Chatlog 2013-03-11

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:03:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:03:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/11-ldp-irc
14:03:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:03:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:03:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:03:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:03:57 <trackbot> Date: 11 March 2013
14:04:35 <Zakim> -ericP
14:04:59 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:05:19 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on here?
14:05:20 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Arnaud.
14:05:46 <Arnaud> zakim, who is here?
14:05:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Arnaud, [GVoice], pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, ??P10, TallTed (muted), ??P13, dret, JohnArwe
14:05:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Arnaud, JohnArwe, dret, Zakim, Ashok, TallTed, pchampin, jmvanel, gavinc, sandro, ericP, Yves, thschee, betehess, trackbot
14:06:14 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
14:06:14 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:08:38 <dret> i can step in
14:08:46 <dret> ok, i won't step in
14:08:53 <sandro> scribe: sandro
<sandro> chair: Arnaud
14:11:00 <sandro> two unidentified callers.   mysterious!
14:11:23 <dret> +1
14:11:24 <ericP> +1
<sandro>Topic: Minutes of last meeting 
14:11:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept minutes from last week
14:11:45 <sandro> RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week (March 4)
<sandro>Topic: Next meetings
14:11:27 <sandro> Arnaud: At our last F2F, we arranged for an informal telecon afterwords.
14:12:20 <sandro> Arnaud: At informal telecon right afterwords, we went over what happened, to catch up people who missed it.  That's the plan for next week's telecon.
14:12:44 <sandro> Arnaud: So people who come to the F2F, you don't have to join the telecon next week.  We wont be making any decisions or anything like that.
14:12:58 <sandro> Arnaud: On the F2F -- do we have the final list of participatns?
14:13:29 <sandro> Arnaud: I haven't heard any feedback on the agenda.
14:14:25 <sandro> Arnaud: Maybe breakouts.    Long list of issues; no proposal for some of them.
14:15:00 <sandro> Arnaud: I STRONGLY suggest if you care about an issue, you send out a proposal BEFORE the meeting.
14:15:05 <dret> the break-out groups would be chartered with preparing proposals for those issues which don't have any right now.
14:15:20 <Ashok> q+
14:15:51 <sandro> Arnaud: If people are remote and really care, we can try to work around their schedule.
14:16:05 <Arnaud> ack ashok
14:16:47 <sandro> Ashok: We still have arguments and disagreements on the overall @@.  I was hoping we could talk about that early
14:16:55 <sandro> s/@@/model/
14:17:20 <sandro> Arnaud: I'm kind of torn on that.
14:17:57 <sandro> Arnaud: If we could agree on the model, things would be easier, yes.   But it doesn't seem to be working, so maybe bottom up will work better.
14:18:03 <Zakim> +Yves
14:18:06 <sandro> .. like develop the test suite, and see how that goes.
14:18:11 <dret> switch from topd-down to bottom-up mode, yes. i think we have established that top-down doesn't seem to work all that great for us.
14:18:29 <sandro> +1 bottom up
14:18:51 <sandro> Arnaud: We'll end up needing to make the same design decisions, but without the details we don't understand each other.
14:18:54 <dret> and then when we have better spec'd bottom-up cases, we need to distill the model.
14:19:23 <sandro> eric: There's a possibility that working with test cases will get us toward the model than discussion the model theoretically
14:19:28 <sandro> Arnaud: exactly.
14:19:35 <dret> yup, i agree that the tests are an excellent way to go forward.
14:19:52 <sandro> ericP: Ashok, do you see a way to have the Test discussion first, in a way that will help us have a grounded Model discussion.
14:19:55 <Arnaud> q?
14:20:04 <sandro> dret, can you take over scribing for 10-15 now?
14:20:12 <sandro> Ashok: I need to think about this.
14:21:34 <dret> i can do that...
<dret>scribe: dret
14:22:46 <dret> Arnaud: keep breakout sessions as an option, but in such a fragmented group it may be counter-productive; will be decided on demand
14:23:06 <Zakim> -??P13
14:23:20 <dret> Topic: Actions and Issues
14:23:49 <Zakim> -??P10
14:24:13 <dret> Proposal: close ACTION-29
14:24:54 <dret> Resolved: ACTION-29 closed
14:26:22 <dret> ACTION-38 remains open while we switch to bottom-up mode for the model discussion
<sandro>Topic: Open Issues
<sandro>subtopic: Issue-49
14:30:00 <Ashok> But is this a LDP issue?
14:30:44 <Arnaud> ack Yves
14:31:47 <dret> discussing ISSUE-49 and whether it's part of LDP or should be considered orthogonal
14:32:46 <dret> Yves: pointing to metalink and saying that we should be very cautious about making mirroring/equivalence a part of LDP
14:32:52 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
14:33:02 <dret> Ashok: agrees with Yves
14:33:19 <dret> Arnaud: seems like most people agree that it's not an LDP issue
14:33:20 <JohnArwe> ...yves said he would put reference to other materials on the public list; some issues with attack vectors.
14:33:43 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:34:26 <dret> Sandro: use OWL sameas in data or in the HTTP header
14:35:04 <dret> these are RDF solutions, we might also recommend HTTP-level ones?
14:35:14 <pchampin> q+ to notice that owl:sameAs is symetrical
14:35:21 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
14:35:21 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to notice that owl:sameAs is symetrical
14:36:28 <dret> pchampin: not sure about sameas, because it is supposed to be symmetrical
14:37:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:37:39 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:37:39 <Yves> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6249
14:37:44 <sandro> scribe: sandro
14:38:03 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
14:38:03 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:38:12 <Ashok> q+
14:38:15 <dret> thanks, sandro!
14:38:23 <Arnaud> proposal: close issue-49, making no change
14:38:34 <Arnaud> ack ashok
14:38:59 <sandro> Ashok: There's a section 4.1.4 that spoke to this.  Does that get clarified or removed or what?
14:39:16 <sandro> Arnaud: No one has proposed that
14:39:54 <sandro> Arnaud: There is one MUST in the spec.
14:40:32 <sandro> Ashok: I recommend keeping it open and figuring out what to do with that part of our spec.
14:41:04 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't want to just leave it open, and then we'll come back in 2 months
14:41:13 <sandro> Ashok: give me an action
14:41:38 <SteveS> q+
14:41:38 <sandro> Arnaud: So we'll leave ISSUE-49 open for now, and Ashok with produce a recommendation about what to do about 4.1.4
14:41:47 <Arnaud> ack steves
14:42:14 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
14:43:42 <sandro> action Ashok to propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec)
14:43:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec) [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-03-18].
14:44:42 <dret> i'm fine with ignoring ISSUE-37 for now and then attempt to distill it from tests
<sandro>subtopic: Issue-21
14:45:22 <sandro> Arnaud: We were going to talk about Reverse Membership Predicate, but Steve Battle asked we not decide in his absence, so we'll put it off.
14:45:35 <sandro> Arnaud: He did send email with example.
14:46:59 <sandro> dret: I liked Steve's notion that navigability and data model are different things.       What are the concepts that we identify and represent; and THEN decide on the affordances, where do we encode it, so clients can find that part of the data model in that place.
14:47:35 <sandro> .. I really like the idea of splitting them.  Make membership part of model, then later talk about how to make it navigable, maybe in both directions.
14:47:55 <sandro> Arnaud: I thought you might agree with that.  :-)
14:48:10 <sandro> Arnaud: Steve's example was very useful.   I had not understood it.
14:48:20 <sandro> Arnaud: We need more examples posted.
14:49:06 <sandro> Arnaud: I had thought it was a back-link, but he's just using a different membership property.    The link is in the same direciton, container to member.
14:50:13 <sandro> subtopic: issue-35
14:50:16 <sandro> issue-35?
14:50:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI -- open
14:50:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/35
14:50:41 <sandro> Arnaud: We had a similar discussion about whether URIs could be reused after delete.
14:51:07 <sandro> .. Like MUST you get an error doing a GET after a DELETE?
14:51:22 <sandro> .. people seemed to think there may be cases where a URI is reused.
14:51:26 <sandro> issue-24?
14:51:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Should DELETED resources remain deleted? -- closed
14:51:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24
14:51:39 <dret> i hope we don't say anywhere that you MUST get an error..
14:51:45 <sandro> Arnaud, so issue-35 and issue-24 seem linked
14:51:59 <pchampin> I agree that they seem linked
14:52:01 <sandro> (your logic sounds good to me, Arnaud)
14:52:31 <TallTed> seems an accurate assessment...
14:52:57 <sandro> dret, I don't think we have liberty to decide this.   if a server decides to re-use URIs, that's up to it.   clients shouldn't make those assumptions.
14:53:12 <sandro> s/dret,/dret:/
14:53:29 <sandro> dret: I don't think clients have business looking at URIs like this.
14:53:43 <sandro> Arnaud: Richard proposed server must not re-assign URI.
14:54:00 <sandro> q+
14:54:19 <TallTed> POSTing to a container MUST yield a URI ...  it's server's choice what that URI is, and I think whether that URI is guaranteed new or re-used is and should remain outside our control
14:54:47 <sandro> Arnaud: To be consistent with 24 we can't change anything on 35.   because we already said URIs may be reused
14:54:51 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:55:32 <ericP> sandro: i'm concearned about the situation where client A deletes </foo> and client B continues to use </foo>
14:56:03 <ericP> ... if something else creates </foo>, the meaning will change out from under client B.
14:56:23 <sandro> Arnaud: Yeah, "under certain cirumstances".     So in the NORMAL case you'd get a new URI.
14:56:28 <ericP> ... we need text which talks about "delete if if you're *sure* the URL hasn't leaked out"
14:56:33 <sandro> Arnaud: So I'm okay with a SHOULD.
14:56:34 <Arnaud> ack tallted
14:56:43 <dret> i think this is "deployment guide" stuff: don't do it, because of this and that.
14:56:57 <sandro> TallTed: This is no different from any other situation where URIs change.
14:57:42 <pchampin> I agree with TallTed
14:57:49 <dret> me too
14:57:54 <sandro> TallTed: I don't think this is an undetectable error condition.     You just have to document your server behavior
14:58:20 <dret> i'd prefer non-spec level, this is just best practice
14:58:57 <sandro> sandro: documenting server bevavior means there's no spec here.
14:59:18 <SteveS> I like increasing the awareness from what we have, like with should or recommended, and possibly update some guidance into the deployment guide
14:59:45 <sandro> sandro: MUST is too hard to implemnt, but strongly worded SHOULD is okay
15:00:04 <sandro> Arnaud: Sounds like we're coming to SHOULD, but let's not decide until we have Richard present.
15:00:11 <dret> not sure. this is not a protocol issue. it's just a recommendation.
15:00:57 <dret> yup, and if people want to shoot themselves in the foot, they are allowed to do so. they just dimish the vaue of their service.
15:00:59 <sandro> TallTed: I think SHOULD might be too strong.    eg in the case of a reboot
15:01:19 <sandro> sandro: if the client can't assume the URIs will be stable on a given server, we have a huge problem.
15:01:21 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:23 <dret> thanks everybody! thanks, sandro!
15:01:29 <Zakim> -dret
15:01:33 <sandro> thanks, dret!
15:01:41 <sandro> Arnaud: See many of you in Boston!!
15:01:45 <sandro> ADJOURN
15:01:49 <Zakim> -Yves
15:01:50 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:02:09 <Zakim> -pchampin
15:03:17 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:04:34 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:05:07 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:05:08 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:05:12 <Zakim> -ericP
15:05:13 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:05:13 <Zakim> Attendees were pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, dret, JohnArwe, Sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, SteveS
<sandro> present: pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, dret, JohnArwe, Sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, SteveS
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000229