IRC log of rif on 2007-06-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:06:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:06:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:06:06 [StellaMitchell]
csma: next meeting 26th June
15:06:14 [sandro]
scribe: StellaMitchell
15:06:22 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
15:06:31 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:06:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sandro
15:06:59 [sandro]
Chair: Christian
15:07:02 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action 316 has been done, but I will keep it open until Adrian updates the minutes
15:07:11 [csma]
action-316 continued
15:07:36 [Zakim]
15:07:45 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any ammendments? ... none
15:07:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, please mute me
15:07:46 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
15:08:13 [StellaMitchell]
csma: PROPOSED: accept minutes of June 12th
15:08:17 [StellaMitchell]
... no objections
15:08:29 [StellaMitchell]
RESOLVED: accept June 12 minutes
15:08:39 [csma]
next agendum
15:09:04 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any news from liasons?
15:09:11 [StellaMitchell]
... none of them are here today
15:09:19 [StellaMitchell]
... sent regrets
15:09:23 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: June 19
15:09:32 [StellaMitchell]
csma: next week all OMG liasons will be at OMG meeting
15:09:40 [csma]
next agendum
15:10:00 [StellaMitchell]
csma: today was the deadline for proposals for F2F7
15:10:07 [StellaMitchell]
... we had no proposals
15:10:46 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: wanted to propose one, but didn't get approval yet
15:10:56 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: I should know by Monday
15:11:09 [sandro]
->,+NB,+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=45.95115,-66.621094&spn=40.97359,65.654297&z=4&iwloc=addr&om=1 Fredericton (Harold's site)
15:11:20 [StellaMitchell]
csma: new dealine for proposals is Monday
15:11:27 [StellaMitchell]
June 25
15:11:48 [StellaMitchell]
action: christian to send reminder for f2f proposals
15:11:48 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-317 - Send reminder for f2f proposals [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-06-26].
15:12:20 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:12:20 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Technical design" taken up [from csma]
15:12:23 [csma]
next agendum
15:12:28 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:12:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action review
15:12:54 [StellaMitchell]
csma: need to do something about action-142 on Hassan
15:12:54 [Zakim]
15:12:59 [StellaMitchell]
...either obsolete or close
15:13:00 [Hassan]
This is conyinued ad lib
15:13:05 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: let's close
15:13:06 [Hassan]
This is continued ad lib
15:13:21 [Hassan]
15:13:35 [StellaMitchell]
action-142 done
15:13:46 [StellaMitchell]
15:14:21 [StellaMitchell]
actions 152 157 159 160
15:14:38 [StellaMitchell]
csma: it would be useful to have the above actions completed
15:14:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, unmute me
15:14:42 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should no longer be muted
15:14:54 [StellaMitchell]
csma; Leora, Gary, can you commit to dates for these actions?
15:15:20 [StellaMitchell]
Leora: I did propse a few examples in the fall; I can revisit them. When do you want them by?
15:15:36 [StellaMitchell]
csma: as early as possible to discuss a few representative examples
15:15:58 [StellaMitchell]
Leora: how about June 19th?
15:16:02 [StellaMitchell]
15:16:11 [Zakim]
15:16:12 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Gary?
15:16:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
15:16:25 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:16:29 [StellaMitchell]
Gary: I can by June 22nd, UC9
15:16:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
15:16:38 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
15:16:58 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I updated due dates in tracker
15:17:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action on harold about condition library, date is in august
15:17:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action-255 continued
15:18:17 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action-25? on csma continuted
15:18:19 [josb]
15:18:25 [StellaMitchell]
... action-258 on daver continuted
15:18:30 [josb]
15:18:39 [josb]
15:18:52 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: we have to talk about all these actions before we close them
15:19:11 [josb]
15:19:13 [sandro]
(Maybe we can get an alternate action-state in tracker.)
15:19:14 [StellaMitchell]
csma: do you think it's a good idea to discuss RDF and data sets next week?
15:19:15 [DaveReynolds]
OK by me
15:19:27 [DaveReynolds]
Yes, should be there
15:19:33 [josb]
not yet sure
15:20:13 [sandro]
Jos -- at risk in one week (along with csma), but will be available in two weeks.
15:20:19 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will discuss it the week after, June 29th
15:20:19 [sandro]
(for talking about RDF)
15:20:55 [StellaMitchell]
action-294 done
15:22:08 [josb]
15:22:15 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Gary's action from F2F on top few difficulties in mapping to xml schema
15:22:26 [StellaMitchell]
gary: I don't have any difficulties
15:22:36 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: let's close that action for now
15:22:54 [csma]
ack josb
15:23:12 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I raised point about use of xml schema as data; wondering how it would be done?
15:23:28 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I think mapping is useful (not just pain points)
15:24:00 [StellaMitchell]
s/as data/ as data model
15:24:22 [sandro]
"Show how to use XML Schema for App Data Model"
15:24:30 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: can we rephrase action as above?
15:24:49 [StellaMitchell]
gary: I thought action had to do with mapping of ASN to schema
15:25:03 [sandro]
Gary: I thought this was about mapping abstract syntax into XML Schema
15:25:13 [sandro]
15:25:16 [StellaMitchell]
csma: gary, can we rephrase the actionas above, and will you accept it?
15:25:52 [StellaMitchell]
gary: I will accept it, but can't do it until after first week of july
15:26:00 [StellaMitchell] July 13th
15:26:56 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action on sandro about abstract syntax.
15:27:11 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: continued. change due date to July 6th
15:27:22 [StellaMitchell]
action-307 continued
15:29:14 [Harold]
DaveR and JosB, could we clarify our action with MichaelK in offline email exchange?
15:29:38 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:29:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
15:29:43 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:30:01 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: sure, my memory is that I just offered to help on the abstract syntax but if you have it in hand already I'm happy to not interfere
15:30:01 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:30:35 [Harold]
Dave, please give your input.
15:30:46 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:30:46 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "AOB" taken up [from csma]
15:30:55 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 19 June 2007
15:31:05 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
15:31:11 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, move to item 4
15:31:11 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Technical design" taken up [from csma]
15:31:47 [ChrisW]
Regrets: IgorMozetic PaulaLaviniaPatranjan MichaelKifer PaulVincent MohamedZergaoui DeborahNichols
15:31:49 [StellaMitchell]
harold: as I my email, 2 possibilities:
15:31:54 [StellaMitchell]
... 1. nexted pairs
15:32:00 [StellaMitchell]
... 2. direct n-ary sequences
15:32:07 [StellaMitchell]
15:33:33 [StellaMitchell]
... I sent a recent email with answers to sandro's questions
15:34:06 [csma]
15:34:07 [StellaMitchell]
... daver had sent an alternative where we treat them more like frames/objects
15:34:20 [StellaMitchell]
csma: what are we trying to achieve with lists?
15:34:54 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I thought we wanted to have lists as a type, but you seem to be talking about building and manipulating lists
15:35:17 [StellaMitchell]
csma: i thought we would just declare a type, and some builtins to go with it
15:35:24 [StellaMitchell]
csma: constants?
15:36:00 [StellaMitchell]
harold: (??)
15:36:50 [StellaMitchell]
csma: why can't we take rdf lists or rdf containers from rdf schema (and associated builtins)?
15:37:02 [sandro]
harold: it's about whether lists are terms or objects
15:37:17 [DaveReynolds]
15:37:32 [sandro]
harold: F-Logic is not meant to do unificaiton over frames.
15:37:48 [csma]
ack daveR
15:38:08 [StellaMitchell]
daver: there are 3 approaches we could take:
15:38:16 [sandro]
(sure, Stella. I like to write down for myself anything I really really want to remember)
15:38:22 [StellaMitchell]
.. 1. build primitive types
15:38:38 [StellaMitchell]
...2. use e.g. RDF types
15:38:46 [StellaMitchell]
.. 3. frame/object structures
15:38:47 [Harold]
15:39:30 [StellaMitchell]
harold: re: why we can't unify across.... see the above email
15:40:11 [sandro]
LISP has lists-as-objects as well, property-lists. The more functional-programming style is the term-style.
15:40:39 [StellaMitchell]
daver: why can't you unify over nested structures
15:40:46 [csma]
15:41:21 [StellaMitchell]
harold: nesting is called molecule in f-logic, only one property per atom
15:41:23 [Hassan]
15:41:27 [sandro]
Harold: When you have a molecule, you split it into f-logic atoms. To match across those, across multiple rules, to me that's not unification.
15:42:26 [sandro]
Harold: (1) un-nesting, then (2) atomizing. _:1[rdf:first->a] & _:1[rdf:rest->_:2] & _:2[...] & ...
15:43:00 [josb]
15:43:00 [csma]
ack hassan
15:43:13 [josb]
15:43:14 [sandro]
Harold: Yes, Sandro, in one flavor of f-logic, there are anonymous terms, often written with underscore.
15:43:17 [StellaMitchell]
harold: anonymous oids are allowed in in one flavor of f-logic
15:43:47 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: why do we care so much about f-logic?
15:44:22 [Harold]
Hassan, we agreed to have 'frames'.
15:44:24 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: my impression is that this (f-logic) was put forward at f2f as how to handle slots
15:44:41 [Harold]
You can see them as 'feature terms'.
15:44:45 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: I don't remember that
15:44:51 [Harold]
... or 'psi terms'.
15:44:58 [josb]
15:45:03 [sandro]
Sandro: we agreed on "frames" not on "f-logic".
15:45:29 [sandro]
Sandro: I sort of assumed they were the same.
15:45:35 [sandro]
Hassan: they are not!
15:45:46 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: several formalisms have been proposed, but we haven't agreed yet on the nature of objects we are reprsenting
15:46:09 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: I don't think we all agreed to f-logic as a way to represent frames yet
15:46:12 [josb]
15:46:23 [DaveReynolds]
+1 to Hassan - using the proposed frame representation does not correspond to accepting all of f-logic
15:46:29 [StellaMitchell]
csma: the current topic is lists
15:46:43 [sandro]
Hassan, do you take this logic to be your lawfully wedded logic, to have and to hold, to love and cherish, until disjunction do you part? :-)
15:47:19 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we are not debating f-logic
15:47:30 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: .. disagrees
15:48:01 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we are focusing on lists in the current discussion
15:48:17 [sandro]
Hassan: Free Algebra with two constructors
15:48:21 [csma]
ack josb
15:48:23 [Harold]
In F2F6, "frames" of were accepted.
15:48:30 [Hassan]
15:48:38 [StellaMitchell]
csma: so, you propose that we have an abstract concept with 3 builtins
15:48:59 [sandro]
Hassan, are you saying we should have the primitives First/Rest/Nil or the primitives Cons (or pair) and Nil ?
15:49:14 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I agree with Hassan that we don't need to mention f-logic, and just talk about the concepts
15:49:16 [Harold]
Look at "The Unnest Transformation"
15:49:42 [josb]
s/concepts/constructs proposed for RIF, such as the frame syntax/
15:50:02 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we did not discuss yet, what is the meaning of frames. we just agreed that we would have them
15:50:16 [sandro]
15:50:43 [Hassan]
15:50:46 [StellaMitchell]
csma: why isn't what hassan suggests above (abstract type and 3 builtins) sufficient?
15:51:12 [StellaMitchell]
harold: that is similar to my first option
15:51:36 [StellaMitchell]
csma: does that proposal (harold's first) require a change to ASN
15:51:43 [csma]
ack hassan
15:51:45 [StellaMitchell]
harold: yes, but not to the semantics
15:52:15 [StellaMitchell]
csma: why do we need to change ASN for list type, when we don't have to change it for any other type
15:52:21 [csma]
15:52:44 [StellaMitchell]
harold: const vs. terms?
15:52:47 [sandro]
Harold: because those are simple types; List is a compound type, which contains elements of other types.
15:53:02 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: aren't lists special cases of uniterms?
15:53:04 [StellaMitchell]
harold: yes
15:53:52 [Harold]
Uniterm ::= Const '(' TERM* ')'
15:54:52 [StellaMitchell]
csma: what is the diff in operations between list (various types) and strings (only chars)
15:54:55 [sandro]
Harold: you can have variables inside a List, but not inside a string.
15:55:31 [sandro]
Harold: We certainly want to do list unifications in Core.
15:56:08 [StellaMitchell]
csma: is there a consensus that we need support for variables inside lists?
15:56:22 [StellaMitchell]
... i.e. do lists need to be terms
15:56:23 [josb]
+1 to variables in lists
15:56:50 [sandro]
+1 variables in lists
15:57:21 [sandro]
csma: sounds like consensus that we need to support variables in lists -- quite different from primiitve data types.
15:57:53 [StellaMitchell]
csma: now, regarding the form - is there a preferred way to represent this?
15:58:55 [Hassan]
+1 with sandro
15:59:10 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: to me, a term denotes an object, I don't fully get the distiction that harold makes between the two
15:59:16 [sandro]
Sandro: to me a term denotes an object, so first(pair(a,b), a)
15:59:30 [Hassan]
Lists are objects - frame vs. term syntax is just that: SYNTAX
16:00:09 [sandro]
-1 to anyone saying "RIF is an interchange format" :-)
16:00:17 [StellaMitchell]
harold: in rif, we have an opportunity to bring them together
16:00:24 [josb]
please distinguish object vs object ID
16:00:45 [josb]
object ID = ground term
16:00:45 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I would like to have a sense of what lists will look like
16:01:16 [StellaMitchell]
...we have a few proposals, some people say they are not all equivalent
16:01:28 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I would like to harold's comments on dave's email
16:01:46 [StellaMitchell]
harold: dave's in an object style
16:02:08 [csma]
16:02:16 [StellaMitchell]
... if have anonymous oid, the two proposals are not so different
16:02:16 [Hassan]
The simplest common denominator is syntax - in the sense that a syntactic (initial or final) algebra is also a model in the category of all models
16:02:34 [sandro]
Harold: if the frames are anonymous, than Dave's form is pretty much the same -- the objects are then just terms.
16:02:37 [StellaMitchell]
daver: I'm not trying to form a new proposal: I was trying to see how Harold's proposal matches up to RDF lists
16:02:42 [StellaMitchell]
... i.e. how we can map
16:04:04 [StellaMitchell]
daver: was trying to combine our representation of blank nodes with frames proposal from last f2f
16:04:32 [csma]
16:05:04 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I think users would like to have all forms of lists available and know that they are all the same things
16:05:24 [Harold]
16:06:37 [StellaMitchell]
.csma: why is it more important to have logical variables in lists than to have them in other builtins on primitive datatypes
16:06:46 [StellaMitchell]
harold: because the others ones are kind of atomic
16:07:02 [Hassan]
16:07:16 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I think csma is saying, e.g. why can't we do 3 = 4 + x
16:07:28 [csma]
ack hassan
16:07:36 [josb]
why was this excluded? We can simply have binding patterns for built-ins
16:07:50 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: the difference is: there are 2 kinds of terms - constructed (syntactic) and interpreted (semantic)
16:07:58 [sandro]
Hassan: constructed terms vs unified terms. constructed terms can be uniifed against.
16:07:58 [StellaMitchell]
... first can be unified against, second can not
16:08:15 [StellaMitchell]
csma: ok
16:08:27 [Hassan]
16:08:32 [Harold]
As Hassan mentions you cannot unify ?X+1 with 9 and bind ?X to 8.
16:08:54 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: this brings up another question: in prolog or lisp you can quote things
16:09:02 [StellaMitchell]
(to make it syntactic)
16:09:07 [StellaMitchell]
... do we want to do that in RIF?
16:09:24 [DaveReynolds]
16:09:36 [DaveReynolds]
16:09:37 [Hassan]
16:09:42 [StellaMitchell]
csma: back to topic: we have 2 proposed syntaxes from Harold
16:10:07 [GaryHallmark]
+1 for List, -1 for Pair
16:10:25 [StellaMitchell]
harold: list type is a bit more advanced
16:10:33 [sandro]
Harold: We want pair underneath List, if we have List.
16:10:39 [DaveReynolds]
16:10:44 [Harold]
But there is a point with 'invertible arithmetics' being not allowed, but 'invertible list processing' being allowed.
16:10:46 [Hassan]
+1 for pairs
16:10:55 [josb]
can we have a link to the proposals?
16:10:56 [Francois]
+1 for pairs
16:11:11 [csma]
ack dave
16:11:25 [sandro]
Sandro: I understood List to be built on top of pair, so if you have List you also have Pair.
16:11:45 [sandro]
Dave: I List *just* syntactic sugar? I understood Harold to say yes.
16:12:18 [Harold]
16:12:37 [Harold]
16:12:48 [StellaMitchell]
harold: first one above is more than syntactic sugar
16:13:21 [StellaMitchell]
... most systems to introduce a new tag though
16:13:34 [sandro]
Harold: Most systems introduce a special syntax for Pair.
16:13:38 [csma]
16:13:59 [josb]
16:14:10 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: can we agree to use pair as underlying semantics for lists
16:14:50 [sandro]
Sandro: it sounds like maybe there's consensus that we use Pair/Nil for the underlying semantic of lists, and we figure out List and rdf-interoperation (first/rest) afterwords.
16:14:59 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if we need in future, sets, bags, etc - will those be new constructors also
16:15:19 [ChrisW]
isn't pair/nil the same as rdf?
16:15:28 [Harold]
<Pair> a' b' </Pair> vs. <Uniterm> <Const>Pair</Const> a' b' </Uniterm>
16:15:40 [Hassan]
list cons is an Assoc. constructor; set cons is an Accoc. Comm. Idemptotent constructor
16:15:55 [sandro]
No, ChrisW RDF uses first+rest, not pair. that is, every list in RDF is an object, possibly with other properties.
16:16:15 [Hassan]
16:16:20 [Hassan]
16:16:22 [StellaMitchell]
harold: in 1st above, we introduce a new type. in 2nd above, we don't
16:16:48 [csma]
ack josb
16:17:02 [ChrisW]
i don't see the difference (rdf vs pair)
16:17:16 [StellaMitchell]
jos: we keep using term "pair" but it's a strange name to me - I think we should call it "list"
16:17:32 [sandro]
Sandro: the traditional name is "cons" right?
16:17:35 [Francois]
+1 with Jos.
16:17:35 [ChrisW]
the traditional name is "cons cell"
16:17:49 [sandro]
written as "." sometimes.
16:17:51 [Harold]
Jost: <List> a' b' </List> vs. <Uniterm> <Const>List</Const> a' b' </Uniterm>
16:17:54 [GaryHallmark]
cons seems too implementation oriented
16:18:06 [csma]
ack hassan
16:18:09 [Francois]
cons is a binary operation, hence it has 2 args, hence the notion of pair arises.
16:18:10 [Harold]
16:18:25 [Francois]
+1 with Hassan : it is CS 1.
16:18:35 [ChrisW]
more than 30!
16:19:06 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: we are debating well established concepts, I don't think we should do this
16:19:25 [Francois]
Lisp goes back to 1950 and Lisp hs ... lists. It is more than 30 years.
16:19:34 [ChrisW]
i take that was a "no"
16:19:35 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if it's simple and there is consensus, can you write it down in form to go into the specification?
16:19:36 [Hassan]
16:19:41 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: no
16:20:28 [Francois]
Sandro, a better name than "pair" is "list constructor" from which "cons" is derived.
16:20:51 [Francois]
Do we have an object concept in RIF Core?
16:20:53 [StellaMitchell]
csma: consensus that it is a term not an object?
16:20:58 [josb]
+1 to Francois' proposal
16:21:07 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: yes, I think so
16:21:17 [Francois]
no consensus on term not object. RIF has no object notion so far.
16:21:23 [Harold]
Francois, yes we have a frame concept with oid (see above).
16:21:35 [Francois]
frame is not object. Sorry.
16:21:55 [josb]
List alone is also fine
16:21:57 [Francois]
Frame in RIF is pure syntax, not OO.
16:22:01 [DaveReynolds]
These will all be IRIs anyway ...
16:22:02 [josb]
we only have 2-item lists
16:22:04 [Hassan]
16:22:15 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: we are talking about 2 item list, not the arbitrary lenghth one
16:22:17 [GaryHallmark]
harold's list proposal is n-ary
16:22:21 [josb]
16:22:23 [Hassan]
Sandor what R U talking about???
16:22:24 [Francois]
Sandor, no infinite list, ie no arbitrary length lists.
16:22:28 [csma]
ack josb
16:22:28 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: re: names
16:23:03 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: as an operator in the concrete syntax
16:23:09 [Harold]
Gary, we could have binary <List> vs. n-ary <Tup>.
16:23:37 [Francois]
I think "list" has reach a similar status as "sort"... :-)
16:23:42 [GaryHallmark]
I like n-ary, like the last example in your last email, Harold
16:23:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will discuss this again next telecon. we need to draft a proposal
16:24:06 [Harold]
16:24:35 [sandro]
Sandro: The problem with calling "cons" "list" is that we will also want (as Harold said) the List syntactic sugar. (as in LISP, which has both cost and list, right? am I remembering that right?)
16:25:08 [sandro]
GaryHallmark, the problem with n-ary is how you do a variable tail.
16:25:45 [DaveReynolds]
Again, the name in the abstract syntax will be an IRI
16:25:49 [StellaMitchell]
harold: I didn't do abstract syntax in my email, but in the abstract we don't need to distinguish (between 2, and n-ary)
16:25:56 [Francois]
Sandro, you get a list tail from a "n-ary" list notation provided you ghave a constructor for this.
16:26:00 [sandro]
csma: use "List Constructor" for pair for now.
16:26:22 [ChrisW]
a "cons" by any other name would still have a "cdr"
16:26:28 [StellaMitchell]
csma: harold will post proposal in abstract syntax
16:27:08 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we had a proposed resolution (re: builtins)
16:27:43 [csma]
16:27:58 [DaveReynolds]
opposed: see
16:28:02 [Francois]
bye, sorry I must leave.
16:28:09 [josb]
16:28:10 [DaveReynolds]
sorry :-)
16:28:12 [Zakim]
16:28:30 [StellaMitchell]
csma: several objections..
16:28:45 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I haven't read it carefully enough to be able to agree at this time
16:29:02 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will discuss it later then
16:29:06 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
16:29:06 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "AOB" taken up [from csma]
16:29:08 [DaveReynolds]
16:29:08 [Zakim]
16:29:12 [sandro]
+1 adjourn :-)
16:29:16 [Zakim]
16:29:25 [Zakim]
16:29:27 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:29:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:29:38 [Zakim]
16:29:40 [sandro]
RRSAgent, attendees?
16:29:40 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'attendees'
16:29:40 [Zakim]
16:29:43 [Zakim]
16:29:47 [sandro]
RRSAgent, who was here?
16:29:47 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'who was here'
16:29:53 [Zakim]
16:30:02 [sandro]
zakim, who was here?
16:30:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
16:30:09 [sandro]
zakim, attendees?
16:30:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
16:31:02 [Zakim]
16:31:04 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:31:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Christian, Sandro, ChrisW
16:32:35 [ChrisW]
16:39:13 [Zakim]
16:39:15 [Zakim]
16:39:17 [Zakim]
16:39:19 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:39:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were Harold, Christian, Francois, Sandro, josb, Dave_Reynolds, Hassan, StellaMitchell, Allen_Ginsberg, Leora_Morgenstern, Gary_Hallmark, ChrisW
16:39:35 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:39:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
18:20:54 [ChrisWelty]
ChrisWelty has joined #rif
18:20:58 [ChrisWelty]
19:33:29 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:33:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW