14:56:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://dristachi.site/2013/12/02-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://dristachi.site/2013/12/02-ldp-irc ←
14:56:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:56:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:56:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
14:56:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:56:06 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2013
15:00:54 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
15:01:01 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:02:01 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:02:21 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steve_Speicher ←
15:02:56 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:03:08 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
15:03:30 <SteveS> Zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
Steve Speicher: Zakim, Steve_Speicher is me ←
15:03:30 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:03:47 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:03:47 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:03:48 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:03:48 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:06:35 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
15:06:43 <pchampin> zakim, ??P1 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P1 is me ←
15:06:43 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:07:08 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:08:29 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
<pchampin> chair: Arnaud
<pchampin> agenda: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.12.02
<pchampin> regrets: cody, johnarwe
15:08:42 <SteveS> Passing on regrets from JohnArwe
Steve Speicher: Passing on regrets from JohnArwe ←
15:09:22 <pchampin> topic: Admin
15:09:48 <pchampin> arnaud: last minutes were made from my own IRC log
Arnaud Le Hors: last minutes were made from my own IRC log ←
15:09:53 <SteveS> +1 on minutes
Steve Speicher: +1 on minutes ←
15:09:56 <pchampin> ... as all the bots were having problems
... as all the bots were having problems ←
15:09:56 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:10:16 <pchampin> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of 25 October http://dristachi.site/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-25
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of 25 October http://dristachi.site/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-25 ←
15:10:22 <pchampin> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 25 October http://dristachi.site/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-25
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 25 October http://dristachi.site/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-25 ←
15:10:46 <pchampin> next meeting: next monday dec 9
next meeting: next monday dec 9 ←
15:11:08 <pchampin> topic: Tracking of actions
15:11:25 <pchampin> arnaud: two editor actions pending reviews
Arnaud Le Hors: two editor actions pending reviews ←
15:12:05 <pchampin> steves: both are completed
Steve Speicher: both are completed ←
15:12:11 <Zakim> +??P26
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26 ←
15:12:35 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P26 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P26 is me ←
15:12:35 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
15:12:38 <pchampin> arnaud: ACTION-100 about LDPC/LDPR is now reflected in the spec
Arnaud Le Hors: ACTION-100 about LDPC/LDPR is now reflected in the spec ←
15:12:48 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
15:12:49 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
15:12:55 <pchampin> steves: ACTION-101 is about security and expectations;
Steve Speicher: ACTION-101 is about security and expectations; ←
15:13:09 <pchampin> ... might need a little more discussions,
... might need a little more discussions, ←
15:13:22 <pchampin> ... but I added an informative section about security considerations
... but I added an informative section about security considerations ←
15:13:50 <pchampin> arnaud: let's close it; it's everybody's responsibility to look at the change and decide if they are happy with it
Arnaud Le Hors: let's close it; it's everybody's responsibility to look at the change and decide if they are happy with it ←
15:14:16 <pchampin> ashok: as I motivated one of these changes, I especially will have a look at it
Ashok Malhotra: as I motivated one of these changes, I especially will have a look at it ←
15:14:19 <pchampin> close ACTION-100
close ACTION-100 ←
15:14:19 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-100.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-100. ←
15:14:31 <pchampin> close ACTION-101
close ACTION-101 ←
15:14:31 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-101.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-101. ←
15:14:48 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:15:04 <pchampin> arnaud: does anyone want to claim victory on an open action?
Arnaud Le Hors: does anyone want to claim victory on an open action? ←
15:15:14 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
15:15:16 <pchampin> ... the list is very long, some of them being very old
... the list is very long, some of them being very old ←
15:15:35 <pchampin> ... please everybody look at them and see if you can progress on one of those
... please everybody look at them and see if you can progress on one of those ←
15:15:44 <pchampin> topic: Discuss remaining issues
15:16:07 <pchampin> arnaud: call closed last week
Arnaud Le Hors: call closed last week ←
15:16:20 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:16:34 <pchampin> ... we have to discuss issues one by one, understand what they are, and see if we should officially open them
... we have to discuss issues one by one, understand what they are, and see if we should officially open them ←
15:16:38 <pchampin> subtopic: ISSUE-85
15:16:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-85 -- membershipXXX rules -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-85 -- membershipXXX rules -- raised ←
15:16:38 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/85
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/85 ←
15:17:05 <pchampin> arnaud: Henry was complaining about the membership rules becoming more and more complicated
Arnaud Le Hors: Henry was complaining about the membership rules becoming more and more complicated ←
15:17:32 <pchampin> ... I have posted a page explaining it; is it sufficient?
... I have posted a page explaining it; is it sufficient? ←
15:18:00 <pchampin> bblfish: perhaps I could turn this issue into a simpler question
Henry Story: perhaps I could turn this issue into a simpler question ←
15:20:00 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:20:11 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
15:20:13 <pchampin> ... Let's close this issue; I will open a new one, more specific
... Let's close this issue; I will open a new one, more specific ←
15:20:31 <SteveS> I'm with Arnaud, I don't understand what the details of the are...so maybe a new one might be good to elaborate
Steve Speicher: I'm with Arnaud, I don't understand what the details of the are...so maybe a new one might be good to elaborate ←
15:20:45 <betehess> /me liked Henry's idea "One should either remove them, or think in terms of them as specifying the consequences of POSTing to a container."
Alexandre Bertails: /me liked Henry's idea "One should either remove them, or think in terms of them as specifying the consequences of POSTing to a container." ←
15:20:53 <pchampin> ashok: can you explain your issue?
Ashok Malhotra: can you explain your issue? ←
15:20:54 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:21:13 <betehess> that would simplify *everything*, just double the number of triples in an LDPC
Alexandre Bertails: that would simplify *everything*, just double the number of triples in an LDPC ←
15:21:20 <betehess> (potentially)
Alexandre Bertails: (potentially) ←
15:22:05 <pchampin> bblfish: we seem to require that the client to do some inference, that it MUST understand the triples that are created
Henry Story: we seem to require that the client to do some inference, that it MUST understand the triples that are created ←
15:22:46 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html
Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0022.html ←
15:23:11 <pchampin> ... the client should not POST to a container if it does not understand the meaning of the properties that will be created
... the client should not POST to a container if it does not understand the meaning of the properties that will be created ←
15:23:31 <pchampin> ericP: isn't it the same for every protocol?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: isn't it the same for every protocol? ←
15:24:02 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:24:15 <pchampin> henry: can't speak right now (other people in the office); close the issue, I'll open a more specific one
Henry Story: can't speak right now (other people in the office); close the issue, I'll open a more specific one ←
15:24:20 <pchampin> Resolved: Close ISSUE-85, nothing needs to be done
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-85, nothing needs to be done ←
15:24:20 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-85.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-85. ←
15:24:37 <pchampin> subtopic: ISSUE-86
15:24:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-86 -- "membership triples" misnamed -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-86 -- "membership triples" misnamed -- raised ←
15:24:37 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/86
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/86 ←
15:25:27 <pchampin> arnaud: I don't think there is a problem
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't think there is a problem ←
15:25:27 <betehess> re: issue-86, I believe that Henry would be happy with the default member triple being ldp:member
Reza B'Far: ISSUE-86, I believe that Henry would be happy with the default member triple being ldp:member [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Bertails ] ←
15:25:44 <betehess> that issue was opened before Arnaud's proposal from last week
Alexandre Bertails: that issue was opened before Arnaud's proposal from last week ←
15:25:50 <pchampin> ... "membership" is defined that way by the spec
... "membership" is defined that way by the spec ←
15:26:21 <pchampin> ericP: I think that some people want to use domain triples for asserting membership in a container
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I think that some people want to use domain triples for asserting membership in a container ←
15:26:47 <betehess> +1 to eric's description
Alexandre Bertails: +1 to eric's description ←
15:26:59 <pchampin> ... Henry is ok with having *both* the LDP membership triple and the domain triple, but some people are not
... Henry is ok with having *both* the LDP membership triple and the domain triple, but some people are not ←
15:27:30 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:27:39 <bblfish_> ok back
Henry Story: ok back ←
15:27:54 <bblfish_> issue-86?
15:27:54 <trackbot> issue-86 -- "membership triples" misnamed -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-86 -- "membership triples" misnamed -- raised ←
15:27:54 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/86
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/86 ←
15:29:04 <SteveS> What ericP describes, is how Arnaud split the kinds of containers http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers
Steve Speicher: What ericP describes, is how Arnaud split the kinds of containers http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers ←
15:29:33 <bblfish_> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:29:45 <pchampin> arnaud: I think it is closely related to ISSUE-89
Arnaud Le Hors: I think it is closely related to ISSUE-89 ←
15:30:15 <pchampin> ... and if we change the way things work, according to ISSUE-89, then we will have to rename things
... and if we change the way things work, according to ISSUE-89, then we will have to rename things ←
15:30:18 <betehess> agree with Arnaud, with last week's changes, I think we can close this issue
Alexandre Bertails: agree with Arnaud, with last week's changes, I think we can close this issue ←
15:30:25 <pchampin> ... but in the current state, I don't see the point of renaming them
... but in the current state, I don't see the point of renaming them ←
15:31:05 <pchampin> bblfish: the problem is that those properties have not much to do with "membership"
Henry Story: the problem is that those properties have not much to do with "membership" ←
15:31:31 <pchampin> ... they are more consequences of the action of POSTing
... they are more consequences of the action of POSTing ←
15:33:40 <pchampin> ericP: I think it is very practical to use domain triples to assert membership
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I think it is very practical to use domain triples to assert membership ←
15:34:08 <pchampin> ... and many people seem happy doing that; the problem is philosophical
... and many people seem happy doing that; the problem is philosophical ←
15:34:41 <bblfish_> It is not philosophical, its a relation between two things and the relation can be anything.
Henry Story: It is not philosophical, its a relation between two things and the relation can be anything. ←
15:35:07 <pchampin> arnaud: it does not meet your expectation about "membership",
Arnaud Le Hors: it does not meet your expectation about "membership", ←
15:35:18 <pchampin> ... but if you read the spec without any expectation,
... but if you read the spec without any expectation, ←
15:35:29 <pchampin> ... and accept the fact that the spec calls it "membership",
... and accept the fact that the spec calls it "membership", ←
15:36:07 <pchampin> ... then the spec makes sense (although you are entitled to not like it)
... then the spec makes sense (although you are entitled to not like it) ←
15:36:33 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
15:36:53 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:36:53 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:36:57 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
15:37:21 <Arnaud> ack bblfish_
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish_ ←
15:37:39 <betehess> it's true, it took me a long time to see what problems were behind the membership thing
Alexandre Bertails: it's true, it took me a long time to see what problems were behind the membership thing ←
15:37:47 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
15:38:52 <bblfish_> so why not call it commitment relationships
Henry Story: so why not call it commitment relationships ←
15:39:04 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
15:39:06 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
Arnaud Le Hors: ack TallTed ←
15:39:14 <Ashok> PAC: Agrees with Eric ...
Ashok Malhotra: PAC: Agrees with Eric ... ←
15:40:14 <pchampin> pchampin: Henry, whatever commitment is entailed by POSTing to the container, I can consider that container as the set of "members" who have made that commitment
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Henry, whatever commitment is entailed by POSTing to the container, I can consider that container as the set of "members" who have made that commitment ←
15:40:52 <pchampin> TallTed: we are using overloaded terms (membership) for things that they are not really suited to;
Ted Thibodeau: we are using overloaded terms (membership) for things that they are not really suited to; ←
15:41:04 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:41:04 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:41:07 <pchampin> ... that is why we keep having the same conversion ;
... that is why we keep having the same conversion ; ←
15:41:14 <pchampin> ... unfortunately, I don't have a better proposal
... unfortunately, I don't have a better proposal ←
15:41:32 <pchampin> arnaud: we do have a proposal using XYZ instead of membership :)
Arnaud Le Hors: we do have a proposal using XYZ instead of membership :) ←
15:41:32 <bblfish> Could we just allow some proposals of better names?
Henry Story: Could we just allow some proposals of better names? ←
15:42:04 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:42:38 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:43:57 <Ashok> scribenick: Ashok
(Scribe set to Ashok Malhotra)
15:43:58 <bblfish> issue-89?
15:43:58 <trackbot> issue-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- raised ←
15:43:58 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/89 ←
15:44:06 <pchampin> subTopic: ISSUE-89
15:44:59 <Ashok> Alexandre: There are 2 different views of membership
Alexandre Bertails: There are 2 different views of membership ←
15:45:43 <Ashok> ... cannot tell via membership what resources were created
... cannot tell via membership what resources were created ←
15:45:47 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:46:39 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
15:46:45 <bblfish> where is the url?
Henry Story: where is the url? ←
15:47:03 <bblfish> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers
Henry Story: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers ←
15:47:37 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:47:38 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
15:47:39 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
<pchampin> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
15:49:49 <pchampin> arnaud: regarding http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers
Arnaud Le Hors: regarding http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/wiki/Containers ←
15:50:00 <pchampin> ... what is missing that ldp:xyz provides
... what is missing that ldp:xyz provides ←
15:50:04 <pchampin> ... ?
... ? ←
15:50:48 <pchampin> betehess: I agree with what you are implying
Alexandre Bertails: I agree with what you are implying ←
15:51:13 <pchampin> ... the information is there in all three cases (SimpleContainer, DirectContainer, IndirectContainer)
... the information is there in all three cases (SimpleContainer, DirectContainer, IndirectContainer) ←
15:51:20 <pchampin> ... but it is different in each case
... but it is different in each case ←
15:51:33 <pchampin> ... so that is a burden on the client
... so that is a burden on the client ←
15:52:15 <pchampin> arnaud: I provided the SPARQL, to show exactly how heavy the burden is
Arnaud Le Hors: I provided the SPARQL, to show exactly how heavy the burden is ←
15:52:15 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:55:01 <pchampin> bblfish: we don't really need two predicates ldp:member and ldp:memberResource; ldp:member is enough
Henry Story: we don't really need two predicates ldp:member and ldp:memberResource; ldp:member is enough ←
15:56:05 <pchampin> pchampin: ldp:memberResource is "weaker", in a way, than ldp:member
Pierre-Antoine Champin: ldp:memberResource is "weaker", in a way, than ldp:member ←
15:57:11 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
15:58:50 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
15:59:49 <betehess> for what I understand: 1. for SimpleContainer, ldp:member matches ldp:xyz 2. for DirectContainer, the ldp:containsRelation value matches ldp:xyz 3. for IndirectContainer, ldp:create matches ldp:xyz
Alexandre Bertails: for what I understand: 1. for SimpleContainer, ldp:member matches ldp:xyz 2. for DirectContainer, the ldp:containsRelation value matches ldp:xyz 3. for IndirectContainer, ldp:create matches ldp:xyz ←
16:00:49 <betehess> it's some kind of LDP entailment
Alexandre Bertails: it's some kind of LDP entailment ←
16:00:53 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
16:02:42 <pchampin> arnaud: in the spec, before we created the IndirectContainer pattern, ldp:member was 1-1 mapped with ldp:xyz / ldp:created / ldp:memberResource
Arnaud Le Hors: in the spec, before we created the IndirectContainer pattern, ldp:member was 1-1 mapped with ldp:xyz / ldp:created / ldp:memberResource ←
16:02:51 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:03:20 <pchampin> ... we added the IndirectContainer, it was necessary to link a non-information resource as the member,
... we added the IndirectContainer, it was necessary to link a non-information resource as the member, ←
16:03:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:03:30 <pchampin> ... and to keep track of the created information resource
... and to keep track of the created information resource ←
16:03:33 <Zakim> -nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu ←
16:07:04 <pchampin> betehess: the focus of ISSUE-89 is to make explicit a relation related to HTTP *interaction*
Alexandre Bertails: the focus of ISSUE-89 is to make explicit a relation related to HTTP *interaction* ←
16:07:25 <pchampin> ... true, this relation can be derived from "membership" triples
... true, this relation can be derived from "membership" triples ←
16:07:42 <pchampin> ... but at least, the impact on *interaction* of those triples should be made explicit in the spec
... but at least, the impact on *interaction* of those triples should be made explicit in the spec ←
16:07:46 <pchampin> ... that would be a good first step
... that would be a good first step ←
16:08:44 <bblfish> s/meaningful/mindful/ ;-)
Henry Story: s/meaningful/mindful/ ;-) (warning: replacement failed) ←
16:08:57 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:09:11 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:09:12 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
16:09:14 <pchampin> arnaud: making the triple explicit, this would double the number of triples in the DirectContainer
Arnaud Le Hors: making the triple explicit, this would double the number of triples in the DirectContainer ←
16:09:18 <bblfish> Q+
Henry Story: Q+ ←
16:09:31 <pchampin> betehess: only if you chose to materialize them, which you don't *have* to do
Alexandre Bertails: only if you chose to materialize them, which you don't *have* to do ←
16:09:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:11:40 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
16:11:53 <betehess> to put my idea in one sentence: we could define ldp:xyz as a entailment rule (derived from Arnaud's SPARQL), then we can tie that to the interaction model
Alexandre Bertails: to put my idea in one sentence: we could define ldp:xyz as a entailment rule (derived from Arnaud's SPARQL), then we can tie that to the interaction model ←
16:11:57 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
16:12:07 <pchampin> arnaud: if it is only about infering that relation, I think that nobody will object
Arnaud Le Hors: if it is only about infering that relation, I think that nobody will object ←
16:12:31 <pchampin> ... I think it was already there, only not explicitly
... I think it was already there, only not explicitly ←
16:12:42 <betehess> yes, that's the idea :-)
Alexandre Bertails: yes, that's the idea :-) ←
16:13:02 <betehess> ldp:Container with ldp:xyz and the right interaction model :-)
Alexandre Bertails: ldp:Container with ldp:xyz and the right interaction model :-) ←
16:13:39 <betehess> big +1 to ashok's idea
Alexandre Bertails: big +1 to ashok's idea ←
16:13:52 <bblfish> I did not hear ashok's idea
Henry Story: I did not hear ashok's idea ←
16:14:17 <pchampin> arnaud: it seems that we must open issue-89, regarding the time we just spent on it
Arnaud Le Hors: it seems that we must open ISSUE-89, regarding the time we just spent on it ←
16:14:21 <pchampin> ... no objection ?
... no objection ? ←
16:14:28 <pchampin> Resolved: Open ISSUE-89
16:15:05 <TallTed> ashok's idea (roughly): if these containers we're describing could be defined as subtypes of a (defined) generic container type, leading to extensible container types, that'd be great
Ted Thibodeau: ashok's idea (roughly): if these containers we're describing could be defined as subtypes of a (defined) generic container type, leading to extensible container types, that'd be great ←
16:15:21 <pchampin> subtopic: ISSUE-90
16:15:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-90 -- An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-90 -- An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph -- raised ←
16:15:21 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/90
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/90 ←
16:16:39 <pchampin> arnaud: we are commited to comply as much as possible with the SPARQL Graph Proptocol
Arnaud Le Hors: we are commited to comply as much as possible with the SPARQL Graph Store Protocol ←
16:17:32 <betehess> s/Graph Proptocol/Graph Store Protocol/
16:17:33 <pchampin> betehess: for SGP, graphs are explicitly paired with URI; in our case this is a little harder
Alexandre Bertails: for SGP, graphs are explicitly paired with URI; in our case this is a little harder ←
16:17:34 <bblfish> s/Graph Protocol/Graph Store Protocol/
Henry Story: s/Graph Protocol/Graph Store Protocol/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
16:17:54 <pchampin> ... we must make it explicit that GET only gets you the "content" of the LDPR
... we must make it explicit that GET only gets you the "content" of the LDPR ←
16:18:19 <pchampin> arnaud: betehess can you propose a text to modify the spec?
Arnaud Le Hors: betehess can you propose a text to modify the spec? ←
16:18:23 <pchampin> betehess: yes
Alexandre Bertails: yes ←
16:18:31 <pchampin> arnaud: let's open ISSUE-90, then
Arnaud Le Hors: let's open ISSUE-90, then ←
<pchampin> Resolved: Open ISSUE-90
16:19:16 <betehess> ACTION: betehess to propose a text to modify the spec re: ISSUE-90
ACTION: betehess to propose a text to modify the spec re: ISSUE-90 ←
<pchampin> subtopic: ISSUE-91
16:18:46 <bblfish> Issue-91?
16:18:46 <trackbot> Issue-91 -- The LDP (REST) interactions must be driven by the rel='type' Link header -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-91 -- The LDP (REST) interactions must be driven by the rel='type' Link header -- raised ←
16:18:46 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/91
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/91 ←
16:18:55 <TallTed> reopen issue-91
Ted Thibodeau: reopen ISSUE-91 ←
16:18:55 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-91.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-91. ←
16:19:04 <TallTed> damn, typo
Ted Thibodeau: damn, typo ←
16:19:07 <TallTed> reopen issue-90
Ted Thibodeau: reopen ISSUE-90 ←
16:19:08 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-90.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-90. ←
16:19:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Propose a text to modify the spec re: issue-90 [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2013-12-09].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-115 - Propose a text to modify the spec re: ISSUE-90 [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2013-12-09]. ←
16:20:18 <pchampin> arnaud: there has been heated debates between "REST people" and "SemWeb people"
Arnaud Le Hors: there has been heated debates between "REST people" and "SemWeb people" ←
16:20:41 <betehess> and for the record, the Link "tag" was only defined for the GET
Alexandre Bertails: and for the record, the Link "tag" was only defined for the GET ←
16:20:43 <pchampin> ... the former wanting to distinguish the data-format (turtle) from the interaction model
... the former wanting to distinguish the data-format (turtle) from the interaction model ←
16:21:17 <pchampin> ... we settled on keeping text/turtle as the content-type, and specify the interaction model in the rel=type Link
... we settled on keeping text/turtle as the content-type, and specify the interaction model in the rel=type Link ←
16:21:43 <pchampin> ... now Alexandre is arguing that LDPR and LDPC have different interaction models
... now Alexandre is arguing that LDPR and LDPC have different interaction models ←
16:21:54 <pchampin> ... so the rel=type Link should be different
... so the rel=type Link should be different ←
16:22:05 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
16:22:52 <pchampin> arnaud: we can easily extend today's solution with 2 different kinds of rel=type links
Arnaud Le Hors: we can easily extend today's solution with 2 different kinds of rel=type links ←
16:23:16 <pchampin> ... but then do we want more (e.g. one for each kind of container -- Simple, Direct, Indirect)?
... but then do we want more (e.g. one for each kind of container -- Simple, Direct, Indirect)? ←
16:23:51 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
16:25:21 <pchampin> pchampin: personally, I think we can stick with one rel=type Link
Pierre-Antoine Champin: personally, I think we can stick with one rel=type Link ←
16:25:35 <betehess> ACTION: betehess to propose a text to modify the spec re: ISSUE-91
ACTION: betehess to propose a text to modify the spec re: ISSUE-91 ←
16:25:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Propose a text to modify the spec re: issue-91 [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2013-12-09].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-116 - Propose a text to modify the spec re: ISSUE-91 [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2013-12-09]. ←
16:25:38 <pchampin> ... clients understanding it know how to inspect the data to recognize an LDPC from a simple LDPR
... clients understanding it know how to inspect the data to recognize an LDPC from a simple LDPR ←
16:25:59 <pchampin> ... but if we want different rel=type Links, we can have two for containers : simple LDPR + LDPC
... but if we want different rel=type Links, we can have two for containers : simple LDPR + LDPC ←
16:26:28 <pchampin> arnaud: let's open ISSUE-91, and have betehess make a more precise proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: let's open ISSUE-91, and have betehess make a more precise proposal ←
<pchampin> Resolved: Open ISSUE-91
<pchampin> topic: Status of disposition of Last Call comments
16:27:44 <pchampin> arnaud: Ashok made two comments, which I addressed off-line
Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok made two comments, which I addressed off-line ←
16:28:02 <pchampin> ashok: I'm satisfied with Arnaud's responses
Ashok Malhotra: I'm satisfied with Arnaud's responses ←
16:30:54 <bblfish> thanks
Henry Story: thanks ←
<pchampin> topic: 2nd Last Call timeline
16:31:45 <pchampin> arnaud: we need to quickly solve the last issues
Arnaud Le Hors: we need to quickly solve the last issues ←
16:32:07 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to get response from TimBL re: 1. no resources to push 209 through IEFT, 2. no standard scheme to advertise PUT-CREATE, 3. rest OK'd per telecon
ACTION: ericP to get response from TimBL re: 1. no resources to push 209 through IEFT, 2. no standard scheme to advertise PUT-CREATE, 3. rest OK'd per telecon ←
16:32:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Get response from timbl re: 1. no resources to push 209 through ieft, 2. no standard scheme to advertise put-create, 3. rest ok'd per telecon [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-12-09].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-117 - Get response from timbl re: 1. no resources to push 209 through ieft, 2. no standard scheme to advertise put-create, 3. rest ok'd per telecon [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-12-09]. ←
16:32:11 <pchampin> ... 2nd LC must be 3 weeks long, so we have to issue
... 2nd LC must be 3 weeks long, so we have to issue ←
<pchampin> topic: Next Face to Face meeting
16:32:58 <pchampin> ... regarding next F2F, we are supposed to give a 8 weeks notice
... regarding next F2F, we are supposed to give a 8 weeks notice ←
16:33:26 <pchampin> ... so we should plane the next one in February instead of January
... so we should plane the next one in February instead of January ←
16:34:54 <pchampin> ... if we want to meet after the 2nd LC period, this brings us to the end of February
... if we want to meet after the 2nd LC period, this brings us to the end of February ←
16:36:46 <bblfish> I did raise these issues in summer but they were closed
Henry Story: I did raise these issues in summer but they were closed ←
16:36:51 <bblfish> very quickly
Henry Story: very quickly ←
16:37:03 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:37:20 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
16:37:38 <betehess> was the 3 container thing reflected in the specification already?
Alexandre Bertails: was the 3 container thing reflected in the specification already? ←
16:37:54 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:37:57 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:37:59 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
16:37:59 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:38:01 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
16:38:01 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:38:02 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:38:22 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:38:23 <bblfish> In fact I raised these issues 9 months ago.
Henry Story: In fact I raised these issues 9 months ago. ←
16:38:33 <bblfish> or more.
Henry Story: or more. ←
16:38:37 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:38:38 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:38:38 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:38:38 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, ericP, SteveS, TallTed, pchampin, Alexandre, nmihindu, bblfish, Roger, Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, ericP, SteveS, TallTed, pchampin, Alexandre, nmihindu, bblfish, Roger, Sandro ←
Formatted by CommonScribe