See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 10 September 2012
<dret> zalim 510 is dret
<dret> zakim aabb is dret
<oberger> hmmm.... am I the only one to not hear anything ?
<SteveS> oberger: I hear Arnaud and other noise
<oberger> noise cancelation at arnaud's ?
<oberger> ok, let's wait
<bblfish> hi
<bblfish> ah I scribed recently...
<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas
PROPOSAL: Accept meeting minutes from http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-08-20
+1
<SteveS> +1
<oberger> no problem +1
PROPOSAL: Accept meeting minutes from http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-08-27
RESOLUTION: Both meeting minutes have been approved by the WG
Issues: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/
Arnaud: Not sure yet how
extensive we gonna use it, but worth having a look at it and
record them
... Every WG member can raise an issue and once accepted it
will be marked as OPEN
<RezaBFar> 714.454.aadd is me. Not sure why Zakim is not recognizing me.
Arnaud: Let's review actions
ACTION-4?
<trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Steve Speicher to review SPARQL Graph Store Protocol and suggest how we should move forward with it -- due 2012-09-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/4
<bblfish> I sent a mail out
SteveS: continues - next week, promise
ACTION-5?
<trackbot> ACTION-5 -- Henry Story to add use case for non rdf content addition -- due 2012-07-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/5
bblfish: I did send out, yes
<oberger> me can't see any note :-/
<oberger> in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/5
bblfish: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Sep/0007.html
<bblfish> ok, will do that right after the call
close ACTION-5
<trackbot> ACTION-5 Add use case for non rdf content addition closed
<oberger> mhausenblas, ;-)
<bblfish> I can re-word and put in wiki, then others can edit it
ACTION-6?
<trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Michael Hausenblas to review SDshare -- due 2012-09-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/6
<bblfish> you're welcome
Michael: continues - been on
vacation
... Graham Moore offered help, will deliver next week
Arnaud: Now we're back to our weekly schedule
… looking at the charter, the schedule says UCR were due in 07/2012, see http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
Arnaud: We need to see to
catch-up on these actions
... FPWD are due for 10/2012
… we're slipping behind schedule, so we need to show some progress
<oberger> btw, 1st of november is holiday in France... in case you're coming to Lyon... maybe some disruption of french public services to be expected on location
Arnaud: We need to have more discussions on the mailing list
<oberger> (F2F TPAC)
<Yves> it will be the same service as on a sunday
<oberger> Yves, yes
Arnaud: Use telecons to resolve difficult issues
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to talk re process
Michael: Agreed re progress but we need to work towards concrete proposals
bblfish: PROPOSAL: Take the Member Submission as a FPWD
<SteveS> +1 to PROPOSAL to move submission to working draft
+1 to the PROPOSAL to move submission to working draft by bblfish
<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask if their is an editor/s?
<SteveS> I have volunteered
gavinc: is there an Editor in sight?
+1
Michael: +1 for editor
<JohnArwe> I can also help
<bblfish> It's always better to have 2 people :-)
Michael: Happy to chime in as well
<oberger> obviously it is if we fallback on using the proposal as a draft ;)
<oberger> (looking like IBM alone ;)
<oberger> mhausenblas, our messages crossed eachother
<bblfish> it's better to have somtehitng to start where we can say: passage x, or y needs to be changed....
<bblfish> respec is cool
<gavinc> respec!
<bblfish> http://webid.info/spec/ used it
<gavinc> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
<oberger> git
<oberger> that one could be controversial topic for discussion ;)
<bblfish> you can use github, and sync with mercurial
<gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/linked-data/ ... is that us?
Sandro++ for git
<gavinc> doesn't look like it?
<oberger> is there a DVCS with a REST API ?
no, gavinc
<gavinc> then, no I don't see an hg repo
<Yves> not us
likewise
<bblfish> this is the webid mercurial http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID
<Yves> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg has all the repo
<scribe> ACTION: SteveS to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SteveS
<oberger> do we have/need consensus on that next action ?
<ghard> Lost connect. Zakim keeps telling me the conference code's not valid.
<scribe> ACTION: sspeiche to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [on Steve Speicher - due 2012-09-17].
<gavinc> uh
<gavinc> That action seems a bit strong ;)
<bblfish> +1
<gavinc> I think we were looking for a draft of a FPWD?
RESOLUTION: to move submission to working draft
<gavinc> not to publish it before anyone has seen it or it's been written?
<MacTed> yah; that was "convert member submission to working draft"
<gavinc> Ah okay :D
<JohnArwe> if yves needs my w3c id for setting up ACLS, it is jarwe
<MacTed> action 10?
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
<MacTed> action-10?
<trackbot> ACTION-10 -- Steve Speicher to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas -- due 2012-09-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/10
Michael: Correct, it is initially an Editors Draft that, given WG approval will be turned into a FPWD
<Yves> John, I'll check what is needed for dvcs, but it should be ok as long as you have a w3c id
<MacTed> action-10?
<trackbot> ACTION-10 -- Steve Speicher to convert member submission to Editor's Draft, with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas -- due 2012-09-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/10
<gavinc> Tracking and then nice little ISSUE notes in the document?
<Yves> repo should appear at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg
Michael: Thanks Yves!
<gavinc> thanks Yves
<Yves> writable by all wg members
Michael: Can take care of creating the products in tracker
<oberger> you mean, providing code ?
<gavinc> or "this is bad and fixing it is really hard"?
<MacTed> +1 gavinc
Michael: The products are now in
place , see https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/products
... I suggest, from now on, please everyone, tag your issue and
or action with one of the products - helps also the chairs
sandro: FPWD should be published before TPAC
PROPOSAL: FPWD should be published before TPAC
Michael: +1
<SteveS> +1, was what I was thinking as well
<gavinc> +0.9 (Not an editor, thus not +1 ;) )
Arnaud: Any objections?
<bblfish> seems good to me
Yves: The FPWD need not be perfect
Michael: +1000000000000
<oberger> release early, release often
<bblfish> +1
MacTed: Is that check with publication moratoriums, etc
Arnaud: Agreed. Chairs and team contact will check
<sandro> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012AprJun/0093.html
<sandro> Publishing moratoria second half of 2012
Michael: No publications the week of 29 October due to TPAC 2012:
<gavinc> October 29th, till...?
<oberger> sandro, may I ask what that is ?
sandro: let everyon review and raise issues
<Yves> <<
<Yves> Entrance criteria: The Chair MUST record the group's decision to request advancement. Since this is the first time that a document with this short name appears in the Technical Reports index, Director approval is REQUIRED for the transition.
<Yves> >>
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to propose reviewing process
<sandro> mhausenblas: Let the chairs set a deadline by which time everyone has to RAISE any issues they have with the submission/fpwd
<sandro> +1
Michael: Suggest some 4 weeks WG-internal review period in which WG members can raise issues once ED is available
<dret> ACTION: chairs should define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chairs
RESOLUTION: WG resolves that the FPWD should be published before TPAC
SteveS: two action items really: create ED first and then resolve FPWD
<oberger> and we're discussing things that weren't really on the agenda initially ?
<dret> ACTION: Arnaud and dret define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - And dret define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-09-17].
<oberger> of today's meeting I mean
<oberger> just in case
<JohnArwe> if you are using those "shared actions" to keep them on people's radar, since they get reviewed at the start of each mtg, not seeing the harm. true that editors could not unilaterally fulfill action, but we humans know that.
<bblfish> perhaps just make the chair responsible, and rephrase it: The chair opens discussion on the pre-published draft, and leaves 2-3 weeks for the questions before closing
<sandro> sandro: step 1: editors turn submission into ED; step 2: each member of the WG raises all the issues they care about; step 3: editors make sure those issues are listed in the ED and get it publisehd as FPWD.
Arnaud: Next meeting is on September 17, 2012
<bblfish> I have not registered, but count me in
Arnaud: Please register at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1
<bblfish> ah
<sandro> bblfish, we can't count you in until you've paid.
<bblfish> ok, added myself to http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1#Participants
<bblfish> ah, ok. got to pay too then
<MacTed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Sep/0001.html
Arnaud: Assuming everyone is happy with the proposed way to go by Steve Battle, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Sep/0001.html
<sandro> Not sure the ACL's on this page, but TPAC registration shows up here: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2012/registrants#LDP Seven attendees, two observers, so far.
Arnaud: No objections, so we assume we move on with this
(scribe was sleeping, should really have been above)
ISSUE-1?
<trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- Determine minimum serialization format for RDF data model -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/1
Arnaud: Seems we have wide agreement re Turtle
<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to recommend that this WG review Turtle before the end of it's Last Call period
gavinc: With my Turtle Editors hat on, I support Turtle as the default
… LC for Turtle ends soon
… comments are welcome
<bblfish> ah it would be great to have = in turtle for owl:sameAs
Michael: +1 to use Turtle
<gavinc> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
<oberger> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/07/13/rdf-working-group-publishes-turtle-as-last-call-working-draft/
PROPOSAL: The WG decides to use RDF Turtle as the minimum serialization format
<SteveS> +1
<gavinc> +1 Yay Turtle
Michael: +1
<bblfish> +1 it's especially useful to have turtle in the examples in the spec
<MacTed> +1
<rgarcia> +1
<dret> +1
<jkopecky> +1 for turtle
<oberger> +1 same as bblfish
<bblfish> ( rdf/xml is completely not understandable )
Roger: I support RDF Turtle, JSON is also good
<jkopecky> is RDF/JSON useful without code wrapping? If not, no diff from turtle
<Kalpa> +1 for turtle
<dret> we should have a few required formats ass possible (for interop)
Michael: +1 to dret
<bblfish> I think we should definitely allow other formats om tje longer run. (perhaps there should be some documentation in there)
<SteveS> Sounds like: Turtle = MUST, JSON-LD = SHOULD
<bblfish> SteveS: +1
<sandro> +1 for turtle as a minimum
<oberger> and RDF/XML : shouldn't ?
<SteveS> oberger: RDF/XML maybe just unsaid
<JohnArwe> +1 turtle
<dret> i like the MUST/SHOULD (recommended supported serializations) approach
<oberger> SteveS, it seems so unpopular, that we might as well take a stance ? ;)
<SteveS> oberger: my OSLC hat on, it will be a hard sell
<gavinc> We *MUST* allow other formats, but I don't think we should require more than one
<oberger> Eclipse... Lyo ;)
<bblfish> yes SHOULD for RDF?XML
<sandro> Arnaud: We might still REQUIRE or RECOMMEND other formats, although I agree one is probably best
<dret> agreed to Arnaus, 1 is the best number, 2 may be acceptable, anything bigger is probably not a good idea for interop
RESOLUTION: The WG decides to use RDF Turtle as the minimum serialization format
<bblfish> agree +1 for now Turtle is a MUST
<sandro> +1 arnaud chairing today! :-)
<bblfish> :)
<dret> thanks everybody!
<gavinc> Please please please review http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ or the edited ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#
<oberger> bye
(meeting adjourned)
<Kalpa> zakim aahh is me
trackbot, end telecon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Michel/Michael/ Succeeded: s/FPD/FPWD/ Succeeded: s/a/as/ Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas Inferring Scribes: mhausenblas Default Present: +1.845.433.aaaa, Arnaud, +1.510.206.aabb, SteveS, JohnArwe, gavinc, +1.510.698.aacc, MacTed, +1.714.454.aadd, oberger, mhausenblas, bblfish, Sandro, dret, +1.617.324.aaee, Karl, +1.617.324.aaff, Yves, rgarcia, krp, ghard, Ashok_Malhotra, +44.208.573.aagg, RezaBFar, +1.937.775.aahh, jkopecky Present: +1.845.433.aaaa Arnaud +1.510.206.aabb SteveS JohnArwe gavinc +1.510.698.aacc MacTed +1.714.454.aadd oberger mhausenblas bblfish Sandro dret +1.617.324.aaee Karl +1.617.324.aaff Yves rgarcia krp ghard Ashok_Malhotra +44.208.573.aagg RezaBFar +1.937.775.aahh jkopecky Found Date: 10 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html People with action items: arnaud chairs sspeiche steves WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]