13:59:51 RRSAgent has joined #ldp 13:59:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-irc 13:59:51 trackbot, start meeting 13:59:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:53 Zakim has joined #ldp 13:59:55 Zakim, this will be LDP 13:59:55 ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started 13:59:56 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 13:59:56 Date: 15 October 2012 13:59:58 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:00 Zakim, this will be LDP 14:00:00 ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started 14:00:01 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 14:00:01 Date: 15 October 2012 14:00:06 Zakim, who is on the call? 14:00:06 On the phone I see +329331aaaa, +1.408.996.aabb, [IBM], Sandro 14:00:13 zakim, aaaa is me 14:00:13 +Ruben; got it 14:00:17 W300C has joined #ldp 14:00:23 zakim, aabb is me 14:00:23 +Arnaud; got it 14:00:31 Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ldp 14:00:32 +??P18 14:00:38 Zakim, ??p18 is me 14:00:38 +BartvanLeeuwen; got it 14:00:46 W300C has left #ldp 14:00:51 zakim, [IBM] is me 14:00:51 +SteveS; got it 14:00:52 +??P19 14:01:00 + +1.510.698.aacc 14:01:03 zakim, ??P19 is me 14:01:03 +krp; got it 14:01:38 zakim, aacc is me 14:01:39 +bblfish; got it 14:01:49 + +1.845.433.aadd 14:01:54 + +1.707.861.aaee 14:01:57 +??P26 14:02:01 Zakim, aaee is me 14:02:01 +gavinc; got it 14:02:12 Zakim, ??P26 is me 14:02:12 +svillata; got it 14:02:22 + +1.937.775.aaff 14:02:32 zakim, aaff is me 14:02:32 +Kalpa; got it 14:02:35 nmihindu has joined #ldp 14:02:48 rgarcia has joined #ldp 14:03:20 +Ashok_Malhotra 14:03:40 + +44.117.370.aagg 14:03:57 +??P40 14:04:00 + +1.617.324.aahh 14:04:01 zakim, aagg is me 14:04:02 +stevebattle; got it 14:04:08 zakim, who is here? 14:04:08 On the phone I see Ruben, Arnaud, SteveS, Sandro, BartvanLeeuwen, krp, bblfish, +1.845.433.aadd, gavinc, svillata, Kalpa, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle, ??P40, +1.617.324.aahh 14:04:10 Zakim, ??P40 is me 14:04:12 On IRC I see rgarcia, nmihindu, Ashok_Malhotra, Zakim, RRSAgent, gavinc, krp, BartvanLeeuwen, Ruben, svillata, Kalpa, Arnaud, SteveS, betehess, MacTed, sandro, mhausenblas, 14:04:12 ... bblfish, stevebattle, oberger, trackbot, Yves 14:04:12 +oberger; got it 14:04:20 +??P37 14:04:27 + +1.781.273.aaii 14:04:37 Zakim, aaii is OpenLink_Software 14:04:37 +OpenLink_Software; got it 14:04:40 zakim, ??P37 is me 14:04:40 +rgarcia; got it 14:04:47 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 14:04:47 +MacTed; got it 14:04:49 Zakim, mute me 14:04:49 MacTed should now be muted 14:05:44 +??P44 14:06:15 MacTed has changed the topic to: Linked Data Platform Working Group -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.15 14:06:24 zakim, ??P44 is me 14:06:24 +nmihindu; got it 14:07:00 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Scribes 14:07:01 + +3539149aajj 14:07:08 Zakim, who's here? 14:07:08 On the phone I see +3539149aajj, Ruben, Arnaud, SteveS, Sandro, BartvanLeeuwen, krp, bblfish, +1.845.433.aadd, gavinc, svillata, Kalpa, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle, oberger, Yves, 14:07:12 ... rgarcia, MacTed (muted), nmihindu 14:07:12 On IRC I see rgarcia, nmihindu, Ashok_Malhotra, Zakim, RRSAgent, gavinc, krp, BartvanLeeuwen, Ruben, svillata, Kalpa, Arnaud, SteveS, betehess, MacTed, sandro, mhausenblas, 14:07:12 ... bblfish, stevebattle, oberger, trackbot, Yves 14:07:17 Zakim, aajj is me 14:07:18 +mhausenblas; got it 14:07:24 scribe: BartvanLeeuwen 14:07:34 Zakim, who's noisy? 14:07:45 MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (80%), BartvanLeeuwen (40%) 14:07:54 topic: last week minutes 14:07:58 +1 14:08:01 + +44.208.573.aakk 14:08:07 speaking about aproving http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-10-08 14:08:14 Topic: Approving minutes 14:08:29 ACTION: minutes approved 14:08:29 Sorry, couldn't find minutes. You can review and register nicknames at . 14:09:33 Topic: F2F Lyon 14:09:48 please register 14:10:27 tomorrow ends low fee period 14:10:35 how do I say action approved 14:10:36 ? 14:10:53 It wasn't an action 14:11:08 RESOLVED: Approve Minutes 2012-10-08 14:11:12 that's it 14:11:18 Topic: Issue-8 14:11:30 ISSUE-8? 14:11:30 ISSUE-8 -- Better define or just not use the "Basic profile" terminology -- pending review 14:11:30 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/8 14:12:12 +1 to the proposal 14:12:12 arnaud: anybody disagrees ? 14:12:13 Is the proposal in the agenda? 14:12:20 +1 for spec name of LDP to match WG name 14:12:32 Zakim, unmute me 14:12:32 MacTed should no longer be muted 14:12:32 JohnArwe has joined #ldp 14:12:35 "Meeting of 8 October proposed to resolve ISSUE-8 Removing Profile by adopting "Linked Data Platform" as the name of our specification. We need to close this issue so that the draft can be updated accordingly prior to publication. " 14:12:42 PROPOSED: LDP = Linked Data Platform for specification name, removing LDBP 14:12:52 +1 14:12:54 +1 14:12:54 +1 14:12:57 +1 14:12:57 Zakim, mute me 14:12:57 MacTed should now be muted 14:12:58 +1 14:12:58 +1 14:13:01 +1 14:13:02 +0 14:13:03 +1 14:13:04 +1 14:13:09 +1 14:13:12 +1 14:13:18 AndyS has joined #ldp 14:13:18 +1 14:13:35 +1 14:13:38 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:13:38 On the phone I see mhausenblas, +44.208.573.aakk, Ruben, Arnaud, SteveS, Sandro, BartvanLeeuwen, krp, bblfish, +1.845.433.aadd, gavinc, svillata, Kalpa, Ashok_Malhotra, 14:13:42 ... stevebattle, oberger, Yves, rgarcia, MacTed (muted), nmihindu 14:13:46 zakim, aadd is me 14:13:46 +JohnArwe; got it 14:14:03 RESOLVED: LDP = Linked Data Platform for specification name, removing LDBP 14:14:16 what about resources and containers names ? 14:14:59 Topic: Open Actions 14:15:04 ACTION-6? 14:15:04 ACTION-6 -- Michael Hausenblas to review SDshare -- due 2012-09-28 -- OPEN 14:15:04 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/6 14:15:47 http://www.w3.org/community/sdshare/ 14:15:52 mhausenblas: Haven't written it up, but I have talked with the community group about it. 14:16:11 mhausenblas: I will report to mailing list, new CG is formed, to get SDShare into next level 14:17:12 mhausenblas, SDShare will not overlap LDP, its complementary, SDShare / LDP should play nice together, but no hard dependencies 14:17:19 +[IPcaller] 14:17:26 zakim, IPcaller is me 14:17:26 +AndyS; got it 14:17:51 zakim, who's making noise? 14:18:01 Zakim, mute AndyS 14:18:01 AndyS should now be muted 14:18:02 JohnArwe, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (79%), JohnArwe (4%), AndyS (54%) 14:18:03 topic: Issues 14:18:07 zakim, mute me 14:18:07 AndyS was already muted, AndyS 14:18:11 :-) 14:18:30 Issue-22? 14:18:30 ISSUE-22 -- Need to normatively reference and recommend JSON-LD -- raised 14:18:30 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/22 14:18:39 topic: Issue-22 14:18:50 q+ to ask re JSON-LD 14:19:12 who was that ? 14:19:33 Zakim, unmute me 14:19:33 MacTed should no longer be muted 14:20:06 q? 14:20:14 Michael: I'm not a huge fan of doing that, tbh would prefer something simple such as http://www.w3.org/wiki/JTriples 14:20:17 q- 14:20:21 q? 14:21:40 reopen Issue-22 14:21:40 ISSUE-22 Need to normatively reference and recommend JSON-LD re-opened 14:22:00 I'm willing to try and keep up with the decisions using the web api in real time. 14:22:07 topic: opening Issue-23 14:22:19 topic: opening Issue-24 14:22:23 Issue-24? 14:22:23 ISSUE-24 -- Should DELETED resources remain deleted? -- raised 14:22:23 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24 14:23:03 Should DELETE result in 410s forever? 14:23:58 seems like we are function creeping from "should we open" into a full discussion on the candidate issue 14:24:23 let's open it 14:24:23 -1 14:24:44 cause there's an argument ongoing -> on the ML ;) 14:25:31 I think the spec is unclear - it should explcictly refer to the cool URIs advice, but not prescribe one way or t'other. 14:25:36 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24 14:25:46 4.5.1 BPR servers must remove the resource identified by the Request-URI. After a successful HTTP DELETE, a subsequent HTTP GET on the same Request-URI must result in a 404 (Not found) or 410 (Gone) status code, until another resource is created or associated with the same Request-URI. 14:26:12 q? 14:28:12 +1 to open it and add a non-normative reference to cool URIs, etc. to make clear that apps should handle it 14:28:39 MacTed: spec seems clear enough. I see use cases where location-based URIs may be reused to name entirely different resources -- i.e., when locations change 14:29:19 q+ 14:29:21 Is there a reference to CoolURIs in the specs ? Shouldn't there be ? 14:29:30 Ruben has joined #ldp 14:29:40 MacTed: the text of the Issue page seems to raise 4 different concerns. I suggest that it be broken up more... 14:30:29 Not trying to be hard on Ruben, just trying to clarify how quickly one should open issues 14:30:41 No problem :) 14:30:44 process is working +1 14:31:04 I think we should allow time for email discussion. 14:31:09 I'm willing to discuss on the mailing list 14:31:54 Is there a reference to CoolURIs in the specs ? Shouldn't there be ? 14:32:06 (repeating myself ? ;-) 14:32:26 PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-24 14:32:58 +1 14:33:35 I will. 14:33:42 +1 14:33:46 Michael: Thanks a lot, Ruben! 14:33:50 +1 14:33:58 +1 14:34:03 +1 14:34:20 RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-24 14:34:22 reopen Issue-24 14:34:22 ISSUE-24 Should DELETED resources remain deleted? re-opened 14:34:33 q- 14:35:04 topic: Specification 14:35:21 Arnaud: where are we in timeline, what is the shape for the F2F 14:35:58 SteveS: pulled the open issues in the current draft, apart from todays issues 14:36:01 q? 14:36:39 q+ to propose a process re FPWD 14:36:41 q? 14:36:44 Arnaud: Next call ( 22-10 ) spec should be ready for FPWD 14:37:25 PROPOSAL: To consider the current ED as ready for review by WG 14:37:35 q? 14:37:36 SteveS: Spec could be done by tomorrow 14:37:55 ack me 14:37:55 mhausenblas, you wanted to propose a process re FPWD 14:39:05 mhausenblas: we should appoint 2 / 3 volunteers for review asap 14:39:25 This is FPWD -- the barrier need not be very high. "Publish early, publish often" 14:40:41 Michael: I agree AndyS - I'm just trying to play it safe ;) 14:40:58 +1 I support publishing what we have as a FPWD ;) 14:41:01 For what it is worth, this member submission (mostly the same words) has been public since April 2nd 14:41:19 +1 SteveS 14:41:37 let's see what the community thinks about it 14:41:51 q? 14:42:01 Arnaud: SteveS will report when the spec is ready, everybody has chance to next meeting to support it. 14:42:12 Topic: Use cases and requirements 14:43:06 stevebattle: Close outstanding issue by next monday, week later first draft ready 14:43:20 stevebattle, good discussion about Issue-20 on the list 14:43:57 Issue-20? 14:43:57 ISSUE-20 -- Identifying and naming POSTed resources -- open 14:43:57 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20 14:44:05 -oberger 14:44:29 I have quoted the spec text! 14:44:58 there was a nice mail today quoting rfc2616 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0160.html 14:45:12 Topic: Open issues 14:45:13 q+ 14:45:44 ack bblfish 14:45:56 Issue-20? 14:45:56 ISSUE-20 -- Identifying and naming POSTed resources -- open 14:45:56 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20 14:47:07 q+ 14:47:13 RDF WG is unlikely to add relative URIs to RDF 14:47:24 ack MacTed 14:47:29 q+ 14:47:34 bblfish, should we coordinate something to discuss with RDF-wg at TPAC 14:49:10 action bart: it's ok if you can't get everything 14:49:10 Created ACTION-18 - It's ok if you can't get everything [on Bart van Leeuwen - due 2012-10-22]. 14:49:32 oops, sorry 14:50:24 q? 14:50:28 q- 14:50:47 Is the the issue: How do you create new RDF resource with an unknown URI? 14:51:00 That's what I think the issue is, yes? 14:51:19 +1 to gavinc. 14:51:43 +q to say what I just said in IRC 14:51:44 Michael: I'm wondering. Are we talking protocol or are we talking philosophy? 14:51:57 Michael: Not trying to be offensive, but ... 14:51:59 q? 14:52:19 q+ 14:52:47 Michael: I believe in running code and experiencing issues through it. Discussions only take us so far ;) 14:52:59 q? 14:53:12 ack gavinc 14:53:12 gavinc, you wanted to say what I just said in IRC 14:53:23 q+ to suggest to show, not tell 14:53:31 yes 14:53:33 +1 14:53:34 correct :) 14:53:45 q? 14:53:57 agreed. 14:54:07 ack stevebattle 14:54:10 q? 14:55:03 ack mhausenblas 14:55:04 mhausenblas, you wanted to suggest to show, not tell 14:55:26 mhausenblas: I already have code on this 14:55:30 I pointed to in in e-mail 14:55:52 +1 rough consensus and running code 14:55:58 q+ 14:56:19 Creating a Turtle document with a <> in it, maybe VERY VERY hard. 14:56:23 Oh, there is a code issue ;) 14:56:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0160.html 14:56:38 +1 to gavinc. 14:56:54 +q to say that there IS a code issue 14:57:10 The server is easy 14:57:13 The client? heh 14:57:15 RFC 3986 says something different to my reading. gavinc has a good point for the client side. 14:57:28 q+ 14:57:48 http-bis doesn't have an issue 14:57:58 q? 14:58:03 q- 14:59:01 I have not looked recently with this particular issue driving me, but I have read several bis sections several times over the past year or so (POST among them) without catching any big-animal changes. 14:59:34 q? 14:59:39 ack gavinc 14:59:39 gavinc, you wanted to say that there IS a code issue 14:59:39 Good point 15:00:44 Could someone mail some code to prove that point (eg. using Jena to create <>) 15:00:45 gavinc, there are no tools available which can create the empty base URI documents 15:01:27 ack MacTed 15:01:42 +1 15:02:00 Jena allows the base URI to be specificied but the client does not know before sending. Need to serialize before sending. 15:02:00 Don't let the current status on the tools rule good clean APIs 15:02:31 q? 15:02:44 - +44.208.573.aakk 15:02:47 -Ruben 15:02:49 -mhausenblas 15:02:50 -Yves 15:02:51 -Ashok_Malhotra 15:02:54 -MacTed 15:02:56 -SteveS 15:02:59 -gavinc 15:03:00 -svillata 15:03:04 -bblfish 15:03:05 -Kalpa 15:03:07 -krp 15:03:12 I see no point in faking a base to tunnel through toolkits correctly implementing RDF. 15:03:19 +1 15:03:36 gavinc - my point is that it's already standardized as part of Turtle. 15:03:37 Ah I was thinking of Dan Connolly on speech acts and http 15:03:41 -JohnArwe 15:03:46 (and every other serialization of which I'm aware) 15:03:54 <> does not have specific meaning in Turtle 15:03:56 <> is not magic 15:03:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html 15:04:00 -BartvanLeeuwen 15:04:03 bye 15:04:04 -Arnaud 15:04:05 Ruben has left #ldp 15:04:08 Thanks for the speech acts pointer 15:04:10 -nmihindu 15:04:13 -rgarcia 15:04:15 -Sandro 15:04:25 Meeting adjourned 15:04:42 trackbot, meeting adjourned 15:04:42 Sorry, Arnaud, I don't understand 'trackbot, meeting adjourned'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:04:59 adjourned 15:05:07 It is totally reasonable to produce a Turtle document which replaces <> with in every instance, and by specification the MEANING of the document has not changed. 15:05:09 trackbot, end meeting 15:05:09 Zakim, list attendees 15:05:09 As of this point the attendees have been +329331aaaa, +1.408.996.aabb, Sandro, Ruben, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, SteveS, +1.510.698.aacc, krp, bblfish, +1.845.433.aadd, 15:05:13 ... +1.707.861.aaee, gavinc, svillata, +1.937.775.aaff, Kalpa, Ashok_Malhotra, +44.117.370.aagg, +1.617.324.aahh, stevebattle, oberger, Yves, +1.781.273.aaii, rgarcia, MacTed, 15:05:13 ... nmihindu, +3539149aajj, mhausenblas, +44.208.573.aakk, JohnArwe, AndyS 15:05:17 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:05:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-minutes.html trackbot 15:05:18 RRSAgent, bye 15:05:18 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-actions.rdf : 15:05:18 ACTION: minutes approved [1] 15:05:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-irc#T14-08-29 15:05:18 ACTION: bart to it's ok if you can't get everything [2] 15:05:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-irc#T14-49-10