<trackbot> Date: 18 June 2010

Simon: <describes template for analysis with regard to the business contract scenario>

<pgroth> I thought about this as a hierarchy

<YolandaGIl> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_News_Aggregator_Scenario

<pgroth> topic - user requirements - technical requirements

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_Disease_Outbreak_Scenario

<YolandaGIl> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_Disease_Outbreak_Scenario

<pgroth> entry points would be good

<pgroth> from the research

<pgroth> have fun everyone

<pgroth> i'm off

Yolanda: by anchoring state of the art analyses in scenarios, helps those who need to represent provenance

James: worry about saying the same thing in several places, as state of art/TR apply in multiple scenarios

Yolanda: general TRs have overlap, need to be cut down

yes, that's what I meant

James: can start analysis by looking at general state of art known about (e.g. prov in databases) and say how it applies - part of gap analysis
... some people, including me, could work on analyses of technology towards scenarios

Yolanda: also signs up for this

<Dgarijo> me too

James: 1-2 page survey of technology area for provenance (e.g. me for databases) - who is interested in joining?

Yolanda: use existing survey papers as guidance
... get started on it, bring it up on later telecon to recruit more people

Simon: scenario-specific user requirements as instances of the general user requirements originally listed as relevant to scenario

<jcheney> The conclusions of the report may then be incorporated into policy briefing documents used by civil servants or experts on behalf of the government to identify possible policy decisions that will be made by (non-expert) decision makers, to help avoid or respond to future outbreaks of owl flu. This process may involve considering hypotheticals or reevaluating the primary data using different methodologies than those applied originally by Alice. The report and

Yolanda: need to rephrase, cut out general requirements where ambiguous, overlapping - check coverage by 3 scenarios after all analyses

<Paolo_> this seems to be very specific now, checking out I will catch up on the details

Simon: attach specific examples to user requirements (as in analysis of scenario 1) to aid understanding

Yolanda: remaining content user requirements seem relevant
... not sure whether long list of general reqs will be a product of the group

Simon: Paul intends to copy back rephrased requirements from scenarios to long list after analyses

<Dgarijo> Sure

<Dgarijo> i dont have a mic sorry

<Dgarijo> ok

Yolanda: to work on URs for scenario 2, TRs will be started in later telecon
... diagrams very helpful - anyone willing to help with this?

<Dgarijo> bye

trackbot, end telecon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: smiles
Inferring Scribes: smiles

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Dgarijo James Paolo_ Simon Yolanda YolandaGIl afreitas jcheney joined pgroth prov-xg trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 18 Jun 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/18-prov-xg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report