Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 09 August 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.08.09
Seen
Craig Trim, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, Hook Hua, Ivan Herman, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Luc Moreau, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stephen Cresswell, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Tom De Nies
Regrets
Paul Groth, Stephan Zednik
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
Graham Klyne
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. last week's teleconference minutes link
  2. to keep current formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity link
  3. close issue 452 link
Topics
  1. Admin

  2. PROV-constraints document

    all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference. In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.

    1. issue 467

      Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity. The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.

    2. issue 452

      this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.

    3. issue 473

      Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other. This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation. It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.

    4. issue 474

      The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.

  3. teleconference schedule over summer

    Both chairs are absent on August 16, 23, and 30. It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.

14:51:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-irc

14:51:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:51:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:51:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

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

14:51:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:38 <trackbot> Date: 09 August 2012
14:51:38 <Luc_> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:51:38 <Zakim> ok, Luc_; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes

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

14:52:56 <Luc_> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.08.09
14:53:02 <Luc_> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:53:07 <Luc_> Regrets: Paul Groth, Stephan Zednik
14:53:17 <Luc_> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

14:53:22 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

14:53:22 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc_

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc_

14:53:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

14:58:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

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

14:58:12 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

14:58:23 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

14:58:42 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

14:58:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc

14:58:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

14:58:54 <Zakim> +jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney

14:59:03 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:59:05 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:59:09 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

15:00:18 <ivan> zakim, mute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me

15:00:18 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted

15:00:59 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

15:00:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted)

15:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

15:01:07 <Luc_> i am looking for a scribe

Luc Moreau: i am looking for a scribe

15:01:12 <Zakim> +sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro

15:01:30 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aaaa

15:01:41 <gk> Luc, I'll scribe when I get online.  Still bringing up apps.

Graham Klyne: Luc, I'll scribe when I get online. Still bringing up apps.

15:01:50 <Luc_> thanks

Luc Moreau: thanks

15:01:54 <Luc_> scribe: gk

(Scribe set to Graham Klyne)

15:02:02 <Luc_> @gk, everything is set up for you

Luc Moreau: @gk, everything is set up for you

15:02:10 <Zakim> +??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19

15:02:10 <Luc_> topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:02:18 <Luc_> @gk can you let me know when ready?

Luc Moreau: @gk can you let me know when ready?

15:02:26 <Luc_> scribe: gk1
15:02:43 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aabb

15:02:51 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aabb is me

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, +44.789.470.aabb is me

15:02:51 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it

15:03:18 <Zakim> +TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN

15:03:38 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

15:03:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted), sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, ??P19, stain, TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted), sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, ??P19, stain, TomDN

15:03:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see SamCoppens, TomDN, GK1, smiles, gk, hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see SamCoppens, TomDN, GK1, smiles, gk, hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro

15:03:45 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN

Tom De Nies: Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN

15:03:45 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it

15:03:47 <Zakim> +??P30

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30

15:03:51 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me

15:03:51 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted

15:03:52 <stain> I can scribe until GK is connected to the cloud

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I can scribe until GK is connected to the cloud

15:03:56 <GK1> zakim, ??p30 is me

zakim, ??p30 is me

15:03:56 <Zakim> +GK1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK1; got it

15:04:02 <stain> ah

Stian Soiland-Reyes: ah

15:04:50 <Zakim> +??P31

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P31

15:04:59 <Luc_>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-08-02

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-08-02

15:05:06 <Luc_> proposed: to approve last week's teleconference minutes

PROPOSED: to approve last week's teleconference minutes

15:05:12 <GK1> 0 (not present)

0 (not present)

15:05:14 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

15:05:15 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:05:16 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:05:18 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:05:26 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

15:05:26 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:05:29 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:05:31 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:05:33 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.661.382.aacc

15:05:40 <Luc_> accepted: last week's teleconference minutes

RESOLVED: last week's teleconference minutes

15:06:24 <GK1> scribe: gk
15:06:37 <GK1> Topic: PROV-constraints document

2. PROV-constraints document

Summary: all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference. In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.

15:07:25 <GK1> JamesC: update on situation... Stian's review recvd Monday, identified things needing discussion, most have been resolved, 2-3 outstanding

James Cheney: update on situation... Stian's review recvd Monday, identified things needing discussion, most have been resolved, 2-3 outstanding

<luc>Summary: all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference.  In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.
<luc>Subtopic: issue 467

2.1. ISSUE-467

Summary: Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity. The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.

<luc>Summary:Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity.  The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.
15:07:44 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

15:08:21 <GK1> ... have tried to address points in the draft, some ongoing discussion of resolution with Simon

... have tried to address points in the draft, some ongoing discussion of resolution with Simon

15:08:51 <GK1> ... should we try and resolve outstanding issues now?

... should we try and resolve outstanding issues now?

15:09:03 <GK1> Luc: we could review eachj outsatdning issue now...

Luc Moreau: we could review eachj outsatdning issue now...

15:09:05 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12

15:09:25 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467

15:09:57 <GK1> JamesC: re; http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467 should we infer existence of trigger?

James Cheney: re; http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467 should we infer existence of trigger?

15:10:59 <GK1> Stian: if an activity is starts and ends, do we require/assume existence of a trigger; seems odd as it may not apply to all activities.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: if an activity is starts and ends, do we require/assume existence of a trigger; seems odd as it may not apply to all activities.

15:11:25 <GK1> ... can lead to chicken-and-egg - where to triggers come from?

... can lead do chicken-and-egg - where do triggers come from?

15:11:30 <GK1> s/to/do/
15:11:41 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:12:17 <stain> To be clear, is it correct to say that the options are:

Stian Soiland-Reyes: To be clear, is it correct to say that the options are:

15:12:18 <stain> 1. [status quo] - allow expanding the trigger parameter to an existential variable denoting an unknown (but definite) trigger entity

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 1. [status quo] - allow expanding the trigger parameter to an existential variable denoting an unknown (but definite) trigger entity

15:12:20 <stain> 2. change the trigger parameter to be non-expandable, so that "-" means "absent trigger", as with plan and other non-expandables.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 2. change the trigger parameter to be non-expandable, so that "-" means "absent trigger", as with plan and other non-expandables.

15:12:35 <GK1> ... not entirely sure which way this should be resolved; two options (1) trigger always exists and may be undefined, or (2) trigger may not exist.  leaning to (2).

... not entirely sure which way this should be resolved; two options (1) trigger always exists and may be undefined, or (2) trigger may not exist. leaning to (2).

15:12:42 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:12:56 <Luc_> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:13:18 <Luc_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0076.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0076.html

15:13:30 <Luc_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/311

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/311

15:13:52 <Luc_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b9d2157889f7/model/optional.html

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b9d2157889f7/model/optional.html

15:13:59 <stain> q+

Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+

15:14:01 <GK1> Luc: constraint document is as it is... regarding 3.1.1, and meaning of optional arguments

Luc Moreau: constraint document is as it is... regarding 3.1.1, and meaning of optional arguments

15:14:34 <GK1> ... 3rd of above links says existence is implied

... 3rd of above links says existence is implied

15:14:57 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:15:00 <GK1> ... sop this seems like reopening an issue previously closed?  is there new information?

... sop this seems like reopening an issue previously closed? is there new information?

15:15:00 <Luc_> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc

15:15:55 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:16:02 <GK1> Stian: this is different because it's about identifying optional arguments; what are the consequences of all these things existing?  This is clearer now we have constraints document.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: this is different because it's about identifying optional arguments; what are the consequences of all these things existing? This is clearer now we have constraints document.

15:16:08 <Luc_> ack sti

Luc Moreau: ack sti

15:16:13 <Luc_> ack sta

Luc Moreau: ack sta

15:16:23 <GK1> q+ to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named

q+ to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named

15:16:33 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:16:54 <Luc_> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

15:16:54 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named

15:17:00 <stain> @GK - right, PROV-Constraint don't force them to be named, just to exist

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK - right, PROV-Constraint don't force them to be named, just to exist

15:17:14 <GK1> GK: lots of real numbers exist for which there are no names... is this a similar issue?

Graham Klyne: lots of real numbers exist for which there are no names... is this a similar issue?

15:17:25 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:17:29 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, unmute me

15:17:29 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted

15:17:30 <jcheney> Q+

James Cheney: Q+

15:17:32 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

15:17:35 <stain> I suggested a strawman poll

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I suggested a strawman poll

15:18:36 <GK1> jcheney: if the trigger parameter can denote something is absent... four other things line that (plan and 3 others) ... not implied if not specified.

James Cheney: if the trigger parameter can denote something is absent... four other things line that (plan and 3 others) ... not implied if not specified.

15:19:10 <TomDN> -q

Tom De Nies: -q

15:19:19 <Luc_> in effect, it's like having two relation  startWithTrigger and startWithoutTrigger

Luc Moreau: in effect, it's like having two relation startWithTrigger and startWithoutTrigger

15:19:40 <GK1> ... all of these introduce a slight (formal?) complication needing to be specific when mentioning a constraint/association, can parameter be a null placeholder; needs additional editing of inferences.

... all of these introduce a slight (formal?) complication needing to be specific when mentioning a constraint/association, can parameter be a null placeholder; needs additional editing of inferences.

15:20:15 <Luc_> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

15:20:17 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

15:20:17 <stain> @jcheney I agree #2 does not make it prettier :'(

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @jcheney I agree #2 does not make it prettier :'(

15:20:18 <GK1> ... trigger inferrable if activity is specified an option, ... all this doable but may have unanticipated consequences.

... trigger inferrable if activity is specified an option, ... all this doable but may have unanticipated consequences.

15:20:23 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:20:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:20:40 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, [IPcaller] is me

15:20:40 <Zakim> +jun; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it

15:20:52 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:21:15 <stain> but I think the concern is what the model should allow, not how easy to read the (already hard) PROV-Constraint document is

Stian Soiland-Reyes: but I think the concern is what the model should allow, not how easy to read the (already hard) PROV-Constraint document is

15:21:47 <GK1> Luc: also consider purpose of inferences... for validating provenance, not necessarily used outside.

Luc Moreau: also consider purpose of inferences... for validating provenance, not necessarily used outside.

15:22:30 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:22:37 <GK1> Stian: are there too many inferences?  some of them always make sense.  PROV-constraints says...

Stian Soiland-Reyes: are there too many inferences? some of them always make sense. PROV-constraints says...

15:23:25 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:24:19 <GK1> GK: would prefer more compact option

Graham Klyne: would prefer more compact option

15:24:20 <stain> my question is semantically - is there a problem with enforcing the existince of triggers for every activity start and end?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: my question is semantically - is there a problem with enforcing the existince of triggers for every activity start and end?

15:24:37 <GK1> Luc: concern is with always assumingthe existence of a trigger.

Luc Moreau: concern is with always assumingthe existence of a trigger.

15:25:32 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:26:18 <GK1> Stian: don't see any real complications, but does it reflect the boundaries of the PROV model?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: don't see any real complications, but does it reflect the boundaries of the PROV model?

15:27:43 <GK1> ... e.g. queue of cars on motorway, what triggered this?  Does it make sense, philosophically, for these to be part of the model?

... e.g. queue of cars on motorway, what triggered this? Does it make sense, philosophically, for these to be part of the model?

15:28:18 <GK1> q+ to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger

q+ to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger

15:29:12 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:29:17 <stain> @Luc right, like an optional parameter would be done in Java and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,-,-,-)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Luc right, like an optional parameter would be done in Java and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,-,-,-)

15:29:22 <stain> without usage/gen/act

Stian Soiland-Reyes: without usage/gen/act

15:30:01 <Luc_> @gk, the trigger is the combination of all them

Luc Moreau: @gk, the trigger is the combination of all them

15:30:02 <stain> @GK, the trigger entity could be a collection though ;)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK, the trigger entity could be a collection though ;)

15:30:03 <jcheney> but there is no uniqueness constraint on triggers currently

James Cheney: but there is no uniqueness constraint on triggers currently

15:30:08 <TomDN> @GK: just use a collection of cars as trigger?

Tom De Nies: @GK: just use a collection of cars as trigger?

15:30:22 <TomDN> @stain: you beat me to it ;)

Tom De Nies: @stain: you beat me to it ;)

15:30:28 <stain> @jcheney yes, by the merging rules

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @jcheney yes, by the merging rules

15:30:43 <GK1> @stian: what about weather factor?

@stian: what about weather factor?

15:30:44 <Luc_> option 1: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity

Luc Moreau: option 1: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity

15:30:55 <stain> 0

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 0

15:31:00 <GK1> +1

+1

15:31:02 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:31:02 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:31:03 <ivan> 0

Ivan Herman: 0

15:31:08 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:31:09 <jun> 0

Jun Zhao: 0

15:31:12 <hook> 0

Hook Hua: 0

15:31:14 <jcheney> @stian: ah yes, uniqueness of start events + key constraint does it

James Cheney: @stian: ah yes, uniqueness of start events + key constraint does it

15:31:14 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

15:31:15 <stain> @gk you'll need entity(theworld) as trigger then..

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @gk you'll need entity(theworld) as trigger then..

15:31:20 <satya> 0.5

Satya Sahoo: 0.5

15:31:27 <jcheney> 0 (either way fine)

James Cheney: 0 (either way fine)

15:31:36 <GK1> @stian - OK, why not?

@stian - OK, why not?

15:32:20 <Luc_> option 2: change current formalization, do not assume existence of a trigger for activity

Luc Moreau: option 2: change current formalization, do not assume existence of a trigger for activity

15:32:28 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:32:29 <GK1> 0

0

15:32:30 <ivan> 0

Ivan Herman: 0

15:32:31 <smiles> 0

Simon Miles: 0

15:32:31 <SamCoppens> 0

Sam Coppens: 0

15:32:34 <hook> 0

Hook Hua: 0

15:32:37 <Curt> 0

Curt Tilmes: 0

15:32:40 <TomDN> 0

Tom De Nies: 0

15:32:44 <jcheney> -0 (don't wanna do it but not going to block it)

James Cheney: -0 (don't wanna do it but not going to block it)

15:32:49 <satya> 0

Satya Sahoo: 0

15:32:57 <jun> +0 (This is really philosophical)

Jun Zhao: +0 (This is really philosophical)

15:32:59 <GK1> Yeah, -0

Yeah, -0

15:33:46 <Luc_> proposed: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity

PROPOSED: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity

15:33:52 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:33:54 <GK1> Staw pole indicates staying with current fortmalization, Stian is Ok with this

Staw poll (doh) indicates staying with current fortmalization, Stian is Ok with this

15:33:54 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:33:58 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:34:00 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:34:01 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

15:34:01 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:34:02 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:34:02 <GK1> s/pole/poll (doh)
15:34:06 <GK1> +1

+1

15:34:06 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1

15:34:09 <ivan> 0

Ivan Herman: 0

15:34:16 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:34:21 <Luc_> accepted:  to keep current formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity

RESOLVED: to keep current formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity

15:34:38 <stain> I have closed ISSUE-467

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I have closed ISSUE-467

15:34:42 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452

15:34:43 <GK1> Next issue

Next issue

15:34:55 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 452

2.2. ISSUE-452

Summary: this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.

<luc>Summary: this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.
15:35:45 <stain> 15/16 missing (but has remark)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 15/16 missing (but has remark)

15:35:59 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:36:04 <stain> example at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#wasAssociatedWith-ordering_text (47(

Stian Soiland-Reyes: example at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#wasAssociatedWith-ordering_text (47(

15:36:16 <GK1> jcheney: "what is plan association inference" - where there are "not-expanable things" in inferences, ... (missed detail) ... does anyone have a problem

James Cheney: "what is plan association inference" - where there are "not-expanable things" in inferences, ... (missed detail) ... does anyone have a problem

15:36:18 <Luc_> ackgk

Luc Moreau: ackgk

15:36:22 <Luc_> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

15:36:22 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger

15:36:45 <GK1> stian: not a blocking thing, inferences 15, 16 different.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: not a blocking thing, inferences 15, 16 different.

15:37:09 <GK1> jcheney: will fix this, send email, and hopefully we'll close

James Cheney: will fix this, send email, and hopefully we'll close

15:37:16 <Luc_> accepted: close issue 452

RESOLVED: close ISSUE-452

15:37:26 <GK1> Next issue

Next issue

15:37:27 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/459

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/459

15:38:41 <GK1> Catch-all for reviews... asking for feedback from reviewers.  Some reviewers on hols, but apart from Simon don't think there are any blocking issues remaining.

Catch-all for reviews... asking for feedback from reviewers. Some reviewers on hols, but apart from Simon don't think there are any blocking issues remaining.

15:38:52 <GK1> ^^jcheney:

^^jcheney:

15:38:56 <satya> sorry, have to leave now

Satya Sahoo: sorry, have to leave now

15:39:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

15:39:30 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:39:30 <GK1> jcheney: some things in reviews have not been fixed yet - some figiures, non-technical text, happy to leave it pending review with no technical issues outstanding

James Cheney: some things in reviews have not been fixed yet - some figiures, non-technical text, happy to leave it pending review with no technical issues outstanding

15:39:49 <GK1> luc: we'll leave it that

Luc Moreau: we'll leave it that

15:39:50 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/473

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/473

15:39:54 <GK1> Next issue

Next issue

15:40:11 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

15:40:12 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 473

2.3. ISSUE-473

Summary: Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other. This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation. It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.

<luc>Summary: Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other.  This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation.  It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.
15:40:50 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P3 is me

15:40:51 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:41:04 <GK1> jcheney: simon ..., is everyone happy with unique generation event for each entity; then the associated activity is also unique?

James Cheney: simon ..., is everyone happy with unique generation event for each entity; then the associated activity is also unique?

15:41:21 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:41:31 <stain> (this is also related to activities part-of activities)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: (this is also related to activities part-of activities)

15:42:03 <GK1> SimonM: original concern was that thetext mismatched the constraints, but that is resolved - every entity has a unique generating activity, not just unique event.

Simon Miles: original concern was that thetext mismatched the constraints, but that is resolved - every entity has a unique generating activity, not just unique event.

15:42:58 <dgarijo> @stain: I am late, so I wouldn't want to raise things that you have already discussed. Have you discussed the entity being generated by 2 activities at 2 levels of granularity?

Daniel Garijo: @stain: I am late, so I wouldn't want to raise things that you have already discussed. Have you discussed the entity being generated by 2 activities at 2 levels of granularity?

15:43:00 <GK1> problem why an entities' generation coming from one single activity - would make primer examp,e invalid, as multiple levels of granularity are expressed.

problem why an entities' generation coming from one single activity - would make primer examp,e invalid, as multiple levels of granularity are expressed.

15:43:14 <Luc_> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:43:39 <stain> @dgarijo - no, put yourself on the queue!

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @dgarijo - no, put yourself on the queue!

15:44:07 <Luc_> q-

Luc Moreau: q-

15:44:10 <GK1> ... could have two entities, related as specialized, linked to different levels of granularity.

... could have two entities, related as specialized, linked to different levels of granularity.

15:44:27 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:44:27 <stain> in workflow export we ended up with alternateOf for this, e1a, e1b, e1c which are generated by nested acitvities A, B and C (which made queries hard)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: in workflow export we ended up with alternateOf for this, e1a, e1b, e1c which are generated by nested acitvities A, B and C (which made queries hard)

15:44:29 <GK1> ... implications of this constraint need justifying

... implications of this constraint need justifying

15:44:52 <GK1> jcheney: easiet resolution would be to remove the constraint.

James Cheney: easiet resolution would be to remove the constraint.

15:45:11 <dgarijo> q+

Daniel Garijo: q+

15:45:30 <GK1> Luc: concerned that if removed, some inferences around derivation may be no longer valid

Luc Moreau: concerned that if removed, some inferences around derivation may be no longer valid

15:46:26 <GK1> jcheney: taking away an inference won;'t make other inferences incorrect, but maybe non-derivable

James Cheney: taking away an inference won;'t make other inferences incorrect, but maybe non-derivable

15:46:50 <GK1> the uniqueness constraint is effectively saying "don't mix levels of abstraction"

the uniqueness constraint is effectively saying "don't mix levels of abstraction"

15:46:58 <GK1> ^^Luc:

^^Luc:

15:47:38 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:47:56 <GK1> Luc: don't think we limit expressiveness, just providing structure - good for "proper" provenance?  Does it matter if the primer has "not proper" provenance?

Luc Moreau: don't think we limit expressiveness, just providing structure - good for "proper" provenance? Does it matter if the primer has "not proper" provenance?

15:48:56 <GK1> SimonM: does this need different instanbces for different levels of abstraction?  Can live with that, but it seems surprising (?)

Simon Miles: does this need different instanbces for different levels of abstraction? Can live with that, but it seems surprising (?)

15:49:02 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:49:25 <Luc_> q/

Luc Moreau: q/

15:49:31 <Luc_> ack dg

Luc Moreau: ack dg

15:50:32 <GK1> dgarijo: other places this happens - entities in DC mapping - all the steps that comprise the proiduction of an entity

Daniel Garijo: other places this happens - entities in DC mapping - all the steps that comprise the proiduction of an entity

15:51:10 <GK1> ... in scientific workflows, complicated to query model if upper level activities generate different entities than lower level activities.

... in scientific workflows, complicated to query model if upper level activities generate different entities than lower level activities.

15:51:12 <stain> q+

Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+

15:51:17 <Luc_> ack st

Luc Moreau: ack st

15:52:12 <dgarijo> @gk: thx

Daniel Garijo: @gk: thx

15:52:32 <GK1> stian: ended up creating multiple entities corresponding to appearance at b"different doors" in a workflow

Stian Soiland-Reyes: ended up creating multiple entities corresponding to appearance at b"different doors" in a workflow

15:52:35 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

15:53:38 <Luc_> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

15:54:57 <dgarijo> @jcheney: +1!

Daniel Garijo: @jcheney: +1!

15:55:26 <GK1> jcheney: seems to me that people want a validity checker - what's more useful is catching things that are definitely nonsense, or probably indicative of problem.  Uniqueness seems to be in the latter category.  We should be focusing on catching nonsense rather than limiting what people can do.

James Cheney: seems to me that people want a validity checker - what's more useful is catching things that are definitely nonsense, or probably indicative of problem. Uniqueness seems to be in the latter category. We should be focusing on catching nonsense rather than limiting what people can do.

15:55:57 <dgarijo> I really like the Ok vs Warning vs Invalid.

Daniel Garijo: I really like the Ok vs Warning vs Invalid.

15:55:58 <GK1> ... what are the consequences of being invalid?

... what are the consequences of being invalid?

15:56:47 <stain> I supposed it would be to drop the KEY property of wasGeneratedBy

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I supposed it would be to drop the KEY property of wasGeneratedBy

15:57:15 <GK1> Straw poll... status quo vs dropping unique generation requirement?

Straw poll... status quo vs dropping unique generation requirement?

15:57:37 <stain> Dropping key property: so that   wasGeneratedBy(id1; e1, a1, t1)  wasGeneratedBy(id2; e1, a2, t2)  would be allowed.    (a2 <> a1, t1 <> t2 ?)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Dropping key property: so that wasGeneratedBy(id1; e1, a1, t1) wasGeneratedBy(id2; e1, a2, t2) would be allowed. (a2 <> a1, t1 <> t2 ?)

15:58:17 <dgarijo> If we detect that an enitity is being generated by 2 activities, we could generate a warning, as James proposed.

Daniel Garijo: If we detect that an enitity is being generated by 2 activities, we could generate a warning, as James proposed.

15:58:26 <stain> for instance "When are you born?" - it depends on how you measure which activity

Stian Soiland-Reyes: for instance "When are you born?" - it depends on how you measure which activity

15:58:32 <GK1> jcheney: need to think about consequences of options

James Cheney: need to think about consequences of options

15:58:59 <Luc_> option 1: keep generation unique and key property on generation

Luc Moreau: option 1: keep generation unique and key property on generation

15:59:02 <smiles> -1

Simon Miles: -1

15:59:06 <jcheney> 0

James Cheney: 0

15:59:06 <dgarijo> -1

Daniel Garijo: -1

15:59:08 <jun> -1

Jun Zhao: -1

15:59:10 <stephenc> -1

Stephen Cresswell: -1

15:59:14 <stain> 0

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 0

15:59:16 <SamCoppens> 0

Sam Coppens: 0

15:59:19 <GK1> -0

-0

15:59:21 <Curt> 0

Curt Tilmes: 0

15:59:23 <hook> 0

Hook Hua: 0

15:59:24 <TomDN> +0

Tom De Nies: +0

15:59:24 <ivan> 0

Ivan Herman: 0

15:59:50 <Luc_> option 2: design a solution that relaxes uniqueness of generation

Luc Moreau: option 2: design a solution that relaxes uniqueness of generation

15:59:54 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:59:55 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

16:00:01 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

16:00:01 <jcheney> 0

James Cheney: 0

16:00:02 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

16:00:06 <stephenc> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1

16:00:06 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

16:00:07 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

16:00:08 <GK1> +0

+0

16:00:15 <hook> +0

Hook Hua: +0

16:00:16 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

16:00:59 <dgarijo> yes

Daniel Garijo: yes

16:00:59 <GK1> Luc: Indication that we need to think about option to relax uniqueness of generation

Luc Moreau: Indication that we need to think about option to relax uniqueness of generation

16:01:08 <dgarijo> like generating a warning.

Daniel Garijo: like generating a warning.

16:01:15 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:01:16 <smiles> yes - but could be connected to levels of abstraction

Simon Miles: yes - but could be connected to levels of abstraction

16:01:30 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474

16:01:32 <GK1> hmmm... I don't think we should get too far into implementations

hmmm... I don't think we should get too far into implementations

16:01:34 <stain> I think adding something about activity abstractions would help

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I think adding something about activity abstractions would help

16:01:39 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 474

2.4. ISSUE-474

Summary: The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.

<luc>Summary: The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.
16:02:49 <GK1> smiles: lack of clarity what is link between bundles and instances?

Simon Miles: lack of clarity what is link between bundles and instances?

16:03:04 <GK1> ... text seems to make different assumptions in diufferent places

... text seems to make different assumptions in diufferent places

16:03:33 <Luc_> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:04:01 <Luc_> can somebody take over from gk?

Luc Moreau: can somebody take over from gk?

16:04:14 <GK1> jcheney: text here was written at last minute, may need clarification

James Cheney: text here was written at last minute, may need clarification

16:04:15 <TomDN> (for reference, our definition of instance in 1.2: A PROV instance is a set of PROV statements, possibly including bundles, or named sets of statements. For example, such a PROV instance could be a .provn document, the result of a query, a triple store containing PROV statements in RDF, etc.)

Tom De Nies: (for reference, our definition of instance in 1.2: A PROV instance is a set of PROV statements, possibly including bundles, or named sets of statements. For example, such a PROV instance could be a .provn document, the result of a query, a triple store containing PROV statements in RDF, etc.)

16:04:51 <GK1> ... an instance may contain bundles

... an instance may contain bundles

16:04:55 <Zakim> - +1.661.382.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.661.382.aacc

16:05:09 <GK1> ... initially, talk about instances that are single (unnamed) bundles

... initially, talk about instances that are single (unnamed) bundles

16:05:26 <GK1> ... deal with named bundles independently, in same way

... deal with named bundles independently, in same way

16:05:46 <GK1> ... statements inside a bundle is an instance

... statements inside a bundle is an instance

16:06:15 <GK1> ... collection of statements without identifier - currently calling this a top level bundle

... collection of statements without identifier - currently calling this a top level bundle

16:06:45 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aaaa

16:07:10 <TomDN> Would (b) be solved by calling it the "toplevel instance"?

Tom De Nies: Would (b) be solved by calling it the "toplevel instance"?

16:07:11 <Luc_> prov-n has a top level bundle, i think that's what influenced this design

Luc Moreau: prov-n has a top level bundle, i think that's what influenced this design

16:07:11 <GK1> smiles: per DM, bundle has identifier so we can express provenance-of-provenance ...

Simon Miles: per DM, bundle has identifier so we can express provenance-of-provenance ...

16:07:18 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aadd

16:08:16 <GK1> jcheney: three things - blob of provenance (in  whatever form); a named set of statements (bundle); a set of statements.  have used two terms for these three things, probably confuses.

James Cheney: three things - blob of provenance (in whatever form); a named set of statements (bundle); a set of statements. have used two terms for these three things, probably confuses.

16:08:53 <GK1> ... will try to come up with less confusing terminology

... will try to come up with less confusing terminology

16:09:28 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:09:41 <GK1> Luc: summary - it appears editors have homework to do on two issues - biundles and generation uniqueness.  Can't really proceed for vote yet.

Luc Moreau: summary - it appears editors have homework to do on two issues - biundles and generation uniqueness. Can't really proceed for vote yet.

16:09:56 <smiles> I don't think the bundles thing is a blocking issue

Simon Miles: I don't think the bundles thing is a blocking issue

16:10:07 <GK1> jcheney: could release as *a* working draft, it's been over 3 months.

James Cheney: could release as *a* working draft, it's been over 3 months.

16:10:24 <GK1> Luc: getting LC draft ready is more important.

Luc Moreau: getting LC draft ready is more important.

16:11:17 <ivan> zakim, unmute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me

16:11:17 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted

16:11:38 <GK1> Luc: hoping for LC vote early September - is there any point in producing a WD now, then LC draft in september?

Luc Moreau: hoping for LC vote early September - is there any point in producing a WD now, then LC draft in september?

16:11:59 <GK1> ... given lots of ppl are on vacation

... given lots of ppl are on vacation

16:12:05 <GK1> Sandro: concurs

Sandro Hawke: concurs

16:12:55 <GK1> Topic: teleconference schedule over summer

3. teleconference schedule over summer

Summary: Both chairs are absent on August 16, 23, and 30. It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.

<luc>Summary: Both chairs are absent on August 16, 23, and 30.  It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.
16:13:11 <GK1> luc: Paul and Luc away for rest of August.

Luc Moreau: Paul and Luc away for rest of August.

16:13:14 <stain> we can argue about wasGeneratedBy... ;)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: we can argue about wasGeneratedBy... ;)

16:13:27 <GK1> GK: I probably can't make next 2 weeks anyway.

Graham Klyne: I probably can't make next 2 weeks anyway.

16:13:31 <jcheney> i think the remaining issues can get done over email...

James Cheney: i think the remaining issues can get done over email...

16:13:56 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me

16:13:56 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted

16:14:07 <Curt> I talked with Stephan yesterday (he's on a plane right now).  We might want to have an informal XML call, but it needn't be a formal working group teleconference..

Curt Tilmes: I talked with Stephan yesterday (he's on a plane right now). We might want to have an informal XML call, but it needn't be a formal working group teleconference..

16:16:17 <jun> We will still have separate prov-o calls, in which implementation of constraints can be discussed

Jun Zhao: We will still have separate prov-o calls, in which implementation of constraints can be discussed

16:16:23 <GK1> Curt(?): happy to chair informal meeing on 23rd; would help if Luc and/or Paul can sent out agenda

Curt(?): happy to chair informal meeing on 23rd; would help if Luc and/or Paul can sent out agenda

16:16:33 <GK1> Luc: will circulate agenda for 23rd.

Luc Moreau: will circulate agenda for 23rd.

16:16:41 <Curt> [not curt]

Curt Tilmes: [not curt]

16:16:47 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

16:16:48 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

16:16:48 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

16:16:49 <Zakim> -TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN

16:16:49 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun

16:16:49 <GK1> Luc: we'll speak agin formally in September

Luc Moreau: we'll speak agin formally in September

16:16:50 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aadd

16:16:50 <Zakim> -??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P19

16:16:52 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

16:16:54 <Zakim> -sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro

16:16:56 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes

16:16:58 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

16:17:01 <Zakim> -??P31

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P31

16:17:13 <Luc_> rrsagent, set log public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, set log public

16:17:15 <GK1> @Luc - I'm guessing you'll take it from here?

@Luc - I'm guessing you'll take it from here?

16:17:25 <Luc_> @GK, yes, thanks a lot for scribing!

Luc Moreau: @GK, yes, thanks a lot for scribing!

16:17:33 <Luc_> rrsagent, draft minutes

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:17:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-minutes.html Luc_

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-minutes.html Luc_

16:17:38 <Luc_> trackbot, end telcon

Luc Moreau: trackbot, end telcon

16:17:38 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc_, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, Luc_, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

16:17:43 <GK1> OK, bye

OK, bye

16:17:47 <Zakim> -GK1

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK1

16:17:48 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

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

16:17:48 <Zakim> Attendees were Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan, sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK1, +1.661.382.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, jun, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan, sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK1, +1.661.382.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, jun, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aadd



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#5) generated 2012-08-10 04:51:02 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None