14:58:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:58:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/10-ldp-irc
14:58:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:58:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:58:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:58:14 <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2014
14:58:34 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:58:38 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #ldp
14:58:44 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
14:58:45 <Zakim> Attendees were
14:59:04 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:59:11 <Zakim> +deiu
14:59:22 <deiu> that was a quick call
14:59:26 <Zakim> +azaroth
14:59:48 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:51 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:01:50 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:02:24 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:45 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:02:57 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:59 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:59 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:03:01 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:03:02 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:03:15 <bblfish> hi
15:05:24 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
15:05:33 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
15:05:33 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:07:46 <deiu> scribenick: deiu
15:08:04 <deiu> Topic: approving minutes
15:08:08 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
15:08:24 <deiu> Arnaud: there was an error in the last minutes, which tells me people don't read the minutes
15:08:41 <deiu> ...we can safely approve them since there was no resolution
15:08:47 <deiu> ...minutes approved
15:08:48 <bblfish> minutes are useful, and are important in that case
15:08:59 <Zakim> +??P13
15:09:02 <deiu> Topic: actions & issues
15:09:11 <Zakim> -??P13
15:09:18 <Arnaud> action-150
15:09:18 <trackbot> action-150 -- Alexandre Bertails to Add support for arbitrary text/turtle for the add operation in ldpatch -- due 2014-10-06 -- OPEN
15:09:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/150
15:10:34 <deiu> deiu will address action-150
15:10:49 <deiu> Arnaud: status update
15:10:58 <deiu> ...I sent the transition request but I didn't hear anything
15:11:08 <deiu> ...I believe Eric needs to set up the call with W3M
15:11:22 <deiu> ...but I haven't heard anything from him
15:11:30 <deiu> ...too bad he's not available right now to hear what the status is
15:11:47 <deiu> ...paging is not doing better either; the editors have updated the spec
15:11:54 <deiu> maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?
15:12:09 <deiu> s/maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?/...maybe SteveS can tell us more about it?
15:12:42 <deiu> ...the process seems to have changed lately, merging two steps into one
15:12:57 <deiu> sandro: try sending an email to Ralph just to make sure (informally)
15:13:02 <Zakim> +ericP
15:13:13 <deiu> Arnaud: what I meant about the paging spec: you get to LC and then CR
15:13:46 <deiu> ...you cannot do the disposition of comments and implementation reports at the same time
15:14:40 <deiu> ...there's no real change to the timeline, even if theoretically it should be faster
15:15:19 <deiu> ...in conclusion: the spec is ready
15:15:34 <deiu> SteveS: the key thing to cover is that there were a couple of items marked "at risk"
15:15:53 <deiu> ...I only got some pushback for the new status code (we didn't get support from IETF)
15:16:17 <deiu> ...so I removed that from the spec, as well as the "at risk" markers from a couple of places in the spec
15:16:35 <deiu> Arnaud: ok, so that should have been formally minuted
15:16:58 <deiu> ...the point is 2NN is abandoned so SteveS removed it from the spec
15:17:22 <deiu> ...John worked really hard on 2NN and it's a pity we had to remove a big chunk from the spec
15:17:58 <deiu> ...so Eric, I'm waiting for a confirmation for the call re. the TR
15:18:20 <deiu> ericP: I can reply to your email
15:19:00 <deiu> ...people on the W3M call can be you, staff contacts and maybe editors
15:19:29 <deiu> ericP: it might be easier to get a different call for the paging req
15:19:41 <deiu> ...let's try not to sneak it in
15:19:48 <deiu> Topic: LD patch format
15:20:07 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:20:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see deiu, azaroth, Arnaud, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), bblfish, SteveS, ericP
15:20:10 <bblfish> pchampin: ?
15:20:27 <pchampin> can't manage to reach zakim, sorry :-(
15:21:00 <pchampin> not much progress to report anyway, I'm afraid...
15:23:01 <Zakim> + +33.9.51.77.aaaa
15:24:43 <deiu> pchampin: we're looking at having some SPARQL-like syntax allowed in the add operation
15:24:53 <deiu> pchampin: we haven't made a lot of progress
15:25:12 <deiu> Arnaud: it seems like the spec has been sitting there
15:25:26 <deiu> ...we haven't seen a lot of updates
15:25:56 <deiu> ...what is our position as a group? We agreed overall that we want to push it further...
15:26:07 <deiu> ...I don't feel like there's a strong motivation to push it at this point
15:26:09 <bblfish> I think we need a PATCH format
15:26:34 <azaroth> q+
15:26:39 <deiu> Arnaud: are you still interested in putting in effort?
15:26:42 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
15:27:03 <deiu> azaroth: we're still interested in it, mostly because the PUT operation to update is constrained
15:27:19 <deiu> ...we haven't worked on it yet, but it's something that we think is valuable
15:27:19 <deiu> q+
15:27:24 <bblfish> q+
15:27:24 <SteveS> q+
15:27:27 <Arnaud> ack deiu
15:29:19 <azaroth> To clarify, we don't particularly care about the style, we just need the functionality
15:29:28 <azaroth> s/style/format/
15:29:31 <bblfish> well everyone I think needs PATCH, but we could vote on it.
15:29:42 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:30:22 <deiu> bblfish: I think everyone needs PATCH
15:30:45 <deiu> ...the format I see as being mostly used is SPARQL UPDATE
15:31:01 <ericP> i suspect the fastest path is to publish http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_patch?lang=perl&markup=html#productions with an at-risk crazy scheme for lists
15:31:06 <pchampin> q+
15:31:09 <ericP> semantics are done
15:31:11 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:31:35 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
15:31:43 <Zakim> +SteveS
15:31:52 <deiu> pchampin: I understand Henry, and I think it is a pragmatic solution
15:32:12 <deiu> ...assuming that a SPARQL query fails, you would have a non-atomic operation
15:32:31 <deiu> ...we need atomicity and you can't have it right now with the current SPARQL UPDATE
15:32:50 <deiu> ...I believe there's room for a dedicated language with real PATCH semantics
15:32:58 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
15:33:11 <bblfish> pchampin: the atomiticy problem in SPARQL Update is due to what? Is that due to the ability to PATCH subgraphs ?