Chatlog 2013-01-03

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

15:38:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:38:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-irc
15:38:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:38:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:38:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:38:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
15:38:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:38:41 <trackbot> Date: 03 January 2013
15:38:41 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:38:42 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
15:38:56 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03
15:39:03 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:39:10 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:39:20 <Luc> Regrets: Ivan Herman
15:39:59 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo
15:46:02 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:49:04 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:49:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
15:49:11 <Zakim> Attendees were
15:52:36 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:54:34 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:54:34 <Zakim> apparently SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended, Luc
15:54:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain
15:54:50 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:54:50 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:55:15 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:55:20 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:55:20 <Zakim> apparently SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended, Luc
15:55:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain
15:57:16 <GK> Luc, Zakim's mutterings about conference ended may be because I dialled in briefly a few minutes ago, to test a new VoIP client.
15:57:16 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:57:31 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:57:31 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:58:01 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:58:24 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:58:31 <Zakim> +Luc
15:58:39 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:58:49 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:58:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc
15:58:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, Curt, pgroth, GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain
15:59:33 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:54 <Zakim> +??P5
15:59:56 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:56 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
16:00:03 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P5 is me
16:00:03 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:00:28 <Zakim> +??P7
16:00:34 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:00:43 <Zakim> +??P8
16:00:48 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:00:54 <dgarijo> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03
16:00:55 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:00:55 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:00:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:00:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:01:01 <GK> zakim, ??p7 is maybe me
16:01:01 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p7 is maybe me', GK
16:01:06 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:01:07 <smiles> zakim, ??P8 is me
16:01:07 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
16:01:18 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
16:01:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, dgarijo, ??P7, smiles, MacTed (muted)
16:01:19 <GK> zakim, ??p7 is me
16:01:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, smiles, dgarijo, Curt, pgroth, GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain
16:01:20 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:01:21 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:01:35 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:01:52 <dgarijo> Luc: Happy new year. Best wishes
16:01:56 <Zakim> +jcheney
16:02:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-12-13
16:02:13 <dgarijo> ... vote for the minutes of last telecon
16:02:20 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaaa
16:02:20 <Luc> proposed: approved last telecon's minutes
16:02:28 <dgarijo> +1
16:02:32 <Curt> +1
16:02:32 <smiles> +1
16:02:35 <jcheney> +1
16:02:39 <stain> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:02:39 <Zakim> +stain; got it
16:02:40 <stain> 0
16:02:50 <hook> +1
16:03:02 <Luc> resolved: last telecon's minutes
16:03:05 <GK> +1
16:03:32 <dgarijo> Luc: actions. Tim had one. Another on Luc (not done)
16:03:43 <dgarijo> ... James do you want to add anything?
16:03:48 <dgarijo> jcheney: no
16:04:09 <dgarijo> Luc: Dong will respond to your feedback
16:04:23 <dgarijo> ... action on stephan to review the proposal of xml namespaces
16:04:34 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
16:04:37 <Luc> topic: WG implementations
<luc>Summary: The WG was reminded that the deadline for submitting implementation reports is the end of January.  An implementation report (as specified by the forms defined by the WG) identifies which features were successfully implemented. Hence,  an implementation is not required to support all PROV features: instead, for each implementation, implementers should identify which features are supported. The participants were reminded that we are keen to identify implementations consuming provenance produced by others. Effort on implementing the constraints is also required. Stephan will investigate the possibility of converting information submitted to WBS into a summary of all implementations, so that we can understand features coverage. 
16:04:40 <dgarijo> ... will tackle that next week (stephan is not on the call)
16:04:52 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:04:56 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03
16:05:02 <dgarijo> ... Paul went through the survey system and circulated the results.
16:05:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:05:20 <dgarijo> ... 6 implementations, 2 extensions.
16:05:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:05:33 <dgarijo> ... we're still far from where we thought we would be
16:05:51 <Luc> q?
16:05:53 <Paolo> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:05:53 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:05:56 <pgroth> me
16:05:59 <smiles> I still hope to do so
16:06:01 <dgarijo> ... we have to make a call for filling the survey
16:06:05 <pgroth> q+
16:06:11 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:06:16 <Luc> q?
16:06:19 <Luc> ack pg
16:06:24 <dgarijo> I have already filled 1 extension and 1 implenentation.
16:06:29 <Paolo> quite a way away from constraints impl.
16:06:39 <dgarijo> pgroth: 1 constraints and 1 implementation.
16:06:52 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:06:52 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
16:06:55 <Luc> q?
16:06:56 <stain> q+
16:06:57 <dgarijo> smiles: impl report and vocabulary usage
16:07:01 <Paolo> several half-baked implementations but would need additional resources to pull them off
16:07:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:07:09 <khalidBelhajjame> I have filled in one extension report, and Stian will submit one implementation report
16:07:24 <dgarijo> paolo: several threads ongoing
16:07:31 <stain> I sent one implementation and one vocab-extension earlier today
16:07:40 <dgarijo> ... the main one is related to the constraints implementation
16:07:41 <stain> another vocab-extension coming hopefully next week
16:07:44 <stain> q-
16:08:11 <dgarijo> ... I'll see if resources come along. Then I'll submit the report
16:08:13 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:08:19 <Zakim> +??P17
16:08:22 <stain> dgarijo: have we submitted our corpus?
16:08:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, yes
16:08:42 <Curt> I will work with Stephan to submit a vocab usage for us
16:08:46 <dgarijo> ... submitted a paper for the prov corpus.
16:08:55 <khalidBelhajjame> I mean not to as a report
16:09:03 <dgarijo> Luc: it can be a proof of concept. It doesn't have to use the whole prov.
16:09:12 <dgarijo> @Stian, yes, we did.
16:09:21 <pgroth> @paolo that's fine
16:09:55 <dgarijo> paolo: if it doesn't have to be complete, then I'll be happy to fill the survey
16:09:57 <stain> @dgarijo - should that not be a "Vocabulary usage" submission then..?
16:10:17 <dgarijo> @Khalid: did Raul submit roevo?
16:10:31 <Luc> q?
16:10:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, but that is covered by the tavernaprov and wing-plugin, which have already been submitted!
16:10:50 <dgarijo> @Stian:  Ah, I haven't filled an entry for the corpus. We do have submitted to the prov-bench.
16:11:08 <GK> @paolo, I think that's useful information to record.
16:11:24 <GK> (i.e. about constructs that need datalog extensions)
16:11:43 <stain> @dgarijo I think we should submit the corpus to the survey as well
16:11:43 <Luc> q?
16:11:52 <dgarijo> Luc: if yur system tells us that a set of constraints have failed then it is ok.
16:12:15 <Luc> q?
16:12:24 <dgarijo> paolo: ok. I'll work to realign the parser to the current version in the toolbox.
16:12:38 <dgarijo> @stian: it makes sense.
16:13:12 <dgarijo> khalid: I have submitted wfprov and Stian has submitted tavernaprov plugin.
16:14:17 <jun> jun has joined #prov
16:14:40 <dgarijo> jcheney: Looking to wraping datalog into a java program (similar to what paolo is working on).
16:14:47 <dgarijo> +q
16:15:19 <dgarijo> Luc: hook?
16:15:43 <dgarijo> Hook: we got approval to work on an extension of Prov (meeting next week regarding that)
16:15:49 <dgarijo> ... 1 year effort
16:16:24 <dgarijo> ... processing and data analysis -> prov-o. We have an initial extension of the ontology.
16:16:40 <dgarijo> Luc: Will you have something to submit by the end of Jan?
16:16:43 <Luc> q?
16:16:44 <dgarijo> Hook: yes
16:17:23 <dgarijo> ... but it's an effort that will take more than a year
16:17:38 <dgarijo> GK: No plan to do an implementation at the moment
16:18:03 <dgarijo> Curt: Will work with Stephan and submit something
16:18:28 <dgarijo> zednik: Will submit something together with Curt
16:18:41 <dgarijo> Stain: I'll register a new voc extension next week.
16:18:56 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:18:56 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:19:09 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:19:09 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:19:09 <pgroth> q+ to ask about getting report results and interchange
16:19:13 <dgarijo> MacTed: I don't think I'll submit something.
16:19:19 <dgarijo> q-
16:19:43 <dgarijo> pgroth: I can't take the questionnaires to display all the result. Do we have all these emails anywhere?
16:19:48 <dgarijo> stephan?
16:19:57 <dgarijo> zednik: I do have the e mails.
16:20:11 <dgarijo> ... I'll look into it, but I do have the emails
16:20:26 <dgarijo> pgroth: concerned about the interchange
16:20:42 <dgarijo> zednik: we are getting some responses.
16:21:06 <dgarijo> Luc: stephan, it will be useful to know what the actual coverage is. Some features may not be supported yet.
16:21:25 <pgroth> q+
16:21:36 <Dong> @Paul: My Provenance Service consumes provenance deposited by Luc's validator
16:21:38 <dgarijo> ... maybe we need to know whether we need to put more effor in those concepts.
16:21:55 <dgarijo> zednik: I will look into it
16:22:28 <jun> <@luc, we will try to encourage prov-bench submitters to also submit the questionnaire.>
16:22:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: we need other people to submit to the survey
16:22:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:22:55 <pgroth> @Dong - it has to be from different institutions
16:23:04 <Luc> action pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports
16:23:11 <Luc> action: pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports
16:23:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Send reminder about implementation reports [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-10].
16:23:34 <dgarijo> jun: we have coordinated several submissions for the wf4Ever project
16:24:01 <dgarijo> Luc: are you still planning to work on the ocnstraints?
16:24:17 <dgarijo> Jun: pressed with a project review. Will try
16:24:23 <Luc> topic: Prov-Dictionary
<luc>Summary: We had a discussion about hadMember. The editors are invited to specify a ternary relation, such as hadDictionaryMember (name to be decided by editors), such that hadDictionaryMember(d,e,k) implies hadMember(d,e).  Editors are invited to produce a document, ready for review by 2013-01-10. Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul will review the document then. Other volunteers welcome!
16:24:24 <Dong> @Paul, I understand. Anyone can post provenance documents to my service if they use our PROV-JSON format :)
16:24:24 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
16:24:25 <Luc> q?
16:24:28 <Luc> ack pg
16:24:28 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about getting report results and interchange and to
16:25:05 <dgarijo> Luc: is the doc ready for review?
16:25:20 <dgarijo> pgroth: we should recruit reviewers for today
16:25:21 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:25:28 <Paolo> I would like to review it
16:25:29 <dgarijo> ... any volunteers?
16:25:30 <Dong> @Paul: and Luc has the translation service for all the official representations to PROV-JSON
16:25:38 <stain> +1
16:25:46 <jcheney> I'll have a look, not much time
16:25:46 <GK> I already did a brief review over the holiday.
16:25:48 <pgroth> q+
16:25:48 <stain> all the historic authors..
16:25:57 <Luc> prov dictionary reviewers: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc
16:25:57 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:25:58 <pgroth> +1
16:26:05 <dgarijo> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Paul.
16:26:12 <pgroth> no
16:26:16 <Luc> prov dictionary reviewers: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, Paul
16:26:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:26:34 <pgroth> q+
16:26:36 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
16:26:36 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
16:26:40 <dgarijo> Luc: very good. Are we in a position to discuss hadMember?
16:27:22 <zednik> +q
16:27:26 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:27:27 <Luc> ack pg
16:27:32 <dgarijo> Luc: I didn't follow all the discussion, but I got the feeling that there was some kind of consensus
16:27:39 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:28:15 <dgarijo> stephanZ: currently hadMember doesn't support attributes.
16:28:26 <pgroth> q+
16:29:12 <dgarijo> Luc: there seems to be an aproval among the members of the call. The ternary relation sounds good.
16:29:31 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:29:34 <Luc> q?
16:29:42 <Luc> topic: PROV-AQ
16:24:23 <Luc> Summary: Graham updated us on the status of prov-aq.  No change took place since the previous teleconference, though solutions are shaping for the link relation type and default provenance representation.  Editors will produce a document ready for review by 2013-01-10.  Tim (kindly invited in absentia), Simon, Luc, Dong, and Stian will then review the document. Volunteers welcome!
16:29:58 <pgroth> we can hear you!
16:29:59 <pgroth> :-)
16:30:14 <dgarijo> GK: no change since the last teleconf
16:30:36 <dgarijo> ... the main progress is about the discussion of the provenance service access. In particular sparql
16:30:41 <GK> My latest proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0002.html
16:30:47 <dgarijo> my latest proposal ^^
16:30:54 <GK> Main points (re http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609):
16:30:54 <GK> - propose to use single link relation type for provenance service via template and SPARQL endpoint
16:30:54 <GK> - stick with RDF for service description (there's some uncertainty about this among some LDPers)
16:30:54 <GK> - expand service description to allow either or both service option
16:30:55 <GK> - service description with URI template unchecked (but see below)
16:30:55 <GK> - SPARQL service description per http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/ (i.e. nothing new here)
16:32:59 <dgarijo> ... small changes to the existing document, which keeps us in line with the events happening in other places.I'm waiting for Tim's response.
16:33:34 <dgarijo> ... the question is about prov provenance service term. Does it apply to all service options?
16:34:03 <pgroth> I liked the solution is with multi-typing
16:34:29 <Luc> q?
16:34:30 <dgarijo> ... when Tim comes I'll update the document.
16:34:57 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425
16:34:57 <GK> [[
16:34:57 <GK> While use of RDF for service descriptions is a recommended option, this specification does not preclude the use of non-RDF formats that a service may choose to offer, and which can be selected using HTTP content negotiation.
16:34:57 <GK> ]]
16:34:58 <GK> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#provenance-service-description
16:35:00 <dgarijo> 2 other issues raised at the previous telecon: 1) Service description format.
16:35:11 <dgarijo> ...^^
16:35:23 <dgarijo> ... I think this is sufficient for now.
16:35:28 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428
16:35:28 <GK> 
16:35:28 <GK> Broadly, my position is to make no further change.  The use of other formats than RDF is not precluded, but RDF is the most developed option, and apparently has most interest.  As such, it provides a reasonable basis for interoperability.
16:35:45 <dgarijo> ... The other issue is related to the format of provenance.
16:35:58 <dgarijo> ... discussion about interoperability vs flexibility
16:36:12 <dgarijo> ... rdf seems to be the most developed option
16:36:19 <Luc> q+
16:36:46 <dgarijo> Luc: regarding the last point, I didn't understand.
16:36:57 <dgarijo> GK: myme types are allowed.
16:37:26 <dgarijo> Luc: this group is defining 2 mymetypes for provenance, so they should be allowed.
16:37:52 <pgroth> q+
16:37:57 <dgarijo> GK: facing interoperability, what should we recommend implementers to give the maximum of interoperability?
16:38:04 <Luc> q?
16:38:08 <Luc> ack luc
16:38:13 <dgarijo> Luc: my view is that we should not do that.
16:39:29 <dgarijo> pgroth: several options for tackling the issue. One way is that we don't say anything. Another one is to provide a default.
16:39:37 <Luc> q?
16:39:42 <Luc> ack pgr
16:39:47 <Luc> translators can help
16:39:50 <dgarijo> ... this is kind of the discussion we are having
16:40:01 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks pgroth
16:40:04 <Luc> q?
16:40:26 <dgarijo> ... what is the timetable?
16:40:51 <dgarijo> GK: affected by fb during christmas
16:41:08 <pgroth> q+
16:41:20 <Luc> ack pg
16:41:21 <dgarijo> ... it also depends on Tim's availability.
16:41:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: it would be better to get it out on thursday
16:42:03 <dgarijo> ... we want to have something for the Jan deadline.
16:42:03 <Dong> I think it'll be difficult to force implementations to support a particular representation, even a single default one. Can the supported representation included in the service description?
16:42:28 <Luc> q?
16:42:45 <dgarijo> GK: just made the proposals, but I don't think there will be big changes.
16:43:23 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm keen to make sure to make this doc ready when we make the recommendations out. It would be good if we had it ready for next week
16:43:45 <pgroth> yep happy to do it
16:44:00 <dgarijo> GK: pgroth will take the lead of the doc next week.
16:44:17 <dgarijo> Luc: that's the last time it will be released before the final release.
16:44:27 <dgarijo> GK: I think we're pretty good.
16:45:10 <dgarijo> Luc: the document no longer emphasizes query. Is it still reasonable to have the term "query" in the the title
16:45:26 <dgarijo> GK: the query will gain relevance after the latest changes+
16:45:28 <pgroth> q+
16:45:52 <Luc> ack pgr
16:45:58 <dgarijo> Luc: if we drop query then we have to change the short name. We have to keep that in mind.
16:46:18 <dgarijo> pgroth: I would prefer to change it, but maybe that should be a question for the reviewers.
16:46:25 <Dong> +1
16:46:26 <Luc> q?
16:46:31 <dgarijo> Luc: sounds good
16:46:46 <smiles> I can review this
16:46:48 <dgarijo> Luc: who will review the document?
16:46:49 <pgroth> @graham, let me know when I should take the editing token
16:46:59 <GK> @paul, sure
16:47:00 <Dong> I can as well
16:47:09 <Luc> prov-aq reviewers: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong
16:47:13 <stain> +1
16:47:20 <Luc> prov-aq reviewers: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong, Stian
16:47:21 <smiles> q+
16:47:43 <dgarijo> smiles: are we reviewing now or from thursday next week.
16:47:47 <dgarijo> Luc: next week.
16:47:52 <Luc> q?
16:47:55 <Luc> ack smil
16:48:11 <dgarijo> tty next week
16:48:12 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:48:14 <dgarijo> good bye
16:48:14 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:48:15 <khalidBelhajjame> bye
16:48:16 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:48:17 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:48:17 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
16:48:19 <zednik> bye
16:48:19 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:48:19 <Zakim> -stain
16:48:21 <Dong> thanks, bye all
16:48:21 <GK> Bye.   +10mins :)
16:48:21 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaaa
16:48:23 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:48:23 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:48:26 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:48:27 <Zakim> -smiles
16:48:30 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
16:48:32 <Zakim> -GK
16:48:35 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:48:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-minutes.html Luc
16:48:38 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon
16:48:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:48:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, dgarijo, MacTed, smiles, GK, jcheney, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, Paolo, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller]
16:48:42 <Zakim> -??P17
16:48:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:48:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:48:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:48:47 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-actions.rdf :
16:48:47 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports [1]
16:48:47 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-irc#T16-23-11
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000349