IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-05-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:59 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore

14:02:20 [em]

zakim ack waves

14:02:25 [em]

zakim,ack waves

14:02:37 [bwm]

q?

14:02:49 [bwm]

Zakim, ack waves, his

14:02:49 [Zakim]

I see waves, his on the speaker queue

14:03:09 [bwm]

Zakim, ack waves

14:03:09 [Zakim]

I see his on the speaker queue

14:03:13 [jjc]

jjc has joined #rdfcore

14:03:14 [bwm]

Zakim, ack waves

14:03:14 [Zakim]

I see his on the speaker queue

14:03:22 [bwm]

Zakim, ack his

14:03:22 [Zakim]

I see no one on the speaker queue

14:03:33 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:03:33 [Zakim]

sorry, jjcscribe, I don't know what conference this is

14:03:34 [Zakim]

On IRC I see jjcscribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, bwm, logger

14:03:48 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, this is RDFCore.

14:03:48 [Zakim]

sorry, jjcscribe, I do not see a conference named 'RDFCore.'

14:03:50 [bwm]

Zakim, this is RDFCore

14:03:50 [Zakim]

ok, bwm

14:04:10 [Zakim]

+??P6

14:04:18 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:04:18 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), ??P5, ??P6

14:04:20 [Zakim]

+EMiller

14:04:21 [bwm]

Zakim, ??P6 is bwm

14:04:21 [Zakim]

+bwm; got it

14:04:30 [em]

zakim, who is here?

14:04:30 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), ??P5, bwm, EMiller

14:04:31 [Zakim]

On IRC I see jjcscribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, bwm, logger

14:04:37 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:04:37 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), ??P5 (muted), bwm, EMiller

14:04:49 [jjcscribe]

Zakim ??P5 is jjcscribe

14:04:54 [DanC]

DanC has joined #rdfcore

14:04:57 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, ??P5 is jjcscribe

14:04:57 [Zakim]

+jjcscribe; got it

14:05:09 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, unmute jjcscribe

14:05:09 [Zakim]

jjcscribe should no longer be muted

14:06:03 [jang]

jang has joined #rdfcore

14:06:10 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:06:10 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller

14:06:16 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:06:17 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1 (muted), PatH, ??P3 (muted), jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller

14:06:28 [jang]

zakim ??p2 is ilrt

14:06:31 [bwm]

Zakim, ??p1 is steveP

14:06:31 [Zakim]

+steveP; got it

14:06:41 [DanC]

agenda + 11May http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0076.html

14:06:41 [bwm]

zakim, who is on the phone

14:06:42 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm

14:06:42 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:06:42 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P2, steveP, PatH, ??P3, jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller

14:06:44 [em]

(back in 2 min)

14:06:52 [jang]

zakim, who is talking?

14:06:55 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, ??p2 is ilrt.

14:06:55 [Zakim]

+ilrt.; got it

14:07:03 [Zakim]

jang, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P2 (85%), ??P3 (5%)

14:07:07 [Zakim]

+DanC

14:07:17 [jang]

zakim, ??p2 is ilrt

14:07:17 [Zakim]

sorry, jang, I do not recognize a party named '??p2'

14:07:20 [gk]

gk has joined #rdfcore

14:07:23 [jang]

zakim, ilrt. is ilrt

14:07:23 [Zakim]

+ilrt; got it

14:07:30 [jang]

zakim, ilrt has jang daveb

14:07:30 [Zakim]

+jang, daveb; got it

14:07:32 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, ??P3 is PatrickS.

14:07:32 [Zakim]

+PatrickS.; got it

14:07:38 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:07:38 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ilrt, steveP, PatH, PatrickS., jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller, DanC

14:07:40 [Zakim]

ilrt has jang, daveb

14:08:14 [Zakim]

+GrahamKlyne

14:09:34 [jang]

suggest action lines adopt python indentation rules?

14:09:34 [jjcscribe]

Roll Call complete by Zakim

14:09:36 [DanC]

my suggestion: a very valuable thing to do with actions is to associate them with agenda items

14:09:47 [jjcscribe]

Agenda Review

14:09:52 [jjcscribe]

no change - approved

14:09:57 [jjcscribe]

Next telecon next week

14:09:57 [DanC]

regrets 16May

14:10:01 [DanC]

regrets 16May Connolly

14:10:03 [jjcscribe]

JanG volunteer scribe

14:10:05 [em]

regrets 16 may for em as well

14:10:53 [jjcscribe]

Scribe comment on minutes that there was a missing seconder for one motion

14:11:01 [jjcscribe]

(Minutes of last week)

14:11:31 [DanC]

it's not critical to minute seconders.

14:11:57 [jjcscribe]

Completed actions #6

14:12:00 [jjcscribe]

all approved

14:12:08 [jjcscribe]

#7 comments on OWL S&AS

14:13:00 [jjcscribe]

Jan's comments gk and jjc have read and approved

14:15:28 [DanC]

Jan's comments = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0074.html

14:15:29 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0074.html

14:15:34 [jjcscribe]

approved.

14:15:50 [jjcscribe]

ACTION jang send comments in 0074

14:16:13 [jang]

DanC: the comments rdfcore-6 and rdfcore-7 were probably the heaviest in content

14:16:28 [jjcscribe]

connolly abstaining on comments 0074

14:16:52 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0070.html

14:16:59 [jjcscribe]

(backtrack regrets:

14:17:12 [jjcscribe]

MikeDean,

14:17:26 [jjcscribe]

Frank, Patrick who turned up)

14:18:04 [DanC]

could we *please* desist from the use of identifiers such as rdfcore-6 and rdfcore-7 that are based on the commentor. If you're going to use identifiers for issues, include some *technical keywords* in them, PLEASE!

14:19:46 [gk]

q+ to ask if these comments might be better as personal comments... Im not sure there's anything here that is truly an RDFcore concern

14:19:50 [jang]

[danc - noted. since all the comments are approved to send I'll put keywords into identifiers for them]

14:21:53 [gk]

JJC just explained why they *are* rdfcore concern -- suggest we be explicit about this

14:21:57 [bwm]

ack danc

14:21:58 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to ask for an example

14:22:16 [bwm]

ack gk

14:22:16 [Zakim]

gk, you wanted to ask if these comments might be better as personal comments... Im not sure there's anything here that is truly an RDFcore concern

14:23:00 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0099.html

14:23:22 [DanC]

AS+S Comments: [was Re: Blank nodes in OWL DL, resend]

14:23:22 [DanC]

From: Brian McBride (bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com)

14:23:22 [DanC]

Date: Fri, May 09 2003

14:23:33 [jang]

danbri's test case http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0121.html

14:23:45 [DanC]

*much* better id: owlsas-rdfcore-np-complete

14:25:09 [JosD]

JosD has joined #rdfcore

14:25:37 [Zakim]

+??P7

14:26:05 [JosD]

Zakim, ??P7 is JosD

14:26:05 [Zakim]

+JosD; got it

14:27:22 [jjcscribe]

discussion of bnodes

14:28:28 [jjcscribe]

disucssion of request or suggest or strongly suggest in kast comment in 0099

14:28:58 [jjcscribe]

suggesting adding Danbris foaf example

14:29:25 [Zakim]

-steveP

14:29:36 [jjcscribe]

approved 0099 comment rdfcore-bnodes-restriction

14:29:58 [jjcscribe]

with link to foaf use case

14:30:45 [DanC]

jos, we're discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0099.html owlsas-rdfcore-bnodes-restrictions

14:32:27 [jjcscribe]

owlsas-rdfcore-np-complete

14:32:30 [jjcscribe]

in 0099

14:32:34 [jjcscribe]

No-one argues against

14:32:46 [gk]

NP complete? I'm happy to send it... only concerned about spending RDFcore time on it

14:33:22 [jjcscribe]

Patrick suggests adding pointer to text in RDF Semantics doc

14:34:01 [DanC]

pointer and excerpt, please.

14:34:09 [jjcscribe]

Abstentions: none

14:34:12 [jjcscribe]

Comment approved

14:35:47 [danbri]

danbri has joined #rdfcore

14:36:10 [Zakim]

+DanBri

14:36:49 [jjcscribe]

owlsas-rdfcore-rules-complexity

14:36:49 [jjcscribe]

owlsas-rdfcore-rules-complexity

14:36:49 [jjcscribe]

owlsas-rdfcore-rules-complexity

14:36:49 [jjcscribe]

insufficient support for owlsas-rdfcore-rules-completely

14:37:55 [jjcscribe]

ACTION bwm to send rdfcore-np-complete rdfcore-bnodes-restriction

14:38:06 [jjcscribe]

ACTION jang not send comment on np-completeness

14:38:18 [jang]

note: jang will NOT send comment suypporting np complete complaint since brian's going to send it instead

14:38:38 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0124.html

14:39:38 [jjcscribe]

owlref-rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF

14:39:38 [jjcscribe]

rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF

14:41:06 [gk]

q+ to ask if the AC knows that OWL-DL os not intended for use with "wild" RDF

14:41:35 [jjcscribe]

discussion about wild RDF

14:41:40 [danbri]

aside: I wrote up my understanding of OWL/DL/Lite/RDF/S etc in http://esw.w3.org/topic/OwlAndRdf

14:43:22 [jjcscribe]

q+

14:44:02 [bwm]

ack jjscribe

14:44:41 [bwm]

ack gk

14:44:41 [Zakim]

gk, you wanted to ask if the AC knows that OWL-DL os not intended for use with "wild" RDF

14:45:05 [DanC]

JosD, a hueristic tool that turns wild RDF into DL is likely to be unsound, ala "I thnk you meant trip S P O to be in there, even though it's not logically implied"

14:46:27 [jjcscribe]

do we have consensus?

14:46:55 [jjcscribe]

Many for

14:46:58 [jjcscribe]

Against none

14:47:13 [jjcscribe]

Abstaining jos W3C

14:48:02 [DanC]

ericm, we might want to talk about this; I'm not sure your abstention is consistent with other things you've said.

14:48:07 [jjcscribe]

Approved to send msg 0124 on OWL Ref

14:48:19 [jjcscribe]

ACTION bwm to send msg 0124 on OWL Ref

14:48:21 [DanC]

i.e. owlref-rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF

14:49:13 [jjcscribe]

Graham speaks on his review

14:49:20 [jjcscribe]

of section 4.1 of S&AS

14:49:32 [DanC]

are we now on gk: review 4.1 of OWL AS&S http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0045.html ?

14:49:47 [jjcscribe]

yes

14:49:48 [bwm]

yes

14:50:11 [jjcscribe]

ack

14:50:14 [jjcscribe]

q-

14:52:56 [DanC]

graham, will you please send your experiend to public-webont-comments regardless?

14:53:03 [em]

(delayed response) danc, danbri... *I* support this being sent as *I* think Lite/DL confusing in terms of the 'stack' and expectations; As *W3C* supporting both groups it stikes me obstaining makes more sense. Its still not clear to me the best way of W3C seperating personal and organizational positions.

14:53:27 [DanC]

ah; good to know, em.

14:53:47 [jjcscribe]

xmlschema-07 datatype defn

14:54:00 [jjcscribe]

bwm propose that we do not accept xmlschema-07

14:54:26 [jjcscribe]

Pat seconds

14:54:28 [jjcscribe]

no opposed

14:54:31 [jjcscribe]

no abstention

14:54:33 [jjcscribe]

terx-01

14:55:39 [jjcscribe]

proposed jjc

14:55:42 [jjcscribe]

second pat

14:55:47 [jjcscribe]

motion as in agenda

14:55:49 [jjcscribe]

resolved

14:55:49 [JosD]

oops.. OK DanC, would you think it would (indirectly) lead to nonmomotonicity as well?

14:56:24 [jjcscribe]

#11 tmbl-03

14:57:44 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0102.html

14:57:49 [jjcscribe]

bwm proposal

14:58:45 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0102.html

15:00:22 [jjcscribe]

danc thinks we should take these triples out, but argues against any decision for today

15:00:48 [jjcscribe]

postponed for a week

15:01:00 [jjcscribe]

language tags in typed literals

15:01:32 [DanC]

(I've tried to collect my thoughts on the issue in http://esw.w3.org/topic/TextValues)

15:04:05 [jjcscribe]

is this broken or is this simply overly complicated

15:04:12 [jjcscribe]

many people say it is too complicated

15:04:55 [jjcscribe]

but noone produces a fundamental brokenness

15:06:00 [DanC]

are we reopening http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure and http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes ?

15:06:26 [bwm]

ack danc

15:06:26 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to ask that we postpone deciding this for... umm... coordination cost reasons and to ask whether to what extent the I18N WG is party to the discussion of this

15:06:29 [Zakim]

... issue xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure? and to note that we decided rdfms-xmlliteral

15:09:50 [jjcscribe]

ACTION bwm fix issue list resolution for rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

15:11:18 [jjcscribe]

many people propose/second option 4 ...

15:12:16 [gk]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0117.html ??

15:12:32 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0096.html

15:13:06 [DanC]

RE: typed literals and language tags - ugly parade http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0096.html

15:13:30 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html

15:13:45 [jjcscribe]

Contains actual option 4 proposal wording

15:14:16 [DanC]

typed literals and language tags - two more proposals http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html

15:15:33 [jjcscribe]

Jos: one test case is affected

15:17:53 [jjcscribe]

DanC: option4 would need review from I18N-WG and XML Core

15:18:38 [em]

The fact that we have 2 different interpretations of this seems a convincing argument to have xml core review

15:18:38 [jjcscribe]

Patrick disagrees about need for XML Core review

15:18:47 [em]

... if we do this

15:19:00 [jang]

q+ daveb

15:19:07 [jang]

ack

15:19:09 [bwm]

ack daveb

15:20:57 [jjcscribe]

Bwm asks eric if we need review from XML Core

15:21:02 [jjcscribe]

Eric says yes

15:21:09 [jjcscribe]

q+

15:21:38 [DanC]

do we have a test case for how xml:base doesn't propagate? do we have XML Core on record as saying "yes, RDF syntax is ok"?

15:22:17 [jjcscribe]

we use exc-c14n and that explicitly does not copy xml:space or xml:base or xml:lang

15:22:40 [DanC]

ah, that c14n precedent is handy.

15:23:15 [DanC]

em, do we have review of RDF syntax by XML Core?

15:23:39 [jjcscribe]

pat hayes why do we treaty xml:lang differently from other xml attributes

15:24:54 [em]

DanC: we asked; but I recall that PaulG indicated they were not able to do this (i dont recall reasons: time constraints, lack of resources, etc.)

15:25:38 [jjcscribe]

We are still awaiting I18N review anyway

15:25:57 [jjcscribe]

em on XMLCore

15:26:10 [jjcscribe]

Paul Grosso did not send a review

15:26:17 [jjcscribe]

and said that they would not send a review

15:26:42 [jjcscribe]

q+ *not* counter to XML community

15:26:51 [jjcscribe]

q+ to say it is *not* counter to XML community

15:27:43 [bwm]

ack jjscribe

15:27:44 [jjcscribe]

jjc quotes exc-c14n

15:27:54 [jjcscribe]

"attributes in the XML namespace, such as xml:lang and xml:space are not imported into orphan nodes"

15:29:13 [jjcscribe]

PatrickS proposes option4 from msg 0086

15:29:21 [DanC]

typed literals and language tags - two more proposals

15:29:22 [DanC]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html

15:29:29 [DanC]

[[

15:29:29 [DanC]

> Option 4:

15:29:29 [DanC]

> Language tag is simply dropped from all typed literals including

15:29:30 [DanC]

> rdf:XMLLiteral

15:29:30 [DanC]

>

15:29:31 [DanC]

>

15:29:32 [DanC]

PROPOSE

15:29:34 [DanC]

Concepts is changed to say that a literal can have either a datatype or a

15:29:37 [DanC]

language tag and not both.

15:29:41 [DanC]

rdf:XMLLiteral datatype is changed to have the identity as its lexical

15:29:42 [DanC]

value mapping (no wrapping), with consequential change to the value space of

15:29:44 [DanC]

rdf:XMLLiteral.

15:29:46 [DanC]

Other editors to make consequential changes.

15:29:48 [DanC]

]]

15:29:51 [jjcscribe]

ILRT seconds

15:30:16 [jjcscribe]

Abstentions: Jeremy

15:30:22 [jjcscribe]

Carried

15:31:17 [jang]

N-triples loses lang tags on dted literals, plus full test case review for thse

15:31:25 [jjcscribe]

ACTIONS: jjc Make changes in concepts, and review for consequential changes

15:31:53 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: path Review semantics and make consequential changes

15:32:16 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jjc Provide anchor for rdf:XMLLiteral to path

15:32:42 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: dave To change ntriples to remove language from typed literal

15:32:53 [em]

[/me find partial discussion with PaulG and XML Core review of RDF Core - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2003Mar/0007.html]

15:32:56 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: dave Review syntax and make consequntial changes

15:33:19 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jang To review all test cases, and make consequetnaitl changes

15:34:02 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: em Review primer for consequential changes

15:34:37 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: bwm Review issue list and update those affected

15:35:22 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jjc Inform reagle-01 and reagle-02 of literals decision

15:35:41 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: path Tell pfps of change to literals decision

15:36:22 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jjc Inform I18N-WG of literals decision.

15:38:40 [jjcscribe]

ACTION bwm Update status of pfps-08 if necessary

15:39:01 [jjcscribe]

Agenda Item #13

15:39:46 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html

15:40:09 [bwm]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/

15:41:32 [DanC]

point 3?

15:42:32 [jjcscribe]

path rationale was that everything else ended in argument!!

15:43:09 [jjcscribe]

DanC: "but given we don't have the resources "

15:43:16 [jjcscribe]

but we wrote 6 documents ....

15:44:24 [jang]

this sounds like a Perry Mason cross-examination!

15:45:05 [jjcscribe]

DanC proposes "the working group chose to spend its writing resource on explanatory text and formal specification

15:45:14 [jjcscribe]

rather than justification"

15:45:30 [jjcscribe]

instead of above text

15:46:53 [jjcscribe]

Jeremy proposes text in 2523

15:46:55 [jjcscribe]

252

15:47:04 [jjcscribe]

seconded, reoslved unanimously

15:47:10 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jjc to send response

15:49:33 [bwm]

<foo:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;int"> 3 </foo:prop>

15:49:38 [bwm]

is illegal

15:49:48 [bwm]

q?

15:50:34 [bwm]

ack jjcscribe

15:50:34 [Zakim]

jjcscribe, you wanted to say it is *not* counter to XML community

15:50:45 [jjcscribe]

path someone could define a non xsd:int datatype that

15:50:47 [bwm]

ack danc

15:50:47 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to ask where we're making the clarification

15:50:59 [JosD]

q+

15:51:02 [jjcscribe]

did do include whitespace normalization in l2v mapping

15:51:34 [jjcscribe]

PatrickS: the whitespace facet is defined as part of datatype, are the XMLSChema people happy?

15:52:40 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0097.html

15:54:05 [jjcscribe]

JosD: my implementation will need to change

15:54:10 [DanC]

what entailment?

15:54:29 [gk]

q+ to ask if this whitespace proposal goes against a primciple of "minimum surprise"?

15:54:40 [jjcscribe]

Dan there's a test case in msg 0097

15:54:59 [DanC]

thx

15:55:24 [bwm]

ack gk

15:55:24 [Zakim]

gk, you wanted to ask if this whitespace proposal goes against a primciple of "minimum surprise"?

15:56:30 [bwm]

ack jos

15:57:22 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jan figure out right answer for inverse entailment

15:58:04 [jjcscribe]

Jeremy proposes msg 0097

15:58:36 [jang]

path's example:

15:58:40 [jang]

a well-formed literal

15:58:48 [jang]

a p "lit"@type

15:58:49 [jang]

entails

15:58:53 [jang]

a p _:x

15:59:02 [jang]

_:x rdf:type rdfs:Literal

15:59:36 [jang]

PLUS

15:59:43 [jang]

the opposite to 97 is also not entailed

15:59:45 [jjcscribe]

proposal includes two more test cases

15:59:52 [jjcscribe]

Connolly seconds

15:59:58 [jjcscribe]

Graham abstains

16:00:02 [jjcscribe]

RESOLVED.

16:00:06 [jjcscribe]

Meeting closed

16:00:26 [Zakim]

-EMiller

16:00:29 [DanC]

what did we skip?

16:00:51 [JosD]

item 15 DanC (Semantic Issues)

16:01:36 [Zakim]

-ilrt

16:01:38 [Zakim]

-JosD

16:01:39 [Zakim]

-DanC

16:01:39 [Zakim]

-PatrickS.

16:01:47 [Zakim]

-bwm

16:01:50 [Zakim]

-jjcscribe

16:01:52 [Zakim]

-PatH

16:02:29 [Zakim]

-GrahamKlyne

16:02:30 [Zakim]

-DanBri

16:02:31 [Zakim]

SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:55:03 [gk]

gk has left #rdfcore

17:50:13 [danbri]

danbri has left #rdfcore

18:09:19 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rdfcore

18:14:08 [DanC]

DanC has left #rdfcore