14:57:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-ldp-irc
14:57:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:09 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:09 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:10 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:10 <trackbot> Date: 16 December 2013
15:00:25 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:00:35 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
15:00:43 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:01:17 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
15:01:32 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:01:45 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
15:01:45 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:01:59 <Zakim> +Roger
15:02:02 <Zakim> +Alexandre
15:02:14 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:03:26 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
15:03:31 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:03:49 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:03:49 <bblfish_> hi
15:04:28 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
15:05:02 <Arnaud> zakim. who's on the phone?
15:05:14 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, bblfish, JohnArwe
15:05:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:06:02 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPCaller is me.
15:06:02 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
15:09:18 <codyburleson> i can scribe, but gove me a bit
15:09:27 <codyburleson> trouble with skype
15:09:59 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:10:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:11:06 <codyburleson> Zaki, IPCaller is me
15:11:29 <JohnArwe> Zakim, IPCaller is cody
15:11:29 <Zakim> +cody; got it
15:12:08 <betehess> no objection
15:12:35 <codyburleson> RESOLVED: Minutes of Dec 9 approved.
15:12:51 <codyburleson> Topic: Next F2F meeting
15:13:13 <SteveS> I'm unavailable on Dec 23rd
15:13:16 <codyburleson> no, not F2F  - just next meeting
15:13:36 <Zakim> +??P0
15:14:08 <roger> * i can't make it next week
15:14:26 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:14:26 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:14:33 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
15:14:33 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
15:15:00 <nmihindu> I don't think I will make it
15:15:07 <bblfish> I can be here
15:16:29 <betehess> JohnArwe, the second one was already LDPG/LDPC, which is the intent
15:17:19 <codyburleson> For now, next meeting on Jan 6th, but let's bring it up again at end of call.
15:17:30 <codyburleson> Topic: Actions
15:17:56 <codyburleson> Arnaud, Action 95 and 96 can be closed.
15:18:09 <Zakim> +EricP
15:19:12 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We close 115 and 116 as well.
15:19:59 <JohnArwe> ericp talking in staccato
15:20:09 <codyburleson> + Action 117 can be closed, right Eric?
15:21:19 <codyburleson> + The only thing about action 117 is that we need to follow up with Tim. I sent an email, but got no response yet. So, I need you to keep bugging him. Should we keep 117 open?
15:22:05 <codyburleson> + We'll leave it open and move on to next topic, which this is about.
15:22:14 <codyburleson> TOPIC: Paging
15:24:20 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Tim suggesting a new code (like 209) to combine two requests to save client trouble of having to do an extra get. We discussed the possibility, but it did not seem feasible in our schedule. Others suggested sending first page with the initial request and a 200. Essentially, we're losing the capability to have different addresses for the first page and the rest of the collection.
15:25:46 <codyburleson> + Does this mean what we have today is unacceptable, or is it only that it is pending that it actually works? I don't think we can give him (Tim) the 209. We either stick with the resolution we have and work on the remaining questions and consequent issues. Or we revert back to what we had and look at 209 for LDP Next.
15:26:39 <codyburleson> + I would like to know what Tim would prefer: the redirect for now sow he can really have what he wants in the end?
15:27:44 <codyburleson> EricP: One other option is carry on current approach, but add another header. We could invent a header that makes a 200 a 209. It's harder to invent new status codes than it is new headers.
15:28:55 <betehess> looks like this approach will change the semantics of HTTP 200 significantly
15:29:11 <betehess> s/will change/would change/
15:29:20 <bblfish> q+
15:30:01 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:30:32 <codyburleson> Henry: My guess is 303 would be more helpful (JohnArwe just brought this up).
15:31:12 <SteveS> q+
15:31:29 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
15:31:38 <codyburleson> EricP: My suspicion is that the 200 and a header has an easier migration path to 209.
15:32:13 <JohnArwe> @ericp: playing off the new header notion, what if we use link type=collection href=LPDC#allpages (since the collection URI != the page URI, you know they're different even if you cannot directly retrieve the collection as a whole)
15:32:44 <Ashok> q+
15:32:45 <codyburleson> SteveS: I think we should stick with / revert to the 303, perhaps.
15:33:42 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
15:33:47 <SteveS> saying that if we do some stopgap 209 solution, it will only be for LDP server-initiated paging...so 303 is well-known, we can "fix" the general 303 problem with the 209 approach
15:33:55 <codyburleson> Ashok: I am wondering - what does ATOM do?
15:34:02 <codyburleson> + ATOM Pub
15:34:33 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: I'm pretty sure it doesn't have this concept at all. 5005 is Paging and Archiving
15:35:51 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#section-5.2 says To list the Members of a Collection, the client sends a GET request
15:35:51 <JohnArwe>    to the URI of a Collection.  An Atom Feed Document is returned whose
15:35:51 <JohnArwe>    Entries contain the IRIs of Member Resources.  The returned Feed may
15:35:51 <JohnArwe>    describe all, or only a partial list, of the Members in a Collection
15:36:03 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We've been trying to support a model where it is server-initiated paging.
15:36:03 <bblfish> q+
15:36:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:36:17 <JohnArwe> 200 response
15:36:23 <codyburleson> + How does the server communicate "Here is the first page."
15:37:24 <ericP> q+ to ask if any existing 303 machinery knows about link rel="next"
15:38:27 <codyburleson> Henry: There is (used to be) something around that 200 where you used to get back the content-location. In HTTP 2, I think they reversed that because people weren't using that correctly in browsers. I think it's kind of close to that. And then there was something in old HTTP that would tell you the base of the page. Perhaps, then there is something not so silly about this. It's just the browser people couldn't make sense of it, it seems.
15:39:01 <SteveS> q+
15:39:16 <codyburleson> + There WAS a content-location and there was a change between HTTP 1.1 and 1.2.
15:39:24 <Arnaud> ack ericp
15:39:24 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if any existing 303 machinery knows about link rel="next"
15:40:09 <bblfish> Content-Location http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.14
15:40:14 <codyburleson> EricP: SteveS, you talked about existing machinery that understands 303s. I'm wondering if any of that would know how to deal with the 303, plus the link-rep next?
15:40:32 <codyburleson> SteveS: I am aware if it does.
15:40:53 <SteveS> s/I am aware/I am not aware/
15:41:13 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
15:42:10 <codyburleson> SteveS: Didn't we have this whole conversation at one of the F2Fs? We looked at the HTTP specs, and went off and talked to Mark Baker. We came back and said it was unclear, and we'd have to clarify. Maybe we can go back through the minutes.
15:42:22 <bblfish> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#section-3.1.4.2
15:42:44 <codyburleson> Arnaud: You're right.
15:43:48 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Group would like to work on 303 and save 209 as an optimization for the future?
15:44:15 <codyburleson> EricP: How many would prefer 303 with 200, plus a header?
15:44:26 <bblfish> It depends
15:44:28 <betehess> I definitely prefer 303-now and 209-later over any other solution
15:44:46 <bblfish> If the header is really good then it would be cool
15:44:58 <SteveS> It depends, if 200 is still a bit fuzzy...then I like 303-now and 209-later
15:45:17 <bblfish> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#appendix-B
   The definition of Content-Location has been changed to no longer
15:45:17 <bblfish>    affect the base URI for resolving relative URI references, due to
15:45:17 <bblfish>    poor implementation support and the undesirable effect of potentially
15:45:18 <codyburleson> EricP: When I talk to Tim, should I suggest that 200, plus a header still on the table?
15:45:19 <bblfish>    breaking relative links in content-negotiated resources.
15:45:21 <bblfish>    (Section 3.1.4.2)
15:45:35 <codyburleson> + Today, we don't have a header to extend the semantics of that 200.
15:45:39 <bblfish> q+
15:45:56 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: Well, we have the Next. Which is what we're claiming today extends that 200.
15:46:07 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:46:50 <SteveS> 303 has clear usage in LD world, using 200+ existing header not so clear...that is why 209 for LD would be very clear
15:47:08 <codyburleson> Henry: Arnaud: Henry, if you can send the list what you think we can do with Content-Location, that would be helful.
15:48:17 <betehess> I understand how we got there, but I prefer the clean and clear semantics of 303 for now, and take the time to do things right later with a nice 209
15:49:06 <JohnArwe> I'm struggling to re-find content-location in bis, but what I remember is that bis clarified the usage of content-location (quite a bit IIRC) to essentially say it was used to point to the resource "after" content negotiation. i.e. you could GET R, and if the us-english version of R *also* had a URI (R.en-us), then the response to GET R could contain content-location R.en-us
15:49:19 <bblfish> 303 is the easiest to go back to. But presumably the 201 Location-Header shows that there was something that people thought could be done with 201
15:50:11 <ericP> ACTION: report to TimBL: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+Header still on the table, Henry considering 200+Location
15:50:11 <trackbot> Error finding 'report'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
15:50:20 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to report to TimBL: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+Header still on the table, Henry considering 200+Location
15:50:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-12-23].
15:50:47 <codyburleson> Arnaud: That's cool. Then close action 113.
15:52:08 <codyburleson> TOPIC: Issue 91
15:53:22 <JohnArwe> q+
15:54:13 <bblfish> Issue-91?
15:54:13 <trackbot> Issue-91 -- The LDP (REST) interactions must be driven by the rel='type' Link header -- open
15:54:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/91
15:54:32 <codyburleson> Arnaud: We added to the spec a header that says 'This is not just any RDF; it's RDF served by an LDP server), so you know what interaction model. And we read the RDF to distinguish between LDPC and LDPR. Alex(?) was saying this is no good. Wants to specify which interaction model in a header.
15:54:38 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
15:54:49 <ericP> q+ to ask if we currently have any semantics around LDPC DELETE
15:56:07 <bblfish> q+
15:56:13 <Arnaud> ack ericP
15:56:13 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if we currently have any semantics around LDPC DELETE
15:56:15 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: I'm not aware of this kind of specification being supported by the Link registry. It doesn't say anything about interaction model. It's not clear to me that we're using type as appropriate. Maybe we could define our won or re-open the discussion about defining media-type.
15:56:31 <ericP> ack me
15:56:54 <Arnaud> zakim, mute ashok
15:56:54 <Zakim> Ashok_Malhotra should now be muted
15:57:22 <betehess> JohnArwe, I wrote this proposal in the context of the group deciding in the past not to define a new media-type. I was myself in favor of using a proper media-type some time ago (not true anymore)
15:57:27 <codyburleson> EricP: Did we have any semantics around deleting containers deleting containees?
15:58:07 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:58:37 <codyburleson> Henry: I think the idea is that you can't delete a Container if you haven't deleted all the members.
15:59:36 <codyburleson> + You can group things by interaction model or by all sorts of things. The 'type' is really quite general. It just defines that something is an aliment of a set, I think.
16:00:09 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: We added it because I need to know if it's an A or a B, not to know what operations are aloud on it.
16:00:11 <betehess> wasn't the Link header thing a proposal from Erik Wilde?
16:01:35 <bblfish> q+
16:01:49 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:01:54 <codyburleson> SteveS: When I would see link-rel="type", I would have thought that when I crack open the contents of what I'm seeing, I'd see a type triple that was equal to the same.
16:02:03 <JohnArwe> Henry's argument could equally be applied to rdf:type "it's just a type", suggesting we don't need Link rel=type at all except as a shortcut to avoid parsing payload.
16:02:42 <codyburleson> Henry: If a document says something, it's not the same as the server saying it. The server could be lying, but it really should be the server that defines the interaction.
16:03:05 <JohnArwe> to be clear: I *like* the idea of naming the interaction model via a header, so the server asserts it rather than content.
16:03:07 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-91, by adding that for an LDPC the link header is: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type"
16:03:23 <bblfish> +1 makes sense to me
16:03:24 <betehess> +1
16:03:26 <JohnArwe> it's simply that I think type is the wrong rel= value
16:03:48 <JohnArwe> -0.5 I can hold my nose
16:03:51 <codyburleson> + 0
16:03:59 <nmihindu> +1
16:04:10 <SteveS> -0 think rel="type" isn't right
16:04:10 <betehess> the proposal can always be amended with another rel= value
16:04:11 <Ashok> +1
16:04:13 <roger> 0
16:04:23 <ericP> +0 (haven't done research)
16:05:15 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-91, by adding that for an LDPC the link header is: Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type"
16:05:22 <betehess>  /me is more than ok to start a discussion on another rel= value for the purpose
16:05:44 <bblfish> Issue-90?
16:05:44 <trackbot> Issue-90 -- An LDPC/LDPR is a Named Graph -- open
16:05:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/90
16:05:55 <JohnArwe> y that's why I wanted to be clear which aspects are good/bad IMO
16:06:53 <JohnArwe> q+
16:06:59 <betehess> once again, the names can all be discussed and amended in another proposal
16:06:59 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
16:07:13 <codyburleson> Arnaud: The proposal was about trying to name things more clearly. Nobody like the LDPG (Graph), but I don't know what to call it. There is also LDP Binary (misnomer?). Let's just see if we agree on defining this kind of hierarchy - then we can change the names later if necessary.
16:07:31 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-90
16:08:05 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: come thing about semantics versus syntax.
16:08:18 <codyburleson> s come/something
16:08:20 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: define hierarchy of resources as proposed by Alexandre Issue-90 Proposal 1
16:08:28 <JohnArwe> ...would LDPC     # LDP Container: representation is RDF + ldp:Container as rel="type" Link header be accurately restated as
16:08:32 <betehess> +1
16:08:34 <SteveS> q+
16:08:41 <JohnArwe> ... LDPC     # LDP Container: representation is RDF + interaction model of ldp:Container
16:08:49 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
16:08:52 <JohnArwe> ...and similar for LDPG with the ldp:Resource interation model
16:08:59 <bblfish> +1 I am for good names, it makes it so much easier to discuss things in this group.
16:09:10 <codyburleson> SteveS: An LDPR. Does it represent the class of all types of resources one would find on the Web?
16:09:39 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: Those 'other' resources don't have the LDP interaction model.
16:09:40 <bblfish> +1 for  the interaction model clarity
16:09:40 <Ashok> q+
16:09:47 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
16:10:15 <codyburleson> Ashok: Question for Alexander - What is an example of a Web resource that isn't an LDPR.
16:10:53 <codyburleson> + There are things on the Web that you cannot add to a container?
16:11:18 <codyburleson> Alexander: Not saying that. Just saying they'd be treated as a binary.
16:11:25 <betehess> guys, I have to leave, will be off  for 3-5 minutes, then will join again from my mobile phone, won't be in front of a computer
16:11:43 <Zakim> -Alexandre
16:12:27 <bblfish> q+
16:12:40 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:12:43 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: I don't think we said you can't add other Web resources to a container. I guess the question is - what changes in the interaction model do they have to support?
16:13:13 <SteveS> +1 would help to clarify the "not all Web resources are LDPR", to include interaction model details/explanation
16:13:30 <JohnArwe> steve, that's the first bullet under Remarks in the proposal
16:13:58 <SteveS> JohnArwe, yes that it why I added "to include"
16:14:05 <JohnArwe> maybe "random html web page" would serve as a useful example for ashok's thought exercise
16:14:54 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Today the spec allows you to have stuff in a container that may include things you may not be able to delete. Things, for example, that the server may not be in control of.
16:16:10 <JohnArwe> can I add a web page to a LDPC?  I think so (from a membership perspective - still wrapping my head around containment), there might be different paths for create/add-of-existing
16:16:31 <codyburleson> Arnaud: Vote on the proposal? Ammend it?
16:16:34 <bblfish> JohnArwe: I think a Web Page is an LDPB
16:16:44 <codyburleson> SteveS: I did my +1 with a little verbiage
16:16:49 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: define hierarchy of resources as proposed by Alexandre Issue-90 Proposal 1
16:16:51 <bblfish> ... ir you add it to an LDPC
16:16:56 <bblfish> s/ir/if/
16:17:02 <SteveS> +1 would help to clarify the "not all Web resources are LDPR", to include interaction model details/explanation
16:17:16 <codyburleson> +1
16:17:24 <bblfish> +1 as explained above. Good names make it easier to speak about things, and currently it was a big mouthfull to speak about these resources.
16:17:24 <Ashok> +1
16:17:24 <JohnArwe> +1 assuming we make the interaction model text changes that we discussed (type=ldp:Container => ldp:Container interaction model and so on)
16:17:42 <nmihindu> +1
16:17:42 <ericP> +1
16:17:46 <roger> 0
16:18:19 <bblfish> Agree LDPNR would be better
16:18:29 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: define hierarchy of resources as proposed by Alexandre Issue-90 Proposal 1
16:18:46 <JohnArwe> ...so Henry if it's an LDPB, Ashok's thought exercise then asks... "is it really?  are there any interaction model requirements on LDPBs that a random web page would not satisfy?" ... type=LDPR/etc comes to mind.
16:18:51 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I'd rather use LDPNR and maybe we could find something else for the G. I think people should volunteer new names. But we agree on the need for the hierarchy.
16:18:57 <codyburleson> TOPIC: Issue-90
16:19:56 <JohnArwe> q+
16:20:14 <codyburleson> Arnaud: An LDPG or LDPC is a named graph. We had discussions about what it meant.
16:20:44 <codyburleson> SteveS: If your server only knew Turtle, you'd never know if this was satisfied.
16:21:50 <JohnArwe> "triples belong to the representation of the hashless-ContainerResource" ... I asked on email why hashless, Alexandre clarified first that any URI is allowed, but then continued on to say: If you want to say to what Named Graph those membership triples belong to, it's only natural to use the hashless version of that subject membership.
16:21:51 <codyburleson> Arnaud: The URI of the resource (document) is the graph name of which the triples are in; according to graph store protocol. I don't think there is any proposal to go beyond that.
16:22:21 <JohnArwe> ...that last I found confusing, but if we can drop hashless and add PATCH-create as a covered case I think I'm fine
16:22:23 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
16:22:24 <codyburleson> + The proposal doesn't rely on something more than Turtle.
16:22:42 <roger_> roger_ has joined #ldp
16:23:17 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: see my comments I just entered.
16:23:22 <ericP> q?
16:23:41 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I agree. The whole "hashless" thing is a bit of a distraction, IMHO.
16:23:41 <bblfish> q+
16:23:54 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
16:24:31 <codyburleson> Henry: Is there a way of doing a PUT where you don't overwrite content that already exists?
16:25:08 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: Yes - you can make it a conditional. If the constion is satisfied then don't execute the request. There is an idiom for that in base HTTP>
16:25:10 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: add that an LDPG/LDPC is a Named Graph as proposed by Alexandre Issue-90 Proposal 2
16:25:34 <JohnArwe> ...amended to cover PATCH-create and remove hashless
16:25:52 <SteveS> +1 (with amendments)
16:25:57 <Ashok> +1
16:25:58 <codyburleson> +1
16:26:04 <JohnArwe> +1 with amendments
16:26:18 <nmihindu> +0
16:26:22 <roger_> +0.5
16:26:24 <bblfish> +1 (will implement PUT myself for creation with Conditional on existing)
16:27:13 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-named-graph is the citation ericp
16:27:14 <codyburleson> EricP: Does it make life harder for someone with a relational db?
16:28:10 <ericP> +1
16:28:13 <bblfish> I think that is how I implement this mysefl...
16:28:15 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: add that an LDPG/LDPC is a Named Graph as proposed by Alexandre Issue-90 Proposal 2 amended to cover PATCH-create and remove hashless
16:29:02 <bblfish> Fine with me to extend
16:29:27 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:29:43 <codyburleson> Topic: Issue-89
16:29:52 <codyburleson> (for those who can stay on)
16:30:14 <codyburleson> Arnaud: If we have neither Alexandre or Henry, there is no reason to discuss this.
16:30:24 <SteveS> bblfish, rejoining?
16:30:34 <codyburleson> +q unrelated
16:30:38 <JohnArwe> bblfish are you dialing back in?
16:30:40 <bblfish> euh can't rejoin the conf
16:30:55 <Arnaud> ack unrelated
16:30:57 <bblfish> it's restricted now
16:31:25 <bblfish> That's probably why Alex could not rejoin btw
16:31:30 <Arnaud> oh shoot, it's probably because we're officially out of time with the bridge
16:32:29 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:32:32 <Arnaud> maybe but, Alexandre should have been able to call, it was before the 1:30 limit
16:32:57 <Arnaud> but we'll stop here for today
16:33:11 <Arnaud> maybe we can have a call next week?
16:33:17 <bblfish> +1 for me
16:36:12 <codyburleson> JohnArwe: If anyone is planning to minus any of the outstanding proposals in Issue-89, we request you post on the mailing list what your contention / issue is.
16:36:34 <codyburleson> + Since we've run out of time.
16:38:02 <codyburleson> Arnaud: I plan to try meeting next week. I will try to test the water before then. I think we need it.
16:38:10 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:38:20 <Zakim> -cody
16:38:22 <Zakim> -Roger
16:38:24 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:38:25 <Zakim> -EricP
16:38:25 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:39:01 <Zakim> -nmihindu
16:39:03 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:39:03 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, SteveS, Roger, Alexandre, Ashok_Malhotra, bblfish, JohnArwe, codyburleson, cody, nmihindu, EricP
16:39:38 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
17:14:41 <stevebattle8> stevebattle8 has joined #ldp
17:51:48 <stevebattle9> stevebattle9 has joined #ldp
18:16:15 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
18:25:13 <stevebattle10> stevebattle10 has joined #ldp
18:52:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
19:24:29 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
19:37:27 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
20:00:24 <stevebattle10> stevebattle10 has joined #ldp
20:08:37 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:22:41 <stevebattle11> stevebattle11 has joined #ldp
20:55:14 <stevebattle11> stevebattle11 has joined #ldp
21:07:01 <stevebattle12> stevebattle12 has joined #ldp
21:58:06 <stevebattle12> stevebattle12 has joined #ldp
22:21:02 <stevebattle13> stevebattle13 has joined #ldp
23:06:29 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:28:21 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp