14:57:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/20-ldp-irc
14:57:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:26 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:26 <trackbot> Date: 20 January 2014
14:59:45 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:59:54 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:41 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
15:02:07 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:05:00 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
15:05:56 <Zakim> +W3C
15:06:10 <betehess> Zakim, W3C has Alexandre
15:06:10 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
15:07:06 <betehess> Zakim, who is here?
15:07:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, W3C
15:07:08 <Zakim> W3C has Alexandre
15:07:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see betehess, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, jmvanel, stevebattle14, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, thschee, trackbot
15:10:18 <betehess> it's a holiday at MIT too
15:10:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:10:48 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:11:15 <Arnaud> zakim, IPcaller is roger
15:11:15 <Zakim> +roger; got it
15:19:44 <betehess> Zakim, who is here?
15:19:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, W3C, roger
15:19:45 <Zakim> W3C has Alexandre
15:19:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see roger, betehess, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, jmvanel, stevebattle14, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, thschee, trackbot
15:28:02 <Zakim> +ericP
15:30:14 <Zakim> -roger
15:30:43 <JohnArwe> net: informal meeting, no quorum
15:31:35 <roger> ahh, skype hung me out ... i wanted to ask John if the prefer header mechanism could be used for inlining issue (fully, partial, etc .. ) ?
15:32:52 <JohnArwe> roger: prefer is extensible, so yes it could be used.  it would not align naturally with the proposed "omit" preference IMO, but anything pretty much can be bent at any use.
15:33:11 <Zakim> +Roger
15:36:12 <betehess> in a nutshell: Henry was conflating rel=type and rdf:type and then was explaining everything in the RDF world, while he meant "using the headers"
15:36:48 <JohnArwe> 4.2.10 LDP servers exposing LDPRs MUST advertise their LDP support by exposing a HTTP Link header with a target URI of http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/Resource, and a link relation type of type (that is, rel='type') in all responses to requests made to the LDPR's HTTP Request-URI.
15:36:52 <betehess> the real question is which one is closer to what we want to do
15:37:16 <betehess> btw, isn't is http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource ?
15:40:40 <betehess> I don't think Henry wants to use RDF to convey the interaction model
15:42:32 <roger> according to http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypertext-driven, "A REST API should never have 'typed' resources that are significant to the client."
15:43:19 <betehess> rel=interaction
15:45:18 <Arnaud> zakim, who's talking?
15:45:29 <Zakim> Arnaud, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ericP (91%)
15:45:44 <betehess> apparently, ericP is the fan :-)
15:45:47 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:46:09 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:47:21 <ericP> nice!
15:48:41 <betehess> Zakim, W3C also has Andrei
15:48:41 <Zakim> +Andrei; got it
15:49:03 <bblfish> sorry for being late ( keep getting into conversations here, and loose track of time )
15:50:03 <JohnArwe> too few people called in henry, so this is an informal call today
15:50:11 <bblfish> ah. ok
15:50:14 <bblfish> q+
15:50:38 <JohnArwe> we spent a bit of time on the Prefer proposal questions, now we're flogging rel=type as you can no doubt tell
15:50:48 <betehess> maybe ericP is thinking about validation :-)
15:50:55 <bblfish> ah yes, I have to read the Prefer proposal
15:51:04 <JohnArwe> if you have any questions on the Prefer proposal feel free to drop them in IRC and I can take a pass at them.
15:51:26 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:51:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, W3C, ericP, Roger, bblfish
15:51:27 <Zakim> W3C has Alexandre, Andrei
15:51:32 <bblfish> I did not have time to read that JohnArwe, skimmed it quickly
15:52:24 <JohnArwe> (roger had same situation on Prefer).
15:52:38 <bblfish> cool
15:53:00 <betehess> Andrei was telling me locally: we could also have our own new header (instead of Link header)
15:53:19 <bblfish> q+
15:54:16 <betehess> other proposal:    Interaction: ldp:Container
15:54:36 <bblfish> yes, I see, a Link of type=interaction
15:54:38 <betehess> much smaller than the Link header version
15:55:58 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:56:21 <ericP> link: rel=interaction val=ldp:RWLinkedDataContainer
15:57:44 <betehess> anyway, as Erik Wilde said: [[ what matters more is that the semantics of the hypermedia control in the context of the media type are well-defined ]], so all those solutions are pretty much the same :-)
15:59:06 <betehess> Arnaud, I don't think anybody is saying that we look into the rdf type
15:59:39 <betehess> +1 ericP
16:04:40 <betehess> the real question for henry is: knowing that rel=type != rdf:type, why keep rel=type and not defining rel=interaction?
16:05:40 <betehess> I think lying is good sometimes :-)
16:08:45 <ericP> yeah, but i don't want to say that no one else can reuse the structure of ldp:Container
16:09:10 <betehess> I don't think you guys disagree...
16:09:34 <JohnArwe> wrt: "Andrei was telling me locally: we could also have our own new header (instead of Link header)"... sure you Could.  Would that convey something different than what a Link header (with an extension link relation that we define) convey something different?  If not, "why invent new instead of re-use?"  If so, what is conveyed that's different?
16:12:19 <bblfish> [] a ldp:Container;
16:12:19 <bblfish>    from « 2013 »;
16:12:19 <bblfish>    to 2013;
16:12:21 <bblfish>    was « http://xmlns.com/« 
16:13:13 <betehess> JohnArwe, that would be equivalent, but 1. using Web Linking means that the interaction is coming from a special type (relation) between the resource and the URI ldp:Container 2. people won't have to look at the URI, just the header 3. it's shorter
16:13:37 <betehess> otherwise, yes, very much the same :-)
16:14:44 <JohnArwe> @betehess: OK - so "just" new syntax alternative.
16:15:02 <betehess> also, what's easier: registering a new relation at IETF or defining the header *in* LDP?
16:15:20 <betehess> much more control with the later
16:15:55 <JohnArwe> @betehess: no, no difference if we define an extension header.
16:16:06 <betehess> ok
16:17:53 <JohnArwe> @betehess: It *might* even be that defining a new shortname link relation is no more overhead than a new http header, it's just been a while since I looked down that path in 5988
16:18:27 <betehess> oh right, that's an interesting use-case:    Interaction: ldp#Container; rww#specialBehaviorCompatibleWithLDPC; myApplication#myShape
16:19:01 <JohnArwe> I do suspect that a new HTTP header would receive more scrutiny, but I could be wrong.
16:19:09 <betehess> you tell me :-)
16:21:44 <JohnArwe> IETF has been consciously Reducing the barriers to various extension registrations, that's my understanding, based partly on what happens when they ARE successful.  They recently deprecated the use of X- prefixes as "reserved for future extensions" in many if not most contexts.
16:23:40 <betehess> so s/ldp#Container/LDPC/ for example?
16:24:29 <betehess> yay, rel=profile!
16:27:04 <betehess> the quote is [[ what matters more is that the semantics of the
16:27:04 <betehess> hypermedia control in the context of the media type are well-defined. to
16:27:04 <betehess> maybe take a little bit of passion out of the debate: as long as there is agreement *which* links to specify and *what* they should mean for LDP clients, the hard problems are solved. *how* to identify them is not such a central issue ]]
16:32:20 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:32:33 <JohnArwe> seeing I'm late to 1130 mtg
16:39:11 <betehess> ACTION: betehess to work on a PROPOSAL re: rel=type vs other solutions (involves speaking w/ ericP, bblfish)
16:39:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Work on a proposal re: rel=type vs other solutions (involves speaking w/ ericp, bblfish) [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2014-01-27].
16:41:53 <Zakim> -ericP
16:41:54 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:41:54 <Zakim> -Roger
16:41:54 <Zakim> -W3C
16:41:56 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:41:58 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:41:58 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Alexandre, roger, ericP, bblfish, Andrei
16:44:16 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:49:06 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
16:49:06 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:49:06 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:49:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:49:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/20-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
16:49:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:49:15 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/20-ldp-actions.rdf :
16:49:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: betehess to work on a PROPOSAL re: rel=type vs other solutions (involves speaking w/ ericP, bblfish) [1]
16:49:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/20-ldp-irc#T16-39-11