See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 May 2015
<scribe> scribenick: deiu
<Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 27 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-04-27
<Arnaud> Resolved: Approve the minutes of the 27 April teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-04-27
Arnaud: I was wondering if I should give that up at this point...
<TallTed> May 25 == Memorial Day in USA
Arnaud: we'll be meeting again in 2 weeks, with 2 open actions
<TallTed> regrets from me for May 25
Arnaud: Andrei hasn't yet
completed his action (he promises to do it this week)
... no news from Rob either so I guess his action is till
pending
Arnaud: the next step, if we
don't force any change, and if people won't step up and say
they plan to implement it, then we have to turn it into a WG
note
... if we are to recharter the LDP WG (which I am now more
optimistic about), I don't know if we should leave it as a WD,
or publish it as a note
... what do people think about it?
... publishing it as a WG note shouldn't take too much
time
... also, from a process p.o.v. doesn't prevent LDPNext to pick
it up and continue working on it
<bblfish> seems like a good idea. I can't implement it just because there is so much work on other things.
Arnaud: so my conclusion is to
publish it as a WG note right now
... the current charter expires at the end of July (soon)
<roger> +1 to publishing as a note
Arnaud: we should work on publishing it as a WG note by then
ericP: did you ask around during the LDP f2f if people were interested in implementing
Arnaud: yes, there wasn't a lot
of enthusiasm
... paging as it is drafted now is not what people seem to
want
... people want more control from the client perspective
... people are also interested in the context of query/search
mechanism
ericP: was there a contrast between that and SPARQL? (i.e. SPARQL describe)
bblfish: describe works if you have a structured document that is going to come back; in Atom, the paging made sense because results were returned in a certain order, which is not the case for RDF
Arnaud: we had paging in the
context of containers
... anyway, I found it interesting that paging is not really
attractive right now in its current shape
... if we decide to publish it as a WG, we will need a formal
resolution
... for now I have assumed that it's still a work in progress,
but I haven't heard anyone trying to intervene and stop
me
... should we just do that?
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: remove LDP Paging from REC track and publish it as a WG Note
bblfish: I find it nicely structured, so it's worth publishing as a note
+1
<bblfish> +q
<TallTed> +0
<bblfish> +1
<roger> +1
<MiguelAraCo> +1
<ericP> +0
<Arnaud> RESOLVED: remove LDP Paging from REC track and publish it as a WG Note
Arnaud: even if we publish it as
a WG note, we can still move it to REC if we get people saying
they've implemented it
... maybe Ashok can take a pass at it
... or I can do it
Arnaud: any progress there?
<nmihindu> LDP4j does not implement paging at the moment.
Arnaud: anyone implementing LD Patch, other than Alexandre and PA?
nmihindu, we're talking about LD Patch now :)
<nmihindu> deiu, thanks! same goes for LD Patch :)
Arnaud: we need at least 2 independent implementations (3 would be better)
TallTed: I think we might have people working on it, I'll ask around
<nmihindu> no
Arnaud: I realized that we never actually published more than the FPWD
<nmihindu> we published it as a note
<nmihindu> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-primer/
Arnaud: my bad, I had a browser cache issue. It didn't show as a WG note
Arnaud: Andrei has the action item to publish the new draft
<bblfish> do we have a link?
Arnaud: we need to do that
fast
... the process is quite slow, so we need to move fast since
our group expires at the end of July
... one of the things that didn't make the cut at the f2f was
POSTing multiple resources
... we did talk about GETting multiple resources (i.e. inline
on GET)
... in the Social Web WG we had people doing this already
<bblfish> yes, that would be interesting to POST a whole zip of files
Arnaud: some of us are interested in using LDP in the context of the Social Web WG, so my point is that we didn't put on the list "creating multiple resources with one POST"
<bblfish> +1 for that
+1 too
Arnaud: if we define inlining
through multipart, it shouldn't be too complicated to do this
for POST
... we need to start the discussion as soon as possible
<nmihindu> +1 we also had a use case of POSTing inlined/multiple documents
Arnaud: Andrei will handle the
process re. taking the charter to W3M
... to avoid discontinuity, we need to work on this now
bblfish: I thought the Social Web
WG mentioned something interesting -- i.e. a notification
mechanism
... I wondered if that shouldn't be added to the charter
Arnaud: you can bring it up once
Andrei sends the new charter for review by the group
... at the meetup we made an effort to pick the 5 top items we
can work on
... to avoid failing because of too many goals
TallTed: I don't remember the meeting being "official", so I'm not sure what real weight the proposed items have
Arnaud: you're right, those may not be the _final_ items
TallTed: just a reminder, two weeks from now there's a US holiday
Arnaud: let's meet on June 1st then
<bblfish> +1
Arnaud: ok, let's do that; we're
meeting on June 1st next time
... I think we're done for the time being
<bblfish> thanks
Arnaud: thank you all!
[meeting 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/Umbreon21// Found ScribeNick: deiu Inferring Scribes: deiu Default Present: deiu, Arnaud, bblfish, EricP, TallTed, Roger, MiguelAraCo, nmihindu Present: deiu Arnaud bblfish EricP TallTed Roger MiguelAraCo nmihindu WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 11 May 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/11-ldp-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]