Chatlog 2008-08-27

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, uli, bcuencagrau (muted), pfps, baojie, JeffP, Achille, bparsia, msmith, bcuencagrau, JeffP, ewallace, Carsten, bmotik
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Rinke, Elisa
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
17:00:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:00:34 <RRSAgent> logging to
17:00:45 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:08:24 <bparsia> Topic: Admin -- Roll call and agenda amendments
17:08:31 <bparsia> No amendments
17:08:43 <bparsia> Topic: Minutes approval
17:09:08 <IanH> PROPOSED: accept 13th August minutes
17:09:11 <IanH> +1
17:09:11 <uli> +1
17:09:12 <msmith> +1
17:09:13 <baojie> +1
17:09:13 <bparsia> +1
17:09:18 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:09:23 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:09:23 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:09:24 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:09:26 <IanH> RESOLVED: accept 13th August minutes
17:09:44 <bparsia> PROPOSED: accept 20th August minutes
17:10:09 <IanH> +1
17:10:10 <bparsia> +1
17:10:11 <uli> +1
17:10:12 <Carsten> Zakim UK gives me a busy signal after entering the passcode, and Zakim France says that the key is not valid (both do that repeatedly) sigh.
17:10:14 <sandro> +1
17:10:31 <bparsia> RESOLVED: accept 20th August minutes
17:10:40 <bparsia> Topic: Action Item status
17:10:44 <sandro> Carsten, can you try to US number, or is that not practical?
17:11:05 <Zakim> +??P0
17:11:11 <Carsten> zakim, p0 is me
17:11:11 <Zakim> sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named 'p0'
17:11:15 <bparsia> IanH: Long list of pending review action. I've reviewd. Let's accept them.
17:11:17 <Carsten> zakim, ??p0 is me
17:11:17 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it
17:11:23 <Carsten> aaaaahhhh
17:11:25 <bparsia> IanH: They are done.
17:11:29 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:11:29 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
17:11:38 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:11:38 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:12:14 <bparsia> ACTION 168: postponed for 2 weeks
17:12:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 168
17:13:06 <bparsia> Bijan: actiosn 168, 170, and 174 postpone for 2, 1, and 1 weeks respectively
17:13:32 <bparsia> JieBao: 150 needs another week
17:13:41 <bmotik> Shouldn't we close ACTION-150? After all, the discussion with RIF has been initiated.
17:14:24 <bparsia> IanH: Action 192 is a bit stalled due to Italian hols. Postponed a week.
17:14:35 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:14:35 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:14:59 <bparsia> IanH: 181 was delayed to due Michael illness, but seems done now?
17:15:19 <bparsia> m_schnei: I think I can finish tomorrow. Will send email.
17:15:44 <bparsia> IanH: Peter said he wouldn't be able to review in a timely manner due to vacation...Peter?
17:16:10 <bparsia> pfps: I can two it in two weeks from today if its ready by the end of this week
17:16:20 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:16:20 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:16:59 <bparsia> IanH: all core documents (except Profiles) are in good shape and I sent notification to the reviewerss
17:17:08 <msmith> I'm able to meet schedule
17:17:08 <bparsia> ...Are reviewers able to meet the schedule.
17:17:11 <bparsia> I'm fine
17:17:11 <uli> sure
17:17:17 <Achille> sure
17:17:19 <MarkusK> sure
17:17:55 <bparsia> IanH: Reviewing seems in good shape.
17:18:09 <bparsia> IanH: 202 postponed
17:18:15 <bparsia> Topic: Issues
17:18:28 <bparsia> Topic: Proposal to Resolve
17:18:39 <bmotik> ZAkim, unmute me
17:18:39 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:18:42 <bparsia> Topic: Proposal to resolve Issue 118
17:19:07 <bparsia> bmotik: We align bnodes exactly with RDF and impose syntactic restrictions (i.e., tree like patterns only)
17:19:10 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:19:10 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:19:23 <bparsia> q+
17:19:31 <IanH> q?
17:19:35 <IanH> ack bparsia
17:19:42 <bmotik> bparsia: I accept it is a workable solution, I don't think it is the best one
17:19:46 <ivan> bijan: I accept it as a workable, I am not sure it is best solution, let us see what comes from last call
17:20:11 <ivan> q+
17:20:16 <IanH> q?
17:20:19 <IanH> ack ivan
17:21:30 <bparsia> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 118 (anonymous individual semantics), per
17:21:35 <ivan> +1
17:21:36 <bmotik> +1
17:21:38 <IanH> +1
17:21:40 <ewallace> +1
17:21:41 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:21:41 <MarkusK> +1
17:21:42 <Zhe> +1
17:21:42 <bparsia> +0.1
17:21:42 <uli> +1
17:21:46 <baojie> +1
17:21:50 <msmith> +1
17:21:50 <Carsten> +1
17:22:08 <bparsia> RESOLVED: resolve Issue 118 (anonymous individual semantics), per
17:22:25 <bmotik> ACTION to bmotik: Implement ISSUE-118
17:22:25 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:22:33 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik: to Implement ISSUE-118
17:22:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
17:22:37 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik2: to Implement ISSUE-118
17:22:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-203 - Implement ISSUE-118 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03].
17:23:06 <bparsia> Topic: Proposal to resolve Issue 139 
17:23:22 <bparsia> q+
17:23:34 <IanH> q?
17:24:36 <ivan> q+
17:24:41 <ivan> ack bparsia 
17:24:43 <sandro> to get it off the issue list
17:24:45 <uli> perhaps the benefit would be for the authors to know that they are not working in vain?
17:25:13 <bparsia> bparsia: Why do a predecision when we won't be publish it as a note until after the core language is done
17:25:20 <sandro> q+ 
17:25:29 <ivan> ack ivan 
17:25:43 <bparsia> ivan: We need to do some wg level publication but it's just a working draft, not saying anything about its terminal status
17:25:45 <IanH> ack sandro
17:26:10 <bparsia> sandro: People reviewing a working draft deserve to know whether something is rec track or not
17:27:33 <IanH> q?
17:29:08 <bparsia> sandro: I don't care if we say that it *is not* a rec track or it's not clear, but we should be indicate
17:29:10 <IanH> q?
17:30:11 <bparsia> [some discussion involving the scribe, but mostly scribe confusion so not critical]
17:30:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish.  At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not.
17:30:23 <bparsia> +1
17:30:28 <ivan> +1
17:30:28 <IanH> +1
17:30:29 <uli> +1
17:30:31 <baojie> +1
17:30:31 <sandro> +1
17:30:33 <msmith> +1
17:30:33 <MarkusK> +1
17:30:34 <Zhe> +1
17:30:39 <uli> ivan, sure!
17:30:41 <ewallace> +1
17:30:50 <Carsten> +1
17:30:50 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:30:55 <bparsia> RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish.  At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not (issue-139).
17:31:13 <sandro> that closes issue-139
17:31:51 <bparsia> Topic: Other Issue discussion
17:31:52 <ewallace> flights can't be reflexive?
17:32:30 <bparsia> IanH: 130 and 131 deal with the profile document
17:32:42 <Zakim> -Peter
17:32:43 <bparsia> Topic: 130 and 131
17:33:15 <IanH> q?
17:33:17 <bparsia> IanH: Alan and Sandro and I decided to produce a draft of profile and conformance as a basis of discussion for unification
17:33:31 <IanH> q?
17:33:41 <IanH> q?
17:33:41 <bparsia> I have and I think it's a good move.
17:33:46 <ivan> q+
17:33:47 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:33:47 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
17:33:49 <Zhe> q+
17:33:50 <uli> yes, me too
17:34:03 <m_schnei> I did not find the time yet to read the new texts
17:34:05 <IanH> ack ivan
17:34:42 <uli> ...this is not possible?
17:35:09 <bparsia> ivan: Checking my understanding --- what happens when you get a graph that doesn't match the syntax but the rules are happy to run with them and michael's example
17:35:32 <bparsia> ...the conformance are silent on both these cases?
17:36:46 <bparsia> IanH: no, for Case 1 it certainly does. If you have a graph outside the syntactic subset, if the rule set finds an entailment then it's valid, but if it doesn't, you don't know if it's a non-entailment. If a system generates all the entailments the rule system does then it is conforment
17:36:52 <IanH> q?
17:37:46 <bparsia> ivan: Editorial point -- [[which the scribe didn't catch]] Is it possible to give a more precise description of what the rules do.
17:37:58 <bparsia> ...e.g., document everything the rules do and do not do.
17:38:24 <sandro> Test Cases!
17:38:28 <bparsia> IanH: I'm not sure what you mean examples? But I don't see how useful that is.
17:38:32 <uli> good idea, Sandro
17:38:36 <IanH> q?
17:38:42 <IanH> ack Zhe
17:39:29 <bparsia> Zhe: I read the conformance carefully and update profiles. I think Ian has done a great job. Conformance is defined in such a way so a vendor using the rule set can claim conformance. Yay! And they can add additional rules! Double yay! Ian is my oxfordian hero!
17:39:39 <sandro> q+ to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..."
17:39:48 <bparsia> ...that's everything oracle wants.
17:40:09 <bparsia> IanH: so you're happy with the unification as described
17:40:22 <IanH> q?
17:40:28 <bparsia> Zhe: yes.
17:40:34 <bparsia> IanH: boris helped a lot too.
17:40:38 <msmith> +100 to Sandro
17:40:47 <bparsia> Zhe: Then I deeply admire his Oxfordian grace as well.
17:41:11 <Zhe> :)
17:41:22 <ivan> q+
17:41:26 <sandro> ack sandro
17:41:26 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..."
17:41:28 <ivan> ack sandro 
17:41:52 <IanH> q?
17:42:01 <IanH> ack ivan
17:42:21 <bparsia> ivan: I'm very happy with what you guys did. Unification now. Unification tomorrow. Unification FOREVER!
17:42:30 <sandro> sandro: change to something like  "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY warn the user about any of these situations:   (1) ...   (2) ....   (3) .... "
17:42:41 <sandro> Isn't there some big meeting in Denver about unification?
17:42:43 <m_schnei> not yet, yes!
17:43:18 <JeffP> OK
17:43:27 <bparsia> IanH: If everyone is happy, we can propose a resolution for next do people feel
17:43:30 <bparsia> I love it!
17:43:35 <bparsia> Super love it!
17:44:14 <IanH> q?
17:44:19 <bparsia> sandro: Has RPI had a chance to look at it? Jie?
17:44:48 <bparsia> Jie: not sure
17:44:57 <bparsia> sandro: we're curious about Jim.
17:45:05 <bparsia> Jie: I'll talk with jim to clarify.
17:45:29 <IanH> q?
17:45:33 <msmith> I will look at aligning the test doc to this
17:45:35 <bparsia> ivan: More editorialness
17:45:44 <bparsia> ...which document will have the conformance
17:45:55 <bparsia> IanH: In the test document as with OWL 1.
17:46:24 <bparsia> ivan: That's not such a great idea. Test document isn't a very public place. Let's make it more public and acceptable. But where, I don't know.
17:46:28 <sandro> +1 ivan Conformance is kind of misplaced being in Test Cases
17:46:33 <bparsia> q+
17:46:36 <ewallace> I used the test document from OWL 1 and I'm not an implementer
17:46:54 <m_schnei> but the testcases document looks the "least wrong" document to me
17:46:59 <bparsia> IanH: It's not clear where to put it without splitting nup
17:47:03 <IanH> q?
17:47:04 <ivan> q+
17:47:10 <sandro> Sandro: what about in Profiles?
17:47:14 <IanH> ack bparsia
17:47:37 <MarkusK> +1 to bijan's proposal
17:47:38 <sandro> Bijan: How about calling the document "OWL 2 Conformance" which includes this stuff plus test cases
17:47:42 <ewallace> +1 to calling test, conformance
17:47:45 <IanH> q?
17:47:49 <IanH> ack ivan
17:48:15 <bparsia> ivan: I like Bijan's proposal. he's great! But I also want to put it in the semantics document?
17:48:23 <bparsia> IanH: But *which* semantics document
17:48:28 <bparsia> ivan: You win
17:48:43 <IanH> q?
17:49:36 <IanH> q?
17:50:01 <sandro> Sandro: It might make sense to keep the test cases out of any printable document.
17:50:38 <bparsia> Topic: 116 Axiomatic triples
17:50:39 <IanH> q?
17:50:44 <bparsia> Kill them!
17:50:56 <bparsia> q+
17:51:03 <Zhe> q+
17:51:08 <IanH> q?
17:51:14 <IanH> ack bparsia
17:51:34 <sandro> Ian: You don't have to have them to be conformant, but you can add them if you want and still be conformant.
17:51:58 <sandro> Bijan: So far, people have had to sort through to figure out which rules make sense to have, in practice.
17:52:09 <IanH> q?
17:52:32 <ivan> q+
17:52:37 <ivan> ack Zhe 
17:53:14 <bparsia> Zhe: Now that conformance rocks, I agree with Bijan. We have all the rules, even the dumb ones, in RDFS, but we tell users to turn them off!
17:53:15 <IanH> q?
17:53:19 <m_schnei> q+
17:53:36 <IanH> q?
17:53:39 <bparsia> IanH: If we include them, then you *have* add them to be conformant!
17:53:43 <ivan> ack ivan 
17:54:07 <m_schnei> and one for Simple Entailment
17:54:12 <m_schnei> and one for D entailment
17:54:17 <IanH> q?
17:54:18 <bparsia> ivan: The issue (as I've raised it) is imprecise, because we have two RDF rulesets (one for RDF and one for RDFS and one for Simple Entailment)
17:54:59 <bparsia> ...So I'm inclined to agree with Zhe [and BIJAN!] that these should be optional. Editorially, we should say something about these extra ones e.g., in the Primer.
17:55:21 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:55:21 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:55:21 <bparsia> IanH: It'd be better to have opt-in rather than opt-out
17:55:22 <IanH> q?
17:55:30 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:55:56 <bparsia> q+
17:56:10 <bparsia> m_schnei: I agree we shouldn't make them part of the spec (for the above reasons) but there may be people who want this.
17:56:13 <ivan> informational annex?
17:56:19 <bparsia> ...And we should tell them.
17:56:41 <IanH> q?
17:56:50 <ivan> ack bparsia 
17:56:59 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:56:59 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:58:05 <ivan> q+
17:58:07 <bparsia> bparsia: I'm against a note, but some discussion is ok
17:58:15 <ivan> ack ivan
17:58:17 <IanH> ack ivan
17:58:26 <bparsia> IanH: but it'd be ok to have a little discussion including implementation costs.
17:58:28 <sandro> Ian: It would be okay to have a statement like "here are some extra rules you might want, but they have drawbacks", right?
17:58:36 <IanH> q?
17:58:39 <Zhe> +1 to ivan
17:58:42 <bparsia> ivan: Don't even include the rules. Just point them to the RDF sematntics document
17:59:05 <IanH> q?
17:59:29 <sandro> +1 to having these extra rules in an appendix or something
17:59:32 <bparsia> "Please note, the current rule set do not include *all* the rules necessary for RDF, or RDFS enatilment (see RDF semantics). The rules not included generally are not very useful and complicate the implementation unduely."
18:00:15 <m_schnei> please no suggestions in the technical documents
18:00:46 <IanH> q?
18:01:41 <bparsia> ivan: we should wait until the rest of the document finalized first.
18:01:46 <uli> +1 to Ian
18:01:49 <msmith> it seems very odd to make a note to ourselves but not put that note in the document
18:02:05 <sandro> uli, not that when you do that as you did, with "/me" your nice words don't end up in the minutes.
18:02:07 <bparsia> IanH: isn't this orthogonal to the unification? Shouldn't we proceed.
18:02:10 <sandro> s/not/Note/
18:02:24 <bmotik> The Profiles document is not that far away from being finished
18:02:30 <uli> thanks, Sandro
18:02:45 <bmotik> We could easily add this remark at the end of the rules section
18:03:07 <bparsia> I prefer concrete examples
18:03:11 <bmotik> I can send an e-mail proposing resolution and then we can vote next week
18:03:44 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:03:44 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:04:30 <IanH> q?
18:04:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:04:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:04:41 <bparsia> IanH: We'll make changes to the draft and then discuss and resolve the issues at once.
18:05:15 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik2: to Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples
18:05:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-204 - Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03].
18:05:32 <IanH> q?
18:05:34 <bparsia> Topic: 141 Rogue Literals
18:06:21 <m_schnei> +1 to generalized RDF graphs
18:06:22 <sandro> +1 it's okay since these are just instances of t/3 predicate
18:06:22 <IanH> q?
18:06:25 <ivan> q+
18:06:25 <bparsia> IanH: Peter says that it's not a problem since we need a slight generaliation of triples
18:06:33 <bparsia> ...appears in the rif document
18:06:38 <bparsia> and the SPARQL document.
18:06:41 <Zhe> q+
18:06:49 <IanH> q?
18:06:51 <Carsten> Have to leave, sorry.
18:06:59 <ivan> ack ivan 
18:07:03 <Zakim> -Carsten
18:07:04 <bparsia> ivan: RIF says that they act on generalize graphs/triples
18:07:18 <bparsia> IanH: Yeah, that's basically what the T predicate does.
18:07:19 <IanH> ack Zhe
18:07:39 <bparsia> Zhe: Does this mean that implementors must filter out illegal triples.
18:07:59 <bparsia> q+ to talk about sparql
18:08:09 <IanH> q?
18:08:21 <bparsia> IanH: conformance only talks about ground triples so the rogue ones never get in
18:08:33 <bmotik> No
18:08:35 <bmotik> q+
18:08:37 <bparsia> ...If they return the rogue triples they might be unsound for owl full?
18:08:51 <ivan> ack bparsia 
18:08:51 <Zakim> bparsia, you wanted to talk about sparql
18:09:38 <ivan> q+
18:10:26 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:10:26 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:10:52 <bparsia> bparsia: You might have to filter (or might not) to conform with SPARQL...further investigation further.
18:11:27 <bparsia> bmotik: I don't think you'd *want* to filter them. They aren't unsound, but the question is how to *represent* the consequence in RDF, but they are *definitely* consequences.
18:11:38 <IanH> q?
18:11:41 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:11:41 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:11:43 <ivan> ack bmotik 
18:11:53 <bparsia> more from bparsia: The problem is construct vs. select, potentially
18:11:55 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:11:55 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:12:15 <bparsia> IanH: My conclusion is that this isn't a problem with our spec.
18:12:25 <IanH> q?
18:12:28 <IanH> ack ivan
18:12:58 <bparsia> ivan: To muddy the water: There's another illegal triple: blank node as properties, can those come up?
18:13:45 <bparsia> IanH: Even that isn't an issue for our spec since we don't say what to return.
18:14:00 <bparsia> q+
18:14:20 <IanH> q?
18:14:23 <ivan> ack bparsia 
18:14:56 <m_schnei>  _:p inverse q . x q y --> y _:p x
18:15:35 <IanH> q?
18:15:40 <bmotik> Note that our spec doesn't say anything about what triples you should return to answers of queries
18:15:55 <uli> sounds fine to me
18:16:01 <bparsia> bparsia: I yield to IanH awesomeness
18:16:19 <IanH> q?
18:16:36 <bparsia> IanH: Everyone comfy? ivan?
18:16:41 <bparsia> ivan:  Yes.
18:16:51 <bparsia> IanH: We'll aim for a resolution in the next week or so.
18:16:58 <bparsia> Topic: 109 namespaces
18:17:01 <bparsia> q+
18:17:13 <IanH> ack bparsia
18:17:49 <sandro> Bijan: There are local names common to the XML syntax and the RDF serialization.  I forget which ones.   So there would be qnames where if you concat'd both parts you'd get something else with the same URI.
18:18:12 <IanH> q?
18:18:14 <ivan> q+
18:18:18 <IanH> q?
18:18:19 <ivan> ack ivan
18:18:22 <IanH> ack ivan
18:18:34 <bparsia> ivan: I disagree but I have no new evidence.
18:18:35 <m_schnei> there was no discussion on this at F2F§
18:18:49 <m_schnei> s/F2F§/F2F3/
18:19:03 <bparsia> ...It'd be repeating the mistake of RDF.
18:19:15 <IanH> q?
18:19:42 <IanH> q?
18:21:48 <bparsia> Sandro: I'm with Ivan on borderline objecting
18:21:59 <bparsia> bparsia: bparsia: I'd probably object
18:22:25 <bparsia> IanH: Could you (sandro) check with the w3c.
18:22:35 <IanH> q?
18:23:54 <IanH> q?
18:24:11 <bparsia> bparsia: Do actual users matter more?
18:24:27 <bparsia> sandro: There is a tag finding saying it's ok and I'd have trouble objecting in light of that.
18:24:58 <IanH> q?
18:24:59 <ivan> q+
18:25:05 <bparsia> sandro: And I get Bijan's point that the users of the XML syntax are critical here.
18:25:11 <IanH> ack ivan
18:25:50 <bparsia> ivan: I don't fully agree with sandro, but I am extrapolating from the RDF/XML experience when people have had confusion.
18:26:06 <bparsia> q+
18:26:12 <IanH> q?
18:26:20 <ivan> ack bparsia 
18:26:24 <m_schnei>  rdf:ID, rdf:about, ...
18:27:10 <sandro> Bijan: Ivan, in my experience, that's not a prevalent error -- most people understand the situation okay.    Is it big in your judgement?
18:27:31 <IanH> q?
18:27:39 <bparsia> ivan: I see it as a problem for learning.
18:27:42 <sandro> ivan: I have seen it a lot.    It's a learning problem.  They do understand it eventually.
18:28:03 <sandro> Bijan: So it's ease-of-learning vs ease-of-use.
18:28:25 <m_schnei> funny is "rdf:resource" and "rdfs:Resource" :-)
18:28:32 <uli> throw a dice?
18:29:02 <sandro>
18:29:11 <uli> can we have Bijan and Ivan discuss during this week and then report back?
18:29:17 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:29:21 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:29:22 <Zakim> -msmith
18:29:22 <Zhe> bye
18:29:23 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:29:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:29:24 <MarkusK> bye
18:29:25 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:29:25 <Zakim> -Achille
18:29:28 <uli> bye
18:29:29 <Zakim> -JeffP
18:29:30 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:29:32 <bparsia> How about uli and sandro :)_
18:29:32 <Zakim> -MarkusK
18:29:36 <sandro> :-)
18:29:39 <Zakim> -uli
18:29:43 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:29:44 <Zakim> -m_schnei
18:29:45 <Zakim> -bparsia
18:29:46 <Zakim> -IanH
18:29:47 <sandro> said "same ns".
18:29:56 <bparsia> YAY!
18:30:14 <sandro> (but I should still check with some of my co-workers.   :-(    )