14:59:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/26-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/26-ldp-irc ←
14:59:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:59:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:59:27 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started ←
14:59:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:28 <trackbot> Date: 26 January 2015
14:59:44 <Zakim> +deiu
Zakim IRC Bot: +deiu ←
15:00:06 <azaroth> zakim, who is here?
Robert Sanderson: zakim, who is here? ←
15:00:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, deiu
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see azaroth, deiu ←
15:00:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, azaroth, deiu, TallTed, SteveS, jmvanel, Arnaud, tommorris_, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, azaroth, deiu, TallTed, SteveS, jmvanel, Arnaud, tommorris_, sandro, Yves, ericP, trackbot ←
15:00:34 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:01:34 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steve_Speicher ←
15:01:44 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, Steve_Speicher is me ←
15:01:44 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:01:48 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
15:02:02 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:02:02 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:02:03 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:02:03 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:02:57 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:03:44 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
<ericP> chair: Arnaud
<ericP> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.01.26
<ericP> topic: Admin
15:04:07 <Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 19 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-19
PROPOSED: Approve the minutes of the 19 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-19 ←
15:04:40 <Arnaud> Resolved: Approve the minutes of the 19 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-19
RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the 19 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-19 ←
<ericP> topic: LDP Spec status
<ericP> Arnaud: we received enough support to move the spec to REC but have a couple of comments we need to respond to
Arnaud Le Hors: we received enough support to move the spec to REC but have a couple of comments we need to respond to ←
15:08:20 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org LDP PR comments from AC reps
-> http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org LDP PR comments from AC reps ←
15:08:40 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2015Jan/0053.html
Arnaud Le Hors: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2015Jan/0053.html ←
15:10:10 <azaroth> +1 to proposed revision
Robert Sanderson: +1 to proposed revision ←
15:10:30 <TallTed> +1 for proposed revision to Security Considerations
Ted Thibodeau: +1 for proposed revision to Security Considerations ←
15:10:52 <ericP> +1
+1 ←
15:10:52 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:11:06 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:11:34 <ericP> RESOLVED: accept proposed change to LDP PR 9. Security Considerations in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org
RESOLVED: accept proposed change to LDP PR 9. Security Considerations in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org ←
15:12:04 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:12:17 <ericP> SteveS: I believe they are misunderstanding.
Steve Speicher: I believe they are misunderstanding. ←
15:12:31 <azaroth> q+
Robert Sanderson: q+ ←
15:12:38 <ericP> ... The types look right. It is an LDP Source, not a direct container.
... The types look right. It is an LDP Source, not a direct container. ←
15:12:50 <TallTed> ex 4 -- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-partial
Ted Thibodeau: ex 4 -- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-ex-membership-partial ←
15:13:43 <ericP> ... We don't introduce the direct container associated with those resources until example 8.
... We don't introduce the direct container associated with those resources until example 8. ←
15:14:02 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
Arnaud Le Hors: ack azaroth ←
15:14:03 <ericP> ... Perhaps just reply trying to explain it
... Perhaps just reply trying to explain it ←
15:14:28 <TallTed> +1 azaroth
Ted Thibodeau: +1 azaroth ←
15:14:31 <ericP> azaroth: they may have just missed the last sentence of the previous paragraph in example 3.
Robert Sanderson: they may have just missed the last sentence of the previous paragraph in example 3. ←
15:14:54 <azaroth> ack azaroth
Robert Sanderson: ack azaroth ←
15:15:12 <ericP> ... "Let's start with a LDP Source to which we will add a container in later examples"...
... "Let's start with a LDP Source to which we will add a container in later examples"... ←
15:15:47 <ericP> Ashok: maybe it would be better if we removed the RDF Source link
Arnaud Le Hors: maybe it would be better if we removed the RDF Source link ←
15:15:53 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:15:53 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:16:11 <ericP> s/Ashok: maybe it/Arnaud: maybe it/
15:16:42 <ericP> TallTed: propose to move the "Let's start with" sentence into its own paragraph
Ted Thibodeau: propose to move the "Let's start with" sentence into its own paragraph ←
15:21:46 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:21:46 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:21:52 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:23:08 <ericP> PROPOSED: explicitly state that "this is a resource to which we will [later] add a container" to resolve the second comment in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org
PROPOSED: explicitly state that "this is a resource to which we will [later] add a container" to resolve the second comment in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org ←
15:23:18 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:23:21 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:23:29 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:23:40 <azaroth> +1
Robert Sanderson: +1 ←
15:23:57 <ericP> RESOLVED: explicitly state that "this is a resource to which we will [later] add a container" to resolve the second comment in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org
RESOLVED: explicitly state that "this is a resource to which we will [later] add a container" to resolve the second comment in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org ←
15:24:23 <ericP> -> http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=rec-tr#dir-mtg PR->REC reqs
-> http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=rec-tr#dir-mtg PR->REC reqs ←
15:26:11 <ericP> SteveS: the link rel='...' attr needs fixing (can't be single quotes)
Steve Speicher: the link rel='...' attr needs fixing (can't be single quotes) ←
15:27:04 <ericP> ericP: just provide some diffs for the PR->REC transition
Eric Prud'hommeaux: just provide some diffs for the PR->REC transition ←
15:27:17 <ericP> topic: Paging
15:27:54 <ericP> SteveS: we have the start of a paging test suite.
Steve Speicher: we have the start of a paging test suite. ←
15:28:12 <ericP> ... we tool the LDP tests and created some junit test suite shell
... we tool the LDP tests and created some junit test suite shell ←
15:28:24 <ericP> ... currently reports that every has not been implemented
... currently reports that every has not been implemented ←
15:28:36 <ericP> ... just need contributors to provide those implementation
... just need contributors to provide those implementation ←
15:29:11 <ericP> Arnaud: bblfish said that he expected to implement paging. i don't know if that includes tests.
Arnaud Le Hors: bblfish said that he expected to implement paging. i don't know if that includes tests. ←
15:29:24 <ericP> ... otherwise the spec is kinda doomed.
... otherwise the spec is kinda doomed. ←
15:29:42 <ericP> SteveS: there's a group at IBM that's implementing and reporting errors.
Steve Speicher: there's a group at IBM that's implementing and reporting errors. ←
15:29:54 <ericP> Arnaud: anyone else planning to implement?
Arnaud Le Hors: anyone else planning to implement? ←
15:30:05 <ericP> topic: LDP Patch Format
15:30:20 <ericP> Arnaud: i sent a transition req to CR
Arnaud Le Hors: i sent a transition req to CR ←
15:30:32 <ericP> ... plh came back with a bunch of questions.
... plh came back with a bunch of questions. ←
15:31:05 <ericP> ... for the LDP spec, we went through LC (asking the world for comments) and then CR (asking for implementation comments)
... for the LDP spec, we went through LC (asking the world for comments) and then CR (asking for implementation comments) ←
15:31:17 <ericP> ... we no longer have LC
... we no longer have LC ←
15:31:31 <ericP> ... so I thought that LC was combined with CR (single disposition of comments)
... so I thought that LC was combined with CR (single disposition of comments) ←
15:31:51 <ericP> ... when I sent the transition req, there was a question about wide review.
... when I sent the transition req, there was a question about wide review. ←
15:31:54 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
15:32:23 <ericP> ... so we haven't been to LC/CR so we haven't got a story for wide review
... so we haven't been to LC/CR so we haven't got a story for wide review ←
15:32:42 <ericP> ... plh asked if we've got evidence of wide review.
... plh asked if we've got evidence of wide review. ←
15:33:32 <ericP> ... apparently, even there's no formal stage called LC, we need something a lot like a LC
... apparently, even there's no formal stage called LC, we need something a lot like a LC ←
15:33:57 <ericP> ... so we published at FPWD and then lots of changes.
... so we published at FPWD and then lots of changes. ←
15:35:47 <ericP> ... (it feels like we've lost a practical way of signalling readiness for review)
... (it feels like we've lost a practical way of signalling readiness for review) ←
15:36:31 <ericP> ... the process doc does not dictate how you establish wide review.
... the process doc does not dictate how you establish wide review. ←
15:36:41 <ericP> sandro: what outreach could we do that we haven't done?
Sandro Hawke: what outreach could we do that we haven't done? ←
15:37:09 <ericP> ... if we'd done an LC, maybe we'd have emails chairs
... if we'd done an LC, maybe we'd have emails chairs ←
15:37:37 <ericP> ... we did mail semantic-web@w3.org and got some pushback from dbooth
... we did mail semantic-web@w3.org and got some pushback from dbooth ←
15:37:47 <ericP> ... maybe that's our evidence
... maybe that's our evidence ←
15:38:00 <ericP> Arnaud: plh is only asking for evidence. we can see if that's enough.
Arnaud Le Hors: plh is only asking for evidence. we can see if that's enough. ←
15:38:43 <ericP> ... so i have to answer these questions before we schedule a transtion.
... so i have to answer these questions before we schedule a transtion. ←
15:39:13 <ericP> ... q:s "does the WG intend to take this to REC?"
... q:s "does the WG intend to take this to REC?" ←
15:39:25 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
15:39:31 <Arnaud> ack deiu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack deiu ←
15:39:32 <ericP> ericP: i think that's asking if the WG is using the CR to test whether we should go to REC
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think that's asking if the WG is using the CR to test whether we should go to REC ←
15:39:58 <ericP> deiu: we can add a paragraph asking if people are interested in implementing it
Andrei Sambra: we can add a paragraph asking if people are interested in implementing it ←
15:40:32 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/wiki/ProcessTransition2014#Without_a_.22Last_Call.22_signal.2C_how_do_groups_get_review_under_the_new_Process.3F Without a "Last Call" signal, how do groups get review under the new Process?
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/wiki/ProcessTransition2014#Without_a_.22Last_Call.22_signal.2C_how_do_groups_get_review_under_the_new_Process.3F Without a "Last Call" signal, how do groups get review under the new Process? ←
15:41:23 <ericP> Arnaud: "we'd like to move to to REC; the CR implementation feedback will hopefully confirm that this is addressing a need"
Arnaud Le Hors: "we'd like to move to to REC; the CR implementation feedback will hopefully confirm that this is addressing a need" ←
15:42:00 <ericP> ... next Q: list five comments from WG participants
... next Q: did all comments from WG participants? ←
15:42:55 <ericP> s/list five comments from WG participants/did all comments from WG participants?/
15:43:08 <ericP> ... i don't know if dbooth is satisfied with our response.
... i don't know if dbooth is satisfied with our response. ←
15:43:19 <ericP> subtopic: Patch Exit Criteria
15:43:46 <ericP> Arnaud: for LDP, we said we need two independent impls of all of the MUSTs in the spec
Arnaud Le Hors: for LDP, we said we need two independent impls of all of the MUSTs in the spec ←
15:43:51 <betehess> we should tie it to the test suite
Alexandre Bertails: we should tie it to the test suite ←
15:43:51 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
15:44:21 <betehess> the implementation MUST implement the spec
Alexandre Bertails: the implementation MUST implement the spec ←
15:44:24 <ericP> ... we don't have MUSTs but just "two implementations" didn't satisfy plh
... we don't have MUSTs but just "two implementations" didn't satisfy plh ←
15:45:01 <ericP> deiu: so "two impls that cover every case"?
Andrei Sambra: so "two impls that cover every case"? ←
15:45:05 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:45:14 <Arnaud> ack deiu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack deiu ←
15:45:18 <ericP> sandro: two patch consumers and two generators
Sandro Hawke: two patch consumers and two generators ←
15:45:24 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:46:07 <ericP> betehess: i plan to generate patch requests by listening to updates on objects
Alexandre Bertails: i plan to generate patch requests by listening to updates on objects ←
15:46:31 <ericP> sandro: i meant given two graphs, gen a diff
Sandro Hawke: i meant given two graphs, gen a diff ←
15:46:46 <ericP> betehess: not needed for my apps
Alexandre Bertails: not needed for my apps ←
15:47:26 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#conformance
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#conformance ←
15:47:41 <betehess> we can certainly add something like that
Alexandre Bertails: we can certainly add something like that ←
15:48:25 <betehess> I propose that we copy-paste that text and then s/Turtle/LD Patch/ :-)
Alexandre Bertails: I propose that we copy-paste that text and then s/Turtle/LD Patch/ :-) ←
15:48:27 <deiu> +1 (should be good enough)
Andrei Sambra: +1 (should be good enough) ←
15:50:47 <betehess> we should ask plh if there are "HTML producers"
Alexandre Bertails: we should ask plh if there are "HTML producers" ←
15:51:18 <ericP> sandro, while I would like to see produces, i think it's sufficient from a spec perspective to only test consumers.
sandro, while I would like to see produces, i think it's sufficient from a spec perspective to only test consumers. ←
15:51:23 <ericP> sandro: while I would like to see produces, i think it's sufficient from a spec perspective to only test consumers.
Sandro Hawke: while I would like to see produces, i think it's sufficient from a spec perspective to only test consumers. ←
15:51:34 <betehess> ACTION: betehess to add conformance section in LD Patch (as in Turtle)
ACTION: betehess to add conformance section in LD Patch (as in Turtle) ←
15:51:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Add conformance section in ld patch (as in turtle) [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2015-02-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-154 - Add conformance section in ld patch (as in turtle) [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2015-02-02]. ←
15:51:47 <ericP> ... takes a patch and a graph and produces a patched graph
... takes a patch and a graph and produces a patched graph ←
15:53:08 <ericP> betehess: we need to improve the test suite, but yeah, graph A + patch -> graph B
Alexandre Bertails: we need to improve the test suite, but yeah, graph A + patch -> graph B ←
15:53:25 <ericP> subtopic: Time duration of CR
15:54:01 <ericP> ericP: we only need a minimal duration
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we only need a minimal duration ←
15:54:12 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: set expectation duration for CR is 45 days after publication
PROPOSED: set expectation duration for CR is 45 days after publication ←
15:54:18 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:54:18 <betehess> in the test suite, we have: correct syntax, invalid syntax, semantics
Alexandre Bertails: in the test suite, we have: correct syntax, invalid syntax, semantics ←
15:54:30 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
15:54:38 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:54:54 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: set expectation duration for CR is 45 days after publication
RESOLVED: set expectation duration for CR is 45 days after publication ←
15:55:16 <ericP> topic: Workshop
15:56:57 <ericP> azaroth: of 16 folks attending an annotations f2f 21 April in SF, 8 would attend an LDP workshop
Robert Sanderson: of 16 folks attending an annotations f2f 21 April in SF, 8 would attend an LDP workshop ←
15:57:10 <ericP> ... big room available at $400
... big room available at $400 ←
15:57:28 <ericP> ... annotations folks ask whether to book this.
... annotations folks ask whether to book this. ←
15:58:12 <ericP> Arnaud: it matches the time and place we had in mind. colo'd with annotation folks
Arnaud Le Hors: it matches the time and place we had in mind. colo'd with annotation folks ←
15:58:23 <ericP> ... but we need to move on this
... but we need to move on this ←
15:59:01 <azaroth> +1
Robert Sanderson: +1 ←
15:59:18 <betehess> I'd 50% chance for me to go (I am interested)
Alexandre Bertails: I'd 50% chance for me to go (I am interested) ←
15:59:26 <ericP> ericP: who'd attend?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: who'd attend? ←
15:59:33 <ericP> Ashok: what's the agenda?
Ashok Malhotra: what's the agenda? ←
15:59:58 <ericP> Arnaud: there's a bit of chicken/egg issue. we can make it what we think is useful.
Arnaud Le Hors: there's a bit of chicken/egg issue. we can make it what we think is useful. ←
15:59:59 <SteveS> +0 (would like to make it, not sure if I will get approval)
Steve Speicher: +0 (would like to make it, not sure if I will get approval) ←
16:00:21 <ericP> ... main goal is to see what we need to do with LDP Next
... main goal is to see what we need to do with LDP Next ←
16:03:53 <azaroth> Thanks all :)
Robert Sanderson: Thanks all :) ←
16:03:59 <Zakim> -azaroth
Zakim IRC Bot: -azaroth ←
16:04:01 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:04:01 <Zakim> -deiu
Zakim IRC Bot: -deiu ←
16:04:02 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:04:03 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:04:06 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
16:04:35 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:26:29 <Zakim> -Sandro
(No events recorded for 21 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:27:56 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:27:57 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:27:57 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, deiu, Arnaud, SteveS, ericP, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were azaroth, deiu, Arnaud, SteveS, ericP, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre ←
<ericP> present: azaroth, deiu, Arnaud, SteveS, ericP, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre
Formatted by CommonScribe