IRC log of prov on 2011-11-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:47:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:47:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:47:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:47:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
15:47:28 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:47:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:47:29 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:29 [trackbot]
Date: 10 November 2011
15:47:38 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:47:38 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
15:47:57 [pgroth]
15:48:13 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:48:41 [pgroth]
Regrets: Christine Runnegar
15:49:12 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:49:48 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
15:53:32 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:54:01 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:54:08 [Zakim]
15:54:32 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:56:09 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:56:31 [pgroth]
any volunteers for scribe?
15:56:42 [Zakim]
15:56:55 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:56:55 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:56:59 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:19 [Zakim]
15:58:24 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:58:47 [Zakim]
15:58:48 [Zakim]
15:59:17 [saty]
saty has joined #prov
16:00:07 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P55 is me
16:00:07 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
16:00:19 [pgroth]
Scribe: Paolo
16:00:24 [Zakim]
16:00:41 [Zakim]
16:00:48 [Zakim]
16:00:53 [jcheney]
Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:00:53 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
16:01:01 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aaaa
16:01:09 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:01:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:20 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
16:01:20 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
16:01:25 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:36 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:01:41 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P64 is me
16:01:41 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:05 [Zakim]
16:02:19 [tlebo]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, +1.315.330.aabb, [ISI]
16:02:46 [Zakim]
16:02:49 [tlebo]
Zakim, aabb is tlebo
16:02:56 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
16:03:04 [Zakim]
16:03:22 [Zakim]
16:03:29 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P80 is me
16:03:29 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:03:57 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:04:02 [GK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], [IPcaller.a], khalidbelhajjame
16:04:12 [pgroth]
16:04:18 [pgroth]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 3 telecon
16:04:19 [saty]
16:04:23 [smiles]
16:04:29 [Curt]
0 (did not attend)
16:04:30 [khalidbelhajjame]
+0 (was not in last week)
16:04:30 [Paolo]
16:04:41 [tlebo]
16:04:41 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:04:43 [GK]
Khalid, are you sure ??PP80 is you?
16:04:43 [StephenCresswell]
16:04:47 [jcheney]
16:04:56 [khalidbelhajjame]
@Graham, not sure
16:05:07 [pgroth]
ACCEPTED Nov 3. 2011 minutes
16:05:17 [pgroth]
16:05:25 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
16:05:27 [khalidbelhajjame]
@Graham, I will leave the call and come back and see
16:05:34 [Zakim]
16:06:10 [Paolo]
Tim's action presumably taken care of
16:06:19 [Paolo]
Paul completed his action (42)
16:06:20 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
16:06:24 [Paolo]
Tim's action was 41 -- closed
16:06:28 [Zakim]
16:06:32 [pgroth]
Reminder F2F2 Poll:
16:06:49 [Zakim]
16:06:49 [Paolo]
we are skipping action 40 at this time
16:06:53 [GK]
zakim, ??pp80 is me
16:06:53 [Zakim]
sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named '??pp80'
16:07:06 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P72 is me
16:07:06 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:07:08 [Zakim]
16:07:13 [GK]
zakim, pp80 is me
16:07:13 [Zakim]
sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named 'pp80'
16:07:25 [dgarijo]
Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:07:25 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
16:07:28 [GK]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo
16:07:39 [Paolo]
16:08:18 [Paolo]
Simon: good contribs but still got gaps
16:08:35 [Paolo]
Simon: Stephan , Paolo, Yolanda to contribute to a complete draft by this week
16:08:53 [Paolo]
Simon: so that the WG can start commenting
16:09:02 [Paolo]
Simon: Stephan creating turtle examples
16:09:08 [Paolo]
Simon: Simon to complete the intro
16:09:08 [Vinh]
Vinh has joined #prov
16:09:11 [Zakim]
16:09:18 [Paolo]
Simon: Yolanda to give it a check
16:09:33 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:09:36 [Paolo]
Simon: then Paolo to translate turtle -> ASN
16:09:59 [Paolo]
Simon:: accounts still missing. That's because it hasn't settled in PROV-O
16:10:06 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:10:06 [pgroth]
16:10:18 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
16:10:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aacc
16:10:32 [tlebo]
Account will be defined :-)
16:10:36 [Paolo]
Khalid: on account. PROV-O will not have explicit account, as named graphs will be used
16:10:52 [tlebo]
Account will be part of the ontology :-)
16:11:12 [Paolo]
Simon: still, some encoding of them is needed for the examples
16:11:15 [GK]
q+ to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph
16:11:18 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
16:11:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.343.aadd
16:11:23 [pgroth]
Zakim, who's loud?
16:11:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:11:51 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
16:11:52 [Zakim]
sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+44.238.059.aaaa'
16:11:53 [Paolo]
Tim: wil use named grpahs, but also RDF to express accounts. So it's going to be both
16:12:04 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:12:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo, Sandro,
16:12:05 [Paolo]
16:12:07 [Zakim]
... +1.518.633.aacc, +1.937.343.aadd
16:12:20 [Vinh]
zakim, +1.937.343.aadd is me
16:12:21 [Zakim]
+Vinh; got it
16:12:43 [pgroth]
ack gk
16:12:43 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph
16:12:43 [Luc]
... and also in prov-dm, accounts need to be finalized
16:12:56 [Paolo]
Paul: fine, but work is still ongoing in PROV-O re: accounts, which explains why they are not in the primer at tis time
16:13:01 [Paolo]
16:13:05 [tlebo]
ORE - good pointer?
16:13:11 [tlebo]
16:13:17 [pgroth]
16:13:37 [pgroth]
16:13:41 [Paolo]
Simon: distribution of first draft expected by start of next week
16:13:42 [tlebo]
A rough example of account modeling:
16:13:48 [pgroth]
Topic: PAQ
16:13:56 [smiles]
@Paolo shall I take over scribing now?
16:14:10 [Paolo]
@simon: yes please, much appreciated :-)
16:14:14 [smiles]
Scribe: smiles
16:14:15 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:14:31 [Lena]
Lena has joined #prov
16:14:42 [Paolo]
I will do my other half next time :-)
16:14:46 [smiles]
GK: Updated PAQ, as agreed for FPWD
16:15:01 [smiles]
GK: Note, not yet fully proof read
16:15:43 [smiles]
pgroth: Big changes are to align the PAQ with the terminology in DM, e.g. entity
16:16:06 [smiles]
... and a decision about the format of headers for retrieving provenance info for a resource
16:16:29 [smiles]
... and added a section to deal with incremental access to large amounts of provenance
16:16:46 [smiles]
... Also compacted things, referring to DM
16:16:55 [smiles]
... Everyone please look at the document
16:17:12 [smiles]
GK: Closed issue tags in document but not tracker
16:17:44 [smiles]
... Comment from Yogesh about not guaranteed to get identifier of entity in provenance data, so added note on this
16:17:49 [pgroth]
16:18:05 [Luc]
16:18:27 [smiles]
Luc: Decide in next telecon whether to release FPWD?
16:18:42 [pgroth]
16:18:43 [smiles]
pgroth: Yes, would be good to know if there are any show stoppers by next telecon
16:18:44 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:18:48 [pgroth]
16:18:56 [tlebo]
16:19:02 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:19:16 [smiles]
tlebo: Will predicate hasProvenance be encoded in Prov-O?
16:19:52 [smiles]
GK: Was included for discussion, but yes need to agree with other task forces (namespace, name, inclusion in ontology)
16:20:08 [satya]
16:20:25 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:20:32 [smiles]
tlebo: Will start developing inclusion of hasProvenance into ontology
16:20:42 [smiles]
satya: What is domain and range?
16:20:53 [tlebo]
16:20:58 [smiles]
GK: Domain is entity, range to be decided (account?)
16:21:08 [tlebo]
16:21:37 [pgroth]
16:21:42 [smiles]
satya: What provenance is may change across applications, need to assert about account or container itself
16:21:46 [smiles]
GK: Yes
16:22:00 [smiles]
GK: Account or container is itself an entity
16:22:00 [pgroth]
16:22:00 [satya]
@GK +1 for that point
16:22:20 [dgarijo]
@GK that sound good to me too
16:22:21 [pgroth]
Topic: Update on PROV-O
16:22:56 [smiles]
satya: Fleshed out details on how to add qualifier info to predicates, modelled under class QualifiedInvolvement
16:23:16 [smiles]
satya: Outstanding issues: need good name for QI to entity link
16:23:41 [tlebo]
(we have been running with prov:entity, but prov:entityInQualification was suggested and sounds reasonable)
16:23:44 [Paolo]
apologies for checking out now --
16:23:46 [smiles]
... inference rules to apply to non-binary properties with new classes
16:24:03 [Zakim]
16:24:24 [smiles]
... need clarifications on DM: can roles be associated with both entities and process executions?
16:24:35 [smiles]
... at the moment only one or the other
16:25:03 [pgroth]
16:25:05 [smiles]
... Moving forward, all terms except "entity in role" modelled, so working towards FPWD
16:25:06 [Luc]
16:25:09 [Luc]
16:25:13 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:25:53 [tlebo]
The proposal is at
16:25:55 [smiles]
satya: n-ary properties modelled as classes, can say 8 as denominator in division process
16:26:05 [smiles]
... but cannot model role of process execution
16:26:15 [zednik]
the process execution has a role (part or function) in itself?
16:26:19 [smiles]
Luc: Please send an email explaining problem with example
16:26:23 [pgroth]
16:26:27 [GK]
That ORE reference I mentioned for mentioning graphs in an ontology:
16:26:29 [smiles]
satya: sure
16:26:32 [tlebo]
16:26:54 [pgroth]
16:27:16 [smiles]
pgroth: In charter, have notion of natural XML serialisation of the DM
16:27:34 [smiles]
... due at 18 months, but can start thinking about now
16:27:49 [smiles]
... want to know who is interested in starting to produce this serialisation
16:28:05 [pgroth]
16:28:08 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:28:10 [jcheney]
16:28:10 [pgroth]
16:28:17 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:28:55 [smiles]
jcheney: Some people previously said that RDF can be expressed in XML, but sounds like in charter going straight from DM to XML
16:29:03 [smiles]
... would be interested in being involved in some way
16:29:32 [smiles]
pgroth: Yes, in charter, straight from DM to XML, RDF/XML is not pretty XML
16:29:44 [pgroth]
16:29:58 [GK]
Presumable, want something that plays well with XML tooling, which RDF/XML does not.
16:30:06 [Luc]
16:30:11 [smiles]
jcheney: We should agree that this is indeed what is intended
16:30:17 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:31:09 [smiles]
Luc: Interested in this, have had questions from users on OPM XML and interested in Prov XML schema, and they may be interested in contributing
16:31:26 [smiles]
... Has very early attempt at XML schema
16:31:29 [pgroth]
16:31:50 [Luc]
16:31:54 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:32:03 [smiles]
pgroth: 2 people interested, maybe need to bring in other experts from outside
16:32:15 [zednik]
xml - I may be able to help, but will not be able to lead
16:32:32 [GK]
I might be interested in JSON :)
16:32:47 [khalidbelhajjame]
Me too Graham
16:32:52 [smiles]
Luc: questionnaire circulated showed interest in many serialisations, so some may be able to help with XML
16:32:52 [Curt]
16:33:07 [smiles]
zednik: Yes, users interested in XML
16:33:15 [smiles]
... close to that of RDF
16:33:24 [GK]
(Even Zakim is interested, apparently :) )
16:33:25 [smiles]
Luc: go back to those people?
16:33:50 [smiles]
Luc: First go back to those people for feedback
16:33:51 [tlebo]
@gk, could you write something at ?
16:33:58 [smiles]
zednik: will do so
16:34:15 [smiles]
Luc: may not be able to list on Wiki or email for privacy
16:34:38 [smiles]
zednik: some users agreed to have feedback shared, can put document up on protected W3C site
16:34:43 [GK]
@tlebo, sure
16:35:00 [smiles]
pgroth: Saw JSON interest on IRC, are people interest?
16:35:02 [pgroth]
Interest in JSON note?
16:35:15 [satya]
16:35:16 [zednik]
16:35:17 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:35:21 [sandro]
16:35:23 [jcheney]
+0.5 (what would we say exactly?)
16:35:23 [GK]
+1 ... but not in a rush to do it
16:35:25 [Curt]
We use JSON internally, but I think RDF makes a better standard for interchange.
16:35:27 [Curt]
16:35:36 [dgarijo]
16:35:52 [pgroth]
16:36:01 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-Semantics
16:36:37 [smiles]
pgroth: Deliverable on semantics in charter, but up to us to decide what is usable and interesting for standard
16:36:54 [jcheney]
Two possibilities (not mutually exclusive):
16:36:59 [GK]
q+ to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics
16:37:11 [jcheney]
1. Developing a mathematical model of the "things", "entities", "processes", "events" and other relationships as in the PROV-DM, and explaining the PROV-DM statements in terms of this model. (current strawman)
16:38:17 [smiles]
jcheney: Current strawman generated some discussion, but died down, also needs updating to current DM
16:38:52 [smiles]
jcheney: Luc said was helpful, can provide some justifications for inferences
16:39:33 [jcheney]
2. Defining the mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-O (and maybe "PROV-XML") formally, e.g. using a datalog or ML-like notation.
16:40:04 [smiles]
jcheney: We might not just want to specify data model and serialisations separately, but also formally how we map from DM to those representations, what it means to be a correct translation
16:40:49 [smiles]
jcheney: Don't want to have multiple translators between each pair of serialisations, want to translate to Prov-DM and back
16:41:07 [pgroth]
16:41:12 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:41:12 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics
16:42:14 [smiles]
GK: Concerned that there is a confusion between the DM and the RDF representation (as James said, but focus more on concepts)
16:42:49 [smiles]
... concerned about pushing RDF concepts into DM without RDF semantics, better for DM to be above the RDF structure
16:42:56 [satya]
@GK +1 for not conflating DM and RDF semantics'
16:43:16 [smiles]
... formal semantics, independent from OWL, for DM could help with this
16:43:39 [smiles]
... then may be possible to prove that RDF semantics corresponds to abstract DM
16:43:48 [pgroth]
16:43:49 [satya]
16:43:55 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:44:25 [tlebo]
+1 for adding a DM semantics. Some of the inferences in the DM writeup are difficult to follow from its narrative.
16:44:41 [smiles]
satya: Not clear how mapping is related to formal semantics, why not just translation
16:44:46 [GK]
@satya - isn't this like prrof-theoretic and model-theoretic laters?
16:44:47 [pgroth]
16:44:52 [Luc]
16:45:02 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:45:26 [jcheney]
16:45:31 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:45:32 [smiles]
Luc: James' suggestion 2 is good from interoperability point of view, regardless of whether part of formal semantics activity
16:45:48 [tlebo]
q+ to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON.
16:46:14 [satya]
@GK, I guess but not sure in context of DM and its semantics
16:46:14 [GK]
q+ to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms
16:46:37 [smiles]
jcheney: We already talk about how to translate ASN to Prov-O in Prov-O document, so thought useful to have more mathematically precise defn of that in formal semantics
16:46:58 [Zakim]
16:47:02 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:47:02 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON.
16:47:03 [satya]
@James - I think we need it
16:47:08 [smiles]
... if we have one deliverable of formalisation, then a formal mapping to serialisation should go there
16:47:45 [smiles]
tlebo: How does mechanics of formal semantics work? How different to, more precise than the serialisations?
16:48:17 [satya]
@James - In addition, as WG we have the responsibility for defining the mappings between the different representations (DM, PROV-O, XML, JSON)
16:48:45 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
16:48:54 [Zakim]
16:49:02 [smiles]
jcheney: First thought of what goes in formal semantics is like RDF semantics, e.g. what you can write in the language
16:49:07 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P2 is me
16:49:07 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
16:49:30 [tlebo]
what do you mean by "scope" :-)
16:49:45 [tlebo]
naming or account partitioning
16:50:02 [pgroth]
16:50:34 [satya]
16:50:44 [smiles]
... If we have semantics abstracts from what you have to write down, then can express self-consistency of scoping rules etc..
16:50:56 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:50:56 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms
16:51:37 [smiles]
GK: In SW area, model theoretic semantics maps OWL/RDF expressions to objects in domain of discourse (set theory)
16:52:28 [smiles]
GK: With regards to interoperability, difference between demonstrating interoperability and formally proving equivalence
16:53:07 [smiles]
... Pat Hayes formal semantics of RDF is a useful intro to model theoretic semantics
16:53:08 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:54:14 [smiles]
satya: Important to define mappings from DM to serialisations, but how necessary to define semantics of DM/ASN itself? Is outcome that we are defining a new language, ASN?
16:54:23 [Luc]
we would give the semantics of DM not ASN!
16:54:29 [pgroth]
16:55:08 [smiles]
pgroth: Some agreement for a need for formal semantics of DM (suggestion 1 by James)
16:55:51 [Luc]
we would give the semantics of DM not ASN!
16:55:51 [pgroth]
16:56:07 [Paolo]
@satya: the semantics is of the model not the language
16:56:27 [pgroth]
16:56:59 [smiles]
jcheney: To move forward, first need to catch up with DM and compare with strawman
16:57:25 [smiles]
... regardless of whether mapping is formal semantics or not, still clear it is useful and focus on first
16:57:55 [satya]
@Paolo: I will reserve my comments (till we have more details of the formal semantics of DM means)
16:57:55 [GK]
James mentioned a datalog approach: I think that could be used to build in formal semantics from FoL - for which there exists a model theory.
16:58:11 [satya]
@GK, ok that makes sense
16:58:22 [smiles]
... Also happy for anyone interested to be involved, starting with mapping from Prov-DM to Prov-O
16:58:22 [GK]
There was a proposal by R V Guha and (I think) Pat Hayes, many years ago, to do something sikilar for RDF.
16:58:22 [satya]
@James - I can help you with that
16:58:45 [pgroth]
16:59:06 [pgroth]
Proposed: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production."
16:59:23 [Paolo]
@satya: set-theoretical interpretation is usually what works with data models
16:59:35 [pgroth]
16:59:54 [GK]
+1 (but have separate concern about the phrasing using "characterozation")
16:59:57 [tlebo]
16:59:57 [smiles]
pgroth: any objections?
16:59:57 [dgarijo]
17:00:01 [Paolo]
17:00:04 [pgroth]
17:00:16 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
17:00:16 [smiles]
tlebo: what was the intent of the distinction?
17:00:22 [jcheney]
@satya, @paolo: The strawman is an attempt to map PROV-DM in terms of sets/functions.
17:00:56 [Paolo]
good, thanks
17:00:59 [smiles]
Luc: Attributes were in context of entities, fixed in characterisation interval; relations did not have durations
17:01:00 [Zakim]
17:01:04 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has left #prov
17:01:12 [jcheney]
@GK: Yes, datalog is interpretable in terms of FO model theory; however, dealing with things that change over time seem hard to model this way. Still, datalog good as a lightweight formalism.
17:01:13 [smiles]
... but distinction did not bring much, so better to merge
17:01:37 [GK]
@jcheney if functions themselves are sets of pairs, that maybe starts to look like a model theory?
17:01:44 [pgroth]
Accepted: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production.
17:02:05 [pgroth]
17:02:23 [tlebo]
Tim's notes on Luc's response: attriubtes on entities (duration, characterization, etc) same for PEs. but for Relations (didn't have durations). ATTRIBUTE-values were for Entity+PEs, NAME-values were on Relations.
17:02:26 [jcheney]
@GK: Correct, using functions doesn't take us out of set theory/model theory semantics.
17:02:52 [satya]
@Paul: I also need additional clarification
17:02:58 [smiles]
pgroth: Fairly well accepted, except for Simon's objection
17:03:05 [tlebo]
17:03:12 [satya]
@Paul: I did not have time to respond to this issue
17:03:15 [smiles]
Luc: actually very few voted either way
17:03:49 [smiles]
Luc: we haven't got enough support yet to resolve here, need to understand what Simon is saying
17:04:01 [GK]
I was unclear about dependedUpon/eventuallyDerivedFrom distinction.
17:04:04 [tlebo]
I'm confused by the use of multiple proposals; will try to read and comment on email.
17:04:23 [tlebo]
(but I did get the impression that much of those predicates were redundant)
17:04:37 [GK]
I think the transitivity issue is a different one
17:04:38 [smiles]
Luc: we need a notion of transitive derivation, good examples of non-transitive when linked to activities, but unclear on wasEventuallyDerivedFrom
17:04:42 [Paolo]
general proposal: in addition to recording objections on the list (which may have veto effect), keep an exact count of the people who vote on the list -- the support to a proposal
17:05:05 [GK]
simplification is good!
17:05:06 [smiles]
pgroth: Goal is to simplify
17:05:10 [Zakim]
17:05:11 [Zakim]
17:05:12 [Zakim]
17:05:13 [Zakim]
17:05:15 [Zakim]
17:05:17 [Zakim]
17:05:22 [Zakim]
- +1.518.633.aacc
17:05:23 [Zakim]
17:05:33 [Zakim]
17:05:35 [Zakim]
17:05:39 [Zakim]
17:05:41 [Zakim]
17:05:52 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:05:54 [Zakim]
17:05:57 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:05:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:06:00 [Zakim]
17:06:04 [Zakim]
17:06:04 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telecon
17:06:04 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:06:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:06:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:06:06 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:06:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:06:06 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items