13:56:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:56:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-irc
13:56:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:56:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:56:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:56:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:56:09 <trackbot> Date: 23 September 2013
13:57:34 <Arnaud> Arnaud has changed the topic to: LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - Today's agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.09.23
13:58:45 <cody> cody has joined #ldp
13:59:24 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:26 <Zakim> + +1.661.748.aaaa
13:59:34 <Zakim> - +1.661.748.aaaa
13:59:37 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
13:59:37 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.661.748.aaaa
13:59:55 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:56 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:00:11 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
14:00:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:00:16 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
14:00:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:00:21 <cody> Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:00:21 <Zakim> +cody; got it
14:01:06 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:28 <Zakim> + +1.919.306.aaaa
14:01:51 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:02:06 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
14:02:30 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:02:38 <Zakim> +??P12
14:03:10 <stevebattle5> zakim, ?P12 is me
14:03:10 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle5, I do not recognize a party named '?P12'
14:03:23 <stevebattle5> zakim, p12 is me
14:03:23 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle5, I do not recognize a party named 'p12'
14:03:38 <stevebattle5> zakim, P12 is me
14:03:38 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle5, I do not recognize a party named 'P12'
14:04:11 <stevebattle5> zakim, ??P12 is me
14:04:11 <Zakim> +stevebattle5; got it
14:05:04 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:05:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, cody, +1.919.306.aaaa, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5
14:05:10 <bblfish> hi
14:05:46 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:05:53 <Arnaud> zakim, aaaa is SteveS
14:05:54 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:05:54 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:05:55 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:05:55 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:05:57 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:06:05 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:06:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, cody, SteveS, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5, TallTed (muted)
14:07:15 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:07:40 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:08:05 <Ashok> scribe:  Ashok
14:08:58 <Ashok> Topic:  Approve minutes from Aug 26, Sep 3 and Sep 12, 13?
14:09:16 <Zakim> +bblfish
14:09:59 <Ashok> SteveS:  I looked at minutes closely
14:10:14 <Ashok> No objection to approving minutes
14:10:29 <Ashok> Topic:  ACTION ITEMS
14:11:26 <Ashok> Action 93: Can be closed
14:11:26 <trackbot> Error finding '93'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
14:12:05 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
14:12:09 <Ashok> Action-98:  Inlining
14:12:09 <trackbot> Notes added to Action-98 Removing "inlining" from spec, per resolution http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-09-12#resolution_2.
14:12:12 <Zakim> +??P33
14:12:22 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P33 is me
14:12:22 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
14:13:00 <Zakim> +??P34
14:13:24 <svillata> Zakim, ??P34 is me
14:13:24 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
14:13:51 <Ashok> SteveS will respond to TimBL
14:13:52 <JohnArwe> EricP sent an email claiming completion of 97
14:14:03 <Ashok> Close Action-98
14:14:03 <trackbot> Closed Action-98.
14:14:27 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Close Action-97.  Email from Eric
14:15:38 <Ashok> ACTION-93
14:15:38 <trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Steve Speicher to Investigate how to change the spec so that in case the server discards some of triples the client sent it informs the client -- due 2013-09-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:15:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/93
14:16:07 <Ashok> SteveS:  I didn't chage 4.5.1
14:16:47 <Ashok> ... added wording that additional details may be provided
14:16:48 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
14:18:42 <JohnArwe> email with proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0051.html
14:18:51 <Ashok> ... 4.5.4 ... more info may be given re. the triples the server will accept
14:19:38 <bblfish> q+
14:20:54 <Ashok> Discussion on rejecting triples
14:21:33 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:21:53 <cody> q+
14:22:07 <Ashok> ... do all triples get managed by client.  In that case, LDP server has little utility
14:22:35 <Zakim> +Kalpa
14:22:36 <Ashok> Henry:  Asks about server managed properties ...
14:22:38 <Arnaud> ack cody
14:24:27 <Ashok> ... which triples can server reject?  What about triples not relevant to the application.  Can server discard these?
14:24:51 <JohnArwe> I'll just note here (for now - will email resp too) that proposed text appears to assume that both flavors of servers have the same constraints; not clear if that's intentional.
14:26:12 <Ashok> Do we saya anywhere that triples the server does not recognize can be dropped?
14:26:24 <JohnArwe> today we do
14:26:41 <JohnArwe> ...at least for put
14:26:43 <Ashok> ... at least the server should tell what it will do
14:27:27 <JohnArwe> "will do" (discoverable in advance) or "did" (after the fact) ... or both.  what you are you suggesting is required?
14:28:11 <cody> 2 types of server: constrained versus unconstrained or domain-specific versus "vanilla" (non domain-specific).
14:28:11 <stevebattle5> q+
14:28:17 <Arnaud> ack steveb
14:28:21 <TallTed> I think LDP server MUST be allowed to not store a submission, but when it does so, it MUST notify the client somehow. easy to reject an entire submission (whether POST, PUT, or PATCH); harder to spec comms of why a submission is rejected; harder still to spec comms for a *partially* rejected submission.
14:29:14 <JohnArwe> +1 ted.  also seems a touch odd that we call out these two cases for put only, vs post (create) and patch where they could also be modified.
14:29:26 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:29:26 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:29:44 <Ashok> SteveS:  maybe we should say something stronger?
14:30:25 <bblfish> q+
14:30:29 <cody> Then I think the rejection message will need specification. The body of the response.
14:30:35 <Ashok> Ted:  Should be able to indicate which trioples were rejected
14:30:37 <cody> We have to be very clear what was rejected.
14:30:50 <svillata> q?
14:31:00 <cody> Not just (oh, some things didn't make it); I would have to know precisely what.
14:31:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:32:08 <stevebattle5> q+
14:32:21 <JohnArwe> the (spec) issue there cody is that, as tallted said, defining that "precisely what" is hard.  if you also want the definition to be interoperable (which from context I suspect you do), then that would all become ldp work.
14:32:50 <Ashok> Henry:  Are we replacing the 208.5 with a warning?
14:33:47 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle5
14:34:10 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
14:34:43 <Arnaud> ack steveb
14:34:50 <Ashok> SteveB:  Asks about deleting triples later
14:35:37 <bblfish> HTTP/1.1 204 No content
14:35:37 <bblfish>   ETag: "ABC"
14:35:47 <Ashok> Henry:  The Etag has changed, right?   If you have some vocab you can explain rejection
14:37:21 <Ashok> Ted:  ETag does not give enough info
14:37:53 <Ashok> ... difference between change rejected or overwritten by other user
14:39:10 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Says "servers may inform the client"  dos that mean server still have otion to fail silently
14:39:17 <JohnArwe> (from email) "4.5.1.1 LDPR servers MAY inform clients that some of the triples they provided were ignored ..."
14:39:43 <Ashok> SatveS:  Only for server-managed properties.
14:40:11 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Do we have a list of server-managed properties
14:41:02 <stevebattle5> The proposal is going in the right direction though
14:41:16 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Let's move on.  Please reply to Steve's email and so we can  make progess
14:41:56 <Ashok> Mail from John Arwe responding to comment from mark baker saying we are redefining HTTP
14:41:57 <JohnArwe> "change to informative" proposal email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0052.html
14:42:43 <Ashok> John:  Any questions?
14:43:54 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Please respond to John's mail
14:45:09 <Ashok> ISSUE-81 Confusing predicates
14:45:23 <bblfish> Issue-81?
14:45:23 <trackbot> Issue-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open
14:45:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
14:45:29 <Ashok> Arnaud:  David Wood summarized possible names
14:47:09 <bblfish> q+
14:48:22 <Ashok> Henry:  Makes a proposal ...
14:49:24 <Ashok> Arnaud:  Perhaps move proposals to Wiki page
14:49:46 <Ashok> SteveS:  I will do it
14:50:06 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:50:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, cody, SteveS, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, svillata, Kalpa
14:50:13 <Ashok> Arnaud:  We will continue next week
14:50:24 <Ashok> PATCH proposals
14:52:40 <Ashok> Sandro sent mail proposing we add both proposals into the spec as features at risk
14:53:02 <Ashok> ... based on implementation proposals we can then decide
14:53:34 <Ashok> Arnaud:  There are other PATCH proposals
14:54:17 <bblfish> q+
14:54:22 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:54:24 <Ashok> ... is it a good idea to have several proposals in the spec marked as "at risk"
14:55:23 <Ashok> Henry:  With the TURTLE proposal you would have to number the blank nodes ... may require changing the triple store
14:56:10 <Ashok> Arnaud:  If you have a SPARQL engine, the SPARQL-based proposal is easier.  If not perhaps the other proposal is simpler
14:57:02 <SteveS> q+
14:57:04 <bblfish> that seems ok, if we really have two PATCH formats competing
14:57:28 <Arnaud> ack steves
14:57:30 <stevebattle5> q+
14:57:45 <Ashok> Ted:  Not a good solution but the best way to go
14:58:34 <Zakim> -TallTed
14:58:55 <Ashok> SteveS:  Eric claims the problems Sandro is worrying about don't occur in the wild
14:59:08 <bblfish> That would be cool
14:59:20 <bblfish> q+
14:59:26 <Arnaud> ack steveb
14:59:54 <Ashok> SteveB:  If there is an issue we cannot resolve it should not be in the spec
15:00:06 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:00:19 <Ashok> Arnaud:  That's the status quo ... nothing in the spec yet
15:00:55 <Ashok> Henry:  Perhaps test how easy the 2 options are to implement
15:01:28 <bblfish> yes: competition: try to make the most elegant version of the SPARQL solution.
15:01:40 <bblfish> thanks Ashok
15:01:48 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
15:01:51 <stevebattle5> bye
15:01:52 <Zakim> -svillata
15:01:53 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:01:54 <Zakim> -cody
15:01:54 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:01:55 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:01:58 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:01:59 <Zakim> -Kalpa
15:02:00 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:02 <Zakim> -stevebattle5
15:02:02 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
15:02:02 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:02:03 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:02:03 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, cody, +1.919.306.aaaa, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, svillata, Kalpa
15:02:03 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:02:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
15:02:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:02:11 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-actions.rdf :
15:02:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: 93 to Can be closed [1]
15:02:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-irc#T14-11-26