15:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
15:00:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/18-ldp-irc
15:00:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:00:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
15:00:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
15:00:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
15:00:36 <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2013
15:00:41 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
15:00:44 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
15:00:48 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:01:12 <Zakim> +??P0
15:01:36 <Zakim> -??P0
15:01:58 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:02:09 <Zakim> +??P3
15:02:41 <Zakim> -??P3
15:02:46 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:48 <Zakim> +Alexandre
15:03:02 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:03:06 <Zakim> +Roger
15:03:13 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
15:03:13 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:03:16 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:03:28 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:03:33 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:03:33 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:03:35 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:03:35 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:03:51 <Zakim> +??P10
15:03:53 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:04:19 <bblfish> hi
15:04:27 <JohnArwe> not hearing you verbally
15:04:56 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:04:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, SteveS, Roger, TallTed (muted), ??P10, bblfish
15:04:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see roger, bblfish, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, TallTed, betehess, bhyland, nmihindu, jmvanel, SteveS, thschee, davidwood, Arnaud, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP
15:05:11 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, SteveS, Roger, TallTed (muted), ??P10, bblfish
15:05:39 <Zakim> -??P10
15:06:09 <Zakim> +stevebattle7
15:06:25 <Zakim> +??P13
15:06:35 <ericP> Zakim, stevebattle7 is temporarily ericP
15:06:35 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
15:07:53 <TallTed> sorry, local interrupt
15:07:54 <Zakim> -??P13
15:08:07 <TallTed> interrupt persists...
15:08:55 <roger> Topic: Minutes from last week
15:08:59 <SteveS> Scribe: roger
15:09:04 <Zakim> +??P13
15:09:28 <roger> minutes approved
15:09:46 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
15:09:50 <SteveS> is will be around next Monday
15:10:04 <SteveS> s/is will/I will/
15:10:30 <roger> Topic: Action Tracking
15:11:56 <Zakim> +??P14
15:12:04 <roger> John, updates about edits to the spec
15:12:11 <codyburleson> Zakim, ??P14 is me.
15:12:11 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
15:12:29 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:12:29 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:12:43 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
15:12:43 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
15:13:23 <roger> paging is the biggest change to the current spec.
15:15:07 <roger> Topci: Proposal regarding Paging, Section 4.10.2
15:16:07 <Ashok> s/Topci/Topic/
15:16:09 <JohnArwe> most significant easy-to-miss change from action-113's resolution is the removal of the collection link header, b/c after our 200 vs 209/303 decision that link on the first page would have been circular
15:17:43 <Arnaud> Proposed: leave the MAYs unchanged. This specifically concerns: first, last, and prev links.
15:18:01 <SteveS> +1
15:18:04 <betehess> 0
15:18:05 <Ashok> +1
15:18:08 <ericP> +1
15:18:08 <roger> +1
15:18:10 <JohnArwe> +1
15:18:13 <TallTed> +1
15:18:16 <codyburleson> +0
15:18:20 <nmihindu> +1
15:18:28 <Arnaud> Resolved: leave the MAYs unchanged. This specifically concerns: first, last, and prev links.
15:18:31 <bblfish> +0 was not able to follow the discussion
15:19:36 <roger> Topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple
15:19:40 <JohnArwe> Henry, EricP had suggested at one point  in the past requiring the prev and last link headers as well.
15:20:43 <Ashok> As had I.
15:20:44 <Arnaud>  Proposed: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81.
15:20:49 <bblfish> q+
15:20:53 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing
15:20:55 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:22:20 <Ashok> q+
15:22:56 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:22:57 <roger> bblfish, taking all properties as a bunch, they could be dropped - if one understands LDP inferencing
15:23:31 <JohnArwe> ...and the definitions of the predicates asserted in the proposals.
15:25:22 <bblfish> yes, one can't have any default values for any of the memberhsipXXX properties, though depending on how one understands what these properties are doing, one could have a default that does not require any of them. Ie: if one takes the causal/contractual rule defined in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing then LDPCs would not need to publish any of those triples - or if they do they must publish all of them.
15:25:30 <bblfish> Therefore I am +1 for this.
15:26:19 <Arnaud> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-informative
15:26:34 <Arnaud> ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject;
15:27:05 <JohnArwe> q+
15:27:13 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
15:28:11 <roger> JohnArwe, if the container is read-only, can we lose the insertedContentsRelation ?
15:28:26 <bblfish> q+
15:28:41 <betehess> well, it can explain why some triple is there...
15:28:44 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:28:49 <betehess> so read-only does not make a difference
15:29:50 <JohnArwe> Technically I didn't ask if we could lose it.  I asked what the implication is of accepting the proposal.  Requiring a r/o container to expose content only useful for r/w containers is awkward.
15:29:56 <Arnaud> Arnaud has left #ldp
15:30:08 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
15:30:18 <Arnaud> SELECT ?member
15:30:18 <Arnaud> WHERE {
15:30:18 <Arnaud>     ?c a ldp:Container;
15:30:18 <Arnaud>        ldp:containingResource ?resource;
15:30:18 <Arnaud>        ldp:containsRelation ?predicate;
15:30:18 <Arnaud>     ?resource ?predicate ?member.
15:30:18 <Arnaud> }
15:30:19 <roger> @JohnArwe, sorry for mis-representing you
15:30:34 <Arnaud> SELECT ?member
15:30:34 <Arnaud> WHERE {
15:30:34 <Arnaud>     ?c a ldp:Container;
15:30:34 <Arnaud>        ldp:containingResource ?resource;
15:30:34 <Arnaud>        ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate;
15:30:34 <Arnaud>     ?member ?predicate ?resource.
15:30:34 <Arnaud> }
15:30:37 <JohnArwe> np roger just gettin minutes right
15:31:03 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member
15:31:37 <bblfish> @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> .
15:31:38 <bblfish> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
15:31:38 <bblfish> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org//2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
15:31:39 <bblfish> @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
15:31:41 <bblfish> ldp:member a rdf:Property;
15:31:43 <bblfish>   skos:editorialNote "this relation could also be called ldp:manages."
15:31:45 <bblfish>   rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member;
15:31:47 <bblfish>   rdf:domain ldp:Container;
15:31:49 <bblfish>   rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it.
15:31:50 <codyburleson> Regrets; must drop due to critsit call just started (Critical Situation on servers)
15:31:51 <bblfish>   rdfs:comment """
15:31:53 <bblfish>     An ldp:member of a ldp:Container is a Resource which is created when a POST succeeds
15:31:55 <bblfish>     on it (creating also the membership triples in the LDPC) or which when DELETED
15:31:56 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:31:57 <bblfish>    removes the membership triples as specified by the "Linked Data Platform 1.0" spec.""" .
15:32:04 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
15:32:54 <JohnArwe> Henry, are you saying that your proposal (assuming it is accepted) requires ldp:insertedContentRelation even for a r/o LDPC?
15:33:26 <SteveS> q+
15:33:34 <bblfish> ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject;
15:33:50 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:34:37 <betehess> I fail to see why the conversation is now on a read-only problem...
15:35:10 <bblfish> yes, you need it for R/O LDPCs otherwise how do you find its' ldp:member LDPRs?
15:35:13 <betehess> q+
15:35:25 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:36:32 <roger> beteness, even for the r/o case clients wants to know why the membership triple is how it is ..
15:37:31 <Arnaud> Proposed: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81
15:37:43 <betehess> +1
15:37:49 <bblfish> +1
15:37:51 <roger> +1
15:37:53 <nmihindu> +1
15:37:53 <SteveS> +1
15:37:57 <TallTed> +1
15:37:58 <JohnArwe> +1
15:38:01 <ericP> +1
15:38:06 <Arnaud> Resolved: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81.
15:39:01 <betehess> q+
15:39:12 <roger> Topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-88: Lost link
15:40:01 <bblfish> This is summarised here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88
15:41:01 <bblfish> yes the lost link is the lost ldp:member link :-)
15:42:30 <betehess> hopefully, I'm in the queue to clarify that I never said that :-)
15:43:20 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:43:25 <roger> if one posts a Document about the Thing 'zaza', this has consequence that 'zaza' Thing becomes linked from LDPR. the problem is that the Document itself might get lost ...
15:43:26 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:44:46 <bblfish> yes, there are two solutions proposed to this issue is the wiki http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88
15:45:24 <betehess> Alex's proposal: Make ldp:created mandatory. The presence/absence of ldp:created triples in the LDPC is directly derived from the REST interactions.
15:45:33 <bblfish> q+
15:45:38 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:48:12 <bblfish> q+
15:48:57 <ericP> +1 to both process and proposal
15:49:12 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:49:12 <betehess> I'll give a -1 to any solution tying it to the current membership notion
15:49:41 <betehess> they are different concepts, should be handled separately
15:49:54 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:49:54 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:49:55 <TallTed> q+
15:50:28 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
15:51:13 <bblfish> ok
15:51:14 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject
15:51:20 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:51:20 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:51:28 <ericP> +1
15:51:33 <TallTed> +1
15:51:36 <nmihindu> +1
15:51:45 <SteveS> +1
15:51:49 <roger> +1
15:51:50 <JohnArwe> +0.75
15:52:06 <betehess> +0 because still think it should be "Make ldp:created mandatory"
15:52:13 <bblfish> -0.9 because though it solves the local problem it makes the spec more difficult everywhere else.
15:52:38 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject
15:53:36 <roger> Arnaud, what are implications when the membershipXX properties change ... ?
15:53:56 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-87
15:54:06 <roger> Topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-87: Membership triples modification
15:56:20 <Ashok> q+
15:56:35 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
15:56:36 <bblfish> q+
15:56:39 <roger> Arnaud, it is difficult to guard against this, it's a messy world, so clients needs to be ready for such changes.
15:57:29 <JohnArwe> I think we'd be selling ourselves short to just say "not doing anything" if the spoken intent is to draft something in Best Practices
15:58:06 <roger> Ashok, don't go into these details ... too hard
15:58:19 <JohnArwe> Remember Cody is not on the call any longer, so if we intend him to "find it" we need to make it clear.
15:58:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:58:29 <ericP> i agree that it's hard, and probably over the next couple years, the market will evolve some good rules for 1.1
15:59:03 <bblfish> ON POSTING TO ?ldpc
15:59:03 <bblfish> CREATING ?member
15:59:03 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT {
15:59:05 <bblfish>    ?subject ?relation ?object .
15:59:07 <bblfish> } WHERE {
15:59:09 <bblfish>    GRAPH ?ldpc {
15:59:11 <bblfish>       ?ldpc ldp:containerResource ?subject;
15:59:13 <bblfish>             ldp:containsRelation ?relation;
15:59:15 <bblfish>             ldp:insertedContentRelation ?memberRelation .
15:59:17 <bblfish>    }
15:59:19 <bblfish>    GRAPH ?member {
15:59:21 <bblfish>      ?member ?memberRelation ?object
15:59:23 <bblfish>    }
15:59:25 <bblfish> }
16:01:04 <ericP> me thinks he sees a pattern
16:01:10 <bblfish> I am ok
16:01:17 <JohnArwe> I'm gone on time today
16:01:26 <JohnArwe> have fun y'all
16:01:26 <roger> call extended by 15 mins
16:01:31 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:01:58 <roger> bblfish, argues that this argument invalidates previous argument, and therefore we should then make ldp:member mandatory.
16:03:38 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT {
16:03:38 <bblfish>   ?ldpc ldp:member ?resource . // <- the consequence
16:03:38 <bblfish> } WHERE {
16:03:40 <bblfish>     ?ldpc ldp:containerResource ?subject;
16:03:42 <bblfish>           ldp:containsRelation ?relation;
16:03:44 <bblfish>           ldp:insertedContentRelation ?memberRelation .
16:03:46 <bblfish>    ?subject ?relation ?object . // <- the membership triples
16:03:48 <bblfish> 
16:03:50 <bblfish>    GRAPH ?resource {
16:03:52 <bblfish>       ?resource ?memberRelation ?object .
16:03:54 <bblfish>    }
16:03:56 <bblfish> }
16:07:16 <betehess> that's why we should not conflate the current notion of membership and the need we have with ldp:created
16:07:48 <betehess> I guess ldp:created is more about resource management
16:07:57 <betehess> not resource membership
16:09:09 <bblfish> ok, can we speak instead of ldp:member talk of ldp:manages
16:09:28 <betehess> or ldp:created for now :-)
16:10:06 <SteveS> I'd be for calling it ldp:xyz and once we figure out what we agree it should do, we give it an appropriate name
16:10:20 <Ashok> q+
16:11:23 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
16:11:44 <JohnArwe> @SteveS: +1 on ldp:xyz.  When I started "writing" I went in that direction.  Figure out desired behavior first, name after.
16:13:30 <bblfish> q+
16:14:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:16:04 <betehess> ontology fight :-)
16:16:32 <JohnArwe> am I missing a hockey game?  darnit!
16:16:43 <ericP> "ldp:manages" does seem to clarify
16:17:10 <ericP> then we can ask the question "do we want containers to manage resources?"
16:19:55 <betehess> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
16:19:59 <betehess> just created an issue
16:20:20 <betehess> can we discuss that next week?
16:20:26 <betehess> I'm making things clearer
16:20:49 <ericP> trakcbot, add ISSUE: too many issues
16:21:13 <JohnArwe> strategic typo there ericp
16:22:37 <betehess> SteveS, that was a question of mine
16:22:43 <betehess> re: PATCH on LDPC
16:23:08 <betehess> and yes, we had this question *because* of the membership thing
16:23:18 <bblfish> yes I agree if one is not careful then one can create more and more such issues.
16:23:40 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to add a warning that servers are not likely to allow modification of any of the membership properties
16:24:03 <bblfish> I'd rather they do allow changes
16:24:35 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:24:35 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
16:25:32 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server  allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any  other changes should be made
16:25:41 <betehess> +0
16:26:04 <SteveS> +1 to say we don't spec out mod of membership triples, saying it is impl dependent
16:26:04 <roger> +1 I prefer this 2nd way
16:26:11 <TallTed> +0.8
16:26:24 <ericP> +1
16:27:09 <bblfish> -0.8 we need to then specify how a client finds the ldp:manages relations discussed when such chances are made - my proposal publish all the ldp:manages relations
16:27:20 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server  allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any  other changes should be made.
16:27:45 <betehess> we need another 30 minutes for that one
16:28:33 <bblfish> is ldp:manages ok?
16:28:36 <betehess> I think my proposal is a less controversial approach for Henry's proposal
16:28:56 <betehess> I propose that we don't speak about the URI first, just the feature, to avoid any misconception
16:29:01 <SteveS> bblfish, I care what it does....then we can talk about the name
16:30:24 <Arnaud> Proposed: extend calls by 30mn until we hit 2nd LC
16:30:34 <bblfish> Fine by me
16:30:42 <Ashok> ok
16:30:58 <SteveS> +1 for focusing on getting this done and ending early if we can
16:31:01 <TallTed> +1
16:31:01 <betehess> I'm not against
16:31:12 <Arnaud> Resolved: extend calls by 30mn until we hit 2nd LC
16:31:13 <ericP> +1
16:31:52 <roger> bblfish, 'manages' is a more flexible than 'created', because it is expresses an ongoing relationship, rather than the initial event
16:32:06 <bblfish> +1 roger thanks
16:32:12 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:32:13 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:32:16 <bblfish> bye
16:32:16 <betehess> bye guys
16:32:20 <Zakim> -Alexandre
16:32:21 <Arnaud> meeting adjourned
16:32:23 <Zakim> -Roger
16:32:37 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:32:46 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:33:05 <betehess> Arnaud should be happy, we've started implementing the last resolution (1.5 hours meetings) even before we voted on it :-)
16:33:44 <Zakim> -ericP
16:33:46 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:38:46 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, nmihindu, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
16:38:47 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:38:47 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, Roger, SteveS, TallTed, bblfish, ericP, codyburleson, nmihindu
18:32:44 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
18:48:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp