IRC log of ldp on 2013-11-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:59:02 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ldp
- 14:59:02 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/04-ldp-irc
- 14:59:04 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 14:59:04 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #ldp
- 14:59:06 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be LDP
- 14:59:07 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
- 14:59:07 [trackbot]
- Date: 04 November 2013
- 14:59:08 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
- 14:59:59 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
- 15:00:06 [Ashok]
- Ashok has joined #ldp
- 15:00:06 [Zakim]
- +Arnaud
- 15:00:33 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 15:00:41 [Zakim]
- +Roger
- 15:00:49 [stevebattle7]
- zakim, ??P1 is me
- 15:00:49 [Zakim]
- +stevebattle7; got it
- 15:01:00 [Zakim]
- +Ashok_Malhotra
- 15:01:20 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 15:01:28 [roger]
- roger has joined #ldp
- 15:01:34 [SteveS]
- zakim, [IBM] is SteveS
- 15:01:34 [Zakim]
- +SteveS; got it
- 15:01:51 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 15:01:59 [TallTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 15:02:01 [Zakim]
- +TallTed; got it
- 15:02:04 [JohnArwe]
- JohnArwe has joined #ldp
- 15:02:11 [Zakim]
- +JohnArwe
- 15:02:25 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:02:25 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 15:05:07 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 15:05:07 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 15:05:13 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:05:13 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 15:05:28 [JohnArwe]
- scribe: JohnArwe
- 15:05:38 [JohnArwe]
- regrets: Bart
- 15:06:03 [JohnArwe]
- chair: Where have all the people gone?
- 15:06:18 [JohnArwe]
- chair: arnaud
- 15:06:36 [JohnArwe]
- topic: last meeting's minutes
- 15:06:47 [JohnArwe]
- ashok read them
- 15:06:58 [JohnArwe]
- resolution: minutes of oct 28 approved
- 15:07:20 [JohnArwe]
- next meeting: Mon Nov 11
- 15:08:48 [JohnArwe]
- F2F penciled in for Jan 14-16, NOT confirmed. were going to see when LC2 published and schedule for after the comment period closes. possible to shift 1 week if you have conflict, ashok. ashok says following week works for him.
- 15:09:02 [SteveS]
- Nov 11th is Veteran's Day US and Remembrance Day CA, though usually these are still work days
- 15:09:05 [JohnArwe]
- Probably want to shift that 1 week later.
- 15:09:28 [JohnArwe]
- topic: issues/actions
- 15:09:40 [JohnArwe]
- none pending review
- 15:10:30 [JohnArwe]
- action-83?
- 15:10:30 [trackbot]
- action-83 -- Roger Menday to Ensure ISSUE-62 is addressed in Primer or Best Practices & Guidelines doc -- due 2013-06-27 -- OPEN
- 15:10:30 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83
- 15:11:05 [JohnArwe]
- action-104?
- 15:11:05 [trackbot]
- action-104 -- Roger Menday to Review the Use Cases section of the document -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN
- 15:11:05 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/104
- 15:11:29 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 15:11:29 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 15:11:30 [JohnArwe]
- action-77?
- 15:11:30 [trackbot]
- action-77 -- Ted Thibodeau to Review and comment the WG Access Control draft at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl -- due 2013-07-18 -- OPEN
- 15:11:30 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/77
- 15:11:53 [stevebattle7]
- Steve reminds Roger about action 104 :)
- 15:12:33 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:12:33 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 15:13:00 [JohnArwe]
- topic: Proposals regarding Paging & 209 vs 200
- 15:14:54 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: TimBL comment - did not like 303 for server-initiated paging, avoid extra round trip, create new status code for that (we ended up on 209). David Wood polled Mark Baker, who suggested using 200. Arwe discussed with Erik Wilde, who said same thing. While it seemed unnatural to some of us at first, the REST/HTTP expert feedback is that 200 is fine.
- 15:15:43 [JohnArwe]
- ...TimBL interested in doing this for all, not just LDP. LDP could take advantage of it. Defining 209 now would make LDP dependent on getting an RFC done.
- 15:16:14 [JohnArwe]
- Proposal: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.
- 15:16:47 [JohnArwe]
- Arwe: FWIW a client would also see a link header with type=ldp:Page (this is already in LDP, has been for months)
- 15:18:06 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: take advantage of the new code in LDP once it's defined, but for now use 200 and pursue the new code separately.
- 15:18:23 [SteveS]
- +1
- 15:18:27 [roger]
- +1
- 15:18:40 [Ashok]
- +1
- 15:18:42 [JohnArwe]
- +1
- 15:18:44 [stevebattle7]
- +1
- 15:19:01 [TallTed]
- +1
- 15:19:10 [TallTed]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 15:19:10 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Arnaud, stevebattle7, Roger, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe
- 15:19:12 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see JohnArwe, roger, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle7, SteveS, TallTed, bhyland, jmvanel, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, Yves, thschee, sandro, ericP
- 15:19:23 [Arnaud]
- Resolved: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.
- 15:19:28 [JohnArwe]
- Resolved: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.
- 15:19:31 [sandro]
- +1 (based on what I see on IRC)
- 15:19:52 [JohnArwe]
- proposal: Launch an effort to define 209 as a separate IETF RFC that applies in general to 303s and that we can use in LDPnext
- 15:20:12 [SteveS]
- q+
- 15:20:31 [Arnaud]
- ack steveS
- 15:21:15 [Arnaud]
- Proposed: Launch an effort to define 209 as a separate IETF RFC that applies in general to 303s and that we can use in LDPnext
- 15:21:47 [stevebattle7]
- 0
- 15:22:19 [TallTed]
- +0.1
- 15:22:24 [SteveS]
- +1
- 15:22:29 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 15:22:29 [JohnArwe]
- +0
- 15:22:48 [JohnArwe]
- (good for the community, but not strictly needed for LDP)
- 15:23:15 [Zakim]
- -EricP
- 15:23:21 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 15:26:27 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 15:26:27 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 15:27:17 [roger_]
- roger_ has joined #ldp
- 15:27:49 [JohnArwe]
- EricP: why not make 209 at risk, and then remove at CR/PR transition if no one has agreed to do it?
- 15:28:02 [roger_]
- roger_ has joined #ldp
- 15:28:29 [JohnArwe]
- ...discussion, several expressing preferences against it.
- 15:28:48 [JohnArwe]
- Ted asks EricP for concrete proposal.
- 15:29:43 [JohnArwe]
- EricP: it's 2 chars, 200 vs 209. could also say in spec that server can use either, and mark just the 209 at risk
- 15:29:56 [JohnArwe]
- ... trying to avoid future objections late in the process
- 15:30:25 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: want to set expectations realistically
- 15:31:06 [JohnArwe]
- Insufficient consensus to call 10:21 proposal resolved.
- 15:32:01 [JohnArwe]
- Ashok: what harm in starting effort to add 209? Arnaud: down-side is the effort.
- 15:32:39 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: if the state is that everybody's happy to support it if Someone Else defines it, it won't happen.
- 15:34:08 [JohnArwe]
- Ashok: would Erik Wilde do it? Arwe: he told me he could draft 303-replacement text *if the wg wanted him to*, but he could not draft 200-replacement text on his own.
- 15:34:14 [JohnArwe]
- Net: unresolved
- 15:34:20 [JohnArwe]
- topic: put create
- 15:36:27 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: TimBL wanted a MUST, then upon further discussion he ack'd it would not work in general and that snowballed into how to advertise the URI space where clients can expect PUT-create to work. We don't have enough experience to solve this problem; in ideal world we'd take the time, figure it out, and spec it, but the WG has a timeline in the charter and we cannot take the time in this version. I'm saying
- 15:36:27 [JohnArwe]
- let's move on and we can improve it in next version.
- 15:36:42 [JohnArwe]
- proposed: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.
- 15:36:48 [stevebattle7]
- +1
- 15:36:50 [SteveS]
- +1
- 15:36:51 [roger_]
- +1
- 15:36:55 [ericP]
- +0
- 15:37:00 [JohnArwe]
- +1
- 15:37:10 [TallTed]
- +1
- 15:37:33 [JohnArwe]
- resolved: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.
- 15:37:49 [JohnArwe]
- topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: ldp:container
- 15:38:53 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: last week we noted that proposal uses both ldp:container and ldp:Container => confusing. we could not get coherent proposals on the call, so I created one.
- 15:39:12 [JohnArwe]
- proposed: Change ldp:container to ldp:containingResource.
- 15:39:38 [JohnArwe]
- ... or propose alternative now if you have better one. This seems good enough to me.
- 15:40:07 [ericP]
- +1
- 15:40:08 [stevebattle7]
- q+
- 15:40:12 [SteveS]
- +1
- 15:40:14 [Arnaud]
- ack stevebattle7
- 15:40:19 [JohnArwe]
- ericp: usually when this case occurs, the predicate's range is the like-named class. that is not true here, so will be more confusing than normal.
- 15:40:44 [JohnArwe]
- steveb: like where you're going; how about ...erResource instead of ...ing
- 15:41:05 [JohnArwe]
- for me, either is fine
- 15:41:07 [roger_]
- +1 to ...er
- 15:41:20 [SteveS]
- I prefer ..ing
- 15:41:22 [JohnArwe]
- proposed: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.
- 15:41:35 [ericP]
- +1
- 15:42:15 [JohnArwe]
- SteveS: "ing" reads better in a sentence. SteveB: reads like "resource it contains" too.
- 15:42:24 [stevebattle7]
- +1
- 15:42:33 [JohnArwe]
- +1
- 15:42:43 [Ashok]
- +0.5
- 15:43:06 [roger_]
- +0.5
- 15:43:16 [TallTed]
- +0.5 containerResource because confusion persists
- 15:43:24 [SteveS]
- +0.4
- 15:43:57 [JohnArwe]
- Resolved: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.
- 15:44:17 [JohnArwe]
- Still open to future proposals if someone is struck on the head by an apple.
- 15:44:32 [JohnArwe]
- topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple
- 15:44:49 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: wishing Henry was here, he has expressed strong opinions on this in past.
- 15:46:03 [JohnArwe]
- ...SteveS suggested we address this after renaming settled. With all the new predicates, the simple case now looks "not so simple". We made things mandatory rather than introducing non-monotonic behavior, but it's pretty ugly.
- 15:46:16 [JohnArwe]
- Proposed: Make ldp:insertContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject
- 15:48:11 [JohnArwe]
- SteveS: this affects how membership triples are defined when members are added. a client would need to fetch it from non-member properties of the container in order to use it; no monotonicity issue there. If admin changes things, expectation is that server would do the right thing and keep the representations coherent.
- 15:49:06 [JohnArwe]
- ...don't think it making it optional introduces any new issues. In my usage for example, I never need it.
- 15:49:30 [stevebattle7]
- q+
- 15:49:30 [JohnArwe]
- Amended proposal (fix pred name): Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject
- 15:50:29 [Arnaud]
- ack stevebattle
- 15:51:00 [SteveS]
- Note the name is ldp:MemberSubject and don't think we are suggesting a new one here
- 15:51:03 [JohnArwe]
- Ericp: if A sends to B this predicate, and intermediary strips it out, does B do the right thing? that's the easy monotonicity test.
- 15:51:49 [JohnArwe]
- SteveB: go whole hog and fix it; cannot change it. get rid of it altogether.
- 15:52:47 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: zaza the cat example wants the member URI to be zaza's, not the uri of the document describing her. that's where it came from.
- 15:53:12 [JohnArwe]
- ...Roger was a big motivator for this case.
- 15:56:04 [JohnArwe]
- EricP: working through his A/B case, decides this is not an issue.
- 15:57:30 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: let's vote; if need more time, feel free to -1 and ask for a week
- 15:57:36 [Arnaud]
- Proposed: Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject
- 15:57:50 [JohnArwe]
- Proposed: Make ldp:insertContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject
- 15:58:06 [Arnaud]
- Proposed: Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject
- 15:58:24 [SteveS]
- +1
- 15:58:32 [JohnArwe]
- third proposal above is the one with all the corrections
- 15:58:41 [JohnArwe]
- +1
- 15:58:45 [ericP]
- +0
- 15:58:57 [TallTed]
- +0
- 15:59:03 [Ashok]
- +0
- 15:59:07 [stevebattle7]
- -1 : I'm not comfortable (I would still ditch the option completely)
- 15:59:26 [roger_]
- +1 I believe all the monotonicity experts
- 16:00:08 [stevebattle7]
- I'll try for next week then
- 16:00:21 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: Steve B, please explain to people your position
- 16:01:02 [JohnArwe]
- Will hold ISSUE-81 Part I bis: ldp:membershipRule until next time
- 16:01:28 [JohnArwe]
- Arnaud: encourage editors to contact commenters with proposed resolutions to be sure they're ok with the changes
- 16:01:28 [Zakim]
- -Ashok_Malhotra
- 16:01:41 [JohnArwe]
- run away!
- 16:02:10 [JohnArwe]
- ericp: how many people expect to submit implementations for CR exit?
- 16:02:21 [JohnArwe]
- min: 2 impls supporting every feature.
- 16:02:36 [JohnArwe]
- more convincing: large # of commercial and academic impls
- 16:04:57 [JohnArwe]
- adjourned
- 16:05:07 [Zakim]
- -stevebattle7
- 16:05:23 [Zakim]
- -SteveS
- 16:08:51 [stevebattle7]
- stevebattle7 has joined #ldp
- 16:09:57 [SteveS]
- Maybe we put on agenda next week to get an update on http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations
- 16:12:10 [Zakim]
- -JohnArwe
- 16:40:54 [Zakim]
- -Roger
- 16:40:55 [Zakim]
- -TallTed
- 16:40:55 [Zakim]
- -Arnaud
- 16:40:57 [Zakim]
- -EricP
- 16:40:57 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
- 16:40:57 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Arnaud, Roger, stevebattle7, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, EricP
- 18:03:30 [bhyland]
- bhyland has joined #ldp
- 18:04:34 [stevebattle7]
- stevebattle7 has joined #ldp
- 18:20:46 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #ldp
- 18:58:12 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 20:07:10 [SteveS_]
- SteveS_ has joined #ldp
- 20:47:20 [bhyland]
- bhyland has joined #ldp
- 20:53:33 [TallTed]
- TallTed has joined #ldp
- 21:00:42 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp