Mondays at 10am US Eastern time for 60 minutes Check your timezone -- http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=LDP+meeting&iso=20150209T10&p1=43 Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200 SIP: email@example.com Zakim code: LDPWG (53794) IRC channel: #ldp on irc.w3.org on port 6665 To start meeting: trackbot, start meeting CommonScribe instructions: http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/ Zakim instructions: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html RRSAgent instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
- Chair: Arnaud Le Hors
- Scribe: First available on the scribe list.
1.1 Minutes of last meeting
Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 26 January teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-01-26
1.2 Next meeting
- Teleconference 2015.02.16
2 Tracking of actions & issues
Here's a link to the Tracker Summary Page; for the purpose of the agenda here are some more specific links:
- Actions Pending Review: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview
- Open Actions: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open
- Issues Pending Review: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/pendingreview
- Raised Issues: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/raised
3 LDP spec
- LDP draft
5 LD Patch Format
- Questions to be answered for transition request:
1. Is this specification expected to advance to REC or is the CR implementation data is a critical deciding factor in deciding if the proposed solution is viable?
PROPOSED response: There is no doubt that the proposed solution is viable but the jury is still out as to whether it appeals to a large enough constituency. One of the goals of going to CR is to find out how widely it gets implemented and whether it warrants becoming a REC.
2. Are all 5 comments from WG participants? If not, did the Group respond to the outside commenters and were they satisfied or not by the answer? If yes, the Director can trust that the WG resolution to request transition is a signal that the commenters are satisfied.
PROPOSED response: Not all comments are from WG members. One significant comment came from David Booth who would prefer a solution based on SPARQL Update. This undoubtedly represents the opinion of a significant amount of people who are already using SPARQL. The WG is well aware of this and it is not because it has not been brought up before that the proposed solution isn't based on SPARQL Update. The proposed solution takes a different approach that is believed to be easier to implement where SPARQL is not available.
3. The CR exit criteria of "two independent implementations" is too vague; clarify how many clients and how many servers
NEED compliance section
4. What did the WG do to get wide review? Has the HTTP and REST community been asked to comment on the spec? What other outreach has there been since 18 September FPWD announcement ? e.g. links to emails on various lists, links to blog posts, articles written, ...
The HTTP and REST community at large is not concerned by this specification which is targeted for the Linked Data community to be used with HTTP PATCH. It is at a level above what the HTTP and REST community would worry about.
5. The Status of the document needs to specify expected duration of CR. How is this CR expected to be at the minimum?
Response: Expected duration for CR is 45 days after publication.
- Any further thoughts?