IRC log of prov on 2011-11-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:42:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:42:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:42:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:42:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:42:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:42:39 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:42:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:42:40 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
15:42:40 [trackbot]
Date: 17 November 2011
15:42:50 [Luc]
15:43:00 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
15:43:05 [Luc]
Scribe: James Cheney
15:43:13 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:52:49 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:52:49 [Zakim]
apparently SW_(OWL)12:00PM has ended, Luc
15:52:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, Zakim, trackbot, sandro, stain
15:53:31 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:53:31 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:51 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
15:56:03 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:56:08 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:56:15 [Zakim]
15:56:21 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:56:21 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:57:08 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:57:22 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aaaa
15:57:37 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
15:57:37 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
15:58:26 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:58:37 [Zakim]
15:58:44 [Zakim]
15:58:51 [Zakim]
15:59:07 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
15:59:07 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:59:31 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
16:00:16 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:00:36 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:00:57 [Zakim]
16:01:06 [christine]
christine has joined #prov
16:01:18 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:01:24 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:40 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:01:58 [tlebo]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aabb
16:02:18 [Zakim]
16:02:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Satya_Sahoo, ??P19, ??P44, +1.518.276.aabb, ??P43
16:02:22 [Luc]
james, are you ready to scribe?
16:02:30 [GK]
zakim, i may be ??p44
16:02:42 [jcheney]
16:02:42 [Luc]
@jcheney, james, are you ready to scribe?
16:02:48 [Zakim]
sorry, GK, I do not understand your question
16:02:52 [Zakim]
16:03:11 [Zakim]
16:03:14 [Zakim]
16:03:16 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:03:19 [Zakim]
16:03:20 [tlebo]
zakim, aabb is tlebo
16:03:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
16:03:21 [MacTed]
zakim, mute me
16:03:28 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
16:03:28 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:03:30 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:03:32 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:03:35 [satya]
16:03:44 [jcheney]
16:03:44 [Luc]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 10 telecon
16:03:53 [jcheney]
Topic: Review minutes of last wee's telecon
16:03:53 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:03:54 [satya]
16:03:58 [jcheney]
16:04:00 [GK]
16:04:04 [Curt]
16:04:11 [stain]
16:04:16 [stain]
(not there)
16:04:18 [Zakim]
16:04:22 [Paolo]
16:04:22 [smiles]
16:04:27 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:04:33 [Luc]
Accepted: the minutes of the Nov. 10 telecon
16:04:34 [GK]
zakim, I am ??P52
16:04:34 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
16:04:42 [Zakim]
16:04:51 [jcheney]
Topic: Review actions
16:05:13 [Zakim]
16:05:24 [Luc]
topic: F2F2
16:05:26 [Zakim]
+ +329331aacc
16:05:33 [Luc]
16:05:36 [jcheney]
Luc: Action to Satya still open
16:05:40 [SamCoppens]
zakim, +329331aacc is me
16:05:40 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
16:05:41 [jcheney]
Topic: F2F2
16:05:52 [pgroth]
jcheney it should be closed
16:06:03 [Paolo]
not allowed :-(
16:06:12 [satya]
@James, I think Luc said that the action is now closed
16:06:19 [jcheney]
16:06:31 [stain]
and probably easier to travel to from US
16:06:32 [jcheney]
Luc: action to be closed [correction]
16:06:39 [Luc]
16:06:43 [pgroth]
16:06:46 [Zakim]
16:06:52 [jcheney]
Luc: Strong preference for Amsterdam Feb 2-3
16:06:57 [Vinh]
Vinh has joined #prov
16:07:09 [jcheney]
Paul: Will send information about travel to/from meeting place - close to airport
16:07:27 [satya]
16:07:31 [stain]
train from AMS to city centre is fairly fast as far as I remember
16:07:33 [Luc]
Action: pgroth to confirm F2F2 venue and make hotel suggestions
16:07:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-43 - Confirm F2F2 venue and make hotel suggestions [on Paul Groth - due 2011-11-24].
16:07:35 [pgroth]
16:07:39 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:07:42 [Luc]
ack sat
16:08:00 [jcheney]
Satya: Logistics. Letters from Paul/university for visa purposes?
16:08:17 [jcheney]
Paul: Will include this in the visit information
16:08:24 [jcheney]
Scribe: jcheney
16:08:38 [Luc]
16:08:41 [Vinh_]
Vinh_ has joined #prov
16:08:54 [Zakim]
16:08:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.343.aadd
16:09:12 [Vinh_]
zakim, +1.937.343.aadd is me
16:09:12 [Zakim]
+Vinh_; got it
16:09:14 [stain]
we need a new fight for F2F now that both EntityInRole and IVPof is gone
16:09:22 [Luc]
16:09:38 [pgroth]
video conferencing
16:09:40 [jcheney]
Luc: Paul, will there be university facilities?
16:09:44 [jcheney]
Paul: Still checking
16:09:51 [jcheney]
Luc: Can people call in?
16:09:53 [jcheney]
Paul: Yes
16:10:06 [Luc]
16:10:12 [jcheney]
Paul: Internet also, video conferencing maybe
16:10:18 [Luc]
topic: PAQ document
16:10:39 [pgroth]
16:10:44 [jcheney]
Luc: Status update from Graham pr Paul
16:10:49 [Zakim]
16:10:56 [Zakim]
16:11:13 [jcheney]
Graham: Changes from last week
16:11:27 [jcheney]
Paul: Defining provenance service section moved to same place as provenance URI
16:11:35 [YolandaGil]
Zakim, [ISI] is really me
16:11:35 [Zakim]
+YolandaGil; got it
16:12:09 [jcheney]
Graham: Clarify that entity-uri can use any scheme, need not be dereferenceable
16:12:41 [jcheney]
Graham: Text discussing fact that provenance informatio may not be stable (!) as logn as it doens't contradict previous assertions
16:12:51 [jcheney]
Luc: Plans further changes?
16:12:55 [pgroth]
16:13:03 [jcheney]
Graham: Title discussion; author list
16:13:03 [Luc]
@gk: the problem was example of section 6 which said entity -uri will be dereferenced
16:13:35 [jcheney]
Luc: Last week decided to hold vote; needs to be recorded for W3C publication
16:13:44 [jcheney]
Graham: happy for vote to proceed
16:13:59 [jcheney]
pgroth: Likewise; still some open issues but feedback good
16:14:44 [jcheney]
Luc: Think we should go ahead
16:15:13 [jcheney]
Graham: Email discussion?
16:15:20 [Luc]
16:15:24 [pgroth]
16:15:27 [jcheney]
Luc: Email discussion not helping; need to talk
16:15:30 [smiles]
16:16:14 [jcheney]
smiles: Happy with document release, still a lot of TODOs though
16:16:32 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
16:16:34 [jcheney]
(@gk, you are coming through somewhat distorted...)
16:16:42 [MacTed]
-1 for removing the ToDos
16:16:54 [jcheney]
GK: TODOs not unusual, but can clean up first
16:17:14 [Zakim]
16:17:20 [Luc]
16:17:23 [pgroth]
so formatting
16:17:24 [Luc]
ack sm
16:17:25 [jcheney]
smiles: OK if we make sure people understand that document is still early stage; partly about aesthetics/readability
16:17:27 [kai]
zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me.
16:17:27 [Zakim]
sorry, kai, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]'
16:17:32 [kai]
zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me.
16:17:32 [Zakim]
+kai; got it
16:18:10 [jcheney]
gk: Unlikely to be able to do this until next week
16:18:18 [jcheney]
Luc: Compliance with W3C requirements?
16:18:23 [jcheney]
gk: Not yet
16:19:09 [pgroth]
16:20:33 [jcheney]
smiles: Pending issues in 4.1.2; meaning of annotations unclear
16:20:42 [pgroth]
16:21:19 [Luc]
ack pgr
16:21:42 [jcheney]
pgroth: Suggest we put all TODOs and notes in boxes - won't change actual text
16:21:55 [MacTed]
+1 clarification via formatting cleanup
16:22:05 [jcheney]
pgroth: as part of cleanup
16:22:33 [Paolo]
notes used to good effect in PROV-DM as well -- there's a DIV class for it
16:22:44 [Luc]
@GK, your voice is *VERY* distorted
16:22:52 [jcheney]
gk: Pulling out placeholder TODOs may make things less readable
16:22:52 [pgroth]
16:23:03 [jcheney]
gk: Plan to do a pass and handle easy cases
16:23:23 [Luc]
16:23:31 [Luc]
proposed: 'To Release PAQ document as a first public working draft'
16:23:47 [MacTed]
16:23:48 [smiles]
16:23:50 [jcheney]
16:23:51 [stain]
+1 (with those minor edits)
16:23:51 [satya]
16:23:53 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:23:55 [SamCoppens]
16:23:57 [Curt]
16:24:09 [Paolo]
+1 -- will go along with the editors' decision
16:24:33 [Luc]
16:24:35 [GK]
16:24:35 [zednik]
16:24:35 [pgroth]
16:24:37 [sandro]
16:24:59 [Luc]
accepted: 'To Release PAQ document as a first public working draft'
16:25:20 [GK]
@Paul: I cab do a quick pass through the @@ after this telecon
16:25:43 [Luc]
16:25:44 [pgroth]
@GK cool
16:25:49 [GK]
ACTION GK need to write "status of this document para"
16:25:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-44 - Need to write "status of this document para" [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-11-24].
16:25:56 [Luc]
topic: prov-o
16:25:57 [jcheney]
Luc: need to do pass to meet W3C formal publication requirements
16:26:02 [jcheney]
16:26:06 [jcheney]
(oops :)
16:26:40 [jcheney]
Satya: Status update; updating HTML and OWL file to incorporate QualifiedInvolvement, update diagrams
16:27:06 [Luc]
16:27:08 [jcheney]
... Ontology call agrees that current version handles qualification information closer to prov-dm
16:27:24 [jcheney]
... Going through issues; happy to take questions or move forward to FPWD
16:27:31 [Luc]
16:28:00 [pgroth]
i haven't
16:28:06 [smiles]
me neither
16:28:09 [jcheney]
Luc: Haven't had time to review yet;
16:28:10 [Paolo]
I have not had a chance either I'm afraid
16:28:22 [pgroth]
could we vote on it next week?
16:28:26 [pgroth]
16:28:32 [GK]
I didn't have time to review properly ... but I don't object to its release
16:28:33 [Paolo]
@paul +1
16:28:35 [Luc]
16:28:39 [jcheney]
Luc: Possible vote next week?
16:29:07 [pgroth]
16:29:07 [jcheney]
Paul: We could proceed as with PAQ - one week comment/review period before possible vote
16:29:10 [Luc]
16:29:10 [Paolo]
I would actually like to get a chance to see it in detail before it goes out
16:29:42 [jcheney]
Luc: PROV-DM has changed; should we coordinate releases?
16:30:04 [pgroth]
16:30:09 [khalidbelhajjame]
Luc, good point
16:30:27 [Paolo]
@simon: this reminds me that my ASN rendering of examples in the primer need realigning with the new PROV-DM terminology
16:30:39 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:30:40 [GK]
I think it would be good to have coordinated, aligned releases of PROV-DM and PROV-O
16:30:53 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:31:23 [jcheney]
Luc: In prov-O which version of Prov-DM is being referenced?
16:31:33 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy
16:31:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's noisy', MacTed
16:31:37 [Luc]
16:31:38 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
16:31:48 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (10%), Satya_Sahoo (84%), stain (79%)
16:31:49 [jcheney]
Satya: Probably somewhere in between. Have tried to cover changes discussed on mailing list.
16:31:56 [khalidbelhajjame]
Mostly aligned with the first released working draft
16:31:58 [pgroth]
stain can you mute?
16:32:02 [stain]
16:32:07 [GK]
... but coordinated doesn't necessarily mean simultaneous release?
16:32:29 [jcheney]
Satya: As Paul said, if we keep changing prov-o to sync with prov-dm then may need to wait for prov-dm.
16:32:42 [Luc]
16:32:47 [Luc]
ack kh
16:33:11 [jcheney]
Khalid: When is next release of prov-dm?
16:33:46 [jcheney]
Luc: Would like to release prov-dm soon, 2-3 weeks. Needs review.
16:34:16 [jcheney]
... Could release FPWD of PROV-O next week and 2nd release syncd with PROV-DM
16:34:25 [pgroth]
16:34:29 [jcheney]
Satya: Makes sense, but there will always be time lag
16:34:50 [Luc]
16:35:04 [Luc]
ack pg
16:35:18 [Paolo]
16:35:35 [jcheney]
pgroth: PROV-O not an exact reflection of PROV-DM FPWD. Somewhere in between
16:36:14 [jcheney]
... This is fine but need to pick out important changes and reflect them, e.g. renaming PE -> activity
16:36:34 [Luc]
16:36:37 [khalidbelhajjame]
Noooo, I will have to redo all the diagrams because of that change :-)
16:36:42 [jcheney]
... More complicated changes can wait; may make it look more synchronized
16:36:43 [pgroth]
16:37:33 [jcheney]
Paolo: Linking releases good, gives strong signal, but danger of lag - snags may throw everything off track
16:37:55 [Luc]
16:37:56 [stain]
16:37:57 [jcheney]
... Would like to see well-defined PROV-DM schedule with PROV-O following
16:37:59 [Luc]
ack pa
16:38:28 [jcheney]
Satya: Updating prov-o to model constraints fed back into prov-dm.
16:38:41 [jcheney]
Paolo: Overall effect of linking two is dangerous.
16:38:45 [Luc]
16:38:46 [jcheney]
16:38:46 [Paolo]
16:39:13 [Luc]
ack jch
16:39:28 [jcheney]
jcheney: will have to converge eventually...
16:40:16 [jcheney]
Luc: Could have section in preamble of PROV-O summarizing relation to FPWD of PROV-DM
16:40:28 [MacTed]
+1 preamble noting "changes already made over there mean changes will be made here. here's a short list:..."
16:40:50 [jcheney]
Satya: Would it enable us to make PROV-DM and PROV-O in lock step?
16:40:58 [jcheney]
... there will always be something to do
16:41:39 [pgroth]
16:41:51 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmte me
16:41:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unmte me', MacTed
16:41:55 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:41:55 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:41:59 [pgroth]
16:42:05 [khalidbelhajjame]
I think that this list can be useful for purposes other than prov-o, e.g., for the primer, paq, or simply to keep tracks of the changes made between releases
16:42:12 [jcheney]
Luc: This is list of changes already made in prov-dm and will be implemented in prov-o
16:42:20 [jcheney]
Satya: Can do this, need to keep it updated
16:42:26 [Luc]
16:42:33 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:42:33 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:43:00 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:43:34 [jcheney]
Luc: Will review and decide about moving towards FPWD
16:44:14 [jcheney]
Khalid: can be useful if list is on wiki page also - changelog for prov-dm.
16:44:28 [MacTed]
+1 -- this sort of list is relevant to all cross-dependent docs in parallel production...
16:44:33 [Luc]
16:44:34 [jcheney]
Luc: Yes, it would be useful and already exists
16:44:34 [Paolo]
@khalid ood idea
16:44:41 [Paolo]
16:45:01 [Luc]
16:45:04 [Luc]
ack khal
16:45:05 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:45:25 [jcheney]
16:45:57 [jcheney]
smiles: First version available for review; has been extended recently with PROV-ASN examples in appendix
16:46:03 [jcheney]
... Comments welcome
16:46:21 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:46:30 [pgroth]
16:46:31 [jcheney]
... Concept illustrations focus on the apparently most stable things; more needs to be done for next version
16:46:52 [jcheney]
Luc: Does this follow PROV-DM or PROV-O? In between?
16:47:01 [smiles]
16:47:07 [jcheney]
smiles: Following PROV-DM as of FPWD
16:47:14 [Luc]
16:47:27 [jcheney]
... Worked examples include rdf/prov-o
16:47:38 [Paolo]
16:47:39 [jcheney]
Luc: Activities or process executions?
16:47:58 [jcheney]
smiles: Have updated terminology to use "activity"
16:48:30 [Luc]
16:48:35 [jcheney]
... ASN uses PEs, needs to be updated
16:48:40 [Luc]
ack pgr
16:48:49 [Paolo]
16:49:10 [jcheney]
pgroth: Same question about PROV-O and PROV-DM: synchronization would be good, how much work to sync with PROV-O
16:49:12 [GK]
@paul +1
16:49:15 [Paolo]
@simon: yes I am the one who is lagging behind PROV-dM (shame)
16:49:45 [jcheney]
... Good to release to public to get this on radar, people may want to start implementing.
16:50:09 [Luc]
16:50:15 [satya]
16:50:17 [GK]
I think the primer will help other people to review the rest of the specs
16:50:32 [jcheney]
Simon: Agree releasing soon would be good, to find out if people find it readable, have't kept up with prov-o
16:50:40 [Luc]
ack sat
16:50:55 [pgroth]
q+ to respond
16:51:04 [jcheney]
satya: Right now primer does not have inference rules, qualified involvement. Planning to vote on prov-o next week.
16:51:13 [jcheney]
... Do you think we should delay prov-o pending changes?
16:51:17 [GK]
I think it's just fine that the primer doesn't concern itself with the inferencde rules. It the vocab that's key.
16:51:31 [GK]
@paul +1
16:51:40 [jcheney]
pgroth: Primer doesn't have to represent everything. Ontology may not have to change, just rpimer
16:51:47 [jcheney]
16:52:19 [jcheney]
... Revert activity to process execution? Review this week for possible vote next week?
16:52:20 [Luc]
16:52:25 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:52:27 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to respond
16:52:32 [Luc]
ack pro
16:53:27 [jcheney]
Luc: Earlier hesitated to delay prov-o until primer ready.
16:53:37 [jcheney]
... Simon, suggesting that this is ready for FPWD?
16:53:48 [YolandaGil]
16:53:55 [jcheney]
16:53:59 [Luc]
ack yo
16:54:22 [jcheney]
smiles: if there is consensus
16:54:53 [jcheney]
YolandaGil: sandro, others - what should we do to relate to other W3C actvities or context?
16:54:57 [Luc]
16:55:08 [jcheney]
zakim, who is speaking
16:55:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is speaking', jcheney
16:55:13 [jcheney]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:55:19 [GK]
q+ to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM. I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas.
16:55:25 [Zakim]
jcheney, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (85%)
16:55:50 [jcheney]
sandro: hard to know what people will see - important to annonce and find reviewers/colleagues in target audience
16:56:00 [jcheney]
... semantic web people not already familiar with provenance?
16:56:20 [jcheney]
Luc: Got good feedback from Tom Baker on Prov-DM, was keen to see updates
16:56:21 [pgroth]
so are we saying an internal review
16:56:25 [pgroth]
without fpwd
16:56:25 [Paolo]
agree with the idea of a semi-internal review from a slightly less "primed" panel
16:56:26 [Luc]
16:56:37 [jcheney]
Yolanda: good suggestion - small group review
16:56:50 [jcheney]
Luc: before FPWD?
16:56:59 [jcheney]
Yolanda: Yes
16:57:30 [pgroth]
16:57:42 [jcheney]
jcheney: is primer a recommendation, and do we need to worry about FPWD status
16:57:52 [pgroth]
we have to do FPWD and LC
16:57:55 [jcheney]
Luc:Primer will be a Note
16:58:20 [pgroth]
16:58:21 [jcheney]
sandro: Only difference is phrase that says that it is not intended to be recommendation track
16:58:24 [jcheney]
16:58:32 [jcheney]
(Thanks, that answers my question!)
16:58:42 [jcheney]
sandro: Otherwise process si the same
16:58:52 [pgroth]
gk talk softer
16:58:53 [stain]
try 10 cm away from mic
16:59:00 [pgroth]
16:59:03 [stain]
16:59:14 [jcheney]
gk: think primer is too useful to hold back on release. found reading helped understand discussion issues better.
16:59:29 [jcheney]
... if we can get primer out, it will help seed interest/understanding in other docs
16:59:30 [Luc]
16:59:33 [Luc]
ack gk
16:59:33 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM. I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas.
16:59:34 [pgroth]
16:59:37 [satya]
@GK, +1
16:59:44 [Luc]
ack pg
16:59:59 [jcheney]
pgroth: is there a pseudo-way of making primer available pre FPWD?
17:00:22 [jcheney]
sandro: can point people to respec version, circulate as editor's draft
17:00:50 [jcheney]
smiles: editor's draft circulation sounds good
17:01:08 [jcheney]
sandro: editor's draft has connotation of being "even more work in progress"
17:01:26 [Luc]
17:01:32 [jcheney]
Luc: likely to get feedback on all 3 - dm, o, primer
17:02:10 [jcheney]
Luc: Suggested names for internal reviewers; next week, decide whether to release as ED or FPWD
17:02:35 [Luc]
17:02:43 [jcheney]
smiles: Pass on to sympathetic reviewers who will offer constructive feedback
17:03:00 [Luc]
17:03:14 [jcheney]
Luc: adjourned
17:03:14 [Zakim]
17:03:16 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:03:18 [Zakim]
17:03:19 [Zakim]
17:03:21 [Zakim]
17:03:23 [Zakim]
17:03:25 [pgroth]
luc shall we talk?
17:03:29 [Zakim]
17:03:31 [Luc]
@pgroth, yes
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:03:41 [Zakim]
17:03:43 [Zakim]
17:03:53 [Zakim]
17:03:55 [Zakim]
17:03:59 [GK]
@pgroth I'm editing the PAQ @@s as we chat...
17:04:01 [Zakim]
17:04:03 [Zakim]
17:04:27 [Zakim]
17:04:31 [Zakim]
17:04:33 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:04:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, Satya_Sahoo, pgroth, +1.518.276.aabb, stain, tlebo, MacTed, GK, Yolanda, [IPcaller], SamCoppens, sandro, Vinh_, YolandaGil, kai
17:58:40 [GK]
GK has left #prov