13:09:52 <bblfish> Mh, the background noise restarted. Somone should call in from a normal phone and just see if that's just my problem.
Henry Story: Mh, the background noise restarted. Somone should call in from a normal phone and just see if that's just my problem. ←
13:10:01 <nmihindu> Scribe: nmihindu
(Scribe set to Nandana Mihindukulasooriya)
<nmihindu> chair: Arnaud
13:10:24 <nmihindu> TOPIC: Plan for the day
13:11:01 <nmihindu> Arnaud: first half hour of the day for break out sessions
Arnaud Le Hors: first half hour of the day for break out sessions ←
13:11:42 <nmihindu> ... people propose topics in the whiteboard and we can decide which ones we want to tackle
... people propose topics in the whiteboard and we can decide which ones we want to tackle ←
13:12:58 <nmihindu> ... we have (1) binary resources and metadata (2) patch (3) pagination (4) Test suite definition
... we have (1) binary resources and metadata (2) patch (3) pagination (4) Test suite definition ←
13:13:41 <bblfish> ah good the noise has gone
Henry Story: ah good the noise has gone ←
13:13:42 <bblfish> nice
Henry Story: nice ←
13:14:35 <nmihindu> ... the expectation of the breakout sessions is to come up with a proposal to the aforementioned issues
... the expectation of the breakout sessions is to come up with a proposal to the aforementioned issues ←
13:15:34 <bblfish> they are all intersting, indeed
Henry Story: they are all intersting, indeed ←
13:16:28 <nmihindu> ericP: we already have a session allocated for test suite already
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we already have a session allocated for test suite already ←
13:17:02 <nmihindu> rgarcia: my idea was to come up with a concrete schema for the tests
Raúl García Castro: my idea was to come up with a concrete schema for the tests ←
13:17:44 <nmihindu> ericP: I already have put one in the list
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I already have put one in the list ←
13:18:29 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we would do the test suite during the session in the agenda and decide we still need breakout session for that
Arnaud Le Hors: we would do the test suite during the session in the agenda and decide we still need breakout session for that ←
13:19:14 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
13:19:15 <nmihindu> cygri: may be can do the pagination breakout session in parallel with access control wg session
Richard Cyganiak: may be can do the pagination breakout session in parallel with access control wg session ←
13:20:30 <nmihindu> Arnaud: moving up the test suite discussions to 11.30 in the agenda http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1
Arnaud Le Hors: moving up the test suite discussions to 11.30 in the agenda http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1 ←
13:21:18 <nmihindu> SteveBattle: there are comments in the public list, are we going to talk about that ?
Steve Battle: there are comments in the public list, are we going to talk about that ? ←
13:21:26 <SteveBattle> q-
Steve Battle: q- ←
13:21:27 <ericP> s/http:\/\/www\.w3\.org\/2012\/ldp\/wiki\/F2F2/http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2012\/ldp\/wiki\/F2F2/
Eric Prud'hommeaux: s/http:\/\/www\.w3\.org\/2012\/ldp\/wiki\/F2F2/http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2012\/ldp\/wiki\/F2F2/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
13:21:41 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we will talk about that during the day
Arnaud Le Hors: we will talk about that during the day ←
13:22:55 <nmihindu> Arnaud: after lunch, we can decide whether we need more time for breakout sessions. We can do changes on the fly to the agenda if necessary.
Arnaud Le Hors: after lunch, we can decide whether we need more time for breakout sessions. We can do changes on the fly to the agenda if necessary. ←
13:23:03 <TallTed> :-)
Ted Thibodeau: :-) ←
13:23:14 <nmihindu> TOPIC: Access Control WG Note
13:24:25 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Access Control WG Note is in the charter but not in the recommendation track
Arnaud Le Hors: Access Control WG Note is in the charter but not in the recommendation track ←
13:24:42 <nmihindu> ... we already started with a wiki page
... we already started with a wiki page ←
13:25:14 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl ←
13:25:35 <nmihindu> ... the expectation for today is see where are we today, and what are the steps necessary for us to get to the point where we can publish as a WG note
... the expectation for today is see where are we today, and what are the steps necessary for us to get to the point where we can publish as a WG note ←
13:26:03 <ericP> q+ to ask (SteveBattle) if we have access control use cases
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask (SteveBattle) if we have access control use cases ←
13:26:12 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Ashok, what is your opinion about current status ?
Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok, what is your opinion about current status ? ←
13:26:30 <SteveBattle> No, we do not have access control use cases
Steve Battle: No, we do not have access control use cases ←
13:26:42 <nmihindu> Ashok: we don't talk much about access control is the spec
Ashok Malhotra: we don't talk much about access control is the spec ←
13:26:44 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
13:26:44 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask (SteveBattle) if we have access control use cases
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask (SteveBattle) if we have access control use cases ←
13:27:14 <TallTed> ericP - see http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl#Use_Cases
Ted Thibodeau: ericP - see http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl#Use_Cases ←
13:27:14 <nmihindu> ... so what we will get is security which is provided by database or any underlying system
... so what we will get is security which is provided by database or any underlying system ←
13:27:33 <nmihindu> Ashok: what more do we need ?
Ashok Malhotra: what more do we need ? ←
13:28:05 <nmihindu> ericP: we need basic access control stuff to ensure interoperability of systems
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we need basic access control stuff to ensure interoperability of systems ←
13:28:44 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:29:07 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
13:29:14 <nmihindu> ericP: if we can provide a standard access control on rdf graph level, there is a standard way to do access control at LDP level
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we can provide a standard access control on rdf graph level, there is a standard way to do access control at LDP level ←
13:29:30 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl ←
13:30:25 <bblfish> I am getting background noise again
Henry Story: I am getting background noise again ←
13:30:42 <nmihindu> bblfish: I already implemented this using web access control and may be we can do that with web access control
Henry Story: I already implemented this using web access control and may be we can do that with web access control ←
13:30:52 <bblfish> got it
Henry Story: got it ←
13:31:34 <bblfish> We have implemented this a few times. It is extreemly flexible, does not require one Authentication system rather than another, and fits in very nicely with LDP. ACLs can be edited like another LDPR
Henry Story: We have implemented this a few times. It is extreemly flexible, does not require one Authentication system rather than another, and fits in very nicely with LDP. ACLs can be edited like another LDPR ←
13:32:01 <nmihindu> Ashok: ericP, so basically you want to say that this group of users can access this, etc ?
Ashok Malhotra: ericP, so basically you want to say that this group of users can access this, etc ? ←
13:32:14 <bblfish> So my question is just that I was looking forward to people perhaps who wished to work on it
Henry Story: So my question is just that I was looking forward to people perhaps who wished to work on it ←
13:32:20 <nmihindu> ericP: yes, that is a place where we can add some value
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yes, that is a place where we can add some value ←
13:33:32 <bblfish> What were the three points: (1) Use cases (2) requirements (3) possible candidate technoloiges
Henry Story: Arnaud's three points: (1) Use cases (2) requirements (3) possible candidate technoloiges ←
13:33:47 <bblfish> s/What were the/Arnaud's/
13:33:52 <nmihindu> Arnaud: I would like to see use cases, requirements, and possible candidates to address this requirements in that note
Arnaud Le Hors: I would like to see use cases, requirements, and possible candidates to address this requirements in that note ←
13:33:53 <ericP> q+ to discuss impact on LDP 1.0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to discuss impact on LDP 1.0 ←
13:34:18 <nmihindu> ... I think that will be sufficient for the note
... I think that will be sufficient for the note ←
13:34:32 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
13:34:32 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to discuss impact on LDP 1.0
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to discuss impact on LDP 1.0 ←
13:34:43 <nmihindu> ... we don't need to tackle interoperabiltiy at this point
... we don't need to tackle interoperabiltiy at this point ←
13:35:24 <nmihindu> ericP: it might be difficult to facilitate interoperability later on
Eric Prud'hommeaux: it might be difficult to facilitate interoperability later on ←
13:35:46 <nmihindu> if people started using different mechanisms right now
if people started using different mechanisms right now ←
13:36:09 <nmihindu> ... and that would be the impact of not doing it right now with the LDP 1.0
... and that would be the impact of not doing it right now with the LDP 1.0 ←
13:36:29 <bblfish> yes, oddly enough I think there is very little needed. An http Link header with rel=acl, an ontology for describing who has access
Henry Story: yes, oddly enough I think there is very little needed. An http Link header with rel=acl, an ontology for describing who has access ←
13:36:43 <nmihindu> Ashok: I can take an action to evaluate that impact
Ashok Malhotra: I can take an action to evaluate that impact ←
13:37:35 <nmihindu> ... you can do access control in different scopes like tuples, pages, etc.
... you can do access control in different scopes like tuples, pages, etc. ←
13:37:40 <TallTed> minor structural tweak made to the existing page... may help facilitate evolution
Ted Thibodeau: minor structural tweak made to the existing page... may help facilitate evolution ←
13:38:01 <bblfish> the simplest is page based access control. More gets a lot more complicated
Henry Story: the simplest is page based access control. More gets a lot more complicated ←
13:39:10 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:39:10 <nmihindu> Arnaud: the document is missing requirements at the moment
Arnaud Le Hors: the document is missing requirements at the moment ←
13:39:28 <cygri> SteveBattle, I've drafted a use case for pagination, can you please advise what else I need to do to get this included into the UC&R? http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Pagination
Richard Cyganiak: SteveBattle, I've drafted a use case for pagination, can you please advise what else I need to do to get this included into the UC&R? http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Pagination ←
13:40:05 <SteveBattle> cygri, I'll take a look.
Steve Battle: cygri, I'll take a look. ←
13:40:19 <nmihindu> ... we can do an analysis on the existing technologies and add it after the candidates
... we can do an analysis on the existing technologies and add it after the candidates ←
13:40:28 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
13:40:50 <nmihindu> ... we can already start reviewing the use cases in the document
... we can already start reviewing the use cases in the document ←
13:41:37 <nmihindu> bblfish: we can do a strawpol to see whether people are like to work on web access control stuff ?
Henry Story: we can do a strawpol to see whether people are like to work on web access control stuff ? ←
13:42:19 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we are mainly focused on getting the WG note getting published
Arnaud Le Hors: we are mainly focused on getting the WG note getting published ←
13:42:57 <nmihindu> ... people interested in web access control can get in touch with Henry and work on that too
... people interested in web access control can get in touch with Henry and work on that too ←
13:43:35 <nmihindu> bblfish: I know few people are interested in web access control in the group
Henry Story: I know few people are interested in web access control in the group ←
13:43:44 <bblfish> yes, understood.
Henry Story: yes, understood. ←
13:44:15 <nmihindu> Arnaud: I would like to have some volunteers to review the document
Arnaud Le Hors: I would like to have some volunteers to review the document ←
13:44:27 <bblfish> I'll volunteer to re-look at the use cases more carefully.
Henry Story: I'll volunteer to re-look at the use cases more carefully. ←
13:44:36 <nmihindu> ... and report back to the group the status of the document
... and report back to the group the status of the document ←
13:44:51 <bblfish> ( as I am starting to have a good feeling of what one can do )
Henry Story: ( as I am starting to have a good feeling of what one can do ) ←
13:45:43 <nmihindu> Arnaud: ericP and roger volunteer to review the document
Arnaud Le Hors: ericP and roger volunteer to review the document ←
13:46:27 <bblfish> Anyway: it's a good idea use case and requirements are a first step to doing anything serious :-)
Henry Story: Anyway: it's a good idea use case and requirements are a first step to doing anything serious :-) ←
13:46:32 <nmihindu> ... are we going to have a time-frame for reviewing the document ?
... are we going to have a time-frame for reviewing the document ? ←
13:46:55 <Arnaud> action: ericP and roger to review the Use Cases section of the document
ACTION: ericP and roger to review the Use Cases section of the document ←
13:47:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - And roger to review the Use Cases section of the document [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-47 - And roger to review the Use Cases section of the document [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-03-21]. ←
13:48:10 <Arnaud> action: ashok to take a first crack at the requirements of Access Control note
ACTION: ashok to take a first crack at the requirements of Access Control note ←
13:48:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Take a first crack at the requirements of Access Control note [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-48 - Take a first crack at the requirements of Access Control note [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-03-21]. ←
13:48:50 <nmihindu> ... do we need to do anything more on the document ?
... do we need to do anything more on the document ? ←
13:49:32 <nmihindu> ... it is open to discussion but better to be finished with the use-cases and requirements
... it is open to discussion but better to be finished with the use-cases and requirements ←
13:50:00 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
13:50:01 <nmihindu> ... the default deadline would be in two weeks
... the default deadline would be in two weeks ←
13:50:14 <bblfish> I am ok, with it.
Henry Story: I am ok, with it. ←
13:50:17 <nmihindu> ... any other comments on this one ?
... any other comments on this one ? ←
13:50:47 <nmihindu> TOPIC: Deployment guide
13:51:07 <nmihindu> Arnaud: this is also an optional deliverable
Arnaud Le Hors: this is also an optional deliverable ←
13:51:45 <nmihindu> ... the goal is to understand the status as of today, and what we want to do, and the plan to get there
... the goal is to understand the status as of today, and what we want to do, and the plan to get there ←
13:52:48 <nmihindu> ... the goal of the document is to provide best practices for the implementers
... the goal of the document is to provide best practices for the implementers ←
13:53:14 <cody> "Deployment Guide" to me is sort of misleading as a title.
Cody Burleson: "Deployment Guide" to me is sort of misleading as a title. ←
13:53:27 <nmihindu> ... we already moved some sections of the spec like data types etc. to the deployment guide
... we already moved some sections of the spec like data types etc. to the deployment guide ←
13:53:27 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
13:53:37 <SteveS> cody, suggestion for a better name?
Steve Speicher: cody, suggestion for a better name? ←
13:53:45 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
13:53:45 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide ←
13:53:54 <nmihindu> ... what do we need to make it a document that we can publish ?
... what do we need to make it a document that we can publish ? ←
13:55:06 <nmihindu> cygri: having this as a separate document is a good thing because we can keep the strict protocol things in the main spec and best practices to the deployment guide
Richard Cyganiak: having this as a separate document is a good thing because we can keep the strict protocol things in the main spec and best practices to the deployment guide ←
13:55:08 <cody> …thinking of a recommendation for title.
Cody Burleson: …thinking of a recommendation for title. ←
13:55:45 <nmihindu> ... we can decide what we need to put there as we go as we discover the best practices and any guidelines that are useful
... we can decide what we need to put there as we go as we discover the best practices and any guidelines that are useful ←
13:56:20 <bblfish> ( but I can hear Arnaud very well )
Henry Story: ( but I can hear Arnaud very well ) ←
13:56:27 <nmihindu> ... we don't need to put more effort than that
... we don't need to put more effort than that ←
13:56:56 <bblfish> s/^/\/me/
Henry Story: s/^/\/me/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
13:57:03 <nmihindu> Arnaud: I agree. We can move the best practices to the document so they don't get lost
Arnaud Le Hors: I agree. We can move the best practices to the document so they don't get lost ←
13:57:14 <rgarcia> bblfish, Arnaud is closer to the mic
Raúl García Castro: bblfish, Arnaud is closer to the mic ←
13:57:20 <nmihindu> ... do we have any volunteers for that ?
... do we have any volunteers for that ? ←
13:57:24 <bblfish> rgarcia: thanks, that makes sense
Raúl García Castro: thanks, that makes sense [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
13:57:47 <nmihindu> cygri: I volunteered for this already
Richard Cyganiak: I volunteered for this already ←
13:57:57 <cody> Something more like "LDP Auxiliary Guidelines and Recommendations"
Cody Burleson: Something more like "LDP Auxiliary Guidelines and Recommendations" ←
13:58:12 <cody> Auxiliary:
Cody Burleson: Auxiliary: ←
13:58:12 <cody> Adjective
Cody Burleson: Adjective ←
13:58:12 <cody> Providing supplementary or additional help and support: "auxiliary airport staff".
Cody Burleson: Providing supplementary or additional help and support: "auxiliary airport staff". ←
13:58:27 <cody> Noun
Cody Burleson: Noun ←
13:58:28 <cody> A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support.
Cody Burleson: A person or thing providing supplementary or additional help and support. ←
13:59:17 <nmihindu> cygri: I don't expect to much effort in this document
Richard Cyganiak: I don't expect much effort in this document ←
13:59:44 <nmihindu> s/expect to much/expect much
14:00:14 <nmihindu> roger: implementation guide would be a good name
Roger Menday: implementation guide would be a good name ←
14:00:50 <nmihindu> cygri: best practices and implementators' guide ?
Richard Cyganiak: best practices and implementators' guide ? ←
14:00:54 <cygri> maybe a better name: LDP Best Practices and Implementer's Guide
Richard Cyganiak: maybe a better name: LDP Best Practices and Implementer's Guide ←
14:01:10 <cody> +1 better
Cody Burleson: +1 better ←
14:01:19 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we can always change the name later
Arnaud Le Hors: we can always change the name later ←
14:02:02 <nmihindu> ... that is something editors can propose
... that is something editors can propose ←
14:02:37 <nmihindu> JohnArwe: if you don't like something that is in the document, you should propose something better
John Arwe: if you don't like something that is in the document, you should propose something better ←
14:02:44 <SteveS> +1 the name is better
Steve Speicher: +1 the name is better ←
14:04:10 <nmihindu> Arnaud: for formatting stuff, taking a look at the specification would be helpful
Arnaud Le Hors: for formatting stuff, taking a look at the specification would be helpful ←
14:04:34 <SteveBattle> What about xdd:int?
Steve Battle: What about xsd:int? ←
14:04:42 <SteveBattle> s/xdd/xsd/
14:05:25 <nmihindu> cody: do we use the discussion tab on the documents ?
Cody Burleson: do we use the discussion tab on the documents ? ←
14:06:06 <nmihindu> Arnaud: no, we are using the mailing list for discussions
Arnaud Le Hors: no, we are using the mailing list for discussions ←
14:06:59 <Arnaud> action: cygri to turn the deployment guide/best practice wiki page into a first draft note for publication
ACTION: cygri to turn the deployment guide/best practice wiki page into a first draft note for publication ←
14:06:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Turn the deployment guide/best practice wiki page into a first draft note for publication [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-49 - Turn the deployment guide/best practice wiki page into a first draft note for publication [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-03-21]. ←
14:07:07 <SteveBattle> Specifically, can we add xdd:int to the list on the screen right now.
Steve Battle: Specifically, can we add xsd:int to the list on the screen right now. ←
14:07:10 <SteveBattle> s/xdd/xsd/
14:07:36 <nmihindu> ... any other comments on deployment guide document ?
... any other comments on deployment guide document ? ←
14:08:08 <cygri> SteveBattle, I'd argue against including xsd:int there. The limited-range datatypes are potentially useful when specifying ranges, but not in instance data
Richard Cyganiak: SteveBattle, I'd argue against including xsd:int there. The limited-range datatypes are potentially useful when specifying ranges, but not in instance data ←
14:07:57 <nmihindu> TOPIC: Public lists of LDP
14:08:29 <nmihindu> Arnaud: is everyone of the WG subscribed to the public list ?
Arnaud Le Hors: is everyone of the WG subscribed to the public list ? ←
14:09:33 <nmihindu> ... we had the public list for open to everyone when we are creating the charter
... we had the public list for open to everyone when we are creating the charter ←
14:10:32 <nmihindu> ... once the work group has started, we created the private list mainly to tackle legal issues about contributions
... once the work group has started, we created the private list mainly to tackle legal issues about contributions ←
14:11:02 <SteveBattle> Many people recommend avoiding the unbounded xdd:integer, preferring instead the 32-bit xsd:int
Steve Battle: Many people recommend avoiding the unbounded xsd:integer, preferring instead the 32-bit xsd:int ←
14:11:20 <cygri> SteveBattle, that's in XML schemas I suppose
Richard Cyganiak: SteveBattle, that's in XML schemas I suppose ←
14:11:20 <nmihindu> ... to avoid patent issues etc.
... to avoid patent issues etc. ←
14:11:20 <SteveBattle> stupid spell-checker
Steve Battle: stupid spell-checker ←
14:11:55 <SteveBattle> s/xdd/xsd/
14:11:56 <nmihindu> ... it helps to separate and differentiate the members of the group
... it helps to separate and differentiate the members of the group ←
14:12:25 <nmihindu> ... but the list is still open to subscribe but they can not post
... but the list is still open to subscribe but they can not post ←
14:13:07 <nmihindu> ... we decided use the public list for posting comments too
... we decided use the public list for posting comments too ←
14:13:54 <nmihindu> ... so it is important that we subscribe to the public list too
... so it is important that we subscribe to the public list too ←
14:14:52 <nmihindu> TallTed: the mailing list patterns used by our group in not the norm in W3C WGs
Ted Thibodeau: the mailing list patterns used by our group in not the norm in W3C WGs ←
14:15:41 <nmihindu> sandro: we need to formally respond to every comment
Sandro Hawke: we need to formally respond to every comment ←
14:16:07 <nmihindu> ... so may be using the same list for public comments is not the best option
... so may be using the same list for public comments is not the best option ←
14:16:22 <nmihindu> ... but we have the option of changing this in the last call
... but we have the option of changing this in the last call ←
14:17:02 <nmihindu> Arnaud: may be we can create a comment list when we come to the last call
Arnaud Le Hors: may be we can create a comment list when we come to the last call ←
14:17:40 <nmihindu> sandro: do we need to do something about the people who are subscribed to private list but not the public list ?
Sandro Hawke: do we need to do something about the people who are subscribed to private list but not the public list ? ←
14:17:59 <betehess> laptophas joined #ldp.
Alexandre Bertails: laptophas joined #ldp. ←
14:18:16 <nmihindu> Arnaud: there is no need to force, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of the public lists
Arnaud Le Hors: there is no need to force, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of the public lists ←
14:19:20 <bblfish> can somone help me see if the microphone can be placed a bit better so I can hear everyone?
Henry Story: can somone help me see if the microphone can be placed a bit better so I can hear everyone? ←
14:19:34 <TallTed> bblfish - it's as centrally placed as possible
Ted Thibodeau: bblfish - it's as centrally placed as possible ←
14:19:49 <bblfish> ah is it perhaps an issue of getting the microphone to be more sensitive?
Henry Story: ah is it perhaps an issue of getting the microphone to be more sensitive? ←
14:20:05 <bblfish> ( not sure if that can be tuned )
Henry Story: ( not sure if that can be tuned ) ←
14:20:27 <TallTed> not an option on this device
Ted Thibodeau: not an option on this device ←
14:21:09 <bblfish> Ok, perhaps if people speak up a bit more that would help.
Henry Story: Ok, perhaps if people speak up a bit more that would help. ←
14:21:45 <bblfish> Somone said the phone is closer to Arnaud than to other people.
Henry Story: Somone said the phone is closer to Arnaud than to other people. ←
14:22:46 <Arnaud> ok, henry, I'll try to remind people to speak up
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, henry, I'll try to remind people to speak up ←
14:49:20 <rgarcia> scribe: rgarcia
(No events recorded for 26 minutes)
(Scribe set to Raúl García Castro)
<rgarcia>topic: Test suite & Validator
14:50:17 <rgarcia> Arnaud: we have to produce a test suite, the validator is not compulsory
Arnaud Le Hors: we have to produce a test suite, the validator is not compulsory ←
14:51:03 <rgarcia> ... we decided to use EARL and Eric started developing a framework
... we decided to use EARL and Eric started developing a framework ←
14:52:09 <rgarcia> ... let's see what Eric did as a starting point
... let's see what Eric did as a starting point ←
14:52:19 <cody> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing
Cody Burleson: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing ←
14:53:03 <rgarcia> ... we need a link to the repository
... we need a link to the repository ←
14:53:14 <rgarcia> q+
q+ ←
14:53:53 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
14:55:37 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:56:13 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
14:56:13 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:56:44 <rgarcia> rgarcia: I included in the wiki a proposal on how can tests and results be described
Raúl García Castro: I included in the wiki a proposal on how can tests and results be described ←
14:57:18 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:57:29 <ericP> -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/tip/tests/basic/Manifest.ttl strawman manifest.ttl
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/tip/tests/basic/Manifest.ttl strawman manifest.ttl ←
14:57:44 <rgarcia> bblfish: alexander wanted to participate in this part
Henry Story: alexander wanted to participate in this part ←
14:58:00 <rgarcia> ericP: Let's put both proposals side by side to compare them
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Let's put both proposals side by side to compare them ←
14:58:29 <rgarcia> rgarcia: my proposal just reuses existing vocabularies and add some more things from the W3C recommendations for tersting
Raúl García Castro: my proposal just reuses existing vocabularies and add some more things from the W3C recommendations for testing ←
14:58:44 <rgarcia> s/tersting/testing/
14:59:03 <rgarcia> ericP: describes the example test suite
Eric Prud'hommeaux: describes the example test suite ←
15:00:09 <betehess> laptophas joined #ldp.
Alexandre Bertails: laptophas joined #ldp. ←
15:00:37 <rgarcia> ... tried to use C names for identifiers
... tried to use C names for identifiers ←
15:02:50 <rgarcia> ... right now does not include response code and response content
... right now does not include response code and response content ←
15:03:24 <bblfish> IS there a URL to the TriG?
Henry Story: IS there a URL to the TriG? ←
15:03:37 <rgarcia> ... the final state of a test is the initial state of the next one
... the final state of a test is the initial state of the next one ←
15:04:37 <rgarcia> bblfish, is a reference to a local file (relative URL)
bblfish, is a reference to a local file (relative URL) ←
15:06:26 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
15:07:16 <bblfish> ah ok the TriG are in hg as for eg: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/tip/tests/basic/NetWorth_0_4.trig
Henry Story: ah ok the TriG are in hg as for eg: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/tip/tests/basic/NetWorth_0_4.trig ←
15:07:25 <rgarcia> ... the test harness must know the server to get the information about the expected result
... the test harness must know the server to get the information about the expected result ←
15:08:44 <rgarcia> ... the harness must reset the server to a known state
... the harness must reset the server to a known state ←
15:09:20 <rgarcia> ... then the harness post a message to the server
... then the harness post a message to the server ←
15:10:34 <rgarcia> sandro: the harness must have a backdoor access to the serves
Sandro Hawke: the harness must have a backdoor access to the serves ←
15:10:42 <rgarcia> davidwood: or just make a GET to the container
David Wood: or just make a GET to the container ←
15:11:32 <rgarcia> ericP: then the harness gets the final state in the server and compares it with the expected state
Eric Prud'hommeaux: then the harness gets the final state in the server and compares it with the expected state ←
15:11:36 <bblfish> The final state https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/tip/tests/basic/NetWorth_1_4.trig
Henry Story: The final state https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/tip/tests/basic/NetWorth_1_4.trig ←
15:14:57 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
15:15:29 <mesteban> q+
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q+ ←
15:15:37 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:15:52 <bblfish> yes, perhaps the end state should be a SPARQL query to test the resulting graph
Henry Story: yes, perhaps the end state should be a SPARQL query to test the resulting graph ←
15:16:10 <bblfish> where the SPARQL would have relative URLs with respect to the created resource for example
Henry Story: where the SPARQL would have relative URLs with respect to the created resource for example ←
15:17:07 <bblfish> The SPARQL ASK seems like a good idea.
Henry Story: The SPARQL ASK seems like a good idea. ←
15:17:15 <rgarcia> ericP: mentions alternatives followed in SPARQL and RDFa, e.g., based on SPARQL ASKs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: mentions alternatives followed in SPARQL and RDFa, e.g., based on SPARQL ASKs ←
15:18:00 <Arnaud> ack mesteban
Arnaud Le Hors: ack mesteban ←
15:18:28 <rgarcia> mesteban: describing the whole state is putting a lot of restrictions in the server
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: describing the whole state is putting a lot of restrictions in the server ←
15:18:44 <rgarcia> ... having assertions can simplify this
... having assertions can simplify this ←
15:18:49 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:19:11 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:19:25 <davidwood> q+ to ask why not store a SPARQL query in the TriG to test results.
David Wood: q+ to ask why not store a SPARQL query in the TriG to test results. ←
15:19:45 <rgarcia> SteveS: add traceability to the spec
Steve Speicher: add traceability to the spec ←
15:21:03 <SteveBattle> My question was that a typical test framework would only test for specific properties of the result rather than test full graph equivalence.
Steve Battle: My question was that a typical test framework would only test for specific properties of the result rather than test full graph equivalence. ←
15:21:14 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:21:15 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:21:55 <rgarcia> q+
q+ ←
15:21:57 <SteveS> I also wanted to make sure the framework executes/reports separately on MUST/SHOULD/MAY
Steve Speicher: I also wanted to make sure the framework executes/reports separately on MUST/SHOULD/MAY ←
15:22:27 <rgarcia> SteveS, we can categorize tests in their metadata descriptions
SteveS, we can categorize tests in their metadata descriptions ←
15:22:44 <rgarcia> Arnaud: do we extend time discussing tests?
Arnaud Le Hors: do we extend time discussing tests? ←
15:23:15 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
15:23:15 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask why not store a SPARQL query in the TriG to test results.
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask why not store a SPARQL query in the TriG to test results. ←
15:23:21 <rgarcia> ... which is the path forward for the next minutes?
... which is the path forward for the next minutes? ←
15:23:40 <rgarcia> davidwood: we did something similar with turtle in callimachus
David Wood: we did something similar with turtle in callimachus ←
15:24:34 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
15:24:58 <rgarcia> sandro: the complexity terrifies me
Sandro Hawke: the complexity terrifies me ←
15:25:15 <rgarcia> ... and I don't like having backdoors in servers
... and I don't like having backdoors in servers ←
15:25:23 <rgarcia> ... need a validator
... need a validator ←
15:26:07 <nmihindu> +1 for not requiring servers to have backdoors for running these conformance tests
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 for not requiring servers to have backdoors for running these conformance tests ←
15:26:46 <rgarcia> ericP: backdoors are for initial and final state
Eric Prud'hommeaux: backdoors are for initial and final state ←
15:27:04 <bblfish> is the problem that you need access control to get the data, and that this is why you need back doors?
Henry Story: is the problem that you need access control to get the data, and that this is why you need back doors? ←
15:27:44 <rgarcia> Ashok: why not getting a GET?
Ashok Malhotra: why not getting a GET? ←
15:27:49 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:28:30 <bblfish> Some things would be difficult to test indeed.
Henry Story: Some things would be difficult to test indeed. ←
15:28:55 <rgarcia> sandro: new features will require new test types
Sandro Hawke: new features will require new test types ←
15:29:17 <sandro> q+ eric
Sandro Hawke: q+ eric ←
15:29:46 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
15:30:05 <davidwood> The complexity is the use case for embedding SPARQL queries - that gives you a way to arbitrarily test the final states using a standard mechanism.
David Wood: The complexity is the use case for embedding SPARQL queries - that gives you a way to arbitrarily test the final states using a standard mechanism. ←
15:30:44 <bblfish> +1 with Rgarcia: one should be able to run the whole test suite using LDP itself, using GET, POST, etc...
Henry Story: +1 with Rgarcia: one should be able to run the whole test suite using LDP itself, using GET, POST, etc... ←
15:30:53 <sandro> rgarcia: I want the testing to be through the normal operations, not reaching around/inside the tested item
Raúl García Castro: I want the testing to be through the normal operations, not reaching around/inside the tested item [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:30:56 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
15:31:38 <sandro> rgarcia: Having the output of one test be the input of another is a problem.
Raúl García Castro: Having the output of one test be the input of another is a problem. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:31:45 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:31:54 <sandro> Arnaud: the backdoor to reset state could fix that.
Arnaud Le Hors: the backdoor to reset state could fix that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:32:34 <rgarcia> rgarcia: I don't like the backdoor, I would prefer only using the LDP operations to interact during testing (black box)
Raúl García Castro: I don't like the backdoor, I would prefer only using the LDP operations to interact during testing (black box) ←
15:32:59 <rgarcia> ... testing should also cover the protocol level (e.g., status codes returned)
... testing should also cover the protocol level (e.g., status codes returned) ←
15:33:11 <rgarcia> ... and tests should be independent
... and tests should be independent ←
15:33:28 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:34:18 <rgarcia> bblfish: the initial state could be having just an empty container
Henry Story: the initial state could be having just an empty container ←
15:34:38 <davidwood> yes
David Wood: yes ←
15:34:49 <rgarcia> ericP: this is what current tests do, but it is not required to be like that
Eric Prud'hommeaux: this is what current tests do, but it is not required to be like that ←
15:35:29 <bblfish> If you start with that, then one would not need to have a backend access to the server.
Henry Story: If you start with that, then one would not need to have a backend access to the server. ←
15:35:53 <rgarcia> ericP: can we expect that we can create containers in servers unowned by us?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: can we expect that we can create containers in servers unowned by us? ←
15:36:12 <rgarcia> Arnaud: we will continue with the breakouts
Arnaud Le Hors: we will continue with the breakouts ←
<rgarcia> topic: Breakout sessions
<rgarcia> 3 breakouts take place: 1) binary attachments, 2) pagination, 3) test suite
3 breakouts take place: 1) binary attachments, 2) pagination, 3) test suite ←
17:05:40 <davidwood> scribenick: davidwood
(No events recorded for 89 minutes)
(Scribe set to David Wood)
<davidwood> topic: Test suite & Validator (continues)
17:05:59 <davidwood> Arnaud: Let's continue the test suite discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's continue the test suite discussion ←
17:07:17 <davidwood> ericP: waves hands
Eric Prud'hommeaux: waves hands ←
17:08:22 <davidwood> ericP: The test breakout group talked about how to test generic LDP implementations vs. domain-specific implementations.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The test breakout group talked about how to test generic LDP implementations vs. domain-specific implementations. ←
17:08:50 <davidwood> …Some systems will only accept domain-specific data and/or restrictions.
…Some systems will only accept domain-specific data and/or restrictions. ←
17:09:26 <davidwood> …One solution is to give people a test suite and they give us back some EARL saying what they passed and the data they sent/received.
…One solution is to give people a test suite and they give us back some EARL saying what they passed and the data they sent/received. ←
17:10:34 <davidwood> …These users would need to create their own domain-specific payload. The only truly generic part would be the REST API.
…These users would need to create their own domain-specific payload. The only truly generic part would be the REST API. ←
17:12:18 <davidwood> …An alternative would be to create a proxy that would have enough knowledge to know how to test each implementation. A tester would ask the proxy what payload to use for each test before running each test.
…An alternative would be to create a proxy that would have enough knowledge to know how to test each implementation. A tester would ask the proxy what payload to use for each test before running each test. ←
17:12:35 <davidwood> Sandro: The knowledge could just be documentation on the Web.
Sandro Hawke: The knowledge could just be documentation on the Web. ←
17:12:43 <davidwood> ericP: yes
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yes ←
17:13:07 <davidwood> Arnaud: The solution was even more complicated than we anticipated.
Arnaud Le Hors: The solution was even more complicated than we anticipated. ←
17:14:34 <davidwood> Ashok: When the W3C publishes a spec and someone builds a product, the W3C says that they should say when the tests pass. Many won't bother.
Ashok Malhotra: When the W3C publishes a spec and someone builds a product, the W3C says that they should say when the tests pass. Many won't bother. ←
17:14:41 <sandro> +1 Ashok: beward of making it too hard for them to do the testing....
Sandro Hawke: +1 Ashok: beward of making it too hard for them to do the testing.... ←
17:14:52 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
17:15:06 <sandro> davidwood: The only reason to test for compliance with a spec is to foster interop
David Wood: The only reason to test for compliance with a spec is to foster interop [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:15:14 <sandro> .. people don't care about compliance until they hit interop problems
Sandro Hawke: .. people don't care about compliance until they hit interop problems ←
17:15:40 <sandro> .. semweb software doesn't end up hitting this much, because we're mostly operating in small areas
Sandro Hawke: .. semweb software doesn't end up hitting this much, because we're mostly operating in small areas ←
17:15:48 <sandro> .. but sometimes we do hit these problems
Sandro Hawke: .. but sometimes we do hit these problems ←
17:16:14 <sandro> .. Back in history, TCP/IP, Interop was created for this. Once there's market pressure, these things emerge.
Sandro Hawke: .. Back in history, TCP/IP, Interop was created for this. Once there's market pressure, these things emerge. ←
17:16:35 <sandro> Ashok: Where is SemWeb Interop ?
Ashok Malhotra: Where is SemWeb Interop ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:16:35 <bblfish> This would be a reason to add Auth because interop of LDP without Auth is not going to be possible
Henry Story: This would be a reason to add Auth because interop of LDP without Auth is not going to be possible ←
17:16:41 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/ implementation report for SPARQL includes 21 products
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/ implementation report for SPARQL includes 21 products ←
17:16:41 <davidwood> ericP: The harder it is to pass the tests, the fewer will do it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The harder it is to pass the tests, the fewer will do it. ←
17:17:07 <ericP> and the easier it is to do the implementaion report
Eric Prud'hommeaux: and the easier it is to do the implementaion report ←
17:17:09 <davidwood> davidwood: SemWeb interoperability is not in a good state.
David Wood: SemWeb interoperability is not in a good state. ←
17:17:15 <davidwood> Arnaud: What next?
Arnaud Le Hors: What next? ←
17:17:29 <davidwood> rgarcia: We need to determine how to describe the tests.
Raúl García Castro: We need to determine how to describe the tests. ←
17:17:41 <bblfish> Just do the simple tests that start with an empty container, and PUT, POST etc very generic stuff
Henry Story: Just do the simple tests that start with an empty container, and PUT, POST etc very generic stuff ←
17:18:09 <davidwood> ericP: I will continue to offer concrete tests for generic endpoints, but they would be tied to particular payloads…maybe.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I will continue to offer concrete tests for generic endpoints, but they would be tied to particular payloads…maybe. ←
17:18:40 <davidwood> Arnaud: Just make it as easy as possible to adapt the test suite to a particular domain.
Arnaud Le Hors: Just make it as easy as possible to adapt the test suite to a particular domain. ←
17:18:44 <ericP> s/mabye./maybe?/
Eric Prud'hommeaux: s/mabye./maybe?/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
17:19:10 <davidwood> Sandro: If we provide a validator that collects inputs and outputs, then it is easy to create a test suite.
Sandro Hawke: If we provide a validator that collects inputs and outputs, then it is easy to create a test suite. ←
17:20:15 <davidwood> Arnaud: We still need to write a generic test suite.
Arnaud Le Hors: We still need to write a generic test suite. ←
17:20:32 <JohnArwe> +1 to david's question about how one tests implementations that are not themselves web-facing
John Arwe: +1 to david's question about how one tests implementations that are not themselves web-facing ←
17:20:58 <JohnArwe> ...anything under devt will not be web-facing at my company
John Arwe: ...anything under devt will not be web-facing at my company ←
17:21:16 <sandro> my answer: by downloading the python script (or java script??) that you run inside your firewall. But that's just me.
Sandro Hawke: my answer: by downloading the python script (or java script??) that you run inside your firewall. But that's just me. ←
17:21:44 <davidwood> Arnaud: Can we assign actions?
Arnaud Le Hors: Can we assign actions? ←
17:22:12 <Arnaud> action: ericp and rgarcia to come up with a revised proposal for the test suite framework
ACTION: ericp and rgarcia to come up with a revised proposal for the test suite framework ←
17:22:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - And rgarcia to come up with a revised proposal for the test suite framework [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-50 - And rgarcia to come up with a revised proposal for the test suite framework [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-03-21]. ←
17:22:15 <davidwood> ericP: We could create generic tests that can serve as a template for domain-specific tests.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: We could create generic tests that can serve as a template for domain-specific tests. ←
17:22:37 <JohnArwe> if it's really that simple sandro, in principle I think it's fine. just wanted to bring out the requirement that the source needs to be available for that kind of use.
John Arwe: if it's really that simple sandro, in principle I think it's fine. just wanted to bring out the requirement that the source needs to be available for that kind of use. ←
17:23:27 <sandro> JohnArwe, yeah, I hope it is. and we need to settle on a programming language/platform.
Sandro Hawke: JohnArwe, yeah, I hope it is. and we need to settle on a programming language/platform. ←
17:23:54 <davidwood> Topic: LDP Specification - Pending Issues
<davidwood> subtopic: ISSUE-15: sharing binary resources and metadata
17:25:24 <cygri> ISSUE-15?
17:25:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open ←
17:25:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15 ←
17:25:24 <davidwood> issue-15?
17:25:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open ←
17:25:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15 ←
17:26:34 <davidwood> SteveS: There is a use case for binary resources in the UCR document. Also see issue-41 (closed)
Steve Speicher: There is a use case for binary resources in the UCR document. Also see ISSUE-41 (closed) ←
17:26:44 <davidwood> issue-41?
17:26:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Standard way to manage members with attachments -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-41 -- Standard way to manage members with attachments -- closed ←
17:26:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/41
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/41 ←
17:26:44 <SteveBattle> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/#use-case-manage-media-resources
Steve Battle: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/#use-case-manage-media-resources ←
17:27:33 <davidwood> SteveS: Imagine a photo attached to a bug report.
Steve Speicher: Imagine a photo attached to a bug report. ←
17:27:46 <bblfish> how does a client go from a picture to find metadata about it ( eg: who or what is is in the picture, who took it, etc )
Henry Story: how does a client go from a picture to find metadata about it ( eg: who or what is is in the picture, who took it, etc ) ←
17:28:14 <davidwood> …The current proposal is for containers to be able to accept any kind of resources.
…The current proposal is for containers to be able to accept any kind of resources. ←
17:28:46 <davidwood> bblfish, presumably by describing it using RDF in another resource?
bblfish, presumably by describing it using RDF in another resource? ←
17:29:00 <bblfish> indeed
Henry Story: indeed ←
17:30:11 <davidwood> SteveS: The 201 Created response would contain URLs to both the created resource and its metadata in another resource.
Steve Speicher: The 201 Created response would contain URLs to both the created resource and its metadata in another resource. ←
17:30:51 <ericP> q+ to ask about having the response to a binary post return the location of the metadata, which in turn points to the binary resource
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask about having the response to a binary post return the location of the metadata, which in turn points to the binary resource ←
17:30:58 <davidwood> …POWDER would be used to describe the binaries.
…POWDER would be used to describe the binaries. ←
17:31:05 <davidwood> …(maybe)
…(maybe) ←
17:31:16 <bblfish> Link: <pix>;meta>; rel=meta
Henry Story: Link: <pix>;meta>; rel=meta ←
17:31:25 <bblfish> you can get all the existing rel links here http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/#
Henry Story: you can get all the existing rel links here http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/# ←
17:31:44 <bblfish> And it is easy to add a new one if one does not find one that fits
Henry Story: And it is easy to add a new one if one does not find one that fits ←
17:32:27 <davidwood> SteveS: You can always perform a HEAD on the binary to get a link to the metdata.
Steve Speicher: You can always perform a HEAD on the binary to get a link to the metadata. ←
17:32:32 <davidwood> s/metdata/metadata/
17:32:58 <bblfish> RFC5988 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
Henry Story: RFC5988 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988 ←
17:33:37 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
17:33:37 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask about having the response to a binary post return the location of the metadata, which in turn points to the binary resource
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask about having the response to a binary post return the location of the metadata, which in turn points to the binary resource ←
17:33:37 <bblfish> I think you don't necessarily need the HEAD
Henry Story: I think you don't necessarily need the HEAD ←
17:33:45 <bblfish> perhaps the response returns a link
Henry Story: perhaps the response returns a link ←
17:34:35 <davidwood> ericP: The container already refers to resources within it. Therefore, do we need the separate triples linking binaries and their descriptions?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The container already refers to resources within it. Therefore, do we need the separate triples linking binaries and their descriptions? ←
17:34:44 <bblfish> yes, another solution is to have the container also contain this information.
Henry Story: yes, another solution is to have the container also contain this information. ←
17:36:19 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
17:36:25 <davidwood> (discussion over alternative designs followed)
(discussion over alternative designs followed) ←
17:36:46 <davidwood> TallTed: Have we decided whether containers and contain containers?
Ted Thibodeau: Have we decided whether containers and contain containers? ←
17:36:48 <davidwood> (no)
(no) ←
17:37:50 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle ←
17:38:02 <davidwood> ericP: Instead of returning a location for the binary upon a 201 Created, return the location of the metadata. Force the container to manage the linkage.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Instead of returning a location for the binary upon a 201 Created, return the location of the metadata. Force the container to manage the linkage. ←
17:38:02 <TallTed> POST a binary; server creates container C; returns Location: C, contains binary (I) & description doc (P)
Ted Thibodeau: POST a binary; server creates container C; returns Location: C, contains binary (I) & description doc (P) ←
17:38:15 <bblfish> I like that idea of the hash URI in the LDPC
Henry Story: I like that idea of the hash URI in the LDPC ←
17:38:37 <davidwood> SteveBattle: Doesn't the proposal create additional categories of resources?
Steve Battle: Doesn't the proposal create additional categories of resources? ←
17:38:55 <bblfish> Link: <.#pix10>>; rel=meta
Henry Story: Link: <.#pix10>>; rel=meta ←
17:39:00 <bblfish> Link: <./#pix10>>; rel=meta
Henry Story: Link: <./#pix10>>; rel=meta ←
17:39:35 <davidwood> Sandro: What happens if you post an HTML document?
Sandro Hawke: What happens if you post an HTML document? ←
17:39:59 <bblfish> so that would point into the Container, then the container could have <> :member> [ dc:author <joe>#me> ... ]
Henry Story: so that would point into the Container, then the container could have <> :member> [ dc:author <joe>#me> ... ] ←
17:40:14 <davidwood> davidwood: We do that. It is an argument against ericP's design.
David Wood: We do that. It is an argument against ericP's design. ←
17:40:15 <SteveBattle> We considered the case where the returned link is a hash URI within the container, thus avoiding the creation of a redundant LDPR.
Steve Battle: We considered the case where the returned link is a hash URI within the container, thus avoiding the creation of a redundant LDPR. ←
17:40:22 <bblfish> oops <> :member> [ = <#pix10>>; dc:author <joe>#me> ... ]
Henry Story: oops <> :member> [ = <#pix10>>; dc:author <joe>#me> ... ] ←
17:40:28 <davidwood> Arnaud: Breakout discussions suck.
Arnaud Le Hors: Breakout discussions have some limitation. ←
17:40:36 <sandro> sandro: yeah, you want your HTML editor to PUT back the web page.
Sandro Hawke: yeah, you want your HTML editor to PUT back the web page. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:40:37 <davidwood> everyone cheers wildly
everyone cheers wildly ←
17:40:58 <Arnaud> s/suck/have some limitation/
17:40:59 <sandro> Arnaud: davidwood is the best scribe ever
Arnaud Le Hors: davidwood is the best scribe ever [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:41:44 <davidwood> Arnaud: Strawpoll
Arnaud Le Hors: Strawpoll ←
17:42:47 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
17:43:07 <mesteban> q+
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q+ ←
17:43:07 <cody> q+
Cody Burleson: q+ ←
17:43:07 <SteveS> Proposal: binary resources posted to LDPC's, generate URL for binary resource and URL in "Link" header for metadata. Include in metadata resource a "describedBy" triple.
PROPOSED: binary resources posted to LDPC's, generate URL for binary resource and URL in "Link" header for metadata. Include in metadata resource a "describedBy" triple. ←
17:43:30 <sandro> the breakout approach is: you POST whatever you want to the container, and it gets given a URI I and returned as normal, but ALSO a metadata resources P is created. When you GET I, you get back a LINK header leading youto P. When you GET P, there's some triple with the same link information, leading you to I.
Sandro Hawke: the breakout approach is: you POST whatever you want to the container, and it gets given a URI I and returned as normal, but ALSO a metadata resources P is created. When you GET I, you get back a LINK header leading youto P. When you GET P, there's some triple with the same link information, leading you to I. ←
17:43:35 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
17:43:47 <davidwood> mesteban: We have seen something for POSTing binaries. What with DELETEs?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: We have seen something for POSTing binaries. What with DELETEs? ←
17:44:14 <davidwood> …Does the associated metadata get deleted at the some time?
…Does the associated metadata get deleted at the some time? ←
17:44:19 <Arnaud> ack mesteban
Arnaud Le Hors: ack mesteban ←
17:44:27 <davidwood> JohnArwe: Hopefully only the member is deleted.
John Arwe: Hopefully only the member is deleted. ←
17:44:42 <Arnaud> ack cody
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cody ←
17:44:52 <davidwood> cody: We do we need to connect a binary with a metadata resource?
Cody Burleson: We do we need to connect a binary with a metadata resource? ←
17:45:11 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
17:45:17 <JohnArwe> strawman (for the record): delete the object of the membership triple; anything that was created as a side effect also gets deleted as a side effect.
John Arwe: strawman (for the record): delete the object of the membership triple; anything that was created as a side effect also gets deleted as a side effect. ←
17:45:22 <JohnArwe> q+
17:45:33 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
17:46:31 <mesteban> JohnArwe, in our scenario which element is the side effect? The binary or the metadata?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: JohnArwe, in our scenario which element is the side effect? The binary or the metadata? ←
17:46:49 <davidwood> cygri: I am uncomfortable about this because this is complicating POSting to a container. I won't know whether this server supports POSTing RDF as a binary or RDF content.
Richard Cyganiak: I am uncomfortable about this because this is complicating POSting to a container. I won't know whether this server supports POSTing RDF as a binary or RDF content. ←
17:47:07 <JohnArwe> @miguel, that's why my answer starts with the membership triple. the object of that triple is the member, defintionally.
John Arwe: @miguel, that's why my answer starts with the membership triple. the object of that triple is the member, defintionally. ←
17:47:37 <sandro> +0.5 cygri: use an ldp:BinaryContainer so you know which kind this is.
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 cygri: use an ldp:BinaryContainer so you know which kind this is. ←
17:48:01 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
17:48:09 <mesteban> JohnArwe, so in these case the delete should be send to the URL of the metadata, not the URL of the binary file, right?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: JohnArwe, so in this case the delete should be sent to the URL of the metadata, not the URL of the binary file, right? ←
17:48:14 <davidwood> cygri: You would need to know whether this particular server is an LDP server first.
Richard Cyganiak: You would need to know whether this particular server is an LDP server first. ←
17:48:32 <cygri> having trouble hearing bblfish
Richard Cyganiak: having trouble hearing bblfish ←
17:48:32 <davidwood> bblfish, we cannot hear you
bblfish, we cannot hear you ←
17:48:37 <TallTed> bblfish - voice connection's broken again
Ted Thibodeau: bblfish - voice connection's broken again ←
17:48:37 <mesteban> s/send/sent/
17:48:53 <davidwood> bblfish, can you write, please?
bblfish, can you write, please? ←
17:48:53 <mesteban> s/these/this/
17:48:53 <JohnArwe> @miguel: the membership triple on the board says <c>, member, I> so you'd delete I (which is what you posted in the first place)
John Arwe: @miguel: the membership triple on the board says <c>, member, I> so you'd delete I (which is what you posted in the first place) ←
17:48:59 <bblfish> I am done
Henry Story: I am done ←
17:49:05 <davidwood> q?
q? ←
17:49:14 <bblfish> :-)
Henry Story: :-) ←
17:49:14 <mesteban> JohnArwe, I see.
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: JohnArwe, I see. ←
17:49:17 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
17:49:54 <davidwood> JohnArwe: The first part of what Henry said was you have images on the Web. You don't always go through the metadata to get to the image.
John Arwe: The first part of what Henry said was you have images on the Web. You don't always go through the metadata to get to the image. ←
17:50:12 <davidwood> …doesn't agree with cygri.
…doesn't agree with cygri. ←
17:50:33 <davidwood> …Whatever I POST is the thing I am trying to add to a container.
…Whatever I POST is the thing I am trying to add to a container. ←
17:50:58 <davidwood> …It is the server's business how to respond.
…It is the server's business how to respond. ←
17:51:26 <bblfish> +1 "…Whatever I POST is the thing I am trying to add to a container."
Henry Story: +1 "…Whatever I POST is the thing I am trying to add to a container." ←
17:51:37 <davidwood> …It is clear from the use cases that sometimes the client intends to put RDF and sometimes a binary.
…It is clear from the use cases that sometimes the client intends to put RDF and sometimes a binary. ←
17:51:59 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
17:52:03 <davidwood> Sandro: It doesn't matter whether the server understands Turtle for me to POST Turtle.
Sandro Hawke: It doesn't matter whether the server understands Turtle for me to POST Turtle. ←
17:53:03 <davidwood> JohnArwe: The server can set I=P (I for the binary's URL and P for metadata about the binary).
John Arwe: The server can set I=P (I for the binary's URL and P for metadata about the binary). ←
17:53:29 <davidwood> TallTed: The use case for putting things into a container is different from the proposal for this use case.
Ted Thibodeau: The use case for putting things into a container is different from the proposal for this use case. ←
17:55:21 <JohnArwe> q+
17:55:29 <bblfish> cygri breaks up a lot, perhaps he is not speaking that loudly
Henry Story: cygri breaks up a lot, perhaps he is not speaking that loudly ←
17:55:30 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
17:55:35 <davidwood> cygri: The server is already interpreting RDF (e.g. relative URIs) and may do any amount of clever processing. In the binary case, I don't want it to manipulate the resource, but it might create metadata. There is an asymmetry based on which content type is POSTed.
Richard Cyganiak: The server is already interpreting RDF (e.g. relative URIs) and may do any amount of clever processing. In the binary case, I don't want it to manipulate the resource, but it might create metadata. There is an asymmetry based on which content type is POSTed. ←
17:56:21 <davidwood> TallTed: The easy way to resolve the asymmetry is for servers to accept any resource the same.
Ted Thibodeau: The easy way to resolve the asymmetry is for servers to accept any resource the same. ←
17:56:45 <davidwood> cygri: You may not get the same bytestream back when you GET a resource.
Richard Cyganiak: You may not get the same bytestream back when you GET a resource. ←
17:56:53 <davidwood> TallTed: The spec may need to change.
Ted Thibodeau: The spec may need to change. ←
17:57:27 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
17:57:34 <davidwood> Arnaud: The asymmetry is handled well with AtomPub (channeling Erik W)
Arnaud Le Hors: The asymmetry is handled well with AtomPub (channeling Erik W) ←
17:58:02 <davidwood> JohnArwe: The asymmetry may be in your head. Servers can always adjust a resource's bytestream.
John Arwe: The asymmetry may be in your head. Servers can always adjust a resource's bytestream. ←
17:58:20 <davidwood> +1 to JohnArwe
+1 to JohnArwe ←
17:59:11 <davidwood> JohnArwe: You could always choose to return a link to metadata about a resource, but the link might be equal to the resource's URL in many cases.
John Arwe: You could always choose to return a link to metadata about a resource, but the link might be equal to the resource's URL in many cases. ←
17:59:17 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
17:59:36 <davidwood> cygri: There may be other forms that return links to RDF metadata.
Richard Cyganiak: There may be other forms that return links to RDF metadata. ←
18:00:04 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
18:00:28 <davidwood> cygri: Do you always create one URI or do you sometimes create two? If they differ, there is an asymmetry.
Richard Cyganiak: Do you always create one URI or do you sometimes create two? If they differ, there is an asymmetry. ←
18:00:36 <davidwood> The crowd split into competing factions.
The crowd split into warring factions. ←
18:01:07 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
18:01:40 <davidwood> SteveBattle: How do we replicate the case we have in the UCR? What about inserting EXIM into a JPEG?
Steve Battle: How do we replicate the case we have in the UCR? What about inserting EXIM into a JPEG? ←
18:01:44 <TallTed> whether you always *create* two URIs is less the question as whether you always *return* two. always return I and P == symmetry (even if I == P)
Ted Thibodeau: whether you always *create* two URIs is less the question as whether you always *return* two. always return I and P == symmetry (even if I == P) ←
18:02:06 <davidwood> s/factions/warring factions/
18:02:29 <TallTed> s/competing warring/warring/
18:02:40 <bblfish> I am not sure what the so called asymetry is. Meta data could be useful for LDPRs just as well as for binaries. But for binaries it is more obviously needed
Henry Story: I am not sure what the so called asymetry is. Meta data could be useful for LDPRs just as well as for binaries. But for binaries it is more obviously needed ←
18:02:47 <davidwood> JohnArwe: Hash URIs could be used to access embedded metadata.
John Arwe: Hash URIs could be used to access embedded metadata. ←
18:03:02 <davidwood> SteveS: Does the example need to be updated?
Steve Speicher: Does the example need to be updated? ←
18:03:07 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
18:03:25 <davidwood> Arnaud: We don't specify how containers need to handle there metadata
Arnaud Le Hors: We don't specify how containers need to handle there metadata ←
18:03:39 <davidwood> Sandro: Containers SHOULD manage metadata for binaries.
Sandro Hawke: Containers SHOULD create metadata resources for non-RDF resources. ←
18:03:49 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
18:03:54 <SteveBattle> I'm not sure the proposed binary scheme can replicate exactly the scenario described in UC&R, it would have to use an indirect hash URI.
Steve Battle: I'm not sure the proposed binary scheme can replicate exactly the scenario described in UC&R, it would have to use an indirect hash URI. ←
18:04:14 <sandro> s/manage metadata for binaries/create metadata resources for non-RDF resources/
18:04:18 <davidwood> Ashok: This may be a standard patter we can extract from LDP. An HTTP resource could have a link to metadata.
Ashok Malhotra: This may be a standard pattern we can extract from LDP. An HTTP resource could have a Link Header that points to metadata. ←
18:04:27 <davidwood> SteveS: Right, we didn't invent that.
Steve Speicher: Right, we didn't invent that. ←
18:04:32 <mesteban> s/patter/pattern/
18:05:07 <davidwood> cygri: Does the spec today restrict members of containers to LDPRs?
Richard Cyganiak: Does the spec today restrict members of containers to LDPRs? ←
18:05:10 <davidwood> (no)
(no) ←
18:05:10 <sandro> cygri: LDPCs should be constrained to only contain LDPRs
Richard Cyganiak: LDPCs should be constrained to only contain LDPRs [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:05:17 <JohnArwe> s/patter we/pattern we/
John Arwe: s/patter we/pattern we/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
18:05:41 <davidwood> cygri: The client can't make any assumptions about what a container contains.
Richard Cyganiak: The client can't make any assumptions about what a container contains. ←
18:05:47 <davidwood> SteveS: right
Steve Speicher: right ←
18:05:50 <Ashok> s/link/Link Header that points/
18:06:16 <davidwood> Sandro: The spec needs to say clearly what happens when you GET Turtle.
Sandro Hawke: The spec needs to say clearly what happens when you GET Turtle. ←
18:06:59 <Ashok> c/patter/pattern/
Ashok Malhotra: c/patter/pattern/ ←
18:06:59 <davidwood> cygri: If a client only understands one format, it should be possible for them to get something it understands.
Richard Cyganiak: If a client only understands one format, it should be possible for them to get something it understands. ←
18:07:18 <davidwood> …Why does binary support need to be in LDP.
…Why does binary support need to be in LDP. ←
18:07:27 <davidwood> …HTTP already defines it.
…HTTP already defines it. ←
18:08:12 <davidwood> davidwood: cygri doesn't agree with the use case.
David Wood: cygri doesn't agree with the use case. ←
18:08:28 <bblfish> Well because it is extreemly useful to have binary support, since otherwise one is extreemly limited.
Henry Story: Well because it is extreemly useful to have binary support, since otherwise one is extreemly limited. ←
18:08:39 <davidwood> cygri: HTTP already has features for handling binaries. That's all we need.
Richard Cyganiak: HTTP already has features for handling binaries. That's all we need. ←
18:08:59 <bblfish> Nasa wanting to publish pictures with metadata etc. The cost is very low. Atom supports it.
Henry Story: Nasa wanting to publish pictures with metadata etc. The cost is very low. Atom supports it. ←
18:09:13 <davidwood> davidwood: HTTP doesn't specify what happens when you POST to an LDPC - that's our job.
David Wood: HTTP doesn't specify what happens when you POST to an LDPC - that's our job. ←
18:09:31 <davidwood> SteveS: The proposed model is consistent.
Steve Speicher: The proposed model is consistent. ←
18:09:48 <betehess> 1. we'll _eventually_ need binary support at the container level 2. meta resource is needed for *all* elements being added to the container, whether it's binary or regular LDPR
Alexandre Bertails: 1. we'll _eventually_ need binary support at the container level 2. meta resource is needed for *all* elements being added to the container, whether it's binary or regular LDPR ←
18:09:51 <davidwood> …The only special case is handling RDF.
…The only special case is handling RDF. ←
18:10:41 <betehess> and a server can always refuse to handle binary data, just return an error, it would still be compliant
Alexandre Bertails: and a server can always refuse to handle binary data, just return an error, it would still be compliant ←
18:10:55 <nmihindu> +1 to SteveS
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 to SteveS ←
18:11:11 <davidwood> JohnArwe: Has seen a pattern of collections and their contained resources emerge in Tivoli REST interactions. LDP defines this pattern.
John Arwe: Has seen a pattern of collections and their contained resources emerge in Tivoli REST interactions. LDP defines this pattern. ←
18:11:22 <davidwood> …The client interaction becomes easier.
…The client interaction becomes easier. ←
18:12:03 <davidwood> cygri: The client interaction is even easier if clients know that containers only contain one content type.
Richard Cyganiak: The client interaction is even easier if clients know that containers only contain one content type. ←
18:12:56 <bblfish> what cygri says is odd. Clients only interact with resources: be they a container or an element.
Henry Story: what cygri says is odd. Clients only interact with resources: be they a container or an element. ←
18:13:07 <davidwood> …The server could construct two URIs (for binary and metadata). Only the metadata URI needs to be in the container.
…The server could construct two URIs (for binary and metadata). Only the metadata URI needs to be in the container. ←
18:13:22 <bblfish> there is no reason why having different types of resources in a container is complex
Henry Story: there is no reason why having different types of resources in a container is complex ←
18:13:22 <davidwood> Sandro: DELETEs would need to operate on both.
Sandro Hawke: DELETEs would need to operate on both. ←
18:14:20 <davidwood> SteveS: You could convince existing clients that their existing create/delete behavior was broken.
Steve Speicher: You could convince existing clients that their existing create/delete behavior was broken. ←
18:14:21 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
18:15:38 <davidwood> cygri: I care that when I ask for Turtle and I get Turtle back.
Richard Cyganiak: I care that when I ask for Turtle and I get Turtle back. ←
18:15:54 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
18:16:16 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
18:16:44 <davidwood> cygri: If I have an LDPC and I get its list of members, I want to know in advance whether I can ask for Turtle.
Richard Cyganiak: If I have an LDPC and I get its list of members, I want to know in advance whether I can ask for Turtle. ←
18:16:46 <bblfish> well if you want to know before hand then you could add metadata to that entry in the container representation
Henry Story: well if you want to know before hand then you could add metadata to that entry in the container representation ←
18:16:59 <davidwood> +1 to bblfish
+1 to bblfish ←
18:17:37 <bblfish> <> member> <jack>> . <jack>> mime "text/turtle" .
Henry Story: <> member> <jack>> . <jack>> mime "text/turtle" . ←
18:17:41 <betehess> I would expect the server to remember the mimetype that was used during the POST
Alexandre Bertails: I would expect the server to remember the mimetype that was used during the POST ←
18:18:12 <betehess> I wouldn't put a constraint on finding this information in the metadata
Alexandre Bertails: I wouldn't put a constraint on finding this information in the metadata ←
18:18:18 <Arnaud> zakim: who's here?
18:18:47 <davidwood> Sandro: These are coin-flip decisions. You could do it either way.
Sandro Hawke: These are coin-flip decisions. You could do it either way. ←
18:19:11 <davidwood> Arnaud: summarizes the debate
Arnaud Le Hors: summarizes the debate ←
18:20:40 <sandro> strawpoll: if you post an image to an LDPC: (1) it becomes a member of the collection, (2) metadata about it becomes a member of the collection, (3) dont' do this, do something else.
STRAWPOLL: if you post an image to an LDPC: (1) it becomes a member of the collection, (2) metadata about it becomes a member of the collection, (3) dont' do this, do something else. ←
18:21:14 <sandro> +1 +1 0
Sandro Hawke: +1 +1 0 ←
18:21:43 <SteveBattle> (+1,+1,0)
Steve Battle: (+1,+1,0) ←
18:21:47 <davidwood> rgarcia: How does the server keep state? It could be complex.
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: How does the server keep state? It could be complex. ←
18:21:52 <Ashok> 1,0,0
Ashok Malhotra: 1,0,0 ←
18:21:56 <cygri> -1 +1 0 (the -1 assumes that the member has no turtle variant)
Richard Cyganiak: -1 +1 0 (the -1 assumes that the member has no turtle variant) ←
18:22:00 <rgarcia> s/rgarcia/mesteban/
18:22:22 <ericP> 010
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 010 ←
18:22:24 <SteveS> +1, -1, -1
Steve Speicher: +1, -1, 0 ←
18:22:26 <rgarcia> +1, 0, 0
Raúl García Castro: +1, 0, 0 ←
18:22:27 <cody> -1,-1,+1 (or I just still don't get it)
Cody Burleson: -1,-1,+1 (or I just still don't get it) ←
18:22:31 <JohnArwe> +1, -0.5, -1
18:22:34 <ericP> 0, +1, 0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 0, +1, 0 ←
18:22:34 <bblfish> mhh. I think it helps to write this out
Henry Story: mhh. I think it helps to write this out ←
18:22:38 <roger> 0, 0.5, 1
Roger Menday: 0, 0.5, 1 ←
18:22:39 <betehess> 1, -1, -1
Alexandre Bertails: 1, -1, -1 ←
18:22:42 <TallTed> +1 -1 +1 a collection of (it, metadata) becomes "the" member
Ted Thibodeau: +1 -1 +1 a collection of (it, metadata) becomes "the" member ←
18:22:43 <mesteban> -1, +1, 0
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: -1, +1, 0 ←
18:22:45 <davidwood> +1, 0, 0 (the server should decide whether is wants to be complex)
+1, 0, 0 (the server should decide whether is wants to be complex) ←
18:22:50 <nmihindu> +1, +1, 0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1, +1, 0 ←
18:22:53 <bblfish> One should write up both proposals I think.
Henry Story: One should write up both proposals I think. ←
18:22:56 <davidwood> Arnaud: We are all over the map.
Arnaud Le Hors: We are all over the map. ←
18:23:12 <davidwood> Knives come out. People run.
Knives come out. People run. ←
18:23:15 <SteveS> s/+1, -1, -1/+1, -1, 0/
18:23:57 <davidwood> Arnaud: We need to discuss this, possibly with booze.
Arnaud Le Hors: We need to discuss this, possibly with booze. ←
18:24:37 <sandro> cygri: some people say if I post to an LDPC exactly that thing should become a member of a container -vs- whatever I post, I want to make sure an LDPR was created
Richard Cyganiak: some people say if I post to an LDPC exactly that thing should become a member of a container -vs- whatever I post, I want to make sure an LDPR was created [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:24:47 <davidwood> cygri: The disagreement is between POSTing a member to a container vs. POSTing a member to a container and being assured about getting some Turtle.
Richard Cyganiak: The disagreement is between POSTing a member to a container vs. POSTing a member to a container and being assured about getting some Turtle. ←
18:24:49 <rgarcia> q+
Raúl García Castro: q+ ←
18:25:22 <davidwood> ericP: There is a third option if the binary goes into a different container.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: There is a third option if the binary goes into a different container. ←
18:25:50 <davidwood> …and the metadata is augmented with the location of the binary.
…and the metadata is augmented with the location of the binary. ←
18:25:57 <mesteban> +1 to ericP
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 to ericP ←
18:26:43 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
18:27:11 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
18:27:30 <davidwood> rgarcia: There are ways to ensure you only have one URI for the binary and its metadata (e.g. query string)
Raúl García Castro: There are ways to ensure you only have one URI for the binary and its metadata (e.g. query string) ←
18:27:40 <SteveS> q+ I need 30 seconds
Steve Speicher: q+ I need 30 seconds ←
18:27:59 <mesteban> +1 to rgarcia, we could use a single URI and stick to content negotiation
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 to rgarcia, we could use a single URI and stick to content negotiation ←
18:28:00 <TallTed> restating my option (3) -- a new collection becomes a member of the existing collection, with "primary" member being the uploaded file, and "secondary" member being the metadata resource. a GET on new collection delivers whichever member matches requested MIME, with preference to "primary"
Ted Thibodeau: restating my option (3) -- a new collection becomes a member of the existing collection, with "primary" member being the uploaded file, and "secondary" member being the metadata resource. a GET on new collection delivers whichever member matches requested MIME, with preference to "primary" ←
18:28:00 <davidwood> q+ SteveBattle
q+ SteveBattle ←
18:28:13 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
18:28:49 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
18:28:53 <SteveS> +q
Steve Speicher: +q ←
18:29:54 <davidwood> roger: In the pagination discussion, we said that we wanted to have other types of collections (beyond LDPCs).
Roger Menday: In the pagination discussion, we said that we wanted to have other types of collections (beyond LDPCs). ←
18:31:19 <davidwood> …we might want to have different types of resources (e.g. literals vs. URIs)
…we might want to have different types of resources (e.g. literals vs. URIs) ←
18:31:24 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
18:31:40 <Arnaud> ack , Steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack , Steves ←
18:31:48 <Arnaud> ack
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ←
18:31:53 <Arnaud> q=
Arnaud Le Hors: q= ←
18:32:01 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
18:32:04 <ericP> queue=
Eric Prud'hommeaux: queue= ←
18:32:23 <davidwood> SteveS: Maybe we need Aggregate Containers that have special behavior.
Steve Speicher: Maybe we need Aggregate Containers that have special behavior. ←
18:33:43 <davidwood> Arnaud: Let's try to find an easy issue
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's try to find an easy issue ←
18:34:00 <davidwood> cygri: Pagination needs a concrete proposal first.
Richard Cyganiak: Pagination needs a concrete proposal first. ←
18:34:25 <SteveS> I was saying that in my implementation, I might have a Container of type Aggregate that can enumerate the meta resources
Steve Speicher: I was saying that in my implementation, I might have a Container of type Aggregate that can enumerate the meta resources ←
18:34:41 <cygri> ISSUE-33?
18:34:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- open ←
18:34:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 ←
18:35:20 <davidwood> subTopic: ISSUE-33: Pagination for non-container resources
18:35:42 <davidwood> cygri: Summarizes the debate.
Richard Cyganiak: Summarizes the debate. ←
18:37:05 <davidwood> Sandro tries to draw the proposal. SteveS tries to take a picture of the whiteboard to upload it to his LDP server, but cygri wrestles him to the ground.
Sandro tries to draw the proposal. SteveS tries to take a picture of the whiteboard to upload it to his LDP server, but cygri wrestles him to the ground. ←
18:38:24 <davidwood> cygri: We want to be able to pull out properties that deal with like concepts and page them.
Richard Cyganiak: We want to be able to pull out properties that deal with like concepts and page them. ←
18:39:20 <davidwood> …Can the client specify the page size or ordering? The one thing you really need is just a pointer from the resource to the first page and from each page to the next. This is the minimal proposal.
…Can the client specify the page size or ordering? The one thing you really need is just a pointer from the resource to the first page and from each page to the next. This is the minimal proposal. ←
18:40:33 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
18:41:02 <davidwood> Sandro: Each very long resource could be broken into PropertyPages, which are identified with triples.
Sandro Hawke: Each very long resource could be broken into PropertyPages, which are identified with triples. ←
18:42:01 <SteveBattle> q-
Steve Battle: q- ←
18:42:17 <davidwood> cygri: Can you POST to a paged resource? That seems orthogonal. You would probably POST or PATCH to the parent resource.
Richard Cyganiak: Can you POST to a paged resource? That seems orthogonal. You would probably POST or PATCH to the parent resource. ←
18:42:32 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
18:42:45 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
18:44:11 <davidwood> Arnaud: Someone asked about the order of pagination. In the case of a container, this is the membership. What can you paginate over if you don't have the concept of membership?
Arnaud Le Hors: Someone asked about the order of pagination. In the case of a container, this is the membership. What can you paginate over if you don't have the concept of membership? ←
18:44:26 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
18:44:39 <davidwood> SteveBattle: I don't think you should be forced to use aggregation.
Steve Battle: I don't think you should be forced to use aggregation. ←
18:44:55 <davidwood> SteveS: It could be as simple as a single triple.
Steve Speicher: It could be as simple as a single triple. ←
18:45:07 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:45:08 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
18:45:15 <Ashok> q
Ashok Malhotra: q ←
18:45:20 <davidwood> q+ to ask whether PropertyPages would need to operate on a single predicate
q+ to ask whether PropertyPages would need to operate on a single predicate ←
18:45:28 <davidwood> q+ Ashok
q+ Ashok ←
18:45:32 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
18:46:58 <davidwood> roger and JohnArwe discuss something related to container creation and how someone might add links to existing resources.
roger and JohnArwe discuss something related to container creation and how someone might add links to existing resources. ←
18:47:10 <SteveBattle> I agree that we shouldn't be forced into using (weak) aggregation just because we have a repeating relation.
Steve Battle: I agree that we shouldn't be forced into using (weak) aggregation just because we have a repeating relation. ←
18:47:29 <davidwood> roger: Examples in issue-34
Roger Menday: Examples in ISSUE-34 ←
18:47:32 <davidwood> issue-34?
18:47:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- closed ←
18:47:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34 ←
18:47:49 <davidwood> JohnArwe: Those are supposed to be single-issue examples.
John Arwe: Those are supposed to be single-issue examples. ←
18:48:10 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
18:48:10 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask whether PropertyPages would need to operate on a single predicate
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask whether PropertyPages would need to operate on a single predicate ←
18:48:50 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
18:49:20 <davidwood> davidwood: Pagination might occur based only on length, as determined by the server or a client request.
David Wood: Pagination might occur based only on length, as determined by the server or a client request. ←
18:50:01 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
18:50:21 <davidwood> Arnaud: We want to ensure we don't solve use cases that aren't real.
Arnaud Le Hors: We want to ensure we don't solve use cases that aren't real. ←
18:51:37 <SteveBattle> What about paginating over rdf:_1, rdf:_2, rdf:_3, ... ? :)
Steve Battle: What about paginating over rdf:_1, rdf:_2, rdf:_3, ... ? :) ←
18:51:41 <davidwood> Ashok: Stephen has properties and also thousands of friends. A client might be on a small screen, so the server creates (transitory, virtual) PropertyPages.
Ashok Malhotra: Stephen has properties and also thousands of friends. A client might be on a small screen, so the server creates (transitory, virtual) PropertyPages. ←
18:51:59 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
18:52:05 <bblfish> I think betehess had a notion of having pagination being a list
Henry Story: I think betehess had a notion of having pagination being a list ←
18:52:05 <davidwood> …This means that PropertyPages can't be independently modified.
…This means that PropertyPages can't be independently modified. ←
18:52:35 <davidwood> roger: If you have PropertyPages for Stephen's friends, that becomes a concept so you can POST to it.
Roger Menday: If you have PropertyPages for Stephen's friends, that becomes a concept so you can POST to it. ←
18:52:37 <betehess> rdf:list-s are prefect for the job, yes
Alexandre Bertails: rdf:list-s are prefect for the job, yes ←
18:53:06 <bblfish> <> pages> (<?page1> <?page2>> <?page3>> )
Henry Story: <> pages> (<?page1> <?page2>> <?page3>> ) ←
18:53:16 <SteveS> +q
Steve Speicher: +q ←
18:53:17 <JohnArwe> +q
18:53:25 <betehess> using an rdf:list, you have ordering, and pagination becomes totally transparent
Alexandre Bertails: using an rdf:list, you have ordering, and pagination becomes totally transparent ←
18:53:25 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
18:53:59 <bblfish> betehess: what does a paginated list look like? ( if you can write it out in IRC )
Alexandre Bertails: what does a paginated list look like? ( if you can write it out in IRC ) [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
18:54:01 <davidwood> SteveS: The motivation of the current paging support was to narrow paging to containers, but the model is similar for other use cases.
Steve Speicher: The motivation of the current paging support was to narrow paging to containers, but the model is similar for other use cases. ←
18:54:25 <davidwood> …There is already a link: header for paging.
…There is already a link: header for paging. ←
18:55:08 <betehess> bblfish, just a regular list, but when you encounter a URL instead of a blank node, you know that you have to follow this url to find the rest of the list
Alexandre Bertails: bblfish, just a regular list, but when you encounter a URL instead of a blank node, you know that you have to follow this url to find the rest of the list ←
18:55:50 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
18:55:57 <betehess> a Linked Data client should be prepared to read that kind of data anyway, and it's already standardized, nothing new here
Alexandre Bertails: a Linked Data client should be prepared to read that kind of data anyway, and it's already standardized, nothing new here ←
18:55:57 <davidwood> Arnaud: This could be simplified by recognizing that there are use cases for paging, so we might want to generalize the existing solution for containers.
Arnaud Le Hors: This could be simplified by recognizing that there are use cases for paging, so we might want to generalize the existing solution for containers. ←
18:56:28 <davidwood> JohnArwe: The only controversial part is to make that the *only* way to accomplish the use cases.
John Arwe: The only controversial part is to make that the *only* way to accomplish the use cases. ←
18:56:44 <bblfish> Arnaud's suggestion seems generally a good idea. If pagination works well it should work for any resource.
Henry Story: Arnaud's suggestion seems generally a good idea. If pagination works well it should work for any resource. ←
18:57:00 <davidwood> …not a fan of MUST NOT restrictions unless they are very well understood.
…not a fan of MUST NOT restrictions unless they are very well understood. ←
18:57:28 <davidwood> roger: Anything that smells like reification becomes immediately controversial.
Roger Menday: Anything that smells like reification becomes immediately controversial. ←
18:57:47 <JohnArwe> @roger: not the kind of controversy I thought you meant
John Arwe: @roger: not the kind of controversy I thought you meant ←
18:57:59 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
18:58:13 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
18:58:41 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-33 by saying that the same pagination mechanism defined for LDPCs be adopted for LDPRs.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 by saying that the same pagination mechanism defined for LDPCs be adopted for LDPRs. ←
18:58:47 <sandro> cygri: I'm okay with this, as long as we can improve the existing mechanism
Richard Cyganiak: I'm okay with this, as long as we can improve the existing mechanism [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:58:52 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
18:58:52 <sandro> Arnaud: yes, we can.
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, we can. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:58:54 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
18:58:54 <SteveBattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
18:58:55 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
18:58:57 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
18:59:00 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
18:59:00 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
18:59:03 <davidwood> +0.5
+0.5 ←
18:59:07 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:59:07 <mesteban> +0.5
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0.5 ←
18:59:07 <cygri> ISSUE-18?
18:59:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-18 -- container membership and robust pagination -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-18 -- container membership and robust pagination -- open ←
18:59:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/18
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/18 ←
18:59:24 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
18:59:25 <JohnArwe> +1
18:59:26 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
18:59:29 <betehess> 0
19:00:05 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 by saying that the same pagination mechanism defined for LDPCs be adopted for LDPRs.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 by saying that the same pagination mechanism defined for LDPCs be adopted for LDPRs. ←
19:00:11 <davidwood> ISSUE-33: Pagination for non-container resources
ISSUE-33: Pagination for non-container resources ←
19:00:11 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Notes added to ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources. ←
19:00:14 <davidwood> issue-33
19:00:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- open ←
19:00:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 ←
19:00:32 <davidwood> roger: This decision is being rushed.
Roger Menday: This decision is being rushed. ←
19:00:51 <davidwood> CLOSE ISSUE-33
19:00:52 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources. ←
19:00:55 <davidwood> link?
link? ←
19:01:12 <sandro> rrsagent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, pointer? ←
19:01:33 <roger> -1
Roger Menday: -1 ←
19:01:41 <SteveBattle> Aggregations should only be used to represent mereology
Steve Battle: Aggregations should only be used to represent mereology ←
19:02:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ldp-irc ←
19:03:03 <davidwood> Arnaud and roger discuss the opportunity to reopen this issue if roger remains unhappy with it after the editors update the draft.
Arnaud and roger discuss the opportunity to reopen this issue if roger remains unhappy with it after the editors update the draft. ←
19:03:41 <JohnArwe> FWIW, wrt pagesize and the existing link headers I don't see anything promising in the link relations registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml ... I see first, last, next, prev all of which appear to have come from RFC 5005 and those are now registered via RFC 5988.
John Arwe: FWIW, wrt pagesize and the existing link headers I don't see anything promising in the link relations registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml ... I see first, last, next, prev all of which appear to have come from RFC 5005 and those are now registered via RFC 5988. ←
19:04:47 <sandro> roger: My concern is that Container pagination might not actually work for Resource Pagination, despite SteveS claiming it does.
Roger Menday: My concern is that Container pagination might not actually work for Resource Pagination, despite SteveS claiming it does. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:05:42 <SteveS> This proposal was originally discussed on Feb 11th btw http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-02-11#Issue__2d_33_Pagination_for_non__2d_container_resources
Steve Speicher: This proposal was originally discussed on Feb 11th btw http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-02-11#Issue__2d_33_Pagination_for_non__2d_container_resources ←
19:06:11 <sandro> davidwood: summarize objection process
David Wood: summarize objection process [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:07:18 <davidwood> Arnaud: We can spend some time after hours and also tomorrow to see if we need to reopen ISSUE-33.
Arnaud Le Hors: We can spend some time after hours and also tomorrow to see if we need to reopen ISSUE-33. ←
19:07:43 <davidwood> WG breaks for 25 minutes
WG breaks for 25 minutes ←
19:33:50 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(No events recorded for 26 minutes)
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
19:34:36 <Arnaud> "must-haves": 15, 17, 32, 37, 38
Arnaud Le Hors: "must-haves": 15, 17, 32, 37, 38 ←
19:34:51 <cygri> Arnaud: Let's get back to our list of high-priority issues.
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's get back to our list of high-priority issues. ←
19:35:16 <cygri> ISSUE-32?
19:35:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open ←
19:35:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 ←
19:35:26 <cygri> ISSUE-37?
19:35:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open ←
19:35:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 ←
19:35:30 <cygri> ISSUE-38?
19:35:30 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- filtered representations and inlining -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-38 -- filtered representations and inlining -- open ←
19:35:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/38
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/38 ←
19:36:03 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-32: Discovering LDPRs, LDPCs, and their supported features
19:36:33 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32
John Arwe: ISSUE-32">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32 ←
19:37:37 <cygri> John's wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32#Affordances
John's wiki page: ISSUE-32#Affordances">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32#Affordances ←
19:38:11 <SteveBattle> If you try a GET, and get back RDF that says it's an LDPR or LDPC doesn't that solve the first part of the issue?
Steve Battle: If you try a GET, and get back RDF that says it's an LDPR or LDPC doesn't that solve the first part of the issue? ←
19:38:23 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
19:38:38 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
19:38:48 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
19:39:53 <Arnaud> cygri: restates the need for discovery in REST
Richard Cyganiak: restates the need for discovery in REST [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
19:40:44 <Arnaud> cygri: one possibility is to add triples to express what can be done
Richard Cyganiak: one possibility is to add triples to express what can be done [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
19:41:01 <Arnaud> cygri: another is to use the option method
Richard Cyganiak: another is to use the option method [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
19:41:26 <Arnaud> cygri: erik said you should use mediatypes
Richard Cyganiak: erik said you should use mediatypes [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
19:41:49 <Arnaud> cygri: there are different ways but it's good to have a way to find out before trying
Richard Cyganiak: there are different ways but it's good to have a way to find out before trying [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
19:41:52 <cygri> sandro: I like putting this information into the RDF
Sandro Hawke: I like putting this information into the RDF ←
19:42:02 <cygri> Ashok: what if it's an image?
Ashok Malhotra: what if it's an image? ←
19:42:07 <cygri> sandro: Put it into the metadata.
Sandro Hawke: Put it into the metadata. ←
19:42:30 <cygri> JohnArwe: What if different members have different interaction capabilities?
John Arwe: What if different members have different interaction capabilities? ←
19:42:47 <cygri> sandro: You learn by GETting each resource.
Sandro Hawke: You learn by GETting each resource. ←
19:43:34 <cygri> davidwood: What we do [in Callimachus], you can start at the top, discover containers, then members, and discover everything on the server.
David Wood: What we do [in Callimachus], you can start at the top, discover containers, then members, and discover everything on the server. ←
19:43:42 <cygri> ... We don't quite have that in LDP at the moment.
... We don't quite have that in LDP at the moment. ←
19:43:47 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
19:43:48 <cygri> ... Discoverability is a good thing.
... Discoverability is a good thing. ←
19:44:00 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
19:44:40 <cygri> SteveS: Putting this in RDF, HEAD, headers, etc seem all fine.
Steve Speicher: Putting this in RDF, HEAD, headers, etc seem all fine. ←
19:44:48 <cygri> ... Should use HTTP-level options where possible
... Should use HTTP-level options where possible ←
19:44:52 <JohnArwe> q+
19:45:05 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
19:45:30 <cygri> SteveBattle: If this info is in RDF, then we need to define it in the LDP ontology.
Steve Battle: If this info is in RDF, then we need to define it in the LDP ontology. ←
19:45:42 <cygri> Arnaud: Does the LDP ontology become part of the spec?
Arnaud Le Hors: Does the LDP ontology become part of the spec? ←
19:45:46 <cygri> JohnArwe: Yes.
19:45:55 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
19:46:00 <cygri> Arnaud: Can we go back to John's wiki page?
Arnaud Le Hors: Can we go back to John's wiki page? ←
19:46:01 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32#Affordances
ISSUE-32#Affordances">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32#Affordances ←
19:46:48 <cygri> JohnArwe: I went through the spec, trying to find everything that a client might possibly want to introspect.
John Arwe: I went through the spec, trying to find everything that a client might possibly want to introspect. ←
19:47:09 <cygri> ... If the spec says how to discover optional features, then I put it in.
... If the spec says how to discover optional features, then I put it in. ←
19:47:48 <cygri> ... There's also POWDER as another way of discovering things.
... There's also POWDER as another way of discovering things. ←
19:47:54 <nmihindu> nmihindu_ has joined #ldp.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: nmihindu_ has joined #ldp. ←
19:48:13 <cygri> ... The more resources your app is dealing with, the more resources it would need to introspect.
... The more resources your app is dealing with, the more resources it would need to introspect. ←
19:48:44 <cygri> ... POWDER allows making assertions about sets of resources. Scalable
... POWDER allows making assertions about sets of resources. Scalable ←
19:49:19 <cygri> davidwood: The driving use case for PICS (?), POWDER's preprocessor, was porn
David Wood: The driving use case for PICS (?), POWDER's preprocessor, was porn ←
19:49:39 <cygri> ... State whether a resource is NSFW
... State whether a resource is NSFW ←
19:50:02 <cygri> ... The porn guys liked it, but the browser guys wouldn't implement it
... The porn guys liked it, but the browser guys wouldn't implement it ←
19:50:44 <cygri> ... POWDER a successor. Lacks a strong use case. The POWDER guys would be happy if you find one!
... POWDER a successor. Lacks a strong use case. The POWDER guys would be happy if you find one! ←
19:52:33 <cygri> SteveS: Someone should take an action to make another pass over John's wiki page, propose terms etc
Steve Speicher: Someone should take an action to make another pass over John's wiki page, propose terms etc ←
19:52:56 <cygri> Arnaud: Is this the direction the group needs to go in?
Arnaud Le Hors: Is this the direction the group wants to go in? ←
19:53:05 <cygri> sandro: Do clients benefit from all of these things?
Sandro Hawke: Do clients benefit from all of these things? ←
19:53:05 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
19:53:20 <Arnaud> s/needs/wants/
19:53:42 <cygri> ... In my mind, you have general-purpose and domain-specific LDP servers
... In my mind, you have general-purpose and domain-specific LDP servers ←
19:53:58 <cygri> ... Will they implement everything, or the minimum they can get away with?
... Will they implement everything, or the minimum they can get away with? ←
19:54:11 <cygri> JohnArwe: Not just *one* class of domain-specific LDP servers
John Arwe: Not just *one* class of domain-specific LDP servers ←
19:54:12 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
19:55:49 <Arnaud> cygri: discoverability is especially important for write operations
Richard Cyganiak: discoverability is especially important for write operations [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
19:56:43 <JohnArwe> q+
19:57:07 <nmihindu>_ is now known as nmihindu
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: _ is now known as nmihindu ←
19:57:34 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
19:57:40 <JohnArwe> q-
19:57:47 <cygri> SteveS: Capabilities and permissions can be dynamic. PUT doesn't show up as allowed method if you don't have the permission
Steve Speicher: Capabilities and permissions can be dynamic. PUT doesn't show up as allowed method if you don't have the permission ←
19:58:32 <cygri> sandro: POWDER says, "all resources with this URI template have this property"
Sandro Hawke: POWDER says, "all resources with this URI template have this property" ←
19:58:57 <cygri> JohnArwe: So we'd have the same ontology, but a different way of saying it
John Arwe: So we'd have the same ontology, but a different way of saying it ←
19:58:58 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
19:59:44 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
20:00:07 <cygri> JohnArwe: We may not have to do anything different about POWDER. Just define the ontology and mention that POWDER exists as an option
John Arwe: We may not have to do anything different about POWDER. Just define the ontology and mention that POWDER exists as an option ←
20:00:16 <cygri> q-
q- ←
20:00:36 <cygri> sandro: The hard part is clustering of features into labelled profiles
Sandro Hawke: The hard part is clustering of features into labelled profiles ←
20:00:45 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
20:01:13 <cygri> JohnArwe: I could take an action to define the ontology
John Arwe: I could take an action to define the ontology ←
20:01:37 <cygri> SteveS: me too
Steve Speicher: me too ←
20:02:51 <Arnaud> action: johnarwe to come up with an ontology proposal for discovery
ACTION: johnarwe to come up with an ontology proposal for discovery ←
20:02:51 <trackbot> Error finding 'johnarwe'. You can review and register nicknames at <http>://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'johnarwe'. You can review and register nicknames at <http>://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>. ←
20:03:35 <cygri> JohnArwe: I assume we could put a version of this table into one of the extra documents
John Arwe: I assume we could put a version of this table into one of the extra documents ←
20:03:48 <Arnaud> action: john to come up with an ontology proposal for discovery
ACTION: john to come up with an ontology proposal for discovery ←
20:03:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Come up with an ontology proposal for discovery [on John Arwe - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-51 - Come up with an ontology proposal for discovery [on John Arwe - due 2013-03-21]. ←
20:05:29 <cygri> JohnArwe: So we leave the issue open.
John Arwe: So we leave the issue open. ←
20:05:36 <cygri> ACTION-51?
20:05:36 <trackbot> ACTION-51 -- John Arwe to come up with an ontology proposal for discovery -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-51 -- John Arwe to come up with an ontology proposal for discovery -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN ←
20:05:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/51
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/51 ←
20:05:39 <nmihindu> JohnArwe, this might be interesting to look for binary resources link header too http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#httplink
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: JohnArwe, this might be interesting to look for binary resources link header too http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#httplink ←
20:05:52 <bblfish> Its late here. I'll join back tomorrow I think.
Henry Story: Its late here. I'll join back tomorrow I think. ←
20:06:00 <Arnaud> "must-haves": 15, 17, 32, 37, 38
Arnaud Le Hors: "must-haves": 15, 17, 32, 37, 38 ←
20:06:05 <cygri> ISSUE-37?
20:06:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open ←
20:06:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 ←
20:06:08 <cygri> ISSUE-38?
20:06:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- filtered representations and inlining -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-38 -- filtered representations and inlining -- open ←
20:06:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/38
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/38 ←
20:06:25 <cygri> Arnaud: I don't want to talk about ISSUE-37.
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't want to talk about ISSUE-37. ←
20:06:51 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-38: Filtered representations and inlining
20:07:15 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
20:07:45 <cygri> Arnaud: The spec provides a mechanism to specify non-member properties on a container.
Arnaud Le Hors: The spec provides a mechanism to specify non-member properties on a container. ←
20:08:05 <cygri> ... From what I remember, Roger felt this is limiting
... From what I remember, Roger felt this is limiting ←
20:08:23 <cygri> roger: The number of non-member properties could be massive.
Roger Menday: The number of non-member properties could be massive. ←
20:08:41 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
20:09:01 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
20:09:53 <SteveBattle> The corresponding use-case: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/#use-case-filter-resource-description
Steve Battle: The corresponding use-case: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/#use-case-filter-resource-description ←
20:11:04 <JohnArwe> q+
20:13:20 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
20:13:52 <cygri> cygri: (1) why do we call out the possibility of including extra triples for LDPC members but not for other resources? (2) would be nice if we could flag that the included extra triples are in fact all the triples the server knows about the member
Richard Cyganiak: (1) why do we call out the possibility of including extra triples for LDPC members but not for other resources? (2) would be nice if we could flag that the included extra triples are in fact all the triples the server knows about the member ←
20:13:59 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
20:14:39 <cygri> JohnArwe: This feature is mentioned for containers because that's where we saw it coming up in our products. No intention to be limiting. The server can always include extra triples.
John Arwe: This feature is mentioned for containers because that's where we saw it coming up in our products. No intention to be limiting. The server can always include extra triples. ←
20:16:08 <cygri> ... Such a flag might not give you complete information anyway; etag headers etc.
... Such a flag might not give you complete information anyway; etag headers etc. ←
20:16:14 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
20:16:45 <cygri> SteveS: Other resolved issues may already answer some of this.
Steve Speicher: Other resolved issues may already answer some of this. ←
20:17:18 <cygri> ... For example, next page being rdf:nil could indicate there's no more triples
... For example, next page being rdf:nil could indicate there's no more triples ←
20:18:20 <cygri> ... We support filtering and inlining in some of our implementations and other specs. We see the need, and it works. But speccing this is difficult.
... We support filtering and inlining in some of our implementations and other specs. We see the need, and it works. But speccing this is difficult. ←
20:18:45 <cygri> ... Given the timeline, I fear we might not be able to get there in such a short period of time
... Given the timeline, I fear we might not be able to get there in such a short period of time ←
20:18:53 <cygri> Arnaud: We'd need a proposal.
Arnaud Le Hors: We'd need a proposal. ←
20:19:18 <cygri> ... On the mailing list it was asked: How powerful do you want this system to be?
... On the mailing list it was asked: How powerful do you want this system to be? ←
20:19:37 <cygri> ... You could go all the way to an all-powerful query system.
... You could go all the way to an all-powerful query system. ←
20:19:55 <SteveS> For references, here's how I've don't "inline" of resources http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification#Selective_Property_Values
Steve Speicher: For references, here's how I've don't "inline" of resources http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification#Selective_Property_Values ←
20:19:56 <cygri> ... Without a specific use case and proposal, it will be difficult to make progress
... Without a specific use case and proposal, it will be difficult to make progress ←
20:20:33 <cygri> ... Roger, Richard, do you want to come up with a specific proposal?
... Roger, Richard, do you want to come up with a specific proposal? ←
20:20:40 <SteveS> Here's the "filter" language (build up query URL) http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification#Query_Capabilities
Steve Speicher: Here's the "filter" language (build up query URL) http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification#Query_Capabilities ←
20:21:06 <rgarcia> q+
Raúl García Castro: q+ ←
20:21:12 <cygri> ... Can we agree to postpone the issue?
... Can we agree to postpone the issue? ←
20:21:18 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
20:21:56 <cygri> rgarcia: Flag this as something that's useful, out of scope now, but can be done later
Raúl García Castro: Flag this as something that's useful, out of scope now, but can be done later ←
20:22:12 <cygri> Arnaud: I'd like to talk about possible future working group
Arnaud Le Hors: I'd like to talk about possible future working group ←
20:22:29 <cygri> ... Good first step for LDP2-WG would be a draft charter with a feature list
... Good first step for LDP2-WG would be a draft charter with a feature list ←
20:23:16 <cygri> ... Perhaps we should have a wiki page with 2.0 features
... Perhaps we should have a wiki page with 2.0 features ←
20:23:29 <cygri> davidwood: Mark issues as postponed
David Wood: Mark issues as postponed ←
20:23:42 <mesteban> +1 to Arnaud
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 to Arnaud ←
20:24:31 <cygri> [discussion of new WG vs. rechartering]
[discussion of new WG vs. rechartering] ←
20:27:33 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close Issue-38, putting this on the wish list (to be created) for LDP++
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-38, putting this on the wish list (to be created) for LDP++ ←
20:28:07 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
20:28:09 <JohnArwe> +1
20:28:10 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
20:28:12 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
20:28:13 <SteveBattle> 0
Steve Battle: 0 ←
20:28:16 <davidwood> 0
David Wood: 0 ←
20:28:16 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
20:28:17 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
20:28:18 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
20:28:19 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
20:28:31 <roger> +1 (I still don't like non-member-properties )
Roger Menday: +1 (I still don't like non-member-properties ) ←
20:28:35 <cygri> +1 but I will raise a new issue for the "are members completely inlined?" flag
+1 but I will raise a new issue for the "are members completely inlined?" flag ←
20:29:20 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-38, putting this on the wish list (to be created) for LDP++
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-38, putting this on the wish list (to be created) for LDP++ ←
20:29:21 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:30:36 <Arnaud> action: roger to create a wish list wiki page with issue-38
ACTION: roger to create a wish list wiki page with ISSUE-38 ←
20:30:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Create a wish list wiki page with issue-38 [on Roger Menday - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-52 - Create a wish list wiki page with ISSUE-38 [on Roger Menday - due 2013-03-21]. ←
20:31:38 <cygri> ISSUE-37?
20:31:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open ←
20:31:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 ←
20:31:52 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-37: What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model?
20:31:58 <Arnaud> "must-haves": 15, 17, 32, 37
Arnaud Le Hors: "must-haves": 15, 17, 32, 37 ←
20:32:00 <cygri> Arnaud: Do we really want to talk about this?
Arnaud Le Hors: Do we really want to talk about this? ←
20:32:58 <davidwood> q+ to discuss the spec intro section
David Wood: q+ to discuss the spec intro section ←
20:33:26 <cygri> ... Erik and I felt that nailing down the model would clarify lots of things, expose unspoken assumptions regarding what the spec is about, and so on
... Erik and I felt that nailing down the model would clarify lots of things, expose unspoken assumptions regarding what the spec is about, and so on ←
20:33:51 <cygri> ... There was lots of effort poured into this, and it didn't seem like we were converging
... There was lots of effort poured into this, and it didn't seem like we were converging ←
20:34:28 <cygri> ... So maybe we need to keep working on the details of the specification, create a test suite, and identify holes and misinterpretations that way
... So maybe we need to keep working on the details of the specification, create a test suite, and identify holes and misinterpretations that way ←
20:34:35 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
20:35:16 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
20:35:16 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss the spec intro section
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to discuss the spec intro section ←
20:35:29 <cygri> davidwood: I have an action to review the UC&R document. I've begun that process.
David Wood: I have an action to review the UC&R document. I've begun that process. ←
20:35:46 <cygri> ... The core spec does not have a good introduction.
... The core spec does not have a good introduction. ←
20:36:30 <cygri> ... The UC&R intro is pretty good language, pretty clear.
... The UC&R intro is pretty good language, pretty clear. ←
20:37:18 <cygri> ... I propose that the UC&R intro should be lifted into the core spec.
... I propose that the UC&R intro should be lifted into the core spec. ←
20:37:53 <cygri> SteveBattle: My intro was largely taken from the original use case submission.
Steve Battle: My intro was largely taken from the original use case submission. ←
20:38:36 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
20:38:41 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
20:38:53 <cygri> davidwood: People will start with the REC spec, therefore it should have a good introduction.
David Wood: People will start with the REC spec, therefore it should have a good introduction. ←
20:39:13 <SteveBattle> q-
Steve Battle: q- ←
20:39:22 <cygri> SteveS: I recommend against reading the ISSUE-37 wiki page. It's confusing.
Steve Speicher: I recommend against reading the ISSUE-37 wiki page. It's confusing. ←
20:40:28 <cygri> ... I'm not sure what the proposal is. What part is intended to be replaced?
... I'm not sure what the proposal is. What part is intended to be replaced? ←
20:40:58 <cygri> Arnaud: I think we all agree that a new introduction/motivation for the spc would be good.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we all agree that a new introduction/motivation for the spec would be good. ←
20:41:03 <cygri> s/spc/spec/
20:41:38 <cygri> davidwood: Explain the model concisely in the introduction.
David Wood: Explain the model concisely in the introduction. ←
20:42:17 <cygri> Ashok: I thought we had pretty good agreement regarding the model.
Ashok Malhotra: I thought we had pretty good agreement regarding the model. ←
20:43:06 <cygri> ... You should talk about it to see if we have agreement.
... You should talk about it to see if we have agreement. ←
20:43:41 <cygri> SteveS: People are not disagreeing with the model. They are disagreeing with my way of describing the model.
Steve Speicher: People are not disagreeing with the model. They are disagreeing with my way of describing the model. ←
20:43:49 <cygri> Ashok: I'm not sure that it's just editorial.
Ashok Malhotra: I'm not sure that it's just editorial. ←
20:44:25 <roger> i disagree with some aspects of the model :)
Roger Menday: i disagree with some aspects of the model :) ←
20:45:51 <cygri> [discussion on how to make progress]
[discussion on how to make progress] ←
20:49:09 <Arnaud> action: steves to draft an introduction describing the LDP model for the WG to review
ACTION: steves to draft an introduction describing the LDP model for the WG to review ←
20:49:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Draft an introduction describing the LDP model for the WG to review [on Steve Speicher - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-53 - Draft an introduction describing the LDP model for the WG to review [on Steve Speicher - due 2013-03-21]. ←
20:49:59 <cygri> roger: I think that core LDP should be doing manipulation of linked data. We can layer the container thing on top of that.
Roger Menday: I think that core LDP should be doing manipulation of linked data. We can layer the container thing on top of that. ←
20:50:11 <cygri> ... It's weird that we introduce the notion of containers at the use case level.
... It's weird that we introduce the notion of containers at the use case level. ←
20:50:16 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
20:50:37 <cygri> ... It's like we decided the architecture before the use cases.
... It's like we decided the architecture before the use cases. ←
20:51:05 <cygri> ... I don't think containers really should be core.
... I don't think containers really should be core. ←
20:51:30 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
20:52:03 <cygri> ... The nested-container use case might be interesting to some here, but LDP has potentially a much bigger audience, around services
... The nested-container use case might be interesting to some here, but LDP has potentially a much bigger audience, around services ←
20:52:31 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
20:53:09 <cygri> Arnaud: The genesis of this group was to define common usage patterns for linked data.
Arnaud Le Hors: The genesis of this group was to define common usage patterns for linked data. ←
20:53:22 <cygri> ... So that people don't reinvent these things again and again.
... So that people don't reinvent these things again and again. ←
20:53:52 <cygri> davidwood: We have a number of different implementations that need a container-like thing.
David Wood: We have a number of different implementations that need a container-like thing. ←
20:54:33 <cygri> roger: In our work we came up with containers as well. We called them progenitors and progeny.
Roger Menday: In our work we came up with containers as well. We called them progenitors and progeny. ←
20:54:58 <cygri> ... Besides this strong ancestry notion, we also want to have links across.
... Besides this strong ancestry notion, we also want to have links across. ←
20:55:10 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
20:55:17 <cygri> ... In LDP we only handle that via PATCH.
... In LDP we only handle that via PATCH. ←
20:55:43 <cygri> SteveBattle: Containers came up in many use cases. It's how people want to use this.
Steve Battle: Containers came up in many user stories. It's how people want to use this. ←
20:55:46 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
20:55:59 <SteveBattle> s/use cases/user stories/
20:56:08 <cygri> SteveS: Roger, you use the word "service" a lot. Not sure if you mean the "shopping cart" sort of service.
Steve Speicher: Roger, you use the word "service" a lot. Not sure if you mean the "shopping cart" sort of service. ←
20:56:22 <cygri> ... I see that as a very different architecture from what linked data is
... I see that as a very different architecture from what linked data is ←
20:56:43 <cygri> ... In linked data you'd have a shopping cart resource that can be manipulated via LDP
... In linked data you'd have a shopping cart resource that can be manipulated via LDP ←
20:57:26 <cygri> roger: You can do a brilliant shopping cart with linked data and REST
Roger Menday: You can do a brilliant shopping cart with linked data and REST ←
20:57:43 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
20:58:44 <JohnArwe> cygri: would like to see output be what spec promises = how to update linked data
Richard Cyganiak: would like to see output be what spec promises = how to update linked data [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
20:59:15 <roger> cygri: wants LDP to add something to the 4 axioms of Linked Data
Richard Cyganiak: wants LDP to add something to the 4 axioms of Linked Data [ Scribe Assist by Roger Menday ] ←
20:59:36 <JohnArwe> ...container design, nested containers, posting to create new resources is all kind of orthogonal to "how to update linked data"
John Arwe: ...container design, nested containers, posting to create new resources is all kind of orthogonal to "how to update linked data" ←
21:00:20 <roger> cygri: thinks we can tweak the container concept a bit more to more towards this objective
Richard Cyganiak: thinks we can tweak the container concept a bit more to more towards this objective [ Scribe Assist by Roger Menday ] ←
21:00:26 <JohnArwe> ...we've tweaked it to allow more of the cross-resource linking, but I don't like the whole choice of terminology; aggr, composition, etc never existed in LD before, and they don't help me to do updates on LD
John Arwe: ...we've tweaked it to allow more of the cross-resource linking, but I don't like the whole choice of terminology; aggr, composition, etc never existed in LD before, and they don't help me to do updates on LD ←
21:02:01 <JohnArwe> arnaud plays back cygri's remarks to verify understanding
John Arwe: arnaud plays back cygri's remarks to verify understanding ←
21:02:38 <cody> q+
Cody Burleson: q+ ←
21:02:40 <roger> q+
Roger Menday: q+ ←
21:03:51 <Arnaud> ack cody
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cody ←
21:04:30 <cygri> cody: Is a container thought of as an LDP-specific object, or can it also be a domain object?
Cody Burleson: Is a container thought of as an LDP-specific object, or can it also be a domain object? ←
21:05:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, WG-meeting, in SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, WG-meeting, in SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM ←
21:05:02 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM has ended ←
21:05:02 <Zakim> Attendees were WG-meeting, bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were WG-meeting, bblfish ←
21:05:14 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
21:05:16 <cygri> JohnArwe: As long as it has the right interface, it can act as both
John Arwe: As long as it has the right interface, it can act as both ←
21:05:55 <cygri> roger: I appreciate that there's the container pattern.
Roger Menday: I appreciate that there's the container pattern. ←
21:06:32 <cygri> ... But if what we're doing is adding the fifth principle of linked data, then it should work for all properties.
... But if what we're doing is adding the fifth principle of linked data, then it should work for all properties. ←
21:06:54 <davidwood> q+
David Wood: q+ ←
21:07:09 <cygri> ... not just container membmership property
... not just container membmership property ←
21:07:39 <cygri> Arnaud: There's a tradeoff between something very minimalist and widely applicable, and something more specific
Arnaud Le Hors: There's a tradeoff between something very minimalist and widely applicable, and something more specific ←
21:07:54 <cygri> ... You could argue that some container stuff should be removed to a separate spec
... You could argue that some container stuff should be removed to a separate spec ←
21:08:08 <cygri> ... You could also argue that the discovery bit should be a separate package
... You could also argue that the discovery bit should be a separate package ←
21:08:16 <cygri> ... Specs can define conformance levels
... Specs can define conformance levels ←
21:08:26 <cygri> ... Just throwing this out as food for thought
... Just throwing this out as food for thought ←
21:08:31 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
21:08:52 <cygri> davidwood: To me a container is just some RDF that the server knows how to act upon
David Wood: To me a container is just some RDF that the server knows how to act upon ←
21:09:13 <cygri> topic: Planning for tomorrow
21:10:17 <cygri> Arnaud: Next F2F ... More pending issues ... pagination ... patch
Arnaud Le Hors: Next F2F ... More pending issues ... pagination ... patch ←
21:10:33 <cygri> ... We'll close at 4pm tomorrow
... We'll close at 4pm tomorrow ←
21:10:58 <TallTed> +1 davidwood (which is why I disagree with so much special-case-handling for composition vs aggregation -- this is just how the server acts upon that RDF)
Ted Thibodeau: +1 davidwood (which is why I disagree with so much special-case-handling for composition vs aggregation -- this is just how the server acts upon that RDF) ←
21:10:58 <cygri> ... If you care about specific issues, you have to make proposals.
... If you care about specific issues, you have to make proposals. ←
21:11:22 <cygri> ... There'll be a time when we'll just close issues because we don't have any proposals for them
... There'll be a time when we'll just close issues because we don't have any proposals for them ←
21:11:30 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
21:12:06 <cody> I'm leaving at about 3:00 tomorrow (flight)
Cody Burleson: I'm leaving at about 3:00 tomorrow (flight) ←
21:12:15 <davidwood> TallTed, right!
David Wood: TallTed, right! ←
21:12:35 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
21:12:43 <roger> to me, LDP is just some RDF that a client knows how to act upon
Roger Menday: to me, LDP is just some RDF that a client knows how to act upon ←
21:13:57 <davidwood> roger, that may be the most succinct description of our disagreements I have yet heard. Maybe we should discuss this in more detail.
David Wood: roger, that may be the most succinct description of our disagreements I have yet heard. Maybe we should discuss this in more detail. ←
21:14:29 <JohnArwe> I'm quite willing to continue this discussion over dinner tonight
John Arwe: I'm quite willing to continue this discussion over dinner tonight ←
21:14:43 <JohnArwe> (yes, I enjoy pain)
John Arwe: (yes, I enjoy pain) ←
21:20:04 <Arnaud> meeting adjourned
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting adjourned ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2013-03-15 11:22:35 UTC by 'alehors', comments: None