14:59:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-irc ←
14:59:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:59:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:59:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started ←
14:59:49 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:59:49 <trackbot> Date: 13 January 2014
15:00:29 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:00:50 <Zakim> +TimBL
Zakim IRC Bot: +TimBL ←
15:01:00 <betehess> Zakim, TimBL is Alexandre
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, TimBL is Alexandre ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> +Alexandre; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre; got it ←
15:01:04 <codyburleson> +CodyB
Cody Burleson: +CodyB ←
15:01:14 <betehess> Zakim, Alexandre also has Andrei
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, Alexandre also has Andrei ←
15:01:14 <Zakim> +Andrei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Andrei; got it ←
15:01:55 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:01:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], Arnaud, Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller], Arnaud, Alexandre ←
15:01:56 <Zakim> Alexandre has Alexandre, Andrei
Zakim IRC Bot: Alexandre has Alexandre, Andrei ←
15:02:35 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:02:40 <codyburleson> zakim, IPCaller is me
Cody Burleson: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:02:40 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
15:02:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:03:07 <SteveS> zakim, ibm is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, ibm is me ←
15:03:07 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:03:08 <Zakim> +Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: +Roger ←
15:03:53 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle ←
15:04:36 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:04:58 <ericP> i am
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i am ←
15:04:58 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
15:05:37 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:06:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:06:49 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:06:49 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:08:21 <TallTed> scribenick: TallTed
(Scribe set to Ted Thibodeau)
<TallTed> chair: Arnaud
<TallTed> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.01.13
<TallTed> topic: Admin
15:09:42 <TallTed> Proposed: Approve the minutes of the January 6 teleconf, http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-06
PROPOSED: Approve the minutes of the January 6 teleconf, http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-06 ←
15:10:52 <TallTed> RESOLVED: without objection Approve the minutes of the January 6 teleconf, http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-06
RESOLVED: without objection Approve the minutes of the January 6 teleconf, http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-01-06 ←
15:11:42 <sandro> regrets from me, holiday
Sandro Hawke: regrets from me, holiday ←
15:12:50 <betehess> can we try to move it exceptionally on Tuesday or another day?
Alexandre Bertails: can we try to move it exceptionally on Tuesday or another day? ←
15:13:03 <Arnaud> strawpoll: meeting on 1/20?
STRAWPOLL: meeting on 1/20? ←
15:13:03 <Ashok> regrets, vacation
Ashok Malhotra: regrets, vacation ←
15:13:04 <betehess> let's set up a Doodle
Alexandre Bertails: let's set up a Doodle ←
15:13:14 <ericP> present
Eric Prud'hommeaux: present ←
15:13:17 <betehess> present
Alexandre Bertails: present ←
15:13:17 <TallTed> regrets
regrets ←
15:13:17 <JohnArwe> I'll be here
15:13:23 <stevebattle14> present
Steve Battle: present ←
15:13:23 <SteveS> regrets
Steve Speicher: regrets ←
15:13:26 <roger> i can make it
Roger Menday: i can make it ←
15:13:30 <codyburleson> present
Cody Burleson: present ←
<TallTed> Arnaud: ok, we'll hold a meeting and see what we can do
Arnaud Le Hors: ok, we'll hold a meeting and see what we can do ←
15:14:13 <TallTed> TOPIC: Tracking of action items
15:17:11 <sandro> action-118?
15:17:12 <trackbot> action-118 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location -- due 2013-12-23 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-118 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Report to timbl: some pref for reverting to 303, 200+header still on the table, henry considering 200+location -- due 2013-12-23 -- OPEN ←
15:17:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/118
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/118 ←
15:17:58 <TallTed> Arnaud: question to ericP about status of action-118
Arnaud Le Hors: question to ericP about status of ACTION-118 ←
15:18:23 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
15:18:31 <TallTed> ericP: thinks the action has been taken...
Eric Prud'hommeaux: thinks the action has been taken... ←
15:19:17 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P21 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P21 is me ←
15:19:17 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
15:19:24 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
15:19:24 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
<TallTed> topic: Paging
15:19:53 <TallTed> Arnaud: TAG discussion seems now to be clearly focused on 20x/30x as combination of 303+200, rather than a paging-specific question
Arnaud Le Hors: TAG discussion seems now to be clearly focused on 20x/30x as combination of 303+200, rather than a paging-specific question ←
15:20:31 <TallTed> ericP: does anyone have a toolchain that will fail if TAG goes with 30x instead of 20x?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: does anyone have a toolchain that will fail if TAG goes with 30x instead of 20x? ←
15:22:56 <TallTed> Arnaud: how does TimBL seem to feel about us falling back to 303 until/unless this new code comes?
Arnaud Le Hors: how does TimBL seem to feel about us falling back to 303 until/unless this new code comes? ←
15:24:17 <TallTed> ericP: last recalled proposition was that we write in that the new code is preferred, but this is at risk, and failing the new code's availability, 303 will be used
Eric Prud'hommeaux: last recalled proposition was that we write in that the new code is preferred, but this is at risk, and failing the new code's availability, 303 will be used ←
15:25:21 <ericP> PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-118 by adding At-risk text saying we'd use the TAG's new [23]xx code, and, if that code is not sufficiently through IETF process by CR, we will use a 303
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-118 by adding At-risk text saying we'd use the TAG's new [23]xx code, and, if that code is not sufficiently through IETF process by CR, we will use a 303 ←
15:25:41 <ericP> PROPOSED: resolve issue around ACTION-118 by adding At-risk text saying we'd use the TAG's new [23]xx code, and, if that code is not sufficiently through IETF process by CR, we will use a 303
PROPOSED: resolve issue around ACTION-118 by adding At-risk text saying we'd use the TAG's new [23]xx code, and, if that code is not sufficiently through IETF process by CR, we will use a 303 ←
15:26:11 <JohnArwe> +1
15:26:32 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:26:50 <stevebattle14> Why [23]XX ?
Steve Battle: Why [23]XX ? ←
15:27:15 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:27:20 <JohnArwe> TAG is debating 2xx vs 3xx merits
John Arwe: TAG is debating 2xx vs 3xx merits ←
15:27:20 <TallTed> +0.5
+0.5 ←
15:27:40 <SteveS> +1 (though, we won't prohibit 303..so still an option)
Steve Speicher: +1 (though, we won't prohibit 303..so still an option) ←
15:27:46 <stevebattle14> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
15:27:52 <nmihindu> +0 didn't follow the discussion in detail
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +0 didn't follow the discussion in detail ←
15:28:05 <deiu> +0 (same as above)
Andrei Sambra: +0 (same as above) ←
15:29:18 <betehess> +0
Alexandre Bertails: +0 ←
15:30:09 <betehess> sounds important: is that possible to get a more detailed proposal by email with the motivations, and then we vote later?
Alexandre Bertails: sounds important: is that possible to get a more detailed proposal by email with the motivations, and then we vote later? ←
15:30:56 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#http-get-1
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#http-get-1 ←
15:31:13 <SteveS> Per John's earlier question, 20130307 draft had 303 as a SHOULD
Steve Speicher: Per John's earlier question, 20130307 draft had 303 as a SHOULD ←
15:33:01 <JohnArwe> I neither see nor remember and LDP requirement on clients "handling" any particular status code - we get any reqts there via the "LDP clients are HTTP clients" normative reference
John Arwe: I neither see nor remember and LDP requirement on clients "handling" any particular status code - we get any reqts there via the "LDP clients are HTTP clients" normative reference ←
15:33:16 <JohnArwe> +1 to TallTed
15:36:27 <TallTed> RESOLVED: resolve issue around ACTION-118 by adding At-risk text saying we'd use the TAG's new [23]xx code, and, if that code is not sufficiently through IETF process by CR, we will use a 303
RESOLVED: resolve issue around ACTION-118 by adding At-risk text saying we'd use the TAG's new [23]xx code, and, if that code is not sufficiently through IETF process by CR, we will use a 303 ←
15:37:27 <TallTed> Arnaud: so, is action-118 closeable, or do we need it open for tracking TAG?
Arnaud Le Hors: so, is ACTION-118 closeable, or do we need it open for tracking TAG? ←
15:39:39 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-92 - Interaction Model
15:39:42 <TallTed> issue-92?
15:39:42 <trackbot> issue-92 -- Change rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-92 -- Change rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model -- open ←
15:39:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/92 ←
15:41:35 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:41:42 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by changing rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-92 by changing rel=type to rel=profile for client introspection of interaction model ←
15:41:44 <bblfish> ¡hi sorry I am late
Henry Story: ¡hi sorry I am late ←
15:41:50 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:41:52 <TallTed> +1
+1 ←
15:41:52 <bblfish> -1
Henry Story: -1 ←
15:41:53 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:42:00 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:42:07 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:42:10 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:42:15 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:42:16 <JohnArwe> +1
15:42:18 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:42:57 <TallTed> Arnaud: Q to bblfish, what's the basis of objection?
Arnaud Le Hors: Q to bblfish, what's the basis of objection? ←
15:43:36 <TallTed> bblfish: @profile is more syntactic, limits the types of documents
Henry Story: @profile is more syntactic, limits the types of documents ←
15:44:23 <bblfish> profile is better for validation
Henry Story: profile is better for validation ←
15:44:32 <TallTed> bblfish: there's no real argument "for", so we should preserve @profile for future use, e.g., validation
Henry Story: there's no real argument "for", so we should preserve @profile for future use, e.g., validation ←
15:44:59 <stevebattle14> 0
Steve Battle: 0 ←
15:45:03 <betehess> I don't think rel=profile has to be unique
Alexandre Bertails: I don't think rel=profile has to be unique ←
15:45:09 <ericP> bblfish, you mean something like http://localhost/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/GenX/schema.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-pass-date.ttl&colorize=1 , right?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, you mean something like http://localhost/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/GenX/schema.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-pass-date.ttl&colorize=1 , right? ←
15:45:17 <JohnArwe> what prevents rel=profile being used for both?
John Arwe: what prevents rel=profile being used for both? ←
15:45:22 <ericP> sorry http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/GenX/schema.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-pass-date.ttl&colorize=1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: sorry http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/GenX/schema.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-pass-date.ttl&colorize=1 ←
15:45:23 <betehess> exactly
Alexandre Bertails: exactly ←
15:46:10 <betehess> http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6906
Alexandre Bertails: http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6906 ←
15:46:14 <JohnArwe> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
John Arwe: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml ←
15:46:27 <betehess> http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6906 says precisely "one or more profiles"
Alexandre Bertails: http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6906 says precisely "one or more profiles" ←
15:46:39 <TallTed> JohnArwe: the definition of @type doesn't fit our usage, as seen from the IANA link registry
John Arwe: the definition of @type doesn't fit our usage, as seen from the IANA link registry ←
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> 6. "type"
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> The "type" link relation can be used to indicate that the context
John Arwe: The "type" link relation can be used to indicate that the context ←
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> resource is an instance of the resource identified by the target
John Arwe: resource is an instance of the resource identified by the target ←
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI).
John Arwe: Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI). ←
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> Content-Type: text/plain
John Arwe: Content-Type: text/plain ←
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> Link: <http://example.org/Person/givenName>; rel="type"
John Arwe: Link: <http://example.org/Person/givenName>; rel="type" ←
15:46:49 <JohnArwe> Sally
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> When used within the header of an HTTP message, the type specified by
John Arwe: When used within the header of an HTTP message, the type specified by ←
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> the "type" link relation cannot be confused with the content type of
John Arwe: the "type" link relation cannot be confused with the content type of ←
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> the payload as given by the Content-Type header. The "type" link
John Arwe: the payload as given by the Content-Type header. The "type" link ←
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> relation references the payload's abstract semantic type, whereas the
John Arwe: relation references the payload's abstract semantic type, whereas the ←
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> Content-Type header identifies the specific serialization format of
John Arwe: Content-Type header identifies the specific serialization format of ←
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> the payload.
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> If the context can be considered to be an instance of multiple
John Arwe: If the context can be considered to be an instance of multiple ←
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> semantic types, multiple "type" link relations can be used.
John Arwe: semantic types, multiple "type" link relations can be used. ←
15:48:10 <TallTed> Arnaud: we've shifted from conveying "this is an LDPC/R" to "this is the kind of interaction you can have"
Arnaud Le Hors: we've shifted from conveying "this is an LDPC/R" to "this is the kind of interaction you can have" ←
15:49:32 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906 = rel=profile
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906 = rel=profile ←
15:51:07 <betehess> henry, what if we said that the statement was true only and only if you find the rel=profile with a ldpc value?
Alexandre Bertails: henry, what if we said that the statement was true only and only if you find the rel=profile with a ldpc value? ←
15:52:30 <JohnArwe> Question about Henry's clay-tablet example (or foaf:Person, another fav). if you know something is-a clay tablet (person), I don't think you KNOW anything about its interaction model - I cannot write (Henry's example, pen/paper) on a conceptual tablet.
John Arwe: Question about Henry's clay-tablet example (or foaf:Person, another fav). if you know something is-a clay tablet (person), I don't think you KNOW anything about its interaction model - I cannot write (Henry's example, pen/paper) on a conceptual tablet. ←
15:53:11 <TallTed> TallTed: the RFC says multiple (interaction) @profiles may exist for a single (document/resource) @type
Ted Thibodeau: the RFC says multiple (interaction) @profiles may exist for a single (document/resource) @type ←
15:53:35 <betehess> well to be fair, RDF Semantics leaves the trueness of the statement up to some Interpretation function I. So it's easy to make the statement false if rel=profile is not given
Alexandre Bertails: well to be fair, RDF Semantics leaves the trueness of the statement up to some Interpretation function I. So it's easy to make the statement false if rel=profile is not given ←
15:54:26 <JohnArwe> I think a more carefully worded version might be: something whose reprsentation == the representation of an LDPC, but that does not "interact like" a LDPC.
John Arwe: I think a more carefully worded version might be: something whose reprsentation == the representation of an LDPC, but that does not "interact like" a LDPC. ←
15:54:58 <SteveS> I agree that interaction can be inferred from the type, though there are cases when it needs to be overwritten.
Steve Speicher: I agree that interaction can be inferred from the type, though there are cases when it needs to be overwritten. ←
15:55:40 <ericP> bblfish, i'd expect that { <x> a :Issue ; :submittedBy <Bob> . <Bob> a :Person ; foaf:name "Bob" . } would be type=IssueDoc, profile=LDP-editable-resource
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, i'd expect that { <x> a :Issue ; :submittedBy <Bob> . <Bob> a :Person ; foaf:name "Bob" . } would be type=IssueDoc, profile=LDP-editable-resource ←
15:56:14 <ericP> q+ to talk to the above
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to talk to the above ←
15:56:59 <Arnaud> ack ericP
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ericP ←
15:57:00 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to talk to the above
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to talk to the above ←
15:59:40 <TallTed> from RFC 6906 -- [[ ... The objective of profiles is that they allow instances to clearly
from RFC 6906 -- [[ ... The objective of profiles is that they allow instances to clearly ←
15:59:40 <TallTed> identify what kind of mechanism they are using for expressing
identify what kind of mechanism they are using for expressing ←
15:59:40 <TallTed> additional semantics, should they follow a well-defined framework for
additional semantics, should they follow a well-defined framework for ←
15:59:40 <TallTed> doing so (see Section 5 for examples). While this allows servers and
doing so (see Section 5 for examples). While this allows servers and ←
15:59:41 <TallTed> clients to represent the use of profiles, it does not make the
clients to represent the use of profiles, it does not make the ←
15:59:41 <TallTed> profile information visible outside of the representation itself, if
profile information visible outside of the representation itself, if ←
15:59:43 <TallTed> the representation is using embedded typed links. For newly defined ...]]
the representation is using embedded typed links. For newly defined ...]] ←
16:00:04 <SteveS> seems like we are not discussing this issue but trying to reopen/solve another already closed issue, instead the issue at hand is if we should use rel='profile' or create a rel='ldp interaction model'
Steve Speicher: seems like we are not discussing this issue but trying to reopen/solve another already closed issue, instead the issue at hand is if we should use rel='profile' or create a rel='ldp interaction model' ←
16:00:09 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
16:00:51 <TallTed> [[Abstract
[[Abstract ←
16:00:51 <TallTed> This specification defines the 'profile' link relation type that
This specification defines the 'profile' link relation type that ←
16:00:51 <TallTed> allows resource representations to indicate that they are following
allows resource representations to indicate that they are following ←
16:00:52 <TallTed> one or more profiles. A profile is defined not to alter the
one or more profiles. A profile is defined not to alter the ←
16:00:52 <TallTed> semantics of the resource representation itself, but to allow clients
semantics of the resource representation itself, but to allow clients ←
16:00:52 <TallTed> to learn about additional semantics (constraints, conventions,
to learn about additional semantics (constraints, conventions, ←
16:00:54 <TallTed> extensions) that are associated with the resource representation, in
extensions) that are associated with the resource representation, in ←
16:00:56 <TallTed> addition to those defined by the media type and possibly other
addition to those defined by the media type and possibly other ←
16:00:58 <TallTed> mechanisms.]]
mechanisms.]] ←
16:01:23 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
16:01:25 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
16:03:00 <TallTed> [...discussion...] Erik Wilde indicated that profile was viable, but we could also choose to define our own relation
[...discussion...] Erik Wilde indicated that profile was viable, but we could also choose to define our own relation ←
16:03:59 <TallTed> Arnaud: summarizing henry's objection -- (1) using profile removes it from later use; (2) we should define our own relation
Arnaud Le Hors: summarizing henry's objection -- (1) using profile removes it from later use; (2) don't see any reason for change ←
16:04:44 <JohnArwe> I don't think (2) was henry's objection; his (2) sounds like "why the need for change"
John Arwe: I don't think (2) was henry's objection; his (2) sounds like "why the need for change" ←
16:05:06 <TallTed> bblfish: I need to carefully study profile and type; I didn't expect such support for profile
Henry Story: I need to carefully study profile and type; I didn't expect such support for profile ←
16:05:08 <JohnArwe> defining our own relation was an option arnaud reiterated from my email
John Arwe: defining our own relation was an option arnaud reiterated from my email ←
16:05:11 <SteveS> That with discussed in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/91
Steve Speicher: That with discussed in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/91 ←
16:05:28 <betehess> it's duck typing, the other way :-)
Alexandre Bertails: it's duck typing, the other way :-) ←
16:05:38 <TallTed> s/ (2) we should define our own relation/ (2) don't see any reason for change/
16:06:37 <ericP> one can create types for every permutation of properties but tye are mostly vapid
Eric Prud'hommeaux: one can create types for every permutation of properties but they are mostly vapid ←
16:06:50 <ericP> s/tye/they/
16:07:23 <TallTed> q?
q? ←
16:07:43 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
16:07:44 <ericP> diff files have one media type and multiple interactions. i'd not want to characterize every utterance of the same diff file as a different "type"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: diff files have one media type and multiple interactions. i'd not want to characterize every utterance of the same diff file as a different "type" ←
16:08:22 <bblfish> q+ for what Sandro
Henry Story: q+ for what Sandro ←
16:08:35 <ericP> sandro, does the file change type when you archive it?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: sandro, does the file change type when you archive it? ←
16:09:09 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:09:09 <Zakim> bblfish, you wanted to discuss what Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: bblfish, you wanted to discuss what Sandro ←
16:09:44 <betehess> but what if the application data, set by the user, sets rdf:type of ldpc when it is a simple LDPR?
Alexandre Bertails: but what if the application data, set by the user, sets rdf:type of ldpc when it is a simple LDPR? ←
16:10:41 <bblfish> I'll read up it
Henry Story: I'll read up it ←
16:11:12 <TallTed> Arnaud: we'll table it for this week, and aim for closure next time
Arnaud Le Hors: we'll table it for this week, and aim for closure next time ←
16:11:22 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-89 - Managed Resources
16:11:23 <JohnArwe> my observation is simply that (following my nose and reading the spec), rel=type only "references the payload's abstract semantic type" ... nothing in 6903 (defines rel=type) says anything about interaction model.
John Arwe: my observation is simply that (following my nose and reading the spec), rel=type only "references the payload's abstract semantic type" ... nothing in 6903 (defines rel=type) says anything about interaction model. ←
16:11:26 <TallTed> issue-89?
16:11:26 <trackbot> issue-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-89 -- Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources -- open ←
16:11:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89 ←
16:12:35 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-89 is probably a more useful link ... adding that to issue shortly
John Arwe: ISSUE-89">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-89 is probably a more useful link ... adding that to issue shortly ←
16:15:52 <ericP> +1 to using the term "Document" in at least our documentation to refer to info resources
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to using the term "Document" in at least our documentation to refer to info resources ←
16:16:21 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:17:31 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0043.html
Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0043.html ←
16:17:47 <betehess> question is more like Simple vs Direct
Alexandre Bertails: question is more like Simple vs Direct ←
16:18:00 <betehess> also in my opinion, handling the doubling should only be an optimization
Alexandre Bertails: also in my opinion, handling the doubling should only be an optimization ←
16:18:41 <betehess> please, no inferencing client side........
Alexandre Bertails: please, no inferencing client side........ ←
16:18:42 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT { ?subject ldp:contains ?ldpr }
Henry Story: CONSTRUCT { ?subject ldp:contains ?ldpr } ←
16:18:42 <bblfish> WHERE{
Henry Story: WHERE{ ←
16:18:42 <bblfish> { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
16:18:44 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?subject;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?subject; ←
16:18:46 <bblfish> ldp:containsRelation ?predicate.
Henry Story: ldp:containsRelation ?predicate. ←
16:18:48 <bblfish> ?subject ?predicate ?ldpr.
Henry Story: ?subject ?predicate ?ldpr. ←
16:18:50 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:18:52 <bblfish> UNION
Henry Story: UNION ←
16:18:54 <bblfish> {
Henry Story: { ←
16:18:56 <bblfish> ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
16:18:58 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?object;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?object; ←
16:19:00 <bblfish> ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate.
Henry Story: ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate. ←
16:19:02 <bblfish> ?ldpr ?predicate ?object .
Henry Story: ?ldpr ?predicate ?object . ←
16:19:04 <ericP> re: inferencing, the question is upon whom you place the burden of performing inference
Reza B'Far: inferencing, the question is upon whom you place the burden of performing inference [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
16:19:04 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:19:06 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:19:18 <JohnArwe> 4.2.11 LDP servers MUST NOT require LDP clients to implement inferencing in order to recognize the subset of content defined by LDP. Other specifications built on top of LDP may require clients to implement inferencing [RDF-CONCEPTS]. The practical implication is that all content defined by LDP must be explicitly represented.
John Arwe: 4.2.11 LDP servers MUST NOT require LDP clients to implement inferencing in order to recognize the subset of content defined by LDP. Other specifications built on top of LDP may require clients to implement inferencing [RDF-CONCEPTS]. The practical implication is that all content defined by LDP must be explicitly represented. ←
16:21:32 <JohnArwe> @TallTed, can you give example(s) of places in LDP today that require client inferencing?
John Arwe: @TallTed, can you give example(s) of places in LDP today that require client inferencing? ←
16:21:39 <betehess> the protocol if the containment triples are not there by default, then you can't easily write invariants for the LDP protocol/interaction model
Alexandre Bertails: the protocol if the containment triples are not there by default, then you can't easily write invariants for the LDP protocol/interaction model ←
16:21:53 <betehess> the *problem if the containment triples are not there by default, then you can't easily write invariants for the LDP protocol/interaction model
Alexandre Bertails: the *problem if the containment triples are not there by default, then you can't easily write invariants for the LDP protocol/interaction model ←
16:22:05 <TallTed> @JohnArwe - membershipPredicate (or whatever we're calling it this week)
@JohnArwe - membershipPredicate (or whatever we're calling it this week) ←
16:22:53 <bblfish> 4.2.11 seems to suggest that the current spec requires ldp:contains should be materialised
Henry Story: 4.2.11 seems to suggest that the current spec requires ldp:contains should be materialised ←
16:22:56 <bblfish> CONSTRUCT { ?subjet ?predicate ?object }
Henry Story: CONSTRUCT { ?subjet ?predicate ?object } ←
16:22:56 <bblfish> WHERE {
Henry Story: WHERE { ←
16:22:57 <bblfish> { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: { ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
16:22:59 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?subject;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?subject; ←
16:23:01 <bblfish> ldp:containsRelation ?predicate;
Henry Story: ldp:containsRelation ?predicate; ←
16:23:03 <bblfish> ldp:contains ?ldpr.
Henry Story: ldp:contains ?ldpr. ←
16:23:05 <bblfish> BIND (?ldpr AS ?object)
Henry Story: BIND (?ldpr AS ?object) ←
16:23:07 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:23:09 <bblfish> UNION
Henry Story: UNION ←
16:23:11 <bblfish> {
Henry Story: { ←
16:23:13 <bblfish> ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer;
Henry Story: ?ldpc a ldp:DirectContainer; ←
16:23:15 <bblfish> ldp:containerResource ?object;
Henry Story: ldp:containerResource ?object; ←
16:23:17 <bblfish> ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate;
Henry Story: ldp:containedByRelation ?predicate; ←
16:23:19 <bblfish> ldp:contains ?ldpr.
Henry Story: ldp:contains ?ldpr. ←
16:23:21 <bblfish> BIND (?ldpr AS ?subject)
Henry Story: BIND (?ldpr AS ?subject) ←
16:23:23 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:23:25 <bblfish> }
Henry Story: } ←
16:23:27 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:23:34 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:23:47 <TallTed> ericP: querying will not require client-side inferencing to interact with containers...
Eric Prud'hommeaux: querying will not require client-side inferencing to interact with containers... ←
16:23:57 <JohnArwe> @TallTed that family of predicates tells a client how to query over what they get back, not how to add new triples... no?
John Arwe: @TallTed that family of predicates tells a client how to query over what they get back, not how to add new triples... no? ←
16:24:25 <betehess> @ericP, tabulator not only consumes (read) but also interacts with write/update operations
Alexandre Bertails: @ericP, tabulator not only consumes (read) but also interacts with write/update operations ←
16:25:05 <JohnArwe> @bblfish: indeed that's why some of us (me at least) talk about doubling the representation size
John Arwe: @bblfish: indeed that's why some of us (me at least) talk about doubling the representation size ←
16:25:24 <ericP> @betehess, sure, but they can be coded in tabulator in 5 or 10 lines of code
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @betehess, sure, but they can be coded in tabulator in 5 or 10 lines of code ←
16:25:56 <TallTed> Arnaud: 4.2.11 was there to say "clients won't have to implement OWL-Full (or similar) to handle LDP", not to eliminate all inferencing entirely
Arnaud Le Hors: 4.2.11 was there to say "clients won't have to implement OWL-Full (or similar) to handle LDP", not to eliminate all inferencing entirely ←
16:26:07 <ericP> vs. if you had to teach every linked data user to extract and execute the SPARQL constructs that bblfish pasted.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: vs. if you had to teach every linked data user to extract and execute the SPARQL constructs that bblfish pasted. ←
16:26:33 <betehess> @ericP, for something so tied to interaction, I find it very weird to not make it returned by default
Alexandre Bertails: @ericP, for something so tied to interaction, I find it very weird to not make it returned by default ←
16:27:36 <ericP> @betehess, i understand the weird, but it's an optimization which makes the clients slightly more comlex
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @betehess, i understand the weird, but it's an optimization which makes the clients slightly more complex ←
16:28:15 <ericP> s/comlex/complex/
16:28:41 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: ldp:contains MUST be materialized by the server
PROPOSED: ldp:contains MUST be materialized by the server ←
16:28:53 <betehess> Arnaud, it was at the end of a meeting, not really thought, so maybe it's better not to quote me on saying that I was ok with _not_ materialized
Alexandre Bertails: Arnaud, it was at the end of a meeting, not really thought, so maybe it's better not to quote me on saying that I was ok with _not_ materialized ←
16:29:01 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
16:29:09 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
16:29:11 <bblfish> The advantage of mererialising the ldp:contains is that it makes it consistent with the ldp:SimpleContainer and the ldp:IndirectContainer
Henry Story: The advantage of mererialising the ldp:contains is that it makes it consistent with the ldp:SimpleContainer and the ldp:IndirectContainer ←
16:30:26 <betehess> with these remarks, +1 to MUST
Alexandre Bertails: with these remarks, +1 to MUST ←
16:30:59 <TallTed> PROPOSED: ldp:contains MUST be materialized by the server in representations delivered to the client, unless client opts out
PROPOSED: ldp:contains MUST be materialized by the server in representations delivered to the client, unless client opts out ←
16:31:09 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
16:31:35 <bblfish> I am fine with that given that one can dedice the membership triples with the query above
Henry Story: I am fine with that given that one can dedice the membership triples with the query above ←
16:31:57 <roger> I don't need these ldp:contains in my applications, so, I don't like the MUST here.
Roger Menday: I don't need these ldp:contains in my applications, so, I don't like the MUST here. ←
16:32:13 <JohnArwe> I can live with the opt out
John Arwe: I can live with the opt out ←
16:32:21 <ericP> i think this will make that part of LDP to anyone who normally writes web protocols
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think this will make that part of LDP to anyone who normally writes web protocols ←
16:32:51 <ericP> given the choice between reusing LDP and writing their own, they'd see an obvious advantage in writing their own
Eric Prud'hommeaux: given the choice between reusing LDP and writing their own, they'd see an obvious advantage in writing their own ←
16:33:22 <betehess> not true, an opt-out mecanism could be send with a header during the GET request
Alexandre Bertails: not true, an opt-out mecanism could be send with a header during the GET request ←
16:33:46 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
16:33:56 <ericP> true, that certainly mitigates it, but at the cost of more complexity than we are saving
Eric Prud'hommeaux: true, that certainly mitigates it, but at the cost of more complexity than we are saving ←
16:34:02 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
16:34:15 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:34:39 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
16:34:48 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18
John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18 ←
16:35:10 <betehess> yeah, why not?
Alexandre Bertails: yeah, why not? ←
16:35:23 <bblfish> Does this mean you need to send this even before you know that something is an LDPC?
Henry Story: Does this mean you need to send this even before you know that something is an LDPC? ←
16:35:42 <TallTed> e.g., Prefer=materialized
e.g., Prefer=materialized ←
16:35:54 <betehess> bblfish, if you're an LDP client, then it's totally fine
Alexandre Bertails: bblfish, if you're an LDP client, then it's totally fine ←
16:36:08 <bblfish> but well, I suppose if there is alreation <ldpc> a ldp:Container . then you'd know it was an container.
Henry Story: but well, I suppose if there is alreation <ldpc> a ldp:Container . then you'd know it was an container. ←
16:36:53 <betehess> the PROPOSAL just says "opt-out", which is fine
Alexandre Bertails: the PROPOSAL just says "opt-out", which is fine ←
16:37:29 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
16:37:38 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
16:37:43 <betehess> so we *can* propose a proactive and a reactive mechanism to opt-out from getting all those triples
Alexandre Bertails: so we *can* propose a proactive and a reactive mechanism to opt-out from getting all those triples ←
16:37:58 <JohnArwe> the IETF draft above allows the server to ignore the client's pref. if we wanted something stronger, there is the HTTP Expect header http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21#section-6.1.2
John Arwe: the IETF draft above allows the server to ignore the client's pref. if we wanted something stronger, there is the HTTP Expect header http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21#section-6.1.2 ←
16:38:27 <TallTed> PROPOSED: server MUST be able to materialize ldp:contains in representations delivered to the client, based on client preference (opt-in possibly via HTTP Prefer Request header, opt-out by some other method)
PROPOSED: server MUST be able to materialize ldp:contains in representations delivered to the client, based on client preference (opt-in possibly via HTTP Prefer Request header, opt-out by some other method) ←
16:42:17 <bblfish> Agree, downloading the whole thing and parsing it is probably a lot more complicated
Henry Story: Agree, downloading the whole thing and parsing it is probably a lot more complicated ←
16:43:13 <betehess> I just don't like the idea of the containment triples being part of an _opt-in_ mechanism (eg. with client-side inferencing), because you can't easily speak about the invariants
Alexandre Bertails: I just don't like the idea of the containment triples being part of an _opt-in_ mechanism (eg. with client-side inferencing), because you can't easily speak about the invariants ←
16:43:47 <betehess> I prefer to have a complete and correct interaction model
Alexandre Bertails: I prefer to have a complete and correct interaction model ←
16:44:08 <JohnArwe> @betehess, if we require the server to support the opt-in (so clients that care Know they can use it), does that help you?
John Arwe: @betehess, if we require the server to support the opt-in (so clients that care Know they can use it), does that help you? ←
16:44:12 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:44:17 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:44:24 <TallTed> PROPOSED: server MUST be able to materialize ldp:contains in representations delivered to the client, based on client preference (possibly via HTTP Prefer Request header)
PROPOSED: server MUST be able to materialize ldp:contains in representations delivered to the client, based on client preference (possibly via HTTP Prefer Request header) ←
16:44:27 <betehess> @JohnArwe, how do you see it?
Alexandre Bertails: @JohnArwe, how do you see it? ←
16:45:06 <ericP> -1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -1 ←
16:45:15 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
16:45:18 <stevebattle14> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
16:45:28 <TallTed> +1
+1 ←
16:45:32 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
16:45:38 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
16:46:01 <bblfish> +0.8
Henry Story: +0.8 ←
16:46:52 <bblfish> I was thinking of this as a statement on an LDPC
Henry Story: I was thinking of this as a statement on an LDPC ←
16:47:24 <betehess> yes, that's all about opting out from some server-managed triples
Alexandre Bertails: yes, that's all about opting out from some server-managed triples ←
16:47:27 <bblfish> I'd imagine this would be in the header of an LDPR to be in the header
Henry Story: I'd imagine this would be in the header of an LDPR to be in the header ←
16:47:39 <JohnArwe> +1 ... I like @betehess's ideas on reducing the latency hit vs earlier proposals too
John Arwe: +1 ... I like @betehess's ideas on reducing the latency hit vs earlier proposals too ←
16:48:53 <betehess> SteveS, if you want to be proactice, you'd always send the header, on any GET, because you don't know what you could find
Alexandre Bertails: SteveS, if you want to be proactice, you'd always send the header, on any GET, because you don't know what you could find ←
16:49:44 <betehess> yeah, I think we also need the other mechanism
Alexandre Bertails: yeah, I think we also need the other mechanism ←
16:49:53 <JohnArwe> Thinking of SteveS's comments, I did read the proposal to apply to retrieval requests against an LDPC URI only
John Arwe: Thinking of SteveS's comments, I did read the proposal to apply to retrieval requests against an LDPC URI only ←
16:50:49 <JohnArwe> ...I was assuming we would remain silent about LDPRs, and let implementations deal with inlining-like cases
John Arwe: ...I was assuming we would remain silent about LDPRs, and let implementations deal with inlining-like cases ←
16:51:29 <SteveS> +0 if we are talking about a GET on a URL for a LDPC, -1 for LDPRs that include/inline LDPCs
Steve Speicher: +0 if we are talking about a GET on a URL for a LDPC, -1 for LDPRs that include/inline LDPCs ←
16:51:57 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:52:06 <JohnArwe> @ericp, what was the motivation for your -1?
John Arwe: @ericp, what was the motivation for your -1? ←
16:52:32 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
16:53:16 <stevebattle14> ditto
Steve Battle: ditto ←
16:53:54 <ericP> -.9
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -.9 ←
16:54:54 <bblfish> I'd kind of agree that it is adding complexity for something that is probably not going to be that interesting to anyone
Henry Story: I'd kind of agree that it is adding complexity for something that is probably not going to be that interesting to anyone ←
16:56:22 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
16:56:40 <TallTed> RESOLVED: server MUST be able to materialize ldp:contains in representations delivered to the client, based on client preference (possibly via HTTP Prefer or Accept Request header; possibly another mechanism)
RESOLVED: server MUST be able to materialize ldp:contains in representations delivered to the client, based on client preference (possibly via HTTP Prefer or Accept Request header; possibly another mechanism) ←
16:56:45 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
16:57:38 <stevebattle14> The question is if this is opt-in or out
Steve Battle: The question is if this is opt-in or out ←
16:57:43 <ericP> happy delegating to editors
Eric Prud'hommeaux: happy delegating to editors ←
16:58:01 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
16:58:21 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
16:58:38 <JohnArwe> action: john to propose syntax for the resolution
ACTION: john to propose syntax for the resolution ←
16:58:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Propose syntax for the resolution [on John Arwe - due 2014-01-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-126 - Propose syntax for the resolution [on John Arwe - due 2014-01-20]. ←
16:59:06 <JohnArwe> @roger: when you say you want server preference, can yoyu provide a few words about what that means for you?
John Arwe: @roger: when you say you want server preference, can yoyu provide a few words about what that means for you? ←
16:59:31 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
16:59:34 <betehess> JohnArwe, feel free to ping me as soon as you have a draft, I'll be happy to review it (but I have no Internet connection Wed to Friday)
Alexandre Bertails: JohnArwe, feel free to ping me as soon as you have a draft, I'll be happy to review it (but I have no Internet connection Wed to Friday) ←
16:59:41 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
17:00:16 <bblfish> My question is with the inferencing: it seems like at present the client may have to end up doing inferencing whatever happens
Henry Story: My question is with the inferencing: it seems like at present the client may have to end up doing inferencing whatever happens ←
17:00:53 <stevebattle14> Could profile and preferences obviate the need for all these different container types?
Steve Battle: Could profile and preferences obviate the need for all these different container types? ←
17:01:36 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
17:01:39 <betehess> TallTed++
Alexandre Bertails: TallTed++ ←
17:01:55 <bblfish> +1 for TallTed :-)
Henry Story: +1 for TallTed :-) ←
17:01:56 <TallTed> ADJOURNED
ADJOURNED ←
17:01:59 <betehess> great call
Alexandre Bertails: great call ←
17:02:07 <JohnArwe> @bblfish as I heard things (and this gets to my q to roger as well), the server Must be able to materialize the containment triples if the client asks (HTTP Expect semantics), and if not asked the server can just pick one.
John Arwe: @bblfish as I heard things (and this gets to my q to roger as well), the server Must be able to materialize the containment triples if the client asks (HTTP Expect semantics), and if not asked the server can just pick one. ←
17:02:20 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
17:02:26 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
17:02:27 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
17:02:27 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
17:02:27 <stevebattle14> bye
Steve Battle: bye ←
17:02:28 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
17:02:28 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
17:02:30 <Zakim> -Roger
Zakim IRC Bot: -Roger ←
17:02:30 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
17:02:32 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
17:02:33 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
17:02:34 <bblfish> bye
Henry Story: bye ←
17:02:39 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, end meeting ←
17:02:39 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:02:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, Alexandre, Andrei, Ashok_Malhotra, codyburleson, SteveS, Roger, SteveBattle, EricP, JohnArwe, Sandro, TallTed, nmihindu, bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, Alexandre, Andrei, Ashok_Malhotra, codyburleson, SteveS, Roger, SteveBattle, EricP, JohnArwe, Sandro, TallTed, nmihindu, bblfish ←
17:02:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:02:48 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-actions.rdf : ←
17:02:48 <RRSAgent> ACTION: john to propose syntax for the resolution [1]
ACTION: john to propose syntax for the resolution [1] ←
17:02:48 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-irc#T16-58-38
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-ldp-irc#T16-58-38 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe