13:59:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:59:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/06/23-ldp-irc
13:59:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:59:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:59:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
13:59:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:59:12 <trackbot> Date: 23 June 2014
13:59:41 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
13:59:57 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:00:58 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:23 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:01:34 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
14:01:34 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:02:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:02:36 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
14:02:45 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:02:45 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
14:03:11 <Zakim> +TimBL
14:03:15 <nmihindu> Zakim, what is the conference code?
14:03:15 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nmihindu
14:03:19 <deiu_> deiu_ has joined #ldp
14:03:29 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:03:29 <deiu_> Zakim, who is on the phone
14:03:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', deiu_
14:03:31 <deiu_> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see ericP, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson, TimBL, Sandro
14:03:45 <deiu_> Zakim, TimBL is temporarily me
14:03:45 <Zakim> +deiu_; got it
14:03:47 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:04:57 <sandro> ping
14:06:40 <Arnaud> scribe: nmihindu
14:07:32 <deiu_> scribenick: deiu
14:07:37 <deiu_> scribenick: deiu_
14:07:48 <deiu_> Topic: minutes from last week
14:07:55 <nmihindu> I am willing to scribe and trying to connect. I still can't and it says the conference code in invalid. did anyone connect through VoIP ?
14:07:59 <deiu_> Arnaud: there was one important resolution
14:08:45 <Arnaud> yes, some people are calling through skype
14:09:09 <deiu_> [minutes approved]
14:09:09 <nmihindu> Arnaud, using sip:zakim@voip.w3.org ?
14:09:30 <deiu_> Arnaud: there is a holiday next week, which means some people won't be able to attend
14:09:40 <codyburleson> I'll be out for July4th
14:09:44 <deiu_> ... we might have to skip the call
14:10:59 <sandro> June 30 and July 7
14:11:00 <deiu_> ... it looks like we're going to have the meeting next week
14:11:12 <deiu_> Topic: tracking of actions and issues
14:11:26 <deiu_> Arnaud: are there any open actions people want to claim victory for?
14:11:49 <sandro> nmihindu, the problem is probably in the way your SIP client does DTMF to enter the conference code.    Maybe there are some settings in your SIP client.
14:11:53 <deiu_> ... people not here today to report
14:12:08 <sandro> nmihindu, like, does it let you send longer tones, etc.
14:12:22 <deiu_> codyburleson: I was a bit busy last week
14:12:39 <deiu_> ... there are two topics for inclusion in the BP&G
14:13:02 <deiu_> Arnaud: we'll get back to that during the status update
14:13:14 <deiu_> Arnaud: moving on, congrats and thank you all for moving to CR
14:13:36 <deiu_> ... the exit criteria for CR is to have two independent implementations
14:13:59 <deiu_> ... people have to rest and report so that the sooner we meet the exit criteria, the sooner we move to PR
14:14:33 <deiu_> SteveS: there are some new tests
14:14:42 <nmihindu> sandro, I faced a problem with DTMF mode earlier but it used to work when I set it to RFC2833. But it doesn't work now.
14:14:50 <deiu_> ... I sent an email with them for people to take a look at
14:15:10 <deiu_> ... we have currently 55 approved tests, so 9 more would be good
14:15:27 <deiu_> Arnaud: are these new tests covering new stuff?
14:15:48 <deiu_> SteveS: we tried to identify all the tests that are valid but were not implemented yet
14:16:24 <deiu_> ... we added some tests to handle Prefer header
14:16:25 <Zakim> +??P3
14:16:36 <deiu_> Zakim, mute ??P3
14:16:36 <Zakim> ??P3 should now be muted
14:16:41 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:16:41 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:16:45 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
14:16:45 <Zakim> nmihindu was already muted, nmihindu
14:16:58 <sandro> nmihindu, your audio was just super-loud noise
14:17:00 <deiu_> SteveS: the other tests cover the Slug header
14:17:37 <deiu_> Arnaud: any comments?
14:18:17 <nmihindu> yes, we are trying the tests with LDP4j
14:18:39 <deiu_> Arnaud: so..what is the process we have to go through to approve the tests? [following sandro's question]
14:18:57 <deiu_> codyburleson: it would be best to call them approved by default and change that later if someone finds an issue
14:18:59 <SteveS> I believe Marmotta is using them as well
14:19:01 <deiu_> sandro: why?
14:19:44 <deiu_> codyburleson: we start from the spec and assume the test is valid, and then people can check them to see if they have any issues
14:20:10 <Zakim> +??P6
14:20:13 <deiu_> SteveS: I guess the question is, would anyone review them in detail?
14:20:50 <deiu_> Arnaud: if there are two people reporting the tests have worked, then it should be fine
14:21:22 <deiu_> sandro: do we have tests results reporting? can I see a page with results?
14:21:32 <deiu_> SteveS: people are running the tests and contributing feedback
14:21:32 <nmihindu> yes, Raul and Fernando are reviewing the implemented tests against the Test Case document that prepared
14:21:56 <nmihindu> and also running those tests against LDP4j implementation
14:22:15 <deiu_> SteveS: I created the tests following the style from Turtle
14:23:43 <deiu_> Arnaud: I agree with sandro in general and not do things too casually
14:24:06 <deiu_> ... where there are new tests being added, we need two parties looking at them and providing feedback
14:24:38 <deiu_> ... if we have two people saying they should be approved, then we have sufficient reason to approve them
14:25:13 <deiu_> SteveS: I've been rejecting some pull requests to ask people to rework the tests
14:25:30 <Ashok> q+
14:25:32 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jun/0055.html
14:25:36 <deiu_> ... the tests we added have been reviewed by at least one one us (SteveS or Sergio)
14:26:09 <deiu_> sandro: there isn't a proposed status for tests?
14:26:14 <deiu_> SteveS: yes there is
14:26:33 <SteveS> http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/report/ldp-testsuite-coverage-report.html
14:26:40 <deiu_> SteveS: I will have to receive implementation reports
14:26:50 <SteveS> http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/report/ldp-testsuite-coverage-report.html#tobeapproved
14:26:58 <deiu_> Arnaud: if anybody on the call agrees to approve them, we can approve them
14:27:26 <deiu_> sandro: if the proposed tests are green, you can approve them
14:27:50 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
14:28:01 <deiu_> SteveS: well, what if your implementation doesn't support that test?
14:28:24 <deiu_> Ashok: Oasis wants every text to use rdf211
14:29:05 <deiu_> ... once you got those statements, then you can quickly figure out if all the statements have behaviors that are specified in the tests
14:29:32 <deiu_> Arnaud: this is orthogonal; if somebody comes up with a new test, how do you validate it?
14:30:12 <deiu_> SteveS: we categorize the tests by MUST, SHOULD, MAY
14:30:53 <deiu_> Arnaud: we're trying to avoid people misinterpreting a bad test, while running them against a good implementation
14:31:55 <deiu_> ... sandro is saying that if at least two people pass the tests, then it's a good indication of a working (ok) test
14:32:09 <deiu_> sandro: I would hope the test report distinguishes MUSTs from SHOULDs
14:32:16 <deiu_> SteveS: yes, that's how it works
14:33:22 <deiu_> ... you can run different types of tests depending on how much your implementation supports (e.g. basic containers, indirect, etc.)
14:33:27 <deiu_> Arnaud: let's leave it like that for today
14:33:33 <deiu_> Topic: ACLs
14:33:41 <deiu_> Arnaud: Ted is not online...
14:33:52 <deiu_> ... Ashok, is there any progress?
14:34:24 <deiu_> Ashok: still waiting for feedback; once I get it, I'll update the docs in mercurial
14:34:35 <deiu_> Arnaud: hopefully that will happen soon
14:34:51 <deiu_> Topic: BP&G
14:35:00 <deiu_> Arnaud: codyburleson, you said there are two problems
14:35:21 <deiu_> codyburleson: yes, the first one was about Issue-62
14:35:24 <codyburleson> A while back I raised issue 62, and we decided that we could place some text in the Primer or Best Practices as a result. Now, I'm not trying to avoid extra work for the primer (honestly!) but, I think this would be good content for the BP&G document, into the Guidelines section. 
14:35:24 <codyburleson> 
14:35:24 <codyburleson> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62
14:35:24 <codyburleson> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83
14:35:25 <Zakim> -??P6
14:35:44 <deiu_> codyburleson: I wasn't 100% sure what it was saying
14:36:03 <deiu_> ... there are these conversations going on about different topics and people want to put them in the BP
14:36:35 <deiu_> ... I'm trying to see what exactly we can use a BP material
14:37:11 <deiu_> ... it would help me if people would send suggestions in the form of BP&G statements
14:37:28 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-20#resolution_6
14:37:43 <deiu_> ... I don't know when we have something that's worth adding, since most of the times email discussions sound more like questions than statements
14:38:30 <deiu_> Arnaud: I can see how minutes text is not very helpful for the editors
14:39:22 <deiu_> codyburleson: it feels like we're bringing up points that do not turn into BP statements
14:39:58 <deiu_> ... the lesson I learned was that it was very helpful to revise the wiki documents
14:40:13 <sandro> PROPOSED: Best Practice for Container Creation is to POST a Container to another Container
14:40:36 <sandro> (with the right LINK header)
14:40:51 <sandro> q+
14:41:00 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:41:29 <deiu_> [people generally agree with sandro's proposal]
14:41:47 <deiu_> Ashok: how do you get started? do you have a home container?
14:41:50 <nmihindu> on the same topic, we have such example in the primer too.
14:42:12 <deiu_> Arnaud: that's generally true on the Web, you start from a URL
14:42:31 <deiu_> ... you get a URL from someone/somewhere
14:43:45 <deiu_> codyburleson: so isn't that proposal just a feature? it seems to be just the definition
14:44:12 <nmihindu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/efdef81e2b95/ldp-primer/ldp-primer.html#meta-structure
14:44:27 <deiu_> Arnaud: let's drop this
14:44:40 <deiu_> ... the other one was about the canonical URL?
14:44:52 <deiu_> codyburleson: yes, I got good feedback on that from John
14:45:25 <deiu_> Arnaud: let me restate the problem: in the spec there was the notion of a canonical URL, and this was part of the test that was moved to the BP&G document
14:45:37 <deiu_> ... Henry wanted to add references
14:45:57 <deiu_> ... we tried looking for references but we couldn't find any, so what do we do?
14:46:25 <deiu_> ... some servers may have several URLs for the same resource, but there must be at least one that should be used
14:46:52 <deiu_> ... there's also an issue about how to define it
14:47:15 <deiu_> ... i.e. a URL that has http and https still points to the same resource
14:47:48 <sandro> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 --
14:47:48 <sandro> The Canonical Link Relation
14:48:50 <codyburleson>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-bp/ldp-bp.html#respond-with-canonical-urls-and-use-them-for-identity-comparison
14:49:26 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jun/0032.html
14:49:53 <sandro> "first-among-equals"
14:50:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: drop the use of the term "canonical URL" from the text in the BPG
14:50:49 <sandro> "primary"
14:51:00 <sandro> "distinguished"
14:51:03 <SteveS> the URL the server publically advertises as the primary
14:51:11 <deiu_> +1
14:51:13 <sandro> +1
14:51:34 <SteveS> +1
14:51:37 <nmihindu> +1
14:51:38 <codyburleson> +1
14:51:48 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: drop the use of the term "canonical URL" from the text in the BPG
14:52:02 <deiu_> Arnaud: please let me know when you're done editing
14:52:33 <deiu_> ... we have agreed to publish the Primer
14:53:01 <deiu_> ... I failed to send the email and I so the request was sent on Friday and now I'm waiting for the OK
14:53:13 <deiu_> ... we'll have to change the date on the document
14:53:39 <deiu_> Topic: paging
14:53:52 <deiu_> Arnaud: sandro sent an email earlier
14:54:15 <deiu_> sandro: I have a problem with "single page resource"
14:54:31 <deiu_> ... I proposed a bunch of alternative names
14:55:02 <deiu_> ... we'd be better off using the terms "segmented resource" or "chapter resource"
14:55:09 <deiu_> Ashok: why doesn't "paged resource" work?
14:55:24 <deiu_> sandro: because that's the thing that is split
14:55:42 <deiu_> Arnaud: we need to separate the two: the resource that is being paged, and the pages
14:55:51 <SteveS> “sliced resource” ?
14:57:33 <deiu_> sandro: so should I add "segment" and "chapter" to the wiki page to allow people to vote?
14:57:41 <deiu_> Arnaud: yes
14:57:43 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Names_in_Paging
14:57:59 <deiu_> Arnaud: people should read the proposal and vote on it
14:58:06 <deiu_> ... so next week we can close this issue
14:58:12 <deiu_> Ashok: are you going to edit the spec?
14:58:22 <deiu_> sandro: not until we make a decision
14:58:39 <deiu_> Ashok: what about your other ideas from the email?
14:58:43 <SteveS> partitioned resource and a partitions?, segment makes me think of URL segments
14:59:05 <deiu_> sandro: the other point was about what conformance means for paging
14:59:43 <deiu_> sandro: there are 3 different types of servers
14:59:48 <SteveS> s/a partitions/a partition/
15:00:00 <sandro> sandro: I think, but not sure.
15:00:03 <deiu_> ... unfortunately we're out of time
15:00:44 <deiu_> Arnaud: I heard people talk about why we have the current model (server being in control)...
15:01:02 <deiu_> ... maybe we need to support both server and client controlled paging
15:01:25 <deiu_> sandro: we still need some sort of negotiation
15:01:50 <deiu_> Arnaud: if anyone has a use-case, please let us know
15:01:58 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:04 <deiu_> Meeting adjourned!
15:02:05 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:02:07 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:02:09 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:02:10 <Zakim> -ericP
15:02:11 <Zakim> -deiu_
15:02:12 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:02:21 <sandro> sandro: What we have, as shown in my analysis, is a kind of negotiation...   Not perfect, but pretty good.
15:02:24 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:02:25 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:02:25 <Zakim> Attendees were ericP, Arnaud, SteveS, codyburleson, Sandro, deiu_, Ashok_Malhotra, nmihindu
15:15:07 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
17:04:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:16:07 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:22:06 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
19:18:54 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
19:27:02 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
20:16:35 <stevebattle11112> stevebattle11112 has joined #ldp
20:34:15 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
20:37:49 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
21:40:36 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:14:39 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:48:06 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp