14:59:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/04-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/04-ldp-irc ←
14:59:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:59:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:59:07 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:07 <trackbot> Date: 04 November 2013
14:59:08 <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 ←
14:59:59 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
15:00:06 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:00:33 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
15:00:41 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:00:49 <stevebattle7> zakim, ??P1 is me
Steve Battle: zakim, ??P1 is me ←
15:00:49 <Zakim> +stevebattle7; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle7; got it ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:01:20 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:01:34 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is SteveS
Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is SteveS ←
15:01:34 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:01:51 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:01:59 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:02:01 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:02:11 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:02:25 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:02:25 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:05:07 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:05:07 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:05:13 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:05:13 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:05:28 <JohnArwe> scribe: JohnArwe
(Scribe set to John Arwe)
15:05:38 <JohnArwe> regrets: Bart
15:06:18 <JohnArwe> chair: arnaud
<JohnArwe> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.04
<JohnArwe> topic: Admin
15:06:36 <JohnArwe> Approval of last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-28
Approval of last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-28 ←
15:06:47 <JohnArwe> ashok read them
ashok read them ←
15:06:58 <JohnArwe> resolution: Minutes of Oct 28 approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of Oct 28 approved ←
15:07:20 <JohnArwe> next meeting: Mon Nov 11
next meeting: Mon Nov 11 ←
15:08:48 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: F2F penciled in for Jan 14-16, NOT confirmed. We're going to see when LC2 published and schedule for after the comment period closes. possible to shift 1 week if you have conflict, ashok. ashok says following week works for him.
Arnaud Le Hors: F2F penciled in for Jan 14-16, NOT confirmed. We're going to see when LC2 published and schedule for after the comment period closes. possible to shift 1 week if you have conflict, ashok. ashok says following week works for him. ←
15:09:02 <SteveS> Nov 11th is Veteran's Day US and Remembrance Day CA, though usually these are still work days
Steve Speicher: Nov 11th is Veteran's Day US and Remembrance Day CA, though usually these are still work days ←
15:09:05 <JohnArwe> Probably want to shift that 1 week later.
Probably want to shift that 1 week later. ←
15:09:28 <JohnArwe> topic: Tracking of issues & actions
15:09:40 <JohnArwe> none pending review
none pending review ←
15:10:30 <JohnArwe> action-83?
15:10:30 <trackbot> action-83 -- Roger Menday to Ensure ISSUE-62 is addressed in Primer or Best Practices & Guidelines doc -- due 2013-06-27 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-83 -- Roger Menday to Ensure ISSUE-62 is addressed in Primer or Best Practices & Guidelines doc -- due 2013-06-27 -- OPEN ←
15:10:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83 ←
15:11:05 <JohnArwe> action-104?
15:11:05 <trackbot> action-104 -- Roger Menday to Review the Use Cases section of the document -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-104 -- Roger Menday to Review the Use Cases section of the document -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN ←
15:11:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/104
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/104 ←
15:11:29 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:11:29 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:11:30 <JohnArwe> action-77?
15:11:30 <trackbot> action-77 -- Ted Thibodeau to Review and comment the WG Access Control draft at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl -- due 2013-07-18 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-77 -- Ted Thibodeau to Review and comment the WG Access Control draft at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl -- due 2013-07-18 -- OPEN ←
15:11:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/77
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/77 ←
15:11:53 <stevebattle7> Steve reminds Roger about action 104 :)
Steve Battle: Steve reminds Roger about ACTION-104 :) ←
15:12:33 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:12:33 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:13:00 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposals regarding Paging & 209 vs 200
15:14:54 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: TimBL comment - did not like 303 for server-initiated paging, avoid extra round trip, create new status code for that (we ended up on 209). David Wood polled Mark Baker, who suggested using 200. Arwe discussed with Erik Wilde, who said same thing. While it seemed unnatural to some of us at first, the REST/HTTP expert feedback is that 200 is fine.
Arnaud Le Hors: TimBL comment - did not like 303 for server-initiated paging, avoid extra round trip, create new status code for that (we ended up on 209). David Wood polled Mark Baker, who suggested using 200. Arwe discussed with Erik Wilde, who said same thing. While it seemed unnatural to some of us at first, the REST/HTTP expert feedback is that 200 is fine. ←
15:15:43 <JohnArwe> ...TimBL interested in doing this for all, not just LDP. LDP could take advantage of it. Defining 209 now would make LDP dependent on getting an RFC done.
...TimBL interested in doing this for all, not just LDP. LDP could take advantage of it. Defining 209 now would make LDP dependent on getting an RFC done. ←
15:16:14 <JohnArwe> Proposal: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.
PROPOSED: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers. ←
15:16:47 <JohnArwe> Arwe: FWIW a client would also see a link header with type=ldp:Page (this is already in LDP, has been for months)
John Arwe: FWIW a client would also see a link header with type=ldp:Page (this is already in LDP, has been for months) ←
15:18:06 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: take advantage of the new code in LDP once it's defined, but for now use 200 and pursue the new code separately.
Arnaud Le Hors: take advantage of the new code in LDP once it's defined, but for now use 200 and pursue the new code separately. ←
15:18:23 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:18:27 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:18:40 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:18:42 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
15:18:44 <stevebattle7> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
15:19:01 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:19:10 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
15:19:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, stevebattle7, Roger, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, stevebattle7, Roger, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe ←
15:19:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, roger, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle7, SteveS, TallTed, bhyland, jmvanel, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, Yves, thschee, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, roger, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle7, SteveS, TallTed, bhyland, jmvanel, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, Yves, thschee, sandro, ericP ←
15:19:28 <JohnArwe> Resolved: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.
RESOLVED: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers. ←
15:19:31 <sandro> +1 (based on what I see on IRC)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (based on what I see on IRC) ←
15:19:52 <JohnArwe> proposal: Launch an effort to define 209 as a separate IETF RFC that applies in general to 303s and that we can use in LDPnext
PROPOSED: Launch an effort to define 209 as a separate IETF RFC that applies in general to 303s and that we can use in LDPnext ←
15:20:12 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:20:31 <Arnaud> ack steveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveS ←
15:21:47 <stevebattle7> 0
Steve Battle: 0 ←
15:22:19 <TallTed> +0.1
Ted Thibodeau: +0.1 ←
15:22:24 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:22:29 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:22:29 <JohnArwe> +0
+0 ←
15:22:48 <JohnArwe> (good for the community, but not strictly needed for LDP)
(good for the community, but not strictly needed for LDP) ←
15:23:15 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
15:23:21 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:26:27 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:26:27 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:27:49 <JohnArwe> EricP: why not make 209 at risk, and then remove at CR/PR transition if no one has agreed to do it?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: why not make 209 at risk, and then remove at CR/PR transition if no one has agreed to do it? ←
15:28:29 <JohnArwe> ...discussion, several expressing preferences against it.
...discussion, several expressing preferences against it. ←
15:28:48 <JohnArwe> Ted asks EricP for concrete proposal.
Ted asks EricP for concrete proposal. ←
15:29:43 <JohnArwe> EricP: it's 2 chars, 200 vs 209. could also say in spec that server can use either, and mark just the 209 at risk
Eric Prud'hommeaux: it's 2 chars, 200 vs 209. could also say in spec that server can use either, and mark just the 209 at risk ←
15:29:56 <JohnArwe> ... trying to avoid future objections late in the process
... trying to avoid future objections late in the process ←
15:30:25 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: want to set expectations realistically
Arnaud Le Hors: want to set expectations realistically ←
15:31:06 <JohnArwe> Insufficient consensus to call 10:21 proposal resolved.
Insufficient consensus to call 10:21 proposal resolved. ←
15:32:01 <JohnArwe> Ashok: what harm in starting effort to add 209?
Ashok Malhotra: what harm in starting effort to add 209? ←
<JohnArwe> Arnaud: down-side is the effort.
Arnaud Le Hors: down-side is the effort. ←
15:32:39 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if the state is that everybody's happy to support it if Someone Else defines it, it won't happen.
Arnaud Le Hors: if the state is that everybody's happy to support it if Someone Else defines it, it won't happen. ←
15:34:08 <JohnArwe> Ashok: would Erik Wilde do it?
Ashok Malhotra: would Erik Wilde do it? ←
<JohnArwe> Arwe: he told me he could draft 303-replacement text *if the wg wanted him to*, but he could not draft 200-replacement text on his own.
John Arwe: he told me he could draft 303-replacement text *if the wg wanted him to*, but he could not draft 200-replacement text on his own. ←
15:34:14 <JohnArwe> Net: unresolved
Net: unresolved ←
15:34:20 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposal regarding PUT create
15:36:27 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: TimBL wanted a MUST, then upon further discussion he ack'd it would not work in general and that snowballed into how to advertise the URI space where clients can expect PUT-create to work. We don't have enough experience to solve this problem; in ideal world we'd take the time, figure it out, and spec it, but the WG has a timeline in the charter and we cannot take the time in this version. I'm saying
Arnaud Le Hors: TimBL wanted a MUST, then upon further discussion he ack'd it would not work in general and that snowballed into how to advertise the URI space where clients can expect PUT-create to work. We don't have enough experience to solve this problem; in ideal world we'd take the time, figure it out, and spec it, but the WG has a timeline in the charter and we cannot take the time in this version. I'm saying ←
15:36:27 <JohnArwe> ... let's move on and we can improve it in next version.
... let's move on and we can improve it in next version. ←
15:36:42 <JohnArwe> proposed: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.
PROPOSED: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices. ←
15:36:48 <stevebattle7> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
15:36:50 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:36:51 <roger_> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:36:55 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
15:37:00 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
15:37:10 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:37:33 <JohnArwe> resolved: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.
RESOLVED: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices. ←
15:37:49 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: ldp:container
15:38:53 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: last week we noted that proposal uses both ldp:container and ldp:Container => confusing. we could not get coherent proposals on the call, so I created one.
Arnaud Le Hors: last week we noted that proposal uses both ldp:container and ldp:Container => confusing. we could not get coherent proposals on the call, so I created one. ←
15:39:12 <JohnArwe> proposed: Change ldp:container to ldp:containingResource.
PROPOSED: Change ldp:container to ldp:containingResource. ←
15:39:38 <JohnArwe> ... or propose alternative now if you have better one. This seems good enough to me.
... or propose alternative now if you have better one. This seems good enough to me. ←
15:40:07 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:40:08 <stevebattle7> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
15:40:12 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:40:14 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle7
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle7 ←
15:40:19 <JohnArwe> ericp: usually when this case occurs, the predicate's range is the like-named class. that is not true here, so will be more confusing than normal.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: usually when this case occurs, the predicate's range is the like-named class. that is not true here, so will be more confusing than normal. ←
15:40:44 <JohnArwe> steveb: like where you're going; how about ...erResource instead of ...ing
Steve Battle: like where you're going; how about ...erResource instead of ...ing ←
15:41:05 <JohnArwe> for me, either is fine
for me, either is fine ←
15:41:07 <roger_> +1 to ...er
Roger Menday: +1 to ...er ←
15:41:20 <SteveS> I prefer ..ing
Steve Speicher: I prefer ..ing ←
15:41:22 <JohnArwe> proposed: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.
PROPOSED: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource. ←
15:41:35 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:42:15 <JohnArwe> SteveS: "ing" reads better in a sentence. SteveB: reads like "resource it contains" too.
Steve Speicher: "ing" reads better in a sentence. SteveB: reads like "resource it contains" too. ←
15:42:24 <stevebattle7> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
15:42:33 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
15:42:43 <Ashok> +0.5
Ashok Malhotra: +0.5 ←
15:43:06 <roger_> +0.5
Roger Menday: +0.5 ←
15:43:16 <TallTed> +0.5 containerResource because confusion persists
Ted Thibodeau: +0.5 containerResource because confusion persists ←
15:43:24 <SteveS> +0.4
Steve Speicher: +0.4 ←
15:43:57 <JohnArwe> Resolved: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.
RESOLVED: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource. ←
15:44:17 <JohnArwe> Still open to future proposals if someone is struck on the head by an apple.
Still open to future proposals if someone is struck on the head by an apple. ←
15:44:32 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple
15:44:49 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: wishing Henry was here, he has expressed strong opinions on this in past.
Arnaud Le Hors: wishing Henry was here, he has expressed strong opinions on this in past. ←
15:46:03 <JohnArwe> ...SteveS suggested we address this after renaming settled. With all the new predicates, the simple case now looks "not so simple". We made things mandatory rather than introducing non-monotonic behavior, but it's pretty ugly.
...SteveS suggested we address this after renaming settled. With all the new predicates, the simple case now looks "not so simple". We made things mandatory rather than introducing non-monotonic behavior, but it's pretty ugly. ←
15:46:16 <JohnArwe> Proposed: Make ldp:insertContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject
PROPOSED: Make ldp:insertContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject ←
15:48:11 <JohnArwe> SteveS: this affects how membership triples are defined when members are added. a client would need to fetch it from non-member properties of the container in order to use it; no monotonicity issue there. If admin changes things, expectation is that server would do the right thing and keep the representations coherent.
Steve Speicher: this affects how membership triples are defined when members are added. a client would need to fetch it from non-member properties of the container in order to use it; no monotonicity issue there. If admin changes things, expectation is that server would do the right thing and keep the representations coherent. ←
15:49:06 <JohnArwe> ...don't think it making it optional introduces any new issues. In my usage for example, I never need it.
...don't think it making it optional introduces any new issues. In my usage for example, I never need it. ←
15:49:30 <stevebattle7> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
15:49:30 <JohnArwe> Amended proposal (fix pred name): Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject
Amended proposal (fix pred name): Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject ←
15:50:29 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle ←
15:51:00 <SteveS> Note the name is ldp:MemberSubject and don't think we are suggesting a new one here
Steve Speicher: Note the name is ldp:MemberSubject and don't think we are suggesting a new one here ←
15:51:03 <JohnArwe> Ericp: if A sends to B this predicate, and intermediary strips it out, does B do the right thing? that's the easy monotonicity test.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if A sends to B this predicate, and intermediary strips it out, does B do the right thing? that's the easy monotonicity test. ←
15:51:49 <JohnArwe> SteveB: go whole hog and fix it; cannot change it. get rid of it altogether.
Steve Battle: go whole hog and fix it; cannot change it. get rid of it altogether. ←
15:52:47 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: zaza the cat example wants the member URI to be zaza's, not the uri of the document describing her. that's where it came from.
Arnaud Le Hors: zaza the cat example wants the member URI to be zaza's, not the uri of the document describing her. that's where it came from. ←
15:53:12 <JohnArwe> ...Roger was a big motivator for this case.
...Roger was a big motivator for this case. ←
15:56:04 <JohnArwe> EricP: working through his A/B case, decides this is not an issue.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: working through his A/B case, decides this is not an issue. ←
15:57:30 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: let's vote; if need more time, feel free to -1 and ask for a week
Arnaud Le Hors: let's vote; if need more time, feel free to -1 and ask for a week ←
15:58:06 <Arnaud> Proposed: Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject
PROPOSED: Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject ←
15:58:24 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:58:41 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
15:58:45 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
15:58:57 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
15:59:03 <Ashok> +0
Ashok Malhotra: +0 ←
15:59:07 <stevebattle7> -1 : I'm not comfortable (I would still ditch the option completely)
Steve Battle: -1 : I'm not comfortable (I would still ditch the option completely) ←
15:59:26 <roger_> +1 I believe all the monotonicity experts
Roger Menday: +1 I believe all the monotonicity experts ←
16:00:08 <stevebattle7> I'll try for next week then
Steve Battle: I'll try for next week then ←
16:00:21 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: SteveB, please explain to people your position
Arnaud Le Hors: SteveB, please explain to people your position ←
<JohnArwe> topic: ISSUE-81 Part I bis: ldp:membershipRule
16:01:02 <JohnArwe> arnaud: Will hold this until next time
Arnaud Le Hors: Will hold this until next time ←
<JohnArwe> topic: Status of disposition of Last Call comments
16:01:28 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: encourage editors to contact commenters with proposed resolutions to be sure they're ok with the changes
Arnaud Le Hors: encourage editors to contact commenters with proposed resolutions to be sure they're ok with the changes ←
16:01:28 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:01:41 <JohnArwe> run away!
run away! ←
16:02:10 <JohnArwe> ericp: how many people expect to submit implementations for CR exit?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how many people expect to submit implementations for CR exit? ←
16:02:21 <JohnArwe> min: 2 impls supporting every feature.
min: 2 impls supporting every feature. ←
16:02:36 <JohnArwe> more convincing: large # of commercial and academic impls
more convincing: large # of commercial and academic impls ←
16:04:57 <JohnArwe> adjourned
adjourned ←
16:05:07 <Zakim> -stevebattle7
Zakim IRC Bot: -stevebattle7 ←
16:05:23 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:09:57 <SteveS> Maybe we put on agenda next week to get an update on http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations
Steve Speicher: Maybe we put on agenda next week to get an update on http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations ←
16:12:10 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:40:54 <Zakim> -Roger
(No events recorded for 28 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
16:40:55 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:40:55 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:40:57 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:40:57 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:40:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, Roger, stevebattle7, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, Roger, stevebattle7, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, EricP ←
Formatted by CommonScribe