15:40:42 RRSAgent has joined #rif 15:40:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-irc 15:40:52 zakim, this will be rif 15:40:52 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 20 minutes 15:41:15 Meeting: RIF Telecon 30 Jan 07 15:41:29 Chair: Chris Welty 15:43:57 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0124.html 15:44:15 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 16 Jan RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0124.html 15:44:29 rrsagent, make minutes 15:44:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 15:44:39 agenda+ Admin 15:44:45 agenda+ F2F 15:44:53 agenda+ Liason 15:45:01 agenda+ Technical Design 15:45:10 agenda+ RIFRAF 15:45:14 agenda+ UCR 15:45:20 agenda+ AOB 15:45:28 zakim, clear agenda 15:45:28 agenda cleared 15:45:34 agenda+ Admin 15:45:36 agenda+ F2F 15:45:38 agenda+ Liason 15:45:40 agenda+ Technical Design 15:45:42 agenda+ RIFRAF 15:45:45 agenda+ UCR 15:45:48 agenda+ AOB 15:45:55 zakim, list agenda 15:45:55 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 15:45:56 1. Admin [from ChrisW] 15:45:59 2. F2F [from ChrisW] 15:46:00 3. Liason [from ChrisW] 15:46:01 4. Technical Design [from ChrisW] 15:46:03 5. RIFRAF [from ChrisW] 15:46:05 6. UCR [from ChrisW] 15:46:09 7. AOB [from ChrisW] 15:46:10 rrsagent, make logs public 15:46:24 zakim, next item 15:46:24 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:48:04 csma has joined #rif 15:53:42 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 15:57:46 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 15:58:25 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:58:26 patranja has joined #rif 15:58:32 +??P4 15:58:43 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:58:57 zakim, ??P4 is me 15:58:57 +csma; got it 15:59:38 josb has joined #rif 16:00:02 +Leora_Morgenstern 16:00:07 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 16:00:24 cgi-irc has joined #rif 16:00:25 +[IBM] 16:00:37 Harold has joined #rif 16:00:44 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 16:00:44 +ChrisW; got it 16:00:48 +Deborah_Nichols 16:01:06 +josb 16:01:50 +[NRCC] 16:02:03 +[LMU] 16:02:09 zakim, [NRCC] is me 16:02:09 +Harold; got it 16:02:23 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 16:02:27 JeffP has joined #rif 16:02:31 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:02:35 On the phone I see csma (muted), Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Deborah_Nichols (muted), josb (muted), Harold, PaulaP (muted) 16:02:51 johnhall has joined #rif 16:02:58 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P5 74394) 16:02:59 AllenGinsberg has joined #rif 16:03:00 +Dave_Reynolds 16:03:26 john hall can you scribe today? 16:03:31 +??P17 16:03:33 +Allen_Ginsberg 16:03:40 +??P26 16:03:41 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 16:03:48 +Jeff_Pan 16:03:49 zakim, mute me 16:03:49 +??P29 16:03:50 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 16:03:51 zakim, ??p26 is me 16:03:51 +johnhall; got it 16:03:54 zakim, ??P26 is me 16:03:54 I already had ??P26 as johnhall, AlexKozlenkov 16:03:59 zakim, mute me 16:03:59 johnhall should now be muted 16:04:04 zakim, ??P29 is me 16:04:04 +AlexKozlenkov; got it 16:04:11 zakim, mute me 16:04:11 AlexKozlenkov should now be muted 16:04:11 yes 16:04:19 ] 16:04:19 Scribe: John Hall 16:04:21 uhoh 16:04:26 scribenick: johnhall 16:04:32 I just raised my hand, but it showed up as johnhall 16:04:35 +Axel_Polleres 16:04:55 zakim, johnhall is me 16:04:55 +DavidHirtle; got it 16:04:56 zakim, ??p26 is me 16:04:56 I already had ??P26 as DavidHirtle, johnhall 16:05:13 okay I'm good now 16:05:23 I'm not 16:05:23 +??P31 16:05:34 ack john 16:05:36 +Sandro 16:05:37 ack david 16:05:54 zakim, mute david 16:05:54 DavidHirtle should now be muted 16:05:54 #41 16:06:02 nick PaulV 16:06:03 I think it's 41# isn't it? 16:06:35 zakim, ??p17 is me 16:06:40 +johnhall; got it 16:07:01 zakim, ??P31 is paulv 16:07:01 +paulv; got it 16:07:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/att-0118/16.01.07-rif-minutes.html 16:07:31 Jan 16 minutes aproved 16:07:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/att-0112/23-01-07-rif-minutes.html 16:07:48 Jan 23 minutes approved 16:08:13 no agenda amendmants 16:08:18 zakim, next item 16:08:18 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW 16:08:22 q? 16:08:28 ack p17 16:08:31 ack ?? 16:08:35 zakim, next item 16:08:35 agendum 2. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:08:54 zakim, unmute me 16:08:54 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 16:09:00 action-210 closed 16:09:05 f2f alan to add hotels - action 210 16:09:11 210 completed 16:09:37 Alan - time on day 3 show some demos? 16:09:58 time on day 3 for demos - to go on agenda 16:10:02 zakim, unmute me 16:10:02 csma should no longer be muted 16:10:06 q+ 16:10:25 infrastructure needed for demos - contact Alan 16:10:38 zakim, mute me 16:10:40 csma should now be muted 16:10:46 telecon facilities - use W3C bridge 16:11:00 networking - wireless access 16:11:11 Alan willlook into details 16:11:29 Alan recommends Comfort Inn 16:11:58 make reservation now - can cancel 16:12:12 action to allen to check telecon and network for F2F 16:12:16 ack csma 16:12:24 action: allen to check telecon and network for F2F 16:12:24 [11:13] ack csma 16:12:24 [11:13] * Zakim unmutes csma 16:12:24 [11:13] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 16:12:26 Created ACTION-214 - Check telecon and network for F2F [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-02-06]. 16:12:27 Action; Alan telecon and wireless for F2F 16:12:38 Christian - how long for demos? 16:12:56 Alan maybe 2 hours - depends on who wants to demon 16:13:08 Christian - need to know who, for agenda 16:13:24 Alan - deadline Feb 10? 16:13:42 2 weeks in advance 16:13:53 agenda needed - at least draft - end of this week 16:14:14 Feb 10 OK deadline for demos 16:14:16 ack c 16:14:19 zakim, mute me 16:14:19 csma should now be muted 16:14:27 zakim, next item 16:14:27 agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:14:32 zakim, mute em 16:14:32 sorry, AllenGinsberg, I do not know which phone connection belongs to em 16:14:38 zakim, mute me 16:14:38 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 16:14:43 DBVR - no change 16:14:49 PRR - no change 16:14:51 SBVR 16:15:11 What OMG phase is PRR in? 16:15:15 igor has joined #rif 16:15:40 Pauls V; to be completed V1 16:15:49 In finalization? 16:15:53 +??P32 16:16:02 zakim, next item 16:16:02 agendum 4. "Technical Design" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:16:05 Pauls V: submite April, finlization 6 months 16:16:09 zakim, ??P32 is me 16:16:09 +igor; got it 16:16:15 zakim, mute me 16:16:15 igor should now be muted 16:16:17 TECHNICAL DESIGN 16:16:24 ACtion 182 closed 16:16:29 action-182 closed 16:17:08 Discussion - lots of email activity 16:17:33 regarding the XML syntax from the abstract syntax 16:17:35 sandro - decouple XML symtax from info in rules 16:17:46 +Gary_Hallmark 16:17:56 john, use this syntax speaker: content 16:17:56 XML syntax mechaically derived 16:18:05 and ...continuation 16:18:20 2 classes - fully striped - stripe skipped 16:19:50 sandor - stripe skipping recommedned 16:20:25 Chris: stripe skipping discussion now or abstracct apprcoh in general? 16:20:42 .. stripe skipping seems like implementation 16:21:00 sandro - people will judge from skimming XML 16:21:08 Mapping between fully striped and stripe-skipped is itself an important (though syntactic) interchange transformation. 16:21:39 We can 'reach' different classes of languages in this way. 16:21:41 sandro - sooner we settle, sooner we can implement interoperable 16:22:11 Chris- have seen an example a month ago, using abstract syntax 16:22:19 +Sandro.a 16:22:31 .. lot of discussions and confusion 16:22:42 -Sandro 16:22:49 ... now that they have developed 16:23:07 q+ 16:23:16 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 16:23:21 ... people have seen how abstract syntax can yield and XML syntax -any discussion 16:23:27 q+ 16:23:28 q? 16:23:40 ... not Sandro's specific proposal 16:24:30 q- 16:24:31 Axel- close relationship with OWL ontology 16:24:41 SAndro - agree, subset of OWL 16:25:17 Axel - try to convert , have representative classes 16:25:24 ack axel 16:25:26 The fully striped class is important to reach the UML, RDF, ... communities; the stripe-skipped class is important to reach the logic, XML, ... communities: RIF's internal stripe-skipping mapping can help to bring theses classes together. 16:25:45 zakim, unmute me 16:25:45 csma should no longer be muted 16:25:54 Chris - ASN06 or OWL - need to discuss 16:25:59 ack c 16:26:25 zakim, who is talking? 16:26:40 ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: csma (61%), ChrisW (43%), sandro (4%), johnhall (37%) 16:26:41 Not to be misunderstood: I do NOT suggest or encourage by any means OWL as a syntax for RIF. 16:26:44 Christian - we decided to have abstract syntax, left open how it would be expressed - for now keep, nor decide normative 16:27:05 Chris - how many maintained? Just one an generate others from it? 16:27:09 zakim, mute johnhall 16:27:09 johnhall should now be muted 16:27:19 Sandro - did not address this 16:27:23 Chris, these two version could be an example for 'standard dialects'. 16:27:35 Christian - trivial if not for stripe skipping? 16:27:43 ... if there is an overlap though, I would welcome it. 16:27:44 Sandro - straightforward 16:28:11 Chris - seems to make most sense to maintain 1 16:28:16 The inverse mapping is 'stripe-reconstruction'. 16:28:18 q+ 16:28:32 q? 16:28:33 ... like to make decison now 16:28:53 "straightforward" I always only believe/understand after having it written down somewhere. :-) 16:28:58 Christian - what should be normativ e is abstract syntax 16:29:47 Sandro - Chris, are you assuming a specific mechanism for abstract syntax 16:30:48 zakim, unmute me 16:30:48 johnhall should no longer be muted 16:30:51 ack harold 16:32:11 volunteer! 16:32:23 scribenick: axelpolleres 16:32:37 zakim, mute me 16:32:37 csma should now be muted 16:32:49 harold: we should have both asn metasyntax and a fully striped syntax. 16:33:44 ... this has advantage of being back and forth translatable between object-oriented and XML world. 16:34:02 translators are not so easy if you want forward compatibility via self-describing syntax 16:34:39 chrisW: harold do you want both normative? stripe-skipped and full asn? 16:34:45 q+ 16:35:20 harold: would prefer to call asn "object oriented abstract syntax" 16:35:30 zakim, mute me 16:35:30 johnhall should now be muted 16:35:51 I'm back - can take notes again - thanks Axel 16:35:54 sandro: straw poll between "meta-model", "ontology", and "abstract syntax"? 16:36:13 Harold - what SAndro did was make a model 16:36:16 zakim, unmute me 16:36:16 csma should no longer be muted 16:36:38 csma - model of RIF is model of RIF rules 16:36:44 scribenick: johnhall 16:37:12 csma - metamodel of RIF rules 16:37:24 q+ 16:37:41 SAndro's model translates easily 16:37:54 Harold - need a format for interchange 16:38:07 zakim, mute me 16:38:07 csma should now be muted 16:38:11 Chris - OK to call this apprcoah a metamodel 16:38:32 sandro - discuss compared with 'ontology' 16:38:57 Axel - there are metamod languages - if an ontology then OWL 16:39:05 q 16:39:05 advantage of asn06 over UML is simplicity, as I see it 16:39:10 q 16:39:18 Chris - discussing metamodel vs ontology? 16:39:19 q+ 16:39:43 sandro - trying to bridge the two camps 16:39:56 sando not argue about UML and OWL 16:40:13 fair enough, if it is well-defined in a document as an abstrct syntax proposal for OWL. 16:40:17 Chris - haven't heard objection to the proposed approach 16:40:32 ... maintining artefact and generating 16:40:33 bridging between metamodel & ontology via ASN06 --- which should map to a subset of OWL and a subset of UML. 16:40:39 ... any objections? 16:40:47 neither 16:41:19 leora - not an ontology, just a syntax 16:41:43 Leora, is it not an 'ontology' of what rules are allowed, how they look like, etc.? 16:42:03 Harold, no, I don't see that. 16:42:07 abstract syntax seems fine to me 16:42:09 any valid metamodel is an ontology 16:42:17 Axel - not clear on how it is translatable betwenn UML and OWL 16:42:21 One can construct a syntax that defines a language, 16:42:33 and then say, a string does or does not belong to the language. 16:42:35 Chris - do not want to separate appraoch from language? 16:42:42 OK, it's not the (model-theoretic) *semantics*, so you are right it is (abstract) syntax. 16:42:48 However, I believe that an ontology does much more. 16:42:50 To be clear -- my intent is to help us stay in the intersection of Ontologies and Metamodels. 16:42:55 It organizes objects in a particular way. 16:43:02 Axel - not sure it's worth the effort 16:43:06 I don't see this abstract syntax doing that, unless I have missed something. 16:43:31 Chris - ASN06 would not agree, OWL OK? 16:43:41 well, sandro, I don't understand what you're saying either --- about the intersection between Ontologies and Metamodels. 16:43:49 Axel -no document for ASN06 yet? 16:44:15 sandro - not yet, can use parts of OWL I need 16:44:38 ack axel 16:44:39 Axel- if you can use part of OWL, RDF ... OK with me 16:44:45 Leora, right, the RIFRAF ontology is more on the semantic level, but also is making a few syntactic distinctions. 16:44:48 ack 16:44:52 Axel - but we need it written down 16:44:52 ack csma 16:45:36 Not everything written in OWL is and ontology?! 16:45:37 leora - don't understand where 'ontology' is coming from 16:46:19 sandro - to me ontology is set of classes and properties and constraining formulae 16:46:23 +1to "Not everything written in OWL is and ontology", but this is not what worries me. 16:46:24 BTW, 'partonomy' could be used when we talk about parts of rules. 16:46:33 leora - language is not the ontology 16:46:55 sandro - classes are there, and relationships 16:47:12 ASN06 then is a kind of 'partonomy' language. :-) 16:47:15 my only concern is that RIF is not chartered to do a metamodel language, but well, if we use it, we need to define somewhere, what it means, even if that's trivial. 16:47:17 csam - new topic 16:47:51 eveni we decdide to maintin RIF as an abstract syntax /metamodel - maintained & normative 16:48:38 csma - also need normative XML syntaxe 16:48:39 I agree with Christian: we also need a good XML concrete syntax. 16:48:51 sandro - agree with csma 16:49:18 sandro - hearing consesnus on two stage - hesitation on stage 1 16:49:58 csma - hear more objection to maintaining abstract syntax and XML that depends on it 16:50:09 csma - do not agree on the form 16:50:26 I object to maintian an abstract sytax, a concrete synatax AND an ontology, but am not religious on what to drop. 16:50:34 s/hear more/hear no/ 16:50:40 Chris - where are you on more frmally definiing the notation - OWL and RDFS? 16:50:41 Christian, the 'form' of asn06 is no problem because it can reach OWL, RDF, etc. 16:51:10 ... reasonable to investigate rather than inventinf ASN06? 16:51:16 Axel, if the ontology you are mentioning is the RIFRAF, I think that it is a different story 16:51:40 sandro - too difficult to brodgr the gap from OWL without intermediate 16:51:41 Harold, I did no say there is a problem, I said I did not hear consensus on that 16:52:33 Right. 16:52:56 sandro - nailing down all the detail of connecting to OWL is hard work - do not want to do unless really necessary and would need help. Maybe Axel? 16:53:45 chris - Axel if abstract syntax is maintained in some arteftact, would you be happy? 16:53:59 +1 if OWL is enough, use OWL rather than ASN06 16:54:28 Axel - tried to deal with abstract syntax to OWL in RIFRAFF - sandro and I should work together 16:54:29 RIFRAF and rule metamodel seem rather different to me 16:54:31 q? 16:54:42 ack l 16:54:51 csma - big advantage of ASN is that it is simple 16:55:24 csma - if there are convincing args that it is adequate, strong argument 16:55:33 samdro - need to tweak it 16:55:48 csme - even for extensions? 16:56:21 Likely, asn06 (in spite of its built-in 'partonomy' features) is a sublanguage of OWL-DL. 16:56:22 sandor - yese. Concerns around coactions, no multi-valued properties 16:56:50 csma - is it really difficult tomap ASN06 to OWL? 16:57:13 sandro - list restriction wrt OWL full 16:57:51 chris - most OWl parsers will handle 16:58:06 does that roundtrip? 16:58:18 sandro - only problem with OWL full is readability of published RIF 16:58:42 Chris - publish as UML-like picture would be easiest to understand 16:58:52 sandro -open to persuasion 16:59:25 chris - if just another serialization of OWL - is this what we are discussing 16:59:47 chris - if ASN06 is just a fragment of OWL he would be OK 16:59:58 sandro - trying to show this 17:00:05 q+ 17:00:30 chris - does not matter if fragment of OWL DL or OWL full 17:00:45 Chris, it all started with 'pictures' (F2F breakout presentation informally specifying the CORE in on slide), but we also need a plain-ASCII version, e.g. for copy&paste communication in email bodies. 17:01:04 chris - Axel - is this what you are looking for 17:01:38 axel - not my main interest - but would like to know what official status would be 17:01:50 chris - but you would be OK 17:02:13 sandro - is this a resolution? 17:02:41 axel - is is written down what fragment? 17:02:51 q+ 17:02:55 ok. 17:03:11 chris - this is contingency in resolution - if a fragmnet of OWL ... 17:03:27 harold - need to say metaysntax for metamodel 17:03:56 chris - concrete syantax will be created from the metamodel 17:04:04 harold - and the mapping 17:04:10 chris - agree 17:04:28 PROPOSED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (which is understood as being a subset of OWL Full) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever). 17:04:33 csma - if ASN06 os fragment of OWL, is reolution to use it? 17:04:37 [Admin] Can a WG have 'extra' results? 17:04:40 chris - yes 17:04:49 csma - make it part of RIF 17:05:14 sandro - ASN06 normative, derived informative 17:05:20 particularly, any well-grounded KR language in which we can ground asn would be fine with me, not necesarrily OWL ;-) if you write it down into FOL sentences, common logic, KIF, F-Logic, I am also fine 17:05:26 'extra' in the sense that some results can be immediately useful for other WGs. 17:05:27 csma - not the same 17:06:47 s/os/is 17:07:26 csma - metamodel of RIF and the mapping should be normative 17:08:15 chris - even if generated, the XML syntax is normative 17:09:09 csma - for another dialect could generate another XML syntax that is not compatible 17:09:40 chris - any objections to abstract syntax and mapping being normative? 17:09:48 I object, as long the meaning of abstract syntax is not formalized, sorry to be picky 17:10:04 Is the abstract syntax the same as the human readable syntax? 17:10:12 chris - consequence - one and only one XML syntax 17:10:15 it is at least slightly odd 17:10:30 sandro - derived syntax is normative? 17:10:53 sandro - W3C debate on derived into being normative 17:11:14 chris - normative/non-normative needs more discussion 17:11:34 Axel - if you have a formally specified mapping from a metamodel to the concrete syntax why do you need additional semantics for for the metamodelling language? 17:11:35 csma - would agree to Sandro's resolution 17:11:53 (repeat) PROPOSED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (which is understood as being a subset of OWL Full) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever). 17:11:55 chris - then discuss what would be normative 17:13:11 Dave - but XML has no formal semantics 17:13:14 csma - contingent on ASN06 being defined as subset of OWL full 17:13:39 Jeffp - exactly, we are only using this to indirectly specify a syntax, no addtional semantics is requried 17:13:41 axel - want it written down 17:14:23 csma - if defined as subset of OWL full, do not have to include ASN06as part of RIF spec 17:14:35 A small point regarding step 2: is it just a mathematical mapping or a mapping that itself is specified in a (W3C-standardized) language? 17:14:41 PROPOSED-2: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever). 17:14:58 DaveReynolds - the need for abstract syntax is usually for defining the semantics, like in OWL 17:15:05 q+ 17:15:09 sandro - ... as a subset of OWL full or some other acceptable specification? 17:15:17 q- 17:15:18 axel -OK 17:15:35 Jeffp - we are not talking about asn06 as being about specifying the semantics of rulesets! 17:15:53 harold - step 2 - just a math mapping, or must it be specified in normative part? 17:15:54 PROPOSED-3: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever). 17:16:21 +1 17:16:27 +1 17:16:27 s/in the 2-step/in a 2-step ? 17:16:31 no objections - proposed resolution 17:16:42 +1 17:16:44 RESOLVED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever). 17:16:45 Holding peace 17:17:00 RESOLUTION closed 17:17:57 zakim, next item 17:17:57 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW 17:18:01 q? 17:18:01 Chris - OWL and RDF Compatibility - table 17:18:03 ack h 17:18:05 zakim, next item 17:18:05 agendum 5. "RIFRAF" taken up [from ChrisW] 17:18:09 RIFRAF 17:18:32 -PaulaP 17:18:33 PaulaP has left #rif 17:18:48 Chris - last week status - not major for F2F - lots of actions outstanding 17:19:33 chris - now we have agreement on abstract syntax, relevant to RIFRAF 17:20:03 axel - appreciate comments on proposal sent out 17:20:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0105.html 17:20:25 and thread 17:20:25 [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0106.html 17:20:48 zakim, next item 17:20:48 agendum 6. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW] 17:20:57 USE CASES 17:21:08 zakim, unmute me 17:21:08 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 17:21:17 Chris - no actions, close to next working draft 17:21:42 Alan- added csma's section on processes 17:21:56 Alan - need to chack all the references 17:22:33 Sandro - sent pointer to web page for program 17:22:38 http://burns.w3.org/cgi-bin/wiki_tr 17:22:54 Just in the context of RIFRAF still: I would like to close or stall action 177, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0106 mentioned before. 17:22:54 Alan - if that does the job, nothing else to be done 17:23:06 chris - want frozen document for F2F 17:23:56 sandro - HTML pages not saved, send to group 17:24:48 alan - just did it. need link web page to Wiki - will do it in next couple of days 17:25:03 Alan - other co-editors to read 17:25:13 chris - close to final draft 17:25:17 zakim, next item 17:25:17 I do not see any non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, ChrisW 17:25:20 AOB 17:25:35 zakim, unmute me 17:25:35 Allen_Ginsberg was not muted, AllenGinsberg 17:25:44 zakim, mute me 17:25:44 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 17:26:04 action-177 completed 17:26:10 Chris - action 177 complete 17:26:23 Axel - but issue is not solved 17:26:27 +1 17:26:28 -AlexKozlenkov 17:26:28 +1 17:26:35 -Harold 17:26:36 bye 17:26:37 -Deborah_Nichols 17:26:37 chris - action was to propose 17:26:37 bye 17:26:38 -Dave_Reynolds 17:26:39 -Jeff_Pan 17:26:40 -igor 17:26:41 -Axel_Polleres 17:26:42 -DavidHirtle 17:26:44 -PaulVincent 17:26:44 -josb 17:26:45 -Gary_Hallmark 17:26:46 -Allen_Ginsberg 17:27:16 -Leora_Morgenstern 17:27:24 Regrets: FrançoisBry MichaelKifer MichaelSintek MarkusKrötzsch 17:27:30 rrsagent, make minutes 17:27:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 17:27:40 -sandro 17:27:44 zakim, unmute me 17:27:44 johnhall should no longer be muted 17:28:49 -johnhall 17:31:18 -ChrisW 17:31:19 -csma 17:31:20 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 17:31:21 Attendees were csma, Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Deborah_Nichols, josb, Harold, PaulaP, Dave_Reynolds, Allen_Ginsberg, Jeff_Pan, AlexKozlenkov, Axel_Polleres, DavidHirtle, Sandro, 17:31:23 ... johnhall, PaulVincent, igor, Gary_Hallmark 17:31:28 rrsagent, make minutes 17:31:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 17:32:22 it's there now, John 17:55:04 sandro has joined #rif 18:42:05 csma has left #rif 19:39:06 Zakim has left #rif