IRC log of webont on 2002-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:10:30 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #webont
15:37:25 [DanCon]: DanCon has changed the topic to: WebOnt WG http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ 2May telcon
15:57:14 [Zakim]: SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started
15:57:20 [Zakim]: +??P22
15:58:19 [jhendler]: jhendler has joined #webont
15:58:57 [Massimo]: Massimo has joined #webont
15:59:05 [Zakim]: +MDean
15:59:07 [Zakim]: +??P28
15:59:09 [Zakim]: +SDecker
15:59:31 [jhendler]: Dan - thanks for catch on UML agenda item
15:59:36 [DanCon]: sure
15:59:37 [Zakim]: +??P40
15:59:50 [Zakim]: +??P42
16:00:04 [Zakim]: +??P44
16:00:05 [Zakim]: +DanC
16:00:30 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P44 is maybe TimFinin
16:00:31 [Zakim]: I don't understand '??P44 is maybe TimFinin', DanCon. Try /msg Zakim help
16:00:33 [Zakim]: + +1.301.871.aaaa
16:00:42 [Zakim]: +??P46
16:00:44 [pfps]: pfps has joined #webont
16:00:47 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P44 is perhaps TimFinin
16:00:49 [Zakim]: +TimFinin?; got it
16:00:50 [timfinin]: timfinin has joined #webont
16:00:51 [Zakim]: +Massimo
16:00:55 [Zakim]: +??P48
16:00:55 [Zakim]: +Ian.Horrocks
16:01:01 [jhendler]: zakim, 1.301.871.aaaa is JimH
16:01:02 [Zakim]: sorry, jhendler, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.871.aaaa'
16:01:05 [Zakim]: +??P51
16:01:27 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:01:28 [Zakim]: I see ??P22, MDean (muted), ??P28, SDecker, ??P40, ??P42, DanC, TimFinin?, +1.301.871.aaaa, Massimo, ??P46, Ian.Horrocks, ??P48, ??P51
16:01:33 [Zakim]: +Evan.Wallace
16:01:53 [DanCon]: Zakim, aaaa is JimH
16:01:54 [Zakim]: +JimH; got it
16:01:58 [frankh]: frankh has joined #webont
16:02:03 [jhendler]: regrets from Stanton, Lassila, Stein,
16:02:04 [IanH]: IanH has joined #webont
16:02:05 [libby]: libby has joined #webont
16:02:10 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P28 is perhaps FrankH
16:02:11 [Zakim]: +FrankH?; got it
16:02:12 [Zakim]: +??P53
16:02:22 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P53 is perhaps Rudiger
16:02:23 [Zakim]: +Rudiger?; got it
16:02:27 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:02:28 [Zakim]: I see ??P22, MDean (muted), FrankH?, SDecker, ??P40, ??P42, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo, ??P46, Ian.Horrocks, ??P48, ??P51, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?
16:02:31 [libby]: I joined a minute ago
16:02:36 [jhendler]: regrets Motto
16:02:39 [Zakim]: +??P52
16:02:43 [Zakim]: +??P21
16:02:47 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P40 is perhaps LarryE
16:02:48 [Zakim]: +LarryE?; got it
16:03:08 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P21 is perhaps HermanTerHorst
16:03:10 [Zakim]: +HermanTerHorst?; got it
16:03:24 [Zakim]: +??P54
16:03:27 [Zakim]: +??P55
16:03:32 [DanCon]: Horrocks points out that the buzz is a mobile phone too close to a land line.
16:03:40 [DanCon]: by demonstration
16:03:42 [Zakim]: +NickG
16:03:50 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:03:51 [Zakim]: I see ??P22, MDean (muted), FrankH?, SDecker, LarryE?, ??P42, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo (muted), ??P46, Ian.Horrocks, ??P48, ??P51, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?, ??P52,
16:03:54 [Zakim]: ... HermanTerHorst?, ??P54, ??P55, NickG
16:03:57 [schreiber]: schreiber has joined #webont
16:04:24 [schreiber]: Da, the one you have as FrankH? is me
16:04:40 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P46 is perhaps McGuinnes
16:04:41 [Zakim]: +McGuinnes?; got it
16:04:55 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P22 is perhaps PeterPS
16:04:57 [Zakim]: +PeterPS?; got it
16:05:05 [jhendler]: zakim, FrankH is Guus
16:05:06 [Zakim]: +Guus; got it
16:05:10 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P42 is perhaps ZivH
16:05:11 [Zakim]: +ZivH?; got it
16:05:17 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:05:20 [Zakim]: I see PeterPS?, MDean (muted), Guus, SDecker, LarryE?, ZivH?, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo (muted), McGuinnes?, Ian.Horrocks, ??P48, ??P51, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?, ??P52,
16:05:21 [Zakim]: ... HermanTerHorst?, ??P54, ??P55, NickG
16:05:34 [Zakim]: +??P57
16:05:43 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P57 is perhaps DavidT
16:05:44 [Zakim]: +DavidT?; got it
16:05:53 [mdean]: mdean has joined #WebOnt
16:05:59 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P54 is JosD
16:06:00 [Zakim]: +JosD; got it
16:06:00 [libby]: I'm here
16:06:06 [jhendler]: zakim ??P48 is perhaps FrankvH
16:06:07 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:06:08 [Zakim]: I see PeterPS?, MDean (muted), Guus, SDecker, LarryE?, ZivH?, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo (muted), McGuinnes?, Ian.Horrocks, ??P48, ??P51, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?, ??P52,
16:06:10 [Zakim]: ... HermanTerHorst?, JosD, ??P55, NickG, DavidT?
16:06:29 [jhendler]: zakim, ??P48 is perhaps FrankvH
16:06:31 [Zakim]: +FrankvH?; got it
16:06:40 [DanCon]: JeffH, LeoO
16:06:57 [DanCon]: LibbyM
16:07:09 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??p48 is perhaps LibbyM
16:07:10 [Zakim]: sorry, DanCon, I do not understand your question
16:07:16 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P48 is perhaps LibbyM
16:07:18 [Zakim]: sorry, DanCon, I do not understand your question
16:07:28 [DanCon]: Zakim, P48 is perhaps LibbyM
16:07:29 [Zakim]: sorry, DanCon, I do not understand your question
16:07:48 [jhendler]: zakim, ??P51 is Libby
16:07:50 [Zakim]: +Libby; got it
16:07:53 [DeborahMc]: DeborahMc has joined #webont
16:07:58 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:07:59 [Zakim]: I see PeterPS?, MDean (muted), Guus, SDecker, LarryE?, ZivH?, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo (muted), McGuinnes?, Ian.Horrocks, FrankvH?, Libby, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?, ??P52,
16:08:01 [Zakim]: ... HermanTerHorst?, JosD, ??P55, NickG, DavidT?
16:08:20 [jhendler]: agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0001.html
16:08:47 [Zakim]: +??P7
16:08:51 [timfinin]: timfinin will scribe until he has to leave around 12:45, danc after that
16:08:55 [DanCon]: Zakim, ??P7 is ChrisW
16:08:56 [Zakim]: +ChrisW; got it
16:09:21 [DanCon]: ACTION (Mar 28) Chairs to clarify OWL naming problem
16:09:21 [DanCon]: DONE - (Dan C.reported to telecon)
16:09:25 [timfinin]: jimh: action 1 -- we are OWL
16:12:28 [DanCon]: timfinin, can you see this?
16:12:31 [timfinin]: yes
16:12:38 [DanCon]: er.. you missed a few actions, no?
16:12:42 [timfinin]: yes
16:12:45 [timfinin]: sorry
16:13:03 [DanCon]: ACTION (Mar 28) Dan Connolly, Lynn Stein (prov.), Jos De Roo, to
16:13:04 [DanCon]: participate in RDF core discussions on construct for closed lists
16:13:04 [DanCon]: Committee formation - DONE
16:13:04 [DanCon]: Committee discussion - ONGOING (See Agenda item 4)
16:13:06 [timfinin]: Action2: rdf core discussion
16:13:13 [DanCon]: DONE: ACTION (Apr 9): Frank van Harmelen with Deborah McGuinness,
16:13:14 [DanCon]: Mike Dean, Enrico Motta, Ziv Hellman, Raphael Volz, Ian Horrocks
16:13:14 [DanCon]: Following polls on separation of language features between
16:13:14 [DanCon]: level 1 (OWL-lite) and level 2 (OWL-full), a group was constituted to
16:13:14 [DanCon]: revisit the level 1/2 conformance issue:
16:13:14 [DanCon]: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/09-webont-irc#T14-08-19
16:13:28 [Zakim]: +Marwan.Sabbouh
16:13:28 [DanCon]: ACTION ChrisW: review OWL stuff continues.
16:13:35 [DanCon]: ACTION PatH: review OWL stuff continues.
16:13:39 [DanCon]: ACTION Evan: review OWL stuff continues.
16:14:10 [timfinin]: action: compliance level discussion -- frank rporting on what's been done
16:14:25 [DanCon]: re closed list, the discussion thread is # addressing requirements around daml:collection (rdfms-seq-representation) Dan Connolly (Fri, Apr 19 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0334.html
16:14:35 [timfinin]: frankh: two levels to debate
16:15:05 [DanCon]: did we really *decide* to split into levels at the ftf? that's not what the record says.
16:15:11 [timfinin]: frank: need to balance between the two levels
16:15:40 [timfinin]: frank: need to have enought in elevel one to justify going beyond rdfs
16:15:43 [Massimo]: we decided it's good to investigate it.
16:15:55 [DanCon]: right.
16:16:06 [jhendler]: right
16:16:23 [timfinin]: frank: settle for minimal, easy things in level 1
16:16:42 [timfinin]: fank: rdf schema on steroids
16:17:22 [Massimo]: Of course the ideal thing would ne no levels, but likely, there'll be too much divergences in the wg (as witnessed by the discussion at the f2f) to settle down on just one without conformance levels....;)
16:17:32 [timfinin]: frank: another strategy lead to a more lively debate on a different proposal
16:18:25 [IanH]: I can only just hear him - echo and distance
16:18:32 [timfinin]: frank: one particular issue's been discussed on the mailing list, existential constraints
16:19:22 [timfinin]: deb: it may be the case that there are just one or two more things to be added to get to the owl light goal
16:19:45 [timfinin]: ian suggests removing global range restrictions from owl light
16:20:49 [timfinin]: jimH: at the f2f there was a strong sentiment to keeping cardinality constraints
16:22:07 [timfinin]: jeffh: suggests considering features easy to add in *both* DL and horn logic
16:22:36 [timfinin]: jeffh: suggests that cardinality is hard to do in datalog/horn logic
16:23:21 [jhendler]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0329.html
16:24:24 [timfinin]: deb suggests that owl light should cover 50%-70% of users' needs
16:25:15 [timfinin]: but how do we measure this?
16:25:51 [Zakim]: +Jonathan.Borden
16:25:57 [DanCon]: hmm... what's everybody agreeing to?
16:26:36 [timfinin]: these seem to be competing goals: (1) having a small core on which different constituencies can build out and (2) having a level one that can satisfy 50-75% from the start
16:27:23 [timfinin]: i hear lots of typing, too
16:27:33 [JonB]: JonB has joined #webont
16:27:47 [timfinin]: the wumpus is nearby
16:28:19 [timfinin]: possible action: what do we have consensus on, what do we have to resolve, write up test cases for the consensus items
16:28:54 [schreiber]: q+
16:29:45 [timfinin]: it's suggested that we take the kr02 proposal as the consensus items
16:30:38 [timfinin]: suggested to be considered for adding: min cardinality=1
16:31:15 [timfinin]: ian: it was difficult to figure out the ordering of proposed features.
16:31:44 [timfinin]: many users want cardinality constraints
16:32:19 [timfinin]: ian likes the original version of OWL which has all of the features under discussion
16:32:25 [DanCon]: guus, is cardinality 27 supported in UML? in SQL? I don't see cardinality >1 in other modelling tools.
16:32:58 [schreiber]: yes, it is supported in UML!
16:33:43 [timfinin]: in: in the amsterday f2f we tried to decide on the levels and ended up with all of owl in owl lite
16:34:25 [timfinin]: jimh: we didn't agree to have a level 1 and level 2, but to revisit the question
16:35:18 [timfinin]: jimh: there are negatives and positives to adding levels
16:35:38 [JonB]: q+
16:35:40 [timfinin]: deb finds that too many people find OWL to be too complicated
16:35:49 [JonB]: +q
16:36:35 [DanCon]: frankh, did you think a decision about levels was made in Amsterdam? the record doesn't show one. Is the record wrong?
16:36:47 [Massimo]: Zakim, unmute JonB
16:36:48 [Zakim]: sorry, Massimo, I do not see a party named 'JonB'
16:38:08 [timfinin]: jonb is worried that we might end up with implementers adding features to a level one, so we end up with lots of implementations that are between levels
16:38:52 [timfinin]: shall we have a straw poll?
16:39:32 [timfinin]: deb says we need to support tool builders, but otoh we need to have enought stuff in level one to make it useful
16:40:03 [timfinin]: danc: levels are evil
16:40:21 [timfinin]: frank: other w3c standards have levels?
16:41:54 [timfinin]: jimh: having a level one would encourage interoperability.
16:42:07 [timfinin]: we hear music
16:42:14 [Massimo]: well, not bad ;)
16:42:16 [timfinin]: well, muzak
16:42:43 [IanH]: Are they taking requests?
16:42:46 [Zakim]: +??P0
16:43:44 [timfinin]: disscussion -- can continue with the music...
16:44:02 [jhendler]: zakim, whi is here
16:44:03 [Zakim]: sorry, jhendler, I do not recognize a party named 'whi'
16:44:10 [jhendler]: zakim, who is here
16:44:12 [Zakim]: jhendler, you need to end that query with '?'
16:44:13 [timfinin]: massimo is taking roll call
16:44:16 [DanCon]: Zakim, who's here?
16:44:17 [jhendler]: zakim, who is here?
16:44:17 [Zakim]: I see PeterPS?, MDean, Guus, SDecker, LarryE?, ZivH?, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo, McGuinnes?, Ian.Horrocks, FrankvH?, Libby, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?, ??P52, HermanTerHorst?,
16:44:20 [Zakim]: ... JosD, ??P55, NickG, DavidT?, ChrisW, Marwan.Sabbouh, Jonathan.Borden, ??P0
16:44:22 [Zakim]: I see PeterPS?, MDean, Guus, SDecker, LarryE?, ZivH?, DanC, TimFinin?, JimH, Massimo, McGuinnes?, Ian.Horrocks, FrankvH?, Libby, Evan.Wallace, Rudiger?, ??P52, HermanTerHorst?,
16:44:23 [Zakim]: ... JosD, ??P55, NickG, DavidT?, ChrisW, Marwan.Sabbouh, Jonathan.Borden, ??P0
16:45:10 [jhendler]: zakim, mute josd
16:45:11 [Zakim]: JosD should now be muted
16:45:18 [Zakim]: -DanC
16:45:26 [jhendler]: zakim, unmute josd
16:45:28 [Zakim]: JosD should no longer be muted
16:45:37 [timfinin]: is marwan here?
16:45:38 [jhendler]: zakim, mute marwan.Sabbouh
16:45:40 [Zakim]: Marwan.Sabbouh should now be muted
16:45:45 [timfinin]: music stops
16:46:18 [timfinin]: danc, can you take over scribing?
16:46:36 [timfinin]: peter: can we come up with a "Telecon don'ts"?
16:46:43 [DanCon]: music is gone?
16:46:56 [DeborahMc]: yes - it was marwan
16:47:03 [DanCon]: ok.
16:47:04 [Zakim]: -Marwan.Sabbouh
16:47:29 [timfinin]: I'll signing off now and danc is taking over the scribing.
16:47:34 [DanCon]: ok
16:47:38 [timfinin]: timfinin has left #webont
16:47:42 [Zakim]: -LarryE?
16:47:59 [Zakim]: +DanC
16:48:01 [schreiber]: q+
16:48:08 [JonB]: -q
16:48:13 [JonB]: q-
16:49:09 [DanCon]: but jim, Deb is asking for 2 levels. I think a straw poll is in order to see how many folks agree.
16:50:58 [DanCon]: in favor of 2 levels: McG, FrankvH, Hellman, obrst, wallace, Carroll, Gibbins, Eshelman, [somebody]
16:51:02 [DanCon]: Decker,
16:51:24 [DanCon]: Schreiber in favor.
16:51:52 [DanCon]: against: Connolly, PeterPS
16:52:01 [DanCon]: ... Horrocks, DeRoo, ...
16:52:06 [DanCon]: ... Hefflin, TerHorst
16:52:12 [DanCon]: ... Trastour
16:52:34 [DanCon]: summary: more in favor than against, but not consensus
16:53:05 [DanCon]: ------- push to Dark Triples
16:53:24 [DanCon]: Borden reports: lots of traffic, much of it good stuff...
16:53:46 [DanCon]: ... theoretical and practical challenges in semantic layering ...
16:54:16 [DanCon]: ... as to specifics, PeterPS showed a class with a cycle in it; but something's not clear about what's entailed...
16:55:53 [DanCon]: DanCon: [stuff...]
16:57:11 [jhendler]: discussion of entailment (DanC - explains issues and paradoxes)
16:59:55 [DanCon]: [...]
17:00:23 [DanCon]: Borden: the "comprehensive entailments" proposal looks perhpas promising, but it also looks like research; not clear that we could work out the details in a month or two.
17:02:14 [DanCon]: Borden: I'd like help making test cases...
17:02:25 [pfps]: q+
17:02:31 [DanCon]: DanCon: did you see jeremy's test cases? I think PeterPS had some too...
17:02:41 [DanCon]: Borden: but I don't see how those motivate dark triples
17:03:29 [jhendler]: ack pfps
17:03:45 [jhendler]: q-
17:03:52 [Zakim]: -SDecker
17:04:01 [jhendler]: ack Schreiber
17:05:26 [DanCon]: PeterPS: if we're after test cases that show the *problem*, see the circular paradox gizmo. It does use cardinalityQ; I could get rid of that using complementOf, but that gets hairier
17:06:00 [Massimo]: q+
17:06:10 [pfps]: _:1 fowl:onProperty rdf:type .
17:06:11 [pfps]: _:1 fowl:hasClass _:2 .
17:06:11 [pfps]: _:2 fowl:OneOf _:3 .
17:06:11 [pfps]: _:3 fowl:first _:4 .
17:06:11 [pfps]: _:3 fowl:rest fowl:nil .
17:06:11 [pfps]: _:4 fowl:complementOf _:1 .
17:06:13 [pfps]: _:1 is the set of objects
17:06:14 [pfps]: that are related to a particular complement of _:1 via rdf:type
17:06:16 [pfps]: if x rdf:type _:1
17:06:19 [pfps]: then x rdf:type _:4
17:06:21 [pfps]: but _:1 and _:4 are complements
17:06:22 [pfps]: so not x rdf:type _:1
17:06:25 [pfps]: if not x rdf:type _:1
17:06:27 [pfps]: then x rdf:type _:4
17:06:28 [pfps]: because _:1 and _:4 are complements
17:06:32 [pfps]: but then x rdf:type _:1
17:06:34 [pfps]: the above is another problematic situation
17:08:18 [jhendler]: ack massimo
17:08:35 [jhendler]: ack dancon
17:08:44 [Zakim]: -Jonathan.Borden
17:08:56 [DanCon]: JimH: in sum, we're still working on SEM/dark triples stuff.
17:09:03 [DanCon]: --- pop back to levels
17:09:29 [DanCon]: "the document that frank wrote"... hunting for pointer...
17:10:41 [DeborahMc]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0329.html
17:10:49 [DeborahMc]: is a pointer to what frank and i wrote up
17:11:04 [DanCon]: JimH: 0329 seems pretty close; no major objections.
17:11:26 [DanCon]: so issue 5.2 Language Compliance Levels remains open, since the straw poll showed no consensus.
17:12:00 [DanCon]: DebM: what should we call it?
17:12:08 [DanCon]: "level 1" is acceptable, for now.
17:12:38 [DanCon]: ACTION DebM: write up "these seem to be agreed; these have issues; these look harder"
17:14:06 [DanCon]: DebM estimates 13May delivery
17:14:23 [DanCon]: JimH notes 9May telcon cancelled.
17:14:57 [jhendler]: Closed lists -
17:15:13 [jhendler]: DanC - one possibility - live w/first and last
17:16:05 [jhendler]: wg seems to feel that that would be unacceptable
17:16:25 [jhendler]: DanC - second - make Daml:collection an explicit RDF issue
17:16:44 [jhendler]: RDF Core worries about that - would "break" existing systems
17:17:01 [jhendler]: 3) could be doing something to bag, li, etc - none of those big winners
17:22:45 [DanCon]: Jeremy: in discussing closed lists, it would help if we could clarify the difference between syntactic lists and semantic lists
17:22:55 [DanCon]: [... discussion attempts to do so; DanC is still sorta lost...
17:22:56 [DanCon]: ]
17:23:24 [DanCon]: ------ WebOnt review of RDFCore WG
17:23:45 [DanCon]: JimH: Note well, RDF Core has released drafts; as individuals, we're all welcome to review
17:24:04 [DanCon]: as a group, [more]
17:26:08 [DanCon]: JImH: we should take a look at RDFS, which we're basing level one on, and see that it's described in a good way
17:26:56 [DanCon]: Jeremy: it makes sense to align drafts with focus areas: Schema/LANG, GUIDE/Primer, test cases/TEST, model theory/SEM
17:27:09 [DanCon]: ACTION chairs: solicit reviewers
17:27:37 [DanCon]: ---- issues review
17:28:09 [DanCon]: JimH: open: compliance levels, dark triples, [5.3 Semantic Layering]
17:28:44 [DanCon]: soon to be open: 3.2-Qualified-Restrictions
17:29:25 [DanCon]: oops... wrong one...
17:29:49 [DanCon]: soon to be open: 3.1 Local Restrictions
17:30:00 [DanCon]: note that DebM's action above is relevant to this
17:32:32 [DeborahMc]: my email that specified universal and existentially qualified range restrictions
17:32:34 [DeborahMc]: is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0006.html
17:33:33 [DanCon]: RESOLVED: to open 3.1 Local Restrictions, assigned to DebM
17:33:43 [Zakim]: -ChrisW
17:34:29 [Zakim]: -JosD
17:35:35 [DanCon]: ADJOURN.
17:35:36 [Zakim]: -McGuinnes?
17:35:37 [Zakim]: -Evan.Wallace
17:35:38 [Zakim]: -PeterPS?
17:35:38 [Zakim]: -ZivH?
17:35:40 [Zakim]: -DavidT?
17:35:41 [Zakim]: -??P55
17:35:41 [Zakim]: -MDean
17:35:44 [Zakim]: -NickG
17:35:45 [Zakim]: -JimH
17:35:46 [Zakim]: -HermanTerHorst?
17:35:47 [Zakim]: -Ian.Horrocks
17:35:49 [Zakim]: -FrankvH?
17:35:51 [Zakim]: -Rudiger?
17:35:54 [Zakim]: -??P0
17:35:56 [Zakim]: -Libby
17:35:58 [Zakim]: -Guus
17:37:33 [Zakim]: -Massimo
17:38:18 [JosD]: JosD has joined #webont
17:39:24 [DanCon]: hi. cf http://www.w3.org/Guide/#Tools
17:39:59 [jhendler]: jhendler has left #webont
17:40:06 [DanCon]: ah.. more specifically: http://www.w3.org/Project/ssh/ssh-cvs
17:43:42 [schreiber]: exit
17:49:11 [DeborahMc]: dan - can you look at email from me sent tues april 30 with subject webont meeting logistics
17:50:03 [Zakim]: -??P52
17:51:01 [DanCon]: ah... yes...
17:51:18 [DanCon]: I haven't sent the reply I've been working on
17:52:58 [Zakim]: -TimFinin?
17:53:04 [Zakim]: -DanC
17:53:06 [Zakim]: SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
19:26:59 [JonB]: exit
19:43:17 [DanCon]: RRSAgent, pointer?
19:43:17 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2002/05/02-webont-irc#T19-43-17
19:53:11 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #webont