Package: notmuch
Version: 0.13.2-1
Severity: important
Hi.
I'm using notmuch to index my mail, and noticed that some emails disappear from
my searches (saved searches in emacs).
Such mail appear when I do a search including a subject: but not with tags, for
instance.
Example :
$ notmuch search tag:ldpw3wg | grep ACTION-10
gives no results, whereas :
$ notmuch search subject:ACTION-10 tag:ldpw3wg | grep ACTION-10
thread:00000000000003ae Thu. 09:34 [4/7] Steve K Speicher, Arnaud Le Hors,
Michael Hausenblas| Erik Wilde, Kevin Page, [email protected]; ACTION-10:
First Editor's Draft is available! (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox unread)
As you can see, the ldpw3wg is supposed to be attached to that thread.
Attached is the output of notmuch show thread:00000000000003ae.
Needless to say that it's very uncomfortable to miss new mail :-(
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages notmuch depends on:
ii libc6 2.13-35
ii libglib2.0-0 2.32.3-1
ii libgmime-2.6-0 2.6.10-1
ii libnotmuch3 0.13.2-1
ii libtalloc2 2.0.7+git20120207-1
Versions of packages notmuch recommends:
ii gnupg-agent 2.0.19-1
ii notmuch-emacs 0.13.2-1
ii notmuch-mutt 0.13.2-1
notmuch suggests no packages.
-- debconf-show failed
message{
id:of1360bbc1.36d0eee6-on85257a7e.004be0a8-85257a7e.0069f...@us.ibm.com depth:0
match:1 excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348128022.M507634P6097.inf-8657,S=7143,W=7288:2,
header{
Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> (Wed. 21:17) (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox
unread)
Subject: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!
From: Steve K Speicher <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:17:36 -0400
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: text/plain
I have completed ACTION-10 to convert member submission to an Editor's
Draft [1].
This is an "as-is" migration from member submission [2] to follow W3C
draft format. I have also produced a HTML diff [3].
There are a few editorial items I need to address:
- What namespace URI should we use for new terms defined in this document?
- Validate the shortname for this as 'ldbp'
I assume these will either be created as official issues or actions. For
now I just made a reminder for editors in the doc.
Now that ACTION-10 is complete, I will start incorporating some of the
actions and minor editorial issues found since published as member
submission.
Fellow editors (Michael/John), once you have contributed an edit feel free
to add yourself as an editor.
Note: the diff [3] isn't perfect, for example the new draft uses ReSpec.js
which pulls in boilerplate HTML and the diff struggles with this a bit.
Note: [1] and [3] have an annoying red box at the top right since biblio
entries are missing, I have a pull request pending [4]. Robin says he'll
get to it shortly.
[1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp.html
[2] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/
[3] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp-diff-20120919.html
[4] - https://github.com/darobin/respec/pull/73
Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
part}
body}
message}
message{
id:of785db0a6.863eee6b-on88257a7e.0070e13f-88257a7e.0070f...@us.ibm.com depth:1
match:1 excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348128005.M765367P5877.inf-8657,S=14155,W=14450:2,
header{
Arnaud Le Hors <[email protected]> (Wed. 22:33) (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox unread)
Subject: Re: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!
From: Arnaud Le Hors <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:33:50 -0700
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: multipart/alternative
part{ ID: 2, Content-type: text/plain
Steve,
The draft looks good. Thanks!
Everyone,
I urge you to start reviewing the draft and raising issues as necessary.
Once again, I suggest you consider the questions listed in our charter [1]
as a starting point. Ask yourself whether you think the draft addresses
the questions appropriately.
To be efficient about this I think it is important that we leverage the
issue tracker [2]. If you are ensure, post to the mailing list asking for
clarification. If you see a problem, have a look to see if anyone else as
already raised the issue and if not create a new one.
As a group we will review the raised issues on our calls and dispose of
them. Issues we accept will be marked as open and referenced in the draft
prior to publication. These will then constitute the core of our work
moving forward.
Please, remember that we need to have all issues raised by 10/08 to be on
schedule [3]. This isn't to say you won't be able/allowed to raise any
other issues later on, just that they won't be referenced in the First
Public Working Draft to be published by the end of October.
Regards.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter#issues
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page#Timeline
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Steve Speicher wrote on 09/19/2012 12:17:36 PM:
> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> To: [email protected],
> Date: 09/19/2012 12:25 PM
> Subject: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!
>
> I have completed ACTION-10 to convert member submission to an Editor's
> Draft [1].
>
> This is an "as-is" migration from member submission [2] to follow W3C
> draft format. I have also produced a HTML diff [3].
>
> There are a few editorial items I need to address:
> - What namespace URI should we use for new terms defined in this
document?
> - Validate the shortname for this as 'ldbp'
> I assume these will either be created as official issues or actions.
For
> now I just made a reminder for editors in the doc.
>
> Now that ACTION-10 is complete, I will start incorporating some of the
> actions and minor editorial issues found since published as member
> submission.
>
> Fellow editors (Michael/John), once you have contributed an edit feel
free
> to add yourself as an editor.
>
> Note: the diff [3] isn't perfect, for example the new draft uses
ReSpec.js
> which pulls in boilerplate HTML and the diff struggles with this a bit.
> Note: [1] and [3] have an annoying red box at the top right since biblio
> entries are missing, I have a pull request pending [4]. Robin says
he'll
> get to it shortly.
>
> [1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp.html
> [2] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/
> [3] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp-diff-20120919.html
> [4] - https://github.com/darobin/respec/pull/73
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> http://open-services.net
>
>
part}
part{ ID: 3, Content-type: text/html
Non-text part: text/html
part}
part}
body}
message}
message{
id:of8afbda50.38553b88-on85257a7e.0072ed8a-85257a7e.00732...@us.ibm.com depth:2
match:1 excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348127995.M18082P5613.inf-8657,S=7024,W=7163:2,
header{
Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> (Wed. 22:57) (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox
unread)
Subject: Re: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!
From: Steve K Speicher <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:57:53 -0400
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: text/plain
Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 09/19/2012 04:33:50 PM:
> To be efficient about this I think it is important that we leverage the
> issue tracker [2]. If you are ensure, post to the mailing list asking
for
> clarification. If you see a problem, have a look to see if anyone else
as
> already raised the issue and if not create a new one.
>
> As a group we will review the raised issues on our calls and dispose of
> them. Issues we accept will be marked as open and referenced in the
draft
> prior to publication. These will then constitute the core of our work
moving forward.
>
To be most efficient in resolving issues, I recommend that when we
institute a best practice that when you raise an issue you also propose a
resolution to it.
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
part}
body}
message}
message{ id:cc80f5e4.89a9%[email protected] depth:2 match:1 excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348216382.M322539P6079.inf-8657,S=6372,W=6503:2,
header{
"Wilde, Erik" <[email protected]> (Fri. 01:37) (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox unread)
Subject: agenda for next monday
From: "Wilde, Erik" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:37:32 -0400
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: text/plain
hello everybody!
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.24 is where you
can find the agenda for next monday. thanks to steve speicher for already
making the first editor's draft available, and it would be great if we
already had some issues raised that we can discuss in the upcoming meeting
(and either open or drop them).
here's just a brief reminder from arnaud's email he sent yesterday:
On 2012-09-19 13:33 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I urge you to start reviewing the draft and raising issues as necessary.
>Once again, I suggest you consider the questions listed in our charter
>[1] as a starting point. Ask yourself whether you think the draft
>addresses the
> questions appropriately.
>To be efficient about this I think it is important that we leverage the
>issue tracker [2]. If you are ensure, post to the mailing list asking for
>clarification. If you see a problem, have a look to see if anyone else as
>already
> raised the issue and if not create a new one.
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter#issues
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues
thanks a lot and cheers,
dret.
part}
body}
message}
message{ id:1348430229.1724.10.camel@pootle depth:3 match:1 excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348430366.M135618P15890.inf-8657,S=5990,W=6123:2,
header{
Kevin Page <[email protected]> (Yest. 21:57) (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox
unread)
Subject: Re: agenda for next monday
From: Kevin Page <[email protected]>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:57:09 +0100
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: text/plain
My regrets for tomorrow's call.
Kevin.
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 19:37 -0400, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello everybody!
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.24 is where you
> can find the agenda for next monday. thanks to steve speicher for already
> making the first editor's draft available, and it would be great if we
> already had some issues raised that we can discuss in the upcoming meeting
> (and either open or drop them).
>
> here's just a brief reminder from arnaud's email he sent yesterday:
>
> On 2012-09-19 13:33 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I urge you to start reviewing the draft and raising issues as necessary.
> >Once again, I suggest you consider the questions listed in our charter
> >[1] as a starting point. Ask yourself whether you think the draft
> >addresses the
> > questions appropriately.
> >To be efficient about this I think it is important that we leverage the
> >issue tracker [2]. If you are ensure, post to the mailing list asking for
> >clarification. If you see a problem, have a look to see if anyone else as
> >already
> > raised the issue and if not create a new one.
> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter#issues
> >[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues
>
> thanks a lot and cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
part}
body}
message}
message{
id:378f8a27c40d3741ac0445cc2a5c50e0b89ff45...@exnsw-mbx05.nexus.csiro.au
depth:4 match:1 excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348453614.M143331P27787.inf-8657,S=9258,W=9420:2,
header{
<[email protected]> (Today 04:24) (inbox ldpw3wg newinbox unread)
Subject: Multiple representations of the same resource without content
negotiation
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:24:59 +1000
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: text/plain
Dear all,
I am running this by the mailing list to solicit your opinions if this is
relevant to the LDP before I post it to the issue list.
In a series of Linked Data projects in CSIRO we have the following requirement
on a Linked Data Platform. Consider, for example, a physical feature that can
be identified and mapped. Multiple information resources may exist for a single
object, may this be one of several machine readable cartographic
representations (e.g. different levels of detail), several types of pictures,
HTML descriptions or RDF graphs of information about the object. We desire a
single URI that represents the "real world thing" as postulated by the Linked
Data principles. However, multiple representations of this thing (URI) exist.
Such systems are common in the "Data Web" and although highly heterogeneous,
represent a significant, and in some cases legislated resource base that can be
linked.
Of course content negotiation can be used to retrieve the different
representations of the same object. However, how does the user know what
representations do exist about this object? Also, what if the representation is
a native API itself? Native APIs and formats are supported by existing clients,
so the goal of a LDP here is arguably to broker a client getting access to the
resource in the right representation with minimal overhead. As such, the LDP
platform could be considered as a URL resolver for an object representation. If
we allow this functionality the following issues arise:
● Do we encode the representation types in a graph about the object (e.g.
in a representation/type ontology, a VOID description, etc.)?
● Do we require the user to query this graph to determine the different
representation about an object or do we offer an API that allows the user to
natively query for different representation of the thing other than
RDF/JSON/HTML?
● If we do, how are CoolURIs resolved to multiple possible
representations? Do we use an identifier for the representation type?
● Can we use identifiers for the same object from other contexts if they
support LD, or are they just alternative representations?
● How do we know when a URI acts as a LD identifier or as an information
resource?
● What is the minimal API needed for handling multiple identifiers and
representations across multiple communities?
● How do we provide links to native APIs, e.g. MAP APIs, Web Feature
Server, etc.?
Looking forward to your opinions!
Best regards,
Armin
--
Armin Haller
Research Scientist
Information Engineering Lab | CSIRO ICT Centre
PO Box 664 | Canberra ACT 2601
T +61 2 6216 7149 | F +61 2 6216 7111 | [email protected]
part}
body}
message}
message{ id:[email protected] depth:1 match:1
excluded:0
filename:/home/olivier/Maildir/cur/1348128017.M884814P6032.inf-8657,S=7638,W=7836:2,
header{
Michael Hausenblas <[email protected]> (Thu. 09:34) (inbox ldpw3wg
newinbox unread)
Subject: Re: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!
From: Michael Hausenblas <[email protected]>
To: Steve K Speicher <[email protected]>, Richard Cyganiak
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:34:19 +0100
header}
body{
part{ ID: 1, Content-type: text/plain
Steve,
> I have completed ACTION-10 to convert member submission to an Editor's Draft
> [1].
Thank you very much, indeed, for setting the ball rolling!
> - What namespace URI should we use for new terms defined in this document?
Proposal in document, we might want to raise an issue. For short:
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#
> Fellow editors (Michael/John), once you have contributed an edit feel free to
> add yourself as an editor.
Done.
> Note: the diff [3] isn't perfect, for example the new draft uses ReSpec.js
> which pulls in boilerplate HTML and the diff struggles with this a bit.
My colleague Richard has developed a great diff tool (he's RDF WG and RDB2RDF
WG Editor and fiddled around with it quite a while IIRC). Richard?
> Note: [1] and [3] have an annoying red box at the top right since biblio
> entries are missing, I have a pull request pending [4]. Robin says he'll
> get to it shortly.
OMG, I should have read your message more carefully. I did the same now for
[[LINKED-DATA]] … well, I guess that will help Robin to determine a better CD
algorithm ;)
/me ducks
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel.: +353 91 495730
http://mhausenblas.info/
On 19 Sep 2012, at 20:17, Steve K Speicher wrote:
> I have completed ACTION-10 to convert member submission to an Editor's
> Draft [1].
>
> This is an "as-is" migration from member submission [2] to follow W3C
> draft format. I have also produced a HTML diff [3].
>
> There are a few editorial items I need to address:
> - What namespace URI should we use for new terms defined in this document?
> - Validate the shortname for this as 'ldbp'
> I assume these will either be created as official issues or actions. For
> now I just made a reminder for editors in the doc.
>
> Now that ACTION-10 is complete, I will start incorporating some of the
> actions and minor editorial issues found since published as member
> submission.
>
> Fellow editors (Michael/John), once you have contributed an edit feel free
> to add yourself as an editor.
>
> Note: the diff [3] isn't perfect, for example the new draft uses ReSpec.js
> which pulls in boilerplate HTML and the diff struggles with this a bit.
> Note: [1] and [3] have an annoying red box at the top right since biblio
> entries are missing, I have a pull request pending [4]. Robin says he'll
> get to it shortly.
>
> [1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp.html
> [2] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/
> [3] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp-diff-20120919.html
> [4] - https://github.com/darobin/respec/pull/73
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> http://open-services.net
>
>
part}
body}
message}
