12:28:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc ←
12:28:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
12:28:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
12:28:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()8:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()8:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
12:28:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
12:29:00 <trackbot> Date: 13 September 2013
12:43:39 <Zakim> SW_LDP()8:30AM has now started
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()8:30AM has now started ←
12:43:46 <Zakim> +Workshop_room
Zakim IRC Bot: +Workshop_room ←
12:44:36 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle ←
12:46:58 <stevebattle4> Good morning everybody.
Steve Battle: Good morning everybody. ←
12:47:37 <nmihindu> scribenick: nmihindu
(Scribe set to Nandana Mihindukulasooriya)
<nmihindu> chair: Arnaud
<nmihindu> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F4#Day_2_-_Friday_September_13
12:48:14 <nmihindu> Arnaud1: we can spend the morning discussing the status about other working group documents
Arnaud Le Hors: we can spend the morning discussing the status about other working group documents ←
12:48:39 <Arnaud> topic: Use Cases & Requirements
12:48:55 <SteveS> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html
Steve Speicher: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html ←
12:49:25 <nmihindu> stevebattle4: I got valuable comments from mestaban and most of them are addressed now
Steve Battle: I got valuable comments from mestaban and most of them are addressed now ←
12:49:31 <SteveS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0029.html SteveB's update
Steve Speicher: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0029.html SteveB's update ←
12:50:10 <nmihindu> stevebattle4: use cases are numbered correctly now and they can be referenced
Steve Battle: use cases are numbered correctly now and they can be referenced ←
12:51:13 <nmihindu> stevebattle4: the email I sent includes how I addressed miguel's comments
Steve Battle: the email I sent includes how I addressed miguel's comments ←
12:51:59 <nmihindu> stevebattle4: the only comment that was not addressed was changing the user contributed user stories
Steve Battle: the only comment that was not addressed was changing the user contributed user stories ←
12:53:15 <nmihindu> ... : miguel was asking for informative references and I've added for some of the use cases
... : miguel was asking for informative references and I've added for some of the use cases ←
12:54:41 <nmihindu> ... : one of the problems was to add local references
... : one of the problems was to add local references ←
12:55:08 <nmihindu> Arnaud: davidwood has a action item on reviewing the UCR
Arnaud Le Hors: davidwood has a action item on reviewing the UCR ←
12:55:14 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
12:55:28 <nmihindu> davidwood: I've already gave my reviews
David Wood: I've already gave my reviews ←
12:55:50 <nmihindu> davidwood: do you want me to review a specific section ?
David Wood: do you want me to review a specific section ? ←
12:56:00 <rgarcia> zakim, ??P9 is me
Raúl García Castro: zakim, ??P9 is me ←
12:56:00 <Zakim> +rgarcia; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +rgarcia; got it ←
12:56:11 <stevebattle4> Only section 5 needs a robust review
Steve Battle: Only section 5 needs a robust review ←
12:56:57 <nmihindu> Arnaud: how long does it take to finish the remaining work to publish an update ?
Arnaud Le Hors: how long does it take to finish the remaining work to publish an update ? ←
12:57:33 <nmihindu> stevebattle4: I just have to finish the references, so I can finish it by next meeting
Steve Battle: I just have to finish the references, so I can finish it by next meeting ←
12:58:12 <nmihindu> Arnaud: If we can finish it within a week or two, it would be great
Arnaud Le Hors: If we can finish it within a week or two, it would be great ←
12:58:29 <nmihindu> topic: Best practices and guidelines document
12:58:41 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what is the current status ?
Arnaud Le Hors: what is the current status ? ←
12:59:05 <nmihindu> cody: we have formalized all that we had in the previous wiki
Cody Burleson: we have formalized all that we had in the previous wiki ←
12:59:41 <nmihindu> ... I have polished in for grammar and everything
... I have polished in for grammar and everything ←
13:00:01 <nmihindu> ... just have to finish adding the references
... just have to finish adding the references ←
13:00:12 <nmihindu> Arnaud: is it in respec format ?
Arnaud Le Hors: is it in respec format ? ←
13:00:15 <nmihindu> cody: yes
Cody Burleson: yes ←
13:00:39 <SteveS> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html
Steve Speicher: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html ←
13:01:00 <nmihindu> Arnaud: can someone volunteer to review it ?
Arnaud Le Hors: can someone volunteer to review it ? ←
13:01:28 <Arnaud> action: steves to review the Best Practices & Guidelines
ACTION: steves to review the Best Practices & Guidelines ←
13:01:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Review the best practices & guidelines [on Steve Speicher - due 2013-09-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-95 - Review the best practices & guidelines [on Steve Speicher - due 2013-09-20]. ←
13:01:42 <Arnaud> action: miguel to review the Best Practices & Guidelines
ACTION: miguel to review the Best Practices & Guidelines ←
13:01:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Review the best practices & guidelines [on Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez - due 2013-09-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-96 - Review the best practices & guidelines [on Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez - due 2013-09-20]. ←
13:01:45 <nmihindu> mesteban and SteveS volunteer to review it
mesteban and SteveS volunteer to review it ←
13:02:36 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Once we finish the review we can publish it
Arnaud Le Hors: Once we finish the review we can publish it ←
13:06:12 <nmihindu> Arnaud: if anyone want to add any section to best practices guidelines document, they can contribute it and we can discuss it in the WG
Arnaud Le Hors: if anyone want to add any section to best practices guidelines document, they can contribute it and we can discuss it in the WG ←
13:06:54 <nmihindu> topic: Test suite
13:07:21 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what is the progress ?
Arnaud Le Hors: what is the progress ? ←
13:07:53 <nmihindu> ... raul has raised the issue of lack of MUSTs that are testable
... raul has raised the issue of lack of MUSTs that are testable ←
13:08:44 <nmihindu> ... we discussed yesterday that separating restricted / unrestricted LDPRs, so some SHOULDs will become MUST
... we discussed yesterday that separating restricted / unrestricted LDPRs, so some SHOULDs will become MUST ←
13:08:57 <nmihindu> ... that will have an impact on the test suite
... that will have an impact on the test suite ←
13:09:07 <nmihindu> ... we will have more testable requirements
... we will have more testable requirements ←
13:09:21 <nmihindu> rgarcia: I don't see any problem in it
Raúl García Castro: I don't see any problem in it ←
13:09:37 <nmihindu> SteveS: why the SHOULDs can not be tested ?
Steve Speicher: why the SHOULDs can not be tested ? ←
13:09:59 <nmihindu> rgarcia: we can test them but we will have to find a way to do the grouping
Raúl García Castro: we can test them but we will have to find a way to do the grouping ←
13:10:17 <nmihindu> ... because they only apply in some scenarios such as paging
... because they only apply in some scenarios such as paging ←
13:11:14 <nmihindu> JohnArwe: are you talking about something like modules ? you can do that in the test suite even though the spec does not have that modularity
John Arwe: are you talking about something like modules ? you can do that in the test suite even though the spec does not have that modularity ←
13:11:58 <nmihindu> rgarcia: that can be done but the it is better if that categorization is in the spec too
Raúl García Castro: that can be done but the it is better if that categorization is in the spec too ←
13:12:44 <nmihindu> Ashok: shoulds are somewhat optional. How can we test that ?
Ashok Malhotra: shoulds are somewhat optional. How can we test that ? ←
13:13:14 <nmihindu> ... what happens if a client/server doesn't do SHOULDs, does that mean it fails the test ?
... what happens if a client/server doesn't do SHOULDs, does that mean it fails the test ? ←
13:13:45 <nmihindu> davidwood: Must are pass/fail, SHOULDs are pass or not present
David Wood: Must are pass/fail, SHOULDs are pass or not present ←
13:14:12 <nmihindu> JohnArwe: we should use the notion of extra credits for SHOULDs
John Arwe: we should use the notion of extra credits for SHOULDs ←
13:14:42 <nmihindu> Arnaud: failure of a SHOULD does not mean not compliance
Arnaud Le Hors: failure of a SHOULD does not mean not compliance ←
13:15:47 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what is the conclusion ?
Arnaud Le Hors: what is the conclusion ? ←
13:16:02 <nmihindu> ... we have a lot of suggestions for rgarcia
... we have a lot of suggestions for rgarcia ←
13:16:56 <nmihindu> rgarcia: passing / failing SHOULDs do not give much information
Raúl García Castro: passing / failing SHOULDs do not give much information ←
13:17:32 <nmihindu> ... we can have conformance and strict conformance
... we can have conformance and strict conformance ←
13:17:59 <nmihindu> ... where one only consider MUSTs and other considering MUSTs and SHOULDs
... where one only consider MUSTs and other considering MUSTs and SHOULDs ←
13:18:25 <nmihindu> JohnArwe: It is bit similar to schema conformance
John Arwe: It is bit similar to schema conformance ←
13:18:39 <nmihindu> Arnaud: people are interested in having some tests for SHOULDs
Arnaud Le Hors: people are interested in having some tests for SHOULDs ←
13:19:13 <nmihindu> SteveS: in the implementations, we have tests for all features whether they are MUSTs or SHOULDs
Steve Speicher: in the implementations, we have tests for all features whether they are MUSTs or SHOULDs ←
13:19:27 <nmihindu> Arnaud: do you need any help ?
Arnaud Le Hors: do you need any help ? ←
13:20:02 <nmihindu> rgarcia: Once the spec is updated, I can update the tests
Raúl García Castro: Once the spec is updated, I can update the tests ←
13:20:58 <nmihindu> topic: Access Control Note
13:21:30 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what is the progress ?
Arnaud Le Hors: what is the progress ? ←
13:22:03 <nmihindu> Ashok: we have got one review from mesteban and waiting for the review from TallTed
Ashok Malhotra: we have got one review from mesteban and waiting for the review from TallTed ←
13:22:22 <nmihindu> TallTed: there is not much to review there
Ted Thibodeau: there is not much to review there ←
13:22:36 <nmihindu> Ashok: what is the purpose of the access control note ?
Ashok Malhotra: what is the purpose of the access control note ? ←
13:23:21 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Initially we wanted to address the security and address control in the LDP spec
Arnaud Le Hors: Initially we wanted to address the security and address control in the LDP spec ←
13:23:35 <nmihindu> ... but people complained it will take too much time
... but people complained it will take too much time ←
13:24:00 <nmihindu> ... so we decided to look in to use cases and requirements and capture those as a WG note
... so we decided to look in to use cases and requirements and capture those as a WG note ←
13:24:23 <nmihindu> ... and identify the possible solutions to address to these requirements
... and identify the possible solutions to address to these requirements ←
13:24:32 <nmihindu> Ashok: is it a deliverable or a nice to have ?
Ashok Malhotra: is it a deliverable or a nice to have ? ←
13:25:05 <nmihindu> Arnaud: It is a deliverable
Arnaud Le Hors: It is a deliverable ←
13:26:08 <nmihindu> ... it is useful to gather the requirements so if we decide to go for a recommendation track we already have background
... it is useful to gather the requirements so if we decide to go for a recommendation track we already have background ←
13:26:28 <nmihindu> ... and provide users some best practices
... and provide users some best practices ←
13:27:00 <nmihindu> Ashok: are there any requirements that are special to LDP ?
Ashok Malhotra: are there any requirements that are special to LDP ? ←
13:27:56 <nmihindu> sandro: there might be some. Eg. Some users can see a only a set of triples etc.
Sandro Hawke: there might be some. Eg. Some users can see a only a set of triples etc. ←
13:29:14 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
13:29:40 <nmihindu> Ashok: When talking about read write, we have to talk to about access control. but the question is who is responsible for that. LDP or underlying database etc ?
Ashok Malhotra: When talking about read write, we have to talk to about access control. but the question is who is responsible for that. LDP or underlying database etc ? ←
13:30:38 <nmihindu> Arnaud: to do expect the review from TallTed ?
Arnaud Le Hors: to do expect the review from TallTed ? ←
13:30:48 <bblfish_> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
13:30:59 <nmihindu> Ashok: I would be happy to get it reviewed by TallTed too
Ashok Malhotra: I would be happy to get it reviewed by TallTed too ←
13:31:59 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Ashok does not have to do everything from the scratch, people should contribute that
Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok does not have to do everything from the scratch, people should contribute that ←
13:32:15 <nmihindu> sandro: is it worth considering this for a workshop ?
Sandro Hawke: is it worth considering this for a workshop ? ←
13:32:28 <nmihindu> Ashok: that is a good idea
Ashok Malhotra: that is a good idea ←
13:33:13 <bblfish> The technology for what?
Henry Story: The technology for what? ←
13:33:30 <bblfish> what is the problem?
Henry Story: what is the problem? ←
13:33:32 <nmihindu> Arnaud: If had this in the charter, we would have to come up with use cases and requirements
Arnaud Le Hors: If had this in the charter, we would have to come up with use cases and requirements ←
13:33:39 <nmihindu> ... why can't we do it now ?
... why can't we do it now ? ←
13:33:47 <bblfish> The use case for Access Control?
Henry Story: The use case for Access Control? ←
13:33:54 <nmihindu> bblfish, yes
bblfish, yes ←
13:34:13 <bblfish> ah ok. YEs, we have the tech, for ID, Autheentication and Access control
Henry Story: ah ok. YEs, we have the tech, for ID, Autheentication and Access control ←
13:35:08 <nmihindu> Arnaud: do we have a need to specify access control at LDP level ?
Arnaud Le Hors: do we have a need to specify access control at LDP level ? ←
13:35:34 <nmihindu> JohnArwe: we can use technologies that is used by the Web in general
John Arwe: we can use technologies that is used by the Web in general ←
13:36:17 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:36:35 <nmihindu> TallTed: we can address this in a different way
Ted Thibodeau: we can address this in a different way ←
13:36:56 <nmihindu> ... looking at what happens when there is no access control in place
... looking at what happens when there is no access control in place ←
13:37:06 <nmihindu> ... rather than coming up with use cases
... rather than coming up with use cases ←
13:37:17 <stevebattle4> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
13:38:13 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
13:38:20 <nmihindu> Ashok: are LDP and access control mechanisms are two completely separate worlds or do we have to group them ?
Ashok Malhotra: are LDP and access control mechanisms are two completely separate worlds or do we have to group them ? ←
13:38:39 <TallTed> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl
Ted Thibodeau: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl ←
13:39:42 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl ←
13:39:51 <nmihindu> bblfish: when I respond to OPTIONS do I have to consider the user who is making the request
Henry Story: when I respond to OPTIONS do I have to consider the user who is making the request ←
13:40:07 <nmihindu> ... and only provide the methods they have access to
... and only provide the methods they have access to ←
13:40:25 <nmihindu> ... or is it a separate thing ?
... or is it a separate thing ? ←
13:40:59 <nmihindu> ... is headers provide information or do we link to access control document ?
... is headers provide information or do we link to access control document ? ←
13:41:25 <nmihindu> TallTed: currently we don't have links access control rules
Ted Thibodeau: currently we don't have links access control rules ←
13:42:13 <nmihindu> bblfish: does the Allow headers mean I have access to do that operation ?
Henry Story: does the Allow headers mean I have access to do that operation ? ←
13:42:50 <nmihindu> TallTed: OPTIONS just mean querying the server for functionality
Ted Thibodeau: OPTIONS just mean querying the server for functionality ←
13:43:12 <nmihindu> ... it doesn't mean that you have access for those operations
... it doesn't mean that you have access for those operations ←
13:43:31 <nmihindu> ... it can be done with a separate header or other mechanism
... it can be done with a separate header or other mechanism ←
13:44:00 <nmihindu> Arnaud: sandro proposed that this document should be treated as a call for a workshop
Arnaud Le Hors: sandro proposed that this document should be treated as a call for a workshop ←
13:44:21 <nmihindu> ... similar to what ericP did for the RDF validation workshop
... similar to what ericP did for the RDF validation workshop ←
13:44:43 <nmihindu> http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/SOTA
http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/SOTA ←
13:45:44 <nmihindu> Arnaud: may be can produce a similar document with state of the art
Arnaud Le Hors: may be can produce a similar document with state of the art ←
13:45:59 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
13:46:06 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle ←
13:46:55 <nmihindu> stevebattle: rather than iterating the existing technologies, we can try more to relate it to LDP spec
Steve Battle: rather than iterating the existing technologies, we can try more to relate it to LDP spec ←
13:47:24 <bblfish> I think it is a good idea to have the Use cases for a workshop
Henry Story: I think it is a good idea to have the Use cases for a workshop ←
13:47:41 <bblfish> There are a few people who would be very interested in an WebACL workshop.
Henry Story: There are a few people who would be very interested in an WebACL workshop. ←
13:47:58 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:48:09 <stevebattle4> What we can usefully say about access control relate to the granularity of access, can we control individual resources or containers of resources. This might simply be a section of the best-practices document.
Steve Battle: What we can usefully say about access control relate to the granularity of access, can we control individual resources or containers of resources. This might simply be a section of the best-practices document. ←
13:48:15 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what can we standardize in this area ?
Arnaud Le Hors: what can we standardize in this area ? ←
13:48:36 <nmihindu> ... the only possible thing I see is access control to rdf
... the only possible thing I see is access control to rdf ←
13:49:27 <nmihindu> bblfish: one thing we can do is use LDP for specifying access control
Henry Story: one thing we can do is use LDP for specifying access control ←
13:50:06 <nmihindu> TallTed: it is one option. It could be useful but it should not be mandatory
Ted Thibodeau: it is one option. It could be useful but it should not be mandatory ←
13:50:54 <nmihindu> bblfish: if we don't use LDP for access control, how can a client know and specify access control ?
Henry Story: if we don't use LDP for access control, how can a client know and specify access control ? ←
13:51:49 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Ashok, how should we progress ?
Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok, how should we progress ? ←
13:52:01 <bblfish> so this means a client cannot know if what he is publishing is private, if it can be overwrittent, if anyone can see it, who can edit it, etc...
Henry Story: so this means a client cannot know if what he is publishing is private, if it can be overwrittent, if anyone can see it, who can edit it, etc... ←
13:52:08 <bblfish> so really seriously you NEED it
Henry Story: so really seriously you NEED it ←
13:52:52 <nmihindu> Ashok: there were some ideas such as fine grained access control. But do we need to integrate this with LDP, I am doubtful about it.
Ashok Malhotra: there were some ideas such as fine grained access control. But do we need to integrate this with LDP, I am doubtful about it. ←
13:53:07 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:53:41 <roger> i think that this depends on client-driven or server-driven. I think Henry refers to client-driven access control, and I agree, I think it would be great for LDP to manage that. For server-driven access control, I would expect the server to drive it then .... but, then it would be good for the client to introspect that.
Roger Menday: i think that this depends on client-driven or server-driven. I think Henry refers to client-driven access control, and I agree, I think it would be great for LDP to manage that. For server-driven access control, I would expect the server to drive it then .... but, then it would be good for the client to introspect that. ←
13:55:40 <nmihindu> Cody: we can specify one layer of the security metadata in LDP but the implementations can implement in their own server specific way
Cody Burleson: we can specify one layer of the security metadata in LDP but the implementations can implement in their own server specific way ←
13:55:45 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
13:55:48 <nmihindu> q+ to miguel
q+ to miguel ←
13:56:59 <nmihindu> Arnaud: because LDP spec does not specify security mechanisms people will face problems how to add security
Arnaud Le Hors: because LDP spec does not specify security mechanisms people will face problems how to add security ←
13:57:27 <nmihindu> ... we can provide some guidelines on what to look at with this document
... we can provide some guidelines on what to look at with this document ←
13:58:24 <nmihindu> bblfish: we can specify the needs for LDP implementations and then come up with a workshop to resolve those
Henry Story: we can specify the needs for LDP implementations and then come up with a workshop to resolve those ←
13:59:54 <nmihindu> Arnaud: our plan is to provide a platform for the future work on this area
Arnaud Le Hors: our plan is to provide a platform for the future work on this area ←
14:01:06 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
14:01:06 <Zakim> nmihindu, you wanted to miguel
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu, you wanted to miguel ←
14:01:17 <nmihindu> TallTed: access control note can contain the concerns, current technologies, and limitations
Ted Thibodeau: access control note can contain the concerns, current technologies, and limitations ←
14:02:00 <nmihindu> mesteban: we should not focus too much on the current technologies but what are the differences in LDP scenarios
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: we should not focus too much on the current technologies but what are the differences in LDP scenarios ←
14:02:25 <nmihindu> ... eg. when we follow links crossing boundaries what are the main concerns
... eg. when we follow links crossing boundaries what are the main concerns ←
14:02:56 <nmihindu> Ashok: that is an interesting suggestion. Crossing boundaries make security hard.
Ashok Malhotra: that is an interesting suggestion. Crossing boundaries make security hard. ←
14:02:59 <bblfish> We have the distributed Authentication, and Authorization, with 3 implementations I think now :-)
Henry Story: We have the distributed Authentication, and Authorization, with 3 implementations I think now :-) ←
14:03:41 <nmihindu> davidwood: distributed authentication is somehow solved but distributed authorization is still very hard though.
David Wood: distributed authentication is somehow solved but distributed authorization is still very hard though. ←
14:03:49 <bblfish> I can work with Ashok
Henry Story: I can work with Ashok ←
14:05:02 <nmihindu> mesteban: I would like to volunteer too
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: I would like to volunteer too ←
14:05:22 <nmihindu> Ashok: how do we make progress ?
Ashok Malhotra: how do we make progress ? ←
14:05:44 <nmihindu> mesteban: for the first iteration we can work offline via email
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: for the first iteration we can work offline via email ←
14:06:06 <bblfish> I have implemented this with a a few people, so I have a much better idea that I had when I first contributed to this document
Henry Story: I have implemented this with a a few people, so I have a much better idea that I had when I first contributed to this document ←
14:06:13 <bblfish> ok
Henry Story: ok ←
14:06:51 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
14:07:04 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we will have a break now, then look at the actions and move to the specification issues
Arnaud Le Hors: we will have a break now, then look at the actions and move to the specification issues ←
14:07:09 <Ashok> Policy Awre Web paper: http://www.csee.umbc.edu/csee/research/swpw/papers/kolovski.pdf
Ashok Malhotra: Policy Aware Web paper: http://www.csee.umbc.edu/csee/research/swpw/papers/kolovski.pdf ←
14:08:19 <Ashok> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Papers/ISWC/policy-aware-reuse/cc.pdf
Ashok Malhotra: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Papers/ISWC/policy-aware-reuse/cc.pdf ←
<roger> scribe: roger
(Scribe set to Roger Menday)
14:17:33 <roger> Arnaud: looking at open actions
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: looking at open actions ←
14:17:35 <Ashok> s/Awre/Aware/
<roger> Topic: Review of Open Actions
14:19:27 <cody> Issue 77 is indeed covered in the Best Practices guide; you can resolve my action.
Cody Burleson: ISSUE-77 is indeed covered in the Best Practices guide; you can resolve my action. ←
14:19:29 <roger> ... has been re-assigned to Roger
... has been re-assigned to Roger ←
<Arnaud> Resolved: Re-assign ACTION-83 to Roger
RESOLVED: Re-assign ACTION-83 to Roger ←
14:21:38 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle ←
14:22:25 <roger> on Issue 47, this is an old request and there has been many changes to UC&R since.
on ISSUE-47, this is an old request and there has been many changes to UC&R since. ←
<Arnaud> Resolved: Close ACTION-80
<roger> davidwood: I just sent my comments on the UCR so we can close ACTION-41
David Wood: I just sent my comments on the UCR so we can close ACTION-41 ←
<Arnaud> Resolved: Close ACTION-41
<roger> Topic: Last Call Comments & Issues (continues)
14:22:37 <TallTed> re yesterday's Issue 81 discussion -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0035.html
Ted Thibodeau: re yesterday's ISSUE-81 discussion -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0035.html ←
14:23:41 <roger> hot discussions topics for today: PAGING, PATCH, membershipX naming, OPTIONS
hot discussions topics for today: PAGING, PATCH, membershipX naming, OPTIONS ←
14:23:50 <roger> subTopic: OPTIONS - LC-2835
14:24:29 <roger> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2835?cid=2835
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2835?cid=2835 ←
14:28:01 <stevebattle4> Is REST client or server driven?
Steve Battle: Is REST client or server driven? ←
14:31:18 <roger> roger: I think of REST as a server-driven thing ... in my opinion. It is possible for the server to say to the client that "You can drive it in any way you think" - in which case it is 'server-driven client-driven'
Roger Menday: I think of REST as a server-driven thing ... in my opinion. It is possible for the server to say to the client that "You can drive it in any way you think" - in which case it is 'server-driven client-driven' ←
14:34:20 <roger> ... OPTIONS is a cheaper version of GET is already agreed.
... OPTIONS is a cheaper version of GET is already agreed. ←
14:34:28 <TallTed> interesting relevant comment -- http://zacstewart.com/2012/04/14/http-options-method.html
Ted Thibodeau: interesting relevant comment -- http://zacstewart.com/2012/04/14/http-options-method.html ←
14:39:30 <roger> discussion around other ways of achiving the same result, and if indeed these alternatives offer any real benifits
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
discussion around other ways of achiving the same result, and if indeed these alternatives offer any real benifits ←
14:39:45 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:40:35 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:41:25 <roger> Henry: yesterday was constraints on content, today is contraints on methods
Henry Story: yesterday was constraints on content, today is contraints on methods ←
14:42:45 <roger> Arwe: the constraints document could cover lots of differents types of constraining
John Arwe: the constraints document could cover lots of differents types of constraining ←
14:43:55 <roger> TallTed: OPTIONS response has an single allow header which has a List of allowed methods
Ted Thibodeau: OPTIONS response has an single allow header which has a List of allowed methods ←
14:45:49 <roger> Arnaud: OPTIONS isn't is bad as Tim thought
Arnaud Le Hors: OPTIONS isn't is bad as Tim thought ←
14:46:13 <bblfish> yes, I think that is right: timbl seems to have the thought that one needed to do an OPTIONS before every GET . If that is not true then he'll probably be happy
Henry Story: yes, I think that is right: timbl seems to have the thought that one needed to do an OPTIONS before every GET . If that is not true then he'll probably be happy ←
14:48:40 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:49:06 <roger> subTopic: Mark Baker's comment - LC-2812 (continues)
14:50:50 <roger> John warns against tempting clients to depend upon information that they should not depend on
John warns against tempting clients to depend upon information that they should not depend on ←
14:54:54 <roger> Arwe: Mark Baker was objecting to clients being able to find out what profile a server supports, not objecting to LDP defining profiles or conformance classes
John Arwe: Mark Baker was objecting to clients being able to find out what profile a server supports, not objecting to LDP defining profiles or conformance classes ←
14:55:15 <Arnaud> subtopic: Comment LC-2836: Paging
14:55:19 <roger> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2836
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2836 ←
14:55:24 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
14:55:41 <roger> Ashok: looking at how OData handles paging.
Ashok Malhotra: looking at how OData handles paging. ←
14:57:01 <roger> ... they use a Prefer header, so the client can add preferences. one of the preferences is max page size. this is interesting way of influencing the server
... they use a Prefer header, so the client can add preferences. one of the preferences is max page size. this is interesting way of influencing the server ←
14:57:23 <bblfish> in rdf it's triples
Henry Story: in rdf it's triples ←
14:57:30 <roger> +1
+1 ←
14:58:53 <roger> paging currently works by putting the "next" links in the document. Tim's suggestion was to put it into the header instead.
paging currently works by putting the "next" links in the document. Tim's suggestion was to put it into the header instead. ←
14:59:29 <bblfish> I thought we had links in the Headers
Henry Story: I thought we had links in the Headers ←
15:00:18 <bblfish> Q+
Henry Story: Q+ ←
15:00:30 <SteveS> bblfish, we do but don't recommend rel=next now
Steve Speicher: bblfish, we do but don't recommend rel=next now ←
15:00:34 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:01:48 <roger> bblfish: the client cannot influence what goes into the header, but, in theory they mght can able to do with wrt the content
Henry Story: the client cannot influence what goes into the header, but, in theory they mght can able to do with wrt the content ←
15:04:12 <bblfish> perhaps you can do OPTIONS over pages, say you want the 5th page, without getting all the content
Henry Story: perhaps you can do OPTIONS over pages, say you want the 5th page, without getting all the content ←
15:04:21 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:04:56 <bblfish> yes, agree.
Henry Story: yes, agree. ←
15:05:05 <bblfish> you can move it down to http layer.
Henry Story: you can move it down to http layer. ←
15:05:09 <roger> header are better for when the content is non-RDF
header are better for when the content is non-RDF ←
15:05:40 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:05:41 <roger> ... and when the handling of this can actually be moved into HTTP client libraries
... and when the handling of this can actually be moved into HTTP client libraries ←
15:06:07 <roger> SteveS: atompub defines the paging headers
Steve Speicher: atompub defines the paging headers ←
15:06:57 <roger> ... disadvantage of header-only, each page has its own URL too.
... disadvantage of header-only, each page has its own URL too. ←
15:07:01 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
15:09:05 <davidwood> q+
David Wood: q+ ←
15:09:18 <roger> difference between the full document, and then the pages which taken together are the full document
difference between the full document, and then the pages which taken together are the full document ←
15:09:32 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:09:34 <Arnaud> ack davidwood
Arnaud Le Hors: ack davidwood ←
15:11:32 <roger> davidwood: no violation of HTTP if we respond with pages, it's quite normal
David Wood: no violation of HTTP if we respond with pages, it's quite normal ←
15:12:25 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
15:12:29 <roger> davidwood: sees arguments for links both in header and body
David Wood: sees arguments for links both in header and body ←
15:12:57 <roger> +q
+q ←
15:13:15 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:13:58 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:14:11 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:15:49 <ericP> q+ to propose a mapping from the header to a *different* graph than the data payload
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose a mapping from the header to a *different* graph than the data payload ←
15:17:47 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
15:18:45 <SteveS> SteveS: it could be efficient in other ways to just look at headers to fetch next page without having needs to fire up an RDF parser and find next page
Steve Speicher: it could be efficient in other ways to just look at headers to fetch next page without having needs to fire up an RDF parser and find next page [ Scribe Assist by Steve Speicher ] ←
15:20:15 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:20:32 <roger> TallTed: taking it out of the content is problematic, and putting it in both is fine.
Ted Thibodeau: taking it out of the content is problematic, and putting it in both is fine. ←
15:20:36 <davidwood> q+ to propose some rationale for putting next page pointers only in the headers
David Wood: q+ to propose some rationale for putting next page pointers only in the headers ←
15:22:13 <roger> bblfish: may important for telephones to inform the server what are their restrictions
Henry Story: maybe important for telephones to inform the server what are their restrictions ←
15:22:27 <roger> s/may/maybe/
15:23:00 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:23:00 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose a mapping from the header to a *different* graph than the data payload
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to propose a mapping from the header to a *different* graph than the data payload ←
15:23:02 <ericP> GET http://a.example/foo
Eric Prud'hommeaux: GET http://a.example/foo ←
15:23:02 <ericP> 218½ Location:http://a.example/foo1 Link:rel=next ref=http://a.example/foo2
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 218½ Location:http://a.example/foo1 Link:rel=next ref=http://a.example/foo2 ←
15:23:03 <ericP> => { [] a ldp:Page ; ldp:pageOf <http://a.example/foo> ; ldp:nextPage <http://a.example/foo2> }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: => { [] a ldp:Page ; ldp:pageOf <http://a.example/foo> ; ldp:nextPage <http://a.example/foo2> } ←
15:24:48 <bblfish> Content-Link: for the main page?
Henry Story: Content-Link: for the main page? ←
15:25:17 <bblfish> Is that second header not what Content-Link is for?
Henry Story: Is that second header not what Content-Link is for? ←
15:25:37 <Arnaud> ack davidwood
Arnaud Le Hors: ack davidwood ←
15:25:37 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to propose some rationale for putting next page pointers only in the headers
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to propose some rationale for putting next page pointers only in the headers ←
15:25:43 <bblfish> sorry I meant Content-Location http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23#section-3.1.4.2
Henry Story: sorry I meant Content-Location http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23#section-3.1.4.2 ←
15:26:26 <roger> davidwood, doesn't want to polute the body with navigation links, would prefer to use the headers
davidwood, doesn't want to polute the body with navigation links, would prefer to use the headers ←
15:28:47 <ericP> q+ to talk about tabulator navigation
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to talk about tabulator navigation ←
15:30:30 <SteveS> Opera Reader support for rel=next http://people.opera.com/howcome/2011/reader/
Steve Speicher: Opera Reader support for rel=next http://people.opera.com/howcome/2011/reader/ ←
15:31:08 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:31:08 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to talk about tabulator navigation
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to talk about tabulator navigation ←
15:31:09 <roger> Arnaud: in HTML, Link headers in to top of the HTML didn't really take off.
Arnaud Le Hors: in HTML, Link headers in to top of the HTML didn't really take off. ←
15:32:27 <roger> TallTed: have it in both places !
Ted Thibodeau: have it in both places ! ←
15:32:46 <bblfish> I suppose the question of a MUST
Henry Story: I suppose the question of a MUST ←
15:33:25 <bblfish> if the MUST is in the header, then this does not exclude a possiblity of headers from the content ( thought then you have messy content )
Henry Story: if the MUST is in the header, then this does not exclude a possiblity of headers from the content ( thought then you have messy content ) ←
15:34:17 <bblfish> Ah yes, the edit issue on link relations is a good way of putting things. If you cannot edit it, because it is server logic, then it should be in the header.
Henry Story: Ah yes, the edit issue on link relations is a good way of putting things. If you cannot edit it, because it is server logic, then it should be in the header. ←
15:35:48 <roger> erik: in a browser such as tabulator, don't want the control data and user data getting inter-mingled
Eric Prud'hommeaux: in a browser such as tabulator, don't want the control data and user data getting inter-mingled ←
15:36:03 <ericP> s/erik/eric/
15:37:29 <roger> sorry for mispelling you name EricP
sorry for misspelling you name EricP ←
15:37:43 <roger> s/mispelling/misspelling/
15:38:56 <roger> Arnaud: mandatory headers, content optional
Arnaud Le Hors: mandatory headers, content optional ←
15:39:10 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:39:26 <bblfish> +1 though I'd like to try to implement it and let you know
Henry Story: +1 though I'd like to try to implement it and let you know ←
15:40:08 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:41:39 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
15:41:51 <roger> Arnaud: we don't seem to have enough consistency about the control stuff which goes into content
Arnaud Le Hors: we don't seem to have enough consistency about the control stuff which goes into content ←
15:44:28 <roger> strawpoll time !!!!!
strawpoll time !!!!! ←
15:44:58 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: move page related links to HTTP headers
STRAWPOLL: move page related links to HTTP headers ←
15:45:16 <stevebattle4> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
15:45:39 <nmihindu> +1 for mesteban
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 for mesteban ←
15:45:45 <SteveS> +0 I see both sides of the fence, different shades of green
Steve Speicher: +0 I see both sides of the fence, different shades of green ←
15:45:51 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:47:20 <bblfish> +0.7 ( I'll be fully +1 when I have implemented it ) And I think we need to allow it in the body for all the legacy clients that don't know about this header that don't know about this.
Henry Story: +0.7 ( I'll be fully +1 when I have implemented it ) And I think we need to allow it in the body for all the legacy clients that don't know about this header that don't know about this. ←
15:47:54 <roger> 0
0 ←
15:48:16 <rgarcia> 0 (not clear idea of the consequences)
Raúl García Castro: 0 (not clear idea of the consequences) ←
15:48:24 <sandro> +0.5
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 ←
15:48:39 <roger> TallTed: 206 in HTTPbis might be the way to go
Ted Thibodeau: 206 in HTTPbis might be the way to go ←
15:49:54 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
15:49:55 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:49:56 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:50:10 <Ashok> 0
Ashok Malhotra: 0 ←
15:50:43 <TallTed> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-23
Ted Thibodeau: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-23 ←
15:51:36 <roger> decision on this is postponed for now.
decision on this is postponed for now. ←
15:54:16 <cody> +0.5
Cody Burleson: +0.5 ←
15:54:37 <roger> john has agreed to look further into it
john has agreed to look further into it ←
15:55:04 <roger> LUNCH BREAK. Resuming at 12:30
LUNCH BREAK. Resuming at 12:30 ←
15:55:21 <Zakim> -rgarcia
Zakim IRC Bot: -rgarcia ←
16:04:04 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5005#section-3 then page down to example
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5005#section-3 then page down to example ←
16:23:25 <Zakim> -bblfish
(No events recorded for 19 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:23:46 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
16:33:34 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
16:33:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Workshop_room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Workshop_room ←
<ericP> scribe: ericP
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
16:38:22 <ericP> topic: F2F logistics
16:38:49 <ericP> Arnaud: possibility that we'll squeak through another LC review without needing another F2F
Arnaud Le Hors: possibility that we'll squeak through another LC review without needing another F2F ←
16:39:19 <ericP> ... so it's wise to plan a F2F and decide later whether to cancel
... so it's wise to plan a F2F and decide later whether to cancel ←
16:39:28 <ericP> ... david suggested an interop event
... david suggested an interop event ←
16:40:32 <ericP> ... this would make the F2F more useful [if we don't have issues from LC comments]
... this would make the F2F more useful [if we don't have issues from LC comments] ←
16:41:44 <ericP> ... sandro proposed meeting at TPAC in China
... sandro proposed meeting at TPAC in China ←
16:41:50 <ericP> ... but may be too soon
... but may be too soon ←
16:42:27 <ericP> ... LC review period at least 3 weeks, after we've finished our issues, updated the draft, reviewed and published
... LC review period at least 3 weeks, after we've finished our issues, updated the draft, reviewed and published ←
16:53:28 <ericP> PROPOSED: Next (speculative) F2F to be held on 14-16 Jan
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
PROPOSED: Next (speculative) F2F to be held on 14-16 Jan ←
16:55:02 <roger> London would be available if needed
Roger Menday: London would be available if needed ←
16:55:12 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
16:55:24 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
16:55:31 <ericP> +0
+0 ←
16:56:42 <SteveS> Raleigh might be available
Steve Speicher: Raleigh might be available ←
16:58:11 <Arnaud> Nice/Sophia-Antipolis?
Arnaud Le Hors: Nice/Sophia-Antipolis? ←
<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Next (speculative) F2F to be held on 14-16 Jan
RESOLVED: Next (speculative) F2F to be held on 14-16 Jan ←
<ericP> topic: Last Call Comments & Issues (continues)
<ericP> subtopic: Comment LC-2836: Paging (continues)
17:06:32 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5.5
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5.5 ←
17:08:33 <cody> I don't think it's relevant to point to ATOM as an example because it expresses a specific schema. It is itself a defined resource type (a feed format), which in and of itself can have its own things like paging. But, open resources, in the case of LDP - that's a different story, isn't it?
Cody Burleson: I don't think it's relevant to point to ATOM as an example because it expresses a specific schema. It is itself a defined resource type (a feed format), which in and of itself can have its own things like paging. But, open resources, in the case of LDP - that's a different story, isn't it? ←
17:09:46 <ericP> cody, if i understand, i was making that point when i spoke about how Atom's link elements are within its controlled content model
cody, if i understand, i was making that point when i spoke about how Atom's link elements are within its controlled content model ←
17:10:22 <ericP> am i correctly parsing your point?
am i correctly parsing your point? ←
17:10:33 <cody> OK. Xactly. I agree. Yes - I think we're talking about the same thing.
Cody Burleson: OK. Xactly. I agree. Yes - I think we're talking about the same thing. ←
17:14:27 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
17:14:55 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
17:17:50 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
17:18:54 <davidwood> q+ to discuss scoping of container triples vs. user data
David Wood: q+ to discuss scoping of container triples vs. user data ←
17:19:11 <ericP> roger: doesn't a container have user data?
Roger Menday: doesn't a container have user data? ←
17:19:51 <ericP> ... looking at a bug tracker, it's not just an index; it can be anything
... looking at a bug tracker, it's not just an index; it can be anything ←
17:20:06 <cody> The LDP specification defines a Container as "a Linked Data Platform Resource (LDPR) representing a collection of same-subject, same-predicate triples." This can easily be misconstrued to mean that a Container should only contain same-subject, same-predicate triples. While Containers may contain only same-subject, same-predicate triples (i.e. the membership subjects and membership predicates of its membership triples), it is free to contain others. The definition is
Cody Burleson: The LDP specification defines a Container as "a Linked Data Platform Resource (LDPR) representing a collection of same-subject, same-predicate triples." This can easily be misconstrued to mean that a Container should only contain same-subject, same-predicate triples. While Containers may contain only same-subject, same-predicate triples (i.e. the membership subjects and membership predicates of its membership triples), it is free to contain others. The definition is ←
17:20:07 <cody> meant to clarify only those attributes that are directly relavant to the interaction model of a Container, but not to limit them to those attributes alone.
Cody Burleson: meant to clarify only those attributes that are directly relavant to the interaction model of a Container, but not to limit them to those attributes alone. ←
17:20:07 <cody> It is important to remember that a Linked Data Platform Container (LDPC) is also a Linked Data Platform Resource (LDPR) and though it might exist as a membership controller, it may also represent additional data that is valuable to the agents that access it.
Cody Burleson: It is important to remember that a Linked Data Platform Container (LDPC) is also a Linked Data Platform Resource (LDPR) and though it might exist as a membership controller, it may also represent additional data that is valuable to the agents that access it. ←
17:20:14 <ericP> ... originally a container was just a link from container to resources
... originally a container was just a link from container to resources ←
17:20:23 <cody> (That's from the BP, which I think clarifies that point about Containers)
Cody Burleson: (That's from the BP, which I think clarifies that point about Containers) ←
17:20:35 <ericP> ... i think the biggest polluter is all the membership-X stuff
... i think the biggest polluter is all the membership-X stuff ←
17:21:26 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
17:22:09 <ericP> SteveS: sorting info is pretty different from the paging info
Steve Speicher: sorting info is pretty different from the paging info ←
17:22:30 <ericP> JohnArwe: sort criteria is in Section 5, not in paging
John Arwe: sort criteria is in Section 5, not in paging ←
17:22:51 <ericP> SteveS: when you get the data back, it's already sorted, so it would be odd to look in a link header
Steve Speicher: when you get the data back, it's already sorted, so it would be odd to look in a link header ←
17:23:08 <ericP> ... so it makes more sense to have sorting info in the container
... so it makes more sense to have sorting info in the container ←
17:23:18 <ericP> ... so we just get rid of nextPage and pageOf
... so we just get rid of nextPage and pageOf ←
17:26:37 <davidwood> q-
David Wood: q- ←
17:31:29 <Arnaud> action: ericP to send an email to the list describing what it would take to move page related triples to HTTP
ACTION: ericP to send an email to the list describing what it would take to move page related triples to HTTP ←
17:31:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Send an email to the list describing what it would take to move page related triples to http [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-09-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-97 - Send an email to the list describing what it would take to move page related triples to http [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-09-20]. ←
17:34:26 <ericP> subtopic: Patch - LC-2834
17:34:34 <ericP> Arnaud: we all wished we could have PATCH
Arnaud Le Hors: we all wished we could have PATCH ←
17:34:44 <ericP> ... we ended up saying it's optional
... we ended up saying it's optional ←
17:34:54 <ericP> ... timbl objected to the optionality
... timbl objected to the optionality ←
17:35:17 <ericP> ... he said "can't we lock people in a room for a weekend?"
... he said "can't we lock people in a room for a weekend?" ←
17:35:23 <ericP> ... we can:
... we can: ←
17:35:45 <ericP> ... .. 1 say welcome to our club of frustration
... .. 1 say welcome to our club of frustration ←
17:36:10 <ericP> ... .. 2 make it mandatory without specifying the format X!
... .. 2 make it mandatory without specifying the format X! ←
17:36:21 <ericP> ... .. 3 quickly resolve a patch format
... .. 3 quickly resolve a patch format ←
17:41:39 <ericP> ericP: INSERT {bgp} DELETE {bgp} WHERE {bgp}, damnit
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: INSERT {bgp} DELETE {bgp} WHERE {bgp}, damnit ←
17:41:55 <ericP> PROPOSED: INSERT {bgp} DELETE {bgp} WHERE {bgp}, damnit
PROPOSED: INSERT {bgp} DELETE {bgp} WHERE {bgp}, damnit ←
17:43:49 <ericP> Arnaud: do we need a WHERE?
Arnaud Le Hors: do we need a WHERE? ←
17:44:11 <ericP> ericP: i think we don't want to eliminate use cases with a BNode
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think we don't want to eliminate use cases with a BNode ←
17:44:26 <ericP> davidwood: there may be other cases where you need a variable binding
David Wood: there may be other cases where you need a variable binding ←
17:45:12 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
17:45:14 <ericP> ... we did this in calimacchus
... we did this in calimacchus ←
17:45:44 <SteveS> Here was a simple approach I have for my bnode needs http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/#Example-update-blank-nodes-link-label
Steve Speicher: Here was a simple approach I have for my bnode needs http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/#Example-update-blank-nodes-link-label ←
17:49:00 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
17:50:57 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
17:51:33 <ericP> JohnArwe: we have no SPARQL impls. our LDP impls are mapped to [conventional] SQL backends
John Arwe: we have no SPARQL impls. our LDP impls are mapped to [conventional] SQL backends ←
17:52:03 <ericP> ... also, PATH errata says not to re-use generic media types for patch
... also, PATH errata says not to re-use generic media types for patch ←
17:54:06 <ericP> ericP: bgp with non-variable predicates is directly-translatable to SQL
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bgp with non-variable predicates is directly-translatable to SQL ←
17:54:23 <ericP> ... i.e. no other patch format would be easier to translate to SLQ
... i.e. no other patch format would be easier to translate to SLQ ←
17:58:35 <SteveS> SteveS: pointing out that a simple SPARQL update profile, my simple data cases it should be fine but if my server gets something too complex then it can be thrown out by server
Steve Speicher: pointing out that a simple SPARQL update profile, my simple data cases it should be fine but if my server gets something too complex then it can be thrown out by server [ Scribe Assist by Steve Speicher ] ←
17:59:45 <bblfish> yes blank nodes are important. It's difficult to see how you can patch rdf witout support for them usefully.
Henry Story: yes blank nodes are important. It's difficult to see how you can patch rdf witout support for them usefully. ←
17:59:54 <SteveS> SteveS: trig (some quad) format is another way to express patch
Steve Speicher: trig (some quad) format is another way to express patch [ Scribe Assist by Steve Speicher ] ←
18:00:40 <bblfish> I have implemented the above using by hacking Sesame
Henry Story: I have implemented the above using by hacking Sesame ←
18:01:37 <ericP> SteveS: good to have something declarative and something with real SPAQL power
Steve Speicher: good to have something declarative and something with real SPAQL power ←
18:02:17 <ericP> ericP: INSERT {bgp} DELETE {bgp} WHERE {bgp}, with fixed predicates
Eric Prud'hommeaux: INSERT {bgp} DELETE {bgp} WHERE {bgp}, with fixed predicates ←
18:13:10 <Arnaud> (discussion on what a PATCH format based on a subset of SPARL Update would look like)
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: (discussion on what a PATCH format based on a subset of SPARL Update would look like) ←
18:35:59 <ericP> could someone tell Steves that i have his boarding pass?
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
could someone tell Steves that i have his boarding pass? ←
18:37:29 <SteveS> ericP, I don't know do you?
Steve Speicher: ericP, I don't know do you? ←
18:39:12 <bblfish> But the problem is that thie Graph that you are talking about Google is huge. Most graphs should be reasonably sized. ( Though I am not sure how the big a graph needs to be because NP path )
Henry Story: But the problem is that thie Graph that you are talking about Google is huge. Most graphs should be reasonably sized. ( Though I am not sure how the big a graph needs to be because NP path ) ←
18:42:50 <bblfish> IS there no more note taking?
Henry Story: IS there no more note taking? ←
18:43:31 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
18:44:25 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
18:44:55 <bblfish> Just a note: a server can decide to only give so much time to a PATCH . If it takes too long it rejects the PATCH request.
Henry Story: Just a note: a server can decide to only give so much time to a PATCH . If it takes too long it rejects the PATCH request. ←
18:46:26 <Arnaud> Arnaud: default is to stick to the status quo and explain to Tim why we are where we are
Arnaud Le Hors: default is to stick to the status quo and explain to Tim why we are where we are [ Scribe Assist by Arnaud Le Hors ] ←
18:46:44 <Arnaud> ... people can give Eric's proposal some thoughts
Arnaud Le Hors: ... people can give Eric's proposal some thoughts ←
18:47:13 <Arnaud> ... we can look at it again in a few weeks and see what people think
Arnaud Le Hors: ... we can look at it again in a few weeks and see what people think ←
19:04:11 <cody> scribe: cody
(No events recorded for 16 minutes)
(Scribe set to Cody Burleson)
19:05:11 <cody> subtopic: ISSUE-81 - Confusing predicate names (continues)
19:05:45 <cody> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81 ←
19:05:59 <cody> "Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements"
"Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements" ←
19:06:58 <cody> TallTed has suggested:
TallTed has suggested: ←
19:07:04 <cody> Based on åfter-dinner conversation, a suggestion for element
Based on åfter-dinner conversation, a suggestion for element ←
19:07:04 <cody> renaming --
renaming -- ←
19:07:06 <cody> ldp:membershipSubject --> ldp:containmentContainer
ldp:membershipSubject --> ldp:containmentContainer ←
19:07:07 <cody> ldp:membershipPredicate --> ldp:containmentRelation
ldp:membershipPredicate --> ldp:containmentRelation ←
19:07:08 <cody> ldp:membershipObject --> ldp:containmentAddedMember
ldp:membershipObject --> ldp:containmentAddedMember ←
19:07:09 <cody> ldp:membershipPredicateInverse --> ldp:containmentMemberRelation
ldp:membershipPredicateInverse --> ldp:containmentMemberRelation ←
19:07:46 <SteveS> Link to Ted's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0035.html
Steve Speicher: Link to Ted's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0035.html ←
19:08:32 <cody> Ashok: Why not have the last one called containmentRelationInverse?
Ashok Malhotra: Why not have the last one called containmentRelationInverse? ←
19:09:42 <cody> JohnArwe: containmentContainsRelation with inverse containmentContainsByRelation (brainstorming)
John Arwe: containmentContainsRelation with inverse containmentContainsByRelation (brainstorming) ←
19:10:20 <cody> …ldpContainsRelation, ldpSomethingAddedMember
…ldpContainsRelation, ldpSomethingAddedMember ←
19:10:34 <cody> TallTed: The more we try to make them shorter, the less self-documenting they are.
Ted Thibodeau: The more we try to make them shorter, the less self-documenting they are. ←
19:11:17 <cody> Arnaud: We could get rid of the 'containment' portion if we wanted to shorten them.
Arnaud Le Hors: We could get rid of the 'containment' portion if we wanted to shorten them. ←
19:13:00 <cody> … back to Steve's proposal. Maybe we should go back to that. (and the non-monoticity issue) - before we spend too much time arguing the terms.
… back to Steve's proposal. Maybe we should go back to that. (and the non-monoticity issue) - before we spend too much time arguing the terms. ←
19:15:38 <cody> DavidWood: What happens if you write data into an LDP server that somehow steps on that server's internal state. My answer - an end user can write state into an LDPR, but that has a defined scope and the server never parses, doesn't care, won't let it mess with the internal state that determines container membership. Tightly scoping the bounds of LDPR versus LDPC. We use named graphs; you can do it however you want. Having that separation, I think you can deal may[CUT]
David Wood: What happens if you write data into an LDP server that somehow steps on that server's internal state. My answer - an end user can write state into an LDPR, but that has a defined scope and the server never parses, doesn't care, won't let it mess with the internal state that determines container membership. Tightly scoping the bounds of LDPR versus LDPC. We use named graphs; you can do it however you want. Having that separation, I think you can deal may[CUT] ←
19:15:38 <cody> these kinds of issues in a separate scope and then the mononicity problem goes away.
these kinds of issues in a separate scope and then the mononicity problem goes away. ←
19:15:45 <cody> … reactions?
… reactions? ←
19:17:41 <bblfish> got to go
Henry Story: got to go ←
19:17:48 <cody> … I would consider you broken LDP server if I could write triples that would screw up your internal state.
… I would consider you broken LDP server if I could write triples that would screw up your internal state. ←
19:17:50 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
19:21:18 <cody> JohnArwe: The scoping thing is good, but the side effect is the simplest case gets more complex.
John Arwe: The scoping thing is good, but the side effect is the simplest case gets more complex. ←
19:22:38 <cody> DavidWood: I would have to object to any spec from W3C that presumed clients were trustworthy, where you probably wouldn't have to.
David Wood: I would have to object to any spec from W3C that presumed clients were trustworthy, where you probably wouldn't have to. ←
19:24:20 <cody> JohnArwe: How we got to monotonicity: app specific - different containers have different predicates. Default is already rdfs:member. Then henry said "monotonicity problem". … ??….
John Arwe: How we got to monotonicity: app specific - different containers have different predicates. Default is already rdfs:member. Then henry said "monotonicity problem". … ??…. ←
19:25:19 <cody> DavidWood: I don't find some membership triples, so I use the defaults, and I make some decisions based on defaults, then later I get added some membership triples and later find the choices I made were invalid. (David explains what he remembers Ted explaining)
David Wood: I don't find some membership triples, so I use the defaults, and I make some decisions based on defaults, then later I get added some membership triples and later find the choices I made were invalid. (David explains what he remembers Ted explaining) ←
19:26:17 <cody> Correction: Henry, not Ted
Correction: Henry, not Ted ←
19:27:21 <cody> … I want to challenge Henry or whoever to tell me what bad impact you're going to make that's going to cause a bad monotonicity problem; I don't see it.
… I want to challenge Henry or whoever to tell me what bad impact you're going to make that's going to cause a bad monotonicity problem; I don't see it. ←
19:29:01 <cody> ericP: Unkown levels of inferencing. It doesn't really apply since we're not permitting inference today.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Unkown levels of inferencing. It doesn't really apply since we're not permitting inference today. ←
19:29:32 <cody> DavidWood: What evil could occur? You say - if the server is inferring as it goes along, then it could infer the wrong stuff?
David Wood: What evil could occur? You say - if the server is inferring as it goes along, then it could infer the wrong stuff? ←
19:29:53 <cody> ericP: Yeah, if it's active. Parsing one stream and sending it out in another stream to someone else.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Yeah, if it's active. Parsing one stream and sending it out in another stream to someone else. ←
19:30:11 <cody> … you could say that you don't get to do any streaming until you get to the end of the document...
… you could say that you don't get to do any streaming until you get to the end of the document... ←
19:32:10 <cody> … if you wanted to make an efficient system that had an ldp membership predicate, then you print that predicate at the top. If it doesn't have a default, you can act as soon as you get the membership predicate.
… if you wanted to make an efficient system that had an ldp membership predicate, then you print that predicate at the top. If it doesn't have a default, you can act as soon as you get the membership predicate. ←
19:32:38 <cody> … otherwise you have to wait.
… otherwise you have to wait. ←
19:36:50 <cody> (we switched out of the round-about dialog and scribe is trying to reconnect to what the heck we're talking about now…one sec…)
(we switched out of the round-about dialog and scribe is trying to reconnect to what the heck we're talking about now…one sec…) ←
19:38:02 <cody> On projection > notes on ldp:creationAction
On projection > notes on ldp:creationAction ←
19:41:42 <cody> Arnaud: Steve, can you take us through this? Your proposal.
Arnaud Le Hors: Steve, can you take us through this? Your proposal. ←
19:42:11 <cody> Still on ISSUE-81; looking at SteveS's proposal
Still on ISSUE-81; looking at SteveS's proposal ←
19:42:29 <ericP> hye all, yves says it should be easy to get a room for 15 at INRIA 14-16 Jan
Eric Prud'hommeaux: hye all, yves says it should be easy to get a room for 15 at INRIA 14-16 Jan ←
19:42:43 <ericP> so Sophia-Antipolis looks like a good candidate
Eric Prud'hommeaux: so Sophia-Antipolis looks like a good candidate ←
19:43:44 <cody> SteveS explains his proposal on ISSUE-81 >
SteveS explains his proposal on ISSUE-81 > ←
19:43:46 <cody> <> : rdf:type ldp:Container;
<> : rdf:type ldp:Container; ←
19:43:47 <cody> ldp:membershipSubject <>;
ldp:membershipSubject <>; ←
19:43:48 <cody> ldp:membershipPredicate rdfs:member.
ldp:membershipPredicate rdfs:member. ←
19:43:50 <cody> Or in the case where the subject holds the member resources:
Or in the case where the subject holds the member resources: ←
19:43:51 <cody> <> : rdf:type ldp:Container;
<> : rdf:type ldp:Container; ←
19:43:52 <cody> ldp:membershipObject <>;
ldp:membershipObject <>; ←
19:43:53 <cody> ldp:membershipPredicate skos:inScheme.
ldp:membershipPredicate skos:inScheme. ←
19:46:52 <cody> ericP: If you get an RDF document, there is a conflation between the document and "the thing"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If you get an RDF document, there is a conflation between the document and "the thing" ←
19:47:53 <cody> TallTed: The first line empty-bracket, colon; that colon should go away
Ted Thibodeau: The first line empty-bracket, colon; that colon should go away ←
19:48:40 <cody> TallTed: I guarantee there will be confusion by using membershipPredicate to mean both directions.
Ted Thibodeau: I guarantee there will be confusion by using membershipPredicate to mean both directions. ←
19:49:38 <cody> TallTed: Naming: membershipSubject is problematic, membershipPredicate is problematic. Well, it's to just naming. The container can move to either side of the membership predicate. We need two predicate things to have the container on either side.
Ted Thibodeau: Naming: membershipSubject is problematic, membershipPredicate is problematic. Well, it's to just naming. The container can move to either side of the membership predicate. We need two predicate things to have the container on either side. ←
19:49:55 <cody> ericP: i don't think is strictly necessary, but I see your point.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i don't think is strictly necessary, but I see your point. ←
19:51:19 <cody> Arnaud: I think I see Ted's point.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think I see Ted's point. ←
19:52:33 <cody> TallTed: Deployment confusion. The basic model is right. The shape of this stuff. It's just the labels that are problematic.
Ted Thibodeau: Deployment confusion. The basic model is right. The shape of this stuff. It's just the labels that are problematic. ←
19:53:14 <cody> TallTed: sp versus op is cryptic naming; we can do plain English.
Ted Thibodeau: sp versus op is cryptic naming; we can do plain English. ←
19:55:12 <cody> Arnaud: Initial problem was the fact that subject can be used as the object. It costs us an extra term to introduce; maybe that's OK. Then there's the other part which is what today we call membershipObject. We need another name for menbershipObject.
Arnaud Le Hors: Initial problem was the fact that subject can be used as the object. It costs us an extra term to introduce; maybe that's OK. Then there's the other part which is what today we call membershipObject. We need another name for menbershipObject. ←
19:55:58 <cody> SteveS: membershipObject is not always going to be the object. I think everything we've proposed is better than membershipObject.
Steve Speicher: membershipObject is not always going to be the object. I think everything we've proposed is better than membershipObject. ←
19:56:59 <cody> Roger: A lot of this complexity seems because we have this inverse predicate.
Roger Menday: A lot of this complexity seems because we have this inverse predicate. ←
19:57:53 <cody> Roger: If you didn't have the inverse, you wouldn't have this explosion of terms.
Roger Menday: If you didn't have the inverse, you wouldn't have this explosion of terms. ←
19:58:07 <cody> Arnaud: Forget that. We still have a problem with the membershipObject name.
Arnaud Le Hors: Forget that. We still have a problem with the membershipObject name. ←
19:58:31 <cody> … What do you want to call the thing that's going to be the foaf:primaryTopic. That's the question that's on the table.
… What do you want to call the thing that's going to be the foaf:primaryTopic. That's the question that's on the table. ←
19:59:41 <cody> Arnaud: Can we come up with a name? Otherwise, indirectMemberPredicate is the proposal, which I think is ugly.
Arnaud Le Hors: Can we come up with a name? Otherwise, indirectMemberPredicate is the proposal, which I think is ugly. ←
20:01:12 <cody> SteveS: I'm posting my foaf doc to a container, but I don't want the newly minted URI to be the member resource URI. Instead I want the hash URI (#me) to be the URI …. (lost it)
Steve Speicher: I'm posting my foaf doc to a container, but I don't want the newly minted URI to be the member resource URI. Instead I want the hash URI (#me) to be the URI …. (lost it) ←
20:02:51 <SteveS> and want the hash uri to be the URI in the object position in the membership triple, not the URI for the document but the non-information resource
Steve Speicher: and want the hash uri to be the URI in the object position in the membership triple, not the URI for the document but the non-information resource ←
20:03:45 <cody> JohnArwe: How do you find what you just put into the container? You just put in the document that was posted about ZaZa.
John Arwe: How do you find what you just put into the container? You just put in the document that was posted about ZaZa. ←
20:04:10 <cody> … what is your membership relation? It doesn't haver to have a contained semantic on it; it can be a simple grouping.
… what is your membership relation? It doesn't haver to have a contained semantic on it; it can be a simple grouping. ←
20:04:44 <cody> TallTed: Added member can't be full URI. Hmmmm…
Ted Thibodeau: Added member can't be full URI. Hmmmm… ←
20:05:13 <cody> Arnaud: pulls up Public Pad… "I think we had an example on this…" scrolling…" Zaza! Here it is!"
Arnaud Le Hors: pulls up Public Pad… "I think we had an example on this…" scrolling…" Zaza! Here it is!" ←
20:05:31 <Arnaud> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa
Arnaud Le Hors: http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ←
20:07:16 <cody> SteveS - leaves the meeting for airport.
SteveS - leaves the meeting for airport. ←
20:09:07 <cody> Arnaud: on line 200 : </people/roger> pets:has_pet </people/roger/zaza#this>
Arnaud Le Hors: on line 200 : </people/roger> pets:has_pet </people/roger/zaza#this> ←
20:10:59 <cody> Arnaud: Today, do we call this thing the membership object? It's a predicate, so that's why Steve proposed we call it "something" predicate. Then there was this discussion of indirections, so that's why we came up with indirect...
Arnaud Le Hors: Today, do we call this thing the membership object? It's a predicate, so that's why Steve proposed we call it "something" predicate. Then there was this discussion of indirections, so that's why we came up with indirect... ←
20:11:10 <cody> Roger: It selects things inside the document.
Roger Menday: It selects things inside the document. ←
20:11:15 <TallTed> ldp:membershipContainer
Ted Thibodeau: ldp:membershipContainer ←
20:11:15 <TallTed> ldp:membershipContainsRelation
Ted Thibodeau: ldp:membershipContainsRelation ←
20:11:16 <TallTed> ldp:membershipContainedByRelation
Ted Thibodeau: ldp:membershipContainedByRelation ←
20:11:16 <TallTed> ldp:membershipMemberCreationIdentifier
Ted Thibodeau: ldp:membershipMemberCreationIdentifier ←
20:11:29 <cody> Arnaud: membershipSelector? Hmmmm…
Arnaud Le Hors: membershipSelector? Hmmmm… ←
20:12:25 <TallTed> ldp:membershipMemberNamingRelation
Ted Thibodeau: ldp:membershipMemberNamingRelation ←
20:15:26 <cody> Arnaud says "attentions are waning", so DavidWood interjects "I just closed ACTION-41"
Arnaud says "attentions are waning", so DavidWood interjects "I just closed ACTION-41" ←
20:15:41 <cody> Arnaud closes ACTION-41 and ACTION-76
Arnaud closes ACTION-41 and ACTION-76 ←
20:16:51 <cody> Sandro: I have a feeling a lot of people struggle with terms "domain" and "range"
Sandro Hawke: I have a feeling a lot of people struggle with terms "domain" and "range" ←
20:17:04 <TallTed> ldp:membershipNewMember
Ted Thibodeau: ldp:membershipNewMember ←
20:17:25 <cody> Ashok: Who is our audience? Aren't we to assume some minimum level of understanding (i.e. of rdfs)
Ashok Malhotra: Who is our audience? Aren't we to assume some minimum level of understanding (i.e. of rdfs) ←
20:18:17 <cody> DavidWood: There have been a number of suggestions. Why don't we throw them up and let's take a poll.
David Wood: There have been a number of suggestions. Why don't we throw them up and let's take a poll. ←
20:19:04 <cody> Arnaud: I think that's a good next step, except - I don't know who can put all the different proposals together for a poll.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think that's a good next step, except - I don't know who can put all the different proposals together for a poll. ←
20:19:42 <cody> … suggest everyone submit their proposals to the mailing list, so we can sort them out and then we can vote. We need to just sort out all the different options.
… suggest everyone submit their proposals to the mailing list, so we can sort them out and then we can vote. We need to just sort out all the different options. ←
<cody> topic: Wrap up
20:20:31 <cody> Arnaud: I'd like to close the meeting. On Monday we WILL have another call to try to explain what we achieved, what's left open - so those who could not attend can get a bit of a catch-up and ask questions and such.
Arnaud Le Hors: I'd like to close the meeting. On Monday we WILL have another call to try to explain what we achieved, what's left open - so those who could not attend can get a bit of a catch-up and ask questions and such. ←
20:21:31 <cody> Ashok: There were only comments from three people.
Ashok Malhotra: There were only comments from three people. ←
20:21:43 <cody> Sandro: Yeah, I think a healthy number is between 10 and 20.
Sandro Hawke: Yeah, I think a healthy number is between 10 and 20. ←
20:21:55 <cody> ericP: yeah - Concern that we didn't really get wide review.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yeah - Concern that we didn't really get wide review. ←
20:22:48 <cody> MEETING ADJOURNED
MEETING ADJOURNED ←
20:31:38 <Zakim> SW_LDP()8:30AM has ended
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()8:30AM has ended ←
20:31:38 <Zakim> Attendees were Workshop_room, SteveBattle, rgarcia, bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Workshop_room, SteveBattle, rgarcia, bblfish ←
23:57:23 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
(No events recorded for 205 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
23:57:23 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
23:57:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
23:57:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/14-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/14-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
23:57:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-actions.rdf : ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> ACTION: steves to review the Best Practices & Guidelines [1]
ACTION: steves to review the Best Practices & Guidelines [1] ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc#T13-01-28
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc#T13-01-28 ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> ACTION: miguel to review the Best Practices & Guidelines [2]
ACTION: miguel to review the Best Practices & Guidelines [2] ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc#T13-01-42
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc#T13-01-42 ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ericP to send an email to the list describing what it would take to move page related triples to HTTP [3]
ACTION: ericP to send an email to the list describing what it would take to move page related triples to HTTP [3] ←
23:57:32 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc#T17-31-29
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/13-ldp-irc#T17-31-29 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe