IRC log of ldp on 2014-12-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:59:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:59:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:11 [betehess]
betehess has joined #ldp
14:59:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
14:59:12 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:59:13 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:13 [trackbot]
Date: 15 December 2014
14:59:47 [betehess_]
betehess_ has joined #ldp
14:59:53 [Zakim]
15:00:01 [Zakim]
15:00:36 [Zakim]
15:01:13 [Zakim]
15:01:49 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #ldp
15:01:55 [Zakim]
15:02:52 [deiu]
Sandro said he's going to be late 20mins and asks if we can postpone LD Patch until he gets there
15:03:07 [Zakim]
15:03:15 [TallTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:03:15 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
15:03:18 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:03:18 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
15:03:21 [Zakim]
15:03:27 [pchampin]
zakim, ??p18 is me
15:03:27 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
15:04:05 [Zakim]
15:04:13 [SteveS]
zakim, [IBM] is me
15:04:13 [Zakim]
+SteveS; got it
15:05:53 [betehess]
scribe: Alexandre
15:05:57 [betehess]
scribenick: betehess
15:06:18 [betehess]
Arnaud: approving the minutes of previous meeting
15:06:24 [betehess]
... no objection: approved
15:06:34 [betehess]
... next meeting could be Jan 6th
15:06:52 [betehess]
... but people could be returning to work that day
15:06:59 [azaroth]
+1 to 12th
15:07:10 [azaroth]
Otherwise regrets for for the 5th
15:07:17 [SteveS]
+1 to 12th
15:07:18 [betehess]
... or 12th?
15:07:40 [betehess]
Ashok: 12th!
15:07:52 [betehess]
Arnaud: let's do Jan 12th
15:07:59 [betehess]
... next meeting on Jan 12th
15:08:25 [betehess]
... tracking of actions and issues
15:08:55 [betehess]
... Alex had one action
15:09:00 [betehess]
... we can close it
15:09:24 [betehess]
... we'll talk about the issue later
15:09:31 [betehess]
... let's talk about LDP and Paging
15:09:40 [betehess]
... LDP going to CR, Paging to PR
15:09:52 [betehess]
... there was discussion about the abstract in LDP
15:09:58 [betehess]
... SteveS took an action
15:10:08 [betehess]
... ericP worked on getting the spec out
15:10:31 [betehess]
ericP: choose Jan 16th for the end of PR and CR
15:10:52 [betehess]
... not sure how long the waiting period should be
15:11:09 [betehess]
... for PR, there is a minimum, 3weeks/1month?
15:11:40 [betehess]
Arnaud: end of PR for LDP: minimum is 4 weeks
15:11:56 [betehess]
... on track to be publish on Dec 16th
15:12:03 [betehess]
... then we have the waiting period
15:12:40 [betehess]
... for Paging, as we have no commitment for implementations, so we're planning to wait longer
15:12:49 [betehess]
... so could be 3 months
15:13:10 [betehess]
... Mar 16th sounds more reasonable
15:13:16 [betehess]
... what do others think?
15:13:25 [betehess]
SteveS: day doesn't matter too much to me
15:13:34 [betehess]
... so March sounds reasonable
15:13:57 [betehess]
PROPOSAL: Mar 16th for the end of CR Paging
15:14:05 [deiu]
15:14:10 [betehess]
15:14:18 [TallTed]
15:15:01 [betehess]
Arnaud: all +1s say that people will be implementing the spec: yay!
15:15:13 [betehess]
APPROVED: Mar 16th for the end of CR Paging
15:15:36 [betehess]
ericP: the LDP ontology uses the LDP paging namespace
15:15:52 [betehess]
... we may need different ns for paging
15:15:59 [betehess]
... eg ldp-paging
15:16:10 [betehess]
... people would have to include both namespaces
15:16:14 [azaroth]
15:16:15 [betehess]
... but much more modular
15:16:24 [SteveS]
15:16:26 [betehess]
... and no need to modify things after LDP got to Rec
15:16:38 [Arnaud]
ack azaroth
15:17:04 [betehess]
azaroth: the expectation is that LDP Paging @@@
15:17:52 [betehess]
Arnaud: slight overhead with the 2 namespaces
15:17:58 [betehess]
... but kinda makes sense
15:18:16 [Arnaud]
ack SteveS
15:18:16 [azaroth]
s/@@@/wouldn't be used without LDP? And hence modularity would only be one way?/
15:18:18 [betehess]
... and people could come up with a different mechanism for paging, and another ns
15:18:36 [betehess]
SteveS: we talked about that some time, and we decided to keep it in ldp ns, can't remember when or why
15:19:15 [betehess]
... there will always be new ns, how do be layer new terms into LDP then?
15:19:26 [betehess]
... so -1 ldp-paging
15:19:35 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
15:19:36 [betehess]
... like the idea of having one common vocabulary
15:19:42 [Zakim]
15:19:44 [betehess]
... and be clear about the status
15:19:48 [Arnaud]
s/so/so no/
15:19:59 [Arnaud]
s/like/but like/
15:20:16 [betehess]
ericP: in principle, after ldp fgoes to Rec, I weould be permitted to change the terms used in ldp
15:20:24 [betehess]
... but I think I could edit the doc (I guess)
15:20:42 [betehess]
... value is: there is simplicity in having things in one place
15:20:48 [betehess]
Arnaud: look at
15:20:48 [deiu]
15:20:51 [betehess]
... it's all in there
15:20:54 [Arnaud]
ack deiu
15:21:10 [betehess]
deiu: there is a performance issue too
15:21:20 [Zakim]
+ +
15:21:21 [betehess]
... eg tabulator would dereference all vocabularies
15:21:21 [Zakim]
15:21:35 [betehess]
... so dereferencing things is costly for us
15:21:44 [bblfish]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:21:44 [Zakim]
+bblfish; got it
15:22:41 [betehess]
ericP: it's modularity vs simplicity
15:22:43 [TallTed]
what's the URI for the (current) Vocabulary Status Ontology?
15:22:55 [SteveS]
15:22:59 [betehess]
15:23:25 [betehess]
sandro: not strong advocate of 1 namespace
15:23:57 [betehess]
... people use the wrong namespaces all the time
15:24:00 [Arnaud]
ack betehess
15:25:02 [Zakim]
15:25:10 [betehess]
betehess: one namespace means ontology clashing
15:25:36 [betehess]
ericP: what's the title and metadata for the document?
15:25:53 [betehess]
... [enumerating]
15:26:04 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: a) keep one namespace, b) move paging into its own namespace
15:26:19 [betehess]
sandro: LDP Paging is part of LDP
15:26:31 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
15:26:33 [betehess]
... and we'd have to come back to LC if we want to change the NS
15:27:00 [betehess]
ericP: not sure
15:27:06 [betehess]
... if the implementations are not impacted...
15:27:17 [betehess]
sandro: should ask the director
15:27:32 [betehess]
... question is: do you affect somebody
15:27:50 [betehess]
Arnaud: I suggest we keep it as it is: one namespace
15:27:57 [betehess]
... any objection?
15:27:59 [deiu]
+0 (mainly because of having to go back to LC)
15:28:13 [betehess]
<betehess> -0.9
15:28:59 [betehess]
Arnaud: I hear no objection
15:29:04 [betehess]
... that settles it
15:29:51 [betehess]
betehess: wait, we should ask the rest of w3c staff
15:30:08 [betehess]
I would prefer having the strawpoll
15:30:13 [deiu]
me too
15:30:15 [betehess]
so that we can present it to w3c
15:30:56 [betehess]
Arnaud: don't think ericP convinced anybody (but Alex)
15:31:18 [betehess]
ericP: should I change all the ldp related terms to "stable"
15:31:32 [betehess]
... and leave the paging ones as unstable?
15:31:50 [betehess]
[chorus]: yes
15:31:56 [betehess]
Arnaud: ok, let's move on
15:32:02 [bblfish]
15:32:10 [bblfish]
15:32:17 [betehess]
... should be published tomorrow
15:32:40 [betehess]
... let's move to LDP Patch then
15:32:52 [betehess]
... betehess had the action item to ask timbl
15:33:00 [betehess]
... hard vs soft delete
15:33:02 [betehess]
15:33:11 [Arnaud]
ack betehess
15:33:15 [betehess]
... which was having different operations
15:33:55 [deiu]
betehess: once thing I didn't make clear in my email, the names for the operations were not discussed, so we can replace them if people come up with better ones
15:34:04 [Arnaud]
ack sandro
15:34:16 [bblfish]
can't hear sandro
15:34:17 [betehess]
sandro: don't think timbl had considered the rollbacxk problem
15:34:22 [betehess]
... b/c he doesn't use it
15:34:32 [Zakim]
15:34:42 [betehess]
... he doesn't want to implement a rollback system
15:34:45 [deiu]
sandro: Tim didn't really think about the possibility of having rollbacks
15:35:07 [deiu]
... he thinks that you must not send a patch that can result in a rollback
15:35:09 [betehess]
... there should be no rollback
15:35:22 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
15:35:28 [deiu]
... and he thinks that people should not have to implement systems that do rollbacks
15:35:39 [Zakim]
15:35:46 [deiu]
... I too would have a problem with implementing rollbacks
15:36:05 [betehess]
Arnaud: not sure we're why we're discussing about rollbacks
15:36:11 [deiu]
Arnaud: I don't really understand how we got to the rollback discussion
15:36:32 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:36:32 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
15:36:42 [deiu]
betehess: if there's a problem with the patch, the resource is left unchanged
15:36:44 [pchampin]
Bind and UpdateList can alreday fail
15:37:45 [deiu]
Arnaud: maybe the rollback term is too strong
15:38:10 [deiu]
... you cannot have a patch that "kind of" works but fails at the same time
15:38:14 [betehess]
Arnaud: PATCH either succeeds of fails, no in between
15:38:35 [betehess]
sandro: so during the patch, you are not modifying the db
15:38:43 [betehess]
... you are cumulating the add/delete
15:38:50 [deiu]
sandro: ok, so as you're applying the patch, you're not modifying the database, and in the processing of the patch you're making the necessary checks, so in that case the "rollback" is trivial
15:38:53 [betehess]
... did I get it right?
15:39:01 [betehess]
... ok, should be fine
15:39:34 [deiu]
Arnaud: the preference is therefore to have 4 operations (2 additions and 2 deletes)
15:39:45 [betehess]
Arnaud: so, the preference is to have 4 operations? add/delete can-fail/never-fails?
15:39:49 [deiu]
... are we good with that now?
15:40:08 [deiu]
... is there anything else the editors need at this point so we can close the issue?
15:40:20 [deiu]
15:40:51 [betehess]
PROPOSAL: close ISSUE-103 with having 4 operations: add/delete can-fail/never-fails
15:41:00 [betehess]
15:41:06 [pchampin]
15:41:08 [deiu]
15:41:36 [SteveS]
15:41:44 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:41:44 [TallTed]
15:41:46 [Ashok]
15:41:46 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
15:41:48 [ericP]
sandro, +1
15:42:03 [betehess]
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-103 with having 4 operations: add/delete can-fail/never-fails
15:43:11 [betehess]
Arnaud: current names are Add AddNew Delete DeleteAny
15:43:55 [pchampin]
15:44:12 [betehess]
Arnaud+Sandro: DeleteAny sounds funny to me
15:44:14 [Arnaud]
ack pchampin
15:44:34 [betehess]
... AddNew looks ok
15:44:59 [deiu]
deiu has joined #ldp
15:45:00 [betehess]
pchampin: share concerns re: DeleteAny
15:45:29 [betehess]
... would prefer Add and Delete would be in same category (can-fail)
15:45:38 [betehess]
... would be my preference
15:45:55 [betehess]
Arnaud: there is an asymmetry
15:46:14 [betehess]
sandro: I'd like that (no assymetry)
15:46:21 [pchampin]
pchampin : and the others could be AddNew and DeleteExisting
15:46:24 [TallTed]
+1 AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
15:46:24 [azaroth]
15:46:51 [betehess]
PROPOSAL: AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
15:46:55 [azaroth]
15:46:55 [deiu]
15:46:56 [SteveS]
15:46:56 [Ashok]
15:46:57 [betehess]
15:46:58 [pchampin]
15:47:09 [deiu]
sandro: +1
15:47:16 [TallTed]
15:47:31 [deiu]
15:48:02 [TallTed]
DeleteIfExists better than DeleteIfThere
15:48:24 [Ashok]
One more letter!
15:49:01 [betehess]
Arnaud: no real objections so far?
15:49:05 [betehess]
RESOLVED: AddNew/DeleteExisting could fail ; Add/Delete don't fail
15:49:12 [pchampin]
Sandro, you are right: "ifX" sounds like something that would not fail
15:49:25 [betehess]
Arnaud: any other issue we should be aware of?
15:49:32 [betehess]
... I believe we closed everything
15:49:49 [Zakim]
15:50:00 [betehess]
... so when can we published it as CR? (new process track: combined with LC)
15:50:04 [betehess]
... same burden
15:50:16 [betehess]
... need to keep track of public comments
15:51:06 [betehess]
... suggesting we go to CR
15:51:20 [Zakim]
15:51:24 [betehess]
... are we ready for such a decision? or do we need more time for people to review the spec?
15:51:39 [betehess]
sandro: and we have to plan the transition meetings
15:51:49 [betehess]
... so the question is only "when"?
15:51:52 [betehess]
Arnaud: believe so
15:52:09 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
15:52:09 [betehess]
... proposing we are doing it now
15:52:10 [pchampin]
question re. process: can we make slight editorial changes if we go to CR?
15:52:43 [bblfish]
I have not read it
15:52:51 [betehess]
sandro: has anyone other that the editors read the draft?
15:53:05 [betehess]
betehess: timbl read it
15:53:22 [betehess]
Arnaud: what's the exit criteria?
15:53:32 [SteveS]
I have not read it since updated but don’t object to move it forward, so many documents I need to patch
15:53:37 [betehess]
sandro: I'd say 2 implementations for the entire test suite
15:53:43 [bblfish]
15:53:49 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:54:16 [betehess]
bblfish: can I add metadata to the PATCH?
15:54:26 [betehess]
deiu: it's not using an rdf representation
15:54:55 [betehess]
bblfish: you won't be able to do event-sourcing
15:55:29 [betehess]
betehess: that is orthogonal
15:56:19 [betehess]
... this is just HTTP PATCH
15:56:27 [betehess]
bblfish: want to keep history of changes
15:56:44 [betehess]
... would be cool to have that in the PATCH format
15:56:54 [betehess]
... to know the reason
15:57:12 [betehess]
sandro: "I would like to express my PATCH as a trig document"
15:57:48 [betehess]
... the PATCH could be RDF with a String for the PATCH inside it
15:58:07 [bblfish]
ok, I can read it
15:58:31 [SteveS]
I can update my review
15:58:57 [betehess]
Arnaud: I am asking for volunteers to read the spec during the holiday
15:59:00 [MiguelAraCo]
I can commit to read it
15:59:18 [betehess]
... let's make sure that for next call, people have read the spec
15:59:35 [betehess]
... also, would be nice to have a link to a complete test suite
15:59:50 [betehess]
sandro: and the implementation report
16:00:04 [betehess]
16:00:12 [Arnaud]
ack betehess
16:00:58 [Zakim]
16:01:22 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
16:01:25 [betehess]
16:01:27 [deiu]
16:01:31 [pchampin]
16:01:31 [Ashok]
16:01:44 [SteveS]
16:02:02 [TallTed]
16:02:05 [betehess]
we can't publish tomorrow (too late), so that'd be Thursday anyway
16:02:16 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Publish LD Patch Format as Candidate Recommendation/Last Call WD
16:02:24 [betehess]
Arnaud: thank you
16:02:34 [betehess]
... thank you all for joining
16:02:40 [betehess]
... happy holidays!
16:02:44 [Zakim]
16:02:45 [Zakim]
16:02:47 [bblfish]
happy holidays.
16:02:48 [Zakim]
16:02:50 [betehess]
16:02:54 [Zakim]
16:02:55 [Zakim]
16:03:01 [Zakim]
16:03:51 [Arnaud]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Arnaud
16:03:57 [Zakim]
16:07:31 [Zakim]
16:16:11 [Zakim]
16:16:18 [Zakim]
16:26:39 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
16:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
16:35:02 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:35:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were azaroth, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ericP, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, deiu, TallTed, pchampin, SteveS, Roger, +, Sandro, bblfish
16:46:59 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #ldp
16:48:26 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #ldp
17:02:55 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
17:13:48 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #ldp
18:08:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ldp
18:15:54 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #ldp
18:36:55 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
19:59:37 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
20:07:13 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
21:24:42 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
21:34:17 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
21:36:41 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #ldp
22:30:23 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
22:37:49 [SteveS_]
SteveS_ has joined #ldp