IRC log of ldp on 2014-03-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:06 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #ldp

14:00:06 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-ldp-irc

14:00:08 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:00:08 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #ldp

14:00:10 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be LDP

14:00:10 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start now

14:00:11 [trackbot]

Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

14:00:12 [trackbot]

Date: 10 March 2014

14:00:23 [Zakim]

SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

14:00:30 [Zakim]

+Arnaud

14:00:39 [SteveS]

SteveS has joined #ldp

14:00:44 [JohnArwe]

JohnArwe has joined #ldp

14:00:54 [Zakim]

+JohnArwe

14:01:14 [Zakim]

+Sandro

14:01:24 [stevebattle15]

stevebattle15 has joined #ldp

14:01:52 [roger]

roger has joined #ldp

14:01:53 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:02:02 [codyburleson]

Zakim, IPcaller is me.

14:02:02 [Zakim]

+codyburleson; got it

14:02:19 [Zakim]

+[OpenLink]

14:02:25 [TallTed]

Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me

14:02:25 [Zakim]

+TallTed; got it

14:02:27 [TallTed]

Zakim, mute me

14:02:27 [Zakim]

TallTed should now be muted

14:02:35 [Zakim]

+Roger

14:02:47 [Zakim]

+Steve_Speicher

14:02:57 [SteveS]

Zakim, Steve_Speicher is me

14:02:57 [Zakim]

+SteveS; got it

14:03:03 [Zakim]

+MIT531

14:03:18 [deiu]

Zakim, +MIT531 is me

14:03:18 [Zakim]

sorry, deiu, I do not recognize a party named '+MIT531'

14:03:22 [deiu]

Zakim, MIT531 is me

14:03:22 [Zakim]

+deiu; got it

14:03:36 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:03:52 [Ashok]

zakim, IPcaller is me

14:03:52 [Zakim]

+Ashok; got it

14:05:31 [Arnaud]

zakim, who's on the phone?

14:05:31 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, codyburleson, TallTed (muted), Roger, SteveS, deiu, Ashok

14:06:26 [deiu]

scribenick: Deiu

14:06:31 [deiu]

scribenick Deiu

14:06:52 [deiu]

Scribe: Deiu

14:06:57 [sandro]

sandro has joined #ldp

14:07:02 [deiu]

Topic: approval of last minutes

14:07:17 [Arnaud]

http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-03-03

14:07:20 [deiu]

Arnaud: minutes approved since there were no objections

14:07:50 [deiu]

... any problem with next week's meeting? Same time, same hour difference

14:07:58 [deiu]

Topic: Actions and Issues

14:08:28 [deiu]

Arnaud: I used to track issues during the call, but I dropped it for a while. Now we can go back to tracking issues.

14:09:00 [deiu]

... re. Actions, we're now done with the spec, so we have to get back to the other deliverables

14:09:25 [deiu]

... there are some actions that need attention, any open actions? Any progress on them? (only 7 open but still)

14:09:31 [nmihindu]

nmihindu has joined #ldp

14:10:03 [deiu]

... is the spec supposed to be published tomorrow

14:10:12 [deiu]

SteveS: everything is good to go for tomorrow

14:10:39 [deiu]

Arnaud: it could have been April 1st, but we thought we should avoid that particular date

14:10:58 [deiu]

... we have 3 weeks at the beginning of April to finish the CR

14:11:15 [deiu]

... we don't have time to finish the spec before the group expires

14:11:29 [deiu]

... but we're pretty much done

14:11:47 [deiu]

... we can close shop at the beginning of June; it won't affect the spec too much

14:12:03 [deiu]

... we can get an extension though, in case we want to respond to comments

14:12:38 [deiu]

... if people are interested in continuing working on LDP, we still have a "wish list", so we can work on a new charter

14:13:18 [deiu]

... that will take some time to be approved, so maybe we can get an extension for the current group to try and deal with some of the points on that list

14:13:52 [deiu]

... we need to agree on the exit critera for CR

14:14:02 [deiu]

... at least 2-3 implementations

14:14:25 [deiu]

... it may take some time for people to implement the spec, after the latest changes

14:15:02 [deiu]

sandro: we need implementations that are interoperable, and for that we need a test suite

14:15:31 [deiu]

Arnaud: we should aim for demonstrating interop as much as possible, so the test suite is a priority

14:15:45 [Zakim]

+??P12

14:15:48 [deiu]

Topic: Use Cases and Requirements

14:15:49 [sandro]

s/for that we need a test suite/which is often done with a test suite

14:16:02 [nmihindu]

Zakim, ??P12 is me

14:16:02 [Zakim]

+nmihindu; got it

14:16:08 [nmihindu]

Zakim, mute me

14:16:08 [Zakim]

nmihindu should now be muted

14:16:30 [deiu]

Arnaud: there were improvements to the document, but we never got around to publishing it

14:16:48 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Publish the latest UC&R draft

14:16:54 [SteveS]

+1

14:16:58 [Ashok]

+1

14:17:27 [roger]

+1

14:17:28 [TallTed]

+1

14:17:30 [deiu]

SteveS: I thought stevebattle15 started the process and he requested a date

14:17:36 [deiu]

+1

14:17:36 [codyburleson]

+1

14:17:52 [nmihindu]

+1

14:17:55 [MiguelAraCo]

+1

14:18:03 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Publish the latest UC&R draft

14:18:06 [JohnArwe]

+1

14:18:19 [deiu]

Arnaud: I will let everyone know when it's published

14:18:26 [deiu]

Topic: Face-2-Face

14:18:58 [deiu]

Arnaud: we had talked about having a 3 day meeting, and maybe reduce it to 2 days

14:19:19 [SteveS]

maybe 3rd day can be test suite and other hacking

14:19:45 [deiu]

... I want to confirm that this will be a 3 day meeting (around 15-17 April)

14:19:47 [sandro]

+1 3 day meeting, especially if we can be doing interop testing

14:19:52 [deiu]

... there is a list of items to discuss

14:20:02 [deiu]

+1 for hacking

14:20:29 [codyburleson]

+1 3 days (or more)

14:20:34 [deiu]

... we have two specs now (LDP + Pagind&Ordering), so we have to make sure that they move forward

14:20:47 [deiu]

... we also have PATCH details to discuss

14:21:18 [deiu]

... we can spend some more time to discuss PATCH format, if we don't have too many LC comments

14:21:40 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Confirm 3 day meeting: 15-17 April

14:21:48 [deiu]

+1

14:22:02 [SteveS]

+1

14:22:03 [MiguelAraCo]

+1

14:22:05 [roger]

+1

14:22:22 [TallTed]

+1

14:22:37 [deiu]

Arnaud: people can go to the page and indicate there if they want to participate to the 3 day f2f

14:22:47 [sandro]

+1

14:22:53 [JohnArwe]

+1

14:23:31 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Confirm 3 day meeting: 15-17 April

14:23:48 [codyburleson]

That might be good, Sandro - if anybody cared to stay an extra day for extra "hackathon"

14:23:52 [deiu]

Arnaud: so now back to paging

14:24:18 [deiu]

... based on feedback from sandro, we have agreed to separate paging from the main LDP spec

14:24:30 [deiu]

... paging and ordering are now in a new draft

14:24:53 [deiu]

... we need to make progress, following the discussions on the mailing list

14:24:58 [deiu]

... there is currently no stability

14:25:11 [deiu]

... how much can the client miss when walking the pages

14:25:25 [deiu]

... currently, the spec does not guarantee anything

14:25:49 [deiu]

... sandro made the point that we need more guarantees

14:25:50 [Zakim]

+ericP

14:25:58 [deiu]

... we need to discuss this further

14:26:20 [stevebattle16]

stevebattle16 has joined #ldp

14:26:25 [deiu]

... I want to make sure that since this is an important aspect of LDP, we should not forget about it

14:27:07 [Zakim]

-deiu

14:28:45 [sandro]

deiu, we hope you're dialing back

14:29:00 [ericP]

scribenick: ericP

14:29:17 [Zakim]

+TimBL

14:29:26 [ericP]

sandro: to what extent will paging work for arbitrary graphs (vs. ldp:Containers)

14:29:31 [deiu]

Zakim: TimBL is me

14:29:43 [deiu]

Zakim, TimBL is me

14:29:43 [Zakim]

+deiu; got it

14:29:52 [ericP]

... we always had it mind that it would work in LDPRs, but we never worked through e.g. ordering

14:29:58 [deiu]

Arnaud: member submission was attached to containers

14:30:10 [ericP]

scribenick deiu

14:30:18 [SteveS]

FYI I created a new tracker "Product" for "LDP Paging Spec" https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/products/8

14:30:29 [JohnArwe]

Note: internally, we had paging for everything. it was easier to explain for containers only so we moved it there.

14:30:41 [deiu]

sandro: paging makes sense if you have ordering, and ordering was not defined for arbitrary LDPRs

14:31:02 [deiu]

Arnaud: should we open issues to start keeping track of these items more efficiently

14:31:40 [deiu]

... JohnArwe do you have any input?

14:32:09 [deiu]

JohnArwe: we had paging for arbitrary LDPRs initially, but we moved it over to containers since it was easier to explain to people

14:32:32 [deiu]

... pages came back and the implementation would manage the rest

14:33:18 [deiu]

sandro: you would order on the properties of the subject

14:33:32 [deiu]

... group by subject and order by a property (say foaf:name)

14:33:45 [deiu]

... for subjects that _have_ a foaf:name

14:34:09 [deiu]

... if you don't order the graph, then paging is just random sampling

14:35:09 [deiu]

@@@: none of the serializers do any ordering now

14:35:53 [deiu]

sandro: this would pose a problem for very large files

14:36:12 [deiu]

... there is also filtering (vs paging)

14:36:51 [deiu]

Zakim: who is talking?

14:36:55 [Arnaud]

john

14:37:05 [Arnaud]

JohnArwe:

14:37:42 [deiu]

JohnArwe: we weren't thinking about it in terms of a function that assigns resources to a page

14:38:13 [deiu]

sandro: you want pages to be a fixed (or approx) byte size

14:38:34 [deiu]

... request more pages as you need them

14:39:05 [deiu]

JohnArwe: you also want to be able to skip pages and/or support actions like "Home" or "Back" in the browser

14:40:00 [deiu]

Arnaud: ok, so we need to capture the issues

14:40:27 [deiu]

... one: how lossy do we allow paging to be?

14:40:47 [deiu]

... two: how do we do paging if there is no ordering, since ordering is defined for LDPCs

14:41:23 [deiu]

... paging is defined for LDPRs

14:41:37 [deiu]

... we can argue about its usefulness

14:42:05 [deiu]

JohnArwe: your client may not be only an LDP client, and so the client may know more (has support for extra features)

14:42:36 [deiu]

... it doesn't mean that is a problem if it isn't in the LDP spec

14:43:20 [deiu]

Arnaud: because we don't have a solution now, it doesn't mean that we won't find one later

14:43:34 [SteveS]

q+ to ask of there is any problem with paging spec just reusing LDP namespace

14:43:49 [deiu]

sandro: is paging only used for flow control or does it allow for application grouping?

14:43:54 [Arnaud]

ack steves

14:43:54 [Zakim]

SteveS, you wanted to ask of there is any problem with paging spec just reusing LDP namespace

14:43:57 [ericP]

Xon/Xoff

14:44:40 [JohnArwe]

I think Steve is asking if the paging spec-defined elements get a different NSURI

14:44:50 [deiu]

SteveS: we have some terms in the LDP namespace for paging

14:44:50 [Zakim]

-Roger

14:45:19 [deiu]

... do extensions go into the LDP namespace?

14:45:39 [ericP]

downside is that it's difficult to assert the stability policy

14:45:53 [deiu]

sandro: you'd like people to play with extensions in a different namespace, but you'd also want to keep everything in the same space

14:46:10 [Zakim]

+Roger

14:47:01 [deiu]

Arnaud: with the spec the way it is, sandro, do you have a problem with the way things are now, or is it ok?

14:47:17 [deiu]

... if we don't define ordering, can we keep the paging in LDPR?

14:47:40 [deiu]

sandro: I agree with JohnArwe about adding ordering later, but I'm not sure about how we will implement it

14:48:37 [deiu]

JohnArwe: how do you talk about the next page when you don't know how to sort it?

14:49:20 [deiu]

sandro: the server must figure out some kind or ordering so that it will not repeat things nor leave things out

14:49:58 [deiu]

Arnaud: my point is that if in your implementation you don't care about paging, you can choose not to do paging on graphs, for which you don't have a defined order of pages

14:50:12 [deiu]

sandro: the paging spec is optional, I agree

14:50:47 [deiu]

Arnaud: if you say you do paging, you have to be compliant and do paging on all resource types

14:51:21 [deiu]

sandro: you can ignore the requests to do paging

14:51:42 [deiu]

... the paging will be initiated by the client, say "Preferred page size: 10MB"

14:52:44 [deiu]

Arnaud: the server is in charge of deciding what resources get paged

14:53:28 [deiu]

sandro: we need to come up with an arbitrary way of doing paging

14:53:53 [deiu]

... so that if the server can do paging for one resource type, it will be able to do it for others too

14:55:24 [deiu]

JohnArwe: if I have a small resource (1-2 triples), am I required to break those into multiple pages (by supporting paging)?

14:55:53 [deiu]

sandro: if the client says "Max page size: 10MB" then the server will not send more than 10MB

14:56:08 [deiu]

... if a triple pushes you over the page size, you'll get another page

14:56:39 [deiu]

Arnaud: I want to raise 2 issues

14:56:49 [deiu]

... 1) how lossy is paging?

14:56:52 [JohnArwe]

The server-side issue with the size limit is that the size is not so easy to predict (with precision) when using OTS serializers.

14:57:04 [deiu]

... 2) what does it mean to have paging without ordering for LDPRs?

14:57:14 [sandro]

sandro: the exception being literals over the page size -- the server still needs to send those as is

14:57:45 [deiu]

sandro: the issue of how to page on LDPR is a different issue

14:57:54 [deiu]

sandro: sorry, how to order?

14:58:06 [deiu]

... ordering arbitrary LDPRs

14:58:33 [JohnArwe]

When you're near the page size, as a server you have to guess what fits, and when you're wrong you see a spike in overhead as you retry (remove a bit, re-serialize, test again), in pathological cases repeatedly

14:58:34 [SteveS]

FYI I created a new tracker "Product" for "LDP Paging Spec" https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/products/8

14:58:37 [deiu]

Arnaud: we need to make sure that raised issues match the right spec

14:58:38 [stevebattle16]

stevebattle16 has joined #ldp

14:59:09 [deiu]

Arnaud: we need to get back on progress on deliverables: test suite, etc.

14:59:37 [nmihindu]

I can ping Raul and ask about that

14:59:51 [deiu]

... we also have the ACL document; best practices and guidelines

15:00:07 [deiu]

... it might be good to take another look at the primer to check that is in sync

15:00:30 [deiu]

... we need to identify how we can make progress

15:00:41 [codyburleson]

After the last major update to the spec, I am guessing that all the docs need review and revision again. The last changes in spec were pretty dramatic.

15:00:43 [SteveS]

sandro, erice, deiu, any idea why mercurial is so slow ?

15:00:56 [SteveS]

..much slower last couple of weeks

15:01:02 [codyburleson]

codyburleson has left #ldp

15:01:03 [Zakim]

-Roger

15:01:05 [Zakim]

-Ashok

15:01:06 [Zakim]

-codyburleson

15:01:07 [Zakim]

-TallTed

15:01:07 [Zakim]

-Arnaud

15:01:08 [Zakim]

-Sandro

15:01:09 [Zakim]

-nmihindu

15:01:11 [Zakim]

-ericP

15:01:13 [Zakim]

-SteveS

15:01:20 [deiu]

SteveS: no idea really, you're the first person I know that complained about it

15:01:22 [Zakim]

-JohnArwe

15:01:24 [Zakim]

-deiu

15:01:25 [Zakim]

SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

15:01:25 [Zakim]

Attendees were Arnaud, JohnArwe, Sandro, codyburleson, TallTed, Roger, SteveS, deiu, Ashok, nmihindu, ericP

15:01:29 [Arnaud]

trackbot, end meeting

15:01:29 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

15:01:29 [Zakim]

sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is

15:01:37 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:01:37 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-ldp-minutes.html trackbot

15:01:38 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

15:01:38 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items