ppy/OntologySummit2014-s10_chat-transcript_unedited_20140320a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20140320 2014-03-20 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [8:34] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2014 session-10 Track-C: Overcoming Ontology Engineering Bottlenecks - II - Thu 2014-03-20 = Summit Theme: Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology" Session Topic: Track-C: Overcoming Ontology Engineering Bottlenecks - II Track-C Co-champions: Professor KrzysztofJanowicz (University of California, Santa Barbara), Professor PascalHitzler (Wright State University), Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) Session Co-chairs: Professor KrzysztofJanowicz and Dr. MatthewWest Panelists / Briefings: * Professor OscarCorcho (Universidad Politecnica de Madrid) - "10 basic rules to overcome ontology engineering deadlocks in collaborative ontology engineering tasks" * Dr. DhavalThakker (University of Leeds) - "Modeling Cultural Variations in Interpersonal Communication for Augmenting User Generated Content" * Dr. PeterHaase (Fluid Operations) (in absentia) - "Developing Semantic Applications with the Information Workbench - Aspects of Ontology Engineering" (to be presented by JohannesTrame) Logistics: * Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_03_20 * (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName; also please enable "Show timestamps" while there. * Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute * Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_03_20#nid49NC ** you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online (i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.) ** if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184# ** Can't find Skype Dial pad? *** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" *** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it * when posting in this Chat-room, kindly observe the following ... ** whenever a name is used, please use the full WikiWord name format (every time you don't, some volunteer will have to make an edit afterwards) ** always provide context (like: "[ref. JaneDoe's slide#12], I think the point about context is great" ... rather than "that's great!" as the latter would mean very little in the archives.) ** when responding to a specific individual's earlier remarks, please cite his/her full WikiWord names *and* the timestamp (in PST) of his/her post that you are responding to (e.g. "@JaneDoe [11:09] - I agree, but, ...") ** use fully qualified url's (include http:// ) without symbols (like punctuations or parentheses, etc.) right before of after that URL . == Proceedings == . [9:10] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui [9:10] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui [9:19] CarmenChui morphed into anonymous [9:20] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui [9:22] anonymous morphed into JohannesTrame [9:24] anonymous morphed into OscarCorcho [9:25] anonymous morphed into Dhaval [9:26] Krzysztof Janowicz1: Hi [9:26] Krzysztof Janowicz1 morphed into Krzysztof Janowicz [9:27] anonymous morphed into PaulWitherell [9:28] MarkFox: I'm here - no Microphone. [9:29] Pascal Hitzler: Is the VCN session already online? Seems I can't connect [9:31] Krzysztof Janowicz: VNC is not working for me (at the moment) [9:31] anonymous morphed into ConradBeaulieu [9:34] anonymous morphed into Les Morgan [9:36] anonymous morphed into BartGajderowicz [9:37] OscarCorcho: that's strange [9:37] OscarCorcho: I was unmuted [9:37] OscarCorcho: Sorry, I was able to speak before. I will call again [9:37] MatthewWest: You need *7 on your Skype keypad to unmute yourself [9:37] AmandaVizedom: OscarCorcho, try *7 [9:37] JaanaTakis1 morphed into JaanaTakis [9:38] anonymous2 morphed into LamarHenderson [9:38] PeterYim: are you on the call yet, Oscar? [9:39] AmandaVizedom: Someone who is unmuted is creating some background noise (typing, paper-shuffling) [9:40] Krzysztof Janowicz: Usually VNC works for me but not this time. Anyway, we can just download the slides. [9:41] PeterYim: == KrzysztofJanowicz starts the session ... see slides under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_03_20#nid4A0E [9:43] anonymous1 morphed into BobbinTeegarden [9:44] PeterYim: @anonymous: (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName [9:45] List of members: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AndreaWesterinen, AnneThessen, BobbinTeegarden, CarmenChui, ChristiKapp, ConradBeaulieu, Dhaval, EarlGlynn, Gary Berg-Cross, HaroldBoley, JaanaTakis, JohannesTrame, KenBaclawski, Krzysztof Janowicz, LeoObrst, Les Morgan, MarkFox, MatthewWest, MichaelGruninger, NaicongLi, OscarCorcho, Pascal Hitzler, PaulWitherell, PeterYim, Ram D. Sriram, Siew Lam, Sunday Ojo, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, vnc2 [9:46] PeterYim: == OscarCorcho presenting ... [9:47] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson [9:53] anonymous1 morphed into SimonSpero [9:55] AndreaWesterinen: +1 for starting from Excel. It is pretty easy to write a converter from Excel data to RDF/OWL. [9:55] anonymous1 morphed into DennisPierson [9:59] anonymous1 morphed into TimFinin [9:59] SimonSpero: @AndreaWesterinen: new linked-csv activity underway at W3 [9:59] AmandaVizedom: Starting from excel (as per Oscar's slide 5) is often done and can be very useful, BUT things go awry when people forget that semantics are not explicit or enforced in entry. For example, I've seen folks send a group of domain experts off to build an initial concept capture using an excel template. The results vary widely in how different groups interpret the semantics of the template, and there isn't anything in excel-as-development-environment to help. Working *with* an ontologist, it's not so bad, as that person can be on the lookout for semantic drift. [9:59] Dhaval: ROO (available at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/confluence/) is a tool specifically designed to work with non Ontology-savvy audience. [9:59] Krzysztof Janowicz: +1 on late reuse [10:00] anonymous1 morphed into CarolBean [10:01] AndreaWesterinen: @AmandaVizedom [xx:59] +1 regarding completeness and consistency, but the Excel is a start, not the end. That is why I have converted to RDF/OWL and then continued from there. [10:01] AmandaVizedom: +1 on postponing reuse until after first capture. Same with in-depth specification of out-of-domain concepts (time, for example). Placeholders that get replaced or aligned later will let the conversation continue *within* the experts' normal cognitive space. [10:03] SimonSpero: There's a step to create betwee competency questions and user stories [10:04] AmandaVizedom: @AndreaWesterinen [13:01] -- agree. The real messes I've seen result not from using excel early, but from thinking that because SMEs know how to use it, they can use it to document their concepts in an ontology-friendly or conversion-friendly way, without help. [10:04] Dhaval: obvious question is why *five* :-) [10:05] SimonSpero: create competency questions from user stories (as an instrument designer I want to be able to be able to represent calibration data [10:06] PeterYim: ^^[re. OscarCorcho's slide#5] [10:06] anonymous1 morphed into Joanne Luciano [10:08] SimonSpero: @Dhaval:http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/01/15/the-right-or-wrong-size-for-a/ ... < 20, > 8? [10:08] Dhaval: "Rec6: Just work with text patterns, and guide them to write good term definitions" - Agree. Can this be Controlled Natural Language (CNL)? [10:08] Dhaval: Thanks SimonSpero [10:10] SimonSpero: ACE [10:10] SimonSpero: If it loads into protégé it loaded into protégé [10:11] PeterYim: ^protege [10:11] Dhaval: SimonSpero yes, ACE. But ROO is better( http://sourceforge.net/projects/confluence/). We have deveoped it in Leeds :-) [10:11] AmandaVizedom: Regarding use of text patterns: Multiple projects over many years now have also found a sweet spot in form-based or diagram-based entry tools that are customized by an ontologist, for particular sets of SMEs & elicitation cases, and generate the formal ontology under the hood without showing it to the SMEs. This can be less lossy, [10:12] SimonSpero: Owlapi fixes a lot of broken stuff behind the curtain. Working to make these fixes more noisyin version4 [10:13] MatthewWest: On reuse, you need to establish your requirements first. Otherwise you do not know if reuse is appropriate. [10:13] PeterYim: == DhavalThakker presenting ... [10:14] AndreaWesterinen: @SimonSpero [xx:10] I have found ACE to be way too controlled and requiring obvious info to be useful for normal people. [10:16] Joanne Luciano: cute smiley face (the slide layout) [10:18] AmandaVizedom: @Dhaval [13:11] Checking out ROO. Thanks for tip. [Note that end punctuation got taken up into link in your comment] [10:20] SimonSpero: @Andrea: yes and no :) Using a more ambiguous grammar, with semantic disambiguation would be better for most, but editor support made a big difference [10:21] SimonSpero: (For entry. Comprehension was good). [10:22] SimonSpero: If only there was a common sense knowledge base to start from [10:22] AndreaWesterinen: @SimonSpero [xx:20] Agree. Editor support could make a huge difference. Also need reverse verbalization support. [10:23] SimonSpero: ^^https://github.com/Kaljurand/owl-verbalizer [10:24] AmandaVizedom: Aside regarding DhavalThakker's slide 6: I think that similar work will be useful at the scale of culture and communications within communities of practice and organizations as well. This is based on my experiences with large, cross-community, cross-domain projects, in which these variations are quite apparent and must be handled somehow. "Same" community becomes culturally different community over time, as well. [10:25] AndreaWesterinen: @SimonSpero [xx:23] Thanks. Will check it out. [10:29] anonymous1 morphed into uri shani [10:33] uri shani: when did this started? [10:33] MatthewWest: An hour ago. Daylight savings has come in in the US. [10:34] AmandaVizedom: re @DhavalThakker's slide 15 -- nice, clean example of one way an ontology can be fine in principle but not fit for purpose, in a way that potential users would want to know. In a way this about levels of abstraction, also granularity. I'm thinking about this from perspective of upcoming hackathon project to model characteristics of ontologies that are relevant to fitness evaluation. Wondering whether it might work (well enough?) to specify "grains" in various ways. Not looking for answer here, but I hope others who think this is interesting might join the hackathon. :-) [10:35] Gary Berg-Cross: Nice example of semantic content reuse in DBPedia. [10:36] MatthewWest: And seeking to automate annotation is a good approach to overcoming bottlenecks. [10:38] Joanne Luciano: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18416669 [10:38] Joanne Luciano: OMICS. 2008 Jun;12(2):129-36. doi: 10.1089/omi.2008.0016. Habitat-Lite: a GSC case study based on free text terms for environmental metadata. Hirschman L1, Clark C, Cohen KB, Mardis S, Luciano J, Kottmann R, Cole J, Markowitz V, Kyrpides N, Morrison N, Schriml LM, Field D; Novo Project. [10:39] Joanne Luciano: Estimate that the terms in the initial version of Habitat-Lite would provide useful labels for over 60% of the kinds of information found in the GenBank isolation_source field, and around 85% of the terms in the GOLD habitat field. [10:40] PeterYim: == JohannesTrame presenting on behalf of PeterHaase ... [10:40] Joanne Luciano: my comment is more technical (and abstract) with respect not to culture but to how the ontology is being developed and more the evaluationj. [10:42] HaroldBoley: http://www.optique-project.eu/ [10:46] OscarCorcho: no [10:46] Siew Lam: no [10:46] MatthewWest: @johannes: We cannot hear you. Have you dropped off? [10:46] AnneThessen: I am still here [10:46] Gary Berg-Cross: Some of us are still hearing you. [10:46] PeterYim: we cannot hear you any more JohannesTrame ... can you try connecting to the conference bridge again, please [10:46] Joanne Luciano: I can hear Leo [10:46] ConradBeaulieu: Still here [10:47] Joanne Luciano: I could hear Peter [10:47] AndreaWesterinen: Still here [10:47] Joanne Luciano: But I could not be heard [10:47] LeoObrst: RE: controlled natural language: in addition to the usual suspects, Ed Barkmeyer of NIST and Fabian Neuhaus (when he was at NIST) were working on a controlled language on top of Common Logic (and a CL reasoner). I don't know the final state of their effort. [10:47] AmandaVizedom: I also was dropped (via skype) and had to call back in. [10:47] Joanne Luciano: Ahh, I was dialed in. [10:48] PeterYim: [resumption of JohannesTrame's presentation - slide#3 "platform layer"] [11:04] anonymous1 morphed into MariaHerrero [11:05] Gary Berg-Cross: Thanks for a good slide on ReUse that Track A can leverage! [11:05] SimonSpero: (is skype bridge flaking out for others?) [11:05] MikeBennett: no [11:05] MichaelGruninger: @JohannesTrame: what are some of the specific ontologies that you have designed within this framework? How have you reused these ontologies across clients? [11:06] MatthewWest: JohannesTrame slide 18. We need to remember that reuse is not an end in itself, but a possible means of delivering a solution quicker and cheaper. [11:06] OscarCorcho: [JohannesTrame: slide 18] In my opinion, we should not forget that it is not only about reusing other ontologies, but also allowing that the one that you create can be reused (e.g., in my examples, across the open data portals community in Spain) [11:06] PeterYim: @KrzysztofJanowicz - I have probably muted you (due to interference) ... please make sure you un-mute (with "*6") when you need to speak again ... (or, if you can mute from you phone/client, just let me know, so I can release the muting from the bridge control panel) [11:07] Gary Berg-Cross: "Software engineers tend to have preference for'theirown' solutions" This generalizes way beyond SWE or data engineers or engineers as a whole. It more or less true of most of us. [11:07] SimonSpero: @LeoOrbst: [13:47] Published version of Tobias Kuhn's survey of CNL is finally out : http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/COLI_a_00168 [11:08] MikeBennett: @Johannes on slide 19 re-use of ontologies: given these are from industry verticals, what experiences do you have in common abstractions between these ontologies e.g. if music ontology and conference ontology may have concepts in common? [11:09] PeterYim: == Q & A and Open Discussion ... [11:10] SimonSpero: @LeoOrbst: Final report on NIST effort (RECON) is at http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=911267 [11:11] AmandaVizedom: Regarding the domain & range disuse view: I have run into this occasionally, and think it is bad practice and is based on a misdiagnosis... [11:11] Gary Berg-Cross: @Matthew On this issue of reuse, it is not an end in itself, but IF there are good things to leverage it would help get towards standardization. In addition if one finds that something is not reusable, stating the deficts helps the field. [11:11] Krzysztof Janowicz: yes, instead of local scopes [11:12] MatthewWest: @Amanda xx:11. I agree. The underlying problem is that the domain and range are set more restrictively than is really the case. [11:12] OscarCorcho: @AmandaVizedom: I agree [11:14] Krzysztof Janowicz: very good example [11:15] MikeBennett: Summarizing @Amanda: sometimes a property is asserted at too detailed a level, but the opposite practice of removing domain and range altogether is also a bad practice. [11:15] MatthewWest: @Gary xx:11: Quite. Reuse can reduce the cost because you do not have to redevelop. It can also help increase quality, reuse tends to get rid of bugs. Finally, if you have integration requirements across applications, then using the same ontology for both will reduce the costs of interfacing. These are all however ends, which reuse alone is not. [11:15] Joanne Luciano: To add to Amanda's comment, about including domain and range, I agree. It's nice too when documentation is included in the ontology (in the definition / comment) [11:15] Gary Berg-Cross: Ideas like domain and range are seductive since they seem to have a good cost-benefit ratio. Little effort to get what seems like an extension to the model. [11:16] LeoObrst: @SimonSpero: Thanks! (spelling: LeoObrst). [11:16] AmandaVizedom: It is recommended as a supposed fix for the frequent occurance of properties that are not represented at a correct and consistent level of generality. It is sometimes as simple as the name of the property being too general (e.g."controls" instead of "controllsFinancially"). Sometimes it is more complicated... [11:17] Gary Berg-Cross: @Mathew. Yes, good reuse affords some ends such as quality and is a means to these, but not a end in itself. [11:17] Krzysztof Janowicz: @Gary: I agree. Especially when it comes to patterns careless (to restrictive) use of global domain and range is dangerous. thus, I prefer local domain and range definitions. [11:17] Gary Berg-Cross: On domain and range, one might ask what are these for the Competency Questions. [11:18] Krzysztof Janowicz: +o [11:18] AmandaVizedom: ... An appropriate correction, at minimum, is to apply a bit of discipline in identifying what is the specificity of the property intended, naming and labeling it in a way that reflects that and setting a domain and range appropriately to that. [11:18] MikeBennett: My own view: given the intended meaning of a concept, it should surely set the domain (and maybe range) which corresponds to the meaning of the concept, e.g. a property that is explicitly about contracts should have a domain of Contract. But as @Matthew says this require imagination so that when you think about the meaning a property you think about all the things it can be a property of and all the kinds of thing it can be framed in terms of - creating a sub-property or a restriction as appropriate for the concept you were originally thinking of. [11:19] MichaelGruninger: I'm a little perplexed why domain/range constraints are so problematic. They arise quite naturally from any UML class diagram ... [11:19] List of members: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreaWesterinen, AnneThessen, anonymous, BartGajderowicz, BobbinTeegarden, CarmenChui, CarolBean, ChristiKapp, ConradBeaulieu, DennisPierson, Dhaval, EdBernot, Gary Berg-Cross, HaroldBoley, JaanaTakis, Joanne Luciano, JohannesTrame, KenBaclawski, Krzysztof Janowicz, LeoObrst, Les Morgan, MarcelaVegetti, MariaHerrero, MarkFox, MatthewWest, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, NaicongLi, NancyWiegand, OscarCorcho, PeterYim, Ram D. Sriram, SimonSpero, Sunday Ojo, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, uri shani, vnc2 [11:21] uri shani: doman/range is better than using restrictions. [11:21] SimonSpero: @MichaelGruninger: The problem is partly what they constrain (the models) [11:21] MatthewWest: @MichaelGruninger xx:19: Yes, and these mistakes are routinely made in those diagrams, with relationships being stated at a lower level of abstraction than is really true. For example, an ontology for equipment, may say that one type of equipment must have another type of equipment as a part, but there are other things than equipment for which this is true. [11:22] AmandaVizedom: Going beyond that (my [14:18]), it is also good practice to evaluate whether you can define a narrow property that you need immediately as a subPropertyOf a general property that already exists or that you can also create. This helps to define your specific property more clearly, as well as creating or connecting to reusable content. [11:22] SimonSpero: @MichaelGruninger: where those words are opposite of what most non-specialists think [11:23] MikeBennett: @Michael in FIBO we started out with what's on the corresponding UML class diagrams, and created a deep subsumption hierarchy of properties. This wasn't ideal for OWL usage since in many cases the multiple properties represented the same meaning with some changes to range. THe balance we are trying to aim for is to have a separate property only when there is an identifiably new meaning in play. However if I'm honest we haven't achieved that in the current version (someone decided to promote loads of properties to have no domain or range!!) [11:23] LeoObrst: @AmandaVizedom: actually, we use Events and States as classes, both for NLP and other uses, and so will have a Stative like Possess, which is generic but has local property restrictions for generic thematic participants (doing the job of domains/ranges), then have more specific events/states under these with more specialized property restrictions. [11:23] SimonSpero: or vice versa [11:24] SimonSpero: [user stories to competency stories [11:24] SimonSpero: BDD [11:24] Krzysztof Janowicz: MikeBennett [11:23], I agree [11:24] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelGruninger [14:19] The problem is worst in OWL because people frequently misunderstand the effect of domain and range there. I have only seen this disuse recommendation there, perhaps because it is harder there (than in more expressive languages) to say what you mean to say about domain and range. [11:26] Krzysztof Janowicz: Amanda: yes because in OWL they have an inferential semantics and most non-DL conceptual modellers do not know that and think of them as constraints. This makes their usage difficult and often problematic [11:26] MichaelGruninger: My point is that the discussion of domain/range is part of the ontological analysis phase of ontology design, but that it is not some new concept that is foreign to someone who knows UML class diagrams. [11:27] AmandaVizedom: See this G+ post from Bernard Vatant this morning, and the related comments (on domain range specification in LOV vocabularies) [11:27] AmandaVizedom: https://plus.google.com/114406186864069390644/posts/D3kkqNCoQZ9 [11:28] uri shani: About d/r and restrictions: you can conclude what is a range/domain from a restriction, but w/out at least saying what is the domain/range of a property, how can you relate concepts with one another? So I'd say that domain/range is a minimum to imply some structure on an ontolgy. [11:28] SimonSpero: http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/presentations/introduction-to-user-stories [11:30] Gary Berg-Cross: Following all these interesting links is going to take the rest of my day :-) [11:30] uri shani: what day? it is night already! [11:30] SimonSpero: uri shani: restrictions on Thing or Nothing [11:32] SimonSpero: uri shani: UTC+2, meet UTC-4 [11:32] Gary Berg-Cross: @Uri You have till "tomorrow" [11:33] uri shani: :) [11:33] SimonSpero: uri shani: (was easier when I working at Technion, as family who weren't in UK were in herzliya pituach or jerusalem :) [11:34] Gary Berg-Cross: Culture is a suitable topic but we should expect small steps as you say. Do you leverage the D & S pattern? [11:34] PeterYim: ... VaniaDimitrova speaking extending on the point DhavalThakker was explaining about "culture" [11:35] PeterYim: great session! [11:35] LeoObrst: Thanks, all! Very good session. [11:35] uri shani: thanks!! [11:35] AmandaVizedom: @KrzystofJanowicz [14:26], yes, the constraint vs type-inference consequences are a big source of confusion. IMHO it is exacerbated by the difficulty of creating the constraint-like d/r in OWL, versus other languages. In some languages, there are simply alternative properties to use depending on which type of assertion you mean to make (see schema:domainIncludes or Cycl arg constraints for example. [11:35] PeterYim: @ALL: as announced by our Symposium co-chairs, Professor TimFinin and Dr. Ram Sriram yesterday, our Apr 28~29 Symposium (at NSF in Greater Washington DC) is now open for registration. Please register yourself ASAP, as capacity is limited - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014/WorkshopRegistration ... Note that new information about the availability (until Apr-4) of hotel reservation block (with preferred rates) has been posted! [11:35] PeterYim: @ALL: Please mark your calendars and reserve this time, every Thursday, for the OntologySummit2014 virtual panel session series. In particular ... Session-11 will be up next Thursday - Thu 2014.03.27 - OntologySummit2014: "Track D: Tackling the Variety Problem in Big Data - II" *** Again, please pay special attention to the start-time (9:30am PDT), as this week is still among the tricky ones, when N.America is in Summer time, Europe is still in Winter time, and lots of other regions don't do daylight saving time at all! *** - see developing details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_03_27 ... the start-time fopr various time-zones will be clearly posted there [11:35] Krzysztof Janowicz: @Amanda: yes, I agree [11:35] PeterYim: @org-comm members, Reminder to those in the organizing committee, our next meeting (n.09) is coming up tomorrow - Fri 2014.03.21 - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014/GettingOrganized#nid49M7 [11:35] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:32 am PDT -- [11:36] SimonSpero: @amandaVizedom: There's also N-BOXes which are attempts to add NAF to OWL [11:36] List of attendees: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreaWesterinen, AnneThessen, BartGajderowicz, BobbinTeegarden, CarmenChui, CarolBean, ChristiKapp, ConradBeaulieu, DennisPierson, Dhaval, EarlGlynn, EdBernot, Gary Berg-Cross, Gary Berg-Cross1, HaroldBoley, JaanaTakis, JaanaTakis1, JamesOverton, Joanne Luciano, JohannesTrame, KenBaclawski, Krzysztof Janowicz, Krzysztof Janowicz1, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, Les Morgan, MarcelaVegetti, MariaHerrero, MarkFox, MatthewWest, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, NaicongLi, NancyWiegand, OscarCorcho, Pascal Hitzler, PaulWitherell, PeterYim, Ram D. Sriram, Siew Lam, SimonSpero, Sunday Ojo, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth, TimFinin, ToddSchneider, anonymous, anonymous1, anonymous2, anonymous3, uri shani, vnc2 [11:36] SimonSpero: see: http://trowl.eu/ [11:37] Dhaval: sorry we got disconnected. [11:37] Dhaval: thanks all [11:38] Krzysztof Janowicz: Thanks for sharing the link to Bernard Vatant's blog entry. I agree with his conclusions. [11:38] Krzysztof Janowicz: bye bye ------