See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 December 2014
<deiu> Sandro said he's going to be late 20mins and asks if we can postpone LD Patch until he gets there
<scribe> scribe: Alexandre
<scribe> scribenick: betehess
Arnaud: approving the minutes of
previous meeting
... no objection: approved
... next meeting could be Jan 6th
... but people could be returning to work that day
<azaroth> +1 to 12th
<azaroth> Otherwise regrets for for the 5th
<SteveS> +1 to 12th
Arnaud: or 12th?
Ashok: 12th!
Arnaud: let's do Jan 12th
... next meeting on Jan 12th
... tracking of actions and issues
... Alex had one action
... we can close it
... we'll talk about the issue later
... let's talk about LDP and Paging
... LDP going to CR, Paging to PR
... there was discussion about the abstract in LDP
... SteveS took an action
... ericP worked on getting the spec out
ericP: choose Jan 16th for the
end of PR and CR
... not sure how long the waiting period should be
... for PR, there is a minimum, 3weeks/1month?
Arnaud: end of PR for LDP:
minimum is 4 weeks
... on track to be publish on Dec 16th
... then we have the waiting period
... for Paging, as we have no commitment for implementations,
so we're planning to wait longer
... so could be 3 months
... Mar 16th sounds more reasonable
... what do others think?
SteveS: day doesn't matter too
much to me
... so March sounds reasonable
PROPOSAL: Mar 16th for the end of CR Paging
<deiu> +1
+1
<TallTed> +1
Arnaud: all +1s say that people will be implementing the spec: yay!
APPROVED: Mar 16th for the end of CR Paging
ericP: the LDP ontology uses the
LDP paging namespace
... we may need different ns for paging
... eg ldp-paging
... people would have to include both namespaces
... but much more modular
... and no need to modify things after LDP got to Rec
azaroth: the expectation is that LDP Paging wouldn't be used without LDP? And hence modularity would only be one way?
Arnaud: slight overhead with the
2 namespaces
... but kinda makes sense
... and people could come up with a different mechanism for
paging, and another ns
SteveS: we talked about that some
time, and we decided to keep it in ldp ns, can't remember when
or why
... there will always be new ns, how do be layer new terms into
LDP then?
... so no -1 ldp-paging
... but like the idea of having one common vocabulary
... and be clear about the status
ericP: in principle, after ldp
fgoes to Rec, I weould be permitted to change the terms used in
ldp
... but I think I could edit the doc (I guess)
... value is: there is simplicity in having things in one
place
Arnaud: look at schema.org
... it's all in there
deiu: there is a performance
issue too
... eg tabulator would dereference all vocabularies
... so dereferencing things is costly for us
ericP: it's modularity vs simplicity
<TallTed> what's the URI for the (current) Vocabulary Status Ontology?
<SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/note
sandro: not strong advocate of 1
namespace
... people use the wrong namespaces all the time
betehess: one namespace means ontology clashing
ericP: what's the title and
metadata for the document?
... [enumerating]
<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: a) keep one namespace, b) move paging into its own namespace
sandro: LDP Paging is part of
LDP
... and we'd have to come back to LC if we want to change the
NS
ericP: not sure
... if the implementations are not impacted...
sandro: should ask the
director
... question is: do you affect somebody
Arnaud: I suggest we keep it as
it is: one namespace
... any objection?
<deiu> +0 (mainly because of having to go back to LC)
<betehess> -0.9
Arnaud: I hear no objection
... that settles it
betehess: wait, we should ask the rest of w3c staff
I would prefer having the strawpoll
<deiu> me too
so that we can present it to w3c
Arnaud: don't think ericP convinced anybody (but Alex)
ericP: should I change all the
ldp related terms to "stable"
... and leave the paging ones as unstable?
[chorus]: yes
Arnaud: ok, let's move on
... should be published tomorrow
... let's move to LDP Patch then
... betehess had the action item to ask timbl
... hard vs soft delete
... which was having different operations
<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
<bblfish> can't hear sandro
sandro: don't think timbl had
considered the rollbacxk problem
... b/c he doesn't use it
... he doesn't want to implement a rollback system
<deiu> sandro: Tim didn't really think about the possibility of having rollbacks
<deiu> ... he thinks that you must not send a patch that can result in a rollback
sandro: there should be no rollback
<deiu> ... and he thinks that people should not have to implement systems that do rollbacks
<deiu> ... I too would have a problem with implementing rollbacks
Arnaud: not sure we're why we're discussing about rollbacks
<deiu> Arnaud: I don't really understand how we got to the rollback discussion
<deiu> betehess: if there's a problem with the patch, the resource is left unchanged
<pchampin> Bind and UpdateList can alreday fail
<deiu> Arnaud: maybe the rollback term is too strong
<deiu> ... you cannot have a patch that "kind of" works but fails at the same time
Arnaud: PATCH either succeeds of fails, no in between
sandro: so during the patch, you
are not modifying the db
... you are cumulating the add/delete
<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
sandro: did I get it right?
... ok, should be fine
<deiu> Arnaud: the preference is therefore to have 4 operations (2 additions and 2 deletes)
Arnaud: so, the preference is to have 4 operations? add/delete can-fail/never-fails?
<deiu> ... are we good with that now?
<deiu> ... is there anything else the editors need at this point so we can close the issue-103?
PROPOSAL: close ISSUE-103 with having 4 operations: add/delete can-fail/never-fails
+1
<pchampin> +1
<deiu> +1
<SteveS> +1
<TallTed> +1
<Ashok> 1
<ericP> sandro, +1
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-103 with having 4 operations: add/delete can-fail/never-fails
Arnaud: current names are Add AddNew Delete DeleteAny
Arnaud+Sandro: DeleteAny sounds funny to me
scribe: AddNew looks ok
pchampin: share concerns re:
DeleteAny
... would prefer Add and Delete would be in same category
(can-fail)
... would be my preference
Arnaud: there is an asymmetry
sandro: I'd like that (no assymetry)
<pchampin> pchampin : and the others could be AddNew and DeleteExisting
<TallTed> +1 AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
<azaroth> +1
PROPOSAL: AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
<azaroth> +1
<deiu> +1
<SteveS> +1
<Ashok> DeleteIfThere
+1
<pchampin> +1
<deiu> sandro: +1
<TallTed> +1
<deiu> DeleteIfThereAndETagMatches
<TallTed> DeleteIfExists better than DeleteIfThere
<Ashok> One more letter!
Arnaud: no real objections so far?
RESOLUTION: AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
<pchampin> Sandro, you are right: "ifX" sounds like something that would not fail
Arnaud: any other issue we should
be aware of?
... I believe we closed everything
... so when can we published it as CR? (new process track:
combined with LC)
... same burden
... need to keep track of public comments
... suggesting we go to CR
... are we ready for such a decision? or do we need more time
for people to review the spec?
sandro: and we have to plan the
transition meetings
... so the question is only "when"?
Arnaud: believe so
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
Arnaud: proposing we are doing it now
<pchampin> question re. process: can we make slight editorial changes if we go to CR?
<bblfish> I have not read it
sandro: has anyone other that the editors read the draft?
betehess: timbl read it
Arnaud: what's the exit criteria?
<SteveS> I have not read it since updated but don’t object to move it forward, so many documents I need to patch
sandro: I'd say 2 implementations for the entire test suite
bblfish: can I add metadata to the PATCH?
deiu: it's not using an rdf representation
bblfish: you won't be able to do event-sourcing
betehess: that is
orthogonal
... this is just HTTP PATCH
bblfish: want to keep history of
changes
... would be cool to have that in the PATCH format
... to know the reason
sandro: "I would like to express
my PATCH as a trig document"
... the PATCH could be RDF with a String for the PATCH inside
it
<bblfish> ok, I can read it
<SteveS> I can update my review
Arnaud: I am asking for volunteers to read the spec during the holiday
<MiguelAraCo> I can commit to read it
Arnaud: let's make sure that for
next call, people have read the spec
... also, would be nice to have a link to a complete test
suite
sandro: and the implementation report
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
+1
<deiu> +1
<pchampin> +1
<Ashok> +1
<SteveS> +1
<TallTed> +1
we can't publish tomorrow (too late), so that'd be Thursday anyway
<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
Arnaud: thank you
... thank you all for joining
... happy holidays!
<bblfish> happy holidays.
adjourned
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/@@@/wouldn't be used without LDP? And hence modularity would only be one way?/ Succeeded: s/so/so no/ Succeeded: s/like/but like/ Succeeded: s/issue/issue-103/ Found Scribe: Alexandre Found ScribeNick: betehess WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: APPROVED Alexandre Arnaud Ashok Ashok_Malhotra IBM MiguelAraCo OpenLink P18 PROPOSAL PROPOSED Roger STRAWPOLL Sandro SteveS TallTed aaaa azaroth bblfish betehess betehess_ deiu ericP pchampin scribenick trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 15 Dec 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/15-ldp-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]