IRC log of prov on 2011-12-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:47:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:47:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:47:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:47:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:47:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:47:08 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:08 [trackbot]
Date: 08 December 2011
15:47:17 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:47:17 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
15:47:27 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:47:33 [pgroth]
Scribe: Yogesh Simmhan
15:47:41 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:54:04 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
15:54:42 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
15:55:17 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:55:24 [Zakim]
15:55:34 [pgroth]
it's all setup yogesh
15:55:41 [Yogesh]
thanks Paul
15:57:09 [Zakim]
15:57:26 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
15:57:26 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:57:40 [adamretter]
adamretter has joined #prov
15:57:51 [Zakim]
15:57:52 [Zakim]
15:58:46 [Luc]
Hi Adam
15:59:15 [Luc]
Did you see my message last week? Shall we try to meet in London before Xmas?
15:59:53 [adamretter]
Hi Luc, no i think I must have missed your message - let me check..
16:00:23 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:00:44 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
16:00:44 [adamretter]
Luc: I cant see anything, which addr did you use? ?
16:00:46 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:01:14 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:01:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.723.aaaa
16:01:42 [dgarijo]
Zakim, +1.315.723.aaaa is me
16:01:45 [Zakim]
16:01:47 [Zakim]
16:01:58 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:02:08 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
16:02:12 [Zakim]
16:02:45 [Zakim]
16:02:55 [pgroth]
16:02:59 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:03:05 [pgroth]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Dec. 1 telecon
16:03:10 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
16:03:16 [dgarijo]
+0 (I wasn't here last week)
16:03:23 [Yogesh]
16:03:24 [smiles]
16:03:31 [Zakim]
16:03:58 [Yogesh]
Paul: more votes for the minutes?
16:04:02 [Zakim]
16:04:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.706.461.aabb
16:04:23 [dgarijo]
16:04:30 [dgarijo]
16:04:34 [pgroth]
Accepted: Minutes of Dec 1, 2011 telecon
16:04:42 [pgroth]
16:05:00 [Zakim]
16:05:04 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:05:04 [MacTed]
zakim, mute me
16:05:16 [Yogesh]
Paul: Action item on F2F meeting, holidays
16:05:49 [tlebo]
I just closed the last of several issues in my action:
16:05:51 [Zakim]
16:05:56 [Yogesh]
Paul: Satya, Yolanda were to close open items
16:05:59 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:06:00 [jcheney]
zakim, +[] is me
16:06:01 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:06:05 [stainMobile]
stainMobile has joined #prov
16:06:06 [Yogesh]
Yolanda: They are closed now
16:06:27 [Yogesh]
Paul: Closing all action items
16:06:30 [pgroth]
16:07:00 [Zakim]
sorry, jcheney, I do not recognize a party named '+[]'
16:07:01 [Yogesh]
...Reminder about F2F. Hotels listed. Contact Paul is you have any questions. Book hotels early.
16:07:21 [Yogesh]
...Paul working on video for conference call at F2F.
16:07:23 [tlebo]
16:07:54 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:07:57 [Yogesh]
tlebo: Should people in boston get together rather than everyone connect separately?
16:08:08 [tlebo]
16:08:29 [Yogesh]
Paul: Asked in poll. Send email to mailing list if there is interest. Did not seem so.
16:08:53 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-primer
16:09:10 [davidcorsar]
davidcorsar has joined #prov
16:09:12 [Yogesh]
Paul: What is status of FPWD?
16:09:46 [Yogesh]
smiles: Copy of current doc is in repoitory.
16:10:10 [MacTed]
it would help me (and I imagine others) to have the agenda include links to docs under consideration ... I always lose time tracking them down (and am never quite sure I'm looking at the right stuff)
16:10:20 [pgroth]
sorry MacTed
16:10:27 [pgroth]
I'll remember next time
16:10:29 [Yogesh]
YolandaGil: Will be useful to include diagram present in prov-dm document
16:10:38 [stainMobile]
+1 on diagram inclusion
16:10:40 [pgroth]
16:10:47 [MacTed]
thanks, pgroth
16:10:58 [Edoardo]
Edoardo has joined #prov
16:11:19 [Yogesh]
YolandaGil: Remove section on complimentarity. Note that WG is looking into it.
16:11:37 [Yogesh]
smiles: There was a vote last week that there was not going to be changes in doc.
16:11:47 [Luc]
we can vote again
16:11:54 [Yogesh]
...What is the group's suggestion on making changes or not at this point?
16:12:04 [Zakim]
16:12:20 [Yogesh]
Luc: We can vote again next week if we edit it.
16:12:33 [stainMobile]
there will be few on next weeek call
16:13:16 [Yogesh]
Luc: Work on asusmption that vote will be positive next week. Make the changes and we can take a vote next week.
16:13:36 [Luc]
+1 to Paul's suggestion
16:13:43 [Yogesh]
Paul: Send mail so that people who are not around next week can review the changes and vote next week
16:13:47 [pgroth]
16:13:50 [Luc]
16:14:14 [Luc]
16:14:22 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-AQ
16:14:22 [Yogesh]
Luc: Suggest Paul/Luc notify the group that there will be a request for vote by email for the changes
16:15:12 [pgroth]
16:15:14 [Yogesh]
Paul: Ready to go. Wanted feedback from W3C (sandro, evan) on the abstract. It seemed terse. Just got feedback. Just need to send email
16:15:42 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-O
16:16:03 [Yogesh]
Paul: Releasing PROV-O as FPWD
16:16:21 [Yogesh]
Satya: Scheduled to be released on Tue, Dec/13
16:16:25 [stainMobile]
i have done the directory
16:16:47 [Yogesh]
Luc: Satya needs to get everything ready and respond to Dennis so he can do the checks.
16:17:01 [Yogesh]
Satya: Will be using sub-folder than a separate branch. Can make changes tomorrow.
16:17:15 [pgroth]
16:17:26 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:17:53 [dgarijo]
we're also working on the best practices document
16:18:08 [Yogesh]
Paul: FPWD are coming out before christmas. We need to send announcement again after new year to get feedback.
16:18:09 [stainMobile]
ontology/fpwd/ in dvcs
16:18:24 [Yogesh]
Paul: sandro, what is automatic process in W3C?
16:18:48 [stainMobile]
@dgarijo, yes, need a schedule for BP !
16:19:14 [Yogesh]
Sandro: It will appear in W3C main page. We can also send to other W3C community mailing lists. We can go ahead and publicize as soon as it is published on frontpage. We can send a link to that
16:19:23 [pgroth]
16:19:24 [Luc]
16:19:25 [Yogesh]
...It may be automatically tweeted
16:19:44 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:19:55 [Yogesh]
Luc: Are we proposing to release best practise doc as FPWD?
16:20:12 [Yogesh]
...There was no vote on it since doc did not exist.
16:20:23 [Zakim]
16:20:35 [Yogesh]
...Need to decide if we should do an internal review and vote to release it.
16:20:46 [Yogesh]
Paul: We have to properly circulate it
16:20:49 [stainMobile]
do we need it fpwd at same time or refer to live version?
16:20:50 [stainMobile]
sorry, Im on bus.. not best connection
16:21:08 [Zakim]
16:21:28 [Yogesh]
dgarijo: Need more work. Only 3 people on the call, so we did not have consensus.
16:21:37 [Yogesh]
...Will meet next monday
16:21:49 [Zakim]
16:22:01 [Yogesh]
...The current doc is linked from PROV-O
16:22:13 [Yogesh]
Paul: Is there a need to rush it to FPWD?
16:22:22 [Yogesh]
dgarijo: We can release it later.
16:22:24 [stainMobile]
just ED in dvcs
16:22:25 [stainMobile]
I would prefer to not rush it
16:22:47 [dgarijo]
@Luc: +1
16:22:54 [Yogesh]
Luc: The authors should be convinced that the doc is ready to be released internally. We should then read and decide on it. Not there yet.
16:23:11 [pgroth]
Topic: prov-dm issues
16:23:35 [Yogesh]
Paul: Several issues raised. Editors want to discuss.
16:24:06 [Yogesh]
Luc: Need to decide if we are ready to release the second working draft.
16:24:30 [Luc]
16:25:10 [pgroth]
PROPOSED: Release PROV-DM as a second first public working draft
16:25:39 [pgroth]
PROPOSED: Release PROV-DM as second public working draft
16:25:40 [sandro]
I like "WD2"
16:25:47 [smiles]
16:25:49 [tlebo]
16:25:51 [dgarijo]
16:25:52 [MacTed]
16:25:57 [jcheney]
16:26:00 [stainMobile]
0 (University of Manchester) -- not had chance to review it yet
16:26:00 [sandro]
16:26:14 [Yogesh]
16:27:04 [Yogesh]
Satya: +1
16:27:20 [pgroth]
ACCEPTED: Release PROV-DM as second public working draft
16:28:27 [Yogesh]
Luc: Many issues to discuss. Decided to try and address several points in the WD3.
16:28:40 [Yogesh]
...To give a better defintion of recipe.
16:28:52 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
16:29:08 [Yogesh]
...Issues raised by satya and others has been addressed by email.
16:29:17 [Luc]
16:29:20 [Yogesh]
Please review them and respond by email.
16:29:45 [Yogesh]
...Thanks for submitting use cases to the Wiki.
16:29:47 [pgroth]
16:30:31 [Yogesh]
...Paolo has made proposal to define "asymmetric viewOf and a symmetric complementOf with the entailment"
16:30:45 [Yogesh]
Luc: would like a sense of what the WG thinks
16:30:58 [pgroth]
16:31:11 [jcheney]
How do the definitions differ?
16:31:17 [Zakim]
- +1.706.461.aabb
16:31:19 [Yogesh]
satya: will need some time to read thru that and comment by emails. Needs to leave now.
16:31:29 [stainMobile]
name "complementOf" must go, another big issue is the undefined "overlapping characterisation intrval"
16:31:42 [tlebo]
just looking at definition now: "e1 viewOf e2" means that the attributes of e1 are a subset of those of e2 --- seems backwards. Wouldn't e1 have MORE attributes? We're being more specific/contextual by adding more details.
16:32:07 [adamretter]
tlebo: I did wonder that - but after a while it makes sense to me
16:32:39 [stainMobile]
viewOf(a,b) should require that the attribs of B was always true for A, and As attrib true during B
16:32:46 [GK1]
Jumping in late - the asymmetric "viewOf" seems overcomplex - it seesms to me that the "inrtersectionof validity interval" is redundant, as I'd expect the validty interval of e1 to be a subset of the validity interfal of e2.
16:32:46 [Yogesh]
(finding it hard to hear jcheney)
16:33:17 [jcheney]
typing because behind slow internet connection
16:33:23 [pgroth]
16:33:29 [GK1]
(Sorry for late arrival - had some home commitments.)
16:33:38 [jcheney]
just asking for clarification of what the proposed new definitions are
16:33:44 [tlebo]
(BTW, I finally see how symmetric and asymmetric are being used. - that definition helped)
16:34:00 [stainMobile]
@GK1 exactly, e2 must time:intervalContain e1
16:34:08 [Yogesh]
Luc: GK1, can you explain what you typed on IRC?
16:34:09 [stainMobile]
gk, sound?
16:34:18 [tlebo]
@adamretter, what made you accept the swap of subset?
16:34:28 [stainMobile]
no sound from gk
16:34:39 [GK1]
Have no audio yet ... still firing up other computer.
16:34:53 [GK1]
... @stian, you seem to agree - can you explain?
16:35:29 [Yogesh]
Luc: have a question about using attribute in this definition
16:35:31 [jcheney]
My question is answerewd by the wiki page, will read and comment on it.
16:35:41 [stainMobile]
16:35:43 [tlebo]
+1 to concerns about using attributes to define viewOf.
16:35:44 [Yogesh]
...FPWD had a strong notion of attribute
16:35:45 [adamretter]
tlebo: e.g. - "Luc in Boston" viewOf "Luc" - so Luc in boston is a more specific version of Luc so it is a view of luc, but only when he is in boston - thats how i understood thatr
16:35:47 [pgroth]
16:35:59 [Zakim]
16:36:04 [Yogesh]
...It made sense to define WasComplementOf based on attributes.
16:36:18 [Yogesh]
...Now, attributes may not even characterize entities.
16:36:31 [pgroth]
16:36:34 [Yogesh]
...Should we define based on number or inclusion of attributes?
16:36:40 [pgroth]
ack stainMobile
16:36:42 [pgroth]
16:37:08 [Yogesh]
(finding it hard to hear stainMobile)
16:37:09 [pgroth]
16:37:33 [stainMobile]
sorry, bus noise..
16:37:40 [Yogesh]
Paul: @stainMobile said it is more hierarchical, and attributes are not as important as they once were
16:37:41 [StephenCresswell]
16:38:08 [Yogesh]
Paul: We need an imprecise view of wasComplementOf. Current definiton is very precise about subsetting.
16:38:12 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:38:14 [tlebo]
I have been thinking of an imprecise viewOf much like skos:broader.
16:38:21 [Yogesh]
...We should be able to express viewOf without much semantics.
16:38:47 [tlebo]
stephen: a viewOf b, then a is a time interval that B is in.
16:38:54 [GK1]
I think a key feature of e1 viewOf e2 means that any (non-account-scoped) provenance assertions about e2 are also true of e1.
16:38:57 [stainMobile]
viewOf: hierarchical, not bound to attribute, just a way to say that e1 descrived what e2 described, and e2 contains fully e1 timespan
16:38:57 [Luc]
yes, stephen, your interval inclusion is not captured in this definition
16:39:06 [tlebo]
simple temporal containment (and avoiding attribute discussions)?
16:39:26 [stainMobile]
not just partial overlap as in wCO has now, that is not aa useful
16:40:04 [Yogesh]
stephen: We cant define intervals in terms of attributes but time scales and identity
16:40:05 [Luc]
16:40:11 [pgroth]
ack StephenCresswell
16:40:12 [tlebo]
+1 to using only temporal containment for viewOf and avoiding attributes.
16:40:19 [GK1]
I think temporal containment applies in most practical cases I can think of ... and that may be the simple way to proceed ... but I'm not sure if we might find a different way of looking at this that does not depend o time interval nesting.
16:40:25 [Yogesh]
Luc: Stephen, did you put a usecase in the wiki page?
16:40:39 [Yogesh]
Stephen: yes, in th last hour
16:40:46 [jcheney]
I will try to take this issue into account in semantics draft
16:40:51 [Yogesh]
16:40:57 [stainMobile]
I am going to do a seperate proposal about time relation
16:41:00 [tlebo] was straightforward
16:41:27 [Yogesh]
Stephen: One enough details of the attributes to help state both are the same entity.
16:41:27 [stainMobile]
it must be same thing, and contained time
16:41:43 [Zakim]
16:41:48 [Yogesh]
Luc: is that not what SameAs does in OWL?
16:41:54 [stainMobile]
that is what viewOf should be
16:41:54 [GK1]
Not the same as "sameAs" (sic)
16:41:55 [Yogesh]
Stephen: But that is stronger.
16:42:01 [pgroth]
16:42:04 [pgroth]
16:42:27 [stainMobile]
which would allow different prov statement
16:42:43 [Yogesh]
Luc: is GK1's view the same as Stephen?
16:42:51 [Yogesh]
GK1: For practical purposes, yes.
16:43:10 [Yogesh]
...Was trying to think of e.g. that has value over a spatial field wth different types of containement
16:43:27 [Luc]
16:43:33 [Yogesh]
...It does seem like an interval containment
16:43:58 [Yogesh]
Paul: Stephen commented that there has to be a sub view of something else.
16:44:06 [GK1]
+1 paul comment about sub-view
16:44:11 [Yogesh]
...Can Luc in soton be a sub view of Luc in his entire life?
16:44:21 [Yogesh]
Stephen: Yes
16:44:37 [Yogesh]
..There is a hierachical nature.
16:44:39 [stainMobile]
+1 for subview
16:44:58 [GK1]
Luc today <= luc in soton <= luc in his lifetime
16:45:10 [Zakim]
16:45:14 [smiles]
would have to be contiguous period of time in southampton
16:45:16 [Yogesh]
...And Luc@life is not a view of Luc@soton
16:45:22 [stainMobile]
not sure wr need complement of?
16:45:38 [Yogesh]
16:45:38 [GK1]
... unpess a==b
16:45:40 [smiles]
not just luc in southampton ever (as he will travel in and out)
16:45:45 [Zakim]
16:45:47 [pgroth]
16:45:49 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:45:58 [stainMobile]
can contain eachother only if same interval
16:46:16 [Yogesh]
Luc: is anyone against interval containment?
16:46:21 [smiles]
yes, supportive
16:46:35 [Yogesh]
...Should it be the only notion?
16:46:43 [pgroth]
16:46:44 [GK1]
I don't mind about something else.
16:46:45 [tlebo]
supportive of just temporal intervals, until we see it written up.
16:46:47 [Yogesh]
...Do we retain wasComplementOf?
16:46:48 [pgroth]
16:46:56 [stainMobile]
+1 to interval containment, -1 to wasCompOf
16:47:23 [smiles]
16:47:27 [Yogesh]
Paul: Looking for a lighter view in addition to interval containment
16:47:28 [stainMobile]
its like a sibbling view with time overlap
16:47:28 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:47:45 [tlebo]
I think wasComplementOf is a derivative, ancillary relation that is based on a viewOf "hierarchy"
16:47:47 [GK1]
@paul - that's kind of "top" of the interval space, isn't it?
16:48:22 [pgroth]
16:48:23 [Yogesh]
Luc: For both attributes and intervals, we may not be able to verify
16:48:24 [pgroth]
ack smiles
16:48:31 [GK1]
@luc, think that's OK - it becomnes an existential assertion/.
16:48:38 [StephenCresswell]
16:48:55 [pgroth]
ack StephenCresswell
16:48:57 [Zakim]
16:48:59 [stainMobile]
and specially if not yet finished..
16:49:30 [GK1]
@luc; I think this relates to the idea that attributes are most important foir interop with other systems.
16:49:31 [stainMobile]
what if we split it in two, viewOf just needs time overlap
16:49:39 [Yogesh]
Stephen: If we cannot say anything about intervals, two weak notions are (1) complementOf, where the intervals overlap, (2) or both are views of a wider entity
16:49:41 [pgroth]
16:49:49 [stainMobile]
and state time contain as welk seperateky
16:49:55 [GK1]
@stephen +1
16:50:29 [smiles]
16:50:31 [Zakim]
16:50:40 [Yogesh]
...We still have viewOf, but it is very long term spanning all time
16:51:11 [stainMobile]
16:51:15 [pgroth]
ack smiles
16:51:18 [Yogesh]
smiles: if entity exists, it cannot be verified in itself. Why does ti matter if the assertion can be verified?
16:51:25 [Yogesh]
16:51:29 [tlebo]
smiles: we can't verify that an assertion that at document exists is true, so verification can't be necessary.
16:51:30 [GK1]
@smiles +1
16:51:40 [tlebo]
s/at doc/a doc/
16:51:43 [Yogesh]
Luc: acknowledges the point
16:51:47 [GK1]
(to repeat...) I think a key feature of e1 viewOf e2 means that any (non-account-scoped) provenance assertions about e2 are also true of e1.
16:51:48 [pgroth]
16:52:01 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:52:24 [pgroth]
16:52:45 [GK1]
My vote would be -0 - i.e. prefer not talking of attributes, but could live with it.
16:53:01 [stainMobile]
-0 as well
16:53:06 [Yogesh]
Stephen: Only interval containment of the same entity.
16:53:20 [smiles]
i don't see a need for referring to attributes, just say "talking about same thing"
16:53:29 [tlebo]
@GK1, no, the assertions on e2 apply differently to the assertions on e1 - you can't just copy/paste them up the viewOf hierarchy.
16:53:31 [stainMobile]
(The discussion made me get off bus 2 stops late!)
16:53:45 [Luc]
16:53:52 [Yogesh]
Luc: will make a proposal to review next week
16:53:58 [Luc]
16:54:04 [GK1]
a viewOf b => exists(realworldobjec) s.t. a and b are each viewOf realworldobject
16:54:08 [Yogesh]
Luc: talking about recipe. See link.
16:54:19 [tlebo]
(@GK1, l like FRBR and "maker" - maker of the paperbound is not the maker of the story it conveys)
16:54:27 [Yogesh]
Luc: Use the term Plan rather recipe?
16:54:31 [tlebo]
s/I like/Like/
16:54:33 [Zakim]
16:54:38 [Yogesh]
Luc: It seems that Plan can evolve, so should a Plan be a kind of entity?
16:54:47 [stainMobile]
plan fits better than recipe with activity
16:54:50 [Yogesh]
Luc: If so, then do we have a new relationship hadPlan: activity -> entity?
16:54:50 [GK1]
@tlebo - I worry about trying to make to strong a parallel with FRBR.
16:55:09 [Yogesh]
Luc: Is this a specialization of wasAssociatedWith? If not, how do we distinguish this new relationship from wasAssociatedWith?
16:55:10 [pgroth]
16:55:18 [pgroth]
16:55:30 [tlebo]
@GK1, we won't mention FRBR, just like we don't mention reification for QualifiedInvolvements :-)
16:56:18 [pgroth]
16:56:18 [Luc]
16:56:22 [YolandaGil]
16:56:25 [Yogesh]
Paul: Plan to to be associated with activity. So a specialization.
16:56:27 [tlebo]
is "wasAssociatedWith" the too-weak relation between agent and activity?
16:56:42 [tlebo]
(too weak in name)
16:56:44 [stainMobile]
plan is not used by activity, but might be usrd by agent who is also activitu
16:56:48 [stainMobile]
16:57:01 [Yogesh]
YolandaGil: the plan may be "The Plan" in some cases. But in most cases, it may be more than one and may evolve
16:57:17 [stainMobile]
have to go, sorry
16:57:34 [Zakim]
16:57:40 [Yogesh]
...Maybe the lesser the commitment we make to the plan, the better?
16:58:03 [tlebo]
yolandaGil: the plan may not apply universally to an activity, there may be multiple plans at different times (used by different agents).
16:58:08 [Yogesh]
...What if there are multiple plans depending on how far before the activity it is defined?
16:58:11 [pgroth]
ack YolandaGil
16:58:12 [Luc]
hadPlan: 1 to many relationship?
16:58:25 [pgroth]
16:58:47 [pgroth]
16:58:53 [Yogesh]
YolandaGil: Activity points to one or more plans.
16:59:11 [Yogesh]
...Someone can make the plan an entity and make further associations.
16:59:29 [YolandaGil]
+1 for plan
16:59:49 [Luc]
16:59:53 [Yogesh]
Paul: Always though Plan was going to be a hook to other things, but not to define a planning language
16:59:53 [Luc]
ack pgr
17:00:07 [pgroth]
17:00:07 [Luc]
17:00:07 [Yogesh]
...suggest we dont have cardinality or semantics to that.
17:00:08 [GK1]
@pgroth +1 (we just had similar discussions w.r.t. our project :)
17:00:59 [Yogesh]
Luc: Paolo and Luc will write this up and circulate it.
17:01:08 [tlebo]
@paul, but does the hook apply to JUST the activity (universally), or does the hook apply to the controlling agents' control of the activity?
17:01:43 [Luc]
17:01:44 [YolandaGil]
Your proposal for plan sounds good Luc
17:01:53 [Luc]
17:02:22 [pgroth]
17:02:26 [tlebo]
-1 naming, no counterproposal :-(
17:02:41 [Yogesh]
Luc: Any counter proposal for WasAssociatedWith?
17:02:46 [YolandaGil]
I like it
17:03:17 [GK1]
@tlebo I think the hook may apply directly to something like the activity (only), but that in turn may be linked to to other aspects.
17:03:26 [Yogesh]
Luc: In the absence of counter proposal, we cant resolve. We can wait for vote after christmas.
17:03:33 [Zakim]
17:03:34 [Zakim]
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:03:38 [Zakim]
17:03:39 [Zakim]
17:03:40 [Zakim]
17:03:42 [Zakim]
17:03:43 [Zakim]
17:04:03 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:04:12 [Zakim]
17:04:12 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:04:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:04:19 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
17:04:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:04:20 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Yogesh, pgroth, Luc, adamretter, sandro, [IPcaller], dgarijo, [ISI], stain, +1.706.461.aabb, MacTed
17:04:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:04:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:04:21 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
17:04:22 [Zakim]