Chatlog 2013-01-28

From Linked Data Platform
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:57:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:48 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:57:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:53 <trackbot> Date: 28 January 2013
14:58:20 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
14:58:22 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:58:29 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:58:40 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:58:58 <Zakim> +??P7
14:59:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P7 is me
14:59:02 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
14:59:09 <antonis> antonis has joined #ldp
14:59:40 <Zakim> +??P8
15:00:19 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:00:25 <SteveBattle_> SteveBattle_ has joined #ldp
15:00:34 <Ashok> zakim, code?
15:00:34 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Ashok
15:00:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:00:46 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
15:00:46 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
15:00:47 <Zakim> +EricP
15:00:51 <antonis> zakim, ??p8 is me
15:00:51 <Zakim> +antonis; got it
15:00:59 <dret> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
15:00:59 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
15:01:00 <Zakim> +??P0
15:01:09 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:10 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
15:01:12 <dret> zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me
15:01:12 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]'
15:01:17 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:19 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller.a] is me
15:01:30 <dret> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:01:30 <Zakim> +dret; got it
15:01:31 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:31 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:01:33 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:01:33 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:01:37 <sergio> Zakim: IPcaller.a is me
15:01:57 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:02:05 <rogerm> rogerm has joined #ldp
15:02:15 <Zakim> +roger
15:02:18 <JohnArwe> very quiet on the line
15:02:23 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +44.754.550.aaaa
15:02:41 <SteveBattle_> zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:41 <Zakim> +SteveBattle_; got it
15:02:46 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
15:02:46 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:02:54 <dret> very quiet, but it seems to work ok.
15:02:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:04 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
15:03:05 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:03:05 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:03:19 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:03:23 <Zakim> -??P0
15:03:32 <bblfish> hi
15:03:39 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
15:03:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, antonis, dret, [IPcaller.a], EricP, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe, roger, SteveS, SteveBattle_, AndyS, bblfish
15:03:40 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
15:03:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see krp, rogerm, JohnArwe, SteveBattle_, Ashok, antonis, SteveS, bblfish, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, sergio, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, dret, AndyS, TallTed, bhyland,
15:03:42 <Zakim> ... oberger, jmvanel, stevebattle, deiu, trackbot, betehess, Yves, sandro
15:03:57 <sergio> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:03:57 <Zakim> +sergio; got it
15:03:59 <Zakim> +??P3
15:04:14 <dret> zakim, who's here?
15:04:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, antonis, dret, sergio, EricP, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe, roger, SteveS, SteveBattle_, AndyS, bblfish, ??P3
15:04:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin, krp, rogerm, JohnArwe, SteveBattle_, Ashok, antonis, SteveS, bblfish, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, sergio, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, dret, AndyS, TallTed,
15:04:17 <Zakim> ... bhyland, oberger, jmvanel, stevebattle, deiu, trackbot, betehess, Yves
15:04:31 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim
15:04:31 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Arnaud
15:04:40 <SteveS> +1
15:04:42 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim
15:04:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ??P3
15:04:44 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
15:04:55 <bblfish> who laughed?
15:04:59 <bblfish> pick him!!
15:05:11 <Zakim> -??P3
15:05:32 <Zakim> +??P26
15:05:35 <dret> zakim, who's here?
15:05:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, antonis, dret, sergio, EricP, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe, roger, SteveS, SteveBattle_, AndyS, bblfish, ??P26
15:05:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin, krp, rogerm, JohnArwe, SteveBattle_, Ashok, antonis, SteveS, bblfish, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, sergio, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, dret, AndyS, TallTed,
15:05:39 <Zakim> ... bhyland, oberger, jmvanel, stevebattle, deiu, trackbot, betehess, Yves
15:05:50 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim
15:05:51 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ??P26
15:06:11 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:06:13 <JohnArwe> chair: arnaud
15:06:14 <TallTed> chair: Arnaud
15:07:16 <Zakim> +??P5
15:07:45 <SteveS> looked and didn't see any problem
<dret> Topic: Minutes of January 21
15:07:58 <dret> proposed to accept last week's meeting: no objection
<dret> RESOLVED: minutes of January 21 approved.
15:08:01 <krp> zakim, ??P5 is me
15:08:02 <Zakim> +krp; got it
<dret> Topic: Actions and Issues
<dret> subtopic: Actions
15:08:21 <bblfish> You can now close my action from last week
15:08:26 <dret> please everybody indicate f2f attendance until next mondat
15:08:40 <nmihindu> zakim, ??P26 is me
15:08:40 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:09:03 <dret> close ACTION-28
15:09:03 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-28 Access Control: fill in use cases and requirements and Identity section.
15:09:05 <bblfish> action-28?
15:09:05 <trackbot> ACTION-28 -- Henry Story to access Control: fill in use cases and requirements and Identity section -- due 2012-11-21 -- CLOSED
15:09:05 <trackbot>
15:09:34 <sergio> action-36?
15:09:34 <trackbot> ACTION-36 -- John Arwe to [EDITOR] Make changes for ISSUE-42 (moving common props to deployment guide) -- due 2013-01-14 -- OPEN
15:09:34 <trackbot>
15:09:49 <dret> discussing ACTION-36, which is 97% complete
15:10:06 <Zakim> +??P9
15:10:19 <Zakim> +Yves
15:11:12 <dret> ACTION-36, content has been moved to deployment guide, but some clean-up is required
<dret> subtopic: Raised issues
15:12:23 <dret> ISSUE-46 has been raised, rogerm explains the motivation
15:12:49 <TallTed> issue-46?
15:12:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- services and LDP -- raised
15:12:49 <trackbot>
15:12:54 <pchampin_> pchampin_ has joined #ldp
15:13:49 <dret> rogerm explains how ISSUE-46 could be closed, which is not quite clear from the issue itself
15:14:15 <dret> Arnaud claims that it's not quite clear what the issue is asking us to do?
15:15:08 <bblfish> q?
15:15:09 <bblfish> q+
15:15:18 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:15:28 <SteveBattle_> q+
15:15:41 <JohnArwe> q+
15:16:02 <dret> "category 1" as described by Arnaud refers to interacting with collections and entries, not about a generic RDF database model of "just managing triples"
15:16:11 <Arnaud> ack steveb
15:16:38 <dret> SteveBattle says that both scenarios are covered
15:16:40 <Arnaud> ack john
15:16:44 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
15:17:32 <bblfish> Issue-37?
15:17:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
15:17:32 <trackbot>
15:17:45 <dret> JohnArwe says we have different audiences, one starting from the bottom, the other starting top-down, and ISSUE-46 is very much related to ISSUE-37
15:18:22 <dret> we as a WG are not delivering solutions, we are delivering building blocks for solutions
15:18:26 <Zakim> +??P30
15:18:48 <svillata> zakim, P30 is me
15:18:48 <Zakim> sorry, svillata, I do not recognize a party named 'P30'
15:18:58 <svillata> zakim, ??P30 is me
15:18:58 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
15:20:00 <bblfish> bblfish: said that there is a relation to this problem and the use cases document, it is an interesting issue, but not sure if it should be opened. There is definitetly something that should be done as a group to try to solve this. My guess is that one can do this very declaratively, and that there is some new things to do.
15:21:10 <SteveS> I think it is covered by our use case document already
15:22:38 <dret> it seems to very unclear what category 1 and 2 even mean, different people have different opinions on what they mean
15:23:14 <bblfish> makes sense
15:24:09 <SteveBattle_> It would always be possible to make this more explicit in the next iteration of UC&R  - we did invite comments four this iteration but we had none :)
15:24:16 <dret> rogerm is asked by Arnaud to refer to UCR and see whether ISSUE-46 can be reframed in terms of missing UCR issues; ISSUE-46 remains raised for now
15:25:06 <dret> rogerm claims that category 2 will be addressed by at least some of the WG members
<dret>topic: UC&R
15:25:36 <dret> Arnaud asks what's the current status of UCR?
<dret>... request wasn't actually known from the webmaster
<dret>Yves working on getting it published, hopefully by Thursday
15:26:47 <dret> we need to find out what went wrong with the publication process so that we can avoid it doing it again
15:27:17 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
15:27:35 <dret> email address in the WD needs to be changed to be the public email address (not the -wg only)
<dret>topic: LDP spec
15:28:58 <dret> Arnaud: our charter asks us to publish a second WD this month (january). should we do this or wait for more substantial changes?
15:29:28 <dret> SteveS would prefer delay of about a month, so that changes related to ISSUE-34 and ISSUE-37 can be included
15:30:15 <dret> JohnArwe asks about exclusion period (somebody maybe should check); Yves isn't sure that something has been announced yet
15:30:57 <bblfish> Should we not have the relative URL changes?
15:31:01 <dret> maybe putting out a WD right before or after the f2f2 would be hit by a publishing moratorium
15:31:09 <Yves> next publication moratorium is 7-17 June 2013
<dret>topic: Open Issues
15:32:01 <bblfish> Issue-37
15:32:01 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
15:32:01 <trackbot>
15:32:18 <dret> ISSUE-37 was an attempt to clearly write down the assumptions that people have about the (often implicit) model of LDP
15:32:31 <bblfish> q?
15:32:33 <bblfish> q+
15:33:07 <dret> so far there is little convergence, the wiki page is mostly the AtomPub model, the ISSUE-37 approach so far does not seem to be working very well
15:33:41 <Ashok> +
15:33:47 <Ashok> q+
15:34:00 <dret> if we cannot conclude ISSUE-37 to actually come to (some) description of the model, we probably should focus more on the individual issues, than on the very general ISSUE-37 issue
15:35:14 <bblfish> Issue-34?
15:35:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- open
15:35:14 <trackbot>
15:35:25 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
15:35:31 <dret> Arnaud proposes to give us a week for making progress on ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-34, but we need to keep an eye on the timeline and solving specific issues around LDP
15:36:05 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:36:07 <svillata> q?
15:36:33 <dret> bblfish is impossible to understand...
15:36:33 <TallTed> bblfish, please move closer to wifi base...  or type
15:36:35 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:36:39 <JohnArwe> "in the large hall" sound
15:36:49 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:37:01 <bblfish> willl take time to reconnect
15:37:02 <bblfish> just contine
15:37:06 <bblfish> continue
15:37:17 <TallTed> q+
15:37:20 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:37:20 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:37:33 <dret> Ashok says we'll keep coming back to ISSUE-37 questions, even if we start focusing on more specific issues
15:37:48 <ericP> q?
15:38:03 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:38:06 <dret> Ashok gives example of "container with container" issue, which is a question of the overall model
15:38:11 <bblfish> q?
15:38:28 <Zakim> +??P31
15:38:35 <bblfish> q+
15:38:39 <krp> zakim, ??P31 is me
15:38:39 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:38:52 <dret> Arnaud says defining the model "piecemeal" may not be ideal, but maybe more manageable
15:39:13 <Arnaud> ack tallted
15:39:23 <dret> Ashok says we might just want to discuss the open questions on the ISSUE-37 wiki page
15:40:29 <dret> TallTed says we should focus on the important issues, but they may be too big to just close them. just discussing them might be not very productive.
15:41:20 <dret> what makes LDP different from what is out there?
15:41:22 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:42:06 <dret> bblfish says that Atom rejected a model
15:42:13 <dret> q+
15:42:23 <Arnaud> ack dret
15:42:26 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:42:27 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:42:50 <bblfish> q+
15:43:13 <Zakim> -antonis
15:43:34 <TallTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:43:45 <Zakim> TallTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ashok_Malhotra (29%), bblfish (38%)
15:43:59 <bblfish> I muted myself
15:44:13 <Zakim> +??P8
15:44:19 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:44:28 <antonis> zakim, ??p8 is me
15:44:28 <Zakim> +antonis; got it
15:44:35 <dret> -q
15:44:41 <bblfish> I am thinking I was still found the work on the ontology last week was very useful. For example I now agree with Arnaud that LDPC are sublcass LDPR
15:44:42 <TallTed> bblfish - sometimes Zakim's mute is necessary (e.g., line noise isn't cleared by muting handset)
15:45:28 <dret> bblfish says that defining ontologies are very useful exercises when it comes to understanding the issues
15:45:48 <dret> zakim, who is making noise?
15:45:59 <Zakim> dret, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (29%), dret (5%), bblfish (53%)
15:46:17 <dret> bblfish sounds like being in a giant hall with revolving doors
15:46:22 <TallTed> why are "defining the LDP spec" and "defining an ontology for LDP" orthogonal?
15:46:27 <bblfish> It's linked data arnaud
15:46:32 <TallTed> they seem unbreakably interlinked
15:46:36 <bblfish> you have to publsih the ldp:Container
15:46:37 <SteveS> q+
15:46:42 <bblfish> and ldp:Resource
15:46:44 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:47:31 <bblfish> No just define the datamodel
15:47:31 <dret> Yves says there should be a definition for what we can exchange in the protocol.
15:47:54 <bblfish> but the problem is that when you discuss the system, you need to work out what it is that you are speaking about
15:47:55 <SteveS> q+
15:48:13 <Arnaud> s/Yves/SteveS/
15:49:15 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:49:50 <dret> SteveS says that the ISSUE-34 proposal separates the interaction model from the (deeper) data model
15:50:05 <bblfish> Issue-37?
15:50:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
15:50:05 <trackbot>
15:50:53 <dret> ISSUE-37 has a wiki page, which seems to be largely unused (apart from Ashok's still open questions, and SteveS's additions to the page)
15:51:14 <dret> Ashok proposes to bring up other questions for discussions
15:51:15 <JohnArwe> Henry, you said that your understanding of some things has changed based on the discussion, e.g. on the sub-classing.  Have you shared those new understandings on the list?  I confess I'm not caught up on the generous helping of emails yet.
15:52:52 <bblfish> q+
15:53:19 <ericP> q+ to discuss resolving with tests a la
15:53:50 <bblfish>
15:53:51 <SteveS> q+
15:54:08 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:54:10 <dret> bblfish maybe unmute?
15:54:25 <dret> bblfish you're really hard to understand...
15:54:28 <TallTed> totally breaking up bblfish
15:54:41 <bblfish> ok, next week
15:54:52 <Arnaud> ack ericp
15:54:52 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to discuss resolving with tests a la
15:55:41 <bblfish> JohnArwe: I for example started understanding why it makes sense that an LDPC is a sublcass of an LDPR
15:55:50 <dret> ericP proposes to start from tests, starting from starting state, interactions, and a resulting state
15:56:25 <bblfish> JohnArwe: also one can come up with a good argument on what POSTs as appends on LDPRs that are not LDPCs
15:56:59 <bblfish> agree, test cases are good
15:57:03 <JohnArwe> thx Henry.
15:57:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
15:57:12 <dret> Arnaud proposes that focusing on tests might be a practical way to make progress
15:57:14 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:57:22 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:57:38 <JohnArwe> I'll note that this "initial state, message, resulting state" approach is exactly what I used in the newest issue-34 proposal.
15:58:30 <dret> SteveS ISSUE-37 may best be addressed by summarizing the current model as spec text, and then work on specific issues
15:58:38 <JohnArwe> does not use this very compact notation, rather it shows the http messages
15:59:08 <ericP> JohnArwe, maybe we can assist that issue-34 proposal with concrete examples
15:59:13 <dret> Arnaud asks Ashok to check his questions on the ISSUE-37 wiki page and see whether any of the questions are not open as separate issues; if so, please raise them
15:59:18 <ericP> might help folks see how they'd contribute
15:59:40 <dret> Arnaud proposes to put ISSUE-37 aside and focus on smaller issues
16:00:55 <dret> JohnArwe talks about the ISSUE-34 wiki page and how it's describing the issue
16:01:36 <JohnArwe> this newest proposal is at
16:02:00 <JohnArwe> which hangs off the aggregator page for all 34 proposals
16:02:17 <dret> sorry everybody, i must leave for my next call; could somebody continue scribing and then generate the minutes? thanks, bye!
16:02:29 <Zakim> -dret
16:02:42 <ericP> Arnaud: next week will choose an approach
16:02:46 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:02:51 <Zakim> -sergio
16:02:58 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:02:59 <SteveBattle_> bye
16:03:03 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: please review proposals on issue-34 for next week, we will attempt to choose one on next week's call
16:03:05 <sergio> I have to leave, bye
16:03:05 <Zakim> -antonis
16:03:07 <Zakim> -Yves
16:03:08 <Zakim> -SteveBattle_
16:03:09 <Zakim> -svillata
#16:03:24 <Zakim> -krp.a
16:03:33 <Zakim> -??P9
16:03:36 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
16:03:56 <rogerm> I'm still here as well .......
16:05:06 <JohnArwe> roger did you hear the discussion about deciding next week on 34?  so your pages would need to be done.
16:06:03 <rogerm> i did !!! :)
16:06:07 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:07:04 <dret> Arnaud, can you generate the minutes? or is there some incantation i need to type?
16:08:18 <rogerm> John, looking at your issue 34 proposal: I was kind of expecting some by-reference semantics, particularly inside the "Creating a member resource" section. This is needed for the "add an arc" requirement of the original 34, in my opinion. Is there an error here, or an error in my understanding ?
16:08:25 <JohnArwe> he should be able to do minutes dret; I did not have to do anything after last week's call
16:08:30 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:08:47 <Arnaud> dret: you don't need to do anything
16:09:11 <Arnaud> there is a procedure to turn the irc log into the actual minutes but I can take care of it
16:09:48 <dret> ok, thanks everybody, then!
16:12:14 <JohnArwe> Let's say Roger that crafting it raised the question in my mind of how it should work, but I see that as separable-from 34 and there fore "should be separated".  I do have some immature ideas but literally no one has heard them and until I write them down myself I consider them the rabid ravings of a sleep-deprived Monty Python fan.
16:12:47 <JohnArwe> ...34 is tangled enough that I was trying to avoid scope creep by the end.
16:14:03 <JohnArwe> ...if the idea-kernel in my head pans out, it's remarkably free/easy and completely consistent with what's here, as strange as that sounds (the strangeness being Yet Another Reason I treat it as ravings)
16:15:52 <JohnArwe> ...I *do* think we need to be able to "add" "listings" of "existing resources" to a "collection", ala bug tracker.  Seems to me that even the most basic use cases "of interest" require that.
16:16:21 <rogerm> That's the name of issue-34 though ... :) i.e. "adding and removing arcs" ...
16:17:34 <rogerm> yes. I agree. And furthermore, *ALL* predicates coming out of a resource could be used in that ... (?)
16:17:41 <JohnArwe> ...34 is aggregation, as people have been discussing it.  For some values of those words, people could reasonably argue that containers do them.
16:18:32 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
16:20:32 <rogerm> issue-34 is "add an arc"  ..... guess we should check with Richard
16:21:59 <Zakim> -EricP
16:22:01 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:22:05 <Zakim> -nmihindu
16:22:06 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:22:06 <Zakim> -TallTed