13:38:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
13:38:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/23-dwbp-irc
13:38:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351
13:38:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dwbp
13:38:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP
13:38:29 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
13:38:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:38:30 <trackbot> Date: 23 March 2016
13:39:32 <phila> I'll check the WEbEx but zakim doesn't know about any conferences since the phone bridge was killed.
13:39:42 <phila> zakim, code?
13:39:42 <Zakim> I have been told this is https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mbd058203b9c01f9efb3fd086dba4b144 +1-617-324-0000, Access code: 647 415 866
13:39:55 <hadleybeeman> okay, good. Just checking :)
13:39:57 <phila> But that doesn't know about timings etc.
13:40:13 <hadleybeeman> rrsagent, make logs public
13:57:52 <PWinstanley> PWinstanley has joined #dwbp
13:58:07 <PWinstanley> present+ PWinstanley
13:58:23 <PWinstanley> hi ... what's the webex pwd please?
13:58:52 <phila> I think we should be in https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m60aee05d2d79493fa43d347c93c8bcbc
13:58:57 <phila> Which is not the usual one :-(
13:58:59 <BernadetteLoscio> BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
13:59:01 <phila> I thought it would be
13:59:37 <phila> I havea been arranging and reareranging WebEx sessions a lot recently and I think there's a problem with the system - me
14:00:03 <PWinstanley> webex is needing a room id
14:00:04 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Time of today's call: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DWBP+Call&iso=20160323T14&p1=1440&ah=1 NEW WEBEX: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mbd058203b9c01f9efb3fd086dba4b144 +1-617-324-0000 PW: dwbp
14:00:08 <phila> 646 117 896
14:00:27 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: Time of today's call: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DWBP+Call&iso=20160323T14&p1=1440&ah=1 NEW WEBEX: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mbd058203b9c01f9efb3fd086dba4b144 +1-617-324-0000 PW: dwbp ID no. is 646 117 896
14:02:40 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #dwbp
14:02:50 <ericstephan> present+ ericstephan
14:02:57 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #dwbp
14:03:20 <phila> present+ phila, BernadetteLoscio, annette_g
14:04:13 <riccardoAlbertoni> riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP
14:05:49 <laufer> laufer has joined #dwbp
14:06:41 <phila> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160323
14:06:45 <phila> chair: Hadley
14:06:46 <newton> present+ newton
14:06:47 <laufer> present+ laufer
14:07:06 <phila> regrets+ Caroline, Yaso, Deirdre,
14:07:41 <annette_g> what is our room id?
14:07:44 <antoine> antoine has joined #dwbp
14:07:44 <laufer> hi all, I can´t get access to webex... it asks for a room id...
14:08:25 <hadleybeeman> @laufer and @annette_g ID no. is 646 117 896
14:08:26 <newton> @laufer the room id is 646 117 896\
14:09:23 <antoine> present+ antoine
14:09:27 <ericstephan> sounds like a high energy physics call
14:09:29 <laufer> tnx, hadley...
14:09:48 <annette_g> @laufer, 646 117 896 worked
14:10:02 <riccardoAlbertoni> present+ riccardoAlbertoni
14:10:11 <riccardoAlbertoni> hi all!
14:10:19 <BernadetteLoscio> hi Riccardo!
14:10:26 <newton> hi Riccardo
14:11:03 <phila> scribe: phila
14:11:09 <phila> scribeNick: phila
14:11:15 <phila> topic: Previous minutes
14:11:36 <hadleybeeman> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-dwbp-minutes
14:11:38 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept last Telco minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-dwbp-minutes
14:11:42 <hadleybeeman> +1
14:11:45 <ericstephan> +1
14:11:46 <newton> +1
14:11:51 <antoine> +1
14:12:01 <PWinstanley> +1
14:12:01 <phila> +1
14:12:07 <annette_g> +1
14:12:08 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:12:15 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accept last Telco minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-dwbp-minutes
14:12:37 <laufer> +1
14:12:37 <phila> PROPOSED: Accept minutes of the Zagreb F2F https://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes and https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-dwbp-minutes
14:12:47 <hadleybeeman> +1
14:12:51 <BernadetteLoscio> +1
14:12:53 <antoine> +1
14:12:59 <newton> +1
14:13:02 <phila> +1
14:13:04 <ericstephan> +1 first day and 0 for second day I slept through
14:13:08 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
14:13:15 <phila> RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of the Zagreb F2F https://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes and https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-dwbp-minutes
14:13:37 <phila> Topic: BP on subsetting data http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#EnableDataSubsetting
14:13:48 <phila> hadleybeeman: Anything to say, BernadetteLoscio and newton?
14:13:57 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: Yes, I sent a message about this today.
14:14:08 <phila> ... I really appreciate that annette_g wrote the BP on this
14:14:27 <phila> ... But I think the BP is too generic and too narrow, esp the aproach to implementation and how to test.
14:14:36 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
14:14:54 <phila> ... Long discussion on e-mail (60+ messages) and I don't feel comfortable with this, since our rec should be technical. How can we test
14:15:28 <phila> ... We need to define things like granularity, can we say the expected subset of the dataset. The subset depends on the domain, the query etc.
14:15:30 <antoine> q+
14:15:34 <phila> ... It's not an easy subject
14:15:50 <laufer> +1 to bernadette
14:15:51 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: So in my opinion we shiuld keep the text in the intro to the acccess session.
14:16:01 <phila> hadleybeeman: I'd like to talk about it for 5-10 mins and then see.
14:16:03 <newton> s/shiuld/should
14:16:04 <phila> ack antoine
14:16:05 <hadleybeeman> ack antoine
14:16:37 <laufer> q+
14:16:39 <phila> antoine: I agree that the BP is general, but that's what we agreed on. So that people like SDW can then specialise it. I miss a little the reference to the spatial domain. Add that and I think it's fine.
14:16:58 <phila> ... i.e. our mission is not to tell people how it's done, but it's for otehrs to take this and expand on it.
14:17:00 <PWinstanley> q+
14:17:03 <annette_g> q+
14:17:22 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:17:27 <phila> hadleybeeman: I think we said that annette_g would write some text and we'd respond, so we're on target.
14:17:28 <phila> ack l
14:17:41 <phila> laufer: I agree with both Berna and Antoine.
14:18:00 <phila> ... We have a BP that says that you shoudl make a bulk download available. Therefore it makes sense to talk about subsets.
14:18:07 <phila> ... But we can be general.
14:18:32 <phila> ... The approaches for implementation only talk about APIs. I think we have some examples where we have URIs using a rule system
14:18:44 <phila> ... Maybe using the RFC on URI templates
14:18:56 <newton> q+
14:18:57 <phila> ... The process for providing these subsets need to be more detaiuled than the text has.
14:18:59 <phila> ack p
14:19:18 <phila> PWinstanley: Making sure I'm commenting on the right thing...
14:19:20 <BernadetteLoscio> yes Peter!
14:19:24 <phila> hadleybeeman: That's BP 21
14:19:37 <phila> PWinstanley: And the example is a 3 lines of text about MyCity
14:20:03 <phila> ... I'd like to flesh it out, see the example, see what the diff is between getting a single route cf. all the routes.
14:20:15 <phila> ... And in BP 22 there's more of an illustration with code.
14:20:40 <phila> ... So I'd like to see for Example 22, a link to the API and an indication of how much of an improvement it makes to get one route cf. all of them.
14:20:50 <phila> hadleybeeman: So that's a proposal for making the example more concrete.
14:20:53 <phila> PWinstanley: yes.
14:20:55 <phila> Ack a
14:21:08 <phila> annette_g: So, antoine, were you thinking about adding in a spatial example?
14:21:33 <phila> antoine: Not necessarily. The notes in the minutes may be too strong. I think it's SDW that wants the Best practice.
14:21:55 <phila> ... We felt it was odd that we should be making suggestions
14:22:11 <phila> annette_g: I've been saying this for months, not just since the SDW got involved.
14:22:27 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:22:34 <phila> antoine: Explicitly saying that we recognise that we don't have a ready made solution but we expect others to.
14:22:50 <phila> annette_g: I'm confused. I dodn't think our goal was to make specific suggestions.
14:23:01 <phila> annette_g: We need to give them enough of a possible approach.
14:23:02 <newton> s/dodn't/don't
14:23:52 <Eric_Kauz> Eric_Kauz has joined #DWBP
14:24:04 <phila> hadleybeeman: So including the wrods 'specific domains'... this may depend on the topic of data...
14:24:20 <phila> antoine: Yes, That gives a hint as to why we're not saying more with more numerous examples.
14:24:21 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:24:39 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:24:43 <phila> annette_g: So... it seems that we want to say implementation is dependent on your domain, but whether you follow it is not domain dependent.
14:24:59 <phila> ack n
14:25:12 <phila> newton: On the how to test section... I;m not so sure about this part.
14:25:34 <phila> ... I;m not comfotrable with the how to test section.
14:25:36 <phila> q+
14:25:48 <newton> s/I;m/I'm
14:25:55 <hadleybeeman> ack b
14:25:55 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: I agree with Newton. But I also agree with Antoine that it shoudl be generic and can be specialised.
14:26:06 <newton> s/shoudl/should
14:26:14 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: My problem is that I really don't know how (breaking up)
14:26:23 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:26:27 <phila> q- later
14:26:34 <newton> @Berna, may you speak again?
14:26:38 <newton> it's cutting
14:27:29 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: I think it will be hard for someone who didn't follow our discussion to see how to test this BP, but I agree that it shoujld be generic
14:27:34 <annette_g> q+
14:27:40 <phila> q-
14:27:42 <newton> s/shoujld/should
14:27:46 <phila> ack h
14:28:17 <phila> hadleybeeman: I have a potential solution... we acknowledge that in some circs we find it useful but we're struggling how to test.
14:28:25 <laufer> q+
14:28:27 <BernadetteLoscio> +1 Hadley
14:28:35 <phila> ... Can we say in BP 20 on Bulk Download that sometimes bulk download might be a subset
14:28:42 <phila> annette_g: A subset is not a bulk download.
14:28:49 <phila> ... Can we do both?
14:28:51 <BernadetteLoscio> +q
14:28:57 <phila> hadleybeeman: I was thinking of it as a smaller blk download.
14:29:13 <phila> annette_g: A bulk download suggests you get everything, a subset is part of it
14:29:17 <newton> I liked the Hadley idea, or we could move it to a descriptive section...
14:29:26 <phila> phila: It's the word 'bulk'
14:29:27 <PWinstanley> I agree with hadley
14:29:43 <phila> annette_g: If you define a dataset as including any subsets
14:29:48 <BernadetteLoscio> We can move the text to the introduction of the Data Access section
14:29:51 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:29:55 <hadleybeeman> ack annette
14:30:15 <ericstephan> +1 annette_g I view of bulk and subset differently as well
14:30:18 <phila> annette_g: I can't imagine a definition of bulk download tghat covers the case of subsetting
14:30:30 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:30:32 <phila> ack l
14:30:33 <BernadetteLoscio> q-
14:30:50 <phila> laufer: I agree that 'bulk' download could be a subset, the biggest set. But this separateion is OK.
14:31:01 <hadleybeeman> s/separateion/separation
14:31:25 <phila> ... The bulk download - giving an API, or maybe a link, the method that you have to access data may be decided by the publisher.
14:31:46 <annette_g> q+
14:31:51 <phila> ... We don't focus too much on APIs, we talk more about thinks that look like search queries, and SPARQL endpoints.
14:32:03 <phila> ... I think we can expand the implementation approach.
14:32:21 <newton> q+
14:32:33 <phila> ... A set of URIs is a way to provide subsets. I think we can talk more about these implementations, which remain general.
14:32:48 <ericstephan> -1 sparql endpoint would only appeal to a specific audience, I think we need something a bit more relatable to a larger audience
14:32:56 <phila> laufer: We have a gov org with info about @@ that are a set of URIs following a template.
14:33:05 <phila> hadleybeeman: Your LD perspectuve resonates with me.
14:33:05 <hadleybeeman> ack annette
14:33:17 <phila> annette_g: I chose to use APIs as the example as that's the way it's most often done.
14:33:53 <phila> ... That's the way it's done in most places. URL templates look more like how to select a bunch if IDs at once. that's pointing into things, rather than retrieving them.
14:34:07 <phila> q?
14:34:25 <laufer> q+
14:34:34 <phila> annette_g: I wouldn't mind adding stuff about SPARQL queries as well as. But generally, it's APIs people use.
14:35:09 <phila> laufer: I don't agree it's the majority. It's the majority in a domain.
14:35:30 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:36:24 <phila> ... The way the subset is returned is not given by an API, which is a query mechanism. I think we have to differentiate between an API that returns subsets and a query.
14:36:35 <phila> annette_g: You don't think an API gives a subset?
14:36:49 <phila> laufer: You can have things other than subsets back from an API.
14:37:05 <phila> q?
14:37:21 <phila> laufer: I can have an API that does SQL, or CONSTRUCT...
14:37:46 <hadleybeeman> ack newton
14:37:57 <phila> annette_g: You can def do this sort of subsetting with APIs. I can find you 20 examples where transport info is available throuigh an API that returns subsets. I doubt I'd find a SPARQL endpoint.
14:38:30 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:38:31 <annette_g> q+
14:38:33 <phila> newton: I like your ide, hadleybeeman, to move it to the intro part of the data access section. If it's too generic, we can't get evidence of it being implemented. And I don't want to lose the text/ideas
14:38:33 <BernadetteLoscio> +1 to Newton!
14:38:57 <phila> hadleybeeman: It feels as if we're deciding whether a separate BP on subsetting is/could be testable
14:39:19 <phila> ... How far do you feel, Annette, that you can make it testable.
14:39:32 <phila> annette_g: I can make it's as testable as many of the others, including the bulk download one.
14:39:38 <ericstephan> +1 annette_g
14:39:44 <phila> ... I don't think the testing here is any weaker than others.
14:39:58 <ericstephan> sub-bulk
14:40:09 <phila> annette_g: I could take the bulk download one and simply substitute the work 'subset' for 'bulk'
14:40:13 <BernadetteLoscio> q+
14:40:44 <phila> hadleybeeman: If we can get to the point where there's something testable, then maybe we could agree on this.
14:40:46 <phila> ack a
14:40:56 <phila> ack b
14:41:28 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: If we do the test with the bulk download, then it's not subsetting, it's bulk download.
14:41:33 <laufer> if we have a site that uses uri template we can test the bp
14:41:42 <phila> annette_g: I'm suggesting that we change it so that it can also apply to subsets
14:42:07 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: If you make the test considering bulk downloada, then you can test the subsetting too.
14:42:19 <phila> ... And if I understand correctly, there are other ways of doing subsetting.
14:42:49 <phila> q+
14:43:28 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: We need to say how someone can test the BP. You talk about creating subsets of data
14:43:34 <phila> q-
14:43:39 <laufer> here we have an example of subsetting in Brasil: http://orcamento.dados.gov.br/api-config
14:43:59 <laufer> using an uri template
14:44:05 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: On the how to test section, if we just look at bulk download, how can we include a test on downloading a subset?
14:44:35 <phila> hadleybeeman: Question to the editors - how much time do we have to add new things.
14:44:48 <phila> ... In a perffect world, I'd give it several weeks but...?
14:45:32 <phila> newton: I don't think Berna heard you. I'm asking her by text. I think we have a deadline of 1 April to start freezing the doc. We need to close the dicsussion by the next meeting
14:45:57 <phila> hadleybeeman: I think we have a clear idea of what everyone's concerns are. Is this testable, is this represenatative, does it belong in its own BP.
14:46:14 <phila> ... It seems Annette is clearest on what should be in there.
14:46:23 <phila> hadleybeeman: Doable by Monday?
14:46:28 <phila> newton: Offers a Skype call.
14:46:34 <phila> q+
14:46:47 <phila> annette_g: As long as wel cooperate on moving it forward.
14:46:48 <laufer> q+
14:47:00 <phila> hadleybeeman: We can work on it on Monday, discuss it on Tuesday.
14:47:21 <phila> hadleybeeman: Ideally it goes to the group on Monday so the Wg can look at it before next Friday's call.
14:47:27 <hadleybeeman> ack phila
14:47:54 <hadleybeeman> phila: I think, though we resolved we would ave a meeting today and next Weds, I think by the end of the F2F in Zagreb, we decided that next week's meeting would be on Friday.
14:48:04 <hadleybeeman> ...Also the SDW BP editors are meeting in 12 minute's time.
14:48:22 <hadleybeeman> ...I will ask them to look at Annette's draft here in bP 21, and see if they have any comments.
14:48:52 <phila> hadleybeeman: if it's OK, Annette and Newton, I'd still like to focu your attention on Monday, even though we're not meeting until Friday
14:48:59 <phila> annette_g: We can do that if we're all responsive.
14:49:06 <phila> hadleybeeman: Thank you
14:49:16 <laufer> me
14:49:25 <hadleybeeman> http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Re-use
14:49:28 <phila> Topic: data Reuse BP http://agreiner.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#Re-use
14:49:46 <laufer> http://orcamento.dados.gov.br/api-config
14:49:48 <riccardoAlbertoni_> riccardoAlbertoni_ has joined #DWBP
14:49:55 <phila> laufer: I just want to say to the editors and annette_g, it would be nice to see ^^ example
14:50:27 <phila> hadleybeeman: So, data reuse BP.
14:50:41 <phila> ... The question is whether or not we include it
14:50:50 <ericstephan> I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave a bit early today...
14:50:59 <phila> BernadetteLoscio: We also discussed this
14:51:19 <phila> ... We don't agree with the creation of a new section, but we like the idea of the BP - citation, feedback etc.
14:51:35 <phila> ... If it's a way of republishing, then it shouold be separate.
14:51:36 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:51:42 <hadleybeeman> ack l
14:51:53 <phila> ... The BPs we have can also be followed by someone using an existing dataset.
14:52:00 <laufer> q-
14:52:06 <phila> ... We have things like the feedback BP that are useful
14:52:25 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:52:29 <phila> ... If we consider that reuse is a kind of publishing then we shouldn't make a special thing of this.
14:52:48 <phila> ... We can include Annette's proposal in existing sections and BPs.
14:52:53 <phila> q+
14:52:55 <phila> ack h
14:52:56 <hadleybeeman> ack hadley
14:53:25 <phila> hadleybeeman: I am concerned on 2 levels. All of our charter and what we do is about encouageing reuse, so it seems odd to pull it out.
14:53:46 <phila> ... and it also feels like a non-tech issue to me. i.e. out of scope.
14:53:49 <hadleybeeman> ack phila
14:54:07 <hadleybeeman> phila: Sorry, I think this is a good BP. I leave to the editors whether it gets its own section
14:54:25 <annette_g> q+
14:54:31 <hadleybeeman> ...I guess it could be turned around to say what a publisher could expect, but I know that strays into policy issues which hadley is concerned we not go into
14:54:39 <hadleybeeman> ...Some of this crosses over into the Dataset Usage Vocab
14:54:59 <hadleybeeman> ...Which is in our charter precisely to encourage people to publish more.  Publishers want to know more about who uses their data and why.
14:55:15 <annette_g> q-
14:55:25 <hadleybeeman> ...Somehow it's beholden to this group to address the topic, without straying into policy, but that also mentions the DUV — I think we should include.
14:55:26 <laufer> q+
14:55:31 <hadleybeeman> ack laufer
14:55:33 <phila> ack l
14:55:55 <phila> laufer: I agree with Hadley. I think all the things we do are about inbcreasing reuse. I don't like the term use/reuse - it's all use.
14:55:56 <BernadetteLoscio_> BernadetteLoscio_ has joined #dwbp
14:56:28 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
14:56:30 <hadleybeeman> q+
14:56:32 <phila> ... It would be nice to have a paragraph on this topic. Maybe we have to talk about versioning as well as licensing, and feedbaclk and provenance
14:56:37 <BernadetteLoscio_> q-
14:56:45 <BernadetteLoscio_> q+
14:56:55 <phila> ... How new vocs will be added to be compaitble with what's there already. We end up with a list of BPs of reuse.
14:57:06 <phila> ... We can do it in a paragrpah or a deeper section.
14:57:13 <phila> ack h
14:57:40 <phila> hadleybeeman: I think Phil's right inasmuch as wanting to encourage use of the dataset usage voc
14:57:45 <phila> ... and think about why we created it
14:58:05 <phila> ... If someone wants to demonstrate where the data came from, then, OK.
14:58:14 <hadleybeeman> q?
14:58:16 <phila> ... Maybe if we said 'If you want to do this, here's how...'
14:58:26 <laufer> I have one
14:59:03 <phila> laufer: WE say for example that we have to put the license of the original data in the new data, but I don't know what it is, so I can't.
14:59:43 <phila> s/WE/We/g
15:00:18 <laufer> no problem
15:01:00 <phila> hadleybeeman: Reusing my own data doesn't need to cite where it came from
15:01:08 <hadleybeeman> zakim, close the queue
15:01:08 <Zakim> ok, hadleybeeman, the speaker queue is closed
15:01:09 <BernadetteLoscio_> this is about provenance!
15:01:13 <laufer> Q+
15:01:15 <phila> annette_g: I don't agree with that - people always need to know where it came from.
15:01:22 <laufer> q+
15:01:45 <laufer> but we have a BP about provenance
15:01:57 <laufer> I do not understand why we have to repeat this
15:02:02 <phila> hadleybeeman: I suggest we need to take this to the mailing list and try and come vbacxk with something for Monday. If we can't we can't.
15:02:20 <laufer> we have the bp for license
15:02:23 <phila> BernadetteLoscio_: I'm OK with continuing by mail but I'm afraid it's going to be hard to get consensus.
15:02:28 <laufer> we have the bp for feedback
15:02:33 <phila> hadleybeeman: If we can't get consensus, someething gets dropped.
15:02:36 <phila> BernadetteLoscio_: I agree of course.
15:02:59 <phila> ... We have two threads on subsetting and one on reuse.
15:03:03 <annette_g> bye!
15:03:04 <laufer> bye all
15:03:07 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:03:10 <laufer> thank you, annette
15:03:13 <riccardoAlbertoni> bye all .
15:03:19 <BernadetteLoscio_> bye! thanks everyone!
15:03:32 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:03:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/23-dwbp-minutes.html phila
15:03:52 <hadleybeeman> annette_g, I will have a think about how to better articulate my perspective on this. I'm not sure I put words to it very well on the call.
15:06:24 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
15:10:34 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #dwbp
15:23:25 <Caroline_> Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
17:08:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dwbp