IRC log of ldp on 2013-10-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:57:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:57:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ldp
13:57:46 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
13:57:46 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:47 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:57:47 [trackbot]
Date: 07 October 2013
13:59:07 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #ldp
13:59:46 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:48 [Zakim]
14:00:17 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile
14:00:17 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:00:19 [Zakim]
14:00:37 [JohnArwe]
JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:00:45 [Zakim]
14:00:45 [Zakim]
14:00:45 [Zakim]
14:00:54 [betehess_]
betehess_ has joined #ldp
14:01:17 [JohnArwe]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, EricP, JohnArwe
14:01:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see betehess_, JohnArwe, pchampin, Zakim, RRSAgent, davidwood, bhyland, TallTed, betehess, jmvanel, deiu, Arnaud, Yves, thschee, trackbot, sandro, ericP
14:01:20 [Zakim]
14:02:18 [betehess_]
Zakim, EricM is Alexandre
14:02:18 [Zakim]
+Alexandre; got it
14:04:14 [Zakim]
14:04:21 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ldp
14:04:25 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
14:05:09 [Zakim]
14:05:19 [Arnaud]
zakim, IPcaller is roger
14:05:19 [Zakim]
+roger; got it
14:05:47 [Zakim]
14:06:23 [krp]
krp has joined #ldp
14:06:48 [Zakim]
14:06:54 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:06:54 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
14:06:55 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:06:55 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:07:20 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:07:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, EricP, JohnArwe, Alexandre, roger, Ashok_Malhotra, bblfish, TallTed (muted)
14:07:55 [Zakim]
14:08:03 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
14:08:14 [Zakim]
14:08:25 [bblfish]
14:08:27 [Arnaud]
zakim, P25 is pchampin
14:08:27 [Zakim]
sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'P25'
14:08:38 [TallTed]
zakim, ??P25 is pchampin
14:08:38 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
14:08:39 [krp]
zakim, ??P24 is me
14:08:39 [Arnaud]
zakim, ??P25 is pchampin
14:08:40 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
14:08:40 [Zakim]
I already had ??P25 as pchampin, Arnaud
14:09:44 [pchampin]
scribe: pchampin
14:09:51 [Arnaud]
14:09:52 [pchampin]
topic: administrative
14:10:09 [pchampin]
PROPOSED: approve minutes from 2013-09-30
14:10:10 [ericP]
second approving last week's minutes
14:10:10 [bblfish]
I looked at them, but don't know if they reflect what was said
14:10:26 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: approve minutes from 2013-09-30
14:10:45 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:10:45 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:10:46 [pchampin]
arnaud: next meeting will be next week, same time
14:10:51 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:10:51 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:10:54 [pchampin]
topic: open actions and issues
14:11:17 [pchampin]
arnaud: anyone claiming victory?
14:12:25 [bblfish]
14:12:25 [trackbot]
action-47 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Review the Use Cases section of the document -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN
14:12:25 [trackbot]
14:12:53 [pchampin]
arnaud: Erik was supposed to review the UC a long time ago
14:13:07 [pchampin]
... it has been reviewed by other in the meantime; can close it
14:13:19 [Arnaud]
14:13:25 [pchampin]
close action-47
14:13:25 [trackbot]
Closed action-47.
14:13:29 [Arnaud]
regrets: bart
14:13:33 [Arnaud]
regrets: steves
14:13:41 [JohnArwe]
regrets: stevebattle
14:14:57 [pchampin]
arnaud: I tried to make it clear in the agenda what would be discussed, and the decisions that would be made
14:15:30 [sandro]
regrets: sandro
14:15:32 [pchampin]
... Steve Battle has updated the UC&R with comments.
14:15:57 [sandro]
(I did send that. in meeting another meeting.)
14:16:27 [Arnaud]
Proposal: Publish the latest editor's draft of the Use Cases & Requirements
14:16:34 [ericP]
14:16:35 [TallTed]
14:16:37 [roger]
14:16:38 [pchampin]
14:16:38 [krp]
14:16:40 [betehess_]
14:16:40 [JohnArwe]
14:16:53 [Arnaud]
Resolved: Publish the latest editor's draft of the Use Cases & Requirements
14:16:54 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: Publish the latest editor's draft of the Use Cases & Requirements
14:17:14 [pchampin]
topic: change 5.3.5 SHOULD to MUST
14:17:36 [bblfish]
14:18:06 [pchampin]
arnaud: it is an important change, as it impacts all implementations
14:18:22 [pchampin]
... but there seem to be consensus that we should make this change
14:18:30 [Arnaud]
Proposal: change 5.3.5 SHOULD to MUST per John's email:
14:18:31 [JohnArwe]
MOI calls them vanilla/chocolate? WG came up with that.
14:18:46 [JohnArwe]
14:18:47 [ericP]
14:18:49 [krp]
14:18:49 [Ashok]
14:18:52 [TallTed]
14:18:54 [betehess]
14:18:56 [roger]
14:19:10 [JohnArwe]
I think Steve S would also agree with it, FWIW, since he originally suggested it to me.
14:19:10 [Arnaud]
Resolved: change 5.3.5 SHOULD to MUST per John's email:
14:19:31 [bblfish]
5.3.5 ->
14:19:32 [pchampin]
topic: changes to 5.6.2 (container delete)
14:19:43 [pchampin]
arnaud: this is in relation with a comment from Mark Baker
14:20:01 [pchampin]
... about us redefining HTTP
14:20:18 [bblfish]
this is the article:
14:20:32 [Arnaud]
Proposal: changes to 5.6.2 (container delete) per John's email:
14:20:43 [pchampin]
... not that we are contradicting it, but merely being redundant
14:20:55 [bblfish]
14:20:55 [JohnArwe]
14:20:56 [betehess]
14:21:20 [TallTed]
14:21:25 [krp]
14:21:27 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:21:34 [bblfish]
14:21:47 [Ashok]
14:21:53 [pchampin]
14:22:05 [Arnaud]
Resolved: changes to 5.6.2 (container delete) per John's email:
14:23:27 [pchampin]
arnaud: the next points in the agenda are more controversial
14:23:36 [pchampin]
... anyone wanting to push one of them forward?
14:24:04 [Arnaud]
topic: Discuss Proposal: Change following to informative (re: redefining HTTP)
14:24:42 [Arnaud]
14:24:44 [pchampin]
john: this is still related to Mark Baker's remark
14:25:13 [pchampin]
... out intend was not to redefine HTTP, but informatively restate information from other specs
14:25:37 [pchampin]
s/out intend/our intent/
14:26:29 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:26:29 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:26:54 [pchampin]
tallted: we will need a restatement of the proposed change, after the discussions in the mailing list
14:27:24 [pchampin]
john: I did a mockup of the new sections in the respec draft
14:27:34 [JohnArwe]
14:27:43 [JohnArwe]
that's a mockup in the editor's draft
14:28:33 [bblfish]
did you post the correct URL?
14:29:48 [JohnArwe]
bblfish: I pulled it from a live browser henry
14:30:16 [pchampin]
tallted: having it in the mailing list archive (not in a mutable draft) would be better to track our decision
14:30:38 [pchampin]
arnaud: I agree; can you send such an e-mail, so that we can vote on it next week?
14:30:53 [pchampin]
john: I can paste it in the IRC right now
14:31:34 [pchampin]
eric: it might be too big, you would get kicked off; better send a mail and copy the URL right afterwards
14:31:50 [pchampin]
arnaud: in the meantime, let's move to another topic
14:32:34 [Arnaud]
topic: Discuss Proposals for PUT ignoring triples ACTION-93
14:32:44 [Arnaud]
14:33:22 [bblfish]
is that the one or not?
14:34:14 [bblfish]
14:35:00 [bblfish]
q+ is there a list of server managed properties somewhere?
14:35:28 [JohnArwe]
@bblfish: no list; implementation-defined
14:36:15 [JohnArwe]
...IIRC our running assumption was that future work like rdf-val would provide a way for clients to introspect them at run time
14:36:24 [bblfish]
Is there a way to tell what the implementation-defined list is automatically?
14:36:46 [JohnArwe]
@bblfish: no
14:36:54 [JohnArwe] least not in LDP, not today
14:36:57 [pchampin]
arnaud: this anwsers TimBL's concern about the current spec allowing the server to silently ignore some of the PUT triples
14:38:59 [pchampin]
eric: shouldn't it happen for all operations altering triples (POST, PUT, PATCH) that they return an error if triples will be dropped?
14:39:01 [bblfish]
14:39:35 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:39:44 [pchampin]
john: that's what Steve's distinction between "server managed properties" and "unknown properties" is about.
14:40:18 [pchampin]
... which is a problem because we give the client no way to tell the difference
14:42:15 [pchampin]
arnaud: the problem seems to be the unclear boundary between the protocol and the data
14:42:28 [bblfish]
bblfish: There is way for a client to know what the "server defined server managed properties are". So the proposal currently makes no sense for the client, since it cannot distinguish a vanilla or chocolate server.
14:42:46 [bblfish]
s/is way/is no way/
14:42:48 [pchampin]
... we try to be good citizen by reusing existing vocabularies (e.g. dc:modified), but this may be a mistake
14:43:11 [ericP]
14:43:38 [ericP]
q+ ask how bad it would be if a client were simply given an error if it sent triples that would be rejected
14:43:43 [ericP]
q+ to ask how bad it would be if a client were simply given an error if it sent triples that would be rejected
14:43:48 [pchampin]
... we have neither a pre-defined list of server-managed properties, nor a mean for the server to dynamically expose such a list
14:44:22 [bblfish]
14:44:28 [JohnArwe]
@ericp: doing so means a typical "patch via put" set of interactions, i.e. GET+ change + PUT, fails
14:44:28 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
14:44:28 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask how bad it would be if a client were simply given an error if it sent triples that would be rejected
14:44:29 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ldp
14:45:16 [pchampin]
eric: how bad would it be to say that the server issues an error whenever it drops triples?
14:45:45 [betehess]
I agree with ericP's view: reject with an error when some triples cannot be accepted
14:46:29 [bblfish]
14:46:51 [pchampin]
john: a problem is that PATCH would fail whenever you don't change the server-managed properties that would automatically change
14:47:35 [pchampin]
14:47:38 [bblfish]
14:47:52 [ericP]
JohnArwe: the prob with ericP's proposal is the GET/PUT mode of patch where the client GET's data which includes server-managed properties
14:49:17 [betehess]
well, it just means that some data is meant to be modified by the user, some data has to be managed by the application (maintained by the server), they should not belong to the same LDPR
14:49:20 [pchampin]
bblfish: some properties are statements by the server rather than statements by the document
14:49:29 [ericP]
q+ to say supposed the server rejects POSTs/PUTs with *unrecognized* properties.
14:49:33 [Kalpa]
Kalpa has joined #ldp
14:49:36 [betehess]
14:49:54 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:49:56 [pchampin]
arnaud: it touches what I was saying earlier about the boundary between protocol and data
14:50:11 [Arnaud]
ack pchampin
14:50:31 [ericP]
pchampin: in my implementation, the client is not supposed to modify server-managed properties.
14:51:16 [ericP]
... if there is no attempt to modify those properties, the server accepts and returns a 20x½
14:51:27 [ericP]
Arnaud: so that's your way of doing a PATCH
14:51:46 [JohnArwe]
It's not clear to me that doing what Pierre does (while logical) conforms with the normative language.
14:51:51 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
14:51:51 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say supposed the server rejects POSTs/PUTs with *unrecognized* properties.
14:51:55 [bblfish]
pchampin: how does the client know what it is not allowed to touch?
14:52:31 [pchampin]
pchampin: my solution to this problem is to disallow the client to *modify* the server-managed properties
14:53:07 [Arnaud]
ack betehess
14:53:13 [pchampin]
... *then* the server changes the values
14:54:12 [bblfish]
cool idea: put server managed properties in a meta file
14:54:13 [pchampin]
eric: but then the server has to check that the values are actually not modified
14:54:13 [bblfish]
14:54:34 [bblfish]
meta file is linked to from the original file in a link header
14:54:55 [pchampin]
betehess: in our solution, there are two kinfs of LDPR : those entirely managed by the clients, and those partly managed by the server
14:54:57 [Arnaud]
14:55:03 [pchampin]
... a header field is used to tell the difference
14:55:17 [JohnArwe]
informative/diffs reminder before we break
14:55:27 [pchampin]
arnaud: this was a useful discussion
14:55:48 [pchampin]
... please post yout proposals to the mailing list in response to steve's message
14:55:58 [pchampin]
... so that we can look at them and think about them
14:56:17 [betehess]
14:56:37 [JohnArwe]
link to diffs:
14:56:56 [Zakim]
14:56:58 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:56:58 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:57:11 [pchampin]
topic: Discuss Proposal: Change following to informative (re: redefining HTTP) again
14:57:31 [JohnArwe]
link to diffs:
14:59:47 [pchampin]
arnaud: it is almost the end of the hout
15:00:03 [pchampin]
... do we have the time for a quick vote? or do you need more time?
15:00:37 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [pchampin]
... I'll put it on the agenda next week, then.
15:00:52 [Zakim]
15:00:59 [pchampin]
15:01:01 [Zakim]
15:01:09 [Zakim]
15:01:10 [Zakim]
15:01:12 [Zakim]
15:01:33 [Zakim]
15:01:34 [Kalpa]
Kalpa has left #ldp
15:01:40 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
15:01:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:01:40 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, EricP, JohnArwe, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, roger, bblfish, TallTed, pchampin, krp
15:01:48 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:01:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
15:01:49 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:01:49 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
15:01:49 [Zakim]