14:57:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/24-ldp-irc
14:57:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:05 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:05 <trackbot> Date: 24 February 2014
15:00:09 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
15:00:16 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:18 <Zakim> +MIT531
15:00:28 <deiu> Zakim: MIT531 is me
15:00:36 <deiu> Zakim, MIT531 is me
15:00:36 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
15:00:38 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
15:00:47 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
15:01:27 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:01:28 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:51 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:52 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:01:56 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:02:08 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:02:08 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:02:14 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:03:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:07 <Ashok> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:04:07 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
15:04:15 <Zakim> +ericP
15:04:49 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:05:04 <bblfish> hi
15:05:26 <bblfish> I suppose I could scripte
15:06:39 <bblfish> Topic: Overview
15:06:52 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:06:56 <bblfish> Arnaud: We are going to change the order of the agenda a little bit
15:07:05 <bblfish>  ... because of feedback
15:07:12 <bblfish> Topic: minutes of last meeting
15:07:31 <ericP> scribenick: bblfish
15:07:36 <deiu>  Minutes seemed ok
15:07:53 <bblfish> Topic: Overview of Agenda
15:07:54 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.24
15:08:04 <bblfish> rnaud: We are going to change the order of the agenda a little bit
15:08:04 <bblfish> because of feedback
15:08:15 <bblfish> Topic: laste week's minutes
15:08:27 <deiu> s/rnaud/Arnaud
15:08:29 <Zakim> +??P16
15:08:40 <bblfish> Approved: last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-17
15:08:43 <Zakim> +Roger
15:08:47 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P16 is me
15:08:47 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:08:57 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
15:08:57 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
15:09:28 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
15:09:28 <bblfish> Topic: Actions
15:10:09 <Zakim> +??P19
15:10:09 <bblfish> Steve reports on completing unnamed action of splitting the spec
15:10:19 <pchampin> zakim, ??P19 Is me
15:10:19 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:10:34 <bblfish> Topic: Low Hanging Fruits
15:10:46 <bblfish> Topic: 209
15:11:23 <bblfish> who is speaking again?
15:11:29 <SteveS> ericP
15:11:31 <deiu> ericP
15:11:51 <bblfish> ericP: is saying a lot here...
15:12:38 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2014/02/2xx/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-209
15:13:43 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
15:13:55 <bblfish> Arnaud: the tension is a bit less because it is only the paging spec that depends on 209
15:14:11 <bblfish> me: a lot of other things in the semweb would depend on it too :-)
15:14:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:14:29 <bblfish> ericP: if one can test this on a bunch of systems that would be helpful
15:14:38 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me
15:14:38 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
15:14:57 <bblfish> ... it would be interesting to test this in existing linked data applications
15:15:22 <bblfish> the people who make this mistake would be those who mistake information resources and non-information resources
15:15:24 <bblfish> q+
15:15:36 <bblfish> ... this would be useful for feedback on IETF
15:16:12 <bblfish> ... github would find this useful for github, as they don't differentiate one group of issues from others. This could be argued to be pathological
15:16:31 <sandro> q+ to ask about allies
15:16:32 <bblfish> ... and due to there not being a 209
15:16:39 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:16:44 <Ashok> Eric, how long do you expect the IETF process to take?
15:17:28 <deiu> bblfish: isn't schema.org the one that returns a different url for identity? they can be an ally
15:18:16 <deiu> ... my feeling is that 3XX might be a bit better (it has a notion of redirect), while for 2XX space it could be confusing for people
15:19:09 <deiu> ericP: the fact is that 2XX is returning content, while 3XX is about the redirect and not the final product of the redirect
15:19:10 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:19:10 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about allies
15:19:17 <bblfish> bblfish: why not in the 3xx space?
15:19:39 <SteveS> q+
15:19:40 <bblfish> ericP: because there seems to be a lot of agreement that 3xx is only about the headers and redirects
15:20:03 <bblfish> Mhh, perhaps I can go to IETF
15:20:55 <bblfish> Sandro: this is server only redirect, and sandro thinks about suggesting a client preference for a redirect
15:21:08 <bblfish> ... the client could suggest the redirect
15:21:59 <sandro> Client says: Prefer: follow-link rel=first
15:22:00 <bblfish> Sandro is suggesting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Feb/0100.html
15:22:56 <bblfish> ericP: John Arwe had made a similar suggestion with respect to a Prefer header, though John had a 303 in his proposal
15:23:28 <bblfish> q+
15:24:58 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
15:25:01 <bblfish> q-
15:25:28 <bblfish> SteveS: there is an editorial note taked for 308
15:25:47 <bblfish> ericP: that was because he compied the 308 RFC
15:25:57 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
15:27:02 <bblfish> Ashok: what are the expectations on how long that is going to take
15:27:27 <bblfish> ericP: at IETF London next week there should be a response with the apps ...
15:28:04 <bblfish> ericP: it is helpful as the w3c acting director is supporting this and is the liaison with IETF
15:28:59 <sandro> ( I see Content-Location is the location of THIS PARTICULAR representation )
15:29:15 <bblfish> ericP: one remaining issue: was not sure if sandro is better 209 over 200
15:29:28 <bblfish> sandro: prefers 209 over 200
15:30:52 <bblfish> sandro: the 209 spec would use a prefer header as an example - they would not be tied together
15:32:00 <bblfish> the question was how complex is it to get a new prefer header
15:32:30 <sandro> prefer registry = http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml
15:32:50 <bblfish> the answer seems to be vague between it's just a registration to w3c specs may have some automatic speed way to registration
15:32:52 <sandro> or not:  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18#page-13
15:33:44 <bblfish> Topic: Sandro's https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Collection_Types
15:35:41 <bblfish> Sandro: finding the Collections and the members to be confusing as they are smushed together
15:36:04 <TallTed> q+
15:36:06 <bblfish> ... if synchronisation is a problem, or access control can be problematic, ... various extensibility problems
15:40:22 <Zakim> -Ashok
15:40:30 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
15:41:47 <bblfish> TallTed: is not that happy about the use cases, that may be ephemeral, and that end up being used as a justification for a lot of features
15:42:19 <bblfish> ... there seems to be a need for a container which when deleted removes all contained resources and a container that when removed must remove all contained resources
15:42:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:42:47 <Ashok> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:42:47 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
15:42:49 <bblfish> ... and it should be easy to have both
15:42:57 <bblfish> q+
15:44:20 <bblfish> TallTed: Sandro's proposal seems to be like a rehash of previous issues that were resolved some time ago. So there was at a previous F2F the idea of a factory method that could be used to say do a rm -rf on a directory
15:45:28 <bblfish> ... one should remove the temptation of simplification for the sake of simplification because there are all these use cases
15:45:45 <roger> I don't think that the factory method is doing deleting - it is doing creation.
15:46:02 <bblfish> Arnaud: was worried because of the reliance on PATCH everywhere
15:46:24 <bblfish> sandro: the current spec has the same problem with PATCH
15:46:36 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:47:27 <deiu> bblfish: I haven't had time to look at the spec carefully, but the notion of containership was that there are things that have containment.
15:47:39 <deiu> ... my feeling is that one can go down to the basic building blocks
15:48:44 <deiu> ... one should first do a POST (create a doc), then PATCH to modify contents
15:48:56 <SteveS> you can do that with BasicContainers if you want that
15:49:17 <deiu> ... the idea is that there are consequences to doing certain actions
15:49:40 <sandro> q+
15:50:06 <deiu> ... the high lever thinking is not so clear, and perhaps if we can understand what we're doing with these two different things, then people will understand WHY we're doing it
15:50:29 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:50:38 <sandro> q+ to ask how people think of the two-headed monster -- when they are looking in different directions
15:53:28 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:53:28 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask how people think of the two-headed monster -- when they are looking in different directions
15:54:09 <ericP> sandro, i'm having a hard time writing something into 209 to use Prefer before Prefer: follow-link is defined.
15:54:23 <ericP> e.g. 'A client MAY indicate that it expects a 209 status code with a header like "Prefer: follow-link rel=first".'
15:54:51 <roger> sandro: why would I want a container that has membership triples which are different to the containment triples ?
15:54:56 <roger> is that correct ?
15:56:21 <Ashok> q+
15:56:25 <SteveS> q+
15:57:00 <ericP> in Annotea, some clients wanted hosting and others didn't.
15:57:41 <ericP> it was really a question of whether they owned some other web space into which they wrote their annotations.
15:58:28 <ericP> (in response to Sandro's question of why one container would accept both POST and PATCH)
15:59:38 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:59:54 <bblfish> qoops forgot to keep scribing
16:00:28 <bblfish> Ashok: found sandro's write up easy to understand
16:00:34 <Arnaud> ack steves
16:00:35 <bblfish> and that it's a better write up
16:01:25 <bblfish> SteveS: an explanation for the need of the double headed beast. Why not have as bblfish said a simple POST to create an ldp:contains and then PATCH the returned URL somewhere else.
16:02:09 <bblfish> .... but with the bug report use case it is useful to have the action of POSTing have as a consequence the addition of the membership triple to another resource
16:04:34 <SteveS> I have a few edits I'd like to make to help with understanding, so would request another week before making decision on going to LC (or at least be clear on what actions are needed to make LC2)
16:05:11 <bblfish> Arnaud: Sandro proposes a new notion of Selection that is underspecified ( would take a lot of time to get it right ). What is a problem would be if we found that we had cornered ourselves. But if people don't like the InderectContainer and DirectContainer. The problem might be the naming of the IndirectContainer to ldp:Container decided last week
16:05:37 <bblfish> since with the ldp:PlainContainer things are the way sandro likes it
16:06:28 <bblfish> ... from a logical point of view this makes sense. But the ldp:BasicContainer is also an indirectContainer.
16:07:58 <bblfish> q+
16:08:45 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:09:12 <sandro> +1 rename ldp:Container back to ldp:IndirectContainer
16:09:34 <sandro> +1 removing the class heirarchy
16:09:40 <Ashok> q+
16:10:05 <sandro> (to reduce tying ourselves to the current model)
16:12:02 <SteveS> I like the hierarchy we have but understand how some of the model complexities might make into the simplest thing
16:13:25 <sandro> ApplicationDomainContainer  === IndirectContainer  ?
16:13:40 <Arnaud> ack ashok
16:14:53 <sandro> q+ to push forward, maybe with IC and DC "at risk".
16:15:06 <Arnaud> ack sandro
16:15:06 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to push forward, maybe with IC and DC "at risk".
16:15:24 <SteveS> q+
16:15:32 <TallTed> ldp:Container has 2 disjoint subclasses -- ldp:BasicContainer, ldp:AdvancedContainer
16:15:32 <TallTed> AdvancedContainer has 2 subclasses -- and 1 AdvancedContainer could be both of these -- ldp:IndirectContainer, ldp:DirectContainer
16:16:23 <bblfish> q+
16:16:39 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
16:17:42 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:19:22 <Zakim> -Roger
16:19:31 <SteveS> right, think soap/wsdl would have same issues
16:23:34 <sandro> q+ to bring up my PREFER request as well
16:25:06 <sandro> Arnaud, I'd love to propose to go to LC, but I'd also like to address my PREFER point.
16:26:30 <bblfish> yes
16:26:36 <SteveS> I can stay
16:26:39 <ericP> ack me
16:26:42 <sandro> Henry, the client IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for what people infer, incliduing what the server infers.
16:27:10 <Arnaud> ack sandro
16:27:10 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to bring up my PREFER request as well
16:27:14 <bblfish> I was just explaining what the importance of binding is
16:29:35 <bblfish> what is a client bound to when it POSTs a graph to a LDPC. It seems it is bound to the content of the graph and the ldp:contains relation . But for more advanced containers it seems the client is bound to the extra triples appearing. This is not made clear in the spec. Here binding is not the same as causal consequence. POSTing G could have as causal consequence that a bomb goes off, but the client is not bound to that consequence: he is certainly
16:29:35 <bblfish> h not responsible for it.
16:30:01 <sandro>  |Prefer: return=representation;
16:30:01 <sandro>     include="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferEmptyContainer"|
16:33:42 <bblfish> I am not sure I have a grasp of these proposals
16:34:08 <bblfish> q+
16:34:15 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:35:51 <SteveS> Agree with sandro, it would be good to have a URI for container metadata
16:36:24 <SteveS> ...we seem to have lost that (had it with ?non-member-properties) and added Prefer
16:37:17 <Ashok> q+
16:37:39 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
16:40:00 <sandro> { ?x ldp:contains ?y } => { member-constant membership-predicate ?y }
16:40:09 <sandro> that's how tyou make an IndirectContainer
16:42:14 <sandro> PROPOSED: Revert ldp:Container back to ldp:IndirectContainer, and remove class hierarchy relation among the Container types
16:43:57 <sandro> keeping ldp:Contains as the abstract class if folks really want it.
16:44:14 <Zakim> -Ashok
16:44:30 <sandro> oh no....   we lost Ashok, and he can't call back because we're over time.
16:46:37 <ericP> setting X=1 is idempotent but it has side effects
16:46:48 <sandro> sandro: The client is NEVER responsible for what ends up in the Container.   The client is ONLY responsble for the triples in its posting.
16:48:22 <bblfish> btw. I'm happy that we just have this discussion on this issue of what the consequences of POSTing are. This is really useful to understand
16:48:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: Revert ldp:Container back to ldp:IndirectContainer, and remove class hierarchy relation among the Container types.     With ldp:Container as the abstract base class of the three subclasses.
16:49:06 <sandro> or BasicContain is the base class.
16:52:15 <bblfish> Arnaud: is ldp:BasicContainer rdfs:subClassOf ldp:IndirectContainer .
16:53:06 <sandro> strawpoll: basic is base class, or basic is not base class
16:53:07 <bblfish> so ldp:contains has as domain rdf:IndirectContainer ?
16:53:28 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:53:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see deiu, Arnaud, TallTed, SteveS, Sandro, ericP (muted), bblfish, pchampin, codyburleson
16:53:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see bhyland, codyburleson, pchampin, MiguelAraCo, betehess, Zakim, RRSAgent, SteveS, deiu, nmihindu, TallTed, bblfish, abstractj, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
16:53:38 <Zakim> -ericP
16:54:24 <SteveS> +0 for reverting to LDPC parent class and subclasses
16:54:52 <Arnaud>  PROPOSED: make BasicContainer -> Container, have Direct and Indirect subclasses
16:55:04 <sandro> -0
16:55:20 <SteveS> +/- 0
16:55:20 <bblfish> -0.8
16:55:26 <TallTed> -0
16:55:28 <deiu> 0
16:55:28 <bblfish> I am pretty sure that's wrong
16:56:12 <SteveS> ok, I change to +0.3
16:56:52 <sandro> PROPOSED: Revert ldp:Container back to ldp:IndirectContainer, and remove class hierarchy relation among the Container types.     Use ldp:Container as the abstract base class of the three subclasses.
16:56:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: make Container abstract, have Basic, Direct, and Indirect subclasses
16:57:15 <sandro> +1
16:57:21 <SteveS> back to what we had on 2/16 basically
16:57:37 <TallTed> +0.5
16:57:45 <SteveS> +0.01
16:58:32 <Zakim> -codyburleson
16:59:58 <codyburleson> Oops. Dropped on accident and conference is restricted to re-enter. :-(
17:00:21 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
17:01:02 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
17:01:17 <sandro> PROPOSED: include server MAY include rel=describeby, and if so it gets the empty-container triples.
17:01:25 <SteveS> +1
17:01:53 <sandro> +1
17:02:17 <deiu> +0 (I need to think about it some more)
17:02:28 <sandro> SteveS: we removed this, because we had prefer, but we lost the IRI
17:02:31 <TallTed> s/describeby/describedby/
17:02:34 <SteveS> RFC5988 describes describedBy
17:02:39 <TallTed> +0.8
17:02:52 <sandro> s/describeby/describedBy/
17:03:53 <bblfish> +0 don't have anything against it. Not sure what the use case is
17:08:41 <Zakim> -deiu
17:09:31 <SteveS> I need to drop
17:09:38 <Zakim> -SteveS
17:10:27 <sandro>  MembershipContainer and IndirectMembershipContainer
17:10:38 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
17:11:53 <TallTed> DirectMembershipContainer and IndirectMembershipContainer
17:11:53 <TallTed> subclasses of MembershipContainer  :-)
17:13:39 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:13:44 <Zakim> -TallTed
17:13:47 <Zakim> -Arnaud
17:13:48 <Zakim> -bblfish
17:13:53 <bblfish> by
17:14:35 <bblfish> thanks. I'll read those proposals more carefully for next time.
17:17:57 <bblfish> I liked TallTed's argument about two-directional arguments :-)
17:18:08 <bblfish> I wonder if I have to close this
17:18:48 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
17:18:49 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
17:18:49 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, deiu, TallTed, SteveS, Sandro, Ashok, ericP, bblfish, Roger, nmihindu, pchampin, codyburleson
17:23:37 <bblfish> trackbot, end meeting
17:23:37 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:23:37 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:23:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:23:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/24-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
17:23:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:23:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items