14:59:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:59:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/03-ldp-irc
14:59:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:59:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:59:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:59:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:59 <trackbot> Date: 03 November 2014
15:00:39 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:40 <sergio> sergio has joined #ldp
15:00:41 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:53 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:00:53 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:01:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:29 <codyburleson> zakim, IPcaller is me.
15:01:29 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
15:01:48 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:01:57 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson
15:02:01 <Zakim> +sergio
15:02:18 <MiguelAraCo> Zakim, I'm with codyburleson
15:02:18 <Zakim> +MiguelAraCo; got it
15:02:20 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:53 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:05:04 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
15:05:06 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:05:09 <codyburleson> scribe: codyburleson
15:05:10 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:05:10 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:05:14 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:05:17 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:06:16 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Objections to minutes of the last meeting?
15:06:27 <Zakim> +Roger
15:06:45 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:06:56 <codyburleson> Minutes of Oct 20th approved (hearing no objections).
15:07:21 <codyburleson> Topic: Action 148
15:07:33 <codyburleson> Steve: It's been done
15:07:42 <codyburleson> Arnaud: OK, we can close Action 148.
15:07:57 <codyburleson> Topic: Status of the LDP Spec
15:09:21 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I have not managed to get the team to schedule call, so this is still pending. But at the same time, I want to be sure the spec is ready to publish. Are we ready?
15:10:09 <codyburleson> SteveS: Yes. Add a note in front of ours and reference the draft that's there and leave a copy of the definition of the header within our spec.
15:10:20 <Zakim> +??P17
15:10:41 <Zakim> +ericP
15:10:43 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P17 is me
15:10:43 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:10:53 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
15:10:53 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
15:11:12 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We've failed in pushing hard enough on getting this RFP through, so now we're waiting on this (IETF).
15:11:37 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We're talking about Accept-Post
15:12:16 <SteveS> Current state of spec: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#header-accept-post
15:12:17 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We have apparently not reported enough implementations (Eric was told); not enough evidence to grant the spec moving forward.
15:12:28 <codyburleson> Sandro: We can put in our spec.
15:12:48 <codyburleson> Arnaud: That's what SteveS is saying; that we'll put the definition in our spec with a note.
15:14:00 <codyburleson> Arnaud: The draft is close to ready. Eric, I sent an email a couple of weeks ago asking for the call to be scheduled; can you please put that atop your list? We need to get approval to move LDP and LDP Paging to CR.
15:14:16 <codyburleson> SteveS: I put the target date to this Thursday, the 6th.
15:14:43 <codyburleson> Zakim, who is speaking?
15:14:55 <Zakim> codyburleson, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (39%), Sandro (65%)
15:14:59 <codyburleson> Zakim, who is talking?
15:15:09 <Zakim> codyburleson, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (15%), Sandro (10%), ericP (60%)
15:15:52 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I'll do the transition requests, you schedule the call, Eric.
15:16:02 <codyburleson> topic: Paging
15:16:35 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We've decided to move paging to CR, but we do not even have a shadow of a test report yet.
15:16:41 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
15:16:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:17:10 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:17:24 <codyburleson> SteveS: Yes, we have a skeleton of a test suite; just not a lot of meat in it. And I haven't looked at it in much detail to be sure that it's right.
15:18:10 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I see the draft still has the features at risk stuff in it.
15:18:27 <codyburleson> SteveS: Yes, there is a bit more work to be done on the draft of the Paging spec.
15:18:36 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Do you know when that might get done?
15:18:46 <codyburleson> SteveS: I should be able to get to it this week, I hope.
15:19:16 <codyburleson> Arnaud: OK. I can still send the transition request just so that we do not get further delays on that.
15:21:17 <codyburleson> Arnaud: When I looked at the disposition of comments document, it looks a bit thin. It doesn't give a great idea of the comments that took place on the public mailing list. This is the second last call though, so it should be expected that there are fewer comments. But, we didn't get full acknowledgement from some of the commenters.
15:21:21 <codyburleson> Topic: Patch Format
15:21:38 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Have we lost momentum here, or what?
15:22:11 <codyburleson> Sandro: There's nobody to ask.(I think, as in - they haven't been on the calls)
15:22:39 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:22:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson, sergio, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, TallTed (muted), Roger, nmihindu (muted), ericP, Sandro.a
15:22:41 <Zakim> codyburleson has MiguelAraCo
15:22:49 <codyburleson> Arnaud: OK, we'll skip that for now and maybe I'll ping them.
15:22:56 <codyburleson> Topic: Rechartering
15:23:02 <SteveS> pchampin, any update on patch?
15:23:26 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I put a draft together and received some comments; thank you. I already updated the draft with the comments I got.
15:24:00 <SteveS> betehess, update on patch?
15:24:16 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I did a very quick job of pulling from the wish-list when I put the draft together. I can't claim that this was the result of a very well-thought-out effort. So, I was a bit surprised that I didn't get much more feedback.
15:24:51 <pchampin> oops, sorry; can't manage to join Zakim
15:25:04 <codyburleson> Arnaud: There was one about Paging. I tried to change that: "How can a client specify the size of a page". I reworded that.
15:25:42 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext2015_Charter#scope
15:25:42 <pchampin> LD-patch: a little stuck right now, but we are working on enriching the language
15:25:48 <sergio> q+
15:25:49 <codyburleson> Ashok: I'm actually happy with your wording there. I think it is very open-ended.
15:25:56 <pchampin> in order to allow multiple triples in a single Add/Remove statement
15:26:21 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I did add the question that Steve brought up.
15:27:39 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:27:39 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:28:10 <codyburleson> SteveS: The scenario is - a mechanism by which to keep (not necessarily a replica) but an index (…?) We have a specification called Track Resource where the client can request info from a certain set and receive a baseline and then update a change log to keep that index current. So, that is something I thought may be interesting to look at.
15:28:23 <sergio> q?
15:28:31 <codyburleson> (scribe had trouble interpreting - take that with a grain of salt)
15:28:39 <codyburleson> zakim, who is speaking?
15:28:50 <Zakim> codyburleson, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveS (9%), TallTed (90%), ericP (4%)
15:29:54 <codyburleson> TallTed: If its really just an index of "all my resources and whether any of them have changed." This is either really, really simple or really, really complex.
15:30:11 <Ashok> q+
15:30:14 <codyburleson> SteveS: Are you saying it's solved with Pub Sub hubub or …?
15:30:57 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:32:04 <codyburleson> Sandro: The technique I am using in vanilla servers is that you subscribe to a preset. Not a perfect solution, but it seems to work.
15:32:12 <azaroth> q+
15:32:23 <azaroth> q-
15:32:33 <azaroth> q+ to note ActivityStreams
15:32:44 <codyburleson> Arnaud: So the question is whether or not this is a topic of interest for the charter: if there is a way to keep track of resource changes without having to download the whole resource. Kind of the reverse of patch, I guess.
15:33:12 <codyburleson> Sandro: I don't know if it is within scope of LDP, but I don't know how you could build a web app without such a thing.
15:33:28 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
15:34:36 <codyburleson> Ashok: Use cases: 1) Tell me if the value of (…?) 2) I'm on the oRacle server and I'd like to go to the IBM server. So which are we speaking of? Or both?
15:35:27 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I suspect maybe there is a better way to phrase this so that people will know what we are talking about exactly.
15:35:32 <codyburleson> zakim, who is speaking?
15:35:44 <Zakim> codyburleson, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TallTed (69%)
15:35:52 <codyburleson> zakim, who is speaking?
15:36:03 <Zakim> codyburleson, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TallTed (55%)
15:36:20 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
15:36:20 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note ActivityStreams
15:36:25 <bblfish> +1 for working out the connection
15:36:53 <codyburleson> Sandro: Can you explain where you see the overlap? As far as I can tell, ActivityStreams is just a vocabulary, but doesn't soplve the protocol issue.
15:37:17 <bblfish> q+
15:37:29 <codyburleson> zakim, who is talking?
15:37:40 <Zakim> codyburleson, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (5%), TallTed (72%), ericP (8%)
15:38:51 <codyburleson> (Scribe did not get any of that, please somebody note this? I'm lost.)
15:39:23 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We don't have to resolve this pprolem yet, but I'm glad Rob you brought that up.
15:40:17 <azaroth> Rob:  Noting that the social web working group is working on notifications, called activity streams.  The Annotation WG is looking to use LDP for the HTTP API and AS for notifications, would not like to be out of sync if LDP's notification framework is not compatible with what comes out of Social Web
15:40:31 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:40:51 <Arnaud> ack sergio
15:40:58 <codyburleson> Sergio: My point was broader - out of Activity Streams.
15:40:59 <azaroth> ... Agrees that it's not important to solve immediately but would be valuable to engage with Social Web moving forwards
15:42:23 <codyburleson> Arnaud: On one hand, it feels like the working group is ready for a break and may benefit from such a break. On the other hand, I am afraid of losing momentum and focus. The current charter is at the end of this month, but I can tell you that we're not going to have a charter by then.
15:42:46 <codyburleson> Arnaud: The end of the year is coming up quick. But, I think there will be some kind of slow down if not a complete break.
15:43:30 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We don't need to pause, per se. We just need to continue at a slow pace. I think it would be better if we still worked on the charter and we get the charter through the process so that we still have a working group.
15:44:04 <Ashok> Why don't we pause from Nov 23 to January 4 ?
15:44:15 <bblfish> Mind you the Social Web Working group seems to be very keen to move all kinds of topics onto other CGs or Worgking Groups, such as Use Cases, or discussions on github, etc.. so perhaps the LDP group can take on whatever fits into the protocol side of things
15:44:37 <codyburleson> sergio: It's clear that the schedule is too tight on paging.
15:45:02 <codyburleson> Arnaud: there are two different deliverables and so the scheduling is a bit complicated. There is Paging 1.0 and Patch format.
15:46:06 <sandro> q+
15:46:14 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:46:19 <codyburleson> sergio: Then you have to be clear that Paging 1.0 is not going to be the final solution and there will be a 1.1. A small break would help because it would help everyone materialize things and come with more.
15:47:10 <bblfish> Btw. I'll be speaking about LDP at SemWeb Pro in Paris on Wednesday
15:47:41 <codyburleson> Sandro: A little perspective on the small break. Nandana, Sergio, and I were together some weeks ago. A couple of the researches there were interested. It was just sort of beginning to be on their radar. The world has not paid any attention to LDP yet. I think , if we're going to do a next version, it would make sense to have the world paying attention first.
15:47:48 <bblfish>   http://semweb.pro/semwebpro-2014.html
15:49:09 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:49:09 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:49:13 <ericP> SPARQL kind of took the (SemWeb) world by storm so momentum wasn't an issue.
15:49:23 <codyburleson> Sergio: The thinking in the community seemed to be that somehow LDP is too complex. Once we started explaining they said, "Oh, well that's not too complex" But that was first impression.
15:49:36 <bblfish> q+
15:49:54 <codyburleson> Sergio: These things come out, then people have to use it, and then only can they come with good information of what they want/need from it going forward.
15:50:46 <codyburleson> Arnaud: What I was trying to do is come up with charter that would allow us 1) continue finish what we have in the works: Paging and Patch. That would give us time to come up with better idea of what we want for LDP 1.1.
15:51:23 <bblfish> yes, that's what I was going to say, there are things that are not done, such as PATCH, Paging and perhaps Web Access Control,
15:51:33 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We could start in January and kind of see if that would give us enough time. If we do not have a group for some period of time, that means we're leaving Patch and Paging in limbo.
15:51:56 <codyburleson> Sandro: Laying my cards on the table, I don't personally care so much about Patch and Paging. I'm not too motivated.
15:52:16 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We can decide to leave them as is - leave them sitting.
15:52:18 <bblfish> q+
15:52:20 <codyburleson> q+
15:52:24 <SteveS> I/we are
15:52:30 <SteveS> we have
15:52:36 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:52:46 <SteveS> we plan to use ld-patch as well
15:52:47 <nmihindu> may we will. not in our list at this moment.
15:53:35 <codyburleson> Henry: I'm starting to write JavaSCript user interfaces where I have to get RDF data and I can see where I need to get it in smaller chunks. I'm not sure the way we're doing it….I'm not sure what the best solution is. I can see paging being useful though. There are also other things like Web Access Control.
15:53:46 <codyburleson> Henry: Distributed access control.
15:54:14 <codyburleson> Henry: The Social Web Working group have some of this. But that group is very disparate. And a lot of them will be against very technical things like LDP.
15:54:49 <sandro> q+
15:55:05 <codyburleson> Henry: They constrain themselves in such a way that they can't do some things very interesting. This could be the opportunity for LDP to take the lead to build these distributed things.
15:55:24 <codyburleson> Arnaud: That may be making a lot of assumptions. I think they ARE considering LDP as a possibility.
15:55:27 <Arnaud> ack codyburleson
15:56:40 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:57:03 <codyburleson> Cody: Our problem with paging is only that we haven't got to it yet. We're just trying to finalize all from core spec still.
15:57:23 <azaroth> +1 to Sandro
15:57:40 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:57:40 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:57:41 <bblfish> +1 to Sandro
15:57:59 <codyburleson> Sandro: We may need to be working rapidly and effectively in the next number of months to be able to improve our specs so that Social group can rely on us to solve their protoicol problems.
15:58:26 <codyburleson> Sandro: They're not relying on us. They could do it themselves. But if we work together - we'll have a much better Web.
15:58:32 <bblfish> so am I on both groups
15:58:41 <codyburleson> Sandro: At least me and Arnaud are in both groups.
15:59:09 <bblfish> very cool
15:59:13 <codyburleson> Arnaud: They don't actually have a well thought out plan on this protocol. So, if we could make a good case for LDP, then maybe we can win their favor to it.
15:59:41 <codyburleson> Sandro: What is the scop of Social? All software that derives its value from having opeople there. That is a way broader definition than what they have.
16:01:01 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Out of time. We don't have to settle now. We can stay together even without charter for now. I encourage all to think about those questions. I appreciate the need to not rush into the next thing. But maybe we can set up the charter so that we can get the working group rechartered. There is a use cases and requirments 1.1 deliverable for example.
16:01:05 <bblfish> thanks
16:01:07 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:01:08 <bblfish> bye
16:01:08 <azaroth> Thanks! bye all
16:01:09 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
16:01:10 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:01:11 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:01:11 <Zakim> -Roger
16:01:12 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:01:13 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:01:14 <Zakim> -sergio
16:01:16 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Meeting adjourned.
16:01:18 <Zakim> -azaroth
16:02:40 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:03:05 <Zakim> -codyburleson
16:03:06 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
16:03:27 <Zakim> -ericP
16:24:25 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
16:35:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, nmihindu, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
16:35:02 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:35:02 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson, sergio, MiguelAraCo, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, Sandro, TallTed, Roger, ericP, nmihindu, bblfish
18:05:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
18:28:01 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
18:54:40 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
19:15:36 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
19:50:29 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:55:39 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:06:38 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:46:41 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:15:56 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:19:20 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:19:21 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:20:41 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #ldp
23:12:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp