IRC log of ldp on 2013-03-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:03:52 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #ldp

14:03:52 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/11-ldp-irc

14:03:54 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:03:56 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be LDP

14:03:56 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started

14:03:57 [trackbot]

Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

14:03:57 [trackbot]

Date: 11 March 2013

14:04:35 [Zakim]

-ericP

14:04:59 [Zakim]

+[GVoice]

14:05:19 [Arnaud]

zakim, who's on here?

14:05:20 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, Arnaud.

14:05:46 [Arnaud]

zakim, who is here?

14:05:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Sandro, Arnaud, [GVoice], pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, ??P10, TallTed (muted), ??P13, dret, JohnArwe

14:05:48 [Zakim]

On IRC I see RRSAgent, Arnaud, JohnArwe, dret, Zakim, Ashok, TallTed, pchampin, jmvanel, gavinc, sandro, ericP, Yves, thschee, betehess, trackbot

14:06:14 [ericP]

Zakim, [GVoice] is me

14:06:14 [Zakim]

+ericP; got it

14:08:38 [dret]

i can step in

14:08:46 [dret]

ok, i won't step in

14:08:53 [sandro]

scribe: sandro

14:11:00 [sandro]

two unidentified callers. mysterious!

14:11:23 [dret]

+1

14:11:24 [ericP]

+1

14:11:27 [sandro]

Arnaud: At our last F2F, we arranged for an informal telecon afterwords.

14:11:32 [sandro]

PROPOSED: accept minutes from last week

14:11:45 [sandro]

RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week (March 4)

14:12:20 [sandro]

Arnaud: At informal telecon right afterwords, we went over what happened, to catch up people who missed it. That's the plan for next week's telecon.

14:12:44 [sandro]

Arnaud: So people who come to the F2F, you don't have to join the telecon next week. We wont be making any decisions or anything like that.

14:12:58 [sandro]

Arnaud: On the F2F -- do we have the final list of participatns?

14:13:29 [sandro]

Arnaud: I haven't heard any feedback on the agenda.

14:14:25 [sandro]

Arnaud: Maybe breakouts. Long list of issues; no proposal for some of them.

14:15:00 [sandro]

Arnaud: I STRONGLY suggest if you care about an issue, you send out a proposal BEFORE the meeting.

14:15:05 [dret]

the break-out groups would be chartered with preparing proposals for those issues which don't have any right now.

14:15:20 [Ashok]

q+

14:15:51 [sandro]

Arnaud: If people are remote and really care, we can try to work around their schedule.

14:16:05 [Arnaud]

ack ashok

14:16:47 [sandro]

Ashok: We still have arguments and disagreements on the overall @@. I was hoping we could talk about that early

14:16:55 [sandro]

s/@@/model/

14:17:20 [sandro]

Arnaud: I'm kind of torn on that.

14:17:57 [sandro]

Arnaud: If we could agree on the model, things would be easier, yes. But it doesn't seem to be working, so maybe bottom up will work better.

14:18:03 [Zakim]

+Yves

14:18:06 [sandro]

.. like develop the test suite, and see how that goes.

14:18:11 [dret]

switch from topd-down to bottom-up mode, yes. i think we have established that top-down doesn't seem to work all that great for us.

14:18:29 [sandro]

+1 bottom up

14:18:51 [sandro]

Arnaud: We'll end up needing to make the same design decisions, but without the details we don't understand each other.

14:18:54 [dret]

and then when we have better spec'd bottom-up cases, we need to distill the model.

14:19:23 [sandro]

eric: There's a possibility that working with test cases will get us toward the model than discussion the model theoretically

14:19:28 [sandro]

Arnaud: exactly.

14:19:35 [dret]

yup, i agree that the tests are an excellent way to go forward.

14:19:52 [sandro]

ericP: Ashok, do you see a way to have the Test discussion first, in a way that will help us have a grounded Model discussion.

14:19:55 [Arnaud]

q?

14:20:04 [sandro]

dret, can you take over scribing for 10-15 now?

14:20:12 [sandro]

Ashok: I need to think about this.

14:21:34 [dret]

i can do that...

14:22:46 [dret]

Arnaud: keep breakout sessions as an option, but in such a fragmented group it may be counter-productive; will be decided on demand

14:23:06 [Zakim]

-??P13

14:23:20 [dret]

Topic: Actions and Issues

14:23:49 [Zakim]

-??P10

14:24:13 [dret]

Proposal: close ACTION-29

14:24:54 [dret]

Decision: ACTION-29 closed

14:26:22 [dret]

ACTION-38 remains opne while we switch to bottom-up mode for the model discussion

14:30:00 [Ashok]

But is this a LDP issue?

14:30:44 [Arnaud]

ack Yves

14:31:47 [dret]

discussing ISSUE-49 and whether it's part of LDP or should be considered orthogonal

14:32:46 [dret]

Yves: pointing to metalink and saying that we should be very cautious about making mirroring/equivalence a part of LDP

14:32:52 [TallTed]

TallTed has joined #ldp

14:33:02 [dret]

Ashok: agrees with Yves

14:33:19 [dret]

Arnaud: seems like most people agree that it's not an LDP issue

14:33:20 [JohnArwe]

...yves said he would put reference to other materials on the public list; some issues with attack vectors.

14:33:43 [Arnaud]

ack sandro

14:34:26 [dret]

Sandro: use OWL sameas in data or in the HTTP header

14:35:04 [dret]

these are RDF solutions, we might also recommend HTTP-level ones?

14:35:14 [pchampin]

q+ to notice that owl:sameAs is symetrical

14:35:21 [Arnaud]

ack pchampin

14:35:21 [Zakim]

pchampin, you wanted to notice that owl:sameAs is symetrical

14:36:28 [dret]

pchampin: not sure about sameas, because it is supposed to be symmetrical

14:37:05 [SteveS]

SteveS has joined #ldp

14:37:39 [Zakim]

+[IBM]

14:37:39 [Yves]

See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6249

14:37:44 [sandro]

scribe: sandro

14:38:03 [SteveS]

zakim, [IBM] is me

14:38:03 [Zakim]

+SteveS; got it

14:38:12 [Ashok]

q+

14:38:15 [dret]

thanks, sandro!

14:38:23 [Arnaud]

proposal: close issue-49, making no change

14:38:34 [Arnaud]

ack ashok

14:38:59 [sandro]

Ashok: There's a section 4.1.4 that spoke to this. Does that get clarified or removed or what?

14:39:16 [sandro]

Arnaud: No one has proposed that

14:39:54 [sandro]

Arnaud: There is one MUST in the spec.

14:40:32 [sandro]

Ashok: I recommend keeping it open and figuring out what to do with that part of our spec.

14:41:04 [sandro]

Arnaud: I don't want to just leave it open, and then we'll come back in 2 months

14:41:13 [sandro]

Ashok: give me an action

14:41:38 [SteveS]

q+

14:41:38 [sandro]

Arnaud: So we'll leave ISSUE-49 open for now, and Ashok with produce a recommendation about what to do about 4.1.4

14:41:47 [Arnaud]

ack steves

14:42:14 [bhyland]

bhyland has joined #ldp

14:43:42 [sandro]

action Ashok to propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec)

14:43:42 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-40 - Propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec) [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-03-18].

14:44:42 [dret]

i'm fine with ignoring ISSUE-37 for now and then attempt to distill it from tests

14:45:22 [sandro]

Arnaud: We were going to talk about Reverse Membership Predicate, but Steve Battle asked we not decide in his absence, so we'll put it off.

14:45:35 [sandro]

Arnaud: He did send email with example.

14:46:59 [sandro]

dret: I liked Steve's notion that navigability and data model are different things. What are the concepts that we identify and represent; and THEN decide on the affordances, where do we encode it, so clients can find that part of the data model in that place.

14:47:35 [sandro]

.. I really like the idea of splitting them. Make membership part of model, then later talk about how to make it navigable, maybe in both directions.

14:47:55 [sandro]

Arnaud: I thought you might agree with that. :-)

14:48:10 [sandro]

Arnaud: Steve's example was very useful. I had no understood it.

14:48:20 [sandro]

Arnaud: We need more examples posted.

14:49:06 [sandro]

Arnaud: I had thought it was a back-link, but he's just using a different membership property. The link is in the same direciton, container to member.

14:50:13 [sandro]

topic: issue-35

14:50:16 [sandro]

issue-35?

14:50:16 [trackbot]

ISSUE-35 -- POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI -- open

14:50:16 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/35

14:50:41 [sandro]

Arnaud: We had a similar discussion about whether URIs could be reused after delete.

14:51:07 [sandro]

.. Like MUST you get an error doing a GET after a DELETE?

14:51:22 [sandro]

.. people seemed to think there may be cases where a URI is reused.

14:51:26 [sandro]

issue-24?

14:51:26 [trackbot]

ISSUE-24 -- Should DELETED resources remain deleted? -- closed

14:51:26 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24

14:51:39 [dret]

i hope we don't say anywhere that you MUST get an error..

14:51:45 [sandro]

Arnaud, so issue-35 and issue-24 seem linked

14:51:59 [pchampin]

I agree that they seem linked

14:52:01 [sandro]

(your logic sounds good to me, Arnaud)

14:52:31 [TallTed]

seems an accurate assessment...

14:52:57 [sandro]

dret, I don't think we have liberty to decide this. if a server decides to re-use URIs, that's up to it. clients shouldn't make those assumptions.

14:53:12 [sandro]

s/dret,/dret:/

14:53:29 [sandro]

dret: I don't think clients have business looking at URIs like this.

14:53:43 [sandro]

Arnaud: Richard proposed server must not re-assign URI.

14:54:00 [sandro]

q+

14:54:19 [TallTed]

POSTing to a container MUST yield a URI ... it's server's choice what that URI is, and I think whether that URI is guaranteed new or re-used is and should remain outside our control

14:54:47 [sandro]

Arnaud: To be consistent with 24 we can't change anything on 35. because we already said URIs may be reused

14:54:51 [Arnaud]

ack sandro

14:55:32 [ericP]

sandro: i'm concearned about the situation where client A deletes </foo> and client B continues to use </foo>

14:56:03 [ericP]

... if something else creates </foo>, the meaning will change out from under client B.

14:56:23 [sandro]

Arnaud: Yeah, "under certain cirumstances". So in the NORMAL case you'd get a new URI.

14:56:28 [ericP]

... we need text which talks about "delete if if you're *sure* the URL hasn't leaked out"

14:56:33 [sandro]

Arnaud: So I'm okay with a SHOULD.

14:56:34 [Arnaud]

ack tallted

14:56:43 [dret]

i think this is "deployment guide" stuff: don't do it, because of this and that.

14:56:57 [sandro]

TallTed: This is no different from any other situation where URIs change.

14:57:42 [pchampin]

I agree with TallTed

14:57:49 [dret]

me too

14:57:54 [sandro]

TallTed: I don't think this is an undetectable error condition. You just have to document your server behavior

14:58:20 [dret]

i'd prefer non-spec level, this is just best practice

14:58:57 [sandro]

sandro: documenting server bevavior means there's no spec here.

14:59:18 [SteveS]

I like increasing the awareness from what we have, like with should or recommended, and possibly update some guidance into the deployment guide

14:59:45 [sandro]

sandro: MUST is too hard to implemnt, but strongly worded SHOULD is okay

15:00:04 [sandro]

Arnaud: Sounds like we're coming to SHOULD, but let's not decide until we have Richard present.

15:00:11 [dret]

not sure. this is not a protocol issue. it's just a recommendation.

15:00:57 [dret]

yup, and if people want to shoot themselves in the foot, they are allowed to do so. they just dimish the vaue of their service.

15:00:59 [sandro]

TallTed: I think SHOULD might be too strong. eg in the case of a reboot

15:01:19 [sandro]

sandro: if the client can't assume the URIs will be stable on a given server, we have a huge problem.

15:01:21 [Zakim]

-Ashok_Malhotra

15:01:23 [dret]

thanks everybody! thanks, sandro!

15:01:29 [Zakim]

-dret

15:01:33 [sandro]

thanks, dret!

15:01:41 [sandro]

Arnaud: See many of you in Boston!!

15:01:45 [sandro]

ADJOURN

15:01:49 [Zakim]

-Yves

15:01:50 [Zakim]

-TallTed

15:02:09 [Zakim]

-pchampin

15:03:17 [Zakim]

-JohnArwe

15:03:30 [sergio]

sergio has joined #ldp

15:03:35 [sergio]

hi

15:03:43 [sandro]

https://www.csail.mit.edu/mrbs/view_entry.php?id=94640&area=1&day=14&month=03&year=2013

15:03:57 [JohnArwe]

we just ended sergio --- US daylight savings started this past weekend

15:04:14 [cygri]

cygri has joined #ldp

15:04:34 [Zakim]

-SteveS

15:05:07 [Zakim]

-Sandro

15:05:08 [Zakim]

-Arnaud

15:05:10 [sergio]

what' the new conference code?

15:05:12 [Zakim]

-ericP

15:05:13 [Zakim]

SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

15:05:13 [Zakim]

Attendees were pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, dret, JohnArwe, Sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, SteveS

15:06:01 [sandro]

cygri, meeting just ended. daylight saving time shift.

15:06:15 [sergio]

ooooh

15:06:25 [sergio]

same error than cygri

15:07:07 [cygri]

i updated the calendar for RDF-WG and GLD-WG but must have forgotten LDP-WG

15:07:23 [sergio]

me too

15:07:27 [sergio]

sorry guys

15:07:29 [sandro]

ETOOMANYWORKINGGROUPS

15:08:00 [cygri]

cue rant about non-interoperable implementations of daylight saving time

15:09:28 [sergio]

cygri: trick if you are using google calendar: set the time zone in us for that event

15:09:41 [sandro]

oh, you can do that?

15:12:24 [ericP]

-> http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html#earlydst daylight saving time shift

15:15:42 [cygri]

ericP, I'm glad the compromise bill didn't involve shifting for half an hour

15:19:30 [ericP]

17.45 mins

15:22:19 [sergio]

xD

15:22:43 [sergio]

sandro: yes, google calendar supports that, I just never use it, from I'll do it for sure ;-)

15:23:41 [cygri]

"yes i can make tuesday 11am GMT, but that will be a cygri from a timeline where today's meeting has not happened yet"

15:24:12 [sandro]

*laugh*

15:24:22 [sandro]

I know that guy! He's brilliant!

15:24:34 [sandro]

mysteriously well informed

15:29:04 [sergio]

xDDD

15:30:25 [sergio]

at least for me, the event is showed in my local timezone, even if the time is for GMT-05:00

15:33:30 [Arnaud]

sorry you missed the call guys

15:33:41 [Arnaud]

I did my part sending a reminder to the list

15:34:29 [Arnaud]

I'll admit that I forgot to set my alarm clock and woke up right about the time of the call!

15:42:04 [cygri]

Arnaud, historical W3C data shows that 10% of WG members bungle this, regardless of how many warnings the chairs send... i think it's a natural constant, like the speed of light

15:56:50 [gavinc]

Or everyone could just get rid of this horrible idea, screw interop, just abandon Daylight Savings time completely!

16:02:35 [sandro]

just stick to local local time.

16:02:39 [sandro]

grrr

16:02:43 [sandro]

local solar time

16:02:54 [sandro]

to my fingers, "local" and "solar" are the same word.

16:05:11 [cygri]

GMT everywhere!

16:08:50 [sandro]

might as well go to decimal time as well.

16:08:52 [sandro]

:-)

16:09:18 [cygri]

and a decimal calendar.

16:10:12 [sandro]

if we just speed up the rotation of the earth a little, we could get 400 days in a year, that would help a bit. Then we'd have 100 days in a season, etc.

16:10:51 [sandro]

or moving the earth to a larger orbit; that would also get us 400 days in a year, AND help reduce global warming.

16:11:07 [sandro]

(how come I never hear anyone propose this!)

16:11:37 [cygri]

(y)

16:12:14 [cygri]

this would also dodge the doomsday asteroid

16:45:10 [bblfish]

bblfish has joined #ldp

17:05:07 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #ldp

17:30:22 [Arnaud]

cygri, sandro: given the US track record on failing to adopt the metric system despite all its advantages and a much easier change to make than adopting a decimal calendar there is little hope that a decimal calendar would ever be accepted!...

17:43:56 [gavinc]

Arnaud: We did adopt it! ... and then ignored it ;)

17:44:34 [gavinc]

On the other hand, you can't service a car, bike, toaster, oven, or much of anything in the US with anything other then Metric tools

17:44:50 [gavinc]

Mostly we haven't changed speed limits ;)

17:45:10 [gavinc]

or other road signs

17:45:20 [Arnaud]

and labelling!

17:46:23 [Arnaud]

going to the grocery or hardware store still requires a good understanding of the american system

17:46:50 [Arnaud]

after 15 years in the US I still struggle with the different measures of volumes and weight

17:49:31 [Arnaud]

and it pains me to think that this is what my kid is being taught in school

17:50:32 [gavinc]

eh? food labeling ist mostly dual

17:50:46 [Arnaud]

"mostly" :)

17:50:57 [Arnaud]

price tags aren't

17:51:09 [gavinc]

Okay, the butcher looks at you very funny if you ask for grams of meat

17:51:32 [Arnaud]

you want to compare the price of two similar items and one has a price per lb the other per ounce, etc.

17:51:47 [gavinc]

Eh, science education for me was all in SI

17:52:43 [Arnaud]

and because the items are sized in ounces etc you always end up with odd metric measures

17:53:28 [Arnaud]

which kind of defeats the points

17:53:40 [Arnaud]

s/points/point/

18:13:43 [bblfish]

bblfish has joined #ldp

18:17:38 [bblfish]

bblfish has joined #ldp

18:35:12 [bblfish]

bblfish has joined #ldp

18:44:02 [bblfish]

bblfish has joined #ldp

23:36:20 [bblfish]

bblfish has joined #ldp