This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Chatlog 2013-03-25

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.

13:54:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:54:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/25-ldp-irc
13:54:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:54:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:54:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:54:51 <trackbot> Date: 25 March 2013
13:54:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:55:47 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #ldp
13:57:27 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:57:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:57:50 <cody> IPCaller is Cody
13:57:56 <Zakim> +??P2
13:58:36 <cody> zakim, IPCaller is really Cody
13:58:36 <Zakim> +Cody; got it
13:58:54 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P2 is nmihindu
13:58:54 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
13:59:31 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
13:59:52 <Zakim> +??P7
14:00:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #ldp
14:00:46 <Zakim> +??P11
14:00:57 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:01:05 <Zakim> +bblfish
14:01:18 <Zakim> +??P14
14:01:29 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P14 is me
14:01:29 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
14:01:29 <bblfish> hi
14:01:30 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:31 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:01:34 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:01:35 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:01:35 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:01:37 <BartvanLeeuwen> hi all
14:01:37 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:01:37 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:01:42 <Ashok> zakim, code?
14:01:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ashok
14:01:48 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
14:01:48 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:01:48 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:01:55 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:02:09 <Arnaud> zakim, who is here?
14:02:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Cody, nmihindu, SteveBattle, ??P7, ??P11, Arnaud, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, TallTed (muted), SteveS, JohnArwe
14:02:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, Ashok, BartvanLeeuwen, Zakim, RRSAgent, cody, SteveS, TallTed, nmihindu, betehess, stevebattle, bblfish, bhyland, jmvanel, davidwood, Arnaud, thschee,
14:02:12 <Zakim> ... sandro, ericP, Yves, trackbot
14:02:16 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
14:02:27 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:02:29 <bblfish> hi
14:02:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:02:33 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
14:03:05 <dret> zakim, IP{Caller is me
14:03:05 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named 'IP{Caller'
14:03:16 <dret> zakim, IPCaller is me
14:03:16 <Zakim> +dret; got it
14:04:33 <cody> I can scribe, but I need to figure out how to tell who is talking at any given moment.
14:04:53 <cody> who is talking?
14:05:03 <cody> zakim, who is talking?
14:05:13 <Zakim> cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (24%), BartvanLeeuwen (9%), Ashok_Malhotra (38%)
14:05:21 <Arnaud> scribe: cody
<cody> chair: Arnaud
14:05:29 <nmihindu> cody, it was BartvanLeeuwen
14:05:29 <TallTed> cody - you can vocally interrupt at any time, to ask who's speaking, clarification, etc.
14:05:51 <stevebattle> Cody, the IRC queue should help you figure out who is speaking.
<cody> Topic: Minutes of last meetings
14:05:59 <cody> Arnaud, starting with the Minutes of March 11; propose we accept them.
14:06:02 <dret_> dret_ has joined #LDP
14:06:05 <cody> Steve : + 1
14:06:22 <cody> Arnaud, hearing no objections, we hereby approve those minutes of March 11.
<cody> resolved: Minutes of March 11 approved
14:06:44 <SteveS> +1 to F2F minutes, look good
14:06:54 <cody> Arnaud, and the minutes from the Face to Face 2
14:07:07 <stevebattle> Yes - they look OK
14:07:08 <dret_> dret_ has joined #LDP
14:07:35 <cody> Arnaud, so I hereby approve the minutes of the F2F2, hearing no objections.
<cody> resolved: Minutes of March 13-15 approved
14:07:47 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-13#Primer
14:07:54 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
14:07:59 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:08:07 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
14:08:07 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:08:21 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
14:08:46 <Zakim> +??P30
14:08:49 <cody> Arnaud: I will look and if I find it (regarding Primer), I will let you know.
<cody> Topic: Tracking of actions and issues
14:09:48 <cody> Arnaud: As results from F2F, we gave several actions. Want to check progress...
14:10:00 <stevebattle> q+
14:10:02 <cody> Arnaud: 2 pending actions: 1) propose use case for issue 33
14:10:08 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
14:10:33 <cody> Steve Battle: I am reviewing the draft and getting it into a form that is consitent with the use cases.
14:10:34 <bblfish> looking at actions http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview
14:10:41 <cody> Arnaud, Very good.
14:10:55 <JohnArwe> s/consitent/consistent/
14:10:57 <bblfish> Action-40
14:10:57 <trackbot> ACTION-40 -- Ashok Malhotra to propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec) -- due 2013-03-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:10:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/40
14:11:35 <bblfish> Issue-49
14:11:35 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- closed
14:11:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/49
14:12:05 <JohnArwe> Ashok and Arnaud you were talking over each other
14:12:30 <cody> Ashok: I have recommended that we take section 4.1.4 out
14:13:11 <cody> Arnaud: Just remove the section or replace with other text (Section 4.1.4)
14:13:23 <cody> Ashok: Just take it out
14:13:27 <bblfish> I remember us talking about it
14:13:54 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-15 says Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide. link
14:14:05 <cody> Arnaud: I put the resolution at the end of 49. Resolution says that we remove section 4.1.4 in the spec and consider giving some guidance in deployment guide
14:14:28 <cody> zakim, who is talking?
14:14:39 <Zakim> cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Cody (58%), Arnaud (64%), SteveS (9%)
14:14:42 <JohnArwe> that was steve speicher
14:15:01 <cody> Arnaud: I am closing action 40.
14:15:10 <bblfish> action-43
14:15:10 <trackbot> ACTION-43 -- Steve Speicher to draft a use case for container ordering -- due 2013-03-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:15:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/43
14:15:37 <cody> Arnaud: Alright, so we can close Action 43 then.
14:15:59 <cody> Arnaud: Let me ask if there are any other open actions for which anyone wants to claim victory...
14:16:21 <cody> Arnaud: Hearing none. We have a few issues that were raised, starting with ISSUE-57
14:16:25 <bblfish> Issue-57
14:16:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server? -- raised
14:16:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/57
14:16:46 <oberger> oberger has joined #ldp
14:16:54 <JohnArwe> regrets: sandro, andys, roger
14:17:07 <cody> Arnaud: There was discussion about that in the F2F. Question was, "(How) Can I figure out if I am talking to an LDP Server?"
14:17:10 <TallTed> +1 open
14:17:11 <stevebattle> We should open it.
14:17:19 <cody> Arnaud: Do we close it or open it? Any opinions?
14:17:30 <Zakim> -??P11
14:17:31 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
14:17:49 <Arnaud> ack bart
14:18:08 <TallTed> "discovery" is the term we used during F2F
14:18:11 <bblfish> q?
14:18:15 <cody> BartvanLeeuwen: I was wondering if this was completely new. To me it sounds logical to add this.
14:18:20 <SteveS> +1 to open
14:18:36 <nmihindu> +1 to open and discuss it
14:18:48 <cody> Arnaud: Do we need a separate issue?
14:19:02 <TallTed> Zakim, unumute me
14:19:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unumute me', TallTed
14:19:11 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:19:11 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:19:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 open
14:19:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:19:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:19:35 <cody> TallTed: Please open it.
14:19:48 <pchampin> -0 (I think it is covered by issue 32)
<cody> resolved: Open Issue-57
14:19:51 <Arnaud> trackbot, reopen issue-57
14:19:52 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-57 How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server?.
14:19:52 <cody> Arnaud: Hearing no objections we hereby open issue 57.
14:20:03 <bblfish> issue-59
14:20:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- raised
14:20:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/59
14:20:23 <Zakim> -??P7
14:20:38 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
14:21:06 <stevebattle> No objection
14:21:11 <cody> Arnaud: Anyone want to object to opening this issue?
<cody> resolved: Open Issue-59
14:21:16 <Arnaud> trackbot, reopen issue-59
14:21:16 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-59 Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior.
14:21:25 <bblfish> Issue-60
14:21:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- The specification does not allow GETting empty containers -- raised
14:21:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/60
14:21:50 <stevebattle> q+
14:21:58 <pchampin> well, a set can be an empty set :-)
14:22:09 <Arnaud> ack steve
14:22:16 <cody> Arnaud: This one is interesting. His point is, the text seems to indicate that a container cannot be empty. But I don't think there is any intention to prohibit empty containers.
14:22:18 <JohnArwe> "sets can be empty" was exactly cygri's response
14:22:48 <dret> looks like fixing the text is good enough, then?
14:22:51 <bblfish> sounds editorial to me
14:23:18 <BartvanLeeuwen> editorial to me as well
14:23:18 <cody> Arnaud: I think we agree that containers CAN be empty. If you don't agree, please speak up.
14:23:32 <TallTed> +1 to the change in concept.  not sure the suggestion works, as written.
14:23:36 <cody> Arnaud: I don't think Raul's suggestion is the right one, by the way.
14:24:02 <bblfish> agree. better just add that the set can be empty
14:24:22 <TallTed> so +1 open issue with action for editor to come up with revision
14:24:27 <stevebattle> Maybe add the text "possibly empty set"
14:24:28 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 for clarrification
14:24:31 <cody> Arnaud: I suggest we close it with an action to the editor to come up with uh…. I think in respect to Raul's issue…I would like the editor to consider clarifying.
14:24:46 <bblfish> +!
14:24:49 <bblfish> +1
14:24:51 <dret> +1
14:24:52 <cody> Arnaud: I say we close it; with recommendation to editor to fix the spec to clarify intent
14:25:00 <JohnArwe> +1
14:25:01 <stevebattle> +1
14:25:04 <bblfish> +1
14:25:05 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
14:25:05 <pchampin> +1
14:25:06 <TallTed> +1
14:25:21 <SteveS> +1
14:25:27 <nmihindu> +1
14:25:33 <cody> Arnaud: So, very good. I hereby declare ISSUE-60 closed.
<cody> resolved: Close Issue-60; with recommendation to editor to fix the spec to clarify intent (empty containers are allowed)
14:25:55 <cody> Arnaud: I think that takes care of all the admin stuff. Moving on...
14:26:30 <bblfish> Which e-mails?
<cody> Topic: Review of Provenance Access and Query document
14:27:03 <cody> Arnaud: We got an email asking for the LDP working group to look at (two drafts ?) that may be of interest to us
14:27:03 <nmihindu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Mar/0019.html
14:27:35 <cody> "This document includes sections on service discovery and provenance "ping-back"
14:27:35 <cody> which may be related to mechanisms you are working to specify."
14:27:48 <nmihindu> I can volunteer to take a look
14:27:50 <SteveS> I am interested in learning more about this, doing it for LDP WG might be a good way to force me to do it
14:27:50 <cody> Arnaud: At the very least, we need to reply. Just ignoring this email is not good form.
14:27:59 <dret> q+
14:28:33 <Arnaud> ack dret
14:28:46 <cody> Arnaud: Very good. nmihindu can look at it.
14:29:03 <bblfish> yes, we can't hear anything
14:29:05 <JohnArwe> dret, losing your voice in the bkground hiss
14:29:55 <cody> dret: I think it will be an interesting one to look at.
14:30:18 <cody> Arnaud: We'll give nmihindu and fret the action item to look at it.
14:30:30 <stevebattle> q+
<cody> Topic: Open issues
<cody> subtopic: ISSUE-13: Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples
14:30:33 <bblfish> Issue-13
14:30:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples -- open
14:30:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/13
14:30:38 <cody> Arnaud: Now, let's move on to trying to making progress on Open Issues. Starting with ISSUE-13
14:30:39 <nmihindu> s/fret/dret
14:31:27 <stevebattle> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#general-1
14:33:20 <cody> Roger Menday: My objection was purely around ensuring the wording wasn
14:33:31 <cody> Roger: wasn't so ambiguous
14:33:51 <JohnArwe> speaker is steve battle
14:34:14 <cody> thx
14:34:17 <bblfish> q+
14:34:18 <JohnArwe> Roger will not be with us for 3 weeks (via private email)
14:35:26 <cody> stevebattle: does anybody deny that there is two different clauses within that…?
14:35:36 <Arnaud> ack steve
14:35:42 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:37:14 <SteveS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0145.html
14:37:29 <cody> stevebattle: I posted an example to the email log. This is based on the Net Worth Example.
14:37:52 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
14:38:47 <cody> stevebattle: This is really about server managed properties
14:39:56 <dret>  wondering: when you "sign" content, shouldn't you only be able to do that for content, and not for the member? i am saying that because a member is always under control of the server anyway, which might add metadata as it sees fit. it thus would be impossible for a client to do anything that depends on full control over that resource.
14:40:50 <ericP> q?
14:40:50 <cody> stevebattle: A1 is the key member of this Net Worth container. That met data about A1 is not actually within A1. Now if you do a GET on A1, you can see it has a value of 100. If you do a GET on the container, you get all of those triples combined. You get A1 and you can see the values. I can't now do a PATCH on the container. I've actually got to do the patch on A1 itself.
14:41:07 <JohnArwe> I think SB said "NOT" about server managed props.  Provenance being a good example, since LDP says nothing about Prov he assumes it is "user"-managed.
14:41:26 <cody> stevebattle: Maybe there needs to be an option when you ddl a GET on the container to prevent inlining.
14:41:29 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #ldp
14:42:23 <cody> Arnaud: I understand your example. I just don't know about the distinction your making by using "about"
14:42:26 <pchampin> q+
14:42:41 <SteveS> q+
14:42:46 <cody> stevebattle: The inline view is kind of the "constructed" view. It's not a "real" view.
14:42:53 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
14:43:19 <TallTed> I'm fine with the suggested revision.  servers MAY refuse such ... which implies that they MAY accept such, but it's not *required* that they accept (nor refuse).  application specific might handle a PATCH against LDPC that actually targets inlined LDPR triples -- but compliance doesn't require it.
14:43:25 <ericP> JohnArwe, i'd say that prov is server-managed. a particular server will have policies about what parts of the graph it provides
14:43:58 <Arnaud> ack steves
14:44:06 <cody> ericP: Do we really want containers to have such a complex behavior? I think the current assumption in the spec is that you cannot add arbitrary triples to the container. I see the use-case of talking about the members somewhere. I'm wondering if containers is the right place to do that?
14:44:07 <JohnArwe> @ericp, I was not making any assertion other than the existence of a difference between what I heard @steveb say and what the scribe minutes.
14:44:14 <JohnArwe> s/minutes/minuted/
14:44:33 <pchampin> s/ericP:/pchampin:/
14:44:33 <dret> very good point: the data that containers accept (and thus can represent) should be controlled/limited.
14:44:59 <ericP> cody, i don't think we have any choice. I had this issue with Annotea, where the dc:author property was tied to the http auth user who created an annotation
14:45:01 <cody> SteveS: My thought was… seems like we don't have…. would this be more about augmenting the PATCH section to what it means to PATCH containers?
14:45:02 <bblfish> That also makes sense, to add information about patching containers
14:45:08 <cody> Arnaud: You lost me, sorry.
14:45:35 <cody> SteveS: I'm wondering why there isn't a proposal for something in the PATCH section to add the clarification.
14:45:56 <ericP> s/cody, i don't think/@JohnArwe, i don't think/
14:46:14 <JohnArwe> This seems no different (some properties(triples) can be updated, others not) through a given URL than other cases like the generic "subject to access control" disclaimer.
14:46:31 <ericP> i buy that
14:46:32 <bblfish> What was the proposal?
14:46:41 <Arnaud>  original: “Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update inlined members through PUT/PATCH to a container.”
14:46:52 <Arnaud>  amended: “Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update the content of an inlined LDPR through PUT/PATCH to a container.”
14:47:08 <cody> Arnaud: This was the original we tried to agree to. Then Steve sent an ammended version.
14:47:27 <cody> Arnaud: At this point, I don't think we have introduced the term "inlined resources" in the spec.
14:48:22 <bblfish> q+
14:48:32 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:48:32 <cody> stevebattle: If we go with the original proposal, we'd also need to change 5.2.6; which is describing exactly what you can save in a container
14:48:41 <cody> Arnaud: Henry?
14:48:58 <TallTed> "5.2.6 The representation of a LDPC MAY include an arbitrary number of additional triples whose subjects are the members of the container, or that are from the representations of the members (if they have RDF representations). This allows a LDPC server to provide clients with information about the members without the client having to do a GET on each member individually. See section 5.1.1 Container Member Information for additional
14:48:58 <TallTed>  details."
14:48:58 <TallTed> so
14:48:58 <TallTed> “Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.”
14:49:45 <ericP> a particular app can close the world. for instance, if the data is backed by an RDB
14:50:01 <dret> very good point, bblfish.
14:50:19 <cody> bblfish: explained a concern (scribe didn
14:50:24 <SteveS> q+
14:50:35 <Arnaud> ack steves
14:50:39 <dret> actually, it is one that pretty much influences every single interaction in a RESTful design based on RDF.
14:50:56 <ericP> +1 to "it won't search the internet"
14:51:17 <pchampin> bblfish: RDF works under the open world assumption; so I don't think we can state something like "here are *all* the triples about this resource
14:51:23 <TallTed> q+
14:51:26 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:51:26 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:52:05 <cody> TallTed: What I am seeing as a distraction about "inline triples" is easy to eliminate by not using those terms.
14:52:21 <ericP> bblfish, 'SELECT ?s ?p ?o { GRPAH <x> { ?s ?p ?o } }' gives me all of the triples in <x>
14:52:26 <cody> TallTed: I say changing "inline …whatever" to terminology that is already used.
14:53:00 <stevebattle> q+
14:53:02 <bblfish> my point was that in RDF ther is for a container to say that it has published all the relations that are in the element. So if a container has <> rdf:member <element>, rdf does not make it possible to express that it has all the triples published inA <element>
14:53:11 <ericP> bblfish, likewise 'SELECT ?p ?o { <y> ?p ?o }' gives me all of the triples in the data store's default graph which <y> as a subject
14:53:27 <Arnaud> ack tallted
14:53:31 <Arnaud> ack steve
14:53:47 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
14:53:52 <bblfish> what's the latest proposal?
14:53:53 <cody> stevebattle: I'm happy with Ted's "amended amended" proposal. Saying the same thing as what I was saying.
14:54:07 <stevebattle> And better worded :)
14:54:21 <ericP> bblfish, ahh, what about { <> rdf:member <element> ; foo:count 5 } ?
14:54:22 <Arnaud> proposal: close issue-13, adding “Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update the content of an inlined LDPR through PUT/PATCH to a container.” to section 5.2.6
14:54:27 <stevebattle> “Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.”
14:54:45 <cody> TallTed: No that's not right. Hold on.
14:54:53 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying in 5.2.6 that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.
14:55:14 <cody> stevebattle: yup. That's right.
14:55:19 <bblfish> ericp <member> foo:count 5 , might work if <member> is a document
14:55:35 <cody> Arnaud: Right, my copy/paste failed. Thank you. You're right.
14:55:39 <TallTed> +1
14:55:43 <ericP> bblfish, but not if it's a ...?
14:55:44 <bblfish> would not work with <> rdf:member <m#h> .
14:55:49 <cody> Arnaud: I'd like to hear from people on this proposal.
14:56:07 <cody> TallTed: This is where the arbitrary number of included triples comes from.
14:56:13 <ericP> bblfish, why the distinction?
14:56:28 <pchampin> @bblfish: it would work! OWL has that. The problem is, it can leads to unexpected conclusions by inference engines.
14:56:32 <bblfish> because a document can contain triples, an object always can have an infinte number of tripels
14:56:36 <cody> Arnaud: As always, editors have some room for figuring out how to keep spec consistent (editing somewhere else if necessary to keep spec consistent)
14:56:36 <stevebattle> +1
14:56:36 <pchampin> +1
14:56:39 <ericP> +1
14:56:49 <nmihindu> +1
14:56:53 <SteveS> +1 may need to update 5.5 PUT and 5.8 PATCH as well
14:56:54 <bblfish> +0.5 ( just because I have only thought of it today )
14:56:56 <Ashok> +1
14:56:58 <dret> +1
14:57:05 <cody> +0
14:57:11 <JohnArwe> +1
14:57:21 <Arnaud> resolved: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying in 5.2.6 that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.
14:57:33 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:57:33 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:57:38 <stevebattle> Thanks Ted :)
14:57:44 <bblfish> pchampin: what does owl say?
14:58:02 <cody> Arnaud: I will call it resolved and leave it to the editors to select the resolution in the spec - along the lines of what is proposed. If there is more that needs to be done, then please do so.
14:58:12 <bblfish> owl, can create restrictions on the number of ojbects a relation has, not on the number of relations on an object
14:58:33 <bblfish> it's like owl:FunctionalPrperty
<cody> subtopic: ISSUE-59: Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior
14:58:51 <cody> Arnaud: We had some discussion on ISSUE-59
14:58:57 <bblfish> Issue-59
14:58:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- open
14:58:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/59
14:59:02 <TallTed> Zakim - unmute me
14:59:08 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:59:08 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:59:30 <cody> Arnaud: Composite versus aggregate containers. We resolved, but most people don't seem to be happy with the status quo.
15:00:33 <dret> need to get on a different meeting; thanks everybody!
15:00:40 <Zakim> -dret
15:00:59 <stevebattle> I like the proposal
15:01:02 <bblfish> The question I have is what would be the method for a recursive delete?
15:01:12 <cody> Arnaud: If I have thousands of resources in my container, and I delete the container, I want the server to delete them for me, and this led to discussion of need for aggregate container. Ted, had some disagreements. So the proposal is to forget the separation between composite and aggregation. Please, look at the email thread on this and try to indicate what you agree and don't agree to on this.
15:01:24 <SteveS> Yes, be interested to hear about the part (a) and also the part (b) (recursive delete)
15:01:27 <stevebattle> DELETE x?recursive
15:01:31 <cody> Arnaud: Please - look at that email. For this, I will close the call for now.
15:01:32 <stevebattle> just an idea
15:01:38 <stevebattle> bye
15:01:39 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:53 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:02:03 <bblfish> A cool, a Retry-After
15:02:18 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:02:20 <bblfish> Can you POST info on that in HTTP/1.1
15:02:23 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
15:02:32 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
15:02:41 <nmihindu> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.37
15:03:43 <cody> zakim, who is talking?
15:03:55 <Zakim> cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Cody (15%), TallTed (48%), ericP (15%)
15:04:27 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:04:30 <cody> pchampin: is not rude to raise issues without prior discussion?
15:04:35 <Zakim> -ericP
15:04:36 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:04:36 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:04:45 <cody> Arnaud: no. What's rude is to Open it, but not raise it, no.
15:05:12 <cody> cody has left #ldp
15:05:58 <stevebattle> stevebattle has joined #ldp
15:08:41 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
15:10:51 <Zakim> -Cody
15:44:08 <oberger> oberger has joined #ldp
16:06:25 <stevebattle2> stevebattle2 has joined #ldp
16:28:47 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:40:24 <jmv> jmv has joined #ldp
17:46:57 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #ldp