13:57:52 RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:57:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-sparql-irc 13:58:01 Zakim has joined #sparql 13:58:07 MattPerry has joined #sparql 13:58:14 trackbot, start meeting 13:58:16 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:58:18 Zakim, this will be 77277 13:58:18 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:58:19 Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 13:58:19 Date: 30 March 2010 13:58:37 Zakim, who is on the phone? 13:58:37 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, AxelPolleres 13:58:39 On IRC I see MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, OlivierCorby, bglimm, LeeF, SteveH, ivan, AndyS, karl, pgearon, iv_an_ru, ericP, sandro, AlexPassant, kasei, 13:58:42 ... trackbot 13:58:49 SteveH_ has joined #sparql 13:59:04 scribe: David Charboneau 13:59:27 scribenick: dcharbon2 14:00:07 Zakim? 14:00:10 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:00:10 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, AxelPolleres 14:00:11 On IRC I see SteveH, MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, OlivierCorby, bglimm, LeeF, ivan, AndyS, karl, pgearon, iv_an_ru, ericP, sandro, AlexPassant, kasei, 14:00:14 ... trackbot 14:00:58 member:Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:10 .member:Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:12 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:12 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, bglimm 14:01:14 On IRC I see SteveH, MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, OlivierCorby, bglimm, LeeF, ivan, AndyS, karl, pgearon, iv_an_ru, ericP, sandro, AlexPassant, kasei, 14:01:16 ... trackbot 14:01:25 Zakim, this is SPARQL 14:01:25 ok, bglimm; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM 14:01:26 trackbot, start meeting 14:01:28 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:01:30 Zakim, this will be 77277 14:01:30 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now 14:01:31 Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:01:31 Date: 30 March 2010 14:01:32 I've dialied in, but Zakim didn't mention that I'm here 14:01:47 Zakim, who's on the phone? 14:01:47 I notice SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has restarted 14:01:49 On the phone I see +03539149aaaa, dcharbon2, ??P25, OlivierCorby, bglimm, +0208439aabb, +1.540.412.aacc, Souri, ??P36 14:01:49 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:49 On the phone I see +03539149aaaa, dcharbon2, ??P25, OlivierCorby, bglimm, +0208439aabb, +1.540.412.aacc, Souri, ??P36 14:02:01 Zakim, aaaa is me 14:02:01 +AxelPolleres; got it 14:02:02 zakim, aacc is me 14:02:04 +pgearon; got it 14:02:04 Zakim, aabb is ms 14:02:05 zakim, mute me 14:02:06 +ms; got it 14:02:08 dcharbon2 should now be muted 14:02:10 +??P40 14:02:10 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:02:13 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:02:13 zakim, ??P40 is me 14:02:14 +Ivan 14:02:16 +AndyS; got it 14:02:22 Zakim, P25 is me 14:02:30 sorry, kasei, I do not recognize a party named 'P25' 14:02:37 Zakim, ??P25 is me 14:02:42 +kasei; got it 14:03:00 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:03:00 On the phone I see AxelPolleres, dcharbon2 (muted), kasei, OlivierCorby, bglimm, ms, pgearon, Souri, ??P36, AndyS, Ivan 14:03:11 agenda http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-30 14:03:13 AxelPolleres: Still need to write up some of the notes from f2f 14:03:14 zakim, ??P36 is me 14:03:14 +MattPerry; got it 14:03:19 Zakim, ms is me 14:03:19 +SteveH; got it 14:03:39 +??P45 14:03:44 AxelPolleres: Thank everyone for productive f2f. Goal for today is to try to settle issues to get to publications 14:04:03 Minutes are out there. Next time go into more technical issues. Today is more wrap up of f2f 14:04:11 chimezie has joined #sparql 14:04:19 ... try to get to publication round 14:04:27 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-23 14:04:38 + +1.216.445.aadd 14:04:47 PROPOSED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-23 14:04:59 Zakim, +1.216.445.aadd is me 14:04:59 +chimezie; got it 14:05:04 +1 14:05:16 RESOLVED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-23 14:05:23 AxelPolleres: Next is the F2F minutes 14:05:25 Zakim, mute me 14:05:25 chimezie should now be muted 14:05:33 ... perhaps not everyone has had time to look through them 14:05:41 ... don't propose to approve today 14:05:58 ... let AxelPolleres know if there are any changes that need to be made, anything missing 14:06:00 ... per email 14:06:10 AxelPolleres: Next meeting is in one week. 14:06:17 2010-04-06 (or is that too tight with Easter?) 14:06:19 ... is this okay for everyone? 14:06:21 I'll be away 14:06:25 Fine for me. 14:06:33 I won't be able to make next week. 14:06:34 regrets for a meetin in a week 14:06:38 +Sandro 14:06:39 I could make it 14:06:40 I can be here 14:06:45 will be ok for me 14:06:57 OK for the 6 14:06:58 lee, would you be able to make it next week? 14:07:18 AxelPolleres: about 1/2 people can make it 14:07:29 ... leave it up to Lee to decide, AxelPolleres won't be there 14:07:32 Souri has joined #sparql 14:07:49 ... Have on record who can make it, see if there are topics that could be covered amongst those who can make it 14:08:08 Zakim, mute me 14:08:08 bglimm should now be muted 14:08:09 anybody please indicate on IRC whether you'd be available for a TC in one week! 14:08:26 AxelPolleres: Comments handling, go quickly through comments to see where we are 14:08:28 topic: comments 14:08:29 Could we decide one way of the other please? Leaving to last minute is a bit of a nuisance. 14:08:38 +1 14:08:39 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments 14:08:43 [to AndyS] 14:09:10 Yes 14:09:14 OK here 14:09:16 ok 14:09:22 AxelPolleres: Will try to get answer from Lee on whether he can chair today and get an email out by tomorrow latest, ok? 14:09:27 ACTION: Axel to clarify by tomorrow latest whether we'll have a TC next week 14:09:27 Created ACTION-215 - Clarify by tomorrow latest whether we'll have a TC next week [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-04-06]. 14:09:28 AndyS: Okay for me 14:10:06 AxelPolleres: There are many open - is anyone working on a response for any of the open ones? 14:10:11 q+ 14:10:26 AndyS: all marked for property paths I will do 14:10:34 ... I will probably do them all in a single reply 14:10:43 ... several are about duplicates, so will address them all at once 14:10:51 AxelPolleres: I will assign those all to you 14:11:09 AxelPolleres: Is the last one in that group? 14:11:25 AndyS: no, there was a followup that that wasn't a comment 14:11:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0002.html 14:11:42 ... no property paths associated with it if I remember correctly 14:11:54 AxelPolleres: Is this the message we're talking about? 14:12:14 AndyS: yes. His message on the 23rd, which is a forward 14:12:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0005.html 14:12:26 I need to send off the NH-1 response based on the F2F discussion. Will confirm draft with the list first. 14:12:42 AxelPolleres: 4 can be taken off 14:12:48 Yes, I can make next week's call 14:13:10 AxelPolleres: who would be taking over the one for aggregates? 14:13:26 SteveH: Have you got a link to rv4? 14:13:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0002.html 14:13:38 AxelPolleres: it was cc'd to the comments list right? 14:13:54 SteveH: there was a followup that it wasn't comment, just feedback 14:14:02 AndyS: that was just about the property paths 14:14:14 AxelPolleres: it would be good if you could have another look 14:14:18 SteveH: okay 14:14:32 AxelPolleres: I will fill that in in the comments list, assigning to SteveH 14:15:09 AxelPolleres: There is a comment from Nicolai on update syntax 14:15:13 ... on the 18th 14:15:14 ED-1 14:15:20 RV-4 to SteveH, 14:15:29 NA-1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0000.html 14:15:52 q? 14:15:58 AxelPolleres: this one is about insert/delete 14:16:01 Unassigned: ED-1, ST-1, RV-3, NA-1, RV-4 (now to Steve) 14:16:03 ack me 14:16:07 i can hear loud keyboard activity 14:16:17 me is getting so much typing noise I cannot hear Axel 14:17:09 AxelPolleres: we discussed this at the f2f and the conclusion was that we would not want to make this combination having query and udpate in this round, though we acknowledged it was interesting 14:17:22 ... anyone interested in drafting response, otherwise I will 14:17:25 ACTION: draft response for NA-1 14:17:25 Sorry, couldn't find user - draft 14:17:27 ... I will draft the resposne 14:17:39 s/response/resposne 14:18:00 AxelPolleres: There is one open on aggregates and property paths 14:18:21 ... SteveH , do you think you can address RV-3, at least the aggregates part? 14:18:39 AxelPolleres: there is a reply from both of you, it seems to be fine, right? 14:18:52 SteveH: there is a response from Rob that he is okay with the response 14:19:06 AxelPolleres: RV-4 can be considered as the open comment 14:19:22 SteveH: in response to RV-4 I include a request that RV-3 is closed as well 14:19:27 AxelPolleres: Ok, good 14:19:45 AndyS: Steve, you said that response to RV-3 is as an individual? 14:19:51 SteveH: I may have confused 2 and 3 14:20:26 ACTION: steve to ask Rob Vesse in response to RV-4 whether RV-3 has been addresses satisfactory. 14:20:26 Created ACTION-216 - Ask Rob Vesse in response to RV-4 whether RV-3 has been addresses satisfactory. [on Steve Harris - due 2010-04-06]. 14:20:34 AxelPolleres: Suggest add sentence in response to RV-4 include a link and ask if he is satisfied with the response he's got so far 14:20:41 SteveH: that's fine 14:20:49 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0015.html 14:20:51 ST-1 14:21:08 AxelPolleres: request for named graph templates everywhere 14:21:27 ... not sure whether we discussed that at all or .. 14:21:43 SteveH: we discussed the construct part but don't think we came to a conclusion 14:21:53 AxelPolleres: Are we able to draft a response or not? 14:22:04 SteveH: Probably not till we've discussed it I think? 14:22:24 AxelPolleres: Is it okay to respond while the issue is open for us? Or respond at least that we are discussing it? 14:22:36 SteveH: no strong feeling - I think I responded that this is an open issue 14:22:52 .. I think that responding it's still open would be a reasonable response? 14:23:00 AxelPolleres: Anyone to do this? 14:23:11 AndyS: why not assign it to the editor? 14:23:18 AxelPolleres: is paul on the call? 14:23:23 pgearon: yes 14:23:36 AxelPolleres: can we assign that to you and have you keep track of it? 14:23:39 pgearon: yeah, ok 14:23:39 Before LC, I don't see the need to reply before we've addressed the issue - there is no time constraint (there's also not anything wrong with replying that we're tsill considering something, i just don't think it's necessary) 14:23:44 ACTION: Paul to draft response on ST-1 14:23:44 Created ACTION-217 - Draft response on ST-1 [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-04-06]. 14:24:01 ED-1 14:24:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0006.html 14:24:15 AxelPolleres: Next open is Emanuele on aggregate syntax 14:24:25 AxelPolleres: I answered that personally 14:24:32 ... next was for him to explain on some details 14:24:43 ... I will put myself here and check back here if there are any open issues 14:24:51 ACTION: Axel to check back on ED-1 14:24:51 Created ACTION-218 - Check back on ED-1 [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-04-06]. 14:25:11 AxelPolleres: we have some open on property paths - RN-1 14:25:16 ... from January 14:25:24 RN-1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Jan/0000.html 14:25:48 AxelPolleres: There are some replies, it seems 14:25:59 not precisely 14:26:08 ... you sent a reply on that, Paul, but I don't know if this can be considered as a reply 14:26:15 pgearon: no, this isn't officially a reply 14:26:24 ... I sent out a request for clarification/comments 14:26:33 ... Richard ended up in the conversation with us 14:26:45 ... formally hasn't been responded to, informally has been 14:26:57 AxelPolleres: can you follow up with him to see if he needs a further response? 14:27:00 ACTION: Paul to check back whether RN-1 needs to be further addressed 14:27:00 Created ACTION-219 - Check back whether RN-1 needs to be further addressed [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-04-06]. 14:27:00 pgearon: ok, I will 14:27:23 topic:liaisons 14:27:34 Axel - are you going to update the comment wiki page? 14:27:41 AxelPolleres: Is there anything new on liasons, RIF/RDF/etc.. 14:28:04 Orri: identifying the issues there 14:28:10 ... for RDF 14:28:26 ... converging aggreement on syntax - nothing that SPARQL group should worry about 14:28:42 AxelPolleres: sandro? 14:29:11 sandro: RIF did decide that it has exit met criteria and will move to publication in next few weeks. No impact to SPARQL 14:29:23 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-25 14:29:25 AxelPolleres: have minutes from f2f here 14:29:29 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-26 14:29:32 ... rough minutes 14:30:02 AxelPolleres: do we want to go quickly through the resolutions, explain what they mean for anyone who wasn't present 14:30:26 ... first two resolutions were about getting the entailment and property path features more weight by these resolutions 14:30:36 ... saying will carry them over by rec 14:30:44 ... 3rd resolution closed issue-20 14:31:05 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/index.php?title=Lees_Update_Graph_Model&oldid=1995 14:31:12 ... which was by adoption of Lee's graph model 14:31:18 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Lees_Update_Graph_Model 14:31:28 AxelPolleres: this was the way forward decided for issue-20 14:31:54 ... a way that will allow us to allow triple stores that have explicit notion of graphs as well as just triple stores 14:32:01 ... any questions on that, let me know 14:32:12 AxelPolleres: separators between queries, next 14:32:18 ... this was in update operations 14:32:27 +q 14:32:31 ... semicolon is the separator between series of update operations 14:33:08 AxelPolleres: next on whether anything more than success or failure should be returned, agreed that there will be just success or failure on update 14:33:11 Zakim, unmute me 14:33:11 chimezie should no longer be muted 14:33:42 AxelPolleres: issue-26, we don't provide any transactional mechanism except to say that update operations should be processed atomicall 14:34:14 pgearon: you said that semicolons would be separators between update operations, end of update would be semicolon or end of file 14:34:18 q+ 14:34:26 pgearon: I thought that there would only be end of file at the end 14:34:46 AxelPolleres: you could just have empty or separator, maybe someone else has an opinion? 14:34:49 ack SteveH 14:34:59 SteveH: my recollection was same as AxelPolleres 14:35:09 ... allow compatibility with command line clients 14:35:09 Agree -- ";" is optional at end 14:35:14 pgearon: no problem, then 14:35:35 q? 14:35:41 AxelPolleres: issue-18 about concurrent - don't make any recommendations on how to handle concurrent 14:35:44 ack pgearon 14:35:53 AxelPolleres: day 2 resolutions 14:35:55 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-26 14:36:37 AxelPolleres: first was for how treat errors in aggregates - go with proposal from AndyS 14:36:42 ... return tuple multisets 14:36:48 ... and number of errors 14:36:56 ... resolved also issue-53 14:37:35 AxelPolleres: then went through list of proposed aggregates in resolutions 3,4,5 and decide on groupconcat 14:37:59 ... distinguished parameters for aggregates and functional parameters separated from regular parameters by semicolons 14:38:03 q+ 14:38:13 q- 14:38:14 s/semicolons/semicolon 14:38:15 +Sandro.a 14:38:19 -Sandro 14:38:34 zakim, Sandro.a is Sandro 14:38:34 +Sandro; got it 14:38:49 q+ ask about default separator in GROUP_CONCAT 14:38:56 AxelPolleres: allowing variables or expressions in group by, decided to go with what is currently in the grammar 14:39:06 ... in group by you could have actually any expression 14:39:11 q+ ask about default separator 14:39:16 ... expression could be renamed to variable in a group by expression 14:39:25 ... could be reused but doesn't need to be projected 14:39:45 Souri: for group_concat, space was default separator? 14:39:53 AxelPolleres: there was some discussion on that 14:40:12 ... in the minutes, where the resolution is discussed, we agreed to a default, current default is whitespace 14:40:26 Souri: no resolution on that 14:40:35 AxelPolleres: no, but there was aggreement 14:40:56 AxelPolleres: discussion about negation 14:41:42 ... might be a bit confusing... we agreed that we go with the not exists syntax, but eventually concluded that we will have minus as an operator and exists and not exists in filters 14:41:54 AxelPolleres: any questions on that? 14:41:56 !EXISTS instead of NOT EXISTS 14:42:02 This is a change to the NOT EXISTS design 14:42:02 ... closed several issues on entailment 14:43:01 zakim, unmute me 14:43:01 dcharbon2 should no longer be muted 14:43:16 AxelPolleres: issue-42 was about inconsistencies in entailment 14:43:44 q? 14:43:52 found a way to define it in such a way that we can also support impls that can't do the check, but allow those that can to raise an error 14:43:57 Zakim, who's speaking? 14:44:07 SteveH, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AxelPolleres (69%), Sandro (56%), OlivierCorby (4%), Ivan (5%) 14:44:20 AxelPolleres: resolution 12, allow entailment to weak finiteness condition 14:44:38 q+ 14:44:40 make room for RIF-core where such guarantees cannot always be provided 14:45:12 AxelPolleres: resolution to allow for graph forms that don't have URIs because they don't have an official recommendation 14:45:25 SteveH: can't hear, lot of background noise 14:45:38 I heard "service description", but couldn't really hear anything else. 14:45:59 AxelPolleres: is there anything from people who couldn't hear on the last resolutions? 14:46:15 AxelPolleres: ... so far so good. 14:46:27 AxelPolleres: how and when do we go forward with next drafts 14:46:41 topic: publication dates 14:46:58 q+ 14:47:06 AxelPolleres: if we keep with 3 month cycle of publishing, next round is end of April 14:47:18 ... not really feasible? Maybe we can get something done 1 or 2 weeks later 14:47:26 ... should get to last call sooner or later 14:47:38 http://www.w3.org/2009/05/sparql-phase-II-charter.html 14:47:56 AxelPolleres: look to charter, in time plan we are already over due with last call 14:48:04 ... can we get to last call with next round of publications? 14:48:08 ... where do people stand with it? 14:48:33 ...2 questions, when can resolutions of f2f be incorporated into specifications? 14:48:45 ... do we need an intermediate working draft or can we go to last call already 14:49:00 ... go to documents, start with Query, AndyS and SteveH , what do you think? 14:49:14 SteveH: I think we should probably go to last call once the resolutions have been implemented 14:49:29 ... I've added English text to make it clear what everything means 14:49:52 AxelPolleres: it seems clear we know what needs to be done, but we have a lot of editorial work to be done from talking to you both 14:50:05 ... issues with structuring the content 14:50:19 ... how much time do you need? What would a reasonable deadline be? 14:50:45 AndyS: Are we talking about being ready to publish next round? I this for heartbeat or how long to get to last call? 14:50:58 AxelPolleres: could next round be next call? by Charter, it should be 14:51:05 .. but, if we need another round, we could do that 14:51:20 sandro: one more round should be fine if we need it 14:51:33 AxelPolleres: AndyS , you would prefer one more heartbeat? 14:51:43 AndyS: I cannot get the documents to last call quality in two weeks 14:51:57 AxelPolleres: I think we should do one more interim round then 14:52:17 AndyS: we haven't done a proper review and we need to integrate what we have into it 14:52:59 AxelPolleres: what is reasonable for next heartbeat? Have editors incorporate the resolutions and one or more editorial notes for what was decided on at face to face? reasonable within 2 or 3 weeks 14:53:24 AndyS: i might be able to sketch out the general structure. That will not give us time to review and publish by end of April 14:53:56 AxelPolleres: Is it ok if we are 1 or 2 weeks late? ... you can get this done by end of April without reviewing done? 14:53:59 AndyS: yes 14:54:11 AxelPolleres: would another week or two be sufficient? 14:54:22 AndyS: do we need to pub every doc every heartbeat? 14:54:25 sandro: no 14:54:46 .. I would rather publish them all 2 or 3 weeks late, easier for users to understand 14:55:13 AxelPolleres: if we can get all docs to a sync point to review by end of April, have 2 weeks review, publish by mid-May 14:55:18 I would be uncomfortable going into LC with some basic tests done to ensure we have not missed anything. 14:55:25 s/with/without/ 14:55:27 ... which sandro says is okay, would like to go forward with that 14:55:39 pgearon: I'm not available to do anything last week of April 14:55:47 sandro: will you be done by then? 14:56:07 pgearon: I think so, I've identified a few issues that I'll send out to the mailing list to be sure I have resolutions 14:56:16 sandro: would be excellent to be at last call by semtech 14:56:28 ... lots of people paying attention, don't know if that is practical 14:56:39 AxelPolleres: semtech is end of june 14:56:48 ivan: 21st, which is a monday 14:57:14 AxelPolleres: publication mid-may is snapshot leading into semtech, keeping goal of last call by semtech in mind.. 14:57:23 ... good goal, but need to see if editors can manage this 14:57:38 ... suggest to keep it in mind and see where we are 14:57:50 sandro: need to look at open issues and see if we have any hard decisions to make 14:57:54 q+ 14:58:06 AlexPassant: have docs by end of april that we can publish mid-may 14:58:19 ack SteveH 14:58:20 SteveH: this is text ready by end of April, review in may? 14:58:25 AxelPolleres: yes 14:58:28 q- 14:58:32 ack AndyS 14:58:41 s/AlexPassant:/AxelPolleres: 14:58:53 AndyS: by last call, doesn't that include tests? 14:59:23 q+ 14:59:30 AndyS: There's two things about test - there is a document about them as well as the tests 14:59:46 -??P45 14:59:50 BTW: we are running out of time... I will take on mail to ask the other editors whether the overall schedule fits also the others. 14:59:55 AndyS: would feel better if we had test cases that validated that we agree on what we've decided upon 15:00:05 otherwise, run a big risk in having to do a second last call 15:00:18 I agree with Andy regarding tests 15:00:24 AxelPolleres: we have an issue open to have an updated test suite, but 15:00:51 ivan: on the process side, of course there have been groups that decided to publish the test suite as part of the recommendation - not sure we are doing that 15:01:03 ... publishing this by the time that we go to candidate rec is ok 15:01:12 ... but I understand your concern on the technical part 15:01:13 -Sandro 15:01:33 AxelPolleres: will contact editors regarding next heartbeat round and whether they can manage to go forward 15:01:42 ... can make timeline to go to last call for semtech 15:01:53 ... test cases we will have to continue to discuss next time 15:02:08 AndyS: who here has read the mythical man month? 15:02:16 ...again 15:02:35 AxelPolleres: are you saying we're going too tight? 15:02:42 AndyS: there are a lot of things to do 15:02:54 AxelPolleres: will need to see where we are at next working draft 15:03:00 ... we've run over time 15:03:08 .. ask other editors to think it over 15:03:19 ... free the time to help us to make the goals... 15:03:39 ... next week, LeeF confirmed is fine with telecon next week 15:03:43 -Ivan 15:03:46 adjourned 15:03:47 -chimezie 15:03:48 -Souri 15:03:48 -bglimm 15:03:52 -AndyS 15:03:53 -OlivierCorby 15:03:53 -pgearon 15:03:56 -kasei 15:03:57 -AxelPolleres 15:04:16 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:04:16 On the phone I see dcharbon2, SteveH, MattPerry 15:04:57 summary: next haertbeat end of April for review, mid may next round published... beyond that: LC by SemTech is the ideal goal, question whether we can manage that 15:05:29