Chatlog 2012-11-26

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:59:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-irc
14:59:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:59:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:59:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:59:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:19 <trackbot> Date: 26 November 2012
14:59:29 <dret> that's a good explanation for the silence!
14:59:41 <Arnaud> :)
14:59:43 <Zakim> +??P2
14:59:48 <Zakim> +??P3
14:59:52 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:54 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
15:00:00 <Zakim> + +44.754.550.aaaa
15:00:09 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:14 <Ruben> Ruben has joined #ldp
15:00:18 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
15:00:18 <SteveBattle> SteveBattle has joined #ldp
15:00:18 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:00:20 <Zakim> +Ruben
15:00:22 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:26 <Zakim> +??P5
15:00:33 <deiu> Zakim, ??P5 is me
15:00:33 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
15:00:40 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
15:00:40 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
15:00:48 <Ruben> zakim, mute me
15:00:48 <Zakim> Ruben should now be muted
15:01:00 <AshokMalhotra> AshokMalhotra has joined #LDP
15:01:05 <SteveBattle> zakim, who is on the call
15:01:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', SteveBattle
15:01:18 <SteveBattle> zakim, who is on the phone
15:01:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', SteveBattle
15:01:26 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
15:01:34 <AshokMalhotra> Steve, needs a ? at the end
15:01:44 <SteveBattle> ta
15:01:51 <Arnaud> zakim, who is there?
15:01:51 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Arnaud.
15:01:52 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:56 <SteveBattle> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see dret, ??P2, BartvanLeeuwen, +44.754.550.aaaa, SteveS, Ruben (muted), Arnaud, deiu (muted), OpenLink_Software
15:02:06 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:06 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:02:07 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:07 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:02:11 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:12 <SteveBattle> zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:12 <Zakim> +SteveBattle; got it
15:02:19 <Zakim> +EricP
15:02:29 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:03:46 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute
15:03:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmute', MacTed
15:03:48 <Zakim> +Yves
15:03:48 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:03:49 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:04:07 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:04:08 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:04:47 <dret> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see dret, ??P2, BartvanLeeuwen, SteveBattle, SteveS, Ruben (muted), Arnaud, deiu (muted), MacTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, EricP, Yves
15:04:51 <SteveBattle> topic: Minutes from last week
15:04:54 <Zakim> -??P2
15:05:03 <SteveS> have read and look good
15:05:16 <SteveBattle> I have read them
15:05:18 <dret> they look good!
15:05:34 <SteveBattle> RESOLVED: Minutes of 19 November 2012 approved
15:05:48 <Zakim> +??P24
15:06:00 <SteveBattle> topic: Actions and Issues
15:06:25 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P24 is me
15:06:25 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:06:33 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:06:59 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
15:07:06 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:07:16 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (4%), Ashok_Malhotra (5%), nmihindu (45%)
<SteveBattle> subtopic: Actions
<SteveBattle> Arnaud: we have no actions pending review
<SteveBattle> ... anyone wants to declare victory on one of the open actions?
<SteveBattle> ... hearing none, let's move to raised issues
<SteveBattle> subtopic: Issues
15:07:22 <deiu> issue-40?
15:07:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-40 -- creating/deleting/changing non RDF resources -- raised
15:07:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/40
15:07:39 <ericP> Arnaud: issue-40 is against the UC&R (not the spec)
15:07:50 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
15:07:50 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
15:07:51 <ericP> ... but we have a similar story so not sure what's new
15:07:52 <Zakim> +??P26
15:07:54 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:07:54 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:08:03 <oberger> Zakim, ??P26 is me
15:08:03 <Zakim> +oberger; got it
15:08:08 <oberger> Zakim, mute me
15:08:08 <Zakim> oberger should now be muted
15:08:14 <ericP> SteveBattle: agreed. not sure what to do about it
15:08:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to wait for henry
15:08:36 <Zakim> +??P27
15:08:41 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:08:41 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:08:45 <ericP> ... we don't have a story about sharing binary resources
15:08:56 <krp> zakim, ??P27 is me
15:08:56 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:08:57 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: a new issue-40 was raised about sharing binary resources
15:08:58 <ericP> [ tabled 'till Henry is around ]
15:09:10 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:09:11 <ericP> scribenick: SteveBattle
<SteveBattle> Arnaud: what about issue-7, can we close it?
<SteveBattle> ... reading the email thread I'm not sure
15:10:45 <SteveBattle> RESOLVED: close issue-7 as pending review
15:11:01 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
15:11:05 <SteveBattle> s/close/Mark/
15:11:36 <deiu> q+
15:16:43 <SteveBattle> topic: Test Suite and Validation
15:11:43 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Today is the deadline for suggesting test-suite / testing framework proposals
#15:11:52 <Arnaud> ack?
15:11:54 <deiu> ack deiu
15:11:55 <Arnaud> q?
15:12:04 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Not much has been contributed so far
<SteveBattle> ... not sure whether this means people have no suggestions or didn't have the time to respond
15:12:08 <deiu> Zakim, mute me
15:12:08 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
15:12:12 <deiu> I'll write
15:12:33 <deiu> My point is that we've not decided on the model
15:12:55 <deiu> it's difficult to try and propose a test suite if we don't know what exactly to test for
15:12:59 <deiu> (other than existing stuff from the spec)
15:13:18 <dret> ISSUE-37 seems to be holding up quite a number of things
15:13:19 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: We need suggestions/ideas about frameworks for testing
15:13:31 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:13:52 <deiu> Yeah, he's got about two tests working so far
15:13:59 <deiu> We've been collaborating on that matter
15:14:07 <bblfish> hi
15:14:08 <deiu> (Alexander)
15:14:41 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: We do have >1 proposal. Maybe we have enough to be getting on with?
15:14:46 <SteveBattle> q+
15:15:17 <Arnaud> ack steveb
15:15:20 <SteveBattle> stevebattle: Can we have until end of play today to make additional suggestions?
15:15:35 <SteveBattle> q+
15:15:45 <Zakim> +??P30
15:15:46 <Arnaud> ack steveb
15:16:01 <achille_z> achille_z has joined #ldp
15:16:08 <svillata> Zakim, ??P30 is me
15:16:08 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
15:16:27 <bblfish> thanks deiu
15:17:19 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Ok, you have until end of today to contribute ideas.
<SteveBattle> ... after that we will make a decision based on what's been proposed.
15:17:28 <SteveBattle> topic: Use Cases and Requirements
15:17:49 <ericP> SteveBattle: SteveS and I had an editorial meeting last week
15:18:01 <ericP> ... added a timetable at the beginning
15:18:10 <ericP> ... we asked folks last week to review the user stories
15:18:27 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #ldp
15:18:49 <ericP> ... we moved out the RESTful Interactions "user story" as it was more architectural
15:19:06 <ericP> ... the section on sharing binary resources and metadata needs the most work
15:19:24 <ericP> ... will send a request from that use case's advocate after the call
15:19:42 <ericP> ... we asked folks to directly edit user stories. saw some edits
15:20:03 <ericP> ... we still need eyes on these user stories and editorial work to get them to look similar
15:20:09 <ericP> ... otherwise they get deleted
15:20:30 <ericP> ... hoping to get to FPWD this year
15:20:38 <bblfish> q+ has that changed now? We no longer need to issue a ticket to change user stories?
15:20:51 <ericP> SteveS: waiting for answer on publishing moritorium for end of year
15:21:06 <ericP> sandro: off the top of my head, i think it's the last two weeks
15:21:19 <ericP> SteveBattle: ericP owes editorial text
15:21:21 <ericP> ericP: roger that
15:22:01 <ericP> Arnaud: so we're waiting from some editorial work from advocates, hoping for review in one week
15:22:25 <ericP> ... seems optimistic that we can get reviews and responses by the 17th
15:22:43 <SteveBattle> I'll take the wheel
15:23:11 <bblfish> q+ to has dealing with user stories changed now? We no longer need to issue a ticket to change user stories? We just edit the wiki?
15:24:45 <bblfish> my question was: has dealing with user stories changed now? We no longer need to issue a ticket to change user stories? We just edit the wiki?
15:25:06 <Arnaud> bblfish, no, for new stories you still need to submit issues, otherwise coordinate with editors
15:25:13 <bblfish> ok
15:25:19 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:25:19 <Zakim> bblfish, you wanted to has dealing with user stories changed now? We no longer need to issue a ticket to change user stories? We just edit the wiki?
15:22:52 <SteveBattle> topic: LDP Specification
15:23:24 <SteveBattle> steveS: Working to track editorial suggestions by David Wood
15:23:31 <SteveBattle> topic: Issues
15:23:56 <ericP> subtopic: Issue-37
15:23:57 <deiu> issue-37?
15:23:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
15:23:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37
15:24:07 <Arnaud> q?
15:24:16 <SteveBattle> Talking about ISSUE-37
15:25:20 <SteveBattle> We need the editors to suggest a way forward on this
15:25:21 <bblfish> thanks
15:26:02 <SteveBattle> SteveS: Will take this as an action
15:26:12 <Zakim> +??P34
15:26:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P34 is me
15:26:21 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
15:27:34 <SteveBattle> bblfish:We need more discussion about the model. My plan is to take this outline and consolidate what we have on the wiki.
#15:28:10 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen.a
15:28:10 <SteveBattle> bblfish: Shall I create a wiki page?
15:28:25 <Zakim> +??P34
15:28:28 <Arnaud> s/bblfish/dret/
15:28:28 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P34 is me
15:28:28 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
15:28:33 <bblfish> ah?
15:28:42 <AshokMalhotra> Henry, please create the wiki page
15:29:11 <SteveBattle> bblfish: OK, I'll do that, and when it is stable we'll discuss how to move that into the spec.
15:29:12 <Arnaud> q?
15:29:22 <dret> s/bblfish/dret/
15:29:40 <bblfish>  SteveBattle: I think you mean dret, not me :-)
15:30:02 <SteveBattle> Sorry - didn't recognise the voice :(
15:30:25 <MacTed> s/Henry,/dret,/
15:30:31 <bblfish>  SteveBattle: I am on train with low connectivity
<SteveBattle> Subtopic: Issue-31
15:31:14 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Issue-31: Does anybody disagree that we need a conformance section?
15:31:28 <bblfish> Issue-31?
15:31:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Proper Conformance section for LDP spec -- open
15:31:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/31
15:31:55 <SteveBattle> who is the speaker - is that fret?
15:32:04 <SteveBattle> s/fret/dret/
15:32:41 <SteveBattle> sandro: The spec adds additional things like container deletion etc.
15:33:22 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: It makes sense to have a compliance section
15:33:24 <bblfish> zakim, who is talking?
15:33:36 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dret (18%), Arnaud (46%)
15:33:55 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: I'm happy to close issue-31 and let editors add a conformance section.
15:34:28 <SteveBattle> SteveS: I accept the action.
15:34:45 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close issue-31: agreed
15:34:50 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: closing issue-31
15:35:06 <Arnaud> ACTION: steves, add a conformance section to LDP spec
15:35:06 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find steves,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
15:35:14 <dret>  sorry: yes, SteveBattle, that was me.
15:35:14 <trackbot> ACTION-31
15:36:59 <Zakim> +bblfish
#15:37:33 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen.a
15:38:07 <SteveBattle> subtopic: Issue-29
15:38:23 <bblfish> Issue-29?
15:38:23 <trackbot> ISSUE-29 -- Relative URIs are crucial -- open
15:38:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/29
15:39:01 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: This concerns the F2F where TBL implored us to support relative URIs in GETas well as PUT/POST
15:39:34 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: What does this mean for the spec?
15:39:39 <ericP> q+ to promote examples
15:39:52 <bblfish> q+ to just thought of a really good use case for relative URIs: you could have a site that is both available on port 80, and also put it behind Tor in one quick click without having to rework everything
15:40:06 <SteveBattle> Sandro: I don't think this is a should/must for the spec. It's best practice.
15:40:13 <SteveBattle> q+
15:40:37 <ericP> ack me
15:40:37 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to promote examples
15:40:39 <Arnaud> ack ericp
15:40:46 <SteveBattle> ericP: moot
15:40:52 <bblfish> q-
15:41:04 <ericP> ericP: was going to say what sandro said
15:41:13 <Arnaud> ack steveb
15:41:16 <ericP> SteveBattle: we could discuss best practice in the Primer
15:41:54 <dret> +1 to Arnaud
15:41:56 <SteveS>  deiu "best practices" page I believe is started at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide
15:42:00 <ericP> ... for instance, when describing GET requests, we could describe best practice
15:42:02 <bblfish> I think relative URIs need to go into a section of the main spec when discussing POST for example
15:42:03 <SteveBattle> Sandro: A throw-away couple of words could convey the idea
15:42:42 <Zakim> -Ruben
15:42:44 <Ruben> Ruben has left #ldp
15:42:47 <SteveBattle> Sandro: A well-written primer can convey this informally.
15:42:48 <deiu> SteveS, cheers (though that page is pretty useless at this point)
15:43:00 <Arnaud> q?
15:43:08 <SteveS> deiu got to start somewhere
15:43:37 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: I haven't heard anyone say we need to change the spec.
15:43:39 <dret> primer or best practices, but spec would probably be the wrong place
15:43:43 <deiu> SteveS, I plan to do that, together with Alexandre (already started something internally)
15:43:51 <SteveBattle> q+
15:44:13 <SteveBattle> SteveS: This is currently listed in the deployment spec.
15:44:16 <SteveS> See deployment guide http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide
15:44:17 <Arnaud> ack steveb
15:44:19 <ericP> SteveS: it's already in the deployment guide which cygri started
15:44:38 <ericP> SteveBattle: i confused about the Deployment Guide vs. the Primer
15:44:47 <bblfish> q+ to I think that examples in the spec should contain relative URIs when possible
15:44:50 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: The primer is an introduction to the technology
15:45:01 <SteveS> The document itself says its purpose is: "This page collects various informative material, including best practices, design patterns and anti-patterns, related to LDP. It may or may not become a formal deliverable of the Working Group."
15:45:05 <SteveBattle> The deployment guide accompanies the spec for experts.
15:45:10 <ericP> Arnaud: as i understand it, the Primer is for non-experts. the Deployment Guide is meant to complement the spec for experts
15:46:04 <Arnaud> q?
15:46:12 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:46:12 <Zakim> bblfish, you wanted to I think that examples in the spec should contain relative URIs when possible
15:46:17 <AshokMalhotra> q+
15:46:22 <bblfish> I think that examples in the spec should contain relative URIs when possible
15:46:50 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:47:09 <SteveBattle> Ashok: I agree, examples in the spec should show this.
15:47:16 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:47:48 <SteveBattle> SteveS: Yes we have examples that could use relative URIs.
15:48:13 <Zakim> +??P8
15:48:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P8 is me
15:48:20 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
#15:48:35 <Arnaud> ACTION: sspeiche, check the LDP spec for examples in which relative URLs might be used
#15:48:35 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find sspeiche,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
15:48:50 <Arnaud> ACTION: steves, check the LDP spec for examples in which relative URLs might be used
15:48:50 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find steves,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
15:48:50 <trackbot> ACTION-30
15:49:16 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Proposing that we close issue-29
15:49:37 <SteveBattle> +1
15:49:43 <Arnaud> +1
15:49:45 <deiu> +1
15:49:45 <svillata> +1
15:49:45 <krp> +1
15:49:50 <SteveS> +1
15:49:56 <AshokMalhotra> +1
15:50:03 <nmihindu> +1
15:50:06 <oberger_> regrets
15:50:16 <sandro> +1
15:50:31 <dret> +1
15:50:45 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:50:58 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close issue-29: it's a best practice covered in the deployment guide and examples in the LDP spec
15:51:46 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #ldp
15:52:26 <bblfish> yes patch is important :-)
15:52:34 <Zakim> -bblfish
<SteveBattle> subtopic: Issues relating to PATCH: Issue-12, Issue-17, Issue-27
15:52:37 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: We have 3 issues relating to PATCH. 12, 17, 27
15:53:19 <SteveBattle> SteveS: I can gather the information together. There was some work done with tabulator and the R/W web.
#15:53:22 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen.a
15:54:02 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:54:03 <SteveBattle> SteveS: The R/W web and tabulator use some subset of SPARQL update.
15:54:07 <Arnaud> q?
15:55:04 <MacTed> subtopic: Issue-2 and issue-3: versioning
15:55:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-2 -- Do BPR versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? -- open
15:55:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/2
15:55:07 <MacTed> issue-3?
15:55:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Do BPC versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? -- open
15:55:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/3
15:55:08 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Do we want to do versioning? Issues 2 and 3
15:55:08 <bblfish> versioning is a modelling issue I think. I wrote a versioning model once
15:55:46 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Maybe we shouldn't discuss this now, AndyS is the owner.
15:55:55 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:55:57 <dret> i read that as versioning LDP content, not the protocol
15:56:24 <dret> and i recommend to stay away from this for LDP core; it's a very complex issue.
15:56:31 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Is versioning handled by LDP or the application?\
15:56:39 <dret> WebDAV
15:56:40 <MacTed> WebDAV...
15:56:54 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:56:54 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:57:05 <SteveBattle> ericP: Are there precedents?
15:57:34 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:57:34 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:57:57 <SteveBattle> Do we want to do it at all? It can get really ugly.
15:58:02 <krp> also memento for time-based versioning http://www.mementoweb.org/guide/rfc/ID/  (but agree, better to decide whether we need to do this)
15:58:09 <SteveBattle> unsure of the speaker
15:58:22 <Arnaud> speaker is dret
15:58:45 <AshokMalhotra> can soemone make a proposal?
15:58:56 <Arnaud> q?
15:59:29 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: I'm sensing that the group isn't in favour of handling versioning in the spec.
15:59:30 <dret> it's a good feature, but not MMF.
15:59:39 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:59:53 <dret> +1
16:00:09 <ericP> AndyS, dret proposed that we not handle versioning unless there's a strong proponent. there was general support for this position.
16:00:32 <SteveBattle> RESOLVED: Mark Issue-2 and Issue-3 as pending review, we'll look at it with Andy next week
16:01:20 <SteveBattle> Arnaud: Remember the best way to make progress is to make a proposal.
16:01:26 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:01:38 <SteveBattle> see minutes for last meeting.
16:02:07 <dret> thanks Arnaud, thanks SteveBattle, thanks everybody!
16:02:13 <Zakim> -oberger
16:02:14 <SteveBattle> bye
16:02:14 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:02:19 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:20 <Zakim> -Yves
16:02:20 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:02:21 <Zakim> -svillata
16:02:21 <Zakim> -dret
16:02:21 <Zakim> -deiu
16:02:21 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:02:22 <Zakim> -EricP
16:02:25 <Zakim> -krp
16:02:29 <SteveBattle> SteveBattle has left #ldp
16:02:50 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
16:04:00 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:04:41 <bblfish> I must have missed the end
16:06:23 <bblfish> have the meeting minutes been published?
16:06:33 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
16:07:05 <bblfish> zakim, publsh minutes
16:07:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'publsh minutes', bblfish
16:07:13 <bblfish> zakim, publish minutes
16:07:13 <Zakim> I don't understand 'publish minutes', bblfish
16:08:16 <deiu> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:08:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html deiu
16:08:18 <bblfish> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:08:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html bblfish
16:08:41 <deiu> RRSAgent, please publish minutes
16:08:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html deiu
16:08:59 <bblfish> ah I think they are still protected
16:16:20 <MacTed> RRSAgent, set logs public
16:16:38 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:16:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see BartvanLeeuwen, nmihindu (muted)
16:16:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see bblfish, MacTed, achille_z, Zakim, RRSAgent, dret, SteveS, deiu, webr3, Arnaud, jmvanel, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP
16:17:12 <MacTed> Zakim, drop BartvanLeeuwen
16:17:12 <Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen is being disconnected
16:17:14 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
16:17:16 <MacTed> Zakim, drop nmihindu
16:17:17 <Zakim> nmihindu is being disconnected
16:17:18 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:17:18 <Zakim> Attendees were dret, BartvanLeeuwen, +44.754.550.aaaa, SteveS, Ruben, Arnaud, deiu, MacTed, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveBattle, EricP, Yves, nmihindu, oberger, krp, Sandro, svillata,
16:17:18 <Zakim> ... bblfish
16:17:23 <MacTed> trackbot, end meeting
16:17:23 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:17:23 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:17:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:17:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
16:17:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:17:32 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-actions.rdf :
16:17:32 <RRSAgent> ACTION: steves, add a conformance section to LDP spec [1]
16:17:32 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-irc#T15-35-06
<SteveBattle> [1] ACTION-30 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/30
16:17:32 <RRSAgent> ACTION: steves, check the LDP spec for examples in which relative URLs might be used [2]
16:17:32 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-irc#T15-48-35
<SteveBattle> [2] ACTION-31 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/31
#16:17:32 <RRSAgent> Opened ACTION-30
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000387