IRC log of ldp on 2013-05-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:55:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:55:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:55:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ldp
13:55:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
13:55:24 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:25 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:55:25 [trackbot]
Date: 13 May 2013
13:56:51 [cody]
cody has joined #ldp
13:57:16 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ldp
13:57:29 [svillata]
svillata has joined #ldp
13:57:38 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:57:45 [Zakim]
13:57:52 [SteveS]
Zakim, [IBM] is me
13:57:52 [Zakim]
+SteveS; got it
13:57:54 [JohnArwe]
JohnArwe has joined #ldp
13:57:58 [SteveS]
Chair: SteveS
13:58:03 [SteveS]
Regrets: Arnaud
13:59:40 [Zakim]
13:59:50 [cody]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
13:59:50 [Zakim]
+cody; got it
14:00:12 [Zakim]
14:00:16 [cody]
cody has joined #ldp
14:00:26 [TallTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
14:00:26 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
14:00:28 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:00:28 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:00:33 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
14:00:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveS, cody, TallTed (muted)
14:00:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cody, JohnArwe, svillata, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, bhyland, TallTed, SteveS, oberger, jmvanel, betehess, cygri, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee
14:00:38 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
14:00:47 [rgarcia]
rgarcia has joined #ldp
14:00:49 [Zakim]
14:00:51 [Zakim]
14:01:00 [nmihindu]
nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:01:12 [svillata]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
14:01:13 [Zakim]
+svillata; got it
14:01:26 [Zakim]
14:01:38 [ericP]
SteveS, i'll be 30 mins late. will you still be talking about tests then?
14:02:02 [SteveS]
ericP, maybe…I could shuffle the order to make sure it comes in 29+ minutes
14:02:07 [Zakim]
14:02:16 [Zakim]
14:02:26 [rgarcia]
zakim, ??P14 is me
14:02:26 [Zakim]
+rgarcia; got it
14:02:31 [SteveS]
Zakim, who's here?
14:02:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveS, cody, TallTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, svillata, [IPcaller], JohnArwe, rgarcia
14:02:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nmihindu, rgarcia, roger, cody, JohnArwe, svillata, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, bhyland, TallTed, SteveS, oberger, jmvanel, betehess, cygri, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP,
14:02:33 [Zakim]
... thschee
14:03:34 [Zakim]
14:03:35 [Zakim]
14:03:46 [roger]
zakim, i am [IPcaller]
14:03:46 [Zakim]
ok, roger, I now associate Roger with [IPcaller]
14:03:54 [Zakim]
14:04:25 [nmihindu]
Zakim, ??P21 is me
14:04:25 [Zakim]
+nmihindu; got it
14:04:32 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ldp
14:05:50 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has changed the topic to: Linked Data Platform WG -- -- current agenda
14:05:55 [Ashok]
scribenick: Ashok
14:06:12 [Zakim]
14:06:19 [Ashok]
Topic: Minutes from May 6 telcon
14:07:00 [SteveS]
Minutes from may 6th
14:07:59 [Ashok]
Steve: There was some email discussion. I have cleaned up the minutes to reflect that.
14:08:14 [Ashok]
Minutes approved w/o objection
14:08:27 [Ashok]
Topic: Next meeting
14:08:37 [Ashok]
Same time, same place
14:08:42 [Ashok]
Topic: f2f
14:09:00 [Ashok]
9 say they they will atend, 3 will atend remotely
14:09:10 [Ashok]
14:09:38 [JohnArwe]
Is May 20 a UK holiday? I see in Canada it's Victoria Day.
14:09:48 [Ashok]
Tpoic: Tracking Actions and Issues
14:10:04 [Zakim]
14:10:07 [Ashok]
14:10:43 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
14:10:50 [krp]
krp has joined #ldp
14:10:51 [bblfish]
14:11:04 [Ashok]
Steve: Arnaud has split some complex into into several simpler issues
14:11:46 [Ashok]
Topic: Action-56 ... editorial changes for Action-59
14:11:53 [Zakim]
14:11:56 [bblfish]
14:11:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-56 -- Steve Speicher to [EDITOR] Remove aggregate/composite containers and leave just 1 -- due 2013-05-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:11:56 [trackbot]
14:12:04 [Ashok]
No objections
14:12:23 [Ashok]
Steve: There are 15 open actions, 13 are overdue
14:13:32 [Kalpa]
Kalpa has joined #ldp
14:14:18 [Ashok]
No other progress on actions
14:14:52 [Ashok]
Topic: Issues pending review
14:14:52 [Zakim]
14:14:54 [Ashok]
14:15:05 [Ashok]
Topic: Raised issues
14:15:17 [Ashok]
Steve: We have 3 raised issues
14:15:28 [JohnArwe]
zakim, issue-62?
14:15:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, JohnArwe.
14:15:31 [Ashok]
14:15:31 [trackbot]
ISSUE-62 -- Creating Sibling Containers -- raised
14:15:31 [trackbot]
14:15:33 [nmihindu]
14:15:33 [trackbot]
ISSUE-62 -- Creating Sibling Containers -- raised
14:15:33 [trackbot]
14:16:25 [Ashok]
Roger explains issue
14:17:22 [Arnaud]
ISSUE-62 needs a better name
14:17:35 [Ashok]
Steve: Can we change name to make intent more explicit
14:17:36 [Arnaud]
Roger called that child containers before
14:18:11 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #ldp
14:18:43 [Arnaud]
we should at least be consistent
14:19:12 [bblfish]
yes it can be edited in the interface
14:19:14 [SteveS]
suggest naming it "Creating containers associated with LDRs"
14:19:30 [Ashok]
Roger: That's good!
14:19:43 [rgarcia]
14:19:45 [Zakim]
14:19:52 [bblfish]
Ah, ok. So the idea is you have an LDR and you want to create a container for it?
14:20:40 [SteveS]
idea was I have a NetWorth resource, I have no assets or assetContainer, how do I bring one into existence?
14:20:41 [bblfish]
14:20:42 [JohnArwe]
yes Henry: given an LDPR, which has n containers "associated with" it, how do you add n+1st
14:21:21 [JohnArwe]
...when the LDPR is not itself necessarily an LDP*C*
14:21:44 [Zakim]
14:22:28 [Ashok]
bblfish: This continues the confusion with membership predicate
14:22:51 [JohnArwe]
Henry do we have an open issue already on membership predicate?
14:23:11 [roger]
yes, I can have a go at re-editing the text
14:23:15 [Ashok]
bblfish: We should change the text also
14:24:05 [svillata]
14:24:30 [Ashok]
bblfish: Let's close raise new issue
14:24:35 [bblfish]
14:24:40 [bblfish]
sounds good
14:24:49 [Ashok]
Roger: I can edit the text and we can consider it next week
14:25:02 [bblfish]
14:25:02 [trackbot]
ISSUE-63 -- Need to be able to specify collation with container ordering -- raised
14:25:02 [trackbot]
14:25:05 [Ashok]
14:25:05 [trackbot]
ISSUE-63 -- Need to be able to specify collation with container ordering -- raised
14:25:05 [trackbot]
14:25:48 [cody]
cody has joined #ldp
14:26:30 [TallTed]
+1 open
14:26:34 [Ashok]
Steve: Explains issue
14:26:50 [Ashok]
No objections to opening issue
14:27:11 [bblfish]
14:27:11 [trackbot]
ISSUE-69 -- Query syntaxes for accessing the first and subsequent pages -- raised
14:27:11 [trackbot]
14:27:12 [Ashok]
14:27:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- closed
14:27:12 [trackbot]
14:27:25 [Ashok]
14:27:55 [Ashok]
Steve: Originally stared by Steve Battle
14:28:18 [Ashok]
Steve: Expllains issue
14:28:34 [Ashok]
14:28:36 [bblfish]
ok, sounds good
14:29:05 [Ashok]
No objection to opening issue -- ISSUE-69 is open
14:29:20 [Ashok]
Topic: Test Suite
14:29:22 [SteveS]
ericP, you going to be available soon?
14:29:37 [Ashok]
Wating for EricP
14:29:40 [SteveS]
Test Suite information :
14:30:13 [Ashok]
Topic: Open Issues
14:30:21 [Ashok]
14:30:21 [trackbot]
ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open
14:30:21 [trackbot]
14:30:45 [SteveS]
Proposal from Arnaud see option B
14:30:56 [Ashok]
Steve: We took a straw poll on this last week
14:31:27 [SteveS]
Proposal: Close ISSUE-58 by adding to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which indicates the
14:31:28 [SteveS]
members for which a complete description is inlined in the container document.
14:31:45 [Ashok]
Option B: Add to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which indicates the members for which a complete description is inlined in the container document.
14:32:14 [TallTed]
I suggest changing "indicates" to "enumerates" or "lists" ... and then +1
14:32:47 [bblfish]
14:32:51 [roger]
14:33:05 [rgarcia]
Agree with TallTed, not clear whether the ldl:memberInlined property is for one resource or for a list of them
14:33:11 [roger]
zakim, i am [IPcaller]
14:33:11 [Zakim]
ok, roger, I now associate Roger with [IPcaller]
14:33:31 [krp]
zakim, ??P27 is me
14:33:31 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
14:34:10 [Ashok]
bblfish: Why not just one resource that is "inlined"?
14:34:25 [bblfish]
<> ldp:memberlined <member1>, <member2>, <member3>
14:34:32 [JohnArwe]
raul: members (plural) in the email
14:34:55 [JohnArwe]
henry: if you have access to browser, Arnaud's email does have proposed turtle for each option
14:34:56 [nmihindu]
There is an example at
14:35:02 [rgarcia]
JohnArwe: in the email and in the proposal it is in singular
14:35:07 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:35:07 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:35:31 [Ashok]
TallTed: "Indicates" is unclear. Pl. reword.
14:35:42 [roger]
so, ldp:memberfullyinlined ?
14:35:43 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:35:43 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:35:45 [SteveS]
14:35:48 [SteveS]
ack bblfish
14:35:49 [JohnArwe]
raul: from the 141 email link above:
14:35:51 [JohnArwe]
Option B:
14:35:51 [JohnArwe]
Add to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which indicates the
14:35:51 [JohnArwe]
members for which a complete description is inlined in the container
14:35:51 [JohnArwe]
14:35:52 [roger]
14:35:54 [bblfish]
14:36:07 [JohnArwe]
...i.e. indicates the members (sic - members)
14:36:13 [SteveS]
Zakim, [IPCaller] is roger
14:36:13 [Zakim]
+roger; got it
14:36:18 [TallTed]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is roger
14:36:18 [Zakim]
sorry, TallTed, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
14:36:22 [SteveS]
ack [IPCaller]
14:36:33 [bblfish]
14:36:53 [bblfish]
14:37:02 [Ashok]
Roger: It's a list not a single property
14:37:13 [Zakim]
14:37:13 [SteveS]
Proposal: Close ISSUE-58 by adding to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which enumerates the members for which a complete description is inlined in the container response document.
14:37:35 [bblfish]
anyway, it makes sense to me the way it is
14:37:55 [sandro]
14:38:00 [SteveS]
14:38:15 [JohnArwe]
zakim, [GVoice] is ericP
14:38:15 [Zakim]
+ericP; got it
14:38:21 [TallTed]
14:38:22 [roger]
14:38:23 [bblfish]
Close ISSUE-58 by adding to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which relates the container to LDPRs for which a complete description is inlined in the container response document.
14:38:24 [svillata]
14:38:25 [ericP]
14:38:25 [bblfish]
14:38:26 [krp]
14:38:26 [nmihindu]
14:38:53 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:38:53 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:38:53 [sandro]
<container> ldp:memberInlined <memberURI>
14:38:55 [rgarcia]
+0.5 (without seeing the example it is not clear if we are referring to an rdf:List or not)
14:38:59 [Arnaud]
I thought we could repeat the property but it could also be a list
14:39:25 [bblfish]
ldp:memberInlines is a one to many relation
14:39:34 [JohnArwe]
raul: the example from email 141 is
14:39:35 [JohnArwe]
14:39:35 [JohnArwe]
a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;
14:39:35 [JohnArwe]
ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset;
14:39:35 [JohnArwe]
o:asset <a1>, <a2>;
14:39:35 [JohnArwe]
ldp:memberInlined <a1>, <a2>.
14:39:36 [sandro]
<#myFriendsCollection> ldp:memberInlined <#alice>, <#bob>, <#david>. # Not charlie
14:39:43 [Ashok]
TallTed: One triple per inlined member
14:39:44 [ericP]
14:41:10 [sandro]
<> ldp:memberInlined <#alice>, <#bob>, <#david>. # Not charlie
14:41:24 [Ashok]
bblfish: Objects to use of # urls
14:41:28 [sandro]
... means All the triples I know that involved #alice are in this document.
14:41:47 [pchampin]
wondering what happens when the container is paginated
14:41:50 [Ashok]
Eric: The # urls should be : Urls
14:42:01 [TallTed]
14:42:04 [sandro]
But not "must". Hash URIs are fine for this.
14:42:18 [SteveS]
pchampin, a difference I was thinking it might be a property of a ldp:Page in that case
14:42:39 [pchampin]
yes, I think that would be wise
14:42:58 [pchampin]
in fact, I would prefer that it was always a property of ldp:Page
14:43:05 [pchampin]
even if the container is described by a single ldp:Page
14:43:07 [ericP]
<alice> { <sa> <pa> <oa> . } <container> { <> ldp:memberInlined <alice> . }
14:43:14 [Ashok]
14:44:13 [Ashok]
Eric: Wonders if it's a all or none property
14:44:19 [Arnaud1]
Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
14:44:26 [sandro]
but if you're including all the triples, one more is okay.
14:45:46 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:45:46 [Zakim]
TallTed was not muted, TallTed
14:45:55 [TallTed]
14:46:09 [Ashok]
Eric: LDP data will be mainly homogeneous
14:46:13 [SteveS]
ack roger
14:46:13 [bblfish]
14:46:17 [nmihindu]
ericP, It is like option A in the proposals ?
14:46:40 [Ashok]
Roger: Disagrees if LDP is really rectangular data
14:46:55 [SteveS]
nmihindu, is what I understand ericP is saying
14:47:04 [ericP]
nmihindu, iirc, there is a proposal with a global predicate to indicate exhaustively inlined members. that may be A
14:47:09 [bblfish]
I have a better solution guys
14:47:21 [SteveS]
14:47:25 [SteveS]
ack Ashok
14:48:10 [bblfish]
Ashok give me a second
14:48:29 [SteveS]
ack TallTed
14:48:30 [bblfish]
I'll argue for something that solves both those issues simultaneoulsy
14:48:35 [Ashok]
... we can make it more general
14:48:51 [ericP]
q+ to say that when we see the situation for which the enumeration is appropriate, we can add it
14:49:04 [Ashok]
Ashok: How about also a single boolean property that all members are inled
14:49:14 [Ashok]
14:49:31 [Ashok]
Ted: Argues for both properties
14:49:38 [SteveS]
ack bblfish
14:50:11 [bblfish]
<> member [ title "hello world",... ]
14:50:14 [Ashok]
Henry: We don't need either property
14:50:27 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ldp
14:50:31 [bblfish]
<> member [ title "hello world",... owl:sameAs <member> ]
14:50:33 [Ashok]
... use a blank node as above
14:51:00 [ericP]
the bnode is cool for this purpose 'cause in fact one could not dereference it, but i suspect that a lot of our infrastructure depends on dereference
14:51:15 [pchampin]
@bblfish: this has the same problem as ldp:hasInlinedMember: adds an extra triple (owl:sameAs)
14:51:28 [pchampin]
... and makes things cumbersome for non-OWL-enabled clients
14:53:20 [Ashok]
Henry: sameAs is widely used
14:53:26 [JohnArwe]
ericp: we GA'd an integration component 2 months ago (where we think LDP fits nicely) that is a single heterogeneous collection of all (for some definition of all) IT resources in an enterprise.
14:53:44 [ericP]
14:54:07 [SteveS]
14:54:11 [JohnArwe]
generally available ... i.e. we're allowed to talk about it w/o lawyers, and you can "buy" it
14:54:50 [ericP]
JohnArwe, ok, so that's a case for option B
14:55:03 [Ashok]
Steve: How should we proceed
14:55:31 [Ashok]
Ted: We have options E and F. E is both properties, F is Henry's new proposal
14:55:33 [bblfish]
I'll write up my proposal
14:55:39 [bblfish]
and send to the list.
14:55:43 [ericP]
+1 to A, я and X but never Q
14:56:07 [Ashok]
Topic: Test Suite
14:56:08 [SteveS]
Test Case first draft
14:57:28 [Ashok]
Raul: 3 topics ..,design of test, how to run tests and how test are described
14:58:00 [Ashok]
... I have some issues I will send to mailing list
14:58:49 [Ashok]
Raul: Describes how test suite would work
15:00:08 [cody]
15:00:38 [ericP]
15:00:51 [SteveS]
ack cody
15:01:07 [Ashok]
Raul: If we only have tests for the MUST statements, we will have very few test. Need to think about how to test optional statements
15:01:52 [Ashok]
Cody: What is purposee of test suite? Why don't implementers write their own tests?
15:02:04 [Ashok]
... need an introduction
15:02:19 [JohnArwe]
cody: one use we've discussed previously for the test suite is to form proposals for change in them, as a way to agree on the DESRIED result of a given set of inputs and interactions.
15:02:38 [JohnArwe]
interop testing is the big kahuna though
15:02:46 [Ashok]
Eric: From a process perspective we need to say we have 2 or more implementations. Also need that for outreach.
15:02:58 [SteveS]
thanks all, if you need to drop understand…just want to continue discussion as some of us having been able to sync up on this
15:03:09 [Zakim]
15:03:22 [SteveS]
s/been able/not been able/
15:03:57 [bblfish]
very good answer :-)
15:04:04 [sandro]
15:04:07 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:07 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
15:04:12 [Ashok]
Eric: The implementations must be able to say they pass they test to say they are conforming implementations
15:04:17 [Zakim]
15:04:24 [Ashok]
15:04:53 [SteveS]
15:05:44 [Zakim]
15:05:56 [SteveS]
ack sandro
15:06:45 [Ashok]
Sandro: Rather than implementations saying whether they pass or fail, this approach says they just send us the output. This is a new approach
15:08:44 [Ashok]
Discussion about implementation should report output rather than just pass/fail
15:09:06 [Zakim]
15:09:21 [bblfish]
15:09:38 [Ashok]
Steve: Let's adjourn but we can have a discussion
15:09:46 [Zakim]
15:09:46 [ericP]
15:09:55 [bblfish]
Steve attempting a speec acts for closing the session
15:10:05 [bblfish]
15:10:19 [bblfish]
15:12:33 [rgarcia]
15:12:57 [bblfish]
15:14:12 [SteveS]
ack rgarcia
15:14:40 [SteveS]
15:14:53 [ericP]
-> POST an LDPR on an LDPC
15:15:56 [SteveS]
ack bblfish
15:16:23 [SteveS]
bblfish: is saying there is also some issue with access control, meaning can then create and delete
15:17:32 [SteveS]
ericP: for now, we just tell them to make sure the user creds they use have appropriate rights do the operations of the test
15:17:37 [bblfish]
15:18:08 [bblfish]
ok so SPARQL tests also have update problems which could involve access control
15:21:40 [Zakim]
15:25:16 [Zakim]
15:25:18 [Zakim]
15:25:18 [Zakim]
15:25:22 [Zakim]
15:25:25 [Zakim]
15:25:28 [Zakim]
15:25:29 [Zakim]
15:25:43 [Kalpa]
Kalpa has left #ldp
15:30:29 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, bblfish, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
15:30:31 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:30:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were SteveS, cody, TallTed, Ashok_Malhotra, svillata, JohnArwe, rgarcia, nmihindu, Sandro, bblfish, Kalpa, krp, roger, ericP
15:41:34 [stevebattle]
stevebattle has joined #ldp
17:21:05 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
17:26:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ldp
17:56:23 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
18:31:12 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp