13:58:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:58:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/14-ldp-irc
13:58:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:58:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:58:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:58:23 <trackbot> Date: 14 October 2013
14:00:15 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:00:22 <Zakim> +??P20
14:00:32 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:01:16 <Zakim> + +1.857.928.aaaa
14:01:28 <betehess> Zakim, aaaa is Alexandre
14:01:28 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
14:01:34 <Zakim> + +1.919.306.aabb
14:02:00 <betehess> Zakim, aabb is SteveS
14:02:00 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:02:35 <stevebattle6> zakim, who is on the line
14:02:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the line', stevebattle6
14:02:35 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:02:39 <betehess> Zakim, mute Alexandre
14:02:39 <Zakim> Alexandre should now be muted
14:02:54 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:03:00 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:03:03 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P20, Arnaud, Alexandre (muted), SteveS, JohnArwe
14:03:13 <stevebattle6> zakim, p20 is me
14:03:13 <Zakim> sorry, stevebattle6, I do not recognize a party named 'p20'
14:03:22 <stevebattle6> zakim, ??p20 is me
14:03:22 <Zakim> +stevebattle6; got it
14:04:18 <JohnArwe> regrets: sandro
14:04:35 <betehess> scribe: Alexandre
14:04:43 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
14:04:43 <betehess> scribenick: betehess
14:04:53 <betehess> Zakim, please make minutes
14:04:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please make minutes', betehess
14:05:00 <betehess> RRSAgent, please make minutes
14:05:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/14-ldp-minutes.html betehess
14:05:36 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:05:49 <Ashok> zakim, code?
14:05:49 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ashok
14:05:52 <betehess> you guys need to ask the team contact to put the publication on /TR
14:06:07 <betehess> chair: Arnaud
14:06:20 <betehess> Arnaud: let's start with the minutes of last meeting
14:06:24 <betehess> ... can be approved?
14:06:40 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:06:43 <Zakim> +??P13
14:06:50 <krp> zakim, ??P13 is me
14:06:50 <Zakim> +krp; got it
14:06:52 <betehess> ... there were some resolutions
14:06:54 <betehess> ... hope we captured them well
14:07:04 <stevebattle6> no objections from me.
14:07:23 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #ldp
14:07:29 <betehess> APPROVED: minutes from last week
14:07:41 <betehess> Arnaud: is that a holyday?
14:08:10 <betehess> ... hope it won't be a holyday next week, we'll have a call
14:08:30 <betehess> ... are there any actions we can dispose of somehow?
14:08:34 <betehess> ... we don't have too many
14:08:40 <betehess> ... getting better at it
14:08:49 <betehess> ... let's go with agenda
14:09:15 <Zakim> +bblfish
14:09:16 <betehess> ... last time, JohnArwe pointed it us at a diff in Mercurial
14:09:38 <bblfish> hi
14:09:41 <betehess> ... would like to get this officially this in
14:09:57 <Arnaud> Proposal: Change following to informative (re: redefining HTTP), diff: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/eeff2a51723d
14:10:18 <stevebattle6> +1
14:10:20 <betehess> Arnaud: people should have had time to review it
14:10:23 <Zakim> -krp
14:10:38 <Zakim> +??P26
14:10:51 <JohnArwe> +1
14:10:53 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P26 is me
14:10:53 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
14:11:07 <betehess> +0
14:11:46 <BartvanLeeuwen> +0
14:12:01 <JohnArwe> (Steve Speicher having IRC trouble ... voice +1)
14:12:04 <betehess> q+
14:12:10 <betehess> Zakim, unmute me
14:12:10 <Zakim> sorry, betehess, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:12:14 <betehess> Zakim, unmute Alexandre
14:12:14 <Zakim> Alexandre should no longer be muted
14:13:04 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-gvoice
14:13:04 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:13:05 <Zakim> +EricP
14:13:26 <betehess> betehess: what about hash-uris
14:13:30 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:14:06 <betehess> JohnArwe: just copied from before. anybody who knows HTTP knows not send the hash part
14:14:14 <JohnArwe> betehess question was on section 5.2.6
14:14:28 <betehess> Arnaud: we're not redefining HTTP
14:14:38 <bblfish> that remark seems to stem from the problem arising out of confusing LDPC members that are LDPRs ( resources that are docs without a hash ) and the fact that some people want members with hash uris. That is still why I think one should put it in terms of ldp:created
14:14:52 <betehess> +1
14:14:57 <Arnaud> ack betehess
14:15:10 <Arnaud> Resolved: Change following to informative (re: redefining HTTP), diff: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/eeff2a51723d
14:15:24 <ericP> +1 to the spirit, though i've not done my homework
14:15:52 <betehess> Arnaud: next topic is the straw poll
14:16:04 <betehess> ... about to use those two kind of servers
14:16:11 <betehess> ... chocolate vs vanilla?
14:16:18 <betehess> ... it's just terminology
14:16:18 <SteveS> +1
14:16:21 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:16:30 <betehess> ... how to define the two modes in the spec
14:16:47 <betehess> ... do people have an opinion to help the editors?
14:17:06 <betehess> ... must decide between SHOULD and MUST
14:17:16 <betehess> ... some forms are more compact than others
14:17:23 <BartvanLeeuwen> +q
14:17:38 <Arnaud> ack BartvanLeeuwen
14:17:45 <JohnArwe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0040.html
14:18:02 <Zakim> +??P13
14:18:08 <krp> zakim, ??P13 is me
14:18:08 <Zakim> +krp; got it
14:18:23 <betehess> BartvanLeeuwen: what seems unclear to me is where you're allowed to @@@
14:18:29 <Zakim> +??P27
14:18:34 <betehess> ... with the spec right now, was confused
14:19:01 <nmihindu> zakim, ??P27 is me
14:19:01 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:19:08 <betehess> JohnArwe: if you look at the draft, I've given more information
14:19:09 <nmihindu> zakim, mute me
14:19:09 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:19:26 <betehess> ... making difference between the server and the client
14:19:34 <betehess> ... the client only sees the interface
14:20:01 <betehess> ... you don't have to obey all rules when you serve an image for example (it's not an LDPR)
14:20:29 <betehess> ... if the client doesn't know, it's just plain HTTP
14:20:32 <ericP> JohnArwe: an LDP server MUST adhere to the defined LDPR interface when serving an LDPR. (not when serving other docs)
14:20:37 <betehess> BartvanLeeuwen: not exactly what I meant
14:20:55 <betehess> ... had the impression that I could mix vaniall and chocolate
14:21:24 <betehess> Arnaud: I think there is no mixing, it's either chocolate or vanilla
14:21:41 <betehess> BartvanLeeuwen: had the impression it wasn't clear
14:22:30 <betehess> Arnaud: if there is anywhere a MUST that you don't make, then you end up being chocolate
14:22:43 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ack me
14:22:43 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
14:23:14 <ericP> +1 to 1
14:23:24 <betehess> ... do people have preference for editorial style?
14:23:25 <ericP> i find 1 the easiest to scan
14:23:33 <betehess> ... I prefer 1
14:23:45 <JohnArwe> sandro is not here, but offline he said +0/+1/+1
14:23:52 <betehess> +1 to 1
14:24:12 <bblfish> q+
14:24:12 <betehess> ... minimizes the duplication, makes it easier to read
14:24:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:25:22 <betehess> bblfish: you need to make the different between vanilla and chocolate
14:25:37 <betehess> ... eg. POSTing anythign to LDPC unless there is a restriction
14:26:03 <betehess> ... not sure there is a difference there, it's a rule that applies to both, right?
14:26:28 <betehess> Arnaud: people are still trying to understand the difference between the two
14:26:31 <Zakim> -nmihindu
14:26:56 <betehess> ... as of now, we have a proposal to make changes, introducing those two modes
14:27:10 <betehess> ... emphasizing the MUST/SHOULD
14:27:46 <betehess> ... it's editorial style for when we need to deal with MUST and SHOULD
14:27:52 <SteveS> +1 to 1
14:27:55 <Zakim> +??P27
14:28:01 <bblfish> my suggestion: LDP servers MUST xxx unless a restriction on the LDPC of R is stated in which case ...
14:28:19 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P27 is me
14:28:19 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:28:22 <betehess> ... the editors could have done than on their own, but they ask for input
14:28:26 <krp> +1 to 2 (weak preference)
14:28:36 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
14:28:36 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:28:43 <betehess> ericP: looks like people are going for proposal 1
14:29:20 <krp> trying to unmute :)
14:29:27 <bblfish> I think these ways of putting things do not make clear how a client would know he is dealing with one server or the other
14:29:35 <bblfish> -1
14:29:36 <stevebattle6> +1 to option 1
14:29:37 <krp> but just due to preference of language
14:29:49 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 option 1
14:30:21 <bblfish> that is in my view the vanilla/chocolate is an a posteriori distinction.
14:30:38 <betehess> Arnaud: it's not like we need to make a resolution
14:30:47 <betehess> ... let's move with the agenda
14:31:02 <betehess> ... would like to speak about LC comments
14:31:08 <betehess> ... not sure we're handling them well
14:31:29 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
14:31:30 <betehess> ... would like the team to discuss with timbl
14:31:31 <JohnArwe> The tracker's output does not seem so useful today.
14:31:37 <betehess> ... see if the changes are ok with him
14:31:48 <betehess> ... would like to save us another LC
14:32:06 <betehess> ... for the other comments, we have a tracker
14:32:11 <JohnArwe> Most tracker output lines start with (for me at least): Warning: mb_detect_encoding() expects parameter 1 to be string,
14:32:17 <betehess> ... to keep track of them and respond to them
14:33:28 <betehess> ... commenters have a period to say if they agree with our responses
14:33:34 <betehess> ... not sure we're doing a good job so far
14:34:29 <betehess> ... looks like the editors are in sync there
14:35:00 <betehess> Arnaud: issue 81
14:35:05 <betehess> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
14:35:10 <nmihindu_> nmihindu_ has joined #ldp
14:35:18 <betehess> ... about membership predicates names
14:35:37 <betehess> ... but people have been ignoring my poll
14:35:39 <bblfish> we are hearing some typing I think
14:35:41 <Zakim> -nmihindu
14:35:42 <betehess> ... so I put it on this agenda
14:35:54 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise?
14:36:05 <betehess> ... it's different from the description of the issue
14:36:05 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (55%), EricP (81%)
14:36:19 <betehess> Zakim, mute ericP
14:36:19 <Zakim> EricP should now be muted
14:37:23 <betehess> steveS: must include pierre-antoine's comment
14:37:23 <bblfish> typing
14:37:29 <betehess> s/typing//
14:37:57 <betehess> Arnaud: naming is a challenge
14:38:02 <bblfish> q+
14:38:09 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:38:22 <betehess> bblfish: there may be another possibility
14:38:37 <betehess> ... don't think it was added as an option
14:38:47 <betehess> ... maybe was too radical?
14:38:48 <JohnArwe> something funky with the doodle survey too.  I definitely voted (even mentioned +0s in comments), but it's not showing up here.
14:38:52 <Zakim> +??P11
14:38:53 <Zakim> +??P17
14:39:17 <Zakim> -??P11
14:39:17 <betehess> steves: I've put forward what dwoods put together
14:39:29 <betehess> Arnaud: don't think anything was intentional
14:39:36 <Zakim> +??P11
14:39:41 <krp> zakim, ??P11 is me
14:39:41 <Zakim> +krp; got it
14:39:44 <betehess> ... bblfish, you can add that to the wiki
14:39:47 <betehess> bblfish: ok
14:39:52 <bblfish> where is the wiki again?
14:40:01 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-81
14:40:41 <betehess> Arnaud: can you do that now?
14:41:43 <nmihindu_> Zakim, ??P17 is me
14:41:43 <Zakim> +nmihindu_; got it
14:41:53 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
14:41:57 <betehess> ... bblfish, please add that to wiki and we can postpone to next week
14:42:02 <nmihindu_> Zakim, mute me
14:42:02 <Zakim> nmihindu_ should now be muted
14:42:14 <betehess> ... is there an issue with timezones and not having time to answer?
14:42:28 <bblfish> q+
14:42:30 <betehess> ericP: had questions as well
14:42:52 <betehess> [people discussing meaning of proposals]
14:43:10 <betehess> ericP: aaaaaaouwww
14:43:19 <bblfish> q?
14:43:42 <Arnaud> ack BartvanLeeuwen
14:44:07 <betehess> BartvanLeeuwen: was everything coming from lat f2f?
14:44:16 <betehess> ... was missing references to the minutes
14:44:21 <betehess> Arnaud: that's the case
14:44:22 <JohnArwe> s/lat f2f/last f2f/
14:44:30 <betehess> ... look at issue 81
14:44:36 <betehess> ... it's written there
14:45:06 <betehess> ... what we call memberSubject is the object for the membership inverse
14:45:07 <JohnArwe> last F2f minutes (day 1) http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-09-12 (day 2) http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-09-13
14:45:15 <betehess> ... led to people saying that the spec is confusing
14:45:41 <betehess> ... added membershipInverse, and @@, and those additions made everything bogus
14:46:00 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:46:10 <JohnArwe> w3c server is serving them "slowly" now for some reason.
14:46:17 <betehess> BartvanLeeuwen: will take time to review before next week
14:46:27 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack me
14:46:52 <betehess> bblfish: my proposal is a structural one
14:47:12 <betehess> ... was interested in quick straw poll to understand what people want
14:47:21 <betehess> steves: the proposal is about the words
14:47:33 <betehess> ... if structural proposal just add it there
14:47:55 <betehess> bblfish: ok, I'll take that into account
14:47:57 <Zakim> -krp
14:48:29 <betehess> Arnaud: people, please respond to the polls
14:48:57 <betehess> ... let's not talk about the PATCH
14:49:13 <betehess> ... even though we want a solution, I don't see it coming
14:49:17 <betehess> q+
14:49:40 <betehess> ericP: I remember sandro sending mail
14:49:51 <bblfish> q?
14:50:08 <betehess> ... suggesting an approach
14:50:14 <betehess> ... as we had conflicting proposals
14:50:31 <betehess> ... implementation feedback would help move forward
14:50:52 <betehess> Arnaud: I think there are other proposals being sent
14:51:04 <betehess> ... my fear there will be more than 2, more like 3 or 4
14:51:10 <Arnaud> ack betehess
14:51:17 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise?
14:51:27 <Zakim> bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (10%), Alexandre (94%)
14:51:55 <betehess> betehess: what would it take to work on patch
14:52:04 <betehess> Arnaud: I've seen too many proposals
14:52:14 <betehess> ... the problem is time
14:52:21 <betehess> ... the feature is at risk
14:52:32 <betehess> ... a ML was set up
14:52:41 <bblfish> what was the mailing list?
14:52:46 <betehess> ... people should work there to sort it out
14:53:00 <betehess> bblfish, public-ldp-patch@w3.org
14:53:08 <bblfish> thanks
14:53:31 <betehess> Arnaud: back to chocolate vs vanilla
14:53:48 <betehess> ... answered by pierre-antoine
14:53:55 <betehess> ... wish there would be more discussions
14:54:13 <betehess> JohnArwe: you're confusing 2 threads
14:54:21 <betehess> ... only roger answered to that thread
14:54:31 <betehess> ... didn't appear to make concrete proposals
14:54:55 <betehess> Arnaud: what do people think?
14:56:14 <betehess> ... is there a real need for this vanilla vs chocolate thing?
14:56:37 <betehess> ... eg. we never say "if we have authentication, then..."
14:56:52 <betehess> ... true for all kind of constraints
14:57:33 <betehess> ... we said that we can reject a request
14:57:59 <betehess> ... since we don't have PATCH (only PUT), that's a real problem
14:58:44 <betehess> ... are people confused about what's been proposed?
14:58:50 <betehess> ... we need to make progress
14:59:14 <bblfish> q+
14:59:23 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:59:43 <betehess> bblfish: some much change going on in the docs, need time to read it
14:59:56 <Zakim> -EricP
15:00:06 <betehess> ... the client need to know when there is an exception
15:00:21 <betehess> ... it's like non-monotonic things
15:00:29 <betehess> ... maybe put things in the headers?
15:00:52 <betehess> Arnaud: john's email list all the sentences that would change
15:01:10 <betehess> ... I think that people just didn't take the time to review those
15:01:15 <bblfish> what is the url for John's e-mail?
15:01:21 <betehess> ... we reached the LC, was exciting, but we're not done
15:01:32 <JohnArwe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0067.html
15:01:39 <JohnArwe> (also linked to from agenda)
15:01:57 <bblfish> thanks
15:02:01 <betehess> ... please don't be silent, ask for clarifications
15:02:09 <stevebattle6> Bye
15:02:09 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:02:11 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:02:13 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:02:14 <BartvanLeeuwen> thx
15:02:14 <bblfish> bye
15:02:17 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:02:18 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
15:02:20 <Zakim> -nmihindu_
15:02:22 <Zakim> -stevebattle6
15:02:31 <Zakim> -Alexandre
15:02:36 <Arnaud> thanks
15:02:48 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
15:02:48 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:02:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, +1.857.928.aaaa, Alexandre, +1.919.306.aabb, SteveS, JohnArwe, stevebattle6, Ashok_Malhotra, krp, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, EricP,
15:02:52 <Zakim> ... nmihindu, nmihindu_
15:02:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/14-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
15:02:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:02:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items