06:31:15 RRSAgent has joined #rif 06:31:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/06/08-rif-irc 06:31:25 der has joined #rif 06:32:33 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 06:33:40 +RIF 06:34:19 zakim, who is on the call? 06:34:19 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF 06:34:31 Mike, can you hear anything? 06:34:39 ChrisW has joined #rif 06:34:54 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 06:35:01 yes, i can year things intermittently 06:35:03 Darko has joined #rif 06:35:13 s/year/hear 06:35:18 patranja has joined #rif 06:35:28 +Sandro 06:35:45 +Darko 06:36:55 (Phone seems to be working, as far as I can tell, with my VOIP connection) 06:44:41 cgi-irc has joined #rif 06:45:48 zakim, who is here? 06:45:48 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro (muted) 06:45:49 On IRC I see cgi-irc, PaulaP, Darko, GaryHallmark, ChrisW, DaveReynolds, RRSAgent, msintek, josb, MarkusK, DavidHirtle, aharth, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, pfps, MoZ, 06:45:51 ... Keep 06:47:23 Hassan has joined #rif 06:47:40 -Sandro 06:47:52 zakim, who is here? 06:47:52 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF 06:47:53 On IRC I see Hassan, Uta, PaulaP, Darko, GaryHallmark, ChrisW, DaveReynolds, RRSAgent, msintek, josb, MarkusK, DavidHirtle, aharth, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, pfps, MoZ, 06:47:55 ... Keep 06:48:01 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 06:48:54 PaulV has joined #rif 06:49:03 PaulV is scribe for this session 06:49:08 +Sandro 06:49:10 scribe: PaulV 06:49:25 zakim, mute me 06:49:25 Sandro should now be muted 06:49:29 F2F3 Budva now in progress 06:49:29 zakim, mute rif 06:49:29 RIF should now be muted 06:49:52 Agenda discussion 06:50:06 mikeD, did you hear a bunch of static? 06:50:13 why is rif muted? 06:50:16 no 06:50:41 Mike, we were hearing some noise. Feel free to unmute rif if you want to talk. 06:50:51 duh 06:50:52 sorry 06:51:00 zakim, unmute rif 06:51:00 RIF should no longer be muted 06:51:08 my brain was being backwards. 06:51:09 sorry 06:51:13 zakim, mute me 06:51:13 sorry, mdean_home, I do not see a party named 'mdean_home' 06:51:20 Topic: Goals and CSF 06:51:25 zakim, mute mike_dean 06:51:25 Mike_Dean should now be muted 06:51:45 did that help? 06:52:02 See http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis 06:52:02 I don't think it was actually from you, Mike. 06:52:10 bonatti has joined #rif 06:52:11 patranja has joined #rif 06:52:16 (Axel fixed it some other way) 06:52:17 Christian is chairing session 06:53:01 Harold has joined #rif 06:53:26 sandro is reading the goal from GCR doc 06:54:28 document being discussed: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis 06:54:34 Vote who agrees on leaving goals and CSFs as are... 06:54:47 strawpoll 06:54:57 poll: 15 agree, 1 against 06:55:26 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 06:55:35 discussing the third goal: "compatibility with W3C standards" 06:55:39 Dave: another option is a goal ie a SW rule lang 06:55:45 Dave: modifiy 3rd goal, or 4th goal --- "Basis for Semantic Web Rule Language" 06:55:50 Dave: modifiy 3rd goal, or 4th goal --- "Basis for a Semantic Web Rule Language" 06:56:19 Dave: For example -- RDF Deduction rules. Not really motivated by W3C Consistency. 06:57:12 Sandro: would this be covered if RIF covered existing SW rule langs? 06:57:16 Sandro: Would that goal come from convering eg N3 and JenaRules? 06:58:00 JosDeBruijn 06:58:13 Jos: support need for discussion on SW rule lang 06:58:48 Dave: Sandro, people need to know which language to write rules in. 06:58:55 Dave: Sandro, people need to know which language to write rules in (for the SemWeb) 06:58:56 cgi-irc has joined #rif 06:58:57 Dave: reply: RIF does not solve *which lang* to choose for SWeb 06:59:04 RIF should recommend THE language to use for the SemWeb 06:59:40 Mike, if you want to talk, you might include my name to help make sure I notice and let the chair know. 06:59:55 Michael: building SWeb langs requires other groups involvement... 07:01:06 igor has joined #rif 07:01:39 Christian summary: option is 1 a new SW rule lang or 2 interchange with a SW rule lang 07:02:41 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 07:02:54 Dave: maybe a SW rule lang is not a part of RIF, but specified langs could be defined as a subgroup of RIF; RIF WG needs to be clear on SW rule lang ambitions 07:03:07 DaveR: I'd like UCR to be clear that we have this ambition -- of being SemWeb Rule Language Basis 07:03:32 Christian: opinion: specifing SW Rule Lang is out of scope for RIF 07:04:37 Hassan: a SWeb rule lang needs to be RIF compliant, WHEN it is produced 07:06:16 Christian: if a semantic is defined as appropriate for SWeb rules, and semantic is covered in RIF, then RIF could specify this semantic (not language) 07:06:30 Jos: semantic = language (!) 07:07:33 syntax&semantics = language 07:07:56 Sandro: (such a semantic) might not be called a "language" = small issue; problem with RIF as SW rule lang is that RIF != a single dialect 07:08:33 Jos: you propose a particular way to implement a SW Rule Lang - is this a RIF goal? SWeb may have other semantics... 07:08:46 Sandro: Having RIF-WG recommend one selected dialect as the Semantic Web Rule Language -- would that address the need here? (Dave and Jos nod) 07:09:04 Christian: RIF has not been chartered to select the semantic for SW Rule Lang 07:09:46 Michael: dialect framework may be basis for SW rule lang requirement 07:11:36 Harold: could have a group discussing interchange vs human use etc; call for implementations would be different eg translators rather than execution engines 07:12:25 Sandro: general W3 is call for implementation (translator / executor not specified) 07:12:50 Proposed Goal or CSF -- "Single dialect recommended for interchanging Semantic Web Rules" or "Recommend Semantic Web Rule Language" 07:13:07 "Provide S.W.R.L" ? 07:13:11 Axel: Requirement is a subgoal with translators 07:13:38 Gary: RIF also used for exch between editors etc, eg consumer = human 07:13:43 Allen's "What is a RIF and Why Create One" may be relevant for the UCR 07:13:45 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/What_is_a_Rule_Interchange_Format_And_Why_Create_One 07:13:59 (it was omitted in the first draft) 07:14:01 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 07:15:01 PaulV: I meant: Requirement for Translators/Wrappers from to systems vs. Requirement for implementations to accept RIF natively boils down to the same thing. 07:15:49 Axel comment correction: I meant: Requirement for Translators/Wrappers from to systems vs. Requirement for implementations to accept RIF natively boils down to the same thing. 07:16:28 Jos: SW rule lang != fixed semantics; RIF in SWeb activity means RIF should be a SWeb rule lang. 07:17:16 Jos comment correction: SW Rule lang not necessarily a single fixed semantic 07:19:22 Harold: Michael's comments could be dialects for different semantics, translation via RIF: propose glossary entry for distinctions between human vs machine level etc 07:19:57 Hassan: agrees with Harold; no syntax in RIF, not human readable, not a language but a representation for languages 07:20:06 (many disagree with Hassan) 07:20:32 Dave: use cases include human readable rules 07:21:16 Dave: decision needed on dialects for SW rules lang 07:21:17 +1 to Dave! 07:21:17 DaveR: spectrum:RIF will support all languages <----> one selected language 07:21:22 +1 to Dave 07:21:43 +1 to Dave 07:21:44 Dave: charter calls for compatibility with SWeb: do we interpret this for SW Rule Lang? 07:22:55 Sandro: possible 4th goal: SWeb Rule Lang; use cases need SWeb 07:23:20 Sandro: Proposed 4th goal: "Support Semantic Web" 07:23:24 +1 to Sandro 07:23:37 Sandro: but that's implied by Use Cases, I think. 07:25:05 Christian: computation characteristics eg features related to inference than lang are out of scope of RIF 07:25:38 Sandro: call for poll for 4th goal "support for SWeb" 07:26:05 Chris: ... but Dave asked for "SWeb rule lang" 07:26:30 I said, "Dave has asked for a goal: the BASIS for a semantic web rule language" 07:26:34 Axel: Support for SemWeb and SemWeb Rule lang - these are the same... 07:27:25 Hassan: SWeb rule lang way out of scope / unfeasible 07:27:51 (Hassan: I support goal "Support Semantic Web", but not "Foundation for Semantic Web Rule Language" 07:29:34 Chris: proposal needs further discussion; accepting goals does NOT preclude adding more 07:29:59 Christian: proposal: ACCEPT these goals NOT precluding adding new ones 07:30:38 so what is the use of accepting them? 07:30:47 to settle on at least some 07:30:51 Goals: Exchange of Rules, Widescale Adoption, and Consistency with W3C spec 07:31:03 and get the UCR document ready soon :) 07:31:59 Dave: clarify: not ruling out vs objective for next draft? 07:32:03 ChrisW: let's talk about the 4th goal more tomorrow 07:32:09 (and maybe during breaks and stuff) 07:32:54 ACTION: Dave to compose email of proposal for 4th goal 07:32:57 action: DaveR to describe goal in more detail 07:33:17 Poll to accept these goals ... 07:34:03 Objections - none 07:34:23 Abstaining - FZI, DERI, JosefStefan 07:35:21 DERI-Insbruk abstaining. DERI Galway in favor. 07:35:28 Approve: remaining 07:35:34 RESOLVED: Accept three goals as goals for the RIF WG 07:35:45 s/Insbruk/Innsbruck/ 07:35:52 break time for 30 mins 07:35:55 topic: Break 07:35:56 RESOLVED: accepted goals as proposed above 07:36:11 07:41:23 msintek has joined #rif 08:04:18 08:05:06 scribe Axel 08:05:16 scribenick AxelPolleres 08:05:38 topic: Requirements 08:06:21 ChrisW: Go through list discuss level of agreement, no classification yet. 08:07:55 1.a. Formal Semantics 08:08:16 bonatti has joined #rif 08:08:27 Paul: Examples? 08:08:29 Ivan: What about languages that don't have a formal semantics? 08:08:45 s/Ivan/Igor/ 08:09:29 csma: Better: waht does formal mean here? 08:09:44 Piero: precise and mathematical specified. 08:10:59 Gary: SQL for instance has only structured Englisch def. Should be good enough. Adjust the requirement. 08:12:54 csma: When you get a ruleset through the RIF, you should get the same results everywhere, however you are using it. 08:13:12 csma: Should define what it means to use the same ruleset. "formal semantics" maybe too strong 08:13:53 ... are there objections against the requirement or the phrasing? 08:14:36 ChrisW: When you get a ruleset in RIF, the meaning of the Ruleset will have a clear and precise semantics. 08:16:15 ACTION: Paula capture proposals for rewordings for "1.1.1.a Formal Semantics" 08:16:35 zakim, who is on the phone? 08:16:35 On the phone I see Mike_Dean (muted), RIF, Sandro (muted) 08:16:51 Mike, do you want us to be using the Mic? 08:17:05 that would help - thanks 08:17:16 mike, can you hear us? 08:17:36 most of the time 08:18:41 1.1.1.b 08:18:41 csma: rewording proposals,e.g. "clear and precise" 08:19:28 topic: 1.1.1.b Interchange of rule sets will often involve different semantics ... 08:20:44 Sandro: is this all-models vs minimal-model semantics? 08:20:54 csma: understanding: RIF should cover exchange even if semantics is not shared. 08:21:43 csma: e.g. stable model semantics vs XYZ 08:22:31 If we feel that "formal" is too much to ask of certain (sub)languages of RIF (Igor: Production Rules), the term "rigorous" may be better, because it does stronger than "clear" and weaker than "formal". 08:25:18 MichealK: better "different styles of semantics" 08:25:30 "formal" can be applied to certain fragments; for "operational"fragments one might resort to weaker definitions 08:25:44 csma: Multple Semantics: RIF should be able to cover rule languages with different styles of semantics 08:25:53 (proposal) 08:26:43 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 08:27:06 Hassan: proof theoretic vs. modeltheoretic is not a discriminator, because one can coincide with the other. 08:27:45 ... equally called operational vs. declarative 08:29:11 Gary: for ECA production rules the best you could do would be a kind of abstract machine semantics. 08:29:51 Gary: I don't want something to preclude various styles of specifying semantics 08:30:29 Multiple semantics: Styles of semantics (e.g. proof-theoretic vs. model-theoretic) should be distinguished from variations of semantics (LP vs. FOL). 08:30:31 csma: two axes: "ways to define semantics" and "different intended semantics" 08:31:37 Jos: the first is not a difference, the second can be mutually incompatible, thus we need this requirement 08:32:04 However, the variations of semantics should be done in a disciplined manner, with a well-defined characterization of the differences. 08:32:37 topic: 1.1.1.c Markup of semantics 08:32:50 general agreement on 1.1.1b 08:33:01 msintek has joined #rif 08:33:18 csma: This is equivalent with the previous one. 08:33:33 ChrisW: this is a consequence from the previous two. 08:36:09 Sandro: If you don't implement the semantics tag, you throw it away. 08:36:16 it == the ruleset 08:36:46 csma: there can be overlaps if you just discard a rule set for a different semantic "tag" e.g. full horn vs. datalog 08:37:30 +1 to csma: tag is solution; not requirement 08:37:33 harold: the intended semantics should be reflected in the syntax 08:38:00 harold: refer to charter, mentions annotations already. 08:41:18 "The intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document should be charactized syntactically" 08:41:52 "identified" instead of "characterized" 08:42:09 csma: 111a is clear and precise semantics, 111b is more than one, 111c is they should be "identifiable" 08:42:52 "RIF should have a standard way to speify the intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document" 08:43:02 "RIF should have a standard way to specify the intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document" 08:43:06 Let's distinguish the semantics of the layers of the RIF language and the semantics of a given RIF document, which should refer to the intended layer. 08:43:59 "RIF should have a standard way to identify the intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document" 08:44:36 "RIF should have a standard way to specify the semantic style of the rule set in a RIF document" 08:45:25 paul: commercial languages tend to "grow", how to deal with that? 08:46:22 ACTION: Paul to describe an additional requirement for evolving semantics and check whether this is already covered in "extensibility" 08:46:54 topic 1.1.1.d Meta language features 08:47:03 sandro: drop this requirement. 08:47:53 this doesn't fit under "Soundness" 08:48:09 (probably "Coverage") 08:48:33 csma: seems to be subsumed by extensibility 08:49:35 topic: 1.1.2 Coverage 08:49:38 note: meta-languages fit in extensibility, as well as coverage, according to the diagram 08:50:18 topic: 1.1.2a The RIF should support deduction rules 08:51:29 Sandro: synonym for "Logical Rules" 08:51:42 Paula: better general "logical rules" 08:56:39 Piero: this is about how the rules are used -- for users. Deduction Rules means Rules that produce more information. 08:56:56 piero: decuction rules vs. integrity constraints, i.e. deduction rules: produce consequences 08:57:15 Zakim, what is the code? 08:57:15 the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ 08:59:14 Sandro: this provides organization/classification for rule languages for us to cover 08:59:50 "rewrite rules" ? 09:01:12 Discussion: Does the requirement name specific languages or classes of rules (decuctive (FOL and LP style), normative,reactive)? 09:01:41 ... to be discussed. 09:02:06 The LP vs. FOL distinction could me made orthogonally to the deduction vs. normative vs. reactive distinction: 09:02:20 E.g. there are LP normative rules. 09:03:59 topic 1.1.2.e Combined rulesets 09:03:59 1. 09:04:13 s/topic/topic: 09:05:11 paula: previeous topic missed the requirement on "coverage of prolog style rules" 09:05:55 chrisW: this is in the same bucket as the previously, back to combined rulesets 09:07:08 csma: the requirement should be about combining rulesets not about combining classes of rules. 09:07:43 michaelK: e.g. deductive and normative appear already in the same rulesets, e.g. in LP 09:07:56 mkifer: RIF must cover rule languages which support multiple styles of rules (eg normative and deduction) 09:08:44 chrisw: further discuss this one with the prevous one. 09:09:34 ... (the aspect of combined rulesets which combine different types/classes of rules) 09:10:47 +1 to Christian 09:11:19 David: call this an objective 09:11:34 "The RIF should support rule sets where rules are composed of features from multiple rule languages." 09:11:44 +1 to ChrisW: we cannot allow arbitrary combination of features 09:12:20 MichealK: combination of semantics difficult to define. 09:12:25 ("objective" is what e.g. OWL UC&R document calls "nice to have" features) 09:12:55 (see http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-objectives) 09:14:00 Axel: this sounds like an open research question 09:15:26 ChrisW: next issue, this requires further discussion. 09:15:45 "a condition in a RIF rule may be a SPARQL query." 09:16:27 Chris W: should be "for example SPARQL" 09:18:14 -Sandro 09:28:14 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 09:28:16 PaulaP has joined #rif 09:28:16 MarkusK has joined #rif 09:28:16 Harold has joined #rif 09:28:27 bonatti has joined #rif 09:28:27 josb has joined #rif 09:28:31 josb_ has joined #rif 09:28:39 josb_ has left #rif 09:28:56 Oracular is not a great term. 09:29:08 Black box is better. 09:30:57 msintek has joined #rif 09:31:20 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 09:32:39 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 09:33:05 topic: 1.1.3.b Support oracular models 09:33:05 ChrisW: this is unclear. 09:33:05 Harold: better callout to "blackboxes". Oracle is bad wording. 09:33:05 ChrisW: One could argue that this is a violation of the "no surprises" requirement. 09:33:05 Axel: doesn't this link to semantic annotations of services. 09:33:07 ACTION: csma to explain why this "blackboxes" is not a contrdiction to "no surprises" 09:33:35 (more than "External Queries") 09:33:37 csma: merge with "external calls"? 09:33:53 -RIF 09:34:42 Darko has joined #rif 09:34:48 zakim, what is the code? 09:34:48 the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), sandro 09:35:00 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 09:35:12 -Mike_Dean 09:35:14 +Mike_Dean 09:35:16 +RIF 09:35:28 we're re-dialing, Mike, 09:35:34 thanks 09:35:35 Hassan has joined #rif 09:35:35 aharth has joined #rif 09:35:58 scribenick: aharth 09:36:28 can you hear? 09:36:42 intermittently 09:36:45 now? 09:36:53 kifer has joined #rif 09:37:24 mostly 09:37:37 next topic: markup of semantics 09:39:35 kifer has joined #rif 09:39:51 metanote: I will paste what was lost by the lack of connection now! 09:39:55 ====================== 09:39:56 AxelPoller: 1.1.2.e.b part one is not feasible, part b should be rephrased. 09:39:56 AxelPoller: ACTION: Dave to rephrase 1.1.2.e.b 09:39:56 AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.2.f RIF should support uncertain and probabilistic information 09:39:56 AxelPoller: ChrisW: needs further discussion. 09:39:56 AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.2.g All requirements that are under the CSF 'Alignment with Semantic Web' 09:39:58 AxelPoller: ChrisW: needs further discussion. 09:40:00 AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.3. Extensibility 09:40:02 AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.3.a Support typed languages 09:40:05 AxelPoller: Paul: datatypes like XMLSchema types, etc. 09:40:06 AxelPoller: Gary: typechecking for functions and predicates. 09:40:08 AxelPoller: Josb: Datatypes or also ObjectTypes, with OWL compatibility we have part of this already. 09:40:10 AxelPoller: ChrisW: this is NOT an anchor into OWL. 09:40:12 ====================== 09:40:47 sandro: if you extend the language that might break some things 09:42:19 bonatti: we might have a translation from one dialect to another which is not complete, i.e. doesn't cover all features 09:43:05 csma: if you retrieve a ruleset that you cannot process completely it should not break your application? 09:43:52 cgi-irc has joined #rif 09:44:20 chris: anyone who thinks they understand that requirement? 09:44:46 isn't this like "must understand" in SOAP, e.g.? 09:45:01 it's closely related, Axel. 09:45:59 harold: title is a repetition of the earlier title, should be able to interchange the semantics 09:46:26 paul: is this talking about partial coverage of the semantics? part of the graceful degredation aspect? 09:46:47 Yes -- it will result in the same designs 09:47:50 dave/chris: move this to the next requirement which covers conformance? 09:49:49 chris: rif must be extensible is a requirement? 09:49:57 sandro: that's more a sucess factor 09:50:43 csma: the charter says "how out of scope features can be expressed by extensions" 09:51:15 ... inability to extend should be addressed by text that explains 09:51:22 s/says "/says we must specify " 09:52:31 csma: are there two different types of extensibility which need to be made explicit? 09:54:01 chris: is the issue whether it's a req or a critical success factor? 09:54:06 ... let's move on 09:54:22 ... conformance model 09:54:55 jos: what is a conformance model? if you have a specified semantics, you know what the language means 09:55:11 csma: first is the granularity level, the other is related to the processing model 09:55:26 ... how do you know that the other side is able to process your rule 09:55:46 sandro: how do you do conformance in the face of extensions? 09:55:57 (that's what this addresses) 09:56:01 ... is another way of saying it 09:56:12 chirs: any objections to this as requirement? 09:56:31 ... general agreement, no objections 09:56:48 csma: we're done with goal 1 09:56:48 s/chirs/chris 09:57:09 ... next one is low cost of implementation 09:57:54 davidhirtle: in the diagram there is no requirement supporting the low cost of implementation point 09:58:15 sandro: there are, e.g. using XML (for parsing) 09:58:36 csma: fact that it opposes other requirements means we have to find a trade-off 10:00:01 sandro: rif should be implementable using well-understood techniques 10:01:35 csma: rif should not contain features that are not covered by existing languages, implementing reasoners is out of scope for rif 10:02:30 +1 to csma 10:03:13 gary: what this means to me that you need to get ~~a partial conformance if you comply with some minimal rif subset 10:03:24 ~/s/~~a// 10:03:33 Gary: It should be possible get an easy mark of compliance, without supporting lots of stuff. 10:04:26 chris: does that mean there are degrees of compliance? 10:04:50 csma: then, what do you do with the part you don't support? 10:05:23 chris: the current wording is overly vague 10:05:59 dave: one is under extensibility, while the other point is what's in a "rif core"? 10:07:21 chris: rewording: "there are conformance levels, and not all compliant aplications are supposed to support all of rif" 10:07:50 sandro: object to trivial compliance 10:08:07 chris: there needs to be some minimal compliance 10:09:37 csma: postponed the "unnecessary burden" requirement 10:10:04 next one: well-understood implmentation techniques 10:10:19 general agreement on No Unnecessary Burden 10:10:51 csma: do we need to be more precise when we talk about rif implementation? reasoners vs. translators 10:11:45 chris: rif should be implementable - no objections 10:12:56 jos: implementable is not low cost of implementation 10:13:54 approved: RIF should be implementable using well understood techniques" 10:14:43 chris: next - use of standard support technologies such as XML parsers 10:16:22 chris: XML is not necessarily low cost 10:16:34 csma: XML syntax is a requirement from the charter 10:16:58 chris: XML syntax should be under W3C compatibility 10:17:38 csma: support XML as data is different to XML as syntax for rif 10:18:59 +??P1 10:19:10 zakim, ??p1 is me 10:19:10 +pfps; got it 10:19:40 Gary: reuse existing reasoners 10:19:41 gary: reuse e.g. XSLT to translate from RIF to other formats 10:20:54 chris: lunch! 10:21:43 -RIF 10:21:52 -Mike_Dean 10:21:58 zakim, drop rif 10:21:58 sorry, sandro, I do not see a party named 'rif' 10:21:59 topic: lunch 10:26:56 msintek has left #rif 10:56:50 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 11:26:45 MarkusK has joined #rif 11:26:57 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 11:27:04 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 11:27:06 zakim, what is the code? 11:27:06 the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), sandro 11:27:17 -pfps 11:27:18