15:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
RRSAgent IRC Bot: RRSAgent has joined #ldp ←
15:00:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/18-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/18-ldp-irc ←
15:00:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
15:00:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, thI will be LDP ←
15:00:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start now
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start now ←
15:00:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
15:00:36 <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2013
15:00:41 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
15:00:48 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:00:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:01:12 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
15:01:36 <Zakim> -??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P0 ←
15:02:09 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
15:02:41 <Zakim> -??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P3 ←
15:02:46 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:02:48 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:03:02 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:03:06 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:03:13 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: Zakim, [IBM] is me ←
15:03:13 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:03:28 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:03:33 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:03:33 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:03:35 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:03:35 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:03:51 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
15:03:53 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:04:19 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
15:04:27 <JohnArwe> not hearing you verbally
John Arwe: not hearing you verbally ←
15:04:56 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
15:04:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, SteveS, Roger, TallTed (muted), ??P10, bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, SteveS, Roger, TallTed (muted), ??P10, bblfish ←
15:04:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see roger, bblfish, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, TallTed, betehess, bhyland, nmihindu, jmvanel, SteveS, thschee, davidwood, Arnaud, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see roger, bblfish, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ashok, TallTed, betehess, bhyland, nmihindu, jmvanel, SteveS, thschee, davidwood, Arnaud, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP ←
15:05:11 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:05:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, SteveS, Roger, TallTed (muted), ??P10, bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, SteveS, Roger, TallTed (muted), ??P10, bblfish ←
15:05:39 <Zakim> -??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P10 ←
15:06:09 <Zakim> +stevebattle7
Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle7 ←
15:06:25 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
15:06:35 <ericP> Zakim, stevebattle7 is temporarily ericP
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, stevebattle7 is temporarily ericP ←
15:06:35 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
15:07:53 <TallTed> sorry, local interrupt
Ted Thibodeau: sorry, local interrupt ←
15:07:54 <Zakim> -??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P13 ←
15:08:07 <TallTed> interrupt persists...
Ted Thibodeau: interrupt persists... ←
15:08:59 <SteveS> Scribe: roger
(Scribe set to Roger Menday)
<roger> chair: Arnaud
<roger> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.18
15:08:55 <roger> Topic: Admin
<roger> Proposed: Approve Minutes of November 11
PROPOSED: Approve Minutes of November 11 ←
<roger> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-11
http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-11 ←
15:09:04 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
15:09:28 <roger> Resolved: Minutes of November 11 approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of November 11 approved ←
<roger> Arnaud: Next meeting is November 25, any conflict with US Thanksgiving?
Arnaud Le Hors: Next meeting is November 25, any conflict with US Thanksgiving? ←
<roger> nope
nope ←
<roger> john: regrets
15:09:50 <SteveS> will be around next Monday
Steve Speicher: will be around next Monday ←
15:10:04 <SteveS> s/is will/I will/
15:10:30 <roger> Topic: Action Tracking
15:11:56 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
15:12:04 <roger> John: updates about edits to the spec
John Arwe: updates about edits to the spec ←
15:12:11 <codyburleson> Zakim, ??P14 is me.
Cody Burleson: Zakim, ??P14 is me. ←
15:12:11 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
15:12:29 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
15:12:29 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
15:12:43 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
15:12:43 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
15:13:23 <roger> john: paging is the biggest change to the current spec
John Arwe: paging is the biggest change to the current spec ←
15:16:09 <JohnArwe> most significant easy-to-miss change from action-113's resolution is the removal of the collection link header, b/c after our 200 vs 209/303 decision that link on the first page would have been circular
John Arwe: most significant easy-to-miss change from ACTION-113's resolution is the removal of the collection link header, b/c after our 200 vs 209/303 decision that link on the first page would have been circular ←
<roger> Arnaud: unless there is any objections I'll close the 3 actions pending review
Arnaud Le Hors: unless there is any objections I'll close the 3 actions pending review ←
15:15:07 <roger> Topci: Proposal regarding Paging, Section 4.10.2
15:16:07 <Ashok> s/Topci/Topic/
<roger> Arnaud: as we modified the spec to move paging info from RDF content to HTTP headers the question arose as to what of all the possible links that can be provided ought to be mandatory
Arnaud Le Hors: as we modified the spec to move paging info from RDF content to HTTP headers the question arose as to what of all the possible links that can be provided ought to be mandatory ←
<roger> ... currently the only requirement is to provide the next link, the rest is optional
... currently the only requirement is to provide the next link, the rest is optional ←
15:17:43 <Arnaud> Proposed: Leave the MAYs unchanged. This specifically concerns: first, last, and prev links.
PROPOSED: Leave the MAYs unchanged. This specifically concerns: first, last, and prev links. ←
15:18:01 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:18:04 <betehess> 0
15:18:05 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:18:08 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:18:08 <roger> +1
+1 ←
15:18:10 <JohnArwe> +1
15:18:13 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:18:16 <codyburleson> +0
Cody Burleson: +0 ←
15:18:20 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:18:28 <Arnaud> Resolved: Leave the MAYs unchanged. This specifically concerns: first, last, and prev links.
RESOLVED: Leave the MAYs unchanged. This specifically concerns: first, last, and prev links. ←
15:18:31 <bblfish> +0 was not able to follow the discussion
Henry Story: +0 was not able to follow the discussion ←
15:19:40 <JohnArwe> Henry, EricP had suggested at one point in the past requiring the prev and last link headers as well.
John Arwe: Henry, EricP had suggested at one point in the past requiring the prev and last link headers as well. ←
15:20:43 <Ashok> As had I.
Ashok Malhotra: As had I. ←
15:19:36 <roger> Topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple
<roger> Arnaud: Steve proposed to make insertedContentRelation optional
Arnaud Le Hors: Steve proposed to make insertedContentRelation optional ←
<roger> ... but this would re-introduce the non-monotonicity issue Henry pointed out initially
... but this would re-introduce the non-monotonicity issue Henry pointed out initially ←
<roger> ... not everyone agrees this is a problem but I'd rather not have that fight
... not everyone agrees this is a problem but I'd rather not have that fight ←
<roger> ... there was an idea of using an anonymous blank node but that doesn't work with all the RDF serialization formats
... there was an idea of using an anonymous blank node but that doesn't work with all the RDF serialization formats ←
<roger> ... so I suggest we just stick to having no default values
... so I suggest we just stick to having no default values ←
15:20:44 <Arnaud> Proposed: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81.
Arnaud Le Hors: Proposed: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81. ←
15:20:49 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:20:53 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing ←
15:20:55 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:22:20 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:22:56 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
15:22:57 <roger> bblfish: taking all properties as a bunch, they could be dropped - if one understands LDP inferencing
Henry Story: taking all properties as a bunch, they could be dropped - if one understands LDP inferencing ←
15:23:31 <JohnArwe> ...and the definitions of the predicates asserted in the proposals.
John Arwe: ...and the definitions of the predicates asserted in the proposals. ←
15:25:22 <bblfish> yes, one can't have any default values for any of the memberhsipXXX properties, though depending on how one understands what these properties are doing, one could have a default that does not require any of them. Ie: if one takes the causal/contractual rule defined in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing then LDPCs would not need to publish any of those triples - or if they do they must publish all of them.
Henry Story: yes, one can't have any default values for any of the memberhsipXXX properties, though depending on how one understands what these properties are doing, one could have a default that does not require any of them. Ie: if one takes the causal/contractual rule defined in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing then LDPCs would not need to publish any of those triples - or if they do they must publish all of them. ←
15:25:30 <bblfish> Therefore I am +1 for this.
Henry Story: Therefore I am +1 for this. ←
15:26:19 <Arnaud> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-informative
Arnaud Le Hors: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-informative ←
15:26:34 <Arnaud> ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject;
Arnaud Le Hors: ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject; ←
15:27:05 <JohnArwe> q+
15:27:13 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe ←
15:28:11 <roger> JohnArwe: if the container is read-only, can we lose the insertedContentsRelation ?
John Arwe: if the container is read-only, can we lose the insertedContentsRelation ? ←
15:28:26 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:28:41 <betehess> well, it can explain why some triple is there...
Alexandre Bertails: well, it can explain why some triple is there... ←
15:28:44 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:28:49 <betehess> so read-only does not make a difference
Alexandre Bertails: so read-only does not make a difference ←
15:29:50 <JohnArwe> Technically I didn't ask if we could lose it. I asked what the implication is of accepting the proposal. Requiring a r/o container to expose content only useful for r/w containers is awkward.
John Arwe: Technically I didn't ask if we could lose it. I asked what the implication is of accepting the proposal. Requiring a r/o container to expose content only useful for r/w containers is awkward. ←
<roger> Arnaud: I don't agree with Henry's definition of a member,
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't agree with Henry's definition of a member, ←
<roger> ... the reason we added insertedContentRelation (then MembershipObject) was specifically to allow having as member of a container a resource different from the information resource created
... the reason we added insertedContentRelation (then MembershipObject) was specifically to allow having as member of a container a resource different from the information resource created ←
<roger> ... this was done to allow Roger to have a container with zaza the cat as the member rather than the information resource about zaza
... this was done to allow Roger to have a container with zaza the cat as the member rather than the information resource about zaza ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> SELECT ?member
Arnaud Le Hors: SELECT ?member ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> WHERE {
Arnaud Le Hors: WHERE { ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> ?c a ldp:Container;
Arnaud Le Hors: ?c a ldp:Container; ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> ldp:containingResource ?resource;
Arnaud Le Hors: ldp:containingResource ?resource; ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> ldp:containsRelation ?predicate;
Arnaud Le Hors: ldp:containsRelation ?predicate; ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> ?resource ?predicate ?member.
Arnaud Le Hors: ?resource ?predicate ?member. ←
15:30:18 <Arnaud> }
Arnaud Le Hors: } ←
15:30:19 <roger> @JohnArwe, sorry for mis-representing you
@JohnArwe, sorry for mis-representing you ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> SELECT ?member
Arnaud Le Hors: SELECT ?member ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> WHERE {
Arnaud Le Hors: WHERE { ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> ?c a ldp:Container;
Arnaud Le Hors: ?c a ldp:Container; ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> ldp:containingResource ?resource;
Arnaud Le Hors: ldp:containingResource ?resource; ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate;
Arnaud Le Hors: ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate; ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> ?member ?predicate ?resource.
Arnaud Le Hors: ?member ?predicate ?resource. ←
15:30:34 <Arnaud> }
Arnaud Le Hors: } ←
15:30:37 <JohnArwe> np roger just gettin minutes right
John Arwe: np roger just gettin minutes right ←
15:31:03 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member ←
15:31:37 <bblfish> @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> .
Henry Story: @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> . ←
15:31:38 <bblfish> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
Henry Story: @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . ←
15:31:38 <bblfish> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org//2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
Henry Story: @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org//2000/01/rdf-schema#> . ←
15:31:39 <bblfish> @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
Henry Story: @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> . ←
15:31:41 <bblfish> ldp:member a rdf:Property;
Henry Story: ldp:member a rdf:Property; ←
15:31:43 <bblfish> skos:editorialNote "this relation could also be called ldp:manages."
Henry Story: skos:editorialNote "this relation could also be called ldp:manages." ←
15:31:45 <bblfish> rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member;
Henry Story: rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member; ←
15:31:47 <bblfish> rdf:domain ldp:Container;
Henry Story: rdf:domain ldp:Container; ←
15:31:49 <bblfish> rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it.
Henry Story: rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it. ←
15:31:50 <codyburleson> Regrets; must drop due to crisis call just started (Critical Situation on servers)
Cody Burleson: Regrets; must drop due to crisis call just started (Critical Situation on servers) ←
15:31:51 <bblfish> rdfs:comment """
Henry Story: rdfs:comment """ ←
15:31:53 <bblfish> An ldp:member of a ldp:Container is a Resource which is created when a POST succeeds
Henry Story: An ldp:member of a ldp:Container is a Resource which is created when a POST succeeds ←
15:31:55 <bblfish> on it (creating also the membership triples in the LDPC) or which when DELETED
Henry Story: on it (creating also the membership triples in the LDPC) or which when DELETED ←
15:31:56 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
15:31:57 <bblfish> removes the membership triples as specified by the "Linked Data Platform 1.0" spec.""" .
Henry Story: removes the membership triples as specified by the "Linked Data Platform 1.0" spec.""" . ←
15:32:54 <JohnArwe> Henry, are you saying that your proposal (assuming it is accepted) requires ldp:insertedContentRelation even for a r/o LDPC?
John Arwe: Henry, are you saying that your proposal (assuming it is accepted) requires ldp:insertedContentRelation even for a r/o LDPC? ←
15:33:26 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:33:34 <bblfish> ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject;
Henry Story: ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject; ←
15:33:50 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:34:37 <betehess> I fail to see why the conversation is now on a read-only problem...
Alexandre Bertails: I fail to see why the conversation is now on a read-only problem... ←
15:35:10 <bblfish> yes, you need it for R/O LDPCs otherwise how do you find its' ldp:member LDPRs?
Henry Story: yes, you need it for R/O LDPCs otherwise how do you find its' ldp:member LDPRs? ←
15:35:13 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:35:25 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:36:32 <roger> betehess: even for the r/o case clients wants to know why the membership triple is how it is ..
Alexandre Bertails: even for the r/o case clients wants to know why the membership triple is how it is .. ←
15:37:31 <Arnaud> Proposed: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81
PROPOSED: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81 ←
15:37:43 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:37:49 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:37:51 <roger> +1
+1 ←
15:37:53 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:37:53 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:37:57 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:37:58 <JohnArwe> +1
15:38:01 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:38:06 <Arnaud> Resolved: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81.
RESOLVED: Agree we can't re-introduce any default values and close ISSUE-81. ←
15:39:01 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:39:12 <roger> Topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-88: Lost link
15:40:01 <bblfish> This is summarised here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88
Henry Story: This is summarised here: ISSUE-88">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-88 ←
15:41:01 <bblfish> yes the lost link is the lost ldp:member link :-)
Henry Story: yes the lost link is the lost ldp:member link :-) ←
15:42:30 <betehess> hopefully, I'm in the queue to clarify that I never said that :-)
Alexandre Bertails: hopefully, I'm in the queue to clarify that I never said that :-) ←
15:43:25 <roger> Arnaud: if one posts a Document about the Thing 'zaza', this has consequence that 'zaza' Thing becomes linked from container. The problem is that the Document itself might get lost ...
Arnaud Le Hors: if one posts a Document about the Thing 'zaza', this has consequence that 'zaza' Thing becomes linked from container. The problem is that the Document itself might get lost ... ←
15:43:26 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:44:46 <bblfish> yes, there are two solutions proposed to this issue is the wiki http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88
Henry Story: yes, there are two solutions proposed to this issue is the wiki ISSUE-88">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-88 ←
15:45:24 <betehess> Alex's proposal: Make ldp:created mandatory. The presence/absence of ldp:created triples in the LDPC is directly derived from the REST interactions.
Alexandre Bertails: Alex's proposal: Make ldp:created mandatory. The presence/absence of ldp:created triples in the LDPC is directly derived from the REST interactions. ←
15:45:33 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:45:38 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
<roger> bblfish: This is another problem that can be avoided if we have ldp:member mandatory, while this addresses the problem it also keeps making the spec more complicated
Henry Story: This is another problem that can be avoided if we have ldp:member mandatory, while this addresses the problem it also keeps making the spec more complicated ←
<roger> Arnaud: we can discuss whether it should be mandatory in all cases later, but for now I'd like to make sure we address the hole with that
Arnaud Le Hors: we can discuss whether it should be mandatory in all cases later, but for now I'd like to make sure we address the hole with that ←
15:48:12 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:48:57 <ericP> +1 to both process and proposal
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to both process and proposal ←
15:49:12 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:49:12 <betehess> I'll give a -1 to any solution tying it to the current membership notion
Alexandre Bertails: I'll give a -1 to any solution tying it to the current membership notion ←
15:49:41 <betehess> they are different concepts, should be handled separately
Alexandre Bertails: they are different concepts, should be handled separately ←
15:49:54 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:49:54 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:49:55 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
15:50:28 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
Arnaud Le Hors: ack TallTed ←
<roger> TallTed: addressing the problem we have first makes sense to me, we can then discuss whether to make it mandatory in all cases
Ted Thibodeau: addressing the problem we have first makes sense to me, we can then discuss whether to make it mandatory in all cases ←
15:51:13 <bblfish> ok
Henry Story: ok ←
15:51:14 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject ←
15:51:20 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:51:20 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:51:28 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:51:33 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:51:36 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:51:45 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:51:49 <roger> +1
+1 ←
15:51:50 <JohnArwe> +0.75
15:52:06 <betehess> +0 because still think it should be "Make ldp:created mandatory"
Alexandre Bertails: +0 because still think it should be "Make ldp:created mandatory" ←
15:52:13 <bblfish> -0.9 because though it solves the local problem it makes the spec more difficult everywhere else.
Henry Story: -0.9 because though it solves the local problem it makes the spec more difficult everywhere else. ←
15:52:38 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject ←
15:54:06 <roger> Topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-87: Membership triples modification
15:53:36 <roger> Arnaud: what are implications when the membershipXX properties change
Arnaud Le Hors: what are implications when the membershipXX properties change ←
<roger> ... the spec is silent on this issue for now
... the spec is silent on this issue for now ←
<roger> ... we can do nothing, prohibit it, or define exactly what happens
... we can do nothing, prohibit it, or define exactly what happens ←
15:53:56 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-87
Henry Story: ISSUE-87">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-87 ←
15:56:20 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:56:35 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
15:56:36 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:56:39 <roger> Arnaud: it is difficult to guard against this, it's a messy world, so clients need to be ready for such changes.
Arnaud Le Hors: it is difficult to guard against this, it's a messy world, so clients need to be ready for such changes. ←
15:57:29 <JohnArwe> I think we'd be selling ourselves short to just say "not doing anything" if the spoken intent is to draft something in Best Practices
John Arwe: I think we'd be selling ourselves short to just say "not doing anything" if the spoken intent is to draft something in Best Practices ←
15:58:06 <roger> Ashok: don't go into these details ... too hard
Ashok Malhotra: don't go into these details ... too hard ←
15:58:19 <JohnArwe> Remember Cody is not on the call any longer, so if we intend him to "find it" we need to make it clear.
John Arwe: Remember Cody is not on the call any longer, so if we intend him to "find it" we need to make it clear. ←
15:58:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:58:29 <ericP> I agree that it's hard, and probably over the next couple years, the market will evolve some good rules for 1.1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I agree that it's hard, and probably over the next couple years, the market will evolve some good rules for 1.1 ←
15:59:03 <bblfish> ON POSTING TO ?ldpc
Henry Story: ON POSTING TO ?ldpc ←
15:59:03 <bblfish> CREATING ?member
Henry Story: CREATING ?member ←
15:59:03 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT {
Henry Story: CONSTRUCT { ←
15:59:05 <bblfish> ?subject ?relation ?object .
Henry Story: ?subject ?relation ?object . ←
15:59:07 <bblfish> } WHERE {
Henry Story: } WHERE { ←
15:59:09 <bblfish> GRAPH ?ldpc {
Henry Story: GRAPH ?ldpc { ←
15:59:11 <bblfish> ?ldpc ldp:containerResource ?subject;
Henry Story: ?ldpc ldp:containerResource ?subject; ←
15:59:13 <bblfish> ldp:containsRelation ?relation;
Henry Story: ldp:containsRelation ?relation; ←
15:59:15 <bblfish> ldp:insertedContentRelation ?memberRelation .
Henry Story: ldp:insertedContentRelation ?memberRelation . ←
15:59:17 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:59:19 <bblfish> GRAPH ?member {
Henry Story: GRAPH ?member { ←
15:59:21 <bblfish> ?member ?memberRelation ?object
Henry Story: ?member ?memberRelation ?object ←
15:59:23 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:59:25 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:01:04 <ericP> me thinks he sees a pattern
Eric Prud'hommeaux: me thinks he sees a pattern ←
16:01:10 <bblfish> I am ok
Henry Story: I am ok ←
16:01:17 <JohnArwe> I'm gone on time today
John Arwe: I'm gone on time today ←
16:01:26 <JohnArwe> have fun y'all
16:01:26 <roger> call extended by 15 mins
call extended by 15 mins ←
16:01:31 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:01:58 <roger> bblfish: argues that this argument invalidates previous argument, and therefore we should then make ldp:member mandatory.
Henry Story: argues that this argument invalidates previous argument, and therefore we should then make ldp:member mandatory. ←
16:03:38 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT {
Henry Story: CONSTRUCT { ←
16:03:38 <bblfish> ?ldpc ldp:member ?resource . // <- the consequence
Henry Story: ?ldpc ldp:member ?resource . // <- the consequence ←
16:03:38 <bblfish> } WHERE {
Henry Story: } WHERE { ←
16:03:40 <bblfish> ?ldpc ldp:containerResource ?subject;
Henry Story: ?ldpc ldp:containerResource ?subject; ←
16:03:42 <bblfish> ldp:containsRelation ?relation;
Henry Story: ldp:containsRelation ?relation; ←
16:03:44 <bblfish> ldp:insertedContentRelation ?memberRelation .
Henry Story: ldp:insertedContentRelation ?memberRelation . ←
16:03:46 <bblfish> ?subject ?relation ?object . // <- the membership triples
Henry Story: ?subject ?relation ?object . // <- the membership triples ←
16:03:48 <bblfish>
16:03:50 <bblfish> GRAPH ?resource {
Henry Story: GRAPH ?resource { ←
16:03:52 <bblfish> ?resource ?memberRelation ?object .
Henry Story: ?resource ?memberRelation ?object . ←
16:03:54 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:03:56 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:07:16 <betehess> that's why we should not conflate the current notion of membership and the need we have with ldp:created
Alexandre Bertails: that's why we should not conflate the current notion of membership and the need we have with ldp:created ←
16:07:48 <betehess> I guess ldp:created is more about resource management
Alexandre Bertails: I guess ldp:created is more about resource management ←
16:07:57 <betehess> not resource membership
Alexandre Bertails: not resource membership ←
16:09:09 <bblfish> ok, can we speak instead of ldp:member talk of ldp:manages
Henry Story: ok, can we speak instead of ldp:member talk of ldp:manages ←
16:09:28 <betehess> or ldp:created for now :-)
Alexandre Bertails: or ldp:created for now :-) ←
16:10:06 <SteveS> I'd be for calling it ldp:xyz and once we figure out what we agree it should do, we give it an appropriate name
Steve Speicher: I'd be for calling it ldp:xyz and once we figure out what we agree it should do, we give it an appropriate name ←
16:10:20 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
16:11:23 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
16:11:44 <JohnArwe> @SteveS: +1 on ldp:xyz. When I started "writing" I went in that direction. Figure out desired behavior first, name after.
John Arwe: @SteveS: +1 on ldp:xyz. When I started "writing" I went in that direction. Figure out desired behavior first, name after. ←
16:13:30 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:14:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:16:04 <betehess> ontology fight :-)
Alexandre Bertails: ontology fight :-) ←
16:16:32 <JohnArwe> am I missing a hockey game? darnit!
John Arwe: am I missing a hockey game? darnit! ←
16:16:43 <ericP> "ldp:manages" does seem to clarify
Eric Prud'hommeaux: "ldp:manages" does seem to clarify ←
16:17:10 <ericP> then we can ask the question "do we want containers to manage resources?"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: then we can ask the question "do we want containers to manage resources?" ←
16:19:55 <betehess> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
Alexandre Bertails: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89 ←
16:19:59 <betehess> just created an issue
Alexandre Bertails: just created an issue ←
16:20:20 <betehess> can we discuss that next week?
Alexandre Bertails: can we discuss that next week? ←
16:20:26 <betehess> I'm making things clearer
Alexandre Bertails: I'm making things clearer ←
16:20:49 <ericP> trakcbot, add ISSUE: too many issues
Eric Prud'hommeaux: trakcbot, add ISSUE: too many issues ←
16:21:13 <JohnArwe> strategic typo there ericp
John Arwe: strategic typo there ericp ←
16:22:37 <betehess> SteveS, that was a question of mine
Alexandre Bertails: SteveS, that was a question of mine ←
16:22:43 <betehess> re: PATCH on LDPC
Reza B'Far: PATCH on LDPC [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Bertails ] ←
16:23:08 <betehess> and yes, we had this question *because* of the membership thing
Alexandre Bertails: and yes, we had this question *because* of the membership thing ←
16:23:18 <bblfish> yes I agree if one is not careful then one can create more and more such issues.
Henry Story: yes I agree if one is not careful then one can create more and more such issues. ←
16:23:40 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to add a warning that servers are not likely to allow modification of any of the membership properties
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to add a warning that servers are not likely to allow modification of any of the membership properties ←
16:24:03 <bblfish> I'd rather they do allow changes
Henry Story: I'd rather they do allow changes ←
16:24:35 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:24:35 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
16:25:32 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any other changes should be made
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any other changes should be made ←
16:25:41 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
16:26:04 <SteveS> +1 to say we don't spec out mod of membership triples, saying it is impl dependent
Steve Speicher: +1 to say we don't spec out mod of membership triples, saying it is impl dependent ←
16:26:04 <roger> +1 I prefer this 2nd way
+1 I prefer this 2nd way ←
16:26:11 <TallTed> +0.8
Ted Thibodeau: +0.8 ←
16:26:24 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
16:27:09 <bblfish> -0.8 we need to then specify how a client finds the ldp:manages relations discussed when such chances are made - my proposal publish all the ldp:manages relations
Henry Story: -0.8 we need to then specify how a client finds the ldp:manages relations discussed when such chances are made - my proposal publish all the ldp:manages relations ←
16:27:20 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any other changes should be made.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any other changes should be made. ←
16:27:45 <betehess> we need another 30 minutes for that one
Alexandre Bertails: we need another 30 minutes for that one ←
16:28:33 <bblfish> is ldp:manages ok?
Henry Story: is ldp:manages ok? ←
16:28:36 <betehess> I think my proposal is a less controversial approach for Henry's proposal
Alexandre Bertails: I think my proposal is a less controversial approach for Henry's proposal ←
16:28:56 <betehess> I propose that we don't speak about the URI first, just the feature, to avoid any misconception
Alexandre Bertails: I propose that we don't speak about the URI first, just the feature, to avoid any misconception ←
16:29:01 <SteveS> bblfish, I care what it does....then we can talk about the name
Steve Speicher: bblfish, I care what it does....then we can talk about the name ←
16:30:24 <Arnaud> Proposed: Extend calls by 30mn until we hit 2nd LC
PROPOSED: Extend calls by 30mn until we hit 2nd LC ←
16:30:34 <bblfish> Fine by me
Henry Story: Fine by me ←
16:30:42 <Ashok> ok
Ashok Malhotra: ok ←
16:30:58 <SteveS> +1 for focusing on getting this done and ending early if we can
Steve Speicher: +1 for focusing on getting this done and ending early if we can ←
16:31:01 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:31:01 <betehess> I'm not against
Alexandre Bertails: I'm not against ←
16:31:12 <Arnaud> Resolved: Extend calls by 30mn until we hit 2nd LC
RESOLVED: Extend calls by 30mn until we hit 2nd LC ←
16:31:13 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
16:31:52 <roger> bblfish: 'manages' is a more flexible than 'created', because it is expresses an ongoing relationship, rather than the initial event
Henry Story: 'manages' is a more flexible than 'created', because it is expresses an ongoing relationship, rather than the initial event ←
16:32:06 <bblfish> +1 roger thanks
Henry Story: +1 roger thanks ←
16:32:12 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:32:13 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:32:16 <bblfish> bye
Henry Story: bye ←
16:32:16 <betehess> bye guys
Alexandre Bertails: bye guys ←
16:32:20 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
16:32:21 <Arnaud> meeting adjourned
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting adjourned ←
16:32:23 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
16:32:37 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:32:46 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:33:05 <betehess> Arnaud should be happy, we've started implementing the last resolution (1.5 hours meetings) even before we voted on it :-)
Alexandre Bertails: Arnaud should be happy, we've started implementing the last resolution (1.5 hours meetings) even before we voted on it :-) ←
16:33:44 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:33:46 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:38:46 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, nmihindu, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, nmihindu, in SW_LDP()10:00AM ←
16:38:47 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:38:47 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, Roger, SteveS, TallTed, bblfish, ericP, codyburleson, nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, Roger, SteveS, TallTed, bblfish, ericP, codyburleson, nmihindu ←
Formatted by CommonScribe