13:59:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:59:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-ldp-irc
13:59:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:59:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:59:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:59:43 <trackbot> Date: 21 October 2013
14:00:08 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:00:20 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
14:00:27 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:00:42 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:00:44 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:00:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:01:14 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:02:21 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:02:35 <Zakim> +Alexandre
14:02:44 <Zakim> +bblfish
14:02:50 <Zakim> +SteveS
14:03:29 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
14:03:53 <bblfish> hi
14:05:15 <bblfish> Topic: Minutes of last meeting
14:05:35 <bblfish> scribe: bblfish
14:06:04 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-14
14:06:07 <bblfish> Scribe: bblfish
14:06:11 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
14:06:45 <Zakim> +EricP
14:06:49 <Zakim> +Roger
14:07:07 <bblfish> Minutes Approved
14:07:15 <bblfish> Topic: Open Actions
14:08:32 <bblfish> Topic: Issues
14:08:35 <Arnaud> topic: Proposal: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
14:08:49 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0050.html
14:09:17 <betehess> q+
14:10:05 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:10:13 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily
14:10:13 <Zakim> +temporarily; got it
14:10:27 <TallTed> Zakim, temporarily is OpenLink_Software
14:10:29 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
14:10:30 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:10:30 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:10:32 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:10:32 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:11:38 <bblfish> summarising the e-mail above
14:11:58 <ericP> iirc, that was antoine's implementation, right?
14:12:13 <Arnaud> ack betehess
14:12:17 <betehess> [[ the server [...] SHOULD provide a message in the 4xx response body that provides details about which triples could not be persisted ]]
14:12:47 <bblfish> betehess: should we define a bit more about the body in the 400?
14:13:21 <bblfish> SteveS: does not want to specify this
14:13:25 <JohnArwe> can you give an example of what you might like to see?
14:13:42 <bblfish> that vocab may come out of the rdf validation work.
14:14:05 <JohnArwe> ...what I'm wary of is looking like we're re-defining HTTP, which people are clearly sensitive to.
14:14:27 <Arnaud> Proposal: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
14:14:30 <ericP> +1
14:14:33 <betehess> +1
14:14:44 <Ashok> +1
14:14:52 <JohnArwe> +1
14:14:53 <SteveS> +1 I agree with my proposal
14:14:55 <betehess> JohnArwe, I don't really know, I was just wondering :-)   do I want to know what triples were at fault? all of them? why? vocabulary? etc.
14:15:07 <TallTed> +1
14:15:14 <sandro> +1
14:15:15 <roger> +1
14:15:27 <Arnaud> Resolvedl: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
14:15:28 <bblfish> me: what are the server managed properties?
14:15:41 <Arnaud> Resolved: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
14:16:00 <Arnaud> topic: Proposal: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
14:16:10 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0060.html
14:16:56 <bblfish> JohnArwe: summarising the above
14:22:34 <Ashok> +1
14:22:37 <Arnaud> Proposal: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
14:22:43 <bblfish> q+
14:22:47 <ericP> +1
14:22:49 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:24:04 <JohnArwe> +1
14:24:06 <roger> +1
14:24:21 <TallTed> +1
14:24:23 <sandro> +1
14:24:32 <betehess> +1
14:24:33 <bblfish> bblfish was asking if the relation names and number on the restrictions would be left open for later discussion
14:24:35 <SteveS> +1
14:24:38 <bblfish> Arnaud: yes
14:24:41 <bblfish> +1
14:24:45 <Arnaud> Resolved: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
14:25:25 <bblfish> Topic: Status and handling of disposition of Last Call comments
14:26:47 <bblfish> Arnaud: Eric, Arnaud, and 3 editors of spec talked to timbl
14:27:03 <bblfish> who is making noise?
14:27:10 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise?
14:27:21 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (9%)
14:27:34 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise?
14:27:45 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
14:27:55 <bblfish> who is talking?
14:28:04 <JohnArwe> EricP
14:28:16 <bblfish> EricP: ....
14:28:49 <bblfish>    PUT to create new resources
14:29:46 <bblfish>   issues of how Options would work... TimBl talked about .well-known
14:30:16 <bblfish> Patch ... too many proposals
14:30:29 <bblfish> who is talking?
14:31:05 <Arnaud> john
14:31:25 <bblfish> JohnArwe:  server initiated paging requires 2 round trips. TimBl suggested a new status code which does not require a new round trip.
14:31:44 <Ashok> q+
14:31:55 <JohnArwe> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#http-status-code-definitions
14:32:10 <bblfish> JohnArwe: drafted an idea to replace a 303 with a 209
14:32:18 <JohnArwe> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/adfc713130ec
14:32:37 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
14:32:58 <betehess> I remember an argument I heard once: if the content is humongous anyway, why do we care about a little extra round-trip?
14:33:32 <bblfish> Ashok: ( can you summarise your argument here?)
14:33:50 <bblfish> betehess: in patch you were arguing that there are many small documents
14:33:53 <JohnArwe> @betehess: true for LDP, but as I said TimBL is after the larger LD problem
14:33:58 <ericP> 206 is too specific; it's for returing bytes 389 to 736 of animated GIFs
14:34:41 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
14:34:43 <Ashok> IU looked at existing sttsus codes to see if we could reuse one of them.  The one that looked promising was 206 (partial content)
14:35:37 <bblfish> Arnaud: summary: timbl is happy with the changes we are making. 2 issues a) PATCH wether MUST or SHOULD does not make sense without PATCH format. b) PUT Create c) status code 209
14:35:41 <Zakim> +??P2
14:35:44 <Ashok> However, as you read further into 206 it requires you to specify a rang (I assume range of bytes) and has some other restrictions.  So, I think we need a new code.
14:35:49 <krp> zakim, ??P2 is me
14:35:49 <Zakim> +krp; got it
14:36:17 <Yves> 206 is used as a response to partial requests (ie: containing a Range)
14:37:05 <bblfish> ... 209 is being specced for IETF draft
14:37:14 <Ashok> Yes, Yves, that's why I don't think it would work for paging
14:37:33 <bblfish> Topic: Discuss ISSUE-81: Confusing predicate names
14:37:37 <bblfish> Issue-81?
14:37:37 <trackbot> Issue-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open
14:37:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
14:38:43 <bblfish> poll: http://www.doodle.com/qf5am2pu89fcyaz2
14:39:00 <sandro> (for me it's laziness / dont care / too busy )
14:39:18 <bblfish> Well I am not too bothered about the naming
14:39:30 <JohnArwe> regrets: cody
14:40:29 <bblfish> Arnaud: fill in poll for Friday
14:40:34 <bblfish> Topic: PATCH
14:40:56 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0041.html
14:41:27 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
14:41:34 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:41:36 <bblfish> all the proposals are now here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals
14:42:32 <bblfish> Arnaud: we now have a number of proposals. At the F2F we thought we should implement 2 proposals. But now there are too many, we can't have people implement them all.
14:43:21 <sandro> q+
14:44:50 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:44:52 <bblfish> ... we won't have enough time to get to the final version of the PATCH in the time required, so we will probably add it later as a compromise
14:45:59 <bblfish> sandro: worried that this needs to be driven by a deadline. If we had to make a deadline we would probably come to a consensus ( Turtle Patch , or ... )
14:46:01 <bblfish> q+
14:46:06 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:47:38 <Zakim> -SteveS
14:48:02 <betehess> I believe that people have very different approaches here (eg. bnodes can/cannot be skolemized). if we don't make the important choices, we'll never be able to move forward anyway. being given more time to experiment is a good idea in my opinion
14:48:20 <Zakim> +SteveS
14:48:24 <JohnArwe> I thought W3C is a lot stricter about holding to charter dates than in the past - Team Contacts?
14:50:41 <Zakim> -krp
14:50:52 <SteveS> q+
14:50:56 <bblfish> Arnaud: ... So we could have a proposal put forward if the deadline is short
14:50:58 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
14:51:40 <betehess> q+
14:51:48 <Arnaud> ack betehess
14:51:53 <bblfish> SteveS: would like a PATCH format sooner than later, but not sure if it is worth holding ldp 1 up for that
14:52:21 <bblfish> betehess: one should not push for a proposal if the scope is not discussed first.
14:52:45 <bblfish> ... what should be covered by LDP patch, there are different assumptions what it should do, ...
14:53:09 <bblfish> ... some people accept complexity, others don't, ...
14:53:16 <bblfish> Arnaud: yes, the requirements are not clear
14:54:04 <betehess> should we vote on the SHOULD?
14:55:37 <betehess> my opinion after spending time on it: it's too soon to work on PATCH for LDP 1.0
14:55:47 <bblfish> q+
14:56:09 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: keep spending time as a WG on finding a patch format that would work for LDP PATCH
14:56:15 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:56:58 <betehess> right, APPEND *is* an interesting operation, and is already implemented
14:57:18 <betehess> q+
14:57:26 <Arnaud> ack betehess
14:59:00 <JohnArwe> trying to understand the question in light of Sandro's question... "spending time as WG" is potentially differnt from the "is patch format on the LDP critical path" question
14:59:33 <betehess> JohnArwe, right, it is not critical for LDP
15:00:06 <JohnArwe> I'm happy to spend (extra, non-crit path) time on patch formats.  It would require some soul-searching to say it should be on critical path.
15:00:06 <bblfish> +1 I think if someone has a proposal then that's great. the SPARQL UPDATE subset seems fine to me.
15:00:13 <Ashok> +1
15:01:17 <SteveS> +0 (does +1 mean we affect the delivery date of LDP 1.0?  I'm not for that but FOR making progress on a patch solution)
15:01:27 <betehess> +0
15:01:34 <TallTed> +0 (with SteveS)
15:01:50 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:52 <betehess> bye
15:01:52 <Zakim> -Roger
15:01:54 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:01:57 <Zakim> -Alexandre
15:01:57 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:01:59 <JohnArwe> +0 (if you prefer, +1 to the earlier +0s)
15:01:59 <bblfish> Arnaud: go to the patch mailing list for discussions on PATCH
15:02:05 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:02:07 <Zakim> -EricP
15:02:07 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:02:08 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:02:18 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
15:02:19 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:02:19 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, bblfish, SteveS, EricP, Roger, TallTed, krp
15:08:01 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
15:08:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:08:01 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:08:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:08:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
15:08:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:08:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items