13:56:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/25-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/25-ldp-irc ←
13:56:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:56:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:56:32 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
13:56:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:56:33 <trackbot> Date: 25 August 2014
13:59:03 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
13:59:10 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
13:59:59 <Zakim> +Matt
Zakim IRC Bot: +Matt ←
14:00:00 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
14:00:06 <deiu> Zakim, Matt is me
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, Matt is me ←
14:00:06 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +deiu; got it ←
14:00:29 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me please ←
14:00:29 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted ←
14:00:32 <Zakim> +??P12
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←
14:00:38 <pchampin> zakim, ??P12 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P12 is me ←
14:00:38 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
14:00:41 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
14:00:44 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
14:00:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:00:51 <sergio> hi
Sergio Fernández: hi ←
14:00:53 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPcaller is me. ←
14:00:53 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
14:01:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:01:25 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
14:01:25 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: Zakim, [IBM] is me ←
14:01:26 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
14:01:26 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:01:33 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:01:33 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
14:01:39 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:01:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, deiu (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, JohnArwe, Alexandre, codyburleson, [IPcaller], SteveS, TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, deiu (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, JohnArwe, Alexandre, codyburleson, [IPcaller], SteveS, TallTed ←
14:01:42 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:01:42 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
14:01:58 <betehess> Zakim, who is noisy?
Alexandre Bertails: Zakim, who is noisy? ←
14:02:08 <Zakim> betehess, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (4%), codyburleson (9%)
Zakim IRC Bot: betehess, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (4%), codyburleson (9%) ←
14:02:14 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:02:24 <Zakim> +??P20
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←
14:03:14 <betehess> zakim, who is noisy?
Alexandre Bertails: zakim, who is noisy? ←
14:03:15 <deiu> Henry maybe?
Andrei Sambra: Henry maybe? ←
14:03:24 <Zakim> betehess, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (36%), ??P20 (4%)
Zakim IRC Bot: betehess, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (36%), ??P20 (4%) ←
14:03:27 <bblfish> I may be IPCaller
Henry Story: I may be IPCaller ←
14:03:49 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
14:03:57 <deiu> Zakim, IPcaller is sergio
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, IPcaller is sergio ←
14:03:57 <Zakim> +sergio; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +sergio; got it ←
14:03:59 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P0 is me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P0 is me ←
14:03:59 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
14:04:08 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, mute me ←
14:04:08 <deiu> Zakim, P20 is bblfish
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, P20 is bblfish ←
14:04:08 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu should now be muted ←
14:04:09 <Zakim> sorry, deiu, I do not recognize a party named 'P20'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, deiu, I do not recognize a party named 'P20' ←
14:04:13 <deiu> Zakim, ??P20 is bblfish
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, ??P20 is bblfish ←
14:04:13 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish; got it ←
14:04:14 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
14:04:39 <deiu> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:04:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, deiu (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, JohnArwe, Alexandre, codyburleson, sergio, SteveS, TallTed (muted), Sandro, bblfish, nmihindu (muted), ??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Arnaud, deiu (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, JohnArwe, Alexandre, codyburleson, sergio, SteveS, TallTed (muted), Sandro, bblfish, nmihindu (muted), ??P1 ←
14:05:00 <bblfish> I used to have a telephone number. Perhaps I forgot to pay for it
Henry Story: I used to have a telephone number. Perhaps I forgot to pay for it ←
14:05:17 <ericP> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
14:05:17 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
14:06:55 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
<pchampin> chair: Arnaud
<pchampin> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.08.25
14:07:12 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-08-18
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-08-18 ←
14:07:12 <pchampin> topic: Admin
14:07:24 <deiu> minutes look ok
Andrei Sambra: minutes look ok ←
14:07:29 <pchampin> PROPOSED: approve the minutes of last week
PROPOSED: approve the minutes of last week ←
14:07:31 <betehess> looks good to me as well :-)
Alexandre Bertails: looks good to me as well :-) ←
14:07:34 <pchampin> RESOLVED: Approved the minutes of 18 August 2014
RESOLVED: Approved the minutes of 18 August 2014 ←
14:07:39 <pchampin> topic: next meeting
14:07:51 <pchampin> Arnaud: next monday is Liberate day in the US,
Arnaud Le Hors: next monday is Labor day in the US, ←
14:07:52 <betehess> +1 skipping next week
Alexandre Bertails: +1 skipping next week ←
14:07:56 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
14:07:57 <pchampin> ... so suggest to skip next week,
... so suggest to skip next week, ←
14:08:07 <deiu> ok
Andrei Sambra: ok ←
14:08:19 <SteveS> s/Liberate/Labor/
14:08:20 <pchampin> ... and have our next meeting on Sept. 8
... and have our next meeting on Sept. 8 ←
14:08:25 <sergio> fine
Sergio Fernández: fine ←
14:09:05 <pchampin> Arnaud: no objection, so we will have our next meeting in 2 weeks.
Arnaud Le Hors: no objection, so we will have our next meeting in 2 weeks. ←
<pchampin> Resolved: Next meeting in 2 weeks, 8 September
RESOLVED: Next meeting in 2 weeks, 8 September ←
14:09:17 <pchampin> Topic: Tracking of actions and issues
14:09:54 <pchampin> Eric: sent a mail to the chair of the HTTPbis working group
Eric Prud'hommeaux: sent a mail to the chair of the HTTPbis working group ←
14:13:46 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
14:14:56 <pchampin> Eric: (some things about IETF application that I didn't quite get, sorry)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (some things about IETF application that I didn't quite get, sorry) ←
14:15:02 <sergio> (skype, the network, has died, I'll be back asap)
Sergio Fernández: (skype, the network, has died, I'll be back asap) ←
14:15:24 <pchampin> Sandro: we are in a hurry, because we can't get implementation until this goes to IETF,
Sandro Hawke: we are in a hurry, because we can't get implementation until this goes to IETF, ←
14:15:34 <pchampin> ... and we are supposed to go to CR in a few weeks
... and we are supposed to go to CR in a few weeks ←
14:15:43 <JohnArwe> action-149 discussion ... how to handle attempting to get a real value for 2NN. The circular problem being that IETF requires impl experience in order to progress Eric's draft on 2NN, and no one can implement paging with 2nn without knowing the value.
John Arwe: ACTION-149 discussion ... how to handle attempting to get a real value for 2NN. The circular problem being that IETF requires impl experience in order to progress Eric's draft on 2NN, and no one can implement paging with 2nn without knowing the value. ←
14:15:47 <sandro> sandro: we want to go to CR in about a month, and we need NN for that.
Sandro Hawke: we want to go to CR in about a month, and we need NN for that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:16:04 <JohnArwe> we are dependent on ietf for the value.
John Arwe: we are dependent on ietf for the value. ←
14:19:28 <pchampin> Resolved: close ACTION-149
RESOLVED: close ACTION-149 ←
14:19:28 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-149.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-149. ←
14:20:45 <pchampin> Arnaud: I think we should open ISSUE-100
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we should open ISSUE-100 ←
14:20:56 <pchampin> ... no objection, so let's open it
... no objection, so let's open it ←
14:20:59 <pchampin> Resolved: open ISSUE-100
14:21:00 <betehess> /me notes ISSUE-100 was added in the draft
Alexandre Bertails: /me notes ISSUE-100 was added in the draft ←
14:21:07 <ericP> JohnArwe, re impl experience, perhaps i should document this and sign the message "Jospeh Heller"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, re impl experience, perhaps i should document this and sign the message "Jospeh Heller" ←
14:21:24 <pchampin> topic: LDP spec implementation
14:21:34 <pchampin> Arnaud: the implementation report is progressing nicely
Arnaud Le Hors: the implementation report is progressing nicely ←
14:21:46 <pchampin> ... but nobody seems to be implementing indirect containers.
... but nobody seems to be implementing indirect containers. ←
14:21:57 <SteveS> Reported planned or done implementations: https://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations
Steve Speicher: Reported planned or done implementations: https://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations ←
14:22:01 <pchampin> ... So should we remove it from the spec and move it to another document
... So should we remove it from the spec and move it to another document ←
14:22:07 <pchampin> ... (as we did for paging)
... (as we did for paging) ←
14:22:16 <sergio> question: can someone point me what's the user story behind IC?
Sergio Fernández: question: can someone point me what's the user story behind IC? ←
14:22:19 <MiguelAraCo> We implemented indirect containers (but haven't seen a real use case)
Miguel Aragón: We implemented indirect containers (but haven't seen a real use case) ←
14:22:21 <pchampin> ... so that the main REC can progress at its own pace.
... so that the main REC can progress at its own pace. ←
14:22:42 <sergio> in Marmotta we plan too resume our implementation of the remaining things next week, but I do find the use case
Sergio Fernández: in Marmotta we plan too resume our implementation of the remaining things next week, but I do find the use case ←
14:22:52 <JohnArwe> The scenario for IC was lists of "things that are not documents", primarily from Henry and Roger
John Arwe: The scenario for IC was lists of "things that are not documents", primarily from Henry and Roger ←
14:23:05 <SteveS> Reported server comformance reports: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html
Steve Speicher: Reported server comformance reports: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html ←
14:23:06 <pchampin> ... Unless somebody tells us they are worling on an implementation that would be ready in a few weeks?
... Unless somebody tells us they are worling on an implementation that would be ready in a few weeks? ←
14:23:29 <sergio> (sorry, I can't connect via skype)
Sergio Fernández: (sorry, I can't connect via skype) ←
14:23:43 <MiguelAraCo> q+
Miguel Aragón: q+ ←
14:24:02 <JohnArwe> sergio, are you planning to implement indirect containers?
John Arwe: sergio, are you planning to implement indirect containers? ←
14:24:06 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:24:17 <Arnaud> ack ??P1
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ??P1 ←
14:24:27 <Arnaud> ack MiguelAraCo
Arnaud Le Hors: ack MiguelAraCo ←
14:25:17 <pchampin> MiguelAraCo: we have implemented them, but have not reported it yet
Miguel Aragón: we have implemented them, but have not reported it yet ←
14:25:27 <pchampin> ... How can we report it?
... How can we report it? ←
14:25:41 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
14:25:47 <pchampin> Arnaud: send a file to the mailing list; it will be taken care of.
Arnaud Le Hors: send a file to the mailing list; it will be taken care of. ←
14:26:12 <pchampin> Ashok: why not mark it "at risk" instead of removing it?
Ashok Malhotra: why not mark it "at risk" instead of removing it? ←
14:26:29 <SteveS> Here’s a section summarizing how to submit, just basically sending the EARL file to list (suggested comments list) https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/tests/ldp-testsuite.html#submitting-results
Steve Speicher: Here’s a section summarizing how to submit, just basically sending the EARL file to list (suggested comments list) https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/tests/ldp-testsuite.html#submitting-results ←
14:26:37 <pchampin> Arnaud: it is too late to mark it "at risk";
Arnaud Le Hors: it is too late to mark it "at risk"; ←
14:26:49 <MiguelAraCo> Thanks SteveS!
Miguel Aragón: Thanks SteveS! ←
14:26:55 <nmihindu> We (LDP4J) were mostly on holidays this month and we plan to report soon (early Sept). We will NOT have Indirect containers at the moment.
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: We (LDP4J) were mostly on holidays this month and we plan to report soon (early Sept). We will NOT have Indirect containers at the moment. ←
14:27:00 <deiu> q+ to ask about having a straw poll to see how many people plan on implementing IC
Andrei Sambra: q+ to ask about having a straw poll to see how many people plan on implementing IC ←
14:27:06 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
14:27:14 <pchampin> ... removing it would force us to go back to LC, but we could then move directly to PR as we already have the implementations
... removing it would force us to go back to LC, but we could then move directly to PR as we already have the implementations ←
14:27:17 <deiu> ack me
Andrei Sambra: ack me ←
14:27:18 <Zakim> deiu, you wanted to ask about having a straw poll to see how many people plan on implementing IC
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu, you wanted to ask about having a straw poll to see how many people plan on implementing IC ←
14:27:20 <Arnaud> ack deiu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack deiu ←
14:27:37 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:27:44 <pchampin> deiu: how many people are actually interested in having IC in the spec and implementing it?
Andrei Sambra: how many people are actually interested in having IC in the spec and implementing it? ←
14:27:49 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me please ←
14:27:49 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted ←
14:27:52 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:27:53 <SteveS> I don’t plan to implement (I have 2 impls reported already)
Steve Speicher: I don’t plan to implement (I have 2 impls reported already) ←
14:28:03 <codyburleson> I think the use cases for indirect container are ultimately inevitable.
Cody Burleson: I think the use cases for indirect container are ultimately inevitable. ←
14:28:12 <pchampin> ... Even if we have one pending implementation, if too few people are interested in it, we might as well move it to another doc.
... Even if we have one pending implementation, if too few people are interested in it, we might as well move it to another doc. ←
14:28:21 <sergio> Marmotta is not planning most likely, since it does not fit with any need / use case
Sergio Fernández: Marmotta is not planning most likely, since it does not fit with any need / use case ←
14:28:29 <codyburleson> We haven't "used" them because we're busy building platform - not solutions.
Cody Burleson: We haven't "used" them because we're busy building platform - not solutions. ←
14:28:33 <codyburleson> Solutions will use them.
Cody Burleson: Solutions will use them. ←
14:28:34 <pchampin> bblfish: we are interested and we have an implementation,
Henry Story: we are interested and we have an implementation, ←
14:28:47 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
14:28:47 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
14:28:58 <pchampin> ... but I have no objection to moving Indirect Containers *and* Direct Containers in a separate document,
... but I have no objection to moving Indirect Containers *and* Direct Containers in a separate document, ←
14:29:11 <MiguelAraCo> Please don't
Miguel Aragón: Please don't ←
14:29:11 <pchampin> ... as I find they are not very well explained in the current spec.
... as I find they are not very well explained in the current spec. ←
14:29:20 <SteveS> I’m not for moving Direct Container to separate spec with Indirect Container
Steve Speicher: I’m not for moving Direct Container to separate spec with Indirect Container ←
14:29:44 <deiu> +1 SteveS
Andrei Sambra: +1 SteveS ←
14:29:58 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
14:30:28 <pchampin> Arnaud: Henry, I hear your point, but I disagree; I explain LDP to many people, including Direct Containers.
Arnaud Le Hors: Henry, I hear your point, but I disagree; I explain LDP to many people, including Direct Containers. ←
14:30:37 <deiu> q- (sharing sandro's thoughts)
Andrei Sambra: q- (sharing sandro's thoughts) ←
14:30:51 <pchampin> Sandro: we should not implement things just to get them standardized.
Sandro Hawke: we should not implement things just to get them standardized. ←
14:30:51 <deiu> q-
Andrei Sambra: q- ←
14:31:12 <pchampin> ... we must standardize what people are willing to implement and use.
... we must standardize what people are willing to implement and use. ←
14:31:15 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:31:15 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
14:31:17 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
14:32:19 <betehess> maybe we can just vote and see if we have any strong -1...
Alexandre Bertails: maybe we can just vote and see if we have any strong -1... ←
14:32:24 <pchampin> Arnaud: the point is not re-opening the discussion on the use-cases of every container type;
Arnaud Le Hors: the point is not re-opening the discussion on the use-cases of every container type; ←
14:32:39 <deiu> betehess: that's what I suggested in the first place :)
Alexandre Bertails: that's what I suggested in the first place :) [ Scribe Assist by Andrei Sambra ] ←
14:32:45 <pchampin> ... in the spec, each type is provided with a use-case (even if not everyone agrees with them).
... in the spec, each type is provided with a use-case (even if not everyone agrees with them). ←
14:33:12 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
Arnaud Le Hors: ack TallTed ←
14:33:46 <pchampin> TallTed: I partially agree and disagree with Sandro.
Ted Thibodeau: I partially agree and disagree with Sandro. ←
14:34:28 <pchampin> ... Implementing it to prove that it can be implemented validates the spec.
... Implementing it to prove that it can be implemented validates the spec. ←
14:34:44 <bblfish> there is one group who implemented it
Henry Story: there is one group who implemented it ←
14:34:58 <pchampin> ... We have used cases; the fact that nobody is using them for the moment does not invalidates them.
... We have used cases; the fact that nobody is using them for the moment does not invalidates them. ←
14:34:59 <Ashok> Implementations are, at least partially, to validate the spec ... +1 to Ted
Ashok Malhotra: Implementations are, at least partially, to validate the spec ... +1 to Ted ←
14:35:21 <pchampin> MiguelAraCo: we implemented it because we believe in the use case.
Miguel Aragón: we implemented it because we believe in the use case. ←
14:35:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Move IndirectContainer to a separate spec to allow LDP 1.0 to move forward
PROPOSED: Move IndirectContainer to a separate spec to allow LDP 1.0 to move forward ←
14:35:34 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
14:35:41 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:35:41 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:35:42 <MiguelAraCo> +0
Miguel Aragón: +0 ←
14:35:42 <sergio> +1
Sergio Fernández: +1 ←
14:35:44 <betehess> +.9 as I agree but hear the concerns
Alexandre Bertails: +.9 as I agree but hear the concerns ←
14:35:44 <bblfish> -1
Henry Story: -1 ←
14:35:46 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:35:47 <codyburleson> +0
Cody Burleson: +0 ←
14:35:48 <Ashok> 0
Ashok Malhotra: 0 ←
14:35:51 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
14:35:53 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:35:54 <JohnArwe> +0.5
14:35:57 <pchampin> +0
+0 ←
14:36:44 <pchampin> bblfish: if we move Indirect Container, we should also move Direct Container.
Henry Story: if we move Indirect Container, we should also move Direct Container. ←
14:36:46 <SteveS> It is a clean spec
Steve Speicher: It is a clean spec ←
14:36:54 <sandro> q+ to ask about this
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about this ←
14:37:12 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
14:37:12 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about this
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about this ←
14:37:30 <betehess> /me is soooo conflicted with bblfish's proposal as I always wanted just the BasicContainer, still thinks it might be too much :-)
Alexandre Bertails: /me is soooo conflicted with bblfish's proposal as I always wanted just the BasicContainer, still thinks it might be too much :-) ←
14:38:15 <pchampin> Sandro: Indirect Containers are about adding Non-Information Resource. is a big leap
Sandro Hawke: Indirect Containers are about adding Non-Information Resource. is a big leap ←
14:38:19 <Ashok> What would be too much, Alex?
Ashok Malhotra: What would be too much, Alex? ←
14:38:35 <pchampin> ... This is a big leap. I'm not sure we are ready for that,
... This is a big leap. I'm not sure we are ready for that, ←
14:38:47 <pchampin> ... although I see the interest for the SemWeb.
... although I see the interest for the SemWeb. ←
14:38:47 <betehess> Ashok: moving the two at the same time, as it's been implemented already
Ashok Malhotra: moving the two at the same time, as it's been implemented already [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Bertails ] ←
14:39:07 <Ashok> Ah, yes!
Ashok Malhotra: Ah, yes! ←
14:39:25 <betehess> Ashok: still I agree with bblfish's view, but that's not enough for me to block
Ashok Malhotra: still I agree with bblfish's view, but that's not enough for me to block [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Bertails ] ←
14:39:53 <pchampin> bblfish: in Indirect Container, when you create a relation between the document and the container,
Henry Story: in Indirect Container, when you create a relation between the document and the container, ←
14:40:06 <pchampin> ... you create one additional relation (between NIRs).
... you create one additional relation (between NIRs). ←
14:40:16 <pchampin> ... But why not two or more additional relations?
... But why not two or more additional relations? ←
14:40:25 <SteveS> not sure this is answering Sandro’s question
Steve Speicher: not sure this is answering Sandro’s question ←
14:40:57 <pchampin> ... If we keep Direct Container and move out Indirect Container,
... If we keep Direct Container and move out Indirect Container, ←
14:41:35 <pchampin> ... this will lead people to confuse Document and Non-Information resources.
... this will lead people to confuse Document and Non-Information resources. ←
14:42:16 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Move DirectContainer and IndirectContainer to separate specs (one each)
PROPOSED: Move DirectContainer and IndirectContainer to separate specs (one each) ←
14:42:21 <ericP> -1 (this is motivated by an academic argument rather than existent use cases)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -1 (this is motivated by an academic argument rather than existent use cases) ←
14:42:25 <MiguelAraCo> -1
Miguel Aragón: -1 ←
14:42:45 <SteveS> -1 it confuses things
Steve Speicher: -1 it confuses things ←
14:42:54 <sandro> +1 (I love it personally)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (I love it personally) ←
14:42:57 <sergio> +0
Sergio Fernández: +0 ←
14:43:01 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
14:43:05 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
14:43:07 <deiu> +0.5
Andrei Sambra: +0.5 ←
14:43:08 <sandro> (I think direct container is the only one that's really simple.)
Sandro Hawke: (I think direct container is the only one that's really simple.) ←
14:43:13 <codyburleson> +0
Cody Burleson: +0 ←
14:43:13 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:43:33 <sandro> (I think BASIC container is the only one that's really simple.)
Sandro Hawke: (I think BASIC container is the only one that's really simple.) ←
14:43:36 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
14:43:42 <pchampin> Arnaud: if we move Direct Container out of the spec, we should not put it together with Indirect Container,
Arnaud Le Hors: if we move Direct Container out of the spec, we should not put it together with Indirect Container, ←
14:43:51 <pchampin> ... as we already have implementation for it,
... as we already have implementation for it, ←
14:43:59 <Arnaud> ack deiu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack deiu ←
14:44:04 <JohnArwe> Henry DID offer to do the second impl before.
John Arwe: Henry DID offer to do the second impl before. ←
14:44:07 <pchampin> ... so we should not hinder the progress of Direct Container with Indirect Container
... so we should not hinder the progress of Direct Container with Indirect Container ←
14:44:38 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me please ←
14:44:38 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted ←
14:44:51 <betehess> sandro, I cannot miss this occasion for a +1 with you :-) re: I think BASIC container is the only one that's really simple
Alexandre Bertails: sandro, I cannot miss this occasion for a +1 with you :-) re: I think BASIC container is the only one that's really simple ←
14:45:51 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
14:47:18 <pchampin> Arnaud: Henry, can you provide a 2nd implementation of Indirect Containers within 2 weeks?
Arnaud Le Hors: Henry, can you provide a 2nd implementation of Indirect Containers within 2 weeks? ←
14:47:18 <sergio> I do agree with betehess
Sergio Fernández: I do agree with betehess ←
14:47:32 <pchampin> bblfish: ok
Henry Story: ok ←
14:47:36 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
14:48:24 <sandro> pchampin, I can't understand with all the choppy audio
Sandro Hawke: pchampin, I can't understand with all the choppy audio ←
14:48:27 <deiu> +1 pchampin
Andrei Sambra: +1 pchampin ←
14:48:33 <JohnArwe> fwiw, looking at impl report, for indirect there are 37 must tests, 18 should, 4 may
John Arwe: fwiw, looking at impl report, for indirect there are 37 must tests, 18 should, 4 may ←
14:48:52 <pchampin> pchampin: if we have implementation of everything, we can split the spec and keep Direct Container and Indirect Container together
Pierre-Antoine Champin: if we have implementation of everything, we can split the spec and keep Direct Container and Indirect Container together ←
14:49:03 <pchampin> Arnaud: yes, but I don't think it is worth the trouble
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, but I don't think it is worth the trouble ←
14:49:04 <SteveS> …4 of which haven’t been implmented (Indirect-specific)
Steve Speicher: …4 of which haven’t been implmented (Indirect-specific) ←
14:49:20 <pchampin> ... so if Henry provides an implementation in time, we keep Indirect Containers in the spec,
... so if Henry provides an implementation in time, we keep Indirect Containers in the spec, ←
14:49:31 <JohnArwe> ... y certainly bulk of must tests appear to apply to all container types
John Arwe: ... y certainly bulk of must tests appear to apply to all container types ←
14:49:36 <pchampin> ... else we split Indirect Containers (only) in a separate document
... else we split Indirect Containers (only) in a separate document ←
<pchampin> topic: Test suite
14:50:20 <Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/report/ldp-testsuite-coverage-report.html#tobeapproved
Arnaud Le Hors: http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/report/ldp-testsuite-coverage-report.html#tobeapproved ←
14:50:47 <pchampin> Arnaud: above is the list of tests that need to be approved to be included in the test suite
Arnaud Le Hors: above is the list of tests that need to be approved to be included in the test suite ←
14:50:54 <pchampin> ... they need people to confirm them
... they need people to confirm them ←
14:51:15 <deiu> Zakim, unmute me
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:51:15 <Zakim> deiu should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should no longer be muted ←
14:51:35 <deiu> Zakim, mute me
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me ←
14:51:35 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted ←
14:52:02 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
14:52:05 <pchampin> Arnaud: please have a look; we should not have pending tests like this;
Arnaud Le Hors: please have a look; we should not have pending tests like this; ←
14:52:08 <deiu> ack me
Andrei Sambra: ack me ←
14:52:19 <pchampin> ... either they have no problem and we include them, or they have a problem and we reject them.
... either they have no problem and we include them, or they have a problem and we reject them. ←
14:52:56 <pchampin> deiu: is there an easy way to test only those tests? (those waiting for approval)
Andrei Sambra: is there an easy way to test only those tests? (those waiting for approval) ←
14:52:58 <JohnArwe> q+ to relay question on paging spec normative intent
John Arwe: q+ to relay question on paging spec normative intent ←
14:53:16 <deiu> Zakim, mute me
Andrei Sambra: Zakim, mute me ←
14:53:16 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: deiu should now be muted ←
14:53:45 <pchampin> Arnaud: yes, it would make them to have them in the test suite, but flagged as "not approved"
Arnaud Le Hors: yes, it would make them to have them in the test suite, but flagged as "not approved" ←
14:53:50 <pchampin> topic: Status update
14:54:13 <pchampin> subtopic: Best Practices & Guidelines
14:54:53 <pchampin> cody: I updated the document, but don't know what to do now
Cody Burleson: I updated the document, but don't know what to do now ←
<pchampin> Arnaud: all is needed is sending the doc to webreq, I will follow up on this offline
Arnaud Le Hors: all is needed is sending the doc to webreq, I will follow up on this offline ←
<pchampin> subtopic: Access-control
14:55:54 <nmihindu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/e71496d5076f/LDP%20Access%20ControlNoRespec.htm
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/e71496d5076f/LDP%20Access%20ControlNoRespec.htm ←
14:56:36 <pchampin> ashok: I had some problems with Respec
Ashok Malhotra: I had some problems with Respec ←
14:57:25 <pchampin> Arnaud: I think this is a known problem with Respec; I'll follow up with you guys
Arnaud Le Hors: I think this is a known problem with Respec; I'll follow up with you guys ←
14:58:29 <pchampin> subtopic: LD-Patch
14:58:42 <pchampin> ... we agreed to publish it with some modifications. How do we stand?
... we agreed to publish it with some modifications. How do we stand? ←
14:59:01 <pchampin> betehess: I believe I have handled all the comments from last week;
Alexandre Bertails: I believe I have handled all the comments from last week; ←
14:59:10 <pchampin> ... I sent an e-mail sumarizing everything.
... I sent an e-mail sumarizing everything. ←
14:59:26 <pchampin> ... It's up to other (esp. Sandro & Erik) to review it.
... It's up to other (esp. Sandro & Erik) to review it. ←
15:00:03 <JohnArwe> q?
15:00:53 <pchampin> ... Still waiting for a link for Eric's proposal.
... Still waiting for a link for Eric's proposal. ←
15:01:15 <pchampin> Eric: I have a link to a grammar. Still need to put some explanations around it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I have a link to a grammar. Still need to put some explanations around it. ←
<pchampin> subtopic: Paging
15:01:05 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
Arnaud Le Hors: ack JohnArwe ←
15:01:05 <Zakim> JohnArwe, you wanted to relay question on paging spec normative intent
Zakim IRC Bot: JohnArwe, you wanted to relay question on paging spec normative intent ←
15:01:15 <JohnArwe> "LDP Paging servers�must�support the�max-kbyte-count�client preference parameter, which expresses a page size limit as kilobytes of representation size."
John Arwe: "LDP Paging servers�must�support the�max-kbyte-count�client preference parameter, which expresses a page size limit as kilobytes of representation size." ←
15:01:15 <JohnArwe> Just to be clear I understand this, if my server receives a request with count=1k and my server sends back page>1k, then I fail compliance? As the preference is optional, or is this making it NOT optional.
John Arwe: Just to be clear I understand this, if my server receives a request with count=1k and my server sends back page>1k, then I fail compliance? As the preference is optional, or is this making it NOT optional. ←
15:01:22 <betehess> Alexandre: ericP, please set up a document on the Web and provide me the link
Alexandre Bertails: ericP, please set up a document on the Web and provide me the link [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Bertails ] ←
15:01:55 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
15:01:57 <JohnArwe> from 7240: A server that does not recognize or is unable to comply with
John Arwe: from 7240: A server that does not recognize or is unable to comply with ←
15:01:57 <JohnArwe> particular preference tokens in the Prefer header field of a request
John Arwe: particular preference tokens in the Prefer header field of a request ←
15:01:57 <JohnArwe> MUST ignore those tokens and continue processing instead of signaling
John Arwe: MUST ignore those tokens and continue processing instead of signaling ←
15:01:57 <JohnArwe> an error.
15:03:29 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
15:04:13 <pchampin> Arnaud: MUST would mean here: *if* you take the option into account, that's what you must do
Arnaud Le Hors: MUST would mean here: *if* you take the option into account, that's what you must do ←
15:04:22 <sandro> +1 yeah, soften to SHOULD since that PREFER can ever be, unhappily.......
Sandro Hawke: +1 yeah, soften to SHOULD since that PREFER can ever be, unhappily....... ←
15:04:34 <pchampin> ... but the optional nature of Prefer makes any compliance test moot
... but the optional nature of Prefer makes any compliance test moot ←
15:04:53 <pchampin> Steves: so we should soften the MUST to a SHOULD
Steve Speicher: so we should soften the MUST to a SHOULD ←
15:05:31 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: change MUST to SHOULD on enforcing page size to match the Prefer header RFC
PROPOSED: change MUST to SHOULD on enforcing page size to match the Prefer header RFC ←
15:05:43 <pchampin> +1
+1 ←
15:05:44 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:05:44 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:05:45 <JohnArwe> +1
15:05:46 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:05:51 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:05:52 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:05:52 <Ashok> 1
Ashok Malhotra: 1 ←
15:05:53 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:06:05 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Change MUST to SHOULD on enforcing page size to match the Prefer header RFC
RESOLVED: Change MUST to SHOULD on enforcing page size to match the Prefer header RFC ←
15:06:19 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:06:31 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
15:06:34 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
15:06:39 <Zakim> -deiu
Zakim IRC Bot: -deiu ←
15:06:45 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
15:06:48 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
15:07:00 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
15:08:38 <Zakim> -nmihindu
Zakim IRC Bot: -nmihindu ←
15:08:47 <Zakim> -sergio
Zakim IRC Bot: -sergio ←
15:09:18 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:09:19 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
15:09:19 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, deiu, pchampin, Alexandre, JohnArwe, codyburleson, SteveS, TallTed, Sandro, sergio, nmihindu, bblfish, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, deiu, pchampin, Alexandre, JohnArwe, codyburleson, SteveS, TallTed, Sandro, sergio, nmihindu, bblfish, ericP ←
<pchampin> Present: Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, deiu, pchampin, Alexandre, JohnArwe, codyburleson, SteveS, TallTed, Sandro, sergio, nmihindu, bblfish, ericP
15:21:23 <ericP> JohnArwe, would it make sense to implement 2NN with an obviously inappropriate placeholder like 999?
(No events recorded for 12 minutes)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, would it make sense to implement 2NN with an obviously inappropriate placeholder like 999? ←
15:22:18 <ericP> of course it would have to be inappropriate enough to make everyone who implemented it anxious to fix it when the real code was assigned
Eric Prud'hommeaux: of course it would have to be inappropriate enough to make everyone who implemented it anxious to fix it when the real code was assigned ←
15:27:24 <JohnArwe> heh
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
15:29:56 <JohnArwe> if you go outside the bounds of valid http status codes, you run certain risks ... IPS systems and firewalls would be my top dragons; next would be the major frameworks ... odds are they ALLOW any decimal value, but if they have any defensive coding you might well end up with log entries and even exceptions pointing fingers at what you're doing.
John Arwe: if you go outside the bounds of valid http status codes, you run certain risks ... IPS systems and firewalls would be my top dragons; next would be the major frameworks ... odds are they ALLOW any decimal value, but if they have any defensive coding you might well end up with log entries and even exceptions pointing fingers at what you're doing. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe