15:06:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:06:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-rif-irc
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-rif-minutes.html 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> +Leora_Morgenstern
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  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0047.html
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> -> http://www.google.com/maps?q=Fredericton,+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> +Gary_Hallmark
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> ok
15:13:35 <StellaMitchell> action-142 done
15:13:46 <StellaMitchell> s/done/closed/
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> s/19/29
15:16:11 <Zakim> +[IBM]
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> done
15:18:25 <StellaMitchell> ... action-258 on daver continuted
15:18:30 <josb> yes
15:18:39 <josb> OK
15:18:52 <StellaMitchell> sandro: we have to talk about all these actions before we close them
15:19:11 <josb> yes
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> q+
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> (ACTION-298)
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> ...by 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 http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-rif-minutes.html 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> s/nexted/nested
15:33:33 <StellaMitchell> ... I sent a recent email with answers to sandro's questions
15:34:06 <csma> q?
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> q+
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0035.html
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> q?
15:41:21 <StellaMitchell> harold: nesting is called molecule in f-logic, only one property per atom
15:41:23 <Hassan> q+
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> q+
15:43:00 <csma> ack hassan
15:43:13 <josb> +1
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> q?
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> q?
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 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Slotted_Conditions were accepted.
15:48:30 <Hassan> q-
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> q?
15:50:43 <Hassan> q+
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0052.html
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> q+
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> q-
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> q+
16:09:36 <DaveReynolds> q-
16:09:37 <Hassan> q?
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> q+
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> <Pair>
16:12:37 <Harold> <Const>Pair</Const>
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> Q?
16:13:59 <josb> q+
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> q+
16:16:20 <Hassan> q?
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> s/Jost/Jos/
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> q-
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> what???
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> q+
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0032.html
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> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_functions_and_operators?action=recall&rev=7
16:27:58 <DaveReynolds> opposed: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0050.html
16:28:02 <Francois> bye, sorry I must leave. 
16:28:09 <josb> objection
16:28:10 <DaveReynolds> sorry :-)
16:28:12 <Zakim> -Francois
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> +1
16:29:08 <Zakim> -Hassan
16:29:12 <sandro> +1 adjourn  :-)
16:29:16 <Zakim> -Harold
16:29:25 <Zakim> -Allen_Ginsberg
16:29:27 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
16:29:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:29:38 <Zakim> -Gary_Hallmark
16:29:40 <sandro> RRSAgent, attendees?
16:29:40 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'attendees'
16:29:40 <Zakim> -Dave_Reynolds
16:29:43 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
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> -josb
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> -StellaMitchell
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> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0050.html
16:39:13 <Zakim> -ChrisW
16:39:15 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:39:17 <Zakim> -Christian
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
18:20:54 <ChrisWelty> ChrisWelty has joined #rif
18:20:58 <ChrisWelty> sandro?
19:33:29 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
19:33:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/19-rif-minutes.html ChrisW