12:51:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:51:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-irc
12:51:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:51:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
12:51:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
12:51:46 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:51:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:51:47 <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015
12:51:55 <kerry> present+ kerry
12:55:36 <Frans> Frans has joined #sdw
12:57:02 <kerry> regrets+ clemens
12:57:40 <Rachel> Rachel has joined #sdw
12:57:53 <Rachel> present+ Rachel
12:58:05 <SimonCox> SimonCox has joined #sdw
12:58:34 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
12:59:16 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
12:59:21 <aharth> aharth has joined #sdw
12:59:29 <aharth> present+ aharth
12:59:41 <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting
12:59:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:59:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
12:59:45 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:59:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:59:46 <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015
13:00:10 <Alejandro_Llaves> Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw
13:00:33 <Alejandro_Llaves> present+ Alejandro_Llaves
13:00:50 <billroberts> present+ billrobets
13:00:59 <billroberts> present+ billroberts
13:01:08 <phila> present+ PhilA
13:01:15 <phila> chair: Ed
13:01:26 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150603
13:01:31 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #sdw
13:01:48 <phila> Regrets+ Antoine Zimmermann, Andrea, Philippe Thiran, Clemens Portele
13:01:51 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdw
13:01:57 <LarsG> Present+ LarsG
13:02:00 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has joined #sdw
13:02:07 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
13:02:21 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
13:02:29 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
13:02:38 <phila> Meeting URL is at https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mc00ef4269f70cf6d524a1eafc14142da
13:02:39 <ChrisLittle> Present+
13:02:49 <IanHolt> IanHolt has joined #sdw
13:03:03 <phila> present+ ChrisLittle
13:03:04 <SimonCox> Present+ SImonCox
13:03:09 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
13:03:16 <aharth> present+ aharth
13:03:42 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
13:03:44 <Linda> Present+ Linda
13:03:58 <Frans> present+ Frans
13:03:59 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
13:04:17 <IanHolt> present+ IanHolt
13:04:17 <stlemme> stlemme has joined #sdw
13:04:17 <Frans> Still working on audio...
13:04:29 <ahaller2_> ahaller2_ has joined #sdw
13:04:46 <IanHolt> Trying to fix audio this end
13:04:52 <SimonCox> pathetic
13:05:16 <SimonCox> 4th floor
13:06:17 <phila> scribe: phila
13:06:24 <phila> scribeNick: phila
13:06:27 <SimonCox> I recall in the 1970s the Met Office tried to come up with a catchy little ditty to explain Celsius.
13:06:42 <SimonCox> 5, 10 and 21 - Winter Spring and Summer Sun (!)
13:06:46 <phila> ed: Recalls last week's minutes
13:07:17 <phila> eparsons: recalls the OGC Patent Call
13:07:19 <kerry> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
13:07:30 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
13:07:35 <jtandy> +1
13:07:39 <ChrisLittle> and even I was not at Met Office
13:07:40 <eparsons> +1
13:07:41 <kerry> +1
13:07:43 <billroberts> +1
13:07:44 <phila> +1
13:07:46 <Linda> +1
13:07:48 <MattPerry> +1
13:07:54 <ChrisLittle> +1 minutes
13:07:56 <phila> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
13:08:12 <phila> Topic: Status of the UCR
13:08:34 <phila> eparsons: Main order of business today is progress with UCR. Next step is to make it a First Public Working Draft
13:08:52 <phila> -> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html Editor's draft
13:09:13 <phila> eparsons: It's a formal step. You need to be happy with the doc as it stands. It's not final of course
13:09:32 <phila> ... we're saying to the world, here it is, come and take a look and see how we're doing, how we're thinking
13:09:41 <ChrisLittle> +2 to Alejandro, Frans
13:09:47 <ahaller2> ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:10:15 <Alejandro_Llaves> Thanks! :)
13:10:52 <Linda> Yes very nice work Frans and Alejandro!
13:12:17 <phila> phila: Gives a bit more background
13:12:21 <billroberts> q+
13:12:24 <phila> eparsons: Asks for any further points?
13:12:27 <phila> ack billroberts
13:12:29 <eparsons> ack next
13:12:40 <phila> billroberts: Thanks Frans and Alejandro
13:12:55 <phila> ... I see an e-mail question Frans raised about spatial relations etc.
13:13:06 <phila> ... Frans had suggested a modified form of that requirement
13:13:12 <Frans> q+
13:13:17 <phila> ... I just wanted to know what the status of the editing process is
13:13:38 <phila> ... are there still things to be done or is the doc as it is the version we're going to publish?
13:14:01 <eparsons> ack next
13:14:03 <phila> eparsons: good point. It's not saying it's complete and that there are no ongoing issues. It's "we're mostly happy for it to be discussed in public"
13:14:05 <phila> ack Frans
13:14:18 <phila> Frans: This is an example of one of the many issues to be resolved
13:14:32 <phila> ... the UCR has a broad scope. There are many differnet subjects and issues that need to be processed
13:14:39 <phila> ... some subjects hairly, some simple
13:14:44 <phila> ... but they haven't all be processed yet
13:14:58 <phila> ... what i want to achieve is that we don't overlook anythiung that still needs to be processed
13:15:12 <phila> ... Alejandro_Llaves wanted to flag the remaining issues and associate them in the UCR
13:15:22 <jtandy> q+
13:15:25 <phila> ... if there is time for that, that's a final thing we could do before it reached FPWD status
13:15:38 <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
13:15:41 <phila> ... at least have some kind of completeness - the idea that we have eveything in our sights.
13:15:52 <phila> ... For some of our reqs we haven't found the optimal phrasing yet
13:16:02 <eparsons> ack next
13:16:08 <phila> ack jtandy
13:16:22 <phila> jtandy: Before we move to FPWD, I think we should definitely reference the issues in our tracker
13:16:34 <phila> ... It says "we know there's still some stuff outdstanding here"
13:16:45 <phila> ... so people don't ask us why we're not thinkinbg about something that we are
13:16:48 <Linda> +1 to referencing issues
13:16:52 <phila> eparsons: So what concrete steps do we need to take?
13:16:54 <jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues
13:17:13 <phila> jtandy: If we look at the issue sin the tracker, we need to add a para using the issues CSS class, to link to that
13:17:22 <phila> ... I have a link that describes how to do that
13:17:32 <phila> eparsons: So this is a further steo for the editos do to over the coming days
13:17:36 <jtandy> see discussion in email thread https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0033.html
13:17:42 <phila> Frans: I agree with that course of action
13:17:58 <phila> Frans: If we are meant to vote on the doc, do we still have time to put those issues in?
13:18:03 <phila> phila: Yes
13:18:04 <Rachel> +1 to referencing issues within the UCR document
13:18:13 <kerry> +1 to caveat as discussed
13:18:18 <eparsons> ack next
13:18:33 <phila> Frans: That's nice, thanks
13:18:50 <phila> ... It's easier for WG members to check if their issue in in the tracker than if it is in the doc correctly
13:19:17 <phila> eparsons: We might have an opportunity to do this as we may want to sync OGC and W3C publishing - which takes 3 weeks+ - next agendum!
13:19:53 <phila> Alejandro_Llaves: I wanted to say that Jeremy's suggestion is good. He gave example of how this has been done elsewhere. We committed to having the issues integrated in the doc
13:19:53 <kerry> q+ to speak on what about new issues from here on?
13:20:10 <phila> ... But we need to recognise the massive number of e-mails in the last few weeks
13:20:17 <phila> ... So we'll work on the cross linking
13:20:36 <phila> ... I'm fine with voting today, accounting for still adding the issues.
13:20:49 <Linda> q+
13:20:49 <phila> ... but I would ask not to add new issues until we've done that
13:20:57 <phila> ... or there will never be an FPWD
13:21:01 <phila> eparsons: That seems fair
13:21:18 <eparsons> ack next
13:21:20 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on what about new issues from here on?
13:21:21 <phila> eparsons: Assuming we don't vote today, no new issues until tracker items have been integrated.
13:21:22 <phila> ack kerry
13:21:32 <phila> kerry: My comments was closely related.
13:21:46 <cperey> cperey has joined #sdw
13:21:47 <phila> ... What do we do about issues still in people's heads but not in the tracker?
13:21:58 <phila> ... I guess the answer is, keep them in your head and hold off for now
13:22:17 <Frans> q+
13:22:17 <phila> kerry: maybe we should announce the issue(s) we're going to work on for each meeting
13:22:18 <eparsons> ack next
13:22:33 <phila> Linda: What about issues that were raised by e-mail but that are not yet in the tracker?
13:22:33 <eparsons> ack next
13:22:40 <phila> Frans: We'll put them in the tracker
13:22:47 <phila> ... and link from the UCR
13:22:57 <phila> ... so that we can check for completeness.
13:23:11 <phila> Linda: So are you going to do that or should I do that for my issues?
13:23:24 <phila> Frans: Dunno if Alejandro_Llaves agreesm, but the editors can make a start
13:23:25 <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
13:23:31 <eparsons> ack next
13:23:36 <phila> Frans: The editos should have a good overview of outstanding issues
13:23:47 <phila> Alejandro_Llaves: I;m fine with that as a first procedure for now
13:23:54 <jtandy> s/agreesm/agrees/
13:24:14 <jtandy> s/I;m/I'm/
13:24:18 <phila> ... But in future, as all Wg memebrs have access to the tracker, and we have explained how to use it, I think it would be easier for that individual to describe their issues in the tracker
13:24:20 <phila> q+
13:24:27 <Rachel> s/editos/editors/
13:24:34 <phila> Alejandro_Llaves: Otherwise we end up exhanging e-mails and they're not tracked
13:25:18 <eparsons> ack next
13:25:20 <phila> ack me
13:26:25 <phila> phila: Takes an action to check the tracker config to start e-mails being sent when new issues are raised.
13:26:43 <phila> eparsons: So let's think in terms of a moritorium on issues betwene now and FPWD
13:26:47 <eparsons> PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft
13:26:47 <phila> eparsons: Any more issues?
13:27:44 <phila> Frans: Thinking about what's next... the fact that the UCR isn't finished, shouldn't stop the next thing being worked on
13:27:46 <phila> eparsons: No
13:27:47 <phila> PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
13:27:57 <jtandy> +1 subject to caveat that ISSUES in the tracker are represented in the UCR doc prior to its FPWD publication ... UCR doc is _good enough_ for FPWD
13:27:59 <eparsons> +1
13:28:02 <Linda> +1
13:28:03 <kerry> +1
13:28:03 <Rachel> +1
13:28:06 <phila> +1
13:28:06 <MattPerry> +1
13:28:07 <Frans> +1
13:28:16 <billroberts> +1
13:28:17 <stlemme> +1
13:28:20 <kerry> q+
13:28:20 <SimonCox> +1
13:28:23 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:28:38 <eparsons> ack next
13:28:45 <phila> RESOLVED: Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
13:28:46 <LarsG> +1
13:28:51 <cperey> +1
13:29:00 <ahaller2> +1
13:29:10 <IanHolt> +1
13:29:47 <SimonCox> (and actual publication subject to OGC mechanics too)
13:29:53 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
13:30:07 <kerry> +q
13:30:12 <phila> eparsons: Thanks to everyone, especially the editors
13:30:14 <eparsons> ack next
13:30:30 <phila> kerry: I was thought it might be time to propose a formal vote of thanks to our editors
13:30:36 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:30:38 <jtandy> +1
13:30:39 <SimonCox> sound of hands clapping
13:30:41 <phila> PROPOSED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
13:30:44 <eparsons> +1
13:30:44 <LarsG> +1
13:30:46 <kerry> +1
13:30:46 <Rachel> +1
13:30:47 <stlemme> +1
13:30:48 <IanHolt> +1
13:30:48 <billroberts> +1
13:30:50 <ahaller2> +1
13:30:50 <MattPerry> +1 Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
13:30:50 <Linda> +1
13:30:51 <phila> +1
13:30:54 <phila> RESOLVED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
13:31:17 <phila> topic: OGC Publication Process Synchronising
13:31:26 <phila> eparsons: How do we take this forward in OGC.
13:31:35 <phila> ... There is not complete overlap between the two SDOs
13:31:49 <phila> ... there is no equivalent in OGC to a W3C FPWD
13:31:58 <SimonCox> Or 'Discussion Paper'
13:32:08 <phila> ... I think an Engineering Report is the closest thing OGC has
13:32:17 <jtandy> thinks that this is not an engineering report- there's no engineering!
13:32:27 <phila> ... The chairs put it in a pending folder and asks for a vote that lasts >= 3 weeks
13:32:34 <phila> ... If no objection, it moves to published
13:32:44 <SimonCox> DP = early technology
13:32:53 <phila> eparsons: maybe discussion paper is better, but this is quite a tech document
13:32:54 <SimonCox> Eng Report = result of testbed
13:33:01 <Frans> A white paper?
13:33:13 <jtandy> q+
13:33:24 <phila> eparsons: We'll talk with OGC colleagues here in Boulder to decide but is that 3 week window OK for everyone?
13:33:26 <SimonCox> Neither is a formal 'OGC position' - essentially "FYI"
13:33:28 <eparsons> ack next
13:33:33 <phila> q+ to ask about syncing or not
13:33:49 <phila> jtandy: It's important that people in OGC world know that this is in no way finished
13:34:01 <phila> ... Typically, the 3 week process at OGC means the doc is finished?
13:34:04 <SimonCox> q+
13:34:11 <phila> ... We need to convey that it's open to change
13:34:13 <Linda> Agrees with Simon - sounds most like a discussion paper
13:34:14 <eparsons> ack next
13:34:15 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about syncing or not
13:34:23 <phila> eparsons: The alternative is not to publish at OGC until it's finished
13:34:49 <phila> SimonCox: The status of Eng Rep or Discussion, are both FYI, not an endorsed product, That's well understood within the OGC
13:35:03 <phila> ... They're choosing to publish because they think it's of interest to the community but no more.
13:35:09 <phila> eparsons: So what's your suggestion?
13:35:37 <phila> SimonCox: I'm not sure that the process outlined is entirely correct.
13:35:52 <jtandy> q+ to ask if the introduction section of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?
13:36:00 <phila> ... In the case of docs that are not formal positions of OGC, it can be informal, maybe just a show of hands at a TC plenary.
13:36:16 <phila> ... We could perhaps have had that if the doc had been available 3 weeks ago.
13:36:28 <phila> ... but it'll be a bit more cumbersome.
13:36:47 <phila> eparsons: My suggestion was that the GeoSemantics DWG could organise the vote?
13:37:05 <phila> SimonCox: I'll look into the details of that. We may need a formal resolution of that group this week.
13:37:20 <kerry> +q
13:37:26 <eparsons> ack next
13:37:29 <phila> SimonCox: The OGC approach in general is that no doc goes forward if it hasn't been availabnle to the relevant part of the OGC community for at least 3 weeks
13:37:33 <eparsons> ack next
13:37:34 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if the introduction section of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?
13:37:38 <phila> ... I'll help check the details today.
13:38:04 <phila> jtandy: I wanted to suggest... I'm happy with a discussion doc going through the 3 week rule. Maybe we can include a cover sheet on that to explain what an FPWD is
13:38:09 <phila> eparsons: Yes, we should.
13:38:22 <phila> SimonCox: Isn't that form of words included in the doc?
13:38:30 <Rachel> s/availabnle/available/
13:38:49 <eparsons> ack next
13:38:50 <phila> jtandy: Yes, but it will be unfamiliar to OGC folks so a bit mopre explanation of how to get involved etc. might be useful.
13:39:00 <jtandy> s/mopre/more/
13:39:21 <phila> kerry: Just a tech question... you mentioned having a vote in the geoSemantics - haven't we effectively just done that?
13:39:50 <phila> SimonCox: This is a sub group, not the full group. I'd be reluctant to take that short cut.
13:40:03 <phila> eparsons: We've doubled the process, not halved it, but doing things together.
13:40:32 <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
13:40:35 <phila> Action: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as rapidly as possible.
13:40:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Talk to other memebers of the ogc geosemantics dwg about this and try and take this forward as rapidly as possible. [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-06-10].
13:40:50 <jtandy> s/memebers/members/
13:40:51 <jtandy> +1
13:40:53 <phila> eparsons: That means we don't go gthrough the W3C process until we've been through the OGC process?
13:40:54 <kerry> +1
13:40:55 <phila> q-
13:40:57 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
13:41:01 <eparsons> ack next
13:41:02 <Linda> +1
13:41:04 <phila> General Agreement
13:41:08 <Rachel> +1
13:41:09 <IanHolt> +1
13:41:17 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:41:19 <SimonCox> http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r20/05-020r20.html#24
13:41:21 <phila> Alejandro_Llaves: Do we have a template to add to the document?
13:41:30 <jtandy> q+
13:41:32 <phila> (Simon points to it)
13:41:34 <eparsons> ack next
13:41:55 <phila> jtandy: Presumably the OGC publication is a PDF doc, not a Web page
13:42:20 <phila> SimonCox: All new docs at OGC are now published as HTML pages
13:42:32 <phila> jtandy: So can we take our HTML doc and push it into the OGC template?
13:42:40 <Frans> There already is a (standard) paragraph ¨Status of This Document¨
13:42:41 <phila> SimonCox: I don't think that's appropriate, we can leave it as it is.
13:43:03 <phila> eparsons: So maybe we just add a paragraph to the document
13:43:06 <phila> q+
13:43:18 <Rachel> s/doubled the process/doubled the democratic process/
13:43:18 <eparsons> ack next
13:43:44 <SimonCox> From OGC P&P:"The votes that may occur at a DWG are:  Move to release an Engineering Report as a Discussion Paper"
13:44:04 <SimonCox> "All of these motions and DWG are recommendations to the full TC."
13:45:10 <phila> phila: Can we predict a date (Tues or Thurs) for publication?
13:45:25 <phila> SimonCox: We may know by the end of the day
13:46:01 <phila> SimonCox: I've been looking at the OGC policies. And I think it means that the 3 week rule applies if no one objects?
13:46:21 <phila> SimonCox: Ed and I will talk to Scott today
13:47:00 <phila> action: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the wording to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means
13:47:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Work with ed to come up with the wording to describe to the ogc community what fpwd means [on Simon Cox - due 2015-06-10].
13:47:51 <ChrisLittle> bye, sorry - have to go to another OGC WG, requiring spatial transfer
13:48:10 <phila> eparsons: Let's close this off then...
13:48:27 <phila> Topic: Next Steps - the Best Practice Document
13:48:44 <phila> eparsons: The BP doc is going to be the biggest thing we focus on for the remaindxer of the year
13:49:12 <phila> ... We want to look at current activities as being the best/easiest way to make spatial data available on the Web in a form that is Linked/Linkable
13:49:22 <Alejandro_Llaves> + 1
13:49:23 <phila> ... We are satill looking for editors.
13:49:48 <jtandy> s/satill/still/
13:49:56 <phila> eparsons: The UCR describes the problem space and the BP doc is a large part of the solution.
13:50:16 <phila> ... We are looking for editors. Speak now or contact me, Phil or Kerry
13:50:51 <phila> Frans: I'm trying to look - I think we had a partial volunteer. Someone who said they'd look at an overview of current software. It's somehwre in an e-mail
13:51:30 <kerry> +q
13:51:35 <eparsons> ack next
13:51:42 <phila> eparsons: Please think about that and volunteer if you can. Or we'll start knocking on your door.
13:51:50 <phila> kerry: I wanted to point to issue-6
13:51:52 <phila> issue-6?
13:51:52 <trackbot> issue-6 -- That our primary goal is to develop 5 star linked spatial data -- raised
13:51:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/6
13:52:22 <phila> kerry: I think this raises an important point. It was raised as a principles doscussion. Can we discuss it now or soon?
13:52:33 <jtandy> +1
13:52:37 <Frans> q+
13:52:38 <phila> kerry: I would vote in favour, but I'm not sure that everyone would.
13:52:45 <jtandy> (we will need to bottom this out ... )
13:53:02 <eparsons> ack next
13:53:03 <phila> eparsons: I agree that, yes, we need to discuss that and see what the BP doc is going to achieve, how to frame it etc.
13:53:12 <phila> kerry: I think that's a particularly critical one.
13:53:40 <phila> Frans: I'm looking at the charter now. It says the WG will promote LD using the 5 star paradigm, but will not exclude other methods.
13:54:12 <phila> eparsons: Let's park that for today but it could be on next week's agenda.
13:54:18 <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
13:54:22 <phila> eparsons: Any final questions or are we done?
13:54:23 <eparsons> ack next
13:54:27 <jtandy> q+ to say thanks to Frans & Alejandro_Llaves
13:54:47 <Rachel> [the email was from Lewis McGibbney, he offered to lead/co-lead a review and understanding of existing spatial markup vocabularies.]
13:54:48 <phila> Alejandro_Llaves: We editors have the task of adding the issues ot the doc in the next days. There are some issues related directkly to requirements, others are not.
13:54:54 <Frans> q+
13:54:55 <kerry> leave them out!
13:55:01 <phila> What about issues that are not related like the one Kerry raised?
13:55:04 <eparsons> ack next
13:55:05 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to say thanks to Frans & Alejandro_Llaves
13:55:08 <jtandy> q-
13:55:08 <phila> eparsons: Leave them out.
13:55:23 <eparsons> ack next
13:55:25 <phila> jtandy: I just wanted to thank Frans and Alejandro
13:55:42 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:55:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html phila
13:56:07 <cperey> excellent work everyone!
13:56:20 <cperey> thank you!
13:56:28 <phila> eparsons: Wraps up the meeting.
13:56:43 <phila> ... Next week we start movng forward on the BP doc
13:56:48 <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks to all! Bye
13:56:52 <Linda> thanks bu
13:56:53 <eparsons> bye
13:56:54 <MattPerry> bye
13:56:56 <Rachel> bye, thank all
13:56:57 <Linda> bye!
13:57:03 <billroberts> bye, thanks
13:57:32 <phila> regrets+ Josh Lieberman
13:57:44 <kerry> regrets + antoine
13:57:51 <kerry> regrets+ antoine
13:57:57 <kerry> regrets+ andrea
13:58:08 <kerry> regrets+ phillipe
13:58:23 <phila> RRSAgent, generate minutes
13:58:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:47:38 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
15:56:16 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw