Chatlog 2012-12-17

From Linked Data Platform
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:57:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:51 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:57:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:55 <antonis> antonis has joined #ldp
14:57:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:57:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:56 <trackbot> Date: 17 December 2012
14:58:08 <Ruben1> zakim, who is here?
14:58:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see +329331aaaa
14:58:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see antonis, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ruben1, stevebattle2, deiu, MacTed, bhyland, jmvanel, betehess, SteveS, bblfish, AndyS, oberger, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP, sandro, Yves
14:58:15 <Ruben1> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:58:15 <Zakim> +Ruben1; got it
14:58:28 <Ruben> Ruben has joined #ldp
14:58:34 <Ruben> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:58:34 <Zakim> sorry, Ruben, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:58:35 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:58:41 <Ruben> Zakim, who is here?
14:58:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ruben1, [GVoice]
14:58:42 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
14:58:43 <Zakim> On IRC I see Ruben, antonis, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle2, deiu, MacTed, bhyland, jmvanel, betehess, SteveS, bblfish, AndyS, oberger, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP, sandro, Yves
14:58:43 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:58:46 <Ruben> Zakim, Ruben1 is me
14:58:46 <Zakim> +Ruben; got it
14:58:48 <Zakim> +??P8
14:58:55 <Ruben> zakim, who is noisy?
14:59:06 <Zakim> Ruben, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
14:59:12 <Zakim> +??P9
14:59:17 <antonis> zakim, ??p8 is me
14:59:17 <Zakim> +antonis; got it
14:59:25 <deiu> Zakim, ??P9 is me
14:59:25 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
14:59:29 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
14:59:29 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
14:59:52 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:23 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:00:38 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:45 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
15:00:50 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:50 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:51 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:51 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:04 <raul> raul has joined #ldp
15:01:20 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:01:21 <Ruben> who's talking now?
15:01:22 <MacTed> ericP - is totally broken up
15:01:24 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #ldp
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:45 <bblfish> hi
15:01:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:01:59 <Ashok> Hi
15:02:07 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:02:07 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:02:15 <Zakim> +Yves
15:02:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:29 <Zakim> +??P22
15:02:32 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:02:32 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:02:44 <raul> zakim, ??P22 is me
15:02:44 <Zakim> +raul; got it
15:02:58 <Arnaud> zakim, who's there?
15:02:58 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Arnaud.
15:03:06 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
15:03:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ruben, ericP, antonis, deiu (muted), Arnaud, MacTed (muted), SteveBattle, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Yves, AndyS, raul
15:03:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see AndyS, raul, Ashok, Ruben, antonis, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle2, deiu, MacTed, bhyland, jmvanel, betehess, SteveS, bblfish, oberger, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP, sandro,
15:03:08 <Zakim> ... Yves
15:03:38 <SteveS> zakim, who should scribe?
15:03:38 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, SteveS.
15:03:39 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
15:03:43 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:03:43 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:04:01 <MacTed> scribenick: MacTed
15:04:17 <stevebattle2> +1
15:04:20 <SteveS> +1
15:04:21 <antonis> +1
15:04:22 <bblfish> +1
15:04:23 <MacTed> PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2012-12-10
15:04:29 <Arnaud> +1
15:04:32 <deiu> +1
15:04:38 <Zakim> +??P34
15:04:40 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #ldp
15:04:45 <krp> zakim, ??P34 is me
15:04:45 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:05:03 <MacTed> RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2012-12-10
15:05:17 <MacTed> TOPIC: Open Actions
15:05:42 <SteveS> action-17?
<MacTed> Arnaud: SteveS suggested we can now close action-17, asked Stevebattle to confirm
<MacTed> stevebattle: yes, we can close it
15:05:42 <trackbot> ACTION-17 -- Steve Battle to prepare first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements Document -- due 2012-10-29 -- OPEN
15:05:42 <trackbot>
15:05:42 <MacTed> action-17?
15:05:42 <trackbot> ACTION-17 -- Steve Battle to prepare first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements Document -- due 2012-10-29 -- OPEN
15:05:43 <trackbot>
15:05:49 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:06:01 <bblfish> we are looking at open actions
15:06:08 <Zakim> +rogerm
15:06:26 <MacTed> close action-17
15:06:26 <trackbot> ACTION-17 Prepare first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements Document closed
15:06:42 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:06:59 <Zakim> +??P1
15:06:59 <MacTed> TOPIC: Issues Pending Review
15:07:06 <Zakim> -krp
15:07:10 <bblfish> looking at issues:
15:07:21 <bblfish> especially
<MacTed> Arnaud: we'll talk about issue-5 later
15:07:33 <MacTed> issue-41?
15:07:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Standard way to manage members with attachments -- pending review
15:07:33 <trackbot>
<MacTed> Arnaud: waiting to hear back from John, we'll leave it as is for now
15:07:52 <Zakim> +??P2
15:08:07 <krp> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:08:07 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:08:19 <Zakim> +??P34
15:08:45 <nmihindu> zakim, ??P34 is me
15:08:45 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:08:50 <MacTed> TOPIC: FPWD of UCR -
15:09:05 <Zakim> -??P1
15:09:08 <SteveS> Updated at
15:09:09 <Zakim> + +1.631.444.aabb
15:09:23 <Zakim> - +1.631.444.aabb
15:09:34 <roger> zakim, ??P1 is me
15:09:34 <Zakim> I already had ??P1 as ??P1, roger
15:09:56 <Zakim> -krp
15:10:25 <bblfish> q+
15:10:29 <MacTed> s/http:\/\/\/2012\/ldp\/wiki\/Use_Cases_And_Requirements/http:\/\/\/2012\/ldp\/hg\/ldp-ucr.html/
15:10:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:10:58 <Zakim> +??P2
15:11:58 <stevebattle2> q+
15:12:11 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:12:50 <MacTed> ( discussion about publication timing, moratoriums, etc. )
15:13:08 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: publish current UCR draft as First Public Working Draft
15:13:15 <SteveS> +1
15:13:15 <stevebattle2> +1
15:13:16 <Yves> +1
15:13:17 <nmihindu> +1
15:13:18 <deiu> +1
15:13:21 <Arnaud> +1
15:13:21 <roger> +1
15:13:29 <MacTed> PROPOSED: publish current UCR draft as First Public Working Draft,
15:13:29 <MacTed> +1
15:13:30 <bblfish> +1
15:13:33 <Ruben> +1
15:13:36 <AndyS> +1
15:13:36 <Yves> I got confirmation that next round of publication will be jan 3rd
15:13:45 <raul> +1
15:13:46 <ericP> +1
15:14:02 <ericP> note that the SOTD proposed last week indicated that it's not in a final state
15:14:03 <MacTed> RESOLVED: publish current UCR draft as First Public Working Draft,
15:14:09 <ericP> -> last week's proposed SOTD
15:14:21 <Zakim> -??P2
15:14:52 <ericP> +1 to giving SteveS jurisdiction over the wiki page
15:14:59 <MacTed> stevebattle2: suggests we remove the deprecated content from wiki
15:15:01 <Zakim> +??P2
15:15:01 <ericP> ... to corrupt as he sees fit
15:15:07 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:15:07 <Zakim> MacTed was not muted, MacTed
15:15:25 <stevebattle2> s/stevebattle2/SteveS/
15:15:27 <bblfish> I think it make sense to remove the content and link to the spec
15:15:57 <krp> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:15:57 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:16:14 <ericP> the OWL WG used a schema that Sandro concocted to publish directly from wiki.
15:16:31 <stevebattle2> We don't want the wiki content to drift away from the published content
15:16:41 <MacTed> +1
15:16:53 <ericP> if we're not going to use such a system, and the authors want to work from resepc, yes, avoid confusion by nulling the page
15:16:53 <bblfish> should one have a Proposal?
15:17:00 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:17:07 <Yves> +1 to ericP
15:17:16 <MacTed> PROPOSED: wipe out wiki content of this page, leaving only in hg/respec
15:17:23 <Arnaud> +1
15:17:25 <antonis> +1
15:17:26 <ericP> +1 to Yves's +1 of ericP
15:17:26 <stevebattle2> +1
15:17:27 <deiu> +1
15:17:27 <bblfish> +1
15:17:28 <Yves> +1
15:17:28 <Ruben> +1 ok
15:17:28 <krp> +1
15:17:31 <nmihindu> +1
15:17:31 <ericP> +1
15:17:42 <SteveS> +1 will put "previous version" link to be something like
15:17:48 <MacTed> RESOLVED: wipe out wiki content of , leaving only in hg/respec
15:18:04 <stevebattle2> woohoo
15:18:20 <Zakim> -krp
15:18:29 <MacTed> TOPIC: editor's draft of LDP spec,
15:19:12 <Zakim> +Kalpa
15:19:17 <MacTed> SteveS: LDP spec remains as it was, now that the UCR is out will have more time to focus on the spec
15:19:33 <MacTed> TOPIC: Discussion of Open Issues
15:19:55 <Zakim> +??P40
<MacTed> subtopic: LDP Model
15:20:08 <MacTed> Arnaud: mailing list discussion suggested we clear up some pieces of LDP model before moving to other specific issues
15:20:10 <krp> zakim, ??P40 is me
15:20:10 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:20:17 <MacTed> ... particular concerns over container modeling
15:21:03 <MacTed> ... Lyon F2F concluded there were 2 possible models -- aggregation (weak) and composition (strong)
15:22:05 <MacTed> ... composition requires something special from server -- one HTTP DELETE on container means that server must also delete all members
15:22:34 <MacTed> ... aggregation requires nothing special from server
15:23:05 <MacTed> ... Lyon F2F concluded that spec should only discuss composition model
15:23:11 <Ashok> q+
15:23:24 <MacTed> ... if WG members want aggregation model as well, need proposal of such
15:23:36 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:23:37 <bblfish> +1 Arnaud makes a  good summary of the composition problem
15:23:50 <stevebattle2> Nice concise summary of the issues, Arnaud
15:24:11 <MacTed> Ashok: has figured out AtomPub model, and believes this is what Erik wants adopted
15:24:54 <MacTed> ... for aggregation, you put a link into the container.  when the container goes away, the links go away, but the linked resource may remain or go away
15:24:57 <stevebattle2> q+
15:25:55 <MacTed> Arnaud: doesn't think Erik is saying, do like AtomPub, but -- it would be useful to document LDP Model, and AtomPub documentation may be useful frame to start from
15:26:42 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:26:43 <MacTed> ... we don't have to do as AtomPub, but we have to address same questions/concerns
15:27:14 <MacTed> stevebattle2: concurs with Arnaud's description of Erik's position
15:27:33 <bblfish> q+
15:27:33 <ericP> i think a more important discriminator is how much trouble will be caused by deleting resources 'cause they happen to be in containers
15:27:41 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:28:26 <MacTed> bblfish: it's better to start simple if we can.  would be useful to know if anyone has implemented LDP as it stands.
15:29:02 <ericP> i think it's the use more than the implementation which will demonstrate the cost vs. benefits of deleting contained resources
15:29:12 <MacTed> Arnaud: at F2F, seemed like people wanted containers so they could do paging, but there are other ways to do paging...
15:29:13 <krp> It was issue-33
15:29:23 <Zakim> -deiu
15:30:33 <MacTed> Ashok: agree that we need to spell it out, whether like AtomPub or otherwise
15:30:42 <bblfish> q?
15:30:43 <stevebattle2> q+
15:30:51 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:31:14 <roger> +q
15:31:14 <MacTed> stevebattle2: LDP will definitely allow aggregation via RDF.  maybe we just need such a statement...
15:31:27 <Zakim> -krp
15:31:33 <bblfish> +1 for the idea of having a section how to do aggregation using RDF
15:31:47 <MacTed> MacTed: agrees that statement would be VERY important, as lacking it, it looks like composition is *all* that LDP permits...
15:31:53 <Zakim> +??P40
15:32:01 <Zakim> +??P9
15:32:04 <krp> zakim, ??P40 is me
15:32:04 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:32:11 <deiu> Zakim, ??P9 is me
15:32:11 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
15:32:14 <deiu> Zakim, mute me
15:32:14 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
15:32:35 <stevebattle2> But I wouldn't want to restrict people's creativity in using RDF in novel ways.
15:32:46 <AndyS> Has anyone tried inserting in to an RDf collection/container over HTTP? !
15:32:58 <ericP> Arnaud, has IBM seen need for deleting resources when deleting containers?
15:33:13 <bblfish> q+
15:33:13 <stevebattle2> q+
15:33:26 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:34:22 <MacTed> roger: aggregation is important. experience is that it's necessary, and it should be defined in LDP 1.0
15:34:23 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:34:35 <SteveS> ericP from what we do for tool integration, doesn't occur too often.  Typically the client deletes each resource on its own, then removes the container.
15:35:16 <MacTed> bblfish: agrees that saying how aggregation is done with pure RDF is important, and then move on to what LDP's composition gives that simple RDF aggregation doesn't
15:35:47 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:35:48 <MacTed> stevebattle2: responding to Ashok's mailing list proposal...
15:36:01 <SteveS> q+
15:36:02 <MacTed> ... primary objection is that composition and aggregation are being confused by some people
15:36:19 <bblfish> I also mentioned that the arguments should come from use cases from which we can then argue
15:36:38 <MacTed> ... wants a simple composition model, not to undermine that with lots of metadata
15:36:50 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:36:57 <ericP> SteveS, i take that as some evidence that the initial design should be for aggregation
15:37:50 <MacTed> SteveS: would like issue proposals to be separated from agenda threads on mailing list...
15:38:05 <bblfish> I mean arguments  for composition of containers should start from a use case and argue why that cannot be implemented without strong containers.
15:38:53 <bblfish> q+
15:39:05 <MacTed> Arnaud: maybe we should have a vote on Ashok's proposal?  though I'd hope it would be a more complete formulation, not just a single property
15:39:27 <MacTed> Ashok: if we implement aggregation with members within a container, then we can do as I proposed
15:39:45 <MacTed> ... if we implement as AtomPub, then different mechanisms are required
15:40:05 <MacTed> ... must decide between members-within-container or pointers-within-container
15:40:13 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:40:25 <ericP> it's always references, like java
15:40:40 <Zakim> -krp
15:41:04 <Zakim> +??P0
15:41:11 <krp> zakim, ??P0 is me
15:41:11 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:41:43 <ericP> isn't aggregation what's already in the spec?
15:42:02 <ericP> what's missing?
15:42:05 <SteveS> q+
15:42:15 <stevebattle2> compregation is in the spec
15:42:19 <roger> +q
15:42:25 <ericP> ahh, roger that
15:42:33 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:43:29 <Zakim> -krp
15:43:35 <ericP> so an aggregation proposal would be to remove the text that talks about DELETE?
15:43:41 <MacTed> Arnaud: seems to me we always have links within containers... starting from RDF as we are
15:43:41 <MacTed> bblfish: thinks we should have a use case presenting why we need more than RDF-based aggregation, justifying composition model
15:43:41 <MacTed> Arnaud: current spec has mixed handling
15:43:41 <MacTed> SteveS: spec is primarily based on aggregation. implementation may decide what happens with container-members it manages, and how to handle members with remote management...
15:43:48 <Zakim> +??P0
15:43:54 <krp> zakim, ??P0 is me
15:43:54 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:44:01 <AndyS> Precludes linking?
15:44:02 <ericP> and an composition proposal would be to strengthen the DELETE text
15:44:16 <ericP> and a hybrid would include a mechanism to discriminate
15:44:29 <bblfish> bblfish: my last point was that we should write up how to do aggregation by writing a document which is just a collection
15:44:31 <MacTed> ericP: an aggregation proposal would be to remove the text that talks about DELETE; composition proposal would be to strengthen the DELETE text; hybrid would include a mechanism to discriminate
15:44:58 <stevebattle2> It's nto a binary choice between the two though
15:45:01 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:45:04 <stevebattle2> s/nto/not/
15:45:10 <MacTed> Arnaud: perhaps we need SteveS to revise spec based on discussion to date, before we focus too strongly on it
15:46:00 <bblfish> ok, looks like I should write it up
15:46:19 <stevebattle2> It's business as usual, Roger, using rdfs:member, rdf:List, ...
15:46:24 <SteveS> I plan to write/propose something as well but want to base it off what lands as composition
15:46:32 <Zakim> -krp
15:46:41 <SteveS> stevebattle2 but what if you need to create a resource, where do you post it?
15:46:53 <Zakim> +??P0
15:47:00 <bblfish> roger, should we hook up to see if we agree?
15:47:32 <stevebattle2> "where do you post it?" is a question about composition, not aggregation.
15:47:46 <MacTed> ( proposal to come... )
15:47:54 <AndyS> stevebattle -disagree - aggregation needs "add to list"
15:48:15 <MacTed> issue-5?
15:48:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol -- pending review
15:48:15 <trackbot>
15:48:24 <stevebattle2> "add to list" can be defined as an RDF patch.
15:48:47 <AndyS> ... how to do that? What is the PATCH format?
15:49:11 <SteveS> stevebattle2 seems odd to have two ways to create
15:49:17 <stevebattle2> Well, changesets, if I ruled the world :)
15:49:27 <AndyS> (both list and seq are hard to do via serialized formats because of bNodes and numbering resp)
15:50:06 <AndyS> changesets can't do it! Do not work on rdf:Lists!
15:50:22 <stevebattle2> sigh...
15:50:41 <AndyS> seq similarly - hard to guess the number of the rdf:_N
15:50:44 <MacTed> subTOPIC: Issue-5 section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol,
15:50:44 <MacTed> Arnaud: thinks we don't need anything in spec about this, given we have note about it on LDP homepage
15:50:44 <MacTed> q+
15:50:59 <Arnaud> ack MacTed
15:51:16 <bblfish> q+
15:51:16 <SteveS> q+
15:51:23 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:51:45 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:52:54 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:53:51 <MacTed> MacTed: I think the paragraph relating LDP to GSP is necessary within spec
15:53:51 <MacTed> SteveS: wonders whether there are any other specs we need to address in similar fashion?
15:53:51 <MacTed> bblfish: maybe we just set this as postponed, and see whether explanation/connection is easy later?
15:54:11 <MacTed> Arnaud: GSP doesn't require SPARQL, though it's written with it...
15:54:21 <stevebattle2> The operational semantics of GSP are defined in SPARQL.
15:54:37 <ericP> re implementing bost, i've implemented all of GSP and a bit of LDP.
15:54:43 <MacTed> ... interested whether GSP server can also be LDP server, or will there be difficulties in being both -- how difficult is it to support both?
15:54:44 <Arnaud> q?
15:54:52 <MacTed> s/bost/both/
15:55:23 <ericP> the main requirement was that the server remembered the differences between LDP containers and GSP endpoints
15:55:25 <bblfish> you could POSTPONE
15:55:36 <MacTed> Arnaud: issue-5 resolution for now is ... no resolution.
15:55:36 <ericP> other than that, they could peacibly coexist
15:55:59 <Arnaud> q?
15:56:40 <MacTed> issue-12?
15:56:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Can HTTP PATCH be used for resource creation? -- open
15:56:40 <trackbot>
15:56:47 <Zakim> +??P1
15:56:48 <bblfish> I think that is easy
15:56:50 <bblfish> close it
15:57:02 <krp> zakim, ??P1 is me
15:57:02 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:57:15 <MacTed> subTOPIC: Issue-12 -- Can HTTP PATCH be used for resource creation? --
15:57:16 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
15:57:36 <MacTed> Arnaud: this seems clear --no, you cannot create a resource using PATCH
15:57:45 <stevebattle2> I'd support not using patch for creation - POST is causing enough trouble by itself.
15:57:55 <ericP> pushes the expressivity into the stratosphere
15:57:59 <Arnaud> q?
15:58:05 <SteveS> q+
15:58:31 <ericP> how about "PATCH on a container is undefined behavior"?
15:58:31 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:58:45 <stevebattle2> q+
15:58:57 <Zakim> -krp
15:59:11 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:59:36 <roger> ... did we fix the dates for the F2F ?
15:59:43 <ericP> my proposal is the "undefined behavior" text above
15:59:45 <bblfish> mhh, interesting arguments
15:59:57 <MacTed> SteveS: wouldn't prohibit from using PATCH... would recommend using POST and strongly discourage PATCH, but wonders value of prohibition
15:59:57 <MacTed> stevebattle2: first arose because HTTP allows resources to be created with PATCH
16:00:29 <stevebattle2> +1
16:00:34 <Yves> +1
16:00:34 <rgarcia> +1
16:00:41 <SteveS> +1
16:00:41 <Ruben> +1
16:00:43 <antonis> +1
16:00:43 <bblfish> +1
16:00:43 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:00:44 <deiu> +1
16:01:01 <ericP> i prefer to speak in terms of defined behavior vs. discouragement
16:01:25 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: don't prohibit using PATCH... but recommend using POST and strongly discourage PATCH
16:01:36 <Arnaud> +1
16:01:37 <rgarcia> +1
16:01:38 <stevebattle2> +1
16:01:45 <roger> +1
16:01:52 <MacTed> +1
16:01:54 <Ruben> +1
16:02:01 <MacTed> RESOLVED: don't prohibit using PATCH... but recommend using POST and strongly discourage PATCH
16:02:21 <bblfish> thanks all
16:02:26 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:02:26 <Kalpa> happy holidays and merry christmas all
16:02:29 <stevebattle2> bye
16:02:30 <Zakim> -rogerm
16:02:31 <MacTed> TOPIC: next meeting in January
16:02:31 <Zakim> -antonis
16:02:32 <Zakim> -Yves
16:02:32 <deiu> thank you and merry christmas!
16:02:33 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:02:33 <Zakim> -Ruben
16:02:35 <Ruben> Ruben has left #ldp
16:02:37 <Arnaud> meeting adjourned
16:02:42 <ericP> !
16:02:45 <ericP> tx
16:02:46 <MacTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate MacTed
16:02:47 <antonis> happy holidays everyone!
16:02:47 <ericP> lol
16:02:53 <Zakim> -raul
16:02:58 <ericP> i was asking for a soundcheck
16:03:00 <Zakim> -deiu
16:03:07 <Zakim> -nmihindu
16:03:09 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:03:09 <ericP> she says "happy holidays"
16:03:11 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
16:03:15 <Zakim> -ericP
16:03:18 <MacTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:03:18 <MacTed> trackbot, end conference
16:03:18 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:03:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +329331aaaa, ericP, Ruben, antonis, deiu, Arnaud, SteveBattle, MacTed, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Yves, AndyS, raul, krp, rogerm,
16:03:22 <Zakim> ... nmihindu, +1.631.444.aabb, Kalpa
16:03:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:03:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:27 <RRSAgent> I see no action items