13:58:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:58:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/08-ldp-irc
13:58:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:58:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:58:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
13:58:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:58:12 <trackbot> Date: 08 September 2014
13:58:51 <Zakim> +deiu
13:59:05 <azaroth> zakim, who is here
13:59:05 <Zakim> azaroth, you need to end that query with '?'
13:59:09 <azaroth> zakim, who is here?
13:59:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, deiu
13:59:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, codyburleson, azaroth, pchampin, bblfish, betehess, TallTed, SteveS, deiu, Arnaud, tommorris, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
13:59:21 <betehess> Zakim, code?
13:59:21 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), betehess
13:59:25 <Zakim> +Arnaud
13:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:55 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
13:59:56 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
14:00:35 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:00:35 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
14:00:36 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:00:49 <Zakim> +Alexandre
14:01:01 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:46 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:02:04 <sergio> sergio has joined #ldp
14:02:07 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:02:08 <sergio> hi
14:02:09 <deiu> brb
14:02:14 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:02:35 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
14:03:13 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
14:03:13 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
14:03:14 <Zakim> +??P0
14:03:17 <Zakim> -??P0
14:03:18 <Zakim> +??P3
14:03:29 <Zakim> +Roger
14:04:15 <deiu> Type 41# on your phone
14:04:41 <sergio> that was me
14:04:50 <deiu> q-
14:04:53 <roger> great !
14:04:56 <deiu> q- pchampin
14:05:01 <Zakim> + +33.9.52.33.aaaa
14:05:01 <deiu> q- Roger
14:05:14 <bblfish> zakim, aaaa is me
14:05:15 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
14:05:24 <Zakim> -pchampin
14:05:26 <JohnArwe> zakim, roger is actually sergio
14:05:26 <Zakim> I don't understand 'roger is actually sergio', JohnArwe
14:05:33 <JohnArwe> oh well worth a stab
14:05:40 <JohnArwe> zakim, roger is sergio
14:05:40 <Zakim> +sergio; got it
14:05:45 <Zakim> +??P3
14:05:54 <sergio> Zakim: +??P3 is me
14:06:00 <sergio> Zakim: ??P3 is me
14:06:23 <JohnArwe> zakim, sergio is roger
14:06:23 <Zakim> +roger; got it
14:06:37 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
14:06:38 <JohnArwe> zakim, pchampin is sergio
14:06:38 <Zakim> sorry, JohnArwe, I do not recognize a party named 'pchampin'
14:06:41 <Zakim> +??P19
14:06:51 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is OpenLink_Software
14:06:53 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
14:06:57 <sergio> Zakim: +??P3 is me
14:06:58 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:06:58 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:07:00 <JohnArwe> zakim, who's on the phone
14:07:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's on the phone', JohnArwe
14:07:01 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:07:02 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:07:15 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:07:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, deiu (muted), Arnaud, codyburleson, SteveS, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, roger, bblfish, ??P3, TallTed (muted), pchampin
14:07:41 <Arnaud> q=
14:07:44 <sergio> Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:07:44 <Zakim> +sergio; got it
14:07:49 <Arnaud> queue=
14:07:59 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:07:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, deiu (muted), Arnaud, codyburleson, SteveS, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, roger, bblfish, sergio, TallTed (muted), pchampin
14:09:23 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:09:50 <sergio> #topic: spec
14:10:09 <SteveS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html
14:11:07 <sergio> RESOLVED: approve the minutes of last week
14:11:19 <sergio> topic: ldp spec
14:12:03 <sergio> Arnaud: reports about the current discussion about direct and indirect containers
14:12:12 <TallTed> q+
14:12:19 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:12:19 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:12:26 <sergio> bblfish: reports the last progress on banana-rdf about implementing ldp in scala
14:12:27 <bblfish> https://github.com/w3c/banana-rdf/commits/master
14:12:32 <azaroth> betehess: Rob Sanderson, Stanford University, co-chair of Web Annotation Working Group  (can intro in voice if useful)
14:12:33 <sergio> bblfish: a lot of commits by Alexandre
14:12:48 <sergio> bblfish: I'm on track to get that done
14:12:59 <sergio> bblfish: hard to estimate
14:13:02 <betehess> s/by Alexandre/by me, as Alexandre can attest/
14:13:04 <sandro> very very funny
14:13:24 <sergio> Arnaud: the bottom line, you do not have yet an implementation of ldp:IndirectContainer
14:14:03 <sergio> bblfish: I have less resources to promise that I'll achieve that in a short time
14:14:35 <SteveS> Is there anyone else that has an IndirectContainer impl in the works?
14:14:35 <sandro> q+
14:14:42 <sandro> q+ on IndirectContainer
14:14:49 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
14:15:34 <sergio> TallTed: there are some things in the spec that look not be necessary for a generic server
14:15:40 <sergio> Arnaud: concrete examples?
14:16:05 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
14:16:18 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:16:18 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to comment on IndirectContainer
14:17:01 <SteveS> 4.3.2.1 LDP servers must provide a text/turtle representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever HTTP content negotiation does not force another outcome [turtle].
14:17:10 <sergio> TallTed: for instance Turtle is the preferred format
14:18:20 <azaroth> q+
14:18:25 <sergio> Arnaud: the goals to force "at least" to have turtle
14:19:02 <sergio> sandro: I'd not change that now
14:19:27 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
14:19:39 <sergio> Arnaud: welcome, Rob Sanderson
14:19:47 <sergio> welcome, Rob Sanderson!
14:21:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:21:19 <bblfish> zakim, IPcaller is me
14:21:19 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
14:21:43 <SteveS> So we only have 3 Indirect Container impls in the works? Carbon LDP (results reported), bblfish and azaroth; right?
14:21:49 <sergio> Arnaud: from a implementation point of view, we are missing a implementation of ldp:IndirectContainer
14:21:54 <Zakim> -bblfish.a
14:23:10 <sergio> Arnaud: what way are we going to take which does not delay the publication so much
14:23:15 <MiguelAraCo> q+
14:23:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:23:57 <deiu> +1 Sandro
14:24:44 <sergio> Arnaud: we go to last call putting ldp:IndirectContainer at risk
14:24:47 <Arnaud> ack MiguelAraCo
14:24:51 <azaroth> +1 to Sandro
14:25:37 <betehess> +.9  (it's an easy way to move forward but I can't allow myself to give a +1 on something related to Indirect Containers :-)
14:26:17 <sergio> Arnaud: then we might change some of the remaining issues
14:26:19 <sergio> +1
14:26:55 <JohnArwe> wrt Arnaud's earlier comment "ask the editors", doing at-risk instead of a new separate document is FAR less work
14:27:06 <azaroth> deiu: Only for the first day, but yes I was there :)
14:27:22 <azaroth> q+ to discuss 4.2.16
14:27:31 <sergio> Topic: John's mail
14:27:32 <sergio> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Sep/0003.html
14:27:53 <deiu> deiu has left #ldp
14:27:57 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
14:27:58 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
14:27:58 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss 4.2.16
14:27:59 <sergio> Arnaud: anchor might be required in the Link header
14:28:37 <SteveS> wrt Arnaud’s earlier comment “ask the editors”, doing at-risk is much less work for test suite as well
14:29:42 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Clarify that the context URI for the Link header is *not* the default, so anchor= is required.
14:29:50 <azaroth> +1 that it's an issue ; +1 to the fix to require anchor
14:29:54 <JohnArwe> i.e. is it true that our intent (expressed as a
14:29:54 <JohnArwe> pseudo-RDF-triple) was
14:29:54 <JohnArwe> newly-created-LDP-NR   describedby   newly-created-LDP-RS
14:30:05 <JohnArwe> +1
14:30:05 <sergio> Arnaud: do people agree on the premise that the context URI for the Link header is *not* the default, so anchor= is required.
14:30:22 <SteveS> +1, clarity is good
14:30:24 <deiu> +0 (haven't really looked into it)
14:30:32 <sergio> +0 (not checked)
14:30:39 <betehess> +0
14:30:39 <codyburleson> +0 (don't know what we're talking about)
14:31:11 <TallTed> ±0 (definitely don't understand the question as here...)
14:31:32 <JohnArwe> On Link headers, the default context URI ("RDF triple subject") is the effective request URI; in the case in question, the request was a POST (to create a LDP-NR), so the effective request URI is the POST URI ... LDPC.
14:31:37 <sergio> Arnaud: can you please JohnArwe explain it
14:31:54 <JohnArwe> ...not the newly created LDP-NR whose URL is in the response 201 Location header
14:33:28 <codyburleson> So the anchor will point to the NR?
14:33:45 <deiu> This gets even worse when you add the ACL header
14:34:03 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
14:34:22 <azaroth> q+
14:34:32 <JohnArwe> cody: Link w/o anchor would say: "LDPC describedby newly-created-LDP-RS ...that's associated with the newly described LDP-NR according to the spec"
14:34:36 <sergio> Arnaud: there is not change related, just needs to get clarified to get people right
14:34:42 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
14:35:43 <betehess> well, +1 now
14:35:45 <TallTed> +1
14:35:48 <deiu> +1
14:35:51 <azaroth> +1
14:36:00 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Clarify that the context URI for the Link header is *not* the default, so anchor= is required.
14:36:30 <sergio> topic: conflict with describedby
14:38:00 <deiu> sergio: so in other words, you need to have a rel=meta for the NR triples and rel=describedby for constraints?
14:38:38 <sergio> deiu: exacly
14:38:40 <sergio> deiu: exactly
14:38:58 <deiu> sergio: I'm using rel=meta for NR triples in my implems :)
14:39:14 <azaroth> q+
14:39:18 <JohnArwe> the client has to understand the resource at the target URI to distinguish between these two cases.
14:41:07 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
14:42:17 <SteveS> FYI, rel=“meta” is not a registered link relation http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
14:42:46 <sergio> azaroth: a solution is to switch to constraints
14:42:51 <sergio> sandro: it is not registered
14:42:51 <JohnArwe> the general argument was that you cannot prevent the client from seeing such conflicts, because no matter what link relation you use, another spec could also use it in a different way (that's still w/in the semantics of the registration).
14:43:29 <JohnArwe> ... as I said, we could take the position that while we cannot prevent the general problem, we could at least not create it "intentionally" within a single spec.
14:45:37 <sergio> and what about rel='alternate'
14:45:39 <sergio> ?
14:46:05 <JohnArwe> ...read the registration.
14:46:06 <bblfish> mind you last time the debate was not about profile vs meta but profile vs type
14:46:20 <sergio> Arnaud: do we need that we need to change? can we make a decision to leave it to the editor to find the best solution?
14:46:53 <bblfish> q+
14:47:05 <azaroth> +1 on the issue; +1 to keeping describedBy for non-RDF
14:47:09 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:47:21 <sergio> Arnaud: we should keep describedby for the associated resourwe, and find a new one for the constraints
14:48:04 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: change rel=describedby to rel=<someldpuri> for the LINK header in section 4.2.1.6
14:48:12 <bblfish> ok
14:48:16 <sergio> +1
14:48:26 <betehess> someldpuri?
14:48:32 <deiu> +.9 (would much rather see rel=meta registered)
14:48:50 <JohnArwe> +1
14:49:01 <sergio> (even if rel=meta would be good too)
14:49:09 <bblfish> +0 can't really vote here as I did not understand the issue
14:49:13 <TallTed> +0.5
14:49:15 <roger> +0
14:49:18 <betehess> +0
14:49:20 <codyburleson> +0
14:49:28 <SteveS> +.5 , see that we could leave as-is and just say need to use out-of-spec knowledge
14:49:28 <azaroth> +1
14:49:40 <sergio> RESOLVED: change rel=describedby to rel=<someldpuri> for the LINK header in section 4.2.1.6
14:49:46 <sandro> agenda+ 2NN
14:50:27 <sergio> Arnaud: then it looks that we have to go to last call
14:50:30 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: change MUST on Turtle to SHOULD
14:50:34 <codyburleson> +1
14:50:35 <azaroth> +1
14:50:47 <MiguelAraCo> +1
14:50:52 <betehess> +1
14:51:00 <JohnArwe> +1 to SHOULD turtle when Accept is ABSENT on the request
14:51:04 <deiu> +1 (title is a bit vague btw)
14:51:16 <sergio> +0 (better wording, something like "turtle MUST be at least supported")
14:51:18 <SteveS> +0, and MUST support turtle
14:51:34 <sandro> PROPOSAL: When the client does not provide an Accept Header, remove the bit about the server MUST send Turtle
14:51:45 <azaroth> +1 to John
14:51:55 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: change MUST on Turtle to SHOULD when Accept is ABSENT on the request
14:52:04 <sandro> I'm dubious about the SHOULD, given Ted's use case
14:52:21 <sandro> TURTLE is still MUST when requested
14:52:24 <pchampin> +1 to the resolved version :)
14:52:30 <TallTed> +1 JohnArwe's wording context: http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldprs-get-turtle
14:52:59 <betehess> +.9
14:53:06 <betehess> +0.9
14:53:15 <deiu> +.9
14:53:16 <bblfish> +1
14:53:30 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: republish LDP as LC with 3 week period, and IndirectContainer as a feature at RISK
14:53:40 <sergio> +1
14:53:44 <betehess> +1
14:53:50 <bblfish> what about marking Direct Container at risk?
14:54:00 <MiguelAraCo> +1
14:54:05 <deiu> +1 (are there any other items that should be marked as well?)
14:54:07 <azaroth> To clarify, republish _after_ making the 4.2.1.6 change
14:54:17 <codyburleson> +1
14:54:19 <SteveS> +1
14:54:19 <sergio> azaroth: all, yes
14:54:19 <Ashok> 1
14:54:22 <azaroth> +1
14:54:24 <TallTed> +1
14:54:28 <pchampin> +1
14:54:29 <JohnArwe> +1 just make the pain stop
14:54:29 <roger> +1
14:54:33 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: republish LDP as LC with 3 week period, and IndirectContainer as a feature at RISK
14:54:35 <sandro> +1
14:54:50 <azaroth> JSON-LD was on our list of questions
14:54:53 <sergio> bblfish: is time to talk about JSON-LD now?
14:55:04 <azaroth> But happy to take those to the list
14:55:15 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: make JSON-LD a MUST when requested by the client
14:55:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: Servers MUST support JSON-LD when requested by client
14:55:20 <Ashok> +1
14:55:20 <sandro> sorry
14:55:24 <betehess> but, that's already HTTP, isn't it?
14:55:49 <deiu> +.5 in the long term (not supported by my current implems :( )
14:55:49 <SteveS> betehess, no…HTTP it is a should, server doesn’t have to honor Accept
14:55:53 <azaroth> A server could refuse the request under HTTP with 406
14:56:16 <Zakim> -bblfish
14:56:30 <JohnArwe> azaroth: with this change, 406 in that case would mean server is non-conformant
14:56:38 <azaroth> JohnArwe: Yup
14:56:52 <sergio> +1
14:57:00 <betehess> q+
14:57:07 <SteveS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html#rdfsource-should
14:57:23 <betehess> q+ to ask about JSON-LD framing
14:57:38 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Servers MUST support JSON-LD when requested by client, marked as a feature at RISK
14:57:49 <deiu> +1
14:57:57 <azaroth> betehess: Context and framing is our concern too
14:58:05 <codyburleson> +1 (PROPOSED: Servers MUST support JSON-LD when requested by client will be added as feature AT RISK)
14:58:07 <TallTed> +0.25
14:58:07 <sergio> +1
14:58:15 <Arnaud> ack betehess
14:58:15 <Zakim> betehess, you wanted to ask about JSON-LD framing
14:58:17 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
14:58:19 <roger> +1
14:58:20 <sergio> ack betehess
14:59:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:39 <SteveS> +.1 (not sure needed but don’t want to hold it back, JSON is quite important and will support it anyway)
14:59:45 <sergio> betehess: I have some questions about setting the context
14:59:56 <betehess> -0.9 -- useless without specifying stuff about context and framing
14:59:58 <azaroth> -0.5 to changing to MUST because of the context/framing being unspecified
14:59:58 <pchampin> +.9
15:00:03 <sergio> Arnaud: not sure if it's relevant for the current discussion
15:00:08 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Servers MUST support JSON-LD when requested by client, marked as a feature at RISK
15:00:17 <JohnArwe> +0.011 feels rushed, altho I like -LD
15:00:37 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:00:39 <JohnArwe> ...at risk is fine tho
15:00:41 <deiu> bye bye
15:00:44 <Zakim> -roger
15:00:46 <Zakim> -deiu
15:00:51 <Zakim> -azaroth
15:00:53 <Zakim> -Alexandre
15:01:12 <JohnArwe> sandro asking about paging status
15:01:15 <sergio> ok
15:01:16 <betehess> I will probably vote -1 on removing at-risk MUST JSON-LD
15:01:24 <JohnArwe> but formal mtg is over
15:01:36 <betehess> Arnaud, when ca we publish LD Patch ?
15:01:46 <bblfish> btw, what happens when a client asks for both turtle and json-ld?
15:01:55 <betehess> you can't
15:01:59 <TallTed> ConNeg happens
15:02:01 <betehess> you have a preference
15:02:02 <deiu> betehess: you must specify a priority
15:02:10 <JohnArwe> bblfish: one would presume normal conneg ... q= values govern
15:02:13 <betehess> hey, I know that, deiu :-)
15:02:19 <azaroth> Also happy to contribute to a subsequent document that made -LD more well defined
15:02:20 <JohnArwe> ... if q='s ==, server choice (?)
15:02:23 <deiu> err, s/betehess/bblfish
15:02:25 <bblfish> yes, but you don't need to put q-values
15:02:26 <TallTed> if they evaluate to same preference/priority, it's server's choice
15:02:26 <betehess> lol
15:03:12 <pchampin> q+
15:03:15 <bblfish> what about rdf/xml?
15:03:19 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:03:25 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
15:03:27 <betehess> Arnaud, if you can do the transition request this week for LD Patch, then deiu told he could prepare the spec re: Webmaster
15:03:38 <bblfish> ;-)
15:04:34 <Arnaud> betehess: oh, I didn't realize that was on my plate, I will
15:04:36 <Arnaud> sorry
15:04:55 <pchampin> q-
15:04:55 <betehess> no problem :-)
15:04:56 <pchampin> :)
15:05:22 <betehess> just want a good reason to finish the spec, and provide the test suite
15:05:38 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:05:40 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:05:41 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:05:41 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:05:42 <Zakim> -sergio
15:05:42 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:05:45 <Zakim> -pchampin
15:05:51 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:05:52 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:05:52 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, deiu, Arnaud, codyburleson, SteveS, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, pchampin, +33.9.52.33.aaaa, bblfish, roger, TallTed, sergio, Sandro, [IPcaller]
16:01:15 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #ldp
16:16:02 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:36:47 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
18:04:32 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #ldp
20:04:10 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:04:54 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #ldp
21:22:19 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp