13:54:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #poiwg
13:54:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-poiwg-irc
13:54:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #poiwg
13:54:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be UW_POI
13:54:39 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference
13:54:40 <trackbot> Date: 17 November 2010
13:54:49 <matt> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2010Nov/0015
13:54:55 <matt> Chair: ajbraun
13:55:58 <Ronald> Ronald has joined #poiwg
13:56:35 <jacques> jacques has joined #poiwg
13:58:47 <ajbraun> We have three open actions to discuss when the call starts
13:59:14 <ajbraun> Matt - Follow-up on Korean contacts - Not sure of the status
13:59:48 <Zakim> UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has now started
13:59:57 <Zakim> +??P12
14:00:01 <Zakim> +Gary
14:00:10 <matt> ACTION-7?
14:00:10 <trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Matt Womer to follow-up on Korean contacts -- due 2010-11-03 -- OPEN
14:00:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/7
14:00:16 <matt> zakim, dial matt-voip
14:00:16 <Zakim> ok, matt; the call is being made
14:00:18 <Zakim> +Matt
14:00:24 <ajbraun> ACTION-11?
14:00:24 <trackbot> ACTION-11 -- Matt Womer to make the terminology page look nicer -- due 2010-11-03 -- CLOSED
14:00:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/11
14:00:58 <Ronald> Zakim, ??P12 is me
14:00:58 <Zakim> +Ronald; got it
14:01:06 <matt> Scribe: gagale
14:01:20 <Zakim> + +1.919.439.aaaa
14:01:42 <ajbraun> Action-13?
14:01:42 <trackbot> ACTION-13 -- Mike Liebhold to put out a definition of a 'thing' to the mailing list. -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN
14:01:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/13
14:01:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:01:56 <Zakim> +vinod
14:02:30 <matt> zakim, aaaa is Andy
14:02:30 <Zakim> +Andy; got it
14:02:39 <matt> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ronald, Gary, Matt, Andy, vinod, [IPcaller]
14:02:43 <matt> zakim, IPCaller is Alex
14:02:43 <Zakim> +Alex; got it
14:03:16 <matt> zakim, mute me
14:03:16 <Zakim> Matt should now be muted
14:03:29 <ajbraun> action-14?
14:03:29 <trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Jacques Lemordant to collect triples on the mailing list -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN
14:03:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/14
14:03:32 <Alex_> Alex_ has joined #poiwg
14:03:42 <Zakim> +??P20
14:03:54 <matt> zakim, who is noisy?
14:04:04 <matt> zakim, unmute me
14:04:04 <Zakim> Matt should no longer be muted
14:04:06 <Zakim> matt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ronald (5%), Alex (69%), ??P20 (8%)
14:04:14 <Zakim> -??P20
14:04:38 <matt> zakim, mute alex
14:04:38 <Zakim> Alex should now be muted
14:04:47 <matt> zakim, unmute alex
14:04:47 <Zakim> Alex should no longer be muted
14:05:09 <Zakim> + +1.347.661.aabb
14:05:14 <vinod> vinod has joined #poiwg
14:05:17 <jacques> ++jacques
14:05:27 <matt> zakim, aabb is jacques 
14:05:27 <Zakim> +jacques; got it
14:05:38 <Zakim> +cperey
14:05:39 <matt> zakim, mute me
14:05:42 <Zakim> Matt should now be muted
14:05:43 <matt> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:05:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ronald, Gary, Matt (muted), Andy, vinod, Alex, jacques, cperey
14:06:06 <cperey> hello!
14:06:27 <danbri> danbri has joined #poiwg
14:06:52 <Zakim> +Raj
14:07:07 <gagale> topic: regrets - Marco, Luca, Jens
14:07:10 <rsingh2> rsingh2 has joined #poiwg
14:07:59 <matt> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:07:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ronald, Gary, Matt (muted), Andy, vinod, Alex, jacques, cperey, Raj
14:08:13 <matt> Present: Ronald, Gary, Matt, Andy, vinod, Alex, jacques, cperey, Raj
14:08:28 <matt> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:08:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-poiwg-minutes.html matt
14:08:34 <gagale> Topic: Scribing - Gary (let off for a while now)
14:09:06 <gagale> topic: minutes objections/corrections - none voiced
14:09:25 <Zakim> -Ronald
14:09:28 <gagale> topic: action items
14:09:45 <matt> [[Regarding ACTION-7, the people Jonathan introduced would be IEs, so I'll have to talk to Andy]]
14:09:51 <matt> ACTION-13?
14:09:51 <trackbot> ACTION-13 -- Mike Liebhold to put out a definition of a 'thing' to the mailing list. -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN
14:09:51 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/13
14:09:57 <matt> close ACTION-13
14:09:57 <trackbot> ACTION-13 Put out a definition of a 'thing' to the mailing list. closed
14:10:00 <Ronald> sorry, my skype crashed.... working on it
14:10:06 <matt> ACTION-14?
14:10:06 <trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Jacques Lemordant to collect triples on the mailing list -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN
14:10:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/14
14:10:18 <jacques> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model#Triples_in_a_compact_XML_format
14:10:34 <JonathanJ> JonathanJ has joined #poiwg
14:11:33 <Alex_> +1 not an action item, but an issue
14:11:33 <gagale> +1 to saying names first -- otherwise my scribing attempts will be ... challenging
14:11:39 <Zakim> +??P12
14:11:47 <Ronald> Zakim, ??P12 is me
14:11:47 <Zakim> +Ronald; got it
14:11:56 <matt> [[Maybe this should be an ongoing issue rather than an open action item?]]
14:12:18 <matt> zakim, unmute me
14:12:18 <Zakim> Matt should no longer be muted
14:12:22 <gagale> andy: convert action 14 to an "issue" (suggested by matt)
14:12:29 <Zakim> +??P29
14:12:58 <gagale> matt: issues are longer term than actions
14:13:20 <Ronald> I can hear matt fine
14:13:39 <Alex_> can we have an action item to get "something" on the wiki
14:13:41 <Zakim> -Andy
14:13:49 <gagale> matt: issues generally end up as actions; issue == resolve data format ... action == actions to resolve the problem described in the issue (at a high level)
14:14:22 <Zakim> +Andy
14:14:55 <Alex_> +q
14:15:03 <matt> ack next
14:15:20 <matt> ACTION-14?
14:15:20 <trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Jacques Lemordant to collect triples on the mailing list -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN
14:15:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/14
14:15:40 <Alex_> -q
14:15:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:15:55 <gagale> alex: original action item was to put something on the wiki ... that's been done
14:15:58 <Alex_> +q
14:16:13 <Alex_> -q
14:16:20 <JonathanJ> zakim, IPcaller is me
14:16:20 <Zakim> +JonathanJ; got it
14:17:03 <gagale> matt: initial action is done. might need to make "an issue" of it
14:17:07 <Alex_> +q
14:17:25 <matt> q?
14:17:48 <gagale> topic: agenda creation
14:18:01 <danbri> thx
14:18:15 <gagale> andy: no feedback on the agenda
14:18:30 <gagale> andy: concerned that the agenda isn't reflecting needs of the members of the WG
14:18:50 <matt> -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Agenda Agenda feedback wiki page
14:18:57 <gagale> andy: face to face items needed
14:19:20 <matt> -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meetings/December_2010#Agenda Face to Face agenda
14:19:32 <gagale> topic: POI use cases
14:19:56 <gagale> andy: "create vs. compute: use cases
14:20:20 <gagale> dan: don't fully get the distinction between create vs. compute in use case
14:20:28 <Alex_> +q
14:21:12 <matt> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Nov/0046 Create vs Compute thread
14:21:22 <cperey> two or more parties interacting in the real world
14:21:26 <cperey> = play
14:21:35 <gagale> alex: general idea was to come up with distinction ... between use case
14:21:44 <cperey> people adding content to the world (objects and places) = create
14:21:49 <matt> ack next
14:21:54 <Alex_> -q
14:22:02 <jacques> +q
14:22:25 <matt> ack next
14:22:46 <cperey> a cultural heritage guide with AR using semantic Web
14:22:48 <gagale> jacques: mobile guide (using semantic search) would be the create use case?
14:22:51 <cperey> which kind of use case?
14:22:56 <Alex_> +q
14:23:02 <matt> q+
14:23:05 <cperey> I would see that as falling in the "guide" use case
14:23:15 <matt> ack next
14:23:15 <cperey> it is a definition of what the USER experience
14:23:25 <danbri> ok so the use cases emphasise that the poi standards will represent data that comes from very different sources; created socially on mobile UI vs coming in from other systems?
14:23:55 <gagale> alex: given that are already POIs ... how are we going to retrieve them
14:24:07 <cperey> building POIs dynamically?
14:24:20 <cperey> from data that is available from multiple sources (e.g. linked data)
14:24:26 <gagale> jacques: it's not only retrieving it's also the act of building (POIs) ... 
14:24:34 <cperey> wouldn't cultural heritage be fixed, known?
14:25:10 <matt> gagale: This is muddled.  We've got lots of different terms and things flying around.
14:25:13 <matt> +1 to being lost
14:25:14 <matt> q?
14:25:15 <gagale> gary: this is horribly confused
14:26:12 <matt> zakim, who is noisy?
14:26:22 <Zakim> matt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 11 (29%), jacques (13%)
14:26:30 <matt> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:26:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Gary, Matt, vinod, Alex, jacques, cperey, Raj, Ronald, danbri, Andy, JonathanJ
14:26:34 <gagale> christine: guide == something that guides or leads someone in an activity
14:26:45 <matt> zakim, mute me
14:26:45 <Zakim> Matt should now be muted
14:26:56 <gagale> christine: it's not passive, but it's not creating
14:27:13 <danbri> (the noise was me sorry, someone sent me a link that autoplayed)
14:27:24 <gagale> christine: create == user generates content for a POI ... inputting them into (a database)
14:27:55 <gagale> christine: play == two or more users interacting with each other in the real world
14:27:59 <matt> q?
14:28:02 <ajbraun> +q
14:28:22 <gagale> christine: jacque's question was where is "compute" in all of that
14:28:42 <Alex_> http://www.perey.com/ARStandardsMeetingOutputs.html
14:28:57 <cperey> http://www.perey.com/ARStandardsMeetingOutputs.html
14:29:10 <matt> ack next
14:29:18 <gagale> christine: there's a PDF on that web page
14:29:51 <gagale> matt: still a bit confused ... how are these use cases to be used ... support all or pick one? how will the use cases influence what we do in the WG?
14:30:00 <gagale> name first please!
14:30:02 <matt> zakim, mute me
14:30:02 <Zakim> Matt should now be muted
14:30:04 <Alex_> +1 reasonable question
14:30:20 <gagale> thanks!
14:30:22 <matt> +1 to gary's scribing!
14:31:05 <Alex_> +1 to Andy's explanation 
14:31:12 <gagale> andy: data formats need to support a set of use cases, rather than be a data format solely ... we need to build test suites, but not necessarily building those services, we've already discussed this on the last call
14:31:15 <jacques> +1 for a test suite
14:31:16 <matt> [[we're definitely NOT building services within the WG]]
14:31:47 <ajbraun> +1 to well defined
14:31:49 <gagale> christine: we need to design a data format that works for a well defined (closed isn't the right word) set of use cases
14:31:53 <matt> q+ to ask how close we feel we are to having complete use cases?
14:32:05 <cperey> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/Three_Use_Cases.pdf
14:32:11 <gagale> dan: is anyone disagreeing with that?
14:32:13 <matt> q?
14:32:14 <Ronald> +1 to using the use cases as a test suite
14:32:29 <matt> ack ajbraun 
14:32:30 <gagale> silence denotes assent
14:32:47 <jacques> use cases  are not enough specific to be used as a test suite
14:32:53 <gagale> christine: use cases test the "hypothesis" of the data format
14:32:54 <matt> ack next
14:32:57 <Zakim> matt, you wanted to ask how close we feel we are to having complete use cases?
14:33:25 <matt> -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Use_Cases Use Cases
14:33:44 <gagale> raj: dangers of use cases is that it can engender circular discussions, we need a reality check on use cases
14:33:54 <gagale> +1 to raj on that
14:33:59 <cperey> reality check on use cases: company has product, or you commit to implement in software during the course of work
14:34:01 <Ronald> +1
14:34:33 <gagale> matt: how many use cases do we need?
14:34:38 <jacques> +1 to reality check
14:35:08 <gagale> gary: given that we have a small set of use cases, why not just use them
14:35:15 <cperey> +1 to run with what we have and check back to see if they are doing the job at a later point in time
14:35:31 <matt> zakim, mute me
14:35:31 <Zakim> Matt should now be muted
14:35:37 <matt> zakim, who is noisy?
14:35:48 <Zakim> matt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gary (15%), Andy (35%), cperey (39%)
14:35:48 <gagale> andy: issue (or action) to review the use cases based on what's discussed today
14:36:38 <Alex_> I can do this
14:36:39 <cperey> can Alex Hill "translate" the three AR use cases we defined in Seoul?
14:36:52 <cperey> into a consistent format like the others
14:37:01 <danbri> danbri yeah
14:37:11 <danbri> action me, but make it detailed please :)
14:37:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - me,
14:37:11 <cperey> I think that Alex is signed up as well?
14:37:26 <Alex_> :)
14:37:26 <ajbraun> I volunteer for action as well exept was muted
14:37:27 <matt> ACTION:danbri to review use cases based on today's discussion
14:37:38 <Alex_> that doesn't count andy
14:37:41 <matt> ACTION: ajbraun to review use cases based on today's discussion
14:37:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Review use cases based on today's discussion [on Andrew Braun - due 2010-11-24].
14:38:11 <cperey> should CREATE be added to the use cases?
14:38:29 <cperey> machine driven=compute , human/user driven=create
14:38:46 <cperey> sorry, above
14:38:47 <gagale> andy: difference is create is user driven and compute is computer driven. is that an artificial distinction
14:38:57 <cperey> the question is should COMPUTE be added to the use case
14:39:06 <matt> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:39:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Gary, Matt (muted), vinod, Alex, jacques, cperey, Raj, Ronald, danbri, Andy, JonathanJ
14:39:12 <gagale> raj: it shouldn't matter, create/compute/person/computer
14:39:12 <cperey> that was Ronald
14:39:19 <matt> s/raj/Ronald/
14:39:22 <ajbraun> I agree that compute and create are same use case
14:39:34 <gagale> I'd argue semantics on this one
14:39:36 <jacques> perhaps not at the data level format
14:39:39 <cperey> but they may have different time dependencies
14:40:07 <JonathanJ> +1: compute and create same use case 
14:40:20 <Alex_> -1 compute and create same use case
14:40:23 <matt> gagale: Maybe we're arguing semantics here.  There may be a lot of overlap in these, we might want to conflate them into a single one and save a weeks work.
14:40:25 <jacques> -1
14:40:31 <cperey> then redefine create so that it is not LIMITED to the human creating?
14:40:45 <matt> q+ to say maybe they're not the same, but their influence on the data format may be minimal
14:41:28 <cperey> create with human has to give the user feedback, create with computing data does not require feedback
14:41:46 <Alex_> our thoughts on CREATE were "user generated content"
14:41:58 <danbri> yup matt, ideally the data format can handle data from many different sources (social/mobile, gis, etc); we're not making an API or a software package are we?
14:41:58 <Alex_> the rest is GUIDE
14:42:13 <matt> q-
14:42:42 <cperey> Gary speaking?
14:42:50 <cperey> :-)
14:42:55 <matt> yes, danbri, that's what I'm thinking too.  We're the data format, rather than the API or software...
14:43:06 <Alex_> +1 for F2F and for continued mailing list
14:43:11 <ajbraun> +2
14:43:12 <matt> zakim, unmute me
14:43:12 <Zakim> Matt should no longer be muted
14:43:28 <gagale> Hauled over the coals by Christine for not saying my name :-)
14:43:44 <cperey> cold coals ...
14:43:49 <Alex_> +1 that this is a side issue and should be hashed out over mailing list
14:44:23 <ajbraun> whiteboards are great inventions
14:44:31 <Alex_> +1 agreed on corridor talk over agenda
14:44:35 <matt> gagale: It might be something we can hash out quickly f2f
14:45:11 <ajbraun> +1 on the format
14:45:16 <cperey> I think last week we agreed that the first order of business was definition of POI and things, etc
14:45:19 <Alex_> +1 on the format
14:45:29 <gagale> matt: we have to lot to do ... don't want to get bogged down
14:45:31 <cperey> nope
14:45:32 <Alex_> +1 including "thing" is a higher priority
14:45:43 <JonathanJ> +1
14:45:45 <gagale> +1 to Christine there
14:45:46 <ajbraun> +1
14:45:50 <Ronald> +1
14:45:53 <cperey> +1 that "thing" definition is to higher priority
14:46:40 <gagale> andy: recap ... compute vs. create ... 1) take it to the mailing list 2) quick topic at the f2f 3) don't get bogged down by use cases
14:47:06 <gagale> topic: discuss "thing" (not on the agenda)
14:47:24 <cperey> can someone who is good with archives find the thread?
14:47:48 <ajbraun> A ' thing is a physical object with no fixed location that may have a POI digital information attached that cannot be automatically detected by geopositioning sensors. The POI,therefore will only be detectable by a default visual ( or acoustic?) search, invoked by a client.
14:48:08 <matt> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Nov/thread.html#msg50  Thing thread
14:48:16 <cperey> thanks!
14:48:17 <matt> zakim, mute me
14:48:17 <Zakim> Matt should now be muted
14:48:35 <cperey> the important aspect is that it is not stationary
14:48:38 <cperey> +1
14:48:39 <gagale> alex: it doesn't matter how a "thing" is detected ... but it's not fixed or stationary
14:48:44 <ajbraun> Agree with the detection model is not important
14:48:50 <ajbraun> +q
14:48:52 <cperey> and it has a location in space but that location CHANGES
14:48:52 <gagale> http://www.vicchi.org/2010/11/16/location-vs-place-vs-poi/
14:49:55 <cperey> the location is absolute and relative, it is CHANGING in time, it is a dynamic location
14:50:19 <jacques> so we should have some information about the tracking of the thing in the data format
14:50:29 <JonathanJ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Nov/0050.html
14:50:46 <danbri> gagale, 'things' that aren't often treated well: mobile spaces like trains, boats, ... but also high granularity 'things' like a specific desk, in an office, ...etc
14:50:52 <Alex_> +1 agreed it needs some additional descriptors
14:51:04 <ajbraun> -q
14:51:32 <gagale> alex: agree with idea (from gary) that "things" aren't fundamentally different, just need additional descriptors
14:52:22 <Alex_> +1 this helps us analyze the existing models
14:53:03 <ajbraun> thinks all POIs are things just that some have a easy sensor data access which is the gps sensor
14:53:08 <cperey> the thing's location is absolute and relative, it is CHANGING in time, it is a dynamic location (temporally "labile")
14:53:37 <Alex_> +1 no temporality and no dynamics means it is staic or permanent
14:54:00 <cperey> +q
14:54:33 <matt> ack next
14:56:11 <Alex_> +q
14:56:26 <ajbraun> gary wants to make the default use case based on the most available sensor data, which is today GPS 
14:56:41 <danbri> some questions don't have sensible answers: "how many POIs are there in this building", for example. But "how many POI descriptions for things in this building do we have in this particular db" is sensible.
14:56:53 <danbri> gary, 'there are lots of people on 4square
14:57:03 <danbri> ...temporarily, mobile services, commuter hubs etc
14:57:08 <danbri> ... a need that isn't being fulfilled
14:57:29 <danbri> ..even though things like 4square have had phenomenal use, it's still relatively small % of internet use
14:57:44 <ajbraun> gagale: says that fixed location and time objects will cover 75% of the use cases today. 
14:57:44 <danbri> ... important but sense of proportionality needed re these types of POI/place
14:57:57 <danbri> ...not ignore, but maybe we should be careful not to spend too much time on it
14:58:02 <danbri> ... vs more common cases
14:58:07 <matt> Can we maybe run this question against our use cases and see what falls out?
14:59:02 <cperey> Alex: inredible number of POIs that will pop in and out of existance, but if you query a database and you get no data back, then... 
14:59:19 <Alex_> -q
14:59:26 <cperey> Alex: the fact that most POIs today are static time does not mean that they are in the future...
14:59:33 <cperey> I'm not sure I captured it correctly
14:59:35 <danbri> (people are POIs too)
14:59:38 <cperey> Alex: can you please check
14:59:41 <matt> zakim, unmute me
14:59:41 <Zakim> Matt should no longer be muted
14:59:42 <cperey> :=)
14:59:45 <cperey> :-)
14:59:54 <cperey> and my phone battery is almost dead
15:00:01 <cperey> but I can call back in
15:00:06 <Alex_> I've got other commitments
15:00:17 <cperey> next meeting will be Nov ??
15:00:19 <Ronald> I have to leave soon to
15:00:21 <Alex_> +1 this has been fruitful
15:00:21 <rsingh2> I have another call to go to
15:00:24 <gagale> Probably the *BEST* call we've had yet
15:00:42 <matt> agreed gagale, that's why I thought about continuing it :)
15:00:48 <cperey> next week is Thanksgiving
15:00:48 <gagale> andy: suggestion that there's no meeting next week due to US holidays
15:00:51 <cperey> ?
15:01:02 <gagale> andy: next meeting will be December 1st
15:01:24 <Alex_> do we need an action item for establishing a F2F agenda?
15:01:26 <cperey> Alex review what I captured
15:01:29 <Alex_> ok
15:02:00 <cperey> speak in 14 days
15:02:04 <cperey> see you on the list
15:02:08 <gagale> Officially giving up my scribe -- thanks everyone
15:02:08 <Ronald> will fill it in this week
15:02:08 <Zakim> -vinod
15:02:09 <Zakim> -danbri
15:02:11 <Zakim> -Raj
15:02:11 <Ronald> thanks
15:02:13 <Zakim> -cperey
15:02:16 <Zakim> -Ronald
15:02:17 <Zakim> -Matt
15:02:18 <Zakim> -Andy
15:02:20 <Zakim> -Gary
15:02:24 <Zakim> -Alex
15:02:40 <matt> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-poiwg-minutes.html matt
15:03:08 <matt> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see jacques, JonathanJ
15:03:18 <Zakim> -JonathanJ
15:03:26 <matt> zakim, drop jacques
15:03:26 <Zakim> jacques is being disconnected
15:03:27 <Zakim> UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has ended
15:03:29 <Zakim> Attendees were Gary, Matt, Ronald, +1.919.439.aaaa, vinod, Andy, Alex, +1.347.661.aabb, jacques, cperey, Raj, danbri, JonathanJ
15:03:43 <Alex_> Just because the data format with no modifiers means a static and permanent POI doesn't mean an endorsement that the majority of POI's are of this type ...
15:04:30 <matt> rrsagent, stop