IRC log of tagmem on 2004-06-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:44:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:46:43 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
19:01:21 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:01:29 [Zakim]
19:01:39 [Zakim]
19:02:21 [Zakim]
19:02:30 [Zakim]
19:02:34 [timbl]
timbl has joined #tagmem
19:02:54 [Norm]
Zakim, [Lotus is PaulC
19:02:54 [Zakim]
+PaulC; got it
19:03:02 [mario]
mario has joined #tagmem
19:03:16 [Zakim]
19:03:52 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:03:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian
19:03:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:04:34 [Zakim]
19:04:34 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:04:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian, ??P4
19:04:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:04:37 [Zakim]
19:04:39 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
19:04:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian, ??P4, TimBL
19:04:44 [mario]
zakim, ??P4 is Mairo
19:04:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
19:04:51 [Zakim]
+Mairo; got it
19:04:51 [mario]
zakim, ??P4 is Mario
19:04:59 [Zakim]
I already had ??P4 as Mairo, mario
19:05:09 [Zakim]
19:05:16 [mario]
zakim, mairo is Mario
19:05:21 [Zakim]
+Mario; got it
19:05:47 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:05:55 [Zakim]
19:06:06 [Zakim]
19:06:07 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
19:06:07 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:06:08 [Zakim]
19:06:56 [Zakim]
19:07:07 [Zakim]
19:07:16 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
19:07:16 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:07:20 [Zakim]
19:08:18 [Zakim]
19:08:51 [Ian]
Roll call: All present (while DC and CL fight to get on)
19:08:58 [Ian]
19:09:04 [Ian]
19:09:09 [Ian]
Accept the minutes of the 12-14 May F2F?
19:09:15 [Ian]
19:09:19 [Ian]
PC: Looked ok to me.
19:09:27 [Zakim]
19:09:48 [Ian]
Anyone opposed to accepting ftf minutes?
19:10:05 [Ian]
Resolved: Accept as record of 12-14 May ftf meeting.
19:10:15 [Ian]
Proposed: accept the minutes of the 24 May teleconference?
19:10:21 [Ian]
19:10:30 [Chris]
zakim, drop chris-617
19:10:30 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'chris-617'
19:10:34 [Chris]
zakim, drop chris
19:10:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'chris'
19:10:42 [Ian]
SW: Anyone read them?
19:10:42 [Chris]
zakim, passcode?
19:10:42 [Zakim]
the conference code is 0824, Chris
19:10:47 [Ian]
SW: Looked ok to me.
19:10:48 [Chris]
yes I did
19:10:54 [Ian]
CL, look ok?
19:10:54 [Chris]
one of them, the one I was at
19:10:58 [Chris]
i sent comments
19:11:27 [Ian]
I think those comments were re: ftf meeting.
19:11:29 [Zakim]
19:12:20 [Ian]
CL: Ftf minutes are ok, but we could do some work on the conclusion.
19:12:28 [Ian]
SW: Any objections to accepting 24 May minutes?
19:12:31 [Ian]
19:12:35 [Chris]
not from me
19:12:45 [Ian]
Resolved: accept as meeting record for 24 May.
19:12:50 [Ian]
19:13:08 [Ian]
2.2 httpRange-14 status
19:13:08 [Ian]
Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.
19:13:08 [Ian]
Update of discussion on URI mailing list started by email from DC? What is next action (e.g., summary of that discussion to the TAG)?
19:13:21 [Ian]
q+ to talk about upcoming changes in the spec.
19:13:36 [Ian]
RF: I don't think there was much progress on the uri list. I didn't see evidence of any two points converging.
19:14:14 [Ian]
[Sorry, this was agenda review]
19:14:16 [Ian]
19:14:21 [Ian]
Next meeting 14 June?
19:14:24 [Ian]
SW: My regrets for that meeting.
19:14:37 [Ian]
NW will act as Chair.
19:14:46 [Ian]
SW: I will also be on vacation the three weeks prior to our Aug ftf meeting.
19:15:03 [Ian]
9-11 Aug ftf meeting in Ottawa (resolved 2 March 2004)
19:15:15 [Ian]
SW: I'll be unavailable from 19 July to 9 Aug.
19:15:31 [Norm]
Ian, will you ping me later this week for the agenda?
19:15:49 [Ian]
Likely no meeting 5 July.
19:15:52 [Ian]
PC: I'm out last week of June.
19:15:57 [Ian]
(And unavailable 5 July)
19:16:04 [Ian]
(Monday 28 June)
19:16:22 [Ian]
IJ unavailable 14 June.
19:16:33 [Ian]
SW to TAG: Please indicate missed meetings on tag list.
19:16:48 [Ian]
Resolved: Next meeting - 14 June; NW to Chair. Regrets: SW, TBL, IJ
19:16:51 [Ian]
19:16:55 [Ian]
Ottowa ftf meeting.
19:17:03 [Ian]
PC: I'll send info to tag list re: hotel.
19:17:16 [Ian]
Arc Hotel
19:17:18 [Chris]
arc hotel, ottawa
19:17:28 [Chris]
I have stayed there before, its nice
19:17:32 [Ian]
downtown ottowa; no block booking.
19:17:47 [Ian]
PC: Any downtown hotel probably reasonable distance from this one.
19:17:54 [Norm]
19:18:28 [Ian]
PC: I'll list some options in email.
19:18:36 [Ian]
PC: Key point is to be downtown.
19:18:55 [Chris]
9-11 mon to weds
19:18:56 [timbl]
Regrets from tim for 14th and 28th June
19:18:59 [timbl]
and regrests for any meetings in July or August except the face-face meeting.
19:19:07 [timbl]
(and except possibly the last week)
19:19:12 [Ian]
PC: Let me know when you will arrive in Ottawa (for social opportunities)
19:19:20 [Ian]
19:19:27 [Ian]
Proposals for F2F meeting venue in 5-7 October in Europe
19:19:27 [Ian]
* Bristol. SW confirmed HP can host.
19:19:27 [Ian]
* Basel. Awaiting more input from RF.
19:19:59 [Ian]
Straw poll:
19:20:13 [Ian]
RF: Video conf is available.
19:20:19 [Ian]
(in Basel)
19:20:24 [Ian]
PC: Mild preference for Basel.
19:20:29 [Chris]
plus one to Basel
19:20:52 [Ian]
MJ: PReference to Basel.
19:21:02 [Ian]
MJ: PReference for Basel (can drive there...)
19:21:15 [Ian]
Norm: Concur with the majority.
19:21:31 [Ian]
zakim, pick a location
19:21:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'pick a location ', Ian
19:21:49 [Chris]
resolved! Basel
19:21:49 [Ian]
Resolved: Meet in Basel in October.
19:21:57 [Ian]
RF to make arrangements.
19:22:09 [Ian]
19:22:14 [Ian]
AC meeting rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
19:22:28 [Ian]
SW: Postpone this discussion?
19:22:31 [Ian]
19:22:32 [Ian]
19:22:35 [Chris]
Bâle is the French spelling, but its in German-speaking Switzerland
19:22:43 [Ian]
1.3 TAG Charter
19:22:43 [Ian]
Action IJ 2004/12/14: Organize meeting between some of AB and some of TAG and Danny Weitzner to discuss patent policy and W3C charter.
19:22:43 [Ian]
IJ: Advisory Board plans to discuss this at upcoming teleconference.
19:23:17 [Ian]
To IJ: Please ensure that report from AB meeting gets back to TAG.
19:23:56 [Ian]
Modify IJ action (and fix date) to report back from AB discussion.
19:24:02 [Ian]
19:24:08 [Ian]
2.1 Possible New Issues
19:24:08 [Ian]
1. XML 1.1 Question from XMLP-WG
19:24:11 [Ian]
19:24:18 [Ian]
Initial email:
19:24:22 [Ian]
19:24:32 [Ian]
[PC summarizing]
19:24:41 [Ian]
PC: Qnames in xschema broken by xml 1.1.
19:24:46 [DanC]
"broken"? an example scenario would help
19:24:55 [Ian]
PC: I propose that the tag adopt this as an issue and then push to xml activity.
19:25:03 [Norm]
A QName using an XML 1.1 character cannot be validated with Schema 1.0
19:25:12 [Ian]
PC: I suggest that the TAG not spend lots of time on this.
19:25:24 [Norm]
Characters in names is the more general issue
19:25:37 [Norm]
19:25:54 [Zakim]
19:25:57 [Zakim]
19:26:03 [Ian]
NW: I agree that we should adopt an issue and hand it off to someone.
19:26:12 [Ian]
19:26:25 [Ian]
CL: I agree with PC's plan generally, and sending it to XML CG appropriate.
19:26:35 [Ian]
CL: I agree with NW that this is wider than schema.
19:26:38 [Stuart]
ack Dan
19:26:38 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask why this belongs on the TAG issues list, and shouldn't be handled by XML foo?
19:26:49 [Ian]
DC: How does this impact architecture?
19:26:57 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:26:58 [Chris]
xml is architectural
19:27:01 [Ian]
NW: I think that this goes beyond xml (e.g., n3)
19:27:17 [Ian]
TBL: n3 doesn't make reference to the bnf in the xml spec.
19:27:19 [Chris]
true, links *into* xml are affected
19:27:46 [Ian]
CL: I think this is of the same ilk as the xml id issue.
19:28:09 [Ian]
PC: XML CG likely to accept this issue from the TAG.
19:28:16 [Ian]
19:28:56 [Ian]
NW: Take an xml doc that contains a qname that has one of the new unicode characters in it (i.e., in xml 1.1, not in xml 1.0). Now try to put an xpointer in a document that uses a qname. Which version of qnames does it use?
19:29:07 [Ian]
NW: I mean in the local name part.
19:29:26 [Ian]
DC: Did people see this coming at PR?
19:29:30 [Ian]
PC: Yes.
19:29:49 [Ian]
NW: I think W3C made the right decision, but that some loose ends need to be tied down.
19:30:01 [timbl]
19:30:09 [Ian]
NW: I am for adopting the issue, helping getting it fixed.
19:30:22 [Ian]
TBL: The way that xml 1.1 was presented was that it should only be used "when necessary."
19:30:37 [Ian]
19:30:49 [Ian]
19:30:55 [Ian]
Ah, the language.
19:31:09 [Chris]
its a script used by a large country in Africa
19:31:09 [Ian]
NW: Need to use xml 1.1 if writing in ethiopian language.
19:31:40 [Roy]
says +1 to issue
19:31:49 [Chris]
+1 to issue
19:31:49 [Ian]
[No objections to adopting this as an issue]
19:31:52 [Norm]
19:31:59 [Ian]
PC: +1
19:32:01 [Ian]
TBL: +1
19:32:04 [mario]
19:32:47 [Norm]
19:32:49 [Ian]
Proposed: Adopt this as issue xml11Names-46
19:32:55 [Ian]
DC: I abstain.
19:33:04 [Ian]
SW: I abstain
19:33:15 [Ian]
Resolved: Adopt this as issue xml11Names-46.
19:33:27 [Ian]
Action NW: WRite up the issue (and send to www-tag)?
19:33:33 [Ian]
(or send where?)
19:33:49 [DanC]
(didn't the XML CG punt it to us?)
19:33:50 [Ian]
NW: I favor the XML CG as the recipient of this question.
19:34:19 [Ian]
SW: I think issue arose in XMLP WG
19:34:22 [DanC]
"to call the attention of the TAG and XML Co-ordination Group" --
19:34:46 [Ian]
NW: I'll write up for TAG this week, then if no objections, forward it to XML CG on behalf of TAG.
19:35:04 [Ian]
19:35:11 [Ian]
2.2 httpRange-14 status
19:35:11 [Ian]
Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.
19:35:11 [Ian]
Update of discussion on URI mailing list started by email from DC? What is next action (e.g., summary of that discussion to the TAG)?
19:35:28 [Ian]
q+ to mention upcoming draft and relation to this issue.
19:36:11 [Ian]
RF: There is no proposed resolution that any two people can firmly agree to.
19:36:16 [Ian]
(on the discussion list)
19:37:14 [Ian]
SW: The title of RFC2396 concerns generic syntax...
19:37:17 [timbl]
19:37:19 [Ian]
RF: IANA requirements require a bit more than that.
19:37:20 [Roy]
19:37:35 [Ian]
ack Roy
19:37:57 [Ian]
RF: I need to incorporate (into RFC2396bis) comments in and
19:38:00 [Ian]
(as well)
19:38:22 [Ian]
RF: The latter needs to go into the RFC since it doesn't really make sense in an informational draft.
19:38:27 [Ian]
RF: Those are both cut-and-paste actions.
19:38:39 [Ian]
RF: The spec has primarily been held up due to travel, not the definition.
19:39:15 [Ian]
RF: The spec won't progress with the current defn; I don't know what the change will be to enable progression.
19:39:21 [Ian]
RF: Proposing concrete text would help.
19:39:32 [Ian]
DC: I was a bit surprised at direction of discussion.
19:39:55 [Ian]
RF: The issue looks resolvable; finding the right words is the problem.
19:40:16 [DanC]
the thread is fairly long
19:40:24 [Ian]
RF: Lots of disagreement about definition of "resource".
19:40:36 [Ian]
RF: In my opinion, it seems that people are confused about what a resource is and what it can be.
19:40:49 [DanC]
ah; and Larry started another thread on the same topic.
19:40:54 [Ian]
RF: Not sure whether progress will be (1) clearer understanding or (2) less present definition.
19:41:36 [Ian]
RF: I don't see obstacles to consensus, but discussion has not converged.
19:42:00 [Ian]
19:42:05 [Ian]
ack Ian
19:42:05 [Zakim]
Ian, you wanted to mention upcoming draft and relation to this issue.
19:42:55 [Ian]
19:43:03 [Ian]
Next editor's draft: 8 June
19:43:19 [Ian]
Action NW: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
19:43:33 [Ian]
NW: No progress.
19:43:48 [Ian]
Action CL: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1. Consider deleting para that follows last sentence third para after story in 3.3.1. "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g., using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to a server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT, POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with secondary resources."
19:45:22 [Ian]
Section 3.3.1 Media Types and Fragment Identifier Semantics
19:45:40 [DanC]
3.3.1. Media Types and Fragment Identifier Semantics
19:45:44 [Chris]
I don't see it in
19:45:47 [Stuart]
19:45:48 [DanC]
19:46:17 [DanC]
actions_owner.html is not exhaustive
19:46:31 [Chris]
ok, got it, its listed in
19:46:51 [Ian]
SW: Anybody finish any of their LC issues?
19:46:58 [Ian]
(i.e., actions associated with LC issues)?
19:48:04 [Ian]
19:48:08 [Ian]
Action IJ and CL to draft a proposal to address this issue. (No clear direction from 14 May 2004 minutes, but there was discussion about whether the content was "designed for presentation".)
19:48:36 [Ian]
19:49:14 [Ian]
19:49:20 [Ian]
DC: I mailed him; he mailed back.
19:49:52 [DanC]
and he responded 30 mar
19:50:37 [Ian]
IJ: that will be in tomorrow's draft!
19:50:55 [Ian]
"One particularly useful mapping is to combine the
19:50:55 [Ian]
namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name, thus creating a URI
19:50:55 [Ian]
for a secondary resource (the identified term)."
19:51:09 [Ian]
IJ: I think that is relevant.
19:52:06 [Ian]
IJ: Ah, I wasn't talking about qnames specifically.
19:52:53 [Ian]
IJ: I will bind what I am writing to Jacek's comments.
19:53:00 [Ian]
Resolved: Close DC's action for kopecky 5.
19:53:06 [Roy]
I would add "(assuming the namespace is flat)" somewhere
19:53:30 [Ian]
(RF: Only useful if the namespace is flat)
19:53:54 [Ian]
DC: Also mention the one that has more wrinkles - schema component designators.
19:54:05 [DanC]
XML Schema: Component Designators
19:54:15 [Ian]
[PC leaves]
19:54:21 [Zakim]
19:54:53 [Ian]
19:55:28 [mario]
Would it make sense to reference to the SCD document from the Web Arch one?
19:55:29 [Ian]
19:55:53 [Ian]
19:56:41 [Ian]
s/Web resource/resource
19:56:47 [Ian]
19:57:12 [Ian]
IJ: I think that this one is subsumed "Section 3.4, para 1, last sentence:"
19:57:24 [Ian]
ALso: Section 3.4, para 2:
19:57:41 [Ian]
IJ: I think Eidtor's draft will address stickler 7
19:58:35 [Ian]
20:00:49 [Chris]
20:00:54 [Ian]
20:00:57 [DanC]
(better to use technical keywords rather than section numbers and other indirect mechanisms, perhaps, Ian)
20:01:03 [Chris]
so does the reference to uuid still appear?
20:01:06 [Ian]
20:01:08 [Ian]
20:01:13 [Ian]
he generation of a fairly large random number or a checksum reduces the risk of URI overloading to a calculated small risk. A draft "uuid" scheme adopted this approach; one could also imagine a scheme based on md5 checksums.
20:01:55 [Ian]
DC: s/fairly//
20:02:31 [Chris]
CL attempts to summarize
20:02:52 [Ian]
DC: I propose to either (1) move to future directions or (2) strike the bits about uuid and md5
20:02:54 [Roy]
neither uuid nor mmdf are used because they do not prevent collisions
20:03:11 [Chris]
its future or non-adopted work, so does not conflict with tag to use only registered schemes
20:03:58 [Chris]
support moving to futre directions, unless we think its a failed approach
20:04:16 [Roy]
20:04:28 [Ian]
20:04:41 [Ian]
DC: I'd rather strike than move to future directions at this point.
20:04:45 [Ian]
RF: I'd remove it.
20:04:51 [Ian]
CL: I'd move to future directions.
20:05:06 [Chris]
support removing it also; not hearing that its likely future direction
20:05:13 [Ian]
RF: I don't consider these to be identifiers. md5, e.g., doesn't prevent collisions, but reduces risk.
20:05:30 [Ian]
RF: Given a document repository the size of the web, there is a guarantee that there are colliding docs on the web.
20:05:39 [Ian]
TBL: UUIDs have a delegated part.
20:05:39 [Stuart]
20:05:45 [Stuart]
ack Roy
20:05:48 [Ian]
RF: If properly constructed, yes.
20:05:52 [Chris]
rf also said that its fragile, any edit to the resource gives a new uuid
20:06:02 [Ian]
RF: If properly constructed, have same properties as mid syntax.
20:06:20 [Ian]
MJ: Large random numbers are unwieldly.
20:06:33 [Ian]
TBL: Large random numbers technically work, but raise social issues.
20:07:36 [DanC]
tim, yes, lots of things might be interesting in the fullness of time. meanwhile, nobody has done the homework to finish the uuid: scheme. Let's strike discussion of it, no?
20:08:07 [Ian]
IJ propose: delete second bullet and mention large numbers in third bullet; delete uuid and md5
20:08:17 [Chris]
Mario, that was my point exactly, its a theoretical example
20:09:36 [Ian]
TBL: Say "hypothetical"?
20:09:47 [Roy]
20:09:48 [Ian]
SW: Who would like to see the middle example on large numbers struck?
20:09:50 [Norm]
20:09:55 [Ian]
20:09:57 [Ian]
CL: strike
20:10:01 [Ian]
SW: strike
20:10:22 [Ian]
20:10:26 [timbl]
TBL: Concur
20:10:31 [Ian]
20:10:46 [DanC]
you'll have to tweak "the above approaches"
20:10:50 [Ian]
Action IJ: Remove the middle bullet from 2.3.
20:12:42 [Ian]
DC: Note that mid/cid also use domain names; the number part looks like a file name.
20:13:15 [timbl]
20:13:19 [Ian]
20:13:20 [DanC]
hmm... the future direction stuff about p2p systems and such is gone. I wonder if I have energy to get it put back.
20:13:58 [Ian]
IJ: I note for hawke6 that we talked about at ftf and didn't adopt.
20:14:20 [Ian]
For hawk7, I've incorporated into draft.
20:14:59 [Ian]
20:15:15 [Ian]
TBL: I think that this makes sense.
20:15:33 [Ian]
2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
20:15:44 [timbl]
No! /TBL/s/.*//
20:16:04 [Ian]
20:16:14 [Ian]
20:16:21 [Ian]
2.7. Future Directions for Identifiers
20:16:22 [timbl]
Ian, DanC asked you about what your issue list summary meant, and I tried to explain, as you seemed not to understand /respond to the question.
20:16:28 [Ian]
2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
20:16:32 [timbl]
(i dio not say anything made sense)
20:17:11 [Ian]
Question: Keep "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one another does not mean they are interchangeable. For instance, suppose that two different organizations own the URIs "" and "". The URIs might both identify the same resource, a certain collection of weather-measuring equipment shared by the two organizations. Although the URIs might be declared "owl:s
20:17:11 [Ian]
ameAs" each other, the two URI owners might provide very different content when the URIs are dereferenced."?
20:17:25 [Ian]
20:17:39 [Ian]
TBL: In RDF, sameAs applies to resources.
20:18:09 [timbl]
<ttp://"> owl:sameAs <>.
20:18:10 [Ian]
IJ: I believe some folks commented on this text at the ftf meeting.
20:18:21 [DanC]
no, I can't endorse "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one another ...
20:18:39 [Ian]
RF, SW: I don't follow this para.
20:18:59 [Ian]
TBL: If two URIs identify the same resource, that doesn't mean that you can use them interchangeably.
20:19:01 [Ian]
DC: Yes it does.
20:19:06 [Ian]
20:19:14 [DanC]
(timbl was quoting/paraphrasing, I think)
20:19:31 [Ian]
TBL: Suppose you use "#" in both of them; so they both refer to the same weather station.
20:19:55 [Ian]
TBL: Sandro is saying that you can, e.g., put one or the other in an RDF statement.
20:20:08 [Ian]
TBL: But if you dereference them you'll get different information back.
20:20:43 [Ian]
SW: The two URIs denote the same resource but identify two different information resources?
20:20:50 [Ian]
(SW cites Pat Hayes...)
20:21:16 [Ian]
TBL: We use "identify" in the arch doc, not "denote".
20:21:50 [Ian]
s/interchangeable/interchangeable for purposes other than identification/ ?
20:22:37 [Stuart]
No... Stuart suggests a a response that Pat *might* have made - but Stuart was being speculative - he was not quoting.
20:23:25 [Ian]
DC: I don't think this point is worth making (and I don't believe it).
20:23:59 [Norm]
Any argument that says something would be true for URIs of one scheme that's false for URIs of another scheme makes me wince
20:26:28 [Ian]
DC: The resources are interchangeable, the URIs are spelled differently.
20:26:41 [Ian]
TBL: But it makes a difference which one you use.
20:27:12 [Ian]
TBL: If SH intentionally didn't use a "#" in the second URI, then I don't understand his question.
20:27:29 [Ian]
Proposed: Ask SH for clarification - was "#" dropped by mistake in second URI?
20:27:50 [Ian]
Action TBL: Ask Sandro for clarification on whether second URI should have "#".
20:28:17 [Ian]
20:28:23 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop