14:59:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:59:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-ldp-irc
14:59:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:11 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
14:59:12 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:59:12 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:59:13 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:13 <trackbot> Date: 15 December 2014
14:59:47 <betehess_> betehess_ has joined #ldp
14:59:53 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:01 <Zakim> +ericP
15:00:36 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:13 <Zakim> +Alexandre
15:01:49 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
15:01:55 <Zakim> +deiu
15:02:52 <deiu> Sandro said he's going to be late 20mins and asks if we can postpone LD Patch until he gets there
15:03:07 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
15:03:15 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:03:15 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:03:18 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:03:18 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:03:21 <Zakim> +??P18
15:03:27 <pchampin> zakim, ??p18 is me
15:03:27 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:04:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:04:13 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:04:13 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:05:53 <betehess> scribe: Alexandre
15:05:57 <betehess> scribenick: betehess
15:06:18 <betehess> Arnaud: approving the minutes of previous meeting
15:06:24 <betehess> ... no objection: approved
15:06:34 <betehess> ... next meeting could be Jan 6th
15:06:52 <betehess> ... but people could be returning to work that day
15:06:59 <azaroth> +1 to 12th
15:07:10 <azaroth> Otherwise regrets for for the 5th
15:07:17 <SteveS> +1 to 12th
15:07:18 <betehess> ... or 12th?
15:07:40 <betehess> Ashok: 12th!
15:07:52 <betehess> Arnaud: let's do Jan 12th
15:07:59 <betehess> ... next meeting on Jan 12th
15:08:25 <betehess> ... tracking of actions and issues
15:08:55 <betehess> ... Alex had one action
15:09:00 <betehess> ... we can close it
15:09:24 <betehess> ... we'll talk about the issue later
15:09:31 <betehess> ... let's talk about LDP and Paging
15:09:40 <betehess> ... LDP going to CR, Paging to PR
15:09:52 <betehess> ... there was discussion about the abstract in LDP
15:09:58 <betehess> ... SteveS took an action
15:10:08 <betehess> ... ericP worked on getting the spec out
15:10:31 <betehess> ericP: choose Jan 16th for the end of PR and CR
15:10:52 <betehess> ... not sure how long the waiting period should be
15:11:09 <betehess> ... for PR, there is a minimum, 3weeks/1month?
15:11:40 <betehess> Arnaud: end of PR for LDP: minimum is 4 weeks
15:11:56 <betehess> ... on track to be publish on Dec 16th
15:12:03 <betehess> ... then we have the waiting period
15:12:40 <betehess> ... for Paging, as we have no commitment for implementations, so we're planning to wait longer
15:12:49 <betehess> ... so could be 3 months
15:13:10 <betehess> ... Mar 16th sounds more reasonable
15:13:16 <betehess> ... what do others think?
15:13:25 <betehess> SteveS: day doesn't matter too much to me
15:13:34 <betehess> ... so March sounds reasonable
15:13:57 <betehess> PROPOSAL: Mar 16th for the end of CR Paging
15:14:05 <deiu> +1
15:14:10 <betehess> +1
15:14:18 <TallTed> +1
15:15:01 <betehess> Arnaud: all +1s say that people will be implementing the spec: yay!
15:15:13 <betehess> APPROVED: Mar 16th for the end of CR Paging
15:15:36 <betehess> ericP: the LDP ontology uses the LDP paging namespace
15:15:52 <betehess> ... we may need different ns for paging
15:15:59 <betehess> ... eg ldp-paging
15:16:10 <betehess> ... people would have to include both namespaces
15:16:14 <azaroth> q+
15:16:15 <betehess> ... but much more modular
15:16:24 <SteveS> q+
15:16:26 <betehess> ... and no need to modify things after LDP got to Rec
15:16:38 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
15:17:04 <betehess> azaroth: the expectation is that LDP Paging @@@
15:17:52 <betehess> Arnaud: slight overhead with the 2 namespaces
15:17:58 <betehess> ... but kinda makes sense
15:18:16 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
15:18:16 <azaroth> s/@@@/wouldn't be used without LDP? And hence modularity would only be one way?/
15:18:18 <betehess> ... and people could come up with a different mechanism for paging, and another ns
15:18:36 <betehess> SteveS: we talked about that some time, and we decided to keep it in ldp ns, can't remember when or why
15:19:15 <betehess> ... there will always be new ns, how do be layer new terms into LDP then?
15:19:26 <betehess> ... so -1 ldp-paging
15:19:35 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:19:36 <betehess> ... like the idea of having one common vocabulary
15:19:42 <Zakim> +Roger
15:19:44 <betehess> ... and be clear about the status
15:19:48 <Arnaud> s/so/so no/
15:19:59 <Arnaud> s/like/but like/
15:20:16 <betehess> ericP: in principle, after ldp fgoes to Rec, I weould be permitted to change the terms used in ldp
15:20:24 <betehess> ... but I think I could edit the doc (I guess)
15:20:42 <betehess> ... value is: there is simplicity in having things in one place
15:20:48 <betehess> Arnaud: look at schema.org
15:20:48 <deiu> q+
15:20:51 <betehess> ... it's all in there
15:20:54 <Arnaud> ack deiu
15:21:10 <betehess> deiu: there is a performance issue too
15:21:20 <Zakim> + +33.6.47.14.aaaa
15:21:21 <betehess> ... eg tabulator would dereference all vocabularies
15:21:21 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:21:35 <betehess> ... so dereferencing things is costly for us
15:21:44 <bblfish> zakim, aaaa is me
15:21:44 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
15:22:41 <betehess> ericP: it's modularity vs simplicity
15:22:43 <TallTed> what's the URI for the (current) Vocabulary Status Ontology?
15:22:55 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/note
15:22:59 <betehess> q+
15:23:25 <betehess> sandro: not strong advocate of 1 namespace
15:23:57 <betehess> ... people use the wrong namespaces all the time
15:24:00 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:25:02 <Zakim> -Roger
15:25:10 <betehess> betehess: one namespace means ontology clashing
15:25:36 <betehess> ericP: what's the title and metadata for the document?
15:25:53 <betehess> ... [enumerating]
15:26:04 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: a) keep one namespace, b) move paging into its own namespace
15:26:19 <betehess> sandro: LDP Paging is part of LDP
15:26:31 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:26:33 <betehess> ... and we'd have to come back to LC if we want to change the NS
15:27:00 <betehess> ericP: not sure
15:27:06 <betehess> ... if the implementations are not impacted...
15:27:17 <betehess> sandro: should ask the director
15:27:32 <betehess> ... question is: do you affect somebody
15:27:50 <betehess> Arnaud: I suggest we keep it as it is: one namespace
15:27:57 <betehess> ... any objection?
15:27:59 <deiu> +0 (mainly because of having to go back to LC)
15:28:13 <betehess> <betehess> -0.9
15:28:59 <betehess> Arnaud: I hear no objection
15:29:04 <betehess> ... that settles it
15:29:51 <betehess> betehess: wait, we should ask the rest of w3c staff
15:30:08 <betehess> I would prefer having the strawpoll
15:30:13 <deiu> me too
15:30:15 <betehess> so that we can present it to w3c
15:30:56 <betehess> Arnaud: don't think ericP convinced anybody (but Alex)
15:31:18 <betehess> ericP: should I change all the ldp related terms to "stable"
15:31:32 <betehess> ... and leave the paging ones as unstable?
15:31:50 <betehess> [chorus]: yes
15:31:56 <betehess> Arnaud: ok, let's move on
15:32:02 <bblfish> q+
15:32:10 <bblfish> q-
15:32:17 <betehess> ... should be published tomorrow
15:32:40 <betehess> ... let's move to LDP Patch then
15:32:52 <betehess> ... betehess had the action item to ask timbl
15:33:00 <betehess> ... hard vs soft delete
15:33:02 <betehess> q+
15:33:11 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:33:15 <betehess> ... which was having different operations
15:33:55 <deiu> betehess: once thing I didn't make clear in my email, the names for the operations were not discussed, so we can replace them if people come up with better ones
15:34:04 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:34:16 <bblfish> can't hear sandro
15:34:17 <betehess> sandro: don't think timbl had considered the rollbacxk problem
15:34:22 <betehess> ... b/c he doesn't use it
15:34:32 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:34:42 <betehess> ... he doesn't want to implement a rollback system
15:34:45 <deiu> sandro: Tim didn't really think about the possibility of having rollbacks
15:35:07 <deiu> ... he thinks that you must not send a patch that can result in a rollback
15:35:09 <betehess> ... there should be no rollback
15:35:22 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:35:28 <deiu> ... and he thinks that people should not have to implement systems that do rollbacks
15:35:39 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:35:46 <deiu> ... I too would have a problem with implementing rollbacks
15:36:05 <betehess> Arnaud: not sure we're why we're discussing about rollbacks
15:36:11 <deiu> Arnaud: I don't really understand how we got to the rollback discussion
15:36:32 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:36:32 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:36:42 <deiu> betehess: if there's a problem with the patch, the resource is left unchanged
15:36:44 <pchampin> Bind and UpdateList can alreday fail
15:37:45 <deiu> Arnaud: maybe the rollback term is too strong
15:38:10 <deiu> ... you cannot have a patch that "kind of" works but fails at the same time
15:38:14 <betehess> Arnaud: PATCH either succeeds of fails, no in between
15:38:35 <betehess> sandro: so during the patch, you are not modifying the db
15:38:43 <betehess> ... you are cumulating the add/delete
15:38:50 <deiu> sandro: ok, so as you're applying the patch, you're not modifying the database, and in the processing of the patch you're making the necessary checks, so in that case the "rollback" is trivial
15:38:53 <betehess> ... did I get it right?
15:39:01 <betehess> ... ok, should be fine
15:39:34 <deiu> Arnaud: the preference is therefore to have 4 operations (2 additions and 2 deletes)
15:39:45 <betehess> Arnaud: so, the preference is to have 4 operations? add/delete can-fail/never-fails?
15:39:49 <deiu> ... are we good with that now?
15:40:08 <deiu> ... is there anything else the editors need at this point so we can close the issue?
15:40:20 <deiu> s/issue/issue-103
15:40:51 <betehess> PROPOSAL: close ISSUE-103 with having 4 operations:  add/delete can-fail/never-fails
15:41:00 <betehess> +1
15:41:06 <pchampin> +1
15:41:08 <deiu> +1
15:41:36 <SteveS> +1
15:41:44 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:41:44 <TallTed> +1
15:41:46 <Ashok> 1
15:41:46 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:41:48 <ericP> sandro, +1
15:42:03 <betehess> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-103 with having 4 operations:  add/delete can-fail/never-fails
15:43:11 <betehess> Arnaud: current names are Add AddNew Delete DeleteAny
15:43:55 <pchampin> q+
15:44:12 <betehess> Arnaud+Sandro: DeleteAny sounds funny to me
15:44:14 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
15:44:34 <betehess> ... AddNew looks ok
15:44:59 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
15:45:00 <betehess> pchampin: share concerns re: DeleteAny
15:45:29 <betehess> ... would prefer Add and Delete would be in same category (can-fail)
15:45:38 <betehess> ... would be my preference
15:45:55 <betehess> Arnaud: there is an asymmetry
15:46:14 <betehess> sandro: I'd like that (no assymetry)
15:46:21 <pchampin> pchampin : and the others could be AddNew and DeleteExisting
15:46:24 <TallTed> +1 AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
15:46:24 <azaroth> +1
15:46:51 <betehess> PROPOSAL: AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
15:46:55 <azaroth> +1
15:46:55 <deiu> +1
15:46:56 <SteveS> +1
15:46:56 <Ashok> DeleteIfThere
15:46:57 <betehess> +1
15:46:58 <pchampin> +1
15:47:09 <deiu> sandro: +1
15:47:16 <TallTed> +1
15:47:31 <deiu> DeleteIfThereAndETagMatches
15:48:02 <TallTed> DeleteIfExists better than DeleteIfThere
15:48:24 <Ashok> One more letter!
15:49:01 <betehess> Arnaud: no real objections so far?
15:49:05 <betehess> RESOLVED: AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
15:49:12 <pchampin> Sandro, you are right: "ifX" sounds like something that would not fail
15:49:25 <betehess> Arnaud: any other issue we should be aware of?
15:49:32 <betehess> ... I believe we closed everything
15:49:49 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:50:00 <betehess> ... so when can we published it as CR?  (new process track: combined with LC)
15:50:04 <betehess> ... same burden
15:50:16 <betehess> ... need to keep track of public comments
15:51:06 <betehess> ... suggesting we go to CR
15:51:20 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:51:24 <betehess> ... are we ready for such a decision?  or do we need more time for people to review the spec?
15:51:39 <betehess> sandro: and we have to plan the transition meetings
15:51:49 <betehess> ... so the question is only "when"?
15:51:52 <betehess> Arnaud: believe so
15:52:09 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
15:52:09 <betehess> ... proposing we are doing it now
15:52:10 <pchampin> question re. process: can we make slight editorial changes if we go to CR?
15:52:43 <bblfish> I have not read it
15:52:51 <betehess> sandro: has anyone other that the editors read the draft?
15:53:05 <betehess> betehess: timbl read it
15:53:22 <betehess> Arnaud: what's the exit criteria?
15:53:32 <SteveS> I have not read it since updated but don’t object to move it forward, so many documents I need to patch
15:53:37 <betehess> sandro: I'd say 2 implementations for the entire test suite
15:53:43 <bblfish> q+
15:53:49 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:54:16 <betehess> bblfish: can I add metadata to the PATCH?
15:54:26 <betehess> deiu: it's not using an rdf representation
15:54:55 <betehess> bblfish: you won't be able to do event-sourcing
15:55:29 <betehess> betehess: that is orthogonal
15:56:19 <betehess> ... this is just HTTP PATCH
15:56:27 <betehess> bblfish: want to keep history of changes
15:56:44 <betehess> ... would be cool to have that in the PATCH format
15:56:54 <betehess> ... to know the reason
15:57:12 <betehess> sandro: "I would like to express my PATCH as a trig document"
15:57:48 <betehess> ... the PATCH could be RDF with a String for the PATCH inside it
15:58:07 <bblfish> ok, I can read it
15:58:31 <SteveS> I can update my review
15:58:57 <betehess> Arnaud: I am asking for volunteers to read the spec during the holiday
15:59:00 <MiguelAraCo> I can commit to read it
15:59:18 <betehess> ... let's make sure that for next call, people have read the spec
15:59:35 <betehess> ... also, would be nice to have a link to a complete test suite
15:59:50 <betehess> sandro: and the implementation report
16:00:04 <betehess> q+
16:00:12 <Arnaud> ack betehess
16:00:58 <Zakim> -azaroth
16:01:22 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
16:01:25 <betehess> +1
16:01:27 <deiu> +1
16:01:31 <pchampin> +1
16:01:31 <Ashok> +1
16:01:44 <SteveS> +1
16:02:02 <TallTed> +1
16:02:05 <betehess> we can't publish tomorrow (too late), so that'd be Thursday anyway
16:02:16 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
16:02:24 <betehess> Arnaud: thank you
16:02:34 <betehess> ... thank you all for joining
16:02:40 <betehess> ... happy holidays!
16:02:44 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:02:45 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:02:47 <bblfish> happy holidays.
16:02:48 <Zakim> -deiu
16:02:50 <betehess> adjourned
16:02:54 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:55 <Zakim> -Alexandre
16:03:01 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:03:51 <Arnaud> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-ldp-minutes.html Arnaud
16:03:57 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:07:31 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:16:11 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:16:18 <Zakim> -ericP
16:26:39 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:35:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
16:35:02 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:35:02 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ericP, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, deiu, TallTed, pchampin, SteveS, Roger, +33.6.47.14.aaaa, Sandro, bblfish
16:46:59 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #ldp
16:48:26 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #ldp
17:02:55 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:13:48 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #ldp
18:08:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
18:15:54 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #ldp
18:36:55 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
19:59:37 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
20:07:13 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:24:42 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
21:34:17 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:36:41 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:30:23 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
22:37:49 <SteveS_> SteveS_ has joined #ldp