See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 10 November 2014
that was a quick call
<bblfish> hi
<scribe> scribenick: deiu
Arnaud: there was an error in the
last minutes, which tells me people don't read the
minutes
... we can safely approve them since there was no
resolution
... minutes approved
<bblfish> minutes are useful, and are important in that case
<Arnaud> action-150
<trackbot> action-150 -- Alexandre Bertails to Add support for arbitrary text/turtle for the add operation in ldpatch -- due 2014-10-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/150
deiu will address action-150
Arnaud: status update
... I sent the transition request but I didn't hear
anything
... I believe Eric needs to set up the call with W3M
... but I haven't heard anything from him
... too bad he's not available right now to hear what the
status is
... paging is not doing better either; the editors have updated
the spec
... maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?
... the process seems to have changed lately, merging two steps
into one
sandro: try sending an email to Ralph just to make sure (informally)
Arnaud: what I meant about the
paging spec: you get to LC and then CR
... you cannot do the disposition of comments and
implementation reports at the same time
... there's no real change to the timeline, even if
theoretically it should be faster
... in conclusion: the spec is ready
SteveS: the key thing to cover is
that there were a couple of items marked "at risk"
... I only got some pushback for the new status code (we didn't
get support from IETF)
... so I removed that from the spec, as well as the "at risk"
markers from a couple of places in the spec
Arnaud: ok, so that should have
been formally minuted
... the point is 2NN is abandoned so SteveS removed it from the
spec
... John worked really hard on 2NN and it's a pity we had to
remove a big chunk from the spec
... so Eric, I'm waiting for a confirmation for the call re.
the TR
ericP: I can reply to your
email
... people on the W3M call can be you, staff contacts and maybe
editors
... it might be easier to get a different call for the paging
req
... let's try not to sneak it in
<bblfish> pchampin: ?
<pchampin> can't manage to reach zakim, sorry :-(
<pchampin> not much progress to report anyway, I'm afraid...
pchampin: we're looking at having
some SPARQL-like syntax allowed in the add operation
... we haven't made a lot of progress
Arnaud: it seems like the spec
has been sitting there
... we haven't seen a lot of updates
... what is our position as a group? We agreed overall that we
want to push it further...
... I don't feel like there's a strong motivation to push it at
this point
<bblfish> I think we need a PATCH format
Arnaud: are you still interested in putting in effort?
azaroth: we're still interested
in it, mostly because the PUT operation to update is
constrained
... we haven't worked on it yet, but it's something that we
think is valuable
<azaroth> To clarify, we don't particularly care about the format, we just need the functionality
<bblfish> well everyone I think needs PATCH, but we could vote on it.
bblfish: I think everyone needs
PATCH
... the format I see as being mostly used is SPARQL UPDATE
<ericP> i suspect the fastest path is to publish http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_patch?lang=perl&markup=html#productions with an at-risk crazy scheme for lists
<ericP> semantics are done
pchampin: I understand Henry, and
I think it is a pragmatic solution
... assuming that a SPARQL query fails, you would have a
non-atomic operation
... we need atomicity and you can't have it right now with the
current SPARQL UPDATE
... I believe there's room for a dedicated language with real
PATCH semantics
<bblfish> pchampin: the atomiticy problem in SPARQL Update is due to what? Is that due to the ability to PATCH subgraphs ?
SteveS: PUT has a ton of overhead
and complexity, so PATCH is relevant to us
... we have a small profile of what is in LD patch today
... re. the group not being interested, I have given my
feedback several times so far
... I have some requirements as to what the format should
be
Arnaud: we don't have any issues
opened today against the LD patch draft
... I agree we should make this a primary topic for the group
to discuss
... we don't have much to talk about right now, other than the
new charter
... so what if we try to push it further by sending it to
LC
TallTed: I don't really think we're there yet
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose that the fastest path may be to publish http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_patch?lang=perl&markup=html#productions with an at-risk MEMBERS
ericP: there's a grammar for a
subset of SPARQL update that has some stuff for lists
... in my implementation I use something for expanding lists,
which shouldn't be hard to document
... we could say -- "unline SPARL update, when you use this for
PATCH, you must guarantee atomicity..."
deiu: we have several implementations right now that work
Arnaud: right, and because we don't have any open issues, maybe we can move to LC and look for implementers
Ashok: I am curious what happened
here, because Andrei and Alexandre started very enthusiastic
about it, but it looks like they're giving up
... I'm wondering why
<SteveS> multiple comments we had was that we’d recommend a bit more formalism of the grammar and semantics, perhaps that should be an open issue/action ?
Arnaud: maybe they feel discouraged because there are not many people sending feedback
TallTed: it is a viable spec that works, even though maybe it doesn't scale or it doesn't fit all use cases
Arnaud: sandro and I were
discussing this last week and he sent an email to the
group
... have people looked at it and want to react to it?
SteveS: I have a quick
reaction
... I see we still have some active work ahead of us in this
group
... if we can somehow structure the charter so that there's an
adoption period or learning period, to allow us to close loose
ends and have less frequent calls
Arnaud: we could have a schedule
that allows us to have a slow start, with less frequent
calls
... it seems that we either make that officially (by
rechartering) or we just leave the WG in limbo and just
wait
... we can still meet and use the mailing list even if we don't
recharter
sandro: when we talked about
rechartering at our last f2f, I started thinking about LDP as a
set of building blocks and from that context I can see for
instance that patch is a separate building block..so is the
notification mechanism
... I'm wondering if we can pick up each item from the wish
list and work on it
... if the item is not relevant to some people, they don't have
to join the call for it
TallTed: that means people will
fall off the grid, and they get disengaged
... rechartering immediately makes more sense to me
Arnaud: I think we're better off
rechartering, which won't happen before December
... it takes 4 weeks for AC review anyway
... so officially, we probably won't start before January
2015
... we can keep a regular schedule on, and if we decide to skip
calls (or make them informal) then that's up to us
sandro: the current charter is pretty vague
Arnaud: I doubt we'll have
trouble with a charter that picks up on the previous one and
just proposes extensions and improvements
... I can look at the table and shift everything by 3-6 months
and at the same time, people should look at the questions we
want to address
sandro: what's the timeline for the decision?
Arnaud: we expire at the end of
the month, so should have an official position by then
... in the next 2 weeks we need to figure out what we want to
do
... I want to have a charter ready for the end of the months so
I can send it to the AC
... please use the time until the next call to look at the
charter
... Steve mentioned the notion of sending updates, Sandro
too
... we need to come up with a list of items people are
interested in
<bblfish> thanks
<azaroth> Thanks all :)
[adjourned]
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?/...maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?/ Succeeded: s/style/format/ Found ScribeNick: deiu Inferring Scribes: deiu Default Present: deiu, azaroth, Arnaud, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, bblfish, SteveS, ericP, +33.9.51.77.aaaa, pchampin Present: deiu azaroth Arnaud Sandro Ashok_Malhotra TallTed bblfish SteveS ericP +33.9.51.77.aaaa pchampin WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 10 Nov 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/10-ldp-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]