14:56:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-ldp-irc ←
14:56:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:56:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:56:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
14:56:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:56:51 <trackbot> Date: 11 November 2013
14:59:38 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
14:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:59:53 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPcaller is me. ←
14:59:53 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
15:00:15 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:01:06 <Zakim> + +1.857.928.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.857.928.aaaa ←
15:01:28 <betehess> Zakim, aaaa is Alexandre
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, aaaa is Alexandre ←
15:01:28 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre; got it ←
15:01:47 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
15:01:57 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:02:02 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:02:07 <Zakim> + +33.4.73.28.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.4.73.28.aabb ←
15:02:24 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:02:30 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: Zakim, [IBM] is me ←
15:02:30 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:02:40 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:02:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see codyburleson, Arnaud, Alexandre, ??P5, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, +33.4.73.28.aabb, SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see codyburleson, Arnaud, Alexandre, ??P5, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, +33.4.73.28.aabb, SteveS ←
15:03:01 <stevebattle7> zakim, aabb is me
Steve Battle: zakim, aabb is me ←
15:03:01 <Zakim> +stevebattle7; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle7; got it ←
15:04:02 <JohnArwe> zakim, ??P5 is EricP
John Arwe: zakim, ??P5 is EricP ←
15:04:02 <Zakim> +EricP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP; got it ←
15:04:06 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:04:23 <stevebattle7> Did I grab the wrong number?
Steve Battle: Did I grab the wrong number? ←
15:04:44 <bblfish> hhihi
Henry Story: hhihi ←
15:04:53 <bblfish> we can give them other things to do
Henry Story: we can give them other things to do ←
15:05:09 <betehess> stevebattle7, aabb was for +33.4.73.28.aabb
Alexandre Bertails: stevebattle7, aabb was for +33.4.73.28.aabb ←
15:05:31 <betehess> maybe aabb was ericP
Alexandre Bertails: maybe aabb was ericP ←
15:05:33 <codyburleson> Yep - four + one + pound to raise hand
Cody Burleson: Yep - four + one + pound to raise hand ←
15:06:05 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
<ericP> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.11
<ericP> chair: Arnaud
<ericP> regrets: Bart
<ericP> topic: Admin
15:06:11 <stevebattle7> Zakim, untangle this mess
Steve Battle: Zakim, untangle this mess ←
15:06:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'untangle this mess', stevebattle7
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'untangle this mess', stevebattle7 ←
15:06:55 <ericP> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-04 as a record of the 4 Nov meeting
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-04 as a record of the 4 Nov meeting ←
15:06:59 <ericP> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-04 as a record of the 4 Nov meeting
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-04 as a record of the 4 Nov meeting ←
15:07:26 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:07:27 <ericP> next call: 18 Nov
next call: 18 Nov ←
15:07:36 <ericP> topic: Tracking of actions and issues
15:07:59 <bblfish> Ah I still have to review the primer
Henry Story: Ah I still have to review the primer ←
15:08:40 <codyburleson> I have an action 111, I haven't really had time to look into yet, but I can do that this week (finally got some breathing room).
Cody Burleson: I have an ACTION-111, I haven't really had time to look into yet, but I can do that this week (finally got some breathing room). ←
15:08:47 <bblfish> the primer of Access control will do this soon. Have been working on WebID and many other things.
Henry Story: the primer of Access control will do this soon. Have been working on WebID and many other things. ←
15:08:56 <ericP> Arnaud: c'mon people. do your actions.
Arnaud Le Hors: c'mon people. do your actions. ←
15:09:07 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open open action items
-> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open open action items ←
15:09:37 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
15:09:44 <ericP> topic: Paging
15:09:49 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/users/my YOUR ACTIONS
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/users/my YOUR ACTIONS ←
15:10:20 <ericP> Arnaud: we've moved the paging stuff into headers per TimBL's comments
Arnaud Le Hors: we've moved the paging stuff into headers per TimBL's comments ←
15:10:53 <ericP> ... John started adding this to the spec, but there was a question about having a MUST
... John started adding this to the spec, but there was a question about having a MUST ←
15:11:04 <ericP> ... also questions about having last and prev
... also questions about having last and prev ←
15:11:43 <ericP> -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-PagingGET Section 4.10.2 HTTP GET
-> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-PagingGET Section 4.10.2 HTTP GET ←
15:11:59 <ericP> JohnArwe: I heard "hell no" re: required reverse linking
John Arwe: I heard "hell no" re: required reverse linking ←
15:12:24 <ericP> ... as I was drafting this AM, I reallized we'd includes the link="collection" header on the tail end of the discussion with ericP
... as I was drafting this AM, I reallized we'd includes the link="collection" header on the tail end of the discussion with ericP ←
15:12:46 <ericP> ... after our 303->200 decision, there's no diff between the collection and the first page
... after our 303->200 decision, there's no diff between the collection and the first page ←
15:12:58 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:14:17 <JohnArwe> BTW: I did read RFC 5005 which defines the link headers; section 3 says (wrt MUST/MAYS) Paged feed documents MUST have at least one of these link relations
John Arwe: BTW: I did read RFC 5005 which defines the link headers; section 3 says (wrt MUST/MAYS) Paged feed documents MUST have at least one of these link relations ←
15:14:17 <JohnArwe> present, and should contain as many as practical and applicable.
John Arwe: present, and should contain as many as practical and applicable. ←
15:14:37 <JohnArwe> ...i.e. it does not even go so far as to require any particular one ;-)
John Arwe: ...i.e. it does not even go so far as to require any particular one ;-) ←
15:15:00 <betehess> a previous link would require the server to maintain an immutable iterable vs just a simple iterator
Alexandre Bertails: a previous link would require the server to maintain an immutable iterable vs just a simple iterator ←
15:15:06 <betehess> that's a strong requirements
Alexandre Bertails: that's a strong requirement ←
15:15:14 <betehess> s/requirements/requirement/
15:15:24 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
15:15:24 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
15:15:25 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:15:33 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
15:15:33 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
15:16:37 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:16:43 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:16:43 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:16:44 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:16:44 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:16:48 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
15:17:03 <JohnArwe> FWIW I think the "last this server knows about" is consistent with 5005
John Arwe: FWIW I think the "last this server knows about" is consistent with 5005 ←
15:17:16 <ericP> ericP: [single/double-linked, last last]
Eric Prud'hommeaux: [single/double-linked, last last] ←
15:17:35 <ericP> Ashok: making PREV optional seems like a poor idea.
Ashok Malhotra: making PREV optional seems like a terrible idea. ←
15:17:38 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:17:43 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:18:01 <ericP> ... if I'm I page 48 and I forgot a page, do I have to start from 1 again
... if I'm I page 48 and I forgot a page, do I have to start from 1 again ←
15:18:18 <Ashok> s/poor/terrible/
15:18:36 <ericP> betehess: nothing is optional
Alexandre Bertails: nothing is optional ←
15:19:17 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:19:22 <bblfish> bertails: if it's optional on the server then it is necessary on the client, then he had some reason why it was a bad idea for why it was bad for the client
Alexandre Bertails: if it's optional on the server then it is necessary on the client, then he had some reason why it was a optional idea for why it was optional for the client [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
15:19:24 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:19:25 <betehess> 1. a MAY on the server is a MUST on the client
Alexandre Bertails: 1. a MAY on the server is a MUST on the client ←
15:19:38 <bblfish> s/bad/optional/
15:20:21 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:20:22 <bblfish> s/bad/optional/ <- change the last one in my last statement summarising bertails intervention
15:20:36 <ericP> SteveS: in the scenarios I've seen, we don't go part way through and rewind
Steve Speicher: in the scenarios I've seen, we don't go part way through and rewind ←
15:20:46 <ericP> ... and if you did, you'd still ahve the chain in memory
... and if you did, you'd still ahve the chain in memory ←
15:20:49 <betehess> 2. supporting previous means having to maintain everything in memory
Alexandre Bertails: 2. supporting previous means having to maintain everything in memory ←
15:21:04 <ericP> ... a MAY on the server means a MUST on the client
... re: "a MAY on the server means a MUST on the client", that doesn't apply here 'cause... ←
15:21:28 <betehess> 3. what's important is go through the triples, not navigating in the triples
Alexandre Bertails: 3. what's important is go through the triples, not navigating in the triples ←
15:21:39 <ericP> ... if they server includes a PREV and the client doesn't look for it, the client can still use the forward traversal
... if they server includes a PREV and the client doesn't look for it, the client can still use the forward traversal ←
15:22:36 <ericP> s/a MAY on the server means a MUST on the client/re: "a MAY on the server means a MUST on the client", that doesn't apply here 'cause.../
15:22:39 <bblfish> Perhaps what should be made clear is that forward paging MUST be supported by servers and clients.
Henry Story: Perhaps what should be made clear is that forward paging MUST be supported by servers and clients. ←
15:22:43 <betehess> this is breaking existing clients like Jena: they won't find *all* the triples
Alexandre Bertails: this is breaking existing clients like Jena: they won't find *all* the triples ←
15:23:12 <ericP> Arnaud: I don't see what program is going to need to go backwards and if it does, it can cash them and rewind from that.
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't see what program is going to need to go backwards and if it does, it can cash them and rewind from that. ←
15:23:13 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
15:23:14 <bblfish> agree with Arnaud: client can do the caching
Henry Story: agree with Arnaud: client can do the caching ←
15:23:53 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5005#section-3
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5005#section-3 ←
15:23:57 <bblfish> :-) 5005 backwards is 5005
Henry Story: :-) 5005 backwards is 5005 ←
15:24:07 <JohnArwe> it's a pun
15:24:14 <ericP> JohnArwe: RFC5005 says you only need one of these headers
John Arwe: RFC5005 says you only need one of these headers ←
15:24:33 <JohnArwe> ... and it says ANY one, it does not pick even one winner
John Arwe: ... and it says ANY one, it does not pick even one winner ←
15:24:43 <bblfish> Do we not have ordering now in collections now? If we do, then can one not just get the reverse order?
Henry Story: Do we not have ordering now in collections now? If we do, then can one not just get the reverse order? ←
15:25:01 <ericP> betehess: if you're using e.g. Jena, the client will be able to parse the first page but won't find anything else
Alexandre Bertails: if you're using e.g. Jena, the client will be able to parse the first page but won't find anything else ←
15:25:11 <SteveS> bblfish, we do and a good way to do it
Steve Speicher: bblfish, we do and a good way to do it ←
15:25:35 <JohnArwe> @bblfish: we allow servers to Express order. we do not define any way for clients to Request a particular order.
John Arwe: @bblfish: we allow servers to Express order. we do not define any way for clients to Request a particular order. ←
15:26:51 <betehess> sure, but this is breaking this assumption if a client see "text/turtle"
Alexandre Bertails: sure, but this is breaking this assumption if a client see "text/turtle" ←
15:27:04 <ericP> ... if you have some client that doesn't support paging, it will see only page one. it would be nice to have a way to switch off paging
... if you have some client that doesn't support paging, it will see only page one. it would be nice to have a way to switch off paging ←
15:27:57 <bblfish> Were we not going to have another 20x error code?
Henry Story: Were we not going to have another 20x error code? ←
15:28:04 <bblfish> for paging?
Henry Story: for paging? ←
15:28:05 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:28:05 <JohnArwe> So is the problem you're poking at Alex that Jena is not giving the app access to the HTTP headers?
John Arwe: So is the problem you're poking at Alex that Jena is not giving the app access to the HTTP headers? ←
15:28:27 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:28:43 <ericP> Arnaud: the fact that an existing client wouldn't reallize that this is only the first page is why some of us thought 303 was a better. but now we've decided on 200.
Arnaud Le Hors: the fact that an existing client wouldn't reallize that this is only the first page is why some of us thought 303 was a better. but now we've decided on 200. ←
15:28:46 <bblfish> Ok. Should be on the todo list to look for someone to do 20x for paging perhaps.
Henry Story: Ok. Should be on the todo list to look for someone to do 20x for paging perhaps. ←
15:29:13 <JohnArwe> @bblfish see minutes from 11/4 (I think - else 10/28)
John Arwe: @bblfish see minutes from 11/4 (I think - else 10/28) ←
15:29:37 <ericP> betehess: with the current behavior, we're only talking to LDP clients instead of generic RDF clients
Alexandre Bertails: with the current behavior, we're only talking to LDP clients instead of generic RDF clients ←
15:29:56 <ericP> ... this is at odds with using "text/turtle" as the media type
... this is at odds with using "text/turtle" as the media type ←
15:30:12 <betehess> it's all ok if everybody talk LDP tomorrow, I'm fine with that
Alexandre Bertails: it's all ok if everybody talk LDP tomorrow, I'm fine with that ←
15:30:16 <bblfish> yes, it's a good point that we are breaking existing RDF clients... One needs a good reason at least in the spec to make this clear.
Henry Story: yes, it's a good point that we are breaking existing RDF clients... One needs a good reason at least in the spec to make this clear. ←
15:30:17 <JohnArwe> 5005 headers can be used with any HTTP interaction.
John Arwe: 5005 headers can be used with any HTTP interaction. ←
15:30:51 <betehess> I'll live with it, I want the world to move to LDP anyway
Alexandre Bertails: I'll live with it, I want the world to move to LDP anyway ←
15:30:58 <ericP> Arnaud: I agree that it will surprise many people that would expect 200 means you get everything, but we got feedback from HTTP experts saying that page1 *is* the representation
Arnaud Le Hors: I agree that it will surprise many people that would expect 200 means you get everything, but we got feedback from HTTP experts saying that page1 *is* the representation ←
15:31:13 <betehess> anyway, it's a MUST :-)
Alexandre Bertails: anyway, it's a MUST :-) ←
15:31:53 <bblfish> regarding paging
Henry Story: regarding paging ←
15:32:59 <bblfish> Arnaud: people who want to change this need to make a concrete proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: people who want to change this need to make a concrete proposal [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
15:33:09 <ericP> Arnaud: people need to send concrete proposals to the mailing list if they want ot change the status quo.
Arnaud Le Hors: people need to send concrete proposals to the mailing list if they want ot change the status quo. ←
15:33:23 <ericP> topic: regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple
15:33:26 <bblfish> Issue-81?
15:33:26 <trackbot> Issue-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open ←
15:33:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81 ←
15:33:40 <ericP> Arnaud: issue is around trying to keep the simple case simple
Arnaud Le Hors: issue is around trying to keep the simple case simple ←
15:33:50 <betehess> we had discussions in the past about default breaking monotonicity
Alexandre Bertails: we had discussions in the past about default breaking monotonicity ←
15:34:12 <ericP> ... because we've added all these properties without defaults so the simple case is bloated.
... because we've added all these properties without defaults so the simple case is bloated. ←
15:34:30 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:34:36 <betehess> ldp:created is a different issue
Alexandre Bertails: ldp:created is a different issue ←
15:34:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:34:50 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:35:20 <ericP> Arnaud: there is a proposal to make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject
Arnaud Le Hors: there is a proposal to make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject ←
15:35:32 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:35:45 <ericP> bblfish: re: simplifying everything, we could make the whole thing optional
Henry Story: re: simplifying everything, we could make the whole thing optional ←
15:36:12 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-81#Proposals_--_Part_I_bis
Henry Story: ISSUE-81#Proposals_--_Part_I_bis">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-81#Proposals_--_Part_I_bis ←
15:36:24 <ericP> Arnaud: you want to discuss ldp:membershipRule?
Arnaud Le Hors: you want to discuss ldp:membershipRule? ←
15:36:43 <ericP> bblfish: yes, can make everyhing optional with this one link to a blank node
Henry Story: yes, can make everyhing optional with this one link to a blank node ←
15:36:56 <ericP> q+ to ask for use cases around open world and how they'd differ
q+ to ask for use cases around open world and how they'd differ ←
15:37:19 <ericP> Arnaud: henry asked what if we mapped all of these properties into a bnode?
Arnaud Le Hors: henry asked what if we mapped all of these properties into a bnode? ←
15:37:22 <bblfish> <> a ldp:Container;
Henry Story: <> a ldp:Container; ←
15:37:22 <bblfish> ldp:creationRule [ ldp:subject <../card#me>;
Henry Story: ldp:creationRule [ ldp:subject <../card#me>; ←
15:37:22 <bblfish> ldp:predicate foaf:knows;
Henry Story: ldp:predicate foaf:knows; ←
15:37:24 <bblfish> ldp:rangeSelector foaf:primaryTopic ] .
Henry Story: ldp:rangeSelector foaf:primaryTopic ] . ←
15:37:39 <ericP> ... if you close the world at that level, you end up with optional without nonmon issues
... if you close the world at that level, you end up with optional without nonmon issues ←
15:37:52 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:38:05 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:38:05 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask for use cases around open world and how they'd differ
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask for use cases around open world and how they'd differ ←
15:38:28 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:39:44 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:39:48 <ericP> ericP: is the assumption that if I see <containerX> ldp:creationRule _:b1, I can't see <containerX> ldp:creationRule _:b2 later on?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is the assumption that if I see <containerX> ldp:creationRule _:b1, I can't see <containerX> ldp:creationRule _:b2 later on? ←
15:40:58 <ericP> bblfish: if we have a ldp:created arc, the monotonicity issues go away
Henry Story: if we have a ldp:created arc, the monotonicity issues go away ←
15:41:31 <bblfish> ?ldpc ldp:created ?member
Henry Story: ?ldpc ldp:created ?member ←
15:42:25 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:43:03 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:43:14 <ericP> Arnaud: not understanding what it means to "remove the membership rule"
Arnaud Le Hors: not understanding what it means to "remove the membership rule" ←
15:43:26 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:43:41 <ericP> SteveS: as I understand henry's proposal, the membership property is a consequence of creating a resource.
Steve Speicher: as I understand henry's proposal, the membership property is a consequence of creating a resource. ←
15:44:16 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:44:22 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:44:42 <ericP> ... there are a number of existing data structures that, when I bring them online [in LDP], I didn't create anything
... there are a number of existing data structures that, when I bring them online [in LDP], I didn't create anything ←
15:44:45 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:45:12 <JohnArwe> I thought that "membership triples" today were there to tell clients how to enumerate members of the container; does not matter how they came to be members (post, put,... , out of band).
John Arwe: I thought that "membership triples" today were there to tell clients how to enumerate members of the container; does not matter how they came to be members (post, put,... , out of band). ←
15:45:57 <ericP> bblfish: we needed 3 relations 'cause we had monotonicity issues.
Henry Story: we needed 3 relations 'cause we had monotonicity issues. ←
15:46:24 <ericP> ... we can get the same behavior that we had before.
... we can get the same behavior that we had before. ←
15:46:48 <ericP> Arnaud: I sense a disconnect between what people consider to be a member
Arnaud Le Hors: I sense a disconnect between what people consider to be a member ←
15:46:55 <JohnArwe> I thought Sandro said in Boston (very clearly) that monotonicity is not the black death; we can choose to have it or not.
John Arwe: I thought Sandro said in Boston (very clearly) that monotonicity is not the black death; we can choose to have it or not. ←
15:47:21 <ericP> ... some say it's whether it was created, others simpy whether it is listed.
... some say it's whether it was created, others simpy whether it is listed. ←
15:47:49 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:48:34 <JohnArwe> It sounded to me like Henry just agreed that how something came to be a member does not matter. Did I hear that wrong?
John Arwe: It sounded to me like Henry just agreed that how something came to be a member does not matter. Did I hear that wrong? ←
15:49:01 <ericP> q+ to ask what use cases impose monotonicity -- to be acked if the chair thinks it's on topic
q+ to ask what use cases impose monotonicity -- to be acked if the chair thinks it's on topic ←
15:49:25 <stevebattle7> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
15:49:26 <bblfish> I don't see a problem with blank nodes.
Henry Story: I don't see a problem with blank nodes. ←
15:49:29 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:49:29 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask what use cases impose monotonicity -- to be acked if the chair thinks it's on topic
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask what use cases impose monotonicity -- to be acked if the chair thinks it's on topic ←
15:50:14 <nmihindu> bblfish, does it really matter it have to be a blank node or grouping all of them and referring them to using one relation is enough ? (just thinking)
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: bblfish, does it really matter it have to be a blank node or grouping all of them and referring them to using one relation is enough ? (just thinking) ←
15:51:05 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle7
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle7 ←
15:51:12 <bblfish> ok, but we'd like not to drop inferencing later.
Henry Story: ok, but we'd like not to drop inferencing later. ←
15:51:15 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
15:51:30 <betehess> if I'm a client and I see a partial rule, how long do I need to wait until I can decide if <> ldp:contains <foo> is true or not?
Alexandre Bertails: if I'm a client and I see a partial rule, how long do I need to wait until I can decide if <> ldp:contains <foo> is true or not? ←
15:51:38 <JohnArwe> ericp, can you minute your stmt?
John Arwe: ericp, can you minute your stmt? ←
15:51:39 <ericP> stevebattle: I don't see how a client will know what will happen when a new resource gets added
Steve Battle: I don't see how a client will know what will happen when a new resource gets added ←
15:51:49 <betehess> with a default, it's true until being said otherwise...
Alexandre Bertails: with a default, it's true until being said otherwise... ←
15:51:57 <JohnArwe> I find this all confusing, frankly.
John Arwe: I find this all confusing, frankly. ←
15:52:14 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:52:40 <ericP> bblfish: I'd say that new resources go into the LDPC, but it's a different question
Henry Story: I'd say that new resources go into the LDPC, but it's a different question ←
15:53:20 <ericP> stevebattle: when a client creates a new resources, they need to include the member relationship in the POST
Steve Battle: when a client creates a new resources, they need to include the member relationship in the POST ←
15:53:40 <SteveS> betehess, a client can ask for the non-member properties upfront (like my proposal says) if it cares about monotonicity. If it doesn't, it can just fetch pages and then find
Steve Speicher: betehess, a client can ask for the non-member properties upfront (like my proposal says) if it cares about monotonicity. If it doesn't, it can just fetch pages and then find ←
15:54:58 <betehess> SteveS, how would a client know what to search? how long would it have to search for what's potentially missing or just does not exist?
Alexandre Bertails: SteveS, how would a client know what to search? how long would it have to search for what's potentially missing or just does not exist? ←
15:55:10 <SteveS> Remember, this wasn't a last call comment....so it isn't blocking us, it was a WG member (me) who was trying to help modify what we have
Steve Speicher: Remember, this wasn't a last call comment....so it isn't blocking us, it was a WG member (me) who was trying to help modify what we have ←
15:55:40 <ericP> Arnaud: I thought we were talking about how ldp:membershipRule could use a bnode and that the properties from that bnode could have defaults
Arnaud Le Hors: I thought we were talking about how ldp:membershipRule could use a bnode and that the properties from that bnode could have defaults ←
15:55:46 <SteveS> I'm confused how defaults are ok now
Steve Speicher: I'm confused how defaults are ok now ←
15:56:25 <ericP> q+ to say that any use case for monotonicity would be screwed by having default on a blank node
q+ to say that any use case for monotonicity would be screwed by having default on a blank node ←
15:57:25 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:57:25 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that any use case for monotonicity would be screwed by having default on a blank node
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that any use case for monotonicity would be screwed by having default on a blank node ←
15:57:42 <JohnArwe> I *think* Henry is saying: once you have a required relation (today: called ldp:created), that's the min. *In addition* to that, you can add other assertions that correspond to today's membership rule.
John Arwe: I *think* Henry is saying: once you have a required relation (today: called ldp:created), that's the min. *In addition* to that, you can add other assertions that correspond to today's membership rule. ←
15:58:00 <JohnArwe> ...adding those other assertions is optional.
John Arwe: ...adding those other assertions is optional. ←
15:58:11 <betehess> agree with ericP, the blank node thing does not solve anything
Alexandre Bertails: agree with ericP, the blank node thing does not solve anything ←
15:58:33 <SteveS> agree to what ericP is saying, not sure how making blank node or making it optional fixes it
Steve Speicher: agree to what ericP is saying, not sure how making blank node or making it optional fixes it ←
15:58:36 <betehess> JohnArwe, yes, that's the spirit
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, yes, that's the spirit ←
15:59:42 <bblfish> fine with me
Henry Story: fine with me ←
16:00:39 <ericP> [Proposal to extend for 15 mins]
[Proposal to extend for 15 mins] ←
16:01:28 <ericP> Ashok: if you [trouble makers] can get together and document the issues, it would help me understand use cases, etc.
Ashok Malhotra: if you [trouble makers] can get together and document the issues, it would help me understand use cases, etc. ←
16:02:11 <ericP> Arnaud: there are two proposals, one to make some stuff default, and the other to put it on a bnode.
Arnaud Le Hors: there are two proposals, one to make some stuff default, and the other to put it on a bnode. ←
16:02:19 <ericP> ... ericP says that the bnode doesn't make any difference
... ericP says that the bnode doesn't make any difference ←
16:02:21 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:02:43 <ericP> topic: ldp:created
16:02:47 <JohnArwe> brb
16:03:17 <ericP> Arnaud: when we introduced ldp:insertedContentRelation, we lost the direct link to the created resource
Arnaud Le Hors: when we introduced ldp:insertedContentRelation, we lost the direct link to the created resource ←
16:03:43 <ericP> ... 'cause now it may reference some other resource.
... 'cause now it may reference some other resource. ←
16:04:28 <bblfish> yes
Henry Story: yes ←
16:04:45 <SteveS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0035.html
Steve Speicher: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0035.html ←
16:05:08 <ericP> ... there's no guarantee that the created resource is the same as the document
... there's no guarantee that the created resource is the same as the document ←
16:05:32 <ericP> ... I said that we have ldp:created, but the spec says that ldp:created is a MAY
... I said that we have ldp:created, but the spec says that ldp:created is a MAY ←
16:06:00 <betehess_> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
16:06:03 <ericP> ... we can:
... we can: ←
16:06:14 <ericP> ... .. leave it as is and say that there's a gap
... .. leave it as is and say that there's a gap ←
16:06:37 <ericP> ... .. make ldp:created mandatory (some pushback on that)
... .. make ldp:created mandatory (some pushback on that) ←
16:07:11 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
16:07:27 <ericP> ... .. fill the whole by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation does not point to the created document
... .. fill the whole by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation does not point to the created document ←
16:08:00 <ericP> betehess: we wanted to have access to all the created resources including the binary resources (which are not currently LDPRs)
Alexandre Bertails: we wanted to have access to all the created resources including the binary resources (which are not currently LDPRs) ←
16:08:05 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:08:14 <ericP> Arnaud: sounds like you're saying there's another hole
Arnaud Le Hors: sounds like you're saying there's another hole ←
16:08:49 <ericP> ... which leads to saying that a mandatory ldp:created would solve it all
... which leads to saying that a mandatory ldp:created would solve it all ←
16:09:20 <ericP> ... but we agreed the that in the binary case, the ldp:insertedContentRelation link is to the created binary
... but we agreed the that in the binary case, the ldp:insertedContentRelation link is to the created binary ←
16:09:35 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:09:38 <ericP> ... so I think you want to have all the ldp:created uniformly listed
... so I think you want to have all the ldp:created uniformly listed ←
16:10:25 <ericP> bblfish: Arnaud's proposal to fill in the hole makes sense 'cause we can use the membershipXXX to find the members of the container, right?
Henry Story: Arnaud's proposal to fill in the hole makes sense 'cause we can use the membershipXXX to find the members of the container, right? ←
16:10:28 <ericP> Arnaud: right
Arnaud Le Hors: right ←
16:11:15 <ericP> bblfish: so once a container's created, you should never change any of the ldpmemberXXX relations
Henry Story: so once a container's created, you should never change any of the ldpmemberXXX relations ←
16:11:24 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
16:11:28 <ericP> SteveS: or if you change them, update your database accordingly
Steve Speicher: or if you change them, update your database accordingly ←
16:11:41 <ericP> Arnaud: but this is an issue in general
Arnaud Le Hors: but this is an issue in general ←
16:12:29 <ericP> bblfish: don't think of these as rules, think of them as consequences of the speach act
Henry Story: don't think of these as rules, think of them as consequences of the speach act ←
16:12:51 <betehess_> Arnaud, your remark about the LDPR associated with the binary resource is discussed in 5.9.2. It's consistent with the idea that a binary resource is not an LDPR. I don't really understand from the rest of the spec why this is that way.
Alexandre Bertails: Arnaud, your remark about the LDPR associated with the binary resource is discussed in 5.9.2. It's consistent with the idea that a binary resource is not an LDPR. I don't really understand from the rest of the spec why this is that way. ←
16:13:04 <betehess_> an LDPR should be anything that is managed by an LDPC
Alexandre Bertails: an LDPR should be anything that is managed by an LDPC ←
16:13:11 <ericP> Arnaud: there are things that are linked from a container and things that were created by the container
Arnaud Le Hors: there are things that are linked from a container and things that were created by the container ←
16:13:20 <betehess_> including the binary resource, as you can POST it to the container
Alexandre Bertails: including the binary resource, as you can POST it to the container ←
16:13:26 <JohnArwe> @betehess, one can use LDPRs without touching LDPCs
John Arwe: @betehess, one can use LDPRs without touching LDPCs ←
16:13:28 <ericP> ... we keep arguing about those lists.
... we keep arguing about those lists. ←
16:13:46 <betehess_> JohnArwe, what is "use" here?
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, what is "use" here? ←
16:13:56 <betehess_> the interactions are what matters :-)
Alexandre Bertails: the interactions are what matters :-) ←
16:14:18 <SteveS> betehess_, I think LDPR is what we define it to be...which is RDF-based resources, members of LDPCs are just web resources
Steve Speicher: betehess_, I think LDPR is what we define it to be...which is RDF-based resources, members of LDPCs are just web resources ←
16:14:22 <JohnArwe> @betehess: write a client whose job is completely satisfied by LDPRs. TimBL's case is one.
John Arwe: @betehess: write a client whose job is completely satisfied by LDPRs. TimBL's case is one. ←
16:14:52 <SteveS> q-
Steve Speicher: q- ←
16:15:01 <ericP> ... SteveS said he doesn't care how it was created; he just cares that it's listed.
... SteveS said he doesn't care how it was created; he just cares that it's listed. ←
16:15:03 <betehess_> just for the record, all implementations close to LDP do consider binary resources are LDPRs, not something different
Alexandre Bertails: just for the record, all implementations close to LDP do consider binary resources are LDPRs, not something different ←
16:15:29 <betehess_> I mean, the ones about the Read Write Wer
Alexandre Bertails: I mean, the ones about the Read Write Web ←
16:15:31 <betehess_> s/Wer/Web/
16:15:36 <ericP> Arnaud: the spec is the way it is. no spec is perfect. the default is to stay with what we have.
Arnaud Le Hors: the spec is the way it is. no spec is perfect. the default is to stay with what we have. ←
16:15:58 <betehess_> Arnaud, would you prefer us to post formal comments to the LC instead of discussing here?
Alexandre Bertails: Arnaud, would you prefer us to post formal comments to the LC instead of discussing here? ←
<ericP> topic: Disposition of Last Call Comments
16:16:01 <ericP> Arnaud: I'm concerned about the disposition of comments, e.g. Mark Baker's
Arnaud Le Hors: I'm concerned about the disposition of comments, e.g. Mark Baker's ←
16:16:11 <JohnArwe> @betehess, "are LDPRs" there seems incoherent. Can you be more precise about what you're saying?
John Arwe: @betehess, "are LDPRs" there seems incoherent. Can you be more precise about what you're saying? ←
16:16:35 <ericP> ... (and I haven't seen mail to the public list or proposals to the group list about how to address them)
... (and I haven't seen mail to the public list or proposals to the group list about how to address them) ←
<ericP> ... we need to find out whether the changes we've made are satisfying them.
... we need to find out whether the changes we've made are satisfying them. ←
16:16:39 <ericP> ADJOURNED
ADJOURNED ←
16:16:40 <SteveS> betehess_, LDP spec defines what LDPRs are, it seems like you are talking about the general term of resources...which is already defined
Steve Speicher: betehess_, LDP spec defines what LDPRs are, it seems like you are talking about the general term of resources...which is already defined ←
16:16:40 <betehess_> for us, being an LDPR means being a resource managed by the LDPC
Alexandre Bertails: for us, being an LDPR means being a resource managed by the LDPC ←
16:16:43 <stevebattle7> bye
Steve Battle: bye ←
16:16:43 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:16:44 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:16:46 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:16:48 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:16:48 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
16:17:02 <betehess_> SteveS, that's possible
Alexandre Bertails: SteveS, that's possible ←
16:17:03 <JohnArwe> @betehess: formal LC comments as the mechanism will not get them resolved any faster. so what advantage would you see in that route/
John Arwe: @betehess: formal LC comments as the mechanism will not get them resolved any faster. so what advantage would you see in that route/ ←
16:17:04 <Zakim> -stevebattle7
Zakim IRC Bot: -stevebattle7 ←
16:17:08 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:17:09 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
16:17:11 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:17:18 <Zakim> -nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu ←
16:17:19 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:17:19 <Zakim> Attendees were codyburleson, Arnaud, +1.857.928.aaaa, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, +33.4.73.28.aabb, SteveS, stevebattle7, EricP, bblfish, Sandro, nmihindu, TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were codyburleson, Arnaud, +1.857.928.aaaa, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, JohnArwe, +33.4.73.28.aabb, SteveS, stevebattle7, EricP, bblfish, Sandro, nmihindu, TallTed ←
16:17:38 <betehess_> JohnArwe, because Arnaud's role is to care about those comments?
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, because Arnaud's role is to care about those comments? ←
16:17:55 <betehess_> more than our "internal" comments
Alexandre Bertails: more than our "internal" comments ←
16:18:22 <JohnArwe> Chair's role is to achieve consensus on all comments (speaking as a former w3c chair)
John Arwe: Chair's role is to achieve consensus on all comments (speaking as a former w3c chair) ←
16:18:39 <SteveS> betehess_, because some web resources aren't LDPRs doesn't mean they can't play or not 1st class web resources or resources in a LDP server...we could give them a name, non-LDPRs?, but not sure that is good
Steve Speicher: betehess_, because some web resources aren't LDPRs doesn't mean they can't play or not 1st class web resources or resources in a LDP server...we could give them a name, non-LDPRs?, but not sure that is good ←
16:19:38 <betehess_> SteveS, why not having LDPC-Member, which can be either an LDPR or a Binary resource?
Alexandre Bertails: SteveS, why not having LDPC-Member, which can be either an LDPR or a Binary resource? ←
16:20:10 <betehess_> it's important to convey the relationship with the LDPC which manages the resource
Alexandre Bertails: it's important to convey the relationship with the LDPC which manages the resource ←
16:20:56 <betehess_> but for many people, LDPR already conveys that idea
Alexandre Bertails: but for many people, LDPR already conveys that idea ←
16:21:12 <betehess_> those who did that kind of stuff pre-LDP
Alexandre Bertails: those who did that kind of stuff pre-LDP ←
16:22:05 <JohnArwe> "member" might be re-purposing a term that people already have opinions about, so I'd tend to pick wholly new ones at first and then have the traditional completely enjoyable (not) naming party later. but that's just me.
John Arwe: "member" might be re-purposing a term that people already have opinions about, so I'd tend to pick wholly new ones at first and then have the traditional completely enjoyable (not) naming party later. but that's just me. ←
16:23:13 <bblfish> agree with JohnArwe - don't get confused about the names
Henry Story: agree with JohnArwe - don't get confused about the names ←
16:23:29 <betehess_> JohnArwe, our issues today are related to that "member" being loosely defined in LDP
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, our issues today are related to that "member" being loosely defined in LDP ←
16:23:44 <bblfish> yes
Henry Story: yes ←
16:23:57 <JohnArwe> It certainly seems reasonable on the surface to say that there "should" be some way to follow links from a LDPC to anything that LDPC "manages". I think the defn of "manages" might be hard to nail down. I have a sense of lifecycle control/knowledge in my head, but I also expect other cases (read-only LDPCs as views over others, pet containers, etc)
John Arwe: It certainly seems reasonable on the surface to say that there "should" be some way to follow links from a LDPC to anything that LDPC "manages". I think the defn of "manages" might be hard to nail down. I have a sense of lifecycle control/knowledge in my head, but I also expect other cases (read-only LDPCs as views over others, pet containers, etc) ←
16:24:23 <bblfish> JohnArwe: the LDP spec specifies what manages means. You can delete thigns, etc...
John Arwe: the LDP spec specifies what manages means. You can delete thigns, etc... [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
16:24:28 <betehess_> "manages" == entailed by the REST interactions
Alexandre Bertails: "manages" == entailed by the REST interactions ←
16:24:28 <betehess_> that is very simple
Alexandre Bertails: that is very simple ←
16:24:48 <betehess_> the REST thing in the abstract was forgotten too often...
Alexandre Bertails: the REST thing in the abstract was forgotten too often... ←
16:26:27 <betehess_> if an LDPC accepts a POST, it means it accepts to manage the new resource. if an LDPC says ldp:created <foo>, it means it manages <foo>, and that a DELETE on <foo> will remove the relation, etc.
Alexandre Bertails: if an LDPC accepts a POST, it means it accepts to manage the new resource. if an LDPC says ldp:created <foo>, it means it manages <foo>, and that a DELETE on <foo> will remove the relation, etc. ←
16:26:41 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
16:26:53 <bblfish> that's in the spec even
Henry Story: that's in the spec even ←
16:27:05 <betehess_> no need for the complex membershipXXX, at all
Alexandre Bertails: no need for the complex membershipXXX, at all ←
16:27:29 <betehess_> that's a different use-case, when we want the server to manage some extra triples *derived* from the interaction
Alexandre Bertails: that's a different use-case, when we want the server to manage some extra triples *derived* from the interaction ←
16:27:37 <betehess_> does not mean that it's equivalent
Alexandre Bertails: does not mean that it's equivalent ←
16:28:07 <JohnArwe> "the LDP spec specifies what manages means" ... speaking as an editor, I am 100% sure that is not literally true. There is no such explicit definition. That said, if we can agree on one well sure we could add one.
John Arwe: "the LDP spec specifies what manages means" ... speaking as an editor, I am 100% sure that is not literally true. There is no such explicit definition. That said, if we can agree on one well sure we could add one. ←
16:28:28 <betehess_> JohnArwe, don't listen to bblfish ;-)
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, don't listen to bblfish ;-) ←
16:28:51 <JohnArwe> sorry, I try to listen to everyone.
John Arwe: sorry, I try to listen to everyone. ←
16:28:55 <betehess_> heh
Alexandre Bertails: heh ←
16:29:01 <bblfish> thanks
Henry Story: thanks ←
16:29:14 <JohnArwe> sometimes this icky natural language gets in the way, sadly
John Arwe: sometimes this icky natural language gets in the way, sadly ←
16:29:44 <SteveS> What does 'icky' mean? (is one example)
Steve Speicher: What does 'icky' mean? (is one example) ←
16:29:57 <JohnArwe> this feels like the sort of discussion that would be much better solved in person, or at least with a semantically higher bandwidth medium than IRC+phone
John Arwe: this feels like the sort of discussion that would be much better solved in person, or at least with a semantically higher bandwidth medium than IRC+phone ←
16:30:06 <JohnArwe> wiseacre
16:30:28 <betehess_> I agree
Alexandre Bertails: I agree ←
16:30:38 <bblfish> we can have a call
Henry Story: we can have a call ←
16:31:17 <betehess_> the thing is that we've started to implement LDP for real, and we have many issues with how to write applications
Alexandre Bertails: the thing is that we've started to implement LDP for real, and we have many issues with how to write applications ←
16:31:38 <JohnArwe> @betehess: well see, taking your created=>manages example. I could as easily say that the container "managing" it means that the container "encapsulates" it - all lifecycle interactions have to "go through" the container. But clearly that is not what the spec says, nor what you want, as both agree on how delete works.
John Arwe: @betehess: well see, taking your created=>manages example. I could as easily say that the container "managing" it means that the container "encapsulates" it - all lifecycle interactions have to "go through" the container. But clearly that is not what the spec says, nor what you want, as both agree on how delete works. ←
16:32:18 <JohnArwe> you're not the only one(s) who have real implementations of LDP - promise
John Arwe: you're not the only one(s) who have real implementations of LDP - promise ←
16:32:28 <betehess_> by the way, as the editors are around, can you guys give me the name for the whole membershipXXX thing and a short description of what it is? for now, this is spread in the spec in different places
Alexandre Bertails: by the way, as the editors are around, can you guys give me the name for the whole membershipXXX thing and a short description of what it is? for now, this is spread in the spec in different places ←
16:32:28 <betehess_> :-)
Alexandre Bertails: :-) ←
16:32:32 <bblfish> JohnArwe: the spec says that wehn you delete an LDPR the statments generated by the ldp:memberXXX "rules" have to be removed
John Arwe: the spec says that wehn you delete an LDPR the statments generated by the ldp:memberXXX "rules" have to be removed [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
16:33:08 <bblfish> so the spec does imply a management relation
Henry Story: so the spec does imply a management relation ←
16:33:25 <JohnArwe> I agree - said that already. My point was, that I could apply a different, yet still wholly reasonable, meaning to 'manages' absent come explicit definition.
John Arwe: I agree - said that already. My point was, that I could apply a different, yet still wholly reasonable, meaning to 'manages' absent come explicit definition. ←
16:33:36 <betehess_> JohnArwe, not all interactions have to go through the container to be RESTful
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, not all interactions have to go through the container to be RESTful ←
16:33:42 <betehess_> never the case, eg. DELETE
Alexandre Bertails: never the case, eg. DELETE ←
16:33:58 <JohnArwe> ...just saying "it means what we say it means" helps no one outside our little band
John Arwe: ...just saying "it means what we say it means" helps no one outside our little band ←
16:34:39 <bblfish> agree with betehess the whole memberXXX relations are spread around the spec.
Henry Story: agree with betehess the whole memberXXX relations are spread around the spec. ←
16:34:53 <betehess_> JohnArwe, in practice, if a POST succeeds, it means that the LDPC manages something new, right?
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, in practice, if a POST succeeds, it means that the LDPC manages something new, right? ←
16:34:58 <betehess_> (POST on LDPC)
Alexandre Bertails: (POST on LDPC) ←
16:35:51 <betehess_> it would really help to have a name for the feature
Alexandre Bertails: it would really help to have a name for the feature ←
16:36:07 <betehess_> we speak about "LDPC-managed resources" for the ldp:created thing
Alexandre Bertails: we speak about "LDPC-managed resources" for the ldp:created thing ←
16:36:28 <betehess_> I avoid member as I don't know what people mean by it
Alexandre Bertails: I avoid member as I don't know what people mean by it ←
16:36:38 <betehess_> apparently, many people conflate the two notions
Alexandre Bertails: apparently, many people conflate the two notions ←
16:36:50 <JohnArwe> "name for the whole membershipXXX thing and a short description" = there is no spoon. There are two distinct membership triple patterns involved, and then options for how to recognize the constant subset of those patterns. One cannot use all the XXX relations concurrently and be coherent.
John Arwe: "name for the whole membershipXXX thing and a short description" = there is no spoon. There are two distinct membership triple patterns involved, and then options for how to recognize the constant subset of those patterns. One cannot use all the XXX relations concurrently and be coherent. ←
16:37:34 <betehess_> what does "being a member" mean?
Alexandre Bertails: what does "being a member" mean? ←
16:37:36 <JohnArwe> wrt being spread around the spec, I think this is issue-37 again.
John Arwe: wrt being spread around the spec, I think this is ISSUE-37 again. ←
16:38:20 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 ←
16:38:30 <JohnArwe> @betehess, I think membership is actually a well-defined concept in the spec (assuming you are willing to make the jump from "membership triple" to member)
John Arwe: @betehess, I think membership is actually a well-defined concept in the spec (assuming you are willing to make the jump from "membership triple" to member) ←
16:39:30 <bblfish> I think it is confused JohnArwe very very confused
Henry Story: I think it is confused JohnArwe very very confused ←
16:39:42 <betehess_> I don't understand :-/
Alexandre Bertails: I don't understand :-/ ←
16:39:50 <bblfish> But it does not need much to get out of the confusion.
Henry Story: But it does not need much to get out of the confusion. ←
16:40:01 <betehess_> I'm willing to make any jump
Alexandre Bertails: I'm willing to make any jump ←
16:41:53 <bblfish> the membermshipXXX are thought of as rules, they should be thought of consequences of creation. Then one needs to add ldp:creates or ldp:member to the LDPC and everything is fine.
Henry Story: the membermshipXXX are thought of as rules, they should be thought of consequences of creation. Then one needs to add ldp:creates or ldp:member to the LDPC and everything is fine. ←
16:42:10 <JohnArwe> my sense is that to make progress we need a Very Specific, Very Simple, instance example. To help show people all the cases, for one thing. Probably 2-3 in reality, sigh, as similar as possible but showing the various membership triple patterns, and each having at least 3 members ... or 6, 3 created through the container and 3 twins that the container simply adopted on its own: LDPR, binary, foaf:PrimaryTopic
John Arwe: my sense is that to make progress we need a Very Specific, Very Simple, instance example. To help show people all the cases, for one thing. Probably 2-3 in reality, sigh, as similar as possible but showing the various membership triple patterns, and each having at least 3 members ... or 6, 3 created through the container and 3 twins that the container simply adopted on its own: LDPR, binary, foaf:PrimaryTopic ←
16:42:42 <JohnArwe> Then ask whatever questions you want about each, and show the result.
John Arwe: Then ask whatever questions you want about each, and show the result. ←
16:42:49 <JohnArwe> 1: members
16:42:56 <JohnArwe> 2: created
16:43:12 <JohnArwe> 3: managed (if that's different from created - I'm not positive of your meaning)
John Arwe: 3: managed (if that's different from created - I'm not positive of your meaning) ←
16:43:15 <betehess_> that's what we do in read-write-web
Alexandre Bertails: that's what we do in read-write-web ←
16:43:31 <JohnArwe> maybe there are others, but we've talked at least about those 3
John Arwe: maybe there are others, but we've talked at least about those 3 ←
16:45:32 <JohnArwe> @bblfish: perhaps narrow, but I was talking simply about membership triples. Given the representation of an LDPC, the spec today [I assert] tells you unambiguously how to find its membership triples, and (by knowing the pattern from our friendly predicates) therefore a well-defined notion of membership.
John Arwe: @bblfish: perhaps narrow, but I was talking simply about membership triples. Given the representation of an LDPC, the spec today [I assert] tells you unambiguously how to find its membership triples, and (by knowing the pattern from our friendly predicates) therefore a well-defined notion of membership. ←
16:46:09 <JohnArwe> I am taking 'member' to mean the variable in those membership triples.
John Arwe: I am taking 'member' to mean the variable in those membership triples. ←
16:46:28 <bblfish> ok so why not define ldp:member as the relation between a container and an LDPR such that you can deduce from the other statements and the ldp:membershipXXX statements those ldp:member statements
Henry Story: ok so why not define ldp:member as the relation between a container and an LDPR such that you can deduce from the other statements and the ldp:membershipXXX statements those ldp:member statements ←
16:47:06 <JohnArwe> Maybe people don't think that's the right definition - I allow that this can be true. All I argue is that "membership" in that sense is well-defined today.
John Arwe: Maybe people don't think that's the right definition - I allow that this can be true. All I argue is that "membership" in that sense is well-defined today. ←
16:47:45 <bblfish> ok. so if you can help us write a rule using ldp:membershipXXX to an ldp:member statement then we can define ldp:member using the current spec
Henry Story: ok. so if you can help us write a rule using ldp:membershipXXX to an ldp:member statement then we can define ldp:member using the current spec ←
16:49:23 <JohnArwe> @bblfish: I allow that such a definition might be possible. When you open with "why not..." I'm never sure if you're thinking our loud or what.
John Arwe: @bblfish: I allow that such a definition might be possible. When you open with "why not..." I'm never sure if you're thinking our loud or what. ←
16:50:11 <bblfish> { ?ldpc ldp:membershipSubject ?subj; ldp:memberhshipPredicate ?pred; ldp:membershipObject ?rel . ?subj ?pred ?ldpr. ?ldp ?rel ?obj } => { ?ldpc ldp:member ?obj } .
Henry Story: { ?ldpc ldp:membershipSubject ?subj; ldp:memberhshipPredicate ?pred; ldp:membershipObject ?rel . ?subj ?pred ?ldpr. ?ldp ?rel ?obj } => { ?ldpc ldp:member ?obj } . ←
16:50:22 <JohnArwe> @bblfish: and the intent of ldp:member is to express exactly the same thing as XXX does today? or something different (how does it differ)?
John Arwe: @bblfish: and the intent of ldp:member is to express exactly the same thing as XXX does today? or something different (how does it differ)? ←
16:50:24 <bblfish> something like that
Henry Story: something like that ←
16:50:56 <bblfish> I am trying to show how you can go from the membershipXXX and other statments to information about the resource that the LDPC manages .
Henry Story: I am trying to show how you can go from the membershipXXX and other statments to information about the resource that the LDPC manages . ←
16:51:16 <bblfish> I think the spec is full of those types of definitions.
Henry Story: I think the spec is full of those types of definitions. ←
16:51:59 <JohnArwe> we already know that Alex's desire to "find" the LDPRs corresponding to binary members created through the LDPC (linked via type=meta today in the 201 response) would not be satisfied by the current definition of 'member'
John Arwe: we already know that Alex's desire to "find" the LDPRs corresponding to binary members created through the LDPC (linked via type=meta today in the 201 response) would not be satisfied by the current definition of 'member' ←
16:52:58 <JohnArwe> until I understand the boundaries of your use of 'manages' ... what's inside, what's outside it... it's incredibly easy to think we agree even if we don't.
John Arwe: until I understand the boundaries of your use of 'manages' ... what's inside, what's outside it... it's incredibly easy to think we agree even if we don't. ←
16:53:04 <bblfish> The spec requires such a definition of ldp:member. The problem is that it's not workable.
Henry Story: The spec requires such a definition of ldp:member. The problem is that it's not workable. ←
16:53:21 <bblfish> because of the point alex made.
Henry Story: because of the point alex made. ←
16:53:28 <bblfish> in his email.
Henry Story: in his email. ←
16:53:54 <bblfish> so you need to take ldp:member as basic
Henry Story: so you need to take ldp:member as basic ←
16:54:24 <bblfish> ?ldpr ldp:member ?ldpr . is true iff
Henry Story: ?ldpr ldp:member ?ldpr . is true iff ←
16:54:46 <bblfish> 1. ?ldpc created the ?ldpr with POST
Henry Story: 1. ?ldpc created the ?ldpr with POST ←
16:54:58 <bblfish> 2. deleting the ?ldpr makes the statement false.
Henry Story: 2. deleting the ?ldpr makes the statement false. ←
16:56:07 <bblfish> currently some people deny 1, because they believe they can have the rule I wrote up above.
Henry Story: currently some people deny 1, because they believe they can have the rule I wrote up above. ←
16:56:12 <bblfish> but they can't
Henry Story: but they can't ←
16:58:17 <JohnArwe> Chasing all the indexicals here is exhausting. Perhaps we can use some combination of wiki/email to more precisely articulate things.
John Arwe: Chasing all the indexicals here is exhausting. Perhaps we can use some combination of wiki/email to more precisely articulate things. ←
17:00:27 <bblfish> fine
Henry Story: fine ←
17:00:43 <bblfish> What wiki page do you suggest?
Henry Story: What wiki page do you suggest? ←
17:01:22 <JohnArwe> I have no pref. use 81 if you want, you've already got some content there. or new one, if you want to do this semi-privately for a while.
John Arwe: I have no pref. use 81 if you want, you've already got some content there. or new one, if you want to do this semi-privately for a while. ←
17:01:54 <JohnArwe> I suspect that until it's at some level of maturity, the rest of the WG won't really be appreciative of what might seem to them like spam.
John Arwe: I suspect that until it's at some level of maturity, the rest of the WG won't really be appreciative of what might seem to them like spam. ←
17:03:03 <bblfish> yes, it's really difficult to get this right.
Henry Story: yes, it's really difficult to get this right. ←
17:03:24 <bblfish> I think Alex makes the point very well in his e-mail to be frank.
Henry Story: I think Alex makes the point very well in his e-mail to be frank. ←
17:03:57 <bblfish> It should be obvious that there is a problem, because the more we point out issues the more complex the spec becomes
Henry Story: It should be obvious that there is a problem, because the more we point out issues the more complex the spec becomes ←
17:04:10 <bblfish> and we are in fact trying to simplify the spec.
Henry Story: and we are in fact trying to simplify the spec. ←
18:20:57 <ericP> SteveS, JohnArwe, 5.3 GET: <a href="Membership triples">membership triples</a> has a bad href
(No events recorded for 76 minutes)
SteveS, JohnArwe, 5.3 GET: <a href="Membership triples">membership triples</a> has a bad href ←
18:28:38 <SteveS> ericP, IRC is not a reliable source to get editors to fix things. Having said that, I'll fix it
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Steve Speicher: ericP, IRC is not a reliable source to get editors to fix things. Having said that, I'll fix it ←
18:37:01 <ericP> yeah, but how do you know that IRC is a good way to get me to improve my behavior?
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
yeah, but how do you know that IRC is a good way to get me to improve my behavior? ←
18:37:12 <ericP> noted. signing off for dinner
noted. signing off for dinner ←
19:00:25 <bblfish> JohnArwe: does this definition help http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member ?
(No events recorded for 23 minutes)
John Arwe: does this definition help http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member ? [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
Formatted by CommonScribe