14:57:46 RRSAgent has joined #sparql 14:57:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-sparql-irc 14:57:54 Zakim has joined #sparql 14:58:07 trackbot, start meeting 14:58:10 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:58:12 Zakim, this will be 77277 14:58:12 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 14:58:13 Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:58:13 Date: 12 January 2010 14:59:19 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:19 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, AxelPolleres 14:59:21 On IRC I see RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, bglimm, OlivierCorby, LukeWM, LeeF, AndyS, dcharbon2, iv_an_ru, AlexPassant, karl, pgearon, kasei, trackbot, sandro 15:00:00 zakim, this will be sparql 15:00:05 ok, AndyS, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started 15:00:11 +Souri 15:00:13 +??P2 15:00:14 zakim, who is on the phone 15:00:21 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', AndyS 15:00:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:41 +kasei 15:00:41 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:43 +bglimm 15:00:44 Zakim, mute me 15:00:45 On the phone I see OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, ??P17, Souri, ??P2, kasei, bglimm 15:00:50 On the phone I see OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, ??P17, Souri, ??P2, kasei, bglimm 15:00:51 bglimm should now be muted 15:00:52 zakim, ??P2 is LukeWM 15:00:55 zakim, ??P17 is me 15:01:01 +pgearon 15:01:05 zakim, mute me 15:01:07 +LukeWM; got it 15:01:13 +AndyS; got it 15:01:21 dcharbon2 should now be muted 15:01:30 ivan has joined #sparql 15:01:42 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:47 On the phone I see OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2 (muted), AndyS, Souri, LukeWM, kasei, bglimm (muted), pgearon 15:02:36 Souri has joined #sparql 15:02:37 Regrets+ LeeF 15:02:56 zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:02:59 ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:03:01 +Ivan 15:03:05 I support publication of all of our documents as Working Drafts, as long as editors are happy with them. 15:03:27 Zakim, mut ivan 15:03:27 I don't understand 'mut ivan', AxelPolleres 15:03:36 Zakim, mute ivan 15:03:39 Ivan should now be muted 15:03:41 is it better now? 15:03:56 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-01-12 15:04:20 Scribe: dcharbon2 15:04:46 PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-01-05 15:05:00 RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-01-05 15:05:22 Next meeting: 2010-01-19 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST 15:05:27 AxelPolleres: should be 19th, not 17th for meeting 15:05:45 AxelPolleres: Should have comments handling in the end, anything to report from liasons? 15:05:46 topic: liaisons 15:05:59 nothing to report, it seems 15:06:08 chimezie has joined #sparql 15:06:13 AxelPolleres: move to document reviews, sparql queries 15:06:16 Zakim, passcode? 15:06:24 yes 15:06:27 the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie 15:06:27 Zakim, what is the passcode? 15:06:39 the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie 15:06:50 AxelPolleres: have comments been addressed in queries? 15:07:01 zakim, who is talking? 15:07:09 +??P3 15:07:11 Zakim, ?P3 is me 15:07:14 Zakim, ??P3 is me 15:07:18 sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '?P3' 15:07:19 dcharbon2, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AxelPolleres (4%), AndyS (35%), Souri (49%) 15:07:24 +AlexPassant; got it 15:07:31 Souri: yes, my comments have been addressed 15:07:36 + +1.216.636.aaaa 15:07:39 AxelPolleres: any other comments? 15:07:54 Zakim, +1.216.636.aaaa is me 15:07:54 +chimezie; got it 15:07:56 +??P6 15:08:00 PROPOSED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ 15:08:02 AxelPolleres: Andy, any more comments? 15:08:11 AndyS: I think I've processed everything 15:08:11 yes 15:08:26 +1 15:08:26 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:08:26 On the phone I see OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2 (muted), AndyS, Souri, LukeWM, kasei, bglimm (muted), pgearon, Ivan (muted), AlexPassant, chimezie, ??P6 15:08:34 +1 (W3C) 15:08:35 +1 (RPI) 15:08:38 +1 (Oxford) 15:08:39 +1 (IBM) 15:08:40 +1 (CCF) 15:08:41 +1 (DERI, NUIG) 15:08:42 +1 (Talis) 15:08:46 +1 15:08:47 +1 (Oracle) 15:08:56 +1 (Garlik) - on Steve's behalf 15:09:09 RESOLVED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ 15:09:18 +1 (Oracle) - on Matt's behalf 15:09:28 AxelPolleres: Next one is services description document 15:09:55 AxelPolleres: Does Alex or other reviewers have more comments? 15:10:12 AlexPassant: I am ok with the comments and changes 15:10:29 PROPOSED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/ as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/ 15:10:33 +??P37 15:10:36 +1 (W3C) 15:10:37 +1 (DERI, NUIG) 15:10:38 +1 (RPI) 15:10:39 +1 (Talis) 15:10:44 +1 (Oxford) 15:10:44 +1 (IBM) 15:10:46 +1 15:10:50 zakim, P37 is Orri 15:10:50 sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'P37' 15:11:02 zakim, ?P37 is Orri 15:11:02 sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named '?P37' 15:11:06 0 15:11:13 0 15:11:19 zakim, ??P37 is Orri 15:11:19 +Orri; got it 15:11:27 +1 (on behalf of OpenLink, Orri) 15:11:43 AxelPolleres: Why does Souri abstain? 15:12:02 no 15:12:03 Souri: I didn't get to read it fully, so I am not sure. 15:12:05 fair enough 15:12:19 important is that there is no objection 15:12:22 RESOLVED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/ as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/ 15:12:28 I have not had a chance to read either document either, so am also unsure 15:12:33 but am happy to publish 15:12:41 AxelPolleres: next up is update document, where there was still some ongoing discussion 15:13:29 pgearon: Yes, there was still discussion around delete and such 15:13:55 pgearon: Outstanding issues are ok where they are, was more concerned with things getting resolved 15:14:02 I haven't read the document thoroughly either, but I'm not going to object. 15:14:05 pgearon: Still some syntax issues, like delete shortcut 15:14:07 Prateek has joined #sparql 15:14:17 pgearon: Some ambiguities still under discussion 15:14:34 +Satya 15:14:35 pgearon: would like to see a resolution of some of these discussions before going to publish 15:14:43 Zakim,Satya is Prateek 15:14:43 +Prateek; got it 15:14:58 The latest ambiguity that Andy highlighted scared me a lot! (similar-looking DELETE and DELETE DATA doing different things) 15:15:11 zakim, who's on the phone 15:15:11 I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Souri 15:15:27 pgearon: Liked latest discussion around Delete 15:15:37 pgearon: would prefer some of what has been discussed 15:16:07 AxelPolleres: wanted to make sure that the list and document were representative 15:16:47 pgearon: still of two minds on how to resolve the issue, whether to take discussion into document or go forward with what is in place now 15:17:03 AxelPolleres: should we come back to this next week? Would that be better? 15:17:20 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:17:20 On the phone I see OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2 (muted), AndyS, Souri, LukeWM, kasei, bglimm (muted), pgearon, Ivan (muted), AlexPassant, chimezie, ??P6, Orri, Prateek 15:17:20 pgearon: That sounds good, if we can get the quick turnaround 15:17:42 Please link CVS log to email log for comments (CVS log accepts HTML markup) 15:17:49 q+ 15:17:49 AxelPolleres: Next week should be fine for deciding on publish for this document. Just be sure that there is an editor's note regarding the ongoing discussion 15:17:56 zakim, ??p6 is Matt 15:17:56 +Matt; got it 15:18:26 ??: It would be good to postpone to next week for Steve 15:18:37 it was me dcharbon2 15:18:49 pgearon: Steve has been active in the discussion 15:18:50 s/??/LukeWM/ 15:19:08 AxelPolleres: Let's vote on it next week then 15:19:18 ACTION: Paul to make proposal to resolve current state of discussion on UPDATE in editor's notes and find approval by reviewers on email 15:19:18 Created ACTION-180 - Make proposal to resolve current state of discussion on UPDATE in editor's notes and find approval by reviewers on email [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-01-19]. 15:19:21 pgearon: I'll email the list when I've updated the document 15:19:37 q? 15:19:44 zakim, ack me 15:19:44 I see ??P2 on the speaker queue 15:19:44 ack LukeWM 15:19:45 ack LukeWM 15:20:05 zakim, who is here? 15:20:05 On the phone I see OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2 (muted), AndyS, Souri, LukeWM, kasei, bglimm (muted), pgearon, Ivan (muted), AlexPassant, chimezie, Matt, Orri, Prateek 15:20:08 On IRC I see Prateek, chimezie, Souri, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, bglimm, OlivierCorby, LukeWM, LeeF, AndyS, dcharbon2, iv_an_ru, AlexPassant, karl, pgearon, kasei, 15:20:11 zakim, ack ??P2 15:20:11 ... trackbot, sandro 15:20:11 I see no one on the speaker queue 15:20:17 AxelPolleres: who is on the queue? 15:20:35 AxelPolleres: Next document is property paths 15:20:47 AxelPolleres: There were some comments from Souri, before? 15:21:16 Souri: There was a question of getting some more functionality, however, AndyS pointed out a previous straw poll rejecting that 15:21:28 AxelPolleres: It sounds like the comments have been addressed 15:21:44 AndyS: Some of the issues have been opened as issues, everything should be noted 15:22:34 AndyS: Would like to bring up a process issue for property paths, decided to publish with shortname. Will create a dangling document if property paths get merged into query specification. Will that cause a problem, can it be avoided? 15:22:36 zakim, unmute me 15:22:36 Ivan should no longer be muted 15:22:38 q+ 15:22:45 ack ivan 15:23:28 ivan: to make things really nice, when we decide to merge the path into the query docuemnt, if we do decide that, we can put out a new version of the property paths document stating it has been discontinued and merged into the query document 15:23:37 AndyS: That would be excellent 15:24:03 ivan: When the group is closed, the site is set up so certain docs can be marked as retired and won't be available 15:24:07 PROPOSED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml as FPWD under http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-property-paths/ 15:24:17 +1 (Talis) 15:24:18 +1 (RPI) 15:24:19 +1 (W3C) 15:24:19 +1 (DERI, NUIG) 15:24:22 +1 (IBM) 15:24:24 +1 15:24:27 +1 15:24:28 +1 (Oracle) for both Souri and Matt 15:24:32 +1 15:24:36 0 (Oxford) -- havn't read it, but see no reasons not to publish 15:24:37 +1 (CCF) 15:24:58 For Wright State University 15:25:05 RESOLVED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml as FPWD under http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-property-paths/ 15:25:19 Zakim, unmute me 15:25:19 bglimm should no longer be muted 15:25:23 AxelPolleres: get to the last document which is entailment, where there has been much work 15:25:52 bglimm: I think I addressed almost all comments. There is still one issue which means and editors note will be added 15:26:08 s/and editors/an editors/ 15:26:42 AxelPolleres: Issue around consistent active graph - 15:27:02 bglimm: currently defined in a way that don't satisfy certain conditions 15:27:27 AxelPolleres: Understood that the conditions weren't related when he read the draft 15:27:28 q+ 15:27:40 AxelPolleres: suggest slight weakening of the editors note 15:28:00 ivan: this should not be an obstacle for publishing? 15:28:13 AxelPolleres: I think this should be fine, but editor's note suggests a problem 15:28:31 ivan: open issues should not be a reason not to publish the entailment docuemnt 15:28:49 AxelPolleres: can we propose to publish modulo pending change to editor's note? 15:28:52 ivan: I think so 15:29:10 PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ modulo agreement between Birte and Axel on Editor's note regarding inconsistency 15:29:25 +1 (W3C) 15:29:27 +1 (Oxford) 15:29:29 +1 (Talis) 15:29:31 +1 (IBM) 15:29:33 +1 (RPI) 15:29:35 +1 (DERI, NUIG) 15:29:35 +1 (INRIA) 15:29:39 +1 (CCF) 15:29:40 +1 (Wright State University) 15:29:42 Zakim, mute me 15:29:42 bglimm should now be muted 15:29:57 Zakim, mute me 15:29:57 chimezie should now be muted 15:29:59 RESOLVED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ modulo agreement between Birte and Axel on Editor's note regarding inconsistency 15:30:22 AxelPolleres: congratulate and thank the editors for their hard work 15:30:33 AxelPolleres: have protocol and update pending 15:30:49 zakim, unmute me 15:30:49 dcharbon2 should no longer be muted 15:31:30 dcharbon2: Did Axel comments (LeeF) but pref to wait until next week 15:31:37 LeeF had incorporated AxelPolleres comments 15:31:45 LukeWM: Agree - wait is good 15:31:55 Zakim, unmute me 15:31:55 chimezie should no longer be muted 15:31:58 I proposed postponing to next week to incorporate LukeWM's comments 15:32:08 It was agreed 15:32:40 chimezie: Incorporating comments went well, unless AndyS has comments, thinks the specification is ready for publication 15:32:54 AndyS: Yes, I'm happy for it to be published as a working draft 15:32:55 PROPOSED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/ 15:32:59 zakim, mute me 15:32:59 dcharbon2 should now be muted 15:33:07 +1 (Talis) 15:33:16 +1 (RPI) 15:33:16 +1 (IBM) 15:33:24 +1 (DERI, NUIG) 15:33:30 0, I have not read them 15:33:38 0 (Oxford) -- again not read the document, but I see no reasons not to publish 15:33:46 +1 15:33:47 +1 (Wright State University) 15:33:50 0 (I need more careful reading, but would not want to hold it) 15:34:10 AxelPolleres: Some abstentions, no objections 15:34:13 RESOLVED: publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ as new version of http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/ 15:34:21 Zakim, mute me 15:34:21 chimezie should now be muted 15:34:39 AxelPolleres: Have two remaining votes for next week 15:34:49 AxelPolleres: Time to go through the update issues 15:35:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0133.html 15:35:12 AxelPolleres: made a small attempt to summarize the current open issues for update 15:35:30 and typing 15:35:34 Axel you are cutting in and out 15:35:39 Zakim, mute ivan 15:35:39 Ivan should now be muted 15:35:41 Can we discuss having a new overview doc? 15:36:10 AndyS: do you mean updating the F&R ? 15:36:17 AxelPolleres: link is a summary of the issues AndyS and Paul had brought up 15:36:35 AxelPolleres: There were several open issues, first is actually a closed issue that seems to have been forgotten 15:36:35 MattPerry has joined #sparql 15:36:56 AxelPolleres: There was some late unhappiness with the wording of the resolution 15:37:01 No - a summary /guide to the spec we produce. Came up in update discussion. 15:37:02 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/27 15:38:05 AxelPolleres: Issue 27 is about substituting in updates, had been closed, but concerns about wording in resolution 15:38:31 AxelPolleres: Resolution had been passed at face2face 2 15:38:49 AxelPolleres: Are there any objects to just allowing sparql 1.1 where clauses (straw poll) 15:39:00 s/objects/objections/ 15:39:00 q? 15:39:01 No objection here 15:39:02 not exactly:-( 15:39:04 ack ivan 15:39:09 Zakim, unmute me 15:39:09 chimezie should no longer be muted 15:39:13 yes 15:39:18 I'm not 100% clear either 15:39:23 me either 15:39:51 AxelPolleres: said we would close this issue that where clauses in update would allow all sparql 1.0, but would mark sparql 1.1 additions as at risk 15:40:04 including property paths? 15:40:19 yes 15:40:23 yes 15:40:23 AxelPolleres: suggesting, passing resolution allowing sparql 1.1 where clauses in updates after comments from AndyS and paul 15:40:59 AxelPolleres: If we psas this resolution, property paths would be allowed in update 15:41:10 s/psas/pass 15:41:37 Strawpoll: any objections to allow full SPARQL1.1/Query WHERE clauses for update WHERE clauses? 15:42:02 Strawpoll: shall we allow full SPARQL1.1/Query WHERE clauses for update WHERE clauses? 15:42:07 +1 15:42:11 +1 15:42:12 yes +1 15:42:15 +1 for Orri 15:42:18 +1 15:42:18 +1 15:42:19 +1 15:42:21 0 (I'm cautious about allowing at the outset that amount of expressiveness in the update language) 15:42:21 +1 15:42:21 +1 15:42:23 but will go with group 15:42:26 +1 15:42:31 +1 15:42:48 0 15:42:58 AxelPolleres: Chimezie, can you elaborate your concerns? 15:43:05 +1 15:43:49 chimezie: this would allow all constructs from 1.1 and there are some constructs that aren't fully settled. Understand using feedback to determine what to not allow in these where clauses in the update language. 15:44:32 AxelPolleres: chair hat off, need full sparql query processor for update where clause if we don't allow sparql 1.1 (to deal with sparql query 1.0) 15:45:05 AxelPolleres: Don't see where this resolution would introduce problems 15:45:16 There may well be incomplete impls of update - but there are of SPARQL 1.0 Query today. 15:45:18 AxelPolleres: if we restrict it, we could restrict it in terms of profiles 15:45:53 chimezie: I can see that it will be less of an issue. Wanted to clarify process for resolving an issues discovered down the road. 15:46:11 AxelPolleres: LukeWM, any comments for regarding your abstention? 15:46:28 LukeWM: Not really, I'm not familiar with all of the issues 15:46:47 AxelPolleres: Maybe we shouldn't pass this resolution today 15:47:06 LukeWM: Thinks LeeF may have been involved in the original resolution 15:47:18 AxelPolleres: yes, everyone at f2f 2 had been a part of it. 15:47:36 AxelPolleres: we have a resolution, we could close the issue. However, we could propose this new resolution next week 15:47:49 AxelPolleres: will take this to email and suggest this for resolution next time 15:47:51 ACTION: axel will take this on email and suggest the resolution for next TC. 15:47:51 Created ACTION-181 - Will take this on email and suggest the resolution for next TC. [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-01-19]. 15:48:13 Close ISSUE-27 by resolution of F2F2 15:48:56 AxelPolleres: next issue was issue-45, insert and delete update to be nested inside select queries. Andy and Paul were heavily objec ting 15:49:22 AxelPolleres: I agree. Would propose to close with it's not allowed 15:49:24 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-45 with the understanding that nesting of updates is not allowed. 15:49:30 AxelPolleres: Any objections? 15:49:32 +1 15:49:33 +1 for Orri 15:49:42 +1 15:49:44 +1 15:49:47 +1 15:49:53 +1 15:49:59 +1 15:50:21 AndyS: wording of the proposal is a bit loose, issue is the nesting of update inside queries 15:50:23 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-45 with the understanding that nesting of updates inside queries is not allowed. 15:50:32 +1 15:50:33 +1 15:50:34 +1 15:50:37 +1 15:50:37 +1 15:50:39 +1 15:50:39 +! 15:50:42 +1 15:50:52 +1 15:50:56 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-45 with the understanding that nesting of updates inside queries is not allowed. 15:51:11 close ISSUE-45 with the understanding that nesting of updates inside queries is not allowed 15:51:25 AxelPolleres: Next is ISSUE-24 15:51:37 ISSUE-24: Can data be SELECTed from one graph and INSERTed into another (moved) 15:51:37 ISSUE-24 Move data between graphs (select on one graph and insert into another... copy from/to) notes added 15:52:13 AxelPolleres: In current working draft this is possible 15:52:16 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-24 with the understanding moving is possible with the DELETE/INSERT construct in the 15:52:16 current SPARQL1.1/Update WD. 15:52:55 +1 15:52:55 +1 15:52:59 0 15:53:10 +1 15:53:21 AxelPolleres: Closing or wording that you're objecting to? 15:53:33 +1 15:53:44 AndyS: worried that we haven't provided a way to perform a common operation 15:54:15 AxelPolleres: isn't this the same as issue that we may need more sophisticated update operations? 15:54:19 AndyS: yes, the two overlap 15:54:23 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-24 with the understanding moving is possible with the DELETE/INSERT construct in the current SPARQL1.1/Update WD. 15:54:35 AxelPolleres: Since you abstained and issue-21 is open, can we resolve? 15:54:39 AndyS: yes, I think so 15:55:04 AxelPolleres: other issues are 28, 37, 38 please bring to email 15:55:18 Issue 21 is closed 15:55:22 AxelPolleres: there was some discussion around issue-20, need to return to it 15:55:48 I thought issue 38 was worth talking about now. There doesn't seem to be controversy around it 15:56:02 I see it as closed too 15:56:18 May 7, 2009 15:56:41 AxelPolleres: Was closed because there were no concrete proposals for that round 15:57:01 AxelPolleres: if there are no concrete proposals, rather leave things out in that round 15:58:10 AxelPolleres: Paul, you want to talk more about issue 38? 15:58:26 pgearon: Yes, this is about a standard pattern matching feature in a where clause 15:58:43 pgearon: left it open to be sure that there aren't issues I'm not aware of 15:59:06 pgearon: make sure everyone else agrees with it's just standard pattern matching 15:59:20 AxelPolleres: 15:59:34 AxelPolleres: Would be at risk by current definition of issue-27 16:00:11 AxelPolleres: not sure we can pass a resolution on issue-38 now, is covered by the resolution of issue-24 perhaps? 16:00:24 Before we finish, LeeF asked me to bring up test cases: "we need test cases, what should we do?" 16:00:27 Just something to think about. 16:00:27 q+ 16:00:30 AxelPolleres: Suggest to run that through email 16:00:41 greg 16:00:47 zakim, unmute me 16:00:47 Ivan was not muted, ivan 16:00:58 ACTION: Axel to summarise status of update issues per email 16:00:58 Created ACTION-182 - Summarise status of update issues per email [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-01-19]. 16:01:21 ivan: Lee sent out an email about who might be at semtech. Please answer, we might propose to have a panel as we did previously 16:01:33 ivan: need to know if there will be enough people to do that 16:02:01 kasei: Talking with LeeF, about test cases. Need to start thinking about that and perhaps cover in a future call? 16:02:08 +1 to starting to gather test cases 16:02:16 yes, thanks ivan. 16:02:33 bye everybody 16:02:34