None.
There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
It may be helpful to
14:04:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-irc ←
14:04:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see +2, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +2, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace ←
14:04:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
14:04:53 <vipul> Zakim, aabb is Christine
Vipul Kashyap: Zakim, aabb is Christine ←
14:05:06 <Zakim> +Christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Christine; got it ←
14:06:08 <vipul> rrsagent, make logs world-visible
Vipul Kashyap: rrsagent, make logs world-visible ←
14:06:41 <IanH> zakim, hang up aabb
Ian Horrocks: zakim, hang up aabb ←
14:06:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'hang up aabb', IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'hang up aabb', IanH ←
14:09:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:09:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see +2, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, Christine, Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +2, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, Christine, Evan_Wallace ←
14:09:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
14:09:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:09:53 <IanH> ack Christine
Ian Horrocks: ack Christine ←
14:10:07 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
14:10:23 <IanH> zakim, +2 is me
Ian Horrocks: zakim, +2 is me ←
14:10:25 <vipul> Zakim, who's here?
Vipul Kashyap: Zakim, who's here? ←
14:10:26 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it ←
14:10:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
14:10:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, vipul, ewallace, Elisa, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
14:12:53 <ewallace> scribeNick:Elisa_Kendall
(Scribe set to Elisa Kendall)
14:13:04 <Elisa> scribenick: Elisa
14:13:39 <Elisa> Evan: last week we met and basically talked about how we were going to work on the requirements doc
Evan Wallace: last week we met and basically talked about how we were going to work on the requirements doc ←
14:13:54 <Elisa> some people familiarized themselves with the work page Evan created
some people familiarized themselves with the work page Evan created ←
14:14:15 <Elisa> talked about how to org document - whether by domain, use cases, features added in OWL 1.1
talked about how to org document - whether by domain, use cases, features added in OWL 1.1 ←
14:14:27 <Elisa> really the entrypoint rather than the organization of ti
really the entrypoint rather than the organization of ti ←
14:14:47 <Elisa> Vipul: I started to arrange things in a sort of a table
Vipul Kashyap: I started to arrange things in a sort of a table ←
14:14:58 <vipul> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TraceabilityMatrix
Vipul Kashyap: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TraceabilityMatrix ←
14:15:16 <Elisa> I've been filling out this table, and the table is just a generalization of that proposed by Michael and Christine
I've been filling out this table, and the table is just a generalization of that proposed by Michael and Christine ←
14:15:26 <ewallace> Requirements workspace page: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Requirements_work_space
Evan Wallace: Requirements workspace page: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Requirements_work_space ←
14:15:43 <Elisa> and just started filling it out, to look across domains
and just started filling it out, to look across domains ←
14:16:14 <Elisa> Ian: as I understand it, there was some disagreement as to whether the basic structure should start from OWL 2, or the other way around
Ian Horrocks: as I understand it, there was some disagreement as to whether the basic structure should start from OWL 2, or the other way around ←
14:16:27 <Elisa> Vipul: yes, that is one of the disagreements
Vipul Kashyap: yes, that is one of the disagreements ←
14:16:46 <Elisa> I would like to propose that we go from the domain to the new features, but others want to go the other way around
I would like to propose that we go from the domain to the new features, but others want to go the other way around ←
14:17:08 <Elisa> Ian: looking at your features in the new table, there are very few places where OWL 2 doesn't meet the requirements
Ian Horrocks: looking at your features in the new table, there are very few places where OWL 2 doesn't meet the requirements ←
14:17:39 <Elisa> as it stands, starting from requirements and use cases, using this matrix, you would say that what we needed was OWL 2
as it stands, starting from requirements and use cases, using this matrix, you would say that what we needed was OWL 2 ←
14:18:03 <Elisa> if we don't end up with a large number of unsatisfied requirements, it doesn't make that much difference
if we don't end up with a large number of unsatisfied requirements, it doesn't make that much difference ←
14:18:27 <Elisa> Vipul: there was a question of scope brought up at the last telecon, looking at requirements that were
Vipul Kashyap: there was a question of scope brought up at the last telecon, looking at requirements that were ←
14:18:36 <Elisa> relevant for OWL 2
relevant for OWL 2 ←
14:19:17 <Elisa> Ian: yes, without that you could go on and on ... without that we might feel obliged to identify all of the features we don't have in the language and then say why not
Ian Horrocks: yes, without that you could go on and on ... without that we might feel obliged to identify all of the features we don't have in the language and then say why not ←
14:19:24 <Elisa> Vipul: would that be useful
Vipul Kashyap: would that be useful ←
14:19:46 <Elisa> Ian: it could take quite a bit of time, slow us down saying why we didn't include those features
Ian Horrocks: it could take quite a bit of time, slow us down saying why we didn't include those features ←
14:20:03 <Elisa> Vipul: yes, I'm focusing on the use cases where we do have those features
Vipul Kashyap: yes, I'm focusing on the use cases where we do have those features ←
14:20:35 <Elisa> Ian: this is really how we started, which led to OWL 1.1 and subsequently morfed into OWL2, so what you've done really reflects the design process
Ian Horrocks: this is really how we started, which led to OWL 1.1 and subsequently morfed into OWL2, so what you've done really reflects the design process ←
14:21:18 <Elisa> Christine: I am not sure that I understand correctly the end of our discussion last Monday - I understood that we wanted to have a doc composed of 3 parts: use cases, requirements, and design rationale
Christine Golbreich: I am not sure that I understand correctly the end of our discussion last Monday - I understood that we wanted to have a doc composed of 3 parts: use cases, requirements, and design rationale ←
14:21:56 <Elisa> my thought was that we were going to organize according to the new OWL features, but some people suggested that we should not be redundant or overlapping with the older documents
my thought was that we were going to organize according to the new OWL features, but some people suggested that we should not be redundant or overlapping with the older documents ←
14:22:14 <Elisa> Bijan said that it should not be redundant with the primer or reference docs, and I agree
Bijan said that it should not be redundant with the primer or reference docs, and I agree ←
14:22:58 <ewallace> Christine's input doc:http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/83/TdM-UserReqTF.pdf
Evan Wallace: Christine's input doc:http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/83/TdM-UserReqTF.pdf ←
14:23:11 <Elisa> but I have been thinking that we should review the document I put online regarding the features, but highlighting based on questions, but focused on requirements and then discussing the features
but I have been thinking that we should review the document I put online regarding the features, but highlighting based on questions, but focused on requirements and then discussing the features ←
14:23:40 <Elisa> summarizing - 3 parts, starting with use cases, then requirements stressing rationale and motivation, and 3rd part talking about the design
summarizing - 3 parts, starting with use cases, then requirements stressing rationale and motivation, and 3rd part talking about the design ←
14:24:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:24:20 <Elisa> I didn't have time to finish this, but we might keep this along similar lines ...
I didn't have time to finish this, but we might keep this along similar lines ... ←
14:24:37 <Elisa> reorganizing along the lines of features
reorganizing along the lines of features ←
14:24:51 <ewallace> She was quoting me
Evan Wallace: She was quoting me ←
14:25:05 <Elisa> vipul: the syntactic sugar is one of the most useful things introduced - we've been discussing this on email
Vipul Kashyap: the syntactic sugar is one of the most useful things introduced - we've been discussing this on email ←
14:25:15 <pfps> not surprising - there are an infinite number of ways of representing anything
Peter Patel-Schneider: not surprising - there are an infinite number of ways of representing anything ←
14:25:21 <ewallace> The issue was with describing the feature as syntactic sugar, not the features in that category
Evan Wallace: The issue was with describing the feature as syntactic sugar, not the features in that category ←
14:25:54 <Elisa> Ian: so - from what I understand, you (Vipul) and Christine are not that far apart, so can we hear from someone who disagrees ...
Ian Horrocks: so - from what I understand, you (Vipul) and Christine are not that far apart, so can we hear from someone who disagrees ... ←
14:26:49 <Elisa> Evan: I just put in what Vipul was clarifying ... my issue last week - I didn't think the way it was organized was particularly user friendly
Evan Wallace: I just put in what Vipul was clarifying ... my issue last week - I didn't think the way it was organized was particularly user friendly ←
14:26:59 <Elisa> Ian: so this was mainly editorial
Ian Horrocks: so this was mainly editorial ←
14:27:03 <Elisa> Evan: indeed
Evan Wallace: indeed ←
14:27:43 <Elisa> Ian: so there will be quite a bit of editorial polishing ... the only thing I wasn't 100% clear about was the third section - so what's in the design section
Ian Horrocks: so there will be quite a bit of editorial polishing ... the only thing I wasn't 100% clear about was the third section - so what's in the design section ←
14:28:02 <Elisa> Christine: I said use cases, requirements, and design
Christine Golbreich: I said use cases, requirements, and design ←
14:28:10 <Elisa> Ian: so what is design?
Ian Horrocks: so what is design? ←
14:28:43 <Elisa> Christine: to explain the motivation - why these features were implemented, now the -- document is very nice, lots of progress
Christine Golbreich: to explain the motivation - why these features were implemented, now the -- document is very nice, lots of progress ←
14:28:59 <vipul> q
Vipul Kashyap: q ←
14:29:13 <vipul> q+
Vipul Kashyap: q+ ←
14:29:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:29:20 <Elisa> if you take a specific feature, and summarize discussion regarding why certain design choices were made
if you take a specific feature, and summarize discussion regarding why certain design choices were made ←
14:29:55 <Elisa> Ian: I can understand now why Bijan was worried about overlap - I would have expected use cases leading to requirements, and then describe how those requirements were satisfied,
Ian Horrocks: I can understand now why Bijan was worried about overlap - I would have expected use cases leading to requirements, and then describe how those requirements were satisfied, ←
14:30:09 <Elisa> rather than potentially unconnected features, such as profiles, were selected
rather than potentially unconnected features, such as profiles, were selected ←
14:30:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:30:57 <Elisa> so for example, for the OWL lite profile, there is a requirement for access to databases, and then the solution would be that the OWL lite profile is the subset of the language that allows you to do this
so for example, for the OWL lite profile, there is a requirement for access to databases, and then the solution would be that the OWL lite profile is the subset of the language that allows you to do this ←
14:30:58 <IanH> ack vipul
Ian Horrocks: ack vipul ←
14:31:33 <Elisa> Vipul: the third section should say how the features map to the requirements, but I would like to add something about what is better in OWL 2 over what was in OWL 1
Vipul Kashyap: the third section should say how the features map to the requirements, but I would like to add something about what is better in OWL 2 over what was in OWL 1 ←
14:31:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:31:50 <Elisa> Ian: ok - I can imaging doing something about that, taking care about overlap
Ian Horrocks: ok - I can imaging doing something about that, taking care about overlap ←
14:32:46 <Elisa> Vipul: so take syntactic sugar -- there were lots of ways of saying things in OWL 1, but there are lots of people who don't know very much about logic, so features such as the syntactic sugar are very helpful
Vipul Kashyap: so take syntactic sugar -- there were lots of ways of saying things in OWL 1, but there are lots of people who don't know very much about logic, so features such as the syntactic sugar are very helpful ←
14:33:19 <Elisa> Ian: we're all in close enough agreement to produce a document ...
Ian Horrocks: we're all in close enough agreement to produce a document ... ←
14:33:52 <Elisa> Christine: for the design section, it is not the same if the objective is to map requirements to features, than to say why a feature was designed or accepted
Christine Golbreich: for the design section, it is not the same if the objective is to map requirements to features, than to say why a feature was designed or accepted ←
14:34:22 <Elisa> so for example, the easy key example, it is not clear why it might be implemented with DL-safe rules, or functional-inverse functional
so for example, the easy key example, it is not clear why it might be implemented with DL-safe rules, or functional-inverse functional ←
14:34:41 <Elisa> for each feature, it is important to say how to use the feature based on the underlying design
for each feature, it is important to say how to use the feature based on the underlying design ←
14:34:57 <ewallace> Really?
Evan Wallace: Really? ←
14:34:58 <Elisa> Ian: in this area you are getting close to problems with the primer
Ian Horrocks: in this area you are getting close to problems with the primer ←
14:35:38 <Elisa> what I suggest is that you are close enough to top level design of the structure to try doing a few examples, and then come back to the working group with a draft
what I suggest is that you are close enough to top level design of the structure to try doing a few examples, and then come back to the working group with a draft ←
14:35:48 <Elisa> if people like what's there you can produce more
if people like what's there you can produce more ←
14:36:43 <Elisa> Christine: it is too difficult to summarize all of the discussion, and even if there are explanations in the profile and primer documents, it is hard to grasp the underlying reasons for these things
Christine Golbreich: it is too difficult to summarize all of the discussion, and even if there are explanations in the profile and primer documents, it is hard to grasp the underlying reasons for these things ←
14:37:09 <Elisa> Ian: so pick and example and produce some text - it's difficult to understand what you want to do without seeing something concrete
Ian Horrocks: so pick and example and produce some text - it's difficult to understand what you want to do without seeing something concrete ←
14:37:39 <Elisa> Christine: this is reasonable, but the 3rd part is difficult, because the information is missing
Christine Golbreich: this is reasonable, but the 3rd part is difficult, because the information is missing ←
14:37:41 <ewallace> q+
Evan Wallace: q+ ←
14:37:59 <Elisa> Ian: so you might choose something that you do understand, so that you can write it
Ian Horrocks: so you might choose something that you do understand, so that you can write it ←
14:38:02 <IanH> ack ewallace
Ian Horrocks: ack ewallace ←
14:38:21 <Elisa> Evan: I think it would be good to build what we can and then say what's missing, what we need help with
Evan Wallace: I think it would be good to build what we can and then say what's missing, what we need help with ←
14:38:26 <vipul> q+
Vipul Kashyap: q+ ←
14:38:45 <IanH> ack vipul
Ian Horrocks: ack vipul ←
14:38:51 <Elisa> Ian: do you think you can go ahead and come up with a draft
Ian Horrocks: do you think you can go ahead and come up with a draft ←
14:39:20 <Elisa> Vipul: I have a request from Evan and Peter - it would be nice to beef up the document with examples from telecommunications and manufacturing
Vipul Kashyap: I have a request from Evan and Peter - it would be nice to beef up the document with examples from telecommunications and manufacturing ←
14:39:54 <Elisa> Evan: I have some examples from manufacturing, but it will be a little challenging to match them to features of OWL 2
Evan Wallace: I have some examples from manufacturing, but it will be a little challenging to match them to features of OWL 2 ←
14:40:07 <Elisa> Christine: so who will take a crack at the first draft?
Christine Golbreich: so who will take a crack at the first draft? ←
14:40:37 <Elisa> Evan: I could just start building the framework for this, so that you have some places to start filling in the content -- I did talk to Sandro about how we could do this on the wiki
Evan Wallace: I could just start building the framework for this, so that you have some places to start filling in the content -- I did talk to Sandro about how we could do this on the wiki ←
14:40:56 <Elisa> Ian: as soon as you've filled in the framework we can get multiple people working on different sections
Ian Horrocks: as soon as you've filled in the framework we can get multiple people working on different sections ←
14:41:19 <vipul> ACTION: Evan to create first draft of requirements document
ACTION: Evan to create first draft of requirements document ←
14:41:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Create first draft of requirements document [on Evan Wallace - due 2008-06-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-158 - Create first draft of requirements document [on Evan Wallace - due 2008-06-16]. ←
14:41:47 <Elisa> Christine: would it be possible for you to draft an example for the design section?
Christine Golbreich: would it be possible for you to draft an example for the design section? ←
14:42:04 <Elisa> Ian: I'm a little baffled, as you know what you want in the section ...
Ian Horrocks: I'm a little baffled, as you know what you want in the section ... ←
14:42:43 <Elisa> Let's see what you come up with, and if you have a section that says "we need an explanation of why this does what it does" I can help out if its needed'
Let's see what you come up with, and if you have a section that says "we need an explanation of why this does what it does" I can help out if its needed' ←
14:43:06 <Elisa> Ian: is there anything else that we needed to cover today
Ian Horrocks: is there anything else that we needed to cover today ←
14:44:10 <Elisa> Evan: on the quick start - we had some questions about the vocabulary, have we had any discussion with Boris?
Evan Wallace: on the quick start - we had some questions about the vocabulary, have we had any discussion with Boris? ←
14:44:40 <Elisa> We were trying to figure out exactly what parts of the syntax should be part of it, and it wasn't obvious
We were trying to figure out exactly what parts of the syntax should be part of it, and it wasn't obvious ←
14:45:01 <pfps> why not look in the document set for the terminals of the language?
Peter Patel-Schneider: why not look in the document set for the terminals of the language? ←
14:45:03 <Elisa> we were going to ask to see if he had generated anything with just the terminals, and start working from that
we were going to ask to see if he had generated anything with just the terminals, and start working from that ←
14:45:44 <Elisa> Ian: looking in the document is one way, but if it could be done automatically that would be quicker
Ian Horrocks: looking in the document is one way, but if it could be done automatically that would be quicker ←
14:45:47 <Elisa> Evan: exactly
Evan Wallace: exactly ←
14:45:59 <Elisa> Ian: Peter is there any way to do that?
Ian Horrocks: Peter is there any way to do that? ←
14:46:25 <Elisa> Peter: if you want a reasonably recent set, there are indexes in the document that could get you most of the way
Scribe problem: the name 'Peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Peter: if you want a reasonably recent set, there are indexes in the document that could get you most of the way ←
14:46:40 <Elisa> Evan: we were just asking if it had been done, not to create work
Evan Wallace: we were just asking if it had been done, not to create work ←
14:47:01 <Elisa> Ian: it seems like the answer is yes, it has already been done - we just need to find out where this index is and use that
Ian Horrocks: it seems like the answer is yes, it has already been done - we just need to find out where this index is and use that ←
14:47:07 <Elisa> Evan: yes
Evan Wallace: yes ←
14:47:26 <Elisa> Ian: can you point us at the index?
Ian Horrocks: can you point us at the index? ←
14:47:42 <Elisa> Peter: Im getting server errors in the moment, so I can't
Scribe problem: the name 'Peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Peter: Im getting server errors in the moment, so I can't ←
14:47:52 <Elisa> you might want to try the primer
you might want to try the primer ←
14:48:18 <Elisa> Ian: index, owl feature -- there is a list of owl features ... is that the kind of thing you were thinking of?
Ian Horrocks: index, owl feature -- there is a list of owl features ... is that the kind of thing you were thinking of? ←
14:48:25 <Elisa> Peter: I think so,
Scribe problem: the name 'Peter' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Peter Patel-Schneider Peter Haase . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Peter: I think so, ←
14:48:33 <Elisa> Ian: so that's a good starting point
Ian Horrocks: so that's a good starting point ←
14:48:37 <pfps> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Appendix:_OWL_Features
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Appendix:_OWL_Features ←
14:49:33 <Elisa> Ian: ok, so anything more on the quick start? we'll hopefully have something to discuss next week?
Ian Horrocks: ok, so anything more on the quick start? we'll hopefully have something to discuss next week? ←
14:49:42 <Elisa> Elisa: hopefully the first week of July
Elisa Kendall: hopefully the first week of July ←
14:49:51 <Elisa> Ian: anything else we should discuss this week?
Ian Horrocks: anything else we should discuss this week? ←
14:50:16 <Elisa> Christine: what is the quick start guide supposed to be?
Christine Golbreich: what is the quick start guide supposed to be? ←
14:51:07 <Elisa> Ian: it's supposed to be like a reference card at the back of a manual that helps refresh your memory on syntax, a card that can sit on your desk rather than a book that would sit on your bookshelf
Ian Horrocks: it's supposed to be like a reference card at the back of a manual that helps refresh your memory on syntax, a card that can sit on your desk rather than a book that would sit on your bookshelf ←
14:51:36 <Elisa> Ian: if we're not expecting progress on the quick start until the beginning of July, when should we schedule our next meeting?
Ian Horrocks: if we're not expecting progress on the quick start until the beginning of July, when should we schedule our next meeting? ←
14:53:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:53:56 <Elisa> Ian: realistically, it sounds like you might not have anything until the week of the 7th of July;do we want another meeting between now and then to discuss the use case and requirements document
Ian Horrocks: realistically, it sounds like you might not have anything until the week of the 7th of July;do we want another meeting between now and then to discuss the use case and requirements document ←
14:54:34 <Elisa> On the use case and requirements document, do we meet next week or the 30th?
On the use case and requirements document, do we meet next week or the 30th? ←
14:55:06 <Elisa> Vipul: it depends on whether or not Evan can get something done by then
Vipul Kashyap: it depends on whether or not Evan can get something done by then ←
14:55:28 <Elisa> Evan: Let's meet on the 30th, and I'll have at least a draft of the structure of the use case document we can discuss
Evan Wallace: Let's meet on the 30th, and I'll have at least a draft of the structure of the use case document we can discuss ←
14:55:54 <vipul> rrsagent, make minutes
Vipul Kashyap: rrsagent, make minutes ←
14:55:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html vipul
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html vipul ←
14:55:54 <pfps> documenting the schedule would be useful
Peter Patel-Schneider: documenting the schedule would be useful ←
14:56:07 <Elisa> meeting adjourned
meeting adjourned ←
14:56:46 <Zakim> -Vipul_Kashyap
Zakim IRC Bot: -Vipul_Kashyap ←
14:56:48 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
Zakim IRC Bot: -Elisa_Kendall ←
14:56:50 <Zakim> -Christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -Christine ←
14:56:51 <ewallace> next meeting will be on 30 June to discuss progress on Requirements
Evan Wallace: next meeting will be on 30 June to discuss progress on Requirements ←
14:56:52 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
14:57:00 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
14:57:05 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
14:57:07 <Zakim> SW_OWL()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()10:00AM has ended ←
14:57:08 <Zakim> Attendees were Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace, Christine, Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace, Christine, Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH ←
14:57:23 <ewallace> will meet on 7 July to discuss Quickstart
Evan Wallace: will meet on 7 July to discuss Quickstart ←
14:57:47 <ewallace> rrsagent, draft minutes
Evan Wallace: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
14:57:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html ewallace
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html ewallace ←
14:58:03 <ewallace> rrsagent, make log world-readable
Evan Wallace: rrsagent, make log world-readable ←
14:58:45 <ewallace> RRSAgent, make records public
Evan Wallace: RRSAgent, make records public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe