IRC log of rif on 2007-05-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:27:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:27:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:27:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:27:08 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
14:28:28 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 8 May, Agenda:
14:28:55 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 1 May 2007
14:29:16 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF Telecon 1 May, Agenda:
14:29:32 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
14:29:44 [ChrisW]
14:29:58 [ChrisW]
zakim, clear agenda
14:29:58 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:30:04 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:30:11 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F6
14:30:17 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:30:38 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Core: Issue 31
14:30:44 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Core: Metadata
14:30:52 [ChrisW]
agenda+ UCR
14:30:58 [ChrisW]
agenda+ RIFRAF
14:31:02 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:31:16 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:31:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:38:32 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:44:15 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
14:53:26 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
14:54:55 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:55:01 [Zakim]
14:55:31 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
14:57:15 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: RIF Telecon 8 May
14:57:22 [Zakim]
14:58:19 [sandro]
can you hear me at all now?
14:58:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
14:58:25 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
14:58:42 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the call?
14:58:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, ChrisW
14:58:44 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:59:25 [Zakim]
14:59:41 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
14:59:44 [Harold]
Zakim [NRCC] is me.
15:00:08 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:00:29 [Zakim]
15:00:32 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:00:49 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:00:53 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P14 74394)
15:00:55 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #rif
15:00:56 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [Zakim]
15:01:27 [Zakim]
15:01:56 [Zakim]
15:02:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, ChrisW, Harold, Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, PaulaP (muted), DavidHirtle, ??P34
15:03:07 [Zakim]
15:04:10 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:04:16 [ChrisW]
scribenick: DavidHirtle
15:04:25 [ChrisW]
Scribe: David Hirtle
15:05:06 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, ChrisW, Harold, Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, PaulaP (muted), DavidHirtle, PaulVincent, AxelPolleres
15:05:16 [PaulVincent]
Thanks Dave! I so enjoy my little chats with Zakim...
15:05:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:05:27 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:06:08 [Zakim]
15:06:11 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 1
15:06:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Admin, closed
15:06:12 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:06:13 [Zakim]
2. F2F6 [from ChrisW]
15:06:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:06:14 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "F2F6" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:06:29 [Allen]
Allen has joined #rif
15:07:19 [Zakim]
15:07:49 [Zakim]
15:07:58 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P43 is me
15:07:58 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:08:12 [DavidHirtle]
chris: anyone who hasn't filled out the survey for the F2F, please do so
15:08:22 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
15:08:22 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:08:23 [AllenG]
AllenG has joined #rif
15:08:54 [PaulVincent]
Unless dinner is ++ better than the meeting...
15:09:10 [DavidHirtle]
chris: 22 people who will attend the meeting, and 28 who will attend the dinner...
15:09:38 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: make your hotel reservations soon if you haven't already
15:10:10 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:10:10 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:10:27 [PaulVincent]
NO update from PRR
15:10:38 [AllenGinsberg]
AllenGinsberg has joined #rif
15:10:45 [AxelPolleres]
q+ on SPARQL review
15:10:48 [ChrisW]
POWDER working group
15:11:11 [sandro]
15:11:22 [DavidHirtle]
chris: POWDER is another SemWeb WG working on content rating...
15:11:29 [AxelPolleres]
interesting, that fits with one of our use cases.
15:11:32 [sandro]
15:11:42 [Zakim]
15:11:53 [DavidHirtle]
... they've identified some rules use cases and want some feedback from us
15:12:19 [DavidHirtle]
... I'll forward to our list; feel free to reply
15:12:25 [Zakim]
15:12:36 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:12:36 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:12:41 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
15:12:41 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:13:30 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:13:30 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Core: Issue 31" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:14:47 [sandro]
Axel: I sent comments on SPARQL that could perhaps been endorsed by RIF. For now I just sent them as myself.
15:15:05 [CGI868]
CGI868 has joined #rif
15:15:07 [sandro]
Chris: Alas, we didn't have time to make that formally from RIF.
15:15:12 [sandro]
Chris: I think it's fine.
15:15:32 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
15:15:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, ChrisW, Harold, Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, PaulaP (muted), DavidHirtle, PaulVincent, AxelPolleres, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Allen_Ginsberg, IgorMozetic
15:15:36 [Zakim]
... (muted)
15:15:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see CGI868, AllenGinsberg, AllenG, Allen, Hassan, PaulVincent, IgorMozetic, AxelPolleres, DaveReynolds, mdean, Harold, PaulaP, DavidHirtle, sandro, RRSAgent, ChrisW,
15:15:39 [Zakim]
... Zakim, rifbot
15:15:41 [sandro]
Topic: Issue-31
15:15:47 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:16:24 [ChrisW]
15:17:31 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aaaa
15:17:43 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:17:43 [Zakim]
+MichaelKifer; got it
15:17:53 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:17:53 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:18:39 [sandro]
15:18:45 [DavidHirtle]
chris: main discussion in the group is between ONDS and OS choices
15:19:14 [sandro]
Sandro: translation to DS is hard, from DS is easy.
15:19:53 [sandro]
Chris: Straw Poll. Who likes OS?
15:21:21 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:21:21 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:21:24 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:21:24 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:21:24 [AxelPolleres]
Can MK comment on that?
15:21:25 [sandro]
Chris: translations from lower numbers to higher numbers is easy; not the other way around.
15:21:25 [DavidHirtle]
chris: translating from a higher number choice back to lower number (esp 3 to 1) is hard
15:21:42 [Hassan]
15:22:18 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: why is it difficult to translate from higher number to lower?
15:22:26 [AxelPolleres]
That was a question.
15:22:47 [DaveReynolds]
Actually #2 (ONDS) to #3 (OS) is not quite trivial if you have equality
15:23:09 [AxelPolleres]
what hassan mentions is 2 -> 1, that is easy.
15:23:56 [DaveReynolds]
agreed 1 <-> 2 is trivial, it is 3 (OS) which makes it hard, both ways
15:24:00 [Hassan]
15:24:06 [DavidHirtle]
chris: there are some entailments that make it extremely difficult from 3 down to 1 (or even 2)
15:24:29 [MichaelKifer]
15:24:39 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: if you interpret it then it has a unique meaning; you can spew it out unambiguously
15:25:17 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:25:17 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:25:50 [DavidHirtle]
michael: hassan is right, translations in both directions are possible
15:25:51 [sandro]
p(a), q(b), p=q, in OS entails p(b) and q(a), right.
15:26:44 [sandro]
ChrisW, I'd be interested to hear the results of the straw poll, but I'd like to know if folks can vote for more than one option.
15:26:51 [Hassan]
OSR is even better IMHO
15:27:08 [DavidHirtle]
chris: michael, from OS into DS is easy?
15:27:43 [DavidHirtle]
michael: depends on what you mean by easy; can use a predicate etc.
15:27:43 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: it was proven in the HiLog paper ...
15:27:56 [sandro]
Chris: a predicate for each arity ... a combinatoric explosion of rules.
15:28:19 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: where's the combinatorial explosion come from?
15:28:22 [sandro]
Hassan: please explain combinatoric explosion
15:28:23 [DavidHirtle]
michael: number of rules
15:28:49 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: grown in the size of each rule, but the same number of rules, same number of symbols. I think the grown is actually linear.
15:29:06 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:29:06 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:29:08 [MichaelKifer]
15:29:48 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: if no one is going to argue other side, no need for argument
15:30:02 [DavidHirtle]
chris: yes, vote for more than one if you're happy with that
15:30:16 [DavidHirtle]
... or we'll just ask who is against
15:30:27 [DavidHirtle]
... who's opposed to choice 3 (OS)?
15:30:52 [sandro]
(say "-1 OS" if you are opposed.)
15:31:11 [sandro]
(no one opposed)
15:31:12 [DavidHirtle]
... anyone opposed to 2 (ONDS)?
15:31:18 [sandro]
15:31:23 [MichaelKifer]
-1 onds
15:31:27 [DaveReynolds]
preference against ONDS but not rule it out
15:31:32 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: I'm opposed to it
15:31:35 [sandro]
-1 DS
15:31:40 [DavidHirtle]
chris: who's opposed to DS?
15:31:40 [AxelPolleres]
-1 DS
15:31:41 [PaulaP]
15:31:42 [Hassan]
hak -1
15:31:45 [MichaelKifer]
-1 ds
15:31:46 [sandro]
Allen: -1 DS
15:32:03 [DavidHirtle]
chris: so no one's opposed to 3; sounds like consensus
15:32:13 [MichaelKifer]
15:32:34 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: hassan seems to prefer 4, but we don't need to choose now: can just add reflection later
15:33:19 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: better to have reflection from the start, especially if it's not too costly to add
15:33:58 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:33:58 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:34:27 [DavidHirtle]
chris: is there an encoding of a reflective rule (rule that takes the syntax of the language and puts it into the language)?
15:34:39 [DavidHirtle]
michael: I don't know; haven't discussed it
15:35:04 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: by picking 3, we're not ruling out 4
15:35:22 [DavidHirtle]
michael: we need to pick up one and define semantics accordingly
15:35:34 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: have you thought about semantics of 3 vs 4?
15:35:57 [DavidHirtle]
michael: I know how to do semantics for 3 etc. but there are options for 4 (even syntactic)... we cannot just leave it open
15:36:35 [DavidHirtle]
chris: I agree with that; we should agree on 3 or 4
15:37:21 [sandro]
Hassan: Reflection is the possibility to describe your abstract syntax in your semantics.
15:37:43 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: How much introspection do you want to allow?
15:37:45 [Harold]
Pat Hayes recently put forward the very
15:37:45 [Harold]
general IKL system
15:38:03 [Harold]
which may be of interest here
15:38:14 [Harold]
regarding syntactic self-description:
15:38:28 [Harold]
15:38:44 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: let's resolve on 3 or 4 for now and discuss it more next week
15:38:46 [DavidHirtle]
chris: sure
15:39:17 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: introspection for encoding rules as data isn't a problem, but if we get close to Liar Paradox, etc, then it's another matter.
15:40:02 [DavidHirtle]
michael: I'm concerned about what happens when we go into a first order dialect
15:40:17 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: so it's easy enough to have some quotation, but if we get extended to FOL it may cause problems.
15:40:21 [Harold]
How much would we go in the direction of KIF and CG if we introduce quotation mechanism?
15:42:00 [DavidHirtle]
michael: a first order extension of this could lead to paradoxes, e.g. whatever I'm saying is a lie
15:42:43 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: a very simple reflection mechanism can't harm you
15:43:13 [ChrisW]
15:43:18 [ChrisW]
ack m
15:43:18 [DavidHirtle]
michael: I don't know what the consequences are going to be if we allow reflection in the core; in a dialect only, it's not a problem
15:44:43 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: if you're designing a language, having the possibility to describe your own syntax is an advantage
15:44:55 [DavidHirtle]
... I don't see any consequences
15:45:07 [sandro]
s/any c/any dire c/
15:45:08 [DavidHirtle]
michael: in FOL, if you allow self-reference, you have to be very careful
15:45:31 [Harold]
Could we have a 1st-order-capable Core and a (Reflective) Extension Layer above it, of possible use for some Dialects.
15:46:29 [DavidHirtle]
chris: everyone seems to be talking about a different aspect of reflection
15:46:46 [DavidHirtle]
... hassan, could you write up a proposal about reflection you have in mind?
15:47:26 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: sure, but I'm just using general programming language notion
15:48:03 [sandro]
hassan: I'm talking about something like Prolog's "univ" ( written "=.." ).
15:48:20 [sandro]
Chris: My concern is whether there is a way to support that in things like FOL.
15:48:30 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: a language that does not support reflection doesn't have to worry about it
15:48:52 [sandro]
Chris: We're trying to make the the Core be something that can be translated to every other languages.
15:48:52 [DavidHirtle]
chris: yes, it does, in order to be compliant
15:50:23 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: concrete example: we have a ruleset and we're translating it to FOL ... if the rule is trying to infer new data, does it affect rules themselves?
15:51:15 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:51:15 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:51:33 [DavidHirtle]
chris: anyone else in favor of adding reflection?
15:51:40 [DavidHirtle]
(no one)
15:51:54 [DavidHirtle]
chris: hassan, please send a message to the list and we'll discuss next week
15:51:57 [sandro]
s/n?/n to Core?
15:52:10 [DavidHirtle]
chris: if no other support, we'll have to move to a dialect
15:53:06 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: let's resolve that we agreed on 3 or 4, not 1 or 2
15:53:46 [DavidHirtle]
hassan: I won't object to 3; I won't be able to attend next week
15:53:57 [PaulVincent]
I'd be interested in reading Hassan's arguments for 4...
15:54:01 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:54:01 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:54:11 [DavidHirtle]
michael: I won't be on the telecon next week either
15:54:12 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:54:12 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:54:16 [sandro]
PROPOSED: To go with 3 or 4, and next week we'll decide between 3 and 4, if Hassan's e-mail convinced anyone.
15:54:34 [sandro]
PROPOSED: To go with 3 (OS) or 4 (OSR), and next week we'll decide between 3 and 4, if Hassan's e-mail convinced anyone.
15:54:54 [DavidHirtle]
chris: any objections?
15:55:10 [sandro]
RESOLVED: To go with 3 (OS) or 4 (OSR), and next week we'll decide between 3 and 4, if Hassan's e-mail convinced anyone. (cf
15:55:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:55:14 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Core: Metadata" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:55:39 [DavidHirtle]
chris: I'm not really prepared on this issue; christian not here
15:55:48 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: I feel somewhat prepared
15:56:00 [DavidHirtle]
... DaveR may be more than me if he'd rather
15:57:15 [DavidHirtle]
DaveR: I took issue to be that we have requirement about attaching metadata to rules... how do we represent, what are core items, etc?
15:57:22 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: How do we represent Metadata? What core vocab should we have? And How extensible should it be?
15:57:41 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: I think it should be, in the style of RDF, completely open ended.
16:00:08 [sandro]
Sandro: what if you use RDF in RIF Core format?
16:00:15 [Hassan]
BTW: having meta-data is having some relection
16:00:26 [sandro]
Chris: So what if you have a rule like "All the rules authored by Chris are false" ?
16:00:52 [DavidHirtle]
chris: we have to be careful about putting this in core because of problems in translating rules into languages that don't support it
16:02:01 [sandro]
Sandro: How about having a file have a Ruleset and a Metadata set, and you can merge them at your own risk.
16:02:40 [DavidHirtle]
chris: one obvious way to express RDF as metadata would be to use triples
16:03:14 [DavidHirtle]
... what metadata do we need?
16:03:49 [sandro]
4.1.5. Embedded metadata
16:03:49 [sandro]
RIF must support metadata such as author and rule name.
16:04:32 [Harold]
A 'rulename' can be used to *attach* metadata to rules such as 'author'.
16:04:34 [PaulVincent]
Rule metadata - see Dublin Core; properties like priority etc
16:04:35 [sandro]
Chris: just wondering about kinds of metadata that might impact the core.....
16:04:57 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: date, provenance,
16:05:02 [DavidHirtle]
chris: is Dublin Core enough?
16:05:23 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: for round-tripping, we might need "the original form of name"
16:05:27 [PaulVincent]
16:06:09 [ChrisW]
ack p
16:06:17 [DavidHirtle]
Paul: usually in rule-matching systems, data defined for customer
16:07:25 [Zakim]
16:07:41 [DaveReynolds]
+1 to Chris, translator hint annotations seem valuable
16:07:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.403.762.aabb
16:08:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:08:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Harold, Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, PaulaP (muted), DavidHirtle, PaulVincent, AxelPolleres, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Allen_Ginsberg, IgorMozetic (muted),
16:08:04 [DavidHirtle]
Paul: obvious one is original language in which rules are defined, also source rules as comments
16:08:06 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer (muted), +1.403.762.aabb
16:08:39 [Harold]
16:09:01 [DavidHirtle]
chris: we have this Dublin Core metadata, round-trip "preservation metadata", any other kinds?
16:09:09 [DavidHirtle]
allen: dialect identification metadata?
16:09:18 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: I don't think that's metadata
16:09:45 [DavidHirtle]
Harold: instead of giving dialect as metadata, could have different URLs pointing to different XML Schemas of RIF
16:09:53 [DaveReynolds]
Harold - surely a URL refernce is just a form of metadata?
16:09:54 [PaulVincent]
16:10:19 [DavidHirtle]
sandro: I agree, could have different namespace for each dialect
16:11:45 [DavidHirtle]
harold: XSD is quite weak; may involve other things like Schematron
16:12:04 [Harold]
Dave, I meant the URL that points to the definition of a dialect such as to its xml schema.
16:13:12 [Harold]
s/Schematron/Schematron or even semantic validators (for results of static analysis)/
16:15:53 [DavidHirtle]
chris: does each dialect define set of metadata fields?
16:16:57 [Harold]
Chris, about the direction of pointing between a RIF file and its metadata, I think essential metadata (about results of static analysis) cannot point from outside into their RIF file -- they must be attached to the ruleset iteself.
16:17:28 [Zakim]
16:17:51 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:17:51 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
16:17:56 [ChrisW]
16:18:00 [ChrisW]
16:18:02 [ChrisW]
ack h
16:18:04 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:18:05 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:18:21 [DavidHirtle]
chris: where do we stand?
16:18:29 [Zakim]
16:18:44 [DavidHirtle]
allen: need to add text for figures, otherwise nothing else
16:19:04 [DavidHirtle]
chris: should we have a use cases section at F2F?
16:19:14 [DavidHirtle]
allen: phase 2 requirements...
16:19:43 [DavidHirtle]
chris: I think Paula started a list of phase 2 requirements
16:20:38 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:20:38 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "AOB" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:21:36 [DavidHirtle]
allen: I did the ontology thing using imports and sent it to the list a while ago... just wanted to make sure it's okay
16:21:44 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:21:44 [Zakim]
I do not see any non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, ChrisW
16:21:47 [AxelPolleres]
Suggestion: Can we postpone this discussion until in two weeks (will be)
16:21:53 [AxelPolleres]
travelling next telecon!
16:21:59 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 7
16:21:59 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "RIFRAF" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:22:03 [DavidHirtle]
chris: sure
16:22:12 [AxelPolleres]
16:22:15 [DavidHirtle]
chris: so schedule F2F time to talk about RIFRAF
16:22:23 [AxelPolleres]
sorry, cannot unmute, my skype is somewhat stuck
16:22:37 [Hassan]
16:22:39 [Zakim]
16:22:41 [Zakim]
16:22:42 [Zakim]
16:22:43 [AxelPolleres]
please schedule rifraf on day 1 (june 2)
16:22:45 [Zakim]
16:22:45 [AxelPolleres]
16:22:46 [Zakim]
16:22:50 [Zakim]
16:22:56 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:22:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:23:12 [Zakim]
16:23:23 [Zakim]
16:23:40 [Zakim]
16:23:43 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:23:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, +1.403.762.aabb
16:25:49 [Zakim]
16:25:51 [Zakim]
- +1.403.762.aabb
16:25:53 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:25:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, PaulaP, DavidHirtle, Harold, AxelPolleres, PaulVincent, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Allen_Ginsberg, IgorMozetic, +39.047.101.aaaa,
16:25:57 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer, +1.403.762.aabb
16:26:04 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
16:26:47 [ChrisW]
Regrets: FranšoisBry, JosDeBruijn, MichaelSintek, MarkusKr÷tzsch, DeborahNichols
16:26:53 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:26:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:27:29 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
16:27:33 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:27:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:31:35 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has left #rif
18:49:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif
20:00:15 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
21:44:15 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif