AR Standards (Landscape)

Hi Jonathan,

Looking over the Landscape Draft, it looks like real progress! Last week
I presented to several companies that are interested in a snapshot of
the status of Standards for AR.

My slides are available for discussion (and use) at [1]

Each time I tried to create a PDF of this file I "lost" the URLs, but
for those who prefer, the PDF version is here [2]

How do you think we could include Slides 3 through 12 in the POI WG AR
Landscape?

If you would like, I can provide a short text paragraph about (the words
that I use to describe) each of the "blocks" in slides 3-4-5 and for
each of the organizations on the SDO and Relevant Industry Associations
slides.

Regards,

Christine

Spime Wrangler

cperey@perey.com
mobile +41 79 436 6869
VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype Christine_Perey

[1] http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/AR_Standards_April_4_2011.ppt  
[2] http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/AR_Standards_April_4_2011.pdf


On 4/8/11 11:22 AM, ȫ wrote:
> Sorry, I can't attend previous telcon due to late time. 
>
> I have finished ACTION-47 - Merge landscape draft and browser draft into one document. 
> (merged document: http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/AR_Landscape/Draft)
>
> For next week,  I'm going to participate OMA Sorrento meeting, Italy. 
> (I'm planning to contribute to requirements document & architecture document for MobAR)
>
> If possible, I will try to discuss about how to co-work with W3C. 
> And also, I'd like to try to update AR Landscape document. 
> (Please, Welcome any comment, suggestion, and volunteer for AR Landscape)
>
> Best Regards, 
>
> --- Jonathan Jeon 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt Womer
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:28 PM
> To: public-poiwg W3C
> Subject: Minutes, 6 April 2011 Teleconference POIWG
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The minutes for today's teleconference are at:
> 	http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes
>
> And as text below.
>
> We started the meeting with a review of action items that evolved into a discussion about identifiers, registries, centralization/decentralization, and POI service providers.
>
> The action items generated are as follows:
> 	Alex to start email thread on possible new call time 
> 	Andy to find someone within OSM to collaborate with 
> 	Karl to report to group on what community oriented registries exist and what their governance policies are 
> 	Karl to work with matt on ACTION-57 
> 	Matt to update core draft Relationships Primitive to reflect what we learned at the f2f 
> 	Matt to work on finding an expert to discuss with WG about service oriented details 
> 	Matt to write up summary of face to face meeting. 
> 	Raj to look into DNS based POI registry models due two weeks 
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Matt
>
>
> --
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                                - DRAFT -
>
>             Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference
>
> 06 Apr 2011
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011Apr/0004
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           Matt, Alex, Andy, Raj, Luca, Fons, Karl, cperey, Carsten
>
>    Regrets
>           Ronald, Fons, Martin, Carsten, Vinod
>
>    Chair
>           Andy
>
>    Scribe
>           matt
>
> Contents
>
>      * [4]Topics
>          1. [5]Action items
>          2. [6]POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and services
>          3. [7]Next F2F
>          4. [8]More on POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and
>             services
>      * [9]Summary of Action Items
>      _________________________________________________________
>
>    <trackbot> Date: 06 April 2011
>
>    <cperey> sorry to be late
>
>    <scribe> Scribe: matt
>
> Action items
>
>    -> [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open Open Actions
>
>      [10] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open
>
>    Andy: I thought it would be good to review actions.
>
>    <cperey> calling in over skype
>
>    ahill2: Christine and Matt talked about generating a summary of the
>    F2F, did that happen?
>
>    cperey: I have been traveling.
>
>    matt: Me neither. I can take an action, or Christine?
>
>    cperey: It'd be useful!
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: Matt to write up summary of face to face meeting.
>    [recorded in
>    [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Write up summary of face to face
>    meeting. [on Matt Womer - due 2011-04-13].
>
>    ACTION-17?
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-17 -- Karl Seiler to add samples to flesh out the
>    Anchor definition in the data model -- due 2010-12-08 -- OPEN
>
>    <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/17
>
>      [12] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/17
>
>    karls: Not done, I need to catch up on the F2F first.
>
>    ACTION-18?
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-18 -- Alex Hill to flesh out the 'extent' section
>    of the data model -- due 2010-12-13 -- OPEN
>
>    <trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/18
>
>      [13] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/18
>
>    ACTION-18 due next Wednesday
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-18 Flesh out the 'extent' section of the data
>    model due date now next Wednesday
>
>    ahill2: Also not done.
>
>    ACTION-23?
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Gary Gale to scrub wiki and terminology
>    pages to reflect consensus notion of location and place terms -- due
>    2010-12-22 -- OPEN
>
>    <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/23
>
>      [14] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/23
>
>    ACTION-23 due next Wednesday
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-23 Scrub wiki and terminology pages to reflect
>    consensus notion of location and place terms due date now next
>    Wednesday
>
>    action-25?
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Gary Gale to formalize relationships and
>    create some use cases -- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN
>
>    <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/25
>
>      [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/25
>
>    Andy: I know there were discussion of relationships at the f2f, were
>    there use cases created around them?
>
>    -> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/31-poiwg-minutes.html#item09
>    Relationships Minutes from F2F
>
>      [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/31-poiwg-minutes.html#item09
>
>    cperey: It was treated at the f2f on the third day. I would say
>    close the item and create a new one that reflects the minutes.
>
>    karls: Does the same apply to the anchor and extent definitions?
>
>    cperey: We didn't treat those subjects at the f2f.
>
>    close ACTION-25
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-25 Formalize relationships and create some use
>    cases closed
>
>    ->
>    [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#Relationship_primitiv
>    e Relationship Primitive in Core
>
>      [17] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#Relationship_primitive
>
>    matt: I think this is my duty as temporary editor to go through f2f
>    minutes and make sure the draft reflects that now.
>
>    cperey: We had a great discussion on this, comparing it to OSM. At
>    OSM they're not clustered, but can be sequenced, etc.
>
>    ahill2: I think we got a real sense of the difference between the
>    hammer that is OSM and what people think of as POIs. How that turns
>    into a reformulation of relationships is a TBD.
>
> POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and services
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: Matt to update core draft Relationships Primitive
>    to reflect what we learned at the f2f [recorded in
>    [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update core draft Relationships
>    Primitive to reflect what we learned at the f2f [on Matt Womer - due
>    2011-04-13].
>
>    cperey: We have an opportunity to create relationships that don't
>    break OSM's policies. Not saying how, but the knowledge from that
>    subject is there.
>
>    ahill2: I concur that yes, I think one of the outcomes of this is
>    that we develop the notion of relationships in POI that is sensitive
>    to the types of relationships that OSM considers and that we can be
>    clear on delineating differences there, rather than before where we
>    would have just stumbled into it.
>
>    karls: Do we have a member of the group who has that kind of insight
>    to OSM?
>
>    <cperey> proposed meeting to foster relationships with OSM commnity
>    in September
>
>    <cperey> Jacques provided a tutorial on OSM on third day. Helped to
>    frame the context o OSM
>
>    matt: I think Jacques is closest to the data. Plus we've got on the
>    list of potential F2F locations as one that's co-located with the
>    OSM meeting in September (also co-located with OGC)
>
>    <cperey> good little primer and a lot of people better understand
>    the situation with OSM
>
>    ahill2: On the third day we got a primer on OSM from Jacques. He
>    would say it's simple, what else is there to say.
>
>    <cperey> we could ask him to provide the tutorial as an invited
>    topic?
>
>    matt: With OSM we should be careful though, as we have different
>    concerns. We can just update our database if we change something,
>    we're distributed, etc.
>
>    Raj: Was there any talk of linked data and OSM?
>
>    ahill2: It's a single database, and people are building on top of
>    it, but when we asked if people are linking across data, he didn't
>    think that was something that happened.
>    ... e.g. you might build an app on top of OSM that has a level of
>    abstraction on top of it, but he didn't really have a good answer
>    for linking between data bases and referring to IDs outside of the
>    one OSM database.
>
>    -> [19]http://linkedgeodata.org/About Linked Geo Data
>
>      [19] http://linkedgeodata.org/About
>
>    matt: We did talk about linkedgeodata, which is extracting OSM data
>    and making it linked data friendly.
>
>    ahill2: They also provide a SPARQL API.
>
>    matt: And a REST API.
>
>    Raj: So OSM is successful but people when building their apps are
>    what, copying the data and building on top of it?
>
>    karls: How do you mean copying?
>
>    Raj: For instance, Google is supposedly using OSM data, but I doubt
>    they're hitting OSM servers, they're downloading the data
>    presumably.
>    ... In other words apps aren't using it online, they're copying it
>    and building apps on top.
>
>    ahill2: I think that's a fair description.
>
>    matt: Certainly on large apps.
>
>    karls: I can understand Jacques pause. It relates to ID management
>    outside of the database.
>    ... Our stuff will be going across many data sources. We got to
>    unique URIs.
>
>    ahill2: One topic was how to engage the OSM community. It's
>    organized in a different manner than say OGC.
>    ... Jacques was encouraging us to get in the forums, etc. But that
>    doesn't really give us someone to engage with, to invite into the
>    group and collaborate with us.
>
>    <cperey> +1 to this recommendation/and the lack of someone to
>    contribute
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: Andy to find someone within OSM to collaborate with
>    [recorded in
>    [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Find someone within OSM to
>    collaborate with [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-04-13].
>
>    <cperey> I'm just preparing the "how to invite experts to contribute
>    to our domain knowledge" (one of my action items)
>
>    Raj: We need more people at the table, Facebook, Gowalla, etc.
>    Talked with someone from Simple Geo, and he had problems with this.
>    The barriers are high right now.
>
>    Andy: I talked to both Gowalla and Foursquare and I don't think
>    either of them have the bandwidth to participate in creating the
>    documents.
>    ... Foursquare is interested in reviewing. As we get drafts it's
>    worth sending it to them, but I don't think they have the bandwidth.
>
>    Raj: I think we can get over bandwidth hurdles if we can get real
>    commitment and interest.
>
>    ahill2: We had some discussion of this at the F2F about
>    participation.
>
>    -> [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-poiwg-minutes.html#item05 Some
>    participation discussion
>
>      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-poiwg-minutes.html#item05
>
>    ahill2: I've heard some motivation of being able to brand data as
>    W3C compliant, but I can't imagine that's a strong motivating factor
>    to smaller companies.
>    ... We have to be sensitive to some of those motivations.
>
>    fons: I just had a discussion with someone at TomTom, and it seems
>    that they are interested in at least participating in the WG. I
>    tried to get them to become a W3C member first, but if they can't do
>    that, then it might be interesting to have them in the WG as an
>    invited member.
>
>    karls: From Nokia/NAVTEQ/MS, I think anyone in the map business is
>    very interested in facilitating local search. The hinge point there
>    is on POI definitions. We're all looking to build the largest most
>    robust POI database.
>    ... We need standards for that to ensure the widest participation.
>    We're very interested in making this work.
>
>    Andy: I think there is lots of interest from big guys, but smaller
>    ones don't have the same motivation to build the largest data set.
>    Their stuff is community driven, etc.
>
>    karls: We might start with commercial data, but our end goal is to
>    have community.
>
>    Raj: That's a great statement. I think we don't need every one of
>    them, but I think we need more sides of the coin here. Otherwise,
>    we'll keep going around in circles about the core data definition.
>
>    karls: Makes sense to me.
>
>    ahill2: Karl, can you elaborate a bit? You've got a proprietary
>    database of POIs and you would like to have a product that is
>    drawing POIs from other sources on the fly and that that would be a
>    good motivation for a standard?
>    ... Or do you want it easier for you to purchase POIs or acquire it
>    that it comes in in a palatable way for integration into the
>    database?
>
>    karls: There's an arc we are projecting. We're trying to build out
>    platforms that we can put in a consortium space that is a single
>    unified repository for places, locations and relationships. We're
>    going to feed that content with anything we can license to get to
>    critical mass as fast as possible -- you have to achieve a tipping
>    point in volume for it to attract users -- but once that is hit, the
>    intent is that it is open.
>    ... We could extend the base records we have with licensed data for
>    instance.
>    ... But that last part is not what we should strive towards. A
>    standard that drives us toward participation is what we need.
>    ... We've got islands of information that we want to bridge.
>
>    Raj: That sounds like a great business use case.
>    ... Something like that could drive the core data format. e.g. we
>    could have where the location is in the standard, but maybe the open
>    hours changing could be a proprietary extension.
>
>    karls: Could be. We really also want to facilitate in a wikipedia
>    way the repair of the database.
>    ... The standard needs to allow to happen or provide governance on
>    change management.
>    ... POI have much shorter shelf life than maps.
>    ... Extensibility and flexibility are important too.
>
>    Raj: Change management to me requires unique IDs to me. What if
>    change management came out of updating those URIs? Maybe it doesn't
>    take a huge data model just a few key things.
>
>    karls: If we could figure that out it would be a real accelerant for
>    the whole thing.
>
>    ahill2: Can you elaborate on that a bit Raj? A simple example?
>
>    Raj: We can't predict ahead of time everything that could go into a
>    POI, but say we put 90% of our energy into the unique ID. A point
>    location, a name, a start and end time. Then when people want to
>    collaborate they know they are talking about the same object because
>    they have a unique ID.
>
>    karls: We've talked about DNS IDs.
>
>    Raj: if the unique ID were in there, the rest could fall out from
>    that.
>
>    ahill2: We had a lot of discussion with Thomas Wrobel and Dan
>    Brickley about semantic entities like dbpedia, etc that are
>    providing unique URIs to known things.
>    ... e.g. a URI for a horse, cow, dog, etc. I took away from that
>    that instead of a single registry there might be a couple, e.g.
>    dbpedia, library of congress, etc.
>    ... Each managed in some sense like wikpedia, etc. Then there's a
>    more rigid model of DNS like. Which direction should we go?
>
>    Carsten: I think you can push the wider model open by saying you
>    don't have a registry, just the Web itself. Lifecycle management is
>    harder on the Web, but strong on DNS.
>    ... I think this is the right direction: minimal data model, effort
>    on unique ID and making sure the data can be linked up.
>
>    karls: I agree with everyone that the ID, any work we can do around
>    that is the anchor. Rich location definition is important too.
>    Relationships, being open ended, is important too.
>    ... I don't think we can go far beyond ID, location, relationships
>    and attributes.
>
>    Raj: In the DNS model if we had some governance people could get
>    their unique ID for a POI and then it gets propagated around the
>    world.
>
>    karls: That's what Navteq is building in their POI registry. They
>    intend to not own that in the long haul, that it should go into a
>    consortium controlled space.
>
>    ahill2: In DNS you get competition for different domains, etc. Can
>    anyone comment on what they think on that?
>    ... We want a model where it's not owned, right?
>
>    Raj: Right. Who owns DNS? ICANN? And Wikipedia is governed by an
>    organization, and has a lot of governance. If you put a bad article
>    up there they won't publish it.
>
>    karls: Content moderation is key, current and accurate is immensely
>    valuable.
>    ... I think the standard should support the basic construct of
>    changes, owners, etc.
>    ... Timestamps to know that it is current and accurate.
>
>    <cperey> +1 on that
>
>    <cperey> moving from a data-oriented discusion to a services
>    oriented discussion
>
>    matt: We talked a lot at the f2f about talking in terms of HTTP and
>    XML. I think we won't have to define lots of stuff around this, but
>    provide guidance, e.g. "if POI data changes, when the URI is
>    dereferenced, this HTTP header is produced to redirect to the
>    updated one, cache tags are used, etc."
>    ... This stuff we need to do to make it fit in the Web architecture
>    needs to be figured out, not just the data.
>
>    Raj/karls: This sounds like we're moving from data defining to
>    service defining.
>
>    karls: If we can't imagine that the standard doesn't facilitate the
>    creation of a consortium that has governance over the quality, then
>    I think we haven't hit the mark.
>
>    <cperey> I cannot extend
>
>    <cperey> no problem
>
> Next F2F
>
>    ->
>    [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meetings/2011_Futur
>    e_Face_to_Face_Meetings Options for F2F
>
>      [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meetings/2011_Future_Face_to_Face_Meetings
>
>    -> [23]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POI-F2F-2011-2-choices/
>    F2F choices
>
>      [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POI-F2F-2011-2-choices/
>
>    matt: details options
>
>    cperey: In addition, there is an AR Standards meeting in Taiwan, on
>    June ??. Karl will be there, and Martin, maybe Jonathan and Jim?
>    ... My hope is that regardless of where it is, having a meeting
>    hosted in conjunction with another event is highly desirable.
>
>    matt: I updated the f2f poll to reflect AR standard smeeting too.
>
>    cperey: When/where does the group want to work on the drafts, and
>    when/where does the group want to interface with other groups and
>    share?
>
>    Raj: Is there an option for four?
>
>    matt: Sure. We say 2-3 in the charter, but that's to estimate how
>    much time people can spend, if the group wants to meet more, sure.
>
> More on POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and services
>
>    ahill2: It has been unclear up until now how the format will be
>    used. This discussion about registry makes a lot of sense.
>    ... I think the service idea is quite compelling.
>
>    <Carsten> Got to go as well, bye
>
>    matt: Maybe someone can take an action to look at current proposals
>    for registry type stuff? And maybe another for how this stuff can
>    fit in the Web architecture?
>
>    Raj: Sounds very open ended?
>
>    matt: Just starter stuff.
>
>    ahill2: Could someone report back on registries out there? I know
>    they are known to people, but maybe a listing of various dbpedias,
>    library of congress and other attempts to create registries of POIs?
>    Maybe some commentary on policies? How they manage change?
>    Centralized authority? Editorial board? Vote up/down?
>
>    karls: I'll take that action. I'm building out a content management
>    group as we speak, and so have had some look at things similar to
>    this.
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: karls to report to group on what community oriented
>    registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
>    [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]
>
>    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - karls
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: karl to report to group on what community oriented
>    registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
>    [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Report to group on what community
>    oriented registries exist and what their governance policies are [on
>    Karl Seiler - due 2011-04-13].
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: Raj to look into DNS based POI registry models due
>    two weeks [recorded in
>    [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Look into DNS based POI registry
>    models due two weeks [on Raj Singh - due 2011-04-13].
>
>    ahill2: We've talked about having experts come in to discuss things
>    we don't understand fully. Creating a service, I don't have the
>    experience for that. Maybe we can get an expert in for that?
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: matt to work on finding an expert to discuss with
>    WG about service oriented details [recorded in
>    [27]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action07]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Work on finding an expert to discuss
>    with WG about service oriented details [on Matt Womer - due
>    2011-04-13].
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: Karl to work with matt on ACTION-57 [recorded in
>    [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action08]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Work with matt on ACTION-57 [on Karl
>    Seiler - due 2011-04-13].
>
>    karls: I'll help Matt with that one.
>
>    ahill2: I assume OSM is one of the names involved in this, at least
>    for consideration.
>
>    matt: Sure.
>
>    -> [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open Open Actions
>
>      [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open
>
>    matt: Everyone please review action items! Close them if need be, or
>    open new ones or whatever.
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: Alex to start email thread on possible new call
>    time [recorded in
>    [30]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action09]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Start email thread on possible new
>    call time [on Alex Hill - due 2011-04-13].
>
>    <karls> adios amigos
>
>    action-50?
>
>    <trackbot> ACTION-50 -- Christine Perey to determine which OGC WGs
>    are meeting at OGC TC in June -- due 2011-04-07 -- OPEN
>
>    <trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/50
>
>      [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/50
>
>    trackbot, end meeting
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [NEW] ACTION: Alex to start email thread on possible new call time
>    [recorded in
>    [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action09]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Andy to find someone within OSM to collaborate with
>    [recorded in
>    [33]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]
>    [NEW] ACTION: karl to report to group on what community oriented
>    registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
>    [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Karl to work with matt on ACTION-57 [recorded in
>    [35]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action08]
>    [NEW] ACTION: karls to report to group on what community oriented
>    registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
>    [36]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Matt to update core draft Relationships Primitive to
>    reflect what we learned at the f2f [recorded in
>    [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]
>    [NEW] ACTION: matt to work on finding an expert to discuss with WG
>    about service oriented details [recorded in
>    [38]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action07]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Matt to write up summary of face to face meeting.
>    [recorded in
>    [39]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Raj to look into DNS based POI registry models due two
>    weeks [recorded in
>    [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      _________________________________________________________
>
>
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.133
>     ([42]CVS log)
>     $Date: 2011/04/06 14:23:42 $
>
>      [41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>      [42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 10 April 2011 11:09:28 UTC