IRC log of ldp on 2014-06-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:59:07 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ldp
- 13:59:07 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/06/23-ldp-irc
- 13:59:09 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 13:59:09 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #ldp
- 13:59:11 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be LDP
- 13:59:11 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
- 13:59:12 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
- 13:59:12 [trackbot]
- Date: 23 June 2014
- 13:59:41 [codyburleson]
- codyburleson has joined #ldp
- 13:59:57 [Zakim]
- +Arnaud
- 14:00:58 [Ashok]
- Ashok has joined #ldp
- 14:01:23 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 14:01:34 [SteveS]
- Zakim, [IBM] is me
- 14:01:34 [Zakim]
- +SteveS; got it
- 14:02:31 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:02:36 [MiguelAraCo]
- MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
- 14:02:45 [codyburleson]
- Zakim, IPcaller is me
- 14:02:45 [Zakim]
- +codyburleson; got it
- 14:03:11 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 14:03:15 [nmihindu]
- Zakim, what is the conference code?
- 14:03:15 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nmihindu
- 14:03:19 [deiu_]
- deiu_ has joined #ldp
- 14:03:29 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 14:03:29 [deiu_]
- Zakim, who is on the phone
- 14:03:30 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on the phone', deiu_
- 14:03:31 [deiu_]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:03:31 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ericP, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson, TimBL, Sandro
- 14:03:45 [deiu_]
- Zakim, TimBL is temporarily me
- 14:03:45 [Zakim]
- +deiu_; got it
- 14:03:47 [Zakim]
- +Ashok_Malhotra
- 14:04:57 [sandro]
- ping
- 14:06:40 [Arnaud]
- scribe: nmihindu
- 14:07:32 [deiu_]
- scribenick: deiu
- 14:07:37 [deiu_]
- scribenick: deiu_
- 14:07:48 [deiu_]
- Topic: minutes from last week
- 14:07:55 [nmihindu]
- I am willing to scribe and trying to connect. I still can't and it says the conference code in invalid. did anyone connect through VoIP ?
- 14:07:59 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: there was one important resolution
- 14:08:45 [Arnaud]
- yes, some people are calling through skype
- 14:09:09 [deiu_]
- [minutes approved]
- 14:09:09 [nmihindu]
- Arnaud, using sip:zakim@voip.w3.org ?
- 14:09:30 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: there is a holiday next week, which means some people won't be able to attend
- 14:09:40 [codyburleson]
- I'll be out for July4th
- 14:09:44 [deiu_]
- ... we might have to skip the call
- 14:10:59 [sandro]
- June 30 and July 7
- 14:11:00 [deiu_]
- ... it looks like we're going to have the meeting next week
- 14:11:12 [deiu_]
- Topic: tracking of actions and issues
- 14:11:26 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: are there any open actions people want to claim victory for?
- 14:11:49 [sandro]
- nmihindu, the problem is probably in the way your SIP client does DTMF to enter the conference code. Maybe there are some settings in your SIP client.
- 14:11:53 [deiu_]
- ... people not here today to report
- 14:12:08 [sandro]
- nmihindu, like, does it let you send longer tones, etc.
- 14:12:22 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: I was a bit busy last week
- 14:12:39 [deiu_]
- ... there are two topics for inclusion in the BP&G
- 14:13:02 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: we'll get back to that during the status update
- 14:13:14 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: moving on, congrats and thank you all for moving to CR
- 14:13:36 [deiu_]
- ... the exit criteria for CR is to have two independent implementations
- 14:13:59 [deiu_]
- ... people have to rest and report so that the sooner we meet the exit criteria, the sooner we move to PR
- 14:14:33 [deiu_]
- SteveS: there are some new tests
- 14:14:42 [nmihindu]
- sandro, I faced a problem with DTMF mode earlier but it used to work when I set it to RFC2833. But it doesn't work now.
- 14:14:50 [deiu_]
- ... I sent an email with them for people to take a look at
- 14:15:10 [deiu_]
- ... we have currently 55 approved tests, so 9 more would be good
- 14:15:27 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: are these new tests covering new stuff?
- 14:15:48 [deiu_]
- SteveS: we tried to identify all the tests that are valid but were not implemented yet
- 14:16:24 [deiu_]
- ... we added some tests to handle Prefer header
- 14:16:25 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 14:16:36 [deiu_]
- Zakim, mute ??P3
- 14:16:36 [Zakim]
- ??P3 should now be muted
- 14:16:41 [nmihindu]
- Zakim, ??P3 is me
- 14:16:41 [Zakim]
- +nmihindu; got it
- 14:16:45 [nmihindu]
- Zakim, mute me
- 14:16:45 [Zakim]
- nmihindu was already muted, nmihindu
- 14:16:58 [sandro]
- nmihindu, your audio was just super-loud noise
- 14:17:00 [deiu_]
- SteveS: the other tests cover the Slug header
- 14:17:37 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: any comments?
- 14:18:17 [nmihindu]
- yes, we are trying the tests with LDP4j
- 14:18:39 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: so..what is the process we have to go through to approve the tests? [following sandro's question]
- 14:18:57 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: it would be best to call them approved by default and change that later if someone finds an issue
- 14:18:59 [SteveS]
- I believe Marmotta is using them as well
- 14:19:01 [deiu_]
- sandro: why?
- 14:19:44 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: we start from the spec and assume the test is valid, and then people can check them to see if they have any issues
- 14:20:10 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 14:20:13 [deiu_]
- SteveS: I guess the question is, would anyone review them in detail?
- 14:20:50 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: if there are two people reporting the tests have worked, then it should be fine
- 14:21:22 [deiu_]
- sandro: do we have tests results reporting? can I see a page with results?
- 14:21:32 [deiu_]
- SteveS: people are running the tests and contributing feedback
- 14:21:32 [nmihindu]
- yes, Raul and Fernando are reviewing the implemented tests against the Test Case document that prepared
- 14:21:56 [nmihindu]
- and also running those tests against LDP4j implementation
- 14:22:15 [deiu_]
- SteveS: I created the tests following the style from Turtle
- 14:23:43 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: I agree with sandro in general and not do things too casually
- 14:24:06 [deiu_]
- ... where there are new tests being added, we need two parties looking at them and providing feedback
- 14:24:38 [deiu_]
- ... if we have two people saying they should be approved, then we have sufficient reason to approve them
- 14:25:13 [deiu_]
- SteveS: I've been rejecting some pull requests to ask people to rework the tests
- 14:25:30 [Ashok]
- q+
- 14:25:32 [Arnaud]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jun/0055.html
- 14:25:36 [deiu_]
- ... the tests we added have been reviewed by at least one one us (SteveS or Sergio)
- 14:26:09 [deiu_]
- sandro: there isn't a proposed status for tests?
- 14:26:14 [deiu_]
- SteveS: yes there is
- 14:26:33 [SteveS]
- http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/report/ldp-testsuite-coverage-report.html
- 14:26:40 [deiu_]
- SteveS: I will have to receive implementation reports
- 14:26:50 [SteveS]
- http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/report/ldp-testsuite-coverage-report.html#tobeapproved
- 14:26:58 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: if anybody on the call agrees to approve them, we can approve them
- 14:27:26 [deiu_]
- sandro: if the proposed tests are green, you can approve them
- 14:27:50 [Arnaud]
- ack Ashok
- 14:28:01 [deiu_]
- SteveS: well, what if your implementation doesn't support that test?
- 14:28:24 [deiu_]
- Ashok: Oasis wants every text to use rdf211
- 14:29:05 [deiu_]
- ... once you got those statements, then you can quickly figure out if all the statements have behaviors that are specified in the tests
- 14:29:32 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: this is orthogonal; if somebody comes up with a new test, how do you validate it?
- 14:30:12 [deiu_]
- SteveS: we categorize the tests by MUST, SHOULD, MAY
- 14:30:53 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: we're trying to avoid people misinterpreting a bad test, while running them against a good implementation
- 14:31:55 [deiu_]
- ... sandro is saying that if at least two people pass the tests, then it's a good indication of a working (ok) test
- 14:32:09 [deiu_]
- sandro: I would hope the test report distinguishes MUSTs from SHOULDs
- 14:32:16 [deiu_]
- SteveS: yes, that's how it works
- 14:33:22 [deiu_]
- ... you can run different types of tests depending on how much your implementation supports (e.g. basic containers, indirect, etc.)
- 14:33:27 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: let's leave it like that for today
- 14:33:33 [deiu_]
- Topic: ACLs
- 14:33:41 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: Ted is not online...
- 14:33:52 [deiu_]
- ... Ashok, is there any progress?
- 14:34:24 [deiu_]
- Ashok: still waiting for feedback; once I get it, I'll update the docs in mercurial
- 14:34:35 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: hopefully that will happen soon
- 14:34:51 [deiu_]
- Topic: BP&G
- 14:35:00 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: codyburleson, you said there are two problems
- 14:35:21 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: yes, the first one was about Issue-62
- 14:35:24 [codyburleson]
- A while back I raised issue 62, and we decided that we could place some text in the Primer or Best Practices as a result. Now, I'm not trying to avoid extra work for the primer (honestly!) but, I think this would be good content for the BP&G document, into the Guidelines section.
- 14:35:24 [codyburleson]
- 14:35:24 [codyburleson]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62
- 14:35:24 [codyburleson]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83
- 14:35:25 [Zakim]
- -??P6
- 14:35:44 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: I wasn't 100% sure what it was saying
- 14:36:03 [deiu_]
- ... there are these conversations going on about different topics and people want to put them in the BP
- 14:36:35 [deiu_]
- ... I'm trying to see what exactly we can use a BP material
- 14:37:11 [deiu_]
- ... it would help me if people would send suggestions in the form of BP&G statements
- 14:37:28 [Arnaud]
- https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-20#resolution_6
- 14:37:43 [deiu_]
- ... I don't know when we have something that's worth adding, since most of the times email discussions sound more like questions than statements
- 14:38:30 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: I can see how minutes text is not very helpful for the editors
- 14:39:22 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: it feels like we're bringing up points that do not turn into BP statements
- 14:39:58 [deiu_]
- ... the lesson I learned was that it was very helpful to revise the wiki documents
- 14:40:13 [sandro]
- PROPOSED: Best Practice for Container Creation is to POST a Container to another Container
- 14:40:36 [sandro]
- (with the right LINK header)
- 14:40:51 [sandro]
- q+
- 14:41:00 [Arnaud]
- ack sandro
- 14:41:29 [deiu_]
- [people generally agree with sandro's proposal]
- 14:41:47 [deiu_]
- Ashok: how do you get started? do you have a home container?
- 14:41:50 [nmihindu]
- on the same topic, we have such example in the primer too.
- 14:42:12 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: that's generally true on the Web, you start from a URL
- 14:42:31 [deiu_]
- ... you get a URL from someone/somewhere
- 14:43:45 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: so isn't that proposal just a feature? it seems to be just the definition
- 14:44:12 [nmihindu]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/efdef81e2b95/ldp-primer/ldp-primer.html#meta-structure
- 14:44:27 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: let's drop this
- 14:44:40 [deiu_]
- ... the other one was about the canonical URL?
- 14:44:52 [deiu_]
- codyburleson: yes, I got good feedback on that from John
- 14:45:25 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: let me restate the problem: in the spec there was the notion of a canonical URL, and this was part of the test that was moved to the BP&G document
- 14:45:37 [deiu_]
- ... Henry wanted to add references
- 14:45:57 [deiu_]
- ... we tried looking for references but we couldn't find any, so what do we do?
- 14:46:25 [deiu_]
- ... some servers may have several URLs for the same resource, but there must be at least one that should be used
- 14:46:52 [deiu_]
- ... there's also an issue about how to define it
- 14:47:15 [deiu_]
- ... i.e. a URL that has http and https still points to the same resource
- 14:47:48 [sandro]
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 --
- 14:47:48 [sandro]
- The Canonical Link Relation
- 14:48:50 [codyburleson]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html#respond-with-canonical-urls-and-use-them-for-identity-comparison
- 14:49:26 [Arnaud]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jun/0032.html
- 14:49:53 [sandro]
- "first-among-equals"
- 14:50:28 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: drop the use of the term "canonical URL" from the text in the BPG
- 14:50:49 [sandro]
- "primary"
- 14:51:00 [sandro]
- "distinguished"
- 14:51:03 [SteveS]
- the URL the server publically advertises as the primary
- 14:51:11 [deiu_]
- +1
- 14:51:13 [sandro]
- +1
- 14:51:34 [SteveS]
- +1
- 14:51:37 [nmihindu]
- +1
- 14:51:38 [codyburleson]
- +1
- 14:51:48 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: drop the use of the term "canonical URL" from the text in the BPG
- 14:52:02 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: please let me know when you're done editing
- 14:52:33 [deiu_]
- ... we have agreed to publish the Primer
- 14:53:01 [deiu_]
- ... I failed to send the email and I so the request was sent on Friday and now I'm waiting for the OK
- 14:53:13 [deiu_]
- ... we'll have to change the date on the document
- 14:53:39 [deiu_]
- Topic: paging
- 14:53:52 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: sandro sent an email earlier
- 14:54:15 [deiu_]
- sandro: I have a problem with "single page resource"
- 14:54:31 [deiu_]
- ... I proposed a bunch of alternative names
- 14:55:02 [deiu_]
- ... we'd be better off using the terms "segmented resource" or "chapter resource"
- 14:55:09 [deiu_]
- Ashok: why doesn't "paged resource" work?
- 14:55:24 [deiu_]
- sandro: because that's the thing that is split
- 14:55:42 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: we need to separate the two: the resource that is being paged, and the pages
- 14:55:51 [SteveS]
- “sliced resource” ?
- 14:57:33 [deiu_]
- sandro: so should I add "segment" and "chapter" to the wiki page to allow people to vote?
- 14:57:41 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: yes
- 14:57:43 [Arnaud]
- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Names_in_Paging
- 14:57:59 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: people should read the proposal and vote on it
- 14:58:06 [deiu_]
- ... so next week we can close this issue
- 14:58:12 [deiu_]
- Ashok: are you going to edit the spec?
- 14:58:22 [deiu_]
- sandro: not until we make a decision
- 14:58:39 [deiu_]
- Ashok: what about your other ideas from the email?
- 14:58:43 [SteveS]
- partitioned resource and a partitions?, segment makes me think of URL segments
- 14:59:05 [deiu_]
- sandro: the other point was about what conformance means for paging
- 14:59:43 [deiu_]
- sandro: there are 3 different types of servers
- 14:59:48 [SteveS]
- s/a partitions/a partition/
- 15:00:00 [sandro]
- sandro: I think, but not sure.
- 15:00:03 [deiu_]
- ... unfortunately we're out of time
- 15:00:44 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: I heard people talk about why we have the current model (server being in control)...
- 15:01:02 [deiu_]
- ... maybe we need to support both server and client controlled paging
- 15:01:25 [deiu_]
- sandro: we still need some sort of negotiation
- 15:01:50 [deiu_]
- Arnaud: if anyone has a use-case, please let us know
- 15:01:58 [Zakim]
- -Ashok_Malhotra
- 15:02:04 [deiu_]
- Meeting adjourned!
- 15:02:05 [Zakim]
- -SteveS
- 15:02:07 [Zakim]
- -codyburleson
- 15:02:09 [Zakim]
- -Arnaud
- 15:02:10 [Zakim]
- -ericP
- 15:02:11 [Zakim]
- -deiu_
- 15:02:12 [Zakim]
- -nmihindu
- 15:02:21 [sandro]
- sandro: What we have, as shown in my analysis, is a kind of negotiation... Not perfect, but pretty good.
- 15:02:24 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 15:02:25 [Zakim]
- SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
- 15:02:25 [Zakim]
- Attendees were ericP, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson, Sandro, deiu_, Ashok_Malhotra, nmihindu
- 15:15:07 [codyburleson]
- codyburleson has joined #ldp
- 17:04:29 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #ldp
- 17:16:07 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp
- 17:22:06 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 19:18:54 [jmvanel]
- jmvanel has joined #ldp
- 19:27:02 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 20:16:35 [stevebattle11112]
- stevebattle11112 has joined #ldp
- 20:34:15 [deiu]
- deiu has joined #ldp
- 20:37:49 [jmvanel]
- jmvanel has joined #ldp
- 21:40:36 [bblfish]
- bblfish has joined #ldp
- 23:14:39 [bblfish]
- bblfish has joined #ldp
- 23:48:06 [SteveS]
- SteveS has joined #ldp