IRC log of dawg on 2006-09-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:20:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:20:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:20:41 [kendallclark]
Zakim: this will be DAWG
14:20:46 [kendallclark]
Zakim, this will be DAWG
14:20:46 [Zakim]
ok, kendallclark, I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM already started
14:21:15 [LeeF]
Andy, have you had a chance to look at the FILTER stuff at all?
14:21:50 [kendallclark]
hmm, zakim thinks we've already started
14:21:50 [kendallclark]
14:22:07 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ Convene
14:22:08 [Zakim]
agendum 1 added
14:22:10 [LeeF]
Zakim, what exactly are you smoking?
14:22:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, LeeF.
14:22:13 [SimonR]
That might be my fault. I dialed in and it told me I was the first participant.
14:22:16 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ action items
14:22:16 [Zakim]
agendum 2 added
14:22:35 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ Publication Schedules
14:22:35 [Zakim]
agendum 3 added
14:22:58 [Zakim]
14:23:00 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
14:23:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were
14:23:07 [kendallclark]
14:23:12 [kendallclark]
that's sort of stupid
14:23:13 [SimonR]
Okay, that was me hanging up.
14:23:20 [kendallclark]
Zakim, this will be DAWG
14:23:20 [Zakim]
ok, kendallclark; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:23:29 [kendallclark]
thank you, zakim
14:23:35 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda?
14:23:35 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:23:36 [Zakim]
1. Convene [from kendallclark]
14:23:38 [Zakim]
2. action items [from kendallclark]
14:23:39 [Zakim]
3. Publication Schedules [from kendallclark]
14:23:41 [kendallclark]
14:23:55 [kendallclark]
Chair: kendallclark
14:23:59 [kendallclark]
Scribe: LeeF
14:24:26 [kendallclark]
14:25:03 [SimonR]
Hope it goes well for you!
14:27:39 [kendallclark]
thx :)
14:27:54 [kendallclark]
to make things perfect-er, DC is under *crazy* thunderstorms today
14:28:00 [kendallclark]
it's raining buckets, non-stop, for hrs
14:28:55 [SimonR]
Now you're just TEASING those of us from drougt-aflicted climes... ;)
14:29:10 [SimonR]
14:29:18 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:29:25 [Zakim]
14:29:29 [LeeF]
zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:29 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:29:51 [Zakim]
14:29:57 [Zakim]
14:29:59 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P9 is me
14:29:59 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:30:00 [JanneS]
JanneS has joined #dawg
14:30:07 [AndyS]
Hi Janne!
14:30:15 [JanneS]
Hi Andy
14:30:37 [Zakim]
14:30:40 [SimonR]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
14:30:40 [Zakim]
+SimonR; got it
14:30:50 [JanneS]
It's been a while... I hope everybody's been ok here?
14:31:05 [Zakim]
14:31:14 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
14:31:14 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:31:25 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:31:25 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:31:34 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:31:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, [IPcaller], AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark
14:31:35 [AndyS]
LeeF, saw your FILTERs email.
14:31:43 [LeeF]
Meeting: RDF DAWG Weekly
14:31:49 [kendallclark]
Regrets: BijanP
14:31:58 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
14:32:01 [Zakim]
14:32:14 [EliasT]
Zakim, Elias_Torres is me
14:32:14 [Zakim]
+EliasT; got it
14:32:25 [Zakim]
14:32:37 [JanneS]
that ip caller might be me - sounds like my mic is not working properly
14:32:42 [SimonR]
Eric's here on IRC, and he helped wrangle a problem for me just earlier so I know he's awake.
14:32:42 [AndyS]
JanneS? You dialed in? As [IPcaller]?
14:32:57 [kendallclark]
[IPcaller] is Janne
14:33:00 [kendallclark]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Janne
14:33:00 [Zakim]
+Janne; got it
14:33:11 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute Janne
14:33:11 [Zakim]
Janne was not muted, kendallclark
14:33:25 [FredZ]
FredZ has joined #dawg
14:33:27 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone
14:33:27 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the phone', kendallclark
14:33:36 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:33:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, Janne, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, EliasT, Fred_Zemke
14:33:44 [JanneS]
let me call via other phone - skype's no good today
14:33:52 [bijan]
bijan has joined #dawg
14:34:14 [Zakim]
14:34:15 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up agendum #1
14:34:15 [Zakim]
'#1' does not match any agenda item, kendallclark
14:34:18 [Zakim]
14:34:23 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up agendum 1
14:34:23 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:34:49 [kendallclark]
14:35:16 [Zakim]
14:35:22 [bijan]
zakim, ipcaller is me
14:35:22 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
14:35:24 [kendallclark]
14:35:29 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:35:29 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:35:44 [LeeF]
PROPOSED accept at true record oflast week's meeting
14:35:59 [AndyS]
Scribe: LeeF
14:36:02 [Zakim]
14:36:16 [AndyS]
Chair: kendallclark
14:36:28 [LeeF]
seconded and RESOLVED.
14:36:41 [bijan]
I'm available
14:36:56 [kendallclark]
zakim, please pick a scribe
14:36:56 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF
14:37:07 [kendallclark]
zakim, please pick a scribe
14:37:07 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SimonR
14:37:21 [LeeF]
RESOLVED to meet next week, Tue Sep 12, with SimonR scribing
14:37:59 [Zakim]
14:38:31 [Zakim]
14:39:33 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:39:33 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "action items" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:39:42 [bijan]
I am on the call
14:39:48 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
14:39:48 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
14:40:22 [LeeF]
ACTION: bijan to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug
14:40:23 [LeeF]
14:40:30 [LeeF]
ACTION: Bijan to review FredZ 2 Aug and relate to WG issue list
14:40:32 [LeeF]
14:40:35 [LeeF]
14:40:41 [bijan]
This is the message that raised the issue:
14:40:41 [bijan]
14:40:41 [bijan]
14:41:13 [LeeF]
bijan: LeeF's message on filter -> 10 01
14:41:26 [kendallclark]
14:41:32 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's talking?
14:41:33 [LeeF]
bijan: Chileans believe scope of filter variables should be fairly narrow
14:41:43 [Zakim]
kendallclark, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (95%), Kendall_Clark (39%)
14:41:49 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
14:41:49 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:42:16 [kendallclark]
complexity of SPARQL w/ nested optional is PSPACE?
14:42:16 [LeeF]
bijan: nested OPTIONAL pushes up the worst case of SPARQL complexity quite high, which may be new information to reopen nested OPTIONAL issue
14:42:27 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:42:27 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:42:53 [EliasT]
kendallclark, the minutes are fine, but the IRC log is 403.
14:44:07 [kendallclark]
It's certainly new information, at least, IMO, -- the complexity results.
14:44:18 [FredZ]
message 2006JulSep/0186 does not exist
14:44:19 [SimonR]
I'm under the impression that we're pretty much obliged to support undecidable languages -- at the very least, OWL-Full...
14:44:30 [AndyS]
In what way is it different from SQL?
14:44:56 [LeeF]
LeeF: are we chartered to avoid putting constructs in the query language that bump up worst-case complexity?
14:45:17 [LeeF]
bijan: not chartered as such, but it was input into decisions re: OPTIONAL at the Boston face to face and might be worth revisiting
14:45:24 [bijan]
AndyS, I don't know. Perhaps that'll dispose of the matter. I.e., it doesn't matter
14:45:31 [FredZ]
SQL committee routinely adopts features that are known to be difficult
14:45:41 [LeeF]
kendallclark: this is new information; proposals to simplify language based on new information are in order, and we will discuss further
14:45:45 [FredZ]
on the grounds that you let the user decide whether to run such a query
14:45:51 [Zakim]
14:46:03 [AndyS]
As far as I can see the complexity is the same as SQL - evidence: there is a mapping to SQL.
14:46:13 [LeeF]
Right, that's my feeling as well. (Let the user decide whether to write hard or easy queries.)
14:46:25 [LeeF]
ACTION: KC to consider a new issue "entailment framework", somewhat like rdfSemantics, though perhaps different
14:46:26 [LeeF]
14:46:38 [bijan]
A polynominal mapping?
14:46:43 [LeeF]
ACTION: KC to review FredZ 2 Aug for issue updates
14:46:44 [AndyS]
FredZ, I agree
14:46:44 [LeeF]
14:46:45 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:46:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT
14:47:00 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to figure out the next step toward publication of SPARQL results format er.. JSON in particular
14:47:00 [LeeF]
14:47:09 [SimonR]
I'll claim my action complete, with thanks to LeeF for forwarding it:
14:47:09 [LeeF]
ACTION: PatH to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug
14:47:10 [LeeF]
14:47:11 [bijan]
Look, I'm not against computational complexity in general
14:47:13 [bijan]
14:47:21 [AndyS]
1-1 mapping of query to a single SQL statement
14:47:23 [LeeF]
ACTION: SimonR to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug
14:47:24 [Zakim]
14:47:24 [LeeF]
14:47:30 [bijan]
zakim, ipcaller is me
14:47:30 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
14:47:31 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:47:31 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Publication Schedules" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:47:34 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:47:34 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:47:43 [LeeF]
bijan, would you like your action re: Chilean semantics and filter to continue?
14:47:48 [AndyS]
(well - not 1-1 : 1 query in, 1 query out)
14:47:48 [bijan]
My poitn is that people *have* raised that as a consideration against ceratin choices
14:47:49 [bijan]
14:47:57 [LeeF]
ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper offers any advice re: filters
14:47:58 [bijan]
Yeah, so that doesn't show that the compelxity is the same
14:47:58 [LeeF]
14:48:07 [AndyS]
Bounds it.
14:48:10 [bijan]
14:48:22 [bijan]
If you have to map it ot an exponential number of queries
14:48:30 [AndyS]
How can the SPARQL query be more complex than it's implementation?
14:48:34 [bijan]
Or even an infintie number of queries
14:48:40 [bijan]
The implementation might not be complete
14:48:43 [LeeF]
kendallclark: what are the editors thoughts on publishing rq24 as a working group WD to satisfy heartbeat requirement and let the community know where we are
14:48:47 [bijan]
The implementation is SQL + the mapping
14:48:55 [bijan]
If the mapping introduces exponentially many queries
14:49:05 [bijan]
Then the complexity of sparql is greater than SQL
14:49:17 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ Complexity Considerations
14:49:17 [Zakim]
agendum 4 added
14:49:19 [LeeF]
ericP: happy to publish as is modulo pubrules ; we have questions that we need to ask the world about the query language (e.g. graph query vs. rdf semantics)
14:49:24 [AndyS]
One query => one SQL statement
14:49:37 [SimonR]
AndyS: The spec might admit simple solutions rather than one perfect, correct solution. In that way, the implementation might be *very* simple compared to the overall subtlety of the query language itself.
14:49:42 [bijan]
If the *size* of the query is exponential, it doesn't matte
14:49:46 [bijan]
Same issue
14:49:51 [LeeF]
14:50:07 [AndyS]
It isn't expoential.
14:50:10 [bijan]
14:50:13 [bijan]
But you didn't say that
14:50:31 [bijan]
And I'd want a proof that the reductioncaptures the semantics of the sparql
14:51:10 [LeeF]
AndyS: what's the purpose of publishing something?
14:51:20 [SimonR]
LeeF, ta.
14:51:24 [bijan]
(This is a standard technique for showing complexity: if you can give a polynominal reduction of one formalism to another of a known complexity, then you've established an upper bound)
14:51:24 [LeeF]
kendallclark: we owe the world/community an update on what we've been doing
14:51:47 [bijan]
(But, afaik, no one has shown that for SPARQL relative to SQL, though I'm no expert on SQL complexity)
14:52:12 [AndyS]
Err - the implementations?
14:52:27 [Zakim]
14:52:28 [bijan]
That's not a proof
14:52:30 [FredZ]
I am considering writing a general technique for SPARQL->SQL
14:52:37 [FredZ]
is that of interest?
14:52:46 [bijan]
Of course!
14:52:49 [bijan]
Very valuable, IMHO
14:52:56 [AndyS]
Yes - and I think it's been done at least twice already.
14:53:01 [LeeF]
ericP: i prefer to publish both rq24 and JSON results format, since rq24 is where our recent energies have been going and we haven't looked at JSON results format in a while
14:53:05 [bijan]
How do you know the implementation is acutally polynominal in every case?
14:53:27 [bijan]
Argh, calling in failures are frustrating me
14:53:46 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:53:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT
14:53:49 [Zakim]
14:53:53 [bijan]
zakim, ipcaller is me
14:53:53 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
14:53:57 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:53:57 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:54:43 [LeeF]
ACTION: SimonR to review rq24 [recorded in]
14:54:44 [LeeF]
14:55:03 [LeeF]
AndyS: what message are we trying to give to the community?
14:55:21 [Zakim]
14:55:47 [LeeF]
AndyS: does publishing a WD remove us from CR?
14:56:06 [Zakim]
14:56:13 [bijan]
zakim, ipcaller is me
14:56:13 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
14:56:16 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:56:18 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:56:52 [bijan]
I understand from DanC, last week, the WD knocks us out
14:57:16 [AndyS]
XPath/Xquery published in CR with fixes.
14:57:34 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
14:57:34 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
14:57:36 [bijan]
14:57:40 [bijan]
14:57:43 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:57:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT, bijan
14:57:45 [SimonR]
To remain in CR, I'd suggest Andy is right, it'd take another editorial pass.
14:58:09 [LeeF]
AndyS: knowing what happens with the status of the document affects what I spend my time on with respect to getting the text up to publishing quality
14:58:35 [LeeF]
SimonR: i think publishing rq24 is the right step forward; if published as is (the fastest way forward), it's not CR material and we should publish as WD
14:58:56 [LeeF]
SimonR: if we want to stay in CR, i suggest weneed to do some hole patching, but most of the hole patching is almost cosmetic.
14:59:06 [LeeF]
SimonR: i say, go to WD and publish rq24
14:59:23 [LeeF]
FredZ: i believe we should go to WD and I think current rq24 is better than current CR
15:00:23 [LeeF]
ericP: i want to publish as quickly as possibly, but with a BIG RED NOTE asking for input into semantics
15:01:14 [LeeF]
EliasT: i want topublish, but feel Andy's concerns about being careful going back into WD -- I think we need to make decisions quickly, and not go back into our pre-CR mode where we re-open lots of design decisions, etc.
15:01:42 [SimonR]
If we drop back to WD, how long would it take to release a subsequent CR? Do was actually long any time that way compared to holding off on publishing until rq24 is tidied up?
15:01:59 [SimonR]
Do we actually...
15:02:00 [LeeF]
kendallclark: Going to WD does not open all old decisions -- still need burden of proof of new information to open new issues
15:02:08 [AndyS]
SimonR - yes, in practice I can't see it not having that effect
15:02:17 [LeeF]
EliasT: I agree; I think it's important to psychologically stay in a mode where we try to close issues and keep moving forward
15:02:37 [kendallclark]
IMO, having 7 open issues on the issues list means that the horse is already bolted from the barn -- to use a technical phrase :)
15:02:45 [LeeF]
bijan: i don't think we can avoid going back to WD (DISTINCT alone being underspecificed will require significant changes to document that probably can't be published as patch to current CR document)
15:03:12 [LeeF]
bijan: as Dan pointed out, we might be able to go straight from WD to PR without having another CR
15:03:30 [LeeF]
bijan: i prefer to publish a WD sooner, perhaps with a list of issues that we're trying to resolve (and appropriate solicitation for help)
15:03:39 [AndyS]
I do not agree with Bijan's summary of DISTINCT.
15:05:28 [bijan]
Slight rephrasing of what LeeF scribed: I think putting in a nailed definition of DISTINCT is sufficient to trigger another LC. (There may be no other ramifications.)
15:05:33 [LeeF]
kendallclark: my preference is to publish rq24 as is modulo pubrules -- in status of the document section I want to point people to editorial changes and to point to issues lists, particularly open issues, and say that the WG is working to close issues, but we're not sure whta changes if any the issues will make in this document
15:06:33 [LeeF]
ericP: don't think we have an open issue for whether bnodes have different semantics from variable
15:06:44 [LeeF]
kendallclark: think I overloaded and reopened bnoderef for that issue
15:08:13 [EliasT]
Zakim, mute me
15:08:13 [Zakim]
EliasT should now be muted
15:08:14 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:08:15 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:08:20 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: To publish rq24 as a Working Draft, including SOTD section written by EricP.
15:08:27 [bijan]
15:08:28 [EliasT]
Zakim, unmute me
15:08:28 [Zakim]
EliasT should no longer be muted
15:08:29 [kendallclark]
15:08:32 [bijan]
zakim, who's making noise
15:08:32 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's making noise', bijan
15:08:36 [bijan]
zakim, who's making noise?
15:08:49 [Zakim]
bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (45%), Kendall_Clark (48%), EliasT (4%)
15:09:01 [EliasT]
Zakim, mute me
15:09:01 [Zakim]
EliasT should now be muted
15:09:29 [bijan]
15:09:41 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:09:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT (muted), bijan (muted)
15:09:43 [bijan]
15:10:53 [kendallclark]
LeeF, AndyS: no strong opinion
15:11:21 [LeeF]
SimonR: What prefer one more editorial pass
15:11:25 [kendallclark]
SimonR: Ideally, after a brief editorial pass, but immediately is fine
15:11:27 [LeeF]
15:11:43 [LeeF]
kendallclark: prefers immediate publication, also happy with editorial pass if it took a day or two
15:12:04 [LeeF]
FredZ: no opinion
15:12:11 [LeeF]
JanneS: no opinion
15:12:32 [EliasT]
EliasT: no strong opinion
15:12:33 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:12:33 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:12:36 [LeeF]
ericP: no strong opinion other than wanting to put big red text in
15:13:00 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:13:00 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:13:25 [bijan]
I prefer immediate, but am willing to defer to the editors, if they want to do some minor changes in a small timeframe
15:14:50 [bijan]
I'm happy to do that review
15:15:23 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:15:23 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:16:02 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:16:02 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:16:52 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: To publish rq24 on or shortly after 19 September, after a sanity-check review by BijanP, and after SOTD updates by EricP.
15:17:26 [LeeF]
ericP: seconded
15:17:52 [LeeF]
RESOLVED, no objections, no abstentions
15:18:13 [EliasT]
Zakim, unmute me
15:18:13 [Zakim]
EliasT should no longer be muted
15:18:14 [bijan]
15:18:24 [bijan]
seconded again!
15:18:24 [bijan]
seconded again!
15:18:44 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: To publish json results doc as a WG Note
15:18:49 [kendallclark]
15:18:54 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: To publish json results doc as a WG Note ASAP.
15:18:57 [kendallclark]
15:19:03 [bijan]
15:19:11 [bijan]
15:19:16 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:19:16 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:19:54 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: To publish json results doc as a WG Submission ASAP.
15:20:07 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:20:07 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:20:12 [bijan]
15:20:16 [bijan]
15:20:28 [AndyS]
We will need another WD after this one for SPARQL/language.
15:20:44 [bijan]
yes, at least a lc wd
15:20:47 [LeeF]
RESOLVED, FredZ abstaining
15:21:11 [bijan]
But, as danc said last week, we could move to go to PR straight from LC
15:21:19 [AndyS]
For the incompatible syntax changes.
15:21:46 [bijan]
Heh. ok, then just substitute those for my point about distinct :)
15:22:05 [bijan]
15:22:14 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:22:14 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:22:38 [AndyS]
There are no changes there - clarification is needed, not change.
15:23:19 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:23:19 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:23:56 [bijan]
Andy, well, i disagree with that, but for my point *above* all I need is that there is *some* change requiring WD status
15:24:34 [bijan]
And, for example, if we chose to use REALLYREALLYDISTINCT, which we could do, then I would imagine you'd feel that was a substantive change
15:26:12 [bijan]
ta all
15:26:16 [bijan]
15:26:20 [LeeF]
15:26:22 [Zakim]
15:26:23 [Zakim]
15:26:25 [Zakim]
15:26:37 [Zakim]
15:26:44 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, stop.
15:26:44 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop.', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:26:46 [Zakim]
15:26:52 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, stop logging
15:26:52 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop logging', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:26:56 [LeeF]
rrsagent, stop