07:50:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webont
07:51:42 <libby> logger1 is logging to http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2002-04-08.txt
07:53:25 <jhendler> RRSAgent, where is the log
07:53:25 <jhendler> I'm logging. I don't understand 'where is the log', jhendler.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
07:53:54 <jhendler> RRSAgent bookmark
07:54:04 <jhendler> RRSAgent, bookmark
07:54:04 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2002/04/08-webont-irc#T07-54-04
07:54:23 <jhendler> jhendler has changed the topic to: Web Ontology WG  - f2f: - log - http://www.w3.org/2002/04/08-webont-irc#T07-54-0
07:54:49 <nmg> fvh: starting from proposal from 19 Mar 2002 (first proposal for OWL)
07:55:35 <JosD> Frank's presentation is at http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/FOWL-proposal.pdf
07:55:39 <nmg> thanks
07:56:01 <GuusS> GuusS has joined #webont
07:59:28 <nmg> jjc: is the difference between primitive and defined classes understandable by users?
08:00:18 <nmg> guus: we dropped 'primitive' from PrimitiveClass in our use (understandable to OO peopole)
08:01:40 <nmg> fvh: difference is buried in DAML+OIL (PrimitiveClass == subClassOf, DefinedClass == sameClassAs)
08:04:32 <DavidTras> DavidTras has joined #webont
08:05:36 <nmg> fvh: or, PrimitiveClass == sufficient, DefinedClass == necessary and sufficient
08:05:38 <GuusS> ISSUE: is "defined-class" core or advanced feature
08:09:26 <nmg> jhendler: why is multiple-valued the default for slots (and not single-valued, as in other languages)
08:10:03 <nmg> fvh: single-valued is a tighter constraint, looser (multiple) taken as default.
08:10:43 <nmg> ISSUE: default cardinality for slots (single/multi)
08:13:16 <nmg> fvh: (answering question from PatH) Enumerated Class is necessary and sufficient definition
08:14:13 <nmg> guus: EnumeratedClasses may also have slots (cf. Mozart opera example from UML/OWL document)
08:15:43 <nmg> http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/docs/owl-uml/owl-uml.html
08:15:57 <nmg> fvh: EnumeratedClass is also closed defn
08:17:41 <nmg> fvh: also, no need to define (individuals) before first use - EnumeratedClass defines individuals in extension of class
08:18:15 <nmg> ISSUE: global and local ranges (mike dean)
08:18:36 <nmg> mdean: perhaps we could do away with global ranges?
08:19:54 <nmg> fvh: TransitiveProperty is global defn
08:22:28 <nmg> pfps: (datatyping) DAML+OIL does not explicitly specify type of a literal value
08:23:33 <nmg> PatH: rdf-core approach to datatypes involves (is likely to involve?) bNodes with datatype properties (xsd:integer, eg)
08:24:05 <nmg> ISSUE: datatyping
08:25:56 <nmg> mdean: syntax for individual only takes one class name
08:26:07 <nmg> fvh/pfps: compatability with RDF syntax
08:26:14 <jhendler> issue - if same thing is class and instance, what does that imply 
08:28:17 <nmg> guus: problem with datatype values - often need to know/specify units of measurement
08:28:37 <nmg> fvh: complex datatype, or anonymous individual
08:28:57 <nmg> guus: need to show realistic examples for this
08:30:13 <jjc> Jim: "I am not doing this" - I observe this is necessarily the liar paradox
08:30:58 <jhendler> jjc - show it to me in RDFS :->
08:32:23 <jjc> <#Jim> <doing> _:x .
08:32:25 <nmg> fvh: equalities and inequalities of classes, properties and individuals are in FOWL core
08:32:41 <jjc> No I give up
08:34:38 <nmg> jimh: equivalentTo (super of above three relations) often useful in ontology mapping - mapping classes to instances, eg
08:35:59 <nmg> ISSUE: equivalentTo (class<->instance, etc)
08:37:08 <nmg> fvh: Full FOWL
08:39:02 <nmg> fvh: qualified cardinality (from DAML+OIL) not in FOWL
08:41:30 <nmg> Full FOWL as super-production of Core FOWL?
08:46:23 <nmg> jimh: (on relation between Full and Core), some equivalent constructs appear in different ways (single/multivalue slots vs. min/max cardinality). no clear rationale behind this
08:46:55 <nmg> ISSUE: relation between equivalent constructs in Full FOWL and Core FOWL
08:53:28 <nmg> fvh: (comparison with DAML+OIL) inverseOf not in FOWL
08:54:03 <nmg> pfps: removal of inverseOf was on the basis of complexity of inference
08:55:46 <nmg> fvh: further issues raised on email (summarised in http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html)
08:58:55 <nmg> *** session ends
09:20:54 <Herman> Herman has joined #webont
09:21:44 <libby> http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2002/04/07/001775.JPG
09:21:58 <libby> - picture form last night
09:24:30 <pfps> pfps has joined #Webont
09:25:35 <Herman> Herman has left #webont
09:26:07 <Herman> Herman has joined #webont
09:31:22 <nmg> *** session starts
09:31:53 <nmg> *** 11.00-12.30     DAML+OIL comparison, preliminary decision on core features, initial language issue list
09:32:41 <nmg> jimh: core should be defined as language features, not syntax
09:35:27 <mdean> Peter, etc.:  What's a DatatypeRestriction?  I couldn't find it in daml+oil.daml
09:37:35 <nmg> jimh: compare FOWL Core proposal to DAML+OIL (Mar 2001 - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference)
09:40:26 <jono> jono has joined #webont
09:45:30 <nmg> jimh: triage language features into 'do it the way daml does' or 'discuss further'
09:46:40 <nmg> POLL: cardinality (B - some objections, majority in favour)
09:47:32 <nmg> POLL: cardinalityQ (minority in favour)
09:48:36 <nmg> POLL: class (A - in favour)
09:51:09 <nmg> POLL: complementOf (B)
09:52:25 <nmg> jimh: poll is for FOWL as a whole (not ness just Core)
09:52:53 <nmg> jjc: concentrate only on Core at this stage, leave Full for later?
09:53:11 <nmg> sbuswell: make assumption that there are two languages...
09:55:40 <nmg> jimh: proposal: next WD will be Core language (features, syntax, etc), further progression to Full depends on schedule
09:57:01 <nmg> sbuswell: not Core, but earlier version
09:57:10 <nmg> fvh: *contents* correspond to Core
09:58:32 <nmg> sbuswell/jjc: would change previous votes if this proposal were adopted.
10:07:23 <nmg> dtrastour: subtractive rather than additive approach to deciding language features (start with DAML+OIL, pick elements to remove)
10:07:58 <nmg> fvh: reinvention of wheel? language proposal for FOWL Core/Full does much of this work
10:08:19 <nmg> jjc: agree, HP ontologists would prefer to start from co
10:08:34 <nmg> ianh: disagree, one language starting from full
10:09:53 <nmg> jimh: three options: start from fowl core, start from fowl full, start from daml+oil
10:10:25 <nmg> path: other option raised by deborah mcguinness, start from smaller language than core
10:10:41 <nmg> jimh: minimal start from rdfs
10:12:04 <nmg> STRAW POLL: choice between above options
10:14:18 <nmg> RESULT: start from RDFS (2), start from core (10), start from full (9), start from daml+oil (2)
10:14:38 <nmg> RESULT (after removing RDDFS/daml+oil): start from core (14), start from full (10)
10:20:47 <nmg> RESULT (after adding cardinality to core): start from core (13), start from full (10)
10:21:39 <nmg> guus: other approach, take all constructs from full but only allow named classes
10:28:41 <nmg> path: why named classes in core, class expressions in full
10:29:34 <nmg> fvh: class expressions (slot restrictions, etc) not a natural way of thinking for most users and also raises issues with tool support (representation in UI?) and roundtripping
10:29:54 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #webont
10:33:52 <nmg> jjc: define URI prefix in spec for defn of unnamed class names (locally scoped names?)
10:34:19 <nmg> path: cf. skolemfunctions in KIF
10:36:00 <nmg> enrico: unnamed classes comparatively rare
10:38:01 <nmg> STRAW POLL: full functionality for named classes vs full functionality
10:39:00 <nmg> rklein: appeal of core language was that inference in core language was easier than in full language
10:39:43 <nmg> ianh: not the case - equivalent complexity
10:41:26 <nmg> RESULT: full for named class (14), full (0)
10:41:49 <nmg> sorry, full for named classes (14), full (9)
10:47:06 <nmg> [scattered comments hard to scribe]
10:47:44 <nmg> ianh: difference between two proposals now very small, basically unnamed classes (agreement from enrico)
10:48:51 <nmg> jimh: need to distinguish proposals in different manner to achive consensus
10:49:04 <nmg> *** session breaks for lunch
12:34:34 <libby> libby has joined #webont
12:37:10 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #webont
12:39:42 <ora> ora has joined #webont
12:55:25 <herman> herman has joined #webont
13:12:46 <ora> ora has joined #webont
13:17:16 <em> em has joined #webont
13:41:39 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
13:42:00 <heflin> Hi everyone. Just thought I'd check in and see how things are going.
13:42:20 <jd> jd has joined #webont
13:49:13 <DavidTras> DavidTras has joined #webont
13:58:41 <em> em has joined #webont
14:00:36 <connolly> connolly has joined #webont
14:08:45 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
14:15:57 <jjc> jjc has joined #webont
14:16:39 <jjcscribe> JimH - I will be strict about departures from D+O
14:17:00 <jjcscribe> The full language needs to be close to D+O or we will never finish
14:17:13 <jjcscribe> Issue list must be manageable size
14:18:20 <jjcscribe> We must take seriously that we start from an existing thing
14:19:29 <jjcscribe> JimH: I am less confortable about presentation syntax if we are doing this complex thing
14:19:32 <pfps> pfps has joined #Webont
14:20:36 <jjcscribe> (Prior to scribing - suggestion of two layers)
14:20:50 <jjcscribe> Guus: which construct goes into which layer
14:21:07 <jjcscribe> Suggested lit
14:21:11 <jjcscribe> ? * cardinality
14:21:19 <jjcscribe> X * cardinalityQ
14:21:24 <jjcscribe> R * class
14:21:28 <jjcscribe> 2 * complementOf
14:21:29 <FvH> FvH has joined #webont
14:21:36 <jjcscribe> R * datatype
14:21:41 <jjcscribe> 1 * datatypeProeprty
14:21:47 <jjcscribe> 2 * DatatypeRestrictiron
14:21:55 <jjcscribe> ?? * DatatypeVlaue
14:22:05 <jjcscribe> 1 * differentIn
14:22:11 <jjcscribe> dividaulFreom
14:22:15 <jjcscribe> ? * Disjoint
14:22:36 <jjcscribe> X * disjointUnionOf
14:22:46 <jjcscribe> ? * disjointWith
14:22:51 <jjcscribe> R * domain
14:22:59 <jjcscribe> ? * equivalemntTO
14:23:04 <jjcscribe> 1 * hasClass
14:24:10 <jjcscribe> JimH: most implementors of D+O are implementing their own subsets
14:25:03 <jjcscribe> Guus: many people say some lighter version should be available
14:27:28 <jjcscribe> Jeremy: I am unhappy since we seem to be starting at D+O not full
14:27:56 <jjcscribe> JimH: the full version allows you to scatter information
14:31:25 <jjcscribe> Enrico: I thought there were going to be semantic differentces between D+O and OWL
14:34:32 <nmg> nmg has joined #webont
14:36:07 <jjcscribe> Objectives + Requirements satsisfactoin?
14:36:17 <jjcscribe> Frank: most objectives not, nohopers
14:36:53 <jjcscribe> Most requirements met by split - boolean combinations point of contention
14:38:08 <jjcscribe> Guus: Proposal: do both 1 and 2, and see them as separate requirement levels
14:38:25 <jjcscribe> ^requirements^conformance
14:39:32 <jjcscribe> Ian: I disagree, its two different languages
14:40:40 <jjcscribe> Pat: it is not two language, JimH: it is a proper subset
14:41:04 <jjcscribe> Ora: I don'tlike subsetting, but defining a subset controls a process that will happen anyway
14:42:07 <jjcscribe> Proposal carried
14:45:11 <jjcscribe> JonatahnBowden we have now met the LAYERRING objective
14:47:48 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #webont
14:47:59 <jhendler> zakim, who is here?
14:48:47 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webont
14:48:53 <jhendler> zakim, who is here?
14:48:54 <Zakim> sorry, jhendler, I don't know what conference this is
14:49:16 <jhendler> zakim, this is WOWG
14:49:18 <Zakim> sorry, jhendler, I do not see a conference named 'WOWG'
14:49:30 <jhendler> zakim, create wowg
14:49:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'create wowg', jhendler.  Try /msg Zakim help
14:49:52 <jhendler> zakim, this is sw_webont
14:49:53 <Zakim> ok, jhendler
14:50:05 <jhendler> zakim, who is here?
14:50:05 <jjcscribe> technical problems with telcon
14:50:06 <Zakim> I see ??P13, ??P2, ??P3
14:50:58 <jjcscribe> JimH: let's move speaker phone, and speakers come up to it
14:51:30 <jjcscribe> Deb: I can hear someone maybe Jim very distance
14:51:36 <jjcscribe> (Jim is right next to phone)
14:52:29 <jjcscribe> Jeff: are you on the telecon?
14:53:16 <jjcscribe> Pat: this is pat shouting one inch from the microphone
14:53:20 <jjcscribe> Pat: can you hear this
14:53:25 <jjcscribe> Deb: yes very well
14:55:01 <heflin> Hi, I can't join the telecon because I have office hours right now,
14:55:15 <jjcscribe> OK - thanks
14:55:17 <heflin> but I'll watch the chat periodically
14:55:37 <jhendler> that is okay Jeff, you wouldn't hear it anyway (phone problems) - but we are about to attack the RDF v. XML issue
14:55:42 <jjcscribe> Ro Call
14:55:44 <jjcscribe> Deb
14:55:46 <jjcscribe> Larry
14:55:55 <jjcscribe> and f2f participants
14:56:11 <heflin> and Jeff
14:56:35 <jjcscribe> Guus: telecon is about syntax
14:56:49 <jjcscribe> Guss whispers "I am not talking loud enough"
14:57:29 <jjcscribe> Deb: I heard Jim asking if we can hear Guus - I couldn't hear Guus
14:58:53 <jjcscribe> Pat: yelling is embarrasing for some of us, myself excluded
14:59:09 <jjcscribe> Guus: two competing viewpoints 
14:59:19 <jjcscribe> 1: based on RDF/XML syntax
14:59:29 <jjcscribe> (charter, political)
15:00:26 <jjcscribe> Guus: I am not the person who shouts
15:00:36 <jjcscribe> Pat takes over shouting
15:00:53 <jjcscribe> Pat: can you hear me
15:00:58 <jjcscribe> Larry: yes fine
15:01:52 <jjcscribe> 2: a new syntax
15:02:05 <jjcscribe> compliance in favour of 1
15:02:12 <jjcscribe> for 2 (against 1)
15:02:20 <jjcscribe> expressability and ease of presentation
15:02:55 <jjcscribe> Guus: option 2 makes life very hard for 2
15:03:25 <jjcscribe> Option 2 needs a lot of justifying arguments
15:03:44 <jjcscribe> Larry I am neutral
15:05:14 <jhendler> Jeremy - many ways to be "RDF/XML compliant" -- like CC/PP and others, RDF syntax is used, but not total of RDF
15:06:05 <jjcscribe> Guus: option of lcosed list is now on RDF cores issue lsit
15:06:53 <jjcscribe> PatH: we assume that RDF core will provide terminated lists
15:08:10 <jjcscribe> Deb: I thought we had bought into building on RDF
15:08:17 <DanC> the main reason for using RDF/XML syntax is the partial understanding bit, i thnk.
15:08:27 <jjcscribe> Guus: from outside RDF schema looks like compliance level 0
15:08:55 <DeborahMc> DeborahMc has joined #webont
15:09:37 <jjcscribe> Guus: hence we should conform to RDF syntax
15:10:39 <jjcscribe> Frank: technically I don't like it, but politically I can go with
15:11:11 <jjcscribe> Ora: no one thinks RDF syntax is nice (jiomh matters disagreememt)
15:11:50 <ora> I was referring to the XML serialization, of course 
15:12:43 <jjcscribe> Jeremy: lets design good XML and then tionker it into RDF triples
15:13:17 <jjcscribe> Deb: politcial benefits of that may be high
15:13:35 <jjcscribe> JonathanB: properly constructed good technical XML can be RDF
15:13:46 <jjcscribe> jb: it may look like DAML+OIL
15:14:02 <jjcscribe> jb: I look at elements as content, attribute as additional info
15:14:11 <jjcscribe> jb: a few parseTypes don't bother me
15:14:19 <jjcscribe> jb: using IDs is good
15:14:39 <jjcscribe> jb: some compromises will be necessary
15:14:53 <jjcscribe> jb: I don't believe the necessary compromises are that great
15:15:26 <jhendler> JimH points out that Guus is chairing this session and he (JimH) will be a participant.
15:16:18 <jjcscribe> jb: good XML it will be able to put into RDF
15:17:26 <jjcscribe> JimH: we should start at D+O syntax
15:17:40 <jjcscribe> JimH: becuse D+O users are familiar with them
15:17:57 <jjcscribe> JimH; lots of people have bought into D+O syntax
15:18:30 <jjcscribe> Ora: politically our existence is controversial
15:18:50 <heflin> I get the feeling that a lot of users are unhappy with D+O syntax.
15:18:52 <jjcscribe> Ora: we may lose creditabilty if we focus on this issue
15:19:59 <jjcscribe> Larry: we might get bogged down in this issue
15:20:22 <jjcscribe> Deb: all of us can live with RDF syntax, but what about broader user base
15:21:17 <heflin> Maybe someone should survey current D+O users to see how they feel about RDF syntax?
15:21:18 <jjcscribe> Frank: disagree wtih Jim that we should not diverge from D+O syntax
15:21:33 <jjcscribe> Frank: core OWL proprofsal synatx was liked because of divergenet
15:25:31 <jjcscribe> Mike: are negative reactions from XML literate people or non-XML literate
15:25:51 <jjcscribe> Mike: is this negative about XML or negative about RDF
15:26:04 <jjcscribe> Frank: it is XML literate poeple
15:26:13 <jjcscribe> Deb: are frame literate people
15:26:25 <jjcscribe> Deb: are XML literate people without RDF or DL
15:26:54 <jjcscribe> Larry: I though OWL litewas going to fix that
15:27:31 <jjcscribe> Pat: we seem to have two splits
15:27:43 <jjcscribe> Pat presentation vs under the hood syntax
15:27:52 <jjcscribe> Pat: XML serialization vs anything else
15:28:20 <jjcscribe> Jb: motivation for using XML or RDF is that it is less work
15:28:23 <heflin> Does Pat mean RDF XML serialization, or some other XML serialization?
15:28:29 <jjcscribe> jb: syntax is already defined,
15:29:28 <jhendler> pat - RDF/XML
15:30:02 <heflin> I am not in favor of just anything else.
15:30:24 <jhendler> "just anything else" than what?
15:30:25 <heflin> I'm for RDF for data, other XML syntax for ontologies.
15:31:04 <jjcscribe> Guus: proposed that underlying syntax is ugly
15:31:12 <heflin> Above I was referring to scribes wording of Pat's statement. It sounds like non-XML was included there.
15:31:44 <jjcscribe> (asside Pat did seem to be letting that)
15:32:28 <jjcscribe> (I am a bit lost)
15:33:15 <heflin> (I wish I could be on the telecon, but the moment I phone in, a student is bound to walk into my office.
15:33:29 <jjcscribe> Peter: e.g. RSS can be roundtripped as RDF but then the meaning changes, because its meaning is XML
15:33:53 <jjcscribe> JimH: I strongly feel that the meaning is in terms of the treiple
15:37:28 <jjcscribe> (discussion missed)
15:37:46 <jjcscribe> JimH: triples have well established history
15:37:58 <Zakim> +??P55
15:39:13 <jjcscribe> JimH: my infrastructure likes that model
15:39:23 <jjcscribe> Jeff hefflin joint 
15:39:37 <jjcscribe> Zakim, P55 is jeff_hefflin
15:39:38 <Zakim> sorry, jjcscribe, I do not recognize a party named 'P55'
15:39:40 <jhendler> s/joint/joins
15:40:14 <jjcscribe> Zakim,??P55 is jeff_hefflin
15:40:39 <jjcscribe> Zakim,??P55 is jeff_heflin
15:41:03 <jhendler> zakim, who is here?
15:41:05 <Zakim> I see ??P13, ??P2, ??P3, ??P55
15:41:20 <jjcscribe> Guus: can we technically live with RDF triples
15:41:32 <DeborahMc> i do not know my number on zakim, but deborah mcguinness is on the line
15:42:43 <jjcscribe> jb: dark triples?
15:43:37 <jhendler> Pat - looks like dark triples may be resolved in some simpler way
15:43:42 <jjcscribe> Pat: Peter and I have stolen an idea from Jos to have dark trriples with no changes to RDF
15:44:17 <Zakim> -??P55
15:44:28 <heflin> I had to hang up. A student's here...
15:44:50 <jjcscribe> Pat: the trick is incorporate the unasserted triples in another document and refer to them
15:46:08 <jjcscribe> Guus: is there a technical hurdle that cannot be overcome with RDF triples
15:48:02 <jjcscribe> Frank: round tripping
15:48:27 <jjcscribe> Jeremy: let's have preferred presentation syntax giving a preferred serialization of an RDF graph
15:48:49 <jjcscribe> over an above a different serialization
15:49:10 <heflin> Is the telecon almost over, or should I still rejoin?
15:49:42 <DeborahMc> the conversation is still going strong
15:51:20 <heflin> apparenty the conference is "restricted." Have we reached the limit of attendees?
15:51:44 <jjcscribe> no
15:51:50 <jhendler> we may have gone over time limit - Massimo?
15:52:23 <heflin> Maybe it won't let anyone join after 11:45 ET?
15:53:10 <jjcscribe> jb: propose postponing the req for round tripping
15:55:03 <jjcscribe> Steven Buswell: wif we have two serializations which one is the reference syntax
15:55:19 <jjcscribe> for pragmatic reasons the reference syntax is RDF
15:56:05 <jjcscribe> Frank: people like fram in OWL lite; Jim I don't
15:57:11 <jjcscribe> Massimo: are there any technical problems with RDF as a syntax here?
15:57:45 <heflin> Layering issues, raised by Peter.
15:58:11 <DeborahMc> just to add a vote, i have a number of comments from potential users supporting a frame syntax.
15:58:28 <jjcscribe> jb: you could include the whole source ontology as an XML literal
15:59:32 <jjcscribe> xml literal is value of parseType="literal"
16:01:02 <heflin> I think that using triples for ontology also opens you up to problems where people could redefine your ontology building vocabulary (e.g., change the meaning of intersectionOf)
16:01:08 <jjcscribe> guus: propose that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform
16:01:28 <jjcscribe> guus: some form of preservation of presentation syntax is requirement
16:02:19 <jjcscribe> guus: propose also RDF is underlying syntax
16:04:40 <jjcscribe> deb we should present our solution in a way that makes XML and antiRDF people happy
16:05:30 <jjcscribe> guus: propose that the presentation syntax is in XML 
16:05:39 <jjcscribe> (last bit seems controversial)
16:07:02 <jjcscribe> ora; M&S says RDF/XML is one serialization
16:07:37 <ora> "only one" serialization, others may exist 
16:07:52 <ora> not "the only one" 
16:08:19 <DanC> but until lots of consumers grok another RDF syntax, it is the only one
16:08:24 <jjcscribe> AGREEMENT: to the bullers 1-3 of above proposal, (not that presentation syntax is XML - but the other ones)
16:08:43 <ora> N3 is popular, yes? 
16:09:11 <DanC> N3 is a popular text-editor-based authoring tool for RDF/XML, yes.
16:09:22 <JosD> definitely!
16:09:56 <jjcscribe> jb: we should register a mime media type
16:11:54 <Zakim> -??P2
16:11:54 <Zakim> -??P3
16:11:55 <Zakim> -??P13
16:11:58 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()10:45AM has ended
16:19:36 <heflin> heflin has left #webont
16:56:38 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #webont
17:37:15 <DanC> by the way... with all the questions about logistics and such, maybe we didn't advertise the meeting home page enough http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html
17:48:39 <timfinin> timfinin has joined #webont
18:06:05 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webont
18:18:31 <timfinin> timfinin has left #webont