14:59:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:59:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/26-ldp-irc
14:59:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:59:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:59:27 <Zakim> 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
15:00:06 <azaroth> zakim, who is here?
15:00:06 <Zakim> 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
15:00:34 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:01:34 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher
15:01:44 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me
15:01:44 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:01:48 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:53 <Zakim> +ericP
15:02:02 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:02 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:02:03 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:03 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:02:17 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:02:57 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:03:44 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
15:04:07 <Arnaud> Proposal: 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
15:07:11 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
15:08:20 <ericP> -> 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
15:10:10 <azaroth> +1 to proposed revision
15:10:30 <TallTed> +1 for proposed revision to Security Considerations
15:10:52 <ericP> +1
15:10:52 <SteveS> +1
15:11:06 <deiu> +1
15:11:31 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:11:34 <ericP> RESOLVED: accept proposed change to LDP PR 9. Security Considerations in http://www.w3.org/mid/20150126145903.GG23180@w3.org
15:11:59 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:12:04 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:12:17 <ericP> SteveS: I believe they are misunderstanding.
15:12:31 <azaroth> q+
15:12:38 <ericP> ... 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
15:13:43 <ericP> ... We don't introduce the direct container associated with those resources until example 8.
15:14:02 <Arnaud> ack azaroth
15:14:03 <ericP> ... Perhaps just reply trying to explain it
15:14:28 <TallTed> +1 azaroth
15:14:31 <ericP> azaroth: they may have just missed the last sentence of the previous paragraph in example 3.
15:14:54 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:15:12 <ericP> ... "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
15:15:53 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:15:53 <Zakim> 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
15:21:46 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:21:46 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:21:52 <deiu> +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
15:23:18 <deiu> +1
15:23:21 <SteveS> +1
15:23:29 <TallTed> +1
15:23:40 <azaroth> +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
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
15:26:11 <ericP> SteveS: 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
15:27:17 <ericP> topic: Paging
15:27:54 <ericP> SteveS: 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
15:28:24 <ericP> ... currently reports that every has not been implemented
15:28:27 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
15:28:36 <ericP> ... 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.
15:29:24 <ericP> ... otherwise the spec is kinda doomed.
15:29:42 <ericP> SteveS: there's a group at IBM that's implementing and reporting errors.
15:29:54 <ericP> Arnaud: 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
15:30:32 <ericP> ... 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)
15:31:17 <ericP> ... we no longer have LC
15:31:31 <ericP> ... 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.
15:31:54 <Zakim> +Alexandre
15:32:23 <ericP> ... 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.
15:33:32 <ericP> ... 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.
15:35:47 <ericP> ... (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.
15:36:41 <ericP> sandro: 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
15:37:37 <ericP> ... we did mail semantic-web@w3.org and got some pushback from dbooth
15:37:47 <ericP> ... maybe that's our evidence
15:38:00 <ericP> Arnaud: 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.
15:39:13 <ericP> ... q:s "does the WG intend to take this to REC?"
15:39:25 <deiu> q+
15:39:31 <Arnaud> 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
15:39:58 <ericP> deiu: 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?
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"
15:42:00 <ericP> ... next Q: list five 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.
15:43:19 <ericP> topic: Path Exit Criteria
15:43:46 <ericP> Arnaud: 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
15:43:51 <deiu> q+
15:44:21 <betehess> the implementation MUST implement the spec
15:44:24 <ericP> ... 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"?
15:45:05 <betehess> q+
15:45:14 <Arnaud> ack deiu
15:45:18 <ericP> sandro: two patch consumers and two generators
15:45:24 <Arnaud> ack betehess
15:46:07 <ericP> betehess: 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
15:46:46 <ericP> betehess: not needed for my apps
15:47:26 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#conformance
15:47:41 <betehess> 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/ :-)
15:48:27 <deiu> +1 (should be good enough)
15:50:47 <betehess> 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.
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.
15:51:34 <betehess> 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].
15:51:47 <ericP> ... 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
15:53:25 <ericP> topic: time duration of CR
15:54:01 <ericP> ericP: we only need a minimal duration
15:54:12 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: set expectation duration for CR is 45 days after publication
15:54:18 <deiu> +1
15:54:18 <betehess> in the test suite, we have: correct syntax, invalid syntax, semantics
15:54:30 <betehess> +0
15:54:38 <SteveS> +1
15:54:54 <Arnaud> 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
15:57:10 <ericP> ... big room available at $400
15:57:28 <ericP> ... 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
15:58:23 <ericP> ... but we need to move on this
15:59:01 <azaroth> +1
15:59:18 <betehess> I'd 50% chance for me to go (I am interested)
15:59:26 <ericP> ericP: who'd attend?
15:59:33 <ericP> Ashok: 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.
15:59:59 <SteveS> +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
16:03:53 <azaroth> Thanks all :)
16:03:59 <Zakim> -azaroth
16:04:01 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:04:01 <Zakim> -deiu
16:04:02 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:04:03 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:04:06 <Zakim> -Alexandre
16:04:35 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:26:29 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:27:56 <Zakim> -ericP
16:27:57 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:27:57 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, deiu, Arnaud, SteveS, ericP, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre
16:41:38 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
18:34:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
18:37:02 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
19:25:44 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
21:23:21 <tommorris_> tommorris_ has joined #ldp
23:29:32 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp