14:58:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:58:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-ldp-irc
14:58:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:58:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:58:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:58:38 <trackbot> Date: 08 December 2014
14:58:44 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
14:59:44 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:59:51 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:01 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:00:37 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:43 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
15:00:48 <SteveS> zakim, [ibm] is me
15:00:48 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:00:55 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:03 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:03 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:01:05 <Zakim> +Roger
15:01:05 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:01:06 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:01:06 <Zakim> +deiu
15:01:55 <bblfish> in Scala eXchange conference in London
15:02:20 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:02:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:41 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
15:02:41 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
15:03:13 <Zakim> +??P11
15:03:16 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:03:26 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:04:01 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
15:04:30 <sandro> scribe: sandro
15:05:04 <Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 1 December teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-12-01
15:05:31 <Zakim> +Alexandre
15:06:28 <Arnaud> Resolved: Approve the minutes of the 1 December teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-12-01
15:06:32 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
15:06:42 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (84%)
15:06:45 <sandro> Arnaud: Meeting next week as usual.
15:07:16 <sandro> Arnaud: One new issue
15:07:18 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-104: Negative indexes in Path expressions
15:07:19 <sandro> issue-104?
15:07:19 <trackbot> issue-104 -- Negative indexes in Path expressions -- raised
15:07:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/104
15:07:33 <SteveS> +1
15:07:36 <deiu> +1
15:07:48 <sandro> +1 (dunno what it means, but sure)
15:08:17 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-104: Negative indexes in Path expressions
15:08:23 <sandro> Arnaud: it's the equivalent of issue-102, negative indexes in slices
15:08:34 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
15:09:15 <sandro> Arnaud: Trying to coordinate with Eric the publication of the ldp spec
15:09:22 <sandro> .. some discussion of Abtract, not being very descriptive.
15:09:29 <codyburleson> q+
15:09:47 <Arnaud> ack codyburleson
15:10:14 <sandro> codyburleson: Steve made a good point, that there have been several reviews, so we might want to be careful about changing it.
15:10:25 <sandro> .. when I looked at it, I thought it could benefit from a revision
15:10:45 <codyburleson> This document describes a set of best practices and simple approach for a read-write Linked Data architecture, based on HTTP access to web resources that describe their state using the RDF data model.
15:11:07 <codyburleson> I think Philippe said that he didn't kno w what a "read-write Linked
15:11:07 <codyburleson> Data architecture" was or how web resources might describe their state
15:11:07 <codyburleson> using the RDF data model. I guess he (and the public) would be better
15:11:07 <codyburleson> informed by something like:
15:11:18 <sandro> .. the way it's written right now, when I asked...
15:11:42 <sandro> codyburleson: So what do we mean there?
15:12:30 <sandro> codyburleson: we're trying to encapsulated CRUD in "read-write".   I'm struggling with "best-practices", since it's pre-mature.  It's a  set of rules.   Also, it says "simple", which is very relative.
15:12:51 <sandro> codyburleson: I think it can be improved, and is worth chewing on a bit
15:12:59 <codyburleson> =================
15:13:18 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
15:13:20 <sandro> q+
15:13:32 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:13:55 <codyburleson> This specification defines a client-server platform and a standard approach for managing and exchanging Linked Data resources over HTTP.
15:13:57 <sandro> q+
15:14:11 <codyburleson> It introduces the notion of a URI addressable "container" through which a client may POST an RDF graph. Once POSTed, an RDF graph can then be managed through its parent container as a single web resource.
15:14:28 <codyburleson> Resources can be members of one or more containers and the containers themselves can be arranged in hierarchies.
15:14:42 <codyburleson> This enables the development of rich information architectures, which can be managed using the classic and well-known HTTP interaction model and familiar techniques such as the exchange of data using REST and JSON.
15:14:46 <codyburleson> Yet because the resources being managed are expressed primarily in RDF, the platform additionally affords all the benefits ...
15:15:47 <sandro> codyburleson: The original abstract didn't clarify what it is, and it's not compelling
15:15:58 <sandro> Arnaud: There was talk of publiushing tomorrow
15:16:11 <sandro> Arnaud, Eric is supposed to be on this.
15:16:14 <roger> i agree that the abstract could be jazz'ed up a bit.
15:16:25 <sandro> q+ sandro to talk about publication
15:16:53 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:16:53 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to talk about publication
15:16:55 <codyburleson> I will post what I have (in rough) on the mailing list in case we care to chew on it from the angle I am on.
15:19:27 <sandro> cody: It merges the benefits of RDF and the familiarity of HTTP
15:19:39 <sandro> cody: to get the benefits of the RDF data model
15:19:49 <sandro> Arnaud: Sounds good, send to mailing list please
15:20:18 <sandro> Arnaud: Any PR?
15:21:14 <sandro> Arnaud: testemonials, etc.     People can make statements about why this is great.
15:21:38 <sandro> Arnaud: The AC review form will have a box where folks can say if they want to participate in PR
15:22:07 <Zakim> -??P11
15:22:16 <sandro> SteveS: It sounds interesting, but I can't speak for IBM on this matter.    The things Sandro and Cody said are aspirational
15:22:44 <codyburleson> I would be interested, sure.
15:22:55 <sandro> roger: Fujitsu would be interested, I think
15:22:59 <codyburleson> But, my company's brand is not well known.
15:23:30 <sandro> Ashok: For Oracle, it's complicated.
15:23:40 <Arnaud> that's ok cody, it doesn't have to be
15:25:58 <sandro> Arnaud: We'll keep you all posted on progress
15:26:12 <sandro> topic: LD Patch
15:26:38 <sandro> Arnaud: Three open issues
15:26:57 <betehess> I can re: 101
15:27:03 <betehess> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#grammar-production-add
15:27:47 <sandro> betehess: this is implemented and should be closed
15:28:06 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
15:28:14 <sandro> betehess: I think we agreed to close it, but it didn't get recorded properly
15:28:44 <Arnaud1> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-101, adding supporting for Turtle snippets
15:28:53 <betehess> +1
15:29:13 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
15:29:18 <deiu> +1
15:29:19 <sandro> +1
15:29:23 <SteveS> +1
15:29:24 <roger> +1
15:29:24 <TallTed> +1
15:29:26 <Ashok> +1
15:29:27 <codyburleson> 0
15:29:31 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-101, adding supporting for Turtle snippets
15:29:46 <Arnaud> ISSUE-103
15:29:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-103 -- Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples -- open
15:29:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/103
15:29:49 <sandro> topic: issue-103
15:30:04 <sandro> deiu: I don't think we've reached a resolution on this
15:30:15 <betehess> we had talked about a) assertions b) mode strict/lax c) 2 sets of operations d) etags + delete doesn't fail
15:30:40 <deiu> I think the majority was inclined to go with d)
15:31:05 <sandro> Arnaud: adding fails silently, but removing doesn't, so that's a bit asymetric/odd
15:31:09 <betehess> s|delete doesn't fail|delete-does-not-fail|
15:31:50 <sandro> Arnaud: tim wasn't happy with d.    we COULD add support for both modes, with a mode switch, 2 sets of operations, assertions
15:32:04 <TallTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:32:12 <betehess> I still prefer supporting the 2 modes somehow
15:32:22 <betehess> but won't oppose
15:32:22 <Zakim> TallTed, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (73%), SteveS (19%), deiu (26%)
15:32:36 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:32:36 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:33:24 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:33:24 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:33:29 <codyburleson> Zakim, mute me
15:33:29 <Zakim> codyburleson should now be muted
15:34:00 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:34:00 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:34:12 <Zakim> +Arnaud.a
15:34:35 <TallTed> Zakim mute Arnaud
15:34:40 <betehess> we actually said that alert/warning was not very interesting
15:34:43 <sandro> zakim, mute arnaud
15:34:43 <Zakim> Arnaud should now be muted
15:35:01 <Arnaud> zakim, unmute me
15:35:01 <Zakim> Arnaud should no longer be muted
15:35:40 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:35:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, Sandro, SteveS, TallTed, Roger, deiu, codyburleson (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, Arnaud.a
15:35:43 <Zakim> On IRC I see deiu, Arnaud, codyburleson, betehess, pchampin, roger, Ashok, MiguelAraCo, Zakim, RRSAgent, bblfish, TallTed, SteveS, tommorris, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
15:35:46 <SteveS> I still favor d) but agree it would be good to have an understanding on how a future extension could work
15:35:52 <TallTed> Zakim, mute Arnaud
15:35:52 <Zakim> Arnaud should now be muted
15:36:13 <Arnaud> I hear well too now :)
15:36:20 <Arnaud> weird
15:36:24 <Arnaud> ok, let's proceed anyway
15:36:28 <Arnaud> I'll type
15:36:38 <Arnaud> so, any proposals for 103?
15:36:59 <sandro> <betehess> we had talked about a) assertions b) mode strict/lax c) 2 sets of operations d) etags + delete doesn't fail
15:37:23 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:37:41 <Arnaud> zakim, unmute me
15:37:41 <Zakim> Arnaud.a was not muted, Arnaud
15:38:09 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:38:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, SteveS, TallTed, Roger, deiu, codyburleson (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, Arnaud.a
15:38:10 <betehess> -0.1   +1   +0.5   +0.1
15:38:31 <deiu> 0 +1 +1 +1
15:38:48 <Ashok> 1 1 1 0
15:38:56 <TallTed> a) +0.5   b) +0.5   c) +0.5   d) +0.5
15:39:01 <sandro> +0.5 (assuming at start)  +0.2 -0.2  +0
15:39:07 <SteveS> 0 0 0 +1
15:39:26 <roger> 0 0 0 0
15:39:45 <sandro> sandro: It'd be good to get a vote from Tim
15:39:49 <betehess> sounds good to me, but I will probably go with b or c to satisfy timbl's request, not d
15:39:52 <betehess> I can
15:40:15 <sandro> action: betehess to talk to Tim about how he feels about these four options
15:40:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-151 - Talk to tim about how he feels about these four options [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2014-12-15].
15:40:19 <deiu> Can we at least reduce the number of options to two?
15:40:39 <pchampin> +1 +1 0 +.5
15:40:44 <sandro> Arnaud: It seems like any decent proposal should be acceptable
15:41:54 <sandro> sandro: cc public-ldp-comments@w3.org in conversation with TimBL
15:41:58 <Arnaud>  ISSUE-104: Negative indexes in Path expressions
15:41:58 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-104 Negative indexes in Path expressions.
15:42:06 <sandro> topic: issue-104
15:42:41 <sandro> Arnaud: Argument was symmetry
15:42:59 <sandro> sandro: sorry, what are these?
15:43:05 <Arnaud> Bind ?lastlang   <#tim> / ex:preferredLanguages / -1 .
15:43:05 <sandro> issue-104?
15:43:05 <trackbot> issue-104 -- Negative indexes in Path expressions -- raised
15:43:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/104
15:43:13 <betehess> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#dfn-stepat
15:43:23 <betehess> [[
15:43:23 <betehess> A StepAt is defined by an integer n, and consists in following n rdf:rest arcs and one rdf:first arc in order to reach the corresponding member of an RDF collection. It is equivalent to a sequence of n+1 StepForwards with the corresponding IRIs.
15:43:24 <betehess> ]]
15:45:22 <sandro> sandro: it's the n'th element of the list at that point
15:45:36 <sandro> sandro: so, yes, allowing negatives as in slices makes perfect sense.
15:45:46 <betehess> to be clear, +1 from me :-)
15:46:16 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-104, adding negative indexes in Path expressions
15:46:18 <TallTed> +1
15:46:21 <deiu> +1
15:46:24 <sandro> +1
15:46:33 <betehess> q+ to ask there is still the problem of the index for the last element of the list
15:46:47 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:46:47 <Zakim> betehess, you wanted to ask there is still the problem of the index for the last element of the list
15:47:03 <SteveS> +1
15:47:55 <sandro> sandro: -1 refers to the last element, as in Python
15:48:03 <betehess> [[
15:48:04 <betehess> >>> l = [1,2,3,4]
15:48:04 <betehess> >>> l[-1]
15:48:04 <betehess> 4
15:48:05 <betehess> ]]
15:48:09 <pchampin> I would suggest that we keep ".." to append elements at the end of a list
15:48:20 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-104, adding negative indexes in Path expressions
15:48:21 <pchampin> and 0.. to replace the whole list
15:48:50 <sandro> topic: more on Patch
15:48:54 <betehess> yeah... [[[
15:48:55 <betehess> >>> l[-1:-1] = [5,6]
15:48:55 <betehess> >>> l
15:48:55 <betehess> [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 4]
15:48:56 <betehess> ]]]
15:49:25 <sandro> Arnaud: So that closes everything but 103.   I'm hoping we can be done next week.
15:50:19 <sandro> sandro: re ISSUE-103 We could include one of A/B/C at-risk and go to LC
15:50:39 <betehess> sorry, I need to step out: fire alarm
15:50:45 <Zakim> -Alexandre
15:50:52 <sandro> topic: Extension/Rechartering
15:51:50 <Ashok> q+
15:51:51 <sandro> Arnaud: It seems like asking for an extension is the right thing at this point.  We'd put on hold the idea of rechartering.
15:52:20 <sandro> Arnaud: This is not because we failed to deliver, but because we want some time to see how LDP is being adopted before we commit to a new set of deliverables
15:52:30 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
15:52:51 <sandro> Ashok: Can we start on other work, eg Access Control
15:53:31 <sandro> sandro: It's out of scope.   I don't know quite what we can do
15:53:34 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:53:56 <sandro> Arnaud: I think we could have email discussion, a wiki page, and editors draft, just no FPWD until it's formally in scope.
15:55:42 <sandro> Arnaud: 6 months, 9 months, but 12 seems a bit much.
15:56:00 <sandro> Arnaud: like charter out by June
15:57:05 <sandro> sandro: What about a workshop, "the data platform for the web" and see who shows up, and if they're interested
15:57:08 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
15:57:17 <sandro> sandro: so then timing of that is an issue
15:57:19 <betehess> oh, workshop? I am joining bach
15:57:38 <sandro> Arnaud: So we could say this is a workshop about taking it to the next level
15:57:43 <roger> +1 to workshop
15:57:44 <codyburleson> +1 workshop; that's interesting.
15:57:46 <deiu> +1 to workshop
15:57:49 <Zakim> +Alexandre
15:57:50 <sandro> Arnaud: march maybe?
15:57:52 <Ashok> +1
15:57:54 <betehess> +1 workshop
15:58:25 <sandro> Arnaud: Maybe April workshop?
15:59:52 <sandro> sandro: I think a workshop with more folks will take more time.
16:00:09 <sandro> Arnaud: with my AC Rep hat on, 9 months is max.
16:00:56 <sandro> sandro: workshop in spring, charter in summer
16:01:19 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Plan for a workshop around April, and request a charter extension until July 2015 to finish  Paging and LD Patch, gain experience with LDP 1.0, and draft a charter  for LDPNext.
16:01:42 <sandro> +1
16:01:46 <deiu> +1
16:01:51 <Ashok> +1
16:01:53 <betehess> +1
16:01:54 <roger> +1
16:01:54 <TallTed> +1
16:01:55 <codyburleson> +1
16:02:03 <MiguelAraCo> +1
16:02:04 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
16:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, TallTed, Roger, deiu, codyburleson (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, Arnaud.a, Alexandre
16:02:15 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Plan for a workshop around April, and request a charter extension until July 2015 to finish  Paging and LD Patch, gain experience with LDP 1.0, and draft a charter  for LDPNext.
16:02:34 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:02:38 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:40 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:02:41 <Zakim> -Arnaud.a
16:02:41 <Zakim> -deiu
16:02:43 <Zakim> -Roger
16:02:43 <Zakim> -codyburleson
16:02:43 <Zakim> -Alexandre
16:02:44 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:02:44 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, Sandro, SteveS, TallTed, Roger, deiu, codyburleson, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre
16:02:46 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
16:14:44 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:11:59 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:18:03 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
17:49:34 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
18:18:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
18:35:04 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
18:39:25 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
19:08:38 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
19:18:15 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
19:39:01 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
19:46:11 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
19:46:14 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
20:11:23 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
20:17:08 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
20:30:18 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
21:28:58 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:30:23 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
21:50:25 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
21:56:35 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
22:06:04 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:11:26 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
22:47:23 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:58:47 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
23:00:59 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:18:15 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:28:48 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
23:37:52 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
23:38:48 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:58:08 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp