IRC log of swbp on 2005-05-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:54:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
16:54:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:54:50 [Ralph]
Ralph has changed the topic to: WG Telecon 19 May agenda
16:54:58 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be swbp
16:54:58 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; I see SW_BPD()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:55:12 [Ralph]
Meeting: SemWeb BPD WG
16:55:21 [Ralph]
16:55:35 [Ralph]
-> previous 2005-05-05
16:55:53 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make logs world
16:58:21 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
16:58:58 [Zakim]
SW_BPD()1:00PM has now started
16:59:05 [Zakim]
16:59:38 [Zakim]
16:59:41 [Zakim]
+Alistair_Miles (was ??P1)
17:00:06 [Zakim]
17:00:18 [Zakim]
17:00:21 [dbooth]
zakim, ??P2 is dbooth
17:00:21 [Zakim]
+dbooth; got it
17:01:31 [Zakim]
17:02:19 [Ralph]
Regrets: Brickley, McGuinness, McBride, Nanni, Rector, Wallace, Govoni, Nguyen, Pepper, Garshol, Vitali, Presutti, Gessa, Gandon, Ng. Pan
17:02:57 [Ralph]
[Guus said he'd be ~15 mins late]
17:03:17 [Ralph]
Chair: DWood
17:03:38 [Zakim]
17:03:46 [Ralph]
DWood: welcome to David Booth of HP, new WG participant
17:04:03 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose David_Wood
17:04:15 [Ralph]
PROPOSED to accept as the minutes of the 5 May telecon, per
17:04:15 [DavidW]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 5 May telecon:
17:04:16 [DavidW]
17:05:17 [Ralph]
zakim, who's on the call?
17:05:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_Wood, Alistair_Miles, dbooth, Ralph, Libby_Miller, Elisa_Kendall
17:05:33 [Ralph]
RESOLVED to accept as the minutes of the 5 May telecon, per
17:05:49 [Ralph]
PROPOSED to accept as the minutes of the 21 April telecon, per
17:08:08 [Ralph]
RESOLVED to accept as the minutes of the 21 April telecon, per
17:08:59 [Ralph]
PROPOSED next telecon 17 June 1700 UTC
17:09:07 [Zakim]
17:09:11 [Ralph]
Ralph: Guus asked for an agendum to change the times of the telecons
17:09:18 [Natasha]
Natasha has joined #swbp
17:09:23 [Ralph]
DWood: yes, but given light attendance we need to wait on time change
17:09:27 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p6 is Natasha
17:09:27 [Zakim]
+Natasha; got it
17:10:22 [Ralph]
[Ralph notes that David Booth is the author of the script -- -- that reformats irc logs to be presentable ]
17:12:30 [Natasha]
17:12:36 [Ralph]
-> f2f straw poll results
17:13:15 [Ralph]
14 of 21 prefer Galway
17:13:26 [Ralph]
... everyone can live with Galway
17:14:04 [Ralph]
Natasha: there's a workshop proposed for the days after ISWC, so f2f makes more sense before ISWC
17:15:14 [Ralph]
Natasha: first ISWC workshops are 6 Nov
17:17:09 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ralph start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL workshop)
17:18:29 [Zakim]
17:18:32 [Guus]
Guus has joined #swbp
17:18:40 [aliman]
I don't mind re f2f dates
17:18:53 [Ralph]
[don't mind which options, Alistair?]
17:19:09 [aliman]
any of the november dates are ok
17:19:09 [Zakim]
17:20:48 [Ralph]
Topic: Alternative telecon times
17:20:59 [dbooth]
s/Ralph start/Ralph to start/
17:21:04 [Ralph]
Guus: almost every other time of week is better for me than the current time
17:21:37 [Ralph]
Natasha: any day of week is ok but 1700 UTC is best for me
17:21:44 [Ralph]
DWood: 1700 UTC works best for me
17:21:51 [Ralph]
Natasha: except Wed
17:22:03 [Ralph]
Ralph: Wed 1700 UTC not good for me either
17:22:11 [aliman]
1700UTC is ok time for me, anyday except friday
17:22:15 [Zakim]
17:22:31 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p9 is Mike_Uschold
17:22:31 [Zakim]
+Mike_Uschold; got it
17:22:47 [Guus]
zakim, ??p9 is mikeU
17:22:47 [Zakim]
I already had ??P9 as Mike_Uschold, Guus
17:22:50 [Ralph]
DWood: Friday 1700Z not good for me
17:23:27 [Ralph]
Ralph: I could only do 80 minutes on Tuesday at 1700 UTC
17:23:31 [MIkeU]
MIkeU has joined #swbp
17:23:41 [Ralph]
... I would prefer Monday 1700 UTC
17:24:05 [Ralph]
MikeU: I could manage Mondays
17:24:15 [Ralph]
DBooth: propose a straw poll for Mon/Tue/Wed
17:24:45 [Ralph]
ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC
17:24:53 [Ralph]
Topic: Briefing of WWW2005
17:25:08 [Ralph]
Guus: W3C track was well-attended
17:25:13 [Ralph]
... David talked about applications
17:25:27 [Ralph]
... Jeremy talked about RDF in XHTML, was very well done
17:25:42 [Ralph]
... Guus talked about Topic Maps
17:25:53 [Ralph]
... the RDF/A material gave rise to lots of comment
17:26:01 [Ralph]
... Dave Beckett talked about GRDDL afterwards
17:26:12 [Ralph]
17:26:37 [Ralph]
... some people commented that SemWeb was less visible but I found SemWeb in most every talk, so thought it was quite visible
17:26:49 [Ralph]
DavidW: agree, SemWeb very visible
17:26:58 [Ralph]
Guus: TimBL gave a new version of his SemWeb layer cake
17:27:12 [Ralph]
... some of the veterans present objected to the new formulation
17:27:31 [Ralph]
... the version with DLP and Rules next to OWL
17:27:40 [dbooth]
TimBL's new layer cake:
17:28:03 [Ralph]
DavidW: there was a paper in which OWL-lite plus something had been implemented with rules
17:28:13 [aliman][17] TimBL's new layer cake
17:28:21 [Ralph]
Guus: Jeremy presented a good paper on signed graphs and provenance
17:28:31 [Ralph]
... and a paper from DERI on OWL-Flight
17:29:03 [Ralph]
... didn't really attend Dev Day
17:29:27 [Ralph]
DavidW: big paper on Dev Day was KAON-2 rule-based OWL system
17:29:50 [Ralph]
Guus: I gave a talk on the first workshop day
17:29:51 [DavidW]
17:29:55 [Ralph]
... workshop day was poorly attended
17:30:02 [Ralph]
... my talk was to Japanese developers
17:30:12 [Ralph]
... there were many interesting workshop talks
17:30:22 [Ralph]
... I recommend looking at the workshop proceedings
17:30:25 [libby]
devday: panel got some attention on japanese blogs apparantly (according to kanzaki-san)
17:30:31 [Ralph]
... ISO registry may be of interest to this WG
17:30:49 [Ralph]
zakim, close agendum 1
17:30:49 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
17:30:50 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:30:51 [Zakim]
2. Liaison [from Ralph]
17:30:52 [libby]
(sorry, not devday panel, david wood's panel)
17:30:56 [Ralph]
zakim, is chris here?
17:30:56 [Zakim]
Ralph, I do not see Chris anywhere
17:31:12 [Ralph]
zakim, next agendum
17:31:12 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liaison" taken up [from Ralph]
17:31:18 [Ralph]
Topic: httpRange-14
17:31:27 [Ralph]
ACTION Chairs to discuss the httpRange-14 issue at the coordination level
17:31:39 [Ralph]
Guus: not much progress at Coordination Group
17:32:12 [Ralph]
DavidW: TimBL and DanC seemed to be clear that as SWBPD WG was not presenting new technical content the issue was not likely to make progress
17:32:17 [Ralph]
... so now what?
17:32:37 [Ralph]
Guus: one of our main points was that the TAG should move the issue as it was blocking us
17:33:33 [Ralph]
Ralph: is my recollection of the March f2f discussion correct that there was a sense that any of the 4 options we identified were acceptable?
17:33:42 [Ralph]
... do we want to apply any ordering at all?
17:33:53 [aliman]
what were 4 options again?
17:33:59 [Ralph]
Guus: that was my sense -- any of the 4 options were better than no decision
17:34:44 [Ralph]
@@ lookup 4 options @@
17:34:58 [Ralph]
Alistair: I am afraid that the 4 options were simply how I partioned the solution space
17:35:14 [Ralph]
... and I might not have had enough knowledge of the problem to partition it adequately
17:35:54 [Ralph]
ACTION: David to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options
17:36:01 [Ralph]
17:36:12 [Ralph]
ACTION 3= DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options
17:36:31 [Ralph]
Topic: 2.2 XML Schema Last Call
17:36:42 [Ralph]
ACTION Jeff to review XML schema LC draft
17:36:44 [Ralph]
-- continues
17:36:54 [Ralph]
Topic: 2.2 OMG: ODM review
17:37:28 [Ralph]
-> Summary of feedback on the ODM Revised Submission (2005-01-10 version) [Elisa 2005-04-27]
17:37:35 [Ralph]
Guus: do the two other proposals have a chance?
17:37:55 [Ralph]
Elisa: unclear. the MMS guys with whom Guus met in Japan have proposed an OWL metamodel with a different syntax
17:38:08 [Ralph]
... though conforms closely to abstract syntax
17:38:30 [Ralph]
... we've taken a slightly different approach in the metamodels which do allow close relationship to RDF and OWL
17:38:44 [Ralph]
... Masada-san [sp?] proposal does not maintain closeness to RDF and OWL
17:38:51 [Ralph]
... there's been some discussion on this
17:39:04 [Ralph]
... so the graph model is not in the metamodel itself; it's in the profile section that I am working on
17:39:22 [Ralph]
... and we are trying to make changes to primary metamodel that Jeremy and others have suggested
17:39:30 [Ralph]
... some of these proposals have made it in and some not
17:39:38 [Ralph]
... I'm still working on it
17:39:47 [Ralph]
... we expect to publish a revision end of next week
17:40:04 [Ralph]
... would really appreciate Guus' and others' input on that revision
17:40:32 [Ralph]
... goal is for TC to present to OMG Design Taskforce meeting in June (~20 June) but not present for a vote at that time
17:40:46 [Ralph]
... take to OMG Architecture Board for vote in September
17:41:05 [Ralph]
... any feedback from SWBPD WG would be very much appreciate
17:41:34 [Ralph]
... doc is 300 pages; it has many metamodels, e.g. for Topic Maps, ...
17:41:40 [Ralph]
... focus on the sections that interest you
17:42:01 [Ralph]
Guus: my personal interest is in keeping the OWL-Full model in and not going to OWL-DL
17:42:33 [Ralph]
... also regarding RDF/Topic Map link, get Steve Pepper involved
17:42:53 [Ralph]
Elisa: I believe Lars Marius helped develop the Topic Maps metamodel in the first place
17:43:17 [Ralph]
... but the primary author of that part of the ODM submission is no longer with AT&T and I haven't heard much from him
17:43:52 [Ralph]
Guus: we should ask Steve Pepper for his strategy; it would be awkward to have two documents with different models published
17:44:08 [Ralph]
Elisa: the version in the spec to be published next week is unchanged from the previous version
17:44:22 [Ralph]
Guus: another topic is the politics around Business Rules
17:44:47 [Ralph]
Elisa: there has been some work in parallel with ODM by a "Business Rules Community
17:45:03 [Ralph]
s/by a/by a group of folk calling themselves the/
17:45:22 [Ralph]
... the business rules folk claim their language can be used for ontologies
17:45:40 [Ralph]
... OMG said there needed to be alignment between business rules and ODM
17:45:51 [Ralph]
... I asked the business rules people to ground their logic in ODM
17:46:06 [Ralph]
... that gives them a model-theoretic semantics
17:46:21 [Ralph]
... I got Pat Hayes to sit with the business rules logicians at the W3C Rules Workshop
17:46:29 [Ralph]
... they have agreed to ground their logic in Common Logic
17:46:41 [Ralph]
... there is work afoot to get them to agree to work with us and with Pat Hayes in particular
17:46:56 [Ralph]
... hopefully the result will be something close to a combination of OWL and Common Logic
17:47:09 [Ralph]
... we'll see what happens at the June meeting; I plan to attend their presentation
17:47:46 [Ralph]
Guus: the business rules has been specified fairly informally
17:48:01 [Ralph]
Elisa: yes, and we've said their logic needs to be grounded in something in order to achieve interoperability
17:48:15 [Ralph]
Guus: very nice of Pat, but he's offering them something that they currently do not have
17:48:39 [Ralph]
Elisa: yes, and it took some loud voices e.g. from NIST, to persuade them they were missing a large component that was useful to people
17:49:58 [Ralph]
DavidW: every time I go to a conference I see a new proposal for an ontology language that uses part of OWL but with a different logic subset that is incompatible
17:50:23 [Ralph]
... is it your goal to try to get [the business rules] people to be clear about their logic in order to determine whether interoperabaility is even possible?
17:50:36 [Ralph]
Elisa: yes, first goal is to be able to understand clearly what they are saying
17:50:43 [Ralph]
... then to see if it is compatible with ODM
17:51:17 [Ralph]
Ralph: that -- knowing what people are saying -- is the fundamental goal of RDF itself
17:51:21 [Ralph]
zakim, next agendum
17:51:21 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "TF Updates" taken up [from Ralph]
17:51:28 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.1 PORT
17:51:37 [Ralph]
DavidW: congratulations to PORT TF on their 3 new WDs
17:51:50 [aliman]
17:51:50 [Ralph]
Alistair: yes, we did it! got the first 3 SKOS Working Drafts published
17:51:55 [libby]
17:52:08 [Ralph]
... we had a slight hiccup with the Quick Guide and got a quick ammendment to it
17:52:15 [aliman]
17:52:23 [Ralph]
... the version linked from the news item is no longer the latest version
17:52:43 [Ralph]
Ralph: though the version linked from the news item does have a correct 'latest version' link
17:52:55 [Ralph]
Alistair: we had proposed that every 2 months we'd review these document
17:53:04 [Ralph]
... so OK to schedule a review for 17 July?
17:53:15 [Ralph]
... should we ask Tom and Mark van Assem to review again
17:53:26 [Ralph]
Ralph: I think we should open the floor to other volunteers
17:53:44 [Ralph]
DavidW: there is little to be gained from the same two people looking at it every two months
17:53:58 [Ralph]
Guus: the main issue now is whether there will be comments from the public
17:54:08 [Ralph]
... you may want to solicit comments from groups who have special interest
17:54:21 [Ralph]
Alistair: I may send email to lists with special interest
17:54:36 [Ralph]
... is there anything special I shoudl say in such announcements?
17:54:48 [Ralph]
Mike: could point out what you can do with this
17:55:00 [Ralph]
DavidW: there is no requirement and no template for such announcements
17:55:16 [Ralph]
... you're representing the WG and W3C, so review your language before you hit 'send
17:55:28 [Ralph]
DavidW: it would be good to include a requested deadline for comments
17:55:59 [Ralph]
Mike: I forwarded the publication announcement to our library people
17:56:11 [Ralph]
... I'd like to volunteer to review one of these documents; which would be the best to review?
17:56:20 [Ralph]
Alistair: all 3 are linked
17:56:31 [Ralph]
Guus: perhaps the SKOS Core Guide is the place to start
17:56:50 [Ralph]
... not much in the Quick Guide to review
17:57:11 [Ralph]
... the SKOS Core Specification is not as readable as the Guide
17:57:24 [Ralph]
Alistair: the Guide introduces all of the features of SKOS Core itself
17:57:41 [Ralph]
... the Specification is intended to be a reference document
17:58:36 [Ralph]
Alistair: I'll set 17 July provisionally as the next review date
17:58:58 [Ralph]
... and run announcement mail drafts past Guus, David, and Ralph
17:59:16 [dbooth]
17:59:38 [Ralph]
DavidW: in 2 months I will have forgotten that this agendum was to come back up; please remind me at the time
17:59:44 [Ralph]
s/me/the chairs/
18:00:04 [Ralph]
Alistair: Eric Miller asked us to think about machine-readable change policies
18:00:12 [Ralph]
ACTION Alistair to think about machine-readable change policies
18:00:15 [Ralph]
-- continues
18:00:26 [Ralph]
Alistair: I'll have to talk with EricM about what he was expecting
18:00:45 [Ralph]
... I will put a seeAlso reference in the RDF to the spec
18:01:10 [Ralph]
... propose to drop the action
18:01:15 [Ralph]
... I don't know what we'd put in the RDF
18:02:06 [Ralph]
Ralph: I don't think a seeAlso meets Eric's expectations
18:02:41 [Ralph]
... but I think it makes sense to find out what Eric was thinking of and consider whether the TF wants to tackle it. I suspect it's not a simple job
18:02:54 [DavidW]
ack Ralph
18:05:13 [Ralph]
Ralph: DanBri is a good author of general announcements to lists, suggest you use him to consult
18:05:29 [Ralph]
... also, the 'which document do I read first' is probably a FAQ
18:05:34 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.2 OEP
18:05:41 [Ralph]
Natasha: waiting for Mike to finish his comments
18:05:50 [Ralph]
... Specified Values to be published soon
18:06:22 [Ralph]
... not aware of discussion of Time Note
18:06:36 [Ralph]
... Jerry Hobbs may be turning some material he has into a draft
18:06:59 [Ralph]
Guus: any idea of Jerry's time schedule?
18:07:27 [Ralph]
... new HP participant, David Booth; which task force were you thinking of joining?
18:07:40 [Ralph]
DBooth: I'm still thinking about that, catching up on what the WG is doing
18:08:13 [Ralph]
ACTION Ralph help Alistair with publication process for SKOS documents
18:08:15 [Ralph]
-- done
18:08:21 [Ralph]
TOpic: 3.3 WordNet
18:08:43 [Ralph]
Guus: I'm worried that we still haven't published a data model
18:09:00 [Ralph]
... I will contact Aldo to see if we can find additional resources to work on this
18:09:15 [aliman]
+1 on important publication
18:09:17 [Ralph]
... it's an important publication and I'd like to finish it before the end of our charter
18:09:22 [Ralph]
ACTION Aldo to propose an update the Wordnet TF description
18:09:26 [Ralph]
-- continues
18:09:30 [Zakim]
18:09:31 [Ralph]
ACTION Alistair e-mail group about ISO contact
18:09:33 [Ralph]
-- done
18:09:36 [Ralph]
-> ISO TC37 information, contacts & links
18:10:18 [Ralph]
Alistair: Aldo said my question about the data model will be answered when the document is published
18:10:30 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.4 XML Schema datatypes
18:10:35 [Ralph]
[skipped, no representative]
18:10:42 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.5 Vocabulary Management
18:10:53 [Ralph]
Alistair: TomB summarized our telecon well
18:11:03 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.6 RDF-in-XHTML
18:11:33 [libby]
Ralph: had a 2 person telecon (?) this week, not mailed about it yet, but brief
18:11:47 [libby]
...update from html wg is that they hope to publish a new WD next week
18:12:10 [libby]
...they were waiting fro an xml schema for xhtml2; they got one and should have discussed it yesterday
18:12:36 [libby]
...been some discussions on mail recently about rdf/a in or out of what xhtml wg publishes
18:12:54 [libby] person has suggested it shoudl be dropped, but they are not on either wg
18:13:08 [libby]
...however the discussions have encouraged ralph
18:13:45 [libby]
...still a a bit concerned about whether the xhtml2 specification will explicily tie its semamtics to rdf
18:14:23 [libby]
...and whether the specificty in the draft (which one sorry, scribe missed) will be in the documents published by them...perhaps not
18:15:17 [libby]
...this wg shoudl watch carefully andmake sure that any conformance requirements in xhtml2 spec make clear that the xhtml2 syntax use binds you to the rdf semnatics...worried that it will be looser than that
18:15:25 [Ralph]
RDF/A spec and XHTML2 spec
18:15:26 [libby]
[sorry if I got that wrong ralph]
18:15:58 [libby]
...little we can do at themoment because the document is an editors draft, which we can read and comment on but the public can;t see
18:16:24 [libby]
...suggestion is to wait to comment until published as a working draft
18:16:52 [libby] persuade them to publish and so the discussions can take place propely in a public forum
18:17:10 [libby] the editor's draft can change before publishing though this material is unlikely to do so
18:17:35 [libby]
...ralph's advice to this wg is to hold toght and wait for them to publish, thoug there are risks there
18:17:43 [libby]
18:18:25 [libby]
...the question is whether the comments would make sense without the context of the specification
18:19:09 [libby] the moment the interested communities can't see the proposed solution
18:19:55 [libby]
...doesn;t think there's any effective way this wg can say anything more to xhtml wg to get them to publish more quickly
18:20:10 [libby]
...stated holdup is awaiting xml schema for their working draft
18:21:14 [libby]
...could go through advisory reps because xhtml wg have not odne an update to their docs in 9 months, but probably little effect
18:21:59 [libby]
...had made a request to wg on behalf of the GRDDL editors looking for coeditors - Dave Beckett offered to discuss it with them, whioch is progress
18:22:09 [Ralph]
ACTION DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements
18:22:14 [libby]
...the wg needs to consider how much effort to put in this direction
18:22:21 [Ralph]
ACTION DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements
18:22:21 [Ralph]
18:22:21 [Ralph]
-> [DanBri 2005-05-19]
18:22:47 [Ralph]
ACTION Gavin find out from his community and contacts if they have use cases
18:23:04 [Ralph]
-- continues
18:23:23 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.7 ADTF
18:23:28 [Ralph]
Libby: nothing to report
18:23:33 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.8 RDFTM
18:23:38 [Ralph]
[no representatives present]
18:23:46 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.9 Tutorial Page
18:24:07 [Ralph]
-> FAQ draft published
18:25:06 [Ralph]
Alistair: could we start an FAQ as a WiKi?
18:26:16 [Ralph]
... is the idea that all FAQ submissions would go through Benjamin?
18:26:35 [Ralph]
... if we put them in a WiKi then Benjamin's job could be to massage the WiKi into a snapshot
18:26:53 [Ralph]
Ralph: I like Alistair's proposal and suggest that he go ahead and start it
18:27:01 [Ralph]
Topic: 3.10 SETF
18:27:17 [aliman]
Ralph where should I put it?
18:27:20 [Ralph]
Elisa: telecon minutes were posted
18:27:25 [DavidW]
18:27:46 [Ralph]
Elisa: there are still missing sections, specifically automated software engineering, that we need help with
18:27:57 [Ralph]
... editor's draft has been revised a number of times
18:28:19 [Ralph]
... working toward Galway workshop on software engineering; on 6 Nov
18:28:34 [Ralph]
... we've gotten quite a bit of active response to that workshop
18:29:13 [Zakim]
18:29:18 [Zakim]
18:29:19 [Zakim]
18:29:21 [Zakim]
18:29:22 [Zakim]
18:29:24 [Ralph]
[Alistair, I propose something like ]
18:29:24 [Zakim]
18:29:26 [Zakim]
18:29:29 [Ralph]
18:29:35 [Zakim]
18:29:53 [aliman]
Ok will start that ralph, following Benjamin's guidelines
18:30:00 [Ralph]
18:30:12 [Ralph]
I suspect if you start it, Benjamin may find it useful
18:30:43 [Ralph]
zakim, drop gusu
18:30:43 [Zakim]
sorry, Ralph, I do not see a party named 'gusu'
18:30:46 [Ralph]
zakim, drop guus
18:30:46 [Zakim]
Guus_Schreiber is being disconnected
18:30:47 [Zakim]
SW_BPD()1:00PM has ended
18:30:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were David_Wood, Alistair_Miles, Ralph, dbooth, Libby_Miller, Elisa_Kendall, Natasha, Gavin_McKenzie, Guus_Schreiber, Mike_Uschold
18:31:53 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
18:31:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swbp
18:32:08 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:32:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ralph
18:32:36 [Ralph]
rrsagent, thanks
18:32:36 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'thanks', Ralph. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:32:46 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph start a poll on Thu/Fri 3-4 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 4-5 Nov vs. Fri/Sat 11-12 Nov. (noting the 11-12 dates conflict with OWL workshop) [1]
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus to start a straw poll on new meeting day; Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday -- all at 1700 UTC [2]
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DavidW to identify the 4 httpRange-14 options [3]
18:32:46 [RRSAgent]
recorded in