13:34:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #er
13:34:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/09-er-irc
13:34:15 <JohannesK> Zakim, this will be ERT
13:34:15 <Zakim> ok, JohannesK; I see WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
13:34:52 <JohannesK> Agenda+ HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments
13:35:03 <JohannesK> Meeting: ERT WG
13:36:03 <JohannesK> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0008
13:36:23 <JohannesK> Chair: JK
13:59:38 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started
13:59:45 <Zakim> +JohannesK
14:00:14 <drooks> drooks has joined #er
14:00:54 <JohannesK> Regrets: CV, SAZ
14:03:07 <CarlosI> CarlosI has joined #er
14:04:57 <Zakim> + +34.98.429.aaaa - is perhaps Encarna
14:05:51 <JohannesK> Zakim, +34.98.429.aaaa is really CarlosI
14:05:51 <Zakim> sorry, JohannesK, I do not recognize a party named '+34.98.429.aaaa'
14:06:30 <JohannesK> Zakim, ??.aaaa is really CarlosI
14:06:30 <Zakim> sorry, JohannesK, I do not recognize a party named '??.aaaa'
14:06:58 <CarlosI> Zakim, who's on the call?
14:06:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see JohannesK, Encarna
14:07:02 <rruemer> rruemer has joined #er
14:07:10 <CarlosI> zakim, encarna is really CarlosI
14:07:10 <Zakim> +CarlosI; got it
14:07:16 <JohannesK> :-)
14:10:17 <rruemer> i cannot call in via nice...
14:12:05 <Zakim> + +43.70.aabb
14:12:35 <JohannesK> Zakim, +43.70.aabb is really Reinhard
14:12:35 <Zakim> +Reinhard; got it
14:14:20 <rruemer> No, Nice, didn't! I called in via Boston
14:16:00 <Zakim> +David
14:16:40 <JohannesK> Scribe: drooks
14:16:51 <JohannesK> Zakim, take up agendum 1
14:16:54 <Zakim> agendum 1. "HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments" taken up [from JohannesK]
14:17:28 <JohannesK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/issues
14:19:27 <drooks> johannesk: reply to issue001 from jo rabin - we don't care if no response
14:20:26 <drooks> johannesk: does anyone think we need to deal with broken connection/no responses?
14:21:56 <drooks> johannesk: do we need to record the reason?
14:23:15 <drooks> carlosI: thinks this is outside the scope of the language
14:25:02 <drooks> drooks: it sounds to me like we are trying to define how we handle exceptions
14:25:18 <drooks> drooks: i.e. unexpected responses/no response
14:25:30 <drooks> drooks: is that for us to define?
14:27:17 <drooks> johannesk: vote for a NO to this issue?
14:27:24 <CarlosI> http:Response
14:27:31 <CarlosI>     http:responseCode
14:27:41 <CarlosI> 5xx or whatever
14:30:09 <drooks> carlosI: if there is no response there is nothing to record
14:31:18 <JohannesK> PROPOSAL: 1. Incomplete response: record at least the parts of the response that are received. 2. No response at all: out of scope.
14:33:41 <drooks> CarlosI: if request doesnt not have a recorded response then it means there was no response so we kind of have a 'no response' covered
14:34:15 <drooks> johannesk: but we cant recored why there was no response
14:36:50 <JohannesK> PROPOSAL: 1. Incomplete response: record at least the parts of the response that are received. 2. No response at all: only recording the request means there was no response (for whatever reason).
14:37:06 <drooks> +1
14:37:42 <rruemer> +1
14:37:50 <CarlosI> +1 but maybe it need a good explanation (to avoid confusion with 5xx)
14:38:04 <JohannesK> RESOLUTION : ISSUE-001 1. Incomplete response: record at least the parts of the response that are received. 2. No response at all: only recording the request means there was no response (for whatever reason).
14:38:37 <drooks> johannesk: we can deal with issue 003 and 004 together
14:39:47 <drooks> johannesk: should we use existing properties or invent our own?
14:40:15 <JohannesK> s/003 and 004/003 and 002/
14:40:21 <drooks> CarlosI: thinks we can use dcterms
14:40:50 <JohannesK> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
14:45:31 <JohannesK> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13.2.3
14:49:09 <drooks> carlosI: would prefer them to be an extension
14:50:34 <JohannesK> PROPOSAL: ISSUE-002/-003 Put a note to "Vocabulary Scope": Timestamping is not part of the HTTP/1.1 spec, so it is out of scope for HTTP-in-RDF, it may be handled outside of this vocabulary
14:50:59 <drooks> +1
14:51:06 <rruemer> +1
14:51:25 <JohannesK> RESOLUTION: ISSUE-002/-003 Put a note to "Vocabulary Scope": Timestamping is not part of the HTTP/1.1 spec, so it is out of scope for HTTP-in-RDF, it may be handled outside of this vocabulary.
14:51:32 <CarlosI> +1
15:00:43 <drooks> johannesk: we've run out of time
15:01:29 <Zakim> -Reinhard
15:01:35 <drooks> drooks has left #er
15:01:38 <Zakim> -CarlosI
15:01:39 <Zakim> -David
15:01:40 <JohannesK> Zakim, close agendum 1
15:01:40 <Zakim> agendum 1, HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments, closed
15:01:43 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
15:02:10 <JohannesK> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:02:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/09-er-minutes.html JohannesK
15:02:36 <JohannesK> Zakim, bye
15:02:36 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were JohannesK, +34.98.429.aaaa, CarlosI, Reinhard, David
15:02:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #er
15:02:43 <JohannesK> RRSAgent, bye
15:07:03 <JohannesK> RRSAgent, bye
16:59:29 <shadi> shadi has joined #er
16:59:49 <shadi> rssagent, make logs world
16:59:51 <shadi> rssagent, make logs world
16:59:53 <shadi> r
16:59:58 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
17:00:03 <shadi> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/09-er-minutes.html shadi
17:00:04 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
17:00:09 <shadi> rrsagent, bye
17:00:09 <RRSAgent> I see no action items