W3C

- DRAFT -

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

09 Feb 2015

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
azaroth, Arnaud, Ashok, SteveS, deiu, cburleson, MiguelAraCo, +1.617.838.aaaa, TallTed, Sandro, nmihindu, ericP, bblfish
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
deiu

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2015

<scribe> scribenick: deiu

<bblfish__> hi

<bblfish__> hi I am in train, internet is up and down

minutes of last meeting

<Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 26 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-26

<Arnaud> Resolved: Approve the minutes of the 26 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-26

Arnaud: we’ll be meeting again next week

… or wait, we can’t meet next week (I’m flying out)

<bblfish__> what is the agenda?

…how about we meet in 2 weeks

…does anyone else want to hold (chair) the meeting?

<SteveS> Feb 16th is a US national holiday but I’ll be at work

Arnaud: that would be Feb 23th (skipping next week)

…any problems with that?

tracking of actions & issues

Arnaud: there are several actions opened

errr

deiu: we have taken care of Action-154

Arnaud: the link betehess sent us confuses me

<Arnaud> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#conformance

Arnaud: Ok, I got it

…we can close the action

…what is the status of the LDP spec, sandro?

sandro: I don’t know anything, I just know that Ralph has been out a lot

Arnaud: it would be nice to see the spec become a REC

sandro: so we finished PR and nobody did the final bit?

Arnaud: that’s right

sandro: the meeting where we were supposed to discuss it has been canceled due to weather

Arnaud: I’ll nudge ericP a bit

Paging

Arnaud: any progress to report?

SteveS: I have reached out to some folkes to see how they feel about using paging and whether they have done some testing

Arnaud: is there a way we can identify which areas need to be tested?

<Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/manifest/paging/

SteveS: the methods are there, we just need to assign people to implement them

Arnaud: is anybody interested in working on this (other than SteveS)?

…Henry, you said you were interested?

…it seems we have clearly lost momentum re. paging

SteveS: I’m not going to be at the meeting in 2 weeks but I can send an email once I hear back from this product team

…I can also see where we stand with the person available to me

Arnaud: Ok, that’s about it for paging. If we feel that we’ll never make it through CR, then we just need to accept that fact and turn the spec into a WG note

…we don’t have to make the decision quickly, but we’ll have to make that decision by the time of our expiration date

sandro: can we go back a bit to the LDP spec? Did we handle those two comments we received?

Arnaud: we haven’t checked with the people who made the comments

LD Patch

Arnaud: I put the responses in the agenda, for the questions we received when I submitted the TR

…as I explained last week, there was a bit of confusion re. the new process (removal of LC, etc)

…we basically need to integrate all the steps from LC

…the one part that remained open was the Conformance section

…betehess put together that section so I would like people to take a look at it

<Arnaud> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#conformance

Arnaud: please take a moment to read it

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about "LD Patch Server" instead of "LD Patch engine"

<azaroth> +1 to server

<TallTed> +1 sandro's comment. "engine" seems more like "processor"

<sandro> "LD Patch-Handling Server"

Arnaud: anyone objects to changing “LD Patch engine” to “LD Patch server”

<TallTed> "A conforming LD Patch Server is an LDP Server which is capable of handling an LD Patch document..."

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss "reading"

azaroth: the system can also be used locally to open a file handler

…reading the document and doing something with the data

<azaroth> +1 to parsing

Arnaud: everyone seems to be happy with the proposal
... “As well as sections…” I don’t really like that

sandro: it’s ugly but it’s standard boilerplate

Arnaud: maybe start with “Sections…”?

<TallTed> "Sections marked as non-normative, as well as all authoring ..." *much* better

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: accept conformance section with "server" instead of "engine" and "parsing" instead of "reading"

Arnaud: hearing no objections, I propose we accept the conformance section

<sandro> +1

+!

+1

<TallTed> +1

<SteveS> +1

<cburleson> +1

<azaroth> +1

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: accept conformance section with "server" instead of "engine" and "parsing"

Arnaud: I will send an email to plh as soon as the spec is edited

…that should allow us to move forward with the publication process

workshop

Arnaud: time is going by and there are some hard deadlines in the W3C process (e.g. signal meetings 8 weeks ahead of time)

…Rob has pointed out that the annotation WG has a meeting in April in SF

<SteveS> Maybe we could code up the paging testsuite at a workshop

Arnaud: unless anyone has any news to report, I don’t think it’s going to happen

Ashok: I have emailed Arnaud that Oracle is interested and will at least have a couple of people there

Arnaud: let’s have a straw poll

<cburleson> +1

<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: would you expect to attend or have someone from your org attend a workshop in SF in April if we had one?

<sandro> +1

<cburleson> +1

<azaroth> +1

<Ashok> +1

<MiguelAraCo> +1

+1 (if my boss allows me ;) )

<azaroth> Or +3 if we're counting people

<SteveS> +0.5 depends on approval and topics

<TallTed> +1 likely by remote

<SteveS> would be good if we had a hackday/afternoon

Arnaud: so it seems there *is* interest in doing it

…I need to check the timing and what it would take to make it happen

Arnaud: I’ll talk to ericP about it

…I cannot take a leadership role in this either, maybe someone else in the group would be interested in chairing this event?

sandro: I’m afraid I can’t do it either

Ashok: maybe I could do it
... it would be better if I had a co-chair

Arnaud: I’ll have a call with ericP to see how we can make it happen

social web WG

Arnaud: several people in this group are involved in the social web WG

…some people have looked at how LDP can help them

…I agree with Henry about leveraging LDP

…that would help LDP a lot

…if anybody is interested, please help by joining the group or participating in some form

sandro: I started the wiki page that Henry mentioned in his email

…I don’t know how to move foward with this, because there’s a gap between LDP and the social Web group

…CIMBA could help close the gap but there are still a lot of bits missing

…if you think using LDP to exchange social data, then please help

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note anno ED

<azaroth> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/

azaroth: just wanted to note that in the annotation WG we have a possible way of using LDP for annotations

…we’re looking at how to make it work

Arnaud: you said there’s a proposal being put together, but what’s your sentiment about, is it going to happen?

azaroth: we had some comments about containers storing a lot of annotations
... there was also some discussion around using Turtle and JSONLD and conformance
... there’s also the issue of RDF people vs non-RDF people

<SteveS> Actually JSON-LD is almost the same level as Turtle in LDP, it is a MUST when requested

<SteveS> Should do turtle when header is absent

Arnaud: yes, there’s usually an adverse reaction to RDF

…Henry, did you catch the discussion?

bblfish_: I followed a little bit

…the LDP story is going for the API

…they agree with non-reasoning RDF (e.g. JSON-LD)

<azaroth> Ooops, true. I guess it's 4.3.2.2 that the Anno WG would want to change to recommend the JSON-LD serialization over turtle as the default

…I think there is going to be a lot of discussion, but the people working on LDP also need to get together and show some interop

…maybe we can get a group of LDP people with implementation to see how we can get simple things working together

Arnaud: the SW WG is really keen on that

<SteveS> azaroth, that is fine…think why we relaxed to should. I’m not sure how it works to say you create a profile of LDP to strikeout the turtle MUST

…they want the WG to be implementation-driven, so Henry is right

Arnaud: they already made the leap to using JSON-LD

…they might be closer to using LDP than the anno WG

…if there are people interested, they should reach out to Henry

…I think we’re running out of time, so maybe we can leave it like this for now

ericP: any chance you can report on some progress for the open Actions?
... there was one abour LDP going to REC, right?

…my guess is that it will take a week before we have a meeting about it, so we might just go ahead and submit a TR

sandro: we won’t need a meeting, there’s no controverse

ericP: ok, so then we should respond to the commented and seek consent (the director will want to know we did this)

Arnaud: who is going to do this?

SteveS: I responded to ericP’s comment on the list, so I assumed you were going to respond to them

ericP: why do I respond and CC you? do you have the answers?

Arnaud: it’s in the list

…maybe I suggest that you don’t leave it open ended?

ericP: yes, respond in a week, otherwise we take it that you agree

Arnaud: there was also an Action about LD Patch TR

<azaroth> SteveS: Agreed, striking out MUST isn't a reasonable thing for a profile to do

…I have all the info to respond to plh, but please follow up on getting the call schedule

<sandro> eric, how about the first email just say, "can you take a quick look now and let us know"... that way we might get immediate responses, rather than waiting for a week

Arnaud: ok, that should take care of everything

…I think we can close the call

<azaroth> Thanks all :)

[meeting adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/02/09 18:20:25 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/Resolvedl/Resolved/
Succeeded: s/sections/section/
Succeeded: s/access/accept/
Succeeded: s/headlines/deadlines/
Succeeded: s/STAWPOLL/STRAWPOLL/
Found ScribeNick: deiu
Inferring Scribes: deiu
Default Present: azaroth, Arnaud, Ashok, SteveS, deiu, cburleson, MiguelAraCo, +1.617.838.aaaa, TallTed, Sandro, nmihindu, ericP, bblfish
Present: azaroth Arnaud Ashok SteveS deiu cburleson MiguelAraCo +1.617.838.aaaa TallTed Sandro nmihindu ericP bblfish

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

Found Date: 09 Feb 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/09-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]