13:54:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://dristachi.site/2013/03/25-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://dristachi.site/2013/03/25-ldp-irc ←
13:54:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:54:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:54:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:54:51 <trackbot> Date: 25 March 2013
13:54:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes ←
13:57:27 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
13:57:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
13:57:50 <cody> IPCaller is Cody
Cody Burleson: IPCaller is Cody ←
13:57:56 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
13:58:36 <cody> zakim, IPCaller is really Cody
Cody Burleson: zakim, IPCaller is really Cody ←
13:58:36 <Zakim> +Cody; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Cody; got it ←
13:58:54 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P2 is nmihindu
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Zakim, ??P2 is nmihindu ←
13:58:54 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nmihindu; got it ←
13:59:31 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle ←
13:59:52 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
14:00:46 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
14:00:57 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
14:01:05 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
14:01:18 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
14:01:29 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P14 is me
Bart van Leeuwen: Zakim, ??P14 is me ←
14:01:29 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BartvanLeeuwen; got it ←
14:01:29 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
14:01:31 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:01:34 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
14:01:35 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:01:35 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
14:01:37 <BartvanLeeuwen> hi all
Bart van Leeuwen: hi all ←
14:01:37 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:01:37 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
14:01:42 <Ashok> zakim, code?
Ashok Malhotra: zakim, code? ←
14:01:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ashok
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ashok ←
14:01:48 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, [IBM] is me ←
14:01:48 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
14:01:55 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: +JohnArwe ←
14:02:09 <Arnaud> zakim, who is here?
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, who is here? ←
14:02:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Cody, nmihindu, SteveBattle, ??P7, ??P11, Arnaud, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, TallTed (muted), SteveS, JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Cody, nmihindu, SteveBattle, ??P7, ??P11, Arnaud, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, TallTed (muted), SteveS, JohnArwe ←
14:02:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, Ashok, BartvanLeeuwen, Zakim, RRSAgent, cody, SteveS, TallTed, nmihindu, betehess, stevebattle, bblfish, bhyland, jmvanel, davidwood, Arnaud, thschee,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JohnArwe, Ashok, BartvanLeeuwen, Zakim, RRSAgent, cody, SteveS, TallTed, nmihindu, betehess, stevebattle, bblfish, bhyland, jmvanel, davidwood, Arnaud, thschee, ←
14:02:12 <Zakim> ... sandro, ericP, Yves, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, ericP, Yves, trackbot ←
14:02:27 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
14:02:29 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
14:02:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:03:05 <dret> zakim, IP{Caller is me
Erik Wilde: zakim, IP{Caller is me ←
14:03:05 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named 'IP{Caller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named 'IP{Caller' ←
14:03:16 <dret> zakim, IPCaller is me
Erik Wilde: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
14:03:16 <Zakim> +dret; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dret; got it ←
14:04:33 <cody> I can scribe, but I need to figure out how to tell who is talking at any given moment.
Cody Burleson: I can scribe, but I need to figure out how to tell who is talking at any given moment. ←
14:04:53 <cody> who is talking?
Cody Burleson: who is talking? ←
14:05:03 <cody> zakim, who is talking?
Cody Burleson: zakim, who is talking? ←
14:05:13 <Zakim> cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (24%), BartvanLeeuwen (9%), Ashok_Malhotra (38%)
Zakim IRC Bot: cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (24%), BartvanLeeuwen (9%), Ashok_Malhotra (38%) ←
14:05:21 <Arnaud> scribe: cody
(Scribe set to Cody Burleson)
<cody> chair: Arnaud
14:05:29 <nmihindu> cody, it was BartvanLeeuwen
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: cody, it was BartvanLeeuwen ←
14:05:29 <TallTed> cody - you can vocally interrupt at any time, to ask who's speaking, clarification, etc.
Ted Thibodeau: cody - you can vocally interrupt at any time, to ask who's speaking, clarification, etc. ←
14:05:51 <stevebattle> Cody, the IRC queue should help you figure out who is speaking.
Steve Battle: Cody, the IRC queue should help you figure out who is speaking. ←
<cody> Topic: Minutes of last meetings
14:05:59 <cody> Arnaud, starting with the Minutes of March 11; propose we accept them.
Arnaud, starting with the Minutes of March 11; propose we accept them. ←
14:06:05 <cody> Steve : + 1
Steve : + 1 ←
14:06:22 <cody> Arnaud, hearing no objections, we hereby approve those minutes of March 11.
Arnaud, hearing no objections, we hereby approve those minutes of March 11. ←
<cody> resolved: Minutes of March 11 approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of March 11 approved ←
14:06:44 <SteveS> +1 to F2F minutes, look good
Steve Speicher: +1 to F2F minutes, look good ←
14:06:54 <cody> Arnaud, and the minutes from the Face to Face 2
Arnaud, and the minutes from the Face to Face 2 ←
14:07:07 <stevebattle> Yes - they look OK
Steve Battle: Yes - they look OK ←
14:07:35 <cody> Arnaud, so I hereby approve the minutes of the F2F2, hearing no objections.
Arnaud, so I hereby approve the minutes of the F2F2, hearing no objections. ←
<cody> resolved: Minutes of March 13-15 approved
RESOLVED: Minutes of March 13-15 approved ←
14:07:47 <JohnArwe> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-13#Primer
John Arwe: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-13#Primer ←
14:07:59 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
14:08:07 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me ←
14:08:07 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
14:08:46 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
14:08:49 <cody> Arnaud: I will look and if I find it (regarding Primer), I will let you know.
Arnaud Le Hors: I will look and if I find it (regarding Primer), I will let you know. ←
<cody> Topic: Tracking of actions and issues
14:09:48 <cody> Arnaud: As results from F2F, we gave several actions. Want to check progress...
Arnaud Le Hors: As results from F2F, we gave several actions. Want to check progress... ←
14:10:00 <stevebattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:10:02 <cody> Arnaud: 2 pending actions: 1) propose use case for issue 33
Arnaud Le Hors: 2 pending actions: 1) propose use case for ISSUE-33 ←
14:10:08 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
Arnaud Le Hors: ack stevebattle ←
14:10:33 <cody> Steve Battle: I am reviewing the draft and getting it into a form that is consitent with the use cases.
Steve Battle: I am reviewing the draft and getting it into a form that is consistent with the use cases. ←
14:10:34 <bblfish> looking at actions http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview
Henry Story: looking at actions http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview ←
14:10:41 <cody> Arnaud, Very good.
Arnaud, Very good. ←
14:10:55 <JohnArwe> s/consitent/consistent/
14:10:57 <bblfish> Action-40
14:10:57 <trackbot> ACTION-40 -- Ashok Malhotra to propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec) -- due 2013-03-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-40 -- Ashok Malhotra to propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec) -- due 2013-03-18 -- PENDINGREVIEW ←
14:10:57 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/actions/40
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/actions/40 ←
14:11:35 <bblfish> Issue-49
14:11:35 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- closed ←
14:11:35 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/49
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/49 ←
14:12:05 <JohnArwe> Ashok and Arnaud you were talking over each other
John Arwe: Ashok and Arnaud you were talking over each other ←
14:12:30 <cody> Ashok: I have recommended that we take section 4.1.4 out
Ashok Malhotra: I have recommended that we take section 4.1.4 out ←
14:13:11 <cody> Arnaud: Just remove the section or replace with other text (Section 4.1.4)
Arnaud Le Hors: Just remove the section or replace with other text (Section 4.1.4) ←
14:13:23 <cody> Ashok: Just take it out
Ashok Malhotra: Just take it out ←
14:13:27 <bblfish> I remember us talking about it
Henry Story: I remember us talking about it ←
14:13:54 <JohnArwe> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-15 says Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide. link
John Arwe: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-15 says Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide. link ←
14:14:05 <cody> Arnaud: I put the resolution at the end of 49. Resolution says that we remove section 4.1.4 in the spec and consider giving some guidance in deployment guide
Arnaud Le Hors: I put the resolution at the end of 49. Resolution says that we remove section 4.1.4 in the spec and consider giving some guidance in deployment guide ←
14:14:28 <cody> zakim, who is talking?
zakim, who is talking? ←
14:14:39 <Zakim> cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Cody (58%), Arnaud (64%), SteveS (9%)
Zakim IRC Bot: cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Cody (58%), Arnaud (64%), SteveS (9%) ←
14:14:42 <JohnArwe> that was steve speicher
John Arwe: that was steve speicher ←
14:15:01 <cody> Arnaud: I am closing action 40.
Arnaud Le Hors: I am closing ACTION-40. ←
14:15:10 <bblfish> action-43
14:15:10 <trackbot> ACTION-43 -- Steve Speicher to draft a use case for container ordering -- due 2013-03-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-43 -- Steve Speicher to draft a use case for container ordering -- due 2013-03-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW ←
14:15:10 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/actions/43
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/actions/43 ←
14:15:37 <cody> Arnaud: Alright, so we can close Action 43 then.
Arnaud Le Hors: Alright, so we can close ACTION-43 then. ←
14:15:59 <cody> Arnaud: Let me ask if there are any other open actions for which anyone wants to claim victory...
Arnaud Le Hors: Let me ask if there are any other open actions for which anyone wants to claim victory... ←
14:16:21 <cody> Arnaud: Hearing none. We have a few issues that were raised, starting with ISSUE-57
Arnaud Le Hors: Hearing none. We have a few issues that were raised, starting with ISSUE-57 ←
14:16:25 <bblfish> Issue-57
14:16:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server? -- raised ←
14:16:25 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/57
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/57 ←
14:16:54 <JohnArwe> regrets: sandro, andys, roger
14:17:07 <cody> Arnaud: There was discussion about that in the F2F. Question was, "(How) Can I figure out if I am talking to an LDP Server?"
Arnaud Le Hors: There was discussion about that in the F2F. Question was, "(How) Can I figure out if I am talking to an LDP Server?" ←
14:17:10 <TallTed> +1 open
Ted Thibodeau: +1 open ←
14:17:11 <stevebattle> We should open it.
Steve Battle: We should open it. ←
14:17:19 <cody> Arnaud: Do we close it or open it? Any opinions?
Arnaud Le Hors: Do we close it or open it? Any opinions? ←
14:17:30 <Zakim> -??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P11 ←
14:17:31 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
Bart van Leeuwen: q+ ←
14:17:49 <Arnaud> ack bart
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bart ←
14:18:08 <TallTed> "discovery" is the term we used during F2F
Ted Thibodeau: "discovery" is the term we used during F2F ←
14:18:11 <bblfish> q?
Henry Story: q? ←
14:18:15 <cody> BartvanLeeuwen: I was wondering if this was completely new. To me it sounds logical to add this.
Bart van Leeuwen: I was wondering if this was completely new. To me it sounds logical to add this. ←
14:18:20 <SteveS> +1 to open
Steve Speicher: +1 to open ←
14:18:36 <nmihindu> +1 to open and discuss it
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 to open and discuss it ←
14:18:48 <cody> Arnaud: Do we need a separate issue?
Arnaud Le Hors: Do we need a separate issue? ←
14:19:02 <TallTed> Zakim, unumute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unumute me ←
14:19:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unumute me', TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'unumute me', TallTed ←
14:19:11 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:19:11 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
14:19:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 open
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 open ←
14:19:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:19:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
14:19:35 <cody> TallTed: Please open it.
Ted Thibodeau: Please open it. ←
14:19:48 <pchampin> -0 (I think it is covered by issue 32)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: -0 (I think it is covered by ISSUE-32) ←
<cody> resolved: Open Issue-57
14:19:51 <Arnaud> trackbot, reopen issue-57
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, reopen ISSUE-57 ←
14:19:52 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-57 How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server?.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-57 How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server?. ←
14:19:52 <cody> Arnaud: Hearing no objections we hereby open issue 57.
Arnaud Le Hors: Hearing no objections we hereby open ISSUE-57. ←
14:20:03 <bblfish> issue-59
14:20:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- raised ←
14:20:03 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/59
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/59 ←
14:20:23 <Zakim> -??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P7 ←
14:21:06 <stevebattle> No objection
Steve Battle: No objection ←
14:21:11 <cody> Arnaud: Anyone want to object to opening this issue?
Arnaud Le Hors: Anyone want to object to opening this issue? ←
<cody> resolved: Open Issue-59
14:21:16 <Arnaud> trackbot, reopen issue-59
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, reopen ISSUE-59 ←
14:21:16 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-59 Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-59 Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior. ←
14:21:25 <bblfish> Issue-60
14:21:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- The specification does not allow GETting empty containers -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-60 -- The specification does not allow GETting empty containers -- raised ←
14:21:25 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/60
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/60 ←
14:21:50 <stevebattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:21:58 <pchampin> well, a set can be an empty set :-)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: well, a set can be an empty set :-) ←
14:22:09 <Arnaud> ack steve
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steve ←
14:22:16 <cody> Arnaud: This one is interesting. His point is, the text seems to indicate that a container cannot be empty. But I don't think there is any intention to prohibit empty containers.
Arnaud Le Hors: This one is interesting. His point is, the text seems to indicate that a container cannot be empty. But I don't think there is any intention to prohibit empty containers. ←
14:22:18 <JohnArwe> "sets can be empty" was exactly cygri's response
John Arwe: "sets can be empty" was exactly cygri's response ←
14:22:48 <dret> looks like fixing the text is good enough, then?
Erik Wilde: looks like fixing the text is good enough, then? ←
14:22:51 <bblfish> sounds editorial to me
Henry Story: sounds editorial to me ←
14:23:18 <BartvanLeeuwen> editorial to me as well
Bart van Leeuwen: editorial to me as well ←
14:23:18 <cody> Arnaud: I think we agree that containers CAN be empty. If you don't agree, please speak up.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we agree that containers CAN be empty. If you don't agree, please speak up. ←
14:23:32 <TallTed> +1 to the change in concept. not sure the suggestion works, as written.
Ted Thibodeau: +1 to the change in concept. not sure the suggestion works, as written. ←
14:23:36 <cody> Arnaud: I don't think Raul's suggestion is the right one, by the way.
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't think Raul's suggestion is the right one, by the way. ←
14:24:02 <bblfish> agree. better just add that the set can be empty
Henry Story: agree. better just add that the set can be empty ←
14:24:22 <TallTed> so +1 open issue with action for editor to come up with revision
Ted Thibodeau: so +1 open issue with action for editor to come up with revision ←
14:24:27 <stevebattle> Maybe add the text "possibly empty set"
Steve Battle: Maybe add the text "possibly empty set" ←
14:24:28 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 for clarrification
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 for clarrification ←
14:24:31 <cody> Arnaud: I suggest we close it with an action to the editor to come up with uhâ¦. I think in respect to Raul's issueâ¦I would like the editor to consider clarifying.
Arnaud Le Hors: I suggest we close it with an action to the editor to come up with uhâ¦. I think in respect to Raul's issueâ¦I would like the editor to consider clarifying. ←
14:24:46 <bblfish> +!
Henry Story: +! ←
14:24:49 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
14:24:51 <dret> +1
Erik Wilde: +1 ←
14:24:52 <cody> Arnaud: I say we close it; with recommendation to editor to fix the spec to clarify intent
Arnaud Le Hors: I say we close it; with recommendation to editor to fix the spec to clarify intent ←
14:25:00 <JohnArwe> +1
14:25:01 <stevebattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
14:25:04 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
14:25:05 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
Bart van Leeuwen: +1 ←
14:25:05 <pchampin> +1
14:25:06 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:25:21 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
14:25:27 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:25:33 <cody> Arnaud: So, very good. I hereby declare ISSUE-60 closed.
Arnaud Le Hors: So, very good. I hereby declare ISSUE-60 closed. ←
<cody> resolved: Close Issue-60; with recommendation to editor to fix the spec to clarify intent (empty containers are allowed)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-60; with recommendation to editor to fix the spec to clarify intent (empty containers are allowed) ←
14:25:55 <cody> Arnaud: I think that takes care of all the admin stuff. Moving on...
Arnaud Le Hors: I think that takes care of all the admin stuff. Moving on... ←
14:26:30 <bblfish> Which e-mails?
Henry Story: Which e-mails? ←
<cody> Topic: Review of Provenance Access and Query document
14:27:03 <cody> Arnaud: We got an email asking for the LDP working group to look at (two drafts ?) that may be of interest to us
Arnaud Le Hors: We got an email asking for the LDP working group to look at (two drafts ?) that may be of interest to us ←
14:27:03 <nmihindu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Mar/0019.html
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Mar/0019.html ←
14:27:35 <cody> "This document includes sections on service discovery and provenance "ping-back"
"This document includes sections on service discovery and provenance "ping-back" ←
14:27:35 <cody> which may be related to mechanisms you are working to specify."
which may be related to mechanisms you are working to specify." ←
14:27:48 <nmihindu> I can volunteer to take a look
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: I can volunteer to take a look ←
14:27:50 <SteveS> I am interested in learning more about this, doing it for LDP WG might be a good way to force me to do it
Steve Speicher: I am interested in learning more about this, doing it for LDP WG might be a good way to force me to do it ←
14:27:50 <cody> Arnaud: At the very least, we need to reply. Just ignoring this email is not good form.
Arnaud Le Hors: At the very least, we need to reply. Just ignoring this email is not good form. ←
14:27:59 <dret> q+
Erik Wilde: q+ ←
14:28:33 <Arnaud> ack dret
Arnaud Le Hors: ack dret ←
14:28:46 <cody> Arnaud: Very good. nmihindu can look at it.
Arnaud Le Hors: Very good. nmihindu can look at it. ←
14:29:03 <bblfish> yes, we can't hear anything
Henry Story: yes, we can't hear anything ←
14:29:05 <JohnArwe> dret, losing your voice in the bkground hiss
John Arwe: dret, losing your voice in the bkground hiss ←
14:29:55 <cody> dret: I think it will be an interesting one to look at.
Erik Wilde: I think it will be an interesting one to look at. ←
14:30:18 <cody> Arnaud: We'll give nmihindu and fret the action item to look at it.
Arnaud Le Hors: We'll give nmihindu and dret the action item to look at it. ←
14:30:30 <stevebattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
<cody> Topic: Open issues
<cody> subtopic: ISSUE-13: Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples
14:30:33 <bblfish> Issue-13
14:30:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-13 -- Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples -- open ←
14:30:33 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/13
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/13 ←
14:30:38 <cody> Arnaud: Now, let's move on to trying to making progress on Open Issues. Starting with ISSUE-13
Arnaud Le Hors: Now, let's move on to trying to making progress on Open Issues. Starting with ISSUE-13 ←
14:30:39 <nmihindu> s/fret/dret
14:31:27 <stevebattle> http://dristachi.site/TR/ldp/#general-1
Steve Battle: http://dristachi.site/TR/ldp/#general-1 ←
14:33:20 <cody> Roger Menday: My objection was purely around ensuring the wording wasn
Roger Menday: My objection was purely around ensuring the wording wasn ←
14:33:31 <cody> Roger: wasn't so ambiguous
Roger Menday: wasn't so ambiguous ←
14:33:51 <JohnArwe> speaker is steve battle
John Arwe: speaker is steve battle ←
14:34:14 <cody> thx
thx ←
14:34:17 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:34:18 <JohnArwe> Roger will not be with us for 3 weeks (via private email)
John Arwe: Roger will not be with us for 3 weeks (via private email) ←
14:35:26 <cody> stevebattle: does anybody deny that there is two different clauses within that�
Steve Battle: does anybody deny that there is two different clauses within thatâ¦? ←
14:35:36 <Arnaud> ack steve
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steve ←
14:35:42 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:37:14 <SteveS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0145.html
Steve Speicher: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0145.html ←
14:37:29 <cody> stevebattle: I posted an example to the email log. This is based on the Net Worth Example.
Steve Battle: I posted an example to the email log. This is based on the Net Worth Example. ←
14:38:47 <cody> stevebattle: This is really about server managed properties
Steve Battle: This is really about server managed properties ←
14:39:56 <dret> wondering: when you "sign" content, shouldn't you only be able to do that for content, and not for the member? i am saying that because a member is always under control of the server anyway, which might add metadata as it sees fit. it thus would be impossible for a client to do anything that depends on full control over that resource.
Erik Wilde: wondering: when you "sign" content, shouldn't you only be able to do that for content, and not for the member? i am saying that because a member is always under control of the server anyway, which might add metadata as it sees fit. it thus would be impossible for a client to do anything that depends on full control over that resource. ←
14:40:50 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
14:40:50 <cody> stevebattle: A1 is the key member of this Net Worth container. That met data about A1 is not actually within A1. Now if you do a GET on A1, you can see it has a value of 100. If you do a GET on the container, you get all of those triples combined. You get A1 and you can see the values. I can't now do a PATCH on the container. I've actually got to do the patch on A1 itself.
Steve Battle: A1 is the key member of this Net Worth container. That met data about A1 is not actually within A1. Now if you do a GET on A1, you can see it has a value of 100. If you do a GET on the container, you get all of those triples combined. You get A1 and you can see the values. I can't now do a PATCH on the container. I've actually got to do the patch on A1 itself. ←
14:41:07 <JohnArwe> I think SB said "NOT" about server managed props. Provenance being a good example, since LDP says nothing about Prov he assumes it is "user"-managed.
John Arwe: I think SB said "NOT" about server managed props. Provenance being a good example, since LDP says nothing about Prov he assumes it is "user"-managed. ←
14:41:26 <cody> stevebattle: Maybe there needs to be an option when you ddl a GET on the container to prevent inlining.
Steve Battle: Maybe there needs to be an option when you ddl a GET on the container to prevent inlining. ←
14:42:23 <cody> Arnaud: I understand your example. I just don't know about the distinction your making by using "about"
Arnaud Le Hors: I understand your example. I just don't know about the distinction your making by using "about" ←
14:42:26 <pchampin> q+
14:42:41 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
14:42:46 <cody> stevebattle: The inline view is kind of the "constructed" view. It's not a "real" view.
Steve Battle: The inline view is kind of the "constructed" view. It's not a "real" view. ←
14:42:53 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
14:43:19 <TallTed> I'm fine with the suggested revision. servers MAY refuse such ... which implies that they MAY accept such, but it's not *required* that they accept (nor refuse). application specific might handle a PATCH against LDPC that actually targets inlined LDPR triples -- but compliance doesn't require it.
Ted Thibodeau: I'm fine with the suggested revision. servers MAY refuse such ... which implies that they MAY accept such, but it's not *required* that they accept (nor refuse). application specific might handle a PATCH against LDPC that actually targets inlined LDPR triples -- but compliance doesn't require it. ←
14:43:25 <ericP> JohnArwe, i'd say that prov is server-managed. a particular server will have policies about what parts of the graph it provides
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, i'd say that prov is server-managed. a particular server will have policies about what parts of the graph it provides ←
14:43:58 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
14:44:06 <cody> ericP: Do we really want containers to have such a complex behavior? I think the current assumption in the spec is that you cannot add arbitrary triples to the container. I see the use-case of talking about the members somewhere. I'm wondering if containers is the right place to do that?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Do we really want containers to have such a complex behavior? I think the current assumption in the spec is that you cannot add arbitrary triples to the container. I see the use-case of talking about the members somewhere. I'm wondering if containers is the right place to do that? ←
14:44:07 <JohnArwe> @ericp, I was not making any assertion other than the existence of a difference between what I heard @steveb say and what the scribe minutes.
John Arwe: @ericp, I was not making any assertion other than the existence of a difference between what I heard @steveb say and what the scribe minuted. ←
14:44:14 <JohnArwe> s/minutes/minuted/
14:44:33 <pchampin> s/ericP:/pchampin:/
14:44:33 <dret> very good point: the data that containers accept (and thus can represent) should be controlled/limited.
Erik Wilde: very good point: the data that containers accept (and thus can represent) should be controlled/limited. ←
14:44:59 <ericP> cody, i don't think we have any choice. I had this issue with Annotea, where the dc:author property was tied to the http auth user who created an annotation
Eric Prud'hommeaux: @JohnArwe, i don't think we have any choice. I had this issue with Annotea, where the dc:author property was tied to the http auth user who created an annotation ←
14:45:01 <cody> SteveS: My thought was⦠seems like we don't haveâ¦. would this be more about augmenting the PATCH section to what it means to PATCH containers?
Steve Speicher: My thought was⦠seems like we don't haveâ¦. would this be more about augmenting the PATCH section to what it means to PATCH containers? ←
14:45:02 <bblfish> That also makes sense, to add information about patching containers
Henry Story: That also makes sense, to add information about patching containers ←
14:45:08 <cody> Arnaud: You lost me, sorry.
Arnaud Le Hors: You lost me, sorry. ←
14:45:35 <cody> SteveS: I'm wondering why there isn't a proposal for something in the PATCH section to add the clarification.
Steve Speicher: I'm wondering why there isn't a proposal for something in the PATCH section to add the clarification. ←
14:45:56 <ericP> s/cody, i don't think/@JohnArwe, i don't think/
14:46:14 <JohnArwe> This seems no different (some properties(triples) can be updated, others not) through a given URL than other cases like the generic "subject to access control" disclaimer.
John Arwe: This seems no different (some properties(triples) can be updated, others not) through a given URL than other cases like the generic "subject to access control" disclaimer. ←
14:46:31 <ericP> i buy that
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i buy that ←
14:46:32 <bblfish> What was the proposal?
Henry Story: What was the proposal? ←
14:46:41 <Arnaud> original: âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update inlined members through PUT/PATCH to a container.â
Arnaud Le Hors: original: âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update inlined members through PUT/PATCH to a container.â ←
14:46:52 <Arnaud> amended: âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update the content of an inlined LDPR through PUT/PATCH to a container.â
Arnaud Le Hors: amended: âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update the content of an inlined LDPR through PUT/PATCH to a container.â ←
14:47:08 <cody> Arnaud: This was the original we tried to agree to. Then Steve sent an ammended version.
Arnaud Le Hors: This was the original we tried to agree to. Then Steve sent an ammended version. ←
14:47:27 <cody> Arnaud: At this point, I don't think we have introduced the term "inlined resources" in the spec.
Arnaud Le Hors: At this point, I don't think we have introduced the term "inlined resources" in the spec. ←
14:48:22 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:48:32 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:48:32 <cody> stevebattle: If we go with the original proposal, we'd also need to change 5.2.6; which is describing exactly what you can save in a container
Steve Battle: If we go with the original proposal, we'd also need to change 5.2.6; which is describing exactly what you can save in a container ←
14:48:41 <cody> Arnaud: Henry?
Arnaud Le Hors: Henry? ←
14:48:58 <TallTed> "5.2.6 The representation of a LDPC MAY include an arbitrary number of additional triples whose subjects are the members of the container, or that are from the representations of the members (if they have RDF representations). This allows a LDPC server to provide clients with information about the members without the client having to do a GET on each member individually. See section 5.1.1 Container Member Information for additional
Ted Thibodeau: "5.2.6 The representation of a LDPC MAY include an arbitrary number of additional triples whose subjects are the members of the container, or that are from the representations of the members (if they have RDF representations). This allows a LDPC server to provide clients with information about the members without the client having to do a GET on each member individually. See section 5.1.1 Container Member Information for additional ←
14:48:58 <TallTed> details."
Ted Thibodeau: details." ←
14:48:58 <TallTed> so
Ted Thibodeau: so ←
14:48:58 <TallTed> âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.â
Ted Thibodeau: âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.â ←
14:49:45 <ericP> a particular app can close the world. for instance, if the data is backed by an RDB
Eric Prud'hommeaux: a particular app can close the world. for instance, if the data is backed by an RDB ←
14:50:01 <dret> very good point, bblfish.
Erik Wilde: very good point, bblfish. ←
14:50:19 <cody> bblfish: explained a concern (scribe didn
Henry Story: explained a concern (scribe didn ←
14:50:24 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
14:50:35 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
14:50:39 <dret> actually, it is one that pretty much influences every single interaction in a RESTful design based on RDF.
Erik Wilde: actually, it is one that pretty much influences every single interaction in a RESTful design based on RDF. ←
14:50:56 <ericP> +1 to "it won't search the internet"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to "it won't search the internet" ←
14:51:17 <pchampin> bblfish: RDF works under the open world assumption; so I don't think we can state something like "here are *all* the triples about this resource
Henry Story: RDF works under the open world assumption; so I don't think we can state something like "here are *all* the triples about this resource [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
14:51:23 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
14:51:26 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:51:26 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
14:52:05 <cody> TallTed: What I am seeing as a distraction about "inline triples" is easy to eliminate by not using those terms.
Ted Thibodeau: What I am seeing as a distraction about "inline triples" is easy to eliminate by not using those terms. ←
14:52:21 <ericP> bblfish, 'SELECT ?s ?p ?o { GRPAH <x> { ?s ?p ?o } }' gives me all of the triples in <x>
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, 'SELECT ?s ?p ?o { GRPAH <x> { ?s ?p ?o } }' gives me all of the triples in <x> ←
14:52:26 <cody> TallTed: I say changing "inline â¦whatever" to terminology that is already used.
Ted Thibodeau: I say changing "inline â¦whatever" to terminology that is already used. ←
14:53:00 <stevebattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:53:02 <bblfish> my point was that in RDF ther is for a container to say that it has published all the relations that are in the element. So if a container has <> rdf:member <element>, rdf does not make it possible to express that it has all the triples published inA <element>
Henry Story: my point was that in RDF ther is for a container to say that it has published all the relations that are in the element. So if a container has <> rdf:member <element>, rdf does not make it possible to express that it has all the triples published inA <element> ←
14:53:11 <ericP> bblfish, likewise 'SELECT ?p ?o { <y> ?p ?o }' gives me all of the triples in the data store's default graph which <y> as a subject
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, likewise 'SELECT ?p ?o { <y> ?p ?o }' gives me all of the triples in the data store's default graph which <y> as a subject ←
14:53:27 <Arnaud> ack tallted
Arnaud Le Hors: ack tallted ←
14:53:31 <Arnaud> ack steve
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steve ←
14:53:47 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
Zakim IRC Bot: -BartvanLeeuwen ←
14:53:52 <bblfish> what's the latest proposal?
Henry Story: what's the latest proposal? ←
14:53:53 <cody> stevebattle: I'm happy with Ted's "amended amended" proposal. Saying the same thing as what I was saying.
Steve Battle: I'm happy with Ted's "amended amended" proposal. Saying the same thing as what I was saying. ←
14:54:07 <stevebattle> And better worded :)
Steve Battle: And better worded :) ←
14:54:21 <ericP> bblfish, ahh, what about { <> rdf:member <element> ; foo:count 5 } ?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, ahh, what about { <> rdf:member <element> ; foo:count 5 } ? ←
14:54:22 <Arnaud> proposal: close issue-13, adding âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update the content of an inlined LDPR through PUT/PATCH to a container.â to section 5.2.6
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-13, adding âClose the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update the content of an inlined LDPR through PUT/PATCH to a container.â to section 5.2.6 ←
14:54:27 <stevebattle> Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.
Steve Battle: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container. ←
14:54:45 <cody> TallTed: No that's not right. Hold on.
Ted Thibodeau: No that's not right. Hold on. ←
14:54:53 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying in 5.2.6 that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.
PROPOSED: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying in 5.2.6 that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container. ←
14:55:14 <cody> stevebattle: yup. That's right.
Steve Battle: yup. That's right. ←
14:55:19 <bblfish> ericp <member> foo:count 5 , might work if <member> is a document
Henry Story: ericp <member> foo:count 5 , might work if <member> is a document ←
14:55:35 <cody> Arnaud: Right, my copy/paste failed. Thank you. You're right.
Arnaud Le Hors: Right, my copy/paste failed. Thank you. You're right. ←
14:55:39 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:55:43 <ericP> bblfish, but not if it's a ...?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, but not if it's a ...? ←
14:55:44 <bblfish> would not work with <> rdf:member <m#h> .
Henry Story: would not work with <> rdf:member <m#h> . ←
14:55:49 <cody> Arnaud: I'd like to hear from people on this proposal.
Arnaud Le Hors: I'd like to hear from people on this proposal. ←
14:56:07 <cody> TallTed: This is where the arbitrary number of included triples comes from.
Ted Thibodeau: This is where the arbitrary number of included triples comes from. ←
14:56:13 <ericP> bblfish, why the distinction?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: bblfish, why the distinction? ←
14:56:28 <pchampin> @bblfish: it would work! OWL has that. The problem is, it can leads to unexpected conclusions by inference engines.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @bblfish: it would work! OWL has that. The problem is, it can leads to unexpected conclusions by inference engines. ←
14:56:32 <bblfish> because a document can contain triples, an object always can have an infinte number of tripels
Henry Story: because a document can contain triples, an object always can have an infinte number of tripels ←
14:56:36 <cody> Arnaud: As always, editors have some room for figuring out how to keep spec consistent (editing somewhere else if necessary to keep spec consistent)
Arnaud Le Hors: As always, editors have some room for figuring out how to keep spec consistent (editing somewhere else if necessary to keep spec consistent) ←
14:56:36 <stevebattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
14:56:36 <pchampin> +1
14:56:39 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:56:49 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:56:53 <SteveS> +1 may need to update 5.5 PUT and 5.8 PATCH as well
Steve Speicher: +1 may need to update 5.5 PUT and 5.8 PATCH as well ←
14:56:54 <bblfish> +0.5 ( just because I have only thought of it today )
Henry Story: +0.5 ( just because I have only thought of it today ) ←
14:56:56 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
14:56:58 <dret> +1
Erik Wilde: +1 ←
14:57:05 <cody> +0
+0 ←
14:57:11 <JohnArwe> +1
14:57:21 <Arnaud> resolved: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying in 5.2.6 that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container.
RESOLVED: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying in 5.2.6 that servers may refuse to update such included triples through PUT/PATCH to the container. ←
14:57:33 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:57:33 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
14:57:38 <stevebattle> Thanks Ted :)
Steve Battle: Thanks Ted :) ←
14:57:44 <bblfish> pchampin: what does owl say?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: what does owl say? [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ] ←
14:58:02 <cody> Arnaud: I will call it resolved and leave it to the editors to select the resolution in the spec - along the lines of what is proposed. If there is more that needs to be done, then please do so.
Arnaud Le Hors: I will call it resolved and leave it to the editors to select the resolution in the spec - along the lines of what is proposed. If there is more that needs to be done, then please do so. ←
14:58:12 <bblfish> owl, can create restrictions on the number of ojbects a relation has, not on the number of relations on an object
Henry Story: owl, can create restrictions on the number of ojbects a relation has, not on the number of relations on an object ←
14:58:33 <bblfish> it's like owl:FunctionalPrperty
Henry Story: it's like owl:FunctionalPrperty ←
<cody> subtopic: ISSUE-59: Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior
14:58:51 <cody> Arnaud: We had some discussion on ISSUE-59
Arnaud Le Hors: We had some discussion on ISSUE-59 ←
14:58:57 <bblfish> Issue-59
14:58:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- open ←
14:58:57 <trackbot> http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/59
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://dristachi.site/2012/ldp/track/issues/59 ←
14:59:02 <TallTed> Zakim - unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim - unmute me ←
14:59:08 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:59:08 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
14:59:30 <cody> Arnaud: Composite versus aggregate containers. We resolved, but most people don't seem to be happy with the status quo.
Arnaud Le Hors: Composite versus aggregate containers. We resolved, but most people don't seem to be happy with the status quo. ←
15:00:33 <dret> need to get on a different meeting; thanks everybody!
Erik Wilde: need to get on a different meeting; thanks everybody! ←
15:00:40 <Zakim> -dret
Zakim IRC Bot: -dret ←
15:00:59 <stevebattle> I like the proposal
Steve Battle: I like the proposal ←
15:01:02 <bblfish> The question I have is what would be the method for a recursive delete?
Henry Story: The question I have is what would be the method for a recursive delete? ←
15:01:12 <cody> Arnaud: If I have thousands of resources in my container, and I delete the container, I want the server to delete them for me, and this led to discussion of need for aggregate container. Ted, had some disagreements. So the proposal is to forget the separation between composite and aggregation. Please, look at the email thread on this and try to indicate what you agree and don't agree to on this.
Arnaud Le Hors: If I have thousands of resources in my container, and I delete the container, I want the server to delete them for me, and this led to discussion of need for aggregate container. Ted, had some disagreements. So the proposal is to forget the separation between composite and aggregation. Please, look at the email thread on this and try to indicate what you agree and don't agree to on this. ←
15:01:24 <SteveS> Yes, be interested to hear about the part (a) and also the part (b) (recursive delete)
Steve Speicher: Yes, be interested to hear about the part (a) and also the part (b) (recursive delete) ←
15:01:27 <stevebattle> DELETE x?recursive
Steve Battle: DELETE x?recursive ←
15:01:31 <cody> Arnaud: Please - look at that email. For this, I will close the call for now.
Arnaud Le Hors: Please - look at that email. For this, I will close the call for now. ←
15:01:32 <stevebattle> just an idea
Steve Battle: just an idea ←
15:01:38 <stevebattle> bye
Steve Battle: bye ←
15:01:39 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
Zakim IRC Bot: -JohnArwe ←
15:02:03 <bblfish> A cool, a Retry-After
Henry Story: A cool, a Retry-After ←
15:02:18 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
15:02:20 <bblfish> Can you POST info on that in HTTP/1.1
Henry Story: Can you POST info on that in HTTP/1.1 ←
15:02:23 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
15:02:41 <nmihindu> http://dristachi.site/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.37
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: http://dristachi.site/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.37 ←
15:03:43 <cody> zakim, who is talking?
zakim, who is talking? ←
15:03:55 <Zakim> cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Cody (15%), TallTed (48%), ericP (15%)
Zakim IRC Bot: cody, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Cody (15%), TallTed (48%), ericP (15%) ←
15:04:27 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:04:30 <cody> pchampin: is not rude to raise issues without prior discussion?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: is not rude to raise issues without prior discussion? ←
15:04:35 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
15:04:36 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
15:04:36 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
15:04:45 <cody> Arnaud: no. What's rude is to Open it, but not raise it, no.
Arnaud Le Hors: no. What's rude is to Open it, but not raise it, no. ←
15:10:51 <Zakim> -Cody
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Cody ←
Formatted by CommonScribe