IRC log of rif on 2009-03-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:51 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:55:51 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/31-rif-irc
14:55:57 [ChrisW]: zakim, this will be rif
14:55:57 [Zakim]: ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:56:04 [ChrisW]: Chair: Chris Welty
14:56:16 [ChrisW]: Meeting: RIF Telecon 31-Mar-09
14:56:32 [ChrisW]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0130.html
14:56:47 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
14:56:47 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/31-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:56:57 [ChrisW]: zakim, clear agenda
14:56:57 [Zakim]: agenda cleared
14:57:05 [ChrisW]: agenda+ Admin
14:57:09 [ChrisW]: agenda+ Liason
14:57:15 [ChrisW]: agenda+ F2F13
14:57:22 [ChrisW]: agenda+ Action review
14:57:29 [ChrisW]: agenda+ ISSUE-67
14:57:33 [ChrisW]: agenda+ ISSUE-80
14:57:44 [ChrisW]: agenda+ Coreifying SWC
14:58:04 [ChrisW]: agenda+ ISSUE-93
14:58:09 [ChrisW]: agenda+ ISSUE-95
14:58:17 [ChrisW]: agenda+ AOB
14:58:24 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make logs public
15:00:26 [mdean]: mdean has joined #rif
15:00:30 [Zakim]: SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:00:38 [Zakim]: +Stella_Mitchell
15:00:43 [Zakim]: -Stella_Mitchell
15:00:44 [Zakim]: SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
15:00:46 [Zakim]: Attendees were Stella_Mitchell
15:00:57 [Zakim]: SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:00:58 [Zakim]: +Mike_Dean
15:01:05 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
15:01:07 [Zakim]: -[IBM]
15:01:08 [ChrisW]: zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:01:10 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
15:01:14 [Zakim]: +ChrisW; got it
15:01:31 [Zakim]: +Sandro
15:01:48 [AdrianP]: AdrianP has joined #rif
15:01:52 [Zakim]: +Stella_Mitchell
15:02:39 [Zakim]: +[NRCC]
15:02:43 [Gary_Hallmark]: Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:02:58 [Zakim]: +??P73
15:02:59 [Harold]: zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:02:59 [Zakim]: +Harold; got it
15:03:07 [AdrianP]: Zakim, ??P73 is me
15:03:07 [Zakim]: +AdrianP; got it
15:03:29 [DaveReynolds]: DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:03:34 [Zakim]: +Gary
15:03:55 [josb]: josb has joined #rif
15:04:12 [Zakim]: +??P78
15:04:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]: LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:04:59 [Zakim]: +josb
15:05:03 [StellaMitchell]: StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:05:30 [StellaMitchell]: hi
15:05:38 [ChrisW]: scribenick: StellaMitchell
15:05:45 [Zakim]: +Leora_Morgenstern
15:05:45 [ChrisW]: Scribe: StellaMitchell
15:05:55 [ChrisW]: zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:55 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, Harold, AdrianP, Gary, DaveReynolds, josb, Leora_Morgenstern
15:06:33 [ChrisW]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0129.html
15:06:50 [ChrisW]: PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes
15:06:55 [ChrisW]: RESOLVED: accept last week's minutes
15:07:01 [Michael_Kifer]: Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
15:07:04 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 1
15:07:04 [Zakim]: agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:07:10 [ChrisW]: zakim, close item 1
15:07:11 [Zakim]: agendum 1, Admin, closed
15:07:13 [Zakim]: I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:07:14 [Zakim]: 2. Liason [from ChrisW]
15:07:15 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 2
15:07:15 [Zakim]: agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:08:02 [AdrianP]: OWL2 has a new overview document
15:08:04 [AdrianP]: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview
15:08:05 [Zakim]: +Michael_Kifer
15:08:13 [StellaMitchell]: StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:08:19 [AdrianP]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-overview-20090327/
15:08:50 [StellaMitchell]: Chris: liaisons, OWL, functions and predicates
15:09:58 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: consensus is that this is not the right document for the functions and predicates, issue with reusing namespace
15:11:14 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: You think they should be in DTB then?
15:11:18 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: Yes
15:12:03 [StellaMitchell]: s/consensus is/I think/
15:12:14 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: Does Axel agree?
15:12:27 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: haven't talked to him yet about it
15:12:39 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: I'm not sure they should go in DTB
15:13:29 [StellaMitchell]: ...there isn't a good solution from a user's perspective
15:13:50 [StellaMitchell]: ...at least if it's in DTB, OWL won't have to pay attention to it
15:14:11 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: let's see what Axel thinks of this
15:14:28 [ChrisW]: action: chris to query axel on whether to move rdf:text F&Os to DTB
15:14:28 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-719 - Query axel on whether to move rdf:text F&Os to DTB [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-07].
15:15:06 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: new document overview published by OWL
15:15:21 [StellaMitchell]: ...roadmap and high level introduction
15:15:35 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: we have talked about doing this for RIF also
15:15:38 [AdrianP]: we have a little overview of RIF in the UCR document
15:15:40 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 3
15:15:40 [Zakim]: agendum 3. "F2F13" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:15:43 [sandro]: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
15:16:02 [ChrisW]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13
15:16:11 [AdrianP]: structure of RIF
15:16:12 [AdrianP]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Structure_of_RIF
15:16:32 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: draft agenda is available, main objectives are to finalize the working drafts and bring them to last call
15:16:41 [sandro]: zakim, who is on the call?
15:16:41 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, Harold, AdrianP, Gary, DaveReynolds, josb, Leora_Morgenstern, Michael_Kifer
15:17:03 [StellaMitchell]: ...there will be time to work on the documents at the meeting, and hopefully we will vote on last call at the meeting
15:17:31 [StellaMitchell]: ...we will distinguish between issues to be addressed at the meeting and which will be postponed
15:17:40 [StellaMitchell]: ...and go through test cases
15:17:57 [ChrisW]: registration: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f13/
15:18:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]: I, and probably Stella, can't access that web page
15:18:45 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: registration/regrets for F2F13 above
15:19:02 [StellaMitchell]: I think I will
15:19:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]: If I can get a free hotel.
15:19:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]: I do have some friends in Boston, so I'll see what I can do.
15:19:40 [ChrisW]: great
15:19:46 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 4
15:19:46 [Zakim]: agendum 4. "Action review" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:20:53 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: action 707 - continued
15:21:04 [StellaMitchell]: s/continued/pending discussion/
15:21:20 [StellaMitchell]: action 716 - continued
15:21:20 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - 716
15:21:34 [StellaMitchell]: action 714: continued
15:21:34 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - 714
15:21:52 [StellaMitchell]: action 708 is continued
15:21:52 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - 708
15:22:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]: oops
15:22:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]: I got disconnected. Will call in again. Hold on.
15:22:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]: Short answer: continued.
15:22:40 [StellaMitchell]: 588 continued
15:22:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]: Long answer: I tried to access the issues pages, etc., and can't.
15:22:49 [ChrisW]: zakim, list agenda
15:22:49 [Zakim]: I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
15:22:50 [Zakim]: 2. Liason [from ChrisW]
15:22:50 [Zakim]: 3. F2F13 [from ChrisW]
15:22:52 [Zakim]: 4. Action review [from ChrisW]
15:22:52 [Zakim]: 5. ISSUE-67 [from ChrisW]
15:22:53 [Zakim]: 6. ISSUE-80 [from ChrisW]
15:22:53 [Zakim]: 7. Coreifying SWC [from ChrisW]
15:22:54 [Zakim]: 8. ISSUE-93 [from ChrisW]
15:22:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]: I need to access those pages. Can I get the permissions changed?
15:22:55 [Zakim]: 9. ISSUE-95 [from ChrisW]
15:22:58 [Zakim]: 10. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:23:00 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 5
15:23:00 [Zakim]: agendum 5. "ISSUE-67" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:23:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]: Okay, I'm back again.
15:23:25 [sandro]: issue-67
15:23:27 [sandro]: issue-67?
15:23:27 [trackbot]: ISSUE-67 -- need string predicates string-less-than, etc. (waiting on PS) -- OPEN
15:23:27 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/67
15:23:30 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: string less-than predicate, discussed at telecon late last year
15:24:37 [StellaMitchell]: ...if we have this predicate is would be easier to map "<" in the PS to the predicates
15:25:01 [josb]: q+
15:26:56 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: multi-typed < comparator
15:28:55 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: we could then abandon this issue, or do some extra work to find how different existing rule systems handle this
15:29:41 [StellaMitchell]: Gary: XPath?
15:29:46 [Michael_Kifer]: Prolog has @< for non-numeric comparison.
15:30:46 [josb]: q?
15:31:26 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: the current issue is that since RIF is dynamically typed, mapping the "<" in PS to XML may be complicated
15:31:30 [josb]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#pred:matches_.28adapted_from_fn:matches.29
15:31:38 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: and also whether we should have it since XPath dosn't have it
15:32:13 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: I think we should drop the redundant items, string-less-than, string-greater-than, string-equal-to
15:32:29 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: anyone else want to drop them?
15:32:42 [StellaMitchell]: ...anyone want to keep them? Sandro, Gary
15:32:59 [josb]: no
15:34:07 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: I think a lot of people will have to implement the more general predicate anyway
15:35:48 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: issue-67 has 3 parts. 1. DTB string compare predicates. 2. whether to have general compare predicates, 3....
15:36:16 [StellaMitchell]: ...Jos, do you feel strongly about part 1, about getting rid of the string specific compares?
15:36:18 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: yes
15:37:15 [ChrisW]: q?
15:37:18 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: XPath did a pretty good job of defining operators for comparing, and I think following them is a good idea
15:37:19 [ChrisW]: ack josb
15:38:12 [StellaMitchell]: Gary: I think XPath is not good in some ways, and that we shouldn't necessarily just adopt it
15:38:36 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: Gary, would you object to dropping them?
15:38:44 [StellaMitchell]: Gary: no
15:39:31 [ChrisW]: PROPOSED: drop string<, string> etc. from DTB
15:40:07 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: would anyone else object to the proposal above (we will vote next week) ?
15:41:56 [ChrisW]: ISSUE: Should we have a more general "literal-less-than" (etc.) predicate that covers < tests for all literals.
15:41:56 [trackbot]: Created ISSUE-96 - Should we have a more general \"literal-less-than\" (etc.) predicate that covers < tests for all literals. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/96/edit .
15:43:03 [ChrisW]: straw poll: -1 object ... +1 would do work to make it happen
15:43:42 [sandro]: +1 add literal-less-than, so the PS can have a ">", etc.
15:43:46 [DaveReynolds]: +0.1
15:43:48 [josb]: -0.9
15:43:56 [ChrisW]: +.1
15:44:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]: .3
15:44:02 [Michael_Kifer]: +0.1
15:44:06 [AdrianP]: +0.2
15:44:10 [Gary]: 0
15:44:10 [mdean]: +0.1
15:44:13 [Harold]: +.3
15:44:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]: +0.3
15:45:20 [StellaMitchell]: jos: reason for not supporting the idea is redundancy and diversion from XPath
15:46:16 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: we have a reason to divert from XPath becase we have a different execution model
15:46:50 [StellaMitchell]: ...and would be a big benefit in the PS
15:47:17 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: we resolved that the PS should map directly to the XML
15:48:09 [StellaMitchell]: Gary: what happens in RIF if compare two different types of things?
15:48:27 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: undefined truth value, and implementation can raise an error
15:48:55 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: Sandro, are you willing to edit DTB to define these predicates?
15:50:07 [josb]: josb has joined #rif
15:51:09 [ChrisW]: action: Sandro to add definition of literal-< (etc) to DTB
15:51:09 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-720 - Add definition of literal-< (etc) to DTB [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-04-07].
15:51:30 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 6
15:51:30 [Zakim]: agendum 6. "ISSUE-80" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:51:40 [sandro]: (where it is NOT yet agreed to keep it.... but there is a SLIGHT WG leaning towards it)
15:52:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]: Can you c&p the issue, since I can't access it?
15:52:26 [ChrisW]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Comparison_for_Literals
15:52:53 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: I edited DTB to add the predicate that I think we agreed on
15:53:38 [StellaMitchell]: ...I removed predicate-literal-equals, changed name, used CamelCase, changed description of semantics of LiteralNotIdentical
15:53:51 [StellaMitchell]: ...see introduction to section 3.1.1
15:54:10 [josb]: q?
15:54:13 [josb]: q+
15:54:28 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=DTB&diff=7950&oldid=7674
15:56:24 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: question about use of the term dialect, nt sure it is adequately defined
15:56:48 [ChrisW]: ack jos
15:56:48 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: the wording "dialect at hand" is used throughout the document
15:56:53 [DaveReynolds]: q+
15:58:09 [StellaMitchell]: DaveR: clarification about disjoint types
15:58:34 [ChrisW]: ack d
15:58:51 [josb]: q+
15:59:16 [mdean]: i have another telecon - bye
15:59:21 [Zakim]: -Mike_Dean
15:59:26 [Harold]: Span of Chris' changes: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=DTB&diff=7961&oldid=7674
15:59:57 [ChrisW]: PROPOSED: Accept changes reflected in DTB version [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=DTB&oldid=7961], closing issue-80
16:00:07 [josb]: q?
16:00:22 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: If we agree to this wording, it will close issue-80
16:01:07 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: I had an action to see how this change would affect the OWL-RL ruleset, and I am not convinced that it makes it possible to write a RIF core OWLRL ruleset
16:01:26 [StellaMitchell]: ...and I think that was the motiviation for this predicate
16:01:44 [josb]: l1[differentFrom -> l2]
16:02:43 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: RIF core has to be safe, to literals must be introduced in some other place so you can refer to them in the rule body
16:04:07 [StellaMitchell]: s/to/so/
16:04:17 [DaveReynolds]: q+
16:05:27 [StellaMitchell]: DaveR: you can write it in the frame syntax
16:06:13 [ChrisW]: ack dave
16:06:56 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: discussion about literals...will need to take into account all literals in the vocabulary, even ones that aren't mentioned in the ontology
16:07:09 [josb]: 1[differentFrom -> 2]
16:07:55 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: I don't see this as a problem
16:08:18 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: won't be able have a generic ruleset
16:08:56 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: does this point hold for the ruleset without this predicate?
16:08:57 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: yes
16:09:25 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: this does reduce the size of the ruleset
16:09:49 [ChrisW]: PROPOSED: Accept changes reflected in DTB version [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=DTB&oldid=7961], closing issue-80
16:09:53 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: I would not object to this
16:10:12 [sandro]: +1
16:10:15 [josb]: 0
16:10:15 [ChrisW]: +1
16:10:17 [Harold]: +1
16:10:19 [DaveReynolds]: +1
16:10:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]: +1
16:10:24 [Michael_Kifer]: 0
16:10:24 [Gary]: 0
16:10:27 [AdrianP]: +1
16:10:43 [ChrisW]: RESOLVED: Accept changes reflected in DTB version [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=DTB&oldid=7961], closing issue-80
16:11:17 [josb]: (assuming the resolution only pertains to the definition of isLiteralNotEqual)
16:11:19 [ChrisW]: action: Chris to close issue-80
16:11:19 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-721 - Close issue-80 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-07].
16:11:23 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, ptr?
16:11:23 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'ptr'
16:11:26 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, ptr
16:11:26 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'ptr', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:11:27 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: safeness of OWL-RL and Core should be explained somewhere - the fact that you need to ground these literals
16:11:39 [ChrisW]: issue-80?
16:11:39 [trackbot]: ISSUE-80 -- Should we extend DTB to include more general builtins -- OPEN
16:11:39 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/80
16:11:42 [josb]: s/isLiteralNotEqual/isLiteralNotIdentical)
16:12:07 [sandro]: RRSAgent, pointer?
16:12:07 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/31-rif-irc#T16-12-07
16:14:29 [josb]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_RIF-OWL_2_RL_Combinations
16:14:30 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: I don't think this text (Chris' comment above) in SWC
16:14:48 [StellaMitchell]: s/in/belongs in/
16:15:07 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: it should be explained in the embedding appendix
16:16:35 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: I wouldn't know what other text to put there
16:17:08 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: how does the embedding compare to the OWL RL ruleset?
16:18:30 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: In a RIF-OWL combination where the RIF ruleset is empty, I'm not sure if there would be any entailments that wouldn't be derived from the OWL ontology alone
16:18:48 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: let's move this discussion to email
16:20:14 [ChrisW]: action: Dave to update OWL-RL document to reflect discussion on safeness (esp. in light of new nonidential preciate)
16:20:14 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-722 - Update OWL-RL document to reflect discussion on safeness (esp. in light of new nonidential preciate) [on Dave Reynolds - due 2009-04-07].
16:20:50 [ChrisW]: zakim, take up item 7
16:20:50 [Zakim]: agendum 7. "Coreifying SWC" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:21:55 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: Jos, you raised an issue about making SWC valid for Core. Where do we stand on this?
16:22:31 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: I suggest to define the embedding only for the case where it is embeddable into Core.
16:22:49 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: and this can be checked statically?
16:22:51 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: yes
16:23:15 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: anyone have any questions or concerns about this?
16:23:33 [ChrisW]: action: josb to COREify SWC document
16:23:33 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-723 - COREify SWC document [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-07].
16:24:39 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: wrt coreifying, there is an issue with equality....will need to either have equality, or axiomatize it
16:25:36 [StellaMitchell]: ...could either define embedding only for BLD, or can restrict to equality free part of OWL2RL
16:25:48 [StellaMitchell]: ...I prefer to defined it only for BLD
16:25:54 [StellaMitchell]: s/defined/define/
16:27:28 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: there are many useful OWL2RL statements that use equality, so I'd rather not disallow them in the embedding
16:27:29 [Michael_Kifer]: Equality does not add expressiveness only if the arities are bound, like in OWL. In general you need an infinite number of axioms.
16:28:33 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: for embedding in Core we can have a syntactic restriction....
16:29:34 [StellaMitchell]: Sandro: use axioms for equality in core embedding
16:30:16 [StellaMitchell]: mk: you cannot axiomatize equality in core
16:31:22 [StellaMitchell]: Jos: it would depend on the predicates that are actually used in the ruleset, so it's actually an embedding not an axiomatization
16:32:08 [ChrisW]: action: josb to summarize core-ifying owl in email
16:32:09 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-724 - Summarize core-ifying owl in email [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-07].
16:32:16 [ChrisW]: aob?
16:32:26 [Zakim]: -Michael_Kifer
16:32:31 [StellaMitchell]: ChrisW: adjourned
16:32:31 [Zakim]: -Harold
16:32:32 [Zakim]: -Gary
16:32:32 [Zakim]: -josb
16:32:34 [Zakim]: -DaveReynolds
16:32:36 [Zakim]: -AdrianP
16:32:36 [ChrisW]: zakim, list attendees
16:32:37 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been Mike_Dean, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, Harold, AdrianP, Gary, DaveReynolds, josb, Leora_Morgenstern, Michael_Kifer
16:32:54 [ChrisW]: Regrets: Christian de Sainte Marie Changhai Ke
16:33:02 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:02 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/31-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:33:46 [Zakim]: -Stella_Mitchell
16:35:47 [Zakim]: -Sandro
16:35:48 [Zakim]: -ChrisW
16:49:04 [Zakim]: -Leora_Morgenstern
16:49:05 [Zakim]: SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:49:07 [Zakim]: Attendees were Mike_Dean, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, Harold, AdrianP, Gary, DaveReynolds, josb, Leora_Morgenstern, Michael_Kifer