14:59:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/06-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/06-ldp-irc ←
14:59:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
15:00:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
15:00:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started ←
15:00:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
15:00:01 <trackbot> Date: 06 January 2014
15:00:06 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
15:00:09 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:00:14 <pchampin> zakim, ??P5 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
15:00:15 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:01:18 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:01:31 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: Zakim, [IBM] is me ←
15:01:31 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:02:37 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:02:44 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:02:55 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:03:05 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:03:07 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:03:13 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:03:13 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:03:15 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:03:15 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:03:19 <JohnArwe> almighty zakim seems tired today
John Arwe: almighty zakim seems tired today ←
15:03:26 <JohnArwe> I hear nothing
15:03:35 <JohnArwe> now I hear Arnaud
John Arwe: now I hear Arnaud ←
15:03:48 <JohnArwe> question is, which state is preferred ;-)
John Arwe: question is, which state is preferred ;-) ←
15:04:15 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:04:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.214.537.aaaa, Sandro, pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, JohnArwe, TallTed (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.214.537.aaaa, Sandro, pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, JohnArwe, TallTed (muted) ←
15:04:17 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:04:27 <codyburleson> +Cody
Cody Burleson: +Cody ←
15:04:47 <codyburleson> Cody here; dunno how to add to Zakim
Cody Burleson: Cody here; dunno how to add to Zakim ←
15:05:41 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:05:42 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:05:56 <bblfish_> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
15:07:05 <bblfish_> ah yes, Sebastien also had an issue with his little laptop. I think it's a Galaxy S4 too - that's the one that comes with Linux pre-installed right?
Henry Story: ah yes, Sebastien also had an issue with his little laptop. I think it's a Galaxy S4 too - that's the one that comes with Linux pre-installed right? ←
15:07:09 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:07:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.214.537.aaaa, Sandro, pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, JohnArwe, TallTed (muted), bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.214.537.aaaa, Sandro, pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, JohnArwe, TallTed (muted), bblfish ←
15:07:47 <Arnaud> zakim, aaaa is cody
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, aaaa is cody ←
15:07:49 <Zakim> +cody; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cody; got it ←
15:08:35 <JohnArwe> Scribe: JohnArwe
(Scribe set to John Arwe)
<JohnArwe> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.06
<JohnArwe> chair: arnaud
<JohnArwe> regrets: stevebattle
15:08:43 <betehess> also, I'm deeply sorry towards JohnArwe, couldn't/didn't take time to answer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0076.html ...
Alexandre Bertails: also, I'm deeply sorry towards JohnArwe, couldn't/didn't take time to answer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0076.html ... ←
<JohnArwe> Topic: Admin
15:09:07 <JohnArwe> Proposed: approve Dec 16 minutes
PROPOSED: approve Dec 16 minutes ←
15:09:59 <JohnArwe> Resolution: Dec 16 minutes approved without objection
RESOLVED: Dec 16 minutes approved without objection ←
15:10:09 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-16
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-16 ←
15:10:40 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:10:45 <JohnArwe> Next meeting Mon next week, resuming weekly, 90 minutes until we get to LC 2
Next meeting Mon next week, resuming weekly, 90 minutes until we get to LC 2 ←
15:10:15 <JohnArwe> Topic: Actions
15:12:41 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/122 see note
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/122 see note ←
15:13:22 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/119 was pretty simple
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/119 was pretty simple ←
15:14:51 <JohnArwe> Resolution: Arnaud will close the 2 actions above
RESOLVED: Arnaud will close the 2 actions above ←
15:15:04 <JohnArwe> Cody: I closed one on Best Practices
Cody Burleson: I closed one on Best Practices ←
15:15:20 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: hope to get spec done soon and turn full attn to other docs
Arnaud Le Hors: hope to get spec done soon and turn full attn to other docs ←
15:15:24 <JohnArwe> Topic: Paging
15:16:35 <JohnArwe> TimBL responded to our response to his LC comments, he thinks the 200 solution "there be dragons"
TimBL responded to our response to his LC comments, he thinks the 200 solution "there be dragons" ←
15:16:48 <JohnArwe> TimBL email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2013Dec/0000.html
TimBL email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2013Dec/0000.html ←
15:18:42 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:19:42 <JohnArwe> Arnaud summarizes options/history, convergence issues if we define at w3c now and run it in ietf later.
Arnaud summarizes options/history, convergence issues if we define at w3c now and run it in ietf later. ←
15:19:50 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
15:20:24 <JohnArwe> Ashok: if we defined 209 would help other wgs too. could we work with anyone from those other wgs to move this along?
Ashok Malhotra: if we defined 209 would help other wgs too. could we work with anyone from those other wgs to move this along? ←
15:20:40 <SteveS> FYI, not exactly what we are talking about but found this TAG-57 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20120202/#status-code
Steve Speicher: FYI, not exactly what we are talking about but found this TAG-57 ISSUE-57/20120202/#status-code">http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ISSUE-57/20120202/#status-code ←
15:22:18 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: anyone could use this, that's one reason TimBL thought it a good idea to define (and was hoping we'd finally be the ones to do it, instead of punting to "someone else"). No other natural owner, aside from IETF. TimBL raised it with TAG, initial response before holidays was "why do you need this".
Arnaud Le Hors: anyone could use this, that's one reason TimBL thought it a good idea to define (and was hoping we'd finally be the ones to do it, instead of punting to "someone else"). No other natural owner, aside from IETF. TimBL raised it with TAG, initial response before holidays was "why do you need this". ←
15:24:42 <JohnArwe> Not asking for a decision today; let TAG discussion proceed for a while. Last we talked in this WG, we seemed mostly ok with reverting to 303 in LDP. Depending on how likely it seems that someone else will take this on, we might choose differently. Obviously we don't want TimBL raising this at LC2.
Not asking for a decision today; let TAG discussion proceed for a while. Last we talked in this WG, we seemed mostly ok with reverting to 303 in LDP. Depending on how likely it seems that someone else will take this on, we might choose differently. Obviously we don't want TimBL raising this at LC2. ←
15:24:55 <JohnArwe> Topic: Issue-92
15:25:24 <JohnArwe> issue-92?
15:25:24 <trackbot> issue-92 -- Change rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-92 -- Change rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model -- raised ←
15:25:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92 ←
15:26:47 <SteveS> FYI URLs in Data recommends rel=profile for document properties used within data http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/#locating-property-documentation
Steve Speicher: FYI URLs in Data recommends rel=profile for document properties used within data http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/#locating-property-documentation ←
15:26:50 <JohnArwe> profile is defined in RFC 6906 at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1
profile is defined in RFC 6906 at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1 ←
15:27:25 <bblfish_> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:27:33 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:27:44 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:28:57 <JohnArwe> bblfish: disagrees with the argument that type is wrong
Henry Story: disagrees with the argument that type is wrong ←
15:29:18 <JohnArwe> ...just now sent email to list
...just now sent email to list ←
15:29:39 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
15:30:10 <JohnArwe> I can tell you Henry that I round-tripped with Erik W (the RFC author) and he thought using profile this way was reasonable.
I can tell you Henry that I round-tripped with Erik W (the RFC author) and he thought using profile this way was reasonable. ←
15:30:49 <betehess> was rel=profile deployed in other specs/products?
Alexandre Bertails: was rel=profile deployed in other specs/products? ←
15:30:59 <bblfish> profile, seems to be very syntactic http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1
Henry Story: profile, seems to be very syntactic http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906#section-3.1 ←
15:32:18 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-16#Issue_91
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-12-16#Issue_91 ←
15:32:32 <JohnArwe> @betehess, I don't know of any products that it's deployed in. It's Informational RFC in IETF, which Erik explained is usually what they do now for something that sounds mostly-reasonable but is not currently widely deployed.
@betehess, I don't know of any products that it's deployed in. It's Informational RFC in IETF, which Erik explained is usually what they do now for something that sounds mostly-reasonable but is not currently widely deployed. ←
15:33:02 <betehess> makes sense
Alexandre Bertails: makes sense ←
15:33:34 <JohnArwe> ... the urls-in-data link SS provided has this, since I know you're not hearing the conv well: 4.4 Locating Property Documentation
... the urls-in-data link SS provided has this, since I know you're not hearing the conv well: 4.4 Locating Property Documentation ←
15:33:34 <JohnArwe> The previous sections have discussed how important it is to have documentation that includes information about how URLs used within data should be interpreted and specifically whether properties within the data apply to the content found at a URL or to something that content describes. This documentation should be published somewhere such that it's possible for those developers to find it. Possible routes for doing this explicitly include:
The previous sections have discussed how important it is to have documentation that includes information about how URLs used within data should be interpreted and specifically whether properties within the data apply to the content found at a URL or to something that content describes. This documentation should be published somewhere such that it's possible for those developers to find it. Possible routes for doing this explicitly include: ←
15:33:34 <JohnArwe> if the data is provided through a protocol that supports it, such as through HTTP, by explicitly indicating the media type of the data, and registering that media type such that documentation can be found for it through the IANA media type registry
if the data is provided through a protocol that supports it, such as through HTTP, by explicitly indicating the media type of the data, and registering that media type such that documentation can be found for it through the IANA media type registry ←
15:33:35 <JohnArwe> if the media type is generic (such as application/json), by providing supplementary documentation through a profile link relationship, for example within a HTTP Link header
if the media type is generic (such as application/json), by providing supplementary documentation through a profile link relationship, for example within a HTTP Link header ←
15:33:35 <JohnArwe> embedding links to the documentation within the data itself, for example through a resolvable XML namespace or @xsi:schemaLocation attribute in XML or by using resolvable URLs for classes and properties in RDF
embedding links to the documentation within the data itself, for example through a resolvable XML namespace or @xsi:schemaLocation attribute in XML or by using resolvable URLs for classes and properties in RDF ←
15:33:58 <JohnArwe> ...those last 3 are bullet points; the doc is a FPWD
...those last 3 are bullet points; the doc is a FPWD ←
15:34:18 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
15:34:38 <SteveS> +1 for opening
Steve Speicher: +1 for opening ←
15:34:42 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-92
15:34:46 <pchampin> +1
15:34:47 <bblfish> +1 for opening
Henry Story: +1 for opening ←
15:34:47 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:34:48 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:35:09 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:35:17 <JohnArwe> +1
+1 ←
15:35:26 <sandro> issue-92?
15:35:26 <trackbot> issue-92 -- Change rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-92 -- Change rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model -- raised ←
15:35:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92 ←
15:35:33 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:35:35 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
15:35:39 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:36:32 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-92
15:36:49 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: do not want to re-open whole discussion of how many headers etc, just what syntax we use to express the semantics we've already agreed to
Arnaud Le Hors: do not want to re-open whole discussion of how many headers etc, just what syntax we use to express the semantics we've already agreed to ←
15:36:56 <JohnArwe> Topic: Issue-89
15:36:59 <JohnArwe> issue-89?
15:36:59 <trackbot> issue-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- open ←
15:36:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89 ←
15:37:17 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
15:37:34 <JohnArwe> (from agenda) PROPOSED: define the containment relationship as proposed by Alexandre Issue-89 Proposal 3
(from agenda) PROPOSED: define the containment relationship as proposed by Alexandre ISSUE-89 Proposal 3 ←
15:38:07 <sandro> betehess, where are you?
Sandro Hawke: betehess, where are you? ←
15:38:16 <bblfish> do you have a normal lnadline phone betehess?
Henry Story: do you have a normal lnadline phone betehess? ←
15:39:28 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-89
Henry Story: ISSUE-89">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-89 ←
15:39:33 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: summarizes proposal 3 ... formally define a relationship already in spec today: containment, as ldp:contains
Arnaud Le Hors: summarizes proposal 3 ... formally define a relationship already in spec today: containment, as ldp:contains ←
15:40:01 <JohnArwe> ...summarizes proposal 4
...summarizes proposal 4 ←
15:42:55 <JohnArwe> ...notes that proposal 3 implies (for a simplecontainer) no change in # triples (membership=contains), for an indirect container also members!=contains, for direct containers members=contains-set so 2x as many triples which people were not crazy about.
...notes that proposal 3 implies (for a simplecontainer) no change in # triples (membership=contains), for an indirect container also members!=contains, for direct containers members=contains-set so 2x as many triples which people were not crazy about. ←
15:43:51 <JohnArwe> ...summarizes proposal 5, which provides a way to filter out the subset of the links you don't want/like (so in the 2x for direct containers case, clients can get only the subset of the triples that they really want)
...summarizes proposal 5, which provides a way to filter out the subset of the links you don't want/like (so in the 2x for direct containers case, clients can get only the subset of the triples that they really want) ←
15:44:33 <JohnArwe> Alexandre confirms summary, since he cannot speak (bad connection)
Alexandre confirms summary, since he cannot speak (bad connection) ←
15:44:45 <JohnArwe> EricP: how does proposal 5 differ from what we have now?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how does proposal 5 differ from what we have now? ←
15:44:48 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
15:44:56 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
15:45:03 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if we reject 3, 5 is irrelevant
Arnaud Le Hors: if we reject 3, 5 is irrelevant ←
15:45:26 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:45:50 <betehess> PROPOSAL 5 is about how to opt-in or opt-out and choose from the following types of triples being returned: membership triples, containment triples, other server-managed triples, inlined triples, application specific triples, etc.
Alexandre Bertails: PROPOSAL 5 is about how to opt-in or opt-out and choose from the following types of triples being returned: membership triples, containment triples, other server-managed triples, inlined triples, application specific triples, etc. ←
15:46:02 <betehess> should be adapted depending on the use-cases
Alexandre Bertails: should be adapted depending on the use-cases ←
15:46:47 <JohnArwe> bblfish: defining containment should be non-controversial, renaming :created ditto, then rest can be "reliably" discussed once you agree on the terms you're using
Henry Story: defining containment should be non-controversial, renaming :created ditto, then rest can be "reliably" discussed once you agree on the terms you're using ←
15:47:12 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
15:47:20 <JohnArwe> henry pls make sure I got all of your thoughts correctly, my parser not quite as fast as your speaking
henry pls make sure I got all of your thoughts correctly, my parser not quite as fast as your speaking ←
15:48:01 <JohnArwe> SteveS: some of wiki content is outside proposal but seems to bear on this, like replacing :member with :contains
Steve Speicher: some of wiki content is outside proposal but seems to bear on this, like replacing :member with :contains ←
15:48:09 <betehess> right, containement and membership are different things, do not remove membership at all
Alexandre Bertails: right, containement and membership are different things, do not remove membership at all ←
15:49:17 <JohnArwe> SteveS: so accepting any of these proposals as currently written would not incorporate (from the wiki) the stmt: replaces ldp:member with ldp:contains to align the containment triples and the membership triples in the case of the SimpleContainer.
Steve Speicher: so accepting any of these proposals as currently written would not incorporate (from the wiki) the stmt: replaces ldp:member with ldp:contains to align the containment triples and the membership triples in the case of the SimpleContainer. ←
15:50:17 <JohnArwe> @betehess, that phrase was simply placed outside the proposal headers so Steve apparently was unsure if the intent was to incorporate it in one of the them (as a simple reading might imply) or not
@betehess, that phrase was simply placed outside the proposal headers so Steve apparently was unsure if the intent was to incorporate it in one of the them (as a simple reading might imply) or not ←
15:50:54 <JohnArwe> @betehess, can you state your intent (on IRC since that's all we have for you)?
@betehess, can you state your intent (on IRC since that's all we have for you)? ←
15:51:41 <betehess> JohnArwe, yes, we should align the triples
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, yes, we should align the triples ←
15:51:49 <JohnArwe> bblfish: if we used rules/sparql, we could do that in either direction. it shows that the concept is important and belongs in the spec.
Henry Story: if we used rules/sparql, we could do that in either direction. it shows that the concept is important and belongs in the spec. ←
15:52:08 <JohnArwe> ...how we deal with inferencing etc is a separate question.
...how we deal with inferencing etc is a separate question. ←
15:53:04 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: agree value in clarifying spec. maybe accepting proposal 3 is a first step, since that does not talk about how/if to materialize the concept
Arnaud Le Hors: agree value in clarifying spec. maybe accepting proposal 3 is a first step, since that does not talk about how/if to materialize the concept ←
15:53:07 <JohnArwe> q+
q+ ←
15:53:12 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe ←
15:53:40 <ericP> JohnArwe: i asked of the list: what is the intent of proposal 3?
John Arwe: i asked of the list: what is the intent of proposal 3? [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
15:53:56 <ericP> ... is it to say that they MUST be exposed? MAY be exposed?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... is it to say that they MUST be exposed? MAY be exposed? ←
15:54:28 <betehess> those triples must be exposed if they resulted from the LDP interactions, or can be enforced eg. something contained can be DELETEd
Alexandre Bertails: those triples must be exposed if they resulted from the LDP interactions, or can be enforced eg. something contained can be DELETEd ←
15:54:29 <JohnArwe> @betehess, can you speak to your intent? i.e. answer the questions I posed on the list?
@betehess, can you speak to your intent? i.e. answer the questions I posed on the list? ←
15:54:49 <JohnArwe> ok so "MUST" is the intent?
ok so "MUST" is the intent? ←
15:54:54 <betehess> yes
Alexandre Bertails: yes ←
15:55:02 <bblfish> I'd say that to start with whether they get exposed always, should not be an issue.
Henry Story: I'd say that to start with whether they get exposed always, should not be an issue. ←
15:55:20 <bblfish> The ldp:contains, really helps to write down rules.
Henry Story: The ldp:contains, really helps to write down rules. ←
15:55:32 <SteveS> and I say it is, ldp:contains can be inferred
Steve Speicher: and I say it is, ldp:contains can be inferred ←
15:55:32 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: we can separate them. as written, proposal 3 does not force materialization.
Arnaud Le Hors: we can separate them. as written, proposal 3 does not force materialization. ←
15:55:39 <betehess> you don't know if you can DELETE a member in the general case, for example
Alexandre Bertails: you don't know if you can DELETE a member in the general case, for example ←
15:56:12 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: first step would be to define and talk about "containment" as a concept, and separate off the materialization aspect
Arnaud Le Hors: first step would be to define and talk about "containment" as a concept, and separate off the materialization aspect ←
15:56:30 <JohnArwe> EricP: not convinced there is value in having a name for the concept, but not opposed
Eric Prud'hommeaux: not convinced there is value in having a name for the concept, but not opposed ←
15:57:12 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: could use the sparql queries we used for the discussion, even if not normative. could be appendix/whatever.
Arnaud Le Hors: could use the sparql queries we used for the discussion, even if not normative. could be appendix/whatever. ←
15:57:51 <bblfish> Here I show how one goes from one to the other:
Henry Story: Here I show how one goes from one to the other: ←
15:57:52 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0043.html
Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0043.html ←
15:57:57 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:57:57 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:58:05 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: anyone disagree that we have been talking about 2 distinct relationships? defer for now which are represented explicitly.
Arnaud Le Hors: anyone disagree that we have been talking about 2 distinct relationships? defer for now which are represented explicitly. ←
15:58:09 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT { ?subject ldp:contains ?ldpr }
Henry Story: CONSTRUCT { ?subject ldp:contains ?ldpr } ←
15:58:09 <bblfish> WHERE{
Henry Story: WHERE{ ←
15:58:09 <bblfish> { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
15:58:11 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?subject;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?subject; ←
15:58:13 <bblfish> ldp:containsRelation ?predicate.
Henry Story: ldp:containsRelation ?predicate. ←
15:58:15 <bblfish> ?subject ?predicate ?ldpr.
Henry Story: ?subject ?predicate ?ldpr. ←
15:58:17 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:58:19 <bblfish> UNION
Henry Story: UNION ←
15:58:21 <bblfish> {
Henry Story: { ←
15:58:23 <bblfish> ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
15:58:25 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?object;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?object; ←
15:58:27 <bblfish> ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate.
Henry Story: ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate. ←
15:58:29 <bblfish> ?ldpr ?predicate ?object .
Henry Story: ?ldpr ?predicate ?object . ←
15:58:31 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:58:33 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:58:34 <betehess> both notions are important, just solve different problems
Alexandre Bertails: both notions are important, just solve different problems ←
15:58:35 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT { ?subjet ?predicate ?object }
Henry Story: CONSTRUCT { ?subjet ?predicate ?object } ←
15:58:37 <bblfish> WHERE {
Henry Story: WHERE { ←
15:58:39 <bblfish> { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
15:58:41 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?subject;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?subject; ←
15:58:43 <bblfish> ldp:containsRelation ?predicate;
Henry Story: ldp:containsRelation ?predicate; ←
15:58:45 <bblfish> ldp:contains ?ldpr.
Henry Story: ldp:contains ?ldpr. ←
15:58:47 <bblfish> BIND (?ldpr AS ?object)
Henry Story: BIND (?ldpr AS ?object) ←
15:58:49 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:58:51 <bblfish> UNION
Henry Story: UNION ←
15:58:53 <bblfish> {
Henry Story: { ←
15:58:55 <bblfish> ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
15:58:57 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?object;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?object; ←
15:58:59 <bblfish> ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate;
Henry Story: ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate; ←
15:59:01 <bblfish> ldp:contains ?ldpr.
Henry Story: ldp:contains ?ldpr. ←
15:59:03 <bblfish> BIND (?ldpr AS ?subject)
Henry Story: BIND (?ldpr AS ?subject) ←
15:59:05 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:59:07 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
15:59:11 <bblfish> one rule to go from membership triples to ldp:contains and the other way.
Henry Story: one rule to go from membership triples to ldp:contains and the other way. ←
16:00:02 <JohnArwe> TallTed: which of the 2 is most important is context-specific. I don't think we can say either is primary. If it's equally easy to transition from one to the other, define both and how to transition.
Ted Thibodeau: which of the 2 is most important is context-specific. I don't think we can say either is primary. If it's equally easy to transition from one to the other, define both and how to transition. ←
16:00:06 <bblfish> Tall Ted that's why we're trying to define ldp:contains :-)
Henry Story: Tall Ted that's why we're trying to define ldp:contains :-) ←
16:00:18 <bblfish> because ldp:conains is not clearly defined yet.
Henry Story: because ldp:conains is not clearly defined yet. ←
16:00:28 <JohnArwe> ...within any WG, you'd never get real consensus if the conditions above apply.
...within any WG, you'd never get real consensus if the conditions above apply. ←
16:00:35 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:00:35 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
16:00:49 <JohnArwe> ...real consensus on *this one* being primary, that is
...real consensus on *this one* being primary, that is ←
16:01:34 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: define the containment relationship (whether materialized or not)
PROPOSED: define the containment relationship (whether materialized or not) ←
16:01:48 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
16:01:50 <pchampin> +1
16:01:53 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
16:01:53 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
16:02:06 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:02:15 <SteveS> +0.5
Steve Speicher: +0.5 ←
16:02:22 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
16:02:30 <JohnArwe> +0.5 (seems useful in some cases, just not those I'm after, but nothing wrong with it for sure)
+0.5 (seems useful in some cases, just not those I'm after, but nothing wrong with it for sure) ←
16:02:42 <roger> -0.5 i don't really like where this could end up
Roger Menday: -0.5 i don't really like where this could end up ←
16:03:10 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
16:04:03 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Define the containment relationship (whether materialized or not)
RESOLVED: Define the containment relationship (whether materialized or not) ←
16:04:07 <SteveS> roger, perhaps you could -1 whatever thing that might come up in the future that rubs you the wrong way
Steve Speicher: roger, perhaps you could -1 whatever thing that might come up in the future that rubs you the wrong way ←
16:04:23 <bblfish> And add it to the ontology :-)
Henry Story: And add it to the ontology :-) ←
16:04:25 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
16:06:42 <JohnArwe> Roger: wanted to say something but hit wrong button; understand all this for sure, can see doing it piece by piece, so I should be ok with just this much. I didn't -1 it for that reason. I think what's important is what's returned in the hypermedia to clients, the filesys case is a niche. Complicating spec, harder to understand, can't imagine anyone else wanting to implement it.
Roger Menday: wanted to say something but hit wrong button; understand all this for sure, can see doing it piece by piece, so I should be ok with just this much. I didn't -1 it for that reason. I think what's important is what's returned in the hypermedia to clients, the filesys case is a niche. Complicating spec, harder to understand, can't imagine anyone else wanting to implement it. ←
16:07:36 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: replace ldp:created/ldp:memberResource with ldp:contains
PROPOSED: replace ldp:created/ldp:memberResource with ldp:contains ←
16:07:38 <codyburleson> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
16:07:47 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
16:07:51 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
16:08:03 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
16:08:06 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
16:08:29 <ericP> does contains have any implications re: deletion of the container?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: does contains have any implications re: deletion of the container? ←
16:08:35 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: agree there is a slight difference (created-only originally, now contained regardless of how created)
Arnaud Le Hors: agree there is a slight difference (created-only originally, now contained regardless of how created) ←
16:08:39 <bblfish> ( It's not quite the same link but, we don't need the subtlety of ldp:created - I iniitially put ldp:created because I was trying to go for something that would be clearly HTTP based, )
Henry Story: ( It's not quite the same link but, we don't need the subtlety of ldp:created - I iniitially put ldp:created because I was trying to go for something that would be clearly HTTP based, ) ←
16:09:30 <JohnArwe> Ericp: if I have a system that allows creating members but deleting the container does not result in the container deleting created-members, does this proposal change that?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if I have a system that allows creating members but deleting the container does not result in the container deleting created-members, does this proposal change that? ←
16:09:45 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:09:45 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: I think it would
Arnaud Le Hors: I think it would ←
16:09:47 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
16:10:21 <SteveS> +1 to ldp:created with ldp:contains, the ldp:memberResource is a different part and only for ldp:SimpleContainer
Steve Speicher: +1 to ldp:created with ldp:contains, the ldp:memberResource is a different part and only for ldp:SimpleContainer ←
16:10:24 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:10:31 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:10:31 <JohnArwe> TallTed: membership and containment are 2 different things, that we both need
Ted Thibodeau: membership and containment are 2 different things, that we both need ←
16:10:31 <pchampin> q+
16:11:14 <pchampin> q-
16:12:22 <JohnArwe> bblfish: same as above I put in IRC. :contains is core of the spec. spec already says that delete has side effects, so if you believe a correspondence exists with membership, this is not a new consequence.
Henry Story: same as above I put in IRC. :contains is core of the spec. spec already says that delete has side effects, so if you believe a correspondence exists with membership, this is not a new consequence. ←
16:12:53 <betehess> the proposals don't say anything about that, but invariants are the answers: containment means that you have the triples *and* the contained resources, so if you remove the containment triples (DELETE on Container), then you should recursively delete the contained resources
Alexandre Bertails: the proposals don't say anything about that, but invariants are the answers: containment means that you have the triples *and* the contained resources, so if you remove the containment triples (DELETE on Container), then you should recursively delete the contained resources ←
16:13:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:13:17 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me
Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPcaller is me ←
16:13:17 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
16:13:23 <Zakim> -cody
Zakim IRC Bot: -cody ←
16:13:30 <betehess> DELETE on Container, or even a PATCH to delete the triple I guess :-)
Alexandre Bertails: DELETE on Container, or even a PATCH to delete the triple I guess :-) ←
16:13:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: I don't think this changes anything for the moment. in my sys, you cannot delete a non-empty container.
Henry Story: I don't think this changes anything for the moment. in my sys, you cannot delete a non-empty container. ←
16:14:05 <betehess> I'd say that we ignore that for today, and I can write a proposal for next week
Alexandre Bertails: I'd say that we ignore that for today, and I can write a proposal for next week ←
16:14:33 <JohnArwe> SteveS: actually already covered
Steve Speicher: actually already covered ←
16:14:46 <JohnArwe> ...link coming
...link coming ←
16:15:12 <codyburleson> (I'm now in as codyburleson rather than cody because I switched from cell phone to Skype)
Cody Burleson: (I'm now in as codyburleson rather than cody because I switched from cell phone to Skype) ←
16:15:21 <JohnArwe> SteveS: 5.6.4 has it
Steve Speicher: 5.6.4 has it ←
16:15:27 <SteveS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-HTTP_DELETE
Steve Speicher: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-HTTP_DELETE ←
16:16:29 <betehess> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-5_6_4
Alexandre Bertails: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-5_6_4 ←
16:16:56 <JohnArwe> SteveS: on your proposal you listed memberResource; I thought that was only for SimpleContainer
Steve Speicher: on your proposal you listed memberResource; I thought that was only for SimpleContainer ←
16:17:20 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: nononononono memberResource is something else
Arnaud Le Hors: nononononono memberResource is something else ←
16:17:47 <JohnArwe> ...link to document, and link to member
...link to document, and link to member ←
16:18:13 <JohnArwe> Ericp roots for "document" here
Ericp roots for "document" here ←
16:18:23 <roger> +1 to memberDocument
Roger Menday: +1 to memberDocument ←
16:18:36 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: containment is all about the documents, membership is not (always)
Arnaud Le Hors: containment is all about the documents, membership is not (always) ←
16:19:03 <ericP> how about this? containment is about the docs, membership is about RDF nodes
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how about this? containment is about the docs, membership is about RDF nodes ←
16:19:36 <bblfish> yes, ldp:contains is relationship between HTTP resources. membership extends outside into the real world
Henry Story: yes, ldp:contains is relationship between HTTP resources. membership extends outside into the real world ←
16:19:38 <JohnArwe> @ericp worth you proofing the draft for this ;-)
@ericp worth you proofing the draft for this ;-) ←
16:19:55 <ericP> oops. roger that
Eric Prud'hommeaux: oops. roger that ←
16:20:06 <bblfish> but since our protocol is about HTTP interactions, it is very important to have the ldp:contains relation
Henry Story: but since our protocol is about HTTP interactions, it is very important to have the ldp:contains relation ←
16:20:48 <betehess> eric's question was about deleting in cascade, wasn't it?
Alexandre Bertails: eric's question was about deleting in cascade, wasn't it? ←
16:21:30 <betehess> right, you can't do that for members, only for contained resources
Alexandre Bertails: right, you can't do that for members, only for contained resources ←
16:22:14 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
16:22:17 <JohnArwe> EricP: in our discussions, not in spec, in containment rel when you delete the container you "must" delete any remaining members. if we're changing that, maybe variations on contained get ugly.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: in our discussions, not in spec, in containment rel when you delete the container you "must" delete any remaining members. if we're changing that, maybe variations on contained get ugly. ←
16:22:25 <Ashok> That's my understanding of Eric's point
Ashok Malhotra: That's my understanding of Eric's point ←
16:23:03 <JohnArwe> bblfish: would the proposed replacement result in some new consequence ?
Henry Story: would the proposed replacement result in some new consequence ? ←
16:23:35 <JohnArwe> EricP: hard to tell on the fly, since not all of what we discussed was directly reflected in the spec
Eric Prud'hommeaux: hard to tell on the fly, since not all of what we discussed was directly reflected in the spec ←
16:23:39 <betehess> where does the spec *today* defines what ericP is talking about?
Alexandre Bertails: where does the spec *today* defines what ericP is talking about? ←
16:24:23 <JohnArwe> @betehess, EricP said earlier that this is how we've discussed things, differentiating from what spec says.
@betehess, EricP said earlier that this is how we've discussed things, differentiating from what spec says. ←
16:24:33 <JohnArwe> ...realizing you still have white noise
...realizing you still have white noise ←
16:25:19 <JohnArwe> TallTed: that is where spec is today, leaves things open because when we discussed earlier we realized that specifying this would require lots of new careful definition that we didn't otherwise need
Ted Thibodeau: that is where spec is today, leaves things open because when we discussed earlier we realized that specifying this would require lots of new careful definition that we didn't otherwise need ←
16:25:48 <betehess> I disagree with ericP: if the server says that { X ldp:contains Y } then DELETEing X, or even deleting { X ldp:contains Y }, then Y must disappear as well, same than DELETEing Y must remove the triple. They are bound together, it's an invariant
Alexandre Bertails: I disagree with ericP: if the server says that { X ldp:contains Y } then DELETEing X, or even deleting { X ldp:contains Y }, then Y must disappear as well, same than DELETEing Y must remove the triple. They are bound together, it's an invariant ←
16:26:20 <betehess> not implementation specific
Alexandre Bertails: not implementation specific ←
16:26:25 <JohnArwe> EricP: we were worried about, if we accepted new reqts/refinements on :contains, we'd either rule out certain use cases or need lots of new definitions
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we were worried about, if we accepted new reqts/refinements on :contains, we'd either rule out certain use cases or need lots of new definitions ←
16:27:04 <betehess> Containment is an invariant managed by the server
Alexandre Bertails: Containment is an invariant managed by the server ←
16:27:22 <JohnArwe> bblfish: http delete has to operate on resources with uris. created has to be a subset of contains as the spec is today, so why not simplify and remove the overly-precise one.
Henry Story: http delete has to operate on resources with uris. created has to be a subset of contains as the spec is today, so why not simplify and remove the overly-precise one. ←
16:27:56 <JohnArwe> EricP: historically we've used "containment" to mean: if you delete a non-empty container, those members must be deleted
Eric Prud'hommeaux: historically we've used "containment" to mean: if you delete a non-empty container, those members must be deleted ←
16:28:08 <JohnArwe> TallTed: disagree; we've used 'containment' several ways
Ted Thibodeau: disagree; we've used 'containment' several ways ←
16:28:54 <JohnArwe> EricP: as long as we're not committing to specify deletion of non-empty container... ericp help pls... doesn't limit future
Eric Prud'hommeaux: as long as we're not committing to specify deletion of non-empty container, for which we historically used the term "containment" doesn't limit future ←
16:29:23 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: need to be sure of the effects before agreeing to this.
Arnaud Le Hors: need to be sure of the effects before agreeing to this. ←
16:29:25 <JohnArwe> q+
q+ ←
16:30:01 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: people should look at EricP's case
Arnaud Le Hors: people should look at EricP's case ←
16:30:03 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
16:30:17 <JohnArwe> Roger: will paste
Roger Menday: will paste ←
16:30:19 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
16:30:23 <roger> I think if we use "containment" a lot less, and "document" (in conjunction with member) a lot more - then it might be a better
Roger Menday: I think if we use "containment" a lot less, and "document" (in conjunction with member) a lot more - then it might be a better ←
16:30:28 <ericP> s/... ericp help pls.../, for which we historically used the term "containment"/
16:31:28 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe: was this incorporated as part of proposal 3 approval? as SteveS noted, not really within its scope: replaces ldp:member with ldp:contains to align the containment triples and the membership triples in the case of the SimpleContainer.
John Arwe: was this incorporated as part of proposal 3 approval? as SteveS noted, not really within its scope: replaces ldp:member with ldp:contains to align the containment triples and the membership triples in the case of the SimpleContainer. ←
16:31:59 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: no; we're sticking with proposal 3 strictly as written, so it's a pure add at this point
Arnaud Le Hors: no; we're sticking with proposal 3 strictly as written, so it's a pure add at this point ←
16:32:10 <JohnArwe> Ericp: why can't we do that?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: why can't we do that? ←
16:32:20 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: the document != member in all cases
Arnaud Le Hors: the document != member in all cases ←
16:32:29 <JohnArwe> EricP: ok
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ok ←
16:32:32 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
16:32:54 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
16:33:21 <JohnArwe> so is ericp's rename proposal to be handled as a new issue?
so is ericp's rename proposal to be handled as a new issue? ←
16:33:32 <codyburleson> What is a "document"? Do you mean an LDPR? Versus some subset of an entire LDPR?
Cody Burleson: What is a "document"? Do you mean an LDPR? Versus some subset of an entire LDPR? ←
16:33:40 <JohnArwe> Roger: document instead of member would be useful to clarify spec.
Roger Menday: document instead of member would be useful to clarify spec. ←
16:33:50 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: rename ldp:created with ldp:memberDocument
PROPOSED: rename ldp:created with ldp:memberDocument ←
16:34:30 <betehess> I don't see the point, as PROPOSAL 4 will rename it as ldp:contains
Alexandre Bertails: I don't see the point, as PROPOSAL 4 will rename it as ldp:contains ←
16:34:34 <SteveS> and also add 'document' to terminology
Steve Speicher: and also add 'document' to terminology ←
16:34:49 <JohnArwe> @cody: in REST-speak, "document" is a less-scary way of saying "information resource". vs "resource" which can be a document OR a cat/person/concept
@cody: in REST-speak, "document" is a less-scary way of saying "information resource". vs "resource" which can be a document OR a cat/person/concept ←
16:36:17 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:36:23 <bblfish> happy new year
Henry Story: happy new year ←
16:36:31 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:36:32 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:36:33 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:36:34 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:36:35 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
16:36:35 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
16:36:36 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:36:37 <codyburleson> @JohnArwe - Thanks, got it
Cody Burleson: @JohnArwe - Thanks, got it ←
16:36:38 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: at some point we need to make decisions on some time-bounded issues like next F2F
Arnaud Le Hors: at some point we need to make decisions on some time-bounded issues like next F2F ←
16:36:38 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:36:38 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:36:43 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
16:36:45 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
16:36:47 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:36:47 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.214.537.aaaa, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, Alexandre, JohnArwe, TallTed, bblfish, cody, ericP, codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.214.537.aaaa, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, Alexandre, JohnArwe, TallTed, bblfish, cody, ericP, codyburleson ←
18:02:05 <Arnaud> ok, it worked this time
(No events recorded for 85 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, it worked this time ←
18:02:10 <Arnaud> don't know why
Arnaud Le Hors: don't know why ←
18:02:20 <Arnaud> but I can live with that :)
Arnaud Le Hors: but I can live with that :) ←
18:02:45 <sandro> phew. The error was that the date part of your URL couldn't be split on the '-' char. Strang.
Sandro Hawke: phew. The error was that the date part of your URL couldn't be split on the '-' char. Strang. ←
18:03:19 <Arnaud> oh
Arnaud Le Hors: oh ←
18:08:52 <Arnaud> well, it works now, thanks!
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: well, it works now, thanks! ←
Formatted by CommonScribe