<LeeF> Present: Lee, Alex, Axel, Andy, iv_an_ru, IvanH, chimezie, john-l, lukewm, steveh, dnewman2, bijan, kjetil, prateek, kasei, Simon, pgearon, Janne

13:54:19 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

13:54:19 <trackbot>  Date: 28 April 2009

13:54:29 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF

13:54:34 <LeeF> Regrets: Orri

14:00:36 <LeeF> Scribe: chimezie

14:00:41 <LeeF> Scribenick: chimezie

14:04:47 <LeeF> topic: administrative

14:04:26 <chimezie> LeeF: we have quite a bit to cover today perhaps we can have a 90 minute call?

14:04:40 <LeeF> agenda - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-04-28

14:04:54 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-21

14:05:02 <SteveH> I had 1 issue with the mins

14:05:46 <SteveH> I think it was this: Eric Prud'hommeaux: it matters for portability between scripting and the bigger impls. [ Scribe Assist by Greg Williams ]

14:05:52 <chimezie> LeeF: perhaps we can update the minutes after the teleconference?

14:06:34 <chimezie> ... we can approve the minutes modulo this change

14:06:45 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-21, modulo change noted by SteveH

14:06:54 <LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to talk to Eric to confirm minutes change from April 21

14:06:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Talk to Eric to confirm minutes change from April 21 [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-05-05].

14:08:07 <chimezie> LeeF: We will skip next weeks teleconference and resume a week from tommorow

14:08:27 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me

14:08:27 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted

14:08:28 <LeeF> topic: introductions - Paul Gearon

14:09:12 <chimezie> Paul: I was one of the original developers on Mulgara.  Currently working with Fedora Commons with Mulgara

14:09:37 <chimezie> ... originally working on a storage system and query over the database.  Worked on first implementation of SPARQL

<LeeF> topic: Actions

14:10:27 <LeeF> open actions - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open

14:10:47 <chimezie> LeeF: 3 open actions having to do with rdf:text.  We will discuss this today (shortly)

14:11:05 <chimezie> ... Any additional review?

14:11:12 <LeeF> trackbot, close action-7

14:11:12 <trackbot> ACTION-7 Send a pointer to the mailinglist for rdf:text, when it's up to LC closed

14:11:14 <chimezie> SteveH: I consider it discharged

14:11:16 <LeeF> trackbot, close action-8

14:11:16 <trackbot> ACTION-8 Review rdf:text closed

14:11:18 <LeeF> trackbot, close action-9

14:11:18 <trackbot> ACTION-9 Try to review rdf:text closed

14:11:47 <LeeF> topic: rdf:text

14:12:42 <chimezie> LeeF: Jointly put forward by two WGs.  Potentially impacts SPARQL.  Andy has reviewed, so has SteveH.  As a group we need to decide how to respond

14:12:56 <AxelPolleres> q+ on status of the review.

14:13:14 <chimezie> LeeF: Best way forward on this?

14:13:24 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres

14:13:24 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to comment on status of the review.

14:14:02 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Andy's comments are substantial and important cna can be addressed w/out to many changes.  rdf:text should not discuss semantic equivalent besides D-entailment.

14:14:46 <Zakim> +dnewman2

14:14:55 <chimezie> ... We probably need a few mail cycles to finalized.  Perhaps a short agenda item during the F2F

14:15:25 <SteveH> +1 to having it in record

14:15:29 <chimezie> LeeF: Can we ensure the discusdsion is mentioned on the WG list for the benefit of everyone else?

14:15:45 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Agreed.

14:16:31 <bijan> I'm trying to review the comments

14:16:34 <bijan> I don't fully understand them

14:16:35 <chimezie> LeeF: Does RIF/OWL need official responses? Anyone here have issues with Andy/SteveH speaking on behalf of the WG?

14:16:46 <bijan> q+

14:16:51 <chimezie> SteveH: Andy's understanding is slightly better than mine

14:16:53 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

14:16:53 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan

14:17:23 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: We should try to clarify the last point regarding datatypes and ??string function??

14:17:49 <chimezie> bijan: We are either working up an official response or send a personal comment.  Please clarify

14:18:11 <SteveH> I feel that SPARQL should send an official response

14:18:12 <chimezie> LeeF: The WG hasn't sent an official repsonse, but we have a close relationship with these groups.  I'm happy with current process.

14:18:27 <chimezie> ... Not sure if anyone else wants a more formal process?

14:18:31 <iv_an_ru> IMHO a personal comment is enough.

14:19:00 <chimezie> bijan: There is some fatigue there.  Want to make it light-weight.

14:19:41 <chimezie> ... not sure how D-entailment would help or what the substantive impact is regarding the suggested changes

14:19:50 <chimezie> ... want to understand the changes well enough

14:19:51 <SteveH> q+

14:19:53 <AndyS> q+ to ask about the results format

14:19:56 <LeeF> ack bijan

14:20:00 <LeeF> ack SteveH

14:20:05 <iv_an_ru> yes

14:20:27 <chimezie> SteveH: The changes are substantitive.  It will probably cause another last call

14:20:30 <LeeF> ack AndyS

14:20:30 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about the results format

14:20:38 <chimezie> AndyS: Trying to avoid any chance of a last call for rdf:text

14:20:49 <bijan> Hurrah!

14:20:55 <SteveH> that's good

14:21:15 <chimezie> ... there should be a section specifically on SPARQL added

14:21:29 <chimezie> ... wouldn't be unhappy about framing as clarification

14:21:30 <SteveH> if that's true, agreed

14:21:35 <SteveH> but it wasn't my understanding

14:21:47 <AndyS> I don't see that Axel's proposed change addresses the Q's on functions.

14:21:57 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Change from D-entailment to equivalence.  Don't think it implies a new last call

14:22:48 <AxelPolleres> q+ suggestion

14:22:54 <AndyS> Change is semantic equive to D-entailment (note there is notone singleD-entailment)

14:23:11 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres

14:23:37 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Fine with putting suggestion on Wiki page and decide next week ?

14:23:53 <chimezie> AndyS: Would appreciate replies to my email (which included examples)

14:24:22 <chimezie> ... Fine with putting it on Wiki page but it is not subsititute for discussion around the issue(s)

14:25:03 <kjetil> q?

14:25:09 <LeeF> ack suggestion

14:25:13 <chimezie> ... We still aren't discussing result set format

14:25:24 <chimezie> LeeF: AxelP can you take a look at this?

14:25:27 <bijan> q+

14:25:30 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Sure

14:25:31 <AndyS> ack AndyS

14:25:36 <LeeF> ack bijan

14:26:07 <chimezie> bijan: It might be the case that wee disallow rdf:text in results.  Some entailment regimes might want to do differently

14:26:32 <chimezie> AndyS: It is viable to say it is analagous to RDF graph exchange

14:26:58 <chimezie> bijan: if rdf:text takes off, we will have to revise anyways at some point

14:27:34 <LeeF> topic: face to face

<LeeF> summary: Face-to-face is next Wednesday and Thursday, one hour earlier than planned. 7-3 EDT and 12-8 Bristol UK time

14:27:45 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?

Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's here? ←

14:27:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see AlexPassant, john-l, AndyS, kasei (muted), SimonS, [Garlik], bijan, AxelPolleres, pgearon, LeeF, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), ivanh, kjetil (muted), iv_an_ru, JanneS,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see AlexPassant, john-l, AndyS, kasei (muted), SimonS, [Garlik], bijan, AxelPolleres, pgearon, LeeF, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), ivanh, kjetil (muted), iv_an_ru, JanneS, ←

14:27:48 <Zakim> ... PrateekJain-WSU, dnewman2

Zakim IRC Bot: ... PrateekJain-WSU, dnewman2 ←

14:27:48 <Zakim> [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM

Zakim IRC Bot: [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM ←

14:27:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see dnewman2, JanneS, chimezie, LukeWM, SteveH, pgearon, Prateek, Zakim, RRSAgent, kasei, bijan, AndyS, AxelPolleres, iv_an_ru, SimonS, AndyS_, ivanh, kjetil, LeeF,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see dnewman2, JanneS, chimezie, LukeWM, SteveH, pgearon, Prateek, Zakim, RRSAgent, kasei, bijan, AndyS, AxelPolleres, iv_an_ru, SimonS, AndyS_, ivanh, kjetil, LeeF, ←

14:27:52 <Zakim> ... AlexPassant, john-l, KjetilK, ericP, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... AlexPassant, john-l, KjetilK, ericP, trackbot ←

14:27:53 <chimezie> LeeF: Confirm attendance (in person versus on phone)

Lee Feigenbaum: Confirm attendance (in person versus on phone) ←

14:27:57 <LeeF> wiki page http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1

Lee Feigenbaum: wiki page http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1 ←

14:28:24 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, unmute me ←

14:28:24 <Zakim> kjetil should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should no longer be muted ←

14:28:31 <chimezie> Zakim, unumte me

Zakim, unumte me ←

14:28:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unumte me', chimezie

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'unumte me', chimezie ←

14:28:37 <kasei> I'll be in cambridge next week.

Greg Williams: I'll be in cambridge next week. ←

14:28:43 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me

Zakim, unmute me ←

14:28:43 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←

14:28:54 <chimezie> I will not be there in person, *may* be able to participate on phone (not sure)

I will not be there in person, *may* be able to participate on phone (not sure) ←

14:28:56 <Zakim> -kasei

Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←

14:29:36 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me

Zakim, mute me ←

14:29:36 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted ←

14:30:46 <chimezie> LeeF: Timing of F2F.

Lee Feigenbaum: Timing of F2F. ←

14:30:57 <chimezie> ... an hour earlier?

... an hour earlier? ←

14:31:47 <chimezie> ... Let us make it an hour earlier

... Let us make it an hour earlier ←

14:32:27 <LeeF> face to face will be 7 - 3 EDT 12 - 8 Bristol time, break each day at 11:30 ET

Lee Feigenbaum: face to face will be 7 - 3 EDT 12 - 8 Bristol time, break each day at 11:30 ET ←

14:32:53 <chimezie> LeeF: I put on the agenda a rough goal for the F2F

Lee Feigenbaum: I put on the agenda a rough goal for the F2F ←

14:33:09 <chimezie> ... don't want to spend the entire time debating features but to begin the deep dive

... don't want to spend the entire time debating features but to begin the deep dive ←

14:33:30 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←

14:33:30 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should now be muted ←

14:33:39 <chimezie> ... Perhaps we split the 2 days into 4 half-day blocks.  In one of those we discuss deliverables, etc.

... Perhaps we split the 2 days into 4 half-day blocks. In one of those we discuss deliverables, etc. ←

14:33:56 <chimezie> ... in the other 3, start diving into features we have consensus on already (by today possibly)

... in the other 3, start diving into features we have consensus on already (by today possibly) ←

14:34:49 <chimezie> ... This way we can hit the ground running (WRT to features and our process)

... This way we can hit the ground running (WRT to features and our process) ←

14:35:37 <chimezie> ... Also want to discuss a naming convention

... Also want to discuss a naming convention ←

14:35:43 <chimezie> ... input/feedback?

... input/feedback? ←

14:35:47 <SteveH> +1, happy

Steve Harris: +1, happy ←

14:35:50 <chimezie> Sounds like a reasonable agenda to me

Sounds like a reasonable agenda to me ←

14:35:54 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1 ←

14:35:54 <LukeWM> sounds ok to me

Luke Wilson-Mawer: sounds ok to me ←

14:35:56 <pgearon> +1

Paul Gearon: +1 ←

14:35:57 <kjetil> +1

Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←

14:35:57 <Prateek> +1

Prateek Jain: +1 ←

14:35:58 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1 ←

14:35:59 <AlexPassant> +1

Alex Passant: +1 ←

14:36:06 <iv_an_ru> +1

Ivan Mikhailov: +1 ←

14:36:07 <bijan> +1 to the organizational majesty of lee

Bijan Parsia: +1 to the organizational majesty of lee ←

14:36:07 <SimonS> +1

Simon Schenk: +1 ←

14:36:27 <chimezie> LeeF: Questions about logistics?

Lee Feigenbaum: Questions about logistics? ←

14:36:32 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, unmute me ←

14:36:32 <Zakim> kjetil should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should no longer be muted ←

14:36:50 <JanneS> q+

Janne Saarela: q+ ←

14:36:51 <chimezie> kjetil: Car pool from HP labs?

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Car pool from HP labs? ←

14:37:03 <AndyS> s/from/to

Andy Seaborne: s/from/to ←

14:37:17 <chimezie> SteveH: I'm going by car, but it is quite small

Steve Harris: I'm going by car, but it is quite small ←

14:37:28 <iv_an_ru> I'm sorry, I had to escape right now.

Ivan Mikhailov: I'm sorry, I had to escape right now. ←

14:37:33 <Zakim> -iv_an_ru

Zakim IRC Bot: -iv_an_ru ←

14:38:08 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, unmute me ←

14:38:08 <Zakim> kjetil was not muted, kjetil

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil was not muted, kjetil ←

14:38:13 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←

14:38:13 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should now be muted ←

14:38:15 <AndyS> Suggest aim to be at HPL 11:30am for setup.

Andy Seaborne: Suggest aim to be at HPL 11:30am for setup. ←

14:38:16 <LeeF> ack JanneS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack JanneS ←

14:38:38 <chimezie> JanneS: is HP providing a teleconference #?

Janne Saarela: is HP providing a teleconference #? ←

14:39:09 <AxelPolleres> should be the same teleconf facility... to be clarified by eric, I guess.

Axel Polleres: should be the same teleconf facility... to be clarified by eric, I guess. ←

14:39:20 <ivanh> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

14:39:43 <AxelPolleres> andy: normal phone in the room as "fallback"

Andy Seaborne: normal phone in the room as "fallback" [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←

14:39:53 <chimezie> ... (conversation continues regarding logistics) ...

... (conversation continues regarding logistics) ... ←

14:40:03 <LeeF> ack ivanh

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanh ←

14:40:28 <chimezie> ivanh: We should not have a problem with Zakim

Ivan Herman: We should not have a problem with Zakim ←

14:40:28 <LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to work with ivanh, ericP to reserve zakim for face to face days

ACTION: LeeF to work with ivanh, ericP to reserve zakim for face to face days ←

14:40:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Work with ivanh, ericP to reserve zakim for face to face days [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-05-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-11 - Work with ivanh, ericP to reserve zakim for face to face days [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-05-05]. ←

14:40:39 <LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to work with EricP to procure a phone for the Cambridge, MA location

ACTION: LeeF to work with EricP to procure a phone for the Cambridge, MA location ←

14:40:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Work with EricP to procure a phone for the Cambridge, MA location [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-05-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-12 - Work with EricP to procure a phone for the Cambridge, MA location [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-05-05]. ←

14:40:41 <AxelPolleres> we shall request zakim for both days, eric should get the physical phone, that should work.

Axel Polleres: we shall request zakim for both days, eric should get the physical phone, that should work. ←

14:40:54 <chimezie> ... prefer to use/have Zakim

... prefer to use/have Zakim ←

14:41:02 <LeeF> topic: feature survey

14:41:16 <LeeF> feature survey - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/

Lee Feigenbaum: feature survey - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/ ←

14:41:31 <LeeF> feature survey results - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/results

Lee Feigenbaum: feature survey results - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/results ←

14:41:49 <SteveH> q+ to ask about public/private-ness

Steve Harris: q+ to ask about public/private-ness ←

14:41:53 <SteveH> q-

Steve Harris: q- ←

14:42:03 <chimezie> I wasn't able to decipher priority order from that page

I wasn't able to decipher priority order from that page ←

14:42:20 <chimezie> LeeF: Inclincation to have votes on this survey be public, but wanted to run it by group 1st

Lee Feigenbaum: Inclincation to have votes on this survey be public, but wanted to run it by group 1st ←

14:42:24 <chimezie> ... concerns?

... concerns? ←

14:42:26 <kjetil> +1 on public

Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 on public ←

14:42:36 <SteveH> +1 from me

Steve Harris: +1 from me ←

14:42:40 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: have votes on featue survey be public

PROPOSED: have votes on featue survey be public ←

14:42:50 <SteveH> raw data: http://plugin.org.uk/misc/sparql-votes.ttl

Steve Harris: raw data: http://plugin.org.uk/misc/sparql-votes.ttl ←

14:42:50 <AndyS> chimezie, it was opaque with new results it's clear - may need to reload browser (I had caching weirdnesses)

Andy Seaborne: chimezie, it was opaque with new results it's clear - may need to reload browser (I had caching weirdnesses) ←

14:42:59 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: have votes on feature survey be public

RESOLVED: have votes on feature survey be public ←

14:43:05 <iv_an_ru> +1 for public votes

Ivan Mikhailov: +1 for public votes ←

14:43:26 <AxelPolleres> http://plugin.org.uk/misc/votes.svg

Axel Polleres: http://plugin.org.uk/misc/votes.svg ←

14:43:45 <AndyS> Does the TTL record the "don't wants"?

Andy Seaborne: Does the TTL record the "don't wants"? ←

14:43:59 <chimezie> SteveH: Rendering of another file.

Steve Harris: Rendering of another file. ←

14:44:05 <SteveH> http://plugin.org.uk/misc/sparql-vote-results.ttl

Steve Harris: http://plugin.org.uk/misc/sparql-vote-results.ttl ←

14:44:36 <chimezie> ... Process of taking the .ttl page, ran an algorithm to produce a graph

... Process of taking the .ttl page, ran an algorithm to produce a graph ←

14:44:56 <chimezie> ... people should verify validity.  The javascript is visible as well

... people should verify validity. The javascript is visible as well ←

14:45:11 <chimezie> ... SVG file captures the Condorcet "beats" relationships

... SVG file captures the Condorcet "beats" relationships ←

14:45:37 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←

14:45:54 <chimezie> ... Condorcet method looks for pair-wise comparison of every feature voted for and counts how many times feature appear in each vote

... Condorcet method looks for pair-wise comparison of every feature voted for and counts how many times feature appear in each vote ←

14:45:54 <AxelPolleres> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

Axel Polleres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method ←

14:46:32 <chimezie> ... can get loops ..

... can get loops .. ←

14:47:04 <chimezie> LeeF: one way of interpreting results

Lee Feigenbaum: one way of interpreting results ←

14:47:14 <chimezie> ... this was suggested as a good way to look at this

... this was suggested as a good way to look at this ←

14:47:27 <chimezie> ... it is not quite cut and dry as appears in diagram

... it is not quite cut and dry as appears in diagram ←

14:47:47 <chimezie> ... do we have consensus on the popular features?  For example, Agg functions are at the top

... do we have consensus on the popular features? For example, Agg functions are at the top ←

14:48:58 <SteveH> note, my condorcet code doesn't take don't want into account, treats it as won't car

Steve Harris: note, my condorcet code doesn't take don't want into account, treats it as won't car ←

14:49:01 <chimezie> ... AggregateFuncs & Update are the two with consensus importance

... AggregateFuncs & Update are the two with consensus importance ←

14:49:30 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/results

Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/results ←

14:49:56 <chimezie> ... Subselects are not top choice, but 11 WG members put it within top 10 ranking.  6 WG members put it in top 3

... Subselects are not top choice, but 11 WG members put it within top 10 ranking. 6 WG members put it in top 3 ←

14:50:15 <chimezie> LeeF: Propose there is consensus on these 3 at least

Lee Feigenbaum: Propose there is consensus on these 3 at least ←

14:50:46 <chimezie> I agree that these seem to represent consensus

I agree that these seem to represent consensus ←

14:50:46 <pgearon> +1

Paul Gearon: +1 ←

14:50:47 <SteveH> I support that idea

Steve Harris: I support that idea ←

14:50:48 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, unmute me ←

14:50:48 <Zakim> kjetil should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should no longer be muted ←

14:50:48 <AlexPassant> +1

Alex Passant: +1 ←

14:50:50 <Prateek> +1

Prateek Jain: +1 ←

14:50:51 <ivanh> +1

Ivan Herman: +1 ←

14:50:52 <AndyS> I support these features

Andy Seaborne: I support these features ←

14:50:53 <kjetil> +1

Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←

14:50:54 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1 ←

14:50:55 <LukeWM> me too

Luke Wilson-Mawer: me too ←

14:51:58 <chimezie> LeeF: Hold off on making them requirements for further conversation

Lee Feigenbaum: Hold off on making them requirements for further conversation ←

14:52:20 <AndyS> Agree not going to "required" until results are fully in.

Andy Seaborne: Agree not going to "required" until results are fully in. ←

14:52:38 <LeeF> PROPOSED: The SPARQL WG adopt AggregateFunctions, Subselects, and Update as three deliverables (either required or time-permitting) for the second phase of the group

PROPOSED: The SPARQL WG adopt AggregateFunctions, Subselects, and Update as three deliverables (either required or time-permitting) for the second phase of the group ←

14:52:42 <SteveH> seconded

Steve Harris: seconded ←

14:52:50 <kjetil> +1

Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←

14:52:55 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1 ←

14:52:58 <ivanh> +1

Ivan Herman: +1 ←

14:52:58 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1 ←

14:52:59 <Prateek> +1

Prateek Jain: +1 ←

14:52:59 <JanneS> +1

Janne Saarela: +1 ←

14:53:01 <pgearon> +1

Paul Gearon: +1 ←

14:53:03 <SimonS> +1

Simon Schenk: +1 ←

14:53:14 <LeeF> RESOLVED: The SPARQL WG adopt AggregateFunctions, Subselects, and Update as three deliverables (either required or time-permitting) for the second phase of the group

RESOLVED: The SPARQL WG adopt AggregateFunctions, Subselects, and Update as three deliverables (either required or time-permitting) for the second phase of the group ←

14:53:56 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←

14:53:56 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should now be muted ←

14:54:06 <chimezie> LeeF: would like to (for F2F) solicit volunteers for more design details.  If you can give survey on designs, please let the Chairs know

Lee Feigenbaum: would like to (for F2F) solicit volunteers for more design details. If you can give survey on designs, please let the Chairs know ←

14:55:29 <chimezie> LeeF: discussion on features with little support but for which we have champions who should discuss why or why not these should be included

Lee Feigenbaum: discussion on features with little support but for which we have champions who should discuss why or why not these should be included ←

14:55:34 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, unmute me ←

14:55:34 <Zakim> kjetil should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should no longer be muted ←

14:56:31 <chimezie> ... there was discussion that limit per resource could be handled by subselects (which is currently a high-priority feature)

... there was discussion that limit per resource could be handled by subselects (which is currently a high-priority feature) ←

14:57:17 <chimezie> kjetil: Now with subselects it is a small thing to implement.  It is extremely important feature because alot of cases we want to list the resources and limit them so we don't get too many solutions

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Now with subselects it is a small thing to implement. It is extremely important feature because alot of cases we want to list the resources and limit them so we don't get too many solutions ←

14:57:31 <SteveH> q+ to talk abut FOAF

Steve Harris: q+ to talk abut FOAF ←

14:57:33 <chimezie> ... The main selling point is that RDF is suited for heterogenous data

... The main selling point is that RDF is suited for heterogenous data ←

14:58:00 <LeeF> ack SteveH

Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←

14:58:01 <chimezie> ... would like to hear from those who don't want it

... would like to hear from those who don't want it ←

14:58:02 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to talk abut FOAF

Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to talk abut FOAF ←

14:58:32 <chimezie> SteveH: This is a feature that is needed quite a bit with FOAF in exactly this case: trying to find up to 3 foaf:names and don't want to be overwhelmed with results

Steve Harris: This is a feature that is needed quite a bit with FOAF in exactly this case: trying to find up to 3 foaf:names and don't want to be overwhelmed with results ←

14:58:36 <SimonS> q+ to say I am fine with subselects, but do not want explicit syntax

Simon Schenk: q+ to say I am fine with subselects, but do not want explicit syntax ←

14:58:45 <chimezie> ... prefer subselect aggregate behavior rather than specific syntax in case we get it wrong

... prefer subselect aggregate behavior rather than specific syntax in case we get it wrong ←

14:59:46 <chimezie> Kjetil: Time-permitting feature anyways.  The ORGs that need it, if we do the whole work to specify the syntax, would that be acceptable to WG?

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Time-permitting feature anyways. The ORGs that need it, if we do the whole work to specify the syntax, would that be acceptable to WG? ←

15:00:03 <SteveH> my org needs it for frefernce

Steve Harris: my org needs it for frefernce ←

15:00:28 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about surface syntax

Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about surface syntax ←

15:00:29 <chimezie> LeeF: Concerned with org-specific spec'ing

Lee Feigenbaum: Concerned with org-specific spec'ing ←

15:01:28 <chimezie> ... I feel it would be wise to wait and see if impl. add syntax even with the other features

... I feel it would be wise to wait and see if impl. add syntax even with the other features ←

15:01:34 <LeeF> ack SimonS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack SimonS ←

15:01:34 <Zakim> SimonS, you wanted to say I am fine with subselects, but do not want explicit syntax

Zakim IRC Bot: SimonS, you wanted to say I am fine with subselects, but do not want explicit syntax ←

15:01:35 <chimezie> ... that would make a stronger case for standardization

... that would make a stronger case for standardization ←

15:01:54 <chimezie> SimonS: I don't like introducing specific syntax, but happy with subselects addressing this issue

Simon Schenk: I don't like introducing specific syntax, but happy with subselects addressing this issue ←

15:01:56 <SteveH> +1 to SimonS

Steve Harris: +1 to SimonS ←

15:02:06 <chimezie> ... makes sense to build into feature we standardize eventually

... makes sense to build into feature we standardize eventually ←

15:02:17 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←

15:02:17 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about surface syntax

Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about surface syntax ←

15:02:32 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Do we want to subsume such things under surface syntax?

Axel Polleres: Do we want to subsume such things under surface syntax? ←

15:02:50 <chimezie> ... avote against surface syntax speaks generally about things like this

... avote against surface syntax speaks generally about things like this ←

15:03:18 <AndyS> SurfaceSyntax is a bit of a catch-all.  I'm wary of putting too much in it.

Andy Seaborne: SurfaceSyntax is a bit of a catch-all. I'm wary of putting too much in it. ←

15:03:28 <chimezie> LeeF: There doesn't seem to be overwhelming support

Lee Feigenbaum: There doesn't seem to be overwhelming support ←

15:04:02 <chimezie> kjetil: We might want to come back to this after discussion on surface syntax

Kjetil Kjernsmo: We might want to come back to this after discussion on surface syntax ←

15:04:38 <chimezie> LeeF: if we accept surface syntax we need a strict definiition

Lee Feigenbaum: if we accept surface syntax we need a strict definiition ←

15:04:59 <chimezie> ... to me it is any feature that can be re-written with identical semantics w/out the new syntax

... to me it is any feature that can be re-written with identical semantics w/out the new syntax ←

15:05:52 <Zakim> -kjetil

Zakim IRC Bot: -kjetil ←

15:05:58 <chimezie> LeeF: SPARQL/OWL and Parameterized Inference there is confusion on how they are related

Lee Feigenbaum: SPARQL/OWL and Parameterized Inference there is confusion on how they are related ←

15:06:41 <chimezie> bijan: We have extensibility point on semantics of additional answers.  We have a number of implementations

Bijan Parsia: We have extensibility point on semantics of additional answers. We have a number of implementations ←

15:07:02 <chimezie> ... it would be nice to converge on SPARQL syntax / semantics.  Have alot of users who want it that move to higher expressivity

... it would be nice to converge on SPARQL syntax / semantics. Have alot of users who want it that move to higher expressivity ←

15:07:29 <chimezie> ... a separate document and can envision more regimes , so this can be a 'starter'

... a separate document and can envision more regimes , so this can be a 'starter' ←

15:07:32 <AxelPolleres> Bijan, could you paste a link to the BGP extension proposed?

Axel Polleres: Bijan, could you paste a link to the BGP extension proposed? ←

15:07:52 <chimezie> ... it's relation to parameterized inference is that it gives us more regimes to parameterized.  Don't need p-inference to make use of SPARQL/OWL.

... it's relation to parameterized inference is that it gives us more regimes to parameterized. Don't need p-inference to make use of SPARQL/OWL. ←

15:08:05 <chimezie> ... independent on how you indicate semantics

... independent on how you indicate semantics ←

15:08:28 <chimezie> LeeF: It would be helpful to address priority

Lee Feigenbaum: It would be helpful to address priority ←

15:08:30 <pgearon> +q

Paul Gearon: +q ←

15:08:36 <chimezie> ... there are 2 ORGs that don't want this

... there are 2 ORGs that don't want this ←

15:08:45 <LeeF> ack pgearon

Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←

15:08:58 <AxelPolleres> q+ to further explain disambiguation of ParamInference and SPARQL/OWL

Axel Polleres: q+ to further explain disambiguation of ParamInference and SPARQL/OWL ←

15:09:13 <chimezie> pgearon: Don't want to see it, because it could bring the server to its knees

Paul Gearon: Don't want to see it, because it could bring the server to its knees ←

15:09:26 <chimezie> LeeF: This would not be compulsory (and it's own document)

Lee Feigenbaum: This would not be compulsory (and it's own document) ←

15:09:32 <AndyS> q+ to ask about WG Notes

Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask about WG Notes ←

15:09:39 <ivanh> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:09:40 <chimezie> bijan: compulsory only for systems that *want* to support OWL sensitive query

Bijan Parsia: compulsory only for systems that *want* to support OWL sensitive query ←

15:10:02 <LukeWM> q+

Luke Wilson-Mawer: q+ ←

15:10:03 <bijan> s/to support OWL sensitive query/

Bijan Parsia: s/to support OWL sensitive query/ ←

15:10:13 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: I agree with Bijan.  They are complementary.  SPARQL/OWL discusses one entailmemnt regime, p-inference is about requesting (in a query) for a certain entailment regime

Axel Polleres: I agree with Bijan. They are complementary. SPARQL/OWL discusses one entailmemnt regime, p-inference is about requesting (in a query) for a certain entailment regime ←

15:10:33 <bijan> RDFS should fall out of it, yes

Bijan Parsia: RDFS should fall out of it, yes ←

15:10:42 <chimezie> ... do we want to increment up from simple entailment (RDFS, etc..)

... do we want to increment up from simple entailment (RDFS, etc..) ←

15:11:08 <chimezie> ... do we want the WG to work on whether it is requested , do we want the WG to specify advertization of entailment regime (service description)

... do we want the WG to work on whether it is requested , do we want the WG to specify advertization of entailment regime (service description) ←

15:11:13 <LeeF> ack AndyS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←

15:11:13 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about WG Notes

Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about WG Notes ←

15:11:18 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←

15:11:18 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to further explain disambiguation of ParamInference and SPARQL/OWL

Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to further explain disambiguation of ParamInference and SPARQL/OWL ←

15:11:42 <chimezie> AndyS: WG notes? Not confortable with WG members doing paralle work being injected later into REC track

Andy Seaborne: WG notes? Not confortable with WG members doing paralle work being injected later into REC track ←

15:11:56 <pgearon> +1 for the WG to specify advertising entailment regime (and optional features in general)

Paul Gearon: +1 for the WG to specify advertising entailment regime (and optional features in general) ←

15:12:06 <chimezie> ... nervous about 'compulsory' implies tests to distinguish if services meet levels of compliance

... nervous about 'compulsory' implies tests to distinguish if services meet levels of compliance ←

15:13:12 <AndyS> AndyS: Was picking up on the point Lee made about REC track.

Andy Seaborne: Was picking up on the point Lee made about REC track. [ Scribe Assist by Andy Seaborne ] ←

15:13:17 <chimezie> LeeF: great point.  Something like SPARQL/OWL (which is orthogonal to main query language) is appropriate for a specification that is reviewed as a REC track or Note

Lee Feigenbaum: great point. Something like SPARQL/OWL (which is orthogonal to main query language) is appropriate for a specification that is reviewed as a REC track or Note ←

15:13:30 <chimezie> ... SPARQL/OWL is appropriate for this

... SPARQL/OWL is appropriate for this ←

15:13:36 <chimezie> bijan: Was thinking about REC track

Bijan Parsia: Was thinking about REC track ←

15:14:11 <chimezie> ... I have been tasked to write this up anyways.  Want to force CR on implementations to force convergence

... I have been tasked to write this up anyways. Want to force CR on implementations to force convergence ←

15:14:16 <JanneS> (sorry gotta run home) - hear you next week

Janne Saarela: (sorry gotta run home) - hear you next week ←

15:14:26 <Zakim> -JanneS

Zakim IRC Bot: -JanneS ←

15:14:37 <chimezie> AndyS: If we put  it on REC track we have a finite amount of time to discuss issues

Andy Seaborne: If we put it on REC track we have a finite amount of time to discuss issues ←

15:14:47 <chimezie> bijan: Agreed.  We don't have to decide until late in the game

Bijan Parsia: Agreed. We don't have to decide until late in the game ←

15:15:11 <chimezie> ... willing to do work with possible outcome of a Note.  If we can make it with reasonable amount of effort, it wouldn't preclude a REC doc

... willing to do work with possible outcome of a Note. If we can make it with reasonable amount of effort, it wouldn't preclude a REC doc ←

15:15:21 <chimezie> ... a Note is better than nothing

... a Note is better than nothing ←

15:15:28 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←

15:16:19 <AxelPolleres> q+

Axel Polleres: q+ ←

15:16:20 <chimezie> ivanh: do we plan to do anythign at all with rules.  If everything goes as planned, by the time this SPARQL is a REC we ill have RIF as a REC

Ivan Herman: do we plan to do anythign at all with rules. If everything goes as planned, by the time this SPARQL is a REC we ill have RIF as a REC ←

15:16:30 <AndyS> If SPARQL/OWL, be great for a RDFS (RDFS++) Note as well.

Andy Seaborne: If SPARQL/OWL, be great for a RDFS (RDFS++) Note as well. ←

15:16:33 <chimezie> ... something should say how SPARQL relates to RIF.. we should be careful

... something should say how SPARQL relates to RIF.. we should be careful ←

15:16:45 <chimezie> +1 with ivanh about isolating SPARQL from other standards

+1 with ivanh about isolating SPARQL from other standards ←

15:17:00 <pgearon> q+

Paul Gearon: q+ ←

15:17:09 <chimezie> Zakum unmute me

Zakum unmute me ←

15:17:14 <LeeF> ack ivanh

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanh ←

15:17:16 <chimezie> Zakum, unmute me

Zakum, unmute me ←

15:17:31 <chimezie> Parematerized inference does give an extension point to RIF as described in the Wiki

Parematerized inference does give an extension point to RIF as described in the Wiki ←

15:17:40 <LeeF> chimezie, thanks, you are right

Lee Feigenbaum: chimezie, thanks, you are right ←

15:17:48 <AndyS> zakim, unmute chimezie

Andy Seaborne: zakim, unmute chimezie ←

15:17:49 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←

15:17:55 <SteveH> but arguable not an appropriate one...

Steve Harris: but arguable not an appropriate one... ←

15:18:11 <AxelPolleres> +1 to ivanh

Axel Polleres: +1 to ivanh ←

15:18:16 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←

15:18:20 <LeeF> ack LukeWM

Lee Feigenbaum: ack LukeWM ←

15:18:31 <chimezie> zakim, mute me

zakim, mute me ←

15:18:31 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted ←

15:18:47 <chimezie> LukeWM: don't know that much about OWL, haven't had much experience with it, mostly a matter of priority

Luke Wilson-Mawer: don't know that much about OWL, haven't had much experience with it, mostly a matter of priority ←

15:18:59 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←

15:19:23 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: RIF+RDF graphs complies well with entailment regimes for SPARQL

Axel Polleres: RIF+RDF graphs complies well with entailment regimes for SPARQL ←

15:20:19 <chimezie> ... they should go together

... they should go together ←

15:20:24 <bijan> q+ to ask if this is how we mean to go on as opposed to the language groups doing them themselves

Bijan Parsia: q+ to ask if this is how we mean to go on as opposed to the language groups doing them themselves ←

15:20:27 <chimezie> LeeF: Time is the primary caveat

Lee Feigenbaum: Time is the primary caveat ←

15:20:32 <SteveH> I suspect that RIF and OWL raise slightly different issues

Steve Harris: I suspect that RIF and OWL raise slightly different issues ←

15:20:44 <bijan> SteveH: for sure

Steve Harris: for sure [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←

15:21:03 <chimezie> ... doing one of these will be a good way to test the current extension point

... doing one of these will be a good way to test the current extension point ←

15:21:15 <LeeF> ack pgearon

Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←

15:21:54 <chimezie> pgearon: Rules are: rule-based query and rulesets that generate statements (falls into area of update)

Paul Gearon: Rules are: rule-based query and rulesets that generate statements (falls into area of update) ←

15:22:25 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me

zakim, unmute me ←

15:22:25 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←

15:22:48 <LeeF> chimezie: I think there is an overlap between what SPARQL/OWL and parameterizedinference are tryingto achieve

Chime Ogbuji: I think there is an overlap between what SPARQL/OWL and parameterizedinference are tryingto achieve [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

15:22:54 <LeeF> ... important to spell out more clearly than we currently do

Lee Feigenbaum: ... important to spell out more clearly than we currently do ←

15:23:16 <LeeF> ... better to do one or the other than nother

Lee Feigenbaum: ... better to do one or the other than nother ←

15:23:29 <LeeF> ... important as we do more expressive querying of the semantic web

Lee Feigenbaum: ... important as we do more expressive querying of the semantic web ←

15:23:46 <SteveH> I don't like conflating ParameterisedInference and SPARQL/OWL

Steve Harris: I don't like conflating ParameterisedInference and SPARQL/OWL ←

15:23:50 <LeeF> ack bijan

Lee Feigenbaum: ack bijan ←

15:23:50 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask if this is how we mean to go on as opposed to the language groups doing them themselves

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to ask if this is how we mean to go on as opposed to the language groups doing them themselves ←

15:23:58 <SteveH> they are really quite different

Steve Harris: they are really quite different ←

15:24:18 <chimezie> bijan: perhaps WGs and community can do this

Bijan Parsia: perhaps WGs and community can do this ←

15:24:24 <ivanh> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:24:32 <SimonS> SteveH +1

Simon Schenk: SteveH +1 ←

15:24:36 <chimezie> This argument applies to OWL as well as RIF , BTW (having this done in separate communities)

This argument applies to OWL as well as RIF , BTW (having this done in separate communities) ←

15:25:00 <ivanh> q-

Ivan Herman: q- ←

15:25:05 <AxelPolleres> +1 to that OWL and RIF did already a lot of pre-work in these regards and it shouldn't be so difficult as some expect.

Axel Polleres: +1 to that OWL and RIF did already a lot of pre-work in these regards and it shouldn't be so difficult as some expect. ←

15:25:30 <ivanh> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:25:34 <chimezie> SteveH: one is about querying store with inference capability and the other is about for this query , use this set of features

Steve Harris: one is about querying store with inference capability and the other is about for this query , use this set of features ←

15:25:52 <chimezie> The difference is that in once case you are being specific about the 'feature' in the other, the feature is open ended

The difference is that in once case you are being specific about the 'feature' in the other, the feature is open ended ←

15:25:56 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me

zakim, unmute me ←

15:25:56 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji was not muted, chimezie

Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji was not muted, chimezie ←

15:26:43 <SteveH> q+ (again sorry)

Steve Harris: q+ (again sorry) ←

15:26:48 <LeeF> chimezie: RDF clinical data - want to derive variables for reporting to external agency - reporting requirements come after the fact - makes sense to write constraints for how to derive variables and then include that as parameter to the query

Chime Ogbuji: RDF clinical data - want to derive variables for reporting to external agency - reporting requirements come after the fact - makes sense to write constraints for how to derive variables and then include that as parameter to the query [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

15:28:04 <chimezie> ivanh: if we forget RIF for a moment, we have various ways to add inference (RDF, OWL2, RDFS, etc..)

Ivan Herman: if we forget RIF for a moment, we have various ways to add inference (RDF, OWL2, RDFS, etc..) ←

15:28:27 <chimezie> ... a finite list. Not really parameterized.  With RIF we have something else.  A well0defined way to define rules

... a finite list. Not really parameterized. With RIF we have something else. A well0defined way to define rules ←

15:29:09 <SimonS> q+ the (RDF, OWL2, ...) case is not that different if you consider ontologies as parameters analogous to rulesets

Simon Schenk: q+ the (RDF, OWL2, ...) case is not that different if you consider ontologies as parameters analogous to rulesets ←

15:29:28 <LeeF> ack SteveH

Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←

15:29:31 <LeeF> ack ivanh

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanh ←

15:29:34 <SimonS> q+

Simon Schenk: q+ ←

15:29:37 <chimezie> SteveH: different point.  Prior was working on rule-based query engines.

Steve Harris: different point. Prior was working on rule-based query engines. ←

15:29:45 <chimezie> ... didn't require syntax extension

... didn't require syntax extension ←

15:30:09 <Zakim> -john-l

Zakim IRC Bot: -john-l ←

15:30:13 <chimezie> ... the concern is regarding the proposed syntax.  Doesn't cover this usecase  .  Use services instead of rules

... the concern is regarding the proposed syntax. Doesn't cover this usecase . Use services instead of rules ←

15:30:27 <chimezie> ... the community therefor doesn't have enough consensus

... the community therefor doesn't have enough consensus ←

15:30:40 <bijan> It seems that people are confusing defining an entailment/generation regime with the task of assigning such a regime to a particular BGP

Bijan Parsia: It seems that people are confusing defining an entailment/generation regime with the task of assigning such a regime to a particular BGP ←

15:31:19 <AxelPolleres> q+ why just FROM is not so easy.

Axel Polleres: q+ why just FROM is not so easy. ←

15:31:29 <chimezie> the latter is needed in either case

the latter is needed in either case ←

15:31:32 <AxelPolleres> q?

Axel Polleres: q? ←

15:31:35 <AxelPolleres> q+

Axel Polleres: q+ ←

15:31:46 <AndyS> +1 to SteveH - need parts of query, not just overall

Andy Seaborne: +1 to SteveH - need parts of query, not just overall ←

15:31:52 <bijan> Why a rule set instead of an arbitrary extra graph?

Bijan Parsia: Why a rule set instead of an arbitrary extra graph? ←

15:32:07 <chimezie> i.e., specifying a regime is only useful if you can 'use' it explicitely.  I think of this latter part as the common ground between both

i.e., specifying a regime is only useful if you can 'use' it explicitely. I think of this latter part as the common ground between both ←

15:32:43 <bijan> chimezie, sure (though you can do it with endpoints), but they are distinct.

Bijan Parsia: chimezie, sure (though you can do it with endpoints), but they are distinct. ←

15:33:55 <chimezie> LeeF: not sure where are .  Perhaps continue on mailing list?

Lee Feigenbaum: not sure where are . Perhaps continue on mailing list? ←

15:34:00 <chimezie> ... pick it up during F2F

... pick it up during F2F ←

15:34:04 <chimezie> ... adjorn for today

... adjorn for today ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---

This revision (#1) generated 2009-04-28 17:37:44 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: 'initial minutes - thanks to Chimezie for scribing'