edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 04 November 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.04
Seen
Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, Bart van Leeuwen, Eric Prud'hommeaux, John Arwe, Roger Menday, Sandro Hawke, Steve Battle, Steve Speicher, Ted Thibodeau
Regrets
Bart van Leeuwen
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
John Arwe
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Minutes of Oct 28 approved link
  2. Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers. link
  3. Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices. link
  4. Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource. link
Topics
14:59:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/04-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/04-ldp-irc

14:59:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

14:59:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

14:59:07 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:07 <trackbot> Date: 04 November 2013
14:59:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute

14:59:59 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started

15:00:06 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud

15:00:33 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

15:00:41 <Zakim> +Roger

Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger

15:00:49 <stevebattle7> zakim, ??P1 is me

Steve Battle: zakim, ??P1 is me

15:00:49 <Zakim> +stevebattle7; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stevebattle7; got it

15:01:00 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra

15:01:20 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

15:01:34 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is SteveS

Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is SteveS

15:01:34 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it

15:01:51 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

15:01:59 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:02:01 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it

15:02:11 <Zakim> +JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe

15:02:25 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:02:25 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

15:05:07 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

15:05:07 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

15:05:13 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:05:13 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

15:05:28 <JohnArwe> scribe: JohnArwe

(Scribe set to John Arwe)

15:05:38 <JohnArwe> regrets: Bart
15:06:18 <JohnArwe> chair: arnaud
<JohnArwe> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.04
<JohnArwe> topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:06:36 <JohnArwe> Approval of last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-28

Approval of last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-28

15:06:47 <JohnArwe> ashok read them

ashok read them

15:06:58 <JohnArwe> resolution: Minutes of Oct 28 approved

RESOLVED: Minutes of Oct 28 approved

15:07:20 <JohnArwe> next meeting: Mon Nov 11

next meeting: Mon Nov 11

15:08:48 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: F2F penciled in for Jan 14-16, NOT confirmed.  We're going to see when LC2 published and schedule for after the comment period closes.  possible to shift 1 week if you have conflict, ashok.  ashok says following week works for him.

Arnaud Le Hors: F2F penciled in for Jan 14-16, NOT confirmed. We're going to see when LC2 published and schedule for after the comment period closes. possible to shift 1 week if you have conflict, ashok. ashok says following week works for him.

15:09:02 <SteveS> Nov 11th is Veteran's Day US and Remembrance Day CA, though usually these are still work days

Steve Speicher: Nov 11th is Veteran's Day US and Remembrance Day CA, though usually these are still work days

15:09:05 <JohnArwe> Probably want to shift that 1 week later.

Probably want to shift that 1 week later.

15:09:28 <JohnArwe> topic: Tracking of issues & actions

2. Tracking of issues & actions

15:09:40 <JohnArwe> none pending review

none pending review

15:10:30 <JohnArwe> action-83?

ACTION-83?

15:10:30 <trackbot> action-83 -- Roger Menday to Ensure ISSUE-62 is addressed in Primer or Best Practices & Guidelines doc -- due 2013-06-27 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-83 -- Roger Menday to Ensure ISSUE-62 is addressed in Primer or Best Practices & Guidelines doc -- due 2013-06-27 -- OPEN

15:10:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/83

15:11:05 <JohnArwe> action-104?

ACTION-104?

15:11:05 <trackbot> action-104 -- Roger Menday to Review the Use Cases section of the document -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-104 -- Roger Menday to Review the Use Cases section of the document -- due 2013-03-21 -- OPEN

15:11:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/104

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/104

15:11:29 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

15:11:29 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

15:11:30 <JohnArwe> action-77?

ACTION-77?

15:11:30 <trackbot> action-77 -- Ted Thibodeau to Review and comment the WG Access Control draft at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl -- due 2013-07-18 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-77 -- Ted Thibodeau to Review and comment the WG Access Control draft at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl -- due 2013-07-18 -- OPEN

15:11:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/77

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/77

15:11:53 <stevebattle7> Steve reminds Roger about action 104 :)

Steve Battle: Steve reminds Roger about ACTION-104 :)

15:12:33 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:12:33 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

15:13:00 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposals regarding Paging & 209 vs 200

3. Proposals regarding Paging & 209 vs 200

15:14:54 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: TimBL comment - did not like 303 for server-initiated paging, avoid extra round trip, create new status code for that (we ended up on 209).  David Wood polled Mark Baker, who suggested using 200.  Arwe discussed with Erik Wilde, who said same thing.  While it seemed unnatural to some of us at first, the REST/HTTP expert feedback is that 200 is fine.

Arnaud Le Hors: TimBL comment - did not like 303 for server-initiated paging, avoid extra round trip, create new status code for that (we ended up on 209). David Wood polled Mark Baker, who suggested using 200. Arwe discussed with Erik Wilde, who said same thing. While it seemed unnatural to some of us at first, the REST/HTTP expert feedback is that 200 is fine.

15:15:43 <JohnArwe> ...TimBL interested in doing this for all, not just LDP.  LDP could take advantage of it.  Defining 209 now would make LDP dependent on getting an RFC done.

...TimBL interested in doing this for all, not just LDP. LDP could take advantage of it. Defining 209 now would make LDP dependent on getting an RFC done.

15:16:14 <JohnArwe> Proposal: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.

PROPOSED: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.

15:16:47 <JohnArwe> Arwe: FWIW a client would also see a link header with type=ldp:Page (this is already in LDP, has been for months)

John Arwe: FWIW a client would also see a link header with type=ldp:Page (this is already in LDP, has been for months)

15:18:06 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: take advantage of the new code in LDP once it's defined, but for now use 200 and pursue the new code separately.

Arnaud Le Hors: take advantage of the new code in LDP once it's defined, but for now use 200 and pursue the new code separately.

15:18:23 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:18:27 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

15:18:40 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

15:18:42 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

15:18:44 <stevebattle7> +1

Steve Battle: +1

15:19:01 <TallTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:19:10 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here?

15:19:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, stevebattle7, Roger, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, stevebattle7, Roger, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe

15:19:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, roger, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle7, SteveS, TallTed, bhyland, jmvanel, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, Yves, thschee, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, roger, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle7, SteveS, TallTed, bhyland, jmvanel, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, Yves, thschee, sandro, ericP

15:19:28 <JohnArwe> Resolved: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.

RESOLVED: Eliminate 303 and indicate that a client can learn it received a Page based on the existence of Link rel="next/prev" headers.

15:19:31 <sandro> +1 (based on what I see on IRC)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (based on what I see on IRC)

15:19:52 <JohnArwe> proposal: Launch an effort to define 209 as a separate IETF RFC that applies in general to 303s and that we can use in LDPnext

PROPOSED: Launch an effort to define 209 as a separate IETF RFC that applies in general to 303s and that we can use in LDPnext

15:20:12 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

15:20:31 <Arnaud> ack steveS

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveS

15:21:47 <stevebattle7> 0

Steve Battle: 0

15:22:19 <TallTed> +0.1

Ted Thibodeau: +0.1

15:22:24 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:22:29 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP

15:22:29 <JohnArwe> +0

+0

15:22:48 <JohnArwe> (good for the community, but not strictly needed for LDP)

(good for the community, but not strictly needed for LDP)

15:23:15 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP

15:23:21 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP

15:26:27 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

15:26:27 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

15:27:49 <JohnArwe> EricP: why not make 209 at risk, and then remove at CR/PR transition if no one has agreed to do it?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: why not make 209 at risk, and then remove at CR/PR transition if no one has agreed to do it?

15:28:29 <JohnArwe> ...discussion, several expressing preferences against it.

...discussion, several expressing preferences against it.

15:28:48 <JohnArwe> Ted asks EricP for concrete proposal.

Ted asks EricP for concrete proposal.

15:29:43 <JohnArwe> EricP: it's 2 chars, 200 vs 209.  could also say in spec that server can use either, and mark just the 209 at risk

Eric Prud'hommeaux: it's 2 chars, 200 vs 209. could also say in spec that server can use either, and mark just the 209 at risk

15:29:56 <JohnArwe> ... trying to avoid future objections late in the process

... trying to avoid future objections late in the process

15:30:25 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: want to set expectations realistically

Arnaud Le Hors: want to set expectations realistically

15:31:06 <JohnArwe> Insufficient consensus to call 10:21 proposal resolved.

Insufficient consensus to call 10:21 proposal resolved.

15:32:01 <JohnArwe> Ashok: what harm in starting effort to add 209?

Ashok Malhotra: what harm in starting effort to add 209?

<JohnArwe> Arnaud: down-side is the effort.

Arnaud Le Hors: down-side is the effort.

15:32:39 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if the state is that everybody's happy to support it if Someone Else defines it, it won't happen.

Arnaud Le Hors: if the state is that everybody's happy to support it if Someone Else defines it, it won't happen.

15:34:08 <JohnArwe> Ashok: would Erik Wilde do it?

Ashok Malhotra: would Erik Wilde do it?

<JohnArwe> Arwe: he told me he could draft 303-replacement text *if the wg wanted him to*, but he could not draft 200-replacement text on his own.

John Arwe: he told me he could draft 303-replacement text *if the wg wanted him to*, but he could not draft 200-replacement text on his own.

15:34:14 <JohnArwe>  Net: unresolved

Net: unresolved

15:34:20 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposal regarding PUT create

4. Proposal regarding PUT create

15:36:27 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: TimBL wanted a MUST, then upon further discussion he ack'd it would not work in general and that snowballed into how to advertise the URI space where clients can expect PUT-create to work.  We don't have enough experience to solve this problem; in ideal world we'd take the time, figure it out, and spec it, but the WG has a timeline in the charter and we cannot take the time in this version.  I'm saying

Arnaud Le Hors: TimBL wanted a MUST, then upon further discussion he ack'd it would not work in general and that snowballed into how to advertise the URI space where clients can expect PUT-create to work. We don't have enough experience to solve this problem; in ideal world we'd take the time, figure it out, and spec it, but the WG has a timeline in the charter and we cannot take the time in this version. I'm saying

15:36:27 <JohnArwe> ... let's move on and we can improve it in next version.

... let's move on and we can improve it in next version.

15:36:42 <JohnArwe> proposed: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.

PROPOSED: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.

15:36:48 <stevebattle7> +1

Steve Battle: +1

15:36:50 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:36:51 <roger_> +1

Roger Menday: +1

15:36:55 <ericP> +0

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0

15:37:00 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

15:37:10 <TallTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:37:33 <JohnArwe> resolved: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.

RESOLVED: Leave spec unchanged - "servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT" - and defer how servers can advertise this to post LDP 1.0 until we get more feedback on best practices.

15:37:49 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: ldp:container

5. Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part I: ldp:container

15:38:53 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: last week we noted that proposal uses both ldp:container and ldp:Container => confusing.  we could not get coherent proposals on the call, so I created one.

Arnaud Le Hors: last week we noted that proposal uses both ldp:container and ldp:Container => confusing. we could not get coherent proposals on the call, so I created one.

15:39:12 <JohnArwe> proposed: Change ldp:container to ldp:containingResource.

PROPOSED: Change ldp:container to ldp:containingResource.

15:39:38 <JohnArwe> ... or propose alternative now if you have better one.  This seems good enough to me.

... or propose alternative now if you have better one. This seems good enough to me.

15:40:07 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:40:08 <stevebattle7> q+

Steve Battle: q+

15:40:12 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:40:14 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle7

Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle7

15:40:19 <JohnArwe> ericp: usually when this case occurs, the predicate's range is the like-named class.  that is not true here, so will be more confusing than normal.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: usually when this case occurs, the predicate's range is the like-named class. that is not true here, so will be more confusing than normal.

15:40:44 <JohnArwe> steveb: like where you're going; how about ...erResource instead of ...ing

Steve Battle: like where you're going; how about ...erResource instead of ...ing

15:41:05 <JohnArwe> for me, either is fine

for me, either is fine

15:41:07 <roger_> +1 to ...er

Roger Menday: +1 to ...er

15:41:20 <SteveS> I prefer ..ing

Steve Speicher: I prefer ..ing

15:41:22 <JohnArwe> proposed: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.

PROPOSED: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.

15:41:35 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:42:15 <JohnArwe> SteveS: "ing" reads better in a sentence.  SteveB: reads like "resource it contains" too.

Steve Speicher: "ing" reads better in a sentence. SteveB: reads like "resource it contains" too.

15:42:24 <stevebattle7> +1

Steve Battle: +1

15:42:33 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

15:42:43 <Ashok> +0.5

Ashok Malhotra: +0.5

15:43:06 <roger_> +0.5

Roger Menday: +0.5

15:43:16 <TallTed> +0.5  containerResource  because confusion persists

Ted Thibodeau: +0.5 containerResource because confusion persists

15:43:24 <SteveS> +0.4

Steve Speicher: +0.4

15:43:57 <JohnArwe> Resolved: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.

RESOLVED: Change ldp:container to ldp:containerResource.

15:44:17 <JohnArwe> Still open to future proposals if someone is struck on the head by an apple.

Still open to future proposals if someone is struck on the head by an apple.

15:44:32 <JohnArwe> topic: Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple

6. Proposal regarding ISSUE-81 Part II: Keeping the simple case simple

15:44:49 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: wishing Henry was here, he has expressed strong opinions on this in past.

Arnaud Le Hors: wishing Henry was here, he has expressed strong opinions on this in past.

15:46:03 <JohnArwe> ...SteveS suggested we address this after renaming settled.  With all the new predicates, the simple case now looks "not so simple".  We made things mandatory rather than introducing non-monotonic behavior, but it's pretty ugly.

...SteveS suggested we address this after renaming settled. With all the new predicates, the simple case now looks "not so simple". We made things mandatory rather than introducing non-monotonic behavior, but it's pretty ugly.

15:46:16 <JohnArwe> Proposed: Make ldp:insertContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject

PROPOSED: Make ldp:insertContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject

15:48:11 <JohnArwe> SteveS: this affects how membership triples are defined when members are added.  a client would need to fetch it from non-member properties of the container in order to use it; no monotonicity issue there.  If admin changes things, expectation is that server would do the right thing and keep the representations coherent.

Steve Speicher: this affects how membership triples are defined when members are added. a client would need to fetch it from non-member properties of the container in order to use it; no monotonicity issue there. If admin changes things, expectation is that server would do the right thing and keep the representations coherent.

15:49:06 <JohnArwe> ...don't think it making it optional introduces any new issues.  In my usage for example, I never need it.

...don't think it making it optional introduces any new issues. In my usage for example, I never need it.

15:49:30 <stevebattle7> q+

Steve Battle: q+

15:49:30 <JohnArwe> Amended proposal (fix pred name): Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject

Amended proposal (fix pred name): Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MembershipSubject

15:50:29 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle

Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle

15:51:00 <SteveS> Note the name is ldp:MemberSubject and don't think we are suggesting a new one here

Steve Speicher: Note the name is ldp:MemberSubject and don't think we are suggesting a new one here

15:51:03 <JohnArwe> Ericp: if A sends to B this predicate, and intermediary strips it out, does B do the right thing?  that's the easy monotonicity test.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: if A sends to B this predicate, and intermediary strips it out, does B do the right thing? that's the easy monotonicity test.

15:51:49 <JohnArwe> SteveB: go whole hog and fix it; cannot change it.  get rid of it altogether.

Steve Battle: go whole hog and fix it; cannot change it. get rid of it altogether.

15:52:47 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: zaza the cat example wants the member URI to be zaza's, not the uri of the document describing her.  that's where it came from.

Arnaud Le Hors: zaza the cat example wants the member URI to be zaza's, not the uri of the document describing her. that's where it came from.

15:53:12 <JohnArwe> ...Roger was a big motivator for this case.

...Roger was a big motivator for this case.

15:56:04 <JohnArwe> EricP: working through his A/B case, decides this is not an issue.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: working through his A/B case, decides this is not an issue.

15:57:30 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: let's vote; if need more time, feel free to -1 and ask for a week

Arnaud Le Hors: let's vote; if need more time, feel free to -1 and ask for a week

15:58:06 <Arnaud> Proposed: Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject

PROPOSED: Make ldp:insertedContentRelation optional, default is ldp:MemberSubject

15:58:24 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

15:58:41 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

15:58:45 <ericP> +0

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0

15:58:57 <TallTed> +0

Ted Thibodeau: +0

15:59:03 <Ashok> +0

Ashok Malhotra: +0

15:59:07 <stevebattle7> -1 : I'm not comfortable (I would still ditch the option completely)

Steve Battle: -1 : I'm not comfortable (I would still ditch the option completely)

15:59:26 <roger_> +1 I believe all the monotonicity experts

Roger Menday: +1 I believe all the monotonicity experts

16:00:08 <stevebattle7> I'll try for next week then

Steve Battle: I'll try for next week then

16:00:21 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: SteveB, please explain to people your position

Arnaud Le Hors: SteveB, please explain to people your position

<JohnArwe> topic: ISSUE-81 Part I bis: ldp:membershipRule

7. ISSUE-81 Part I bis: ldp:membershipRule

16:01:02 <JohnArwe> arnaud: Will hold this until next time

Arnaud Le Hors: Will hold this until next time

<JohnArwe> topic: Status of disposition of Last Call comments

8. Status of disposition of Last Call comments

16:01:28 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: encourage editors to contact commenters with proposed resolutions to be sure they're ok with the changes

Arnaud Le Hors: encourage editors to contact commenters with proposed resolutions to be sure they're ok with the changes

16:01:28 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra

16:01:41 <JohnArwe> run away!

run away!

16:02:10 <JohnArwe> ericp: how many people expect to submit implementations for CR exit?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: how many people expect to submit implementations for CR exit?

16:02:21 <JohnArwe>  min: 2 impls supporting every feature.

min: 2 impls supporting every feature.

16:02:36 <JohnArwe> more convincing: large # of commercial and academic impls

more convincing: large # of commercial and academic impls

16:04:57 <JohnArwe> adjourned

adjourned

16:05:07 <Zakim> -stevebattle7

Zakim IRC Bot: -stevebattle7

16:05:23 <Zakim> -SteveS

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS

16:09:57 <SteveS> Maybe we put on agenda next week to get an update on http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations

Steve Speicher: Maybe we put on agenda next week to get an update on http://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations

16:12:10 <Zakim> -JohnArwe

Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe

16:40:54 <Zakim> -Roger

(No events recorded for 28 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger

16:40:55 <Zakim> -TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed

16:40:55 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

16:40:57 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP

16:40:57 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended

16:40:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, Roger, stevebattle7, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, Roger, stevebattle7, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, EricP



Formatted by CommonScribe