IRC log of ldp on 2013-06-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:54:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:54:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/03-ldp-irc
13:54:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ldp
13:54:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
13:54:07 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:08 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:54:08 [trackbot]
Date: 03 June 2013
13:56:05 [mielvds1]
mielvds1 has joined #ldp
13:57:28 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
13:57:50 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:57:58 [Zakim]
+Ruben
13:58:23 [Zakim]
-Ruben
13:58:25 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
13:58:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ruben
13:58:36 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:58:42 [Zakim]
+Arnaud
13:59:46 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ldp
14:00:25 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
14:00:43 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:00:44 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
14:00:49 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
14:00:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, TallTed
14:00:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ashok, roger, mielvds1, Zakim, RRSAgent, TallTed, jmvanel, Arnaud, bblfish, betehess, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee
14:01:13 [Zakim]
+bblfish
14:01:23 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
14:01:24 [nmihindu]
nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:02:02 [Zakim]
+ +44.208.573.aaaa
14:02:07 [JohnArwe]
JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:02:14 [bblfish]
:-)
14:02:21 [roger]
zakim, i am aaaa
14:02:21 [Zakim]
+roger; got it
14:02:36 [krp]
krp has joined #ldp
14:02:49 [Zakim]
+Ruben
14:02:50 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #ldp
14:03:07 [mielvds1]
zakim, Ruben is me
14:03:07 [Zakim]
+mielvds1; got it
14:03:21 [Zakim]
+??P10
14:03:58 [Zakim]
+??P7
14:04:07 [nmihindu]
zakim, ??P10 is me
14:04:07 [Zakim]
+nmihindu; got it
14:04:17 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P7 is me
14:04:17 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
14:04:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.392.aabb
14:04:28 [JohnArwe]
zakim, aabb is me
14:04:28 [Zakim]
+JohnArwe; got it
14:04:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.306.aacc
14:05:28 [JohnArwe]
scribe: bill
14:05:46 [JohnArwe]
scribe: miel
14:06:30 [bblfish]
Topic: approve minutes
14:06:53 [roger]
a question on the back channel, for the F2F3 is it better to stay near the open middleware centre, or is it better to stay in town ?
14:07:04 [Zakim]
+??P14
14:07:07 [rgarcia]
rgarcia has joined #ldp
14:07:11 [mielvds1]
Resolution; minutes of may 13 approved
14:07:17 [krp]
zakim, ??P14 is me
14:07:17 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
14:07:52 [bblfish]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.03
14:08:00 [nmihindu]
roger, better stay close to downtown, in my opinion :)
14:08:03 [mielvds1]
Resolution: Minutes may 20 approved
14:08:18 [Zakim]
+??P15
14:08:28 [Zakim]
+??P16
14:08:36 [rgarcia]
zakim, ??P15 is me
14:08:36 [Zakim]
+rgarcia; got it
14:08:52 [mielvds1]
Topic: Next Face 2 Face
14:09:23 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: we need different people to discuss and close issues
14:10:12 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: Last june we need a spec that we can publish. We will need to accept that some issues will be postponed
14:10:52 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: We need to reach that target, because summer is coming. This means big delays, which is bad
14:12:00 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I will do my best as chair to deliver the spec on time
14:12:08 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: time to raise issues
14:12:46 [mielvds1]
Topic: Tracking of Actions and issues
14:13:37 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I have posted a list of issues that I consider: at risk => they have no proposal
14:14:16 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: if there are issues that are of intrest to you, I strongly suggest you come with a proposal BEFORE the meeting
14:14:20 [nmihindu]
Issues at risk -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0309.html
14:14:39 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
14:15:14 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I started using issues-pending-review to keep better track
14:15:24 [mielvds1]
Topic: Actions
14:15:36 [bblfish]
actions?
14:15:39 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:15:39 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:16:09 [bblfish]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open
14:16:53 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I propose we close action 3, ..
14:17:15 [mielvds1]
Resolution: close action 63, 64, 66
14:18:23 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: no other actions to close
14:18:27 [mielvds1]
Topic: issues
14:19:09 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: all issues have a proposal, they can be discussed during meeting. Let's spend time on raised issues
14:19:44 [JohnArwe]
actions 63, 64, 66 now closed in db
14:19:51 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: let's start with issue 74
14:20:14 [bhyland]
bhyland has joined #ldp
14:20:25 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I propose top open it, objections?
14:20:39 [mielvds1]
Resolution: open issue 74
14:21:16 [JohnArwe]
arnaud - on 74 you resolved to open; was it also your intent to vote on the proposal today?
14:21:47 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: we might vote on 74 later, now raised issues
14:21:47 [JohnArwe]
ok... later, time permitting
14:21:56 [mielvds1]
Rsolution: open issue 77
14:23:37 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: roger, still want to open issue 72?
14:23:50 [mielvds1]
roger: genuine hole in the spec
14:23:59 [bblfish]
I am ok with closing issue-76
14:24:03 [mielvds1]
Resolution: open issue 72
14:24:24 [JohnArwe]
regrets: serena, andy, sergio, piere-antoine
14:24:44 [TallTed]
I'm having some trouble following along -- what is the sort order being used for discussion of raised issues?
14:24:45 [bblfish]
q+
14:25:07 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:25:38 [mielvds1]
bblfish: I think we can close issue 76
14:25:48 [mielvds1]
Resolution: close issue 76
14:26:28 [roger]
@TallTed, I believe the discussion order is according to difficulty/complexity
14:27:24 [pchampin]
q+
14:27:44 [pchampin]
yes; I'm mute
14:27:44 [bblfish]
the answer I was mentioning that I wrote this morning is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0003.html
14:27:47 [pchampin]
muted :)
14:28:02 [bblfish]
q?
14:28:03 [pchampin]
can't find the unmute button
14:28:04 [pchampin]
q-
14:28:16 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
14:28:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, TallTed (muted), bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, roger, mielvds1, nmihindu, pchampin, JohnArwe, +1.919.306.aacc, krp, rgarcia, Yves
14:28:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see roger, rgarcia, pchampin, krp, JohnArwe, nmihindu, Ashok, mielvds1, Zakim, RRSAgent, TallTed, jmvanel, Arnaud, bblfish, betehess, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP,
14:28:19 [Zakim]
... thschee
14:28:21 [mielvds1]
Resolution: open issue 75
14:28:52 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I hope people in the RDF semantics can come in and look at these specific issues
14:29:13 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: issue 71 is main topic of discussion
14:29:15 [mielvds1]
Resolution: open issue 71
14:30:25 [bblfish]
q+
14:30:31 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: explain, henry, what issue 73 is about
14:30:33 [TallTed]
tangential but important -- all instances of "rdf:member" should be corrected to "rdfs:member", in ISSUEs, ACTIONs, etc.
14:30:37 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:30:56 [mielvds1]
bblfish: there is a confusion, people are taking any relation as member relation
14:31:32 [mielvds1]
bblfish: there needs to be a relation between LDPC and the members of it according to ATOM and REST people
14:32:02 [mielvds1]
bblfish: LDP contains (issue 79) is closely related, it's a better issue
14:32:18 [mielvds1]
bblfish: we can close issue 73
14:33:36 [mielvds1]
bblfish: in my impl. clients could find all created members
14:34:06 [mielvds1]
bblfish: 79 explains this, 73 is the real spec issue
14:34:27 [mielvds1]
bblfish: 73 is more a 'best practice' issue
14:35:19 [mielvds1]
Resolution: we will change the product of issue 73 to deployment guide
14:35:43 [JohnArwe]
issue-73 updated in db per the resolution
14:35:50 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: issue 78 and 79 are left
14:36:58 [mielvds1]
bblfish: issue 79 depends on if we want inferencing, if we want to allow it
14:37:53 [mielvds1]
correction -> issue 78
14:38:00 [mielvds1]
bblfish: clients stick to LDP and have zero inferencing
14:38:18 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: wise thing to do to steer spec to what people expect
14:38:33 [pchampin]
not sure the term "level" is used, but different "kinds of entailments" are well defined in RDF Semantics and OWL
14:38:44 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:38:44 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:39:31 [bblfish]
ok with that
14:39:33 [mielvds1]
Resolution: open issue 78
14:39:36 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:39:36 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:40:15 [JohnArwe]
issue-78 opened in db
14:40:45 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: I suggest we open 79
14:44:38 [mielvds1]
Can issue 79 be opened?
14:45:34 [mielvds1]
Topic: Open Issues
14:45:40 [bblfish]
Issue-64?
14:45:40 [trackbot]
ISSUE-64 -- Non-member-properties and Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance -- pending review
14:45:40 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/64
14:45:41 [nmihindu]
issue-64
14:45:41 [trackbot]
ISSUE-64 -- Non-member-properties and Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance -- pending review
14:45:41 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/64
14:46:42 [JohnArwe]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0226.html proposal email
14:47:00 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: the proposal of John is to close the one regarding non-member-properties, related issue first-page is in de draft now
14:47:18 [JohnArwe]
s/ de / editor's /
14:47:31 [bblfish]
link headers sounds pretty safe given that other protocols have already reveiewed them.
14:48:39 [pchampin]
+.5 for a URI
14:48:43 [bblfish]
q+
14:48:51 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:49:18 [mielvds1]
bblfish: the disadvantage of the short url, is that there is no RDF. We cannot put it in the body.
14:49:47 [pchampin]
q+
14:49:51 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: if we put it in the RDF content, you do a get, which what we want to avoid (having to get all members)
14:49:55 [JohnArwe]
I don't care either way; I'm not sure that this semantic is general enough to make it worth registering a short name, so I'm fine with defining our own URL
14:50:07 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: http link header seems to be more adequate
14:51:49 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: let's have a quick poll
14:52:12 [pchampin]
q-
14:52:24 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: close issue-64 per John's proposal with a URL (rather than shortname)
14:52:41 [pchampin]
+1
14:52:43 [JohnArwe]
+1
14:52:45 [TallTed]
+1
14:52:48 [mielvds1]
+1
14:52:48 [roger]
+1
14:52:51 [rgarcia]
+1
14:52:54 [nmihindu]
+1
14:52:58 [Ashok]
+1
14:53:02 [krp]
+1
14:53:09 [Arnaud]
+1 (on behalf SteveS)
14:53:22 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: close issue-64 per John's proposal with a URL (rather than shortname)
14:53:40 [bblfish]
Issue-71?
14:53:40 [trackbot]
ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- raised
14:53:40 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71
14:55:05 [bblfish]
q+
14:55:08 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: How many people want to reuse the vocabularies?
14:55:36 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: reuse voc to lower reuse. Harder for developers, they have to implement more
14:55:51 [JohnArwe]
regrets: steve battle
14:55:52 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: Or, we keep it simple.
14:56:13 [pchampin]
q+
14:56:43 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: just one type of membership. People with implemented vocs will have to do a transformation
14:56:49 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:56:58 [bblfish]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0250.html
14:57:05 [mielvds1]
bblfish: that might be the wrong kind of question
14:58:18 [mielvds1]
bblfish: Use case of SteveS - LDPR and you want to add something. The way you are putting it, creates a relation.
14:58:30 [pchampin]
:-(
14:58:38 [Arnaud]
ack pchampin
14:58:41 [JohnArwe]
pierre sounds like a dialer auto-dialing
14:58:44 [pchampin]
I'll write it down quickly
14:59:08 [pchampin]
I think people will have to massage their data anyway
14:59:10 [pchampin]
if only to add LDPR and LDPC types to their resources
14:59:26 [pchampin]
(ok, my mistake)
14:59:28 [bblfish]
in short it's the wrong question. The end of ISSUE-71 shows two other ways to allow the same use cases to be resolved. Add some kind of declarative inferencing language and one has many more possibilites.
14:59:50 [pchampin]
so keeping it orthogonal with the app-specific vocabulary seems a reasonable way to proceed
15:00:01 [mielvds1]
Arnaud: the question was raised: there is no issue for this anyway
15:01:14 [bblfish]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0250.html
15:01:38 [Zakim]
-roger
15:02:24 [TallTed]
this seems effectively the question of "require inference (to handle { ldp:membershipPredicate owl:subProperty rdfs:member } ), or do not require inference" ... and I've hit a hard stop and must drop from this call.
15:02:31 [Zakim]
-TallTed
15:03:26 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
15:03:32 [Zakim]
- +1.919.306.aacc
15:03:43 [Zakim]
-Yves
15:03:47 [bblfish]
thanks
15:03:48 [pchampin]
bye
15:03:48 [Zakim]
-rgarcia
15:03:54 [Zakim]
-pchampin
15:03:54 [Zakim]
-nmihindu
15:03:56 [Zakim]
-krp
15:03:56 [Zakim]
-Arnaud
15:03:56 [Zakim]
-mielvds1
15:03:58 [Zakim]
-bblfish
15:04:01 [Zakim]
-JohnArwe
15:04:01 [mielvds1]
mielvds1 has left #ldp
15:04:02 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:04:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were Arnaud, TallTed, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, +44.208.573.aaaa, roger, mielvds1, nmihindu, pchampin, +1.415.392.aabb, JohnArwe, +1.919.306.aacc, krp, rgarcia, Yves
15:20:20 [betehess]
betehess has joined #ldp
17:01:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ldp
17:36:05 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ldp
17:56:55 [bhyland]
bhyland has joined #ldp
20:33:34 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ldp
22:53:00 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ldp