<trackbot> Date: 20 January 2014

it's a holiday at MIT too

<JohnArwe> net: informal meeting, no quorum

<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 .. ) ?

<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.

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"

<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.

the real question is which one is closer to what we want to do

btw, isn't is http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource ?

I don't think Henry wants to use RDF to convey the interaction model

<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."

rel=interaction

apparently, ericP is the fan :-)

<ericP> nice!

<bblfish> sorry for being late ( keep getting into conversations here, and loose track of time )

<JohnArwe> too few people called in henry, so this is an informal call today

<bblfish> ah. ok

<JohnArwe> we spent a bit of time on the Prefer proposal questions, now we're flogging rel=type as you can no doubt tell

maybe ericP is thinking about validation :-)

<bblfish> ah yes, I have to read the Prefer proposal

<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.

<bblfish> I did not have time to read that JohnArwe, skimmed it quickly

<JohnArwe> (roger had same situation on Prefer).

<bblfish> cool

Andrei was telling me locally: we could also have our own new header (instead of Link header)

other proposal: Interaction: ldp:Container

<bblfish> yes, I see, a Link of type=interaction

much smaller than the Link header version

<ericP> link: rel=interaction val=ldp:RWLinkedDataContainer

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 :-)

Arnaud, I don't think anybody is saying that we look into the rdf type

+1 ericP

the real question for henry is: knowing that rel=type != rdf:type, why keep rel=type and not defining rel=interaction?

I think lying is good sometimes :-)

<ericP> yeah, but i don't want to say that no one else can reuse the structure of ldp:Container

I don't think you guys disagree...

<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?

<bblfish> [] a ldp:Container;

<bblfish> from « 2013 »;

<bblfish>    to 2013;

<bblfish>    was « http://xmlns.com/« 

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

otherwise, yes, very much the same :-)

<JohnArwe> @betehess: OK - so "just" new syntax alternative.

also, what's easier: registering a new relation at IETF or defining the header *in* LDP?

much more control with the later

<JohnArwe> @betehess: no, no difference if we define an extension header.

ok

<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

oh right, that's an interesting use-case: Interaction: ldp#Container; rww#specialBehaviorCompatibleWithLDPC; myApplication#myShape

<JohnArwe> I do suspect that a new HTTP header would receive more scrutiny, but I could be wrong.

you tell me :-)

<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.

so s/ldp#Container/LDPC/ for example?

yay, rel=profile!

the quote is [[ what matters more is that the semantics of the

hypermedia control in the context of the media type are well-defined. to

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 ]]

<JohnArwe> seeing I'm late to 1130 mtg

<scribe> ACTION: betehess to work on a PROPOSAL re: rel=type vs other solutions (involves speaking w/ ericP, bblfish) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/20-ldp-minutes.html#action01]

<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].

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: betehess
Inferring Scribes: betehess

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Arnaud, JohnArwe, Alexandre, roger, ericP, bblfish, Andrei
Present: Arnaud JohnArwe Alexandre roger ericP bblfish Andrei

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 20 Jan 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/01/20-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: betehess

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report