IRC log of ldp on 2013-10-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

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