IRC log of ldp on 2013-05-06
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:57:16 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ldp
- 13:57:16 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/06-ldp-irc
- 13:57:18 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 13:57:18 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #ldp
- 13:57:20 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be LDP
- 13:57:20 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
- 13:57:21 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
- 13:57:21 [trackbot]
- Date: 06 May 2013
- 13:57:22 [pchampin]
- pchampin has joined #ldp
- 13:58:04 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp
- 13:58:13 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
- 13:58:22 [Zakim]
- + +329331aaaa
- 13:59:55 [JohnArwe]
- JohnArwe has joined #ldp
- 14:00:03 [Zakim]
- +JohnArwe
- 14:00:14 [mielvds1]
- zakim, +329331aaaa is me
- 14:00:15 [Zakim]
- +mielvds1; got it
- 14:00:35 [Zakim]
- +Arnaud
- 14:00:47 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 14:01:01 [TallTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 14:01:01 [Zakim]
- +TallTed; got it
- 14:01:02 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:01:02 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:01:07 [Zakim]
- +Ashok_Malhotra
- 14:01:10 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 14:01:15 [pchampin_]
- pchampin_ has joined #ldp
- 14:01:18 [SteveS]
- zakim, [IBM] is me
- 14:01:18 [Zakim]
- +SteveS; got it
- 14:02:06 [Arnaud]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 14:02:06 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see mielvds1, JohnArwe, Arnaud, TallTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS
- 14:02:53 [Zakim]
- +Gregg_Vanderheiden
- 14:02:58 [Zakim]
- -Gregg_Vanderheiden
- 14:03:05 [cody]
- cody has joined #ldp
- 14:03:10 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 14:03:48 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:03:58 [cody]
- Zakim, IPcaller is me
- 14:03:58 [Zakim]
- +cody; got it
- 14:04:02 [sergio]
- sergio has joined #ldp
- 14:04:21 [Zakim]
- +[GVoice]
- 14:05:53 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 14:05:53 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 14:06:23 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:06:23 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:06:28 [SteveS]
- Scribe: SteveS
- 14:06:46 [SteveS]
- Topic: Approve minutes from April 29th
- 14:06:57 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:07:10 [SteveS]
- RESOLVED: approve minutes from April 29th
- 14:07:15 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 14:07:33 [sergio]
- Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
- 14:07:34 [Zakim]
- +sergio; got it
- 14:08:01 [JohnArwe]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:08:01 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see mielvds1, JohnArwe, Arnaud, TallTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Sandro, cody, ericP, sergio, ??P5
- 14:08:04 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see sergio, cody, pchampin_, JohnArwe, SteveS, Zakim, RRSAgent, Arnaud, mielvds1, Ashok, svillata, betehess, nmihindu, TallTed, davidwood, bblfish, Yves, sandro, trackbot,
- 14:08:04 [Zakim]
- ... cygri, jmvanel, ericP, thschee
- 14:08:50 [SteveS]
- Topic: next meeting May 13th
- 14:09:23 [SteveS]
- ericP: who will be in Brazil WWW2013?
- 14:09:46 [mielvds1]
- I will, good to meet some people from the group
- 14:09:46 [nmihindu]
- Zakim, ??P5 is me
- 14:09:46 [Zakim]
- +nmihindu; got it
- 14:09:51 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: will be there and may have a conflict, checking timezone clashes
- 14:10:31 [pchampin]
- pchampin has joined #ldp
- 14:11:13 [SteveS]
- SteveS: offered to chair if Arnaud can not attend
- 14:12:30 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: fear of missing another meeting as we are not seeing much activity between the calls, needing to hit last call by end of June
- 14:12:35 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 14:12:44 [pchampin]
- zakim, ??P16 is me
- 14:12:44 [Zakim]
- +pchampin; got it
- 14:13:12 [SteveS]
- …will defer decision on holding meeting on May 13th later this week
- 14:13:23 [SteveS]
- Topic: Issues and Actions
- 14:13:33 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: no actions pending review
- 14:14:37 [SteveS]
- …any actions anyone want to claim progress?
- 14:15:25 [SteveS]
- SteveS: made progress on ACTION-45 but want to do another read/rewrite on it
- 14:16:08 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: Update on test suite? See that Raul has made progress on it
- 14:16:29 [SteveS]
- ericP: is under it and making progress
- 14:16:31 [sergio]
- q+
- 14:16:53 [Arnaud]
- ack sergio
- 14:17:11 [SteveS]
- sergio: Spoke with rgarcia and said he is making progress with ericP
- 14:17:13 [nmihindu]
- q
- 14:17:28 [JohnArwe]
- my email (and the corresponding agenda topic) is evidence of progress on action-51, but not done yet
- 14:17:33 [TallTed]
- Zakim, who's noisy?
- 14:17:44 [Zakim]
- TallTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: nmihindu (61%), mielvds1 (9%), JohnArwe (4%), Arnaud (33%)
- 14:18:12 [SteveS]
- Topic: Issues pending review
- 14:18:41 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: 1 new raised issue, Roger asked that we wait to discuss until he is available to present
- 14:18:51 [SteveS]
- Topic: Open Issues
- 14:19:24 [SteveS]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.05.06#Open_Issues
- 14:19:33 [SteveS]
- Topic: ISSUE-14
- 14:19:39 [sandro]
- issue-14
- 14:19:39 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-14 -- Include clarifications about ordering in BPC representations -- open
- 14:19:39 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/14
- 14:19:57 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 14:19:57 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 14:20:29 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: No new proposals available from the one proposed by Raul
- 14:21:37 [SteveS]
- TallTed: subsequent discussions has shown that others voice the concern, need to make it clear the sorting is arbitrary by the server and the server may provide the sorted by data in the response
- 14:21:56 [SteveS]
- ericP: what do you expect the client to do with sorting info?
- 14:22:07 [SteveS]
- TallTed: would be dealing with paging
- 14:22:07 [Ashok]
- q+
- 14:22:31 [Arnaud]
- ack ashok
- 14:22:38 [SteveS]
- ericP: a client may be able to do a binary search if it knew the sorting and paging scheme
- 14:23:12 [SteveS]
- Ashok: concern if get 1 container it may come in different orders, no requirement that it has to be consistent
- 14:23:24 [pchampin]
- q+
- 14:23:56 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: notices that ISSUE-18 talks about stable paging and dealing with changing pages over time
- 14:24:02 [Arnaud]
- ack pchampin
- 14:24:09 [JohnArwe]
- pierre breaking up badly
- 14:24:18 [JohnArwe]
- ...every 2-3rd syllable coming through
- 14:24:42 [SteveS]
- q+
- 14:25:18 [pchampin]
- 1. paging should be reproducible in some way
- 14:25:20 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: would like to keep issues separate
- 14:25:26 [Arnaud]
- ack steves
- 14:25:44 [pchampin]
- 2. I'm not sure the proposed "sortPredicate" is enough to represent all useful sorting schemes
- 14:27:02 [SteveS]
- SteveS: to be clear ISSUE-14 is only about how to have both ascending and descending, be good to open new issues as needed
- 14:27:40 [SteveS]
- TallTed: spec take into account localization, etc
- 14:27:57 [SteveS]
- SteveS: spec defers to the definition of ascending and descending as within the SPARQL spec
- 14:28:12 [sergio]
- q+
- 14:28:26 [Arnaud]
- ack sergio
- 14:28:28 [pchampin]
- it does not cover ascending vs. descending, it does not cover sorting agains multiple predicates
- 14:28:33 [SteveS]
- SteveS: based on the use cases that Raul and I have put forward, the proposal is enough
- 14:28:50 [Ashok]
- q+
- 14:28:54 [pchampin]
- use case: sorting bugs by state, then by date
- 14:30:33 [Arnaud]
- ack ashok
- 14:31:08 [SteveS]
- sergio: current libraries won't be able to handle this natively as it is not based on List (at least initially)
- 14:31:19 [ericP]
- -> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#modOrderBy SPARQL Order
- 14:31:21 [pchampin]
- oops; realizing this is a *list* of predicates... so my use case above is actually handled. sorry :-(
- 14:32:01 [ericP]
- -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-compare XPath compare
- 14:32:12 [ericP]
- op:numeric-less-than(A, B)
- 14:32:20 [SteveS]
- Ashok: what are the limits of what can be sorted?
- 14:32:35 [SteveS]
- SteveS: it is defined by SPARQL orderBy
- 14:33:16 [sergio]
- +1 to sparql-based ordering definition
- 14:33:49 [SteveS]
- Ashok: why are we ignoring collations?
- 14:35:32 [SteveS]
- ericP: <added some description>
- 14:36:04 [SteveS]
- What scenario are we saying we haven't considered to date?
- 14:37:51 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: sounds like a separate issue that perhaps Ashok can raise and propose something regards to what he sees as missing from the spec
- 14:38:19 [JohnArwe]
- From email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0002.html
- 14:38:27 [JohnArwe]
- The concrete proposal is the following:
- 14:38:27 [JohnArwe]
- An LDPC server can indicate to a client the ordering of members in a
- 14:38:28 [JohnArwe]
- container page using an ldp:containerOrder property. This property has
- 14:38:28 [JohnArwe]
- as range a list of resources with two properties:
- 14:38:28 [JohnArwe]
- .- ldp:containerSortPredicate, which defines the property used for sorting
- 14:38:28 [JohnArwe]
- .- ldp:containerSortOrder, which defines the ordering (ascending or
- 14:38:28 [JohnArwe]
- descending) and is optional
- 14:38:36 [JohnArwe]
- [over]
- 14:39:03 [SteveS]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-14: Include clarifications about ordering in BPC representations, per Raúl's suggestion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0002.html
- 14:39:29 [pchampin]
- would adding a 3rd property ldp:containerSortCollation make everyone happy?
- 14:39:40 [pchampin]
- (with a sensible default value for the 3rd one?)
- 14:39:43 [ericP]
- s/<added some description>/SPARQL ORDER BY uses the 2 parameter fn:compare(A,B) function which takes no collation parameter. this means that e.g. "ö" and "oe" don't order next to each other in german.
- 14:40:18 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSAL: close issue-14, adding ldp:ccontainterSortOrder to allow specifying the sorting order: ldp:descending or ldp:ascending
- 14:41:32 [sergio]
- +1
- 14:41:48 [TallTed]
- +1
- 14:44:23 [JohnArwe]
- ...realizing Arnaud's did not capture ALL the changes in Raul's
- 14:44:27 [JohnArwe]
- ...re-drafting
- 14:44:34 [ericP]
- -> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#OperatorMapping ¶3 SPARQL discussion of collations
- 14:44:46 [TallTed]
- PROPOSAL: An LDPC server can indicate to a client the ordering of members in a container page using an ldp:containerOrder property. This property has as range a list of resources with two properties: (a) ldp:containerSortPredicate, which defines the property used for sorting; (b) ldp:containerSortOrder, which defines the ordering (ascending or descending) and is optional, (c, etc.) collation, and others
- 14:45:25 [pchampin]
- +1
- 14:45:27 [SteveS]
- +1
- 14:45:30 [JohnArwe]
- +1
- 14:45:33 [sergio]
- +1
- 14:45:38 [TallTed]
- +1
- 14:45:47 [sandro]
- +1
- 14:45:59 [nmihindu]
- +1
- 14:46:08 [cody]
- +1
- 14:46:21 [SteveS]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14, saying an LDPC server can indicate to a client the ordering of members in a container page using an ldp:containerOrder property. This property has as range a list of resources with two properties: (a) ldp:containerSortPredicate, which defines the property used for sorting; (b) ldp:containerSortOrder, which defines the ordering (ascending or descending) and is optional, (c, etc.) collation, and others
- 14:46:59 [SteveS]
- Topic: ISSUE-32
- 14:47:03 [SteveS]
- ISSUE-32 ?
- 14:47:03 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
- 14:47:03 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
- 14:47:34 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: JohnArwe has sent out an email regarding points http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0139.html
- 14:48:16 [TallTed]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/att-0139/W3CIssue32.pdf
- 14:48:24 [betehess]
- betehess has joined #ldp
- 14:48:54 [SteveS]
- JohnArwe: illustrated in PDF, page 1 is a straw man of tasks of what clients are trying to do
- 14:49:35 [SteveS]
- …the wiki was a fairly large list, it shows how a large number of tests may need to be done
- 14:50:10 [SteveS]
- …consider going down "profile" route, can do high-level introspection, and define common grouping that would be common
- 14:51:03 [SteveS]
- …3 profiles: "read-only", "strictly managed membership" and "everything"
- 14:51:19 [SteveS]
- …looking for WG feedback on the the right grouping and right things being required
- 14:51:19 [pchampin]
- in option 2 (managed/closed container), how can you create new ressources if containers are closed?
- 14:52:12 [betehess]
- betehess has joined #ldp
- 14:52:30 [SteveS]
- pchampin, what do you call option 2? This a grouping of tasks/capabilities (aka profiles) not options
- 14:52:32 [JohnArwe]
- pierre: out of band means
- 14:53:36 [JohnArwe]
- ...actually pierre, it you want to create a new Member that is standard POST to the collection
- 14:53:37 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: soliciting more WG feedback, doesn't current include how the affordances are communicated but looking for direction
- 14:54:29 [mielvds1]
- if capabilities need to be discovered anyway, why profiles?
- 14:54:57 [SteveS]
- JohnArwe: wonder if people wonder if we should do profiles at all? be good to get a feeling from the group with a straw poll
- 14:55:01 [pchampin]
- +1 to profiles
- 14:55:24 [SteveS]
- I see no issues with profile construct
- 14:56:08 [SteveS]
- ericP: anyone done anything to see how many of these things are orthogonal, a checkbox list of items…it would be a good way for people to parameterize their libraries and services
- 14:56:41 [nmihindu]
- +1 for profiles, makes sense for being compliant only offering only set of features
- 14:57:14 [SteveS]
- JohnArwe: as example, HTTP gives a way to introspect a URI on what verbs are needed
- 14:57:22 [TallTed]
- +1 profiles seem like a good approach. *server* profile is a starting point, *resource* profiles might differ -- but couldn't be broader than their hosting server...
- 14:57:39 [sergio]
- +1 to explore such idea
- 14:57:41 [SteveS]
- ericP: thinking it would be good to know what parameters you might need for reading, adding members, etc
- 14:57:42 [JohnArwe]
- mielvds1, boils down to how complex is it for clients to code the introspection logic? if they need to look at 3 tasks (read only), do they need to code 1 piece of logic or 3?
- 14:58:04 [SteveS]
- Topic: ISSUE-58 and options on the table
- 14:58:07 [ericP]
- ランドMあっcえっs
- 14:58:09 [SteveS]
- ISSUE-58?
- 14:58:09 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open
- 14:58:09 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58
- 14:58:39 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: Options on the table http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0141.html
- 14:58:57 [SteveS]
- …would like to get a straw poll on the 4 options
- 14:59:14 [Arnaud]
- STRAWPOLL: which option should we go with?
- 15:00:40 [SteveS]
- Arnaud: vote -1..+1 in order of A, B, C, D
- 15:00:43 [cody]
- A -1, B +1, C +1, D -1
- 15:01:20 [sergio]
- A -1, B +1, C -1, D +0 (I'm not very fan of boolean properties in rdf)
- 15:01:20 [TallTed]
- A +1, B +1, C -0.5, D +1
- 15:01:22 [ericP]
- A +1, B 0, C 0, D -1
- 15:01:41 [pchampin]
- the HTTP header is probably ill-named (and yes, I did propose the name)
- 15:01:55 [JohnArwe]
- +0.5, +0.5, +1.0, -0.5 Where the option D issue is I don't see how to make the caching work, but if I got convinced it would work then fine with it
- 15:02:08 [nmihindu]
- -1, 0, +0, +1
- 15:02:13 [mielvds1]
- A −1, B +1, C −1, D +1
- 15:02:34 [pchampin]
- @JohnArwe: option D is motivated by the fact that this is a property of the representation, not of the resource/container per se
- 15:03:10 [SteveS]
- +.5, +.4, +1 (but would like the value to be etag), +0
- 15:03:18 [JohnArwe]
- pierre: agree and like that part; email response articulates the problems I see
- 15:03:25 [pchampin]
- container X may inline member Y completely in *some* representations only
- 15:03:40 [pchampin]
- sorry, didn't read the thread yet
- 15:03:44 [pchampin]
- will right away :)
- 15:03:52 [JohnArwe]
- np
- 15:04:09 [Zakim]
- -Ashok_Malhotra
- 15:04:34 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 15:04:40 [Zakim]
- -JohnArwe
- 15:04:42 [Zakim]
- -SteveS
- 15:04:42 [Zakim]
- -nmihindu
- 15:04:44 [cody]
- cody has left #ldp
- 15:04:50 [Zakim]
- -cody
- 15:05:07 [mielvds1]
- mielvds1 has left #ldp
- 15:05:17 [Zakim]
- -mielvds1
- 15:05:24 [Zakim]
- -Arnaud
- 15:09:37 [Zakim]
- -sergio
- 15:09:41 [sergio]
- sergio has left #ldp
- 15:12:45 [Zakim]
- -TallTed
- 15:12:53 [Zakim]
- -pchampin
- 15:12:54 [Zakim]
- -ericP
- 15:12:54 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
- 15:12:54 [Zakim]
- Attendees were JohnArwe, mielvds1, Arnaud, TallTed, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Sandro, cody, ericP, sergio, nmihindu, pchampin
- 15:31:43 [bhyland]
- bhyland has joined #ldp
- 15:38:10 [betehess]
- betehess has joined #ldp
- 16:33:10 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #ldp
- 17:26:21 [jmvanel]
- jmvanel has joined #ldp