edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 10 June 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.10
Seen
Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Henry Story, John Arwe, Kalpa Gunaratna, Kevin Page, Miel Vander Sande, Raúl García Castro, Roger Menday, Sandro Hawke, Steve Battle, Steve Speicher, Ted Thibodeau
Regrets
Sandro Hawke
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
Henry Story
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Accepted minutes of June 3, 2013 link
  2. Close action 68 link
  3. Open Issue-80 link
  4. Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed. link
Topics
13:53:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/10-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/10-ldp-irc

13:53:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

13:53:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

13:53:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

13:53:49 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:53:49 <trackbot> Date: 10 June 2013
13:57:56 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

13:58:05 <Zakim> +SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle

13:59:42 <Ashok> Same here ... will join in a few minutes

Ashok Malhotra: Same here ... will join in a few minutes

14:00:36 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud

14:01:06 <Zakim> +JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe

14:02:39 <JohnArwe> regrets: sandro
14:02:50 <Zakim> + +329331aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aaaa

14:02:55 <Zakim> +bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish

14:02:58 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra

14:03:11 <bblfish> hi

Henry Story: hi

14:03:12 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher

Zakim IRC Bot: +Steve_Speicher

14:03:46 <SteveS> Zakim, this is Steve_Speicher

Steve Speicher: Zakim, this is Steve_Speicher

14:03:47 <Zakim> sorry, SteveS, I do not see a conference named 'Steve_Speicher' in progress or scheduled at this time

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, SteveS, I do not see a conference named 'Steve_Speicher' in progress or scheduled at this time

14:03:54 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice]

14:04:01 <JohnArwe> zakim, aaaa is Miel

John Arwe: zakim, aaaa is Miel

14:04:01 <Zakim> +Miel; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Miel; got it

14:04:02 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me

14:04:02 <Zakim> +ericP; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it

14:04:14 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me

Steve Speicher: zakim, Steve_Speicher is me

14:04:14 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it

14:04:21 <mielvds> zakim, aaaa is me

Miel Vander Sande: zakim, aaaa is me

14:04:21 <Zakim> sorry, mielvds, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, mielvds, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'

14:04:35 <mielvds> fair enough

Miel Vander Sande: fair enough

14:04:50 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone?

14:04:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveBattle, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Miel, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveBattle, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Miel, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, ericP

14:05:31 <bblfish> ah ok

Henry Story: ah ok

14:06:10 <Zakim> +??P11

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11

14:06:24 <rgarcia> zakim, ??P1 is me

Raúl García Castro: zakim, ??P1 is me

14:06:24 <Zakim> +rgarcia; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +rgarcia; got it

14:06:26 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

14:06:27 <bblfish> "Yes we scan"

Henry Story: "Yes we scan"

14:06:32 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

14:06:32 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it

14:06:35 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

14:06:35 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

14:06:44 <JohnArwe> Scribe: Henry

(Scribe set to Henry Story)

<bblfish> Chair: Arnaud
<bblfish> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.10
<bblfish> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

<bblfish> subTopic: Approval of last meeting's minutes

1.1. Approval of last meeting's minutes

<bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-03

http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-03

14:07:10 <stevebattle3> They look OK

Steve Battle: They look OK

14:07:20 <SteveS> minutes looked good to me

Steve Speicher: minutes looked good to me

14:07:38 <Zakim> +roger

Zakim IRC Bot: +roger

14:08:12 <bblfish> Resolved: Accepted minutes of June 3, 2013

RESOLVED: Accepted minutes of June 3, 2013

14:09:19 <bblfish> subTopic: Next Meeting

1.2. Next Meeting

14:09:25 <bblfish> arnaud: in Madrid, Spain.

Arnaud Le Hors: in Madrid, Spain.

<bblfish> ... on June 24 we will have an informal meeting for debriefing

... on June 24 we will have an informal meeting for debriefing

<bblfish> ... the next formal telecon will be on July 1.

... the next formal telecon will be on July 1.

14:10:18 <bblfish> Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues

2. Tracking of Actions and Issues

<bblfish> subtopic: Actions pending review

2.1. Actions pending review

14:10:52 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open

14:11:14 <bblfish> which action are we looking at?

which action are we looking at?

14:11:40 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/68

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/68

<bblfish> JohnArwe: summary of changes on action-68: moved topic from GET-containers (5.3.2?) to HEAD-Containers since that's where it's more useful; also added the LDP-defined URL to the vocabulary document.

John Arwe: summary of changes on ACTION-68: moved topic from GET-containers (5.3.2?) to HEAD-Containers since that's where it's more useful; also added the LDP-defined URL to the vocabulary document.

14:11:52 <bblfish> Resolved: Close action 68

RESOLVED: Close ACTION-68

14:12:21 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

14:12:33 <bblfish> Arnaud: for others to look at the spec updates and make sure they are happy with it

Arnaud Le Hors: for others to look at the spec updates and make sure they are happy with it

14:12:45 <bblfish> subTopic: Raised issues

2.2. Raised issues

14:13:17 <bblfish> Issue-80 ?

ISSUE-80 ?

14:13:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- raised

14:13:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80

14:13:32 <krp> zakim, ??P14 is me

Kevin Page: zakim, ??P14 is me

14:13:32 <Zakim> +krp; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +krp; got it

14:15:26 <bblfish> How does a client know that a POST is going to create a new resource?

How does a client know that a POST is going to create a new resource?

14:15:31 <bblfish> q+

q+

14:16:30 <bblfish> q?

q?

<bblfish> JohnArwe: came at it from standpoint of how does client know the semantic it gets is "create".

John Arwe: came at it from standpoint of how does client know the semantic it gets is "create".

14:17:59 <bblfish> Arnaud: we can either leave it as Raised

Arnaud Le Hors: we can either leave it as Raised

14:18:06 <bblfish> ... or open it.

... or open it.

14:18:34 <bblfish> q?

q?

14:18:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

14:19:50 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

14:19:50 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

14:24:02 <bblfish> Resolution: Open Issue-80

RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-80

<bblfish> Topic: Open Issues

3. Open Issues

14:24:58 <bblfish> subtopic: Issue-74

3.1. ISSUE-74

14:24:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-74 -- How does a client know if conditional requests are required -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-74 -- How does a client know if conditional requests are required -- pending review

14:24:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/74

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/74

14:26:31 <bblfish> Arnaud: summarises it and says it should be uncontroversial

Arnaud Le Hors: summarises it and says it should be uncontroversial

14:26:31 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed.

14:26:44 <Zakim> +Kalpa

Zakim IRC Bot: +Kalpa

14:26:45 <stevebattle3> +1

Steve Battle: +1

14:26:46 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

14:26:47 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

14:26:48 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

14:26:48 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

14:26:52 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

14:26:52 <TallTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

14:26:53 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

14:26:57 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

14:26:59 <JohnArwe> +1

John Arwe: +1

14:27:14 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed.

14:28:33 <bblfish> subtopic: Issue-71

3.2. ISSUE-71

<bblfish> Arnaud: picked Issue-71 because that seems to be the primary issue characterizing Henry's concern with the spec.

Arnaud Le Hors: picked ISSUE-71 because that seems to be the primary issue characterizing Henry's concern with the spec.

<bblfish> ... didn't really have time to discuss it last week so would like to see if we can make some progress and better understand where everyone stands on this.

... didn't really have time to discuss it last week so would like to see if we can make some progress and better understand where everyone stands on this.

<bblfish> Arnaud: It seems to me that you are reopening the issue about containment: aggregation vs composition

Arnaud Le Hors: It seems to me that you are reopening the issue about containment: aggregation vs composition

<bblfish> ... because you are tying the notion of membership to resources created with the container

... because you are tying the notion of membership to resources created with the container

<bblfish> ... yet, this isn't the primary function of containers

... yet, this isn't the primary function of containers

<bblfish> ... the primary function of containers is merely to list member resources

... the primary function of containers is merely to list member resources

<bblfish> ... independently of how they were created

... independently of how they were created

<bblfish> bblfish: this discussion never made sense to me

Henry Story: this discussion never made sense to me

<bblfish> ... I think creating a resource by POSTing to a container should add the resource as a member to the container itself, using ldp:contains

... I think creating a resource by POSTing to a container should add the resource as a member to the container itself, using ldp:contains

<bblfish> ... a relation with that resource can then be added, like any relation can be added

... a relation with that resource can then be added, like any relation can be added

<bblfish> ... the addition to the membershipSubject of a triple with membershipPredicate when a resource gets created is a short cut.

... the addition to the membershipSubject of a triple with membershipPredicate when a resource gets created is a short cut.

14:29:05 <SteveS> issue-71?

Steve Speicher: ISSUE-71?

14:29:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open

14:29:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71

14:33:29 <stevebattle3> q+

Steve Battle: q+

14:34:43 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle

Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle

14:35:43 <bblfish> that's issue-72

that's ISSUE-72

14:37:00 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

14:37:38 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

14:37:45 <stevebattle3> q+

Steve Battle: q+

14:37:57 <TallTed> deref LDPC, get description of Container, which lists its Members by URI.

Ted Thibodeau: deref LDPC, get description of Container, which lists its Members by URI.

14:37:57 <TallTed> to get descriptions of Members, deref *their* URIs -- and they might say "this is a document" and they might NOT say that

Ted Thibodeau: to get descriptions of Members, deref *their* URIs -- and they might say "this is a document" and they might NOT say that

14:38:14 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

14:38:16 <bblfish> q?

q?

14:38:23 <TallTed> you don't need to be given any other URI to get the description of a Container's Member

Ted Thibodeau: you don't need to be given any other URI to get the description of a Container's Member

14:39:26 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

14:40:18 <bblfish> john: current document does not say one cannot have relations of membership that are not documents, just that one cannot use POST to do that, but PATCH would be ok

John Arwe: current document does not say one cannot have relations of membership that are not documents, just that one cannot use POST to do that, but PATCH would be ok

14:40:33 <bblfish> q+

q+

14:40:36 <TallTed> I'm wondering whether "this is incomprehensible to me" shouldn't be addressed by an issue that *says* that

Ted Thibodeau: I'm wondering whether "this is incomprehensible to me" shouldn't be addressed by an issue that *says* that

14:40:40 <Arnaud> ack steveb

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb

14:40:54 <bblfish> ashok: what are the two situations: what henry would like and what others would like

Ashok Malhotra: what are the two situations: what henry would like and what others would like

14:41:07 <bblfish> yes, thanks for helping :-)

yes, thanks for helping :-)

14:41:20 <bblfish> q?

q?

14:42:05 <bblfish> stevebattle3: issue-72 shows when the membershipSubject, Object falls short. IT also shows that rdfs:member is not really a relation

Steve Battle: ISSUE-72 shows when the membershipSubject, Object falls short. IT also shows that rdfs:member is not really a relation

14:42:07 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

14:43:46 <roger> bblfish: we should be as close to ATOM as possible.

Henry Story: we should be as close to ATOM as possible. [ Scribe Assist by Roger Menday ]

14:44:06 <roger> I disagreee !!!!

Roger Menday: I disagreee !!!!

14:44:07 <ericP> q+ to paste a lot

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to paste a lot

14:44:12 <stevebattle3> Is anybody going to argue in defence of the status quo?

Steve Battle: Is anybody going to argue in defence of the status quo?

14:46:36 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

14:46:36 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to paste a lot

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to paste a lot

14:46:43 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

14:47:59 <ericP> conflating entities and documents about entities (using rdfs:member as the membership predicate):

Eric Prud'hommeaux: conflating entities and documents about entities (using rdfs:member as the membership predicate):

14:48:02 <ericP>  LDPC: <Page1>  { <Issues> rdfs:member <Issue1> . }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDPC: <Page1> { <Issues> rdfs:member <ISSUE-1> . }

14:48:05 <ericP>  LDPR: <Issue1> { <Issue1> issue:description "borken" . }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDPR: <ISSUE-1> { <ISSUE-1> issue:description "borken" . }

14:48:07 <ericP> separating entities from documents about entities:

Eric Prud'hommeaux: separating entities from documents about entities:

14:48:10 <ericP>  LDPC: <Page1>  { <Issues> rdfs:member <Issue1#it> . }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDPC: <Page1> { <Issues> rdfs:member <ISSUE-1#it> . }

14:48:12 <ericP>  LDPR: <Issue1> { <Issue1#it> issue:description "borken" . }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDPR: <ISSUE-1> { <ISSUE-1#it> issue:description "borken" . }

14:48:15 <ericP> pathological case:

Eric Prud'hommeaux: pathological case:

14:48:17 <ericP>  LDPC: <Page1>  { <Issues> rdfs:member <someOtherURL> . }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDPC: <Page1> { <Issues> rdfs:member <someOtherURL> . }

14:48:20 <ericP>  LDPR: <Issue1> { <someOtherURL> issue:description "borken" . }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDPR: <ISSUE-1> { <someOtherURL> issue:description "borken" . }

14:49:12 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

14:50:19 <bblfish> that is ISSUE-72

that is ISSUE-72

14:51:00 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

14:51:57 <roger> -q

Roger Menday: -q

14:52:42 <ericP> q+ to give a tiny bit of background on monotonicity

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to give a tiny bit of background on monotonicity

14:53:05 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

14:53:05 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to give a tiny bit of background on monotonicity

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to give a tiny bit of background on monotonicity

14:53:40 <bblfish> q+

q+

14:54:38 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0003.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0003.html

14:55:38 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

14:55:58 <JohnArwe> FWIW, I don't think that the current spec discussion falls into EricP's description of "ok to break monotonicity when the world changes"

John Arwe: FWIW, I don't think that the current spec discussion falls into EricP's description of "ok to break monotonicity when the world changes"

14:56:21 <ericP> JohnArwe, yeah, i'm arriving at that too

Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, yeah, i'm arriving at that too

14:58:20 <JohnArwe> if the monotonicity issue could be solved by simply always requiring ldp:membershipXXX (it's the defaulting that's the problem), why not just as EricP said simply always require those predicates, even if their object(s) == the current default?

John Arwe: if the monotonicity issue could be solved by simply always requiring ldp:membershipXXX (it's the defaulting that's the problem), why not just as EricP said simply always require those predicates, even if their object(s) == the current default?

14:58:36 <stevebattle3> In this case the absence of a membershipPredicate is supposed to mean something. It does break monotonicity.

Steve Battle: In this case the absence of a membershipPredicate is supposed to mean something. It does break monotonicity.

14:59:02 <ericP> JohnArwe, i'd say that that's the simplest path. others become quite convoluted

Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, i'd say that that's the simplest path. others become quite convoluted

14:59:08 <JohnArwe> @steveB, "in this case" meaning in the spec as drafted today?

John Arwe: @steveB, "in this case" meaning in the spec as drafted today?

14:59:16 <stevebattle3> Yes

Steve Battle: Yes

14:59:33 <JohnArwe> I sense a proposal forming ...

John Arwe: I sense a proposal forming ...

15:00:11 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra

15:00:17 <stevebattle3> Straw-poll of one - I support issue 71 proposal

Steve Battle: Straw-poll of one - I support ISSUE-71 proposal

15:00:18 <roger> i would support that John.

Roger Menday: i would support that John.

<bblfish> Arnaud: ok, let's close the call on this, see you next week in Madrid!

Arnaud Le Hors: ok, let's close the call on this, see you next week in Madrid!

15:00:20 <mielvds> ok, see you next week

Miel Vander Sande: ok, see you next week

15:00:22 <Zakim> -bblfish

Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish

15:00:24 <Zakim> -SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS

15:00:25 <Zakim> -roger

Zakim IRC Bot: -roger

15:00:26 <Zakim> -Miel

Zakim IRC Bot: -Miel

15:00:27 <Zakim> -rgarcia

Zakim IRC Bot: -rgarcia

15:00:27 <Zakim> -krp

Zakim IRC Bot: -krp

15:00:29 <Zakim> -JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe

15:00:30 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

15:00:30 <Zakim> -Kalpa

Zakim IRC Bot: -Kalpa

15:00:32 <Zakim> -TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed

15:00:33 <Zakim> -ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP

15:00:34 <Zakim> -SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle

15:00:36 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

15:00:36 <Zakim> Attendees were SteveBattle, Arnaud, JohnArwe, +329331aaaa, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, Miel, ericP, SteveS, rgarcia, TallTed, roger, krp, Kalpa

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were SteveBattle, Arnaud, JohnArwe, +329331aaaa, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, Miel, ericP, SteveS, rgarcia, TallTed, roger, krp, Kalpa

15:02:00 <TallTed> +1 solve monotonicity problem by simply always requiring ldp:membershipXXX be stated (it's the defaulting that's the problem)

Ted Thibodeau: +1 solve monotonicity problem by simply always requiring ldp:membershipXXX be stated (it's the defaulting that's the problem)



Formatted by CommonScribe