IRC log of rif on 2009-04-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:02:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
13:02:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:02:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, this is rif
13:02:26 [Zakim]
ChrisW, I see SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rif".
13:02:42 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
13:02:42 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 62 minutes ago
13:03:19 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF F2F13
13:03:26 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
13:03:36 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty and Christ de Sainte-Marie
13:03:39 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
13:04:14 [ChrisW]
13:05:40 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
13:05:48 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
13:06:59 [AxelPolleres]
13:07:14 [AxelPolleres]
(and thread following)
13:08:12 [Zakim]
SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has now started
13:08:14 [AxelPolleres]
In the light of the new information that owl:real is disjoint from float and double, I'd prefer to drop owl:real as a datatype in RIF.
13:08:18 [Zakim]
13:14:39 [ChrisW]
13:14:40 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
13:16:19 [Zakim]
13:17:29 [ChrisW]
dave, can you hear?
13:17:29 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
13:17:42 [cke]
cke has joined #rif
13:17:48 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
13:17:55 [cke]
scribe: cke
13:17:57 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
13:17:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DaveReynolds, MIT-G631
13:18:35 [ChrisW]
zaim, MIT-G631 contains ChrisW, csma, sandro, Harold, mkifer, AdrianP, cke, AxelPolleres, josb, GaryHallmark, StellaMitchell
13:19:22 [cke]
Discussion about this morning's agenda
13:19:51 [cke]
quick resolutions - lists - breakout sessions, etc.
13:20:35 [csma]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-97 (earlier resolution removed its object).
13:20:47 [ChrisW]
13:20:50 [ChrisW]
13:20:50 [trackbot]
ISSUE-97 -- Shoudl Core safeness be restricted to Eiter-Schindlauer safeness -- CLOSED
13:20:50 [trackbot]
13:21:34 [cke]
chris: we closed it but not resolve explicitely
13:21:46 [csma]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-97 (earlier resolution removed its object).
13:22:01 [cke]
next one
13:22:12 [csma]
PROPOSED: accept the minutes of April 7
13:22:22 [ChrisW]
13:22:40 [csma]
RESOLVED: : accept the minutes of April 7
13:22:45 [cke]
next one
13:23:34 [csma]
PROPOSED: remove owl:real from RIF primitive data types.
13:24:31 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
13:24:31 [RRSAgent]
13:25:19 [sandro]
Axel: Bijan and the owl Wiki confirm that owl:real is disjoint from float and double.
13:26:01 [cke]
real subsumes rational, which subsumes decimal
13:26:13 [csma]
(See Axel's email and following thread:
13:26:31 [csma]
13:27:18 [DaveReynolds]
13:27:29 [DaveReynolds]
13:27:45 [sandro]
sandro: We should have isNumeric
13:27:47 [cke]
sandro: I see no reason to keep owl:real
13:28:16 [cke]
chris: what's the disadvantage? Why drop?
13:28:52 [cke]
axel: it's confusing. For example ...
13:29:18 [DaveReynolds]
Bijan said: "Of course, this would make owl:real harmless to support in RIF, perhaps. [snip] So I don't think it really matters one way or the other, technically. Socially, I think it helps not to have it since having things which are idle (when they are quite significant in other contexts) can be confusing."
13:32:33 [csma]
owl:real is the only reference to the owl namespace in RIF
13:32:37 [cke]
chris: Hierarchy is: real - rational - decimal, no further subclasses
13:33:30 [csma]
PROPOSED: drop owl:real from RIF primitive data types.
13:33:34 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
13:33:47 [DaveReynolds]
13:33:52 [AxelPolleres]
13:33:53 [AdrianP]
13:33:55 [sandro]
13:33:56 [MichaelKifer]
13:34:00 [ChrisW]
0 see no harm in keeping it
13:34:00 [Harold]
13:34:01 [GaryHallmark]
13:34:14 [csma]
RESOLVED: drop owl:real from RIF primitive data types.
13:34:51 [cke]
Now on the lists
13:35:05 [ChrisW]
13:36:32 [cke]
chris: we agree on the semantics of lists, we agree that the semantics can be described, ...
13:37:18 [csma]
PROPOSED: have lists in Core, as described in, with the builtins listed there.
13:38:23 [sandro]
(Some remaining List issues: (1) mapping to/from RDF lists and sequences, (2) indexing )
13:39:46 [sandro]
13:39:56 [cke]
csma: some details need to be refined.
13:40:20 [johnhall]
johnhall has joined #rif
13:40:50 [sandro]
Other remaining List issue: can the list constructor syntactically include external or variable terms?
13:41:03 [sandro]
(ie what does ground list really mean)
13:41:19 [cke]
jos: do we keep only grounded lists in Core?, we chose option 1
13:41:43 [csma]
PROPOSED: have lists, as described in, with the builtins listed there (with only immutable ground lists in Core, per previous resolution). Closing ISSUE-
13:42:19 [sandro]
13:42:19 [trackbot]
ISSUE-95 -- Does RIF need a primitive data type (and associated builtins) for lists? -- OPEN
13:42:19 [trackbot]
13:42:24 [csma]
PROPOSED: have lists in BLD, as described in, with the builtins listed there (with only immutable ground lists in Core, per previous resolution). Closing ISSUE-95
13:42:44 [GaryHallmark]
13:42:59 [ChrisW]
13:43:00 [cke]
13:43:08 [sandro]
noting that there are still several design issues about lists not yet resolved.
13:43:08 [AdrianP]
13:43:08 [Harold]
13:43:10 [sandro]
13:43:12 [DaveReynolds]
13:43:17 [MichaelKifer]
13:43:34 [AxelPolleres]
13:43:48 [csma]
RESOLVED: have lists in BLD, as described in, with the builtins listed there (with only immutable ground lists in Core, per previous resolution). Closing ISSUE-95.
13:44:00 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make records public
13:44:28 [cke]
csma: now need to solve design, editorial issues
13:44:48 [AdrianP]
decision on list built-ins was a quick majority vote - no thorough technical reasons for the current selection
13:46:24 [csma]
ACTION: michael to add the syntax and semantics of lists to BLD
13:46:24 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael
13:46:24 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msintek, mkifer, merdmann)
13:46:36 [cke]
we also need to change the schemas in Core, BLD and PRD
13:46:45 [csma]
ACTION: mkifer to add the syntax and semantics of lists to BLD
13:46:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-759 - Add the syntax and semantics of lists to BLD [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-04-24].
13:47:20 [csma]
action: Sandro to add the list builtins in DTB
13:47:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-760 - Add the list builtins in DTB [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-04-24].
13:47:58 [csma]
ACTION: Adrian to add the restriction on list in Core
13:47:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-761 - Add the restriction on list in Core [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-04-24].
13:48:38 [csma]
Action: Harold amends the XML schema for Core.
13:48:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-762 - Amends the XML schema for Core. [on Harold Boley - due 2009-04-24].
13:49:15 [csma]
ACTION: Gary add lists to PRD.
13:49:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-763 - Add lists to PRD. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-24].
13:49:48 [cke]
list of issues now
13:50:11 [ChrisW]
action: chris to close issue-95
13:50:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-764 - Close issue-95 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-24].
13:50:57 [cke]
Issues are 98, 77, etc.
13:52:04 [cke]
Issue 98: update all specs to reference xml scema datatype 1.1
13:53:57 [cke]
discussion about how wiki can support references to XML, XML data types
13:54:39 [cke]
chris: we still have to update the documents to use datatypes 1.1
13:57:55 [csma]
Action: sandro to make the references be to XML schema 1.1 in all RIF documents
13:57:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-765 - Make the references be to XML schema 1.1 in all RIF documents [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-04-24].
13:58:26 [csma]
PROPOSED: Close issue-98, based on action 765.
13:58:37 [ChrisW]
13:58:40 [DaveReynolds]
13:58:43 [AdrianP]
13:59:10 [Harold]
13:59:39 [cke]
axel: xpath function still references datatypes 1.0. Is this a problem?
14:00:01 [AxelPolleres]
0 unclear what the implication with XPath F&O is
14:00:02 [cke]
sandro: will finf out later
14:00:12 [sandro]
sandro: We could ask XS or XP folks ...
14:00:13 [ChrisW]
action: Chris to close issue-98
14:00:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-766 - Close issue-98 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-24].
14:00:14 [sandro]
14:00:15 [sandro]
14:00:36 [csma]
RESOLVED: Close issue-98, based on action 765.
14:01:22 [cke]
next: breakout sessions
14:02:36 [cke]
csma: editors should meet, they can plan the work, then we' ll see
14:05:05 [csma]
Topic: issue 37
14:05:49 [cke]
combination of RIF and XML data, and/or XML schemas
14:06:05 [csma]
14:06:24 [cke]
there are 2 strawman proposal in the wiki
14:07:33 [cke]
csma: one for combining RIF with XML schemas, other: same thing, roughly
14:08:57 [cke]
First: map frames to XML instance, second: more schema related, linked to the style
14:09:27 [cke]
First: possible to use the XML data without schema, for instance
14:10:21 [cke]
Second: you need a schema, it's necessary. The ref to data is through the schema
14:11:06 [cke]
csma: the second option should address the only OO model, while mine is more general
14:11:23 [cke]
csma: but they are not incompatibles, we can keep them, or mix the two
14:11:37 [cke]
sandro: can you show some examples?
14:12:43 [cke]
csma: look at the example if shiporder fragment
14:13:04 [cke]
now look at the rule
14:14:48 [cke]
csma: the doc should be updated with namespaces qualifications
14:22:28 [cke]
csma: the RIf rules should be the same regardless the source of data, which can be XML, OWL, etc.
14:22:47 [cke]
csma: we just have to change the import section, rules will be portable
14:23:27 [cke]
csma: it remains a few minor issues: attribute, namespace, etc.
14:24:25 [cke]
the other approach is to rely on the xml schemas
14:27:53 [AdrianP]
could be generalized to a general approach to allow constructive queries on external data sources, e.g. SPARQL, SQL, XPATH, XQUERY
14:30:05 [cke]
Gary's proposal starts with a schema
14:32:27 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
14:32:36 [cke]
Expressions using some kind of XPath lead to values
14:33:00 [cke]
it's very straight
14:35:38 [sandro]
sandro: you could implement this as a pre-processor, turning an XML document, with or without a schema, into a RIF document consisting of just frame assertions.
14:36:19 [cke]
But we need typing information. We need the XML schema at the end, otherwise PRD engines cannot work
14:37:19 [sandro]
sandro: when you import from some URI, you get a frame like (that_url) [ rif:root-element -> the_root_element ]
14:39:24 [sandro]
sandro: this is like SWC, orthogonal to RIF, but defines a way to use RIF with XML data.
14:39:56 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
14:42:06 [cke]
mk: Can you put rif:IRI everywhere? Issue with @attribute?
14:43:56 [sandro]
sandro: they are rif:iri's that happen to kind of look like xpath expressions.
14:44:49 [cke]
csma: the expression are not xpath based, even they appear to resemble to xpath
14:47:09 [sandro]
poll: -1 don't publish anything on this in the next few months; 0 don't care; +1 publish a WD on this soon
14:47:22 [GaryHallmark]
14:47:24 [sandro]
14:47:28 [csma]
14:47:29 [AxelPolleres]
14:47:36 [Harold]
14:47:44 [MichaelKifer]
14:47:46 [AdrianP]
14:47:48 [cke]
+1 (but I would like to refine the technical solution)
14:47:49 [josb]
14:48:01 [DaveReynolds]
14:48:17 [ChrisW]
14:48:18 [GaryHallmark]
I think we can do this with no new syntax except an import statement
14:48:58 [josb]
+1 to no new syntax
14:49:16 [csma]
+1 to no new syntax
14:49:20 [sandro]
break until 11:10
14:49:26 [csma]
14:49:31 [cke]
break till 11:10
14:49:33 [Zakim]
14:49:51 [GaryHallmark]
e.g. import (myDoc) generates a _myDoc[rif:root->x] frame that points to the root element from myDoc
14:58:20 [sandro]
sandro and gary chatting --- (1) PSVI / type information; without it you need to cast in your rules -- import needs a flag about whether you'll get all strings or typed values;
14:58:56 [sandro]
--- (2) ordering information -- do you get multiple values and lose the ordering, or do you get rif:Lists for everything? that's another flag on import.
14:59:39 [sandro]
--- (3) what about striping? gary says we can probably just assuming the element names are all property names -- it's like an OO x.y.z. expression; sandro says yeah, that might work, maybe.
15:03:07 [sandro]
--- (4) id/idref
15:14:53 [csma]
Topic: FLD
15:14:58 [Zakim]
15:14:59 [Zakim]
SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended
15:15:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were DaveReynolds, MIT-G631
15:15:07 [csma]
scribe: John Hall
15:15:16 [csma]
scribenick: johnhall
15:15:21 [johnhall]
Michael: organized FLD for more dialects
15:15:37 [johnhall]
Michael: added aggregates and modules
15:15:59 [johnhall]
Michael: now need to add lists and complete the XML work
15:16:20 [johnhall]
ChrisW: same as BLD
15:16:25 [johnhall]
Michael: yes
15:16:52 [johnhall]
Michael: XML schema syntax, now harder
15:17:27 [johnhall]
Chris: to account for generalized quntifiers
15:18:01 [johnhall]
Michael: feedback from last draft - from mail archives
15:19:06 [johnhall]
josb: last draft July 2008
15:20:08 [johnhall]
ChrisW: lists and XML syntax - all that needs to be done
15:20:41 [johnhall]
ChrisW: imports - specialization of modules
15:20:48 [johnhall]
Michael: didn't do
15:21:24 [johnhall]
Michael: How to proceed with other dialects?
15:21:37 [johnhall]
csma: another agenda item
15:21:54 [johnhall]
ChrisW: for FLD to pass to rec we need implementations
15:22:31 [johnhall]
ChrisW: individuals should work on dialects and submit as member contributions
15:22:53 [johnhall]
Michael: cumbersome
15:23:06 [johnhall]
Sandro: costs a lot to keep a group running
15:24:30 [johnhall]
Sandro: regardless of whether WG continues with FLD, we need people to implement and report back
15:25:11 [johnhall]
Harold: we need 2 implementations of FLD. We have one - what could be the other?
15:26:22 [johnhall]
ChrisW: in order for FLD to reach rec, other implementations don't need to standards
15:27:01 [csma]
Topic: last call plan
15:27:30 [johnhall]
ChrisW: wiki page called 'Last Call Plans'
15:27:41 [csma]
15:28:03 [johnhall]
ChrisW: most important - 6 documents for last call
15:28:22 [johnhall]
... are we going to release BLD with a new last call?
15:28:46 [johnhall]
... adding lists seems significant
15:29:04 [johnhall]
josb: predicates with multiple arities
15:29:23 [johnhall]
ChrisW: big impact on implementations
15:29:40 [johnhall]
Sandro: need to give people a chance to object
15:29:52 [johnhall]
ChrisW: second last call for BLD?
15:31:00 [johnhall]
csma: restrict scope of comments to just the concerns here
15:33:01 [johnhall]
Sandro: WG is not gong to make changes except in response to external input
15:33:28 [sandro]
sandro: While I think the bulk of the WG wants NAUs gone, I don't think it's appropriate for us be making changes like that now.
15:34:14 [johnhall]
ChrisW: plan for future is to have enough meetings to deal with external input
15:34:42 [johnhall]
Harold: risk of losing commitment from WG members' employers
15:35:20 [johnhall]
Sandro: all want to get to rec
15:36:12 [johnhall]
ChrisW: restrict BLD comment to just the changes since last 'last call'?
15:36:27 [Harold]
15:36:48 [johnhall]
csma: difficult to manage
15:37:01 [johnhall]
Michael: list of changes to BLD
15:37:56 [johnhall]
Harold: look at 'last-call' process. What are we allowed to do next?
15:38:30 [johnhall]
Michael: we say we are acting in good faith and must provide help to implementers
15:39:26 [johnhall]
ChrisW: significant BLD changes are only arities and lists
15:39:45 [johnhall]
Sandro: easier to manage of everything foes to last call
15:40:22 [johnhall]
josb: How can you have a BLD implementation without DTB?
15:42:06 [johnhall]
Harold: risk of what might come in
15:42:24 [johnhall]
csma: if there is a show-stopper, we need to know
15:43:07 [johnhall]
ChrisW: looking in detail at the list, less concerned about going to last call
15:43:27 [johnhall]
csma: would prefer to go with all as a whole
15:44:34 [johnhall]
Sandro: we can include a paragraph about a second last call, and why it might be needed
15:45:01 [sandro]
sandro: We'll explain in the Second Last Call paragraph that the biggest changes were the inclusion of lists and allowing multiple arity symbols, but that the main reason for LC2 is just to keep all of RIF in sync.
15:45:51 [johnhall]
Michael: if we don't do LC2
15:46:25 [johnhall]
Sandro: options are LC2, candidate recommendation, member contribution
15:47:21 [johnhall]
... downplay the different specs, present RIF as one thing
15:48:25 [sandro]
kifer: LC2 --- give people a chance to comment on rif-as-a-whole.
15:48:34 [johnhall]
Michael: say that we want to give people a chance to comment on RIF as a whole
15:48:59 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Our next publication of BLD will be as a second Last Call
15:49:42 [sandro]
15:49:45 [johnhall]
15:49:46 [ChrisW]
15:49:46 [MichaelKifer]
15:49:46 [cke]
15:49:48 [sandro]
(it's simpler)
15:49:49 [Harold]
15:49:51 [csma]
15:49:51 [josb]
15:49:52 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:49:54 [AxelPolleres]
15:49:57 [GaryHallmark]
15:49:58 [StellaMitchell]
15:50:01 [AdrianP]
15:50:07 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Our next publication of BLD will be as a second Last Call
15:50:36 [sandro]
note that the same is true for SWC, but it's not controversial
15:51:24 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Our next publication of SWC will be as a second Last Call
15:51:27 [sandro]
15:51:32 [ChrisW]
15:51:33 [josb]
15:51:34 [AdrianP]
15:51:34 [johnhall]
15:51:36 [Harold]
15:51:38 [MichaelKifer]
15:51:38 [csma]
15:51:41 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Our next publication of SWC will be as a second Last Call
15:52:23 [johnhall]
ChrisW: need 2 reviewers for each document
15:52:38 [johnhall]
... everyone does 1, can do more
15:52:59 [sandro]
action: harold review PRD
15:52:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-767 - Review PRD [on Harold Boley - due 2009-04-24].
15:53:09 [johnhall]
csma: editors do not review their own documents
15:53:50 [sandro]
action: cke review Core
15:53:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-768 - Review Core [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-04-24].
15:53:52 [sandro]
action: cke review PRD
15:53:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-769 - Review PRD [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-04-24].
15:54:05 [sandro]
action: jos review Core
15:54:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
15:54:05 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
15:54:08 [sandro]
action: josb review Core
15:54:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-770 - Review Core [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-24].
15:54:14 [sandro]
action: josb review DTB
15:54:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-771 - Review DTB [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-24].
15:54:22 [sandro]
action: axel review swc
15:54:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-772 - Review swc [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-24].
15:54:28 [sandro]
action: axel review BLD
15:54:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-773 - Review BLD [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-24].
15:55:03 [sandro]
action: chris review FLD
15:55:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-774 - Review FLD [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-24].
15:55:27 [sandro]
action: adrian review dtb
15:55:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-775 - Review dtb [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-04-24].
15:55:34 [sandro]
action: csma review bld
15:55:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-776 - Review bld [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-24].
15:55:54 [sandro]
action: josb review prd (lower priority than his other reviews)
15:55:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-777 - Review prd (lower priority than his other reviews) [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-24].
15:56:02 [sandro]
action: stella review FLD
15:56:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-778 - Review FLD [on Stella Mitchell - due 2009-04-24].
15:56:11 [sandro]
action: gary review SWC
15:56:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-779 - Review SWC [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-24].
15:58:38 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on core (from last call page)
15:59:47 [johnhall]
josb: Core - need to deal with some problems on formulas
15:59:57 [johnhall]
... section 2.3 of Core spec
16:00:33 [johnhall]
ChrisW: get rid of second bullet?
16:01:03 [johnhall]
csma: resolution - external can appear everywhere a term can
16:05:11 [johnhall]
ChrisW: nothing at risk in Core
16:09:29 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on BLD
16:10:35 [johnhall]
csma: resolution to modularize schema
16:10:56 [johnhall]
Harold: is already modularized
16:11:23 [johnhall]
... if we have a lot of includes, from experience is harder to maintain
16:11:49 [johnhall]
Gary: there is substantial duplication
16:12:01 [johnhall]
Harold: Core is not stable
16:12:59 [johnhall]
csma: there is a resolutin that Core schema will be included in BLD and PRD
16:13:24 [johnhall]
cke: we need to explain the architecture
16:14:27 [johnhall]
Gary: would be willing to refactor the schema
16:14:47 [ChrisW]
action: gary to refactor BLD schema to import Core (help from cke)
16:14:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-780 - Refactor BLD schema to import Core (help from cke) [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-24].
16:16:38 [johnhall]
csma: why does FLD have a schema - it's not a dialect
16:16:50 [johnhall]
Michael: it's a framework
16:17:29 [johnhall]
ChrisW: copy and edit from BLD?
16:18:03 [johnhall]
... if so, relationships need to me maintained over imports
16:19:01 [johnhall]
16:20:34 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on SWC
16:21:48 [johnhall]
josb: three more actions added
16:22:10 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on DTB
16:24:29 [johnhall]
Axel: need to refine definitions of mapping for all informal built-ins
16:24:51 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on PRD
16:28:04 [johnhall]
csma: four items added
16:28:46 [sandro]
$ echo tag$RANDOM
16:28:46 [sandro]
16:29:11 [Harold]
NmNot could be renamed to Inot (for Inflationary not).
16:29:22 [johnhall]
Adrian: tag for 'pnot'
16:29:52 [AdrianP]
semantics of PRD probably needs to be revisited - see PRD test cases on retract, assert combinations
16:29:57 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on Core
16:30:41 [johnhall]
Harold: ready for review by April 30
16:31:00 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on BLD
16:32:48 [johnhall]
Michael: ready for review April 24, except XML part
16:33:08 [johnhall]
Harold: XML modularization by April 30
16:33:34 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on SWC
16:33:55 [johnhall]
josb: May 4
16:34:35 [ChrisW]
action: josb to write some list test cases
16:34:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-781 - Write some list test cases [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-24].
16:34:55 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on DTB
16:35:33 [johnhall]
Axel: April 30
16:35:45 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on PRD
16:36:08 [johnhall]
csma: April 30
16:36:20 [johnhall]
ChrisW: actions on FLD
16:37:16 [johnhall]
... all documents ready for review by May 4
16:37:26 [johnhall]
... last call vote on May 12
17:14:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif
17:28:15 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
17:29:58 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
17:31:18 [johnhall]
johnhall has joined #rif
17:40:15 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
17:40:43 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
17:41:22 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
17:41:29 [jhallms]
jhallms has joined #rif
17:41:36 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
17:41:41 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
17:41:50 [AxelPolleres]
scribe: Axel Polleres
17:41:59 [AxelPolleres]
scribenick: AxelPolleres
17:42:06 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
17:42:13 [AxelPolleres]
topic: future of the WG
17:42:50 [AxelPolleres]
csma: we talk about the time between and of may and end of november
17:43:04 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
17:43:14 [AxelPolleres]
.... if we have all docs at lc end of may, we are done basically.
17:43:24 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: 3 work items remaining.
17:43:38 [AxelPolleres]
... 1) comments 2) tests 3) xml data
17:43:43 [sandro]
chrisw: three things to do after LC: responding to public comments, test, and xml-data.
17:44:09 [AxelPolleres]
... reduced time committments, no more weekly telecons.
17:44:30 [AxelPolleres]
csma: probably we sshould have monthly, and more as necessary.
17:44:43 [AxelPolleres]
... monthly sync point seems reasonable.
17:45:29 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: possibly adding task forces as we do now with specific topics.
17:45:44 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: we miss one item: implementations.
17:46:58 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: deadline for comments 4 weeks from lc... probably end of june.
17:47:22 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: we probably publish may 19
17:47:35 [AxelPolleres]
... comment deadline june 16
17:47:57 [AxelPolleres]
... depends a lot how many comments we get and how hard they are to implement.
17:48:17 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: what is the cr period?
17:48:28 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: runs as long as you need to get implementations.
17:48:52 [AxelPolleres]
... to some extent we can define ourselves what "implementations" mean.
17:49:16 [AxelPolleres]
... general rules whould be tewo interoperating implementations per dialect.
17:49:39 [AxelPolleres]
jos: means 4 implementations, 2 prd, 2 bld which are interoperable.
17:50:32 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: should we target CR mid july?
17:50:35 [sandro]
LC pub on 19 May, comment deadline 16 June, ...
17:50:44 [AxelPolleres]
csma: that is optimistic.
17:50:49 [sandro]
Optimisitcally, go to CR 15 July
17:51:31 [AxelPolleres]
... announcement must indicate a minimum duration.
17:51:53 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: do we need producers or jsut consumers?
17:52:08 [AxelPolleres]
cke: we should do both.
17:52:33 [AxelPolleres]
josb: what do we need for SWC? somewhat swc defines a bunch of new dialects.
17:54:11 [AxelPolleres]
mk: swc with OWL DL needs a SWRL implementation
17:54:30 [AxelPolleres]
josb: there are implementations of dl safe swrl.
17:54:46 [AxelPolleres]
... someone could make an implementation on top of that.
17:55:04 [AxelPolleres]
... I assume the jena people will do something for Core+RDF?
17:56:02 [AxelPolleres]
axel: depends whether I find someone to write a parser/compiler to dlvhex.
17:56:23 [AxelPolleres]
harold: flora-2?
17:56:51 [AxelPolleres]
mk: I would add a new reader, I guess.
17:57:17 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: you (mk) would expcet do have a BLD implementation?
17:57:29 [AxelPolleres]
mk: also a matter of finding a student.
17:57:34 [cke]
cke has joined #rif
17:58:26 [AxelPolleres]
csma: finding people to implement is time consuming.
17:58:45 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: so, do we need a 1month CR or a 6month CR?
17:58:48 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
17:59:47 [AxelPolleres]
... if we want PR in nov we need CR in oct.
18:00:33 [AxelPolleres]
... oct 1 or oct 15 for CR deadline?
18:00:50 [AxelPolleres]
... to accomodate for management time in between.
18:00:50 [sandro]
October 1 for end of CR?
18:00:57 [sandro]
kifer: I wont be ready by then....
18:01:00 [AxelPolleres]
mk: willl probably not be ready by then.
18:01:34 [sandro]
kifer: I dont have any student to do this right now....
18:02:42 [AxelPolleres]
sanrdo: in terms of all the work with the DTB built-ins.
18:03:03 [AxelPolleres]
... we don't need all BLD require all of DTB.
18:03:12 [Harold]
We may mostly need translators between RIF and the languages of existing engines, rather than brand-new engines.
18:03:32 [AxelPolleres]
axel: what of DTB is in BLD and not in Core?
18:03:38 [sandro]
Implementations need: 2 BLD, 2 DTB, 2 SWC-with-Core, 2-DTB-with-BLD.
18:03:50 [sandro]
kifer: incompete notion of equality....?
18:04:05 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: I meant not all of the built-ins, not "core" in the sense of Core.
18:04:37 [AxelPolleres]
mk: the reason why implementation is at risk because a complete implementation is hard.
18:04:38 [sandro]
(I don't know....)
18:05:05 [AxelPolleres]
mk: i have no idea how far ontoprise will get.
18:05:27 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: we should assign actions to gather implementations.
18:05:43 [AxelPolleres]
... hopefully no later than the end of the year.
18:06:02 [AxelPolleres]
mk: producer is much easier than consumer.
18:06:22 [ChrisW]
action: christian to talk to ontoprise about RIF implementation & timeframe
18:06:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-782 - Talk to ontoprise about RIF implementation & timeframe [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-24].
18:06:23 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: who to contact ontoprise?
18:06:35 [AdrianP]
implementation plans
18:06:36 [AdrianP]
18:06:37 [ChrisW]
action: Chris to talk to Dave about implementation
18:06:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-783 - Talk to Dave about implementation [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-24].
18:06:54 [Harold]
Re Equality we could weaken the requirement on implementors to allow for certain logical incomplete implementations such as those that have only oriented equations.
18:07:16 [ChrisW]
action: christian to talk to Mark Proctor about RIF implementation
18:07:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-784 - Talk to Mark Proctor about RIF implementation [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-24].
18:07:18 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: any other implementations we haven't talked about?
18:08:34 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: planning some BLD implementation, if not all builtins are required.
18:08:35 [ChrisW]
sandro plans an implementation - Oct 1 seems reasonable
18:08:55 [Harold]
18:08:56 [AxelPolleres]
harold: I contacted igor.
18:10:11 [AdrianP]
18:10:24 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: everyboduy fine with the plan?
18:10:43 [AxelPolleres]
csma: w3c tech plenary is nov 1st
18:10:50 [AxelPolleres]
... in santa clara, CA.
18:11:09 [AxelPolleres]
... ac meeting there, around the time we go to CR.
18:11:24 [AxelPolleres]
... I will probably go, a lot of AC Reps there.
18:11:44 [AxelPolleres]
axel: might try to go as well.
18:12:06 [AxelPolleres]
csma: need for a latest f2f before that?
18:12:15 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: don't think so.
18:12:21 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Ask to extend the Working Group by 6 months, through 30 November 2009. We will not plan for any more F2F meetings, and expecting fewer telecons.
18:13:02 [sandro]
18:13:02 [AdrianP]
18:13:10 [ChrisW]
18:13:14 [AxelPolleres]
18:13:18 [csma]
18:13:19 [josb]
18:13:25 [Harold]
+1 (or 9 months :-)
18:13:52 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Ask to extend the Working Group by 6 months, through 30 November 2009. We will not plan for any more F2F meetings, and expecting fewer telecons.
18:14:36 [AxelPolleres]
topic: test cases
18:15:08 [AxelPolleres]
csma: revisit approved ones, volunteers for new ones.
18:16:11 [AxelPolleres]
axel: do we need testcases for all built-ins?
18:17:01 [AxelPolleres]
... would one TC be ok that calls ALL built-ins?
18:17:11 [sandro]
re taxi: <Ralph> they could call a taxi for 3:30 and wait on Vassar outside the Gates entrance or they could walk up to the Marriott and get a taxi from the stand
18:17:26 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: axel to provide an ALL-builtins testcase.
18:17:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-785 - Provide an ALL-builtins testcase. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-24].
18:17:58 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: we need testsuite done mid july.
18:18:19 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: where to start in our review?
18:20:08 [sandro]
Every Core test MUST also work in all PRD and BLD engines.
18:20:18 [AxelPolleres]
discussion whether TCs can be labelled just core
18:21:21 [AxelPolleres]
18:22:22 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: XML is wrong.
18:24:05 [josb]
18:24:20 [AxelPolleres]
jos: according to spec named args are unicodes strings.
18:25:07 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: the testcase should be positive
18:25:51 [AxelPolleres]
I asked already what about a->b->c and strange stuff like that.
18:25:57 [sandro]
the negative test case in the XML would be ANY kind of markup in name. The name is just text.
18:26:34 [AxelPolleres]
csma: that means that this TC is not approved?
18:27:26 [AxelPolleres]
or: "asdasd->asdasd"->"asdasd"
18:27:38 [sandro]
POSITIVE SYNTAX: <Name>""^^xs:string</Name>
18:28:01 [sandro]
NEGATIVE SYNTAX: <Name><Const type="&xs;string">green</Const>
18:28:01 [sandro]
18:28:08 [sandro]
NEGATIVE SYNTAX: <Name><Const type="&xs;string">green</Const></Name>
18:28:34 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: is it possible for the exact same literal to be a const and an arg name?
18:29:17 [AxelPolleres]
csma/jos: Yes!
18:30:11 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: why is there no ps for this?
18:31:29 [sandro]
chris: So you can't write the bad-xml in the PS. Okay.
18:31:58 [sandro]
POSITIVE SYNTAX: <Name>&lt;Const type="&xs;string">green&lt;/Const></Name>
18:32:13 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: the thing that shouldn't parse can't be said in PS.
18:32:15 [sandro]
everyone: okay.
18:32:22 [sandro]
everyone: yeah, of course.
18:33:01 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: shall we drop the test?
18:33:30 [AxelPolleres]
... what about
18:33:40 [AxelPolleres]
... basically the same... so we drop all these?
18:37:09 [sandro]
chris: the thing in the argname position is NEVER a rif Const.
18:37:29 [AxelPolleres]
mk: I disagree.
18:38:39 [AxelPolleres]
discussion on what is a symbol/constant in the language
18:39:08 [AxelPolleres]
18:39:19 [josb]
18:39:28 [AxelPolleres]
18:39:37 [ChrisW]
18:39:56 [MichaelKifer]
18:40:03 [sandro]
18:40:03 [AdrianP]
18:40:05 [Harold]
18:40:29 [AxelPolleres]
18:40:35 [sandro]
these test cases speak to an important confusion in NAUs, but they don't actually clarify it right now.
18:40:53 [AxelPolleres]
18:40:58 [ChrisW]
action: Stella to makr argnamesinuniterms as rejected
18:40:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-786 - Makr argnamesinuniterms as rejected [on Stella Mitchell - due 2009-04-24].
18:41:04 [sandro]
drop == mark as "Rejected"
18:41:31 [ChrisW]
18:41:34 [Harold]
A solution would be to be (much) more restrictive wrt what unicode strings are allowed to represent ArgNames.
18:41:35 [AxelPolleres]
18:42:20 [AxelPolleres]
18:42:52 [sandro]
csma: the name does not need to be repeated.
18:43:42 [AxelPolleres]
axel: is assert a constant?
18:43:52 [AxelPolleres]
csma: no, a language primitive in PRD.
18:44:20 [sandro]
sandro: YOu can't have a PRD test case using just assert, since then it's core.
18:44:24 [sandro]
csma: right.
18:44:50 [Harold]
ArgNames, as 'indexes' into terms, could, e.g., be restricted to just *alphanumeric* ASCII unicode strings (disallowing the characters for double-quote and hat among other characters).
18:46:12 [sandro]
instead have: forall ?x if ?x[ex:status -> "gold"] then ?x[ex:discount -> 10]
18:46:37 [sandro]
but this is a Core test case.
18:47:02 [sandro]
could be done as a PRD test case if we add modify, or retract+assert.
18:47:32 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: adrian, can you fix that one?
18:47:37 [ChrisW]
action: Adrian to change Assert test case as in meeting minutes
18:47:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-787 - Change Assert test case as in meeting minutes [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-04-24].
18:48:18 [AxelPolleres]
18:48:20 [sandro]
+1 harold -- ArgNames being just [_a-zA-z][_a-zA-Z0-9]*
18:49:04 [AxelPolleres]
we had that discussion on argnames before...
18:50:15 [Harold]
Right, but it's some progress to say we should restrict their alphabet.
18:50:52 [AxelPolleres]
it would be (I just gave up on it last time, nobody seemed to be willing to restrict it)
18:51:08 [ChrisW]
action: adrian to modify AssertRetract in the same way as Assert
18:51:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-788 - Modify AssertRetract in the same way as Assert [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-04-24].
18:51:39 [AxelPolleres]
18:52:17 [AxelPolleres]
18:52:45 [AxelPolleres]
both the same.
18:53:09 [AxelPolleres]
s/same/same issue?/
18:54:19 [AxelPolleres]
gary: .../Retract should be a negative entailment test
18:54:35 [AxelPolleres]
jos: empty set is entailed by everything.
18:54:51 [ChrisW]
action: adrian to update Retract test case as with assert, fixing object retraction
18:54:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-789 - Update Retract test case as with assert, fixing object retraction [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-04-24].
18:55:24 [AxelPolleres]
18:56:08 [AxelPolleres]
adrian: I simplified that one.
18:58:42 [sandro]
take our parent and child as classes and make male be a class.
19:00:13 [AxelPolleres]
axel: I suggest to replace classes child and parent with class person
19:00:38 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: remove the classes at all.
19:01:06 [AxelPolleres]
... but make Male a class.
19:03:19 [AxelPolleres]
Adrian: nested molecules a la f-logic would be nice but not allowed in RIF.
19:03:49 [ChrisW]
action: adrian to fix ClassMembership and rename
19:03:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-790 - Fix ClassMembership and rename [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-04-24].
19:03:55 [sandro]
sandro: it would be NICE to allow membership predicates as terms....
19:04:01 [sandro]
chris: yeah, whatever. :-)
19:04:33 [AxelPolleres]
19:05:16 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: that is a bad thing to do, should we mark that?
19:06:03 [AxelPolleres]
mk: this is basically default values.
19:06:23 [AxelPolleres]
... not really a default, it would override all.
19:06:54 [sandro]
gary: I, P, and V should be quantified
19:07:10 [sandro]
chris: We need to say this is a REALLY BAD PRACTICE.
19:10:04 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: can be approved modulo fixing XML.
19:10:57 [sandro]
PROPOSED: approve test case
19:10:58 [Harold]
19:11:01 [ChrisW]
19:11:01 [AxelPolleres]
19:11:02 [sandro]
19:11:07 [MichaelKifer]
19:11:09 [josb]
19:11:27 [sandro]
RESOLVED: approve test case
19:12:15 [AxelPolleres]
19:14:36 [ChrisW]
action: cke to write test cases for PRD
19:14:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-791 - Write test cases for PRD [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-04-24].
19:14:38 [sandro]
19:15:12 [sandro]
19:15:16 [josb]
19:15:17 [ChrisW]
19:15:22 [Harold]
19:15:24 [AxelPolleres]
19:15:27 [csma]
19:15:31 [AdrianP]
19:15:31 [sandro]
19:15:32 [cke]
19:15:35 [MichaelKifer]
19:15:54 [ChrisW]
19:16:10 [ChrisW]
scribe: MichaelKifer
19:16:46 [sandro]
19:16:58 [MichaelKifer]
core non-safeness test case
19:18:55 [MichaelKifer]
sandro: negative tests must be explicit as to which dialect extensions it applies to
19:20:27 [sandro]
A negative syntax test for PRD is be definition a negative syntax test for Core.
19:20:41 [MichaelKifer]
jos: changed the dialect of the example to prd from core
19:21:08 [ChrisW]
action: Stella to add note in test case document that negative tests 'go down' and positive tests "go up"
19:21:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-792 - Add note in test case document that negative tests 'go down' and positive tests "go up" [on Stella Mitchell - due 2009-04-24].
19:22:22 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:22:24 [ChrisW]
19:22:27 [cke]
19:22:28 [josb]
19:22:31 [MichaelKifer]
19:22:32 [sandro]
as a PRD case.
19:22:37 [sandro]
19:22:38 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:22:50 [Harold]
19:22:50 [sandro]
no need to rename.
19:27:20 [MichaelKifer]
19:27:21 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:27:23 [AdrianP]
19:27:24 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:27:26 [ChrisW]
19:27:44 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:31:02 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:31:03 [Harold]
19:31:04 [MichaelKifer]
19:31:04 [ChrisW]
19:31:18 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:31:19 [AdrianP]
19:31:24 [AxelPolleres]
19:31:26 [GaryHallmark]
19:31:52 [MichaelKifer]
jos: too lazy to type +1
19:33:26 [GaryHallmark]
19:33:27 [MichaelKifer]
19:33:29 [Harold]
19:33:32 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:33:41 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:38:16 [MichaelKifer]
19:38:17 [AdrianP]
19:38:17 [GaryHallmark]
19:38:17 [ChrisW]
19:38:17 [Harold]
19:38:21 [ChrisW]
19:38:24 [AdrianP]
19:38:29 [MichaelKifer]
19:38:30 [ChrisW]
19:38:34 [MichaelKifer]
19:38:35 [MichaelKifer]
19:39:55 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:39:57 [ChrisW]
19:39:58 [sandro]
19:40:02 [AxelPolleres]
19:40:03 [AdrianP]
19:40:09 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:40:11 [Harold]
19:41:58 [sandro]
Any BLD or PRD test cases, it's a NEGATIVE SYNTAX test for Core. Otherwise, it would be marked as a Core test.
19:43:59 [MichaelKifer]
19:44:12 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:44:21 [ChrisW]
19:44:23 [GaryHallmark]
19:44:26 [StellaMitchell]
19:44:30 [MichaelKifer]
19:44:31 [sandro]
+1 wow it'll be hard to implement.
19:44:35 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:44:35 [AdrianP]
19:44:48 [AxelPolleres]
19:45:52 [sandro]
gary: do a core version of this.
19:47:48 [ChrisW]
ACTION: GARY to write a core version of factorial
19:47:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-793 - Write a core version of factorial [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-24].
19:47:59 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:48:02 [ChrisW]
19:48:03 [sandro]
Gary: I would expect the test-taker to manually guide how many iterations they run to get the required entailment, so it wont "run forever"
19:48:06 [MichaelKifer]
19:48:14 [StellaMitchell]
19:48:15 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:48:17 [GaryHallmark]
19:48:19 [AxelPolleres]
19:50:02 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:50:03 [GaryHallmark]
19:50:06 [MichaelKifer]
19:50:08 [AdrianP]
19:50:11 [AxelPolleres]
19:50:12 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:50:13 [sandro]
wow, the one is totally twisted. I like it.....
19:50:22 [sandro]
19:50:34 [MichaelKifer]
sandro: the previous case was nasty
19:50:49 [Harold]
19:53:40 [AxelPolleres]
19:56:06 [AxelPolleres]
19:57:25 [MichaelKifer]
19:57:37 [MichaelKifer]
sandro: this test is worth living for
19:57:56 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
19:58:14 [Harold]
19:58:17 [AxelPolleres]
19:58:19 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
19:58:33 [Harold]
Before LC, we could bring in a few extra meaningful test cases, e.g. by Jos De Roo for the Euler Proof Mechanism (
20:01:04 [MichaelKifer]
20:01:09 [AdrianP]
20:01:14 [sandro]
sandro: So this means that in practice, to implement your test cases, you'll probably have to rename all you rif-locals
20:01:17 [sandro]
jos: correct.
20:01:19 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
20:01:21 [ChrisW]
20:01:25 [Harold]
20:01:39 [StellaMitchell]
20:01:42 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
20:01:43 [AdrianP]
20:01:43 [GaryHallmark]
20:01:45 [sandro]
+1 although i don't really like it.
20:02:22 [MichaelKifer]
note: conclusions are not part of the document that entails them (to keep in mind for the tests that use rif:local).
20:02:43 [GaryHallmark]
20:03:18 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept
20:03:21 [Harold]
20:03:21 [AxelPolleres]
20:03:22 [AdrianP]
20:03:24 [MichaelKifer]
20:03:29 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept
20:03:36 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: adjourn
20:03:42 [GaryHallmark]
20:03:56 [AxelPolleres]
-1 let's continue! :-)
20:04:17 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: gang up on Axel
20:04:37 [AxelPolleres]
-1 on that one , then I rather accept adjourning
20:04:49 [josb]
more nasty string-iri stuff:
20:04:53 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:04:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
20:06:40 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has left #rif
20:10:21 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif
20:30:31 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
20:58:00 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif