14:48:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:48:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/27-prov-irc
14:48:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:48:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:48:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:48:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:48:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:48:35 <trackbot> Date: 27 October 2011
14:48:43 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:48:43 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:48:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.27
14:49:11 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:49:44 <pgroth> Regrets: James Cheney, Christine Runnegar
14:50:00 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:55:03 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:55:09 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:55:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:55:33 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:55:59 <pgroth> can I get a scribe?
14:56:26 <Curt> I'll do it
14:56:46 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:56:48 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
14:57:07 <pgroth> thanks curt
14:57:15 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:57:16 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt_Tilmes
14:57:35 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt
14:58:16 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan
14:59:10 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:59:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
14:59:22 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:59:31 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:59:35 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
14:59:35 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:59:38 <Zakim> +??P44
14:59:57 <smiles> zakim, ??P44 is me
14:59:57 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
14:59:59 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:00:02 <Zakim> +??P54
15:00:40 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:01:20 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:01:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.27
15:01:34 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Oct 20 telecon
15:01:35 <dgarijo> +1
15:01:38 <Curt> +1
15:01:38 <Yogesh> +1
15:01:42 <satya> +1
15:01:48 <SamCoppens> +1
15:02:06 <pgroth> ACCEPTED Minutes of last week
15:02:32 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:02:34 <Curt> pgroth: 1 action, being updated, to be discussed later
15:02:36 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:02:39 <Curt> ... need scribes
15:02:51 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O
15:02:55 <Zakim> +SamCoppens
15:03:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:03:41 <Curt> satya: covered new stuff, including new extensions previously discussed
15:03:53 <dgarijo> we've also included examples to all the properties that didn't had them
15:04:00 <Curt> ... new examples: usage of time
15:04:09 <Curt> ... no roadblocks to moving to release draft
15:04:21 <Curt> ... need to proof-read end-to-end
15:04:32 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
15:04:39 <pgroth> q?
15:04:39 <Curt> ... a lot of changes, but content is largely in there now
15:04:42 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaaa
15:04:47 <dgarijo> +q
15:04:55 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 
15:05:36 <Curt> dgarijo: content is there, but need to determine approach to modeling
15:05:37 <khalidbelhajjame> Daniel is talking about EntityInRole
15:06:03 <Curt> ... How will EntityInRole be handled
15:06:21 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:06:28 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:06:30 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
15:06:30 <Curt> pgroth: Is there a consensus on that in the working group?
15:06:45 <pgroth> in the prov-o working group
15:07:03 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: we haven't had a specific discussion on that in the working group yet
15:07:21 <Curt> ... There are a number of issues on mapping the models to one another
15:07:26 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
15:07:37 <Zakim> +??P10
15:07:43 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:07:44 <Curt> ... discussions continue, there will be modifications.  We really need to be sure there are no show stoppers
15:07:48 <dgarijo> -q
15:07:50 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:08:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
15:08:44 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
15:08:44 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:09:01 <dgarijo> @Khalid: +1
15:09:02 <satya> @Daniel and Khalid +1
15:09:10 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: people in the working group working on it, 
15:09:22 <Curt> pgroth: can this be resolved quickly?
15:09:50 <khalidbelhajjame> Paul, the answer to your question IMO is yes
15:09:51 <satya> q+
15:09:57 <pgroth> ack satya 
15:10:07 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
15:10:26 <dgarijo> Both approaches are clear. Both have advantages and disadvantages. We just have to go for one, and stick to it.
15:10:27 <Curt> satya: basic issue is data model from Luc and Paolo.  We are trying to model a language 
15:10:46 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:10:47 <Curt> ... it is hard to get a perfect one-to-one mapping
15:10:55 <dgarijo> what imo is not the right approach is have the same discussion every two or 3 months.
15:10:56 <Curt> ... Especially with something like OWL
15:11:23 <Curt> ... e.g. what is the difference between annotation and attribution?
15:11:27 <pgroth> don't they have different names?
15:11:37 <Curt> ... We need some buy-in to move from ASN to OWL
15:11:59 <Curt> ... what does it mean for provenance?  Are we losing something with this mapping to the data model
15:12:08 <Curt> ... There can't be a perfect mappign
15:12:12 <dgarijo> @pgroth: some people argued that summaryOf, for instance, was very domain-specific.
15:12:22 <Luc> satya, are you sayiing interoperability is impossible????
15:12:26 <pgroth> Sub-Topic: Relation between PROV-DM and PROV-O
15:12:43 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0185.html
15:13:08 <Curt> pgroth: how do we resolve mapping between models? 
15:13:17 <pgroth> +q
15:13:19 <Curt> ... There may be a mismatch.  What process should we adopt?
15:13:20 <pgroth> q?
15:13:23 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:13:25 <satya> @Luc: no Luc, the interoperabilty is the aim of the the whole Semantic Web technology stack - hence by using RDF and OWL we are facilitating interoperability
15:13:37 <Luc> i can hear
15:14:36 <Curt> luc: khalid indicated there was an outline of a solution to address this
15:15:06 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:15:12 <dgarijo> +q
15:15:14 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:15:15 <dgarijo> -q
15:15:17 <Curt> ... not sure if agreement was reached
15:15:18 <satya> @Luc, so if we are talking about interoperability of PROV-DM and PROV-O it will require us to understand how both the ASN and RDF, OWL relate
15:15:33 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: Not everyone responded to proposal
15:15:43 <stain> had to put the baby to sleep
15:16:07 <Curt> ... By adding shortcut properties, we can connect entities to handle this
15:16:16 <Luc> @kahlid, this looks good to me
15:16:17 <pgroth> q?
15:16:18 <Curt> ... we are still discussing this
15:16:27 <Curt> ... topic for next monday's telecon
15:16:40 <dgarijo> +q
15:16:44 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:16:46 <Zakim> +stain
15:16:52 <Luc> we lost you , paul
15:16:58 <satya> Paul we lost you
15:17:49 <Curt> stain: we had this discussion and chose the current approach
15:18:16 <Curt> (sorry daniel, not stain)
15:18:16 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel +1
15:18:53 <Curt> luc: Need to decide and formalize the result and take that into account
15:19:03 <Curt> ... the current approach isn't good enough
15:19:16 <satya> @Daniel +1
15:19:50 <stain> (what is it we are talking about now, provo at all or something else?)
15:19:53 <Curt> luc: we could release the draft, but it really has problems, it doesn't match the model
15:20:07 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian, we are talking about Prov-o
15:20:11 <Curt> ... we must introduce entities to make it match
15:20:12 <khalidbelhajjame> and EntityInRole
15:20:15 <stain> ah\
15:20:35 <satya> @Luc, I guess what Daniel is saying that we use examples to demonstrate how one or the other approach does not work
15:20:38 <stain> what was that good name that was suggested as an alternative by Jim (I think)
15:20:40 <Curt> dgarijo: we can try to address that, but we need consensus on how to address it
15:20:53 <Luc> q+
15:20:58 <Luc> ack luc
15:21:01 <Luc> ack dga
15:21:08 <Curt> luc: there are other variants around OPM-O, there should be a way to handle it
15:21:13 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:21:28 <Luc> q+
15:21:30 <Curt> luc: it would be nice to contrast the two approaches with examples
15:21:31 <Luc> q?
15:21:34 <Luc> ack luc
15:21:34 <stain> +1 to try the different approaches with examples
15:21:44 <stain> the same for prov-dm
15:21:58 <satya> @Luc, from my perspective creating named classes for properties does not work in OWL, RDF
15:22:01 <Curt> luc: can you formulate examples contrasting the approaches?
15:22:31 <dgarijo> currently, all the examples are using the incorrect approach.
15:22:42 <smiles> @Luc, next agenda item is Prov-DM and the two proposals you put on the mailing list (regarding entity, process execution)
15:23:07 <Curt> Can Paul and Luc join next working group telecon to help resolve approach?
15:23:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:23:39 <Curt> satya: there are issues trying to model.  You need extra propertities to link the entities
15:23:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:24:04 <Curt> ... This will introduce addition blank nodes, they make it hard to transfer between applications
15:24:07 <pgroth> +[IPcaller] is me
15:24:08 <dgarijo> @Satya: they don't have to be blank nodes!
15:24:16 <pgroth> Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
15:24:16 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
15:24:18 <Curt> ... there isn't a good way to transfer the RDF blank nodes
15:24:36 <dgarijo> they have to be unique instances of the properties, just like the unique instances of EntityInRole.
15:24:43 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:24:44 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:24:52 <dgarijo> in fact, the approaches are very similar (in essence)
15:24:53 <Curt> ... there are practical reasons why the biomedical community has gone to using roles
15:25:06 <Curt> ... and have a different way of modeling some things
15:25:20 <Zakim> -pgroth
15:25:20 <sandro> @Satya FYI the RDF WG has decided on a standard way to do Skolemization, although it's still just in a Working Draft.   not sure that helps much with this problem.
15:25:23 <Curt> ... the simple approach runs into problems others in the SW community have already run into
15:25:24 <Lena> on blank nodes: http://axel.deri.ie/publications/mall-etal-2011ISWC.pdf
15:25:42 <Lena> (paper nominated for best paper award as ISWC 2011)
15:25:48 <Curt> Luc: Maybe that problem doesn't actually hit us, let's look at examples
15:25:49 <Luc> q?
15:25:51 <stain> you can name any node, obviously. 
15:26:00 <Luc> ack khal
15:26:01 <dgarijo> they cab be blank nodes, but they don't necessarily have to.
15:26:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:26:30 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: In our context, we won't have that problem, we have some shortcuts
15:26:40 <Curt> ... that can link the constructs.
15:26:47 <Luc> i hope to be able to join you on Monday
15:26:52 <Luc> q?
15:26:53 <dgarijo> +q
15:26:54 <Curt> ... we won't have the drawbacks that others have run into 
15:27:00 <satya> @Daniel: In OWL, RDF, there is a single URI for properties (both object and datatype) - so a property does not have instances as OWL classes
15:27:01 <Curt> ... we will discuss at monday's telecon
15:27:10 <pgroth> q?
15:27:14 <pgroth> pgroth has left #prov
15:27:26 <Luc> q?
15:27:36 <Luc> ack dga
15:27:41 <Curt> dgarijo: If there are n-ary relationships, there isn't a good solution.  The current approach is confusing.
15:28:00 <Luc> q?
15:28:01 <Curt> Luc: We will have to resolve this and make a decision.
15:28:18 <Curt> Topic: PROV-DM
15:28:36 <dgarijo> @Satya: but n-ary relationships are a well known ontology pattern too.
15:28:40 <satya> @Daniel, so I am not sure I understand your point
15:28:53 <Curt> Luc: On monday we will discuss examples of two approaches and converge toward solution.
15:28:54 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:29:10 <satya> @Daniel, can you give examples of ontologies that use n-ary properties modeled as classes?
15:29:18 <pgroth> sorry everyone
15:29:20 <Curt> Luc: Two proposals were floated on mailing list
15:29:23 <Luc>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Oct/0195.html 
15:29:40 <stain> the problem is often finding a good name for the n-ary class, we've got Generation, Use and Control, which is not too bad
15:29:45 <stain> they are of course no longer properties
15:29:52 <stain> just n-ary relationship
15:29:55 <satya> @Sandro thanks! I will read the RDF Working Draft
15:29:58 <dgarijo> @Satya: people are complaining because the current approach is hard to follow. And basically, EntityInRole is a "trick" to avoidintroducing the classes. I like the approach because it's simpler
15:30:04 <Curt> Luc: A number of votes on proposals
15:30:09 <dgarijo> (I mean, the current approach)
15:30:13 <Curt> Luc: overwhelming support for first proposal
15:30:39 <Luc> PROPOSED: in section 2.1 [1], to define an entity as an identifiable characterized thing.
15:30:41 <dgarijo> @Satya: One example: OPMO :P
15:30:55 <Luc> ACCEPTED: in section 2.1 [1], to define an entity as an identifiable characterized thing.
15:31:12 <Luc> PROPOSED: to rename 'process execution' by 'activity' 
15:31:18 <Curt> Luc: not as much support for second proposal
15:31:48 <Curt> Luc: rationale - the first proposal introduces entity as an  identifiable characterized thing
15:32:00 <Curt> ... we need to bring section 5 to match
15:32:10 <sandro> @satya specifically:  http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdf11-concepts-20110830/#section-skolemization
15:32:33 <Curt> ... entity expression describes entity
15:32:49 <satya> @Daniel: OPMO has multiple OWL specific modeling issues and there are no application using OPMO for generating RDF in contrast to ontologies listed in NCBO: http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies
15:33:01 <satya> @Sandro thanks!
15:33:12 <Curt> ... there are negative votes for replacing process execution with activity
15:33:18 <dgarijo> @Satya: yes, there are.
15:33:34 <JimMcCusker> +q
15:33:37 <Curt> Luc: first proposal being accepted and not second would make document confusing
15:33:44 <Luc> ack Jim
15:33:51 <pgroth> we can't hear you
15:33:52 <Luc> we can't hear you
15:33:57 <satya> @Daniel, also easier does not mean repeating mistakes already known to the community'
15:34:05 <Curt> JimMcCusker: Plan B is to use some other word
15:34:10 <satya> @Daniel, can you send pointers
15:34:32 <Curt> ... there are problems with process as well, but it is ok
15:34:37 <Curt> ... perhaps use event?
15:34:50 <Curt> Luc: that isn't the current issue
15:35:13 <pgroth> +q
15:35:26 <dgarijo> @satya: http://webenemasuno.linkeddata.es/models_en.html, http://www.policygrid.org/ (But according to what Luc is saying, maybe we should leave this for monday)
15:35:32 <Curt> JimMcCusker: Borrow the term as an alternative
15:35:39 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:36:00 <Curt> Luc: There is no proposal to remove term activity.  We are just trying to align terms.
15:36:15 <Curt> ... We can make it clear that there is no agency involved
15:36:25 <Curt> JimMcCusker: Activity implies actor
15:36:27 <pgroth> +q
15:36:34 <Luc> q?
15:36:36 <Curt> ... invites misinterpretation
15:36:43 <stain> \=1
15:36:43 <Luc> ack
15:36:46 <stain> plus 1
15:36:47 <Luc> ack pgr
15:36:58 <Curt> pgroth: Why didn't this come up earlier?
15:37:17 <Curt> ... We can at least simplify this so we are discussing one term
15:37:24 <stain> I think it did not come up earlier because it was just in the preamble of the conceptualisation which was always about "stuff and things in the world" and probably easy to overlook
15:37:27 <Curt> ... This proposal is trying to simplify use of terms
15:37:30 <Luc> currently, a minimum of 54 occurrences of the word activity in prov-dm
15:37:30 <JimMcCusker> I didn't raise it earlier because "activity" was being used informally.
15:37:45 <Curt> ... Other terms are a separate issue
15:38:02 <Curt> JimMcCusker: Ok, if the proposal is to align terms, we should do that
15:38:17 <Curt> Luc: proposal not perfectly clear, but the intent is alignment
15:38:19 <pgroth> q?
15:38:21 <pgroth> q+
15:38:25 <Luc> q?
15:38:26 <stain> alignment can happen from both sides
15:39:05 <pgroth> PROPOSED: align terminology of process execution and activity with entity and entity expression
15:40:10 <Luc> PROPOSED: align terminology of process execution expression and entity expression with activity and entity
15:40:22 <Luc> PROPOSED: align terminology of process execution expression and entity expression with activity and entity, respectively
15:40:32 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:40:32 <Luc> q?
15:40:35 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:40:39 <Curt> Luc: Jim, is that better?
15:41:01 <Curt> JimMcCusker: Yes, that is better, I'll raise the issue
15:41:09 <Luc> q?
15:41:17 <satya> q+
15:41:17 <smiles> +1
15:41:18 <JimMcCusker> +1
15:41:23 <zednik> +1
15:41:24 <dgarijo> +1
15:41:30 <stain> +1
15:41:40 <Zakim> -stain
15:41:43 <Curt> satya: 'align' is to use the new terms?
15:41:58 <Curt> ... we are replacing the terms in the document
15:42:06 <Curt> Luc: Yes, we are using the new terms
15:42:36 <Luc> q?
15:42:43 <Luc> ack satya
15:42:43 <satya> +1 (differentiating between activity execution and activity specification)
15:42:44 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:42:45 <Curt> +1
15:42:46 <SamCoppens> +1
15:42:49 <YolandaGil> +1
15:43:01 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
15:43:01 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan
15:43:07 <Luc> ACCEPTED: align terminology of process execution expression and entity expression with activity and entity, respectively
15:43:08 <Zakim> +stain
15:43:28 <dgarijo> @Satya: but activity specification isn't Recipe (or recipeLink) already?
15:43:51 <dgarijo> I mean, they are already differentiated, right?
15:43:59 <satya> @Daniel: I did not find anything about OPMO and for PRISMA I did not see how OPMO is used for SIOC, MPEG-7 and other ontologies
15:44:08 <Curt> simon: people are adding a lot to the document
15:44:14 <Curt> ... intro done, examples coming in
15:44:43 <Curt> ... sections allocated, Tim, Ted contributing sections
15:44:46 <Luc> ted?
15:45:14 <Luc> q?
15:45:15 <Curt> ... The rest is almost there, need some examples from some others
15:45:17 <dgarijo> @Satya: in the webn+1 project is used for describing the evolution of the entities (travel guides). SIOC, MPEG-7 and other ontologies are used to describe those entities further.
15:45:25 <Curt> ... Paolo has been checking against the conceptual model
15:45:31 <Curt> ... Satya will check against the formal model
15:45:37 <dgarijo> @Satya: http://webenemasuno.linkeddata.es/page/elviajero/resource/Guide/20040117ELPVIALBV_6.TES
15:45:38 <Luc> q?
15:46:08 <zednik> q+
15:46:11 <satya> @Daniel: translation :)
15:46:27 <Curt> simon: examples to be done soon, waiting on Tim,Ted sections, hopefully draft within the week
15:46:30 <pgroth> q+
15:46:35 <Luc> ack zed
15:46:49 <Curt> zednik: Roles examples, same issues with entity and role
15:46:57 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
15:47:21 <pgroth> you mean entityinrole?
15:47:25 <Curt> ... in the work example, entity/role problems are still confusing
15:47:35 <Luc> q?
15:47:43 <zednik> q-
15:47:44 <Curt> Luc: hopefully we'll have a better solution on Monday
15:47:44 <Zakim> +SamCoppens
15:47:50 <stain> q\ 
15:48:01 <pgroth> q?
15:48:02 <Luc> ack pg
15:48:16 <stain> q 
15:48:28 <Curt> pgroth: primer - do the examples have problems that are difficult to explain?
15:48:33 <Luc> ... or are difficult to understand in prov-dm?
15:48:38 <Curt> ... Are you capturing problems explaining things?
15:49:04 <Luc> q?
15:49:47 <Curt> Roles/entities are the most difficult, should be resolved on monday
15:49:56 <Curt> zednik: also accounts
15:50:15 <Curt> Luc: We haven't really debated much about accounts yet
15:50:30 <Curt> ... We might need to make changes to PROV-DM for accounts, but we haven't addressed
15:50:55 <Luc> q?
15:51:38 <Curt> Topic: Building an Example Catalogue
15:51:52 <Curt> Luc: people writing documents, primer, etc. are making examples
15:52:07 <Curt> ... We should build a catalogue of those examples systematically
15:52:46 <Curt> ... We need something wider to evaluate the various representations
15:52:50 <Luc> q?
15:53:08 <pgroth> +1
15:53:10 <Curt> Luc: Should we do that?  How should we approach it?
15:53:10 <Luc> q?
15:53:11 <stain> hard to keep in sync 
15:53:29 <dgarijo> @Luc: +1 for the catalogue. Are we going to have more than one RDF representation??
15:54:00 <Curt> stain: examples aren't complex enough to handle everything
15:54:27 <Luc> q?
15:54:28 <Curt> ... difficult to make them match everything and stay up to date
15:54:42 <Curt> Luc: concepts will stabilize, then it will be easier
15:54:43 <pgroth> q+
15:54:52 <Luc> ack pg
15:55:10 <Curt> pgroth: We could do it as an adjunct to the primer
15:55:31 <Curt> ... The primer could link to the examples on separate pages, we could restructure
15:55:31 <Luc> q?
15:55:55 <Curt> ... into a catalogue.  Revisit after things are more stable.
15:56:17 <Curt> ... A single wiki page that links to all the different examples.
15:56:22 <stain> +1
15:56:30 <Curt> ... Link to blog posts, primer examples, etc. at least get a common list
15:56:49 <satya> @Daniel If you are interested, we can have short skype call right after the telcon now (just reviewed web1ontology.owl)
15:56:50 <Curt> Luc: Something more formal would help with tool development
15:57:01 <Luc> q?
15:57:30 <Curt> pgroth: Use wiki page as a directory, then add more structure/formality later
15:57:31 <dgarijo> @satya: ok
15:57:34 <Luc> q?
15:57:35 <smiles> q+
15:57:47 <Luc> ack sm
15:57:47 <satya> q+
15:58:10 <pgroth> yeah
15:58:19 <pgroth> well the turtle file
15:58:25 <Curt> smiles: How would that work?
15:58:40 <Curt> Luc: As an RDF file, turtle, that would work.
15:58:51 <pgroth> yeah
15:58:53 <Luc> q?
15:58:53 <Curt> ... Some comments with context/documentation
15:59:01 <Luc> ack sat
15:59:26 <pgroth> q+
15:59:30 <Curt> satya: How should we link the RDF/turtle files to the wiki/mercurial repository?
15:59:45 <pgroth> q-
15:59:51 <stain> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/90a007a1712d/ontology/examples/ontology-extensions
15:59:54 <Curt> Luc: Have a top level mercurial area for examples.  If Tim has a structure, we can adopt it
16:00:02 <stain> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/90a007a1712d/ontology/components
16:00:04 <Luc> q?
16:00:19 <stain> but its only provo now of course
16:00:31 <Zakim> -stain
16:00:36 <stain> sorry
16:00:40 <stain> son pulled phone
16:00:49 <Lena> (i have to go to another telco, I will continue to help simon in the primer document + RDF examples)
16:00:56 <Zakim> +stain
16:01:12 <Zakim> -??P10
16:01:17 <Curt> Luc: A top-level project would help organize it.  Stain noted there are PROV-O examples already there
16:01:37 <Luc> q?
16:01:55 <Curt> pgroth: Let's proceed, sort out details on email
16:02:01 <Luc> q?
16:02:04 <stain> some of the components ex are out of date or experimental
16:02:13 <stain> but thart can be cleaned
16:02:18 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:02:18 <Zakim> -smiles
16:02:20 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:02:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:23 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:02:24 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:02:25 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:02:34 <Zakim> -stain
16:02:34 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:02:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/27-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:02:41 <Zakim> -Luc
16:02:47 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:02:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:47 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Yogesh_Simmhan, Sandro, dgarijo, smiles, Satya_Sahoo, SamCoppens, +1.518.633.aaaa, Yolanda, Luc, stain, pgroth, [IPcaller]
16:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/27-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:02:51 <Zakim> -Yolanda