W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-10-10

13:01:02 Users on #rdfcore: @logger

14:01:08 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:01:08 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I don't know what conference this is

14:01:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, ericm, bwm, gk, DaveB, logger

14:01:11 * RRSAgent is logging

14:01:17 <ericm> zakim, this is rdfcore

14:01:17 <Zakim> ok, ericm

14:01:20 <bwm> Zakim, this is rdfcore

14:01:20 <Zakim> bwm, this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

14:01:21 <Zakim> ok, bwm

14:01:40 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:01:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P17

14:01:45 <Zakim> -??P17

14:01:46 <Zakim> +??P17

14:01:47 <Zakim> +??P18

14:01:48 <Zakim> +EMiller

14:01:48 <bwm> Zakim, ??p17 is bwm

14:01:48 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

14:01:49 <ericm> ericm has changed the topic to: rdfcore oct 10 telecon

14:02:01 <ericm> zakim, who is here?

14:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, ??P18, EMiller

14:02:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, ericm, bwm, gk, DaveB, logger

14:02:03 <Zakim> +Daniel

14:02:10 <bwm> Zakim, ??p18 is jjc

14:02:10 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

14:02:12 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:02:24 <DaveB> Zakim, DaveB is ILRT

14:02:24 <Zakim> sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named 'DaveB'

14:03:14 <Zakim> +PatH

14:03:20 <jang> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0122.html

14:03:34 <ericm> zakim, who is here?

14:03:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, jjc, EMiller, Daniel, GrahamKlyne, PatH

14:03:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see DanC, jang, RRSAgent, Zakim, ericm, bwm, gk, DaveB, logger

14:03:37 <jang> jang is now known as jang-scribe

14:03:41 <ericm> zakim, daniel is ilrt

14:03:41 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

14:03:45 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS

14:03:45 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made

14:03:46 <Zakim> +DanC

14:03:56 <ericm> zakim, ilrt holds daveb, jang

14:03:56 <Zakim> +daveb, jang; got it

14:05:03 <ericm> zakim, who is here?

14:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, jjc, EMiller, ilrt, GrahamKlyne, PatH, DanC

14:05:04 <Zakim> ilrt has daveb, jang

14:05:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see DanC, jang-scribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, ericm, bwm, gk, DaveB, logger

14:05:35 <ericm> zakim, who is talking?

14:05:42 * DanC Zakim, mute graham temporarily

14:05:42 * Zakim GrahamKlyne should now be muted

14:05:45 <Zakim> ericm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bwm (60%), ilrt (40%)

14:05:48 <jang-scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:05:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, jjc, EMiller, ilrt, GrahamKlyne (muted), PatH, DanC

14:05:50 <Zakim> ilrt has daveb, jang

14:05:53 * DanC Zakim, mute ilrt temporarily

14:05:53 * Zakim ilrt should now be muted

14:05:57 * Zakim GrahamKlyne should now be unmuted again

14:06:08 * Zakim ilrt should now be unmuted again

14:06:30 <jang-scribe> redialling

14:06:31 <Zakim> -ilrt

14:06:48 <Zakim> +??P19

14:07:09 <jang-scribe> zakim, mute ilrt

14:07:09 <Zakim> sorry, jang-scribe, I do not see a party named 'ilrt'

14:07:16 <ericm> zakim, ??P19 is ilrt

14:07:16 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

14:07:16 <jang-scribe> zakim, ??p19 is ilrt

14:07:17 <Zakim> sorry, jang-scribe, I do not recognize a party named '??p19'

14:07:21 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:07:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, jjc, EMiller, GrahamKlyne, PatH, DanC, ilrt

14:07:23 <jang-scribe> zakim, mute ilrt

14:07:23 <Zakim> ilrt should now be muted

14:07:34 <ericm> zakim, ilrt has daveb, jang

14:07:34 <Zakim> +daveb, jang; got it

14:07:40 <jang-scribe> regrets frank patrick miked

14:07:45 <jang-scribe> agenda comments?

14:07:58 <jang-scribe> semantics comments for item 8

14:08:06 <jang-scribe> next telecon same timenext week: scribe...?

14:08:14 * DanC Zakim, pick a scribe

14:08:14 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose daveb

14:08:18 * DanC Zakim, pick a scribe

14:08:18 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jang

14:08:19 <jang-scribe> minutes of the last meeting

14:08:20 * DanC Zakim, pick a scribe

14:08:20 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PatH

14:08:29 <DanC> regrets 17Oct

14:08:30 <jang-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0071.html

14:08:35 <jang-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0078.html

14:08:43 <jang-scribe> approved

14:08:54 <jang-scribe> completed actions, item 6

14:08:59 <jang-scribe> all done

14:09:03 <jang-scribe> misc actions

14:09:20 <jang-scribe> 20030711#4 cont, 20030926#3 cont

14:09:46 <jang-scribe> 20030926#4 ericm: I still need to do this in more detail

14:09:55 <jang-scribe> 2003-10-03#5 jjc check the w3c rdf validator handles omitted rdf:RDF

14:10:10 <jang-scribe> jjc it has a checkbox for this, not be able to do better than look at that

14:10:36 <jang-scribe> DanC: it should be checked by default

14:10:42 <jang-scribe> jjc can't do better than that in the near future

14:10:52 <jang-scribe> jjc: ok, continued on the understanding I can't get to it for 3 weeks

14:11:11 <jang-scribe> item 8: publication...

14:11:13 <Zakim> + +1.903.964.aaaa

14:11:22 <jang-scribe> em: we're waiting on aob discussion today

14:11:28 <jang-scribe> (danbri arrives, faint on the phone)

14:11:35 * DanC advises not putting the WG back in the critical path

14:12:03 <jang-scribe> em: I'd rather discuss the pub process than lessons learned

14:12:13 <jang-scribe> thanks to dave b for helping out above and beyond the other noight

14:12:23 <jang-scribe> ACTION em: write up lessons learned for next time

14:12:23 * RRSAgent records action 1

14:12:38 <jang-scribe> bwm: we've an issue on the semantics doc

14:12:48 <jang-scribe> there's a bug in the proof that turned up halfway through the pub process

14:13:03 <jang-scribe> given that I've asked for publication hold while we assess the impact of the error... path?

14:13:17 <jang-scribe> path: you've summed it up very well. I was preemptively working on a modification

14:13:30 <jang-scribe> which results from a comment by pfps about the need for an extra lemma

14:13:48 <jang-scribe> while working on that I realised there was a huge gap in the proof of the rdfs entailment lemma

14:13:55 <jang-scribe> I don't think the lemma's wrong, the proof is faulty though

14:14:07 <jang-scribe> and there's the analogous fault in the rdf entailment lemma

14:14:22 <jang-scribe> I've got a proof of the rdf lemma which is correct, I believe, although ugly

14:14:30 <jang-scribe> but not been able to write out a readable rdfs lemma proof

14:14:43 <jang-scribe> I'm working on a decent proof but it's a major rewrite

14:14:53 <jang-scribe> it doesn't change the lemma itself, it changes the proof appendix itself

14:15:00 * DanC q+

14:15:00 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

14:15:07 <jang-scribe> so it's not exactly buggy but highly unsatisfactory proof in the appendix

14:15:13 <jang-scribe> em: in the informative section

14:15:23 <jang-scribe> DanC: last friday we delegated to eric and path

14:15:36 <jang-scribe> none of this changes my mind, as long as path's happy to publish

14:15:43 <jang-scribe> jjc: what about publish sans semantics

14:15:57 <jang-scribe> this can put everything back two weeks otherwise

14:16:10 <jang-scribe> sounds like aggro, but publish semantics as not last call and the rest as last call

14:16:15 <jang-scribe> path: I'm happy with that, is that possible?

14:16:27 <jang-scribe> DanC: it's certainly possible, far from my preference. I'd sooner delete the proof

14:16:41 <jang-scribe> path: I've a version of the doc like this.

14:17:05 <jang-scribe> jjc: "... the proof will be in a later publication"

14:17:11 <gk> q+ to ask if Peter's latest comment has any impact on Pat's proposed new proof: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0128.html

14:17:11 * Zakim sees DanC, gk on the speaker queue

14:17:21 <DanC> ack danc

14:17:22 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:17:37 <jang-scribe> gk: wondering if the late comment from pfps would have any impact on pat's revised proof?

14:17:41 <jang-scribe> path: um, yes.

14:17:47 <jang-scribe> pfps and herman have both responded

14:18:05 <jang-scribe> I need to think about this stuff some more which I'm in the process of doing but it's not something I can hurry, I'm afraid

14:18:23 <jang-scribe> jjc: would prefer some indication that there is an intent that there will be a proof there in future

14:18:39 <jang-scribe> bwm: we either need it or not

14:18:47 <jang-scribe> DanC: we don't need it, but I'd like to see it once it's ready

14:18:55 <jang-scribe> that is, once we're at PR I'd expect to see it

14:19:06 <Zakim> -jjc

14:19:09 <jang-scribe> bwm: ok, but I'd rather avoid promises about this

14:19:18 <jang-scribe> what are the implications of taking out the proof?

14:19:25 <jang-scribe> path: we'll get howls, I'd expect

14:19:27 <gk> q-

14:19:27 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:19:39 <Zakim> +??P18

14:19:39 <DaveB> I see rdf-mt has 5 refs in the body to Appendix A proof

14:19:42 <jang-scribe> DanC: if they complain there's insufficient justification for the entailment lemma,

14:19:53 <jang-scribe> we say, "good point. we propose the following text. PROOF..."

14:20:04 <jang-scribe> DanC: so we commit to being able to produce this if required

14:20:16 <ericm> zakim, ??P18 is jjc

14:20:16 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

14:20:31 <jang-scribe> path: I've confidence that we can do this. there IS a proof in the doc which is just extremely messy, and may stil lhave extant bugs

14:20:45 <jang-scribe> DanC: always could leave it as is, fix it editorially later

14:21:12 <jang-scribe> bwm: we're into LC2 on the basis that "well, the proof's a no brainer" when it's not

14:21:20 <jang-scribe> (scribe's missing some of this, noise on the line)

14:21:21 <DaveB> Zakim, mute ilrt

14:21:21 <Zakim> ilrt was already muted, DaveB

14:21:45 <jang-scribe> DanC: so what's the conclusion thus far...?

14:21:55 <jang-scribe> bwm: right now we're assessing the impact of a bug in the semantics

14:22:18 <jang-scribe> path: our decision last friday was taken on the basis of the proof having no bugs

14:22:37 <ericm> q+

14:22:38 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:22:41 <jang-scribe> DanC: we have to get something out in a timely fashion that will advance the state of the art

14:22:45 <ericm> q-

14:22:45 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:23:05 <jang-scribe> jjc: it's hard to modify the doc as is just be deleting the proof, there are links in the body into the appendix

14:23:14 <jang-scribe> it'd be a few hours work at least just to get it pubrules ready

14:23:23 <jang-scribe> that is, it's not trivial

14:23:33 <jang-scribe> em: I hear that as an argument AGAINST removing it

14:23:45 <jang-scribe> if we're going to get howls either way,

14:23:53 <jang-scribe> and removing it will delay the pub process,

14:23:59 <jang-scribe> are there other factors to consider?

14:24:02 <DaveB> will it need a LC3? to fix this?

14:24:06 <jang-scribe> bwm's point is an important one.

14:24:24 <jang-scribe> jjc: I don't see any evidence here that causes me to want to delay LC on the other documetns

14:24:41 <jang-scribe> path: agreed: can I ask about that suggestion of LC for the other docs but not semantics

14:24:43 <DaveB> Zakim, unmute ilrt

14:24:43 <Zakim> ilrt should no longer be muted

14:24:45 <jang-scribe> is there any reason not to do that?

14:24:58 <jang-scribe> DanC: it's critical path. every day we don't go to LC is a day we don't go to rec

14:25:02 * gk finds it really difgicult to assesthe consequences of various courses of action. I agree DanC we need to publish something. But what?

14:25:23 <jang-scribe> em: we've bundled these together because they're all interdependent

14:25:32 <jang-scribe> jjc: how long would it take to get a cleaner version of the proof?

14:25:37 <jang-scribe> path: I hope monday, ...

14:25:45 <jang-scribe> DanC: be relaxed and conservative, how long?

14:25:48 <jang-scribe> path: a week max, there

14:25:57 <jang-scribe> em: are we also talking review from pfps and hdt?

14:26:04 <jang-scribe> path: no, not in that estimate

14:26:31 <jang-scribe> jjc: I'd suggest modifying SOTD, publishing this today, publish it in two weeks' time as LC, with an extension to a 3-week LC period on semantics

14:26:36 <jang-scribe> which loses us a week off the schedule

14:27:21 <jang-scribe> em: we're heading towards a big slip, with group disappearing, pub moratorium, ac meeting, etc

14:27:35 <DanC> "Deadline for publication requests: 12 November 2003, 1200 ESTNo publications: 17-30 November 2003Normal publishing resumes: 1 December 2003."

14:27:37 <jang-scribe> around the beginning of novemner

14:28:04 <jang-scribe> path: could split doc into MT and rules, and publish semantics (MT) now, which is fine

14:28:11 <jang-scribe> jjc: that sounds like too big a change to do today

14:28:15 <jang-scribe> path: I think I can do that today

14:28:28 <jang-scribe> em: we have to recheck all the documents, all the links will change

14:28:40 <DaveB> q+

14:28:40 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

14:28:55 <jang-scribe> danbri: what about the howls of protest?

14:29:01 <jang-scribe> while thye're hjowling, you work with them

14:29:14 <jang-scribe> that'd be my preferred option

14:29:20 <jang-scribe> (WHAT, can you spell it out dan?)

14:29:27 <jang-scribe> bwm: options:

14:29:29 <jang-scribe> - go as is

14:29:34 <jang-scribe> - remove proof and publish today

14:29:43 <jang-scribe> - publish MT only today leaving out riules and proofs

14:29:58 <jang-scribe> - delay everything until this is fixed

14:30:16 <jang-scribe> - jjc's option: pub semantics as non-LC, pub others as LC

14:30:32 <jang-scribe> (with the goal of LC publishing in a week or two, as soon as it's ready)

14:30:43 <gk> q+ to say that we broadly know what needs to be done (fix the proof) -- the design is fixed -- unlike earlier LC problems which resulted in some design changes

14:30:43 * Zakim sees DaveB, gk on the speaker queue

14:30:53 <DaveB> q-

14:30:54 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:31:04 <bwm> ack daveb

14:31:04 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:31:06 <jang-scribe> danbri: we don't want the public view to be that we're not entirely confident

14:31:10 <jang-scribe> better to wait a week I think

14:31:12 * DanC wonders if ericm can assess the impact of a week slip

14:31:20 <jang-scribe> gk: it seems to me that we're being very nervous about going to LC

14:31:22 <bwm> ack gk

14:31:22 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say that we broadly know what needs to be done (fix the proof) -- the design is fixed -- unlike earlier LC problems which resulted in some design changes

14:31:25 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:31:30 <jang-scribe> it also seems to me there's a difference this time:

14:31:38 <jang-scribe> we know the design won't change, we know what needs to be fixed

14:31:51 <jang-scribe> so maybe the costs of going forwards and getting the howls are more contained this time

14:31:55 <jang-scribe> DanC: hear, hear

14:32:02 <jang-scribe> bwm: do we know the design won't be changed?

14:32:31 <jang-scribe> path: it's just conceivable that the basic MT may need a tiny change, but it'll only be a mathmo-only change

14:32:49 <jang-scribe> it'd be a sub-implementation change, at the worst case.

14:32:58 <ericm> the impact of a weeks slippage results that we're in last call during the AC meeting, but the impact as long as this happens before ISWC is minimal

14:33:07 <jang-scribe> bwm: are folks happy to leave this to path and em to decide?

14:33:11 <DaveB> ilrt are happy

14:33:14 <jang-scribe> DanC: yes

14:33:20 <Zakim> +??P1

14:33:21 <jang-scribe> ok, decided: path, eric, it's in your hands

14:33:22 * Zakim jang-scribe, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

14:33:38 <jjc> Zakim, ?P1 is jjc

14:33:38 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named '?P1'

14:33:38 <jang-scribe> em: can we be excused? I'd like to just get on the phone with path now.

14:33:44 <jjc> Zakim, ??P1 is jjc

14:33:44 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

14:33:58 <Zakim> -PatH

14:33:59 <Zakim> -EMiller

14:34:00 <jang-scribe> eric, path go off to a telehuddle

14:34:18 <gk> (Suggest recommendation to Pat/Eric is option with least likely overall delay?)

14:34:20 <jang-scribe> bwm: htmldiffs - are these useful things to do?

14:34:37 <ericm> acknowledged, gk

14:34:41 <jang-scribe> DanC: I've not looked at it, I hear it requested often. Unless they're really horrible, I'd say yes

14:34:51 <jang-scribe> ACTION bwm htmldiffs

14:35:08 <jang-scribe> ACTION bwm last call announcement

14:35:18 <jang-scribe> anything else on pub status?

14:35:26 <jang-scribe> DaveB: who are you announcing to?

14:35:45 <jang-scribe> bwm: to chairs list, then to the obvious "usual suspects"

14:36:00 <jang-scribe> item 9: handling LC2 comments

14:36:16 <jang-scribe> issues tracked in the issues list, per danc's advice

14:36:27 <jang-scribe> DanC: I can clarify this once you've finished bwm

14:36:33 <jang-scribe> bwm to track as before

14:36:49 <jang-scribe> we're hoping that there won't be new comments, so most answers will be in the form, eitehr:

14:36:56 <jang-scribe> you'll find that in this part of the spec, or:

14:37:04 <jang-scribe> this won't change, here's a pointer to the reason

14:37:24 <jjc> Zakim, who's speaking?

14:37:35 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds

14:37:55 <jang-scribe> bwm: highlights the problem with creeping editorial clarifications

14:38:24 <jang-scribe> DanC: so far, a lot of this is good

14:38:34 <jang-scribe> the last point is that the chair triages all comments.

14:38:37 <jang-scribe> zakim, mute ilrt

14:38:37 <Zakim> ilrt should now be muted

14:38:44 <jjc> Zakim, mute jjc

14:38:44 <Zakim> jjc should now be muted

14:39:01 <jang-scribe> responses that point to the relevant part of the spec aren't critical path. editors are authorised to respond with that

14:39:16 <jang-scribe> if the eds want to change ONE BYTE of the text, they propose that to the rdfcore list first

14:39:18 <jjc> q+ typos

14:39:18 * Zakim sees typos on the speaker queue

14:39:28 <jjc> q+ jjc, to talk about typos

14:39:28 * Zakim sees typos, jjc on the speaker queue

14:39:30 <jang-scribe> then if the chairs ok that, the chair autorises the eds to just send that

14:39:43 <jang-scribe> otherwise the chair puts it on the agenda to the next telecon

14:40:30 <jang-scribe> danbri: that sounds good to me.

14:40:37 <bwm> q?

14:40:37 * Zakim sees typos, jjc on the speaker queue

14:40:42 <bwm> ack jjc

14:40:42 * Zakim unmutes jjc

14:40:42 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to talk about typos

14:40:43 * Zakim sees typos on the speaker queue

14:40:48 <jang-scribe> jjc: the one byte is exaggerated a bit. an honest typo needn't go to the list, surely?

14:41:03 <jang-scribe> DanC: we might be a little more lax, maybe

14:41:14 <jang-scribe> bwm: I'm inclined to trust the judgement of the ditors

14:41:18 <gk> (I note that we can take smaller editorial changes to an errata document, for later inclusion.)

14:41:42 <DanC> Zakim, who's talking?

14:41:54 <Zakim> DanC, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds

14:41:56 <jjc> Zakim, mute jjc

14:41:56 <Zakim> jjc should now be muted

14:42:18 <DanC> wierd... I just heard a long, loud DTMF tone. was I the only one?

14:42:25 <jang-scribe> nothing here danc

14:42:37 <jang-scribe> bwm: how resistant to change should we be?

14:42:40 <jang-scribe> DanC: I like to trust editors

14:43:02 <jang-scribe> in other words, if the guy doesn't understand and the ed thinks, most people will, then no change

14:43:19 <jang-scribe> if he thinks, gee, most people wil have a problem swith that, then the change can go ahead

14:43:31 <jang-scribe> gk: changes should only be made if they'll solve the problem

14:43:44 <jang-scribe> jjc: a guideline to eds to be more resistant to change than last time

14:43:53 <jang-scribe> bwm: agreed, not sure it's worth discussing this any further

14:44:10 <jjc> q+ jjc, on comments list

14:44:11 * Zakim jjc, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

14:44:13 <jang-scribe> DanC: anything that involves a change that's observable from tests requires a WG decision

14:44:17 <jjc> q+ jjc to on comments list

14:44:18 * Zakim sees typos, jjc on the speaker queue

14:44:25 <jjc> ack typos

14:44:25 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:44:31 <jang-scribe> bwm: I think we're done. anything else?

14:44:49 <jang-scribe> jjc: comments list: webont've been more disciplined about the comments list, I think that's rather better

14:45:04 <jang-scribe> ie, adopt their practice of "no extended discussions on the comments list"

14:45:37 <jang-scribe> DanC: when a comment comes in, make one message that goes back that says, blah blah blah blah, are you happy?

14:45:51 <jang-scribe> but let's not get into WG arm-wrestling on the comment list

14:46:19 <jang-scribe> bwm: AOB?

14:46:26 <jang-scribe> meeting adjourned, thanks everyone

14:46:28 <Zakim> -DanC

14:46:29 <Zakim> -bwm

14:46:30 <Zakim> -jjc.a

14:46:31 <Zakim> -ilrt

14:46:35 <Zakim> - +1.903.964.aaaa

14:46:43 <gk> Wow! finished early!

14:46:57 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

14:47:36 <DanC> oh, crud; we could have done an update on sw-meaning.

14:47:37 <DanC> oh well.

14:47:57 <DanC> FYI, perhaps an appendix to the minutes? sw-meaning has met once, and meets again today.

14:48:18 <DanC> agenda for today http://www.w3.org/2003/09/meaning/agenda-2003-10-10

14:48:33 <DanC> IRC log from last time: http://www.w3.org/2003/09/26-sw-meaning-irc

14:49:43 <gk> DanC, do you think there's really anything to update from sw-meaning at this time?

14:51:07 <DanC> well, yes, just what I said above. that we're meeting now and again.

15:05:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, jjc, in SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

15:05:01 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:57:48 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed