IRC log of rif on 2009-01-27
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rif
- 15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-rif-irc
- 15:58:12 [ChrisW]
- zakim, this will be rif
- 15:58:12 [Zakim]
- ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
- 15:58:21 [ChrisW]
- Chair: Chris Welty
- 15:58:32 [ChrisW]
- Meeting: RIF Telecon 27-Jan-2009
- 15:58:47 [ChrisW]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0085.html
- 15:58:58 [ChrisW]
- ChrisW has changed the topic to: 27 Jan RIF Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0085.html
- 15:59:46 [AdrianP]
- AdrianP has joined #rif
- 16:00:32 [ChrisW]
- Hi Adrian, can you scribe today?
- 16:00:50 [Zakim]
- SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
- 16:00:51 [Zakim]
- +??P53
- 16:00:55 [ChrisW]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:00:55 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
- 16:01:03 [AdrianP]
- Zakim, ??P53 is me
- 16:01:07 [ChrisW]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 16:01:14 [Zakim]
- +AdrianP; got it
- 16:01:26 [StellaMitchell]
- StellaMitchell has joined #rif
- 16:01:32 [Zakim]
- +[NRCC]
- 16:01:34 [Zakim]
- -[NRCC]
- 16:01:36 [Zakim]
- +[NRCC]
- 16:02:15 [ChrisW]
- zakim, ibm is temporarily me
- 16:02:28 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 16:02:31 [AxelPolleres]
- AxelPolleres has joined #rif
- 16:02:37 [Zakim]
- +Stella_Mitchell
- 16:02:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
- 16:02:48 [Zakim]
- +ChrisW; got it
- 16:02:54 [ChrisW]
- Scribe: Harold
- 16:03:00 [ChrisW]
- scribenick: Harold
- 16:03:08 [ChrisW]
- zakim, who is here?
- 16:03:43 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see AdrianP, [NRCC], ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell
- 16:04:00 [AxelPolleres]
- dialing
- 16:04:00 [ChrisW]
- zakim, nrcc is temporarily Harold
- 16:04:17 [ChrisW]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/att-0007/06-rif-minutes.html
- 16:04:25 [Zakim]
- +LeoraMorgenstern
- 16:04:35 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see LeoraMorgenstern, AxelPolleres, StellaMitchell, AdrianP, RRSAgent, Harold, ChrisW, sandro, trackbot, Zakim
- 16:04:56 [Zakim]
- +Harold; got it
- 16:05:08 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 16:05:14 [Zakim]
- +??P60
- 16:05:14 [Hassan]
- Hassan has joined #rif
- 16:05:32 [AxelPolleres]
- (I can scribe, if needed. feeling guilty for not having done quite some time)
- 16:05:49 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: F2F13
- 16:05:54 [Harold]
- Im scribe today.
- 16:06:00 [Gary_Hallmark]
- Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
- 16:06:00 [ChrisW]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f13_dates/results
- 16:06:07 [Zakim]
- +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
- 16:07:13 [Harold]
- Re F2F13:
- 16:07:30 [Zakim]
- +GaryHallmark
- 16:07:39 [Harold]
- Chris: Will be last f2f, if things go according to plan.
- 16:08:27 [AdrianP]
- would be great if we can fix dates as early as possible
- 16:08:54 [Harold]
- ... Most people who responded so far are ok if F2F13 will be in the US.
- 16:09:54 [Harold]
- Axel: Ideally closer to the AC meeting (Apr 24?).
- 16:10:17 [AxelPolleres]
- no, march 24th, that's why i said, I guess that's unrealistic.
- 16:11:23 [Harold]
- Axel: Perhaps near Madrid, collocated with WWW2009?
- 16:11:39 [Harold]
- ... could arrange a meeting room in Madrid.
- 16:11:52 [AxelPolleres]
- ok
- 16:11:58 [AxelPolleres]
- will check back
- 16:12:18 [Harold]
- Re Liasison:
- 16:12:19 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: Liason
- 16:13:41 [Harold]
- Chris: Split OWL comment into two.
- 16:14:35 [Harold]
- ... Try to move fwd with OWL WG collaboration: Axel, Jos would be key.
- 16:14:48 [Harold]
- Axel: Yes.
- 16:15:03 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: Public COmments
- 16:15:22 [Harold]
- Chris: Seems done?
- 16:15:45 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: Action Review
- 16:15:50 [AxelPolleres]
- Sandro, when is the next OWL f2f? maybe some overlap or adjacent meeting would make sense?
- 16:17:11 [Harold]
- Gary: Still working on Core as specialization of PRD.
- 16:17:59 [Hassan]
- continued - will work on it this Feb.
- 16:18:39 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: Issue-50
- 16:20:31 [AdrianP]
- there was a discussion on the last F2F about using meta data to indicate multi-valued
- 16:20:38 [AdrianP]
- frames
- 16:21:01 [Harold]
- Harold: Terminologically, let's separate the more specific "metadata" and more general "annotation".
- 16:21:26 [Harold]
- ... Ok with no semantic import on annotations.
- 16:22:02 [AxelPolleres]
- adrian, would such metadata be "per frame" or "per ruleset"?
- 16:22:02 [Harold]
- Adrian: Maybe metadata for multi-valued frames.
- 16:22:14 [Harold]
- ... proposed by Michael Kifer?
- 16:22:35 [Harold]
- Chris: Cardinality with metadata?
- 16:22:44 [Michael_Kifer]
- Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
- 16:23:04 [Harold]
- Sandro: Was just in response to PRD discussion.
- 16:23:27 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Kifer
- 16:23:38 [AdrianP]
- yes, agree too
- 16:24:10 [Harold]
- Michael: fine.
- 16:25:03 [ChrisW]
- PROPOSED: Core, BLD, PRD will not have semantic metadata; removing metadata from a ruleset will not change the entailments - closing ISSUE-50
- 16:25:07 [AdrianP]
- +1
- 16:25:27 [Harold]
- +1
- 16:25:33 [Gary]
- +1
- 16:25:33 [Michael_Kifer]
- +1
- 16:25:35 [Hassan]
- 0
- 16:25:36 [ChrisW]
- Sandro: +1
- 16:25:40 [AxelPolleres]
- +1
- 16:25:40 [ChrisW]
- +1
- 16:25:56 [ChrisW]
- RESOLVED: Core, BLD, PRD will not have semantic metadata; removing metadata from a ruleset will not change the entailments - closing ISSUE-50
- 16:26:22 [ChrisW]
- action: Chris to close issue-50
- 16:26:22 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-699 - Close issue-50 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-02-03].
- 16:26:32 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: ISSUE-83
- 16:26:46 [ChrisW]
- Ambiguity in PS
- 16:27:57 [Harold]
- Hassan: As far as I can remember, all remaining ambiguities are mild.
- 16:28:55 [Harold]
- ... First, canonical PS has no serious ambiguity.
- 16:29:53 [Harold]
- ... Then, Abridged PS, which is even less binding, may have more (e.g. dash as minus vs. in identifiers)
- 16:29:59 [AdrianP]
- yes, abridge syntax as compact representation, e.g., 2 - 1 (numbers) vs. "2" - "1" (text)
- 16:30:35 [ChrisW]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-83 - the existing presentation syntax ambiguities are resolvable
- 16:30:36 [Harold]
- Chris: Let's deal with ambiguities in Abridged PS as they arise.
- 16:30:43 [AdrianP]
- +1
- 16:30:45 [Hassan]
- +1
- 16:30:51 [Harold]
- +1
- 16:30:51 [AxelPolleres]
- +1
- 16:31:08 [ChrisW]
- +1
- 16:31:22 [Michael_Kifer]
- +1
- 16:31:22 [ChrisW]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-83 - the existing presentation syntax ambiguities are resolvable
- 16:31:31 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: DTB
- 16:33:08 [Harold]
- Chris: Dave had suggested a meta-predicate for equality.
- 16:33:28 [Harold]
- Axel: For normal equality, we have all we need.
- 16:33:47 [Harold]
- ... For negated, we may need what Dave suggested.
- 16:33:56 [ChrisW]
- pred:isLiteralEqual(?l1 ?l2)
- 16:34:40 [ChrisW]
- pred:isLiteralNotEqual(?l1 ?l2)
- 16:34:42 [Harold]
- Chris: Is this false if I1 or I2 are not a literal?
- 16:34:46 [Harold]
- Axel: Yes.
- 16:36:40 [Harold]
- Chris: What does it solve?
- 16:39:30 [Harold]
- Harold: Would isLiteralEqual's mapping to false of both "wrong arguments" and "non equal arguments" be acceptable to RIF users (and other communities)?
- 16:40:03 [Harold]
- Axel: Perhaps parameterize.
- 16:40:31 [Harold]
- Chris: maybe type as first arg?
- 16:41:01 [Harold]
- Axel: Def of built-ins could depend on underlying datatypes.
- 16:41:28 [AxelPolleres]
- literalNotEqual
- 16:41:42 [AxelPolleres]
- isLiteral, isNotLiteral ?
- 16:42:15 [Harold]
- Hassan: Either parameterized type args or already instantiated in built-in identifier.
- 16:42:26 [Harold]
- ... (from Jos)
- 16:42:43 [Harold]
- Axel: fair enough.
- 16:43:01 [Harold]
- Chris: There are equal preds for all datatypes?
- 16:43:23 [Harold]
- Axel: Yes, even though not named completely uniformly as such.
- 16:44:07 [Harold]
- Chris: The issue is for numeric-equal if args are of different type.
- 16:44:59 [Harold]
- s/ different type/ different numeric types/
- 16:45:17 [Harold]
- Sandro: XPath tells you how to do the type promotion.
- 16:46:03 [Harold]
- Chris: Yes, e.g. equal for integer and double.
- 16:47:04 [Harold]
- Axel: Idea was to back up each datatype with an equal and a notequal predicate.
- 16:47:15 [Harold]
- ... We could have done differently.
- 16:47:16 [csma]
- csma has joined #rif
- 16:47:27 [Harold]
- ... Will draft something.
- 16:47:32 [Harold]
- ... For email discussion.
- 16:48:07 [AxelPolleres]
- ... will draft something on both the generic guards and the generic equals/notequals predicate.
- 16:48:13 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 16:48:23 [csma]
- zakim, ??P) is me
- 16:48:23 [Zakim]
- sorry, csma, I do not recognize a party named '??P)'
- 16:48:24 [ChrisW]
- action: axel to report on possibility of closing literal-not-equal issue-80
- 16:48:24 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-700 - Report on possibility of closing literal-not-equal issue-80 [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-02-03].
- 16:48:36 [csma]
- zakim, ??P0 is me
- 16:48:36 [Zakim]
- +csma; got it
- 16:48:44 [csma]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:48:44 [Zakim]
- csma should now be muted
- 16:49:10 [Harold]
- Postpone to next week's telecon ISSUE-81 [10] (Support for additional OWL-RL data types)
- 16:49:29 [Harold]
- ISSUE-81 [10] (Support for additional OWL-RL data types)
- 16:50:34 [ChrisW]
- TOPIC: Test cases
- 16:50:43 [Harold]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case
- 16:50:51 [ChrisW]
- Test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_1
- 16:53:50 [Harold]
- Name ::= UNICODESTRING
- 16:54:01 [Harold]
- UNITERM ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Name '->' TERM)*) ')'
- 16:55:46 [Michael_Kifer]
- maybe call negative syntax examples "syntax errors"?
- 16:56:01 [ChrisW]
- PROPOSED: Accept test case http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_1
- 16:56:04 [csma]
- +1 to look them all first
- 16:57:10 [csma]
- q+
- 16:57:29 [AxelPolleres]
- What about this one: _p(http://example.com/example->color->"green")
- 16:57:32 [AxelPolleres]
- ?!?
- 16:57:39 [csma]
- ak csma
- 16:57:55 [csma]
- ack csma
- 16:58:20 [csma]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:58:20 [Zakim]
- csma should now be muted
- 16:58:47 [AxelPolleres]
- or this one:
- 16:59:05 [AxelPolleres]
- _p(http://ex"ampl"e.com/exam"ple#color->"green")
- 16:59:12 [AxelPolleres]
- q+
- 17:00:00 [Harold]
- Stella: Arg names are defined 'negatively': every UNICODESTRING that's not a constant is ok.
- 17:01:02 [Harold]
- Chris: Hassan, does this meet your expectation?
- 17:01:22 [Harold]
- Hassan: Would have been easier to quote them, but it's ok.
- 17:01:49 [Harold]
- Michael: Wasn't this a different case?
- 17:01:59 [Harold]
- Hassan: Right.
- 17:02:17 [Harold]
- Michael: Maybe find a universal solution, maybe single quotes.
- 17:02:33 [Harold]
- Hassan: yes.
- 17:03:14 [Harold]
- Sandro: A valid name could have a space inside, so need single quotes.
- 17:03:30 [Harold]
- Chris: Why not double quotes?
- 17:04:40 [AxelPolleres]
- again the two ugly examples, which seem awkward to parse: _p(http://example.com/example-">http://example.com/example->color->"green") _p(http://ex"ampl"e.com/exam"ple#color->"green")
- 17:05:13 [Harold]
- s/Chris: Why not double quotes?/... Why not double quotes?/
- 17:05:30 [Harold]
- Hassan: Keep the grammar as is. Fine.
- 17:05:44 [Harold]
- Michael: Looks a bit strange.
- 17:06:01 [Hassan]
- No - not keep the grammar as is - modify it to allow for STRING there
- 17:06:05 [AxelPolleres]
- ncnames only?
- 17:06:15 [Harold]
- Chris: If 'strangeness' bothers you then the whole named-arg thing should bother you.
- 17:06:19 [AxelPolleres]
- how bout that?
- 17:07:21 [Harold]
- Hassan: Grammar should allow string as arg name.
- 17:07:32 [AxelPolleres]
- we could say: ncnames OR (singlequote uc-strings singlequote)
- 17:07:33 [Harold]
- Chris: Examples?
- 17:08:01 [Harold]
- Axel: Any issues with single quotes?
- 17:08:29 [Harold]
- Chris: Would be (even) harder to read.
- 17:08:48 [Harold]
- Sandro: Bad idea to use up single quotes for corner case.
- 17:09:00 [Harold]
- Michael: agree with Sandro.
- 17:09:13 [StellaMitchell]
- can you just limit it to alphanumeric characters, no spaces, etc
- 17:09:15 [StellaMitchell]
- something like that
- 17:09:20 [Gary]
- of course, we could remove NAUs...
- 17:09:29 [AxelPolleres]
- so, you say: Name ::= UNICODESTRING
- 17:09:49 [Harold]
- Hassan: Suggest to postpone until we finish use cases.
- 17:10:06 [Harold]
- ... So can look for solutions for all issues.
- 17:10:54 [Hassan]
- I agree
- 17:11:31 [Harold]
- Chris: Before we decide test case we need to decide syntax.
- 17:11:45 [Harold]
- ... No on against stings?
- 17:11:56 [Harold]
- Sandro/Axel: Well, we.
- 17:12:01 [AxelPolleres]
- :-)
- 17:12:21 [Harold]
- s/stings/strings/
- 17:12:57 [Harold]
- s/No on/No one/
- 17:13:38 [AxelPolleres]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#NCName
- 17:14:38 [Harold]
- Chris: Would those in favor of named args be fine with specializing Name ::= UNICODESTRING with Name ::= CIDENTIFIER.
- 17:14:48 [Harold]
- ... Or just use quotes.
- 17:15:19 [Harold]
- Harold: Yes.
- 17:15:31 [Harold]
- (specialized names)
- 17:16:19 [AxelPolleres]
- oh my, full URIs only, no abbreviations?
- 17:16:26 [Harold]
- Chris: Which ones are URIs and which ones only look like URIs?
- 17:16:27 [ChrisW]
- Prefer NCNAMES
- 17:16:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- which is the choice that doesn't allow abbreviations?
- 17:16:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- Something that forces you to do full URIs
- 17:17:20 [StellaMitchell]
- +1 ncnames
- 17:17:28 [AxelPolleres]
- +1 NCNames
- 17:17:28 [Harold]
- +1 (to specialized names, which we have anyway, albeit defined 'negatively')
- 17:17:40 [Gary]
- _p is an ncname
- 17:17:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- I'm still confused about what an nc name is.
- 17:18:00 [Hassan]
- 0 - not sure at this point
- 17:18:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- I looked at Axel's link, but need more time.
- 17:18:10 [AxelPolleres]
- -1 to negatively defined (see weird corner cases above)
- 17:18:36 [Michael_Kifer]
- I prefer quotation
- 17:19:16 [Hassan]
- I agree with Axel's proposal (NCNAME or else quoted)
- 17:19:23 [StellaMitchell]
- Gary raised a problem with ncname?
- 17:19:53 [Harold]
- Gary, this is interesting but they can occur elsehwere in an expression, too.
- 17:20:31 [Harold]
- _p(_p->1) might be a problem.
- 17:20:42 [ChrisW]
- straw poll: is this worth redoing last call?
- 17:20:45 [StellaMitchell]
- so, Harold, it would be ncname that is not a valid constant?
- 17:20:48 [AxelPolleres]
- Sandro, why would (ncname or quotetdstring) not work for you, except taste?
- 17:20:57 [AdrianP]
- -1
- 17:20:57 [Harold]
- -1
- 17:20:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- -1
- 17:21:02 [Hassan]
- -1
- 17:21:04 [Michael_Kifer]
- -1
- 17:21:19 [sandro]
- sandro has joined #rif
- 17:21:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- Given that it's already 12:21, let's accept the 2 test cases we have looked at,
- 17:21:33 [ChrisW]
- _p(2->"green")
- 17:21:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- rather than looking at all test cases first.
- 17:22:03 [sandro]
- am I finally connected?
- 17:22:18 [Michael_Kifer]
- +1 accept case 2
- 17:22:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- +1 accept case 1 and accept case 2
- 17:22:38 [Hassan]
- +1 accept both
- 17:22:55 [ChrisW]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_3'
- 17:23:14 [Harold]
- Stella, some parsers might not notice that both _p's in _p(_p->1) have the same name.
- 17:23:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- Chris, the link doesn't work for me
- 17:23:23 [sandro]
- link worked for me.
- 17:23:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_3
- 17:23:46 [Harold]
- +1
- 17:23:56 [ChrisW]
- _p("http://example.com/example#color"->"green")
- 17:23:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- Right, I have the case; just pointing out that clicking on that link isn't working for me.
- 17:24:35 [AxelPolleres]
- 3 and 4 are problematic with respect to what we discussed now.
- 17:24:35 [sandro]
- ewwwwwww
- 17:25:07 [AxelPolleres]
- _p(http://example.com/example-">http://example.com/example->color->"green") _p(http://ex"ampl"e.com/exam"ple#color->"green") are similar to 4.
- 17:25:25 [Hassan]
- Stella, Harold, Gary: solution is to tokenize _foo as as Local no matter what and reject _p as named-argument
- 17:26:07 [AxelPolleres]
- q+
- 17:26:35 [csma]
- ack axel
- 17:26:52 [Harold]
- Sandro: Just editorial change, since onely changing non-normative PS, not changing normative XML.
- 17:27:42 [ChrisW]
- PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_1
- 17:27:52 [AxelPolleres]
- +1
- 17:27:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- +1
- 17:27:54 [ChrisW]
- +1
- 17:27:55 [Harold]
- +1
- 17:27:58 [Hassan]
- +1
- 17:27:58 [sandro]
- sandro: My preference is for a solution where argument names can be (ncname|string) -- users get to pick whether to have quotes.
- 17:27:59 [sandro]
- +1
- 17:28:09 [Michael_Kifer]
- +1
- 17:28:13 [Gary]
- +1
- 17:28:14 [StellaMitchell]
- yes
- 17:28:22 [ChrisW]
- PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_2
- 17:28:29 [sandro]
- +1
- 17:28:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- +1
- 17:28:33 [Harold]
- +1
- 17:28:38 [Gary]
- +1
- 17:28:40 [ChrisW]
- +1
- 17:28:41 [AdrianP]
- +1
- 17:28:42 [Hassan]
- +1
- 17:28:43 [AxelPolleres]
- +1
- 17:28:44 [csma]
- RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_1
- 17:28:54 [csma]
- RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_@
- 17:28:54 [ChrisW]
- RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_in_uniterms_2
- 17:29:09 [ChrisW]
- AOB?
- 17:29:36 [csma]
- yes
- 17:29:53 [csma]
- yes to accept the action
- 17:30:03 [ChrisW]
- action: csma to put this on agenda (syntax discussion on NAU names)
- 17:30:04 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-701 - Put this on agenda (syntax discussion on NAU names) [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-02-03].
- 17:30:04 [sandro]
- note that ncnames are allowed to contain minus signs.
- 17:30:08 [Harold]
- Chris: put on agenda for next week Sandro's My preference is for a solution where argument names can be (ncname|string).
- 17:30:16 [Zakim]
- -AdrianP
- 17:30:18 [Hassan]
- +1 to adjourn
- 17:30:22 [ChrisW]
- zakim, list attendees
- 17:30:22 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been AdrianP, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, GaryHallmark, Michael_Kifer, csma
- 17:30:25 [Zakim]
- -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
- 17:30:25 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Kifer
- 17:30:27 [Zakim]
- -GaryHallmark
- 17:30:27 [Zakim]
- -Stella_Mitchell
- 17:30:28 [Zakim]
- -LeoraMorgenstern
- 17:30:29 [Zakim]
- -??P60
- 17:30:34 [ChrisW]
- Regrets: DaveReynolds PaulVincent JosDeBruijn
- 17:30:41 [ChrisW]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 17:30:41 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
- 17:31:19 [csma]
- zakim unmute me
- 17:31:19 [Zakim]
- -Harold
- 17:31:26 [ChrisW]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:31:26 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ChrisW, Sandro, csma (muted)
- 17:31:37 [ChrisW]
- ack csma
- 17:33:05 [Zakim]
- -ChrisW
- 17:33:08 [Zakim]
- -csma
- 17:33:10 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 17:33:11 [Zakim]
- SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
- 17:33:13 [Zakim]
- Attendees were AdrianP, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, GaryHallmark, Michael_Kifer, csma
- 17:57:50 [csma]
- csma has left #rif
- 18:02:44 [Gary_Hallmark]
- Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
- 19:35:50 [sandro]
- sandro has joined #rif