IRC log of rif on 2007-11-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:47:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:47:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:48:01 [csma]
zakim, this will be rif
15:48:01 [Zakim]
ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
15:48:13 [csma]
Meeting: RIF telecon 20 November 2007
15:48:32 [csma]
Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
15:48:40 [csma]
Scribe: Dave Reynolds
15:49:12 [csma]
15:49:43 [csma]
Regrets: Adrian Paschke
15:50:46 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: 20 November RIF telecon agenda:
15:53:23 [csma]
rrsagent, list agenda
15:53:23 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'list agenda', csma. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:53:49 [csma]
15:54:07 [csma]
list agenda
15:54:16 [csma]
close agenda
15:54:20 [csma]
list agenda
15:54:46 [csma]
15:54:53 [csma]
15:54:59 [csma]
15:55:06 [csma]
zakim, close agenda
15:55:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agenda', csma
15:55:12 [csma]
zakim, reset agenda
15:55:12 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'reset agenda', csma
15:55:34 [csma]
zakim, remove agenda
15:55:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'remove agenda', csma
15:55:45 [csma]
zakim, remove agendum 7
15:55:45 [Zakim]
agendum 7, PRD, dropped
15:55:54 [csma]
list agenda
15:56:02 [csma]
zakim, close agenda
15:56:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agenda', csma
15:56:07 [csma]
zakim, drop agenda
15:56:07 [Zakim]
sorry, csma, I don't know what conference this is
15:56:29 [csma]
zakim, this will be rid
15:56:29 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, csma
15:56:48 [csma]
zakim, this will be rif
15:56:48 [Zakim]
ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
15:58:36 [csma]
zakim, clear agenda
15:58:36 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:58:50 [csma]
agenda+ Admin
15:59:08 [csma]
agenda+ Liaisons
15:59:12 [csma]
agenda+ F2F9
15:59:26 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 2
15:59:30 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:59:40 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 42
16:00:09 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:00:10 [csma]
agenda+ XML 1.0 or XML 1.1?
16:00:11 [Zakim]
16:00:13 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P17)
16:00:17 [csma]
agenda+ BLD planning
16:00:23 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 40
16:00:42 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
16:00:47 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #RIF
16:01:18 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:01:28 [Zakim]
16:01:30 [Zakim]
16:01:52 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
16:01:57 [csma]
zakim, ??P26 is me
16:02:00 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:02:06 [csma]
16:02:15 [csma]
ack ??P26
16:02:43 [csma]
scribenick: DaveReynolds
16:02:54 [DaveReynolds]
Scribe: Dave Reynolds
16:02:57 [Zakim]
16:02:59 [Zakim]
16:03:03 [Zakim]
16:03:25 [Zakim]
16:03:31 [Zakim]
16:03:56 [Zakim]
16:03:57 [barry_b]
barry_b has joined #rif
16:04:19 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:19 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:04:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_Reynolds, josb (muted), csma, Sandro, PaulaP
16:04:57 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:05:01 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:05:01 [RRSAgent]
16:05:23 [csma]
next agendum
16:05:37 [sandro]
zakim, next agendum
16:05:54 [sandro]
(er, slow Zakim!)
16:05:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, sandro
16:06:11 [IgorMozetic]
is zakim working properly? (74394# not valid)
16:06:19 [Zakim]
16:06:22 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
16:06:26 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-371: done
16:06:49 [Zakim]
16:06:50 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
16:06:51 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:06:52 [Zakim]
16:06:56 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-374: done (extension requested)
16:07:14 [Zakim]
16:07:14 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: committee meets tomorrow, might have answer then
16:07:23 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P41 is me
16:07:23 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
16:07:32 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:07:32 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:07:35 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-376: done
16:07:45 [sandro]
Odd, IgorMozetic.... Sometimes the tones get too distorted by the phone system to be recognized......
16:08:22 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: haven't seen notification of WD publication on RDF list
16:08:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:08:43 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: should we have larger scale notification of the new WDs?
16:09:12 [Zakim]
16:09:25 [csma]
16:10:03 [Zakim]
16:10:13 [barry_b]
Zakim, mute me
16:10:13 [Zakim]
barry_b should now be muted
16:10:27 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: only concern is limited attention, people will only look at docs so many times. If we are going to have a refactored draft in the new couple of months would be reasonable to wait to then then publicize more aggressively.
16:10:45 [josb]
Ack me
16:10:49 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
16:10:54 [DaveReynolds]
s/then then/till then/
16:11:18 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: would be interested in getting as much f/b as possible on the compatibility doc
16:11:53 [DaveReynolds]
cmsa: suggested tabling this question until discuss the BLD plan
16:11:56 [csma]
16:12:30 [csma]
16:12:39 [Zakim]
16:12:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
16:12:47 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
16:12:48 [DaveReynolds]
No objections. Minutes accepted.
16:13:56 [DaveReynolds]
zakim, next agendum
16:13:56 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liaisons" taken up [from csma]
16:14:27 [Zakim]
16:14:47 [csma]
16:15:24 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: all input appreciated on PRR review, finalization due around Feb
16:15:43 [DaveReynolds]
cmsa: on first page of doc is email address for comments
16:15:48 [csma]
16:15:49 [DaveReynolds]
16:16:34 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:16:50 [DaveReynolds]
csma: notes that Bijan is liaison from OWL-WG to RIF, do we want a reverse liaison?
16:17:09 [DaveReynolds]
csma: currently Sandro is our liaison
16:17:46 [josb]
yes; I can help
16:17:47 [Zakim]
16:18:08 [DaveReynolds]
josb volunteers to help Sandro with tracking the OWL-WG liaison issues
16:18:24 [DaveReynolds]
zakim, next agendum
16:18:24 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "F2F9" taken up [from csma]
16:18:28 [csma]
16:18:31 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
16:18:45 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro notes that the chair hasn't filled out the survey!
16:19:01 [IgorMozetic]
ack me
16:19:41 [DaveReynolds]
Igor: ideally would like to decide F2F9 dates by Dec 4th
16:20:49 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: encourages everyone, especially chairs and editors, to fill survey in next day. Then can set up location survey for next week or so.
16:21:08 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
16:23:18 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: need next survey to up for a full week, that would mean that at next telecon will have to both decide on dates and confirm hosts can support dates
16:23:30 [DaveReynolds]
s/to up/to be up/
16:25:03 [DaveReynolds]
csma: deadline for date survey end of this week
16:25:27 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: each host work out which dates for them and propose a couple of dates over the weekend ready for next telecon (27th)
16:25:27 [csma]
16:25:44 [DaveReynolds]
s/for/work for/
16:26:54 [DaveReynolds]
Action: AxelPolleres to post proposed F2F9 dates by next telecon, i.e. sometime Monday 26th
16:26:54 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - AxelPolleres
16:27:13 [DaveReynolds]
Action: Igor to post proposed F2F9 dates by next telecon, i.e. sometime Monday 26th
16:27:13 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-379 - Post proposed F2F9 dates by next telecon, i.e. sometime Monday 26th [on Igor Mozetic - due 2007-11-27].
16:27:21 [DaveReynolds]
Action: csma to post proposed F2F9 dates by next telecon, i.e. sometime Monday 26th
16:27:21 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - csma
16:27:37 [DaveReynolds]
Action: Axel to post proposed F2F9 dates by next telecon, i.e. sometime Monday 26th
16:27:37 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-381 - Post proposed F2F9 dates by next telecon, i.e. sometime Monday 26th [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-11-27].
16:27:59 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-377: closed
16:28:15 [DaveReynolds]
zakim, next agendum
16:28:15 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Issue 2" taken up [from csma]
16:28:43 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-375: continued
16:29:01 [josb]
16:29:04 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-369: done
16:29:11 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-370: done
16:29:27 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-367: done
16:29:41 [josb]
ack me
16:30:21 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-365: pending discussion, drafted reply
16:30:31 [josb]
16:31:02 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-364, ACTION-362: pending discussion
16:31:16 [csma]
16:31:34 [csma]
16:31:57 [josb]
16:32:17 [csma]
PROPOSED: Close issue 2, based on Jos's analysis in [7]
16:32:19 [DaveReynolds]
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-2 based on Jos' analysis
16:32:47 [csma]
16:32:57 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:32:57 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:33:00 [DaveReynolds]
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-2 based on Jos' analysis
16:33:17 [DaveReynolds]
zakim, next agendum
16:33:17 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Issue 42" taken up [from csma]
16:33:28 [csma]
16:33:44 [csma]
16:34:41 [josb]
ack me
16:35:11 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: originally wanted rif:text to be able to treat all constants uniformly in the syntax
16:36:02 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: if we violate this for one type of constant then we might want to re-evaluate how we represent other constants (e.g. IRIs, local constants)
16:36:28 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:37:01 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: drawback of sticky with rif:text is that we are creating a new datatype which is not really our business
16:38:11 [DaveReynolds]
csma: why not only allow addition of language tags and stop there?
16:38:32 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: that then creates two kinds of constants, a strange lack of uniformity
16:38:58 [Zakim]
16:39:14 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:39:14 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:39:19 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: can't we have both a symbol space and a language tag?
16:40:26 [DaveReynolds]
csma: but the lang tag might apply to other types?
16:40:36 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: no! (scribe agrees)
16:40:58 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: by definition XML literals don't allow language tagging
16:41:05 [DaveReynolds]
16:41:10 [Zakim]
16:41:15 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: e.g. lang tag even for IRIs
16:41:18 [csma]
16:41:29 [Zakim]
16:41:50 [sandro]
( could be english or french, right?)
16:41:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
16:41:51 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
16:42:36 [DaveReynolds]
DaveR: no, lang just applies to text for user presentation not to other data types
16:42:55 [IgorMozetic]
I vote for uniformity
16:43:46 [DaveReynolds]
16:43:59 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:43:59 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:44:19 [josb]
16:45:10 [DaveReynolds]
csma: seems it needs more discussion, so postpone to later telecon
16:46:12 [Hassan]
+1 with MK
16:46:19 [DaveReynolds]
MK: benefit of uniformity is just one mechanism for defining constants, as opposed to mess of special cases
16:46:30 [IgorMozetic]
+1 for MK
16:46:45 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:46:45 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:47:09 [DaveReynolds]
zakim, next agendum
16:47:09 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "XML 1.0 or XML 1.1?" taken up [from csma]
16:47:26 [csma]
16:48:32 [DaveReynolds]
csma: XML 1.1 is a little more permissive but is still WD
16:48:45 [josb]
16:49:10 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: clarifies this about XML Schema Datatypes not XML!
16:49:21 [sandro]
XSD1.1, not XML1.1
16:49:54 [DaveReynolds]
csma: so the proposal is to refer to XSD 1.0 and change that if XSD 1.1 reaches Rec before BLD
16:50:26 [josb]
ack me
16:51:20 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: no real drawback to referring to XSD 1.0 but should explicitly state we will switch to XSD 1.1 when Rec, to satisfy people who want to use XML 1.1
16:51:40 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: that remark should be explicit in doc
16:51:44 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: makes sense
16:51:47 [sandro]
16:52:41 [csma]
16:52:43 [josb]
PROPOSED: we refer to XSD 1.0 while it is not a Rec, but add an explicit remark that we will switch to 1.1 if it reaches Rec before RIF
16:53:10 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We'll refer to XSD 1.0 instead of XSD 1.1 in our document for now, including a clear note that it our intention to change to XSD 1.1 when it becomes available, so that people can use XML 1.1.
16:53:51 [josb]
16:54:26 [sandro]
RESOLVED: We'll refer to XSD 1.0 instead of XSD 1.1 in our document for now, including a clear note that it our intention to change to XSD 1.1 when it becomes available, so that people can use XML 1.1.
16:55:26 [DaveReynolds]
csma: is equality issue critical path or not?
16:55:42 [sandro]
+1 equality if CriticalPath
16:55:54 [sandro]
16:56:01 [DaveReynolds]
csma: so ISSUE-47 is critical path
16:56:26 [DaveReynolds]
csma: so 13 critical path issues
16:56:51 [DaveReynolds]
csma: Sandro needs to add issue on invisible extensions, is that CP?
16:57:47 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: there is extensibility work that is critical path though that issue doesn't capture all of that
16:58:35 [DaveReynolds]
csma: if people think there are other issues that are CP to last call should raise them as soon as possible
16:59:11 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro to report any critical-path issues related to extensibility
16:59:11 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-382 - Report any critical-path issues related to extensibility [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-11-27].
16:59:12 [DaveReynolds]
csma: roundtripping - CP or not?
16:59:37 [josb]
16:59:44 [csma]
ack josb
17:00:16 [DaveReynolds]
csma: aren't ISSUE-46, ISSUE-39 and ISSUE-xx interdependent yet 46 is not marked CP
17:00:21 [csma]
17:00:35 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: modules is just one way to do this
17:00:38 [csma]
17:01:25 [csma]
17:01:35 [DaveReynolds]
csma: ISSUE-34, should that be closed?
17:01:48 [josb]
17:01:54 [csma]
ack josb
17:01:54 [josb]
ack me
17:02:30 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: this was originally raised to record Sandro's concern on whether this conflicts with extensility
17:02:36 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: right, can't close that yet
17:02:48 [josb]
17:05:00 [DaveReynolds]
csma: said at F2F8 that 2nd BLD WD will resolve issues 45 (lists), 41(#), 43(##), 44(named args) and 40(builtins)
17:05:15 [Harold]
If a set of builtins uses unrelated URIs to point to each builtin's specification, there is nothing ressembling a module. If, however, a set of builtins uses a shared base URI and different local URIs to point to each builtin's specification, the base URI can be regarded as a module.
17:05:35 [josb]
(by the way, regarding an earlier discussion in the telecon, Chris advertised our working drafts during his keynote at ISWC)
17:05:36 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:05:36 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
17:05:38 [DaveReynolds]
csma: can we do work on 40 and get quick decisions on the others in 1.5 months
17:06:32 [DaveReynolds]
MK: someone has to work out the actual document for builtins
17:06:37 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
17:06:37 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
17:07:28 [josb]
ack me
17:07:38 [DaveReynolds]
csma: want to keep OWL compat doc in sync with BLD, can we have 2nd WD on 1.5m timescale?
17:07:53 [AxelPolleres]
Hello MichaelKifer, welcome to #rif
17:07:57 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: yes, but would like to discuss the current page in an up coming telecon
17:08:02 [AxelPolleres]
17:08:42 [DaveReynolds]
Action: christian to schedule discussion on OWL compatibility document at future telecon
17:08:42 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-383 - Schedule discussion on OWL compatibility document at future telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-11-27].
17:09:27 [DaveReynolds]
csma: are there issues on the BLD XML syntax, is that just ISSUE-36 or is it related to extensibility?
17:09:56 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: current XSD is monolithic, doesn't use any extensibility of XML Schema, could try to modularize it more
17:11:16 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:16 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
17:11:43 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
17:11:43 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
17:11:50 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:50 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
17:12:20 [DaveReynolds]
MK: builtins should be in a separate document since they are shared by different dialects
17:12:39 [Harold]
The current builtins can also be used by PRD.
17:13:02 [Harold]
Yes, Paula, kind of Core builtins.
17:13:32 [Harold]
So the Core could start with the builtins.
17:14:36 [DaveReynolds]
csma: asks Paula to include the additional builtins DaveR mentioned in email
17:14:41 [DaveReynolds]
Paula: already in, but will check
17:15:00 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
17:15:00 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
17:15:21 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:15:21 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
17:15:35 [DaveReynolds]
csma: what's the issue with binding patterns?
17:15:46 [AxelPolleres]
17:15:55 [DaveReynolds]
MK: no issue, just prefers not to have binding patterns in semantics, complicates things
17:16:52 [DaveReynolds]
MK: e.g. a + b = 3, if a and b are unbound have infinite relation so impossible to compute
17:17:15 [csma]
17:17:27 [AxelPolleres]
allowing ONLY constants would be too limiting.
17:17:38 [DaveReynolds]
MK: binding pattern more complicated, e.g. for plus have to say that two need to bound but one can be unbound
17:17:49 [DaveReynolds]
MK: have to specify this but don't have to put them in the semantics
17:17:59 [Hassan]
17:18:05 [csma]
ack axel
17:18:22 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: binding pattern is similar issue to safety
17:19:04 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: binding patterns give patterns such that builtin is safe (finite extension) so similar to rule safety
17:19:27 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: agrees with MK it is not concern for the semantics
17:20:26 [Harold]
To prevent 'plus' used as in plus(3 ?a ?b), only allowing deterministic calls like plus(?x 1 2), we can specify the single 'plus' [binding pattern or] mode plus(out in in).
17:20:28 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: rule engines vary with the binding patterns they support, some might further limit patterns (e.g. only run plus forwards)
17:20:51 [AxelPolleres]
you mean swrl?
17:20:58 [DaveReynolds]
MK: what do they do in SWRL?
17:21:18 [csma]
ack hassan
17:21:20 [DaveReynolds]
MikeDean: they don't specify binding patterns, just as relations
17:21:50 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to mike dean: exactly, if not specified, then it causes difficulties for implementers...
17:22:06 [DaveReynolds]
Hassan: tend to disagree that binding patterns is part of semantics, whether rules pass value by unification is important
17:22:48 [DaveReynolds]
MK: part of the semantics, point is they are not part of the model theoretic semantics
17:22:55 [AxelPolleres]
I also agree that it need't be part of the semantics.
17:23:36 [AxelPolleres]
but for a dialect, not only the list of built-ins, but also the supported binding patterns should be specified.
17:23:53 [AxelPolleres]
this is more an issue of arch/extensibility than semantics.
17:23:56 [AxelPolleres]
17:23:57 [DaveReynolds]
Hassan: can have models for infinite relations perfectly happening
17:24:14 [Hassan]
17:25:38 [DaveReynolds]
csma: can't we just have simplest binding patterns?
17:26:04 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: part of extensibility, dialect should be allowed to specify binding patterns
17:26:10 [csma]
17:26:15 [csma]
ack axel
17:26:34 [Zakim]
17:27:02 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: in generic defn of builtins allow higher order predicates (builtins with take as inputs other predicates), make sense for things like aggregation
17:27:10 [josb]
17:27:15 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: is this something we want to account for in BLD?
17:27:55 [DaveReynolds]
Hassan: higher order or meta? Seems more like meta - e.g. prolog's univ.
17:28:16 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: no, takes extension of another predicate
17:28:50 [DaveReynolds]
csma: perhaps beyond scope of BLD
17:28:55 [josb]
it is beyond bld!
17:29:11 [DaveReynolds]
Action: Axel to post use case for higher order builtins
17:29:12 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-384 - Post use case for higher order builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-11-27].
17:29:29 [DaveReynolds]
Action: Paula to start document for the list of builtins
17:29:29 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Paula
17:29:51 [AxelPolleres]
17:29:57 [AxelPolleres]
17:30:02 [AxelPolleres]
one more point!!!
17:30:05 [AxelPolleres]
17:30:06 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:30:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_Reynolds, josb (muted), csma, Sandro, PaulaP, Harold, AxelPolleres, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), PaulVincent, Gary_Hallmark, Mike_Dean,
17:30:10 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer, Leora_Morgenstern (muted)
17:30:23 [DaveReynolds]
Action: Patranjan to start document for the list of builtins
17:30:23 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-385 - Start document for the list of builtins [on Paula-Lavinia Patranjan - due 2007-11-27].
17:31:05 [csma]
zakim, pick a victim
17:31:05 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AxelPolleres
17:31:05 [PaulaP]
regrets for the next telecon
17:31:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I'll do it.
17:31:34 [PaulaP]
17:31:41 [PaulaP]
17:31:43 [Zakim]
17:31:44 [PaulVincent]
17:31:45 [Zakim]
17:31:46 [Zakim]
17:31:47 [Zakim]
17:31:49 [Zakim]
17:31:50 [Zakim]
17:31:51 [Zakim]
17:31:53 [Zakim]
17:31:55 [Zakim]
17:31:56 [Zakim]
17:31:58 [Zakim]
17:32:05 [Zakim]
17:32:05 [csma]
rrsagent, make record public
17:32:16 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:32:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:33:56 [Zakim]
17:34:01 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:34:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma
17:34:11 [Zakim]
17:34:12 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:34:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dave_Reynolds, josb, csma, Sandro, PaulaP, Harold, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AxelPolleres, IgorMozetic, PaulVincent, barry_b, Leora_Morgenstern, Gary_Hallmark, Mike_Dean,
17:34:16 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer
17:34:35 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:34:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:37:37 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:37:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:40:27 [csma]
Dave, apparently no chance that I can get RRSAgent to add the presents in the proper place
17:40:39 [csma] will have to do it by hand!
17:41:09 [DaveReynolds]
Seems OK to me
17:41:20 [csma]
17:41:22 [csma]
csma has left #rif