edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 17 February 2014

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.17
Seen
Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, Cody Burleson, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Henry Story, John Arwe, Miguel Aragón, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Roger Menday, Sandro Hawke, Steve Speicher
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
Sandro Hawke, Steve Speicher
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Approve minutes of http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10 link
  2. Rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html link
  3. Rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html link
  4. Adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html link
  5. Move out paging and ordering into a separate spec link
Topics
14:58:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/17-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/17-ldp-irc

14:58:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:58:51 <trackbot> Date: 17 February 2014
15:02:05 <codyburleson> zakim, who is here?

Cody Burleson: zakim, who is here?

15:02:05 <Zakim> sorry, codyburleson, I don't know what conference this is

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, codyburleson, I don't know what conference this is

15:02:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot

15:02:21 <Arnaud> Zakim, this will be LDP

Arnaud Le Hors: Zakim, this will be LDP

15:02:21 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Arnaud, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started

15:02:31 <codyburleson> zakim, who is here?

Cody Burleson: zakim, who is here?

15:02:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a], JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a], JohnArwe

15:02:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, codyburleson, MiguelAraCo, bhyland, nmihindu, stevebattle14, SteveS, bblfish, jmvanel, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot

15:02:35 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

15:02:53 <Zakim> +bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish

15:02:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

15:03:09 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me

Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is me

15:03:09 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it

15:03:22 <codyburleson> 41#

Cody Burleson: 41#

15:03:31 <Zakim> +Roger

Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger

15:03:41 <codyburleson> zakim, IPcaller.a is me

Cody Burleson: zakim, IPcaller.a is me

15:03:41 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it

15:03:42 <sandro> Zakim, IPcaller.a is codyburleson

Sandro Hawke: Zakim, IPcaller.a is codyburleson

15:03:43 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller.a'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller.a'

15:04:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call

15:04:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro

15:04:05 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call?

15:04:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], codyburleson, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, [IPcaller], codyburleson, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger

15:04:26 <sandro> Zakim, IPcaller is Ashok

Sandro Hawke: Zakim, IPcaller is Ashok

15:04:26 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok; got it

15:04:32 <Ashok> zakim, IPCaller is me

Ashok Malhotra: zakim, IPCaller is me

15:04:32 <Zakim> sorry, Ashok, I do not recognize a party named 'IPCaller'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Ashok, I do not recognize a party named 'IPCaller'

15:06:07 <sandro> scribe: sandro

(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)

<sandro> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.17
<sandro> chair: Arnaud
15:06:31 <Zakim> +ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP

15:07:16 <sandro> topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:07:01 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10

Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10

15:08:10 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10

RESOLVED: Approve minutes of http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10

15:08:10 <sandro> Arnaud: next meeting next week

Arnaud Le Hors: next meeting next week

15:08:14 <sandro> SteveS: regrets

John Arwe: regrets

15:08:27 <SteveS> s/SteveS/JohnArwe/
15:08:59 <sandro> Arnaud: anyone want to claim credit for work on an action?

Arnaud Le Hors: anyone want to claim credit for work on an action?

15:09:04 <sandro> action-134?

ACTION-134?

15:09:04 <trackbot> action-134 -- Arnaud Le Hors to [EDITOR] Update spec to reflect resolution 2/3.1 closing Issue-93 by adding text to BP&G -- due 2014-02-17 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-134 -- Arnaud Le Hors to [EDITOR] Update spec to reflect resolution 2/3.1 closing ISSUE-93 by adding text to BP&G -- due 2014-02-17 -- OPEN

15:09:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/134

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/134

15:09:41 <sandro> topic: Predicate names

2. Predicate names

15:10:09 <sandro> Here are the proposed changes:

Here are the proposed changes:

15:10:09 <sandro>  ldp:containerResource    => ldp:membershipResource

ldp:containerResource => ldp:membershipResource

15:10:09 <sandro>  ldp:containsRelation        => ldp:hasMemberRelation

ldp:containsRelation => ldp:hasMemberRelation

15:10:09 <sandro>  ldp:containedByRelation => ldp:isMemberOfRelation

ldp:containedByRelation => ldp:isMemberOfRelation

15:10:52 <sandro> Arnaud: we've been through several naming schemes.      Since we have both containment and membership now, the 'contain' predicates were misnamed.

Arnaud Le Hors: we've been through several naming schemes. Since we have both containment and membership now, the 'contain' predicates were misnamed.

15:11:03 <sandro> Arnaud: so, this is the proposal from the editors.

Arnaud Le Hors: so, this is the proposal from the editors.

15:11:23 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't really want discussion at this point.

Arnaud Le Hors: I don't really want discussion at this point.

15:11:25 <codyburleson> FYI, I reassigned ACTION 134 to myself; I'll take a look.

Cody Burleson: FYI, I reassigned ACTION-134 to myself; I'll take a look.

15:11:44 <sandro> Arnaud: any process question?

Arnaud Le Hors: any process question?

15:12:00 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

15:12:13 <bblfish> can someone write up an example with these new predicates?

Henry Story: can someone write up an example with these new predicates?

15:12:25 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

15:12:29 <bblfish> ( after all this changes I am not longer sure what it all means )

Henry Story: ( after all this changes I am not longer sure what it all means )

15:12:54 <sandro> roger: why not say membershipLDPR

Roger Menday: why not say membershipLDPR

15:12:56 <sandro> q+

q+

15:13:16 <sandro> queue=

queue=

15:13:17 <codyburleson> q-

Cody Burleson: q-

15:14:19 <sandro> sandro: suggest memberRelation instead of hasMemberRelation, since some people like TimBL consider "has" an antipattern.

Sandro Hawke: suggest memberRelation instead of hasMemberRelation, since some people like TimBL consider "has" an antipattern.

15:15:22 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

15:15:26 <sandro> sandro: but I don't care myself.

Sandro Hawke: but I don't care myself.

15:15:44 <sandro> sandro: I kind of like the clarity of "has" myself.

Sandro Hawke: I kind of like the clarity of "has" myself.

15:15:59 <sandro> ericP: The League of Ontologists (tm) strongly advocates using has and is.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: The League of Ontologists (tm) strongly advocates using has and is.

15:16:09 <sandro> ... but I don't personally agree with them.

... but I don't personally agree with them.

15:16:41 <ericP> +1 to leaving for has

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to leaving "has"

15:16:56 <ericP> s/for has/"has"/
15:16:59 <MiguelAraCo> q+

Miguel Aragón: q+

15:17:13 <bblfish> This is probably an improvement over the one in the spec as it avoids confusion with container

Henry Story: This is probably an improvement over the one in the spec as it avoids confusion with container

15:17:13 <Arnaud> ack MiguelAraCo

Arnaud Le Hors: ack MiguelAraCo

15:17:53 <sandro> MiguelAraCo: maybe membershipRelation ?

Miguel Aragón: maybe membershipRelation ?

15:19:11 <sandro> Arnaud: I thinks hasMemberRelation reads well

Arnaud Le Hors: I thinks hasMemberRelation reads well

15:19:24 <sandro> +1 it does read well

+1 it does read well

15:19:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html

PROPOSED: rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html

15:19:47 <sandro> +1

+1

15:19:48 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:19:52 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

15:19:55 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:19:58 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

15:20:06 <bblfish> +1 improves it from contains

Henry Story: +1 improves it from contains

15:20:18 <JohnArwe> +0 whatever

John Arwe: +0 whatever

15:20:32 <sandro> RESOLVED: Rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html

RESOLVED: Rename membership predicates as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0037.html

15:20:41 <codyburleson> +1 (it isbetter)

Cody Burleson: +1 (it isbetter)

15:20:47 <sandro> topic: Resources types

3. Resources types

15:21:00 <sandro> LDP RDF Resource (LDP-RR)  => LDP RDF Source (LDP-RS)

LDP RDF Resource (LDP-RR) => LDP RDF Source (LDP-RS)

15:21:04 <sandro> LDP Binary Resource (LDP-BR) => LDP Non-RDF Source (LDP-NR)

LDP Binary Resource (LDP-BR) => LDP Non-RDF Source (LDP-NR)

15:21:11 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html

15:22:00 <sandro> Arnaud: last time, Sandro complained about "ldp rdf resource" being so different from "rdf resource", and pointed out "rdf source" as approximately what we want.

Arnaud Le Hors: last time, Sandro complained about "ldp rdf resource" being so different from "rdf resource", and pointed out "rdf source" as approximately what we want.

15:22:12 <sandro> Arnaud: and we've never liked "binary resource"

Arnaud Le Hors: and we've never liked "binary resource"

15:22:41 <sandro> Arnaud: Not the shortest, but it's accurate.

Arnaud Le Hors: Not the shortest, but it's accurate.

15:23:00 <Ashok> I'm happy with existing names

Ashok Malhotra: I'm happy with existing names

15:23:16 <ericP> +1 to explicity name for "binary"

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to explicit name for "binary"

15:23:26 <ericP> s/explicity/explicit/
15:23:31 <sandro> PROPOSED: rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html

PROPOSED: rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html

15:23:37 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

15:24:07 <sandro> +1 I don't like calling html and css "binary"

+1 I don't like calling html and css "binary"

15:24:09 <bblfish> Mhh, did not follow that RDF1.1 terminological change

Henry Story: Mhh, did not follow that RDF1.1 terminological change

15:24:13 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:24:19 <MiguelAraCo> +1

Miguel Aragón: +1

15:24:23 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:24:28 <Ashok> 0

Ashok Malhotra: 0

15:24:45 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

15:24:50 <codyburleson> +1 (especially pointing out CSS and HTML are not binary)

Cody Burleson: +1 (especially pointing out CSS and HTML are not binary)

15:25:00 <JohnArwe> +1 why be willfully different

John Arwe: +1 why be willfully different

15:25:10 <bblfish> +0.8 ok for LDP-NR ( as binary is misleading) but not too keen on LDP-RS ( though ok if the RDF WG goes with it - information resource would have been better )

Henry Story: +0.8 ok for LDP-NR ( as binary is misleading) but not too keen on LDP-RS ( though ok if the RDF WG goes with it - information resource would have been better )

15:25:16 <sandro> Arnaud: it may take some getting used to , but the RDF WG made this choice for us.

Arnaud Le Hors: it may take some getting used to , but the RDF WG made this choice for us.

15:25:30 <sandro> RESOLVED: Rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html

RESOLVED: Rename LDP-BR to LDP-RS and LDP-RR to LDP-RS as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0040.html

15:25:44 <sandro> topic: Container types

4. Container types

15:25:52 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html

15:26:21 <sandro> . Resource

. Resource

15:26:21 <sandro> .     +- NR

. +- NR

15:26:21 <sandro> .     +- RS

. +- RS

15:26:21 <sandro> .         +- Container

. +- Container

15:26:21 <sandro> .             +- DC

. +- DC

15:26:21 <sandro> .                +- BC

. +- BC

15:27:04 <sandro> .                   +-  IC    ???

. +- IC ???

15:27:45 <SteveS> sandro, not IC is left off (see proposal) where IC is now called Container

Steve Speicher: sandro, not IC is left off (see proposal) where IC is now called Container

15:28:00 <SteveS> ...there is no IC in the proposal

Steve Speicher: ...there is no IC in the proposal

15:28:15 <sandro> Arnaud: IC is the most flexible, BC is the least.

Arnaud Le Hors: IC is the most flexible, BC is the least.

15:28:32 <sandro> Arnaud: is ldp:Container abstract?

Arnaud Le Hors: is ldp:Container abstract?

15:28:49 <sandro> Arnaud: But now IC -> Container.

Arnaud Le Hors: But now IC -> Container.

15:29:19 <sandro> Arnaud: Direct Container sets some parameter, Basic Container sets even more.

Arnaud Le Hors: Direct Container sets some parameter, Basic Container sets even more.

15:29:34 <sandro> Arnaud: From a logical point of view this works.

Arnaud Le Hors: From a logical point of view this works.

15:29:56 <sandro> . Resource

. Resource

15:29:56 <sandro> .     +- NR

. +- NR

15:29:56 <sandro> .     +- RS

. +- RS

15:29:56 <sandro> .         +- Container

. +- Container

15:29:56 <sandro> .             +- DC

. +- DC

15:29:57 <sandro> .                +- BC

. +- BC

15:30:08 <sandro> +1 I think.....

+1 I think.....

15:31:18 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:32:05 <JohnArwe> DC "fixes" the value of insertedContentRelation => ldp:MemberSubject

John Arwe: DC "fixes" the value of insertedContentRelation => ldp:MemberSubject

15:32:41 <JohnArwe> BC "fixes" (vs DC) the membership triple pattern to be ( LDPC, ldp:contains, ?member )

John Arwe: BC "fixes" (vs DC) the membership triple pattern to be ( LDPC, ldp:contains, ?member )

15:32:57 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:33:07 <JohnArwe> ...since the membership triple pattern is described by 2 predicates, those are fixed by BCs.

John Arwe: ...since the membership triple pattern is described by 2 predicates, those are fixed by BCs.

15:33:14 <sandro> . Resource

. Resource

15:33:14 <sandro> .     +- NR

. +- NR

15:33:14 <sandro> .     +- RS

. +- RS

15:33:14 <sandro> .         +- Container

. +- Container

15:33:14 <sandro> .             +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves)

. +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves)

15:33:15 <sandro> .                +- BC (member triple is container, ldp:member)

. +- BC (member triple is container, ldp:member)

15:33:55 <sandro> bblfish: I wonder about having DC be "Container".   When you post to an indirect container to get these extra triples

Henry Story: I wonder about having DC be "Container". When you post to an indirect container to get these extra triples

15:34:38 <sandro> (I'm not following that.)

(I'm not following that.)

15:35:11 <JohnArwe> Henry related the same proposal I believe in Madrid in June.

John Arwe: Henry related the same proposal I believe in Madrid in June.

15:35:49 <sandro> . Resource

. Resource

15:35:49 <sandro> .     +- NR

. +- NR

15:35:49 <sandro> .     +- RS

. +- RS

15:35:49 <sandro> .         +- Container

. +- Container

15:35:49 <sandro> .             +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves)

. +- DC (posted documents are the members, themselves)

15:35:50 <sandro> .                +- BC (membership triples: <container> ldp:member <member>)

. +- BC (membership triples: <container> ldp:member <member>)

15:35:57 <bblfish> </shopping/cart/> a ldp:Container;

Henry Story: </shopping/cart/> a ldp:Container;

15:35:58 <bblfish>      ldp:creationConsequence [ ldp:subject  <#>;

Henry Story: ldp:creationConsequence [ ldp:subject <#>;

15:35:58 <bblfish>                                ldp:predicate order:wishes;

Henry Story: ldp:predicate order:wishes;

15:35:59 <bblfish>                                ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic],

Henry Story: ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic],

15:36:01 <bblfish>                              [ ldp:subject <#>;

Henry Story: [ ldp:subject <#>;

15:36:03 <bblfish>                                ldp:predicate order:like;

Henry Story: ldp:predicate order:like;

15:36:05 <bblfish>                                ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic ];

Henry Story: ldp:objectSelector foaf:primaryTopic ];

15:36:07 <bblfish>      ldp:member <member1>, <member2> .         // <- it is easy to find the members

Henry Story: ldp:member <member1>, <member2> . // <- it is easy to find the members

15:36:09 <bblfish> <#> order:contains <urn:isbn:0470396792> ;

Henry Story: <#> order:contains <urn:isbn:0470396792> ;

15:36:11 <bblfish>     order:wishes <urn:isbn:9781907974045> .

Henry Story: order:wishes <urn:isbn:9781907974045> .

15:36:13 <bblfish> ]]

Henry Story: ]]

15:36:17 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing#Think_in_terms_of_causal_consequence_instead_of_logical_consequence

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/MembershipInferencing#Think_in_terms_of_causal_consequence_instead_of_logical_consequence

15:36:20 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

15:37:21 <sandro> bblfish: it's when you POST that you create new types of relationships somewhere.     you're adding new relations to some other place.     there's a speech act, a document act consequence to doing something.  then it becomes very simple.

Henry Story: it's when you POST that you create new types of relationships somewhere. you're adding new relations to some other place. there's a speech act, a document act consequence to doing something. then it becomes very simple.

15:38:26 <sandro> bblfish: When you post into a shopping cart, you're going to buy something.   So the membership triples would be about what happens when you do something.   Containers contain documents, like a physical object.  But how does anyone know when they go to a shop, what they're liable for.

Henry Story: When you post into a shopping cart, you're going to buy something. So the membership triples would be about what happens when you do something. Containers contain documents, like a physical object. But how does anyone know when they go to a shop, what they're liable for.

15:38:46 <sandro> bblfish: The army case still isn't solved.

Henry Story: The army case still isn't solved.

15:38:54 <sandro> bblfish: How do I know what's going to happen when I post.

Henry Story: How do I know what's going to happen when I post.

15:39:09 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html

Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html

15:39:49 <sandro> sandro: If the container is a signup list for the army, then you sign up by posting.

Sandro Hawke: If the container is a signup list for the army, then you sign up by posting.

15:40:12 <sandro> bblfish: But what if you don't know every triple about it.

Henry Story: But what if you don't know every triple about it.

15:40:32 <sandro> bblfish: instead: you only need to understand the membership triple.

Henry Story: instead: you only need to understand the membership triple.

15:41:10 <sandro> Arnaud: We already know there is containment and membership.

Arnaud Le Hors: We already know there is containment and membership.

15:41:25 <sandro> Arnaud: I never understood the Army example.

Arnaud Le Hors: I never understood the Army example.

15:41:38 <sandro> q+

q+

15:42:21 <sandro> bblfish: Is this now clear to user, that the membership triples they create they are bound to agree with?

Henry Story: Is this now clear to user, that the membership triples they create they are bound to agree with?

15:42:36 <sandro> bblfish: You need to understand what you're liable to if you post.

Henry Story: You need to understand what you're liable to if you post.

15:43:13 <sandro> Arnaud: We don't know what applications we'll have

Arnaud Le Hors: We don't know what applications we'll have

15:43:17 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

15:45:14 <sandro> roger: I undertand bblfish.       You have containment, and then there's something that adds membership as a reaction.   so there's ever only one container for an LDPR.         my issue is ...    my example is: if I'm posting ....

Roger Menday: I undertand bblfish. You have containment, and then there's something that adds membership as a reaction. so there's ever only one container for an LDPR. my issue is ... my example is: if I'm posting ....

15:45:56 <sandro> bblfish: let's go over it on mailing list.

Henry Story: let's go over it on mailing list.

15:45:58 <sandro> q-

q-

15:46:04 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

15:46:26 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

15:47:00 <sandro> SteveS: to be clear, this proposal does not change any behaviors or normative rules -- it's just about how we talk about them.       This doesn't change anything that happens when you POST, etc.

Steve Speicher: to be clear, this proposal does not change any behaviors or normative rules -- it's just about how we talk about them. This doesn't change anything that happens when you POST, etc.

15:47:09 <sandro> PROPOSED: adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html

PROPOSED: adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html

15:47:11 <sandro> +1

+1

15:47:36 <roger> +!

Roger Menday: +!

15:47:38 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

15:47:47 <SteveS> +1 !

Steve Speicher: +1 !

15:47:51 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:48:21 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

15:48:27 <bblfish> +0 probably ok improvement, but the subscribing to the army use case has not yet I think been addressed, and that may change the decisions of this and the previous issue

Henry Story: +0 probably ok improvement, but the subscribing to the army use case has not yet I think been addressed, and that may change the decisions of this and the previous issue

15:48:49 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

15:48:55 <codyburleson> +0

Cody Burleson: +0

15:49:18 <sandro> roger: I showed a guy here the big terminology list in the spec and he was not impressed.

Roger Menday: I showed a guy here the big terminology list in the spec and he was not impressed.

15:49:42 <sandro> .. if we are to appeal to lots of people, it would be good to make it look like a less-massive-list of different types of containers.

.. if we are to appeal to lots of people, it would be good to make it look like a less-massive-list of different types of containers.

15:50:19 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

15:50:21 <sandro> .. if the terminology section could make it more clear these are just simplified containers, ....

.. if the terminology section could make it more clear these are just simplified containers, ....

15:50:38 <sandro> Arnaud: The editors have not had much time on polishing the spec.

Arnaud Le Hors: The editors have not had much time on polishing the spec.

15:51:01 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

15:51:10 <sandro> sandro: They can do editorial changes during CR and LC

Sandro Hawke: They can do editorial changes during CR and LC

15:51:29 <sandro> Arnaud, are we resolved on that vote....?

Arnaud, are we resolved on that vote....?

15:51:52 <sandro> bblfish: Instead of three different kinds of containers, we could just have a relation to a rule.

Henry Story: Instead of three different kinds of containers, we could just have a relation to a rule.

15:52:22 <sandro> .. and that would be easier to explain.  In terms of SPARQL or whatever.

.. and that would be easier to explain. In terms of SPARQL or whatever.

15:52:24 <bblfish>  ldp:creationConsequence

Henry Story: ldp:creationConsequence

15:52:38 <sandro> Arnaud: I remember that well, but that's not what's on the table.

Arnaud Le Hors: I remember that well, but that's not what's on the table.

15:53:08 <sandro> RESOLVED: Adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html

RESOLVED: Adopt the class hierarchy as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0041.html

15:53:52 <sandro> topic: Spec status update?

5. Spec status update?

15:54:13 <sandro> SteveS: all normative text is correct

Steve Speicher: all normative text is correct

15:54:28 <sandro> Arnaud: One more week, agreed?

Arnaud Le Hors: One more week, agreed?

15:55:11 <sandro> Arnaud: Can everyone review spec this week, and make decision next week.

Arnaud Le Hors: Can everyone review spec this week, and make decision next week.

15:55:28 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

15:55:40 <sandro> sandro: when reading, people come up with issues.

Sandro Hawke: when reading, people come up with issues.

15:56:05 <codyburleson> +1 one more week of review for the WG

Cody Burleson: +1 one more week of review for the WG

15:56:10 <sandro> sandro: so any issues not raised by next week are out of order.

Sandro Hawke: so any issues not raised by next week are out of order.

15:56:12 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

15:56:50 <sandro> Ashok: If we end up adding stable-paging, would this require another last call, if we did it after last call?

Ashok Malhotra: If we end up adding stable-paging, would this require another last call, if we did it after last call?

15:56:53 <sandro> sandro: yes.

Sandro Hawke: yes.

15:57:26 <sandro> Arnaud: Be ready next week to support publication, or have specific comments.

Arnaud Le Hors: Be ready next week to support publication, or have specific comments.

15:57:42 <sandro> topic: Disposition of Comments

6. Disposition of Comments

15:57:46 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/doc/\

http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/doc/\

15:58:08 <sandro> Arnaud: I pinged Mark Baker. He accepted our response. It's only the response to Tim's comments that haven't been ack'd

Arnaud Le Hors: I pinged Mark Baker. He accepted our response. It's only the response to Tim's comments that haven't been ack'd

15:58:17 <sandro> Arnaud: I think that means we're okay.

Arnaud Le Hors: I think that means we're okay.

15:58:20 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

15:58:55 <sandro> ericP: procedurally we're okay. And I have the impression Tim's okay if we try in good faith to do the 2xx.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: procedurally we're okay. And I have the impression Tim's okay if we try in good faith to do the 2xx.

15:59:44 <sandro> Arnaud: the main point is to make sure we're not ignoring commenters, and we're not ignoring Tim's.

Arnaud Le Hors: the main point is to make sure we're not ignoring commenters, and we're not ignoring Tim's.

15:59:50 <sandro> Arnaud: so I think we're okay.

Arnaud Le Hors: so I think we're okay.

16:00:00 <sandro> topic: Next F2F

7. Next F2F

16:00:13 <sandro> Mid April, location not chosen.

Mid April, location not chosen.

16:00:21 <sandro> MIT volunteers.   anyone else?

MIT volunteers. anyone else?

16:00:47 <sandro> Arnaud: IBM Toronto might work.

Arnaud Le Hors: IBM Toronto might work.

16:00:57 <sandro> Arnaud: Do people want to go there?

Arnaud Le Hors: Do people want to go there?

16:01:02 <Ashok> I'm happy with MIT

Ashok Malhotra: I'm happy with MIT

16:01:23 <sandro> Arnaud: Raleigh and NYC have been offered, but don't seem to be the first choice.

Arnaud Le Hors: Raleigh and NYC have been offered, but don't seem to be the first choice.

16:01:47 <bblfish> Toronto could be interesting

Henry Story: Toronto could be interesting

16:01:58 <sandro> Arnaud: skipping status updates on other spec

Arnaud Le Hors: skipping status updates on other spec

16:02:10 <sandro> topic: Stable Paging

8. Stable Paging

16:02:39 <sandro> Arnaud: sandro asking me first.  :-)      he says lossy paging sucks....

Arnaud Le Hors: sandro asking me first. :-) he says lossy paging sucks....

16:03:05 <sandro> Arnaud: One possibility is to add something as at risk.

Arnaud Le Hors: One possibility is to add something as at risk.

16:03:06 <Zakim> -Ashok

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok

16:03:28 <sandro> Arnaud: That lets us pull something out of the spec later, without retreating along the process.

Arnaud Le Hors: That lets us pull something out of the spec later, without retreating along the process.

16:03:52 <sandro> .. we cannot add something like this later without coming back to LC.    But we can add it, at risk, then take it out if it doesn't pan out.

.. we cannot add something like this later without coming back to LC. But we can add it, at risk, then take it out if it doesn't pan out.

16:03:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

16:04:08 <sandro> .. so it's easier to put it in now, kind of like putting our foot in the door.

.. so it's easier to put it in now, kind of like putting our foot in the door.

16:04:18 <Ashok> zakim, IPcaller is me

Ashok Malhotra: zakim, IPcaller is me

16:04:18 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok; got it

16:04:33 <SteveS> scribe: SteveS

(Scribe set to Steve Speicher)

16:05:28 <SteveS> sandro: Discussion around a twitter-like service that sends out updates and can't use the paging if lossly, so can't use LDP paging

Sandro Hawke: Discussion around a twitter-like service that sends out updates and can't use the paging if lossy, so can't use LDP paging

16:06:14 <SteveS> sandro: have proposal for stable paging, JohnArwe suggested boundary paging

Sandro Hawke: have proposal for stable paging, JohnArwe suggested boundary paging

16:06:39 <ericP> ack em

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack em

16:06:57 <SteveS> sandro: proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0045.html

Sandro Hawke: proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0045.html

16:07:27 <ericP> ack mew

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack mew

16:07:29 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

16:07:53 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

16:08:40 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

16:09:05 <SteveS> can't hear Ashok

can't hear Ashok

16:09:08 <JohnArwe> ashok breaking up much worse than normal

John Arwe: ashok breaking up much worse than normal

16:09:19 <SteveS> Ashok, can you type your question?

Ashok, can you type your question?

16:09:22 <JohnArwe> sounds like a reverb grabbing mic

John Arwe: sounds like a reverb grabbing mic

16:09:22 <bblfish> yes, can't hear you Ashok

Henry Story: yes, can't hear you Ashok

16:09:33 <Ashok> It's worth pointing out that page sizes will change

Ashok Malhotra: It's worth pointing out that page sizes will change

16:09:47 <Ashok> ... some might object to that

Ashok Malhotra: ... some might object to that

16:10:13 <SteveS> Arnaud: thinks that is ok

Arnaud Le Hors: thinks that is ok

16:10:22 <JohnArwe> Variable page sizes are CRITICAL for UI clients

John Arwe: Variable page sizes are CRITICAL for UI clients

16:10:38 <SteveS> Ashok: concern that on limited devices the page size matters

Ashok Malhotra: concern that on limited devices the page size matters

16:11:24 <ericP> you can also add the too-manyeth resource to a new page which is injected into the page sequence

Eric Prud'hommeaux: you can also add the too-manyeth resource to a new page which is injected into the page sequence

16:11:30 <SteveS> sandro: could be that page sizes could be adjusted per server and vary for requests

Sandro Hawke: could be that page sizes could be adjusted per server and vary for requests

16:11:47 <ericP> the cost is an extra round trip, but you never lose resources

Eric Prud'hommeaux: the cost is an extra round trip, but you never lose resources

16:12:57 <SteveS> JohnArwe: we have done something like this within OSLC, which has come up with pagination need and then have a syndication feed for changes in the Tracked Resource Set specificiation

John Arwe: we have done something like this within OSLC, which has come up with pagination need and then have a syndication feed for changes in the Tracked Resource Set specificiation

16:13:21 <SteveS> TRS spec http://open-services.net/wiki/core/TrackedResourceSet-2.0/

TRS spec http://open-services.net/wiki/core/TrackedResourceSet-2.0/

16:14:10 <SteveS> sandro: has a way of signaling that needs to reset by sending 410 gone on a stale page request

Sandro Hawke: has a way of signaling that needs to reset by sending 410 gone on a stale page request

16:15:12 <SteveS> Arnaud: seems like a way to inform the client of failure, instead of going silent

Arnaud Le Hors: seems like a way to inform the client of failure, instead of going silent

16:16:02 <SteveS> JohnArwe: thought the 410 was optional and clients could continue to move along the pages

John Arwe: thought the 410 was optional and clients could continue to move along the pages

16:16:18 <SteveS> sandro: when server uses 410 it makes sure the client isn't getting the wrong thing

Sandro Hawke: when server uses 410 it makes sure the client isn't getting the wrong thing

16:17:57 <SteveS> JohnArwe: it would be good for a client could say which kind of paging it wants, lossy or not

John Arwe: it would be good for a client could say which kind of paging it wants, lossy or not

16:18:06 <SteveS> s/lossly/lossy/
16:18:34 <SteveS> sandro: could use a Prefer header for client to tell server it could do a lower cost paging model if it wants

Sandro Hawke: could use a Prefer header for client to tell server it could do a lower cost paging model if it wants

16:19:00 <JohnArwe> wrt the 410: from sandro's email I had the impression 410 was required in all cases, when he was talking it sounded more optional.  The difference turns out to be how much the server is willing to spend on it.

John Arwe: wrt the 410: from sandro's email I had the impression 410 was required in all cases, when he was talking it sounded more optional. The difference turns out to be how much the server is willing to spend on it.

16:20:39 <SteveS> sandro: think we need a header to indicate which page we are paging

Sandro Hawke: think we need a header to indicate which page we are paging

16:21:09 <SteveS> JohnArwe: we originally talked about this, discussion about using rel='collection' as well

John Arwe: we originally talked about this, discussion about using rel='collection' as well

16:22:03 <SteveS> sandro: not sure that is the right header but think something like 'pageOf' esp in the case of 303

Sandro Hawke: not sure that is the right header but think something like 'pageOf' esp in the case of 303

16:22:49 <codyburleson> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

16:23:06 <bblfish> I have not implemented paging, so I think it makes sense to postpone it. Many others may not have implement it.

Henry Story: I have not implemented paging, so I think it makes sense to postpone it. Many others may not have implement it.

16:23:07 <SteveS> sandro: proposes teasing out the paging stuff into a separate spec or note to make sure we cover the non-lossy cases and get it right

Sandro Hawke: proposes teasing out the paging stuff into a separate spec or note to make sure we cover the non-lossy cases and get it right

16:23:15 <codyburleson> +1 (to move paging outside of core LDP)

Cody Burleson: +1 (to move paging outside of core LDP)

16:23:46 <bblfish> that would also allow the paging to be in sync with a 209 so

Henry Story: that would also allow the paging to be in sync with a 209 so

16:23:54 <bblfish> :-) LDP = Linked Data Paging

Henry Story: :-) LDP = Linked Data Paging

16:24:33 <SteveS> ...having it LDP could move ahead and paging spec could lag behind

...having it LDP could move ahead and paging spec could lag behind

16:25:02 <codyburleson> Linked Data Paging would have acronym LDP, which would interfere with our own acronym. Are you talking about Linked Data Platform or Linked Data Paging?

Cody Burleson: Linked Data Paging would have acronym LDP, which would interfere with our own acronym. Are you talking about Linked Data Platform or Linked Data Paging?

16:27:40 <SteveS> SteveS: would have to also tease out the container sort/ordering stuff as it is associated with paging

Steve Speicher: would have to also tease out the container sort/ordering stuff as it is associated with paging

16:27:47 <ericP> q+ to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues

16:27:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: move out paging and ordering into a separate spec

PROPOSED: move out paging and ordering into a separate spec

16:28:03 <bblfish> +1 makes sense to me.

Henry Story: +1 makes sense to me.

16:28:05 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

16:28:21 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

16:28:45 <codyburleson> +1 (the last edit already introduced the idea of add-on modules to the spec, I think)

Cody Burleson: +1 (the last edit already introduced the idea of add-on modules to the spec, I think)

16:28:47 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

16:28:56 <JohnArwe> +0.5 seems right, just more work for moi :-(

John Arwe: +0.5 seems right, just more work for moi :-(

16:29:27 <SteveS> +0.3  indifferent, not a bad idea...fixes things and breaks things

+0.3 indifferent, not a bad idea...fixes things and breaks things

16:29:38 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

16:29:45 <MiguelAraCo> +1

Miguel Aragón: +1

16:29:59 <codyburleson> My team says "Paging and ordering need several changes."

Cody Burleson: My team says "Paging and ordering need several changes."

16:30:40 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Move out paging and ordering into a separate spec

RESOLVED: Move out paging and ordering into a separate spec

16:30:53 <codyburleson> (don't have details yet, sorry. Just quoting.)

Cody Burleson: (don't have details yet, sorry. Just quoting.)

16:31:07 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

16:31:08 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if we can effectivley duck the communicate-to-client issues

16:31:13 <Arnaud> ack ericP

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP

16:31:15 <SteveS> ACTION on Arnaud Create separate LDP-Paging specification

ACTION on Arnaud Create separate LDP-Paging specification

16:31:15 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.

16:32:22 <SteveS> ericP: client needs to be able to demand to the server stable paging and adding headers after LDP, can we enforce it?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: client needs to be able to demand to the server stable paging and adding headers after LDP, can we enforce it?

16:33:10 <SteveS> Arnaud: it would be a different status code and would be good to delay until 2xx new code could come available

Arnaud Le Hors: it would be a different status code and would be good to delay until 2xx new code could come available

16:34:32 <SteveS> sandro: servers only do paging if clients prefer, which would mean clients would request it

Sandro Hawke: servers only do paging if clients prefer, which would mean clients would request it

16:35:05 <bblfish> no to, LDP user agetn strings!  ( I suppose that was a joke )

Henry Story: no to LDP user agetn strings! ( I suppose that was a joke )

16:35:24 <bblfish> s/no to,/no to/
16:35:27 <SteveS> Arnaud: prefer header is optional, so servers could decide on its own to return a page

Arnaud Le Hors: prefer header is optional, so servers could decide on its own to return a page

16:35:29 <JohnArwe> +1 bblfish == -1 user-agent strings

John Arwe: +1 bblfish == -1 user-agent strings

16:35:45 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

16:35:51 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

16:36:32 <Zakim> -JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe

16:36:53 <SteveS> bblfish: thinks factoring out is a good idea even with the issue of server-initiated paying and clients not supporting paging

Henry Story: thinks factoring out is a good idea even with the issue of server-initiated paying and clients not supporting paging

16:38:06 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

16:38:13 <sandro> hit the wrong button

Sandro Hawke: hit the wrong button

16:38:25 <sandro> we can have a normative referecne going back one stage.   we can try that, and put that at risk.

Sandro Hawke: we can have a normative referecne going back one stage. we can try that, and put that at risk.

16:38:28 <SteveS> sandro: notices there are no client MUSTs on paging, think we could add some normative language

Sandro Hawke: notices there are no client MUSTs on paging, think we could add some normative language

16:39:12 <sandro> (cant get back in since we're over time)

Sandro Hawke: (cant get back in since we're over time)

16:39:19 <Arnaud> yes, we expected that...

Arnaud Le Hors: yes, we expected that...

16:40:10 <SteveS> Arnaud: suggests editor to add "these are not the droids you are looking for" clause

Arnaud Le Hors: suggests editor to add "these are not the droids you are looking for" clause

16:40:22 <SteveS> ...but look at these

...but look at these

16:40:48 <Zakim> -SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS

16:40:48 <SteveS> Arnaud: adjourns

Arnaud Le Hors: adjourns

16:41:52 <Zakim> -ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP

16:42:40 <Zakim> -Ashok

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok

16:52:35 <Zakim> -codyburleson

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson

16:55:12 <Zakim> -Roger

Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger

17:02:12 <Zakim> -bblfish

(No events recorded for 7 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish

17:02:14 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

17:02:16 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

17:02:16 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger, codyburleson, Ashok, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, bblfish, SteveS, Roger, codyburleson, Ashok, ericP



Formatted by CommonScribe