Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2008-07-16
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
00:00:00 <bmotik> PRESENT: rob (muted), uli (muted), IanH, bmotik (muted), alan_ruttenberg, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), Ivan, Zhe (muted), ratnesh, Achille, JeffP, Achille, ivan, Zhe, bijan, bmotik, uli, IanH, ratnesh, rob, pfps, sandro, ewallace, m_schnei, baojie 17:02:01 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.07.16/Agenda 17:02:26 <IanH> ScribeNick: bmotik 17:05:16 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: No agenda amendments 17:05:48 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Accept previous minutes (9 July) 17:05:50 <pfps> they have all the requisite parts - their veracity I can't determine 17:05:24 <rob> looked reasonable to me 17:05:27 <IanH> Minutes look good to me 17:06:03 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Accept previous minutes (9 July) 17:06:11 <bmotik> Topic: 3F2F 17:06:28 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Please register whether you'll be or not at 3F2F 17:06:39 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Please give us feedback about the agenda 17:07:06 <bmotik> Topic: Action item status 17:07:59 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I can't invest more time into ACTION-159 , so let's drop it 17:08:17 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I produced input for ACTION-166 17:08:28 <bmotik> pfps: I don't see any rationale to using two files in the write-up 17:08:48 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We are discussing here the completion of the action, not the contents 17:08:56 <bmotik> pfps: I consider the action finished 17:09:08 <bmotik> Topic: Due and overdue actions 17:09:38 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Jie has initiated discussion about ACTION-150 17:10:04 <bmotik> ivan: Someone from our side should check owl:internationalizedString 17:10:33 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Michael, what is the status of the OWL-Full semantics? 17:10:42 <m_schnei> OWL Full: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullDraft 17:10:48 <bmotik> m_schnei: There is a draft 17:10:59 <bmotik> m_schnei: It is half-finished 17:11:12 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Where do we stand? How far are we from the working draft? 17:11:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: I have already added most of the semantic conditions. 17:11:42 <bmotik> m_schnei: There is some editorial work and some open issues. 17:11:49 <bmotik> m_schnei: The import question is open. 17:12:11 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Can you produce a single document by the F2F? 17:12:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: The present document can't be turned into a working draft by the F2F -- not enough time. 17:12:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: It would be great to have a document ready for review by 3F3F. 17:12:56 <bmotik> m_schnei: I hope so. 17:13:18 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: ACTION-157: I have a response from Judy Brewer 17:13:41 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: ACTION-157 gets postponed 17:13:59 <bmotik> bijan: I could take it around to Robert Stevens 17:14:10 <ivan> bijan++ 17:14:14 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: That would be very good 17:14:31 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Please add an action for that 17:14:44 <bijan> ACTION on Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens 17:14:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on 17:14:52 <bijan> ACTION: Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens 17:14:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-07-23]. 17:14:53 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Uli, what is the status on the top/bottom roles? 17:14:57 <bmotik> uli: The action is done 17:15:09 <bijan> He's supposed to send email about it 17:15:33 <bmotik> bmotik: I have already added these roles to the document 17:15:41 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Just send an e-mail documenting it 17:16:03 <bmotik> Topic: Proposals to resolve issues 17:17:22 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn 17:17:28 <ewallace> +1 17:17:29 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI) 17:17:30 <alan_ruttenberg> +1 17:17:32 <bijan> +1 17:17:33 <pfps> +inf 17:17:34 <bmotik> bmotik: +1 17:17:34 <ivan> +1 17:17:35 <IanH_> +1 17:17:35 <bijan> +1 17:17:36 <Zhe> +1 17:17:38 <uli> +1 17:17:39 <Achille> +1 17:17:40 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:17:46 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn 17:18:15 <bmotik> Topic: Proposals to resovle issues 17:18:59 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Ian, could you tell us how to resolve ISSUE-67? 17:19:54 <bmotik> ianh: We already decided to use owl:Axiom instead of rdf:Statement 17:20:15 <bmotik> ianh: There has been no discussion for a long time, so it seems to me that the issue has been resolved. 17:20:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: My statement that "there is no problem" referred to something else 17:21:02 <bmotik> m_schnei: This is a question that I can't decide and I asked people at FZI 17:21:12 <bmotik> m_schnei: RDF people dislike reification 17:21:39 <bmotik> m_schnei: Feedback from FZI: There was noone in favor of reification; a few people said "either way"; a few people were against 17:21:52 <bmotik> m_schnei: My proposal is to use a shadow vocabulary 17:22:22 <bmotik> ianh: I don't have a problem with that 17:22:45 <bmotik> ianh: I don't think it is reasonable to object to resolving issues by arguments of the sort "I don't quite like it...because?" 17:22:57 <bmotik> ianh: Shadow vocabulary seems fine 17:23:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Bijan, have you got a general comment? 17:24:01 <bmotik> bparsia: I wanted to ask Michael about his polling methodology 17:24:20 <bmotik> bparsia: We introduced vocabulary for property punning which gives additional functionality 17:24:35 <bmotik> bparsia: We now need to introduce new vocabulary for no new functionality 17:24:58 <bmotik> Zhe: I wanted to ask whether the base triples should be included into serialization? 17:25:11 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: This is a separate issue; should go on the Issues list 17:25:35 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I don't think it is good to rule out the RDF shorthand 17:26:07 <bmotik> ianh: Let's just use the shadow vocabulary and be done with it. 17:26:15 <bmotik> ianh: Is there any reason not to do that? 17:26:53 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary 17:26:59 <ewallace> +1 17:27:00 <IanH_> +1 17:27:01 <bmotik> bmotik: +1 17:27:03 <JeffP> +0 17:27:05 <alan_ruttenberg> -0 17:27:06 <Achille> 0 17:27:20 <uli> 0 17:27:21 <ratnesh> 0 17:27:24 <pfps> 0 17:27:24 <ivan> 0 17:27:26 <Zhe> 0 17:27:30 <bijan> -0.00001 17:27:32 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:27:33 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI) 17:27:45 <bijan> I don't like it, but I'm broken on this so don't care :) 17:27:46 <m_schnei> sorry, my line broke down 17:27:54 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary 17:28:13 <bmotik> bmotik: We'll add owl:subject, owl:object, and owl:predicate 17:28:32 <bmotik> bmotik: I'll change the spec accordingly 17:28:58 <bmotik> Topic: The state of OWL-R and OWL-R DL/Full unification 17:30:12 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: There is a proposal from Boris 17:30:36 <bmotik> m_schnei: There is a proposal from Boris, but I don't think I understand it 17:30:55 <bmotik> m_schnei: As far as I understand, all the triple rules will remain 17:31:04 <bmotik> m_schnei: Is this still true? 17:31:06 <bmotik> bmotik: yes 17:31:27 <bmotik> m_schnei: How do I understand on the OWL-R DL side? 17:31:42 <bmotik> m_schnei: Until now, there were two parallel specification of two langauges. 17:31:57 <bmotik> m_schnei: These two languages had not much in common 17:32:46 <bmotik> m_schnei: Is it that we'd need to parse the triples, check the syntax, and if that's accepted, then one goes to the semantics document? 17:33:47 <bmotik> bmotik: currently, we have two languages which are different 17:33:55 <bmotik> bmotik: this is undesirable 17:34:18 <bmotik> bmotik: the ideal situation would be to define the profiles in exactly the same way 17:34:29 <bmotik> bmotik: that is, as syntactic fragments of OWL 2 17:35:11 <bmotik> bmotik: an RDF graph falls within any of the fragments if it corresponfs to an ontology in the functional syntax according to the RDF mapping 17:35:25 <bmotik> bmotik: the rules in OWL-R could be used directly in an implementation 17:35:35 <bmotik> bmotik: no need to look at the OWl Full semantics 17:35:48 <bmotik> bmotik: then, we would unify the language 17:35:59 <bmotik> bmotik: Ivan has raised some objections 17:36:13 <bmotik> bmotik: what if a graph does not fall within OWL-R 17:36:28 <bmotik> bmotik: in my opinion, the user should be warned 17:36:40 <bmotik> bmotik: but still the rules could be fired 17:36:57 <bmotik> bmotik: but not with the guarantees that you would have within OWL-R 17:37:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: I have no objection to this 17:37:31 <bmotik> bmotik: an implementation could also apply the rules to ontologies that do not fall within OWL-R 17:37:50 <bmotik> m_schnei: The question for me is what is the DL semantics of ... 17:38:04 <bmotik> m_schnei: The current rule set has subproperty chains 17:38:21 <bmotik> m_schnei: You need to support subproperty chains 17:38:35 <bmotik> bmotik: we do support subproperty chains 17:38:39 <bmotik> bmotik: I thing you are wrong 17:38:49 <bmotik> m_schnei: I'll check 17:39:19 <bmotik> bmotik: OWL-R DL mimicks everything that is in OWL-R Full 17:39:42 <bmotik> bmotik: both OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full have been guided to allow for rule-based implementations 17:39:58 <bmotik> bmotik: the intention was the same for both 17:40:19 <bmotik> bmotik: they both should support the same, and if not it is a bug 17:40:49 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Could Zhe or Ivan say something? 17:40:58 <bmotik> ivan: I'll try to summarize the discussion 17:41:18 <bmotik> ivan: I understand the whole mechanism that Boris has descirbed 17:41:28 <bmotik> ivan: The problem is the marketing side, rather than the technical side 17:41:55 <bmotik> ivan: If we do this way, then RDF users and implementors use a clear possibility to reference something that is clearly standardized 17:42:49 <bmotik> ivan: The problem is that there are "almost" OWL-DL graphs, that can be managed by the rules 17:43:26 <bmotik> ivan: I don't care whether you call this a "Profile"; however, we need a clear reference 17:43:33 <alan_ruttenberg> two statements worth verification : "these are two very different languages" "there are no issues with the list vocabulary and the rules" 17:43:42 <bmotik> bmotik: it is a fair summary 17:44:03 <bmotik> Zhe: I don't have too much new stuff to say 17:44:11 <bmotik> Zhe: I'm happy with the spec as it is 17:44:30 <bmotik> Zhe: But I can see that the unification might be good 17:44:52 <bmotik> Zhe: I tend to agree that we need some name from a markeeting perspective 17:45:14 <Achille> +1 for ivan 17:45:23 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Michael said that these are two different langauges; Zhe, is this your sentiment as well? 17:45:31 <bmotik> Zhe: I don't see them as totally different languages 17:45:56 <bmotik> ianh: I was quite surprised ot hear Ivan come up with the marketing argument 17:46:14 <bmotik> ianh: The current situation actually seems pretty bad from an RDF implementation point of view 17:46:32 <bmotik> ianh: I would imagine that many of the existing implementations basically try to implement as much of OWL Full 17:46:36 <m_schnei> I remember that I originally saw two *very* different languages, having different language constructs, but this might have changed over time 17:46:46 <bmotik> ianh: These implementations would become invalid OWL_R/RDF implementations 17:46:56 <pfps> +1 to Ian's comment 17:47:03 <bmotik> ianh: You would not be allowed to add additional rules, as you would become unsound 17:47:34 <bmotik> ianh: If we went with the current proposal, all existing rule-based implementations could say that they are valid OWL-R implementations 17:47:43 <bmotik> ianh: This seems a big advantage for the DL community 17:48:00 <bmotik> ianh: The name that people have for describing their system is "OWL-R". 17:48:07 <bmotik> ianh: What is OWL-R? It is a fragment of OWL-Full. 17:48:23 <bmotik> ianh: I think that people prefer the current situation because they don't understand all the consequences of the current spec. 17:48:43 <bmotik> ivan: The vendos usually something as PDFS++, OWL-Prime... 17:48:54 <bmotik> ivan: All of the implementors implement subset of the current OWL-R. 17:49:13 <bmotik> ivan: The message I got from people is that they'd like to say whatever they implemented is a standard 17:49:56 <bmotik> ivan: The problem is that there would be several OWL-R graphs that OWL-R implementations would not accept 17:50:26 <bmotik> ianh: Ivan, you said that most people implement a subset of these rules; but then, they are not OWL-R reasoners 17:50:33 <bmotik> ivan: Yes, but they want a standard 17:50:46 <bmotik> ianh: Most people implemented a superset, but then, they are not a standard 17:51:10 <m_schnei> since owl R has sub property chains, i very much doubt that any triple rule implementation is a superset of owl r 17:51:14 <bmotik> ianh: Implementors usually want to implement more 17:51:30 <bmotik> ianh: If we changed their spec, this would prevent people from implementing more 17:51:52 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Suppose you add a rule to OWL-R that is unsound w.r.t. OWL Full 17:52:37 <Zhe> which rule? 17:52:07 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Would that be considered OWL-R conformant? 17:52:24 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: The current spec is permissive in the sense that anything would be OWL-R comformant 17:53:26 <bmotik> ianh: You would add as many rules as you like 17:53:44 <bmotik> bparsia: I am not as convinced by the marketing argument 17:54:06 <bmotik> bparsia: It is imporant to focus on a subset where we can really understand what the functionality is 17:54:28 <bmotik> bparsia: We should allow people to do extensions 17:54:55 <bmotik> bparsia: It is important for the users to understand what each construct means in terms of the language 17:55:28 <bmotik> bcuencagrau: If we do this as proposed currently, you need to support at least the specified rules 17:55:54 <bmotik> bcuencagrau: You could add as much as you want, you would not any semantic guarantees, but you can add it it the users really need it 17:56:33 <bmotik> ivan: I don't understand how this all issue of extensions came into the discussions. 17:57:05 <bmotik> ivan: According to the planned spec, there will be a set of rules, and if I just implement this set of rules and apply it to the set of graphs, then I implement not exactly OWL-R but a bit more 17:57:06 <bijan> More than OWL-R is an extension yes? 17:57:10 <bmotik> ivan: This is what bothers me 17:57:23 <bmotik> ivan: I'd like to be able to say to the world what exaxctly I'm implementing 17:57:25 <bijan> We have a nice syntactic criterion...you handle what's in by the parser 17:57:47 <bmotik> ivan: I would like to signal the fact that I'm accepting more than OWL-R graphs 17:58:17 <bmotik> m_schnei: If a reasoner produces inferences that are not entailed by the languages, then the reasoner is unsoud 17:58:28 <bmotik> m_schnei: If a reasoner produces more than OWL-R, then the reasoner is unsound 17:58:37 <IanH_> NOT TRUE -- because this only happens for graphs that are *outside* the syntactic fragment 17:59:02 <IanH_> Such reasoners are SOUND for OWL-R 17:58:57 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We should resume the discussion next week 17:59:12 <bmotik> Topic: Normative datatypes 18:00:04 <pfps> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html 18:00:35 <bmotik> bmotik: proposal for datatypes 18:00:49 <bmotik> bmotik: we would have numbers^+ 18:01:04 <bmotik> bmotik: which contains the reals plus +inf, -inf, etc. 18:01:27 <bmotik> bmotik: then we would have the `numbers', which would contain the reals 18:02:51 <bmotik> bmotik: implementers discretion as to how many decimal digits to be supported 18:02:27 <pfps> I think that Boris means "minimally conforming" as in the XML Schema spec 18:01:37 <bmotik> bmotik: scribe lost 18:02:48 <pfps> This is all in the message, so I don't think that Bernardo needs to scribe everything. 18:02:59 <bijan> There's an email about all this 18:03:28 <IanH_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html 18:04:25 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Evan, you had some question about the floats? 18:04:37 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Could you comment on that? 18:04:49 <bmotik> evan: Are computational effects going to cause problems? 18:05:09 <bmotik> evan: Will be get ropunding problems? 18:05:59 <alan_ruttenberg> 1) Can you use float constants to specify real facets? 18:06:10 <rob> "0.1"^^xsd.float != "0.1"^^xsd:decimal 18:06:24 <alan_ruttenberg> 2) Any reason not to have base64binary with octet value space? 18:06:32 <bmotik> bmotik: every constant will have a precise interpretation 18:06:44 <bmotik> bmotik: floats will be interpreted as in the IEEE spec 18:07:13 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: You could use a float contant to specify a facet on owl:real? 18:07:18 <bmotik> bmotik: Yes, no problem. 18:07:47 <bmotik> bmotik: every constant just maps to one value 18:07:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: You couldn't get more precision by using extra digits? 18:08:00 <bmotik> bmotik: No, there is no problem. 18:08:20 <bmotik> bmotik: we could have it as a synonym 18:08:30 <bmotik> bmotik: value spaces will be synonyms 18:08:30 <bmotik> bmotik: value spaces will be synonyms 18:08:44 <bmotik> bmotik: I didn't include it for redundancy 18:09:04 <bmotik> Zhe: In your proposal, would the value spaces of xsd:float and xsd:double be disjoint? 18:09:08 <bmotik> bmotik: no 18:09:35 <bmotik> bmotik: that is Jena's problem 18:09:36 <alan_ruttenberg> in that case they map to same value 18:10:14 <ewallace> value comparison was exactly my issue 18:12:19 <alan_ruttenberg> comparison of .1d, .1f has different result in real space then when promoting to double 18:09:45 <bmotik> bmotik: you are comparing a double with a float 18:10:00 <bmotik> bmotik: that could be implemented correctly 18:10:31 <bmotik> bmotik: the problem is not in the disjointness 18:11:11 <bmotik> bmotik: java would map 0.1 float into a 32bit representation 18:11:27 <bmotik> bmotik: it would map 0.1 double into a different number 18:11:51 <bmotik> bmotik: it doesn't seem to be a SPARQL problem 18:12:03 <bmotik> bmotik: probably it is an RDF problem 18:13:31 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I think that there might be a point on the comparison of numbers 18:14:13 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I believe that rounding of a float to a double and then comparing it to a double is not going to give you the same thing as compariong values in the value space 18:14:54 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We are promoting to owl:number, so implementations can't use IEEE semantics 18:15:19 <bmotik> achille: We should stay compatible with XML Schema 18:15:44 <bmotik> achille: Why are we departing from XML Schema? 18:16:02 <bmotik> uli: I hear all these concerns about compatibility. 18:16:24 <bmotik> uli: I'm sure that we'll be compatible with XML Schema; in fact, we won't be able to tell the difference 18:16:55 <bmotik> bmotik: XML Schema has benn designed for different purpuse 18:17:06 <bmotik> bmotik: in OWL you can quantify over values 18:17:31 <bmotik> bmotik: in XML Schema it is pointless whether a value space is continuous or not 18:17:47 <bmotik> bmotik: in OWL we need to define behavior of data ranges during reasoning 18:17:45 <Achille> but they also care about comparisons 18:17:58 <bmotik> bmotik: and hence go beyond XML Schema 18:18:31 <bmotik> bmotik: in OWL you can distinguish whether the value space is discreet or continuos 18:18:32 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We are almost out of time 18:18:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We should see which areas of the proposal are uncontentious 18:19:01 <bmotik> ivan: I had two points 18:19:24 <bmotik> bmotik: I don't know 18:19:25 <alan_ruttenberg> it does say that 18:19:27 <pfps> in XML schema double and float have disjoint values spaces 18:19:37 <rob> they are colored differently, but defined mathematically 18:19:45 <alan_ruttenberg> but they say that implementations can do cross comparisons 18:19:46 <bmotik> ivan: Have you checked what XML Schema says about value spaces? 18:20:30 <bmotik> bparsia: 1.0 spec says that the value spaces are disjoint. 1.1 says that implementations can interpret this as they want 18:20:35 <alan_ruttenberg> SPARQL would be incomplete wrt to OWL. no surprise 18:20:36 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0223.html 18:21:04 <bmotik> ivan: The guys who looked at the internationalize string datatype described an alternative. 18:21:34 <bmotik> ivan: Essentially, one wants ot define a whole family of datatypes by saying that each datatype would be identified by a different URI. 18:21:40 <bmotik> ivan: what is the relationship? 18:21:42 <bijan> That doesn't seem workable 18:22:33 <bmotik> Achille: I still think that XML Shema is a standard. There is clearly the need for comparing datatypes from different registries. 18:23:00 <bmotik> Achille: Applications might be broken if we depart on this 18:23:18 <Zhe> +1 to Achille 18:23:26 <bmotik> bparsia: I've been on both sides of the disjointness issue 18:23:53 <bmotik> bparsia: Reasoners differ on this 18:23:57 <alan_ruttenberg> ditto xfunction, xquery 18:24:06 <rob> all Cerebra's users were sensitive to it 18:24:07 <bmotik> bparsia: It seems to me that people are not sensitive to this 18:24:12 <rob> it was reported as a bug several times 18:24:17 <alan_ruttenberg> We can cite this email stream 18:24:30 <bmotik> bparsia: I was shocked that the XML Schema guys thought there was no problem in making them disjoint 18:24:54 <bmotik> bparsia: I've switched from disjointness to believeing that people don't care that much about disjointness 18:25:05 <bmotik> bparsia: We'll have to make a pick, and we'll have to pick something 18:25:05 <Achille> We have people we have implemented it in IBM stack 18:25:19 <pfps> I seem to remember that the disjointness in XML Schema Datatypes 1.0 was in response to an email message that I sent pointing out that, at the time, the XML Schema documents clearly stated that xsd:float and xsd:integer did *not* have disjoint value spaces. 18:25:33 <Achille> I will like to talk to them about their position on this issue 18:26:10 <pfps> That's not an implementation *restriction*! 18:25:32 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I'll try to test agreement 18:25:44 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: owl:number(Plus) seems like a good idea 18:25:59 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I've heard questions from implementors regarding rationals 18:26:10 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: The restrictions on integers seem uncontroversial 18:26:18 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Dittoxsd:decimal 18:26:26 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Floats seem controversial 18:26:37 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We need coordination regarding strings 18:27:07 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: The empty language tag seem to address some of the problems of previous proposals 18:27:22 <bmotik> alan: boolean, hexDecimal seem OK 18:27:31 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Date/time need more discussion 18:27:43 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: It seems to me that we've made quite a lot of progress 18:28:05 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: There are not as many open issues 18:28:07 <bmotik> Topic: Other business 18:28:32 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Should we have a meeting next week? 18:28:38 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Ian and I think yes. 18:28:30 <pfps> +1 to meet next week