18:02:25 RRSAgent has joined #lld 18:02:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-irc 18:02:47 zakim, aabb is petej 18:02:47 +petej; got it 18:03:44 +andypowe11 18:04:20 zakim, who is on the call? 18:04:20 On the phone I see antoine, mini, petej, andypowe11 18:04:27 zakim, who is making noise? 18:04:29 sorry... i dropped out - not sure why - am back now 18:04:38 TomB, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: antoine (23%), petej (4%) 18:04:56 rrsagent, please draft minutes 18:04:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html antoine 18:05:35 Scribe: Mark van Assem 18:05:40 Scribenick: markva 18:06:28 Antoine: welcome joint meeting DC architecture group and W3C LLD 18:06:47 kai has joined #lld 18:07:23 antoine: issues with DCAM and APs built on them, explore options, consequences for future activities 18:07:54 can you all hear Antoine well? 18:08:05 yes, very well 18:08:33 yes - sound is good 18:08:45 Yes, fine 18:09:21 markva is scribe 18:09:25 Scribe: markva 18:10:02 JennRiley has joined #lld 18:10:46 Antoine: TomB presents his work 18:10:59 Antoine: 2nd presentation Michael Panzer et al 18:11:29 Antoine: after coffee break exploration of reqs of APs in context of subject authority data 18:11:44 Antoine: then informal discussion 18:12:33 ambjorn has joined #lld 18:13:33 TomB: with pete johnston, walk through history of DCAM 18:14:24 jphipps has joined #lld 18:14:42 TomB: early 2000s: two mindsets: RDF and record format mindset 18:15:27 ... interoperability among DC implementations problematic 18:17:12 ... but RDF hard sell: researchy; perceived as flavor of XML 18:17:18 antoine, I can hear Tom but not very clearly 18:17:43 is it better? 18:17:55 -andypowe11 18:18:09 LarsG has joined #lld 18:18:27 ... role of DCAM: bridge between mindsets; tree struct vs. graphs 18:19:08 ... DCAM future: descriptive patterns reflecting existing metadata practice 18:19:17 ... notion of bounded records 18:19:23 ... notion of constraints 18:19:58 ... (shows diagram summarizing DCAM) 18:20:45 + +44.122.531.aacc 18:21:20 andypowe11 18:21:29 zakim, aacc is andypowe11 18:21:29 +andypowe11; got it 18:22:12 @antoine slightly better, but you were clearer earlier :-) 18:22:39 ... DCAM can be expressed in diff syntaxes; RDF/XML, HTML 18:23:11 ... common interface for operating across syntaxes 18:23:41 ... allows diff applications to communicate 18:25:17 ... DCAM family: DCAM, DSP, syntaxes (DC-XML, HTML, DC-Text, ...), user guidance (Singapore Framework, Guidelines ...) 18:25:56 ... Description Set Profile Constraint Language: layer on top of DCAM 18:26:40 ... example: book, creator. Template for instances of Book 18:27:25 ... Statement template: slots: property, literal value, language, Syntax Encoding Scheme 18:27:28 zakim, who is noisy? 18:27:39 antoine, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: antoine (90%), petej (9%) 18:28:49 ... Statement template for creator, only use slot value string 18:29:43 ... "cookie cutter" for creating descriptions; Book's title is a literal, creator with dcterms:creator 18:31:10 ... wiki syntax for combining template representation and html presentation of template 18:32:34 ... XML syntax for DSPs 18:33:09 ... motivation: configure metadata editor; use template to generate form for entering metadata 18:33:43 ... validating metadata 18:33:51 ... create OWL expression of constraints 18:34:02 ... (diagram of Singapore Framework) 18:35:38 Yes, fine 18:35:53 ... interoperability levels: informal; semantic; Description set syntactic interop; Description Set Profile interop 18:36:41 charper has joined #lld 18:36:54 ... ~ shared Natural languge, shared formal model, shared records, shared constraints 18:38:25 ... future scenarios: (1) carry on as before (2) DCAM 2 spec, better aligned with RDF (3) deprecate, continue with RDF (4) nothing 18:38:50 ... (1) interest? editors? review? 18:39:35 (2a) simplified and better aligned with RDF; structural constraints of APs 18:39:50 ... impact of DCAM 2 on DCAM family? 18:40:23 ... (2b) goal: clarification; transitional, to be deprecated in favor of RDF 18:41:11 ... (3) negative impact? existing specs status? change in message? basis for APs gone? 18:42:14 ... (4) does DCMI stand behind it or not? reputation? credibility? 18:43:02 ... DCAM abstract syntax vs. RDF 18:43:19 ... Descritption (sets) ~ named graphs? 18:43:33 ... VES ~ SKOS concept schemes? 18:43:59 ... use of rdf:value continues or something else such as skos:prefLabel? 18:44:12 ... Issue: APs 18:45:07 ... syntax pattern checks; checking patterns in the graph? Use OWL with closed world assumption? 18:45:22 ... split in Singapore Framework 18:45:41 ... constraints in underlying vocabulary or patterns on the data? 18:45:59 what the room looks like (if you are interested) http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkdroid/5105654040/ 18:46:33 @edsu hey, thanks, I was just wondering 18:46:35 @edsu thanks 18:46:42 John Phipps: continue developing DCAM only realistic option 18:46:59 s/John/Jon 18:47:27 ... RDF no notion of record, DCAM provides that 18:47:52 ... enormous value outside RDF world 18:48:13 TomB: remote participants comments? 18:48:17 -mini 18:48:19 ... additions to presentation? 18:48:46 nothing from me at this stage 18:49:28 +??P0 18:50:07 i'm lost - is the floor open for discussing the options? 18:50:10 Akira Mijasawa: DCAM DCAM2 differences? 18:50:11 zakim, P0 is me 18:50:11 sorry, mini, I do not recognize a party named 'P0' 18:50:18 @andy : yes 18:50:32 zakim, ??P0 is mini 18:50:32 +mini; got it 18:50:39 TomB: DCAM2 mostly RDF except where RDF does not have constructs 18:50:55 TomB: get rid of DC terminology that is mapped to RDF 18:50:56 ok, i'd like to speak at some point 18:52:34 andypowe11: options 2b, 3 and 4: all work to RDF, which is where we want to get to 18:52:55 ... which of these is better to get to that end game, wrt time available 18:53:23 ... 4 seems not ideal, but less effort 18:54:01 ... lean to 3; 2b has political value by taking along community; but 3 better given time 18:54:19 loud and clear :-) 18:54:56 Stu Weibel: frustrated; no productive outcomes all these years 18:55:10 ... adopt Web as the model 18:55:37 ... nobody understands DCAM 18:56:03 ... W3C published architecture document after actual implementation 18:56:45 ... revive effort: develop reference software; easily drop in data, generate linked data 18:57:12 andypowe11: support Stu 18:57:48 ... DC efforts was trying to say Web is model; got confused 18:58:40 TomB: gap: how to express constraints? Or not necessary? 18:58:48 q+ 18:58:56 Just because the DCAM is poorly expressed and poorly understood, doesn't obliterate its value as a model 18:59:19 The world is NOT rdf-centric and is not likely to be 18:59:30 Michael Panzer: was puzzled by description sets; but it does make ontological commitment clear 18:59:58 ... bundles of assertions have to make sense; requires way to communicate this 19:00:08 ... RDF struggles with same issues 19:00:27 ... DCMI should get involved with RDF development 19:00:28 It's clear to me that even (maybe especially) the creators of the DCAM don't understand its value 19:00:53 zakim, ack mini 19:00:53 I see no one on the speaker queue 19:01:01 charper has joined #lld 19:01:16 mikael nilsson: DC close to data and data production 19:01:31 ... lots of RDF data being produced 19:02:19 ... different position now: syntax not problem anymore 19:03:01 ... RDF encounters problems that DC has too 19:03:38 I agree w Andy that the RDF model is where we want to get to, and 3 seems to me the best option, tho I'm willing to be persuaded there is a value in 2b 19:03:46 ... look at problems, solve collaboratively 19:04:32 ... DCAM starting replicating stuff in RDF; RDF has broader base 19:05:12 ... DC produces vocabulary that's used in RDF; produces set of terms not linked to RDF in natural language 19:06:03 presentation by Jeff Young 19:06:53 Scribe: kai 19:06:54 i'm going to drop out at this point - can't see presentation or hear very well - sorry 19:07:12 Jeff Young: Introduction to next presentation: Application Profiles in OWL 19:07:20 Scribenick: kai 19:07:25 rrsagent, please draft minutes 19:07:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html emma 19:07:37 andypowe11: thanks for voicing your opinion so clearly 19:07:50 Jeff Young: Want to make sure that I am not that familiar with DCAM and that I come from the Semantic Web world. 19:08:20 bye all - enjoy rest of the conf :-) 19:08:24 ... shows picture of FRBR as a DCAP domain model 19:08:35 ... from SWAP 19:08:52 -andypowe11 19:09:14 ... simple translation to OWL, classes, properties, ... 19:09:35 ... domain and range restrictions are used in OWL 19:10:18 jeff going through items at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/SwapInUmlOwlXsd 19:10:44 ... I want to name the things, so I introduced UnnamedAbstraction... 19:11:15 rrsagent, please make record public 19:11:33 UnnamedAbstraction is a name for the union of Work, Manifestation and Item 19:11:37 yep 19:12:27 ... comparison to UML diagram 19:13:29 -mini 19:14:18 ... cardinalities in OWL does not prevent anyone from ignoring them 19:14:37 +??P0 19:14:50 zakim, ??P0 is me 19:14:50 +mini; got it 19:15:18 thx... 19:15:21 TomB: unclear to me if there's widespread support for keeping the dev't of some kind of constraint language. (I think we need this but didn't have a chance to get up to say so.) So I think we should verify the degree of support for that. And if there is support, discuss whether to do it within DCMI or use resources to push this in core RDF 19:16:42 Jeff Young: Example from Toms Presentation with DCAM usage 19:17:07 I would like to see this done with RDF community on board, in any case. 19:17:17 TomB: I'm still here but can't hear very clearly 19:17:31 Even the Topic Maps standard has a CL 19:17:42 ... DCMI Type Text is a Class but you can not be sure in the XML representation 19:17:56 -- http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmcl/tmcl.html 19:18:52 ... in RDF, a subject should be a concept 19:19:03 charper has joined #lld 19:19:17 ... everything else about the concept should be get by dereferencing 19:19:52 ... I cashed it here to let it look more like a record. You want the additional data here. You want to cache. 19:20:35 TomB: DCAM is historical and DC-RDF is also available. 19:21:12 Jeff Young: This is an example how I progressed. 19:21:27 Jeff is showing the first page of XML output extracted by the wiki tool from SWAP 19:21:33 ... Now I try to convert that into OWL 19:22:22 rrsagent, please draft minutes 19:22:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html emma 19:22:38 ... Types are already there, so let's look at the title 19:23:12 Jeff tripped up on fact that the first property cited in SWAP is dc:type (and he thinks in terms of rdf:type). 19:23:27 Michael Panzer is coming to the microphone, setting up. 19:23:29 Switch to Michael Panzer 19:23:59 JennRiley - let's come back to this during the discussion in the second half 19:24:13 Michael Panzer: Main difference between using OWL for DSP vs. DSP constraint language: 19:24:45 charper has joined #lld 19:25:02 ... DSP CL example... 19:25:41 ... Title has mincardinality of 1 19:25:52 ... title has to be there 19:26:54 ... a title with two tipes would not be valid 19:27:16 s/tipes/types/ 19:27:56 ... with two types you could infer that both have to be the same 19:28:09 Pellet - an inference language for OWL 2. Has a dialect that treats OWL as a constraint language. 19:28:58 ... test with pellet shows constraint violation 19:29:09 ... with removed type it is valid 19:29:13 Mikael: Nice because you add the constraints to the class. 19:30:02 ... People should remind that OWL approaches constraints in a different way 19:31:25 Maja Zümer: Explains that Work, Expression, ... are no subclasses, so there was a reason to model it that way 19:32:22 Akira Mijasawa: How can we incorporate management properties of the record? Who made it, ... provenance information, management properties 19:33:27 Akira: Description set constraints in OWL - how can we incorporate [metametadata]? 19:33:43 Jeff: Named Graphs would be a possible solution, probably not the best, but possible. We can attach properties to graphs 19:34:04 Jeff: Create new entity, "record", attach property to that. Not clear how much overlap how much DCAP and how much OWL can express. Not clear to me. 19:34:15 Jeff: Lot of further work to be done, it is not yet clear what OWL can do for us, what DCAM can do... 19:34:19 Coffe Break 19:35:14 i'll drop out here, thanks for an interesting discussion. 19:35:19 -petej 19:36:06 I'll add a few lines of comments for the discussion later: 19:37:53 1. We need very concrete functional requirements, what kinds of constraints do we need? what precisely is "validation"? based on example records and profiles. 19:38:25 Perhaps we should forget about records. We use to think in records because that's what we had, but now we have new possibilities. The metametadata problem is really the same as with provenance, and there's work underway with that, too. 19:38:40 2. We can test if OWL with constraint semantics can do it, and if DSPs can. 19:39:56 3. The critical question is: based on DCAM, or based on RDF. I certainly prefer the latter, but requires DCMI to adopt RDF. 19:42:36 I personally see many advantages and potential use cases for an RDF CL that can specify "valid" graphs down to every last triple. 19:43:08 Now I'm off, good luck! 19:43:12 -mini 19:47:54 I'm leaving too. Thanks for discussions. I think Mikael's closing comments above summarise the key issues/questions very well 20:11:59 Coffe break is over 20:12:15 still scribing 20:12:42 TomB: Repeats minis statements for the audience 20:12:58 JennRiley has joined #lld 20:15:16 Marcia Zeng: Presentation about Application Profiles (based on FRSAD model) for subject domains 20:15:54 ... Questions: 1. Why do we need APs for SAD? 20:16:18 ... and two more... 20:16:57 ... FRSAD conceptual model. Notion of thema: anything that can be a subject of a work 20:17:01 s/for SAD/for FRSAD/ 20:18:09 charper has joined #lld 20:18:26 ... different ways to group things 20:18:47 ... examples: FRBR, SUMO 20:19:17 ... even within one domain it is difficult to map thesauri. 20:19:53 ... In general relationships between themas are hierarchical 20:20:13 ... but there are others, ALA came up with 100s 20:21:15 ... different types of KOS have different types to represent concepts: classifications, theauri, ... 20:21:48 ... 2nd question: How formally can the AP be defined? 20:22:20 ... communities have different domain models and usage guidelines 20:23:40 ... FRSAD-AP Functional Requirements: 20:23:54 ... in general vocabularies, but with specific different applications 20:24:39 FRSAD is a general model. Need more specific models for different types of vocabulary (classification versus thesauri), subject domains (medical vs consumer heatlh)... 20:24:44 ... FRSAD-AP domain model: a general model, needs more specific ones for different types of KOS 20:24:58 ...what are the characteristics of your subject vocabulary? 20:25:04 KOS = Knowledge Organization System (Thesauri, Classifications, ...) 20:26:33 ... Triples have challenges, e.g. how to preserve order 20:27:01 ...specify the set of properties in a particular subject domain? 20:27:40 ... Nomen specifies different, general attributes 20:28:46 ... Usage Guidlines for FRSAD-AP: Recommendations, e.g. SKOS, MADS, standards (BS, ISO) 20:28:58 pmurray has joined #lld 20:29:26 ... 3rd question: Difference between APs for subject domains and descriptive metadata 20:29:52 rrsagent, please draft minutes 20:29:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html antoine 20:30:26 ... serious sameAs issues: Is a concept from one KOS the same than the concept of another? 20:31:26 @ed: can you continue scribign? 20:31:36 yeah 20:31:39 Switch to Gordon Dunsire 20:31:42 Thanks :-) 20:31:58 Scribe: Ed Summers 20:32:06 ScribeNick: edsu 20:32:47 Thank you, Kai! 20:33:14 zakim, who is on the phone ? 20:33:14 On the phone I see antoine 20:33:23 Gordon Dunsire: Classification/subject schemes 20:33:35 paulwalk has joined #lld 20:33:59 Gordon Dunsire there are things in faceted classification schemes that need application profiles 20:34:55 rrsagent, please draft minutes 20:34:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html emma 20:36:25 ... semifaceted sub-divisions also have issues that require AP: DDC, LCSH 20:37:13 ... some subdivsions are manadator in some schemes and optional in others 20:37:32 ... also sequencing is important Law--Sociology, Sociology--Law 20:37:38 s/manadator/mandatory 20:37:44 ... something that APs need to address particulary for validation purposes 20:38:28 Gordon Dunsire: FRBRer vs ISBD: OWL vs DCAP 20:39:01 ... I'm working with FRBR conceptual model: nothing mandatory, sequenced or encoded 20:39:31 ... monolithic record split into 4 related parts, with some cardinality constraints 20:39:43 ... seems to me the best way to model this is w/ OWL 20:40:09 ... e.g Expression is a realization of *exactly* one Work 20:40:16 ... not sure how to model that in AP 20:40:47 ... contrasted w/ ISBD - which is a data model 20:41:20 .. made up 9 separate sections or areas, sequencing is very important 20:41:58 ... there is also 'manditory if applicable" which makes some things required depending on the resource being described 20:42:20 ... seems to me the best way to model that is a DC application profile 20:42:47 ... there are aggregations 20:43:12 ... I'm wondering if there need to be 2 separate approaches, and how others would do it 20:43:32 TomB: any questions? 20:44:51 TomB: I'd like to circle back to the OWL method, I understood from the discussion before the break that the idea was to model constraints with OWL, and to validate those constraints with closed world assumptions 20:45:55 ... in pellet the owl is used to generate a sparql query to validate 20:46:26 ... can someone confirm this? 20:47:54 Michael Panzer: pellet is an owl2 reasoner, for doing inferencing ... but there is a project called pellet integrity constraint validator http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/ 20:48:46 ... it doesn't change anything in your owl, but it generates sparql queries from the owl ... the same owl is used for both the inferencing and the validation 20:50:19 ... the integrity constraints wouldn't generate any inferences 20:51:05 xxx: i'm trying to separate what it is, from what you are doing with it 20:51:22 edsu: It's Karen Smith-Yoshimura, OCLC Research 20:51:37 ... sequencing (how things are presented) needs to vary on language context, and the application 20:51:58 s/xxx/Karen Smith Yoshimura/ 20:52:18 ... I'm not sure what happens with translations 20:52:47 TomB: i wonder if jon or corey might have some thoughts 20:53:16 ... do RDF and linked data need standard approaches to "application profiles"? 20:53:35 Stu: do application profiles need to consider RDF/LInked data to be useful? 20:54:15 Antoine: that's a valid question. in rdf there isn't so much guidance on how to reuse vocabularies. i think semweb community could benefit from this 20:54:56 JonPhipps: an application profile at this point is documentation, too many organizations lack the documentation about their data, similar to what mike bergman talked about this morning 20:55:47 TomB: are there only documentation requirements, or do we need to express constraints? 20:56:07 JonPhipps: i'm deeply critical of people who think they have the answers in this space 20:56:10 :-) 20:56:20 TomB: not looking for answers, but suggestions 20:57:18 JonPhipps: if you don't document what your data is, are you really communicating anything? It seems essential for trust. 20:58:07 Gordon Dunsire: i think isbd would be a lot easier to understand as an AP. for communicating what this thing is 20:58:40 emma: i don't feel like i can say what's good for rdf, but the library community needs something that's like AP but for the linked data world 20:59:41 TomB: i'm hearing a requirement to communicate the purpose and substance of a metadata model to a community for coherence of data and sharing an approach 21:00:06 ... not hearing a clear requirement for standardizing an approach to modeling constraints for validation. does anyone want to argue for that? 21:00:56 Gordon Dunsire: look at the FRBR model, if you convert legacy data to that model, having something you can validate aggregations of triples is quire important 21:01:05 s/quire/quite/ 21:02:33 JennRiley: i agree, there are two reasons validation is important: it makes tool support easier ; it's also important for public relations, to constrain the world of linked data, and allows you to scope the web of data into manageable chunks (my wording) 21:03:08 TomB: is the Description Set Profile language a good start at that? 21:03:49 JennRiley: i don't have an opinion about whether it needs to be dcmi related 21:04:31 Jeff Young: i think we should come up with some example use cases, it's hard to say -- we are grasping here 21:04:57 TomB: can we identify differenct scenarios for different types of profiles? 21:05:09 s/differenct/different/ 21:05:53 rrsagent, please draft minutes 21:05:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html emma 21:06:03 JonPhipps: there is creation metadata, there is the publishing metadata, and there is the consumption of the metadata 21:06:40 ... there isn't a notion of constraints around publishing / consuming data for rdf ; those are areas that need to be covered by an AP 21:07:44 antoine: there is agreement that some guidance should be provided when using vocabularies, but does this require a langauge? 21:08:40 ... the fact that there was a formal language for the description set profile wasn't useful to me 21:09:10 JonPhipps: i second that 21:10:59 Markva asked wether Antoine's comment implied to stop effort on DCAM 21:12:31 TomB: we have the singapore framework, if we ignore the DCAM is the rest valid? 21:12:47 [Singapore Framework diagram on screen] 21:14:48 Diane Hillman: the idea that we will have to explain AP in terms of RDF...i've been through lots of phases of technical wonder. i'm worried that we are getting too far into thinking in one mode, need more general thinking than that 21:15:34 JonPhipps gesturing at large parts of the Singampore Framework diagram and saying it is documentation related 21:15:56 TomB: what about data format? 21:16:47 JonPhipps: that's a specification, perhaps somewhere else like SKOS 21:17:21 (thumbs up from the modelers in the back) 21:17:49 Michael Panzer: the abstract model is a meta model, and in this way in clashes with RDF 21:18:38 ... how would you do some of the things in the DCAM with OWL? are you going to throw out some requirements? 21:19:34 ... we could get involved in rdf next steps. but in the end dcam and rdf are at odds, and one must win 21:20:40 Stu: Jon's assertion that we have confused syntax and semantics is a really strong point 21:21:51 ... i wonder if someone is willing and able to explain what the abstract model means. we know how to describe items. i don't understand the singapore framework. we've got models that we don't believe. we haven't connected them with what we are trying to do. 21:23:42 ... I'm not saying DCAM or RDF must win. if we were to sit down and write a document that would not allow us to use models, triples, domain models ... a plain natural langauge description of what we are trying to do...i tried to write about it in my blog and i got feedback that I didn't understand it. 21:24:45 ... if you can't describe what the framwork is to practitioners then we can't move forward 21:25:37 JonPhipps: the value of the upper two layers is that they allow us to document a domain model, in a way that is independent of the bottom layer (the implementation) 21:26:06 ... it provides a valuable documentation model, there are bits that are too technical. it would help to have it rewritten in a way that's understandable. 21:26:43 markva: could add some documents that explain it in very clear ways, like what the owl community has done 21:27:22 ... could add some documents that explain how to go from the conceptual level to the implementation 21:28:02 antoine: keeping the rdf reference you can do without a reference implementation guideline, that might not even express all the requirements 21:29:38 TomB: Michael do you think you can do without this bottom layer of RDF? 21:30:08 Michael Panzer: the question is more where the wind is blowing 21:30:45 ... why build it on RDF? do we do it because it's a good brand, or that it's useful? how important is that? 21:31:17 ... the DC of working with metadata, will enough people find it useful without anchoring it to the RDF specs? 21:31:55 JonPhipps: perhaps the bottom layer can be informative, and the middle layers would be normative 21:32:49 rrsagent, please draft minutes 21:32:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html emma 21:32:56 TomB: adjourned 21:33:10 rrsagent, please draft minutes 21:33:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-lld-minutes.html emma 21:33:18 thans edsu ! 21:33:23 sure :-) 21:33:33 scribing prevented me from saying something stupid :-) 21:33:49 we won't record that one in the minutes ;-) 21:37:47 -antoine 21:37:49 INC_LLDXG()2:00PM has ended 21:37:51 Attendees were antoine, mini, +44.798.947.aaaa, andypowe11, +44.117.925.aabb, petej, +44.122.531.aacc 21:40:49 zakim, bye 21:40:49 Zakim has left #lld 21:41:16 rrsagent, bye 21:41:16 I see no action items