13:58:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:58:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/06-ldp-irc
13:58:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:58:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:58:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
13:58:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:58:11 <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2014
13:58:19 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
13:58:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:58:47 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me
13:58:48 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
13:59:20 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:00:53 <azaroth> zakim, who is here?
14:00:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, codyburleson, Arnaud
14:00:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveS, Zakim, RRSAgent, codyburleson, azaroth, TallTed, deiu, nmihindu, bblfish, Arnaud, tommorris, taaz, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
14:01:09 <Zakim> +deiu
14:01:25 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:42 <Arnaud> zakim, mute codyburleson
14:01:42 <Zakim> codyburleson should now be muted
14:02:04 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:02:05 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
14:02:05 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:02:22 <codyburleson> That's no me. I'm muted on my Skype.
14:02:48 <Arnaud> well, the noise stopped
14:03:09 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, codyburleson (muted), Arnaud, deiu, SteveS
14:03:55 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:03:56 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
14:04:44 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
14:04:57 <Zakim> +Roger
14:05:28 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
14:05:32 <azaroth> scribe: Rob Sanderson
14:05:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:06:07 <bblfish> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
14:06:07 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
14:06:19 <bblfish> hi
14:06:47 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Proposal to approve the minutes from last week? Objections? Resolution of issue 101.
14:06:51 <azaroth> ... Approved.
14:06:59 <azaroth> ... Next meeting will be next week, Oct 13.
14:07:10 <azaroth> ... No reason not to have this week.
14:07:15 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:07:19 <azaroth> ... Tracking of actions and issues... anything there?
14:07:27 <Ashok> It's Columbus Day!
14:07:31 <TallTed> Oct 13 == Columbus Day.  regrets from me.
14:07:34 <azaroth> ... Not going to know about 148, and one is an editor's thing.
14:07:49 <deiu> Same here
14:07:50 <SteveS> Oct 13, regrets for me as well
14:07:52 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:08:19 <Zakim> +??P16
14:08:28 <azaroth> ... Oct 13 is Columbus Day. Lots of people who won't be here next week.
14:08:29 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:08:29 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:08:30 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P16 is me
14:08:30 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:08:32 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:08:32 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:08:36 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
14:08:36 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:09:03 <azaroth> ... Next week is some form of holiday for some people, but we'll still have a call and try to have a status check
14:09:15 <azaroth> ... Let's talk about chartering the ??? WG
14:09:35 <azaroth> ... Original charter expired 1st June, asked for extension until 1 Dec, which is coming up quickly
14:09:40 <azaroth> ... Need to think about rechartering
14:09:46 <azaroth> ... Two arguments to bring up
14:10:03 <azaroth> ... 1 -- had discussions about if we should have a pause or recharter right away
14:10:09 <azaroth> ... what would we do next? have a big wishlist
14:10:19 <azaroth> ... So we would have work to do
14:10:26 <azaroth> ... Specs would be put in limbo if we were to stop
14:10:41 <azaroth> ... Advised by Phil Archer that it would be wiser to keep going
14:10:49 <azaroth> ... Might lose momentum and get people back
14:11:04 <azaroth> ... so assume we'll keep going and ask for a new WG charter
14:11:19 <azaroth> ... bar is higher than an extension -- there scope doesn't change and AC doesn't get asked
14:11:28 <azaroth> ... Just W3CM who approves extensions
14:11:37 <azaroth> ... For rechartering it goes to the AC for review
14:11:50 <TallTed> s/Might lose momentum and get people back/Might lose momentum and not get people back/
14:11:59 <azaroth> ... We have to develop the charter and need to define scope and deliverables
14:12:14 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext
14:12:36 <azaroth> ... Have a big wishlist, not to do now, but should have a look and decide what to have as deliverables
14:13:06 <azaroth> ... Some might wait for beyond this next charter. Have to be humble in what we can accomplish
14:13:24 <azaroth> ... 2 -- the timing.  As there's an AC review for 4 weeks, would like to have it ready in the next few weeks
14:14:01 <azaroth> ... in order to have it ready for Dec 1.  Unlikely to make a fuss if it's a few weeks later, wouldn't have to stop working.
14:14:36 <azaroth> ... Should put a new wiki page for the charter and ask for input
14:14:56 <azaroth> ... Is everyone here planning to keep participating?
14:15:02 <azaroth> ... Anyone going to drop off
14:15:07 <bblfish> ?
14:15:07 <SteveS> I live for these calls
14:15:09 <azaroth> +1 to continue participation
14:15:19 <roger> +1
14:15:20 <deiu> +1
14:15:22 <bblfish> +1 ( depends of course on what's in the charter )
14:15:27 <nmihindu> +1 for continue participation
14:15:33 <Ashok> +1
14:15:37 <codyburleson> +1
14:15:50 <azaroth> Arnaud: Thank you guys.  I'll work on a first draft charter
14:16:04 <azaroth> ... LDP 1.1 where we add a few things, but might be other modules
14:16:13 <azaroth> ... access control might be deliverable on its own
14:16:22 <azaroth> ... if people have strong feelings, please send an email to the list
14:16:57 <azaroth> ... appreciate input from the group, and we'll do whatever we want to do
14:17:02 <azaroth> Sandro: Can I put a pitch in?
14:17:26 <azaroth> ... What level of interop we actually have before deciding what to do next? What cool things do we have now between systems?
14:17:36 <azaroth> ... don't have any idea how LDP is going to be used in industry for real
14:17:46 <azaroth> ... no need to charge ahead before we know that
14:17:47 <bblfish> Sandro's point makes sense
14:17:57 <azaroth> ... could write a charter to say we figure out what to do first
14:18:07 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Better to recharter right away or wait?
14:18:15 <bblfish> We could have a charter point: do what the Socail Web WG wants to do but using LDP
14:18:42 <azaroth> Sandro:  Depends what people want to do next?  I know what I personally want, but no evidence. Don't know what users need, so hard to figure out
14:18:48 <azaroth> ... we could do that with a WG too
14:18:59 <azaroth> Arnaud:  W3C membership point of view, harder to get new WGs
14:19:06 <azaroth> ... much easier to recharter.
14:19:17 <azaroth> Sandro: Do we not need 20 members to recharter?
14:19:20 <azaroth> Arnaud: I don't know
14:19:28 <bblfish> q+
14:19:36 <azaroth> ... Psychologically, it's easier for them to say sure keep working
14:19:45 <azaroth> ... stop and come back might need to have a new group
14:19:52 <azaroth> ... nothing against LDP, just typical thinking
14:20:09 <azaroth> Sandro: May have a hard time making the case there's enough work
14:20:39 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Sandro was referring to a new rule -- 5%, 20 members, have to support the charter
14:20:48 <azaroth> ... Left to director's discretion
14:20:58 <azaroth> ... now it's a set number that must express explicit support
14:21:10 <azaroth> Sandro:  If not 5% then special reasoning is needed for it to go forwards
14:21:10 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:21:28 <azaroth> Henry:  Interesting. Have the social WG going on. Can't imagine too much them using LDP
14:21:40 <azaroth> ... very disparate groups
14:22:08 <azaroth> ... What they want to do is perfect for LDP though. Working out use cases for distributed social groups?
14:22:24 <azaroth> Arnaud: Use cases are out there, including in W3C to drive future developments
14:22:42 <azaroth> ... maybe that's something we'll have to do. What are teh use cases that current LDP specs don't address?
14:22:53 <azaroth> Sandro: Just checked last review, ...
14:23:06 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:23:06 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:23:18 <azaroth> ... Might be difficult to get to 20 without some outreach
14:23:24 <azaroth> Ted: Were there any opposing?
14:23:28 <codyburleson> Who is typing?
14:23:38 <codyburleson> …and not on mute?
14:23:47 <azaroth> Sandro: Normally no one opposing, if someone opposes we change the proposal
14:24:05 <azaroth> Arnaud: people ping me personally to see if IBM going to support a proposal
14:24:12 <azaroth> Sandro: didn't have to do that before hand
14:24:18 <azaroth> ?
14:24:39 <bblfish> how many implementations do we have?
14:24:46 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Might still be interest, we don't know
14:24:58 <azaroth> Ted: They clicked the join button, should click the support button
14:25:07 <azaroth> Henry: How many implementations do we have?
14:25:12 <azaroth> ... That shows support
14:25:18 <azaroth> Arnaud: Don't need to argue it yet
14:25:22 <azaroth> ... should assume it won't be easy
14:25:34 <azaroth> Sandro: Shoudl do a good job explaining why it's important
14:25:47 <azaroth> Arnaud: What matters is to start working on it
14:25:58 <azaroth> ... Need to get the draft charter ready
14:26:05 <bblfish> good point, one does need to do  a good job of explaining what a new WG extension needs to do
14:26:29 <azaroth> Arnaud: Let's move on.
14:26:44 <codyburleson> I wonder if marketing, promotion, evangelization is a valid charter objective?
14:26:49 <azaroth> ... Need to make sure we're delivering on the first charter, so status of LDP spec?
14:26:58 <azaroth> ... See work on the disposition of comments
14:27:13 <azaroth> ... Used format from RDF WG.
14:27:37 <azaroth> ... Disposition of comments document is still not quite there
14:27:43 <azaroth> ... but Steve, what's the status?
14:28:22 <azaroth> Sandro:  Not sure he ever will be
14:29:22 <azaroth_> azaroth_ has joined #ldp
14:29:31 <azaroth_> scribenick: azaroth_
14:29:47 <azaroth_> ... what making a container act like a resource means.
14:30:08 <azaroth_> ... Can agree to disagree with him
14:30:21 <azaroth_> Arnaud:  Didn't provide a way to achieve the results we want from the UC
14:30:48 <azaroth_> ... This is about the ablity for a simple resource which is basically a container but doesn't act like one. e.g. an archive of a container
14:30:59 <SteveS> my response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2014Oct/0002.html
14:31:06 <azaroth_> ... added headers that allow you to say it's a simple resource even though it looks like a container
14:31:33 <azaroth_> ... turns out he's against the idea to allow you to do it, as rdf and headers are saying different things
14:32:08 <azaroth_> ... but you can, it's like making a false statement. But others saying you can't do it, period.
14:32:14 <azaroth_> ... bottom line is we need to agree to disagree
14:32:22 <bblfish> Wherever you can make a true statement, you can also make a false statement
14:32:23 <azaroth_> ... no reason to give up on the UC
14:32:39 <bblfish> q+
14:32:44 <azaroth_> ... hasn't said how to do it, that would be better, just that we can't do it
14:32:53 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:33:04 <azaroth_> Henry:  if you can make a true statement, you can make a false one, you can't prevent false statements
14:33:17 <azaroth_> Arnaud:  End of LC period in another day or two
14:33:38 <azaroth_> ... should be able to move forward, so need to look at implementations
14:33:44 <azaroth_> ... Henry ... indirect containers?
14:33:55 <azaroth_> Henry:  Need to integrate some work from Banana (?) RDF slowing me down
14:33:56 <SteveS> q+
14:34:24 <azaroth_> Arnaud: Monday? THis is the schedule -- want us to vote on going to PR with  or without Indirect COntainers
14:34:36 <azaroth_> ... Need another implementation to do that
14:34:47 <nmihindu> Arnaud, David Wood/Callimachus submitted a report with Indirect containers, isn't it ?
14:34:50 <SteveS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Oct/0004.html
14:34:52 <azaroth_> Sandro (?): We have two, Callimachus implemented them
14:35:02 <azaroth_> s/Sandro/Steve/
14:35:18 <azaroth_> Arnaud: I missed that, wow. Henry can take a vacation :)
14:35:36 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
14:35:48 <bblfish> :-)
14:35:49 <azaroth_> Steve:  There's a number of tests that weren't tested, so have incomplete covrage
14:36:03 <bblfish> q+
14:36:10 <azaroth_> ... some haven't been implemented as waiting for feedback. A little work to do
14:36:18 <Arnaud> zakim, unmute cody
14:36:18 <Zakim> codyburleson should no longer be muted
14:36:54 <SteveS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html#indirectcontainer-must
14:37:30 <azaroth_> Steve: Some have been left blank or untested, have to be done manually.
14:37:42 <azaroth_> ... How complete do we need to be for reporting?
14:37:49 <azaroth_> ... Haven't pulled in Callimachus yet
14:37:57 <azaroth_> ... So first question is to carbon LDP folks
14:38:20 <azaroth_> Miguel: (breaking up)
14:38:39 <azaroth_> ... JSON-LD tests were added after
14:38:53 <azaroth_> Arnaud: Can you send an updated test report?
14:39:07 <azaroth_> Miguel: Writing an email on findings on implementing LDP
14:39:21 <azaroth_> ... we have seen some things that might need to be considered
14:39:35 <azaroth_> Arnaud: Please do that quickly
14:39:40 <azaroth_> ... Have to hurry up to get to PR
14:39:54 <azaroth_> ... Strong signal that we're delivering on our charter
14:40:05 <azaroth_> ... Once we're at PR there's not a lot to worry about
14:40:19 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
14:40:46 <codyburleson> q+
14:40:49 <azaroth_> Steve:  Second half was how complete we are.  Have two implementations reporting for indirect containers, but how complete?
14:40:58 <azaroth_> Arnaud: For everything else there's two implementations, except one
14:41:08 <azaroth_> ... ask as if inserted content relation triple exists.
14:41:13 <azaroth_> Steve:  Depended on Indirect Containers
14:41:23 <azaroth_> ... so if removed them, then wouldn't exist
14:42:00 <azaroth_> Sandro:  Didn't follow why it wasn't being tested
14:42:10 <azaroth_> Steve:  Depends on indirects, and no one contributed a test for it
14:42:13 <azaroth_> ... so waiting for someone
14:42:21 <azaroth_> Sandro: So better to get someone to contribute the test
14:42:26 <azaroth_> Arnaud: For next week ...
14:42:31 <azaroth_> ... challenging.
14:42:44 <azaroth_> Steve: Manual test,not automated? Would kick problem down the street
14:42:51 <azaroth_> Arnaud:  Could be a reasonable thing to do at this point
14:43:23 <azaroth_> ... should do what we can to avoid raised eyerows
14:43:27 <bblfish> q-
14:43:28 <azaroth_> ... anything else?
14:43:41 <Arnaud> ack codyburleson
14:44:39 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #ldp
14:44:43 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
14:45:13 <azaroth> Steve: Attempt to automate things, but don't have enough config information we skip them, and that generates a skipped entry in the report
14:45:16 <codyburleson> q-
14:45:25 <azaroth> Arnaud: Okay, LDP Paging
14:45:31 <SteveS> Coverage report (which tests are manual, not done, etc): http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/manifest/
14:45:31 <azaroth> ... Same point about disposition of comments
14:45:43 <azaroth> ... Steve you said you were going to follow up on comments?
14:45:50 <azaroth> Steve: I fired off some emails this morning
14:46:13 <azaroth> Arnaud:  There was question about range, and if we need it. John had responded. Not sure where it leaves us
14:46:20 <azaroth> ... If they accept our position or not
14:46:49 <azaroth> ... Clear that large constituency of people that say why do you need all this stuff
14:46:57 <azaroth> ... do paging with range, why can't you do the same
14:47:39 <azaroth> Steve:  Threads got a bit twisted between Austin and Benjamin.  Evolved into list of things that need to change, but more understanding of the concepts
14:47:47 <azaroth> ... and if there's a way to leverage beyond LDP
14:48:08 <azaroth> Arnaud: Last call period for the doc ended last week, so should be able to write it up and move forwards
14:48:14 <azaroth> Steve: Yup, that's what I was trying to do
14:48:32 <azaroth> ... replied pointing to the other thread, saying let us know if this addresses your comments
14:48:37 <bblfish> btw, once the LDP spec is in Last Call how long does it take to become a standard?
14:48:50 <azaroth> Arnaud:  If we're done with the comments, we're going to CR and need the implementations
14:48:57 <azaroth> ... Need to work on the test suite and all that good stuff
14:49:06 <azaroth> ... Interested to know who has plans to implement paging?
14:49:14 <azaroth> Steve: IBM does, we've done it already
14:49:24 <azaroth> ... in early version of a product.
14:49:27 <azaroth> Arnaud: Anyone else?
14:49:32 <deiu> Not me
14:49:32 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:49:32 <Zakim> TallTed was not muted, TallTed
14:49:33 <azaroth> (crickets)
14:49:43 <azaroth> ???: Believe it's on the board but not certain
14:49:50 <SteveS> full IBM disclosure: plans may change, mileage may vary
14:49:52 <azaroth> Arnaud: Need two implementations to move to PR
14:49:54 <TallTed> s/???:/TallTed:/
14:50:00 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:50:00 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:50:07 <azaroth> Arnaud: Anything else about paging?
14:50:09 <Arnaud> q?
14:50:20 <azaroth> ... suggest we move on. 10 minutes left. Patch?
14:50:24 <azaroth> ... Status?
14:50:47 <azaroth> ???:  Comments from Tim last week asking if we're going to support arbittrary set of triples
14:50:58 <azaroth> ... Alexandre, ???, and I talked about it and thought it was a reasonable use case
14:51:19 <azaroth> ... Going to have a look at the spec and see where we can add it
14:51:41 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Is there more than that?
14:51:46 <azaroth> ???: No that's pretty much it
14:51:56 <azaroth> Sandro: What are we doing with emails from David?
14:52:12 <azaroth> Arnaud: Nothing. We've heard sparql update already. Nothing new there.
14:52:26 <azaroth> Sandro: Procedurally? Have we said he can file formal objection?
14:52:37 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Just FPWD so anyone can comment.  If you think we should do more we can
14:52:50 <azaroth> Sandro: maybe we don't have to, but seems unethical
14:53:01 <azaroth> Arnaud: We acknowledged the comment and discussed it
14:53:13 <azaroth> Sandro: Do we track unsatisfied commenters?
14:53:23 <azaroth> Arnaud: It's in the minutes that we discussed
14:53:39 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:53:39 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:53:59 <azaroth> Sandro:  Should get more clarity with David, and give a formal reply
14:54:09 <azaroth> Arnaud: Raises question, how much do we want to wait before deciding
14:54:23 <azaroth> ... when we decided to publish the draft, we asked for feedback, got it from a coule of people
14:54:30 <azaroth> ... David said it was the wrong direction
14:54:41 <azaroth> ... So, now what do we do, and say we've heard enough
14:54:51 <azaroth> ... or switch to something else. I don't know that
14:54:54 <azaroth> Sandro: I don't either
14:55:14 <azaroth> Arnaud: Working on improving the spec. Has anyone been swayed by David's points?
14:55:21 <azaroth> ... Anyone changed their mind?
14:55:22 <codyburleson> For the record, we've gone down another path with PATCH on Carbon LDP.
14:55:41 <azaroth> ... If no one has changed, then we stick with current path
14:56:05 <azaroth> ???: (breaking up)
14:56:32 <bblfish> yes, not so clear
14:56:36 <azaroth> ... Different approach. LDP patch too complex.
14:56:51 <azaroth> ... Another language to learn.
14:57:09 <azaroth> s/???/Miguel/
14:57:20 <azaroth> Arnaud: Interesting feedback that too complex
14:57:26 <azaroth> ... Went with something simpler
14:57:40 <azaroth> ... Same inside IBM, but have heard the opposite too
14:58:00 <azaroth> Miguel: (...)
14:58:05 <sandro> q+
14:58:19 <azaroth> Arnaud: If you have a counter proposal, can always write an email explaining what it's about
14:58:28 <azaroth> ... feel free to say how you do it, and how it works for you
14:58:55 <azaroth> Arnaud:  Don't necessarily agree with the requirements
14:59:17 <azaroth> ???: Now there's several formats and people can choose which that fit their use cases
14:59:31 <azaroth> ... We have issues that none of them fix, eg blank node management and lists
14:59:39 <sandro> s/???/deiu/
14:59:50 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:00:12 <azaroth> Sandro:  IETF has two json patch formats. A merge patch that's much simpler.
15:00:27 <azaroth> ... Similar thing went on I guess. People looked at full one and said give me something simpler
15:00:38 <azaroth> ... might be the reality. Thankfully extensible.
15:00:47 <azaroth> ... Maybe go forwards and say it's not the only possibility
15:00:58 <azaroth> Arnaud: Not claim that it's THE patch format but A patch format
15:01:09 <azaroth> ... Okay going to close the call, thank you for joining,
15:01:14 <azaroth> ... thank you Rob for scribing
15:01:23 <azaroth> ... Talk to you next week, or in two weeks :)
15:01:25 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:01:26 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
15:01:26 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:27 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:01:28 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:01:29 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:01:30 <Zakim> -Roger
15:01:30 <Zakim> -deiu
15:01:31 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:01:31 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:01:34 <Zakim> -azaroth
15:01:35 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:01:35 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, codyburleson, Arnaud, deiu, SteveS, Ashok_Malhotra, Roger, bblfish, Sandro, TallTed, nmihindu
15:02:40 <azaroth> azaroth has left #ldp
15:03:10 <Arnaud> btw, the RDF Data Shapes WG has now officially been announced
15:03:18 <Arnaud> if anyone is interested, please, join!
15:04:08 <Arnaud> another WG chaired by yours truly
15:23:06 <azaroth_> azaroth_ has joined #ldp
16:31:13 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:12:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:53:43 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
19:24:53 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
19:25:35 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
20:50:45 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
21:12:08 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
21:25:28 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #ldp