13:58:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/28-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/28-ldp-irc ←
13:58:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:59:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:59:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute ←
13:59:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:59:01 <trackbot> Date: 28 October 2013
14:00:31 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:00:54 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
14:01:01 <codyburleson> ZAKIM, IPcaller IS ME
Cody Burleson: ZAKIM, IPcaller IS ME ←
14:01:02 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
14:01:13 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
14:02:17 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
14:02:54 <Zakim> +??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←
14:03:35 <stevebattle6> zakim, ??P19 is me
Steve Battle: zakim, ??P19 is me ←
14:03:35 <Zakim> +stevebattle6; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle6; got it ←
14:03:40 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:04:39 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:04:49 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:04:49 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
14:05:11 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
14:05:20 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is me ←
14:05:20 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
<stevebattle6> scribe: stevebattle6
(Scribe set to Steve Battle)
<stevebattle6> chair: Arnaud
<stevebattle6> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.28
14:06:10 <stevebattle6> topic: Admin
<stevebattle6> Approval of minutes of October 21
Approval of minutes of October 21 ←
<stevebattle6> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-21
http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-21 ←
14:06:54 <stevebattle6> Resolved: Minutes of October 21 approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of October 21 approved ←
14:07:08 <stevebattle6> arnaud: meeting same time next week
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting same time next week ←
14:07:25 <stevebattle6> topic: Tracking of action & issues
14:08:25 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: I asked EricP to look at paging.
John Arwe: I asked EricP to look at paging. ←
14:09:19 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: We were looking at first/next - re ambiguity in proposal
John Arwe: We were looking at first/next - re ambiguity in proposal ←
14:10:15 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: The proposal was to move from RDF to link headers.
Arnaud Le Hors: The proposal was to move from RDF to link headers. ←
14:10:29 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: I'm happy to close this
Arnaud Le Hors: I'm happy to close this ←
14:11:51 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: Some remaining editorial issues (in red).
John Arwe: Some remaining editorial issues (in red). ←
14:12:10 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: People - please take a look at paging.
Arnaud Le Hors: People - please take a look at paging. ←
14:12:31 <JohnArwe> also note (in paging) that the 209 mockup is still in here, since that is still open
John Arwe: also note (in paging) that the 209 mockup is still in here, since that is still open ←
14:12:34 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: I'm suggesting that we close all pending actions.
Arnaud Le Hors: I'm suggesting that we close all pending actions. ←
14:12:46 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: No objections.
Arnaud Le Hors: No objections. ←
14:13:14 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: We've caught up on the normative issues.
John Arwe: We've caught up on the normative issues. ←
14:14:04 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: There are actions relating to other documents that are open:- e.g. primer
Arnaud Le Hors: There are actions relating to other documents that are open:- e.g. primer ←
14:14:28 <stevebattle6> topic: ISSUE-81 Part I: Confusing predicate names
14:15:18 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: This week the plan was to choose the most popular polled solution.
Arnaud Le Hors: This week the plan was to choose the most popular polled solution. ←
14:15:21 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
14:15:34 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
Arnaud Le Hors: ack TallTed ←
14:15:47 <stevebattle6> TallTed: My poll input didn't save, this changes the rankings.
Ted Thibodeau: My poll input didn't save, this changes the rankings. ←
14:17:09 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Now JohnArwe's proposal is in first place. I'm confused about use of case in this.
Arnaud Le Hors: Now JohnArwe's proposal is in first place. I'm concerned about use of case in this. ←
14:17:26 <stevebattle6> s/confused/concerned/
<stevebattle6> johnArwe: maybe ldp:containerLink?
John Arwe: maybe ldp:containerLink? ←
14:18:46 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: We could combine proposals
Arnaud Le Hors: We could combine proposals ←
14:19:21 <stevebattle6> Sandro: Standard practice is to use 'has' instead of 'link' that we now have.
Sandro Hawke: Standard practice is to use 'has' instead of 'link' that we now have. ←
14:19:39 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: We should make a decision about using John's proposal as a basis.
Arnaud Le Hors: We should make a decision about using John's proposal as a basis. ←
14:20:26 <Arnaud> Proposal: regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: Confusing predicate names, accept John's renaming proposal as the basis moving forward
PROPOSED: regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: Confusing predicate names, accept John's renaming proposal as the basis moving forward ←
14:20:31 <JohnArwe> I don't think we have 'link' today Sandro; that was me suggesting off that cuff that we could use ldp:containerLink instead of ldp:container (lower case c), but I ldp:hasContainer certainly works fine for me
John Arwe: I don't think we have 'link' today Sandro; that was me suggesting off that cuff that we could use ldp:containerLink instead of ldp:container (lower case c), but I ldp:hasContainer certainly works fine for me ←
14:20:54 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:20:54 <JohnArwe> +1
14:20:57 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:20:57 <stevebattle6> +1
+1 ←
14:21:31 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:21:40 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: We could use containerID from Ted's proposal?
Arnaud Le Hors: We could use containerID from Ted's proposal? ←
14:21:51 <Arnaud> Resolved: regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: Confusing predicate names, accept John's renaming proposal as the basis moving forward
RESOLVED: regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: Confusing predicate names, accept John's renaming proposal as the basis moving forward ←
14:21:56 <stevebattle6> Sandro: Link isn't recommended either.
Sandro Hawke: ID isn't recommended either. ←
14:22:04 <stevebattle6> s/Link/ID/
14:22:28 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: For next week: propose modifications to John's proposal.
Arnaud Le Hors: For next week: propose modifications to John's proposal. ←
14:22:59 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: I'm happy to propose 'hasContainer' right now.
John Arwe: I'm happy to propose 'hasContainer' right now. ←
14:23:41 <Arnaud> Proposal: amend John's naming scheme by changing ldp:container to ldp:hasContainer
PROPOSED: amend John's naming scheme by changing ldp:container to ldp:hasContainer ←
14:23:59 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: The proposal is moot
Arnaud Le Hors: The proposal is moot ←
14:24:17 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Other proposals are welcomed
Arnaud Le Hors: Other proposals are welcomed ←
14:24:22 <Ashok> +1 to hasContainer
Ashok Malhotra: +1 to hasContainer ←
14:24:42 <stevebattle6> (oh we are voting!)
(oh we are voting!) ←
14:24:45 <TallTed> -.5 hasContainer
Ted Thibodeau: -.5 hasContainer ←
14:24:53 <JohnArwe> +0
14:24:55 <stevebattle6> 0
0 ←
14:25:04 <SteveS> +0 think we can do better
Steve Speicher: +0 think we can do better ←
14:27:15 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: There were two parts to ISSUE-81, the first is to address the predicate names. The second aims to limit the number of things you have to specify.
Arnaud Le Hors: There were two parts to ISSUE-81, the first is to address the predicate names. The second aims to limit the number of things you have to specify. ←
14:27:50 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Henry raised the point that properties may be grouped under a blank node.
Arnaud Le Hors: Henry raised the point that properties may be grouped under a blank node. ←
14:28:15 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Lets address this next week with Henry on the call.
Arnaud Le Hors: Lets address this next week with Henry on the call. ←
14:28:31 <stevebattle6> topic: Paging & 209 vs 200
<stevebattle6> JohnArwe: Talked to Erik off line and he supports Mark Baker's point of view: we should simply use 200 and return the first page
John Arwe: Talked to Erik off line and he supports Mark Baker's point of view: we should simply use 200 and return the first page ←
14:30:23 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: As soon as you have >1 resource the notion of completeness breaks down.
John Arwe: As soon as you have >1 resource the notion of completeness breaks down. ←
14:30:49 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: The client never knows the complete state.
John Arwe: The client never knows the complete state. ←
14:32:05 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:32:33 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: The current status is that if the client fetches a resource and the server initiates paging, the server sends a redirect and the client has to do another GET to get the FIRST page.
Arnaud Le Hors: The current status is that if the client fetches a resource and the server initiates paging, the server sends a redirect and the client has to do another GET to get the FIRST page. ←
14:33:08 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: This introduces an extra fetch which TimBL doesn't like. He suggested we avoid the round trip by creating a new status code 209 and returning the first page.
Arnaud Le Hors: This introduces an extra fetch which TimBL doesn't like. He suggested we avoid the round trip by creating a new status code 209 and returning the first page. ←
14:33:34 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Why not just return 200 with the first page - as John describes.
Arnaud Le Hors: Why not just return 200 with the first page - as John describes. ←
14:34:12 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: It was previously felt that 200 was misleading because the client doesn't get exactly the resource they were expecting.
Arnaud Le Hors: It was previously felt that 200 was misleading because the client doesn't get exactly the resource they were expecting. ←
14:34:43 <stevebattle6> Sandro: If the client thinks they have the full resource how can they use PUT to update it?
Sandro Hawke: If the client thinks they have the full resource how can they use PUT to update it? ←
14:35:04 <stevebattle6> Sandro: Even on a small resource this is a problem.
Sandro Hawke: Even on a small resource this is a problem. ←
14:35:17 <JohnArwe> Erik also said (although this is not directly relevant to paging, it is relevant to TimBL's other use for 209) that the 209 MIGHT make sense for the general Linked Data 303 (non-info resource).
John Arwe: Erik also said (although this is not directly relevant to paging, it is relevant to TimBL's other use for 209) that the 209 MIGHT make sense for the general Linked Data 303 (non-info resource). ←
14:35:34 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: In the current spec the redirect tells you this is the first page.
Arnaud Le Hors: In the current spec the redirect tells you this is the first page. ←
14:36:10 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: If we have the 200 with the first page you can't rely on the status code, you have to check the link header to know this is not the full resource.
Arnaud Le Hors: If we have the 200 with the first page you can't rely on the status code, you have to check the link header to know this is not the full resource. ←
14:36:58 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: One advantage of using 200 is that it would mean we don't have to create a new status code, which would make our life easier.
Arnaud Le Hors: One advantage of using 200 is that it would mean we don't have to create a new status code, which would make our life easier. ←
14:37:09 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: and we don't need the redirect.
John Arwe: and we don't need the redirect. ←
14:37:35 <stevebattle6> SteveS: And timbl will be convinced? He wasn't satisfied with the 200 status code.
Steve Speicher: And timbl will be convinced? He wasn't satisfied with the 200 status code. ←
14:38:09 <stevebattle6> JphnArwe: This is a general linked data problem.
John Arwe: This is a general linked data problem. ←
14:39:19 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
14:39:24 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: Problem with the 'location' code (to inform that this is 1st page) is that we're redefining it.
John Arwe: Problem with the 'location' code (to inform that this is 1st page) is that we're potentially redefining it. ←
14:39:36 <JohnArwe> s/JphnArwe/JohnArwe/
14:40:08 <stevebattle6> ashok: The problem is clients with limited capability (eg. mobile clients). Do we get 200 in both cases?
Ashok Malhotra: The problem is clients with limited capability (eg. mobile clients). Do we get 200 in both cases? ←
14:40:58 <stevebattle6> s/redefining/potentially redefining/
14:41:52 <stevebattle6> Sandro: If it's just a browser its not going to do anything different. We're interested in automated agents that need more information.
Sandro Hawke: If it's just a browser its not going to do anything different. We're interested in automated agents that need more information. ←
14:42:27 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Checking a header is relatively cheap, so this shouldn't be a problem.
Arnaud Le Hors: Checking a header is relatively cheap, so this shouldn't be a problem. ←
14:43:06 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Please think about this issue and if you can live with it.
Arnaud Le Hors: Please think about this issue and if you can live with it. ←
14:43:19 <JohnArwe> q+ to ask about issue-81 part 2
John Arwe: q+ to ask about ISSUE-81 part 2 ←
14:43:31 <stevebattle6> topic: Put Create
14:44:04 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Can clients CREATE resources with PUT.
Arnaud Le Hors: Can clients CREATE resources with PUT. ←
14:44:32 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: timbl wants to have this capability.
Arnaud Le Hors: timbl wants to have this capability. ←
14:45:01 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Using the filesystem analogy
Arnaud Le Hors: Using the filesystem analogy ←
14:45:05 <JohnArwe> TimBL wanted something very specific, I re-read his comments: writable LDPRs (no collections reqd), and yes the name hint would be within some URI space owned by the server.
John Arwe: TimBL wanted something very specific, I re-read his comments: writable LDPRs (no collections reqd), and yes the name hint would be within some URI space owned by the server. ←
14:45:49 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: He doesn't need collections.
John Arwe: He doesn't need collections. ←
14:46:11 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: You must be able to PUT/UPDATE a container
John Arwe: You must be able to PUT/UPDATE a container ←
14:46:35 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: If you don't need collections its a lot less problematic.
John Arwe: If you don't need collections its a lot less problematic. ←
14:47:36 <stevebattle6> SteveS: We could spend a lot of time to get this right.
Steve Speicher: We could spend a lot of time to get this right. ←
14:48:48 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: We could add a URI template and a link to create a space of implementations
John Arwe: We could add a URI template and a link to create a space of implementations ←
14:49:41 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Even if we had a hook for URI templates, the server needs to guarantee that it'll honour the request.
Arnaud Le Hors: Even if we had a hook for URI templates, the server needs to guarantee that it'll honour the request. ←
14:50:01 <stevebattle6> Sandro: Where would that link come from?
Sandro Hawke: Where would that link come from? ←
14:51:24 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: I think Tim has a use case in mind where he doesn't use a container at all.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think Tim has a use case in mind where he doesn't use a container at all. ←
14:51:50 <stevebattle6> SteveS: timbl mentioned a workspace ontology he was working on.
Steve Speicher: timbl mentioned a workspace ontology he was working on. ←
14:52:29 <stevebattle6> Sandro: What other inputs do we have on this?
Sandro Hawke: What other inputs do we have on this? ←
14:53:42 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: This may have to be more fleshed out before we add it.
Arnaud Le Hors: This may have to be more fleshed out before we add it. ←
14:54:20 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: Henry has argued for this (or something like it) in the past - but using containers.
John Arwe: Henry has argued for this (or something like it) in the past - but using containers. ←
14:54:58 <JohnArwe> q?
14:55:10 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe ←
14:55:10 <Zakim> JohnArwe, you wanted to ask about issue-81 part 2
Zakim IRC Bot: JohnArwe, you wanted to ask about ISSUE-81 part 2 ←
14:55:24 <stevebattle6> JohnArwe: We didn't get to the bottom of issue-81
John Arwe: We didn't get to the bottom of ISSUE-81 ←
14:56:11 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Postpone this until next week.
Arnaud Le Hors: Postpone this until next week. ←
14:56:32 <stevebattle6> topic: Disposition of comments
14:56:40 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Are we on track?
Arnaud Le Hors: Are we on track? ←
14:57:17 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Is it true that the resolution system sends the message for you? (Yes)
Arnaud Le Hors: Is it true that the resolution system sends the message for you? (Yes) ←
14:58:21 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
14:59:00 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: The number of outstanding comments has gone down.
Arnaud Le Hors: The number of outstanding comments has gone down. ←
14:59:56 <stevebattle6> SteveS: I completed some last week (the system may/may not have sent the responses).
Steve Speicher: I completed some last week (the system may/may not have sent the responses). ←
15:01:07 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: Make sure that the status is reflected in the tracker.
Arnaud Le Hors: Make sure that the status is reflected in the tracker. ←
15:01:16 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:01:17 <stevebattle6> Arnaud: meeting adjourned.
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting adjourned. ←
15:01:29 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
15:01:32 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:01:32 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
15:01:33 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
15:01:37 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> -stevebattle6
Zakim IRC Bot: -stevebattle6 ←
15:02:03 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
15:02:04 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
15:02:04 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, codyburleson, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, stevebattle6, Sandro, TallTed, SteveS, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, codyburleson, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, stevebattle6, Sandro, TallTed, SteveS, EricP ←
Formatted by CommonScribe