IRC log of webont on 2002-04-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:50:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
07:51:42 [libby]
logger1 is logging to
07:53:25 [jhendler]
RRSAgent, where is the log
07:53:25 [jhendler]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'where is the log', jhendler. Try /msg RRSAgent help
07:53:54 [jhendler]
RRSAgent bookmark
07:54:04 [jhendler]
RRSAgent, bookmark
07:54:04 [RRSAgent]
07:54:23 [jhendler]
jhendler has changed the topic to: Web Ontology WG - f2f: - log -
07:54:49 [nmg]
fvh: starting from proposal from 19 Mar 2002 (first proposal for OWL)
07:55:35 [JosD]
Frank's presentation is at
07:55:39 [nmg]
07:56:01 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #webont
07:59:28 [nmg]
jjc: is the difference between primitive and defined classes understandable by users?
08:00:18 [nmg]
guus: we dropped 'primitive' from PrimitiveClass in our use (understandable to OO peopole)
08:01:40 [nmg]
fvh: difference is buried in DAML+OIL (PrimitiveClass == subClassOf, DefinedClass == sameClassAs)
08:04:32 [DavidTras]
DavidTras has joined #webont
08:05:36 [nmg]
fvh: or, PrimitiveClass == sufficient, DefinedClass == necessary and sufficient
08:05:38 [GuusS]
ISSUE: is "defined-class" core or advanced feature
08:09:26 [nmg]
jhendler: why is multiple-valued the default for slots (and not single-valued, as in other languages)
08:10:03 [nmg]
fvh: single-valued is a tighter constraint, looser (multiple) taken as default.
08:10:43 [nmg]
ISSUE: default cardinality for slots (single/multi)
08:13:16 [nmg]
fvh: (answering question from PatH) Enumerated Class is necessary and sufficient definition
08:14:13 [nmg]
guus: EnumeratedClasses may also have slots (cf. Mozart opera example from UML/OWL document)
08:15:43 [nmg]
08:15:57 [nmg]
fvh: EnumeratedClass is also closed defn
08:17:41 [nmg]
fvh: also, no need to define (individuals) before first use - EnumeratedClass defines individuals in extension of class
08:18:15 [nmg]
ISSUE: global and local ranges (mike dean)
08:18:36 [nmg]
mdean: perhaps we could do away with global ranges?
08:19:54 [nmg]
fvh: TransitiveProperty is global defn
08:22:28 [nmg]
pfps: (datatyping) DAML+OIL does not explicitly specify type of a literal value
08:23:33 [nmg]
PatH: rdf-core approach to datatypes involves (is likely to involve?) bNodes with datatype properties (xsd:integer, eg)
08:24:05 [nmg]
ISSUE: datatyping
08:25:56 [nmg]
mdean: syntax for individual only takes one class name
08:26:07 [nmg]
fvh/pfps: compatability with RDF syntax
08:26:14 [jhendler]
issue - if same thing is class and instance, what does that imply
08:28:17 [nmg]
guus: problem with datatype values - often need to know/specify units of measurement
08:28:37 [nmg]
fvh: complex datatype, or anonymous individual
08:28:57 [nmg]
guus: need to show realistic examples for this
08:30:13 [jjc]
Jim: "I am not doing this" - I observe this is necessarily the liar paradox
08:30:58 [jhendler]
jjc - show it to me in RDFS :->
08:32:23 [jjc]
<#Jim> <doing> _:x .
08:32:25 [nmg]
fvh: equalities and inequalities of classes, properties and individuals are in FOWL core
08:32:41 [jjc]
No I give up
08:34:38 [nmg]
jimh: equivalentTo (super of above three relations) often useful in ontology mapping - mapping classes to instances, eg
08:35:59 [nmg]
ISSUE: equivalentTo (class<->instance, etc)
08:37:08 [nmg]
fvh: Full FOWL
08:39:02 [nmg]
fvh: qualified cardinality (from DAML+OIL) not in FOWL
08:41:30 [nmg]
Full FOWL as super-production of Core FOWL?
08:46:23 [nmg]
jimh: (on relation between Full and Core), some equivalent constructs appear in different ways (single/multivalue slots vs. min/max cardinality). no clear rationale behind this
08:46:55 [nmg]
ISSUE: relation between equivalent constructs in Full FOWL and Core FOWL
08:53:28 [nmg]
fvh: (comparison with DAML+OIL) inverseOf not in FOWL
08:54:03 [nmg]
pfps: removal of inverseOf was on the basis of complexity of inference
08:55:46 [nmg]
fvh: further issues raised on email (summarised in
08:58:55 [nmg]
*** session ends
09:20:54 [Herman]
Herman has joined #webont
09:21:44 [libby]
09:21:58 [libby]
- picture form last night
09:24:30 [pfps]
pfps has joined #Webont
09:25:35 [Herman]
Herman has left #webont
09:26:07 [Herman]
Herman has joined #webont
09:31:22 [nmg]
*** session starts
09:31:53 [nmg]
*** 11.00-12.30 DAML+OIL comparison, preliminary decision on core features, initial language issue list
09:32:41 [nmg]
jimh: core should be defined as language features, not syntax
09:35:27 [mdean]
Peter, etc.: What's a DatatypeRestriction? I couldn't find it in daml+oil.daml
09:37:35 [nmg]
jimh: compare FOWL Core proposal to DAML+OIL (Mar 2001 -
09:40:26 [jono]
jono has joined #webont
09:45:30 [nmg]
jimh: triage language features into 'do it the way daml does' or 'discuss further'
09:46:40 [nmg]
POLL: cardinality (B - some objections, majority in favour)
09:47:32 [nmg]
POLL: cardinalityQ (minority in favour)
09:48:36 [nmg]
POLL: class (A - in favour)
09:51:09 [nmg]
POLL: complementOf (B)
09:52:25 [nmg]
jimh: poll is for FOWL as a whole (not ness just Core)
09:52:53 [nmg]
jjc: concentrate only on Core at this stage, leave Full for later?
09:53:11 [nmg]
sbuswell: make assumption that there are two languages...
09:55:40 [nmg]
jimh: proposal: next WD will be Core language (features, syntax, etc), further progression to Full depends on schedule
09:57:01 [nmg]
sbuswell: not Core, but earlier version
09:57:10 [nmg]
fvh: *contents* correspond to Core
09:58:32 [nmg]
sbuswell/jjc: would change previous votes if this proposal were adopted.
10:07:23 [nmg]
dtrastour: subtractive rather than additive approach to deciding language features (start with DAML+OIL, pick elements to remove)
10:07:58 [nmg]
fvh: reinvention of wheel? language proposal for FOWL Core/Full does much of this work
10:08:19 [nmg]
jjc: agree, HP ontologists would prefer to start from co
10:08:34 [nmg]
ianh: disagree, one language starting from full
10:09:53 [nmg]
jimh: three options: start from fowl core, start from fowl full, start from daml+oil
10:10:25 [nmg]
path: other option raised by deborah mcguinness, start from smaller language than core
10:10:41 [nmg]
jimh: minimal start from rdfs
10:12:04 [nmg]
STRAW POLL: choice between above options
10:14:18 [nmg]
RESULT: start from RDFS (2), start from core (10), start from full (9), start from daml+oil (2)
10:14:38 [nmg]
RESULT (after removing RDDFS/daml+oil): start from core (14), start from full (10)
10:20:47 [nmg]
RESULT (after adding cardinality to core): start from core (13), start from full (10)
10:21:39 [nmg]
guus: other approach, take all constructs from full but only allow named classes
10:28:41 [nmg]
path: why named classes in core, class expressions in full
10:29:34 [nmg]
fvh: class expressions (slot restrictions, etc) not a natural way of thinking for most users and also raises issues with tool support (representation in UI?) and roundtripping
10:29:54 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
10:33:52 [nmg]
jjc: define URI prefix in spec for defn of unnamed class names (locally scoped names?)
10:34:19 [nmg]
path: cf. skolemfunctions in KIF
10:36:00 [nmg]
enrico: unnamed classes comparatively rare
10:38:01 [nmg]
STRAW POLL: full functionality for named classes vs full functionality
10:39:00 [nmg]
rklein: appeal of core language was that inference in core language was easier than in full language
10:39:43 [nmg]
ianh: not the case - equivalent complexity
10:41:26 [nmg]
RESULT: full for named class (14), full (0)
10:41:49 [nmg]
sorry, full for named classes (14), full (9)
10:47:06 [nmg]
[scattered comments hard to scribe]
10:47:44 [nmg]
ianh: difference between two proposals now very small, basically unnamed classes (agreement from enrico)
10:48:51 [nmg]
jimh: need to distinguish proposals in different manner to achive consensus
10:49:04 [nmg]
*** session breaks for lunch
12:34:34 [libby]
libby has joined #webont
12:37:10 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
12:39:42 [ora]
ora has joined #webont
12:55:25 [herman]
herman has joined #webont
13:12:46 [ora]
ora has joined #webont
13:17:16 [em]
em has joined #webont
13:41:39 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
13:42:00 [heflin]
Hi everyone. Just thought I'd check in and see how things are going.
13:42:20 [jd]
jd has joined #webont
13:49:13 [DavidTras]
DavidTras has joined #webont
13:58:41 [em]
em has joined #webont
14:00:36 [connolly]
connolly has joined #webont
14:08:45 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
14:15:57 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
14:16:39 [jjcscribe]
JimH - I will be strict about departures from D+O
14:17:00 [jjcscribe]
The full language needs to be close to D+O or we will never finish
14:17:13 [jjcscribe]
Issue list must be manageable size
14:18:20 [jjcscribe]
We must take seriously that we start from an existing thing
14:19:29 [jjcscribe]
JimH: I am less confortable about presentation syntax if we are doing this complex thing
14:19:32 [pfps]
pfps has joined #Webont
14:20:36 [jjcscribe]
(Prior to scribing - suggestion of two layers)
14:20:50 [jjcscribe]
Guus: which construct goes into which layer
14:21:07 [jjcscribe]
Suggested lit
14:21:11 [jjcscribe]
? * cardinality
14:21:19 [jjcscribe]
X * cardinalityQ
14:21:24 [jjcscribe]
R * class
14:21:28 [jjcscribe]
2 * complementOf
14:21:29 [FvH]
FvH has joined #webont
14:21:36 [jjcscribe]
R * datatype
14:21:41 [jjcscribe]
1 * datatypeProeprty
14:21:47 [jjcscribe]
2 * DatatypeRestrictiron
14:21:55 [jjcscribe]
?? * DatatypeVlaue
14:22:05 [jjcscribe]
1 * differentIn
14:22:11 [jjcscribe]
14:22:15 [jjcscribe]
? * Disjoint
14:22:36 [jjcscribe]
X * disjointUnionOf
14:22:46 [jjcscribe]
? * disjointWith
14:22:51 [jjcscribe]
R * domain
14:22:59 [jjcscribe]
? * equivalemntTO
14:23:04 [jjcscribe]
1 * hasClass
14:24:10 [jjcscribe]
JimH: most implementors of D+O are implementing their own subsets
14:25:03 [jjcscribe]
Guus: many people say some lighter version should be available
14:27:28 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy: I am unhappy since we seem to be starting at D+O not full
14:27:56 [jjcscribe]
JimH: the full version allows you to scatter information
14:31:25 [jjcscribe]
Enrico: I thought there were going to be semantic differentces between D+O and OWL
14:34:32 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
14:36:07 [jjcscribe]
Objectives + Requirements satsisfactoin?
14:36:17 [jjcscribe]
Frank: most objectives not, nohopers
14:36:53 [jjcscribe]
Most requirements met by split - boolean combinations point of contention
14:38:08 [jjcscribe]
Guus: Proposal: do both 1 and 2, and see them as separate requirement levels
14:38:25 [jjcscribe]
14:39:32 [jjcscribe]
Ian: I disagree, its two different languages
14:40:40 [jjcscribe]
Pat: it is not two language, JimH: it is a proper subset
14:41:04 [jjcscribe]
Ora: I don'tlike subsetting, but defining a subset controls a process that will happen anyway
14:42:07 [jjcscribe]
Proposal carried
14:45:11 [jjcscribe]
JonatahnBowden we have now met the LAYERRING objective
14:47:48 [jhendler]
jhendler has joined #webont
14:47:59 [jhendler]
zakim, who is here?
14:48:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webont
14:48:53 [jhendler]
zakim, who is here?
14:48:54 [Zakim]
sorry, jhendler, I don't know what conference this is
14:49:16 [jhendler]
zakim, this is WOWG
14:49:18 [Zakim]
sorry, jhendler, I do not see a conference named 'WOWG'
14:49:30 [jhendler]
zakim, create wowg
14:49:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'create wowg', jhendler. Try /msg Zakim help
14:49:52 [jhendler]
zakim, this is sw_webont
14:49:53 [Zakim]
ok, jhendler
14:50:05 [jhendler]
zakim, who is here?
14:50:05 [jjcscribe]
technical problems with telcon
14:50:06 [Zakim]
I see ??P13, ??P2, ??P3
14:50:58 [jjcscribe]
JimH: let's move speaker phone, and speakers come up to it
14:51:30 [jjcscribe]
Deb: I can hear someone maybe Jim very distance
14:51:36 [jjcscribe]
(Jim is right next to phone)
14:52:29 [jjcscribe]
Jeff: are you on the telecon?
14:53:16 [jjcscribe]
Pat: this is pat shouting one inch from the microphone
14:53:20 [jjcscribe]
Pat: can you hear this
14:53:25 [jjcscribe]
Deb: yes very well
14:55:01 [heflin]
Hi, I can't join the telecon because I have office hours right now,
14:55:15 [jjcscribe]
OK - thanks
14:55:17 [heflin]
but I'll watch the chat periodically
14:55:37 [jhendler]
that is okay Jeff, you wouldn't hear it anyway (phone problems) - but we are about to attack the RDF v. XML issue
14:55:42 [jjcscribe]
Ro Call
14:55:44 [jjcscribe]
14:55:46 [jjcscribe]
14:55:55 [jjcscribe]
and f2f participants
14:56:11 [heflin]
and Jeff
14:56:35 [jjcscribe]
Guus: telecon is about syntax
14:56:49 [jjcscribe]
Guss whispers "I am not talking loud enough"
14:57:29 [jjcscribe]
Deb: I heard Jim asking if we can hear Guus - I couldn't hear Guus
14:58:53 [jjcscribe]
Pat: yelling is embarrasing for some of us, myself excluded
14:59:09 [jjcscribe]
Guus: two competing viewpoints
14:59:19 [jjcscribe]
1: based on RDF/XML syntax
14:59:29 [jjcscribe]
(charter, political)
15:00:26 [jjcscribe]
Guus: I am not the person who shouts
15:00:36 [jjcscribe]
Pat takes over shouting
15:00:53 [jjcscribe]
Pat: can you hear me
15:00:58 [jjcscribe]
Larry: yes fine
15:01:52 [jjcscribe]
2: a new syntax
15:02:05 [jjcscribe]
compliance in favour of 1
15:02:12 [jjcscribe]
for 2 (against 1)
15:02:20 [jjcscribe]
expressability and ease of presentation
15:02:55 [jjcscribe]
Guus: option 2 makes life very hard for 2
15:03:25 [jjcscribe]
Option 2 needs a lot of justifying arguments
15:03:44 [jjcscribe]
Larry I am neutral
15:05:14 [jhendler]
Jeremy - many ways to be "RDF/XML compliant" -- like CC/PP and others, RDF syntax is used, but not total of RDF
15:06:05 [jjcscribe]
Guus: option of lcosed list is now on RDF cores issue lsit
15:06:53 [jjcscribe]
PatH: we assume that RDF core will provide terminated lists
15:08:10 [jjcscribe]
Deb: I thought we had bought into building on RDF
15:08:17 [DanC]
the main reason for using RDF/XML syntax is the partial understanding bit, i thnk.
15:08:27 [jjcscribe]
Guus: from outside RDF schema looks like compliance level 0
15:08:55 [DeborahMc]
DeborahMc has joined #webont
15:09:37 [jjcscribe]
Guus: hence we should conform to RDF syntax
15:10:39 [jjcscribe]
Frank: technically I don't like it, but politically I can go with
15:11:11 [jjcscribe]
Ora: no one thinks RDF syntax is nice (jiomh matters disagreememt)
15:11:50 [ora]
I was referring to the XML serialization, of course
15:12:43 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy: lets design good XML and then tionker it into RDF triples
15:13:17 [jjcscribe]
Deb: politcial benefits of that may be high
15:13:35 [jjcscribe]
JonathanB: properly constructed good technical XML can be RDF
15:13:46 [jjcscribe]
jb: it may look like DAML+OIL
15:14:02 [jjcscribe]
jb: I look at elements as content, attribute as additional info
15:14:11 [jjcscribe]
jb: a few parseTypes don't bother me
15:14:19 [jjcscribe]
jb: using IDs is good
15:14:39 [jjcscribe]
jb: some compromises will be necessary
15:14:53 [jjcscribe]
jb: I don't believe the necessary compromises are that great
15:15:26 [jhendler]
JimH points out that Guus is chairing this session and he (JimH) will be a participant.
15:16:18 [jjcscribe]
jb: good XML it will be able to put into RDF
15:17:26 [jjcscribe]
JimH: we should start at D+O syntax
15:17:40 [jjcscribe]
JimH: becuse D+O users are familiar with them
15:17:57 [jjcscribe]
JimH; lots of people have bought into D+O syntax
15:18:30 [jjcscribe]
Ora: politically our existence is controversial
15:18:50 [heflin]
I get the feeling that a lot of users are unhappy with D+O syntax.
15:18:52 [jjcscribe]
Ora: we may lose creditabilty if we focus on this issue
15:19:59 [jjcscribe]
Larry: we might get bogged down in this issue
15:20:22 [jjcscribe]
Deb: all of us can live with RDF syntax, but what about broader user base
15:21:17 [heflin]
Maybe someone should survey current D+O users to see how they feel about RDF syntax?
15:21:18 [jjcscribe]
Frank: disagree wtih Jim that we should not diverge from D+O syntax
15:21:33 [jjcscribe]
Frank: core OWL proprofsal synatx was liked because of divergenet
15:25:31 [jjcscribe]
Mike: are negative reactions from XML literate people or non-XML literate
15:25:51 [jjcscribe]
Mike: is this negative about XML or negative about RDF
15:26:04 [jjcscribe]
Frank: it is XML literate poeple
15:26:13 [jjcscribe]
Deb: are frame literate people
15:26:25 [jjcscribe]
Deb: are XML literate people without RDF or DL
15:26:54 [jjcscribe]
Larry: I though OWL litewas going to fix that
15:27:31 [jjcscribe]
Pat: we seem to have two splits
15:27:43 [jjcscribe]
Pat presentation vs under the hood syntax
15:27:52 [jjcscribe]
Pat: XML serialization vs anything else
15:28:20 [jjcscribe]
Jb: motivation for using XML or RDF is that it is less work
15:28:23 [heflin]
Does Pat mean RDF XML serialization, or some other XML serialization?
15:28:29 [jjcscribe]
jb: syntax is already defined,
15:29:28 [jhendler]
pat - RDF/XML
15:30:02 [heflin]
I am not in favor of just anything else.
15:30:24 [jhendler]
"just anything else" than what?
15:30:25 [heflin]
I'm for RDF for data, other XML syntax for ontologies.
15:31:04 [jjcscribe]
Guus: proposed that underlying syntax is ugly
15:31:12 [heflin]
Above I was referring to scribes wording of Pat's statement. It sounds like non-XML was included there.
15:31:44 [jjcscribe]
(asside Pat did seem to be letting that)
15:32:28 [jjcscribe]
(I am a bit lost)
15:33:15 [heflin]
(I wish I could be on the telecon, but the moment I phone in, a student is bound to walk into my office.
15:33:29 [jjcscribe]
Peter: e.g. RSS can be roundtripped as RDF but then the meaning changes, because its meaning is XML
15:33:53 [jjcscribe]
JimH: I strongly feel that the meaning is in terms of the treiple
15:37:28 [jjcscribe]
(discussion missed)
15:37:46 [jjcscribe]
JimH: triples have well established history
15:37:58 [Zakim]
15:39:13 [jjcscribe]
JimH: my infrastructure likes that model
15:39:23 [jjcscribe]
Jeff hefflin joint
15:39:37 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, P55 is jeff_hefflin
15:39:38 [Zakim]
sorry, jjcscribe, I do not recognize a party named 'P55'
15:39:40 [jhendler]
15:40:14 [jjcscribe]
Zakim,??P55 is jeff_hefflin
15:40:39 [jjcscribe]
Zakim,??P55 is jeff_heflin
15:41:03 [jhendler]
zakim, who is here?
15:41:05 [Zakim]
I see ??P13, ??P2, ??P3, ??P55
15:41:20 [jjcscribe]
Guus: can we technically live with RDF triples
15:41:32 [DeborahMc]
i do not know my number on zakim, but deborah mcguinness is on the line
15:42:43 [jjcscribe]
jb: dark triples?
15:43:37 [jhendler]
Pat - looks like dark triples may be resolved in some simpler way
15:43:42 [jjcscribe]
Pat: Peter and I have stolen an idea from Jos to have dark trriples with no changes to RDF
15:44:17 [Zakim]
15:44:28 [heflin]
I had to hang up. A student's here...
15:44:50 [jjcscribe]
Pat: the trick is incorporate the unasserted triples in another document and refer to them
15:46:08 [jjcscribe]
Guus: is there a technical hurdle that cannot be overcome with RDF triples
15:48:02 [jjcscribe]
Frank: round tripping
15:48:27 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy: let's have preferred presentation syntax giving a preferred serialization of an RDF graph
15:48:49 [jjcscribe]
over an above a different serialization
15:49:10 [heflin]
Is the telecon almost over, or should I still rejoin?
15:49:42 [DeborahMc]
the conversation is still going strong
15:51:20 [heflin]
apparenty the conference is "restricted." Have we reached the limit of attendees?
15:51:44 [jjcscribe]
15:51:50 [jhendler]
we may have gone over time limit - Massimo?
15:52:23 [heflin]
Maybe it won't let anyone join after 11:45 ET?
15:53:10 [jjcscribe]
jb: propose postponing the req for round tripping
15:55:03 [jjcscribe]
Steven Buswell: wif we have two serializations which one is the reference syntax
15:55:19 [jjcscribe]
for pragmatic reasons the reference syntax is RDF
15:56:05 [jjcscribe]
Frank: people like fram in OWL lite; Jim I don't
15:57:11 [jjcscribe]
Massimo: are there any technical problems with RDF as a syntax here?
15:57:45 [heflin]
Layering issues, raised by Peter.
15:58:11 [DeborahMc]
just to add a vote, i have a number of comments from potential users supporting a frame syntax.
15:58:28 [jjcscribe]
jb: you could include the whole source ontology as an XML literal
15:59:32 [jjcscribe]
xml literal is value of parseType="literal"
16:01:02 [heflin]
I think that using triples for ontology also opens you up to problems where people could redefine your ontology building vocabulary (e.g., change the meaning of intersectionOf)
16:01:08 [jjcscribe]
guus: propose that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform
16:01:28 [jjcscribe]
guus: some form of preservation of presentation syntax is requirement
16:02:19 [jjcscribe]
guus: propose also RDF is underlying syntax
16:04:40 [jjcscribe]
deb we should present our solution in a way that makes XML and antiRDF people happy
16:05:30 [jjcscribe]
guus: propose that the presentation syntax is in XML
16:05:39 [jjcscribe]
(last bit seems controversial)
16:07:02 [jjcscribe]
ora; M&S says RDF/XML is one serialization
16:07:37 [ora]
"only one" serialization, others may exist
16:07:52 [ora]
not "the only one"
16:08:19 [DanC]
but until lots of consumers grok another RDF syntax, it is the only one
16:08:24 [jjcscribe]
AGREEMENT: to the bullers 1-3 of above proposal, (not that presentation syntax is XML - but the other ones)
16:08:43 [ora]
N3 is popular, yes?
16:09:11 [DanC]
N3 is a popular text-editor-based authoring tool for RDF/XML, yes.
16:09:22 [JosD]
16:09:56 [jjcscribe]
jb: we should register a mime media type
16:11:54 [Zakim]
16:11:54 [Zakim]
16:11:55 [Zakim]
16:11:58 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()10:45AM has ended
16:19:36 [heflin]
heflin has left #webont
16:56:38 [Deborah]
Deborah has joined #webont
17:37:15 [DanC]
by the way... with all the questions about logistics and such, maybe we didn't advertise the meeting home page enough
17:48:39 [timfinin]
timfinin has joined #webont
18:06:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webont
18:18:31 [timfinin]
timfinin has left #webont