Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 24 May 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.24
Seen
Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, James McCusker, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stephen Cresswell, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies
Regrets
Paolo Missier
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Curt Tilmes
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon link
  2. the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy link
  3. wasInformedBy included in the core link
  4. Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs link
  5. use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility link
Topics
  1. Admin

  2. PROV-DM Restructuring

    The group agreed do divide prov-dm into core and extended. The group agreed on what concepts are in the core (see resolution). There was consensus that this organization should not impact the organization of prov-o. There was consensus that the organization of prov-dm is primarily for pedagological reasons.

  3. Name for Responsibility

    Resolved to use the name Delegation for what is currently Responsibility and to leave actedOnBehalfOf as the relation name.

  4. Reviewers

    The following working group members agreed to act as reviewers for the forthcoming releases of the various documents. prov-dm: Daniel, Tom, Khalid. prov-o: Sam, Paul, Luc. prov-constraints: Simon, Tom. prov-n: Sam James, Khalid

14:51:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-irc

14:51:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:51:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:51:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

14:51:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:36 <trackbot> Date: 24 May 2012
14:51:39 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:51:39 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes

14:52:03 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.24
14:52:14 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:52:19 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes

(Scribe set to Curt Tilmes)

14:52:26 <pgroth> Regrets: Paolo Missier
14:52:34 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

14:53:21 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

14:53:28 <Zakim> +jfuller

Zakim IRC Bot: +jfuller

14:53:36 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?

Paul Groth: Zakim, who is here?

14:53:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see jfuller

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jfuller

14:53:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

14:55:01 <Zakim> + +329331aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aaaa

14:55:14 <TomDN> Zakim, +329331aaaa is me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, +329331aaaa is me

14:55:14 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN; got it

14:55:35 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me

14:55:36 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted

14:55:56 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?

Paul Groth: Zakim, who is here?

14:55:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see jfuller, TomDN (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jfuller, TomDN (muted)

14:55:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

14:59:07 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

15:00:36 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aabb

15:00:40 <Zakim> +jfuller.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +jfuller.a

15:01:00 <jun> zakim, who is here?

Jun Zhao: zakim, who is here?

15:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see jfuller, TomDN (muted), Luc, ??P22, +1.518.276.aabb, jfuller.a

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jfuller, TomDN (muted), Luc, ??P22, +1.518.276.aabb, jfuller.a

15:01:06 <jun> zakim, ??P22 is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, ??P22 is me

15:01:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see jun, SamCoppens, tlebo, Curt, TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jun, SamCoppens, tlebo, Curt, TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

15:01:06 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb

Timothy Lebo: zakim, I am aabb

15:01:12 <Zakim> +jun; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it

15:01:15 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it

15:01:41 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN

Sam Coppens: zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN

15:01:46 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it

15:01:48 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

15:02:04 <Zakim> +??P15

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15

15:02:12 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P15 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P15 is me

15:02:14 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:02:20 <dgarijo> hi all

Daniel Garijo: hi all

15:02:32 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:02:43 <Zakim> +??P17

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17

15:02:48 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-17

15:03:02 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P17 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P17 is me

15:03:02 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it

15:03:02 <pgroth> proposed: approve Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon

PROPOSED: approve Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon

15:03:05 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:03:06 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:03:07 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:03:07 <Curt> +1

+1

15:03:10 <Zakim> +jfuller.aa

Zakim IRC Bot: +jfuller.aa

15:03:11 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:03:11 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:03:21 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:03:22 <SamCoppens> 0 (did not attend the meeting)

Sam Coppens: 0 (did not attend the meeting)

15:03:39 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon

RESOLVED: Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon

15:03:49 <Curt> pgroth: 2 open actions

Paul Groth: 2 open actions

15:04:05 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

15:04:05 <Curt> ... sandro to send working drafts

... sandro to send working drafts

15:04:08 <pgroth> sandro?

Paul Groth: sandro?

15:04:42 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

15:04:44 <Curt> ... graham to review constraints.  some emails flowing.

... graham to review constraints. some emails flowing.

15:04:52 <Luc> there is an email that just arrived on the mailing list

Luc Moreau: there is an email that just arrived on the mailing list

15:05:08 <GK1> zakim, ??p7 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p7 is me

15:05:08 <Zakim> +GK1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK1; got it

15:05:18 <Curt> pgroth: scribes, need them, please sign up

Paul Groth: scribes, need them, please sign up

15:05:27 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Restructuring

2. PROV-DM Restructuring

Summary: The group agreed do divide prov-dm into core and extended. The group agreed on what concepts are in the core (see resolution). There was consensus that this organization should not impact the organization of prov-o. There was consensus that the organization of prov-dm is primarily for pedagological reasons.

<pgroth> Summary: The group agreed do divide prov-dm into core and extended. The group agreed on what concepts are in the core (see resolution). There was consensus that this organization should not impact the organization of prov-o. There was consensus that the organization of prov-dm is primarily for pedagological reasons.
15:05:42 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aacc

15:05:46 <Curt> pgroth: past weeks, discussed several options

Paul Groth: past weeks, discussed several options

15:05:56 <Curt> ... graham made a proposal discussed last week

... graham made a proposal discussed last week

15:06:04 <Curt> ... chairs actioned to counter-propose

... chairs actioned to counter-propose

15:06:09 <GK> Sorry I'm late ... re actions, I just took a look at constraints.  Basically looking good.    Comments in email.

Graham Klyne: Sorry I'm late ... re actions, I just took a look at constraints. Basically looking good. Comments in email.

15:06:34 <Curt> ... many comments going around.  Consensus proposal looking good, good approach

... many comments going around. Consensus proposal looking good, good approach

15:06:58 <Curt> ... core vs. extended has support on mailing list, try to confirm that today

... core vs. extended has support on mailing list, try to confirm that today

15:07:32 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

15:07:38 <Curt> luc: worked on text based on mailling list feedback

Luc Moreau: worked on text based on mailling list feedback

15:08:00 <Curt> ... revised section 2, now an overview with 3 subsections

... revised section 2, now an overview with 3 subsections

15:08:15 <Curt> ... core, extended, organization and components

... core, extended, organization and components

15:08:39 <Curt> ... 2.1 now has the diagram

... 2.1 now has the diagram

15:09:04 <Curt> ... some work to go on content, ready for external review/feedback soon

... some work to go on content, ready for external review/feedback soon

15:09:10 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:09:13 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:09:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:09:40 <khalidbelhajjame> My only comment is that it looks good

Khalid Belhajjame: My only comment is that it looks good

15:10:07 <Luc> See figure: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-core-structures

Luc Moreau: See figure: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-core-structures

15:10:21 <Curt> pgroth: core structures in editors draft, are these what we want?

Paul Groth: core structures in editors draft, are these what we want?

15:10:23 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:10:28 <tlebo> +q to ask about wasInformedBy

Timothy Lebo: +q to ask about wasInformedBy

15:10:29 <GK> I think it's about right.

Graham Klyne: I think it's about right.

15:10:37 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

15:10:53 <Curt> tlebo: prov-o also has wasInformedBy as a starting point, propose to add to DM core

Timothy Lebo: prov-o also has wasInformedBy as a starting point, propose to add to DM core

15:11:08 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:11:12 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

15:11:12 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about wasInformedBy

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask about wasInformedBy

15:11:17 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

15:11:42 <Curt> luc: that's the only difference between dm and prov-o now...

Luc Moreau: that's the only difference between dm and prov-o now...

15:12:11 <jun> +1 to @tlebo

Jun Zhao: +1 to @tlebo

15:12:18 <Curt> ... a good reason to add wasInformedBy is that it makes sense in the core

... a good reason to add wasInformedBy is that it makes sense in the core

15:12:22 <GK> I'm OK either way... I can see the case.

Graham Klyne: I'm OK either way... I can see the case.

15:12:29 <smiles> Structure looks good; also makes sense for someone who's just read the primer, I think

Simon Miles: Structure looks good; also makes sense for someone who's just read the primer, I think

15:12:35 <Curt> ... but it isn't really 'primitive' -- it is really a shortcut for other concepts in the core

... but it isn't really 'primitive' -- it is really a shortcut for other concepts in the core

15:12:40 <GK> Isn't the same true of derivation?

Graham Klyne: Isn't the same true of derivation?

15:12:47 <TomDN> so is wasDerivedFrom, technically...

Tom De Nies: so is wasDerivedFrom, technically...

15:13:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:13:21 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

15:13:22 <Curt> ... I lean toward not including wasInformedBy in the core, but it is somewhat subjective

... I lean toward not including wasInformedBy in the core, but it is somewhat subjective

15:13:26 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:13:41 <Curt> GK: Could go either way

Graham Klyne: Could go either way

15:13:48 <Curt> ... I see Tim's point

... I see Tim's point

15:13:49 <tlebo> not sure that "primitiveness" should be the dominating consideration - the point is to give a conceptual basis to begin the story for any potential adopter.

Timothy Lebo: not sure that "primitiveness" should be the dominating consideration - the point is to give a conceptual basis to begin the story for any potential adopter.

15:14:22 <tlebo> +1 @GK !

Timothy Lebo: +1 @GK !

15:14:24 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:14:32 <Curt> GK: Is its primitiveness similar to wasDerivedFrom?

Graham Klyne: Is its primitiveness similar to wasDerivedFrom?

15:14:36 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:14:57 <Luc> used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a)

15:15:29 <Luc> used(a2,e) wasGeneratedBy(e,a1)

Luc Moreau: used(a2,e) wasGeneratedBy(e,a1)

15:15:39 <Luc> wasInformedBy(a2,a1)

Luc Moreau: wasInformedBy(a2,a1)

15:15:42 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

15:15:50 <tlebo> Perhaps we should point out that this is the "core" of the DM, not the "core" of the constraints document. ("primitiveness" would be more appropriate in dm-constraints)

Timothy Lebo: Perhaps we should point out that this is the "core" of the DM, not the "core" of the constraints document. ("primitiveness" would be more appropriate in dm-constraints)

15:15:55 <Curt> luc: ^used + wasGeneratedBy implies wasInformedBy

Luc Moreau: ^used + wasGeneratedBy implies wasInformedBy

15:16:05 <Luc> used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDrivedFrom(e2,e1)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDrivedFrom(e2,e1)

15:16:18 <GK> That's unexpected to me

Graham Klyne: That's unexpected to me

15:16:36 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:16:43 <Curt> ... wasInformedBy is a real shortcut, but wasDerivedFrom isn't a shortcut, since you can't make such an implication

... wasInformedBy is a real shortcut, but wasDerivedFrom isn't a shortcut, since you can't make such an implication

15:16:45 <GK> (Hunts in spec...)

Graham Klyne: (Hunts in spec...)

15:17:13 <Curt> pgroth: is having it in the core of value?

Paul Groth: is having it in the core of value?

15:17:14 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

15:17:24 <jcheney> Definition currently given at: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#component-1--entities-and-activities

James Cheney: Definition currently given at: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#component-1--entities-and-activities

15:17:25 <tlebo> +q to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.

Timothy Lebo: +q to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.

15:17:34 <Curt> ... people have asked about constructs to show certain relationships

... people have asked about constructs to show certain relationships

15:17:46 <Curt> ... having it in the core helps understanding

... having it in the core helps understanding

15:17:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:18:34 <pgroth> activities aren't functions

Paul Groth: activities aren't functions

15:18:54 <khalidbelhajjame> An activity does not have to use all inputs to produce a given output

Khalid Belhajjame: An activity does not have to use all inputs to produce a given output

15:19:06 <Curt> GK: notion of influence is captured by derivation, you need an activity to create the new entity

Graham Klyne: notion of influence is captured by derivation, you need an activity to create the new entity

15:19:06 <dgarijo> @Khalid: +1

Daniel Garijo: @Khalid: +1

15:19:29 <Curt> ... if we have got the consumption/generation, we have derivation

... if we have got the consumption/generation, we have derivation

15:19:31 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham, you may be talking about traceability

Khalid Belhajjame: Graham, you may be talking about traceability

15:19:38 <dgarijo> @Khalid: it may use e1 for a later generation than e2

Daniel Garijo: @Khalid: it may use e1 for a later generation than e2

15:20:31 <Curt> ... if an activity uses an entity, and generates another, then derivation is happening

... if an activity uses an entity, and generates another, then derivation is happening

15:20:35 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:20:53 <Curt> tlebo: the purpose of 'core' is to orient new adopters

Timothy Lebo: the purpose of 'core' is to orient new adopters

15:21:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:21:10 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

15:21:10 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.

15:21:11 <GK> @tlebo +1 that's more compelling :)

Graham Klyne: @tlebo +1 that's more compelling :)

15:21:14 <dgarijo> @GK: Activities have an star time and an end time. That does not imply that all used entities influence all generated entities...

Daniel Garijo: @GK: Activities have an star time and an end time. That does not imply that all used entities influence all generated entities...

15:21:14 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:21:16 <Curt> ... other distinctions are secondary

... other distinctions are secondary

15:21:33 <Luc>  used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)

15:21:41 <Luc> used(a,e1,t1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a,t2)  where t2<t1, so cannot imply  wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)

Luc Moreau: used(a,e1,t1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a,t2) where t2<t1, so cannot imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)

15:21:46 <Curt> luc: dgarijo is right, you can't imply derivation in that way

Luc Moreau: dgarijo is right, you can't imply derivation in that way

15:22:02 <jun> @gklyne, I don't know whether what @Luc said is in the DM or not. But that notion was the part of the reason for the provenance community to have wasDerivedFrom

Jun Zhao: @GK, I don't know whether what @Luc said is in the DM or not. But that notion was the part of the reason for the provenance community to have wasDerivedFrom

15:22:14 <jun> s/gklyne/GK/
15:22:45 <GK> I see the point Luc makes, but I also agree @tlebos point

Graham Klyne: I see the point Luc makes, but I also agree @tlebos point

15:23:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:23:09 <Curt> pgroth: Current core contents except for wasInformedBy is ok, is there strong objection to including it?

Paul Groth: Current core contents except for wasInformedBy is ok, is there strong objection to including it?

15:23:25 <jun> @GK, yes. I think the discussion was a bit off the original topic:)

Jun Zhao: @GK, yes. I think the discussion was a bit off the original topic:)

15:23:28 <dgarijo> if it helps (as Tim suggested), then I think it should go in there..

Daniel Garijo: if it helps (as Tim suggested), then I think it should go in there..

15:23:42 <Curt> luc: we haven't formally defined what is 'core', but it is misleading to consider wasInformedBy on the same level as the others

Luc Moreau: we haven't formally defined what is 'core', but it is misleading to consider wasInformedBy on the same level as the others

15:24:03 <Curt> luc: but it is subjective, and we could include if the groups wants to

Luc Moreau: but it is subjective, and we could include if the groups wants to

15:24:28 <Curt> luc: I think it should not be there, since it is misleading

Luc Moreau: I think it should not be there, since it is misleading

15:24:46 <jun> @Luc, misleading, but might still be helpful?

Jun Zhao: @Luc, misleading, but might still be helpful?

15:25:43 <pgroth> proposed: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy

PROPOSED: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy

15:25:48 <Luc> @jun, of course,  i am not suggesting to drop it from the model, it is among the extended structures

Luc Moreau: @jun, of course, i am not suggesting to drop it from the model, it is among the extended structures

15:26:09 <GK> +0.5  (happy either way, lean to this, but slightly)

Graham Klyne: +0.5 (happy either way, lean to this, but slightly)

15:26:09 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:26:10 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:26:16 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:26:18 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:26:19 <smiles> +1 (ambivalent about wasInformedBy)

Simon Miles: +1 (ambivalent about wasInformedBy)

15:26:23 <stephenc> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1

15:26:31 <Curt> +0.5 (ambivalent as well)

+0.5 (ambivalent as well)

15:26:34 <zednik> +0.5

Stephan Zednik: +0.5

15:26:35 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:26:46 <jun> +0.5 (because time was all excluded, but I am fine with it)

Jun Zhao: +0.5 (because time was all excluded, but I am fine with it)

15:26:47 <khalidbelhajjame> +0.5

Khalid Belhajjame: +0.5

15:27:23 <pgroth> accepted: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy

RESOLVED: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy

15:27:28 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:27:34 <Curt> pgroth: ambivalence plus support, so that seems the way to go

Paul Groth: ambivalence plus support, so that seems the way to go

15:28:11 <Curt> luc: should consider the choice

Luc Moreau: should consider the choice

15:28:12 <pgroth> proposed: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith

PROPOSED: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith

15:28:17 <GK> +0

Graham Klyne: +0

15:28:19 <dgarijo> +1 as well

Daniel Garijo: +1 as well

15:28:22 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:28:27 <TomDN> +0

Tom De Nies: +0

15:28:30 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:28:31 <Curt> +0.5

+0.5

15:28:37 <jcheney> +1 happy either way

James Cheney: +1 happy either way

15:28:42 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:29:01 <tlebo> q+ to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.

15:29:06 <tlebo> -1

Timothy Lebo: -1

15:29:17 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:29:47 <Luc> q|+

Luc Moreau: q|+

15:29:51 <Curt> tlebo: what does this mean for startedAtTime/endedAtTime for its starting point

Timothy Lebo: what does this mean for startedAtTime/endedAtTime for its starting point

15:29:51 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

15:29:51 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.

15:30:05 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o should remove those, so core is consistent

Paul Groth: prov-o should remove those, so core is consistent

15:30:08 <GK> I assumed that each document could make it's own evaluation

Graham Klyne: I assumed that each document could make it's own evaluation

15:30:18 <jun> +0 fine either way

Jun Zhao: +0 fine either way

15:30:26 <Curt> luc: no, prov-dm core doesn't talk about some things like time

Luc Moreau: no, prov-dm core doesn't talk about some things like time

15:30:44 <dgarijo> @Tim: when you say remove you mean to put it in expanded terms, right?

Daniel Garijo: @Tim: when you say remove you mean to put it in expanded terms, right?

15:30:49 <Curt> luc: we could, but I don't think prov-o would have to remove those from its starting point

Luc Moreau: we could, but I don't think prov-o would have to remove those from its starting point

15:31:01 <tlebo> @dgarijo, yes. Moving them to expanded.

Timothy Lebo: @dgarijo, yes. Moving them to expanded.

15:31:04 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

15:31:07 <tlebo> thanks!

Timothy Lebo: thanks!

15:31:08 <dgarijo> @tlebo: ok, thx

Daniel Garijo: @tlebo: ok, thx

15:31:12 <Curt> pgroth: ok, you could leave them in the starting points

Paul Groth: ok, you could leave them in the starting points

15:31:23 <GK> The question is:  wasInformedBy core or not?

Graham Klyne: The question is: wasInformedBy core or not?

15:31:40 <Curt> pgroth: looking at votes, leans to add wasInformedBy to core

Paul Groth: looking at votes, leans to add wasInformedBy to core

15:31:49 <dgarijo> @GK: according to the votes it should be included in the core.

Daniel Garijo: @GK: according to the votes it should be included in the core.

15:32:17 <pgroth> proposed: is wasInformedBy including in the core in prov-dm

PROPOSED: is wasInformedBy including in the core in prov-dm

15:32:32 <Curt> +0

+0

15:32:35 <smiles> 0

Simon Miles: 0

15:32:37 <dgarijo> +0

Daniel Garijo: +0

15:32:38 <khalidbelhajjame> 0

Khalid Belhajjame: 0

15:32:38 <GK> I assume +foires for, - votes against?

Graham Klyne: I assume +foires for, - votes against?

15:32:41 <TomDN> +0.5

Tom De Nies: +0.5

15:32:45 <GK> +0.5

Graham Klyne: +0.5

15:32:50 <stephenc> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1

15:33:04 <SamCoppens> 0

Sam Coppens: 0

15:33:21 <jun> +0.5

Jun Zhao: +0.5

15:33:44 <jcheney> +1 seems useful to cover it for symmetry with derivation even if it is redundant

James Cheney: +1 seems useful to cover it for symmetry with derivation even if it is redundant

15:33:45 <dgarijo> what does 0.5 mean? Is that support, partial support or that you don't care?

Daniel Garijo: what does 0.5 mean? Is that support, partial support or that you don't care?

15:33:47 <zednik> +0

Stephan Zednik: +0

15:33:52 <GK> (dropped off audio briefly there)

Graham Klyne: (dropped off audio briefly there)

15:34:24 <GK> @dgarijo I use +0.5 to mean I lean towards, but happy either way.

Graham Klyne: @dgarijo I use +0.5 to mean I lean towards, but happy either way.

15:34:24 <Curt> pgroth: fairly positive, ok luc?

Paul Groth: fairly positive, ok luc?

15:34:26 <Curt> luc: that's fine.

Luc Moreau: that's fine.

15:34:28 <TomDN> means that I wouldn't object if it goes the other way

Tom De Nies: means that I wouldn't object if it goes the other way

15:34:28 <pgroth> accepted: wasInformedBy included in the core

RESOLVED: wasInformedBy included in the core

15:34:33 <dgarijo> @GK: ok, thx!

Daniel Garijo: @GK: ok, thx!

15:35:02 <Curt> pgroth: want to confirm other terminology 'core' vs. 'extended', other options?

Paul Groth: want to confirm other terminology 'core' vs. 'extended', other options?

15:35:23 <pgroth> proposed: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs

PROPOSED: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs

15:35:27 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:35:28 <Curt> +1

+1

15:35:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:35:29 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:35:34 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:35:35 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:35:40 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:35:45 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:35:46 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:35:47 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:35:54 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:35:57 <Luc> does it mean that prov-o starting points becomes prov-o core?

Luc Moreau: does it mean that prov-o starting points becomes prov-o core?

15:35:59 <jun> +1 (for the DM, right? not in every document)

Jun Zhao: +1 (for the DM, right? not in every document)

15:36:11 <pgroth> accepted: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs

RESOLVED: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs

15:36:39 <Curt> pgroth: these decisions are on prov-dm, what is the impact on prov-o?

Paul Groth: these decisions are on prov-dm, what is the impact on prov-o?

15:36:53 <Curt> ... prov-o editors? what do you want to do with this?

... prov-o editors? what do you want to do with this?

15:37:23 <Curt> tlebo: I'm comfortable changing 'starting point' to 'core', but the time concepts are inconsistent with that

Timothy Lebo: I'm comfortable changing 'starting point' to 'core', but the time concepts are inconsistent with that

15:37:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:37:54 <jun> q+ in prov-o we also have terms for qualified patterns

Jun Zhao: q+ in prov-o we also have terms for qualified patterns

15:37:57 <Zakim> +??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12

15:38:19 <GK> I propose no immediate impact on PROV-O, unless some one raises an issue.  I have no problem with apparent inconsistency, since it doesn't have any technical impact.

Graham Klyne: I propose no immediate impact on PROV-O, unless some one raises an issue. I have no problem with apparent inconsistency, since it doesn't have any technical impact.

15:38:22 <Curt> jun: we have further categorization for other sections, what about those?

Jun Zhao: we have further categorization for other sections, what about those?

15:38:27 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

15:38:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:39:04 <Curt> pgroth: It is reasonable for prov-o to keep starting point and mention these are similar to the prov-dm core

Paul Groth: It is reasonable for prov-o to keep starting point and mention these are similar to the prov-dm core

15:39:12 <jun> q-

Jun Zhao: q-

15:39:22 <Curt> ... different terminology might help limit confusion, even if there is less parallelism

... different terminology might help limit confusion, even if there is less parallelism

15:39:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:39:30 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:39:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:39:32 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

15:39:34 <Curt> ... prov-dm doesn't have the qualified terms

... prov-dm doesn't have the qualified terms

15:39:35 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:39:43 <Zakim> -??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P12

15:40:09 <Curt> luc: in section 2.1 of prov-dm, it just talks about the key classes/types/associations, it doesn't get into the notion of time

Luc Moreau: in section 2.1 of prov-dm, it just talks about the key classes/types/associations, it doesn't get into the notion of time

15:40:32 <Curt> ... that comes in much later, 2.1 is just conceptual, doesn't get into syntax

... that comes in much later, 2.1 is just conceptual, doesn't get into syntax

15:40:53 <Curt> ... it doesn't preclude time being part of the core, shouldn't be a problem with prov-o having that in its starting points

... it doesn't preclude time being part of the core, shouldn't be a problem with prov-o having that in its starting points

15:41:27 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

15:41:28 <GK> Luc: "examples of syntax don't come until section 4"

Luc Moreau: "examples of syntax don't come until section 4" [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ]

15:41:37 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:41:39 <Curt> ... with regard to the qualified relations, there are association classes later

... with regard to the qualified relations, there are association classes later

15:41:54 <Curt> pgroth: include time in the core points?

Paul Groth: include time in the core points?

15:42:04 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

15:42:25 <Curt> luc: the representation in dm core doesn't really allow discussion of time, but it isn't really a problem to consider time part of that

Luc Moreau: the representation in dm core doesn't really allow discussion of time, but it isn't really a problem to consider time part of that

15:42:45 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:42:50 <GK> WFM

Graham Klyne: WFM

15:42:57 <Curt> pgroth: Keep that terminology?  Core for DM and 'starting points' for prov-o?

Paul Groth: Keep that terminology? Core for DM and 'starting points' for prov-o?

15:43:03 <khalidbelhajjame> I thought that Luc was suggesting that the core in dm and starting points in provo are the same

Khalid Belhajjame: I thought that Luc was suggesting that the core in dm and starting points in provo are the same

15:43:10 <khalidbelhajjame> which I think is the case

Khalid Belhajjame: which I think is the case

15:43:26 <GK> @khalid - I think he said they were not incosistent, just that

Graham Klyne: @khalid - I think he said they were not incosistent, just that

15:43:35 <Curt> pgroth: they aren't the same, since time isn't in the dm core

Paul Groth: they aren't the same, since time isn't in the dm core

15:43:58 <Luc> I don't show any attribute in this class diagram

Luc Moreau: I don't show any attribute in this class diagram

15:44:56 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component1

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component1

15:44:59 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:45:16 <Zakim> -??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P5

15:45:33 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component2

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#component2

15:46:08 <Curt> luc: to clarify: activities in figure do show time, but those attributes aren't really discussed in the core

Luc Moreau: to clarify: activities in figure do show time, but those attributes aren't really discussed in the core

15:46:36 <GK1> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-Activity - st and et are mandatory, so I think their appearance (as distinct terms) in PROV-O start is entirely consistent as it can be due to nature of RDF representation.

Graham Klyne: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-Activity - st and et are mandatory, so I think their appearance (as distinct terms) in PROV-O start is entirely consistent as it can be due to nature of RDF representation.

15:46:46 <Curt> pgroth: either we align, or we don't, tim is right, we do know what is part of dm core, maybe we can address alignment later

Paul Groth: either we align, or we don't, tim is right, we do know what is part of dm core, maybe we can address alignment later

15:46:53 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:46:55 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:46:56 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:46:56 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:47:01 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:47:04 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:47:13 <pgroth> Topic: Name for Responsibility

3. Name for Responsibility

Summary: Resolved to use the name Delegation for what is currently Responsibility and to leave actedOnBehalfOf as the relation name.

<pgroth> Summary: Resolved to use the name Delegation for what is currently Responsibility and to leave actedOnBehalfOf as the relation name.
15:47:17 <Curt> pgroth: luc can proceed based on this for now

Paul Groth: luc can proceed based on this for now

15:47:29 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility

15:47:50 <Curt> tlebo: name for responsibility is ambiguous

Timothy Lebo: name for responsibility is ambiguous

15:48:32 <Curt> ... tlebo too broad, too general, would like to rename to 'delegation'

... tlebo too broad, too general, would like to rename to 'delegation'

15:48:51 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:49:00 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:49:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:49:09 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:49:20 <Curt> luc: confirm you are now happy with 'delegation'?

Luc Moreau: confirm you are now happy with 'delegation'?

15:50:31 <Curt> tlebo: choosing between delegation or OnBehalfOf

Timothy Lebo: choosing between delegation or OnBehalfOf

15:50:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:51:02 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:51:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:51:06 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:51:06 <Curt> tlebo: I would problem lean toward actedOnBehalfOf, but either that or delegation better than responsibility

Timothy Lebo: I would probably lean toward actedOnBehalfOf, but either that or delegation better than responsibility

15:51:10 <Luc> Responsibility is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.

Luc Moreau: Responsibility is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.

15:51:16 <Curt> s/problem/probably/
15:51:22 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aadd

15:51:39 <dgarijo> @Tim: so, if we choose delegation, would we change "actedOnBehalfOf" to something like delegated?

Daniel Garijo: @Tim: so, if we choose delegation, would we change "actedOnBehalfOf" to something like delegated?

15:51:49 <tlebo> @luc, it is strange.

Timothy Lebo: @luc, it is strange.

15:51:59 <Curt> luc: behalf sounds strange

Luc Moreau: behalf sounds strange

15:52:06 <Curt> GK: yes, it does

Graham Klyne: yes, it does

15:52:22 <Curt> luc: it isn't really used on its own like that

Luc Moreau: it isn't really used on its own like that

15:52:31 <Curt> pgroth: does it have to be one noun?

Paul Groth: does it have to be one noun?

15:52:32 <Curt> luc: yes

Luc Moreau: yes

15:52:33 <tlebo> "Act" ?

Timothy Lebo: "Act" ?

15:52:43 <Luc> @tlebo, too close to activity

Luc Moreau: @tlebo, too close to activity

15:52:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:52:52 <tlebo> true

Timothy Lebo: true

15:53:08 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:53:11 <TomDN> "Action" also too close?

Tom De Nies: "Action" also too close?

15:53:14 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:53:18 <Curt> pgroth: delegation does sound good

Paul Groth: delegation does sound good

15:53:27 <JimMcCusker> "actedFor"?

James McCusker: "actedFor"?

15:53:46 <tlebo> POI we already have "qualified" v. "unqualifed" naming mismatches, so it's not a show stopper.

Timothy Lebo: POI we already have "qualified" v. "unqualifed" naming mismatches, so it's not a show stopper.

15:53:48 <Curt> luc: delegation has a benefit, and clarifies the presentation in both documents

Luc Moreau: delegation has a benefit, and clarifies the presentation in both documents

15:53:55 <tlebo> (wasinformedBy and Communication)

Timothy Lebo: (wasinformedBy and Communication)

15:54:33 <pgroth> proposed: Use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility

PROPOSED: Use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility

15:54:57 <smiles> +1 unless it means changing actedOnBehalfOf to wasDelegatedTo

Simon Miles: +1 unless it means changing actedOnBehalfOf to wasDelegatedTo

15:54:59 <tlebo> +1 (it "stands along" better than "Behalf")

Timothy Lebo: +1 (it "stands alone" better than "Behalf")

15:55:04 <tlebo> s/along/alone/
15:55:05 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:55:06 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:55:07 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:55:09 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:55:13 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:55:13 <Curt> +1

+1

15:55:15 <jcheney> +.999

James Cheney: +.999

15:55:18 <jun> +1 (it seems clearer)

Jun Zhao: +1 (it seems clearer)

15:55:19 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:55:22 <stainPhone> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:55:40 <Curt> pgroth: simon -- I don't like 'wasDelegatedTo' either

Paul Groth: simon -- I don't like 'wasDelegatedTo' either

15:55:48 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:55:53 <Curt> smiles: actedOnBehalfOf is better

Simon Miles: actedOnBehalfOf is better

15:55:56 <zednik> +1 (Delegation better than Responsibility)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (Delegation better than Responsibility)

15:56:07 <Curt> luc: yes, wouldn't want to change it to 'wasDelegatedTo'

Luc Moreau: yes, wouldn't want to change it to 'wasDelegatedTo'

15:56:17 <Luc> Delegation is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.

Luc Moreau: Delegation is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.

15:56:37 <Curt> luc: can I simply replace 'responsibility' with 'delegation'?

Luc Moreau: can I simply replace 'responsibility' with 'delegation'?

15:56:41 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

15:56:46 <TomDN> zakim, unmute me

Tom De Nies: zakim, unmute me

15:56:46 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted

15:56:47 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:56:52 <pgroth> ack TomDm

Paul Groth: ack TomDm

15:57:01 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

15:57:27 <Curt> TomDN: keyword subordinate doesn't really work -- you can delegate to a peer

Tom De Nies: keyword subordinate doesn't really work -- you can delegate to a peer

15:57:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:57:29 <stainPhone> And what is "accountable" now.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: And what is "accountable" now.

15:57:46 <smiles> Yes, I find it fine just replacing Responsibility with Delegation

Simon Miles: Yes, I find it fine just replacing Responsibility with Delegation

15:57:49 <GK> "assignment of responsibility" -> "delegation"

Graham Klyne: "assignment of responsibility" -> "delegation"

15:58:11 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:58:15 <Curt> pgroth: simple search replace should be ok

Paul Groth: simple search replace should be ok

15:58:31 <GK> I think an editorial pass may be needed.

Graham Klyne: I think an editorial pass may be needed.

15:58:32 <zednik> from wikipedia, slightly longer definition

Stephan Zednik: from wikipedia, slightly longer definition

15:58:34 <zednik> Delegation (or deputation) is the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person (normally from a manager to a subordinate) to carry out specific activities. However the person who delegated the work remains accountable for the outcome of the delegated work.

Stephan Zednik: Delegation (or deputation) is the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person (normally from a manager to a subordinate) to carry out specific activities. However the person who delegated the work remains accountable for the outcome of the delegated work.

15:58:39 <TomDN> I don't disagree, but it is what we define it is

Tom De Nies: I don't disagree, but it is what we define it is

15:58:54 <tlebo> one can look at "senior" with a localized context - even a peer is "senior" if they give a responsibility to a peer (or if a peer "just does it" without the "senior"  asking).

Timothy Lebo: one can look at "senior" with a localized context - even a peer is "senior" if they give a responsibility to a peer (or if a peer "just does it" without the "senior" asking).

15:58:54 <Curt> http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2004/11/on_authority_and_responsibilit.html

http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2004/11/on_authority_and_responsibilit.html

15:58:54 <TomDN> so basically it is up to us, no?

Tom De Nies: so basically it is up to us, no?

15:59:01 <Luc> @zednik: I like your text

Luc Moreau: @zednik: I like your text

15:59:06 <stainPhone> Scribe please? I could not hear what pgroth said.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Scribe please? I could not hear what pgroth said.

15:59:19 <pgroth> accepted: use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility

RESOLVED: use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility

15:59:36 <pgroth> Topic: Reviewers

4. Reviewers

Summary: The following working group members agreed to act as reviewers for the forthcoming releases of the various documents. prov-dm: Daniel, Tom, Khalid. prov-o: Sam, Paul, Luc. prov-constraints: Simon, Tom. prov-n: Sam James, Khalid

<pgroth> Summary: The following working group members agreed to act as reviewers for the forthcoming releases of the various documents. prov-dm: Daniel, Tom, Khalid. prov-o: Sam, Paul, Luc. prov-constraints: Simon, Tom. prov-n: Sam James, Khalid
15:59:53 <stainPhone> Sorry, lag on irc..

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Sorry, lag on irc..

15:59:58 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.789.470.aadd

16:00:02 <Curt> pgroth: who is willing to review when they are ready to go?

Paul Groth: who is willing to review when they are ready to go?

16:00:02 <pgroth> prov-dm

Paul Groth: prov-dm

16:00:06 <tlebo> @luc, @zednick, I think we should also cover the case where an agent "just does it without asking" for another agent. (altruism)

Timothy Lebo: @luc, @zednick, I think we should also cover the case where an agent "just does it without asking" for another agent. (altruism)

16:00:06 <dgarijo> I do

Daniel Garijo: I do

16:00:10 <TomDN> I'll review it as well

Tom De Nies: I'll review it as well

16:00:11 <khalidbelhajjame> I do

Khalid Belhajjame: I do

16:00:12 <Curt> +1

+1

16:00:35 <pgroth> reviewers for prov-o

Paul Groth: reviewers for prov-o

16:00:42 <dgarijo> so, just to be sure, the document to review is : http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html ??

Daniel Garijo: so, just to be sure, the document to review is : http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html ??

16:00:44 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

16:00:44 <pgroth> i will

Paul Groth: i will

16:01:00 <Luc> @tlebo, ok, i will circulate definition suggestions

Luc Moreau: @tlebo, ok, i will circulate definition suggestions

16:01:02 <dgarijo> @pgroth: ok, thanks

Daniel Garijo: @pgroth: ok, thanks

16:01:12 <SamCoppens> i will

Sam Coppens: i will

16:01:13 <Curt> pgroth: Just picking reviewers to review in 1-2 weeks when documents are ready

Paul Groth: Just picking reviewers to review in 1-2 weeks when documents are ready

16:01:15 <Luc> +1

Luc Moreau: +1

16:01:31 <pgroth> prov-constraints

Paul Groth: prov-constraints

16:01:34 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

16:01:43 <TomDN> I'll read this one too

Tom De Nies: I'll read this one too

16:01:52 <pgroth> prov-n

Paul Groth: prov-n

16:02:08 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

16:02:14 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

16:02:17 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

16:02:45 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame

16:02:45 <dgarijo> bye!

Daniel Garijo: bye!

16:02:47 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo

16:02:47 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

16:02:48 <Zakim> -TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN

16:02:48 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.131.467.aacc

16:02:48 <Luc> bye

Luc Moreau: bye

16:02:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

16:02:56 <Luc> @gk

Luc Moreau: @gk

16:02:58 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes

16:02:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

16:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request, pgroth

16:03:01 <Zakim> -??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P3

16:03:04 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:03:11 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

16:03:11 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:03:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro,

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro,

16:03:14 <Zakim> ... +44.789.470.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +44.789.470.aadd

16:03:16 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

16:03:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:03:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:03:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:03:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items

16:03:39 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun

16:04:27 <Zakim> -GK1

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK1

16:04:28 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

16:04:28 <Zakim> Attendees were jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro, +44.789.470.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro, +44.789.470.aadd



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2012-05-27 18:58:27 UTC by 'pgroth', comments: 'removed irc errors and added summaries'