13:56:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:56:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/25-ldp-irc
13:56:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:56:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:56:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:56:32 <Zakim> 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
13:56:37 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
13:57:30 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
13:58:48 <codyburleson> codyburleson has joined #ldp
13:59:03 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:10 <Zakim> +Arnaud
13:59:59 <Zakim> +Matt
14:00:00 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:00:06 <deiu> Zakim, Matt is me
14:00:06 <Zakim> +deiu; got it
14:00:19 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:00:29 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
14:00:29 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
14:00:32 <Zakim> +??P12
14:00:38 <pchampin> zakim, ??P12 is me
14:00:38 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
14:00:41 <Zakim> +Alexandre
14:00:44 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:00:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:00:49 <sergio> sergio has joined #ldp
14:00:51 <sergio> hi
14:00:53 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me.
14:00:53 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
14:01:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:01:25 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:01:25 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
14:01:26 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:01:26 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:01:30 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:01:33 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:01:33 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:01:39 <Arnaud> 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
14:01:42 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:01:42 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:01:58 <betehess> Zakim, who is noisy?
14:02:01 <MiguelAraCo> MiguelAraCo has joined #ldp
14:02:08 <Zakim> betehess, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (4%), codyburleson (9%)
14:02:14 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:02:24 <Zakim> +??P20
14:03:14 <betehess> zakim, who is noisy?
14:03:15 <deiu> Henry maybe?
14:03:24 <Zakim> betehess, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (36%), ??P20 (4%)
14:03:27 <bblfish> I may be IPCaller
14:03:49 <Zakim> +??P0
14:03:57 <deiu> Zakim, IPcaller is sergio
14:03:57 <Zakim> +sergio; got it
14:03:59 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P0 is me
14:03:59 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:04:08 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
14:04:08 <deiu> Zakim, P20 is bblfish
14:04:08 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:04:09 <Zakim> sorry, deiu, I do not recognize a party named 'P20'
14:04:13 <deiu> Zakim, ??P20 is bblfish
14:04:13 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
14:04:14 <Zakim> +??P1
14:04:39 <deiu> 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
14:05:00 <bblfish> I used to have a telephone number. Perhaps I forgot to pay for it
14:05:17 <ericP> Zakim, ??P1 is me
14:05:17 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:06:55 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
14:07:12 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-08-18
14:07:12 <pchampin> topic: minutes of the last meeting
14:07:24 <deiu> minutes look ok
14:07:29 <pchampin> PROPOSED: approve the minutes of last week
14:07:31 <betehess> looks good to me as well :-)
14:07:34 <pchampin> RESOLVED: approve the minutes of last week
14:07:39 <pchampin> topic: next meeting
14:07:51 <pchampin> Arnaud: next monday is Liberate day in the US,
14:07:52 <betehess> +1 skipping next week
14:07:56 <deiu> +1
14:07:57 <pchampin> ... so suggest to skip next week,
14:08:07 <deiu> ok
14:08:19 <SteveS> s/Liberate/Labor/
14:08:20 <pchampin> ... and have our next meeting on Sept. 8
14:08:25 <sergio> fine
14:09:05 <pchampin> Arnaud: no objection, so we will have our next meeting in 2 weeks.
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
14:13:46 <Zakim> -bblfish
14:14:56 <pchampin> Eric: (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)
14:15:24 <pchampin> Sandro: 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
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.
14:15:47 <sandro> sandro: we want to go to CR in about a month, and we need NN for that.
14:16:04 <JohnArwe> we are dependent on ietf for the value.
14:19:28 <pchampin> close ACTION-149
14:19:28 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-149.
14:20:45 <pchampin> Arnaud: I think we should open ISSUE-100
14:20:56 <pchampin> ... no objection, so let's open it
14:20:59 <pchampin> open ISSUE-100
14:21:00 <betehess>  /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"
14:21:24 <pchampin> topic: LDP spec implementation
14:21:34 <pchampin> Arnaud: the implementation report is progressing nicely
14:21:46 <pchampin> ... but nobody seems to be implementing indirect containers.
14:21:57 <SteveS> 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
14:22:07 <pchampin> ... (as we did for paging)
14:22:16 <sergio> 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)
14:22:21 <pchampin> ... 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
14:22:52 <JohnArwe> 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
14:23:06 <pchampin> ... 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)
14:23:43 <MiguelAraCo> q+
14:24:02 <JohnArwe> sergio, are you planning to implement indirect containers?
14:24:06 <Ashok> q+
14:24:17 <Arnaud> ack ??P1
14:24:27 <Arnaud> ack MiguelAraCo
14:25:17 <pchampin> MiguelAraCo: we have implemented them, but have not reported it yet
14:25:27 <pchampin> ... How can we report it?
14:25:41 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
14:25:47 <pchampin> Arnaud: 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?
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
14:26:37 <pchampin> Arnaud: it is too late to mark it "at risk";
14:26:39 <sergio> sergio has joined #ldp
14:26:49 <MiguelAraCo> 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.
14:27:00 <deiu> q+ to ask about having a straw poll to see how many people plan on implementing IC
14:27:06 <bblfish> 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
14:27:17 <deiu> 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
14:27:20 <Arnaud> ack deiu
14:27:37 <bblfish> q+
14:27:44 <pchampin> deiu: how many people are actually interested in having IC in the spec and implementing it?
14:27:49 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
14:27:49 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
14:27:52 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:27:53 <SteveS> 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.
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.
14:28:21 <sergio> 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.
14:28:33 <codyburleson> Solutions will use them.
14:28:34 <pchampin> bblfish: we are interested and we have an implementation,
14:28:47 <sandro> q+
14:28:47 <deiu> q+
14:28:58 <pchampin> ... but I have no objection to moving Indirect Containers *and* Direct Containers in a separate document,
14:29:11 <MiguelAraCo> Please don't
14:29:11 <pchampin> ... 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
14:29:44 <deiu> +1 SteveS
14:29:58 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:30:28 <pchampin> Arnaud: 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)
14:30:51 <pchampin> Sandro: we should not implement things just to get them standardized.
14:30:51 <deiu> q-
14:31:12 <pchampin> ... we must standardize what people are willing to implement and use.
14:31:15 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:31:15 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:31:17 <TallTed> q+
14:32:19 <betehess> 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;
14:32:39 <deiu> betehess: that's what I suggested in the first place :)
14:32:45 <pchampin> ... in the spec, each type is provided with a use-case (even if not everyone agrees with them).
14:33:12 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
14:33:46 <pchampin> TallTed: I partially agree and disagree with Sandro.
14:34:28 <pchampin> ... Implementing it to prove that it can be implemented validates the spec.
14:34:44 <bblfish> 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.
14:34:59 <Ashok> 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.
14:35:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Move IndirectContainer to a separate spec to allow LDP 1.0 to move forward
14:35:34 <deiu> +1
14:35:41 <SteveS> +1
14:35:41 <ericP> +1
14:35:42 <MiguelAraCo> +0
14:35:42 <sergio> +1
14:35:44 <betehess> +.9 as I agree but hear the concerns
14:35:44 <bblfish> -1
14:35:46 <sandro> +1
14:35:47 <codyburleson> +0
14:35:48 <Ashok> 0
14:35:51 <TallTed> +0
14:35:53 <nmihindu> +1
14:35:54 <JohnArwe> +0.5
14:35:57 <pchampin> +0
14:36:44 <pchampin> bblfish: if we move Indirect Container, we should also move Direct Container.
14:36:46 <SteveS> It is a clean spec
14:36:54 <sandro> q+ to ask about this
14:37:12 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:37:12 <Zakim> 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 :-)
14:38:15 <pchampin> Sandro: Indirect Containers are about adding Non-Information Resource. is a big leap
14:38:17 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
14:38:19 <Ashok> What would be too much, Alex?
14:38:35 <pchampin> ... 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.
14:38:47 <betehess> Ashok: moving the two at the same time, as it's been implemented already
14:39:07 <Ashok> Ah, yes!
14:39:25 <betehess> Ashok: still I agree with bblfish's view, but that's not enough for me to block
14:39:53 <pchampin> bblfish: 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).
14:40:16 <pchampin> ... But why not two or more additional relations?
14:40:25 <SteveS> not sure this is answering Sandro’s question
14:40:57 <pchampin> ... 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.
14:42:16 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: 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)
14:42:25 <MiguelAraCo> -1
14:42:45 <SteveS> -1 it confuses things
14:42:54 <sandro> +1  (I love it personally)
14:42:57 <sergio> +0
14:43:01 <betehess> +1
14:43:05 <bblfish> +1
14:43:07 <deiu> +0.5
14:43:08 <sandro> (I think direct container is the only one that's really simple.)
14:43:13 <codyburleson> +0
14:43:13 <nmihindu> +1
14:43:33 <sandro> (I think BASIC container is the only one that's really simple.)
14:43:36 <deiu> q+
14:43:42 <pchampin> Arnaud: 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,
14:43:59 <Arnaud> ack deiu
14:44:04 <JohnArwe> 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
14:44:38 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please
14:44:38 <Zakim> 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
14:45:51 <pchampin> q+
14:47:18 <pchampin> Arnaud: Henry, can you provide a 2nd implementation of Indirect Containers within 2 weeks?
14:47:18 <sergio> I do agree with betehess
14:47:32 <pchampin> bblfish: ok
14:47:36 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
14:48:24 <sandro> pchampin, I can't understand with all the choppy audio
14:48:27 <deiu> +1 pchampin
14:48:33 <JohnArwe> 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
14:49:03 <pchampin> Arnaud: yes, but I don't think it is worth the trouble
14:49:04 <SteveS> …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,
14:49:31 <JohnArwe> ... 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
14:50:20 <Arnaud> 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
14:50:54 <pchampin> ... they need people to confirm them
14:51:15 <deiu> Zakim, unmute me
14:51:15 <Zakim> deiu should no longer be muted
14:51:35 <deiu> Zakim, mute me
14:51:35 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted
14:52:02 <deiu> q+
14:52:05 <pchampin> Arnaud: please have a look; we should not have pending tests like this;
14:52:08 <deiu> ack me
14:52:19 <pchampin> ... 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)
14:52:58 <JohnArwe> q+ to relay question on paging spec normative intent
14:53:16 <deiu> Zakim, mute me
14:53:16 <Zakim> 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"
14:53:50 <pchampin> topic: status update
14:54:13 <pchampin> Arnaud: access-control
14:54:53 <pchampin> cody: I updated the document, but don't know what to do now
14:55:54 <nmihindu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/e71496d5076f/LDP%20Access%20ControlNoRespec.htm
14:56:36 <pchampin> ashok: 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
14:58:29 <pchampin> Arnaud: LD-Patch
14:58:42 <pchampin> ... 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;
14:59:10 <pchampin> ... I sent an e-mail sumarizing everything.
14:59:26 <pchampin> ... 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.
15:01:05 <Arnaud> ack JohnArwe
15:01:05 <Zakim> JohnArwe, you wanted to relay question on paging spec normative intent
15:01:15 <pchampin> Eric: I have a link to a grammar. Still need to put some explanations around it.
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."
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.
15:01:22 <betehess> Alexandre: ericP, please set up a document on the Web and provide me the link
15:01:55 <Zakim> -Alexandre
15:01:57 <JohnArwe> 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
15:01:57 <JohnArwe>    MUST ignore those tokens and continue processing instead of signaling
15:01:57 <JohnArwe>    an error.
15:03:29 <Zakim> -codyburleson
15:03:33 <codyburleson> codyburleson has left #ldp
15:04:13 <pchampin> Arnaud: 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.......
15:04:34 <pchampin> ... but the optional nature of Prefer makes any compliance test moot
15:04:53 <pchampin> Steve: 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
15:05:43 <pchampin> +1
15:05:44 <TallTed> +1
15:05:44 <deiu> +1
15:05:45 <JohnArwe> +1
15:05:46 <SteveS> +1
15:05:51 <sandro> +1
15:05:52 <ericP> +1
15:05:52 <Ashok> 1
15:05:53 <nmihindu> +1
15:06:05 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: change MUST to SHOULD on enforcing page size to match the Prefer header RFC
15:06:19 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:06:31 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:06:34 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:06:39 <Zakim> -deiu
15:06:45 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:06:48 <Zakim> -pchampin
15:07:00 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:08:38 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:08:47 <Zakim> -sergio
15:09:18 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:09:19 <Zakim> 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
15:21:23 <ericP> 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
15:27:24 <JohnArwe> heh
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.
17:04:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:40:41 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
17:56:43 <betehess> betehess has joined #ldp
18:00:12 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
18:07:12 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
19:18:41 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
20:18:59 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:28:21 <deiu> deiu has joined #ldp
20:50:53 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
20:54:07 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
21:53:58 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
22:27:46 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp