IRC log of prov on 2011-08-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:44:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:44:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:44:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:44:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:44:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:44:23 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:44:24 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:44:24 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:44:24 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
14:44:24 [trackbot]
Date: 25 August 2011
14:44:27 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:44:40 [Luc]
14:44:50 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:58 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:52:07 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:14 [Zakim]
14:52:26 [pgroth]
zakim, ??P48 is me
14:52:26 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:55:54 [Zakim]
14:56:24 [Luc]
zakim, who is here?
14:56:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc
14:56:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
14:57:03 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:57:18 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
14:57:25 [edoardo]
edoardo has joined #prov
14:57:42 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has left #prov
14:57:53 [GK_]
GK_ has joined #prov
14:59:08 [Zakim]
14:59:48 [Helena]
Helena has joined #prov
15:00:14 [Luc]
zakim, who is here?
15:00:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh
15:00:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:00:27 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:00:36 [Zakim]
15:00:40 [yogesh]
yogesh has joined #prov
15:00:52 [Zakim]
15:01:35 [pgroth]
15:01:56 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:02:17 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is one the phone?
15:02:32 [Luc]
scribe: pgroth
15:02:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, pgroth.
15:02:46 [pgroth]
zakim, who is here?
15:02:54 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:03:00 [pgroth]
Topic: Agenda
15:03:06 [pgroth]
scribe: pgroth
15:03:11 [Zakim]
15:03:16 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:03:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh, ??P57, Curt, satya
15:03:17 [pgroth]
luc overviewing the agenda
15:03:28 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:03:30 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:03:37 [Luc]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Aug 18 telecon
15:03:42 [satya]
15:03:51 [Zakim]
15:03:52 [edoardo]
15:03:52 [Curt]
15:03:53 [Helena]
15:03:58 [dcorsar]
15:04:01 [Luc]
TOPIC: admin
15:04:04 [StephenCresswell]
15:04:12 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:04:15 [smiles]
15:04:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see smiles, khalidbelhajjame, satya, yogesh, Curt, Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:04:44 [Luc]
Accepted: the minutes of Aug 18 telecon
15:05:01 [pgroth]
reviewing the action items
15:05:08 [Zakim]
15:05:09 [pgroth]
luc still has an open action
15:05:22 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P61 is me
15:05:23 [Zakim]
15:05:29 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aaaa
15:05:30 [pgroth]
luc: discussing a potential f2f
15:05:45 [pgroth]
luc: initial discussions about f2f at iswc
15:05:47 [Zakim]
15:05:53 [Zakim]
15:05:59 [Luc]
15:06:10 [pgroth]
luc: but probably not good because of current work on various drafts
15:06:11 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:06:21 [pgroth]
luc: chairs will propose a time in the new year 2012
15:06:27 [Zakim]
15:06:38 [Zakim]
15:06:38 [jorn]
zakim, ??p6 is me
15:06:38 [pgroth]
luc: discussing the name of the standard
15:06:39 [Zakim]
I already had ??P61 as ??P61, khalidbelhajjame
15:06:41 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:06:41 [MacTed]
zakim, mute me
15:06:48 [pgroth]
luc: please update the suggestions
15:06:56 [Zakim]
15:07:03 [Zakim]
15:07:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh, ??P57, Curt, satya, ??P64, ??P66, +44.789.470.aaaa, ??P11, ??P6, OpenLink_Software, Yogesh, Yolanda
15:07:05 [Luc]
15:07:09 [pgroth]
luc: agenda item next week on the name of the standard
15:07:24 [Zakim]
15:07:27 [Zakim]
I already had ??P6 as ??P6, jorn
15:07:28 [pgroth]
luc: please volunteer for scribing:
15:07:29 [Luc]
Topic: Provenance Implementation and Test Cases
15:07:33 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:07:37 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:07:49 [pgroth]
luc: helena giving update on the questionnaire
15:07:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dcorsar, StephenCresswell, smiles, khalidbelhajjame, satya, Curt, Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:08:02 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:08:04 [pgroth]
luc: are you ready to role out the questionnaire
15:08:07 [pgroth]
helena: yes
15:08:18 [Zakim]
15:08:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.375.aabb
15:08:30 [pgroth]
luc: including already populating the questionnaire?
15:08:46 [pgroth]
helena: happy with the current questionanaire
15:08:47 [Luc]
Topic: Named graphs requirements
15:08:51 [Zakim]
15:09:02 [Zakim]
15:09:33 [pgroth]
luc: paul and I were contacted by the co-chair of the w3c rdf working group
15:09:41 [Zakim]
- +44.789.470.aaaa
15:09:50 [pgroth]
luc: ref wg would like to know what our requirements are in terms of named graphs
15:09:55 [pgroth]
luc: setting up a telecon
15:09:57 [pgroth]
15:10:18 [Paulo]
Paulo has joined #prov
15:10:33 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aacc
15:10:34 [pgroth]
luc: going over points from guus (in the agenda)
15:10:44 [Luc]
15:10:53 [Luc]
15:10:54 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:11:03 [Zakim]
15:11:06 [pgroth]
luc: includes a link to the current thinking and use cases with respect to named graphs
15:11:10 [jcheney]
zakim, ??p14 is me
15:11:10 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:11:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.915.603.aadd
15:11:39 [pgroth]
luc: rdf-wg would really like to have specific requirements that the prov-wg has on named graphs
15:12:01 [pgroth]
luc: this is a heads-up, who would be interested in getting involved in the discussion
15:12:26 [pgroth]
luc: in particular people involved in representing the model in rdf
15:12:32 [Luc]
15:12:33 [satya]
15:12:39 [Luc]
ack satya
15:13:05 [Paulo]
zakim, aadd is me
15:13:05 [Zakim]
+Paulo; got it
15:13:20 [pgroth]
satya: are they planning to extended existing work on rdf named graphs
15:13:25 [Luc]
15:14:21 [pgroth]
satya: in terms of representing provenance in rdf. there are other approaches in terms of contextualization, is named graphs the only approach
15:14:27 [smiles]
15:14:34 [Paulo]
15:14:40 [pgroth]
luc: rdf wg is chartered to do named graphs
15:15:15 [pgroth]
satya: is it overall for rdf group, or just for named groups
15:15:23 [pgroth]
luc: were approached only for named graphs
15:15:25 [pgroth]
15:15:26 [Luc]
15:15:29 [Luc]
ack smil
15:15:29 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:15:47 [pgroth]
smiles: suggest some requirements
15:16:02 [pgroth]
smiles: give the provenance of rdf based data
15:16:15 [Zakim]
15:16:18 [pgroth]
smiles: need to be able to say that two things have the same provenance
15:16:41 [Luc]
15:16:41 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
15:16:42 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:16:46 [Luc]
ack pau
15:17:25 [Luc]
paulo, isn't there an outline of specification in
15:17:26 [pgroth]
paulo: in terms of formal specification, they are moving targets, even if they have one, we need more than one for the provenance solution
15:17:50 [pgroth]
paulo: the fact that we want to work with named graphs are just one of the aspects of formalizing provenance
15:18:03 [khalidbelhajjame]
One of the concepts we may need RDF graph for is Provenance Container. We have not really discussed this concept in details yet, though.
15:18:24 [Luc]
15:18:27 [Paulo]
15:18:28 [Luc]
ack pgr
15:19:08 [Luc]
ack pau
15:19:09 [satya]
Paul: RDF WG is looking for requirements of named graphs - to help them identify their objectives
15:19:11 [Luc]
15:19:20 [pgroth]
pgroth: shaping where the rdf-wg is going on named graphs
15:19:50 [pgroth]
paulo: assumption is that the mapping to owl, and rdf is enough in terms of formalization
15:20:11 [Luc]
15:20:16 [pgroth]
paulo: not enough for the formalization
15:20:52 [khalidbelhajjame]
Paulo, we are investigating in the formal model task force on whether OWL is sifficient, or whether we need another language that we need to specify the semantics
15:21:05 [pgroth]
luc: simon identified two requirements for named graphs, there's a third requirement coming from the provenance container (have asserter, maybe having signature)
15:21:18 [pgroth]
luc: a possibility for provenance containers is to use named graphs
15:21:20 [Luc]
15:21:35 [pgroth]
luc: potentially another requirement for the rdf wg
15:21:47 [pgroth]
luc: start creating a wiki page for these requirements
15:21:50 [Zakim]
15:22:00 [satya]
I will be happy to create the page
15:22:02 [Luc]
15:22:11 [Zakim]
15:22:16 [jorn]
zakim, ??p15 is me
15:22:16 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:22:20 [smiles]
yes, that's fine
15:22:22 [pgroth]
luc: satya will create the page
15:22:25 [Luc]
15:22:32 [pgroth]
luc: simon will write up his requirements on the page
15:22:39 [Luc]
TOPIC: Adopting naming conventions
15:23:24 [pgroth]
luc: i had an action to poll the group on naming conventions
15:23:49 [pgroth]
luc: seems to have consensus around naming conventions (see agenda)
15:23:55 [pgroth]
luc: wants feed back
15:24:21 [pgroth]
luc: go through these conventions one by one
15:24:39 [pgroth]
luc: process, see whether there's objection or comments
15:24:40 [Luc]
To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:25:14 [dgarijo]
+1 (I think the ontology os already using this convention)
15:25:15 [Luc]
15:25:30 [Luc]
PROPOSED: To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:25:36 [satya]
15:25:37 [smiles]
15:25:37 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:25:38 [dcorsar]
15:25:39 [jcheney]
15:25:40 [jorn]
15:25:40 [edoardo]
15:25:41 [StephenCresswell]
15:25:42 [MacTed]
15:25:42 [dgarijo]
15:25:43 [Curt]
15:25:45 [Helena]
15:26:06 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:26:49 [pgroth]
luc: moving on whether we want To express nodes in noun form
15:27:08 [smiles]
15:27:12 [pgroth]
luc: we express edges in verbal form
15:27:15 [Luc]
ack smi
15:27:26 [Zakim]
15:27:50 [pgroth]
simon: a process execution might be best described by a verb (i.e. publish), the node in a particular graph might be a verb
15:27:54 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:28:08 [Luc]
15:28:13 [pgroth]
luc: talking about the concepts in the model or classes defined in the ontology
15:28:14 [MacTed]
hasPublisher ?
15:28:32 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:28:32 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:28:46 [Luc]
15:29:04 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:29:04 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:29:05 [pgroth]
MacTed: depending on what the process execution may be, you can noun things
15:29:18 [Luc]
PROPOSED: To express nodes in noun form
15:29:38 [satya]
15:29:38 [Curt]
15:29:38 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:29:40 [MacTed]
15:29:41 [smiles]
15:29:41 [edoardo]
15:29:41 [jcheney]
15:29:42 [dcorsar]
15:29:43 [StephenCresswell]
15:29:43 [Helena]
15:29:44 [jorn]
15:29:47 [dgarijo]
15:30:06 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: To express nodes in noun form
15:30:19 [Luc]
PROPOSED: To express edges in verbal form
15:30:21 [satya]
15:30:22 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:30:23 [edoardo]
15:30:27 [jorn]
15:30:27 [dcorsar]
15:30:28 [Curt]
15:30:28 [MacTed]
15:30:30 [Zakim]
15:30:32 [smiles]
15:30:35 [StephenCresswell]
15:30:35 [dgarijo]
15:30:37 [jcheney]
15:30:44 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: To express edges in verbal form
15:30:53 [dgarijo]
Luc, is Ralph here? He was the one that rose all the issues
15:31:12 [Zakim]
15:31:13 [dgarijo]
15:31:28 [pgroth]
luc: ralph is not around but there's nothing we can do
15:32:00 [pgroth]
luc: introducing the edge directionality
15:32:16 [Luc]
15:32:24 [pgroth]
luc: this directionality may be best expressed by pointing towards the past
15:32:30 [pgroth]
luc: asks for feedback
15:32:34 [dgarijo]
15:32:43 [pgroth]
luc: asks satya specifically, are you happy?
15:33:16 [pgroth]
luc: satya are you happy with your edges point towards the past
15:33:23 [pgroth]
satya: what do you mean?
15:33:38 [khalidbelhajjame]
entity <- uses--process execution
15:34:05 [jorn]
example: e2 is derived from e1, then e2 is the most recent entity and e1 is older, so edge points to past
15:34:06 [pgroth]
luc: giving examples of the possibilities
15:34:26 [MacTed]
process takesInput foo
15:34:26 [MacTed]
process hasOutput bar
15:35:05 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:35:05 [MacTed]
15:35:05 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:35:35 [pgroth]
luc: not discussing ordering of events
15:35:58 [pgroth]
luc: as designers of the model we have the choice of expressing the edges in different ways
15:36:03 [Zakim]
15:36:05 [pgroth]
luc: proposing to adopt a convention
15:36:07 [Luc]
15:36:30 [pgroth]
satya: we had the discussion in the formal model task group
15:37:00 [pgroth]
satya: from an ontology model perspective it doesn't matter, just a matter of style
15:37:38 [Zakim]
15:37:49 [Zakim]
15:37:54 [pgroth]
dgarijo: happy with everything in the past
15:38:05 [Luc]
ack dgar
15:38:19 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:38:54 [pgroth]
luc: not all edges should point to the past
15:39:07 [pgroth]
luc: only for edges that have an event ordering
15:39:17 [Luc]
15:39:24 [pgroth]
luc: currently, definition of hasParticipant does not imply an event ordering
15:39:42 [Luc]
ack mac
15:39:45 [StephenCresswell]
The ontology can define the edges in both direction (pairs of mutually inverse properties), and let people use which they find natural in their application.
15:39:59 [pgroth]
MacTed: is there a link to the event ordering definition
15:40:00 [satya]
15:40:25 [Luc]
15:40:26 [pgroth]
MacTed: i'm not getting a firm understanding of what is meant by the proposal
15:41:01 [pgroth]
Luc: explaining an example
15:41:58 [khalidbelhajjame]
Mac, he possibilities we are discussing are: entity <--uses---process execution and entity ---is used by --> process execution. In the first, the edges point to the past.
15:42:24 [pgroth]
MacTed: there are two time frames, saying both of those is useful
15:42:38 [jorn]
Luc's example: process generates output vs. output is generated by process
15:42:42 [pgroth]
luc: only one of them is defined in the model
15:42:44 [smiles]
I think the case for future-to-past directionality (as proposed) is clearest where provenance is distributed. If I have created a new entity, for example, then what I can link it to is other entities which already exist, but not to things which don't yet exist. So the new entity is the *subject* of what I'm asserting, the older entity is the *object*.
15:42:59 [pgroth]
Luc: useful to have a convention
15:43:19 [pgroth]
MacTed: this is a question for reasoning edges to deal with their inverse
15:44:10 [pgroth]
MacTed: inverse properties are extremely important for modeling
15:44:15 [Luc]
15:44:46 [pgroth]
Satya: this can be done in the ontology
15:45:24 [pgroth]
Luc: Ted would like to see the inverse properties expressed in the model as well
15:45:34 [Luc]
15:45:35 [pgroth]
Luc: do we have consensus
15:45:38 [pgroth]
15:45:45 [Zakim]
15:46:00 [MacTed]
ISSUE: express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology
15:46:00 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-83 - Express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology ; please complete additional details at .
15:46:16 [Luc]
15:46:21 [Luc]
ack khal
15:46:39 [Luc]
ack pg
15:46:51 [satya]
As part of the formal model discussion, we are enumerating the list of possible properties - I invite Ted to add his proposal to the ontology wiki:
15:46:54 [Luc]
why not define them as "short-cut/extensions"
15:48:10 [pgroth]
luc: is it a set of properties defined in the model
15:48:35 [Luc]
15:48:44 [Zakim]
15:49:04 [Zakim]
- +1.509.375.aabb
15:50:02 [Luc]
proposed: make a set of edges consistent with respect to directionality
15:50:16 [jorn]
q+ to mention that creating two ways of expressing one things always needs reasoning... problematic with masses of linked data
15:50:38 [Luc]
15:50:51 [Luc]
ack jorn
15:50:51 [Zakim]
jorn, you wanted to mention that creating two ways of expressing one things always needs reasoning... problematic with masses of linked data
15:51:19 [Luc]
15:51:20 [pgroth]
jorn: maybe problematic because you would always have to turn on reasoning
15:51:38 [pgroth]
MacTed: definitely not a should
15:52:53 [pgroth]
luc: it's important to right simple queries that let's us go into the past
15:53:02 [pgroth]
MacTed: you're looking at the wrong place
15:53:10 [pgroth]
MacTed: simple queries are not ruled out
15:53:17 [Zakim]
15:53:29 [Zakim]
15:53:29 [pgroth]
MacTed: inverse properties are going to exisit
15:53:36 [jorn]
zakim, ??p15 is me
15:53:36 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:54:06 [pgroth]
Luc: what are the relations pointing to the future and to the past?
15:54:15 [pgroth]
MacTed: you want both
15:55:12 [pgroth]
Luc: moving on from these issue because there is no consensus
15:55:43 [pgroth]
Luc: no stylistic constraints in how we write edge directions
15:55:50 [pgroth]
Luc: dropped issue
15:56:16 [pgroth]
Luc: moving on to the debate around past tense verses future tense
15:56:21 [Luc]
15:56:23 [pgroth]
Luc: should be consistent
15:56:33 [Luc]
15:56:34 [pgroth]
MacTed: missing temporality
15:56:40 [jcheney]
15:56:49 [smiles]
15:57:00 [dgarijo]
+1 for past tense. Provenance is for describing things that have already happened
15:57:00 [pgroth]
MacTed: all kinds of temporality that might be of interest
15:57:13 [jcheney]
15:57:21 [Luc]
15:57:22 [pgroth]
Luc: we are only talking about things in the past
15:57:28 [Luc]
ack smiles
15:57:29 [Luc]
15:57:39 [satya]
15:57:44 [pgroth]
simon: don't want future tense
15:58:00 [pgroth]
15:58:08 [Luc]
ack sat
15:58:25 [Luc]
15:58:56 [pgroth]
satya: bringing of the issue of the current
15:59:28 [pgroth]
satya: is it past perfect or continuous
15:59:37 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:59:49 [jorn]
there's one such process: the extraction of DBpedia from wikipedia takes a long time
15:59:52 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:00:00 [Luc]
16:00:01 [pgroth]
luc: are you talking bout the nodes or the edges (the process execution are the present) edges represent past actions
16:01:19 [Luc]
16:01:23 [khalidbelhajjame]
Sorry, will need to leave, I have another telecon
16:01:25 [Zakim]
- +44.789.470.aacc
16:01:26 [pgroth]
satya: using past perfect might not be enough because of continuous things
16:01:34 [Zakim]
16:01:56 [pgroth]
16:01:57 [smiles]
@satya I think there are edge cases where assertions may be about things ongoing, but I argue consistent past tense just makes things simple and clear for general intended use
16:02:06 [satya]
+1 for past tense (not sure about past perfect or continous)
16:02:47 [dgarijo]
@satya: you are not sure about isGeneratedBy vs wasGeneratedBy, right?
16:03:01 [Curt]
16:03:07 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:03:21 [Luc]
ack curt
16:03:27 [satya]
@Daniel: no I vote for "was"
16:03:57 [Luc]
16:04:04 [pgroth]
16:04:11 [Luc]
ack pgro
16:04:14 [MacTed]
verbal expression does not require "to be"
16:04:25 [MacTed]
(is, was, will be, has been)
16:04:32 [satya]
16:04:40 [Luc]
ack satya
16:04:51 [jorn]
isn't this about was generating vs. generated
16:05:04 [MacTed]
Produces, isProducedBy
16:05:18 [jorn]
16:05:24 [MacTed]
participation is linguistic
16:05:52 [Luc]
e.g., uses, isControlledBy, isComplementOf
16:05:53 [jorn]
16:06:13 [pgroth]
but you put uses
16:06:18 [MacTed]
isUsedBy ?
16:06:24 [pgroth]
luc: do we need is, was in the names
16:06:38 [Luc]
TOPIC: Provenance Ontology
16:06:46 [pgroth]
luc: update the status
16:06:52 [satya]
16:07:03 [pgroth]
luc: is there anything in the model that is blocking progression?
16:07:08 [pgroth]
satya: giving an update
16:07:18 [pgroth]
satya: invites people to go through the encoding
16:08:06 [pgroth]
satya: what's holding up is that we don't understand the definitions
16:08:25 [pgroth]
satya: the scope is often not clear from the model
16:08:31 [Zakim]
16:08:50 [pgroth]
satya: there is a gap in understanding of some concepts in particular roles
16:08:57 [Zakim]
16:09:16 [Luc]
satya, where is the example you referred to? in the document?
16:09:20 [pgroth]
satya: need very well defined domains and ranges
16:09:51 [pgroth]
satya: the approach we are taking is updating the html document and leaving the owl file until later
16:10:56 [dgarijo]
16:11:44 [Luc]
16:12:23 [Luc]
TOPIC: Provenance Model Document
16:12:43 [pgroth]
Luc: nothing specific to report on today
16:13:09 [Luc]
16:13:29 [Zakim]
16:13:31 [Zakim]
16:13:31 [Zakim]
16:13:33 [Zakim]
16:13:33 [Zakim]
16:13:34 [Zakim]
16:13:35 [Zakim]
16:13:36 [Zakim]
16:13:37 [Zakim]
16:13:43 [Zakim]
16:13:44 [Zakim]
16:13:47 [Zakim]
16:27:44 [Zakim]
16:27:45 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:27:47 [Zakim]
Attendees were pgroth, Luc, Vinh, Curt, satya, +44.789.470.aaaa, Yogesh, Yolanda, MacTed, +1.509.375.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, jcheney, +1.915.603.aadd, Paulo, dgarijo, jorn
19:00:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #prov