09 -TallTed 15:02:11 -Sandro 15:02:13 -bblfish 15:02:14 -Ashok_Malhotra 15:02:19 Arnaud: MEETING ADJOURNED 15:02:32 -nmihindu 15:02:35 codyburleson has left #ldp 15:02:40 -codyburleson 15:02:42 I will send a note out about what we are planning for test suite 15:03:12 -Arnaud 15:03:13 -ericP 15:03:13 SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended 15:03:13 Attendees were deiu, TallTed, Arnaud, bblfish, Sandro, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, ericP, +1.919.306.aaaa, SteveS, MiguelAraCo, nmihindu 15:07:23 deiu_ has joined #ldp 16:03:27 SteveS has joined #ldp 17:01:31 Zakim has left #ldp 17:02:14 deiu has joined #ldp 20:21:56 deiu has joined #ldp 20:30:15 stevebattle19 has joined #ldp 20:33:32 SteveS has joined #ldp 20:52:09 jmvanel has joined #ldp 20:53:08 SteveS has joined #ldp 21:43:50 SteveS has joined #ldp 22:13:32 deiu has joined #ldp 22:21:42 stevebattle110 has joined #ldp