IRC log of ldp on 2014-03-31
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:59:35 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ldp
- 13:59:35 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/31-ldp-irc
- 13:59:37 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 13:59:37 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #ldp
- 13:59:39 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be LDP
- 13:59:39 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
- 13:59:40 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
- 13:59:40 [trackbot]
- Date: 31 March 2014
- 13:59:52 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
- 13:59:59 [TallTed]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 14:00:00 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see no one
- 14:00:01 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 14:00:01 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, SteveS, codyburleson, deiu, betehess, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, nmihindu, jmvanel, sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, trackbot
- 14:00:04 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 14:00:14 [deiu]
- Zakim, TimBL is me
- 14:00:14 [Zakim]
- +deiu; got it
- 14:00:16 [Ashok]
- Ashok has joined #ldp
- 14:00:20 [TallTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 14:00:20 [Zakim]
- +TallTed; got it
- 14:00:22 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:00:22 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:00:46 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:00:54 [codyburleson]
- Zakim, IPcaller is me.
- 14:00:54 [Zakim]
- +codyburleson; got it
- 14:01:01 [Zakim]
- +Arnaud
- 14:01:08 [Zakim]
- +bblfish
- 14:01:23 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 14:01:45 [MiguelAraCo]
- MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
- 14:01:46 [Zakim]
- +JohnArwe
- 14:01:46 [Zakim]
- +Ashok_Malhotra
- 14:02:09 [deiu]
- Zakim: who's here?
- 14:02:14 [deiu]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 14:02:14 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see TallTed (muted), deiu, codyburleson, Arnaud, bblfish, Sandro, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra
- 14:02:17 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see MiguelAraCo, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, SteveS, codyburleson, deiu, betehess, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, nmihindu, jmvanel, sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, trackbot
- 14:02:17 [Zakim]
- +ericP
- 14:03:24 [Zakim]
- + +1.919.306.aaaa
- 14:03:39 [SteveS]
- Zakim, aaaa is me
- 14:03:39 [Zakim]
- +SteveS; got it
- 14:05:08 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 14:05:08 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 14:05:49 [codyburleson]
- For the record; MiguelAraCo is sharing voice with me on Skype. I dial in through Skype, then I add Miguel to the call.
- 14:06:18 [JohnArwe]
- ericp, did you ever poke at action-135?
- 14:06:31 [JohnArwe]
- ...still says open
- 14:07:08 [ericP]
- JohnArwe, i've got stuff open
- 14:07:10 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:07:10 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:07:31 [ericP]
- SteveS thought i'd used some tool to generate the HTML but i actually just edited HTML
- 14:07:35 [TallTed]
- Zakim, codyburleson has MiguelAraCo
- 14:07:35 [Zakim]
- +MiguelAraCo; got it
- 14:07:44 [ericP]
- i stole the template from another namespace doc
- 14:07:50 [deiu]
- minutes seem ok
- 14:08:11 [codyburleson]
- Resolved: Minutes of March 24th approved.
- 14:08:22 [Zakim]
- +??P24
- 14:08:29 [codyburleson]
- Topic: Next meeting.
- 14:08:37 [nmihindu]
- Zakim, ??P24 is me
- 14:08:37 [Zakim]
- +nmihindu; got it
- 14:08:48 [nmihindu]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:08:48 [Zakim]
- nmihindu should now be muted
- 14:09:35 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud, I am unable to be there; I need someone to chair. After that, we have the F2F in Boston and we will likely NOT have the meeting just before that; I'd rather have the one next week (because I don't think we should skip 2 meetings).
- 14:09:47 [bblfish]
- Who is going to Seol?
- 14:09:50 [TallTed]
- 10am Monday Boston == 11pm Monday in Seoul
- 14:09:51 [SteveS]
- I will be at LDPWG call next week
- 14:10:00 [TallTed]
- http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/south-korea/seoul
- 14:10:24 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 14:10:24 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 14:10:26 [nmihindu]
- bblfish, I will be there for WWW
- 14:10:43 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:10:43 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:10:46 [codyburleson]
- ericP, I can take the chair.
- 14:11:26 [codyburleson]
- Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
- 14:11:48 [codyburleson]
- JohnArwe: 136 is resolved and closed.
- 14:12:32 [bblfish]
- there are tools to do ontologies
- 14:12:37 [bblfish]
- q+
- 14:12:48 [codyburleson]
- ericP: Either Steve or I can do it by hand again (fix the namespace thing); I haven't done it yet, but I looked at it.
- 14:13:28 [bblfish]
- We do this automatically with the cert spec http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#
- 14:13:35 [Arnaud]
- ack bblfish
- 14:13:37 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: I was hoping we'd have fresh documents to review for the Face-to-Face. The Guide, Primer, etc. So, please make progress on these befoire F2F.
- 14:14:12 [codyburleson]
- What's Henry's id on this chat?
- 14:14:29 [nmihindu]
- codyburleson, it is bblfish
- 14:14:33 [codyburleson]
- thx
- 14:15:13 [bblfish]
- specgen is here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/file/18e2252e594d/ontologies/specgen
- 14:15:16 [bblfish]
- the one we used
- 14:15:21 [bblfish]
- there must be better ones out there by now
- 14:15:26 [Zakim]
- -bblfish
- 14:15:52 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: If you have newer documents ready for review, please e-mail the list so that we can read them before the next meeting.
- 14:16:03 [Zakim]
- +bblfish
- 14:17:30 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: I'm going to develop the tentative agenda for the next F2F. It is obviously going to be focused around addressing any Last Call comments received. As of now, I have not seen any public Last Call comments. Unless things change drastically, we may have very little to do in terms of comments.
- 14:18:15 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: I will build the agenda so that we have some padding towards the end, which we can dedicate to Interoperability Testing.
- 14:19:09 [codyburleson]
- Topic: LDP Specification
- 14:20:09 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: A lot of the changes we made were in response to Tim BL's comments. It would be nice if one of you guys (Eric, Sandro) can help us get him to have another look.
- 14:21:17 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: Context URI for the Link Header. John sent an email suggesting 2 possible ways to deal with it.
- 14:21:56 [Arnaud]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0083.html
- 14:23:46 [codyburleson]
- JohnArwe: When creating resource using POST, the request URI is not what you're going to want because that will be URI of the container. We need to say on those create requests that we want the default URI for that context URI to be the created resource's URI.
- 14:24:44 [codyburleson]
- JohnArwe: For the PUT create, I think the same is the same. But I hedge a little bit on this.
- 14:26:00 [codyburleson]
- JohnArwe: The other thing that's different is what the client needs to do. If you say 'here's the syntax', then you're requiring the client to specify in the next request header to use that syntax.
- 14:26:00 [MiguelAraCo]
- q+
- 14:26:00 [bblfish]
- q+
- 14:26:32 [Arnaud]
- ack MiguelAraCo
- 14:26:37 [bblfish]
- Concerning PUT
- 14:26:37 [bblfish]
- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.6
- 14:26:37 [bblfish]
- In contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI, it MUST send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request.
- 14:27:44 [Arnaud]
- ack bblfish
- 14:27:57 [JohnArwe]
- Ok so that says that the server does not have the freedom to assign a different URI, which is good.
- 14:28:15 [JohnArwe]
- ...That does not cause the 5988 context URI to become defined as the request URI, though.
- 14:28:17 [codyburleson]
- Miguel, can you put that in writing? I did not type because I did not want to type over your talking.
- 14:29:34 [codyburleson]
- bblfish: I think you don't need any special syntax because if you specify what the default context is then the rest falls out automatically (I put this / my response in the mailing list).
- 14:29:35 [sandro]
- q+
- 14:29:51 [Arnaud]
- ack sandro
- 14:30:22 [bblfish]
- this was my response to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0085.html
- 14:30:23 [JohnArwe]
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5.2 By default, the context of a link conveyed in the Link header field
- 14:30:23 [JohnArwe]
- is the IRI of the requested resource.
- 14:31:17 [MiguelAraCo]
- We also ran into the context problem, and what we did is that if the client specified a context (or @base in turtle) we did whatever we could to honor that context. If the client didn't specify a context, in a POST request we create a slug for the new resource and then assign that context to the request, and in a PUT request we took the request URI as the context to use.
- 14:31:28 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: I don't understand how we have any perogative to change this. LDP is not an application, so I don't understand how… Hopefully, their meaning is the same as ours (other working group), but we may need to confer with them.
- 14:31:48 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: It doesn't have a URI during the POST and it's up to the server to give it a URI later.
- 14:31:58 [MiguelAraCo]
- But I agree, that needs to be specified so we don't need to "assume" things.
- 14:32:25 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: But before we clarify in the spec, I think we should check it with the Working Group.
- 14:32:42 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: So, it sounds like, if anything, Option 1 is what we want to do.
- 14:33:07 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: clarify specification by adding that on POST the default context URI is the to-be-created resource's URI
- 14:33:25 [bblfish]
- +1
- 14:33:32 [nmihindu]
- +1
- 14:33:42 [Ashok]
- +1
- 14:33:51 [MiguelAraCo]
- +1
- 14:34:00 [sandro]
- +1
- 14:34:14 [deiu]
- +1
- 14:34:14 [codyburleson]
- +1
- 14:34:16 [SteveS]
- +1
- 14:34:18 [JohnArwe]
- +1
- 14:34:23 [sandro]
- (well, really, it's the entity being transmitted --- but in LDP that's the same thing)
- 14:34:45 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: clarify specification by adding that on POST the default context URI is the to-be-created resource's URI
- 14:35:01 [SteveS]
- agree this is clarity is compatible with what we intended and most saw it this way
- 14:35:07 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: Thanks. Somebody should take action to report to the HTTP guys.
- 14:35:24 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: Please clarify: Are we only talking about posting to containers here?
- 14:36:07 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: John Arwe - you mean POST on containers, right?
- 14:36:18 [sandro]
- sandro: if we made POST to a NON-Container mean something, we'd mean the Link Context to be the entity being sent.
- 14:36:25 [bblfish]
- yes post on containers, but if the IETF guys are ok with the context always being the to be created member than that makes our case even stronger
- 14:37:24 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: We need to check with Eric on what group to send the email to. And then Sandro, thanks for volunteering to send the e-mail.
- 14:37:38 [codyburleson]
- Topic: Null-relative URIs
- 14:37:55 [sandro]
- action: sandro to contact Yves and Erik to make confirm with them that HTTP-WG is okay with this reading of the Link Context
- 14:37:55 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-137 - Contact yves and erik to make confirm with them that http-wg is okay with this reading of the link context [on Sandro Hawke - due 2014-04-07].
- 14:38:31 [bblfish]
- q+
- 14:38:40 [Arnaud]
- ack bblfish
- 14:38:50 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: There was a lot of discussion over null-relative URIs, which is not endorsed by the RDF data model. The WG seems to be united on understanding the limit of this, but wanting to stick to it because of its usefulness.
- 14:39:08 [bblfish]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0091.html
- 14:39:43 [bblfish]
- Relative IRIs: Some concrete RDF syntaxes permit relative IRIs as a convenient shorthand that allows authoring of documents independently from their final publishing location. Relative IRIs must be resolved against a base IRI to make them absolute. Therefore, the RDF graph serialized in such syntaxes is well-defined only if a base IRI can be established [RFC3986].
- 14:40:16 [codyburleson]
- bblfish: There are 2 passages in the RDF Abstract Syntax 1.1 where it mentions relative IRIs. (Henry quotes the spec). We DO specify how base IRI can be established, so we're not going against the spec. We're leaving establishment of the base IRI for the server to do.
- 14:41:18 [bblfish]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0092.html
- 14:42:10 [codyburleson]
- bblfish: In the next spec, I think maybe we should have 'intuitive containers', which I proposed a long time agao.
- 14:43:52 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: What Henry is talking about should be on the list for nice consideration in future containers to add.
- 14:44:20 [SteveS]
- I think it might make sense to add some impl guidance (best practices) on '..' usage now
- 14:46:17 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: Bottom line… we're OK with our use of null-relative URIs. But when it comes to the dot-dot stuff, we add some guidelines (and we have a doc for this). Everybody agree to that?
- 14:46:49 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 14:46:49 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 14:47:16 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:47:16 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:47:42 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: Suggest we redirect the comments to the appropriate list. They were not sent to the right list initially.
- 14:48:00 [bblfish]
- q+
- 14:48:08 [codyburleson]
- bblfish:
- 14:48:20 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 14:48:20 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 14:48:41 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:48:41 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 14:48:51 [Arnaud]
- ack bblfish
- 14:48:52 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: I'll forward the original e-mail and then we can respond to that officially.
- 14:49:13 [codyburleson]
- bblfish: Put the dot-dot thing in a different document? Is that wise?
- 14:50:04 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: Unsure. Arnaud: I think the guide.
- 14:50:12 [SteveS]
- I think we should put in BP, once we have the text we may change our minds on target
- 14:50:37 [codyburleson]
- Topic: Multiple Named Graphs
- 14:51:57 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: People have said 'Require support for Turtle, but then Turtle does not support named graphs.'
- 14:52:17 [bblfish]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Mar/0073.html
- 14:54:45 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: I take it that his question was answered in a way that satisfied him; I did not see any further comments.
- 14:55:15 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: I don't know if he is now being silent to Henry because he agrees or doesn't want to argue. I don't know.
- 14:55:27 [Zakim]
- -bblfish
- 14:55:42 [codyburleson]
- Topic: Test Suite
- 14:55:47 [nmihindu]
- Raul is working on the Test Suite document.
- 14:55:50 [Zakim]
- +bblfish
- 14:55:53 [nmihindu]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html
- 14:56:01 [nmihindu]
- At the moment he is updating the current document based on the changes to the specification.
- 14:56:19 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: Raul said he is working on this to better match the specification.
- 14:56:27 [nmihindu]
- He will continue with the current test vocabulary and add new tests following the same approach.
- 14:57:09 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: The proposal is that the HTML document would use RDFa so that the tests can be extracted from it as well.
- 14:57:31 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: It would be nice to have 1 official test suite for the group. We need to agree on what that is.
- 14:58:18 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: I think Raul's document is "about" what we want. May be a little more detailed than what we need. There is a lot of work to be done updating it to current version of sp[ec, but then also the group validating. I imagine that taking a lot of time at the F2F.
- 14:59:01 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: I'm not sure that the RDFa is worth it.
- 14:59:11 [nmihindu]
- sandro, that is his plan. Develop the test suite in a way that it can be used by an executable tool.
- 14:59:21 [ericP]
- q+
- 14:59:29 [Arnaud]
- ack ericP
- 14:59:34 [ericP]
- -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#TC-C11 structured tests
- 15:01:00 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: We're out of time, but we should continue the discussion on mailing list so that we really have a plan going forward.
- 15:01:13 [codyburleson]
- Sandro: Anbody planning to write a tool that runs these tests?
- 15:01:16 [bblfish]
- I should try to do that
- 15:01:31 [bblfish]
- ok
- 15:01:53 [Zakim]
- -JohnArwe
- 15:02:04 [nmihindu]
- sandro, we will also develop a tool for one of our projects, The plan is to make it generic enough for other impls to use as well.
- 15:02:04 [codyburleson]
- SteveS: I have someone actively investigating and planning to something. My IBM legal answer to whether it can be open-source "I'm working on it."
- 15:02:08 [Zakim]
- -SteveS
- 15:02:09 [Zakim]
- -deiu
- 15:02:09 [Zakim]
- -TallTed
- 15:02:11 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 15:02:13 [Zakim]
- -bblfish
- 15:02:14 [Zakim]
- -Ashok_Malhotra
- 15:02:19 [codyburleson]
- Arnaud: MEETING ADJOURNED
- 15:02:32 [Zakim]
- -nmihindu
- 15:02:35 [codyburleson]
- codyburleson has left #ldp
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- -codyburleson
- 15:02:42 [SteveS]
- I will send a note out about what we are planning for test suite
- 15:03:12 [Zakim]
- -Arnaud
- 15:03:13 [Zakim]
- -ericP
- 15:03:13 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
- 15:03:13 [Zakim]
- Attendees were deiu, TallTed, Arnaud, bblfish, Sandro, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, ericP, +1.919.306.aaaa, SteveS, MiguelAraCo, nmihindu
- 15:07:23 [deiu_]
- deiu_ has joined #ldp
- 16:03:27 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp
- 17:01:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #ldp
- 17:02:14 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 20:21:56 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 20:30:15 [stevebattle19]
- stevebattle19 has joined #ldp
- 20:33:32 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp
- 20:52:09 [jmvanel]
- jmvanel has joined #ldp
- 20:53:08 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp
- 21:43:50 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp
- 22:13:32 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 22:21:42 [stevebattle110]
- stevebattle110 has joined #ldp