13:59:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:59:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-ldp-irc
13:59:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:59:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:59:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
13:59:05 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:59:05 <trackbot> Date: 29 September 2014
13:59:43 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:50 <Zakim> +Arnaud
14:01:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:01:17 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
14:01:18 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:01:20 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:47 <Zakim> +deiu
14:01:54 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:04:33 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:04:42 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:04:42 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:04:44 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:04:44 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:05:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:05:21 <bblfish_> Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:05:21 <Zakim> +bblfish_; got it
14:05:29 <bblfish> hi
14:05:51 <Zakim> +Roger
14:05:59 <Zakim> +Alexandre
14:06:14 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
14:07:06 <SteveS> Scribe: SteveS
14:07:25 <Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 22 September teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-09-22
14:07:34 <SteveS> Topic: approval of last week’s minutes
14:07:53 <SteveS> Arnaud: no objectsion, approved
14:08:06 <SteveS> s/objectsion/objections/
14:08:28 <SteveS> Next meeting 10.06, not conflicts
14:08:32 <betehess> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/101
14:08:35 <SteveS> Topic: Actions and Issues
14:08:54 <SteveS> Arnaud: new issue opened around ldpatch ISSUE-101
14:09:24 <SteveS> betehess: Summarizes what is being requested in 101, via plain ole turtle
14:09:42 <SteveS> Arnaud: any objections to opening issue?
14:09:55 <SteveS> RESOLVED: open issue-101
14:10:04 <SteveS> Topic: 2NN
14:10:24 <SteveS> Arnaud: It is basically dead, based on a forwarded note from mnot to sandro
14:11:22 <SteveS> mnot has reported that the WG is not in support of it, though he has invited someone to come to F2F meeting in November to present/defend it
14:12:19 <SteveS> (Arnaud summarizes approval process on issues within HTTP WG)
14:12:20 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:13:07 <SteveS> Arnaud: will need to pull from LDP-Paging, 2NN specifically
14:13:29 <SteveS> sandro: there are some other options on the table that meet some of our requirements
14:13:32 <Zakim> +ericP
14:14:46 <SteveS> sandro: idea would be to possibly have a request header to indicate to follow the link for the client and respond with 200
14:15:03 <SteveS> …tbl thinks this doesn’t match quite 200 but ok with it
14:15:39 <SteveS> …another proposal is to use Prefer header, such as follow-303
14:16:10 <SteveS> …a header has a lower bar than status code, prefer even lower bar
14:16:12 <bblfish> That last one I like the most - put the body in the 303
14:16:47 <SteveS> …3rd was to reply with 303 response code and entity body
14:17:24 <bblfish> agree
14:17:51 <bblfish> q+
14:18:49 <SteveS> …last option was to supply link or content-location headers with 200 response
14:19:20 <Zakim> +??P19
14:19:32 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P19 is me
14:19:32 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:19:41 <nmihindu> Zakim, mute me
14:19:41 <Zakim> nmihindu should now be muted
14:20:05 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:20:27 <SteveS> bblfish: likes the 303 option the best, to include the entity body
14:20:58 <SteveS> bblfish: summarizes some experience with atompub wg
14:22:24 <SteveS> bblfish: perhaps we could suggest a clarification with use of our options, such as with 303 option
14:23:02 <SteveS> sandro: things the Prefer header option is the best one
14:23:23 <SteveS> s/things/thinks/
14:24:03 <SteveS> Arnaud: sounds like we get the same behavior as 2nn with the Prefer header
14:24:32 <bblfish> I don't really like the Prefer header
14:25:33 <SteveS> sandro: has the nice feature, that servers will know that clients can handle getting a 200 with redirect content included and Preference-applied response header
14:26:43 <SteveS> ericP: there is a chance that a f2f discussion with mnot and tbl in coming days can determine the health of 2nn proposal
14:28:18 <SteveS> Arnaud: anyone want to go to Hawaii to defend 2nn proposal?
14:28:24 <SteveS> …not hearing anyone
14:29:43 <SteveS> sandro: trying to get a read on direction of various proposals, if wg is good with prefer and stop effort on 2nn
14:30:40 <bblfish> q+
14:31:12 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:31:38 <SteveS> SteveS: don’t have a big need for 2nn, though the prefer option seems reasonable
14:32:08 <betehess> +1 to don’t have a big need for 2nn, though the prefer option seems reasonable
14:32:27 <SteveS> bblfish: things the prefer option is a bit odd, seems like the need to is request the information as fast as possible
14:35:15 <SteveS> Arnaud: think we should agree 2nn is a dead end, then agree which is the nest best option
14:35:26 <Ashok> q+
14:35:43 <SteveS> STRAWPOLL: To use Prefer header to follow 303 (instead of 2nn)
14:35:58 <deiu> 0
14:36:04 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
14:36:17 <bblfish> is this followed by 303 + some type of content right
14:36:29 <SteveS> SteveS: +0.5
14:36:49 <nmihindu> +0
14:36:50 <SteveS> bblfish, 303 or 200 (most likely 200) whatever we define
14:37:09 <Ashok> +1
14:37:10 <betehess> +0.5, not against 303+Prefer, would prefer 2NN, but I don't care enough anyway
14:37:46 <bblfish> +0.5 for 303, less with 200, I'd rather have the server decide from knowledge of the client if it should or not return 303
14:38:20 <SteveS> Arnaud: seems like people are leaning towards Prefer header approach
14:38:32 <SteveS> Topic: Paging
14:38:42 <sandro> bblfish, one could do both...   the client could say it wants the body of a 303 returned as a 200 or as a 303.      not sure why.
14:39:35 <SteveS> Arnaud: JohnArwe had some back and forward on the mailing list, not sure if accepting of response or no time to respond
14:39:46 <SteveS> …need to get them to say they are ok with response
14:39:48 <bblfish>  ( I'd rather 303 - makes more sense to me - with a hint from the client making it more regular . Perhaps the client could just say that it is LDP aware )
14:40:15 <bblfish> complicated issue really
14:40:28 <bblfish> wonder what happens with 303 and caches.
14:41:24 <SteveS> ACTION: on SteveS to response confirming agreement from paging commenters
14:41:24 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
14:41:43 <SteveS> Topic: LDP spec
14:42:53 <SteveS> SteveS: have responded to Reto’s comment, awaiting respond
14:43:10 <SteveS> Ashok: has read it and ok with the change
14:43:35 <SteveS> Arnaud: if anyone has any feedback, then please give, otherwise we’ll continue down this road.
14:43:53 <SteveS> Topic: Implementation progress
14:44:12 <SteveS> bblfish: making progress with indirection containers
14:44:20 <SteveS> Topic: primer
14:44:51 <SteveS> Arnaud: issue with primer, went out as rec-track unintentionally, triggered call for exception for patents
14:46:02 <SteveS> roger: did some updates to the primer, not quite ready for re-publication
14:46:29 <SteveS> Topic: LD Patch
14:47:38 <SteveS> betehess: talking about ISSUE-101, some complex turtle to add in would be difficult with current Add statements
14:48:15 <SteveS> …impls would need to deal with full turtle
14:49:52 <SteveS> SteveS: if just appending triples, then one could just use PATCH or POST with text/turtle
14:50:17 <SteveS> betehess: this really isn’t defined and only supports append, it wouldn’t be too much to add to LD-Patch
14:50:23 <bblfish> q+
14:50:31 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
14:50:49 <SteveS> bblfish: does this make LD Patch closer to Turtle Patch?
14:50:53 <SteveS> betehess: no, not related
14:52:22 <ericP> q+
14:52:33 <Arnaud> ack ericP
14:53:14 <SteveS> ACTION on betehess to add support for arbitrary text/turtle for the Add operation in LDPatch
14:53:14 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
14:54:21 <betehess> ACTION: betehess to add support for arbitrary text/turtle for the Add operation in LDPatch
14:54:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Add support for arbitrary text/turtle for the add operation in ldpatch [on Alexandre Bertails - due 2014-10-06].
14:55:20 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/100
14:55:33 <deiu> q+
14:55:37 <SteveS> ISSUE-100?
14:55:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-100 -- Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? -- open
14:55:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/100
14:55:48 <deiu> q-
14:55:52 <deiu> q+
14:55:57 <Arnaud> ack deiu
14:56:52 <betehess> PROPOSAL: resolve ISSUE-100 by not changing how it's done today
14:56:59 <SteveS> betehess: believes should leave it as is
14:58:01 <deiu> +1 to leaving it as is (easier for parsing and checking for reverse order)
14:59:40 <SteveS> SteveS: +0, just be clear what the syntax is
15:01:17 <SteveS> (scribe wasn’t able to capture all the things sandro said regarding ldpatch)
15:01:28 <betehess> SteveS, with ISSUE-100,  `/schema:performerIn[/schema:url = <http://conferences.ted.com/TED2009/>]` would become `schema:performerIn[schema:url = <http://conferences.ted.com/TED2009/>]`
15:01:36 <betehess> this is *not* SPARQL anyway
15:03:11 <bblfish> I kind of agree with Arnaud and Sandro, it's better to be close to Turtle
15:03:23 <TallTed> +1 where it's easy to align grammars, definitely better practice to do so.
15:03:23 <bblfish> due to getting friends everywhere
15:03:23 <betehess> *how* would you explain `schema:performerIn[schema:url = <http://conferences.ted.com/TED2009/>]` then?
15:03:26 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:03:27 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:03:29 <SteveS> Arnaud: meeting adjourned
15:03:30 <Zakim> -Alexandre
15:03:31 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:03:33 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:03:33 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:03:34 <Zakim> -Roger
15:03:36 <Zakim> -ericP
15:03:38 <Zakim> -bblfish_
15:03:40 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:03:40 <Zakim> -deiu
15:03:41 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:03:41 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, SteveS, deiu, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, bblfish_, Roger, Alexandre, Sandro, ericP, nmihindu
15:05:48 <SteveS> deiu, I think the thread that might help is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Sep/0018.html
15:06:05 <deiu> thanks!
15:06:44 <SteveS> or a reply to that, of course post the question if this doesn’t help
15:07:40 <deiu> I don't think that thread was reflected in the primer though
15:13:23 <SteveS> deiu, you may want to send something to roger and nminindu about that, seems like they are actively updating it and be good to add
15:13:53 <deiu> will do, thanks SteveS
16:46:33 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:49:13 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
16:56:09 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:30:30 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
17:56:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
19:10:59 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:05:52 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
20:52:25 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:54:44 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp