IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-01-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:00:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
16:00:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
16:00:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:00:40 [trackbot]
Date: 30 January 2013
16:01:00 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
16:01:00 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, TallTed
16:01:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, pchampin, markus, gkellogg, gavinc, Guus, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, ivan, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:01:05 [TallTed]
Zakim, this is rdfwg
16:01:05 [Zakim]
ok, TallTed; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:01:08 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
16:01:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, OpenLink_Software, davidwood
16:01:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, pchampin, markus, gkellogg, gavinc, Guus, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, ivan, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:01:16 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:16 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
16:01:18 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:01:18 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
16:01:30 [TallTed]
TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF WG - - current agenda
16:01:37 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:01:37 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
16:01:40 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [Guus]
chair: Guus
16:01:44 [gkellogg]
zakim, I am ??P9
16:01:44 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
16:01:58 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:01:58 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
16:02:22 [Zakim]
16:02:25 [markus]
zakim, ??P10 is me
16:02:25 [Zakim]
+markus; got it
16:02:45 [Guus]
zakim, who's here?
16:02:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, gkellogg, markus
16:02:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, pchampin, markus, gkellogg, gavinc, Guus, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, ivan, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:03:38 [Zakim]
16:03:45 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P12 is me
16:03:45 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:04:05 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P13 is me
16:04:05 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
16:04:18 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
16:04:44 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:04:44 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:04:45 [Zakim]
16:05:23 [Zakim]
16:06:03 [gkellogg]
scribe: gkellogg
16:06:53 [Zakim]
16:07:09 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:07:09 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
16:07:32 [Zakim]
16:07:41 [gkellogg]
topic: Accept Minutes
16:07:49 [cgreer]
cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
16:07:50 [gkellogg]
RESOLVED: accept minutes from last meeting
16:07:56 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
16:08:04 [gkellogg]
topic: Action Items
16:08:17 [gkellogg]
guus: response from eric, has been done.
16:08:34 [Zakim]
16:08:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.992.aaaa
16:09:05 [pfps]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:09:05 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
16:09:43 [gavinc]
ericP, I don't think the At Risk change is done?
16:10:32 [gkellogg]
topic: Extension Request
16:10:55 [gkellogg]
david: participation and timetable are both important.
16:11:07 [gkellogg]
… formally, we can't meet next week until management accepts request.
16:11:21 [gkellogg]
ivan: technically yes, but never practiced.
16:11:44 [gkellogg]
… we should not take a formal vote on proposed recombination next week.
16:11:52 [gavinc]
Oh, I think we can resolve ISSUEs
16:11:54 [gkellogg]
david: don't resolve anything until formally in session.
16:11:59 [gavinc]
Just don't publish documents ;)
16:12:10 [gkellogg]
ericp: don't slow down the process.
16:12:29 [gkellogg]
david: anyone on call not put name in participation.
16:12:36 [gkellogg]
pfps: I intend to continue.
16:12:53 [gavinc] the extension request
16:13:02 [gavinc] specifically
16:13:05 [gkellogg]
yvesr: me too.
16:13:26 [gavinc]
and if it includes the editors of said documents ;)
16:13:27 [gkellogg]
david: we look like a stronger group to finish documents with a longer participation list..
16:13:32 [gkellogg]
… Next issue is timetable...
16:13:52 [gkellogg]
… It looks like we need a fair amount of time between LC and end of LC review, then CR, PR and REC.
16:14:19 [ivan]
16:14:22 [gkellogg]
… If each are a couple of months delay, we need to produce LC versions quite early to finish by the end of the year. Beginning of March/April.
16:14:38 [ericP]
gavinc, a week or two ago, I said I'd execute the At Risk text change at pub time
16:14:47 [gkellogg]
… That is what I proposed in the extension request; what we think we can do within that time, vs. what will take longer.
16:14:58 [gkellogg]
guus: mainly important for REC-track.
16:14:59 [gavinc]
ericP, ah, okay, cool
16:15:08 [gkellogg]
david: final notes listed as being completed by end of June.
16:15:28 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
16:15:34 [gkellogg]
… Concern is that we've been waiting on Concepts to reference FPWD of Semantics.
16:15:50 [gkellogg]
… The lack of that draft has held up Concepts, and the Primer.
16:15:59 [Zakim]
16:16:06 [gkellogg]
… Other documents may reference it as well. THey'll need to wait for FPWD of Semantics.
16:16:24 [gkellogg]
… We need an FPWD of Semantics in February to have any hope of LC in March/April.
16:16:26 [ericP]
gavinc, I picked that plan 'cause I wasn't sure if At Risk was special to respec and I didn't want my understanding respec to be in the critical path for publication. if you want to execute this action, i can stage the pub after you're done
16:16:35 [PatH]
was that remark just aimed at me?
16:17:16 [Guus]
q+ to ask for whether support troops are needed
16:17:26 [ivan]
16:17:43 [gkellogg]
ivan: This document makes it clear what is requested in terms of process.
16:17:53 [gkellogg]
… In terms of process, we only have 2 restrictions (3).
16:18:02 [gkellogg]
… The last call comment period must be at least 3 weeks.
16:18:13 [gkellogg]
… The other is that the PR voting period must be at least 4 weeks.
16:18:22 [gkellogg]
… nothing else is required by process.
16:18:39 [gkellogg]
… It's up to us to see what is reasonable to achieve. If we expect many LC comments, we need to schedule more.
16:19:13 [gkellogg]
… THere's a 3rd milestone issue: for IPR reasons, there must be 6 months between FPWD and REC to allow companies time to disclose patents.
16:20:01 [gkellogg]
david: I was aware of those constraints when I layed out the schedule. Also that we've never turned documents around that fast before.
16:20:21 [gkellogg]
… The FPWD of these docs will come out within a month of LC, as they're rather trivial.
16:20:27 [Zakim]
16:20:40 [gkellogg]
… Most key documents are fairly close.
16:20:49 [gkellogg]
… Adding 6 months to REC, we're not too far off.
16:20:55 [gkellogg]
16:20:59 [Zakim]
16:21:02 [Guus]
ack ivan
16:21:10 [davidwood]
ack Guus
16:21:10 [Zakim]
Guus, you wanted to ask for whether support troops are needed
16:21:20 [PatH]
I think I can guarantee to have a DRAFT semantics done by the end of February. That will be two documents, in fact.
16:21:20 [gkellogg]
guus: to pcps and path, I'm not sure how much time you have available.
16:21:21 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P13 is me
16:21:21 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
16:21:26 [gkellogg]
16:21:30 [pfps]
Pat is the one that wants to make significant changes to the document. I'm happy with minimal changes.
16:21:36 [gkellogg]
… would it be useful to have other people?
16:21:46 [pfps]
The minimal changes would not take much time at all.
16:21:56 [gkellogg]
path: I think it could slow things down to add people.
16:22:12 [gkellogg]
… I can guarantee by the end of February, I can have draft documents.
16:22:25 [gkellogg]
… I plan to split Semantics into 2 docs, as previously discussed.
16:23:00 [gkellogg]
guus: if we have by end of Feb, we're in good shape.
16:23:46 [gkellogg]
david: I don't think we'll be able to do this, as current schedule has LC at end of March.
16:24:06 [gkellogg]
… At a minimum we could publish FPWD and get an agreement to go to LC by early April.
16:24:26 [gkellogg]
path: when do you need the document by?
16:24:54 [gkellogg]
david: could we do a draft and put out as FPWD knowing it's not quite right, and publish so that we have something to reference from other documents, and proceed from there.
16:25:05 [pfps]
if we need a FPWD, then how about a version of the current document with technical changes only (which should be minimal)?
16:25:11 [gkellogg]
… ASAP, of course.
16:25:34 [gkellogg]
path: Okay, I can try that.
16:25:43 [gkellogg]
david: as soon as you can reasonably schedule it.
16:25:59 [gkellogg]
guus: to be realistic, we should postpone deadlines by a month.
16:26:12 [gkellogg]
… End of LC review doesn't need to be 2 months.
16:27:16 [gkellogg]
david: looking at the extension request, it's clear that we've promised to produce documents that are not yet written. Getting to FPWD quickly (not just Semantics), is key to unblocking RDF/XML.
16:27:42 [gkellogg]
… path: semantics discussions are still crystalizing.
16:28:10 [Zakim]
16:28:14 [gkellogg]
david: I have to say, I really appreciate PatH even being here.
16:28:58 [Zakim]
16:29:08 [gkellogg]
david: question was, who's editing extension request.
16:29:25 [gkellogg]
… I believe we decided to move semantics back to April 1 and leave LC date in place.
16:29:45 [gkellogg]
… End of LC comments on May 1.
16:30:17 [gkellogg]
ivan: any issue that may come up is such that we need to be very strong in that it is out of scope, or been discussed and closed.
16:30:33 [gkellogg]
… For example BNodes as predicates; we need to be tough in responding to these.
16:30:48 [gkellogg]
… Also, literals as subjects.
16:31:07 [gkellogg]
… We can imagine someone coming back with such a proposal.
16:31:17 [gkellogg]
david: how about moving to Quads?
16:31:44 [ivan]
16:32:18 [davidwood]
ack ivan
16:32:37 [gavinc]
ivan: Knowing the way JSON-LD sub group operates, is it possible to go directly from LC to PR?
16:32:46 [gavinc]
... do you need a CR phase?
16:32:54 [gavinc]
gkellogg: If the process allows that.
16:33:01 [gavinc]
ivan: Yes, the process allows that.
16:33:19 [gavinc]
gkellogg: I'm sure we'll have a number of implementations that implement all the features
16:33:38 [gavinc]
... I think this group will want to review the final documents
16:33:45 [gavinc]
ivan: that should be done before CR anyway
16:34:00 [gkellogg]
david: that leaves us with TriG, RDF/XML and Schema.
16:34:16 [gkellogg]
… RDF/XML and Schema should be easy updates, and we don't have FPWD.
16:34:26 [gkellogg]
… we should push editors to give us something in Febr.
16:34:35 [gkellogg]
guus: not sure Danbri has much time.
16:34:44 [gkellogg]
david: he's said he'd do it.
16:34:58 [gkellogg]
… mostly an errata change, not difficult, just needs to be done.
16:35:27 [gkellogg]
… RDF/XML also just has errata
16:35:43 [gavinc]
TriG! ... sigh...
16:35:48 [gkellogg]
… That leaves TriG. It's a bit of a longer discussion.
16:36:05 [gkellogg]
… I put down April; we could try to speed it up, but I think we're more likely to get comments.
16:36:19 [Zakim]
16:36:27 [gkellogg]
… We have an Editors Draft, but no FPWD. Perhaps we can talk about getting it to FPWD, and how long to get to LC.
16:36:28 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:36:28 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:36:29 [Zakim]
16:36:46 [gkellogg]
gavinc: one reason we don't have one is that we keep changing decisions.
16:36:52 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
16:36:52 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
16:36:54 [Zakim]
16:37:05 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:37:05 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:37:07 [Zakim]
16:37:24 [gkellogg]
… I don't think it's an editing issue, it's that decisions need to stay firm. Concepts progress makes this easier.
16:37:49 [gkellogg]
david: I think we can assume we're okay. If we can decide in Febr, we can't publish at all.
16:38:17 [gkellogg]
gavinc: there's likely to be a lot of feedback, for example, it's unlikely to work with any current processor that calls itself TriG.
16:38:30 [gkellogg]
david: we don't need implementations to be compliant right now.
16:38:50 [gkellogg]
… how about a proposal to move TriG to FPWD today. We have quorum, and we're in Charter right now.
16:39:11 [gavinc]
"There should likely be some content here."
16:39:18 [gkellogg]
… That's not near LC, but we would have a draft, and could do it today.
16:39:18 [gavinc]
16:39:34 [AndyS]
+1 to FPWD
16:39:42 [ivan]
16:39:44 [gkellogg]
16:39:44 [yvesr]
16:39:47 [PatH]
16:39:53 [davidwood]
16:39:54 [zwu2]
16:39:57 [gavinc]
16:40:01 [markus]
16:40:01 [pchampin]
16:40:04 [ericP]
16:40:04 [TallTed]
16:40:10 [pfps]
16:40:17 [cgreer]
16:40:31 [gkellogg]
guus: I'd like an explicit vote from cygri.
16:40:50 [gkellogg]
david: we usually just take the decision and ping people who have an objection.
16:41:25 [gkellogg]
gavinc: minor grammar changes.
16:42:32 [gkellogg]
ericp: should we document the resolutions we've made about TriG in the WG.
16:42:42 [gkellogg]
gavinc: everything we've decided is in the document right now.
16:42:45 [ericP]
Parsing Semantics Each turtleDoc produces an RDF graph according to the Turtle spec. The IRIref identifies the name of this RDF graph in an RDF dataset. If an IRIref is repeated, the associated RDF graphs are unioned according to the RDF Semantics document.
16:42:50 [Guus]
RESOLVED to publish as FPWF for RDF TriG
16:43:20 [gkellogg]
gavinc: just have some content to paste into that section.
16:43:45 [gkellogg]
… three people to provide examples: prov, versions, web snapshots.
16:43:52 [gkellogg]
… prov: path?
16:44:00 [gkellogg]
… Web snapshots: cygri?
16:44:05 [gkellogg]
… Versions: andys?
16:44:14 [AndyS]
Did I? Oh well.
16:44:24 [AndyS]
Can take a look.
16:44:43 [gkellogg]
ericp: there was a related action to get people who wanted to document using named graphs for different purposes. That may be where the examples end up.
16:44:47 [AndyS]
16:45:00 [PatH]
hmmm. to get us some context can you find a pointer to where I agreed to do that?
16:45:00 [gkellogg]
gavinc: we took a WD decision to remove examples from the doc.
16:45:14 [gkellogg]
… There were 10-15, but are now gone.
16:45:32 [davidwood]
s/FPWF for RDF TriG/FPWD for RDF TriG/
16:45:46 [gkellogg]
ericp: I think that's okay; where you're going to have problems is describing different approaches for exhibiting semantics of named graphs.
16:46:17 [gkellogg]
… Want to avoid in critical path consensus about how to represent PROV and related issues.
16:46:41 [gkellogg]
… Most of the examples are contentious, and better not be in a format document, but in some other semantics-like document.
16:46:45 [PatH]
best and worst practices?
16:47:30 [gkellogg]
… The proposal is that we don't wait for examples for FPWD.
16:47:40 [gkellogg]
guus: general agreed.
16:48:05 [gkellogg]
… David did a lot of work on the extension request, thanks very much for keeping it together!
16:48:22 [AndyS]
16:48:51 [gkellogg]
andys: I agree, get FPWD of TriG out there.
16:48:57 [gkellogg]
topic: Turtle
16:49:36 [gkellogg]
guus: request sent out; target CR for Turtle on Feburary 12th.
16:49:55 [gkellogg]
… Also need a response for ISSUE-186
16:50:11 [ivan]
16:50:11 [trackbot]
ISSUE-186 does not exist.
16:50:26 [davidwood]
email to Richard sent regarding the TriG resolution.
16:50:41 [gavinc]
16:50:45 [gkellogg]
ericp: we can move this along for a variety of reasons. The issue was, what do you call the document with character encodings, but we convinced them that this wasn't necessary.
16:50:56 [gavinc]
16:51:03 [gkellogg]
… Procedurarlly, we can move along because it wasn't on comments list.
16:51:21 [gkellogg]
Topic: Semantics
16:51:38 [gkellogg]
guus: it's not officially an issue, but ISSUE-62 is open.
16:51:40 [Zakim]
16:51:48 [gkellogg]
… PatH had a proposal.
16:52:45 [gkellogg]
PatH: It's a matter of making ill-formed literals problematic.
16:52:49 [pfps]
62 is not ill-typed literals
16:52:49 [Zakim]
16:52:54 [gkellogg]
… First time I've had negative feedback.
16:53:07 [gkellogg]
david: wrong issue, just a sec.
16:53:10 [davidwood]
16:53:10 [trackbot]
ISSUE-62 -- Revisit "The test cases manifest format has a semantic error" -- open
16:53:10 [trackbot]
16:54:06 [gkellogg]
guus: I intended to discuss ISSUE-62.
16:54:27 [gkellogg]
… PatH had proposed some text to add to semantics. I think it's pretty simple.
16:55:34 [gkellogg]
PatH: The definition of "semantic-extension" does not require that this be a problem, the test manifest has certain semantic extensions that make this not a problem, strictly speaking.
16:55:49 [gkellogg]
… I can take an editorial task to clarify this in the new document.
16:56:29 [gkellogg]
PROPOSAL: résolve ISSUE-62 based on proposal?
16:56:29 [PatH]
16:57:01 [pfps]
16:57:07 [PatH]
16:57:16 [zwu2]
16:57:21 [Guus]
PROPOSAL: to resolve ISSUE-62 through editorial action: The WG resolves to have some text in the semantics document where it explains the idea of a semantic extension, which says that RDF MAY be used in ways that presume conditions on RDF graphs that are not preserved under RDF entailment, and to use this as an example.
16:57:21 [davidwood]
Proposal to close Issue 62 (see
16:57:21 [davidwood]
16:57:21 [davidwood]
The WG resolves to have some text in the semantics document where it explains the idea of a semantic extension, which says that RDF MAY be used in ways that presume conditions on RDF graphs that are not preserved under RDF entailment, and to use this as an example.
16:57:27 [davidwood]
16:57:29 [gkellogg]
16:57:34 [yvesr]
16:57:41 [TallTed]
16:57:42 [ivan]
16:57:45 [gavinc]
16:57:46 [pchampin]
16:57:49 [AndyS]
16:57:50 [cgreer]
16:57:52 [markus]
16:57:56 [ericP]
16:58:25 [Guus]
RESOLVED: to close Issue 62 (see
16:58:42 [gkellogg]
topic: ISSUE-109
16:59:25 [gkellogg]
guus: cygri has no strong opinion.
16:59:59 [Guus]
17:00:14 [gkellogg]
PatH: he does feel strongly that it needs to be done some way.
17:00:31 [pchampin]
and for the record, so do I :)
17:00:33 [gkellogg]
guus: also PatH's message from November
17:01:11 [gkellogg]
PatH: making this change would simplify the rules at the end of the Semantics document quite a bit.
17:01:21 [ivan]
17:01:21 [trackbot]
ISSUE-109 -- What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? -- open
17:01:21 [trackbot]
17:01:33 [gkellogg]
… Otherwise, they have to go around to do the same thing.
17:02:03 [pfps]
OWL uses the "literals must be in the datatype extension" mechanism, so going the other way diverges from OWL
17:02:14 [PatH]
ivan, you have a problem?
17:02:15 [gkellogg]
guus: Can we make PatH's Nov-13 message a propsal.
17:02:51 [PatH]
peter, lets talk about this.
17:02:54 [gkellogg]
guus: we already discussed document timeline. this issue is the only open issue for Semantics.
17:03:19 [gkellogg]
PatH: pfps and I should talk about this offline to minimize the effects.
17:03:27 [gkellogg]
topic: cleanup
17:03:29 [pfps]
I await a communication with baited breath.
17:03:38 [gkellogg]
guus: we need to study feedback and handle errata.
17:03:49 [gkellogg]
… There's now a wiki page
17:04:17 [Guus]
Wiki page:
17:04:23 [PatH]
peter, email me with a pointer to the owl docs where this is used?
17:04:56 [gkellogg]
… This should be useful for the editors, next to the official errata page (link on Wiki)
17:05:11 [gkellogg]
… Some things might be obsolete, but this serves as a reminder.
17:05:28 [gkellogg]
… We can now close ISSUE-3, and leave it to the editors.
17:06:16 [gkellogg]
… Issue was to review all the feedback.
17:06:39 [gkellogg]
ivan: We could take them separately, but that would be overkill.
17:06:51 [gkellogg]
guus: the bigger issues are separate issues on Tracker.
17:07:39 [gkellogg]
topic: Open issues
17:07:54 [gkellogg]
… consider ISSUE-3 and ISSUE-6 closed.
17:08:16 [gkellogg]
… Media types, deprecation of Reification, Primer, and Concepts
17:09:01 [gavinc]
We can resolve issues, just not to publish documents
17:09:02 [gkellogg]
david: we can't resolve much next week; what would be on the agenda?
17:09:16 [gkellogg]
guus: we can resolve issues, just not going to REC.
17:09:22 [PatH]
17:09:32 [gkellogg]
… ISSUE-109 for next week's agenda.
17:09:56 [gavinc]
17:09:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-109 -- What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? -- open
17:09:56 [trackbot]
17:09:58 [gkellogg]
… Reification can be discussed.
17:10:08 [gavinc]
17:10:08 [trackbot]
ISSUE-25 -- Should we deprecate (RDF 2004) reification of statements? -- open
17:10:08 [trackbot]
17:10:26 [davidwood]
RESOLVED: Close by saying that this WG will not deprecate reification of statements. We will note informatively in the RDF Schema spec that named graphs and RDF datasets are another mechanism to accomplish the same goals.
17:11:16 [gkellogg]
guus: what abound multi-graph media types?
17:11:23 [gavinc]
No, it couldn't.
17:11:25 [PatH]
17:11:50 [gavinc]
@graph was proposed for Turtle, and rejected.
17:11:58 [gkellogg]
ivan: If we open it back up, we'll be going on for another two months :(
17:12:09 [gkellogg]
guus: start to review next week.
17:12:13 [PatH]
i have to leave
17:12:23 [Zakim]
17:12:42 [gkellogg]
guus: by the end of the week chairs and staff will send out extension request.
17:13:08 [gkellogg]
david: treat TriG as done, unless cygri objects.
17:13:24 [gkellogg]
… I can modify the extension request to say TriG is in FPWD, unless cygri objects.
17:13:45 [zwu2]
17:13:47 [Zakim]
17:13:48 [Zakim]
17:13:49 [Zakim]
17:13:50 [Zakim]
17:13:51 [Zakim]
17:13:51 [Zakim]
17:13:52 [markus]
17:13:52 [Zakim]
17:13:52 [Zakim]
17:13:52 [Zakim]
17:13:54 [Zakim]
17:13:54 [Zakim]
17:13:57 [Zakim]
17:13:57 [gkellogg]
trackbot: make logs public
17:13:57 [trackbot]
Sorry, gkellogg, I don't understand 'trackbot: make logs public'. Please refer to <> for help.
17:14:20 [gavinc]
trackbot, end meeting
17:14:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:14:20 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, davidwood, TallTed, gkellogg, markus, AndyS, pchampin, Ivan, zwu2, yvesr, cgreer, EricP, +1.408.992.aaaa, pfps,
17:14:24 [Zakim]
... PatH
17:14:27 [Zakim]
17:14:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:14:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:14:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:14:30 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items