14:42:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:42:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-annotation-irc
14:42:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:42:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:42:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:42:26 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:42:27 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:42:27 <trackbot> Date: 19 August 2015
14:51:26 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:52:22 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0153.html
14:52:31 <ivan> Chair: Rob
14:52:50 <azaroth> Regrets: Frederick_Hirsch, Ray_Denenberg, TB_Dinesh
14:55:52 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
14:56:35 <chrisbirk> chrisbirk has joined #annotation
14:57:47 <ivan> Present: Ivan
14:57:52 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:57:59 <azaroth> Present+: Rob_Sanderson
14:58:13 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
14:58:37 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
14:58:52 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:00:30 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:00:43 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:00:44 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:01:20 <Jacob> That's right. I call not it.
15:02:00 <ivan> Scribe: bigbluehat
15:03:08 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:03:33 <shepazu_> shepazu_ has joined #annotation
15:04:32 <bigbluehat> agenda: heading toward consensus on roles and the graph/tree discussion
15:04:46 <Janina_> Janina_ has joined #annotation
15:04:49 <bigbluehat> azaroth: if you've not registered for TPAC or filled out the survey, please do
15:05:07 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 12 August approved,
15:05:07 <azaroth> http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:26 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 12 August approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:37 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any objections to the minutes from last call?
15:05:39 <Janina_> Present+ Janina_Sarol
15:05:45 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:05:51 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 12 August approved
15:06:26 <Kyrce> Present+ Kyrce_Swenson
15:06:54 <bigbluehat> azaroth: given the size of the call, we'll push for consensus around proposed solutions on the list
15:07:00 <bigbluehat> azaroth: thanks Tim for the work on the wiki page
15:07:10 <bigbluehat> ...let's quickly go through the options on the wiki page
15:07:16 <bigbluehat> ...and see who thinks what about which
15:07:26 <bigbluehat> ... -1/+0/+1 on each
15:07:43 <bigbluehat> ...then let's discuss shepazu_'s thoughts on simplification
15:07:51 <bigbluehat> ...and then craft a call for consensus that we can send to the list
15:07:53 <PaoloOnlyOnIRC> PaoloOnlyOnIRC has joined #annotation
15:07:56 <bigbluehat> ...based on what we discuss on this call
15:07:57 <Jacob> In case anyone needs it: http://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations
15:08:02 <bigbluehat> ...and see if everyone else agrees
15:08:05 <TimCole> +1
15:08:06 <Jacob> +1
15:08:14 <bigbluehat> +1
15:08:21 <ivan> +1
15:08:44 <bigbluehat> azaroth: let's walk through scenario 1
15:09:03 <bigbluehat> ...no distinct roles
15:09:11 <ivan> -1
15:09:15 <bigbluehat> ...what do people feel about option 0
15:09:20 <azaroth> Option 0: Current model
15:09:20 <TimCole> +0
15:09:22 <bigbluehat> ... -1 == can't live with
15:09:23 <azaroth> -1
15:09:25 <shepazu_> -1
15:09:30 <Jacob> +0
15:09:34 <bigbluehat> +1 == prefer
15:09:37 <chrisbirk> -1
15:10:22 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1 https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Scenario_1:_Bookmarking_.28with_multiple.2C_heterogeneous_Bodies.29
15:10:39 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1. Option 0. https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Current_Model_.28no_role_descriptions.29
15:10:46 <azaroth> Option 1: Role Assignment
15:10:50 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1. Option 1. Role Assignment
15:10:59 <ivan> -1
15:10:59 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_Assignment
15:11:08 <azaroth> +0
15:11:09 <Jacob> +0
15:11:12 <TimCole> +0
15:11:29 <shepazu> -1
15:11:44 <bigbluehat> +0
15:12:19 <shepazu> (actually, I don't mind this in addition to native roles on bodies)
15:12:27 <bigbluehat> s/+0/-1
15:12:47 <bigbluehat> it is quite a tangle to deal with...
15:13:30 <shepazu> (hard for maintenance)
15:13:36 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1. Option 2. Role Attached to SpecificResource https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_Attached_to_SpecificResource
15:13:46 <Jacob> +1
15:13:47 <ivan> +0.9999
15:13:51 <TimCole> +1
15:13:59 <azaroth> +0.9999
15:14:04 <bigbluehat> +1
15:14:12 <Kyrce> -1
15:14:36 <shepazu> (is there something relevant to the difference between the motivation and role props?)
15:15:27 <ivan> q+
15:15:27 <bigbluehat> ivan: this is extremely close to what shepazu wrote last night...but may need some tweaking
15:15:42 <bigbluehat> Kyrce: this just seems incredibly complex
15:15:50 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:15:56 <bigbluehat> ...for me, and how we would be using roles, it seems fairly complicated
15:16:19 <bigbluehat> ivan: just for my understanding, if you don't have to use or you don't want to use role...then you don't necessarily use this structure...well...
15:16:33 <bigbluehat> ...if I combine it with what shepazu has, it's essentially...hmmm
15:16:36 <shepazu> (can't you have motivation/role on the annotation as well as the body?)
15:16:53 <bigbluehat> azaroth: if you don't have role, you wouldn't need to use the SpecificResource
15:17:02 <bigbluehat> ...you could just have the body be those URLs
15:17:02 <shepazu> q+
15:17:43 <TimCole> no role - "body" : "http://example.org/body1.html"
15:17:52 <bigbluehat> ...this might only apply for when there's multiple bodies
15:18:16 <bigbluehat> Kyrce: I don't see use ever not having a role on the body
15:18:19 <TimCole> role on SR - "body": {"source": "http://example.org/body1.html", "role" : "commenting"}
15:18:28 <bigbluehat> ...my reservation is that for every single thing
15:18:41 <bigbluehat> ...if that's not important, then this format may be superior
15:18:49 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:18:59 <bigbluehat> ...but if everything you work on is going to have a role, this feels like a lot of overhead
15:19:54 <TimCole> q+
15:20:11 <bigbluehat> shepazu: I don't understand the difference between Role and Motivation
15:20:21 <bigbluehat> ...you can have role on the annotation or motivation or whatever
15:20:36 <bigbluehat> ...but...if you also want to have one on a particular body, then you can also do that
15:20:46 <Kyrce> q+
15:20:47 <bigbluehat> ...the specific use case was copy-editing
15:20:59 <bigbluehat> ...one body that says, this is my rationale, my opinion
15:21:05 <Jacob> The copy-edit use case is much more complex.
15:21:26 <bigbluehat> ...and another body that separately explains it's the edit, or tags,
15:21:50 <bigbluehat> ...that way an automated system can choose which to display, propose as an edit, etc.
15:21:58 <TimCole> q-
15:22:13 <TimCole> q+
15:22:29 <azaroth> ack Kyrce
15:23:03 <bigbluehat> Kyrce: I don't want to take too much time on this, but just wanted to put a red flag on it
15:23:08 <bigbluehat> ...it just seems complicated
15:23:13 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:23:36 <bigbluehat> TimCole: it is a bit complex, but it is less complex than the other things we've thought of
15:23:53 <bigbluehat> ...you'll need some kind of an object, not just values, in order to assign a role
15:24:24 <bigbluehat> TimCole: I think we could come up with a single set of terms
15:24:34 <bigbluehat> ...there could be differences
15:24:45 <bigbluehat> ...I don't think any of our motivations represent a target role very well
15:24:56 <bigbluehat> ...and there may be some roles that don't make sense for an entire annotation
15:25:01 <shepazu> (I don't think targets should have roles, as far as I can tell… only bodies and the main annotation)
15:25:14 <azaroth> q?
15:25:27 <Jacob> unless of course the point of the annotation is the juxtaposition of the targets
15:25:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: shall we move on to the next option?
15:25:41 <Jacob> then each target definitely plays a different role in the annotation
15:26:03 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1. Option 3. https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_Attached_to_EmbeddedContent_or_SpecificResource
15:26:08 <Jacob> +1
15:26:12 <azaroth> +0.5
15:26:15 <ivan> -0
15:26:20 <ivan> -0.5
15:26:21 <TimCole> +1
15:26:27 <shepazu> +0.5, I think?
15:26:36 <chrisbirk> -.5
15:26:40 <bigbluehat> +0 (would love to listen first ;) )
15:26:48 <Kyrce> +0
15:26:48 <ivan> q+
15:26:59 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:27:02 <bigbluehat> Role Attached to EmbeddedContent or SpecificResource
15:27:30 <bigbluehat> ivan: in one case you can use value and not just source
15:27:44 <bigbluehat> ...in the previously one I said +0.9999 because there are some tweaks
15:27:50 <bigbluehat> ...like allowing the value property
15:28:00 <bigbluehat> ...I don't see any major reason for adding the types
15:28:09 <bigbluehat> ...for RDF adding the types if fine
15:28:12 <bigbluehat> s/if/is
15:28:18 <bigbluehat> ...but for JSON people it's just noise
15:28:32 <bigbluehat> azaroth: if we removed the types from this example, would that make it +1?
15:28:39 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes, but then it's back to the previous option
15:28:44 <bigbluehat> ..and yes, would be a +1
15:29:31 <chrisbirk> sorry
15:29:38 <chrisbirk> I'll post here
15:30:03 <chrisbirk> From a JSON person's point of view, I would still have to loop through every body to get to the one I'm trying to access
15:30:13 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the difference between this one and the last one, is that the previous one is inside `source`
15:30:24 <bigbluehat> ...but here, it's directly within the body object
15:31:29 <bigbluehat> azaroth: you would have to loop through them to find the one you want
15:31:53 <bigbluehat> ivan: shepazu the previous one matches your proposal
15:32:21 <chrisbirk> thanks bigbluehat.  I'm more concerned with the performance side than ease of implementation
15:32:40 <TimCole> -1
15:32:46 <TimCole> q+
15:32:51 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:33:01 <Jacob> Yeah, I was taking this a straw pole to assess which way folks are leaning.
15:33:27 <bigbluehat> TimCole: when I think of simpler, I'm thinking about interoperability
15:34:11 <bigbluehat> ...for chrisbirk example, looping through all those to see if they have possible sub-properties
15:34:33 <bigbluehat> ...whereas the other way around, I can loop through all the things that have `hasBody`
15:34:41 <Jacob> also -1 for the sub-property solution
15:34:57 <bigbluehat> azaroth: to be clear, you jumped on to the next option :)
15:34:57 <azaroth> -1
15:34:58 <ivan> -1
15:35:08 <chrisbirk> +1
15:35:15 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1. Option 4. https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_as_Subproperty_of_hasBody.2FhasTarget
15:35:19 <bigbluehat> -1
15:35:28 <bigbluehat> Role as Subproperty of hasBody/hasTarget
15:36:07 <Jacob> Isn't there also a risk that we just keep developing new sub-properties forever?
15:36:17 <bigbluehat> Scenario 1. Option 5. https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_as_Class.2FTyped_Bodies_and_Targets
15:36:20 <azaroth> -1
15:36:21 <Jacob> -1
15:36:22 <ivan> 0
15:36:24 <bigbluehat> Role as Class/Typed Bodies and Targets
15:36:27 <TimCole> -1
15:36:34 <bigbluehat> -1
15:36:50 <Jacob> I am with Rob
15:37:23 <bigbluehat> azaroth: this prevents reuse of a body having multiple types
15:37:32 <chrisbirk> -1
15:37:35 <bigbluehat> ...it would be SemanticTag and any other thing it was assigned
15:37:52 <shepazu> (those are 2 different annotations… I don't see why it matters if 2 different annotations contradict each other)
15:37:59 <bigbluehat> ivan: it's essentially the same as assigning a role
15:38:06 <TimCole> q+
15:38:08 <bigbluehat> ...there seems no difference; and the semantic problem is not there...actually
15:38:32 <bigbluehat> ivan: instead of role...it says type
15:38:39 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:38:54 <azaroth> Apologies for the mischaracterization
15:38:56 <bigbluehat> TimCole: the only difference is that you're typing the node
15:39:01 <bigbluehat> ...rather than assigning it a role
15:39:17 <bigbluehat> ...we did go through a discussion about assigning a type
15:39:22 <bigbluehat> ...there is a difference in the RDF world
15:39:31 <bigbluehat> ...basically type gets used for lots of different things
15:39:49 <bigbluehat> ...it's fundamentally different than saying "this is text"
15:39:53 <ivan> q+
15:39:55 <bigbluehat> ...we found type getting overloaded
15:39:57 <azaroth> I'm instead -0.5, due to Tim's comments, plus having to duplicate Motivations into classes
15:40:09 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:40:21 <bigbluehat> ivan: I don't think we disagree
15:40:33 <bigbluehat> ...the difference with my vote earlier is precisely what you said
15:40:39 <bigbluehat> ...the role's are cleaer
15:40:47 <shepazu> (I'd like to see a wiki page that describes the difference between role and motivation)
15:40:49 <bigbluehat> TimCole: yeah. I just think the type usage is not as clear as the other
15:41:56 <ivan> Dougs proposal: http://www.w3.org/mid/55D3BF3B.1070803@w3.org
15:42:31 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations#Role_Attached_to_EmbeddedContent_or_SpecificResource
15:42:32 <TimCole> The motivation for the annotation is to book mark a target; within the context of that motivation, one body comments and one body describes
15:42:52 <bigbluehat> ivan: what's the additional restriction here?
15:42:55 <TimCole> q+
15:42:58 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:43:20 <bigbluehat> TimCole: I've not yet convinced myself that it'll be possible to know the type of the body
15:43:30 <bigbluehat> ...but we allow role on both embeddedcontent and specificresource
15:43:43 <bigbluehat> ...I'm not sure I'll always know which is which
15:43:50 <bigbluehat> ...but assuming I do, then that issue goes away
15:44:08 <bigbluehat> ...then the only other concern is that we may be encouraging roles on things that don't necessarily need roles
15:44:32 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there are 6 changes that would characterize shepazu's proposal
15:44:35 <azaroth> 1. Create a new predicate hasRole, with JSON-LD mapping of 'role'
15:44:36 <azaroth> 2. SHOULD use Specific Resource to carry roles
15:44:36 <azaroth> 3. Create a new subclass of EmbeddedContent, EmbeddedTextualBody
15:44:37 <azaroth> 4. ETB MAY have hasRole
15:44:39 <azaroth> 5. Create a new predicate "oa:text" to replace rdf:value, JSON-LD mapping of 'text'
15:44:41 <azaroth> 6. Rename hasSource to hasContent, with JSON-LD mapping of 'content'
15:45:08 <shepazu> 7. Remove types when not necessary
15:45:43 <Jacob> can you clarify the difference between source and content?
15:46:20 <shepazu> ( Jacob, I think it's just a name change )
15:46:21 <bigbluehat> azaroth: we create oa:text to further avoid types...making it easier to show that it's an embedded representation
15:46:39 <bigbluehat> ...rename hasSource to hasContent because it's a clearer name
15:46:48 <TimCole> q+
15:46:49 <ivan> q+
15:47:09 <azaroth> q?
15:47:12 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:47:28 <bigbluehat> TimCole: my one concern is #6
15:47:30 <Jacob> This seems weird to me for selectors...but it might be because I'm used to thinking about content as the abstract stuff that's expressed by some text...
15:47:46 <bigbluehat> ...we've tried to avoid invalidating existing implementations of the OA model
15:47:53 <bigbluehat> ...is there a way we could deprecate `hasSource`
15:48:26 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the consequences of this change are going to be pretty drastic actually
15:48:33 <shepazu> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/JSON_Vocabulary has a long list of changes
15:48:36 <bigbluehat> ...the Tag and SemanticTag classes would no longer be needed
15:49:11 <bigbluehat> TimCole: just thinking about existing systems...I guess they just have to go back and update their data
15:49:27 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:49:32 <ivan> Ivan's iteration on Doug's proposal: http://www.w3.org/mid/37C51F52-B151-45C0-AE13-AFDC988639DA@w3.org
15:49:36 <bigbluehat> ...it just seems like `hasSource` to `hasContent` is a small change will debatable value
15:49:45 <azaroth> 6b. Map hasSource to "content" in the JSON-LD mapping
15:49:58 <bigbluehat> ivan: in my proposal I tried to explore other variations
15:50:03 <bigbluehat> ...it would have changes on the model
15:50:11 <bigbluehat> ...and it would break backwards compatibility with the model
15:50:17 <shepazu> (I won't insist on the name change, but I think many things are going to change, so as long as we're doing that, we could do name changes)
15:50:19 <bigbluehat> s/the model/the OA model/
15:50:31 <TimCole> +1 to 6b - content mapped to hasSource in @context.
15:50:43 <bigbluehat> ...I think my proposal would get use closer to the JSON view of the world...without sacrificing too much
15:51:07 <bigbluehat> ...we can state that text is plain text, but position it so it can have roles, other properties, etc.
15:51:17 <bigbluehat> ...we don't then have all these type heirarchies
15:51:22 <bigbluehat> ...it becomes the only structure we have
15:51:38 <bigbluehat> ...the only way to address an external resource is using the source property
15:51:41 <bigbluehat> ...and then build from there
15:52:01 <bigbluehat> ...it is a bit more complicated from an RDF point of view
15:52:02 <azaroth> q+
15:52:08 <bigbluehat> ...but for the JSON point of view, it seems simpler
15:52:30 <bigbluehat> ...and it's still perfectly OK for the Linked Data perspective
15:52:37 <azaroth> +1 to putting complexity in the RDF side if it makes the JSON side easier
15:52:41 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:52:44 <bigbluehat> ...my preference would be too lean complexity toward the RDF developers
15:53:00 <shepazu> (I think we still need to address Chris and Bill's "iterating bodies/roles" issue, and I don't know how)
15:53:10 <bigbluehat> azaroth: ivan I'd be -0.5 because I think we'd end up with lots of errors
15:53:20 <azaroth> "body" : {
15:53:20 <azaroth> 	"source" :  {
15:53:20 <azaroth> 	    "id": "http://example.com/image.png",
15:53:22 <azaroth> 	    "type": "Image"
15:53:24 <azaroth> 	}
15:53:26 <azaroth> }
15:53:28 <bigbluehat> ...if you wanted to say that `source` was an image, then it would have to be an object
15:53:53 <bigbluehat> ivan: this is how the JSON world works. either the value is a string, or it's something that has properties
15:54:01 <bigbluehat> ...this is always what I saw when people use JSON
15:54:36 <bigbluehat> ...having the SpecificResource distinction also doesn't matter much anymore
15:54:48 <shepazu> +1
15:54:50 <TimCole> q+
15:54:54 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:55:17 <bigbluehat> TimCole: when this has come up before, there has been some pushback
15:55:38 <bigbluehat> ...that they really like the simplicity of thinking as the Tag directly as the body
15:56:08 <bigbluehat> ivan: I understand. Yes, it is more complicated on the RDF side, and I am absolutely with you on this.
15:56:08 <azaroth> +1 to only on SpecificResource and always requiring SpecificResource
15:56:17 <shepazu> ( Kyrce, I want to make sure Pearson is comfortable, so let's find a time when several of us can get together and we'll sync up )
15:56:29 <bigbluehat> ...the point is, that we will have to make it complicated on one side or the other
15:56:49 <bigbluehat> ...putting the complications on the RDF side...SPARQL, etc, can handle it
15:56:52 <azaroth> eg the range of hasBody and hasTarget is oa:SpecificResource or literal
15:56:54 <bigbluehat> ...they dream with graphs anyway
15:56:56 <azaroth> not resource or literal
15:57:11 <bigbluehat> TimCole: I'm not sure that the complexity is necessary
15:57:18 <bigbluehat> ...is this a way to avoid putting the type on?
15:57:31 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes, there's that, but I'm trying to follow the traditional JSON view of the world
15:58:04 <bigbluehat> ...this is what shepazu did, he started from the JSON view
15:58:23 <bigbluehat> ...I was surprised and pleased to see his mails this morning and seeing convergence happening
15:58:24 <shepazu> (this has always been my goal)
15:58:35 <bigbluehat> TimCole: I agree. I think the other one does to
15:58:50 <bigbluehat> ...the sparql query can be done, but that there was some performance cost
15:59:15 <bigbluehat> ...it does seem it will make it simpler for a JSON developer
15:59:31 <bigbluehat> ...and if we don't use framing, because it's not complete yet, then I think this is good
15:59:37 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
15:59:41 <bigbluehat> azaroth: top of the hour, and I'm needed on another call
15:59:55 <bigbluehat> ...I'll write up the two options
16:00:05 <bigbluehat> ...essentially what Ivan has proposed and we've agreed to on this call
16:00:10 <bigbluehat> ...we can try to discuss further on the list
16:00:20 <bigbluehat> ...then issue a call for consensus
16:00:31 <bigbluehat> ...if we can come to consensus, great! if not, we can present some options
16:00:37 <bigbluehat> ...and then do a call to select a winner
16:00:48 <bigbluehat> ivan: can you do this on the wiki first, so we can avoid gigantic mail threads?
16:00:52 <shepazu> ( chrisbirk, can you guys make a proposal for solving your iteration issue? )
16:01:00 <bigbluehat> azaroth: anyone averse to doing this in a GitHub page using ReSpec
16:01:08 <TimCole> github okay with me.
16:01:10 <bigbluehat> +1 to doing this in ReSpec
16:01:14 <chrisbirk> shepazu talking with bigbluehat after this call
16:01:28 <ivan> +12
16:01:28 <Jacob> +1 for GitHub
16:05:55 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:06:02 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:06:02 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:02 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:06:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/19-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:06:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:06:11 <RRSAgent> I see no action items