Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of July 21 minutes

  4. Next meeting August 18, 2016

  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Martin to contact Chet to inquire about status of our public review draft
    • Nick to update ReSpec template and send email pointing to it

    • Jim post issue about other changes related to Chet's feedback that should be easy for ReSpec to handle

  6. Topics
  7. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:








Chat transcript from room: oslc [07:06] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): David volunteered as scribe

[07:06] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): List of attendees: David Honey (Persistent/IBM), Harish K (Software AG), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:07] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Minutes accepted.

[07:07] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Martin, contacted Chet about public review draft.

[07:09] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Chet pointed out incorrect link, needs fixing in PDFs.

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): From Chet to Paul Knight in the most recent email: Let's talk tomorrow Paul. I'm sure we can handle this.

[07:10] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: Who's responsible for fixing the PDFs?

[07:11] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Edits source in SVN, then has to regenerate all. Takes some hours.

[07:13] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Manually editing PDFs introduces risk that source in SVN is out of sync with published PDF.

[07:13] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Martin will contact Chet again.

[07:14] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Respec changes were done before the previous meeting. No current outstanding actions on Respec.

[07:16] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: Thought about Respec, support for text replacement in generated HTML.

[07:17] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Will send Nick notes on what steps Jim follows.

[07:18] Jim Amsden (IBM):

[07:18] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): TRS specification: What is the correct link?

[07:18] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): See above

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): (hit refresh to get the latest version)

[07:22] Nick Crossley (IBM): Appendix B - both sections have the exact same title

[07:22] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Needs to proofread this before the TC reviews it.

[07:24] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): trspatch namespace is different. May have to keep.

[07:25] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick is to check whether trspatch is deployed publicly.

[07:27] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: propose access context kept. Jim will raise an issue describing proposal.

[07:27] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Access context namespqace has to be kept.

[07:28] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Proposal is to add LDP headers and service provide entries for access context discovery.

[07:29] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Is relationship from resource to access context the right way round?

[07:30] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Currently there are large number of resource types with current relationship.

[07:31] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Current representation makes query within access context easier.

[07:33] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: 5.9 access control lists have no properties.

[07:34] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Need to define what an access context list returns.

[07:35] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Better to define a more general approach than a fixed JSON-LD format.

[07:38] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: For compatibility, support existing JSON if request asks for JSON. For other RDF media types, can use more general RDF representation.

[07:40] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Should we deprecate JSON-LD now?

[07:41] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim will raise an issue in JIRA.

[07:42] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Should access context be a property of an OSLC service?

[07:44] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: Some implementations used fixed XPath expressions to parse the RDF/XML rather than more general RDF.

[07:46] David Honey (Persistent/IBM):

[07:49] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Ought to specify what happens if there is a circular delegation path.

[07:49] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Should properties of a context be merged with the delegated one?

[07:50] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: Will update proposal to say the target of the delegation defines the properties.

[07:57] David Honey (Persistent/IBM):

[07:57] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Issue deferred. Will revisit after 1st public review.

[07:58] David Honey (Persistent/IBM):

[07:58] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): What properties? Why stop at rdf:type?

[07:59] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: suggest we defer it.

[08:00] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Will have version ready for TC review by next meeting.

[08:01] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Next meeting 18th Aug.

[08:01] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): David will be out.

[08:01] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Meeting adjourned.

Meetings/Telecon2016.08.04 (last edited 2016-08-05 12:45:10 by sarabura)