IRC log of ldp on 2013-04-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:57:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:57:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ldp
13:57:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
13:57:24 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
13:57:24 [cody]
cody has joined #ldp
13:57:25 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:57:25 [trackbot]
Date: 29 April 2013
13:57:56 [Zakim]
13:58:03 [Zakim]
13:58:10 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P7 is me
13:58:10 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
13:58:29 [Zakim]
13:58:36 [cody]
zakim IPcaller is me
13:58:38 [sergio]
sergio has joined #ldp
13:58:51 [cody]
zakim, IPcaller is cody
13:58:51 [Zakim]
+cody; got it
13:59:02 [Zakim]
13:59:21 [rgarcia]
rgarcia has joined #ldp
13:59:23 [Zakim]
+ +329331aaaa
13:59:39 [Zakim]
14:00:05 [Zakim]
- +329331aaaa
14:00:33 [svillata]
svillata has joined #ldp
14:00:46 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #ldp
14:00:54 [nmihindu]
nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:01:10 [Zakim]
+ +329331aabb
14:01:12 [Zakim]
14:01:18 [mielvds1]
zakim, +329331aabb is me
14:01:18 [Zakim]
+mielvds1; got it
14:01:41 [Zakim]
14:01:53 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:54 [rgarcia]
zakim, ??P2 is me
14:01:54 [Zakim]
+rgarcia; got it
14:01:55 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:01:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveBattle, Sandro, pchampin, cody, JohnArwe, Arnaud, mielvds1, ??P17, rgarcia
14:02:19 [Zakim]
14:02:26 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
14:02:36 [Zakim]
14:02:37 [Zakim]
14:02:42 [sergio]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:02:42 [Zakim]
+sergio; got it
14:02:52 [Zakim]
14:02:56 [AndyS]
zakim, IPCaller.a is me
14:02:56 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:02:59 [JohnArwe]
regrets: steve speicher, eric p
14:03:08 [Zakim]
14:03:09 [Arnaud]
regrets: bart
14:03:23 [JohnArwe]
zakim, who's making noise?
14:03:30 [Zakim]
+ +44.208.573.aacc
14:03:34 [Zakim]
JohnArwe, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (38%), ??P25 (42%)
14:03:41 [AndyS]
Partial apologies - limited to 30 mins.
14:03:48 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveBattle, Sandro, pchampin, cody, JohnArwe, Arnaud, mielvds1, ??P17, rgarcia, sergio, Ashok_Malhotra, AndyS, ??P24, ??P25, +44.208.573.aacc
14:04:18 [Zakim]
14:04:34 [roger]
kakim, +44.208.573.aacc is me
14:04:43 [Zakim]
14:04:46 [nmihindu]
zakim, ??P24 is me
14:04:46 [Zakim]
+nmihindu; got it
14:04:52 [roger]
zakim, +44.208.573.aacc is me
14:04:52 [Zakim]
+roger; got it
14:04:58 [Zakim]
14:05:16 [svillata]
Zakim, ??P27 is me
14:05:16 [Zakim]
+svillata; got it
14:05:44 [Arnaud]
scribe: svillata
14:05:51 [JohnArwe]
zakim, who's making noise?
14:06:03 [Zakim]
JohnArwe, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: SteveBattle (46%), JohnArwe (9%), Arnaud (64%), mielvds1 (3%)
14:07:22 [svillata]
Topic: approval minutes last call
14:08:24 [Zakim]
14:08:26 [Zakim]
14:08:59 [Zakim]
14:09:04 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:09:04 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
14:09:19 [Zakim]
14:09:30 [svillata]
Arnaud: we can change the minutes accoding to TallTed argument
14:09:37 [JohnArwe]
arnaud: will clean up minutes to address JohnArwe's email
14:09:50 [JohnArwe]
14:09:59 [stevebattle]
14:10:07 [svillata]
Arnoud: I will update the monutes
14:10:19 [AndyS]
14:10:30 [svillata]
RESOLVED: minutes approved
14:10:46 [nmihindu]
14:10:56 [svillata]
Topic:next F2F meeting
14:11:15 [svillata]
Arnaud: please specify your participation to the next F2F meeting
14:11:25 [bblfish]
14:11:30 [roger]
just for info, next Monday is public holliday here in UK ...
14:11:44 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:11:44 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:11:53 [svillata]
Topic: Actions and Issues
14:12:23 [bblfish]
14:12:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-54 -- Nandana Mihindukulasooriya to review the 'PROV-AQ: Provenance Access and Query' document and provide feedback -- due 2013-04-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:12:23 [trackbot]
14:12:34 [Arnaud]
resolved: close action-54
14:12:35 [svillata]
14:13:04 [svillata]
Arnaud: Any other action to be consider for closure?
14:13:33 [krp]
krp has joined #ldp
14:14:27 [svillata]
Arnaud: time is going by, we have quite a few actions we are waiting for
14:15:02 [svillata]
Arnaud: there was an action about the patch, do you know the status of it?
14:15:17 [bblfish]
The PATCH format action is important
14:15:34 [stevebattle]
14:15:36 [bblfish]
Is there a PATCH Action?
14:16:04 [Arnaud]
ack steveb
14:16:26 [svillata]
Arnaud: at the F2F we agree on the direction, we need to make sure we don't are lost
14:16:47 [svillata]
... we don't have an action on that
14:16:59 [svillata]
... Sandro is working on the PATCH action
14:17:29 [svillata]
Arnaud: we have one rased issue
14:17:30 [Zakim]
14:17:48 [krp]
zakim, ??P35 is me
14:17:48 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
14:17:48 [svillata]
14:18:00 [svillata]
Topic: ISSUE-61
14:18:23 [svillata]
Arnaud: why do you think it is a problem?
14:18:43 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
14:18:50 [SteveS]
SteveS has left #ldp
14:19:20 [JohnArwe]
zakim, who's making noise?
14:19:29 [stevebattle]
14:19:31 [Zakim]
JohnArwe, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: rgarcia (9%), mielvds1 (4%)
14:19:32 [TallTed]
bblfish - you moved from a clear vocal space, to the bottom of a well...
14:20:20 [Arnaud]
ack steveb
14:20:49 [svillata]
stevebattle: the membership subject is not necessarily a separate LDPR
14:21:03 [JohnArwe]
14:21:13 [svillata]
... I agree with your point of view, maybe removing flexibility
14:21:15 [Arnaud]
ack john
14:21:28 [bblfish]
14:21:28 [trackbot]
ISSUE-61 -- remove membershipSubject -- raised
14:21:28 [trackbot]
14:22:24 [bblfish]
14:22:42 [rgarcia]
zakim, mute me
14:22:42 [Zakim]
rgarcia should now be muted
14:23:16 [svillata]
JohnArwe: we have existing resources to be structured naturally, I assign membership subject or vary membership predicate
14:24:14 [svillata]
bblfish: you only allow the content to be placed to another container
14:24:35 [AndyS]
Inline members which may be containers (so type triple is not unique)?
14:24:36 [Zakim]
14:24:42 [svillata]
... for the moment the relations can only be a sub-relation of RDF member
14:25:07 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:25:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveBattle, Sandro, pchampin, cody, JohnArwe, Arnaud, mielvds1, rgarcia (muted), sergio, Ashok_Malhotra, AndyS, nmihindu, roger, bblfish, svillata, TallTed
14:25:11 [Zakim]
... (muted), Yves, krp
14:25:33 [svillata]
... we could think to a way of doing things in a more general way
14:26:02 [svillata]
bblfish: the new container is related to the new content
14:26:40 [svillata]
... membership predicate does not say LDP membership
14:26:46 [krp]
krp has joined #ldp
14:27:09 [svillata]
Arnaud: there is no restriction to RDF member
14:27:17 [stevebattle]
14:27:38 [Zakim]
14:27:53 [krp]
zakim, ??P17 is me
14:27:53 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
14:27:56 [svillata]
14:28:08 [Arnaud]
ack steveb
14:28:32 [svillata]
stevebattle: I agree with John, there is not such a kind of restriction
14:29:18 [pchampin]
14:29:39 [roger]
@steveabattle ... on the subject, is my opinion
14:30:10 [svillata]
Arnaud: you may have a resource which has nothing to do with LDP resource
14:30:19 [stevebattle]
Sounds like there's a difference of interpretation here then?
14:30:22 [pchampin]
14:30:27 [Arnaud]
ack pchampin
14:30:27 [svillata]
Arnaud: we need to move on
14:30:47 [svillata]
pchampin: I can ask my question on the mailing list
14:31:31 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:31:31 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:31:38 [svillata]
Arnaud: it's better to go on with the open issues and actions
14:32:33 [svillata]
14:32:57 [AndyS]
"I don't understand" (which is rather open) needs to be turned into "If I read it as XYZ, then ABC is a problem"
14:33:49 [svillata]
Arnaud: either we close it or we rename it as membership subject
14:34:03 [svillata]
bblfish: I can rename for next week
14:34:22 [TallTed]
e.g., "membershipSubject needs better description, or possible removal"
14:34:33 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:34:33 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:34:41 [mielvds1]
agreed, rename and retake
14:34:46 [svillata]
Arnaud: unless somebody makes a concrete proposal
14:34:51 [stevebattle]
I'd prefer to see clarification.
14:35:13 [svillata]
bblfish: you can close the issue and then I'll reopen it clarifying
14:35:40 [stevebattle]
14:35:41 [mielvds1]
14:35:44 [sergio]
14:35:49 [svillata]
14:35:54 [Arnaud]
resolved: close issue-6`, henry to raise another issue asking for clarification
14:36:03 [Arnaud]
resolved: close issue-61, henry to raise another issue asking for clarification
14:36:11 [svillata]
close Issue-61
14:36:11 [trackbot]
Closed ISSUE-61 remove membershipSubject.
14:36:23 [svillata]
Topic: open issues
14:36:32 [bblfish]
14:36:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-26 -- creation model for LDP -- open
14:36:32 [trackbot]
14:36:36 [svillata]
Arnaud: proposal close Issue-26
14:37:11 [svillata]
Arnaud: suggested to put it in the wish list, and close Issue-26
14:37:19 [svillata]
... any problem with this?
14:38:05 [svillata]
ashok: what are we closing? what are we not specifying now?
14:38:18 [roger]
14:39:03 [svillata]
ashok: do we have an open issue on how do we create a container?
14:39:43 [svillata]
Arnaud: the answer I believe the spec is silent about how to create a container, you can create a container as you create the other resources
14:40:39 [Arnaud]
ack roger
14:40:41 [nmihindu]
14:40:41 [trackbot]
ISSUE-36 -- Can applications create new containers? -- closed
14:40:41 [trackbot]
14:40:42 [sandro]
Where I'm stuck is how you know whether a particular container will look at the POSTed content to see if it should make a subcontainer. We need a way to say what stuff is looked for in POST.
14:40:58 [JohnArwe]
IIRC we have talked about capturing that answer in some of the non-Rec-track documents (primer/whatever) to keep it clear what's part of the normative content vs what's an implication of the normative content.
14:41:02 [sandro]
(aka affordances.)
14:41:25 [svillata]
Roger: I'm not talking about create a container inside a container
14:42:53 [svillata]
Arnaud: the editors have an action item to specify how to create containers in the spec
14:42:54 [roger]
I mean containers as 'siblings' of other containers ...
14:43:39 [svillata]
Proposed: close issue 26
14:43:47 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-26: Creation model for LDP as is, add it to the wishlist for
14:43:51 [TallTed]
what's the open action?
14:44:01 [bblfish]
+1 issue-26 is incredibly vague
14:44:08 [roger]
14:44:09 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:44:09 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:44:09 [sergio]
14:44:10 [sandro]
14:44:15 [rgarcia]
14:44:16 [mielvds1]
14:44:20 [cody]
cody has joined #ldp
14:44:22 [nmihindu]
14:44:24 [svillata]
Arnaud: no action on the tracker, it's issue-26
14:44:26 [stevebattle]
14:44:26 [bblfish]
14:44:26 [krp]
14:44:27 [cody]
14:44:29 [svillata]
14:44:51 [Ashok]
+1 as long as isse-36 remains open
14:45:18 [cody]
You mean providing 36 is reopened?
14:45:23 [JohnArwe]
roger's sibling example: using the existing spec example (net-worth has 2 containers, assets and liabilities), how would roger create a 3rd container within the net-worth resource?
14:45:33 [svillata]
Issue-36 is closed at the moment
14:45:34 [Arnaud]
action: steve to propose text clarifying the creation of container, per resolution of issue-36
14:45:34 [trackbot]
'steve' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., sspeiche, sbattle2).
14:45:39 [TallTed]
+1 pending action creation and association with both issues (reviewing action completion will inform whether a new issue is needed... and clarity of that issue)
14:45:45 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:45:45 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:45:46 [Arnaud]
action: steves to propose text clarifying the creation of container, per resolution of issue-36
14:45:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-55 - Propose text clarifying the creation of container, per resolution of issue-36 [on Steve Speicher - due 2013-05-06].
14:45:49 [JohnArwe]
+1 move issue-26 to
14:45:53 [Ashok]
Ah! thanks, Cody!
14:46:13 [Arnaud]
resolved: Close ISSUE-26: Creation model for LDP as is, add it to the wishlist for
14:46:14 [svillata]
RESOLVED: Issue-26
14:46:37 [bblfish]
14:46:37 [trackbot]
ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- open
14:46:37 [trackbot]
14:46:37 [sergio]
14:46:37 [trackbot]
ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- open
14:46:38 [svillata]
14:46:38 [trackbot]
14:46:38 [trackbot]
ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- open
14:46:38 [trackbot]
14:47:20 [svillata]
Arnaud: we revert to the original spec, when you delete a container there is no guarantee, you delete the content too
14:47:21 [roger]
@JohnArwe, I am opening a issue on this now.
14:47:33 [roger]
i.e. about the siblings
14:47:38 [svillata]
... I put together a new proposal based on bblfish one
14:48:15 [svillata] have the members, and then when you delete the container you delete these members only, and not the others
14:48:18 [bblfish]
Arnaud is summarising
14:49:34 [svillata]
Arnaud: A) we have one container, B) we get rid of the two types of container, C) we stick with what we have
14:49:57 [stevebattle]
14:49:57 [sandro]
A (I think)
14:50:04 [sergio]
+1 A
14:50:06 [pchampin]
14:50:06 [Yves]
14:50:07 [cody]
A (leaning towards)
14:50:10 [rgarcia]
14:50:11 [roger]
14:50:11 [svillata]
14:50:27 [sergio]
14:50:29 [mielvds1]
14:50:32 [JohnArwe]
I think the difference between A and B is whether or not clients can "introspect" which member resources the server will delete if the container is deleted.
14:50:34 [Ashok]
14:50:37 [nmihindu]
14:50:40 [TallTed]
A +0.5 B +1.0 C -1.0
14:50:54 [AndyS]
Currently: A
14:51:07 [JohnArwe]
+1, +0, -0.5
14:51:33 [svillata]
Arnaud: A also implies we do not do a recursive deletion automatically
14:51:43 [krp]
+0.8 A
14:51:44 [sergio]
A: +1, B: -0.5, C: -1
14:51:45 [svillata]
... we have two different delete operations
14:51:57 [svillata]
... there are also other options we can invent
14:52:05 [sergio]
14:52:14 [svillata]
... Does anybody object to option A?
14:52:16 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:52:16 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:53:41 [Zakim]
14:53:44 [sergio]
bye AndyS
14:53:44 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #ldp
14:54:31 [svillata]
Arnaud: personally I prefer option B, it addresses the main issue
14:54:48 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:54:48 [Zakim]
TallTed was not muted, TallTed
14:54:53 [bblfish]
A: 0 B: +1.0 C
14:55:21 [svillata]
14:55:42 [Arnaud]
ack sergio
14:56:19 [svillata]
sergio: we should do the same as for the resources
14:57:15 [svillata]
Arnaud: objections to option A?
14:57:29 [Arnaud]
proposal: close issue-59, with option A
14:57:34 [stevebattle]
14:57:37 [roger]
14:57:38 [svillata]
14:57:41 [cody]
14:57:41 [pchampin]
14:57:42 [JohnArwe]
14:57:44 [sergio]
+1 amending 3rd point
14:58:02 [sandro]
14:58:04 [nmihindu]
14:58:14 [TallTed]
14:58:18 [svillata]
Arnaud: we can do something more robust in the future, as TallTed says
14:58:21 [rgarcia]
14:58:39 [krp]
14:58:56 [svillata]
close Issue-59
14:58:56 [trackbot]
Closed ISSUE-59 Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior.
14:59:02 [mielvds1]
14:59:42 [Arnaud]
resolved: close issue-59, with option A
15:00:42 [stevebattle]
15:00:43 [Zakim]
15:00:48 [Zakim]
15:01:45 [svillata]
15:01:45 [Zakim]
15:01:47 [Zakim]
15:01:48 [Zakim]
15:01:49 [Zakim]
15:01:50 [cody]
cody has left #ldp
15:01:50 [Zakim]
15:01:50 [Zakim]
15:01:51 [Zakim]
15:01:51 [Zakim]
15:01:51 [Zakim]
15:01:52 [Zakim]
15:01:54 [Zakim]
15:01:55 [Zakim]
15:01:55 [Zakim]
15:01:57 [Zakim]
15:03:59 [Zakim]
15:07:48 [mielvds]
mielvds has joined #ldp
15:09:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, krp, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
15:09:02 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:09:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were SteveBattle, Sandro, pchampin, cody, JohnArwe, +329331aaaa, Arnaud, mielvds1, rgarcia, Ashok_Malhotra, sergio, AndyS, bblfish, nmihindu, roger, svillata, TallTed,
15:09:02 [Zakim]
... Yves, krp
15:15:45 [mielvds]
mielvds has left #ldp
17:04:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ldp
17:41:35 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
17:57:32 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ldp
18:40:12 [jmv]
jmv has joined #ldp
19:12:57 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #ldp