13:59:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-ldp-irc ←
13:59:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:59:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:59:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
14:00:27 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:42 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:00:44 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
14:00:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
14:01:14 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
14:02:35 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
14:02:44 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
14:02:50 <Zakim> +SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS ←
14:03:53 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
14:05:15 <bblfish> Topic: Admin
14:05:35 <bblfish> scribe: bblfish
(Scribe set to Henry Story)
<bblfish> chair: Arnaud
<bblfish> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.21
<bblfish> Approval of minutes of October 14
Approval of minutes of October 14 ←
14:06:04 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-14
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-14 ←
14:06:45 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
14:06:49 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
14:07:07 <bblfish> Resolved: Minutes of October 14 approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of October 14 approved ←
<bblfish> Arnaud: next meeting is Monday October 28, same time, same place.
Arnaud Le Hors: next meeting is Monday October 28, same time, same place. ←
14:07:15 <bblfish> Topic: Tracking of Actions & Issues
14:08:32 <bblfish> no changes
no changes ←
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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0050.html ←
14:09:17 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
14:10:05 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:10:13 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily ←
14:10:13 <Zakim> +temporarily; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +temporarily; got it ←
14:10:27 <TallTed> Zakim, temporarily is OpenLink_Software
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, temporarily is OpenLink_Software ←
14:10:29 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software; got it ←
14:10:30 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:10:30 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
14:10:32 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:10:32 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
14:11:38 <bblfish> summarising the e-mail above
summarising the e-mail above ←
14:11:58 <ericP> iirc, that was antoine's implementation, right?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: iirc, that was antoine's implementation, right? ←
14:12:13 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: 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 ]]
Alexandre Bertails: [[ 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?
Alexandre Bertails: should we define a bit more about the body in the 400? ←
14:13:21 <bblfish> SteveS: does not want to specify this
Steve Speicher: does not want to specify this ←
14:13:25 <JohnArwe> can you give an example of what you might like to see?
John Arwe: 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.
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.
John Arwe: ...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
PROPOSED: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples ←
14:14:30 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:14:33 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
14:14:44 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:14:52 <JohnArwe> +1
14:14:53 <SteveS> +1 I agree with my proposal
Steve Speicher: +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.
Alexandre Bertails: 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
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:15:14 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:15:15 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
14:15:28 <bblfish> bblfish: what are the server managed properties?
Henry Story: what are the server managed properties? ←
14:15:41 <Arnaud> Resolved: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
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
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0060.html ←
14:16:56 <bblfish> JohnArwe: summarising the above
John Arwe: summarising the above ←
<bblfish> Arnaud: with this change there is a chance we won't have two different levels of compliance (chocolate/vanilla) but a single one
Arnaud Le Hors: with this change there is a chance we won't have two different levels of compliance (chocolate/vanilla) but a single one ←
14:22:34 <Ashok> +1
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:22:37 <Arnaud> Proposal: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
PROPOSED: Accept revised proposal for normative changes ←
14:22:43 <bblfish> q+
q+ ←
14:22:47 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:22:49 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:24:04 <JohnArwe> +1
14:24:06 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
14:24:21 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:24:23 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:24:32 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
14:24:33 <bblfish> bblfish was asking if the relation names and number on the restrictions would be left open for later discussion
bblfish was asking if the relation names and number on the restrictions would be left open for later discussion ←
14:24:35 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:24:38 <bblfish> Arnaud: yes
Arnaud Le Hors: yes ←
14:24:41 <bblfish> +1
+1 ←
14:24:45 <Arnaud> Resolved: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
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
Arnaud Le Hors: Eric, Arnaud, and 3 editors of spec talked to timbl ←
14:27:03 <bblfish> who is making noise?
who is making noise? ←
14:27:10 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise?
zakim, who is making noise? ←
14:27:21 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (9%)
Zakim IRC Bot: bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (9%) ←
14:27:34 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise?
zakim, who is making noise? ←
14:27:45 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
Zakim IRC Bot: bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds ←
14:27:55 <bblfish> who is talking?
who is talking? ←
14:28:04 <JohnArwe> EricP
14:28:16 <bblfish> EricP: ....
Eric Prud'hommeaux: .... ←
14:28:49 <bblfish> PUT to create new resources
PUT to create new resources ←
14:29:46 <bblfish> issues of how Options would work... TimBl talked about .well-known
issues of how Options would work... TimBl talked about .well-known ←
14:30:16 <bblfish> Patch ... too many proposals
Patch ... too many proposals ←
14:30:29 <bblfish> who is talking?
who is talking? ←
14:31:05 <Arnaud> john
Arnaud Le Hors: 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.
John Arwe: 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+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:31:55 <JohnArwe> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#http-status-code-definitions
John Arwe: 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
John Arwe: drafted an idea to replace a 303 with a 209 ←
14:32:18 <JohnArwe> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/adfc713130ec
John Arwe: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/adfc713130ec ←
14:32:37 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: 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?
Alexandre Bertails: 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?)
Ashok Malhotra: ( can you summarise your argument here?) ←
14:33:50 <bblfish> betehess: in patch you were arguing that there are many small documents
Alexandre Bertails: 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
John Arwe: @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
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 206 is too specific; it's for returing bytes 389 to 736 of animated GIFs ←
14:34:43 <Ashok> I looked at existing status codes to see if we could reuse one of them. The one that looked promising was 206 (partial content)
Ashok Malhotra: I looked at existing status 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. 3 main issues: a) PATCH whether MUST or SHOULD, tim agrees MUST does not make sense without PATCH format, b) PUT Create, c) status code 209
Arnaud Le Hors: summary: timbl is happy with the changes we are making. 3 main issues: a) PATCH whether MUST or SHOULD, tim agrees MUST does not make sense without PATCH format, b) PUT Create, c) status code 209 ←
14:35:41 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
14:35:44 <Ashok> However, as you read further into 206 it requires you to specify a range (I assume range of bytes) and has some other restrictions. So, I think we need a new code.
Ashok Malhotra: However, as you read further into 206 it requires you to specify a range (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
Kevin Page: zakim, ??P2 is me ←
14:35:49 <Zakim> +krp; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +krp; got it ←
14:36:17 <Yves> 206 is used as a response to partial requests (ie: containing a Range)
Yves Lafon: 206 is used as a response to partial requests (ie: containing a Range) ←
14:37:05 <bblfish> ... 209 is being specced for IETF draft
... 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
Ashok Malhotra: 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
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open ←
14:37:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81 ←
14:38:43 <bblfish> poll: http://www.doodle.com/qf5am2pu89fcyaz2
poll: http://www.doodle.com/qf5am2pu89fcyaz2 ←
<bblfish> Arnaud: why are we not getting responses to the poll? Is there a problem?
Arnaud Le Hors: why are we not getting responses to the poll? Is there a problem? ←
14:39:00 <sandro> (for me it's laziness / dont care / too busy )
Sandro Hawke: (for me it's laziness / dont care / too busy ) ←
14:39:18 <bblfish> Well I am not too bothered about the naming
Well I am not too bothered about the naming ←
14:39:30 <JohnArwe> regrets: cody, steveb
14:40:29 <bblfish> Arnaud: fill in poll for Friday
Arnaud Le Hors: fill in poll for Friday ←
<bblfish> ... the proposal that has the most support will be formally proposed to the WG on next week's call
... the proposal that has the most support will be formally proposed to the WG on next week's call ←
14:40:34 <bblfish> Topic: PATCH
14:40:56 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0041.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0041.html ←
14:41:36 <bblfish> all the proposals are now here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals
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.
Arnaud Le Hors: 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+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
14:44:50 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
14:44:52 <bblfish> ... we don't have enough time to get to the final version of the PATCH in the time required
... we don't have enough time to get to the final version of the PATCH in the time required ←
<bblfish> ... so I think we should stick with the status quo (SHOULD) and when there is a solution we add it to the Best Pratices document which can easily be updated because it is not on the REC track
... so I think we should stick with the status quo (SHOULD) and when there is a solution we add it to the Best Pratices document which can easily be updated because it is not on the REC track ←
<bblfish> ... in the next version of LDP we can then make that a mandatory part of the spec
... in the next version of LDP we can then make that a mandatory part of the spec ←
<bblfish> ... although timbl wants PATCH he was ok with that idea
... although timbl wants PATCH he was ok with that idea ←
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 ... )
Sandro Hawke: 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+
q+ ←
14:46:06 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:47:38 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -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
Alexandre Bertails: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS ←
14:48:24 <JohnArwe> I thought W3C is a lot stricter about holding to charter dates than in the past - Team Contacts?
John Arwe: I thought W3C is a lot stricter about holding to charter dates than in the past - Team Contacts? ←
14:50:41 <Zakim> -krp
Zakim IRC Bot: -krp ←
14:50:52 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
14:50:56 <bblfish> Arnaud: I'm not opposed to anyone putting a proposal forward
Arnaud Le Hors: I'm not opposed to anyone putting a proposal forward ←
14:50:58 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
14:51:40 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
14:51:48 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
14:51:53 <bblfish> SteveS: would like a PATCH format sooner than later, but not sure if it is worth holding up LDP 1.0 for that
Steve Speicher: would like a PATCH format sooner than later, but not sure if it is worth holding up LDP 1.0 for that ←
14:52:21 <bblfish> betehess: one should not push for a proposal if the scope is not discussed first.
Alexandre Bertails: 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 about what it should do, ...
... what should be covered by LDP patch? there are different assumptions about what it should do, ... ←
14:53:09 <bblfish> ... some people accept complexity, others don't, ...
... some people accept complexity, others don't, ... ←
14:53:16 <bblfish> Arnaud: yes, the requirements are not clear
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, the requirements are not clear ←
14:54:04 <betehess> should we vote on the SHOULD?
Alexandre Bertails: 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
Alexandre Bertails: my opinion after spending time on it: it's too soon to work on PATCH for LDP 1.0 ←
<bblfish> Arnaud: there is no need to have a vote on SHOULD, that's the status quo
Arnaud Le Hors: there is no need to have a vote on SHOULD, that's the status quo ←
<bblfish> ... what we could do is see if people want to keep spending time on this now
... what we could do is see if people want to keep spending time on this now ←
14:55:47 <bblfish> q+
q+ ←
14:56:09 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: keep spending time as a WG on finding a patch format that would work for LDP PATCH
STRAWPOLL: keep spending time as a WG on finding a patch format that would work for LDP PATCH ←
14:56:15 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:56:58 <betehess> right, APPEND *is* an interesting operation, and is already implemented
Alexandre Bertails: right, APPEND *is* an interesting operation, and is already implemented ←
14:57:18 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
14:57:26 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
14:59:00 <JohnArwe> trying to understand the question in light of Sandro's question... "spending time as WG" is potentially different from the "is patch format on the LDP critical path" question
John Arwe: trying to understand the question in light of Sandro's question... "spending time as WG" is potentially different from the "is patch format on the LDP critical path" question ←
14:59:33 <betehess> JohnArwe, right, it is not critical for LDP
Alexandre Bertails: 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.
John Arwe: 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.
+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
Ashok Malhotra: +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)
Steve Speicher: +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
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
15:01:34 <TallTed> +0 (with SteveS)
Ted Thibodeau: +0 (with SteveS) ←
15:01:50 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:01:52 <betehess> bye
Alexandre Bertails: bye ←
15:01:52 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
15:01:54 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
15:01:57 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:01:57 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
15:01:59 <JohnArwe> +0 (if you prefer, +1 to the earlier +0s)
John Arwe: +0 (if you prefer, +1 to the earlier +0s) ←
15:01:59 <bblfish> Arnaud: go to the patch mailing list for discussions on PATCH
Arnaud Le Hors: go to the patch mailing list for discussions on PATCH ←
<bblfish> ... if an agreement can be reached there on what we should have in LDP we can then have that put before the WG as a proposal and add it the spec if we have agreement
... if an agreement can be reached there on what we should have in LDP we can then have that put before the WG as a proposal and add it the spec if we have agreement ←
<bblfish> ... while this goes on, this will no longer be on the agenda for this call
... while this goes on, this will no longer be on the agenda for this call ←
15:02:05 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
15:02:07 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
15:02:07 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:02:08 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
15:02:18 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:02:19 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
15:02:19 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, bblfish, SteveS, EricP, Roger, TallTed, krp
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Sandro, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, bblfish, SteveS, EricP, Roger, TallTed, krp ←
15:08:01 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
15:08:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
15:08:01 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
15:08:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
15:08:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
15:08:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe