IRC log of dawg on 2004-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:25:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:25:44 [DanC_]
yoshio, stay on, please!
14:25:46 [patH]
have we started, or what?
14:25:49 [DanC_]
else Zakim will lose its marbles
14:25:54 [DanC_]
we're scheduled to start in 5min
14:26:00 [bryan]
ok - coming back on now.
14:26:00 [patH]
ok, 5 min
14:26:05 [Zakim]
14:26:26 [rob_]
rob_ has joined #dawg
14:26:32 [DanC_]
mornin, rob!
14:26:46 [rob_]
what's the number to dial in?
14:27:10 [DanC_]
+1.617.761.6200 per
14:27:20 [DanC_]
conference 7333 ("RDFD")
14:27:22 [Yoshio]
* what has happened to Zakim? calling me 5 min. earlier
14:27:30 [KevinW]
KevinW has joined #DAWG
14:27:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.760.476.aaaa
14:27:53 [Zakim]
14:28:15 [Zakim]
14:28:19 [Zakim]
14:28:25 [Zakim]
14:28:26 [JeffB]
JeffB has joined #dawg
14:28:53 [DanC_]
Zakim, aaaa is rob_
14:28:54 [Zakim]
14:28:55 [Zakim]
+rob_; got it
14:29:11 [DanC_]
Zakim, NickG is temporarily SteveH
14:29:12 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
14:29:14 [Zakim]
14:29:18 [Zakim]
14:29:20 [howardk]
howardk has joined #dawg
14:29:26 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P34 is AndyS
14:29:26 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:29:39 [Zakim]
14:29:57 [Zakim]
14:30:04 [kendall]
ericP: i moved the images to not float:right and boxed them; but getting an annoying href artifact that i'm hating. :>
14:30:12 [Zakim]
14:30:25 [Zakim]
14:30:35 [Zakim]
14:30:36 [DanC_]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
14:30:39 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene, take roll, review agenda ( and misc actions" taken up [from DanC_]
14:30:45 [DanC_]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:30:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see HowardK, Yoshio, BryanT, rob_, DanC, Kendall_Clark, SteveH, EricP, AndyS, PatH, Kevin
14:30:58 [Zakim]
14:31:03 [ericP]
kendall, the svg link href?
14:31:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.454.aabb
14:31:22 [kendall]
ericp: yes
14:31:37 [DanC_]
Zakim, aabb is Farrukh
14:31:37 [Zakim]
+Farrukh; got it
14:32:34 [rob_]
jean francois is Tayeb?
14:32:34 [DanC_]
regrets: Dirk, Alberto
14:32:45 [DanC_]
Zakim, Tayeb is JeffB
14:32:45 [Zakim]
+JeffB; got it
14:33:06 [DanC_]
ACTION DanC: inform the TAG of the conflict between sec13.9 of the HTTP
14:33:06 [DanC_]
spec and TAG's recommendation on issue 7
14:33:41 [DanC_]
14:34:24 [DanC_]
Zakim, next agendum
14:34:24 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "record of telcon 15 Apr, Amsterdam ftf meeting" taken up [from DanC_]
14:34:49 [rob_]
seconded by andyS
14:35:08 [Zakim]
+ +358.925.aacc
14:35:23 [DanC_]
Zakim, aacc is JanneS
14:35:23 [Zakim]
+JanneS; got it
14:35:42 [rob_]
no objections; adopted
14:35:55 [DanC_]
14:36:04 [DanC_]
Revision 1.51
14:36:15 [rob_]
record of ftf supported by DanC and several others
14:36:19 [JanneS]
JanneS has joined #dawg
14:36:25 [rob_]
(am I the only one hearing a new echo)
14:36:26 [thompsonbry]
thompsonbry has joined #dawg
14:36:27 [DanC_]
Zakim, next item
14:36:27 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Use cases draft status" taken up [from DanC_]
14:36:38 [Zakim]
14:36:45 [AndyS]
I hear an echo
14:36:52 [SteveH]
me too
14:36:54 [thompsonbry]
me too.
14:36:58 [Yoshio]
me too.
14:37:00 [DanC_] 1.38
14:37:04 [ericP]
did the echo come with Jos or before?
14:37:07 [rob_]
agenda written against 1.28; now 1.38
14:37:12 [thompsonbry]
with danc I think.
14:37:12 [rob_]
before Jos
14:37:17 [JosD]
JosD has joined #dawg
14:37:24 [DanC_]
ACTION RobS: to generate some RDF (in some form) for 5.1.1.
14:37:40 [DanC_]
DONE: ACTION EricP: to generate a diagram of a query discussed in the use cases document.
14:37:53 [DanC_]
ACTION Kendall: to work with Alberto on 5.1.3.
14:38:03 [DanC_]
DONE: ACTION Kendall: to look at Yoshio's use cases.
14:38:17 [DanC_]
DONE: ACTION: AndyS, EricP to review kendallC draft by 4 May telcon
14:38:22 [AndyS]
14:38:36 [rob_]
(and now a really nasty hum with Andy)
14:38:49 [thompsonbry]
can not understand andy between buzz and echo
14:39:13 [JeffBaget]
JeffBaget has joined #dawg
14:39:13 [howardk]
eric: nice diagram on use case 2.2! any way of inverting the left-hand property arc? hard to read upside down
14:39:31 [DanC_]
(regrets DaveB)
14:40:01 [kendall]
2.2 diagram should be for 2.1 -- it's misplaced in the doc
14:40:24 [ericP]
howard, re diagram, will try. requires some svg fiddling.
14:40:50 [rob_]
andys: easy to get picky over req wording; unavoidable to argue
14:41:04 [Zakim]
14:41:10 [rob_]
note that our tech will support use cases, but not necessarily solve them all
14:41:27 [rob_]
as: there is no clear "tell me about" use case
14:41:47 [rob_]
as: partly covered by Motorcycle parts (3.2)
14:42:25 [rob_]
3.2 in latest version at least; previous versions use different numbering
14:42:54 [Zakim]
14:43:02 [rob_]
as: we should get community feedback on "tell me about"
14:43:09 [thompsonbry]
are or are not covering what? I am missing the central point.
14:43:28 [kendall]
thompsonbry: the "tell me everything about foo" kind of query
14:43:41 [rob_]
2.8: photos of friend kind of references "tell me about" as well
14:43:51 [rob_]
as: we should add a "tell me about"
14:44:58 [rob_]
rob: steveH was planning to include "browser" use case to demonstrate this req
14:45:23 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #dawg
14:45:49 [DanC_]
ok if I mute you, Janne?
14:46:05 [DanC_]
Zakim, mute JanneS
14:46:05 [Zakim]
JanneS should now be muted
14:46:13 [rob_]
discussin of whether 3.2 really addressed tell me about...
14:46:23 [rob_]
patH: 3.2 is very ambitious
14:46:31 [kendall]
14:46:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.441.234.aadd
14:46:38 [rob_]
danC: use cases can be more ambitious than what we'll really do
14:46:48 [DaveB]
Zakim, aadd is DaveB
14:46:48 [Zakim]
+DaveB; got it
14:48:10 [rob_]
rob: use cases can't cover open-ended things unless they're explicit
14:48:22 [rob_]
andyS was talking about req, not UC
14:48:36 [rob_]
andys: can we use separate mailing list to discuss doc?
14:48:45 [rob_]
danc likes separate list
14:48:53 [thompsonbry]
How about just a UC: prefix? That seems easier.
14:48:57 [rob_]
several for, several against
14:49:46 [JanneS]
(i'm ok muted for now)
14:49:47 [rob_]
danc: sometimes useful to separate response to comments from discussion
14:49:57 [rob_]
Zakim, who's talking
14:49:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's talking', rob_
14:50:03 [rob_]
Zakim, who's talking?
14:50:14 [Zakim]
rob_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kendall_Clark (16%), DaveB (9%), BryanT (37%), rob_ (4%), Yoshio (10%), DanC (34%), AndyS (10%), EricP (25%),
14:50:17 [Zakim]
... Farrukh (9%)
14:50:46 [rob_]
danc: WG list is for group, other is for public
14:51:22 [rob_]
decision to set up separate list for public discussion of doc
14:51:40 [DanC_]
ACTION EricP: set up a public comment list; DanC and EricP to choose a name
14:51:48 [rob_]
andys: no puns (no support from anyone else)
14:51:56 [kendall]
14:52:45 [rob_]
14:52:46 [ericP]
will name something like foo-comments
14:53:55 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #dawg
14:54:20 [rob_]
some of the diagrams are in the wrong place...
14:54:32 [rob_]
danc: looking at 1.39
14:54:33 [ericP]
i note that i also provided no completions for [XXX:finish]
14:55:17 [kendall]
diagrams are in the right spot as of 1.39
14:55:23 [Zakim]
14:56:09 [Zakim]
14:56:17 [rob_]
chosen foaf:name instead of given or anything else
14:56:24 [rob_]
(no objections from anyone)
14:56:29 [ericP]
14:56:38 [ericP]
(with more arcs)
14:57:10 [rob_]
should we replace question marks with bnodes?
14:57:21 [DaveB]
q+ to ask about sec 3 title - candidate requirements?
14:57:49 [rob_]
danc: are diagrams data or queries?
14:58:02 [rob_]
first one is query (email address)
14:58:16 [rob_]
second is query (publishing)
14:58:23 [rob_]
danc: need to make clearer contrast
14:58:40 [rob_]
andyS: write data in N3
14:58:47 [rob_]
maybe just change color
14:59:00 [kendall]
i like the idea of doing n3 for data, diagram for query
14:59:49 [eikeon]
eikeon has joined #dawg
15:00:09 [rob_]
rob: I don't think we should put queries into use cases
15:00:35 [rob_]
many voted against query in RDF syntax, so why are we trying to draw RDF diagrams for queries?
15:00:50 [DaveB]
data in rdf, that's fine
15:00:55 [kendall]
because we don't have the "real" syntax yet!
15:02:10 [rob_]
eric: no concrete data for media example...
15:02:35 [rob_]
howardK: replace query thing with data in place of variables
15:02:46 [rob_]
many for showing data, not queries
15:02:59 [rob_]
questions about how response should come back
15:03:15 [rob_]
danc: mail your comments
15:03:31 [rob_]
let's talk about schedule
15:03:57 [DaveB]
danc says
15:04:22 [Yoshio]
q+ to ask what people here think about issues addressed in the "RDF Query and Rules Framework"
15:04:53 [rob_]
that sched leaves two telecons...
15:05:21 [rob_]
kendal: will stop adding stuff and work reactively
15:05:35 [kendall]
please, my name is kenda*ll* :>
15:05:45 [DaveB]
15:05:48 [rob_]
picky picky
15:06:47 [rob_]
supporting a document does not necessarily mean you support it content; i.e. the requirements
15:07:26 [rob_]
danc: this means we don't publish before WWW
15:07:53 [kendall]
end of www'04 is 21 May
15:07:59 [DanC_]
ack dave
15:07:59 [Zakim]
DaveB, you wanted to ask about sec 3 title - candidate requirements?
15:08:08 [Zakim]
15:08:22 [rob_]
DaveB: make clear that these are candidate reqs
15:08:42 [rob_]
danc: change doc to candidate reqs
15:08:47 [Yoshio]
how about having objectives section?
15:09:51 [thompsonbry]
thompsonbry has joined #dawg
15:10:07 [Zakim]
15:10:07 [DanC_]
1.39 has a start of a "4. Design Objectives" section
15:10:49 [rob_]
howardK what's the diff between req and objective (sec 3 and 4)
15:10:50 [DanC_]
Zakim, ??P60 is SteveH
15:10:50 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
15:11:16 [rob_]
reqs got lots of votes and little opposition
15:11:28 [rob_]
objectives were more mixed in f2f voting
15:11:37 [rob_]
reqs will be critical path; others just desirable
15:11:48 [DanC_]
15:11:52 [rob_]
meant f2f straw polls
15:12:24 [rob_]
yoshio: how are links made between UC and reqs?
15:12:44 [Yoshio]
sorry, it was not me
15:12:52 [rob_]
sorry; who said that?
15:13:31 [howardk]
I believe that was Farouk (sp?)
15:13:32 [rob_]
kendalll: can link from UC to req via "motivates" relation
15:13:57 [rob_]
that might be solving the problem
15:14:48 [rob_]
we chould publish without links, add them later
15:15:00 [rob_]
kendall: comments ASAP
15:15:20 [rob_]
date and time are out of left field
15:15:42 [thompsonbry]
thompsonbry has joined #dawg
15:15:44 [Yoshio]
making links would help us check missing requerements, I think though
15:15:52 [rob_]
doc does not mention int or float
15:16:23 [rob_]
andys: two discussions at f2f, one about datatypes and another specifically about date/time
15:16:23 [DaveB]
we did not straw poll on int & float, it was skipped
15:16:52 [JanneS]
it appeared to be as if int & float were taken for granted without need for poll
15:16:59 [kendall]
i agree with JanneS
15:17:04 [DaveB]
15:17:05 [rob_]
datatype related to "exploring neighborhood"
15:17:09 [howardk]
15:17:37 [rob_]
kendall: we took int and float for granted
15:18:02 [rob_]
danc: obviously necessary; add to reqs
15:18:45 [rob_]
what about strings?
15:18:53 [rob_]
rob: equality good, comarisions bad
15:19:03 [rob_]
literals are strings + language
15:19:44 [rob_]
let's skip ahead on the agenda to reqs
15:20:26 [thompsonbry]
+q on extensibility (3.3)
15:20:36 [thompsonbry]
q+ on extensibility (3.3)
15:20:54 [DaveB]
15:21:02 [eikeon]
eikeon has joined #dawg
15:21:04 [rob_]
rob: let's drop date+time
15:21:17 [DaveB]
q+ on 3.1 multi-edged paths
15:21:37 [Yoshio]
No I am on the queue!
15:21:38 [rob_]
howardK: date+time operations very complex
15:21:41 [JanneS]
(can you unmute me? I'll call again if I contribute echo)
15:22:06 [JanneS]
q+ defend 3.7
15:22:09 [rob_]
danc: let's stick to what we've got
15:22:30 [rob_]
current doc gives one DT priority arbitrarily
15:22:35 [rob_]
nobody speaks out for reqs
15:22:40 [JanneS]
15:23:00 [DaveB]
15:23:11 [DanC_]
ack jannes
15:23:46 [howardk]
me too. I'll make my "simple" date and times caveat more explicit via email
15:23:48 [rob_]
elaborate 3.7 to include integers and floats
15:25:31 [rob_]
3.3 appears to offer extensibility for datatypes
15:26:27 [JanneS]
i'll call again
15:26:31 [patH]
This may be relevant, soon-to-anounced SWRL spec:
15:26:35 [Zakim]
15:26:36 [rob_]
danc: let's not wordsmith; are we happy with what we've got or not?
15:27:09 [Zakim]
15:27:35 [rob_]
danc: going back to 3.1 and doing them in order
15:31:59 [DaveB]
it shouldn't be saying that
15:32:07 [rob_]
ACTION: rewrite 3.1 (AndyS + JF)
15:32:16 [rob_]
(how do I assign actions to particualr people)
15:32:26 [DaveB]
say ACTION abc: do something
15:33:18 [rob_]
on to 3.2
15:35:07 [JanneS]
(I need to leave in 5 minutes)
15:35:41 [DaveB]
no voting
15:35:52 [DaveB]
and *candidate* requirements
15:36:04 [rob_]
there was consensus against the general "easy return" thing, but people liked this one
15:36:06 [DanC_]
"lack of support" is the wording I'd use.
15:36:08 [rob_]
(rob is still against)
15:37:56 [DanC_]
patH: s/queries to return/query results to specify/
15:38:04 [Zakim]
15:39:02 [rob_]
danc: let's hold of on discussion until Pat writes something
15:39:32 [DanC_]
ACTION PatH: summarize query/binding experience from DQL
15:39:49 [rob_]
some support for 3.3
15:40:01 [rob_]
pat objects to 3.3
15:40:12 [rob_]
no definition of extensibility
15:40:13 [kendall]
bryan objects to 3.3
15:40:51 [rob_]
"using extensiblity here means we can't use it anywhere else"
15:41:13 [DaveB]
of course there are other requirements; do you support these ones!
15:41:30 [rob_]
abstain on req; object to title
15:41:47 [Zakim]
15:41:51 [Yoshio]
Zakim, call Yoshio
15:41:51 [Zakim]
I am sorry, Yoshio; I do not know a number for Yoshio
15:42:13 [rob_]
it's not part of query langauge to calculate with values
15:42:21 [Zakim]
15:43:36 [rob_]
change title
15:43:37 [Yoshio]
but to pass the code needed to the server should be part of the query language, I guess
15:43:51 [rob_]
"extensible value processing"
15:44:07 [rob_]
not crazy about it; would abstain at worst
15:45:37 [DanC_]
"Extenstible value testing"
15:45:41 [DaveB]
15:45:47 [ericP]
15:45:58 [rob_]
consensus...or exhaustion...
15:46:16 [rob_]
objections have faded away
15:46:43 [rob_]
we are voting on this req
15:46:51 [rob_]
bryan objects
15:46:56 [rob_]
rob abstains
15:47:18 [rob_]
janne abstains
15:47:20 [ericP]
ericP abstrains on a formal requirement
15:47:31 [rob_]
JF abstains
15:47:34 [DanC_]
Zakim, who's one the phone?
15:47:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, DanC_.
15:47:41 [DanC_]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:47:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see HowardK, JosD, JeffB, DaveB, SteveH, ??P42, Yoshio, BryanT, rob_, DanC, Kendall_Clark, EricP, AndyS, PatH, Kevin
15:47:59 [Yoshio]
Yoshio wants to see concrete documents before voting
15:48:08 [rob_]
requirement is adopted
15:48:26 [rob_]
bt: it's premature to vote on this.
15:49:00 [DaveB]
the first requirement's premature!?
15:49:01 [rob_]
rob notes that he wasn't ready to make a decision
15:49:38 [Yoshio]
I don't understand the change in 3.3 (in my honest opinion)
15:50:07 [rob_]
(did yoshio vote in favor? did he mean to?)
15:50:33 [Yoshio]
I want to know the current description of 3.3
15:50:51 [rob_]
You just voted. How did you intend to vote, Yoshio?
15:51:01 [AndyS]
"extensible value testing" I think
15:51:05 [kendall]
3.3 Extensible Value Testing -- current state
15:51:07 [ericP]
Yoshio, the change in wording allows two things: addition of more extensibility mechanisms, and constriained arbitrary operations to (simpler) testing operations
15:51:22 [kendall]
plus obvious changes in the following text; mostly s/processing/testing/
15:51:32 [JanneS]
(I need to leave now: I will vote for 3.7 and for adding either a) more text to 3.7 to include int & float or a new requirement for int & float). I would love to hear comments from DAML etc. experience why these types are so hard as someone mentioned earlier during the call.
15:51:45 [rob_]
on to 3.4
15:52:20 [JanneS]
(Rob, will you copy&paste my previous comment once you get to 3.7?)
15:52:23 [rob_]
andys: at f2f we tried to go for strong wording
15:52:34 [ericP]
s/MUST/might/? probably not so helpful.
15:52:39 [rob_]
which comment? post it again
15:52:51 [JanneS]
I need to leave now: I will vote for 3.7 and for adding either a) more text to 3.7 to include int & float or a new requirement for int & float). I would love to hear comments from DAML etc. experience why these types are so hard as someone mentioned earlier during the call.
15:53:01 [rob_]
your comment is noted, janne
15:53:08 [JanneS]
15:53:31 [JanneS]
JanneS has left #dawg
15:53:35 [Zakim]
15:55:24 [DanC_]
(I'm not likely to put questions to exclude requirements, rob.)
15:55:37 [ericP]
i agree, what is "query" doing in "original query graph"?
15:55:38 [DaveB]
[[ * Query results as a sub-graph of the queried RDF graph (straw poll: yes 10, no: 2)]] -ftfreq
15:55:48 [ericP]
perhaps "queried" graph?
15:55:50 [rob_]
so we waste time talking about things that a small minority are interested in, forever?
15:56:23 [DanC_]
no, (a) not forever, and (b) I called for support 1st.
15:56:27 [kendall]
small minority? it straw polled strongly, as I recall.
15:56:30 [DanC_]
I didn't hear "a small minority"
15:56:33 [kendall]
at least 10 positives
15:56:35 [rob_]
the idea is that you can perform queries and then perform the same query against that result, and get it back
15:57:38 [rob_]
there is more to inferencing than inferred triples
15:58:14 [Yoshio]
It is for searching the support issue, I guess
15:58:56 [rob_]
comments on "determinism"
15:59:14 [rob_]
danc: let's leave this to email
15:59:19 [DanC_]
ACTION EricP, SteveH...
15:59:47 [rob_]
move to 3.5
15:59:49 [ericP]
ACTION: EricP write up implementation experience of 3.4 Subgraph Results
15:59:52 [rob_]
rob supports, a few others
16:00:13 [ericP]
ACTION: SteveH to express objections to 3.4 Subgraph Results
16:00:13 [SteveH]
16:00:14 [rob_]
this is about working without a network connection
16:00:39 [rob_]
bryan speaks against:
16:01:36 [rob_]
brian: don't mention "access protocol"
16:01:49 [DanC_]
brian suggests s/not depend on the access protocol and should//
16:02:50 [rob_]
brian seconds vote on 3.5
16:02:52 [rob_]
no objections
16:02:55 [rob_]
no abstentions
16:03:01 [rob_]
16:03:20 [DanC_]
RESOLVED: by consensus to adopt local queries as ammended s/not depend on the access protocol and should//
16:03:38 [rob_]
(are we expecting to extend this meeting?)
16:03:57 [thompsonbry]
thompsonbry has joined #dawg
16:04:06 [kendall]
<p>The query language must be suitable for use in accessing
16:04:06 [kendall]
local RDF data&mdash;that is, the same machine or same system
16:04:07 [kendall]
16:04:25 [DanC_]
Zakim, pick a scribe
16:04:25 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JeffB
16:04:26 [rob_]
volunteers for scribing next week?
16:04:29 [DanC_]
Zakim, pick a scribe
16:04:29 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JeffB
16:04:30 [DanC_]
Zakim, pick a scribe
16:04:31 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PatH
16:04:41 [DanC_]
Zakim, pick a scribe
16:04:41 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose rob_
16:04:43 [DanC_]
Zakim, pick a scribe
16:04:43 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DaveB
16:05:14 [DanC_]
scribe next week: DaveB
16:05:26 [DanC_]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:05:48 [DaveB]
donm is 11th May
16:05:48 [rob_]
16:05:53 [Zakim]
16:06:02 [Zakim]
16:06:08 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dawg
16:06:31 [Zakim]
16:06:38 [Zakim]
16:06:43 [Zakim]
16:07:13 [Zakim]
16:07:21 [patH]
16:07:26 [Zakim]
16:07:53 [Zakim]
16:08:04 [Zakim]
16:08:07 [Zakim]
16:08:08 [Zakim]
16:08:09 [Zakim]
16:08:11 [Zakim]
16:08:28 [Zakim]
16:08:29 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
16:08:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were BryanT, Yoshio, PatH, +1.760.476.aaaa, DanC, Kendall_Clark, rob_, SteveH, EricP, AndyS, Kevin, HowardK, +1.781.454.aabb, Farrukh, JeffB, +358.925.aacc, JanneS, JosD,
16:08:34 [Zakim]
... +1.441.234.aadd, DaveB
16:57:26 [Yoshio]
Yoshio has left #dawg
18:18:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dawg
19:00:59 [eikeon]
eikeon has joined #dawg
20:43:38 [eikeon]
eikeon has joined #dawg
21:53:40 [eikeon_]
eikeon_ has joined #dawg