Chatlog 2013-03-04

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.

14:55:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:55:14 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:55:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:55:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:55:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:55:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:55:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:55:19 <trackbot> Date: 04 March 2013
14:55:23 <Ruben> Ruben has joined #ldp
14:55:32 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
14:55:40 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
14:55:49 <Ruben1> Ruben1 has joined #ldp
14:56:37 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:58:28 <Ruben1> Am I the only one who cannot get past Zakim?
14:58:30 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:58:35 <Ruben1> It says my code is not valid.
14:58:45 <Ruben1> It's 53794, right?
14:59:13 <Arnaud> hi, I haven't tried yet
14:59:17 <cody> me too - holding for operator
14:59:27 <Ruben1> ok, will do the same
14:59:56 <Ashok> zakim, code?
14:59:56 <Zakim> sorry, Ashok, I don't know what conference this is
15:00:02 <sandro> sandro has joined #ldp
15:00:04 <Ruben> Ruben has joined #ldp
15:00:07 <sandro> Zakim, what is the code?
15:00:07 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
15:00:14 <sandro> trackbot, start meeting
15:00:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:00:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
15:00:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:00:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
15:00:19 <trackbot> Date: 04 March 2013
15:00:20 <Ashok> zakim, this is ldp
15:00:20 <Zakim> sorry, Ashok, I do not see a conference named 'ldp' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:00:34 <sandro> uh ph
15:00:36 <sandro> uh oh
15:00:42 <Arnaud> there is a problem
15:00:43 <Ruben> Zakim, what is wrong with you?
15:00:43 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Ruben.
15:00:54 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:00:54 <Ashok> zakim is confused
15:00:56 <sandro> zakim, room for 30 people?
15:00:58 <Zakim> ok, sandro; conference Team_(ldp)15:00Z scheduled with code 26637 (CONF7) for 60 minutes until 1600Z
15:01:03 <Arnaud> I alreaady told trackbot to start the meeting but somehow the code is said to be wrong
15:01:11 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: USE ZAKIM CODE 26637 for today
15:01:17 <sandro> USE ZAKIM CODE 26637 for today
15:01:20 <Zakim> Team_(ldp)15:00Z has now started
15:01:23 <Arnaud> ok
15:01:27 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:31 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:01:41 <Ashok> zakim, code?
15:01:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 26637 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Ashok
15:01:43 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:01:43 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:01:58 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:02:09 <cygri> cygri has joined #ldp
15:02:09 <bblfish> hi
15:02:21 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:02:25 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:30 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:02:38 <Zakim> + +1.214.537.aaaa
15:02:41 <sandro> (repeating for newcomers)   USE ZAKIM CODE 26637 FOR TODAY
15:02:51 <Zakim> +??P0
15:02:59 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see TallTed (muted), SteveS, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, Sandro, +1.214.537.aaaa, ??P0
15:03:07 <pchampin> #zakim, ??P0 is me
15:03:13 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: dial-in code 26637 for 2013-03-04 -- Linked Data Platform WG -- -- current agenda:
15:03:24 <Zakim> +Ruben
15:03:31 <bblfish> am having trouble getting into the call
15:03:43 <Zakim> +MHausenblas
15:03:48 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is me
15:03:48 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
15:03:51 <Arnaud> bblfish, try the new code
15:03:53 <cygri> zakim, kalpa is with me
15:03:53 <Zakim> +kalpa; got it
15:03:57 <Ruben> Code 26637 today
15:04:05 <Ruben> Default one doesn't work
15:04:10 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:04:17 <bblfish> thanks
15:04:35 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the call?
15:04:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see TallTed (muted), SteveS, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, Sandro, +1.214.537.aaaa, ??P0, Ruben, cygri, bblfish
15:04:37 <Zakim> cygri has cygri, kalpa
15:05:19 <TallTed> Zakim, aaaa is cody
15:05:19 <Zakim> +cody; got it
15:05:46 <pchampin> zakim, ??P0 is me
15:05:46 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:05:46 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the call?
15:05:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see TallTed, SteveS, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, Sandro, cody, pchampin, Ruben, cygri, bblfish
15:05:47 <Zakim> cygri has cygri, kalpa
15:06:44 <Zakim> +??P18
15:07:04 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: DIFFERENT dial-in code TODAY: 26637 for 2013-03-04 -- Linked Data Platform WG -- -- current agenda:
15:07:05 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
15:07:12 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim
15:07:12 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose cygri
15:07:36 <cygri> arnaud, no, sorry
15:07:49 <Ashok> scribenick:  Ashok
15:08:05 <Ashok> Topic:  Admin
15:08:17 <Ashok> Approval of minutes from Feb 25
15:08:40 <Zakim> +??P22
15:08:56 <svillata> Zakim, ??P22 is me
15:08:56 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
15:09:04 <Ashok> No objection.
<ashok> resolved: Minutes of February 25 approved
15:09:13 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
15:09:31 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Should we have a call on Monday?  F2f next week
15:10:00 <Ashok> No objection.  There will be a call next Monday 3/11
15:10:14 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Discusses f2f
15:10:23 <Yves> regrets: Yves
15:10:25 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:10:31 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
15:10:31 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
<Ashok> Topic: Tracking of Actions & Issues
15:10:36 <Ashok> subTopic:  Actions
15:11:25 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
15:11:34 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:11:46 <Ashok> SteveS:  I made some changes based on resolutions
15:11:46 <bblfish> is there a diff?
15:12:00 <bblfish> q+
15:12:17 <SteveS>
15:12:22 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:12:53 <bblfish> A diff URL of the spec differences would be useful
15:13:38 <Ashok> SteveS:  There is a change log.
15:14:05 <Ashok> ... also a Change History in mercurial repository
15:14:06 <SteveS> Changeset history in repo is at
15:14:28 <Ashok> SteveS:  Changes were all editorial
15:14:40 <bblfish> ok
15:14:58 <bblfish> yes
15:15:01 <SteveS> no objection
15:15:32 <Arnaud> resolved: close actions 30, 31, 34, 37
15:16:20 <Ashok> Arnaud:  ACTion-29 is open
15:16:29 <bblfish> yes
15:16:34 <Ashok> subTopic:  Issues
15:16:49 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Henry raised a new issue Issue-50
15:16:58 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
15:17:09 <Ashok> ... it is about creating a new type of container
15:18:03 <Ashok> ... it has to do with people being able to post content with relative URLs
15:18:41 <SteveS> +1 to open it
15:19:17 <pchampin> q+ to raise a concern about issue-50
15:19:31 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
15:19:31 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to raise a concern about issue-50
15:20:09 <Ashok> Pchampin:  Not sure why this would be useful ... uses URI knowledge rather than triples.
15:20:30 <bblfish> Well Tim Berners-Lee and the group agreed that relative urls would be very important
15:20:49 <TallTed> +1 open
15:20:59 <bblfish> +1 open it
15:21:03 <Ashok> No objections to opening
15:21:04 <Arnaud> proposed: open issue-50
15:21:25 <Arnaud> resolved: open issue-50
<ashok> Topic: F2F Objectives & Agenda
15:22:12 <Ashok> Arnaud:  I put out objectives and agenda for f2f
15:22:23 <Ashok> ... please review:
15:24:29 <Ashok> Topic: Publication of LDP Second Public Draft
15:24:42 <Ashok> Arnaud:  I suggest we publish what we have
15:24:54 <Arnaud> Proposed: Publish latest draft as our Second Public Working Draft.
15:24:59 <SteveS> +1
15:25:03 <Ashok> +1
15:25:07 <pchampin> +1
15:25:09 <cygri> +1
15:25:09 <Ruben> +1
15:25:11 <bblfish> +1
15:25:13 <roger> +1
15:25:17 <svillata> +1
15:25:27 <cody> +0
15:25:41 <Arnaud> resolved: Publish latest draft as our Second Public Working Draft.
15:25:48 <ericP> +1
#15:25:55 <Ashok> s/resolvd/RESOLVED/
15:26:45 <Ashok> s/resolved/RESOLVED/
15:26:45 <Ashok> Topic: Open Issues
15:27:47 <Ashok> subtopic: ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources
<ashok> Arnaud: last time we talked about this we left it saying we needed a use case
15:28:34 <cygri> q+
15:29:00 <Arnaud> ack cygri
15:29:24 <Ashok> Richard:  I can take an action to provide a usecase for issue-33
15:29:31 <Zakim> +??P27
15:29:45 <krp> zakim, ??P27 is me
15:29:45 <Zakim> +krp; got it
#15:30:06 <Ashok> s/Ricahrd/Ricahrd/
15:30:38 <Arnaud> action: cygri to propose a use case for issue-33
15:31:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Propose a use case for issue-33 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-03-11].
#15:31:11 <Ashok> s/Ricahrd/Richard/
15:31:13 <bblfish> Issue-49?
15:31:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- open
15:31:13 <trackbot>
15:31:31 <Ashok> subTopic: ISSUE-49: Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients
15:32:41 <Ashok> No HTTP experts on the call.
15:32:42 <bblfish> Issue-21?
15:32:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- container affordances -- open
15:32:42 <trackbot>
15:32:48 <Ashok> subTopic: ISSUE-21: Reverse membership predicates?
15:33:37 <bblfish> q+
15:33:48 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:34:14 <Ashok> Arnaud:  There is currently no requirement for resources to point back to the container
15:34:33 <SteveS> can't you just include a within the resource's representation that triple: <containerURL> refs:member <.> ?
15:34:57 <bblfish> ok
15:35:09 <bblfish> I argued that <> ldp:contains <.> .
15:35:21 <SteveS> q+
15:35:21 <bblfish> you don't need a reverse relationship from content to container
15:35:53 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Henry sent a note on ldp:contains arguing we need a different relationship to capture this
15:35:56 <bblfish> but you need a more specific relationship that rdfs:member because rdf:member is not precise enough to suggest a containership relation
15:36:11 <roger> +q
15:36:35 <bblfish> My argument was here:
15:37:25 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:39:08 <Ashok> Roger explains his usecases
15:39:40 <bblfish> q+
15:39:49 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:40:41 <pchampin> q+
15:40:47 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:41:02 <roger> +q
15:41:40 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
15:41:54 <SteveS> right, I could see adding also <containerURL> a ldp:CompositeContainer triple as well
15:43:05 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:43:40 <Ashok> q+
15:44:42 <bblfish> q+
15:44:57 <Ashok> Arnaud:  People are thinking by analogy with files and directories
<ashok> ... files typically don't have a link to the directory they are in. It's the same.
15:45:09 <pchampin> @Arnaud in the example you mention, folders are aggregate :-)
15:45:17 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:45:20 <pchampin> s/folders/directories/
15:46:00 <Ashok> Roger:  We need to provide a way to indicate a back pointer
15:46:18 <Ashok> Arnaud:  The spec does not prohibit back pointers
15:46:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:47:02 <roger> @ashok, I would just like to clarify that I don't see this as a back pointer :)
15:47:09 <bblfish> q+
15:47:16 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:47:56 <Ashok> Ashok:  So, it's not required but we need a standard mechanism to indicate it.  Is that correct?
15:48:07 <bblfish> done
15:48:55 <roger> +q
15:49:28 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:50:56 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Please send mail re. this issue
15:51:04 <bblfish> issue-45?
15:51:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- POSTing to an LDPR appends content to the resource -- open
15:51:04 <trackbot>
15:51:30 <Ashok> subTopic: ISSUE-45: POSTing to an LDPR appends content to the resource
15:52:36 <roger> +q
15:52:53 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:52:55 <SteveS> q+
15:53:04 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Explains issue.  Andy says we should do it.
15:53:12 <bblfish> issue-33?
15:53:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- open
15:53:12 <trackbot>
15:53:24 <TallTed> q+
15:53:31 <pchampin> q+
15:53:52 <Ashok> Roger:  This is related to ISSUE-33
<ashok> ... if we let people add triples to a resource using POST we will need pagination to deal with resources with possibly 1000s of triples
<ashok> Arnaud: that's not new though, you can already create a resource with 1000s of triples
15:54:04 <bblfish> agree with Arnaud
15:54:24 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:55:13 <Ashok> SteveS:  Seems reasonable but need to clarify our PATCH model
15:55:18 <Arnaud> ack tallted
15:55:37 <Ashok> ... let of implementations work like
15:55:53 <Ashok> Ted:  It is not an append by default
15:56:07 <Ashok> ... it can do a lot of different things
15:56:13 <svillata> q?
15:56:15 <bblfish> q+
15:56:33 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
15:56:35 <Ashok> Arnaud:  The spec does not say anything.  We could just leave it to the server
15:57:00 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:57:11 <SteveS> +1 to what Ted says, if we have PATCH-add…then we probably don't need to have another way such as POST-add
15:58:01 <TallTed> append is an *option* in HTTP spec; append is neither default nor only effect of POST
15:58:58 <Ashok> Arnaud:  We have an open issue on PATCH ... perhaps leave this open for now
15:58:59 <pchampin> @TallTed +1
15:59:18 <Arnaud> q?
15:59:41 <bblfish> thanks all!
15:59:59 <Ashok> MEETING ADJOURNED
16:00:02 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:00:03 <SteveS> +1 to no other business ;)
16:00:04 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:00:06 <Zakim> -cody
16:00:07 <Zakim> -??P18
16:00:07 <Zakim> -Ruben
16:00:08 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:00:09 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:00:09 <Zakim> -svillata