<trackbot> Date: 10 November 2014

that was a quick call

<bblfish> hi

<scribe> scribenick: deiu

approving minutes

Arnaud: there was an error in the last minutes, which tells me people don't read the minutes
... we can safely approve them since there was no resolution
... minutes approved

<bblfish> minutes are useful, and are important in that case

actions & issues

<Arnaud> action-150

<trackbot> action-150 -- Alexandre Bertails to Add support for arbitrary text/turtle for the add operation in ldpatch -- due 2014-10-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/150

deiu will address action-150

Arnaud: status update
... I sent the transition request but I didn't hear anything
... I believe Eric needs to set up the call with W3M
... but I haven't heard anything from him
... too bad he's not available right now to hear what the status is
... paging is not doing better either; the editors have updated the spec
... maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?
... the process seems to have changed lately, merging two steps into one

sandro: try sending an email to Ralph just to make sure (informally)

Arnaud: what I meant about the paging spec: you get to LC and then CR
... you cannot do the disposition of comments and implementation reports at the same time
... there's no real change to the timeline, even if theoretically it should be faster
... in conclusion: the spec is ready

SteveS: the key thing to cover is that there were a couple of items marked "at risk"
... I only got some pushback for the new status code (we didn't get support from IETF)
... so I removed that from the spec, as well as the "at risk" markers from a couple of places in the spec

Arnaud: ok, so that should have been formally minuted
... the point is 2NN is abandoned so SteveS removed it from the spec
... John worked really hard on 2NN and it's a pity we had to remove a big chunk from the spec
... so Eric, I'm waiting for a confirmation for the call re. the TR

ericP: I can reply to your email
... people on the W3M call can be you, staff contacts and maybe editors
... it might be easier to get a different call for the paging req
... let's try not to sneak it in

LD patch format

<bblfish> pchampin: ?

<pchampin> can't manage to reach zakim, sorry :-(

<pchampin> not much progress to report anyway, I'm afraid...

pchampin: we're looking at having some SPARQL-like syntax allowed in the add operation
... we haven't made a lot of progress

Arnaud: it seems like the spec has been sitting there
... we haven't seen a lot of updates
... what is our position as a group? We agreed overall that we want to push it further...
... I don't feel like there's a strong motivation to push it at this point

<bblfish> I think we need a PATCH format

Arnaud: are you still interested in putting in effort?

azaroth: we're still interested in it, mostly because the PUT operation to update is constrained
... we haven't worked on it yet, but it's something that we think is valuable

<azaroth> To clarify, we don't particularly care about the format, we just need the functionality

<bblfish> well everyone I think needs PATCH, but we could vote on it.

bblfish: I think everyone needs PATCH
... the format I see as being mostly used is SPARQL UPDATE

<ericP> i suspect the fastest path is to publish http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_patch?lang=perl&markup=html#productions with an at-risk crazy scheme for lists

<ericP> semantics are done

pchampin: I understand Henry, and I think it is a pragmatic solution
... assuming that a SPARQL query fails, you would have a non-atomic operation
... we need atomicity and you can't have it right now with the current SPARQL UPDATE
... I believe there's room for a dedicated language with real PATCH semantics

<bblfish> pchampin: the atomiticy problem in SPARQL Update is due to what? Is that due to the ability to PATCH subgraphs ?

SteveS: PUT has a ton of overhead and complexity, so PATCH is relevant to us
... we have a small profile of what is in LD patch today
... re. the group not being interested, I have given my feedback several times so far
... I have some requirements as to what the format should be

Arnaud: we don't have any issues opened today against the LD patch draft
... I agree we should make this a primary topic for the group to discuss
... we don't have much to talk about right now, other than the new charter
... so what if we try to push it further by sending it to LC

TallTed: I don't really think we're there yet

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose that the fastest path may be to publish http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_patch?lang=perl&markup=html#productions with an at-risk MEMBERS

ericP: there's a grammar for a subset of SPARQL update that has some stuff for lists
... in my implementation I use something for expanding lists, which shouldn't be hard to document
... we could say -- "unline SPARL update, when you use this for PATCH, you must guarantee atomicity..."

deiu: we have several implementations right now that work

Arnaud: right, and because we don't have any open issues, maybe we can move to LC and look for implementers

Ashok: I am curious what happened here, because Andrei and Alexandre started very enthusiastic about it, but it looks like they're giving up
... I'm wondering why

<SteveS> multiple comments we had was that we’d recommend a bit more formalism of the grammar and semantics, perhaps that should be an open issue/action ?

Arnaud: maybe they feel discouraged because there are not many people sending feedback

TallTed: it is a viable spec that works, even though maybe it doesn't scale or it doesn't fit all use cases

rechartering

Arnaud: sandro and I were discussing this last week and he sent an email to the group
... have people looked at it and want to react to it?

SteveS: I have a quick reaction
... I see we still have some active work ahead of us in this group
... if we can somehow structure the charter so that there's an adoption period or learning period, to allow us to close loose ends and have less frequent calls

Arnaud: we could have a schedule that allows us to have a slow start, with less frequent calls
... it seems that we either make that officially (by rechartering) or we just leave the WG in limbo and just wait
... we can still meet and use the mailing list even if we don't recharter

sandro: when we talked about rechartering at our last f2f, I started thinking about LDP as a set of building blocks and from that context I can see for instance that patch is a separate building block..so is the notification mechanism
... I'm wondering if we can pick up each item from the wish list and work on it
... if the item is not relevant to some people, they don't have to join the call for it

TallTed: that means people will fall off the grid, and they get disengaged
... rechartering immediately makes more sense to me

Arnaud: I think we're better off rechartering, which won't happen before December
... it takes 4 weeks for AC review anyway
... so officially, we probably won't start before January 2015
... we can keep a regular schedule on, and if we decide to skip calls (or make them informal) then that's up to us

sandro: the current charter is pretty vague

Arnaud: I doubt we'll have trouble with a charter that picks up on the previous one and just proposes extensions and improvements
... I can look at the table and shift everything by 3-6 months and at the same time, people should look at the questions we want to address

sandro: what's the timeline for the decision?

Arnaud: we expire at the end of the month, so should have an official position by then
... in the next 2 weeks we need to figure out what we want to do
... I want to have a charter ready for the end of the months so I can send it to the AC
... please use the time until the next call to look at the charter
... Steve mentioned the notion of sending updates, Sandro too
... we need to come up with a list of items people are interested in

<bblfish> thanks

<azaroth> Thanks all :)

[adjourned]

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?/...maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?/
Succeeded: s/style/format/
Found ScribeNick: deiu
Inferring Scribes: deiu
Default Present: deiu, azaroth, Arnaud, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, bblfish, SteveS, ericP, +33.9.51.77.aaaa, pchampin
Present: deiu azaroth Arnaud Sandro Ashok_Malhotra TallTed bblfish SteveS ericP +33.9.51.77.aaaa pchampin

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 10 Nov 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/10-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: