14:55:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:55:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/10-rdf-wg-irc
14:55:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:55:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:55:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:55:46 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:47 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:55:47 <trackbot> Date: 10 July 2013
14:55:52 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:55:53 <Zakim> +EricP
14:58:28 <Zakim> +??P0
14:58:29 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:31 <Zakim> -EricP
14:58:32 <Zakim> +EricP
14:58:38 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P0
14:58:38 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:59:13 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:59:19 <ericP> http://w3.org/brief/MzM4
14:59:25 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:46 <Zakim> +davidwood
15:00:02 <davidwood> Zakim, who is barking?
15:00:02 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, davidwood.
15:00:13 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
15:00:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, [GVoice], davidwood
15:00:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud1, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
15:01:04 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:07 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:12 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:12 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:01:14 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:01:15 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:01:23 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.07.10
15:02:12 <Arnaud> is anyone successfully calling Zakim via SIP?
15:02:27 <Arnaud> it isn't working for me
15:02:28 <Zakim> + +081165aaaa
15:02:28 <markus> markus has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:38 <AZ> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:38 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:02:59 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:00 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:03:21 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
15:03:48 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aabb
15:03:49 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
15:03:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, [GVoice], davidwood, TallTed (muted), AZ, Sandro, +1.707.861.aabb
15:03:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see gavinc, markus, AZ, Arnaud, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
15:03:56 <gavinc> aabb is me
15:04:04 <gavinc> Zakim, aabb is me
15:04:04 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it
15:04:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:57 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 3 July telecon:
15:04:57 <davidwood> 
15:04:57 <davidwood>    https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-07-03
15:05:04 <Arnaud> Zakim, IPCaller is me
15:05:04 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it
15:05:16 <Zakim> +??P15
15:05:19 <davidwood> RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 3 July telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-07-03
15:05:19 <markus> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:05:19 <Zakim> +markus; got it
15:05:28 <ericP> PROPOSED: accept https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-07-03 as a record of the last meeting
15:05:30 <davidwood> Review of action items
15:05:30 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:05:30 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
15:06:21 <davidwood> ACTION-278?
15:06:21 <trackbot> ACTION-278 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to create new grammar for TriG that includes optional graph keywords and make {} optional around the default graph -- due 2013-07-10 -- OPEN
15:06:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/278
15:06:25 <davidwood> ACTION-279?
15:06:25 <trackbot> ACTION-279 -- Sandro Hawke to propose text for TriG feature at risk for both GRAPH keywords and {} being optional around the default graph -- due 2013-07-10 -- OPEN
15:06:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/279
15:06:35 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:44 <davidwood> close ACTION-278
15:06:44 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-278 Create new grammar for TriG that includes optional graph keywords and make {} optional around the default graph.
15:06:50 <davidwood> close ACTION-279
15:06:50 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-279 Propose text for TriG feature at risk for both GRAPH keywords and {} being optional around the default graph.
15:07:25 <davidwood> Reminder:  The next telecon will be Wednesday, 24 July
15:07:30 <davidwood> (biweekly)
15:07:30 <ericP> davidwood: staring bio-weekly schedule so next telecon Wed 24 July
15:07:39 <Zakim> +AZ.a
15:09:17 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:09:28 <pfps> where would this paragraph go?
15:09:28 <ericP> topic: describe relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics in Concepts
15:09:51 <ericP> davidwood: do you think it should be verbose?
15:10:03 <ericP> pfps: not sure where it should go
15:10:12 <ericP> pfps: previous version didn't include this
15:10:26 <ericP> ... propose: do nothing
15:10:36 <pfps> I'm of the opinion that the right thing is to do nothing.
15:10:38 <ericP> davidwood: we mention semantics in the intro (as a link)
15:10:49 <ericP> ... then under entailment and consistency
15:11:18 <ericP> ... markus noted that 1.7 seems out of place. i agree
15:11:33 <ericP> ... could be fixed if we clarified the relationship between the two documents
15:11:56 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:12:02 <ericP> ... markus, would clarifying the relationshop between the two docs improve 1.7?
15:12:13 <ericP> markus: i'd like to move this all to semantics
15:12:26 <ericP> ... it's not relevent to a newcomer and not complete enough
15:12:43 <ericP> davidwood, but it does include refs which introduces it to readers of concepts
15:13:01 <ericP> markus: my goal is to simplify Concepts to not scare off new readers
15:13:20 <ericP> davidwood: first read should be the primer
15:13:44 <ericP> markus: agreed, but most specs will ref Concepts so folks will read that before reading the Primer
15:13:58 <ericP> davidwood: pfps, how do you feel about moving 1.7 to Semantics?
15:14:09 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:14:09 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:14:11 <ericP> pfps: something has to reference Semantics
15:14:11 <Arnaud> you could put a note in the intro recommending to read the primer first
15:14:45 <Arnaud> just make sure the primer doesn't send people back to concepts from the get-go :)
15:15:03 <ericP> q+ to say that I agree with markus that concepts readers should be able to read a data model without the hard stuff
15:15:30 <ericP> davidwood: [at al,] yes, we should point to the primer but we don't have one
15:15:51 <ericP> TallTed: if there's an intended order of reading, that should be indicated at the beginning
15:16:00 <davidwood> q?
15:16:04 <davidwood> ack ericP
15:16:04 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that I agree with markus that concepts readers should be able to read a data model without the hard stuff
15:16:55 <ericP> davidwood: in the beginning of Concepts, we reference these other documents
15:17:41 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:17:41 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:17:49 <ericP> ... if we move 1.7 to semantics and define entailment and consistency there, Concepts will have few refs to Semantics
15:18:10 <AZ> Zakim, who's speaking?
15:18:15 <ericP> ... in that section, we just define some terms.
15:18:22 <Zakim> AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [GVoice] (79%), davidwood (68%)
15:18:32 <ericP> ... should a readers of Concepts understand those terms
15:19:39 <ericP> pfps: i'm uncomfortable with moving 1.7 from Concepts and into Semantics
15:20:20 <ericP> markus: are these terms used again in Concepts?
15:20:44 <ericP> ... i see one later ref to "entailment" in an example
15:20:56 <gavinc> "Two RDF graphs A and B are equivalent if they make the same claim about the world. A is equivalent to B if and only if A entails B and B entails A." That one's important
15:20:59 <ericP> ... you could argue that it's basic knowledge for RDF, but...
15:22:36 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:22:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, [GVoice], davidwood, TallTed (muted), AZ, Sandro, gavinc, Arnaud, markus, AZ.a
15:22:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, pchampin, zwu2, gavinc, markus, AZ, Arnaud, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
15:23:41 <markus> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#entailment
15:25:55 <Zakim> +Souri
15:26:13 <markus> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#data-model
15:26:19 <davidwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0126.html
15:26:21 <pfps> If we are making changes to 1.7, I would make some non-controversial editorial changes.  I would also remove the stuff on union and merge (which might be somewhat more controversial).  I'll send out a message on this.
15:26:53 <pfps> Consensus on everything except my worries about JSON numbers.
15:27:17 <markus> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#relationship-to-rdf
15:27:29 <ericP> markus: we discussed an unambiguos mapping from JSON datatypes to RDF datatypes
15:27:44 <ericP> ... that addressed pfps's concearns
15:27:58 <ericP> ... i just updated the spec 10 mins ago. everything should be in place
15:28:59 <ericP> pfps: i'd have been content yesterday
15:29:08 <ericP> ... this is all painful
15:29:40 <ericP> ... JSON is a loose spec which does thousands of things with numbers
15:29:46 <ericP> ... e.g. 32 bit integers
15:29:56 <Guus_> Guus_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:30:15 <ericP> sandro: here we're improving JSON by using RDF's [really XML Schema's] precise definitions
15:30:49 <ericP> pfps: implementations on the ground are likely to use "JSON number"
15:31:06 <ericP> sandro: JSON-LD steers you away from "number" if you care about round-tripping
15:31:50 <ericP> pfps: JSON has a notion of a fraction number, e.g. 12.3 has a fractional part of "3"
15:32:56 <ericP> markus: 1.1E1 is the canonical form of "11"^^xsd:double
15:33:04 <markus> s/markus/pfps/
15:33:08 <ericP> ... that ".1" is the fractional part
15:34:08 <ericP> ... if that part's nailed down, i think JSON-LD provides a consistent and coherent view of the world
15:34:26 <ericP> ... no idea what the JSON reception would be
15:34:59 <gavinc> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form-00#section-2.1.1 btw
15:36:27 <markus> Peter's quote: ... "without, of course, getting bogged down on things like how many Unicode surrogate characters can dance on the head of a JSON string" :-)
15:36:46 <ericP> pfps: we talk about unicode codepoints but JSON talks about unicode characters
15:38:16 <ericP> davidwood: what will the JSON-LD group do with this?
15:38:29 <ericP> markus: we spend a long time on round-tripping
15:39:00 <ericP> ... i think the spec is clear anough about it. some corner cases like "1.0" becomes an integer
15:39:01 <pfps> the point is that the syntax for JSON numbers uses frac and fraction part for the .1 in 1.1E1 so fractional part needs to be distinguished from that
15:39:23 <ericP> ... but the RDF-to-JSON defaults to using the string representation so you default to clean round-tripping
15:39:49 <ericP> davidwood: so don't expect many changes between now and REC
15:40:23 <Arnaud> well, I would still be happy to say something about RDF/JSON
15:40:33 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
15:40:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, pfps, davidwood, TallTed (muted), AZ, Sandro, gavinc, Arnaud, markus, AZ.a, Souri
15:40:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see Guus_, Souri, zwu2, gavinc, markus, AZ, Arnaud, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
15:40:55 <Arnaud> +q  to say something about RDF/JSON
15:41:03 <davidwood> ack Arnaud
15:41:03 <Zakim> Arnaud, you wanted to say something about RDF/JSON
15:41:08 <davidwood> q?
15:41:11 <pfps> By the way, when are Semantics and Concepts going to LC publication?
15:41:13 <ericP> Topic: RDF/JSON
15:41:56 <ericP> Arnaud: after reading pierre antoine and andy's comments, i don't think they're serious obstacles
15:42:12 <pfps> NB: +1
15:42:15 <ericP> ... before editing the spec, i want to know whether it's likely to proceed
15:43:13 <ericP> davidwood: gregg proposed an alternative format to JSON-LD, which i don't think this group has time
15:43:30 <ericP> Arnaud: i discussed this with Gregg at SemTech
15:43:49 <ericP> ... he said that they have a rep which is essentially similar to RDf/JSON
15:44:15 <ericP> davidwood: putting RDF/JSON out as a note makes it easy for folks to translate
15:44:34 <ericP> ... someone can later make that REC-track
15:45:15 <ericP> gkellogg: we'd need a internal step which creates an ID map when flattening
15:45:33 <ericP> markus: you can have the same shape, but you need a top-level node
15:45:44 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The WG will publish RDF/JSON as a Note
15:45:56 <Arnaud> +1
15:45:57 <davidwood> +1
15:46:28 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The WG will pursue publication of RDF/JSON as a Note
15:46:35 <Arnaud> +1
15:46:36 <markus> -0.5
15:46:36 <Souri> +1
15:46:36 <gavinc> +1
15:46:37 <ericP> +1
15:46:37 <davidwood> +1
15:46:38 <zwu2> +1
15:46:39 <gkellogg> +0.5
15:46:43 <pfps> +1
15:46:45 <TallTed> +0
15:46:46 <sandro> (to be clear -- this is NOT a decision to publish)
15:46:50 <AZ> +1
15:47:04 <sandro> +0.5
15:47:18 <ericP> markus: i find it confusing that the same WG publishes two competing JSON formats
15:47:21 <gavinc> Hey! I'm WRITING 4 competing formats :P
15:47:38 <sandro> (agreed, there's some confusion with JSON-LD -- but Arnaud has promised the document will be clear about it)
15:47:42 <ericP> davidwood: yeah, but in the first year, we had lots of discussion
15:47:51 <Arnaud> I already added this to the RDF/JSON draft: "On the other hand, the RDF Working Group decided to put JSON-LD on the     Recommendation track (see resolution of May 30, 2012). If you have no specific reason to use this document instead of JSON-LD, you are therefore encouraged to use     JSON-LD."
15:48:07 <ericP> ... the use cases for these two serializations were completely separate. (that's why i'm not concearned)
15:48:17 <ericP> RESOLVED: The WG will pursue publication of RDF/JSON as a Note
15:48:29 <Arnaud> I hope this addresses some of Markus's concern which I fully understand
15:49:14 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
15:49:25 <Zakim> -pfps
15:50:24 <ericP> topic: NTriples and NQuads
15:50:50 <ericP> davidwood: propose to move from persuing a Note to persuing a Rec
15:51:13 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The WG will pursue N-Triples/N-Quads as a Rec instead of a Note
15:51:14 <ericP> sandro: i understand this doesn't bind us, just advice to editor
15:51:18 <gavinc> +∞
15:51:21 <gkellogg> +1
15:51:22 <gavinc> +1
15:51:28 <davidwood> +0.5
15:51:28 <TallTed> +1
15:51:43 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:51:52 <pfps> zakim, gvoice is me
15:51:52 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
15:52:08 <AZ> +0.5
15:52:10 <sandro> eric: Does this raise the bar on what an RDF Implementation is?
15:52:57 <sandro> eric: Is there a presumption that every RECOMMENDED syntax is supported by every system?
15:53:10 <markus> Arnaud, quick question just out of curiosity: does RDF/JSON serialize all numbers as strings?
15:53:17 <sandro> eric: Do we have too many syntaxes?
15:53:32 <sandro> Gavin: Yes, but N-Triples and N-Quads aren't the ones
15:54:01 <sandro> eric: Yes, but in 2004 N-Triples was specified, but they DIDNT tell the world to expose their data as N-Triples.
15:54:04 <swh_> swh_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:54:45 <sandro> davidwood: Eric, this is RESOLVED, and Eric please raise an issue about this
15:55:05 <Souri> s/persuing/pursuing/
15:55:07 <markus> +0
15:55:12 <sandro> eric: you're saying we have another avenue for guidance about syntaxes, not just "Every Recommendation".
15:55:41 <sandro> davidwood: Now we have all these different syntaxes, so we should make some statement, in Concepts, about what you should comply with.
15:55:58 <sandro> davidwood: I'd say N-Triples and N-Quads and everything else is optional
15:56:00 <sandro> ?!?!?!?!
15:56:06 <sandro> -1 to that
15:56:26 <sandro> eric; I'd say w3.org/TR is how you know which syntaxes to implement
15:56:46 <sandro> davidwood: but practically we have so many
15:57:08 <ericP> sandro: LDP says "you have to use Turtle"
15:57:43 <ericP> ... you're saying that every government has to expose as NTriples to guarantee interop"
15:57:52 <ericP> davidwood: i have to think about it
15:58:09 <gavinc> Simple, name an RDF implementation that DOESN'T implement N-Triples
15:58:48 <zwu2> N-TRIPLES is really popular
15:59:05 <Souri> Oracle parses N-Triples and N-Quads
15:59:24 <ericP> ... if we have a half dozen serialization formats, we can't call an impl that doesn't implement them all "non-compliant"
16:00:22 <ericP> [discussion of proliferation of NTriples and NQuads]
16:01:40 <Arnaud> the one advantage of having all these formats is that it should make it clear to anyone that RDF isn't RDF/XML :)
16:03:23 <TallTed> that's actually a significant advantage  :-)
16:03:38 <ericP> ISSUE: guidance to RDF users and developers about which syntaxes to parse and publish
16:03:38 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-138 - Guidance to RDF users and developers about which syntaxes to parse and publish; please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/138/edit>.
16:04:09 <AZ> btw OWL/XML is a REC and OWL implementations do *not* have to support it
16:04:23 <sandro> scribe: sandro
16:04:42 <sandro> topic: TriG
16:05:07 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/trigS_new?lang=perl
16:05:27 <TallTed> (except for the part where RDF/XML seems to be the only serialization that includes "RDF" [and not just "R"] in its name)
16:05:37 <sandro> eric: I created a grammar that takes care of (1) blank nodes as graph identifiers, (2) allow the GRAPH keyword, (3) allow { } to be optional around default graph
16:05:53 <sandro> eric: I made an LALR(1) grammar for this
16:06:19 <gavinc> blank nodes as graph identifiers are already in the Grammar in the the current ED
16:06:22 <sandro> eric: interesting grammatical points.
16:06:23 <gkellogg> Also LL(1)
16:06:47 <sandro> eric: Noticed one could do:      [ :a :b ] { .... }
16:07:12 <gkellogg> Also, possibly (1 2) { … }
16:07:21 <sandro> eric: Andy pushed back, saying this syntac might be used for something else, and exceeds sparql
16:07:39 <sandro> gavin: Aligning with SPARQL, and then going right past it.....
16:09:34 <ericP> ASK { { <s> <p> <o> } GRAPH <x> { ... } }
16:09:35 <sandro> eric: Resolved that it's fine to make GRAPH optional and make { ... } optional
16:09:51 <ericP> ASK { { <s> <p> <o> { <s2> <p2> <o2> } } GRAPH <x> { ... } }
16:10:18 <sandro> sandro: ewww!
16:10:35 <ericP> normal use: ASK { <s> <p> <o> GRAPH <x> { ... } }
16:10:48 <sandro> sandro: and that's what we'd like in TriG
16:11:43 <sandro> david: (missed)
16:12:30 <sandro> eric:  { { <s> <p> <o> { <s2> <p2> <o2> } } GRAPH <x> { ... } } turns into  { <s> <p> <o>. <s2> <p2> <o2>  GRAPH <x> { ... } }
16:13:08 <sandro> eric: Resolved that it's fine to make GRAPH optional and make { ... } optional
16:14:31 <sandro> eric: is there a mechanism to survey....?
16:15:21 <sandro> eric: eg wiki page of implementations
16:15:27 <sandro> sandro: Sure, let's link to the implementation risk in the At Risk text.
16:15:28 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:16:12 <sandro> gavin: I think we already resolved to add these, last meeting.  I was going to normalize against existing trig grammar and include it.
16:16:25 <sandro> eric: also, optional trailing dot inside curlies
16:16:42 <sandro> eric: I borrow from SPARQL not TURTLE.
16:16:57 <sandro> +1
16:17:13 <sandro> david: We've gotten through our agenda!
16:18:52 <sandro> sandro: I don't recall us actually resolving 137
16:19:03 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0138.html
16:19:41 <gavinc> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-137 using at risk text proposed by sandro http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0138.html and a grammar based on ericP's changes  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0099.html
16:19:52 <sandro> +1
16:19:59 <davidwood> +1
16:20:00 <gavinc> +0.5
16:20:01 <gkellogg> +1
16:20:02 <ericP> +1
16:20:04 <TallTed> +1
16:20:24 <zwu2> +1
16:20:40 <Souri> +1
16:20:51 <sandro> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-137 using at risk text proposed by sandro http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0138.html and a grammar based on ericP's changes  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0099.html
16:21:01 <sandro> davidwood: AOB?
16:21:04 <markus> +1
16:21:24 <sandro> gavin: We'll also be adding Andy's test cases to the TriG test suite.
16:22:48 <zwu2> bye
16:22:53 <Zakim> -AZ.a
16:23:03 <sandro> ADJOURN
16:23:04 <Zakim> -AZ
16:23:09 <Zakim> -pfps
16:23:25 <Zakim> -Souri
16:23:28 <markus> bye
16:23:31 <Zakim> -markus
16:23:48 <sandro> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2/trig-kw-graph-08.trig
16:23:54 <sandro> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2
16:27:13 <Zakim> -EricP
16:32:20 <sandro> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2/trig-kw-graph-01.trig
16:32:34 <gkellogg> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/log/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2/trig-kw-graph-08.trig
16:34:23 <Zakim> -gkellogg
16:34:27 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:34:28 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:34:29 <Zakim> -davidwood
16:34:29 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:34:29 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:34:29 <Zakim> Attendees were EricP, gkellogg, davidwood, TallTed, +081165aaaa, AZ, Sandro, +1.707.861.aabb, gavinc, Arnaud, markus, Souri, pfps
16:34:35 <gavinc> RCS forever!
16:37:40 <gavinc> davidwood: can you check your ~/.hgrc ?
17:26:13 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #rdf-wg
17:56:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-wg
18:35:04 <davidwood> davidwood has joined #rdf-wg