13:58:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:58:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/06/30-ldp-irc
13:58:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:36 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:58:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:58:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:39 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:58:39 <trackbot> Date: 30 June 2014
13:59:08 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
13:59:27 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:41 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
13:59:41 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
13:59:44 <Zakim> +??P5
13:59:53 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P5 is me
13:59:54 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
13:59:59 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
13:59:59 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:00:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:00:14 <Arnaud> zakim, IPcaller is me
14:00:16 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it
14:00:44 <SteveS> I’m only on IRC today
14:01:07 <Arnaud> how are you going to scribe?
14:01:24 <SteveS> I’ll just make it up
14:01:31 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:01:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see codyburleson, nmihindu (muted), Arnaud
14:01:34 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:34 <nmihindu> scribenick: nmihindu
14:01:35 <SteveS> Arnaud: praises Steve
14:02:26 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:02:27 <Zakim> +bblfish
14:02:45 <Zakim> +??P10
14:02:54 <deiu> Zakim, ??P10 is me
14:02:54 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
14:02:58 <bblfish> hi
14:02:59 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
14:03:00 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
14:03:01 <deiu> Hi
14:03:10 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:03:56 <nmihindu> he sent regrets I think
14:04:15 <Zakim> +ericP
14:05:15 <nmihindu>  Topic: Admin
14:05:19 <nmihindu> subtopic: Minutes of the 23 June telecon
14:05:24 <nmihindu> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-06-23
14:05:46 <Zakim> +??P14
14:05:51 <pchampin> zakim, ??P14 is me
14:05:51 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
14:06:05 <nmihindu> Arnaud: any objections ?
14:06:14 <nmihindu> Minutes approved without objection
14:07:05 <nmihindu> Arnaud: next meeting will be on July 07th
14:07:10 <nmihindu> Topic: Actions and Issues
14:07:30 <nmihindu> Arnaud: actions to declare victory ?
14:07:39 <nmihindu> ... no actions to report
14:07:43 <nmihindu> Topic: Paging spec
14:08:19 <nmihindu> Arnaud: summarizing the status of the paging spec
14:08:36 <nmihindu> ... there are two items we need to confirm
14:08:50 <nmihindu> ... 1. Confirm MUST in section 4.1.1
14:09:12 <Arnaud> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-paging.html#general
14:10:01 <nmihindu> ... do we agree, LDP Paging clients MUST be paging-aware ?
14:10:24 <nmihindu> Sandro: we can remove it, it is not a MUST, it is a definition
14:10:45 <nmihindu> ... the real question is whether the LDP clients should be LDP Paging clients also
14:11:04 <SteveS> We have that marked at risk https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#atrisk-paging
14:11:19 <nmihindu> ... was it in the spec that all LDP clients should be paging aware ?
14:11:30 <nmihindu> Arnaud: I think it was
14:12:41 <nmihindu> Sandro: Shall we continue or not? we need JohnArwe and SteveS on the call
14:13:19 <nmihindu> Arnaud: It is also good to have the opinion of the rest of the group
14:13:23 <bblfish> I have not implemented paging yet, partly also because I have been busy doing other thigns. Am getting some time again to program, perhaps even client side.
14:14:29 <nmihindu> Ashok: the 5 kinds of clients are descriptive ?
14:14:30 <codyburleson> We have not implemented paging yet because we're still working on other aspects of implementation. We're limited in bandwidth, so just trying to stay as up-to-date as possible with what we hear.
14:14:56 <nmihindu> sandro: yes, I don't see much value in making them nominative
14:15:08 <SteveS> I think it is fine to remove the at risk text about warning LDP clients about server-initiated paging.  To me, it would seem possible that we could have LDP PAGING clients that would be expected to handle paging responses
14:15:33 <nmihindu> ... what matters is what the servers no about the clients
14:15:59 <nmihindu> \s\no\know
14:17:27 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we have a feature at risk that says LDP clients should handle paging
14:17:45 <SteveS> If I had to prioritize where my own exploration and adoption would be: 1. patch 2. paging .  Though there isn’t a big gap in the priorities
14:18:06 <nmihindu> sandro: if we finish the paging spec, it is not a feature at risk anymore
14:18:24 <nmihindu> ,.. but SHOULD vs MUST, we don't want make paging a MUST
14:18:50 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-ldp-20140619/#h5_ldpr-cli-hints-ignorable
14:18:54 <nmihindu> Ashok: we can only do paging with clients support paging, isn't it ?
14:19:39 <nmihindu> sandro: the clients that can't handle might loose some information in the case of paging
14:19:42 <Zakim> -Arnaud
14:19:46 <Arnaud> shoot
14:19:47 <sandro> PROPOSED: LDP servers MUST NOT initiate paging unless the client has indicated it understands paging (such as via the Prefer page-size header)
14:20:24 <deiu> +1
14:20:24 <codyburleson> +1
14:20:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:20:28 <nmihindu> +1
14:20:29 <sandro> +1
14:20:35 <Arnaud> zakim, IPcaller is me
14:20:35 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it
14:21:03 <pchampin> +1
14:21:07 <MiguelAraCo> +0
14:21:09 <sandro> RESOLVED: LDP servers MUST NOT initiate paging unless the client has indicated it understands paging (such as via the Prefer page-size header)
14:21:20 <bblfish> sounds reasonable
14:21:52 <SteveS> -0.2 as feels like it should be a SHOULD NOT and not a MUST NOT.
14:22:07 <nmihindu> Arnaud: section 4.1.1 doesn't give much information, it is an obvious point
14:22:42 <nmihindu> Ashok: should we replace 4.1.1 with the statement that was resolved ?
14:23:11 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we could decide it drop it or confirm it JohnArwe
14:23:43 <nmihindu> sandro: it seems editorial not normative. we can leave it to the editors
14:24:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: replace 4.1.1 with a statement that clients which send Prefer page-size MUST act the same whether servers initiate paging or not.
14:24:22 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Asok has a point. there is a correlation with 4.1.1 and what was proposed.
14:25:03 <sandro> sandro: maybe going to far, they must handle it in a way which doesn't cause upstream/user problems
14:25:23 <sandro> PROPOSED: replace 4.1.1 with a statement that clients which send Prefer page-size MUST act properly, without causing upstream/user problems, if a server decides to initiate paging.
14:25:47 <sandro> +1
14:25:59 <sandro> sandro: not wording exact
14:26:27 <nmihindu> pchampin: MUST act properly might be a bit vaue
14:26:29 <ericP> propose: s/act properly/not freak out about/
14:26:59 <nmihindu> s/vaue/vague
14:27:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: replace 4.1.1 with a statement that clients which send Prefer page-size MUST not break (eg must not cause upsteam/user problems) if a server decides to initiate paging.
14:27:40 <SteveS> +1 I think it is improvement, editors will get intent and edit as needed
14:27:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: replace 4.1.1 with a statement that clients which send Prefer page-size MUST conform to the other rules of this spec
14:27:59 <sandro> (general agreement of intent)
14:28:30 <sandro> Arnaud: don't need a resolution; this should give John enough to chew on
14:28:42 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Names_in_Paging
14:28:47 <nmihindu> Arnaud: the next thing to discuss was about the naming
14:29:01 <SteveS> If server can’t satisfy the request, what status code should be given?  I see impls use 403 (Forbidden)
14:29:16 <sandro> SteveS, do you "superset resource" as the companion to "subset resource" ?
14:29:40 <nmihindu> Arnaud: only sandro, JohnArwe, and SteveS has added their preferences
14:29:43 <sandro> SteveS, by HTTP, servers are allowed to silently ignore Prefer headers.   So I'd say no error.
14:30:22 <nmihindu> sandro: the term paged resource doesn't match with the rest
14:30:41 <SteveS> sandro, could be superset, or someway I was thinking of “inclusion resource” but didn’t sound right
14:30:55 <codyburleson> Does single-page resource mean a single resource within a page?
14:30:55 <nmihindu> Arnaud: sandro, what's your favourite at the moment ?
14:32:15 <Ashok> q+
14:32:16 <SteveS> sandro, so if an HTTP server gets a Prefer header that is doesn’t syntactically validate…would it ignore it? use some fallback logic? or fail the request?  I think all would be acceptable, so I don’t think HTTP says that you can’t give an error on an optional piece
14:32:23 <nmihindu> sandro: in the initial post, in-sequence resource
14:33:06 <bblfish> subset and superset make sense
14:33:29 <bblfish> subset does not usually contain the notion of order
14:33:57 <SteveS> “ordered subset” can fix that
14:34:23 <bblfish> true
14:35:50 <Arnaud> ack ashok
14:35:51 <nmihindu> ericP: are we talking about pageable resources ?
14:36:48 <nmihindu> Ashok: what we have by default is ok. I don't think people will get confused with page
14:37:30 <nmihindu> Arnaud: if we use ldp:Page it might not be ambiguous
14:37:43 <sandro> sandro: it has to be ldp:PagingPage
14:37:45 <nmihindu> sandro: LDPPagingPage ;) ?
14:38:31 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we used the generic terms in the LDP spec with ldp namespace such as resource
14:38:59 <codyburleson> "sequential part"
14:39:04 <bblfish> what about Iterated
14:39:12 <bblfish> an Iterated Page
14:39:23 <bblfish> sequenced Page is better
14:39:26 <nmihindu> sandro: Single Page resource is a confusing term
14:40:02 <nmihindu> Ashok: do you agree with what we have today ?
14:40:14 <nmihindu> sandro: I vote will be -.7
14:40:36 <nmihindu> s/I/my
14:40:42 <ericP> -1 to forward-thinking clarity
14:40:48 <Arnaud> strawpoll: would you prefer keeping what we have or use some other names?
14:41:04 <sandro> +1 "single page resource" is pretty bad
14:41:12 <ericP> prefer another name
14:41:19 <deiu> +1 ericP
14:42:01 <ericP> does anyone here know if Atom has something to offer?
14:42:12 <SteveS> +1 a better name
14:42:20 <nmihindu> Arnaud: paging is worth keeping, we shouldn't ditch it because of the naming
14:42:29 <sandro> Maybe "Subset page resource" or "In-Sequence page resource"
14:42:31 <bblfish> multi page resource
14:42:33 <SteveS> I see better options on the wiki page
14:42:39 <codyburleson> One page in a sequence can also be called a "pagination".
14:43:15 <nmihindu> Arnaud: paging resource ?
14:43:34 <pchampin> I think I like "in-sequence page resource"
14:43:43 <deiu> me too
14:43:55 <codyburleson> ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: noun of action from paginate,
14:44:05 <nmihindu> sandro: in-sequence resource might be the better option
14:44:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: replace "Single Page Resource" with "In-Sequence Page Resource", which is still loosely "page"
14:44:43 <SteveS> maybe “Page resource” is an ordered subset and “Superset resource” is the thiing that is being paged
14:45:34 <nmihindu> bblfish: I think squence is better than set
14:46:08 <Ashok> o
14:46:32 <sandro> +1 best we've got
14:46:39 <codyburleson> +1 (I think it's better. Klugy maybe. But better)
14:46:41 <SteveS> I don’t think the proposal fixes much but not sure I care that much
14:46:46 <nmihindu> 0
14:46:55 <deiu> +1
14:47:09 <pchampin> +1
14:47:10 <SteveS> -1+1=0
14:47:31 <sandro> RESOLVED: replace "Single Page Resource" with "In-Sequence Page Resource", which is still loosely "page"
14:47:35 <nmihindu> bblfish: what is the meaning of  "In-Sequence"
14:47:53 <nmihindu> sandro: basically resources with previous/next links
14:48:43 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we will send the Paging spec soon for LC, it is better to review in the coming week
14:49:06 <nmihindu> sandro: better review it for the technical content, there might be more editorial changes
14:49:40 <nmihindu> Arnaud: any news on the extension for the working group ?
14:49:52 <nmihindu> sandro: yes, we got it.
14:50:00 <nmihindu> Topic: Status update
14:50:10 <nmihindu> subtopic: Primer
14:50:26 <nmihindu> Arnaud: FPWD is published
14:50:34 <nmihindu> subtopic: LDP spec
14:50:53 <nmihindu> SteveS published an implementation report
14:51:17 <nmihindu> Topic: Test Suite
14:51:55 <nmihindu> there are several new tests have been proposed
14:52:07 <nmihindu> we need at least one more member from the WG to get them approved
14:52:08 <codyburleson> We're using the test suite.
14:52:18 <codyburleson> But only just got started with it.
14:52:44 <nmihindu> we are using the test suite on LDP4j and will submit the implementation report in coming weeeks
14:53:10 <SteveS> There are no other testsuite updates pending, other than that unimplemented test cases I highlighted in email
14:53:27 <nmihindu> subtopic: Access Control
14:53:40 <nmihindu> Arnaud: any news from TallTed ?
14:54:19 <nmihindu> Ashok: TallTed has added some content but I am not sure whether he is finished
14:54:55 <nmihindu> bblfish: is it ReSpeced in the repo yet?
14:55:17 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we have been waiting for TallTed to finish to do that
14:56:03 <Ashok> Henry, what's the helpful tool?
14:56:36 <nmihindu> Arnaud: shall we move forward without the review?
14:57:03 <nmihindu> sandro: we can wait for 2 days
14:57:16 <bblfish> makes sense
14:57:57 <bblfish> https://www.atlassian.com/software/sourcetree/overview
14:58:47 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Ashok please remind TallTed about the review
14:59:13 <nmihindu> subtopic: Best Practices & Guidelines
14:59:39 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what is the status of the canonical URL issue ?
15:00:36 <nmihindu> codyburleson: I was expecting to get the WG opinion but the discussions didn't go anywhere
15:00:57 <bblfish> I saw the thread but did not read the whole of it.
15:01:14 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we agreed to drop the term last week, shall we drop it and move forward ?
15:01:17 <bblfish> s/the whole of it/nearly any of it/
15:01:23 <bblfish> (was travelling)
15:01:48 <nmihindu> Arnaud: I suggest to use primary and move forward
15:02:03 <deiu> Bye bye
15:02:03 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:02:05 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:02:06 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:02:08 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:02:11 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:02:23 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:25 <Zakim> -ericP
15:02:54 <Zakim> -deiu
15:17:21 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:17:48 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:35:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
15:35:03 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:35:03 <Zakim> Attendees were codyburleson, nmihindu, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, bblfish, deiu, Sandro, ericP, pchampin
16:02:13 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:05:51 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:39:56 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
17:04:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:15:55 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
17:29:13 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
17:46:30 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
17:47:02 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
17:56:45 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
18:50:38 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
19:30:44 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
19:36:46 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
19:51:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
20:48:17 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:02:36 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
21:20:05 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
21:20:27 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:07:13 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
22:30:00 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp