IRC log of ldp on 2012-12-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:55 [antonis]
antonis has joined #ldp
14:57:55 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:55 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:57:56 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:56 [trackbot]
Date: 17 December 2012
14:58:08 [Ruben1]
zakim, who is here?
14:58:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +329331aaaa
14:58:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see antonis, Zakim, RRSAgent, Ruben1, stevebattle2, deiu, MacTed, bhyland, jmvanel, betehess, SteveS, bblfish, AndyS, oberger, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP, sandro, Yves
14:58:15 [Ruben1]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:58:15 [Zakim]
+Ruben1; got it
14:58:28 [Ruben]
Ruben has joined #ldp
14:58:34 [Ruben]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:58:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Ruben, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:58:35 [Zakim]
14:58:41 [Ruben]
Zakim, who is here?
14:58:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ruben1, [GVoice]
14:58:42 [ericP]
Zakim, [GVoice] is me
14:58:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ruben, antonis, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle2, deiu, MacTed, bhyland, jmvanel, betehess, SteveS, bblfish, AndyS, oberger, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP, sandro, Yves
14:58:43 [Zakim]
+ericP; got it
14:58:46 [Ruben]
Zakim, Ruben1 is me
14:58:46 [Zakim]
+Ruben; got it
14:58:48 [Zakim]
14:58:55 [Ruben]
zakim, who is noisy?
14:59:06 [Zakim]
Ruben, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
14:59:12 [Zakim]
14:59:17 [antonis]
zakim, ??p8 is me
14:59:17 [Zakim]
+antonis; got it
14:59:25 [deiu]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
14:59:25 [Zakim]
+deiu; got it
14:59:29 [deiu]
Zakim, mute me please
14:59:29 [Zakim]
deiu should now be muted
14:59:52 [Zakim]
15:00:23 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ldp
15:00:38 [Zakim]
15:00:45 [Zakim]
15:00:50 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:50 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:00:51 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:51 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:01:04 [raul]
raul has joined #ldp
15:01:20 [Zakim]
15:01:21 [Ruben]
who's talking now?
15:01:22 [MacTed]
ericP - is totally broken up
15:01:24 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #ldp
15:01:35 [Zakim]
15:01:45 [bblfish]
15:01:58 [Zakim]
15:01:59 [Ashok]
15:02:07 [SteveS]
zakim, [IBM] is me
15:02:07 [Zakim]
+SteveS; got it
15:02:15 [Zakim]
15:02:22 [Zakim]
15:02:29 [Zakim]
15:02:32 [AndyS]
zakim, IPCaller is me
15:02:32 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:02:44 [raul]
zakim, ??P22 is me
15:02:44 [Zakim]
+raul; got it
15:02:58 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's there?
15:02:58 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Arnaud.
15:03:06 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's here?
15:03:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ruben, ericP, antonis, deiu (muted), Arnaud, MacTed (muted), SteveBattle, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Yves, AndyS, raul
15:03:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AndyS, raul, Ashok, Ruben, antonis, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle2, deiu, MacTed, bhyland, jmvanel, betehess, SteveS, bblfish, oberger, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP, sandro,
15:03:08 [Zakim]
... Yves
15:03:38 [SteveS]
zakim, who should scribe?
15:03:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, SteveS.
15:03:39 [krp]
krp has joined #ldp
15:03:43 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:03:43 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:04:01 [MacTed]
scribenick: MacTed
15:04:17 [stevebattle2]
15:04:20 [SteveS]
15:04:21 [antonis]
15:04:22 [bblfish]
15:04:23 [MacTed]
PROPOSED: approve minutes of 2012-12-10
15:04:29 [Arnaud]
15:04:32 [deiu]
15:04:38 [Zakim]
15:04:40 [gavinc]
gavinc has joined #ldp
15:04:45 [krp]
zakim, ??P34 is me
15:04:45 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:05:03 [MacTed]
RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2012-12-10
15:05:17 [MacTed]
TOPIC: Open Actions
15:05:42 [SteveS]
15:05:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-17 -- Steve Battle to prepare first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements Document -- due 2012-10-29 -- OPEN
15:05:42 [trackbot]
15:05:42 [MacTed]
15:05:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-17 -- Steve Battle to prepare first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements Document -- due 2012-10-29 -- OPEN
15:05:43 [trackbot]
15:05:49 [nmihindu]
nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:06:01 [bblfish]
we are looking at open actions
15:06:08 [Zakim]
15:06:26 [MacTed]
close action-17
15:06:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-17 Prepare first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements Document closed
15:06:42 [roger]
roger has joined #ldp
15:06:59 [Zakim]
15:06:59 [MacTed]
TOPIC: Issues Pending Review
15:07:06 [Zakim]
15:07:10 [bblfish]
looking at issues:
15:07:21 [bblfish]
15:07:33 [MacTed]
15:07:33 [trackbot]
ISSUE-41 -- Standard way to manage members with attachments -- pending review
15:07:33 [trackbot]
15:07:52 [Zakim]
15:08:07 [krp]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:08:07 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:08:19 [Zakim]
15:08:45 [nmihindu]
zakim, ??P34 is me
15:08:45 [Zakim]
+nmihindu; got it
15:08:50 [MacTed]
15:09:05 [Zakim]
15:09:08 [SteveS]
Updated at
15:09:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.631.444.aabb
15:09:23 [Zakim]
- +1.631.444.aabb
15:09:34 [roger]
zakim, ??P1 is me
15:09:34 [Zakim]
I already had ??P1 as ??P1, roger
15:09:56 [Zakim]
15:10:25 [bblfish]
15:10:29 [MacTed]
15:10:46 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:10:58 [Zakim]
15:11:58 [stevebattle2]
15:12:11 [Arnaud]
ack stevebattle
15:12:50 [MacTed]
( discussion about publication timing, moratoriums, etc. )
15:13:08 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: publish current UCR draft as First Public Working Draft
15:13:15 [SteveS]
15:13:15 [stevebattle2]
15:13:16 [Yves]
15:13:17 [nmihindu]
15:13:18 [deiu]
15:13:21 [Arnaud]
15:13:21 [roger]
15:13:29 [MacTed]
PROPOSED: publish current UCR draft as First Public Working Draft,
15:13:29 [MacTed]
15:13:30 [bblfish]
15:13:33 [Ruben]
15:13:36 [AndyS]
15:13:36 [Yves]
I got confirmation that next round of publication will be jan 3rd
15:13:45 [raul]
15:13:46 [ericP]
15:14:02 [ericP]
note that the SOTD proposed last week indicated that it's not in a final state
15:14:03 [MacTed]
RESOLVED: publish current UCR draft as First Public Working Draft,
15:14:09 [ericP]
-> last week's proposed SOTD
15:14:21 [Zakim]
15:14:52 [ericP]
+1 to giving SteveS jurisdiction over the wiki page
15:14:59 [MacTed]
stevebattle2: suggests we remove the deprecated content from wiki
15:15:01 [Zakim]
15:15:01 [ericP]
... to corrupt as he sees fit
15:15:07 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:15:07 [Zakim]
MacTed was not muted, MacTed
15:15:25 [stevebattle2]
15:15:27 [bblfish]
I think it make sense to remove the content and link to the spec
15:15:57 [krp]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:15:57 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:16:14 [ericP]
the OWL WG used a schema that Sandro concocted to publish directly from wiki.
15:16:31 [stevebattle2]
We don't want the wiki content to drift away from the published content
15:16:41 [MacTed]
15:16:53 [ericP]
if we're not going to use such a system, and the authors want to work from resepc, yes, avoid confusion by nulling the page
15:16:53 [bblfish]
should one have a Proposal?
15:17:00 [Kalpa]
Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:17:07 [Yves]
+1 to ericP
15:17:16 [MacTed]
PROPOSED: wipe out wiki content of this page, leaving only in hg/respec
15:17:23 [Arnaud]
15:17:25 [antonis]
15:17:26 [ericP]
+1 to Yves's +1 of ericP
15:17:26 [stevebattle2]
15:17:27 [deiu]
15:17:27 [bblfish]
15:17:28 [Yves]
15:17:28 [Ruben]
+1 ok
15:17:28 [krp]
15:17:31 [nmihindu]
15:17:31 [ericP]
15:17:42 [SteveS]
+1 will put "previous version" link to be something like
15:17:48 [MacTed]
RESOLVED: wipe out wiki content of , leaving only in hg/respec
15:18:04 [stevebattle2]
15:18:20 [Zakim]
15:18:29 [MacTed]
TOPIC: editor's draft of LDP spec,
15:19:12 [Zakim]
15:19:17 [MacTed]
SteveS: LDP spec remains as was...
15:19:33 [MacTed]
TOPIC: Discussion of Open Issues
15:19:55 [Zakim]
15:20:08 [MacTed]
Arnaud: mailing list discussion suggested we clear up some pieces of LDP model before moving to other specific issues
15:20:10 [krp]
zakim, ??P40 is me
15:20:10 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:20:17 [MacTed]
... particular concerns over container modeling
15:21:03 [MacTed]
... Lyon F2F concluded there were 2 possible models -- aggregation (weak) and composition (strong)
15:22:05 [MacTed]
... composition requires something special from server -- one HTTP DELETE on container means that server must also delete all members
15:22:34 [MacTed]
... aggregation requires nothing special from server
15:23:05 [MacTed]
... Lyon F2F concluded that spec should only discuss composition model
15:23:11 [Ashok]
15:23:24 [MacTed]
... if WG members want aggregation model as well, need proposal of such
15:23:36 [Arnaud]
ack ashok
15:23:37 [bblfish]
+1 Arnaud makes a good summary of the composition problem
15:23:50 [stevebattle2]
Nice concise summary of the issues, Arnaud
15:24:11 [MacTed]
Ashok: has figured out AtomPub model, and believes this is what Erik wants adopted
15:24:54 [MacTed]
... for aggregation, you put a link into the container. when the container goes away, the links go away, but the linked resource may remain or go away
15:24:57 [stevebattle2]
15:25:55 [MacTed]
Arnaud: doesn't think Erik is saying, do like AtomPub, but -- it would be useful to document LDP Model, and AtomPub documentation may be useful frame to start from
15:26:42 [Arnaud]
ack stevebattle
15:26:43 [MacTed]
... we don't have to do as AtomPub, but we have to address same questions/concerns
15:27:14 [MacTed]
stevebattle2: concurs with Arnaud's description of Erik's position
15:27:33 [bblfish]
15:27:33 [ericP]
i think a more important discriminator is how much trouble will be caused by deleting resources 'cause they happen to be in containers
15:27:41 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:28:26 [MacTed]
bblfish: it's better to start simple if we can. would be useful to know if anyone has implemented LDP as it stands.
15:29:02 [ericP]
i think it's the use more than the implementation which will demonstrate the cost vs. benefits of deleting contained resources
15:29:12 [MacTed]
Arnaud: at F2F, seemed like people wanted containers so they could do paging, but there are other ways to do paging...
15:29:13 [krp]
It was issue-33
15:29:23 [Zakim]
15:30:33 [MacTed]
Ashok: agree that we need to spell it out, whether like AtomPub or otherwise
15:30:42 [bblfish]
15:30:43 [stevebattle2]
15:30:51 [Arnaud]
ack stevebattle
15:31:14 [roger]
15:31:14 [MacTed]
stevebattle2: LDP will definitely allow aggregation via RDF. maybe we just need such a statement...
15:31:27 [Zakim]
15:31:33 [bblfish]
+1 for the idea of having a section how to do aggregation using RDF
15:31:47 [MacTed]
MacTed: agrees that statement would be VERY important, as lacking it, it looks like composition is *all* that LDP permits...
15:31:53 [Zakim]
15:32:01 [Zakim]
15:32:04 [krp]
zakim, ??P40 is me
15:32:04 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:32:11 [deiu]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
15:32:11 [Zakim]
+deiu; got it
15:32:14 [deiu]
Zakim, mute me
15:32:14 [Zakim]
deiu should now be muted
15:32:35 [stevebattle2]
But I wouldn't want to restrict people's creativity in using RDF in novel ways.
15:32:46 [AndyS]
Has anyone tried inserting in to an RDf collection/container over HTTP? !
15:32:58 [ericP]
Arnaud, has IBM seen need for deleting resources when deleting containers?
15:33:13 [bblfish]
15:33:13 [stevebattle2]
15:33:26 [Arnaud]
ack roger
15:34:22 [MacTed]
roger: aggregation is important. experience is that it's necessary, and it should be defined in LDP 1.0
15:34:23 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:34:35 [SteveS]
ericP from what we do for tool integration, doesn't occur too often. Typically the client deletes each resource on its own, then removes the container.
15:35:16 [MacTed]
bblfish: agrees that saying how aggregation is done with pure RDF is important, and then move on to what LDP's composition gives that simple RDF aggregation doesn't
15:35:47 [Arnaud]
ack stevebattle
15:35:48 [MacTed]
stevebattle2: responding to Ashok's mailing list proposal...
15:36:01 [SteveS]
15:36:02 [MacTed]
... primary objection is that composition and aggregation are being confused by some people
15:36:19 [bblfish]
I also mentioned that the arguments should come from use cases from which we can then argue
15:36:38 [MacTed]
... wants a simple composition model, not to undermine that with lots of metadata
15:36:50 [Arnaud]
ack steves
15:36:57 [ericP]
SteveS, i take that as some evidence that the initial design should be for aggregation
15:37:50 [MacTed]
SteveS: would like issue proposals to be separated from agenda threads on mailing list...
15:38:05 [bblfish]
I mean arguments for composition of containers should start from a use case and argue why that cannot be implemented without strong containers.
15:38:53 [bblfish]
15:39:05 [MacTed]
Arnaud: maybe we should have a vote on Ashok's proposal? though I'd hope it would be a more complete formulation, not just a single property
15:39:27 [MacTed]
Ashok: if we implement aggregation with members within a container, then we can do as I proposed
15:39:45 [MacTed]
... if we implement as AtomPub, then different mechanisms are required
15:40:05 [MacTed]
... must decide between members-within-container or pointers-within-container
15:40:13 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:40:25 [ericP]
it's always references, like java
15:40:40 [Zakim]
15:41:04 [Zakim]
15:41:11 [krp]
zakim, ??P0 is me
15:41:11 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:41:43 [ericP]
isn't aggregation what's already in the spec?
15:42:02 [ericP]
what's missing?
15:42:05 [SteveS]
15:42:15 [stevebattle2]
compregation is in the spec
15:42:19 [roger]
15:42:25 [ericP]
ahh, roger that
15:42:33 [Arnaud]
ack steves
15:43:29 [Zakim]
15:43:35 [ericP]
so an aggregation proposal would be to remove the text that talks about DELETE?
15:43:41 [MacTed]
Arnaud: seems to me we always have links within containers... starting from RDF as we are
15:43:41 [MacTed]
bblfish: thinks we should have a use case presenting why we need more than RDF-based aggregation, justifying composition model
15:43:41 [MacTed]
Arnaud: current spec has mixed handling
15:43:41 [MacTed]
SteveS: spec is primarily based on aggregation. implementation may decide what happens with container-members it manages, and how to handle members with remote management...
15:43:48 [Zakim]
15:43:54 [krp]
zakim, ??P0 is me
15:43:54 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:44:01 [AndyS]
Precludes linking?
15:44:02 [ericP]
and an composition proposal would be to strengthen the DELETE text
15:44:16 [ericP]
and a hybrid would include a mechanism to discriminate
15:44:29 [bblfish]
bblfish: my last point was that we should write up how to do aggregation by writing a document which is just a collection
15:44:31 [MacTed]
ericP: an aggregation proposal would be to remove the text that talks about DELETE; composition proposal would be to strengthen the DELETE text; hybrid would include a mechanism to discriminate
15:44:58 [stevebattle2]
It's nto a binary choice between the two though
15:45:01 [Arnaud]
ack roger
15:45:04 [stevebattle2]
15:45:10 [MacTed]
Arnaud: perhaps we need SteveS to revise spec based on discussion to date, before we focus too strongly on it
15:46:00 [bblfish]
ok, looks like I should write it up
15:46:19 [stevebattle2]
It's business as usual, Roger, using rdfs:member, rdf:List, ...
15:46:24 [SteveS]
I plan to write/propose something as well but want to base it off what lands as composition
15:46:32 [Zakim]
15:46:41 [SteveS]
stevebattle2 but what if you need to create a resource, where do you post it?
15:46:53 [Zakim]
15:47:00 [bblfish]
roger, should we hook up to see if we agree?
15:47:32 [stevebattle2]
"where do you post it?" is a question about composition, not aggregation.
15:47:46 [MacTed]
( proposal to come... )
15:47:54 [AndyS]
stevebattle -disagree - aggregation needs "add to list"
15:48:15 [MacTed]
15:48:15 [trackbot]
ISSUE-5 -- Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol -- pending review
15:48:15 [trackbot]
15:48:24 [stevebattle2]
"add to list" can be defined as an RDF patch.
15:48:47 [AndyS]
... how to do that? What is the PATCH format?
15:49:11 [SteveS]
stevebattle2 seems odd to have two ways to create
15:49:17 [stevebattle2]
Well, changesets, if I ruled the world :)
15:49:27 [AndyS]
(both list and seq are hard to do via serialized formats because of bNodes and numbering resp)
15:50:06 [AndyS]
changesets can't do it! Do not work on rdf:Lists!
15:50:22 [stevebattle2]
15:50:41 [AndyS]
seq similarly - hard to guess the number of the rdf:_N
15:50:44 [MacTed]
TOPIC: Issue-5 section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol,
15:50:44 [MacTed]
Arnaud: thinks we don't need anything in spec about this, given we have note about it on LDP homepage
15:50:44 [MacTed]
15:50:59 [Arnaud]
ack MacTed
15:51:16 [bblfish]
15:51:16 [SteveS]
15:51:23 [Zakim]
15:51:45 [Arnaud]
ack steves
15:52:54 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:53:51 [MacTed]
MacTed: I think the paragraph relating LDP to GSP is necessary within spec
15:53:51 [MacTed]
SteveS: wonders whether there are any other specs we need to address in similar fashion?
15:53:51 [MacTed]
bblfish: maybe we just set this as postponed, and see whether explanation/connection is easy later?
15:54:11 [MacTed]
Arnaud: GSP doesn't require SPARQL, though it's written with it...
15:54:21 [stevebattle2]
The operational semantics of GSP are defined in SPARQL.
15:54:37 [ericP]
re implementing bost, i've implemented all of GSP and a bit of LDP.
15:54:43 [MacTed]
... interested whether GSP server can also be LDP server, or will there be difficulties in being both -- how difficult is it to support both?
15:54:44 [Arnaud]
15:54:52 [MacTed]
15:55:23 [ericP]
the main requirement was that the server remembered the differences between LDP containers and GSP endpoints
15:55:25 [bblfish]
you could POSTPONE
15:55:36 [MacTed]
Arnaud: issue-5 resolution for now is ... no resolution.
15:55:36 [ericP]
other than that, they could peacibly coexist
15:55:59 [Arnaud]
15:56:40 [MacTed]
15:56:40 [trackbot]
ISSUE-12 -- Can HTTP PATCH be used for resource creation? -- open
15:56:40 [trackbot]
15:56:47 [Zakim]
15:56:48 [bblfish]
I think that is easy
15:56:50 [bblfish]
close it
15:57:02 [krp]
zakim, ??P1 is me
15:57:02 [Zakim]
+krp; got it
15:57:15 [MacTed]
TOPIC: Issue-12 -- Can HTTP PATCH be used for resource creation? --
15:57:16 [bhyland]
bhyland has joined #ldp
15:57:36 [MacTed]
Arnaud: this seems clear --no, you cannot create a resource using PATCH
15:57:45 [stevebattle2]
I'd support not using patch for creation - POST is causing enough trouble by itself.
15:57:55 [ericP]
pushes the expressivity into the stratosphere
15:57:59 [Arnaud]
15:58:05 [SteveS]
15:58:31 [ericP]
how about "PATCH on a container is undefined behavior"?
15:58:31 [Arnaud]
ack steves
15:58:45 [stevebattle2]
15:58:57 [Zakim]
15:59:11 [Arnaud]
ack stevebattle
15:59:36 [roger]
... did we fix the dates for the F2F ?
15:59:43 [ericP]
my proposal is the "undefined behavior" text above
15:59:45 [bblfish]
mhh, interesting arguments
15:59:57 [MacTed]
SteveS: wouldn't prohibit from using PATCH... would recommend using POST and strongly discourage PATCH, but wonders value of prohibition
15:59:57 [MacTed]
stevebattle2: first arose because HTTP allows resources to be created with PATCH
16:00:29 [stevebattle2]
16:00:34 [Yves]
16:00:34 [rgarcia]
16:00:41 [SteveS]
16:00:41 [Ruben]
16:00:43 [antonis]
16:00:43 [bblfish]
16:00:43 [Zakim]
16:00:44 [deiu]
16:01:01 [ericP]
i prefer to speak in terms of defined behavior vs. discouragement
16:01:25 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: don't prohibit using PATCH... but recommend using POST and strongly discourage PATCH
16:01:36 [Arnaud]
16:01:37 [rgarcia]
16:01:38 [stevebattle2]
16:01:45 [roger]
16:01:52 [MacTed]
16:01:54 [Ruben]
16:02:01 [MacTed]
RESOLVED: don't prohibit using PATCH... but recommend using POST and strongly discourage PATCH
16:02:21 [bblfish]
thanks all
16:02:26 [Zakim]
16:02:26 [Kalpa]
happy holidays and merry christmas all
16:02:29 [stevebattle2]
16:02:30 [Zakim]
16:02:31 [MacTed]
TOPIC: next meeting in January
16:02:31 [Zakim]
16:02:32 [Zakim]
16:02:32 [deiu]
thank you and merry christmas!
16:02:33 [Zakim]
16:02:33 [Zakim]
16:02:35 [Ruben]
Ruben has left #ldp
16:02:37 [Arnaud]
meeting adjourned
16:02:42 [ericP]
16:02:45 [ericP]
16:02:46 [MacTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MacTed
16:02:47 [antonis]
happy holidays everyone!
16:02:47 [ericP]
16:02:53 [Zakim]
16:02:58 [ericP]
i was asking for a soundcheck
16:03:00 [Zakim]
16:03:07 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [ericP]
she says "happy holidays"
16:03:11 [Zakim]
16:03:15 [Zakim]
16:03:18 [MacTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:03:18 [MacTed]
trackbot, end conference
16:03:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:03:18 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +329331aaaa, ericP, Ruben, antonis, deiu, Arnaud, SteveBattle, MacTed, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, Yves, AndyS, raul, krp, rogerm,
16:03:22 [Zakim]
... nmihindu, +1.631.444.aabb, Kalpa
16:03:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot