14:22:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:22:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-irc
14:22:03 <kendallclark> hehe, old SGML hacks always smile like this: :> -- anything else just seems weird
14:22:54 <libby> zakim, please list conferences
14:22:54 <Zakim> I see I18N_CoreWG()10:00AM, SVG_WG()9:30AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM active
14:22:56 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WAI_TIES()10:00AM, SYMM_WG()10:00AM, SW_DAWG()10:30AM, WS_DBWG()10:00AM, HTML_XHTML(editors)10:00AM
14:23:10 <LeeF> haha, let's hijack one of those
14:23:12 <DanC_lap> Zakim, this will be dawg
14:23:12 <Zakim> ok, DanC_lap; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:23:29 <libby> thanks danc_lap. I'm just tryying to remember how to use the bots
14:23:32 <kendallclark> i'm gonna feed the agenda to zakim
14:23:37 <libby> ok
14:23:40 <LeeF> Chair: kendallclark
14:23:46 <LeeF> Scribe: libby
14:24:21 <ericP> Meeting: RDF Data Access Working Group weekly telecon
14:24:57 <kendallclark> agenda+ Convene RDF Data Access WG meeting of 2006-04-11T14:30Z 
14:25:11 <ericP> LeeF, i don't use localhost URLs. those might have a prayer of working on your machine.
14:25:17 <kendallclark> agenda+ CR! 
14:25:34 <LeeF> true, but i couldn't remember the name of your machine =)
14:25:38 <ericP> unagi
14:25:41 <kendallclark> agenda+ Test Case, Suite Maintenance, Etc
14:25:49 <kendallclark> agenda+ Future meeting frequency
14:26:00 <kendallclark> agenda+ Implementation Report
14:26:03 <LeeF> I hemmed and hawed over my lack of preciseness. And now I was called out over it. Dang.
14:26:09 <kendallclark> agenda+ MIME type registrations
14:26:14 <kendallclark> agenda+ UC&R end game
14:26:41 <kendallclark> ok, i suppose that worked well enough
14:27:16 <ericP> do we want to chat about sameTermAs(RDF term, RDF term) ?
14:27:28 <ericP> might be worth an agendum at the end
14:27:30 <Zakim> SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:27:32 <Zakim> +Kendall_Clark
14:27:51 <kendallclark> ericP: sure... is that the AndyS Geoff discussion?
14:28:01 <kendallclark> i didn't see that when reviewing the traffic from last week
14:28:57 <Zakim> +Libby_Miller
14:28:59 <Zakim> -Libby_Miller
14:28:59 <ericP> zakim, please dial ericP-617
14:29:00 <Zakim> +Libby_Miller
14:29:01 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:29:02 <Zakim> +EricP
14:29:13 <Zakim> +[IBMCambridge]
14:29:18 <libby> zakim, mute me
14:29:18 <Zakim> Libby_Miller should now be muted
14:29:20 <EliasT> EliasT has joined #dawg
14:29:21 <LeeF> Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:21 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
14:29:29 <Zakim> +DanC
14:29:43 <Zakim> +[IBMCambridge]
14:29:50 <EliasT> Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:50 <Zakim> +EliasT; got it
14:29:57 <Zakim> +??P26
14:30:07 <AndyS> zakim, ??P26 is me
14:30:07 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:30:53 <Zakim> + +1.603.459.aaaa
14:31:16 <ericP> Zakim, aaaa is Souri
14:31:16 <Zakim> +Souri; got it
14:31:23 <LeeF> Nope
14:32:12 <kendallclark> zakim, who's on the call?
14:32:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller (muted), EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS, Souri
14:32:18 <Zakim> -Souri
14:33:15 <kendallclark> agenda?
14:33:19 <Souri> Souri has joined #dawg
14:33:41 <libby> zakim, open next agendum
14:33:41 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Convene RDF Data Access WG meeting of 2006-04-11T14:30Z" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:34:01 <kendallclark> 		   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0021.html
14:34:02 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-dawg-minutes last meeting record
14:34:11 <Zakim> +Souri
14:34:26 <libby> kc: propose this as a true record
14:34:44 <libby> ...kc sent regrets - needs fixing
14:35:05 <kendallclark> next item?
14:35:11 <DanC_lap> Zakim, next item
14:35:12 <Zakim> agendum 2. "CR!" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:35:20 <libby> ericp seconds
14:35:26 <kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0018.html
14:35:32 <LeeF> yay!
14:35:36 <libby> kc: a happy thing
14:35:53 <libby> kc: anything we need to know here?
14:36:17 <kendallclark> what are the constraints on how long CR should last?
14:36:20 <libby> danc: it's a good thing. I got asked how long CR will last
14:36:29 <libby> ... minimum 2 months
14:37:09 <libby> ... we chose this minimum
14:37:26 <libby> kc: do we need to wait for xquery?
14:37:50 <libby> danc: we can't go to rec until they are at PR
14:38:10 <kendallclark> WSDL 2 also a dependency
14:38:19 <libby> danc: PR means rec in 6 weeks, sets clear expectations
14:38:58 <libby> kc: wsdl2 and xquery are the twop primary dependences on external things - what else? an implementation report? test suite creation  / maintenance
14:39:25 <libby> danc: we have set ourselves a bar that's higher than typical, we're well ahead with a test suite and have some approved
14:39:40 <kendallclark> Approve the remaining unapproved tests
14:40:01 <kendallclark> Maintain an implementation report, answer questions pursuant to that work
14:40:04 <libby> ... expectation is that we go through the remaining 120 and approve / reject / modify, a few at a time; and also the public is reportign implemnattion experience - we have to answer mains
14:40:08 <libby> ..mails
14:40:26 <libby> ... basically testcases, questions, marketing
14:40:39 <libby> kc: implemnentation report - can it continue to be a wiki page?
14:40:53 <libby> danc: material in wiki, report in w3c cvs
14:41:18 <libby> ... basically an argument to director that have enough implemntations, according to the criteria we made
14:41:24 <ericP> I just added a list of those present to the minutes we just approved :[[Jeen, Libby_Miller, DanC, EliasT, EricP, SteveH, Sven_Groppe]]
14:42:14 <kendallclark> zakim, next item?
14:42:14 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, kendallclark.
14:42:16 <kendallclark> zakim, next item
14:42:16 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Test Case, Suite Maintenance, Etc" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:42:18 <libby> zakim, next item
14:42:19 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, libby
14:42:23 <libby> heh
14:42:46 <kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0016.html
14:42:59 <libby> kc: is the validator rejecting approved testcasese?
14:43:55 <libby> andys: I replied. problem is bnodes in the predicate syntax. the doc was a bit inconsistent about that and was resolved late on. need to corerect these
14:44:03 <libby> ... tests need removing
14:44:30 <libby> kc: propose someone takes an action to remove those
14:44:53 <AndyS> Tests are SyntaxFull/syntax-bnodes-03.rq and SyntaxFull/syntax-bnodes-04.rq
14:45:02 <libby> andys: we definitely made that decision
14:45:12 <libby> ... finding them
14:45:33 <kendallclark> Auto extraction from rq23?
14:45:36 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#rVerb
14:45:50 <AndyS> Discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0318.html
14:46:07 <libby> danc: when was this approved?
14:46:29 <libby> ericp: probably 2 places - no bnodes in the prediacte and an approved grammar
14:46:56 <DanC_lap> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax
14:47:00 <EliasT> I found this: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/13-htmltf-irc
14:47:09 <libby> danc: this should be colected under the punctuation sysntax
14:47:39 <libby> want an action kendall?
14:47:51 <kendallclark> eek, no. not me, not on this ;)
14:48:17 <libby> ACTION: DanC_lap find decision record for bnodes in predicate
14:48:23 <libby> ACTION DanC_lap: find decision record for bnodes in predicate
14:48:46 <DanC_lap> action -2
14:48:46 <DanC_lap> ACTION: find decision record for bnodes in predicate
14:48:50 <libby> thanks
14:49:20 <libby> rssagent, show actions
14:50:05 <kendallclark> sorry, quarter of a pig arrives in an ice chest, you can't ignore it :>
14:50:42 <libby> kc: if we approve a document that has a grammar in it - implicit decision at least
14:51:02 <kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0025.html
14:51:53 <kendallclark> Found an inconsistency in the document re: casting illegal lexical forms and IRIs/anyURI
14:51:57 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0028.html
14:52:01 <libby> andys: I think we found an inconsistency. one issue steve brought up as casting illegal lexical forms, the other was iris and anyurio
14:52:33 <libby> kc: what does it need?
14:52:36 <kendallclark> but yr more complete, libby :>
14:53:05 <libby> ericp: illegal lexical forms - we rely on xpaths - guessing it's illegal but we don't take a stand on it
14:53:19 <libby> ... test for casting 256 to a byte
14:53:24 <libby> ... e.g
14:53:34 <DanC_lap> FILTER int("23.4") > 20
14:53:37 <DanC_lap> type errro
14:53:51 <DanC_lap> FILTER "23.4"^^xsd:int > 20
14:54:12 <libby> danc: our spec doesn't deleetgate to xpath / xquery there does it?
14:54:12 <DanC_lap> ^ not sure about 2nd case there
14:55:30 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/examples-extract.xslt
14:55:52 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#evaluation
14:57:19 <kendallclark> ACTION EricP to figure out what our spec says re: casting illegal lexical forms
14:57:32 <DanC_lap> the relevant issue is "valueTesting"; pls include that in the subject of relevant email
14:57:33 <ericP> [[
14:57:34 <ericP> RDF typed literals passed as arguments to these functions and operators are mapped to XML Schema typed values with a string value of the lexical form and an atomic datatype corresponding to the datatype IRI. The returned typed values are mapped back to RDF typed literals.
14:57:37 <EliasT> ACTION:  EricP to figure out what our spec says re: casting illegal lexical forms
14:57:38 <ericP> ]]
14:58:23 <libby> ericp: guessing we don't say what happens there
14:58:28 <DanC_lap> I think our spec has a hole here.
14:58:56 <libby> ericp: we don't say what happens when there isn;t a corresponing xsd data type
14:58:58 <DanC_lap> this looks like sufficient information to re-open valueTesting, unfortunately
14:59:10 <libby> ericp: we could throw a type errror there for example
15:00:04 <libby> danc: it has been the chair's perogative to open the issue and it needs the wg to make a decision in order to close it
15:00:27 <libby> kc: as acting chair today it looks like there's enough tehre that the wg needs to make a decision
15:01:04 <libby> zakim next item
15:01:05 <kendallclark> zakim, next item
15:01:05 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Future meeting frequency" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:01:38 <libby> kc: we have to decide as a group how often we want to meet now
15:02:00 <ericP> q+ to propose we postpone this agendum until things quiet down
15:02:16 <ericP> ack me
15:02:16 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose we postpone this agendum until things quiet down
15:02:40 <libby> ericp: don't think we can make this decision now, need a quiet week
15:03:07 <kendallclark> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller (muted), EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS, Souri
15:03:08 <libby> danc: if you want things to get quieter, meet less often 
15:03:17 <DanC_lap> ack libby
15:03:19 <libby> thanks
15:04:14 <libby> zakim, mute me
15:04:14 <Zakim> Libby_Miller should now be muted
15:04:24 <libby> I would like to meet less often, fwiw
15:05:00 <kendallclark> dan notes the cost to meeting less often, swapping in, etc
15:05:08 <libby> danc: if you meet less often, there's a cost to swapping back in; but cost to meeting often too, time, agendas etc
15:05:28 <libby> kc: expect to meet next week, so no differnce today
15:05:43 <libby> elias: not sure, depend on the todos that are leftf. shorten the meetings?
15:05:52 <libby> ... 30-45 mins?
15:05:57 <Souri> I prefer meeting less often, but same duration as now
15:06:02 <libby> danc: more for the chair, less for others
15:06:30 <libby> andys: would like to get towards meetign every 2 weeks but not there yet
15:06:37 <libby> ... it's the chair's call
15:07:03 <libby> kc: might be a few more meetings to change chair, but after that maybe later
15:07:19 <libby> souri: meeting less often but keep the duration the same
15:07:35 <kendallclark> agenda?
15:07:37 <libby> ... an hour or so is fine - once we're swapped in
15:07:40 <DanC_lap> (in order for shorter meetings to work well, agenda items have to be prepared better in email.)
15:08:11 <libby> kc: leaning to meet less often but not yet
15:08:14 <kendallclark> agenda, next item
15:08:19 <libby> zakim, next item
15:08:19 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Implementation Report" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:08:22 <kendallclark> zakim, next item
15:08:22 <Zakim> agendum 5 was just opened, kendallclark
15:09:04 <libby> kc: useful to maintain impl report in wiki form
15:09:18 <libby> ... saw some gaps lately, ned to keep it up to date
15:09:31 <libby> ... we talked about this earlier though
15:09:37 <DanC_lap> (the report itself http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/imp39 is mostly pointers into the wiki and the test suites)
15:10:24 <libby> danc: at one point steve harris took an action to make a working draft out the test materials, not sure what's happened there, but it would be nice to have
15:10:51 <libby> kc: just a wg draft or a note or just written up some place
15:10:53 <libby> ?
15:11:04 <libby> danc: any of those, the readme doesn't quite do it for me
15:11:08 <DanC_lap> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/
15:11:36 <libby> danc: it doesn't say "hello gentle reader, I'm going to talk nice to you"
15:11:45 <libby> ... redame is mildly friendlier
15:11:57 <libby> kc: copy the readme into the file?
15:12:05 <libby> danc: needs hacking into the makefile
15:12:13 <libby> ericp: not sure how it works...
15:12:21 <libby> ... needs 3store
15:12:33 <libby> danc: jeen also knows how to do it
15:12:58 <libby> kc: I'd like a doc too; let's put this back on the agenda when jeen /steve is back
15:13:30 <libby> danc: 2 bars: can people run the tests? (seems ok) and does it encourage new people to try (no)
15:13:47 <libby> kc: woudl like people to submit tests too, though we would have to approve them
15:14:03 <kendallclark> zakim, next item?
15:14:03 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, kendallclark.
15:14:04 <kendallclark> zakim, next item
15:14:04 <Zakim> agendum 6. "MIME type registrations" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:14:20 <libby> kc: not sure of the status here?
15:14:26 <kendallclark> agenda?
15:14:45 <ericP> agenda + same term as
15:15:04 <kendallclark> agenda, next item
15:15:05 <libby> ericp: still needs to do actions on mimetype registration
15:15:30 <libby> danc: we didn't do LC before CR but we could on UC&R before PR
15:16:09 <libby> ... we know that people want to be able to query lists, but this isn't in the UC&R. if we did a LC, people could say this
15:16:26 <libby> ... we couldcoontinue on the current path or open it up a bit more
15:17:27 <libby> kc: would like to be guided by what owl did, UC&R very useful, would like to make it more visible
15:18:16 <libby> andys: be a good idea to try and capture the things we haven't covered; not sure LC for UC&R is the way to go there - sounds like saying 'we haven;t finished'
15:18:44 <libby> kc: could be messy
15:20:03 <kendallclark> ack libby
15:20:19 <LeeF> an application??!?! heavens!
15:20:38 <libby> well, a student application
15:21:04 <libby> danc: some experimental implementations of this 
15:21:08 <AndyS> http://seaborne.blogspot.com/2006/02/property-functions-in-arq.html
15:21:17 <libby> ericp: andys has one, ericp has one
15:21:24 <libby> zakim, mute me
15:21:24 <Zakim> Libby_Miller should now be muted
15:21:25 <AndyS> cwm/Euler
15:21:48 <libby> kc: let's take this decision when we have a fuller house. need to be plumper
15:22:08 <libby> andys: when we went to CR, some of the ourstanding dissent was in UC&R
15:22:24 <libby> ...e.g. dissent on optional
15:22:34 <libby> ... network inference
15:22:41 <kendallclark> agenda?
15:22:54 <kendallclark> zakim, next item
15:22:54 <Zakim> agendum 7. "UC&R end game" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:23:25 <libby> andys: wasn't sure what it meant to do a LC with outstanding dissent
15:23:35 <DanC_lap> Zakim, close item 7
15:23:35 <Zakim> agendum 7, UC&R end game, closed
15:23:37 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:23:38 <Zakim> 8. same term as [from ericP]
15:23:58 <LeeF> q+ to ask status of JSON document because I have a bad memory
15:24:02 <ericP> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/0368
15:24:34 <libby> ericp: a msg a long time ago where ericp proposed a modification to the operators - numerical equalisty symbol is the same as test for same rdf term. same rdf term = same node is easy
15:24:42 <DanC_lap> (re JSON, I think EricP has an action to publish it, which continues without discussion in today's meeting)
15:24:59 <libby> ericp numerical equality depends on degree of support for numerics (case was roman numeral)
15:24:59 <LeeF> (thanks, DanC_lap)
15:25:02 <LeeF> q-
15:25:16 <kendallclark> hmm, i think there may have been 1 or 2 issues that Andy and I didn't agree on from his review...
15:25:21 <libby> ... simple implementation get a false, better get a true; can;t distinguish between that and rdf equality
15:26:00 <libby> andy: thought we decided not equal on 2 terms is as open world as possible - onlty reurns true if it definitely knows they are not the same
15:26:13 <libby> ericp: [missed it]
15:26:46 <libby> andys: boolean, lexical in upper and lower case - this case equals returns false. 
15:27:15 <DanC_lap> q+ to say that I think I kinda screwed up the last time we closed valueTesting; I was supportive of proposals along the lines that Andy recalls (open world) but forgot about some stuff when I put the question, so we're prolly over the map, w.r.t. decision records
15:27:18 <libby> ericp: 2 issues numerical equals can give you a type error, same as wil not ...
15:27:58 <libby> ericp: if it doesn't understand my boollean then it does an rdf equals; if it does, a numeric equals
15:28:15 <DanC_lap> (this is all yet more reason to re-open valueTesting)
15:28:24 <kendallclark> q
15:28:26 <kendallclark> erp
15:28:28 <libby> ...separate syntax they would get a type error if the implementation did not understand what a boolean was, and the not equals would do the right thing
15:28:48 <libby> ericp: do you want to pick holes in my message?
15:28:56 <ericP> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/0368
15:29:04 <libby> <-- this one
15:29:26 <libby> ericp: my thesis is that it answers this question
15:30:10 <kendallclark> q?
15:30:20 <libby> ... if they thing they're doing a numerica euqals, it falls through to a term equals and they get a false, then this is a failure. if separate those two syntaxes, get better errors
15:30:42 <libby> andys: don't agree...big trouble - same numeric with different lexical forms, different effects
15:30:45 <kendallclark> ack next
15:30:47 <Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to say that I think I kinda screwed up the last time we closed valueTesting; I was supportive of proposals along the lines that Andy recalls (open world) but
15:30:48 <libby> -> email
15:30:54 <Zakim> ... forgot about some stuff when I put the question, so we're prolly over the map, w.r.t. decision records
15:31:42 <libby> andys: what about string equals?
15:32:01 <libby> ericp: implicit in mail message, just stays the same as before
15:32:13 <libby> ... only changes term equals
15:32:58 <kendallclark> agenda?
15:33:00 <libby> kc: have we opened valuetesting properly?
15:33:04 <libby> danc: yes
15:33:07 <kendallclark> zakim, next item
15:33:07 <Zakim> agendum 8. "same term as" taken up [from ericP]
15:33:29 <AndyS> 14:30Z
15:33:32 <libby> kc: propose we meet next week 14.30Z
15:33:38 <libby> ... seconded
15:33:48 <DanC_lap> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:33:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose EliasT
15:33:49 <kendallclark> zakim, pick a scribe
15:33:49 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF
15:33:58 <libby> ... volunteer scribe?
15:34:01 <EliasT> k.
15:34:03 <EliasT> I'll do it.
15:34:15 <EliasT> that was rigged.
15:34:25 <libby> ... scribe next week: eliast
15:34:33 <EliasT> second
15:34:38 <libby> Adjourned
15:34:38 <Zakim> -EliasT
15:34:39 <Zakim> -Souri
15:34:45 <DanC_lap> RRSAgent, make logs world-access
15:34:47 <libby> shall I just follw the instructions?
15:34:47 <kendallclark> ack libby
15:34:48 <LeeF> (sorry, was trying to arrange to go to www2006)
15:34:51 <Zakim> -EricP
15:35:12 <DanC_lap> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:35:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-minutes.html DanC_lap
15:36:05 <Zakim> -LeeF
15:36:07 <Zakim> -Libby_Miller
15:36:08 <Zakim> -Kendall_Clark
15:36:09 <Zakim> -DanC
15:36:24 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:36:25 <Zakim> SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
15:36:26 <Zakim> Attendees were Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller, EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS, +1.603.459.aaaa, Souri
15:38:37 <libby> action -1
15:38:49 <libby> (duplicated)
15:39:04 <DanC_lap> don't worry about the dup
15:39:26 <libby> useful to know how to use it better
15:43:01 <libby> Present: Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller, EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS
15:44:00 <libby> Present+ Souri
15:46:47 <libby> s/kc/kendallclark/g
15:47:21 <libby> RSSAgent, make minutes
15:47:33 <libby> d'oh!
15:47:36 <libby> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:47:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-minutes.html libby
16:48:41 <DanC> DanC has joined #dawg
16:53:38 <EliasT_> EliasT_ has joined #dawg
17:07:22 <EliasT> EliasT has joined #dawg
17:17:49 <AndyS> AndyS has left #dawg
17:29:20 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #dawg
17:36:34 <DanC_lap> DanC_lap has joined #dawg
18:00:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dawg
18:36:39 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #dawg
20:10:17 <EliasT_> EliasT_ has joined #dawg
20:39:44 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #dawg
21:11:08 <EliasT__> EliasT__ has joined #dawg
22:03:51 <EliasT> EliasT has joined #dawg