07:44:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/18-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/18-ldp-irc ←
07:44:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
07:44:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
07:44:15 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 74 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 74 minutes ago ←
07:44:16 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
07:44:16 <trackbot> Date: 18 June 2013
07:44:25 <JohnArwe> zakim, who's on the phone?
John Arwe: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
07:44:25 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has not yet started, JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has not yet started, JohnArwe ←
07:44:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, betehess, jmvanel, gavinc, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, betehess, jmvanel, gavinc, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee ←
07:44:27 <nmihindu> zakim, who is on the phone?
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
07:44:27 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has not yet started, nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has not yet started, nmihindu ←
07:44:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, betehess, jmvanel, gavinc, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, betehess, jmvanel, gavinc, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee ←
<Ashok> scribe: ashok
(Scribe set to Ashok Malhotra)
<Ashok> chair: Arnaud
<Ashok> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F3#Day_1_-_Tuesday_June_18
<Ashok> present: JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, sandro, ericp, bblfish, cody, mesteban, bart, roger, krp, yves
<Ashok> regrets: serena
07:46:03 <Ashok> Topic: Introductions
07:53:34 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:53:40 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
07:54:05 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??p0 is me
Bart van Leeuwen: Zakim, ??p0 is me ←
07:54:05 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BartvanLeeuwen; got it ←
07:54:11 <Arnaud> hi Bart
Arnaud Le Hors: hi Bart ←
07:54:14 <Arnaud> we're dialing in
Arnaud Le Hors: we're dialing in ←
07:54:44 <Zakim> + +34.91.336.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +34.91.336.aaaa ←
07:54:57 <BartvanLeeuwen> okay, gives me time for coffee
Bart van Leeuwen: okay, gives me time for coffee ←
07:59:23 <Ashok> Topic: Use Cases & Requirements
07:59:56 <Ashok> Arnaud: There have been comments on UCR
Arnaud Le Hors: There have been comments on UCR ←
08:00:34 <Ashok> ... we don't have Steve Battle here
... we don't have Steve Battle here ←
08:00:59 <Ashok> ... Great review by Miguel
... Great review by Miguel ←
08:01:58 <Ashok> ... sometimes UCR and spec are not in sync
... sometimes UCR and spec are not in sync ←
08:03:36 <Ashok> Miguel: We should annotate UCR document saying what we cover and what we delay to next version
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: We should annotate UCR document saying what we cover and what we delay to next version ←
08:03:51 <nmihindu> BartvanLeeuwen, we have rgarcia, mesteban, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, JohnArwe, SteveS, gavinc, roger, krp
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: BartvanLeeuwen, we have rgarcia, mesteban, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, JohnArwe, SteveS, gavinc, roger, krp ←
08:04:15 <Ashok> ... for the use cases we cover we should have pointers in the spec
... for the use cases we cover we should have pototers to the spec ←
08:05:00 <Ashok> s/in/to/
08:05:42 <Ashok> Arnaud: You sent mail on UCR but you did not get a response
Arnaud Le Hors: You sent mail on UCR but you did not get a response ←
08:06:22 <Ashok> ACTION-42 on MIguel to review UCR can be closed
ACTION-42 on MIguel to review UCR can be closed ←
08:09:19 <Ashok> Arnaud: Miguel, would you like to be editor for the UCR
Arnaud Le Hors: Miguel, would you like to be editor for the UCR? ←
08:09:38 <Ashok> s/UCR/UCR?/
08:11:25 <Ashok> Discussion about which direction the pointers should go
Discussion about which direction the pointers should go ←
08:12:01 <Ashok> UCR->spec
UCR->spec ←
08:12:11 <Ashok> or spec -> UCR
or spec -> UCR ←
08:15:16 <JohnArwe> zakim, aaaa is the F2F meeting (can't hurt to try)
John Arwe: zakim, aaaa is the F2F meeting (can't hurt to try) ←
08:15:16 <Zakim> I don't understand you, JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand you, JohnArwe ←
08:15:21 <JohnArwe> zakim, aaaa is m
08:15:21 <Zakim> +m; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +m; got it ←
08:19:35 <Ashok> Arnaud: Please all look at Miguel's comments
Arnaud Le Hors: Please all look at Miguel's comments ←
08:20:14 <Ashok> ... Miguel, could you follow up with Steve Battle
... Miguel, could you follow up with Steve Battle ←
08:21:03 <Ashok> Topic: LDP Specification status
08:21:56 <Ashok> Arnaud: We should review the issues and see which ones we need to close
Arnaud Le Hors: We should review the issues and see which ones we need to close ←
08:23:52 <Ashok> ... we have 2 main isues ... container and membership predicate and there is the one about affordances
... we have 2 main isues ... container and membership predicate and there is the one about affordances ←
08:26:02 <Ashok> Arnaud bring up list of issues to discuss which ones we address
Arnaud bring up list of issues to discuss which ones we address ←
08:27:33 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-16 has no proposal. Mark as "at risk"?
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-16 has no proposal. Mark as "at risk"? ←
08:29:03 <Ashok> John: There is nothing to be done ... spec does not need to change
John Arwe: There is nothing to be done ... spec does not need to change ←
08:29:50 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-32 needs to be addressed
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-32 needs to be addressed ←
08:30:31 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-37 ... Steve was going to add an itroduction to spec
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-37 ... Steve was going to add an itroduction to spec ←
08:30:41 <Ashok> John: Non-normative text
John Arwe: Non-normative text ←
08:30:56 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-50
08:31:46 <Ashok> Steves: I think we address this .... needs sign-off from Henry
Steve Speicher: I think we address this .... needs sign-off from Henry ←
08:32:12 <Ashok> Arnaud: Duplicate of 54?
Arnaud Le Hors: Duplicate of 54? ←
08:34:08 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-51
08:34:34 <Ashok> Discussion as to whether this is inverse of the membership predicate
Discussion as to whether this is inverse of the membership predicate ←
08:35:34 <Ashok> Roger: We can close issue in order to make progress
Roger Menday: We can close issue in order to make progress ←
08:36:26 <Ashok> Arnaud: Let's leave open for now ... let's see how discussion on membership predicate work
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's leave open for now ... let's see how discussion on membership predicate work ←
08:38:12 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-56 let's leave open ... related to ISSUE-16?
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-56 let's leave open ... related to ISSUE-16? ←
08:39:50 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-57 ... related to ISSUE-32
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-57 ... related to ISSUE-32 ←
08:41:54 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-58 ... let's look at latest proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-58 ... let's look at latest proposal ←
08:42:13 <Ashok> John: I suggest leave as "at risk"
John Arwe: I suggest leave as "at risk" ←
08:43:07 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-62 ... we need proposal for this
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-62 ... we need proposal for this ←
08:43:25 <Ashok> Roger: There is an issue here. I will create a proposal
Roger Menday: There is an issue here. I will create a proposal ←
08:43:58 <Ashok> ... related to membershipXXX
... related to membershipXXX ←
08:45:11 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-66 Robust pagination
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-66 Robust pagination ←
08:45:18 <Ashok> ... suggest we close
... suggest we close ←
08:48:47 <Ashok> Discussion on what the issue creator really wants. If all he wants to find if the pagination has changed we could do it with e-tags/if-match
Discussion on what the issue creator really wants. If all he wants to find if the pagination has changed we could do it with e-tags/if-match ←
08:51:18 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-68 ... do not have a proposal ... can be closed
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-68 ... do not have a proposal ... can be closed ←
08:51:45 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-71 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-71 needs discussion ←
08:52:50 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-72 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-72 needs discussion ←
08:53:21 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-73 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-73 needs discussion ←
08:53:38 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-75 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-75 needs discussion ←
08:53:55 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-77 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-77 needs discussion ←
08:54:15 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-78 may be editorial
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-78 may be editorial ←
08:55:28 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-79 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-79 needs discussion ←
08:55:46 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-80 needs discussion
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-80 needs discussion ←
08:56:34 <Ashok> Arnaud: There are 6 issues marked as Pending Review
Arnaud Le Hors: There are 6 issues marked as Pending Review ←
08:57:26 <Ashok> Cody: How do you create the first container
Cody Burleson: How do you create the first container ←
08:57:49 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
08:58:00 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me ←
08:58:00 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
09:02:34 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
Zakim IRC Bot: -BartvanLeeuwen ←
09:08:06 <Zakim> +Sandro
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
09:15:13 <sandro> anyone willing to try a google+ hangout, so remote folks can see you?
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: anyone willing to try a google+ hangout, so remote folks can see you? ←
09:17:10 <ericP> if so, i'm ericW3C@gmail.com
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if so, i'm ericW3C@gmail.com ←
09:18:17 <sandro> Ah.
Sandro Hawke: Ah. ←
09:20:29 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe going to scribe temporarily while Ashok makes his points on issue-66 robust pagination
John Arwe: JohnArwe going to scribe temporarily while Ashok makes his points on ISSUE-66 robust pagination ←
<Arnaud> Topic: LDP Specification - Pending Issues
09:21:24 <Arnaud> subtopic: ISSUE-66
09:21:34 <nmihindu> issue-66
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: ISSUE-66 ←
09:21:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-66 -- Robust pagination -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-66 -- Robust pagination -- open ←
09:21:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/66
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/66 ←
09:22:06 <ericP> i think that SQL cursors are good for a single session, and essentially amount to the server copying the entire result set for a query
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think that SQL cursors are good for a single session, and essentially amount to the server copying the entire result set for a query ←
09:22:13 <JohnArwe> Ashok: SQL has something called "cursor stability" equivalent
Ashok Malhotra: SQL has something called "cursor stability" equivalent [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
09:22:29 <JohnArwe> ...to robust pagination
John Arwe: ...to robust pagination ←
09:22:41 <JohnArwe> Henry arrives in F2F room
John Arwe: Henry arrives in F2F room ←
09:22:53 <ericP> the analogy in LDP would have the server holding state for a client which have registered a cursor and promises to release it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the analogy in LDP would have the server holding state for a client which have registered a cursor and promises to release it ←
09:23:40 <sandro> basically "nextPageSameState" as a link would do that. or maybe "nextPage" could optionally have those semantics.
Sandro Hawke: basically "nextPageSameState" as a link would do that. or maybe "nextPage" could optionally have those semantics. ←
09:23:50 <JohnArwe> ... we've said we're not going to do "all this database stuff" like transactions, robust paging, etc. If we're going to do a r/w web we have to do these kinds of things.
John Arwe: ... we've said we're not going to do "all this database stuff" like transactions, robust paging, etc. If we're going to do a r/w web we have to do these kinds of things. ←
09:24:48 <JohnArwe> @sandro, question would be "same state as what?" the page URL could be from a query made a year ago.
John Arwe: @sandro, question would be "same state as what?" the page URL could be from a query made a year ago. ←
09:25:16 <JohnArwe> ashok: should at least give client a way to know that page content has changed.
Ashok Malhotra: should at least give client a way to know that page content has changed. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
09:25:45 <Ashok> The spec does not address this
The spec does not address this ←
09:25:46 <ericP> how i had imagined robust pagination:
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how i had imagined robust pagination: ←
09:25:46 <ericP> <page3> { <C> rdfs:member <R6>, <R7> . <page3> :nextPage <page4> }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <page3> { <C> rdfs:member <R6>, <R7> . <page3> :nextPage <page4> } ←
09:25:46 <ericP> after DELETEs of <R6> and <R7>:
Eric Prud'hommeaux: after DELETEs of <R6> and <R7>: ←
09:25:46 <ericP> <page3> { <page3> :nextPage <page4> } # page<3> is preserved though empty
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <page3> { <page3> :nextPage <page4> } # page<3> is preserved though empty ←
09:25:52 <sandro> JohnArwe, same state as the resource was when this content was serialized.
Sandro Hawke: JohnArwe, same state as the resource was when this content was serialized. ←
09:26:48 <Ashok> Yes, Eric that's one way .... but it will have pages with holes in them
Yes, Eric that's one way .... but it will have pages with holes in them ←
09:26:55 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
09:26:59 <ericP> definitely
Eric Prud'hommeaux: definitely ←
09:27:35 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
09:27:47 <ericP> i'm perfectly happy to punt on it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm perfectly happy to punt on it ←
09:27:49 <krp> q+
Kevin Page: q+ ←
09:27:50 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
09:27:50 <JohnArwe> @sandro, fine if you then add (in the general case) ... for this user. With your version Sandro, does "when it was serialized" have a well-known definition? vs being "since (the last time)..."
John Arwe: @sandro, fine if you then add (in the general case) ... for this user. With your version Sandro, does "when it was serialized" have a well-known definition? vs being "since (the last time)..." ←
09:28:20 <Ashok> Arnaud: Should we investigate how we could provide robust pagination?
Arnaud Le Hors: Should we investigate how we could provide robust pagination? ←
09:28:32 <ericP> +1 to understanding how an extension could do it making it safe to punt
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to understanding how an extension could do it making it safe to punt ←
09:29:30 <Ashok> Sandro described a design for robust pagination
Sandro described a design for robust pagination ←
09:29:32 <ericP> i suspect that ldp:nextPatch and ldp:longPollPatch are in that category
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i suspect that ldp:nextPatch and ldp:longPollPatch are in that category ←
09:29:46 <Arnaud> ack krp
Arnaud Le Hors: ack krp ←
09:30:12 <Ashok> Krp: Argues we need robust pagination
Kevin Page: Argues we need robust pagination ←
09:30:36 <ericP> krp: if you care about consistency in a page, is it specifically NOT a container at that point?
Kevin Page: if you care about consistency in a page, is it specifically NOT a container at that point? [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:30:43 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
09:30:48 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
09:30:56 <JohnArwe> the trivial way to support it via an extension is to have the server add information (header or predicate) saying the equivalent of "all paging is stable" i.e. the server always implements stable paging
John Arwe: the trivial way to support it via an extension is to have the server add information (header or predicate) saying the equivalent of "all paging is stable" i.e. the server always implements stable paging ←
09:31:22 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
09:31:32 <Ashok> Sandro, any server can provide robust pagination using version number in the URL
Sandro, any server can provide robust pagination using version number in the URL ←
09:32:06 <Ashok> ... you coukd provide two versioin stable and not stable
... you could provide two version stable and not stable ←
09:32:36 <JohnArwe> s/coukd/could/
09:32:41 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
09:32:43 <JohnArwe> s/versioin/version/
09:32:52 <Ashok> .... discusses StableNextPage predicate
.... discusses StableNextPage predicate ←
09:32:55 <sandro> sandro: so have a stableNextPage predicate, defined by us or somebody else
Sandro Hawke: so have a stableNextPage predicate, defined by us or somebody else [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:34:33 <ericP> Yves? can weakt ETag validation be applied here?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Yves? can weakt ETag validation be applied here? ←
09:35:10 <Ashok> Ashok: Without robust pagination you get into trouble when the resource you are working on gets deleted
Ashok Malhotra: Without robust pagination you get into trouble when the resource you are working on gets deleted ←
09:35:35 <Ashok> Henry: Discusses a timestamp version of the universe
Henry Story: Discusses a timestamp version of the universe ←
09:36:39 <Ashok> Arnaud: There should be a mechanism to tell the client that a page has changed
Arnaud Le Hors: There should be a mechanism to tell the client that a page has changed ←
09:37:09 <sandro> maybe ldp:resourceState ?
Sandro Hawke: maybe ldp:resourceState ? ←
09:37:43 <sandro> http stuff doesn't help, since it's about the page, not about the thing behind all the pages.
Sandro Hawke: http stuff doesn't help, since it's about the page, not about the thing behind all the pages. ←
09:37:53 <ericP> q+ to propose that say that we have several choices to make a stability and that we should say nothing to avoid painting people into a corner.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose that say that we have several choices to make a stability and that we should say nothing to avoid painting people into a corner. ←
09:38:04 <sandro> maybe ldp:overallState
Sandro Hawke: maybe ldp:overallState ←
09:38:20 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
09:38:20 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose that say that we have several choices to make a stability and that we should say nothing to avoid painting people into a corner.
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to propose that say that we have several choices to make a stability and that we should say nothing to avoid painting people into a corner. ←
09:38:24 <Ashok> Discussion about whether etags can be used
Discussion about whether etags can be used ←
09:38:53 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
09:39:03 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P0 is me
Bart van Leeuwen: Zakim, ??P0 is me ←
09:39:03 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BartvanLeeuwen; got it ←
09:39:04 <Ashok> Eric: Anything we add to spec would paint us into a corner
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Anything we add to spec would paint us into a corner ←
09:39:23 <SteveS> perhaps a pageOfEtag header, to accompany ldp:pageOf
Steve Speicher: perhaps a pageOfEtag header, to accompany ldp:pageOf ←
09:39:52 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
09:40:00 <sandro> +1 SteveS pageOfEtag. That's nice.
Sandro Hawke: +1 SteveS pageOfEtag. That's nice. ←
09:40:18 <krp> ericP: is that in terms of not stating a solution to stability; or no mechanism for indicating changes to either/or pages or the resource being paged?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is that in terms of not stating a solution to stability; or no mechanism for indicating changes to either/or pages or the resource being paged? [ Scribe Assist by Kevin Page ] ←
09:40:26 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
09:40:26 <Ashok> Arnaud: If soemone wants to make a proposal please send soon to the list
Arnaud Le Hors: If soemone wants to make a proposal please send soon to the list ←
09:40:28 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
09:40:35 <JohnArwe> We should at least set client expectations, e.g. "Clients should assume that container membership and page contents can change across successive HTTP requests, unless the server advertises/offers other behavior."
John Arwe: We should at least set client expectations, e.g. "Clients should assume that container membership and page contents can change across successive HTTP requests, unless the server advertises/offers other behavior." ←
09:41:06 <ericP> krp, both
Eric Prud'hommeaux: krp, both ←
09:41:11 <sandro> +1 JohnArwe
Sandro Hawke: +1 JohnArwe ←
09:41:14 <Ashok> Steves: Let's wait till next version
Steve Speicher: Let's wait till next version ←
09:41:17 <mesteban> +1 JohnArwe
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 JohnArwe ←
09:41:28 <mielvds> a HEAD request for checking the ETag of the container is too much overhead?
Miel Vander Sande: a HEAD request for checking the ETag of the container is too much overhead? ←
09:41:28 <krp> +1 JohnArwe
Kevin Page: +1 JohnArwe ←
09:41:36 <ericP> +1 JohnArwe
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 JohnArwe ←
09:42:22 <Ashok> Meil: Do a HEAD request to container to check if it has changed
Miel Vander Sande: Do a HEAD request to container to check if it has changed ←
09:42:39 <sandro> You could do a HEAD for LastModified, not ETag, AFTER getting the page. That would work.
Sandro Hawke: You could do a HEAD for LastModified, not ETag, AFTER getting the page. That would work. ←
09:42:41 <JohnArwe> s/Meil/Miel/
09:42:46 <Ashok> Steves: It get's you someone
Steve Speicher: It get's you somewhere ←
09:43:12 <SteveS> s/someone/somewhere/
09:43:18 <Ashok> s/someone/somewhere/
09:44:03 <Ashok> Arnaud: I think spec says pagination is not robust
Arnaud Le Hors: I think spec says pagination is not robust ←
09:45:37 <Ashok> Arnaud: Editors to check what the spec says
Arnaud Le Hors: Editors to check what the spec says ←
09:47:47 <Ashok> Arnaud: Let's wait and see if we get a proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's wait and see if we get a proposal ←
09:47:50 <sandro> my googling so far seems to support the 1-second resolution for last-modified. making it useless for HEAD this way.
Sandro Hawke: my googling so far seems to support the 1-second resolution for last-modified. making it useless for HEAD this way. ←
09:49:25 <Ashok> subTopic: ISSUE-57 How can client tell he is communicating with a LDP server
09:50:07 <Ashok> Arnaud: Can you rely on RDF to tell you what the interaction model is
Arnaud Le Hors: Can you rely on RDF to tell you what the interaction model is ←
09:50:15 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
09:50:38 <Ashok> ... others say conatiner tells you interaction model
... others say conatiner tells you interaction model ←
09:50:59 <Ashok> ... some suggest changing the media type, that seems like a high cost
... some suggest changing the media type, that seems like a high cost ←
09:51:35 <Ashok> ... Coulkd we have a special header?
... Could we have a special header? ←
09:51:40 <sandro> Arnaud: if you use new media type or a profile, you need new versions of every rdf syntax. so maybe use another header.
Arnaud Le Hors: if you use new media type or a profile, you need new versions of every rdf syntax. so maybe use another header. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:51:58 <Ashok> s/Coulkd/Could/
09:52:00 <Yves> if the issue is for the client to figure out if its' talking to a LDP capable server, then at worst doing an interaction not supported by the server will fail
Yves Lafon: if the issue is for the client to figure out if its' talking to a LDP capable server, then at worst doing an interaction not supported by the server will fail ←
09:52:21 <Yves> why knowing a priori that it's an LDP server is better than knowing it a posteriori
Yves Lafon: why knowing a priori that it's an LDP server is better than knowing it a posteriori ←
09:52:23 <Ashok> Arnaud: You could use a special header
Arnaud Le Hors: You could use a special header ←
09:52:50 <sandro> q+ to say this is a way to do affordances in general
Sandro Hawke: q+ to say this is a way to do affordances in general ←
09:53:17 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
09:53:17 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say this is a way to do affordances in general
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to say this is a way to do affordances in general ←
09:53:53 <Ashok> Sandro: I like this approach ... profile can be each LDP feature
Sandro Hawke: I like this approach ... profile can be each LDP feature ←
09:54:21 <Ashok> ... one link header per page
... one link header per page ←
09:55:13 <bblfish> Sandro is suggesting another option where it is not a relation to one link header, but to a file much more complex that this, with finer details per ldp.
Henry Story: Sandro is suggesting another option where it is not a relation to one link header, but to a file much more complex that this, with finer details per ldp. ←
09:55:18 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE-33 brings up issue of servers with different capabilities
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-33 brings up issue of servers with different capabilities ←
09:55:26 <bblfish> Issue-33?
09:55:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed ←
09:55:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 ←
09:56:23 <sandro> +1 Arnaud "If you're this kind of server, then you MUST do ...." instead of all our MAY and SHOULDs
Sandro Hawke: +1 Arnaud "If you're this kind of server, then you MUST do ...." instead of all our MAY and SHOULDs ←
09:56:39 <sandro> header on each ldp RESPONSE
Sandro Hawke: header on each ldp RESPONSE ←
09:56:49 <bblfish> Did arnaud meant Issue-33?
Henry Story: Did arnaud meant ISSUE-33? ←
09:56:49 <bblfish> what is the page that shows these options?
Henry Story: what is the page that shows these options? ←
09:56:59 <sandro> issue-33?
09:56:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed ←
09:56:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 ←
09:57:08 <sandro> issue-32?
09:57:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open ←
09:57:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 ←
09:57:34 <sandro> (this was about issue-32)
Sandro Hawke: (this was about ISSUE-32) ←
09:57:42 <Arnaud1> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
10:01:19 <SteveS> And the wiki page http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32
Steve Speicher: And the wiki page ISSUE-32">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32 ←
10:03:31 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
10:05:14 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
10:05:39 <Arnaud> strawpoll: use profile link headers to advertise ldp capabilities
STRAWPOLL: use profile link headers to advertise ldp capabilities ←
10:05:49 <JohnArwe> discussion about when to use link headers vs new RDF types
John Arwe: discussion about when to use link headers vs new RDF types ←
10:06:28 <SteveS> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906
Steve Speicher: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906 ←
10:07:13 <Yves> +1 link header to identify an ldp-capable server
Yves Lafon: +1 link header to identify an ldp-capable server ←
10:09:42 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
10:10:13 <roger> hello !!
Roger Menday: hello !! ←
10:10:25 <SteveS> We are talking also about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6903, section 6
Steve Speicher: We are talking also about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6903, section 6 ←
10:13:47 <bblfish> what is the straw poll?
Henry Story: what is the straw poll? ←
10:14:23 <Arnaud> strawpoll: use link headers to advertise ldp capabilities
STRAWPOLL: use link headers to advertise ldp capabilities ←
10:14:29 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
10:14:31 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
10:14:33 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
10:14:34 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
10:14:34 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
10:14:35 <nmihindu_> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
10:14:36 <JohnArwe> +1
10:14:38 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
10:14:40 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
10:14:42 <mielvds1> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
10:14:49 <mesteban_> 0
10:15:33 <bblfish> RFC6906?
Henry Story: RFC6906? ←
10:16:10 <Ashok> Arnaud: You don't want to use 'profile' beacause it is not a recognized term ... you don't want to use RFC 6906?
Arnaud Le Hors: You don't want to use 'profile' beacause it is not a recognized term ... you don't want to use RFC 6906? ←
10:16:51 <JohnArwe> lots of discussion to clarify that, in the sense that these link headers might be thought of as 'types', that the set of rdf:type triples in the content (RDF resource types) might (and in fact needs to, in cases like a CMS) might differ from the 'types' exposed via link headers since the latter describes the server's interaction capabilities for the resouce not its content.
John Arwe: lots of discussion to clarify that, in the sense that these link headers might be thought of as 'types', that the set of rdf:type triples in the content (RDF resource types) might (and in fact needs to, in cases like a CMS) might differ from the 'types' exposed via link headers since the latter describes the server's interaction capabilities for the resouce not its content. ←
10:17:08 <Ashok> Sandro: I have not read RFC 6906
Sandro Hawke: I have not read RFC 6906 ←
10:18:06 <JohnArwe> @sandro: what I've heard second hand from ErikW reads differently to me from the words I see in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1
John Arwe: @sandro: what I've heard second hand from ErikW reads differently to me from the words I see in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1 ←
10:18:29 <Ashok> Sandro: what's the value of a profile
Sandro Hawke: what's the value of a profile ←
10:19:29 <Ashok> John: Profile is defining a particular P
John Arwe: Profile is defining a particular P ←
10:19:36 <Ashok> ... o is the URL
... o is the URL ←
10:19:37 <ericP> :context :linkRelationType :target .
Eric Prud'hommeaux: :context :linkRelationType :target . ←
10:20:10 <Ashok> Sandro: You dereference o and you get the type info
Sandro Hawke: You dereference o and you get the type info ←
10:20:37 <Arnaud> this is what I would expect the header to look like: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile>; rel=profile
Arnaud Le Hors: this is what I would expect the header to look like: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile>; rel=profile ←
10:21:47 <JohnArwe> @ericp: right that is the general form of 5988 headers; 6906 defines a particular link relation type (profile, as a short string not a uri/iri)
John Arwe: @ericp: right that is the general form of 5988 headers; 6906 defines a particular link relation type (profile, as a short string not a uri/iri) ←
10:21:53 <sandro> issue-57?
10:21:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server? -- open ←
10:21:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/57
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/57 ←
10:22:28 <sandro> Oh, I guess one can have multiple profiles at once.
Sandro Hawke: Oh, I guess one can have multiple profiles at once. ←
10:22:35 <bblfish> 1+
Henry Story: 1+ ←
10:22:37 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
10:22:39 <JohnArwe> As Sandro notes, if we use profile, and LDP has 20 optional features, then you need one target IRI for each *combination* which is a lot, and scales badly
John Arwe: As Sandro notes, if we use profile, and LDP has 20 optional features, then you need one target IRI for each *combination* which is a lot, and scales badly ←
10:22:45 <nmihindu_> q+
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: q+ ←
10:22:54 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
10:23:03 <Ashok> Ashok: We don't need to define profiles in the spec
Ashok Malhotra: We don't need to define profiles in the spec ←
10:23:37 <Ashok> q+
q+ ←
10:24:20 <krp> I heard "read-only" as a shorthand for a named set/profile of features
Kevin Page: I heard "read-only" as a shorthand for a named set/profile of features ←
10:24:49 <Arnaud> ack nmihindy
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindy ←
10:24:59 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
10:25:57 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
10:28:39 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
10:29:17 <bblfish> Issue-32?
10:29:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open ←
10:29:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 ←
10:29:25 <JohnArwe> discussion about how granular the introspection capabilities needs to be from issue-32
John Arwe: discussion about how granular the introspection capabilities needs to be from ISSUE-32 ←
10:29:32 <SteveS> Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32
Steve Speicher: Wiki page: ISSUE-32">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32 ←
10:29:33 <bblfish> what is the URL for the issue-32
Henry Story: what is the URL for the ISSUE-32 ←
10:29:42 <bblfish> which shows the different types of things?
Henry Story: which shows the different types of things? ←
10:29:51 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
10:30:44 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
10:31:13 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
10:32:33 <JohnArwe> @henry: email w/ 3 profile strawman is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0139.html
John Arwe: @henry: email w/ 3 profile strawman is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0139.html ←
10:32:39 <JohnArwe> ...in pdf attachment
John Arwe: ...in pdf attachment ←
10:33:01 <Ashok> Arnaud: Can we agree that to solve ISSUe-57 is to create a link header
Arnaud Le Hors: Can we agree that to solve ISSUE-57 is to create a link header ←
10:33:36 <Ashok> s/ISSUe-57/ISSUE-57/
10:34:20 <sandro> +1 bblfish using rdf:type relation IN LINK HEADER for ldp:Resource
Sandro Hawke: +1 bblfish using rdf:type relation IN LINK HEADER for ldp:Resource ←
10:35:32 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: close issue-57, adding that LDP servers MUST advertise LDP with a link header: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile>; rel=profile
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-57, adding that LDP servers MUST advertise LDP with a link header: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/profile>; rel=profile ←
10:36:16 <sandro> q+ to ask why profile instead of type? (sorry)
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask why profile instead of type? (sorry) ←
10:36:37 <JohnArwe> @sandro, are you saying that the link relation type = 'rdf:type' or 'type' ? 'type' is in the IANA registry, has the semantics I related before, so has the problem with any existing CMS that I related before.
John Arwe: @sandro, are you saying that the link relation type = 'rdf:type' or 'type' ? 'type' is in the IANA registry, has the semantics I related before, so has the problem with any existing CMS that I related before. ←
10:36:43 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
10:36:43 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask why profile instead of type? (sorry)
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask why profile instead of type? (sorry) ←
10:36:57 <Ashok> Ashok: And, Sandro type = rdf:type
Ashok Malhotra: And, Sandro type = rdf:type ←
10:38:06 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
10:38:07 <mielvds1> So I guess bblfish is saying servers that offer rdf:type LDPResource should offer LDP functionality, else it's their problem?
Miel Vander Sande: So I guess bblfish is saying servers that offer rdf:type LDPResource should offer LDP functionality, else it's their problem? ←
10:38:18 <JohnArwe> @sandro: an existing CMS; it exposes every rdf:type it finds in RDF-based resources as Link: "type", "rdf:type URI" headers.
John Arwe: @sandro: an existing CMS; it exposes every rdf:type it finds in RDF-based resources as Link: "type", "rdf:type URI" headers. ←
10:38:30 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
10:38:46 <Ashok> Arnaud: Sandro, please type in proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: Sandro, please type in proposal ←
10:39:07 <Ashok> Steves: We could add profile types to the spec
Steve Speicher: We could add profile types to the spec ←
10:39:28 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
10:39:32 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
10:39:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-57, adding that LDP servers MUST advertise LDP with a link header: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel=type (and noting that we consider rel=type to be shorthand for the rdf:type property). And we/others can subclass ldp:Resource as needed later.
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-57, adding that LDP servers MUST advertise LDP with a link header: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel=type (and noting that we consider rel=type to be shorthand for the rdf:type property). And we/others can subclass ldp:Resource as needed later. ←
10:40:14 <Ashok> Roger: We need client to be generic ... that should be in the content
Roger Menday: We need client to be generic ... that should be in the content ←
10:40:18 <JohnArwe> ...if you plunk a LDPR representation into that, and it has rdf:type=ldp:Resource in the representation, then the CMS would expose that. The CMS has not violated any spec, but it does not treat the resource as anything more than RDF (it's RDF, not LDP). If we re-use Link: 'type',<ldp:Resource> , that CMS is a liar.
John Arwe: ...if you plunk a LDPR representation into that, and it has rdf:type=ldp:Resource in the representation, then the CMS would expose that. The CMS has not violated any spec, but it does not treat the resource as anything more than RDF (it's RDF, not LDP). If we re-use Link: 'type',<ldp:Resource> , that CMS is a liar. ←
10:41:02 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
10:41:04 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
10:41:13 <Ashok> Sandro: You don't want to have to look at header if you don't want to? You can take your chances.
Sandro Hawke: You don't want to have to look at header if you don't want to? You can take your chances. ←
10:41:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 ←
10:41:47 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
10:42:48 <rgarcia> +-0 (not sure about what happens with containers)
Raúl García Castro: +-0 (not sure about what happens with containers) ←
10:42:48 <Ashok> +1
+1 ←
10:42:56 <mesteban_> +0.5
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0.5 ←
10:43:04 <SteveS> +.5 (not sure 'type' matches as closely as 'profile')
Steve Speicher: +.5 (not sure 'type' matches as closely as 'profile') ←
10:43:16 <nmihindu_> +0.5
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0.5 ←
10:43:19 <krp> +.5
Kevin Page: +.5 ←
10:43:39 <sandro> (I prefer 'type' to 'profile' because we get clear semantics for the the link target)
Sandro Hawke: (I prefer 'type' to 'profile' because we get clear semantics for the the link target) ←
10:43:42 <JohnArwe> -0.15 ... will learn to live with it, but recognize it's not as iron-clad as a link relation type that LDP newly defines
John Arwe: -0.15 ... will learn to live with it, but recognize it's not as iron-clad as a link relation type that LDP newly defines ←
10:43:46 <bblfish> +1 for the ldp:Resource version ( missing the def cause I got kicked out )
Henry Story: +1 for the ldp:Resource version ( missing the def cause I got kicked out ) ←
10:44:37 <Ashok> John: This does not give you an ironclad guarantee
John Arwe: This does not give you an ironclad guarantee ←
10:46:12 <Ashok> Arnaud: How would server put a type in automatically?
Arnaud Le Hors: How would server put a type in automatically? ←
10:46:40 <sandro> JohnArwe: I'm concerned that some systems will issue this link header automatically when they don't know anything about LDP, because they learned this information from somewhere (eg the content).
John Arwe: I'm concerned that some systems will issue this link header automatically when they don't know anything about LDP, because they learned this information from somewhere (eg the content). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:47:10 <mielvds1> +1 (not perfect; can live with it)
Miel Vander Sande: +1 (not perfect; can live with it) ←
10:47:15 <roger> btw, what is the equivalent of a Link: header which could be used to encode a literal statement in a header element ?
Roger Menday: btw, what is the equivalent of a Link: header which could be used to encode a literal statement in a header element ? ←
10:47:31 <sandro> I don't think that can be done, roger.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think that can be done, roger. ←
10:48:28 <roger> sandro, should it be done ?
Roger Menday: sandro, should it be done ? ←
10:48:51 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-57, adding that LDP servers MUST advertise LDP with a link header: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel=type (and noting that we consider rel=type to be shorthand for the rdf:type property). And we/others can subclass ldp:Resource as needed later.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-57, adding that LDP servers MUST advertise LDP with a link header: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel=type (and noting that we consider rel=type to be shorthand for the rdf:type property). And we/others can subclass ldp:Resource as needed later. ←
10:49:05 <Ashok> Arnaud: Does anyone want to change their vote?
Arnaud Le Hors: Does anyone want to change their vote? ←
10:49:14 <Ashok> No response
No response ←
10:49:28 <Ashok> Arnaud: ISSUE is resolved
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE is resolved ←
10:51:37 <Ashok> Arnaud: Raul is asking 'what happens to containers' ... do we need a different type
Arnaud Le Hors: Raul is asking 'what happens to containers' ... do we need a different type ←
10:51:53 <Ashok> Sandro: Containers are a type of LDPR
Sandro Hawke: Containers are a type of LDPR ←
10:52:47 <bblfish> where is the definition for the 'type' link relations btw?
Henry Story: where is the definition for the 'type' link relations btw? ←
10:52:55 <ericP> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/LDPR>; rel="rdf:type"; <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/LDPC>; rel="rdf:type"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/LDPR>; rel="rdf:type"; <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/LDPC>; rel="rdf:type" ←
10:53:17 <krp> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6903#section-6
Kevin Page: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6903#section-6 ←
10:53:26 <sandro> eric, we just decided it was ldp:Resource not ldp:LDPR
Sandro Hawke: eric, we just decided it was ldp:Resource not ldp:LDPR ←
10:53:41 <Arnaud> eric, that would be: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel="rdf:type"; <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Container>; rel="rdf:type"
Arnaud Le Hors: eric, that would be: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel="rdf:type"; <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Container>; rel="rdf:type" ←
10:53:50 <ericP> roger that
Eric Prud'hommeaux: roger that ←
10:54:00 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
10:54:02 <sandro> so it's: and it's rel="type" not rel="rdf:type"
Sandro Hawke: so it's: and it's rel="type" not rel="rdf:type" ←
10:54:24 <sandro> That is: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel="type"; <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Container>; rel="type"
Sandro Hawke: That is: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource>; rel="type"; <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Container>; rel="type" ←
10:55:11 <Arnaud> oh right
Arnaud Le Hors: oh right ←
10:56:20 <Ashok> Arnaud: This solves whether you are in an LDP context or not
Arnaud Le Hors: This solves whether you are in an LDP context or not ←
10:56:28 <roger> in my opinion, LDPRs are GETable only, and it's only the LDPC which are special (i.e. potentially support POST, PUT, PATCH), and may require these link headers.
Roger Menday: in my opinion, LDPRs are GETable only, and it's only the LDPC which are special (i.e. potentially support POST, PUT, PATCH), and may require these link headers. ←
10:56:59 <Ashok> Arnaud: Do we need separate headers for resources and containers?
Arnaud Le Hors: Do we need separate headers for resources and containers? ←
10:57:08 <JohnArwe> note that we have an issue open to 'move' create from containers to ldp:Resource's
John Arwe: note that we have an issue open to 'move' create from containers to ldp:Resource's ←
10:57:29 <Ashok> Sandro: We need to look at other affordances
Sandro Hawke: We need to look at other affordances ←
10:57:40 <bblfish> This is really related to the issue on Inssue-78
Henry Story: This is really related to the issue on Inssue-78 ←
10:58:03 <sandro> sandro: how we handle Containers will need to depend on how we do other affordances.
Sandro Hawke: how we handle Containers will need to depend on how we do other affordances. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:58:03 <Ashok> Arnaud: Let's leave it as LDPR for now
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's leave it as LDPR for now ←
10:58:21 <Ashok> BREAK FOR LUNCH
BREAK FOR LUNCH ←
10:58:43 <Ashok> One hour break
One hour break ←
10:59:04 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
Zakim IRC Bot: -BartvanLeeuwen ←
10:59:09 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
10:59:18 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
12:04:35 <BartvanLeeuwen> I knew they 1h wouldn't work in spain :)
(No events recorded for 65 minutes)
Bart van Leeuwen: I knew they 1h wouldn't work in spain :) ←
12:04:36 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
12:04:52 <ericP> heh
Eric Prud'hommeaux: heh ←
12:05:30 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me ←
12:05:30 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
12:09:38 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
12:09:43 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Bart van Leeuwen: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
12:09:43 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BartvanLeeuwen; got it ←
12:12:28 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
12:16:44 <Ashok> Resuming after lunch
Resuming after lunch ←
12:20:59 <mesteban> scribe
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: scribe ←
12:21:59 <JohnArwe> is there anyone In There ?
John Arwe: is there anyone In There ? ←
12:22:14 <nmihindu> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Primer
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Primer ←
12:22:28 <sandro> what's that, John? I hear the meeting room, and see you on IRC.
Sandro Hawke: what's that, John? I hear the meeting room, and see you on IRC. ←
12:23:07 <mesteban> scribe: mesteban
(Scribe set to Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez)
12:23:15 <mesteban> Topic: LDP Primer
12:23:16 <nmihindu> wiki - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Primer
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: wiki - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Primer ←
12:23:38 <mesteban> nmihindu: reporting on the status of the primer
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: reporting on the status of the primer ←
12:23:57 <mesteban> ... current status available in the posted link.
... current status available in the posted link. ←
12:24:34 <mesteban> ... is the structure proposed on the wiki what the project wants?
... is the structure proposed on the wiki what the project wants? ←
12:25:08 <mesteban> ... there are issues to be solved, that if address would allows us to deliver the Primer by the end of the month.
... there are issues to be solved, that if address would allows us to deliver the Primer by the end of the month. ←
12:25:31 <mesteban> Arnaud: delivering is not a must (as it is not in the charter)
Arnaud Le Hors: delivering is not a must (as it is not in the charter) ←
12:25:54 <mesteban> ... would rather prefer to focus effort on the LDP doc.
... would rather prefer to focus effort on the LDP doc. ←
12:26:44 <mesteban> ... the proposal for the primer should be reviewed
... the proposal for the primer should be reviewed ←
12:27:01 <mesteban> ... Ashok volunteers.
... Ashok volunteers. ←
12:27:59 <Arnaud> action: ashok to review the primer and send feedback
ACTION: ashok to review the primer and send feedback ←
12:27:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Review the primer and send feedback [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-06-25].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-70 - Review the primer and send feedback [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-06-25]. ←
12:28:04 <Arnaud> action: henry to review the primer and send feedback
ACTION: henry to review the primer and send feedback ←
12:28:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Review the primer and send feedback [on Henry Story - due 2013-06-25].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-71 - Review the primer and send feedback [on Henry Story - due 2013-06-25]. ←
12:28:06 <mesteban> bblfish: would like to review
Henry Story: would like to review ←
12:28:30 <mesteban> Arnaud: timing is not important
Arnaud Le Hors: timing is not important ←
12:29:04 <mesteban> SteveS: it would be nice to have it when delivering the LDP spec.
Steve Speicher: it would be nice to have it when delivering the LDP spec. ←
12:29:25 <bblfish> yes. it's important to make sure the best practices are best practices.
Henry Story: yes. it's important to make sure the best practices are best practices. ←
12:29:42 <mesteban> Arnaud: we could this as a goal.
Arnaud Le Hors: we could have this as a goal. ←
12:29:53 <mesteban> s/could this/could have this/
12:30:17 <mesteban> Arnaud: what is the purpose of the primer? Which is the target audience?
Arnaud Le Hors: what is the purpose of the primer? Which is the target audience? ←
12:31:16 <mesteban> Arnaud: there is tension between documenting what to implement and how it is to be used.
Arnaud Le Hors: there is tension between documenting what to implement and how it is to be used. ←
12:31:35 <ericP> the text that's crafted to be precise and impossible to misinterpret is seldom the easiest read
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the text that's crafted to be precise and impossible to misinterpret is seldom the easiest read ←
12:31:54 <mesteban> ... the educational aspect should be focussed on LDP and not RDF.
... the educational aspect should be focussed on LDP and not RDF. ←
12:33:01 <mesteban> nmihindu: the point is that maybe the examples provided are to complex for non-RDF/LD people.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: the point is that maybe the examples provided are to complex for non-RDF/LD people. ←
12:33:17 <mesteban> ... and maybe some education to that respect is necessary
... and maybe some education to that respect is necessary ←
12:34:08 <mesteban> Roger: we should avoid communicating bad practices.
Roger Menday: we should avoid communicating bad practices. ←
12:34:42 <mesteban> bblfish: we have a year to see developers which bad practices "learn" and clarify the primer accordingly
Henry Story: we have a year to see developers which bad practices "learn" and clarify the primer accordingly ←
12:36:31 <mesteban> bblfish: we have to focuss on providing examples that do things properly
Henry Story: we have to focus on providing examples that do things properly ←
12:36:47 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
12:37:07 <mesteban> s/focuss/focus/
12:37:21 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
12:37:49 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
12:38:03 <mesteban> Ashok: developers usually ask about things related on how to use the LDP spec, and that's what it should be covered on the Primer.
Ashok Malhotra: developers usually ask about things related on how to use the LDP spec, and that's what it should be covered on the Primer. ←
12:38:23 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
12:40:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
12:41:45 <mesteban> bblfish: maybe in the end we end up providing something like "LD-atom".
Henry Story: maybe in the end we end up providing something like "LD-atom". ←
12:42:28 <mesteban> Arnaud: we have an agreement that the purpose is not educate the people on general best practices,
Arnaud Le Hors: we have an agreement that the purpose is not educate the people on general best practices, ←
12:42:48 <mesteban> ... just provide correct/good/valid examples.
... just provide correct/good/valid examples. ←
12:43:49 <mesteban> nmihindu: we have used a patch format based on changesets for the examples
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: we have used a patch format based on changesets for the examples ←
12:44:15 <mesteban> ... is it OK to keep them in the examples regardless nothing is said in the spec regarding PATCH?
... is it OK to keep them in the examples regardless nothing is said in the spec regarding PATCH? ←
12:44:21 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
12:45:12 <mesteban> arnaud: there is a problem if we don't say anything in the spec to that respect
Arnaud Le Hors: there is a problem if we don't say anything in the spec to that respect ←
12:45:14 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
12:46:51 <mesteban> ashok: what happened with work that was done regarding PATCH?
Ashok Malhotra: what happened with work that was done regarding PATCH? ←
12:47:03 <sandro> +1 Arnaud's telling of the story
Sandro Hawke: +1 Arnaud's telling of the story ←
12:47:54 <sandro> arnaud: Sandro worked on a proposal for Patch, but didn't come up with anything he was happy with enough to propose to the group
Arnaud Le Hors: Sandro worked on a proposal for Patch, but didn't come up with anything he was happy with enough to propose to the group [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:47:59 <mesteban> arnaoud: if the LDP doesn't doesn't say anything about PATCH, the Primer shouldn't say a word either.
Arnaud Le Hors: if the LDP doesn't doesn't say anything about PATCH, the Primer shouldn't say a word either. ←
12:48:19 <sandro> cf http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/datapatch if you're curious.
Sandro Hawke: cf http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/datapatch if you're curious. ←
12:48:25 <mesteban> s/arnaoud/arnaud/
12:49:17 <mesteban> nmihindu: are we switching to Respec?
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: are we switching to Respec? ←
12:49:22 <mesteban> ... when?
... when? ←
12:49:42 <mesteban> Arnaud: you should switch as soon as possible.
Arnaud Le Hors: you should switch as soon as possible. ←
12:50:02 <mesteban> Topic: LDP Specification - Pending Issues continues
12:50:28 <bblfish> Issue-32?
12:50:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open ←
12:50:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 ←
12:50:41 <mesteban> subTopic: ISSUE-32
12:52:23 <mesteban> JohnArwe: it would be better to focus on other issues more relevant to the LDP spec than starting discussion about affordances
John Arwe: it would be better to focus on other issues more relevant to the LDP spec than starting discussion about affordances ←
12:53:54 <mesteban> Arnaud: should we wait to dig into affordances until other issues regarding compliance have been solved?
Arnaud Le Hors: should we wait to dig into affordances until other issues regarding compliance have been solved? ←
12:54:08 <mesteban> JohnArwe: definitely.
12:55:39 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/att-0139/W3CIssue32.pdf
Henry Story: ISSUE-32.pdf">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/att-0139/W3CISSUE-32.pdf ←
12:55:59 <JohnArwe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0139.html
John Arwe: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0139.html ←
13:01:34 <mesteban> Arnaud: we have to focus on the broad categories more than on the specific tasks
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: we have to focus on the broad categories more than on the specific tasks ←
13:02:57 <mesteban> ... do those tasks reflect the features that we want to expose?
... do those tasks reflect the features that we want to expose? ←
13:03:17 <mesteban> ... then, how are we to advertise them? Profiles?
... then, how are we to advertise them? Profiles? ←
13:03:17 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
13:03:57 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
13:04:31 <mesteban> Sandro: PATCH is a would use case for affordances.
Sandro Hawke: PATCH is a good use case for affordances. ←
13:04:43 <mesteban> s/a would/a good/
13:05:05 <mesteban> ... because of the PATCH format semantics
... because of the PATCH format semantics ←
13:05:05 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
13:05:28 <nmihindu> sandro, will that help http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 ?
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: sandro, will that help http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 ? ←
13:05:47 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
13:08:54 <sandro> sandro: I think it makes sense to use HTTP PATCH with RDF, you just need some affordance signalling, and rel=type works fine for that as far as I can tell.
Sandro Hawke: I think it makes sense to use HTTP PATCH with RDF, you just need some affordance signalling, and rel=type works fine for that as far as I can tell. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:09:24 <nmihindu> mesteban: does the pdf in the email reflect the features of LDP correctly ?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: does the pdf in the email reflect the features of LDP correctly ? [ Scribe Assist by Nandana Mihindukulasooriya ] ←
13:09:24 <sandro> sandro: like <> a ldp:PatchableViaPatchLanguage3 --- lets clients know they can use HTTP PATCH with that language.
Sandro Hawke: like <> a ldp:PatchableViaPatchLanguage3 --- lets clients know they can use HTTP PATCH with that language. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:11:29 <mesteban> Arnaud: do we have then the "read-only" scenario?
Arnaud Le Hors: do we have then the "read-only" scenario? ←
13:12:13 <mesteban> rgarcia: is the enumeration of tasks in the "prifle" exhaustive?
Raúl García Castro: is the enumeration of tasks in the "prifle" exhaustive? ←
13:12:48 <mesteban> Arnaud: if any other feature is found we would have to change the definition of the profile
Arnaud Le Hors: if any other feature is found we would have to change the definition of the profile ←
13:14:30 <mesteban> JohnArwe, SteveS: beware the document does not reflect the latest status of the LDP spec.
JohnArwe, SteveS: beware the document does not reflect the latest status of the LDP spec. ←
13:16:21 <mesteban> Arnaud: it will be difficult capture all the business logic reqs. from applications
Arnaud Le Hors: it will be difficult capture all the business logic reqs. from applications ←
13:17:52 <mesteban> JohnArwe: we should at least point out the variability points, but not necessesarily making a proposal on the implementation details
John Arwe: we should at least point out the variability points, but not necessesarily making a proposal on the implementation details ←
13:18:17 <ericP> don't forget the ever-important CONNECT method
Eric Prud'hommeaux: don't forget the ever-important CONNECT method ←
13:20:06 <mesteban> Arnaud: so it seems there are two big categories: read only and read+write.
Arnaud Le Hors: so it seems there are two big categories: read only and read+write. ←
13:21:01 <mesteban> ... does it makes sense a write only profile?
... does it makes sense a write only profile? ←
13:21:09 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
13:22:53 <mesteban> Arnaud: can the LDP spec stay without affordances?
Arnaud Le Hors: can the LDP spec stay without affordances? ←
13:24:05 <mesteban> JohnArwe: I'm fine if for each variability point the LDP spec provides an instrospection mechanism for guessing the details from the implementation
John Arwe: I'm fine if for each variability point the LDP spec provides an instrospection mechanism for guessing the details from the implementation ←
13:24:40 <SteveS_> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
13:24:57 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
13:25:12 <mesteban> bblfish: if we manage to identify the gaps (variability points) we could the later see if we can categorize them somehow.
Henry Story: if we manage to identify the gaps (variability points) we could later see if we can categorize them somehow. ←
13:25:26 <mesteban> s/could the later/could later/
13:27:12 <mesteban> SteveS_: we could just provide profiles for letting users know if only LDP Resources are supported or LDPR+LDPC and then provide introspection mechanisms for the other issues.
Steve Speicher: we could just provide profiles for letting users know if only LDP Resources are supported or LDPR+LDPC and then provide introspection mechanisms for the other variability points. ←
13:27:36 <mesteban> s/for the other issues/for the other variability points/
13:29:37 <mesteban> Arnaud: the only mechanism right now for discovering the capabilities is trial and error, and eventhough the errors might not real reflect the capabilities of the server
Arnaud Le Hors: the only mechanism right now for discovering the capabilities is trial and error, and eventhough the errors might not real reflect the capabilities of the server ←
13:31:02 <mesteban> bblfish: we could assume that once we now the type of resource (LDPC or LDPR) it is take for granted that certain operations (HTTP verbs) should be supported
Henry Story: we could assume that once we now the type of resource (LDPC or LDPR) it is take for granted that certain operations (HTTP verbs) should be supported ←
13:32:10 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
13:32:13 <nmihindu> q+
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: q+ ←
13:32:25 <Ashok> Re: OPTIONS, the spec says This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval.
Ashok Malhotra: Re: OPTIONS, the spec says This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval. ←
13:32:30 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
13:32:59 <rgarcia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0098.html
Raúl García Castro: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0098.html ←
13:33:06 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
13:33:22 <mesteban> nmihindu: the current draft of the spec reflects the usage of HEAD
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: the current draft of the spec reflects the usage of HEAD ←
13:33:25 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.7
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.7 ←
13:33:28 <JohnArwe> q+
13:33:40 <mesteban> ... but it might be better to support OPTIONS
... but it might be better to support OPTIONS ←
13:33:58 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
13:34:22 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
13:34:30 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
13:34:45 <bblfish> q+ why does Allow not give us all we need: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.7
Henry Story: q+ why does Allow not give us all we need: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.7 ←
13:34:48 <mesteban> SteveS: but this would require defining the structure for the body of the response
Steve Speicher: but this would require defining the structure for the body of the response ←
13:34:58 <bblfish> q+ to why does Allow not give us all we need: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.7
Henry Story: q+ to why does Allow not give us all we need: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.7 ←
13:35:08 <nmihindu> OPTIONS -> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.2
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: OPTIONS -> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.2 ←
13:35:17 <mesteban> Roger: we could just say we support OPTIONS without specifying the format of the response's body
Roger Menday: we could just say we support OPTIONS without specifying the format of the response's body ←
13:35:46 <nmihindu> "A 200 response SHOULD include any header fields that indicate optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that resource (e.g., Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by this specification. The response body, if any, SHOULD also include information about the communication options."
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: "A 200 response SHOULD include any header fields that indicate optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that resource (e.g., Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by this specification. The response body, if any, SHOULD also include information about the communication options." ←
13:36:14 <mesteban> JohnArwe: the options may apply to the server of the specific URI.
John Arwe: the options may apply to the server of the specific URI. ←
13:36:18 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
13:36:21 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
13:36:33 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
13:37:39 <mesteban> JohnArwe: as we already enforce GET and HEAD, and can simulate OPTIONS with them it might be better to stick to them to lower possible entry barriers.
John Arwe: as we already enforce GET and HEAD, and can simulate OPTIONS with them it might be better to stick to them to lower possible entry barriers. ←
13:38:35 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
13:38:39 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
13:40:49 <JohnArwe> q+
13:41:08 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
13:41:09 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3 ←
13:41:14 <SteveS> SteveS: OPTIONS has the feature over HEAD in that you do not need to compute various GET-response headers, like: lastModified, etag, content-size, content-type
Steve Speicher: OPTIONS has the feature over HEAD in that you do not need to compute various GET-response headers, like: lastModified, etag, content-size, content-type [ Scribe Assist by Steve Speicher ] ←
13:41:25 <bblfish> Options in HTTP spec http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.2
Henry Story: Options in HTTP spec http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.2 ←
13:41:40 <nmihindu> q+ to say may be we can mention it in the deployment guide as always :)
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: q+ to say may be we can mention it in the deployment guide as always :) ←
13:42:19 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
13:42:19 <Zakim> nmihindu, you wanted to say may be we can mention it in the deployment guide as always :)
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu, you wanted to say may be we can mention it in the deployment guide as always :) ←
13:43:00 <mesteban> nmihindu: SteveS notice makes sense in the deployment guide, and could be included in there
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: SteveS notice makes sense in the deployment guide, and could be included in there ←
13:43:34 <mesteban> ... do we don't lose the point
... do we don't lose the point ←
13:44:15 <Arnaud> break for 15mn
Arnaud Le Hors: break for 15mn ←
13:57:42 <JohnArwe> yes cody
(No events recorded for 13 minutes)
14:00:53 <Arnaud> scribe: krp
(Scribe set to Kevin Page)
14:01:31 <krp> SteveS: If OPTIONS is a more efficient way to do it, perhaps that is what we should have in the spec
Steve Speicher: If OPTIONS is a more efficient way to do it, perhaps that is what we should have in the spec ←
14:01:53 <krp> ... rather than HEAD, which requires everything as per GET but without the body
... rather than HEAD, which requires everything as per GET but without the body ←
14:02:48 <JohnArwe> q+
14:02:52 <krp> roger: asks for an example of how we would do this with OPTIONS rather than HEAD
Roger Menday: asks for an example of how we would do this with OPTIONS rather than HEAD ←
14:02:54 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
14:03:35 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
14:03:40 <krp> JohnArwe: if the allow has patch you also need to provide the allow-patch
John Arwe: if the allow has patch you also need to provide the Accept-Patch ←
14:04:04 <SteveS> s/allow-patch/Accept-Patch/
14:04:32 <krp> Arnaud: could we have an example of this and what the change to the spec would be by tomorrow?
Arnaud Le Hors: could we have an example of this and what the change to the spec would be by tomorrow? ←
14:04:35 <JohnArwe> tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.2
John Arwe: tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.2 ←
14:04:37 <cody> q+
Cody Burleson: q+ ←
14:04:48 <Arnaud> ack cody
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cody ←
14:05:15 <krp> cody: why does section 4.6.2 exist in the spec?
Cody Burleson: why does section 4.6.2 exist in the spec? ←
14:05:52 <krp> JohnArwe: it's a MUST because otherwise it would be optional by http default
John Arwe: it's a MUST because otherwise it would be optional by http default ←
14:06:36 <krp> Arnaud: Likes the rfc5789 example. it doesn't seem to include any required options document
Arnaud Le Hors: Likes the rfc5789 example. it doesn't seem to include any required options document ←
14:06:42 <JohnArwe> OPTIONS = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.2
John Arwe: OPTIONS = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.2 ←
14:07:01 <krp> ... if we were to do it like this example, it seems it does much of what we want
... if we were to do it like this example, it seems it does much of what we want ←
14:10:23 <krp> Arnaud: whether to change HEAD in 4.6 to OPTIONS, or add a new OPTIONS section after 4.6
Arnaud Le Hors: whether to change HEAD in 4.6 to OPTIONS, or add a new OPTIONS section after 4.6 ←
14:10:55 <JohnArwe> Proposal: ADD: LDP Servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR's URL. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow' header with the supported HTTP Methods. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow-Patch' header per RFC 5789, if the server supports PATCH.
PROPOSED: ADD: LDP Servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR's URL. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow' header with the supported HTTP Methods. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow-Patch' header per RFC 5789, if the server supports PATCH. ←
14:11:10 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
14:11:13 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:11:15 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
14:11:25 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
14:11:41 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:11:48 <krp> +1
+1 ←
14:11:49 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
14:12:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 ←
14:12:11 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:12:16 <mielvds1> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
14:12:37 <JohnArwe> +1
14:12:43 <JohnArwe> +1 (for Roger)
14:12:47 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: ADD: LDP Servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR's URL. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow' header with the supported HTTP Methods. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow-Patch' header per RFC 5789, if the server supports PATCH.
RESOLVED: ADD: LDP Servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR's URL. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow' header with the supported HTTP Methods. LDP Servers MUST include an 'Allow-Patch' header per RFC 5789, if the server supports PATCH. ←
14:13:31 <JohnArwe> trackbot, topic?
14:13:31 <trackbot> Sorry, JohnArwe, I don't understand 'trackbot, topic?'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, JohnArwe, I don't understand 'trackbot, topic?'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help. ←
14:13:38 <krp> Arnaud: this has only added a section. what should we do with 4.6 (HEAD)?
Arnaud Le Hors: this has only added a section. what should we do with 4.6 (HEAD)? ←
14:14:32 <krp> SteveS: doesn't hurt anything to leave it a MUST. maybe say "If you support HEAD..."
Steve Speicher: doesn't hurt anything to leave it a MUST. maybe say "If you support HEAD..." ←
14:14:49 <JohnArwe> part of issue-32
14:15:06 <nmihindu> issue-32
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: ISSUE-32 ←
14:15:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open ←
14:15:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 ←
14:15:08 <krp> Arnaud: let's leave as is. SteveS to come back if there's a problem.
Arnaud Le Hors: let's leave as is. SteveS to come back if there's a problem. ←
14:17:35 <krp> ... Any objections to closing issue-19 as is? This issue is too broad at the moment.
... Any objections to closing ISSUE-19 as is? This issue is too broad at the moment. ←
14:17:45 <JohnArwe> q+
14:18:21 <Arnaud> subtopic: Issue-19
14:18:34 <krp> Ashok: if there are specific error cases we need to have them pointed out
Ashok Malhotra: if there are specific error cases we need to have them pointed out ←
14:19:25 <krp> JohnArwe: in the original email one resolution is that the errors are already covered by existing specs -- this seems to be the case
John Arwe: in the original email one resolution is that the errors are already covered by existing specs -- this seems to be the case ←
14:19:43 <krp> ... so can we close with that resolution?
... so can we close with that resolution? ←
14:21:43 <JohnArwe> q-
14:21:58 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-19 as is, the spec already covers some error cases, if other specific cases need to be addressed they should be pointed out individually
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-19 as is, the spec already covers some error cases, if other specific cases need to be addressed they should be pointed out individually ←
14:22:10 <JohnArwe> +1
14:22:14 <krp> +1
+1 ←
14:22:23 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
14:22:27 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
14:22:30 <sandro> issue-9?
14:22:30 <trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- Should properties used in BPR representations be BPRs? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-9 -- Should properties used in BPR representations be BPRs? -- closed ←
14:22:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/9
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/9 ←
14:22:38 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:22:41 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:22:45 <mesteban> +0.5
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0.5 ←
14:22:46 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:22:47 <sandro> issue-19?
14:22:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Adressing more error cases -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-19 -- Adressing more error cases -- pending review ←
14:22:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/19
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/19 ←
14:22:48 <mielvds1> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
14:22:50 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:23:33 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
14:23:40 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 ←
14:23:57 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
14:24:00 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close Issue-19 as is, the spec already covers some error cases, if other specific cases need to be addressed they should be pointed out individually
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-19 as is, the spec already covers some error cases, if other specific cases need to be addressed they should be pointed out individually ←
14:24:29 <krp> subtopic: ISSUE-63
14:24:43 <krp> issue-63
14:24:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Need to be able to specify collation with container ordering -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-63 -- Need to be able to specify collation with container ordering -- pending review ←
14:24:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/63
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/63 ←
14:25:01 <ericP> yesss
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yesss ←
14:25:17 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:26:06 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-63, per Ashok's proposal (adding ldp:containerSortCollation)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-63, per Ashok's proposal (adding ldp:containerSortCollation) ←
14:26:16 <krp> Arnaud: propose we close as per Ashok's resolution, does ericP agree?
Arnaud Le Hors: propose we close as per Ashok's resolution, does ericP agree? ←
14:26:38 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:26:59 <krp> bblfish: this looks like it's using default reasoning again?
Henry Story: this looks like it's using default reasoning again? ←
14:27:40 <krp> arnaud: the issue is that it's an optional property
Arnaud Le Hors: the issue is that it's an optional property ←
14:28:48 <krp> JohnArwe: so this should be a mandatory property
John Arwe: so this should be a mandatory property ←
14:29:12 <krp> Ashok: but this adds a cost when it's not always needed
Ashok Malhotra: but this adds a cost when it's not always needed ←
14:29:24 <bblfish> mu issue is a montonocity issue
Henry Story: mu issue is a montonocity issue ←
14:29:33 <bblfish> just we need to be a bit careful
Henry Story: just we need to be a bit careful ←
14:29:38 <krp> ericP: agrees. is it still worth having that control? how would we test it? how many people would implement it?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: agrees. is it still worth having that control? how would we test it? how many people would implement it? ←
14:29:58 <krp> Ashok: this is going to be used by lots of people for lots of different applications, why handcuff it?
Ashok Malhotra: this is going to be used by lots of people for lots of different applications, why handcuff it? ←
14:30:17 <krp> Arnaud: if there is a default value you would have to specify it
Arnaud Le Hors: if there is a default value you would have to specify it ←
14:30:53 <mesteban> q+
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q+ ←
14:31:10 <Arnaud> ack mesteban
Arnaud Le Hors: ack mesteban ←
14:31:21 <krp> mesteban: is this some information property about how the server works?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: is this some information property about how the server works? ←
14:31:44 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
14:31:52 <krp> JohnArwe: when the server responds it says how the server ordered the information
John Arwe: when the server responds it says how the server ordered the information ←
14:32:20 <krp> ... doesn't enable the client to change the ordering
... doesn't enable the client to change the ordering ←
14:32:36 <krp> Arnaud: it gives the client enough information to reproduce the ordering
Arnaud Le Hors: it gives the client enough information to reproduce the ordering ←
14:33:25 <krp> ericP: if the client gets items where the ordering is useful for presentation, the client needs to know how to reproduce that ordering as it can't get it from the rdf
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if the client gets items where the ordering is useful for presentation, the client needs to know how to reproduce that ordering as it can't get it from the rdf ←
14:34:22 <krp> bblfish: if the ordering doesn't matter, or it's not important to the client, it doesn't include the ordering. if it does it uses one of these. so there's no default.
Henry Story: if the ordering doesn't matter, or it's not important to the client, it doesn't include the ordering. if it does it uses one of these. so there's no default. ←
14:34:44 <krp> Arnaud: so it's either unspecified, or specified with this property?
Arnaud Le Hors: so it's either unspecified, or specified with this property? ←
14:36:25 <krp> ... what do these collations look like?
... what do these collations look like? ←
14:36:53 <krp> JohnArwe: the compare function is defined in xpath.
John Arwe: the compare function is defined in xpath. ←
14:39:39 <krp> bblfish: we need to make this work at a basic level for agents with low/near-zero reasoning. but we have to consider what happens for a client with reasoning.
Henry Story: we need to make this work at a basic level for agents with low/near-zero reasoning. but we have to consider what happens for a client with reasoning. ←
14:40:19 <krp> Arnaud: e.g. you don't see the property as it's not there, you assume it's using a default, but then you find it's using the other compare
Arnaud Le Hors: e.g. you don't see the property as it's not there, you assume it's using a default, but then you find it's using the other compare ←
14:40:55 <JohnArwe> Some details on the 2-operand vs 3-operand behavior of fn:compare for strings...
John Arwe: Some details on the 2-operand vs 3-operand behavior of fn:compare for strings... ←
14:41:27 <JohnArwe> SPARQL Query appears to say that the default collation for the 2-case is codepoint, see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#OperatorMapping ...
John Arwe: SPARQL Query appears to say that the default collation for the 2-case is codepoint, see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#OperatorMapping ... ←
14:41:55 <krp> ericP: you can't do anything with sorting until you've reached a document boundary
Eric Prud'hommeaux: you can't do anything with sorting until you've reached a document boundary ←
14:42:00 <JohnArwe> XPath allows SPARQL to do that explicitly http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-compare
John Arwe: XPath allows SPARQL to do that explicitly http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-compare ←
14:42:21 <krp> bblfish: on what property are you sorting? on the uris?
Henry Story: on what property are you sorting? on the uris? ←
14:42:33 <krp> Ashok: no, that's another issue. you have specified what you're sorting
Ashok Malhotra: no, that's another issue. you have specified what you're sorting ←
14:43:06 <JohnArwe> This sorting is for strings and untyped literals (which in RDF 1.1 will be treated as strings, and is how most implementations treat them today according to what I heard Sandro say at SemTech)
John Arwe: This sorting is for strings and untyped literals (which in RDF 1.1 will be treated as strings, and is how most implementations treat them today according to what I heard Sandro say at SemTech) ←
14:43:20 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
14:43:23 <nmihindu> bblfish, http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/14
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: bblfish, http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/14 ←
14:43:58 <krp> JohnArwe: we defer the implementation to fn:compare to sparql query
John Arwe: we defer the implementation to fn:compare to sparql query ←
14:44:58 <krp> Arnaud: what is important is that if it's not stated you don't know which it is
Arnaud Le Hors: what is important is that if it's not stated you don't know which it is ←
14:47:01 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-63, adding a ldp:containerSortCollation, when set to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#OperatorMapping, use compare(A,B), when set to something else, use compare(A, B, C)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-63, adding a ldp:containerSortCollation, when set to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#OperatorMapping, use compare(A,B), when set to something else, use compare(A, B, C) ←
14:47:28 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:47:41 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
14:48:50 <JohnArwe> 5.3.10 in editor's draft
John Arwe: 5.3.10 in editor's draft ←
14:49:04 <sandro> +0 sounds reasonable, but I can't see the text on the editor's machine
Sandro Hawke: +0 sounds reasonable, but I can't see the text on the editor's machine ←
14:49:16 <krp> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html ←
14:50:20 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/collation/codepoint
John Arwe: http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/collation/codepoint ←
14:51:03 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-63, adding a ldp:containerSortCollation, when set to http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/collation/codepoint, use compare(A,B), when set to another collation, use compare(A, B, C)
Arnaud Le Hors: PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-63, adding a ldp:containerSortCollation, when set to http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/collation/codepoint, use compare(A,B), when set to another collation, use compare(A, B, C) ←
14:51:33 <ericP> hey, that's my paragraph
Eric Prud'hommeaux: hey, that's my paragraph ←
14:51:35 <ericP> write your own!
Eric Prud'hommeaux: write your own! ←
14:52:04 <ericP> yeah
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yeah ←
14:52:13 <ericP> i actually don't remember if i did or not
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i actually don't remember if i did or not ←
14:53:09 <SteveS> +1 (to proposal not ericP's ramblings)
Steve Speicher: +1 (to proposal not ericP's ramblings) ←
14:53:22 <ericP> +1 (ditt)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 (ditto) ←
14:53:24 <krp> +1
+1 ←
14:53:27 <mielvds1> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
14:53:31 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 ←
14:53:43 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:53:45 <ericP> s/ditt/ditto/
14:53:46 <cody> +0
Cody Burleson: +0 ←
14:53:49 <mesteban> +0
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0 ←
14:53:57 <sandro> +0 (sounds okay, but I don't understand it)
Sandro Hawke: +0 (sounds okay, but I don't understand it) ←
14:53:59 <rgarcia> +0
Raúl García Castro: +0 ←
14:54:03 <nmihindu> +0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0 ←
14:54:11 <JohnArwe> +1 + need to remove "impln dependent" from editor's draft, since that's not what sparql says
John Arwe: +1 + need to remove "impln dependent" from editor's draft, since that's not what sparql says ←
14:54:34 <JohnArwe> roger +1's
14:54:53 <cody> Henry +1
Cody Burleson: Henry +1 ←
14:54:56 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-63, adding a ldp:containerSortCollation, when set to http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/collation/codepoint, use compare(A,B), when set to another collation, use compare(A, B, C)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-63, adding a ldp:containerSortCollation, when set to http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/collation/codepoint, use compare(A,B), when set to another collation, use compare(A, B, C) ←
14:55:36 <krp> subtopic: Issue-67
14:55:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-67 -- Full container membership without pagination -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-67 -- Full container membership without pagination -- pending review ←
14:55:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/67
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/67 ←
14:55:52 <bblfish> issue-67?
14:55:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-67 -- Full container membership without pagination -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-67 -- Full container membership without pagination -- pending review ←
14:55:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/67
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/67 ←
14:56:36 <krp> Arnaud: several people have said that it is impossible to guarantee this, so suggest closing this
Arnaud Le Hors: several people have said that it is impossible to guarantee this, so suggest closing this ←
14:56:49 <JohnArwe> q+
14:56:57 <krp> Ashok: there are valid reasons not to want paging
Ashok Malhotra: there are valid reasons not to want paging ←
14:57:16 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
Zakim IRC Bot: -BartvanLeeuwen ←
14:57:47 <krp> mielvds: if the server will not satisfy the request return forbidden?
Miel Vander Sande: if the server will not satisfy the request return forbidden? ←
14:58:16 <krp> arnaud: surely returning a page (which is indicated) is better
Arnaud Le Hors: surely returning a page (which is indicated) is better ←
14:59:54 <krp> bblfish: if you are a server and you would like to give clients that can take it the whole content then you can
Henry Story: if you are a server and you would like to give clients that can take it the whole content then you can ←
15:01:11 <krp> roger: so the default (without paging) is to send the lot?
Roger Menday: so the default (without paging) is to send the lot? ←
15:01:16 <krp> JohnArwe: yes
15:01:52 <bblfish> and a redirect ti the first page is a way for the server to say I can't deal with it all so you can only get pages
Henry Story: and a redirect ti the first page is a way for the server to say I can't deal with it all so you can only get pages ←
15:02:20 <krp> looking at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0326.html
looking at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0326.html ←
15:03:33 <bblfish> Issue-67?
15:03:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-67 -- Full container membership without pagination -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-67 -- Full container membership without pagination -- pending review ←
15:03:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/67
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/67 ←
15:03:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-67: Full container membership without pagination, saying no.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-67: Full container membership without pagination, saying no. ←
15:04:13 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
15:04:21 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:04:23 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:04:27 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
15:04:28 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:04:31 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
15:04:32 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:04:33 <JohnArwe> +1 from roger
15:04:34 <krp> +1
+1 ←
15:04:36 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
15:04:42 <mielvds1> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
15:04:45 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
15:04:55 <bblfish> +1 the reason was that a GET on the resource will by default return the full resource if there is no paging
Henry Story: +1 the reason was that a GET on the resource will by default return the full resource if there is no paging ←
15:05:01 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close ISSUE-67: Full container membership without pagination, saying no.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-67: Full container membership without pagination, saying no. ←
15:05:30 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
15:08:11 <krp> subtopic: Issue-69
15:08:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-69 -- Query syntaxes for accessing the first and subsequent pages -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-69 -- Query syntaxes for accessing the first and subsequent pages -- pending review ←
15:08:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/69
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/69 ←
15:08:35 <krp> ashok: why this is useful: if I'm on a cellphone I only want the first 5
Ashok Malhotra: why this is useful: if I'm on a cellphone I only want the first 5 ←
15:09:21 <krp> ... does the server paginate differently based on client request
... does the server paginate differently based on client request ←
15:09:38 <krp> Arnaud: the server *may* -- it is implementation specific
Arnaud Le Hors: the server *may* -- it is implementation specific ←
15:09:40 <ericP> use cookies!
Eric Prud'hommeaux: use cookies! ←
15:10:12 <krp> SteveS: it seems like there are use cases where this would be valuable -> wish list?
Steve Speicher: it seems like there are use cases where this would be valuable -> wish list? ←
15:12:08 <krp> Arnaud: this issue is specifically on the difference in syntax between first and other pages. but all of them are opaque and not specified by the spec.
Arnaud Le Hors: this issue is specifically on the difference in syntax between first and other pages. but all of them are opaque and not specified by the spec. ←
15:13:13 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: close ISSUE-69, as is, the syntax is opaque and dependent on the implementation
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-69, as is, the syntax is opaque and dependent on the implementation ←
15:13:43 <krp> JohnArwe: there is no way to find the 5th page. the right way to do it might be to expose a URI template, but we are too far ahead there to do so at this point
John Arwe: there is no way to find the 5th page. the right way to do it might be to expose a URI template, but we are too far ahead there to do so at this point ←
15:13:44 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:13:48 <krp> +1
+1 ←
15:13:55 <JohnArwe> +1
15:13:56 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:14:03 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:14:04 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:14:12 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
15:14:13 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
15:14:17 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:14:18 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
15:14:26 <mielvds1> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
15:14:35 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-69, as is, the syntax is opaque and dependent on the implementation
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-69, as is, the syntax is opaque and dependent on the implementation ←
15:14:46 <bblfish> pat
Henry Story: pat ←
15:16:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open ←
15:16:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71 ←
15:19:20 <krp> subtopic: Issue-75
15:19:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-75 -- non-monotonic ldp:membershipXXX relations -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-75 -- non-monotonic ldp:membershipXXX relations -- open ←
15:19:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/75
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/75 ←
15:20:08 <krp> Arnaud: easy fix. you always have to specify membershipPredicate.
Arnaud Le Hors: easy fix. you always have to specify membershipPredicate. ←
15:20:22 <krp> Ashok: on each container? (yes)
Ashok Malhotra: on each container? (yes) ←
15:20:33 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:20:54 <krp> bblfish: I would prefer there is something like ldpmember which we can always rely on (kind of a default)
Henry Story: I would prefer there is something like ldpmember which we can always rely on (kind of a default) ←
15:21:21 <krp> ... think of membershipPredicate as a kind of rule, when you post here you're adding a triple and also doing something else
... think of membershipPredicate as a kind of rule, when you post here you're adding a triple and also doing something else ←
15:21:45 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
15:21:58 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
15:22:05 <krp> Arnaud: keeping the spec as is, there is an issue with non-monotinicity. can we scope to that question for the moment.
Arnaud Le Hors: keeping the spec as is, there is an issue with non-monotinicity. can we scope to that question for the moment. ←
15:22:28 <krp> JohnArwe: I feel we conflate containership with creatorship
John Arwe: I feel we conflate containership with creatorship ←
15:22:33 <krp> Arnaud: off-topic!
Arnaud Le Hors: off-topic! ←
15:22:55 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:24:00 <JohnArwe> I continue to object to Henry's POST-centric characterization of how he thinks membership works, which he used in the course of his remarks *on this issue*
John Arwe: I continue to object to Henry's POST-centric characterization of how he thinks membership works, which he used in the course of his remarks *on this issue* ←
15:24:11 <krp> SteveS: I think this would come up when someone adds a property, then says this is a subclass of rdfs:member. so this problem can come up without a default when triples are added later?
Steve Speicher: I think this would come up when someone adds a property, then says this is a subclass of rdfs:member. so this problem can come up without a default when triples are added later? ←
15:24:22 <roger> +1 to John
Roger Menday: +1 to John ←
15:24:30 <krp> ... so I don't understand how having a default or not in the spec solves this.
... so I don't understand how having a default or not in the spec solves this. ←
15:24:50 <ericP> what on earth would i do with a container if i didn't know the membership predicate?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what on earth would i do with a container if i didn't know the membership predicate? ←
15:24:53 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
15:25:59 <krp> bblfish: either: assume you don't know, or thinking of it declaratively and inferentially as a rule that transforms
Henry Story: either: assume you don't know, or thinking of it declaratively and inferentially as a rule that transforms ←
15:26:13 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:26:17 <rgarcia> q+
Raúl García Castro: q+ ←
15:26:45 <krp> roger: make membershipPredicate a MUST, and do not conflate LDPR and LDPC
Roger Menday: make membershipPredicate a MUST, and do not conflate LDPR and LDPC ←
15:27:06 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
15:27:27 <JohnArwe> not clear on what roger thinks are being conflated ... might agree with him if I did, cannot be sure
John Arwe: not clear on what roger thinks are being conflated ... might agree with him if I did, cannot be sure ←
15:27:58 <krp> ericP: must always state membershipPredicate is reasonable. the reason for including that complexity might be better explained by examples (from IBM?)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: must always state membershipPredicate is reasonable. the reason for including that complexity might be better explained by examples (from IBM?) ←
15:28:39 <krp> ... any motivations to appeal to non-RDF folks (look how simple in RDF) goes away if we follow Henry's proposal
... any motivations to appeal to non-RDF folks (look how simple in RDF) goes away if we follow Henry's proposal ←
15:28:54 <roger> OK, to re-state my opinion in another way. membershipPredicate and membershipSubject MUST be declared. and the membershipSubject cannot refer to self.
Roger Menday: OK, to re-state my opinion in another way. membershipPredicate and membershipSubject MUST be declared. and the membershipSubject cannot refer to self. ←
15:29:32 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:29:34 <krp> ... what do I want to do with a container if I don't know the membershipPredicate?
... what do I want to do with a container if I don't know the membershipPredicate? ←
15:29:41 <SteveS> ericP I tried to summarize why there was some complexity added, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0250.html
Steve Speicher: ericP I tried to summarize why there was some complexity added, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0250.html ←
15:29:43 <krp> ... it should always be expressed
... it should always be expressed ←
15:29:51 <JohnArwe> +1 ericP, if we were to require both in many cases of interest to me (re-using existing collections by overlaying LDP onto them) the representation sizes would effectively double; so not only "not as simple", but obviously less scalable
John Arwe: +1 ericP, if we were to require both in many cases of interest to me (re-using existing collections by overlaying LDP onto them) the representation sizes would effectively double; so not only "not as simple", but obviously less scalable ←
15:29:53 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
15:30:24 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:30:45 <krp> rgarcia: I don't think the resource representation to include the application model (referring to SteveS example of adding later triples)
Raúl García Castro: I don't think the resource representation to include the application model (referring to SteveS example of adding later triples) ←
15:31:01 <JohnArwe> @ericp: we're not talking about it, we're IRCing
John Arwe: @ericp: we're not talking about it, we're IRCing ←
15:31:56 <ericP> @JohnArwe, and maybe we reach concensus on that issue ready to resolve when we raise it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @JohnArwe, and maybe we reach concensus on that issue ready to resolve when we raise it ←
15:32:11 <krp> SteveS: we saw this repeating pattern; always posting in the same way, wanted to both support the domain model and keep a common interaction
Steve Speicher: we saw this repeating pattern; always posting in the same way, wanted to both support the domain model and keep a common interaction ←
15:34:32 <krp> bblfish: if when you post to a container like atom there's a default action. when you post something else, think of it as a rule -- as a consequence it add these other relationships
Henry Story: if when you post to a container like atom there's a default action. when you post something else, think of it as a rule -- as a consequence it add these other relationships ←
15:34:46 <ericP> PROPOSED: if membershipSubject and membershipPredicate remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every page of an LDPC
PROPOSED: if membershipSubject and membershipPredicate remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every container of an LDPC ←
15:36:23 <krp> ... behind membership subject membershipPredicate there's already a simple rule language
... behind membership subject membershipPredicate there's already a simple rule language ←
15:36:40 <JohnArwe> s/in every page/in every container/
15:37:23 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close Issue-75, if membershipSubject, membershipPredicate, and membershipPredicateInverse remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every page of an LDPC
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-75, if membershipSubject, membershipPredicate, and membershipPredicateInverse remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every page of an LDPC ←
15:37:52 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: if membershipSubject and membershipPredicate remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every LDPC
PROPOSED: if membershipSubject and membershipPredicate remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every LDPC ←
15:38:33 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:39:07 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:39:26 <JohnArwe> +1
15:39:28 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
15:39:33 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
15:39:33 <krp> +1
+1 ←
15:39:42 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:39:43 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:39:49 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:40:06 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
15:40:18 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
15:41:21 <mielvds1> +1 (but it will change anyway ;))
Miel Vander Sande: +1 (but it will change anyway ;)) ←
15:42:12 <krp> bblfish: what is it the client doesn't know when it doesn't have these (membershipSubject, membershipPredicate, and membershipPredicateInverse)?
Henry Story: what is it the client doesn't know when it doesn't have these (membershipSubject, membershipPredicate, and membershipPredicateInverse)? ←
15:42:22 <bblfish> +?
Henry Story: +? ←
15:42:29 <krp> Arnaud: it doesn't know how to browse the membership of the container
Arnaud Le Hors: it doesn't know how to browse the membership of the container ←
15:42:35 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close Issue-75, if membershipSubject, membershipPredicate, and membershipPredicateInverse remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every LDPC
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-75, if membershipSubject, membershipPredicate, and membershipPredicateInverse remain in LDP, they MUST be expressed in every LDPC ←
15:42:53 <krp> subtopic: Issue-71
15:42:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open ←
15:42:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71 ←
15:43:12 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:43:22 <JohnArwe> editor's should factor in inverse member predicates when drafting issue-75 text
John Arwe: editors should factor in inverse member predicates when drafting ISSUE-75 text ←
15:43:30 <JohnArwe> s/r's/rs/
15:44:12 <krp> roger: so you have these rules, so that once you've posted to it, gives you the equivalent to membershipPredicate in domain terms?
Roger Menday: so you have these rules, so that once you've posted to it, gives you the equivalent to membershipPredicate in domain terms? ←
15:44:15 <JohnArwe> I have not been. agnostic on doing them now vs later.
John Arwe: I have not been. agnostic on doing them now vs later. ←
15:44:52 <krp> ... how does it work if I'm interested in person likes/dislikes food. what happens if I post, I'm not asking the server to decide if I like of dislike
... how does it work if I'm interested in person likes/dislikes food. what happens if I post, I'm not asking the server to decide if I like of dislike ←
15:45:31 <krp> bblfish: post a resource that's the food, with a relationship going back to a container saying you like
Henry Story: post a resource that's the food, with a relationship going back to a container saying you like ←
15:45:40 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
15:46:31 <krp> roger: that's complicated. this needs to be simple for developers.
Roger Menday: that's complicated. this needs to be simple for developers. ←
15:47:33 <krp> bblfish: when you're posting to a container, what you're not saying is if you don't know what the membershipPredicate there, you don't know what the contains relationship is
Henry Story: when you're posting to a container, what you're not saying is if you don't know what the membershipPredicate there, you don't know what the contains relationship is ←
15:47:53 <krp> (see issue-79)
15:50:10 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0250.html
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0250.html ←
15:51:35 <krp> looking at section of email following "Let's take a look at bug 13 again:"
looking at section of email following "Let's take a look at bug 13 again:" ←
15:52:27 <ericP> Arnaud, could you paste your example into http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Arnaud, could you paste your example into http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ? ←
15:54:35 <krp> bblfish: at least define contains, as this means we can say what we're missing what we don't know
Henry Story: at least define contains, as this means we can say what we're missing what we don't know ←
15:54:46 <ericP> it's malformed, throw it away
Eric Prud'hommeaux: it's malformed, throw it away ←
15:56:20 <krp> ... I can discover via hateoas
... I can discover via hateoas ←
15:56:40 <krp> ... it makes it explicit of what the attachments of the children are (if contains is there)
... it makes it explicit of what the attachments of the children are (if contains is there) ←
15:57:34 <krp> ... you have a default without having a default
... you have a default without having a default ←
15:57:46 <krp> arnaud: but you double the triples. is it worth it?
Arnaud Le Hors: but you double the triples. is it worth it? ←
15:58:17 <krp> roger: don't think it's too bad for my normal usage patterns
Roger Menday: don't think it's too bad for my normal usage patterns ←
15:58:51 <roger> .... because the LDPR is the one which is GETted
Roger Menday: .... because the LDPR is the one which is GETted ←
15:59:03 <krp> bblfish: sometimes I have to go and look at another document to find out what's in my container
Henry Story: sometimes I have to go and look at another document to find out what's in my container ←
15:59:21 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
16:00:05 <krp> ... when you GET a document, it's the final absolute definition of that document, I shouldn't have to go somewhere else to know
... when you GET a document, it's the final absolute definition of that document, I shouldn't have to go somewhere else to know ←
16:00:22 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
16:00:29 <JohnArwe> q+
16:01:08 <krp> roger: appreciated explanation on mailing lists of semanticised atom. but could it be done the other way?
Roger Menday: appreciated explanation on mailing lists of semanticised atom. but could it be done the other way? ←
16:01:21 <krp> bblfish: you're requiring inference much earlier without this
Henry Story: you're requiring inference much earlier without this ←
16:04:20 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
16:06:49 <krp> arnaud: will there always be two triples for each attachment? (with the ldp:contains)
Arnaud Le Hors: will there always be two triples for each attachment? (with the ldp:contains) ←
16:07:14 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
16:08:55 <mielvds1> You'll have inferencing either way
Miel Vander Sande: You'll have inferencing either way ←
16:08:58 <krp> johnarwe: if an addition is made (an attachment) by patch, does the contains have to be added?
John Arwe: if an addition is made (an attachment) by patch, does the contains have to be added? ←
16:09:58 <mesteban> q+
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q+ ←
16:10:07 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
16:10:39 <krp> ashok: is how attachments/alh being added that way ok? or does it mean the server must add the corresponding ldp:contains?
Ashok Malhotra: is how attachments/alh being added that way ok? or does it mean the server must add the corresponding ldp:contains? ←
16:11:28 <krp> johnarwe: this redefines the notion of membership as it is in the spec
John Arwe: this redefines the notion of membership as it is in the spec ←
16:12:02 <krp> q+
q+ ←
16:12:45 <sandro> how long are we going today?
Sandro Hawke: how long are we going today? ←
16:12:48 <Arnaud> ack mesteban
Arnaud Le Hors: ack mesteban ←
16:12:52 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
16:13:08 <krp> mesteban: there are two possible ways for updating the same thing
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: there are two possible ways for updating the same thing ←
16:13:08 <JohnArwe> @sandro notionally, until 15 minutes ago ;-)
John Arwe: @sandro notionally, until 15 minutes ago ;-) ←
16:13:21 <krp> ... do I have to keep everything synchronised?
... do I have to keep everything synchronised? ←
16:14:27 <Arnaud> ack krp
Arnaud Le Hors: ack krp ←
16:15:41 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:15:55 <JohnArwe> My expectations are that any given resource would only allow one method of updating membership triples. We allowed PATCH primarily due to the scaling issues for large-membership containers (PUT does not scale past some client and/or server limit)
John Arwe: My expectations are that any given resource would only allow one method of updating membership triples. We allowed PATCH primarily due to the scaling issues for large-membership containers (PUT does not scale past some client and/or server limit) ←
16:16:09 <Arnaud> sandro, I proposed to extend meeting by 1h
Arnaud Le Hors: sandro, I proposed to extend meeting by 1h ←
16:16:29 <Arnaud> we're getting close to that though
Arnaud Le Hors: we're getting close to that though ←
16:16:36 <JohnArwe> ...for small-enough cases, PUT is how you add membership "ptrs" to existing resources.
John Arwe: ...for small-enough cases, PUT is how you add membership "ptrs" to existing resources. ←
16:17:40 <JohnArwe> ...At some point you hit some limit on client or server, and PUT no longer functions so you're forced to PATCH.
John Arwe: ...At some point you hit some limit on client or server, and PUT no longer functions so you're forced to PATCH. ←
16:18:40 <sandro> I propose Henry and Steve come to consensus over dinner.
Sandro Hawke: I propose Henry and Steve come to consensus over dinner. ←
16:18:52 <Arnaud> :)
Arnaud Le Hors: :) ←
16:19:04 <sandro> Once they do that, I might be able to follow this.
Sandro Hawke: Once they do that, I might be able to follow this. ←
16:19:15 <Arnaud> I think we are going to stop here for today
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we are going to stop here for today ←
16:19:19 <JohnArwe> I'm thinking that this may be a "profiles do that" answer.
John Arwe: I'm thinking that this may be a "profiles do that" answer. ←
16:19:39 <SteveS> q?
Steve Speicher: q? ←
16:20:15 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
16:21:00 <sandro> I'm going to drop off. Having too much trouble following this. Back in the morning.
Sandro Hawke: I'm going to drop off. Having too much trouble following this. Back in the morning. ←
16:21:11 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:43:42 <Arnaud> meeting adjourned
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting adjourned ←
18:35:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, m, in SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM
(No events recorded for 111 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, m, in SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM ←
18:35:01 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
18:35:01 <Zakim> Attendees were BartvanLeeuwen, +34.91.336.aaaa, m, ericP, Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were BartvanLeeuwen, +34.91.336.aaaa, m, ericP, Sandro ←
Formatted by CommonScribe