Chatlog 2011-09-29

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 21:46, 29 September 2011 by Lmoreau (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:39:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:39:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-prov-irc
14:39:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:39:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:39:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:39:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:39:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:39:21 <trackbot> Date: 29 September 2011
14:39:26 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:39:26 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 21 minutes
14:39:39 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.29
14:39:48 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:39:58 <Luc> Scribe: Yogesh Simmhan
14:40:36 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
<luc>Topic: Admin
<Luc>Summary: Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.
14:41:48 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
14:44:32 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:56:06 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:56:12 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:56:17 <Zakim> +Vinh
14:56:20 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
14:56:26 <Zakim> +Yogesh
14:56:27 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:57:14 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:57:19 <Luc> Hi Yogesh, everything setup for you
14:57:27 <Yogesh> Thanks Luc
14:57:42 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:57:55 <Zakim> +??P11
14:58:16 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:58:28 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P11 is me
14:58:28 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:58:30 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:58:30 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:58:39 <dgarijo> Hi everyone
14:58:58 <Zakim> + +1.509.967.aabb
15:00:01 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:00:19 <Zakim> +??P8
15:01:09 <Zakim> +??P4
15:01:48 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:02:06 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:02:07 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aacc
15:02:24 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:02:35 <Yogesh> Luc: admin issues, release of 1st public working draft, hearing from eric about connection task force report, Simon give primer, and satya formal doc
15:02:36 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:02:47 <Yogesh> Luc: any other issues? No.
15:02:49 <Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 22 telecon
15:02:58 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:02:59 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-22
15:03:04 <satya> +1
15:03:07 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:03:09 <Yogesh> +1
15:03:10 <ericstephan> +1
15:03:11 <Curt> +1
15:03:12 <dgarijo> +q
15:03:14 <dgarijo> -q
15:03:15 <tlebo> +1
15:03:16 <dgarijo> +1
15:03:23 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:03:32 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:03:44 <Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of Sep 22 telecon
15:03:53 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:04:16 <Zakim> +??P46
15:04:16 <Yogesh> Luc: action assigned to satya on doing named graph e.g.
15:04:28 <GK> zakin, ??P46 is me
15:04:35 <Yogesh> satya: paolo closed it last week. 
15:04:49 <pgroth> i think that action was closed
15:04:53 <Luc> TOPIC: First Public Working Drafts
<Luc>Summary: The PROV-WG formally approved the release of the data model document as a first public working draft.  It is expected that the formal model document will be made available for internal review on Monday. Timetable for the PAQ document to be check with Paul; Graham's absence was noted.
15:05:22 <Yogesh> luc: data model doc to be released this week as FPWD
15:05:28 <Luc> q?
15:05:30 <satya> q+
15:05:35 <Yogesh> luc: feedback from participants and is it ok to release?
15:05:54 <Zakim> +??P10
15:05:56 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:05:59 <Yogesh> satya: has been raising issues. Do we address issues and continue working on doc after its released?
15:06:08 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P10 is me
15:06:10 <GK> @Luc: I do *not* regard my comments today as blockers for release as FPWD
15:06:16 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:06:30 <Yogesh> luc: first draft that is publicly released. Keep working on doc.  To decide if there is anything blocking release.
15:06:47 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:06:57 <Yogesh> satya: is ok with releasing it.
15:07:21 <Yogesh> luc: keep adding comments so readers know it is a work in progress.
15:07:23 <Luc> q?
15:07:29 <Luc> ack satya
15:07:29 <Zakim> +??P15
15:07:36 <jcheney> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:07:36 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:07:39 <smiles> I take a similar position to Graham - none of my comments blockers
15:07:46 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:08:17 <Yogesh> luc: need to vote formally on release. this is the first docs being released by group. Need to contact W3C director and point to the resolution.
15:08:25 <Luc> proposed: release the data model document as a FPWD
15:08:40 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
15:08:58 <ericstephan> +1 (PNNL)
15:08:58 <satya> +1 (IE)
15:08:59 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:08:59 <smiles> +1 (IE)
15:09:00 <Yogesh> +1 (IE)
15:09:02 <pgroth> +1 (VUA)
15:09:02 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)
15:09:03 <Curt> +1 (NASA)
15:09:09 <jcheney> +1 (U Edinburgh)
15:09:16 <Paolo> Hi everybody I'm on IRC but not phone - call overlap
15:09:26 <Yogesh> sandro: please add affiliation in parantheses after +1. Invited experts to say IE
15:09:28 <dgarijo> +1
15:09:38 <sandro> Yolanda: +1 (IE)
15:09:42 <dgarijo> (UPM)
15:10:11 <dgarijo> yea, sorry about that :(
15:10:23 <Luc> ACCEPTED: release the data model document as a FPWD
15:10:41 <Zakim> +??P25
15:10:49 <pgroth> cool
15:10:56 <Yogesh> sandro: need to send email to a list of people about this. will send link.
15:11:15 <GK> q+, to say: need to use ReSpect features to generate the HTML
15:11:16 <Yogesh> sandro: editors need to check all links are good, valid CSS/html, etc.
15:11:20 <Luc> q?
15:11:53 <Yogesh> GK: need to use ReSpect features to generate the HTML. If so, output should be compliant (but not broken links)
15:12:00 <Luc> q?
15:12:27 <Yogesh> luc: editors of other two docs, whats the timetable?
15:12:51 <Yogesh> GK: Paul will make a call
15:12:56 <sandro> Here are the full publication rules for a First Public Working Draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2011&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&prevrec=none#docreqs
15:13:02 <GK> s/ReSpect/ReSpec/
15:13:11 <pgroth> i think we need some more time before the paq is ready
15:13:20 <pgroth> maybe 1 week or so 
15:13:28 <Yogesh> Luc: issue with entities that was postponed. has dust settled?
15:13:56 <sandro> Luc, the steps for publication approval are: http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr
15:14:10 <Luc> Thanks Sandro
15:14:11 <Yogesh> GK: has enough info to draft the changes to entities. Will be away for 2 weeks after this week. Did not expect to do substantial work on it after this point.
15:14:34 <Yogesh> GK: the doc can go out without the extra drafting, but will defer to Paul's call
15:14:46 <Yogesh> luc: will talk 1:1 with Paul to understand issue.
15:15:06 <pgroth> thanks
15:15:37 <Yogesh> satya: formal model substantial work done , thanks to stian, khalid, daniel.
15:15:51 <Yogesh> satya: will have a call nect Monday, but will be able to release before that
15:16:02 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov
15:16:10 <Yogesh> satya: will send mail to luc, paul and sandro to see if its ready to release
15:16:16 <Yogesh> luc: decision has to be made by group
15:16:34 <Yogesh> luc: WG should have time to go through it before decision is made
15:16:45 <Luc> q?
15:16:47 <Yogesh> satya: wull send link to WG and we can vote on next week's call
15:16:48 <pgroth> q+ to ask whether we should go for 
15:17:00 <GK> @pgroth - I wanted to draft a section discussing contexts and Entities, and the that provenance assertions *could* be applicable to multiple Entities.  Setting this out would make it easier to address some of the issues about contexts and anchors.
15:17:12 <Luc> ack pgroth
15:17:12 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask whether we should go for
15:17:21 <Luc> paul, what did you want say?
15:17:28 <pgroth> I'm not on the phone, but just wanted to ask whether we should wait for the ontology before releasing the conceptual model
15:17:32 <Zakim> + +1.512.524.aadd
15:17:53 <khalidbelhajjame> I don't think we should wait 
15:17:57 <Luc> q?
15:18:03 <smiles> depends how long it takes to agree the formal model...
15:18:04 <dgarijo> me neither. The ontology has to be still tested
15:18:18 <GK> That's a good question:  AFAICT, developers (@stain?) are working from the ontology doc.
15:18:26 <ericstephan> don't wait
15:18:32 <Yogesh> luc: doesnt see a sense that we should wait
15:18:44 <pgroth> ok
15:18:50 <tlebo> comments on the conceptual model from the public will facilitate the OWL development.
15:19:09 <pgroth> seems like there is consensus to release on the irc
15:19:13 <Yogesh> GK: unclear about this. Stian has been doing prototyping based on ontology, not conceptual. There may be complementary info. But should not unecessarily hold things up.
15:19:30 <Yogesh> luc: stian was implementing in OWL to inform the OWL design
15:19:38 <Yogesh> luc: stian, do you have comments?
15:19:56 <Yogesh> who is here?
15:19:59 <Yogesh> zakim, who is here?
15:19:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Vinh, Yogesh, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, Luc, +1.509.967.aabb, ??P8, ??P4, +1.315.330.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, ??P46, khalidbelhajjame, Sandro, jcheney, Yolanda, ??P25,
15:20:03 <Zakim> ... +1.512.524.aadd
15:20:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see jorn, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, tlebo, Paolo, StephenCresswell, satya, smiles, dgarijo, Curt, ericstephan, Yogesh, pgroth, Vinh, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, trackbot,
15:20:06 <Zakim> ... stain, sandro
15:20:36 <Yogesh> luc: will take a few days before it is released. there will be an announcement that other docs will follow. we can proceed wth conceptual model and OWL spec will be ready soon
15:20:42 <dgarijo> @GK: @stain used the ontology to test it, yes. But he made also based on the definitions of the conceptual model, to help us improve it :)
15:20:44 <Luc> Topic: Connection Task Force  
<luc>Summary: Eric presented the Connection Task Force informal report. The group is invited to read the document and feedback comments.
15:21:04 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connection_Task_Force_Informal_Report
15:21:21 <Yogesh> ericstephan: 1st F2F meeting had preliminary thoughts.
15:21:52 <Yogesh> ericstephan: several suggestions on other communities, standards bodies inside W3C and other special interest areas
15:22:31 <Yogesh> ...Agreed that will develop a report and provide connections. 
15:22:32 <Yogesh> ...Link is available online that shows the degrees of connections.
15:22:38 <Luc> q?
15:22:40 <Yogesh> ...Please thae a look and give feedback.
15:22:54 <Yogesh> s/thae/take/
15:23:21 <Yogesh> luc: Nice to see potential impact on other commnities. What was rationale?
15:23:56 <Yogesh> ericstephan: "Connectivity Approaches to Community " summarizes ratonale. 1 star means we know them, but they dont know us.
15:24:20 <Yogesh> ...4 stars means we know a name/person who writes a section for us.
15:24:23 <Luc> q?
15:24:23 <GK> q+ to ask if you are looking for additional help to build more definite links with lower star ratings; more generally, what are the specific actions you asosciate with different ratings?
15:24:28 <Luc> ack gk
15:24:28 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if you are looking for additional help to build more definite links with lower star ratings; more generally, what are the specific actions you asosciate with
15:24:31 <Zakim> ... different ratings?
15:25:05 <Yogesh> GK: are you looking to strengthen the connections for low stars?
15:25:21 <smiles> q+
15:25:57 <Zakim> -??P25
15:26:11 <Yogesh> ericstephan: stars are access to community. Completed the report after F2F but this is living doc that will add connections and increase stars.
15:26:28 <Zakim> +??P25
15:26:32 <jorn> zakim, ??p25 is me
15:26:32 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:26:51 <Luc> q?
15:26:55 <Yogesh> Kai has been collaborating to get info
15:28:12 <Yogesh> eGovenment group has an interest in provenance. 
15:28:55 <Yogesh> stephen: have been on their conference call. They are interested in recommending an approach.
15:29:56 <Luc> ack smiles
15:30:05 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:30:14 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:31:50 <Luc> q?
15:32:13 <Zakim> +??P40
15:32:31 <Paolo> zakim, ??P40 is me
15:32:31 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:32:39 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:32:58 <Zakim> - +1.512.524.aadd
15:33:23 <Yogesh> sorry, my IRC has been giving problems
15:33:54 <Luc> q?
15:34:12 <Luc> Topic: Primer
<Luc>Summary: Yolanda has joined Simon as editor of the primer. They will prepare a plan of actions, which they will present next week.
15:34:32 <Yogesh>smiles: put the skeleton together
15:34:37 <smiles> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
15:34:53 <Yogesh> looking for comments. Yolanda will coedit the primer. Will be talking tomorrow.
15:35:11 <Yogesh> ...Yolanda suggested starting points for people from different perspectives.
15:35:36 <Yogesh> ...Others can volunteer next week to contribute to primer.
15:35:47 <Yogesh> ...Will set out well defined actvities for them.
15:36:05 <GK> @smiles: might want to copy overview diagram from the model doc?  I think it bears repeating :)
15:36:06 <Yogesh> ..Expect a primer by end of Oct as a draft for WG to consider.
15:36:12 <Luc> q?
15:36:16 <Yogesh> Luc: Will have primer agenda for next week.
15:36:39 <Yogesh> smiles: May not be able to make it next week. Will check if Yolanda can make it. Will send email. 
15:36:39 <Luc> q?
15:36:50 <Yogesh> Yolanda: will be able to join next week.
15:36:56 <Luc> topic: Formal model document
<Luc>Summary: Satya updated us on the progress of the formal model document. A number of topics were discussed: subclassing, role, account, and named graph. Tim will explain how the concept of account can be captured in the ontology; this should help formulate requirements for named graphs. The importance of test/use cases was noted, and the team is encouraged to keep on building a catalogue of such cases. 
15:37:04 <satya> I guess the current structure of the Primer is initial version - so will comment later
15:37:59 <Yogesh> satya: had feedback. Luc raised an issue. satya has 2 sections to look into: extension section and formal semantics
15:38:23 <Yogesh> ...will send email on Monday for WG to review 
15:38:26 <Luc> q?
15:39:36 <Yogesh> satya: Will try to release a first version that may change based on feedback
15:40:13 <dgarijo> +q
15:40:30 <Yogesh> ...Discusssions on provenance container and entity and subclasses has led to changes. But cant provide a timeline for fixed ontology till a formal conceptual model is in place.
15:40:33 <Luc> ack d
15:40:34 <GK> q+ to ask if there's a criterion for deciding what subclasses to define
15:40:56 <Yogesh> dgarijo: Converging to stablility. Testing usecases.
15:41:00 <Luc> ack gk
15:41:00 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if there's a criterion for deciding what subclasses to define
15:41:55 <Zakim> -jorn
15:42:05 <Zakim> +??P25
15:42:21 <Luc> yogesh, are you still here?
15:42:32 <Yogesh> satya: agrees with GK. If we do not assert subclass of relationship, then we have limit entailments. Tradeoff. 
15:42:45 <Luc> q?
15:42:46 <Yogesh> ...We can keep all of them for now without asserting subclass of relationship.
15:43:40 <Yogesh> satya: Have been discussing the use of roles. Associating qualifiers wth relationships, or with Process executions was discussed.
15:44:32 <Yogesh> ...For now, agreed to use roles until there are clear cases highlighting its shortcomings.
15:44:54 <Yogesh> ...Similarly, time of process start and stop are assertions or qualifiers on the process entities, not relationships.
15:45:29 <Yogesh> luc: Someone mentioned usecases being built. Is there a catalog? All cant go into fomal doc but may be useful to test interop.
15:45:47 <Yogesh> satya: Using crime scene scenario and the one stain has done.
15:45:51 <tlebo> +q
15:46:18 <Yogesh> Luc: Is there something even smaller? Entity between two process executions with roles
15:46:35 <Luc> q?
15:46:36 <tlebo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/components is collecting the individual OWL axioms and collects examples
15:46:40 <Luc> ack tl
15:46:43 <khalidbelhajjame> Stian has already encode the workflow provenance example.
15:46:43 <Yogesh> satya: Corolla car example would be useful
15:46:48 <khalidbelhajjame> It is in the mercurial
15:47:02 <Luc> q?
15:47:33 <Yogesh> Luc: can you put this link in the top level page?
15:47:37 <GK> I can see the readme
15:47:40 <Luc> q?
15:48:12 <Yogesh> Luc: postponed discussions on accounts? 
15:48:36 <Yogesh> satya: Still some discussion between account, provenance collections and containers.
15:48:50 <Yogesh> ...Can definitely model container right now. Are accounts distinct?
15:48:56 <Yogesh> Luc: Yes, in the conceptual model.
15:49:28 <Paolo> Accounts can be nested, for example
15:49:38 <dgarijo> I saw accounts as something more specific than a prov container.
15:49:43 <Yogesh> satya: can we rename container as something else?
15:50:03 <dgarijo> so a container could, for instance, contain several accounts
15:50:21 <Yogesh> Luc: named graphs are scoping construct for triples with metadata associated. But construct is not there is OWL.
15:50:26 <tlebo> named graphs can be described in OWL using http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#
15:50:35 <khalidbelhajjame> I would suggest to keep them separate, while ProvenanceContainer is a (Random) bundle of assertions, accounts should be used when there is scoping. So, although structurally they are similar, semantically they are not.
15:50:43 <Yogesh> ...How can we express accounts without named graphs in OWL?
15:50:52 <Yogesh> satya: we'll need a class for that in OWL.
15:50:54 <dgarijo> @khalid: +1
15:51:11 <Yogesh> ...Containers are similar to scoping in named graphs.
15:51:34 <dgarijo> @khalid: but they are not disjoint. A container can be an account.
15:51:40 <GK> I think it will depend very much on how the RDF group introduce named graphs...
15:51:42 <Yogesh> ...Containers bundle assertions and we can associate metadata with the cotainers.
15:51:48 <khalidbelhajjame> @daniel, yes
15:51:56 <tlebo> q+
15:52:10 <Luc> q?
15:52:13 <Yogesh> Luc: How will container class be instantiated into named graphs in RDF?
15:52:15 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description describes named graphs
15:52:18 <GK> ... is as literals, then they can appear ibn OWL datatype properties, but the embedded RDF semantics may be opaque
15:52:38 <tlebo> naming named graphs within a SPARQL endpoint (an approach): https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/wiki/Naming-sparql-service-description%27s-sd%3ANamedGraph
15:52:46 <dgarijo> we can allways avoid usinog named graphs in owl: create class account and a relationship of containment to each of the other concepts.
15:53:00 <GK> ... if datasets (ala SPARQL) then I'm not sure how that would carry over.
15:53:29 <dgarijo> +q
15:53:32 <Luc> q?
15:53:33 <Yogesh> satya: no construct for provenance assertion in model. Should we model it in ontology?
15:53:40 <Luc> ack tl
15:54:01 <khalidbelhajjame> Ok, I see your point Satya. In that case, we can just explain that in the HTML document without adding explicit classes in the OWL ontology
15:54:03 <GK> Yes, "Provenance assertion" is an ASN construct; representation in RDF is just an RDF assertion, I think.
15:54:10 <Yogesh> tlebo: Variety of work is in draft, like sparql endpoint
15:54:21 <Yogesh> ...We can extend this vocabulary.
15:54:46 <Yogesh> Luc: will you have a proposal on accounts and containers by the time the doc is released as FPWD?
15:54:54 <satya> @Khalid, GK: +1
15:54:55 <Luc> q?
15:55:01 <Yogesh> tleb: Will have a first draft on it.
15:55:02 <Luc> ack dg
15:55:22 <tlebo> dgarijo: make prov:Account (don't use named graphs)
15:55:46 <Luc> q?
15:55:57 <Yogesh> dgarijo: Named graphs are not yet standarized. Not helpful to reply on it.
15:56:06 <tlebo> sd:NamedGraph will need to be a subclass prov:Account - since accounts can be sitting elsewhere.
15:56:10 <tlebo> q+
15:56:52 <GK>  Ah... with named graphs, can use owl:import?
15:56:55 <satya> q+
15:57:00 <tlebo> q-
15:57:01 <Luc> ack tl
15:57:21 <Yogesh> satya: defers to ntology telecon, but what does sitting "elsewhere" mean?
15:57:33 <Zakim> -??P25
15:57:50 <Luc> q?
15:57:55 <Luc> ack saty
15:57:58 <tlebo> satya: can you capture your question?
15:58:57 <Yogesh> Luc: Will be good to see a proposal for named graphs and go to RDF group and ask if they can support this
15:59:08 <Luc> q?
15:59:28 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
15:59:28 <Yogesh> list attendees
15:59:29 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aacc
15:59:29 <Zakim> -Yolanda
15:59:30 <Zakim> -??P46
15:59:31 <Zakim> -dgarijo
15:59:32 <Zakim> -Paolo
15:59:32 <Zakim> - +1.509.967.aabb
15:59:33 <Zakim> -jcheney
15:59:40 <satya> Tm, What is the construct that we can use for set of provenance assertions other than named graphs
15:59:42 <Luc> yogesh, i ll do the necessary incantations from here
15:59:47 <Yogesh> thanks luc
15:59:49 <satya> s/Tm/tim
15:59:51 <Zakim> -Vinh
15:59:53 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
15:59:55 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:59:56 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
15:59:59 <Zakim> -??P8
16:00:00 <Zakim> -Luc
16:00:01 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
16:00:07 <Luc> thanks for scribing, yogesh
16:00:14 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:00:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-prov-minutes.html Luc
16:00:14 <Yogesh> zakim, part
16:00:17 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
16:00:19 <Zakim> -??P4
16:00:25 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Vinh, Yogesh, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, Luc, +1.509.967.aabb, +1.315.330.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, Sandro, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, Yolanda,
16:00:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov
16:00:30 <Zakim> ... +1.512.524.aadd, jorn, Paolo
16:00:30 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon
16:00:46 <GK> GK has left #prov
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000339