Chatlog 2011-12-15

From Provenance WG Wiki
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.

15:44:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:44:26 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:44:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:44:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:44:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:44:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:44:31 <trackbot> Date: 15 December 2011
15:44:32 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
15:44:32 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
15:44:46 <Luc> Agenda:
15:44:56 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #prov
15:45:08 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:46:00 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Christine Runnegar, Curt Tilmes
15:46:08 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo
15:46:15 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:46:20 <Luc> Topic: Admin
<luc> summary: Apologies, minutes of last weeks call are unedited. We will get them approved next week. No outstanding action.
15:52:08 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:54:35 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:54:47 <Luc> hi daniel, everything set up for you
15:54:53 <dgarijo> thanks, Luc
15:55:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:55:38 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
15:55:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:55:44 <Zakim> +Luc
15:55:59 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:55:59 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:57:18 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:57:44 <dgarijo> how many grahams have we got :o? 
15:58:25 <GK> Just one, but with two computers :)
15:58:36 <dgarijo> :)
15:59:17 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:59:20 <dgarijo> Agenda for today's meeting:
15:59:27 <Zakim> +??P52
15:59:32 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:59:50 <Zakim> +[ISI]
15:59:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:00:03 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov
16:00:07 <GK> zakim, ??P52 is me
16:00:19 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:00:24 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:00:25 <Zakim> +??P2
16:00:33 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaaa
16:00:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P2 is me
16:00:48 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
16:00:50 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:00:58 <lebot> zakim, aabb is tlebo
16:01:03 <dgarijo> Zakim, who is here?
16:01:14 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:01:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, dgarijo, GK, [ISI], [IPcaller], Paolo, +1.518.633.aaaa, tlebo
16:01:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see khalidbelhajjame, lebot, Paolo, zednik, GK, Lena, GK1, dgarijo, MacTed, RRSAgent, Luc, trackbot, mdmdm, stain, Zakim, sandro
16:01:46 <GK> @luc - do you need scribe?
16:01:55 <Zakim> +??P32
16:02:01 <Luc> daniel has volunteered, thank you Graham
16:02:21 <zednik> zakim, aaaa is me
16:02:33 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:02:38 <dgarijo> Luc: agenda:
16:02:45 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:03:05 <dgarijo> ... aob?
16:03:06 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:03:14 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:03:29 <Zakim> +zednik; got it
16:03:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:03:53 <Zakim> +sandro
16:03:55 <dgarijo> ... we will propose to accept the minutes of last week next week
16:04:02 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:04:12 <dgarijo> actions\: Yolanda and Satya had some, but they were closed last week
16:04:32 <dgarijo> Luc: scribes are still needed. Please volunteer.
16:04:45 <Luc> topic: releases
<Luc> summary: Congratulations to the working group for the release of the prov-o fpwd and prov-dm WD2.  In January, we should discuss how to proactively disseminate these.
16:04:38 <Luc>
16:04:55 <Luc>
16:05:01 <dgarijo> ... 2 releases: On tuesday the FPWD for the prpov-o document. Today we'll have the release of prov dm
16:05:19 <dgarijo> ... Congratulations to everyone
16:05:20 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:05:28 <Zakim> +??P16
16:05:34 <Zakim> +SamCoppens
16:05:37 <dgarijo> ... feedback from outside is already appearing, which is great.
16:06:01 <jcheney> zakim, ??p16 is me
16:06:07 <dgarijo> ... it would be good to plan some disemination for the releases on Jan. Any ideas?
16:06:40 <dgarijo> ... khalid, stian, have you planned advertising this?
16:06:41 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:07:02 <jcheney> I thought the idea was to publicize all the new WDs after the holidays
16:07:07 <dgarijo> khalid: we haven't thought about that yet. We should spend some time on that.
16:07:37 <dgarijo> ... it will be discussed on the next prov-o telecon.
16:08:06 <dgarijo> Luc: congrats to the team again. 
16:08:34 <Luc> topic: Prov-primer
<Luc>Summary: It was agreed to add an introductory paragraph explaining the differences (wasControlledBy/wasAssociatedWith) between the prov-o and prov-dm documents and to update the bibliography. The goup approved the release of the primer as a FPWD. The editors will plan what changes they want to make for WD2 and its timing.
16:08:49 <dgarijo> Luc: what is the situation?
16:08:59 <dgarijo> smiles: Yolanda made some edits.
16:09:01 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:10:01 <dgarijo> ... wednseday we distributed the new version of the primer, although there was 1 comment about a statement on which there is no consensus yet
16:10:14 <dgarijo> ... feedback is welcome
16:10:29 <dgarijo> Luc: next week we may not have many people on the call.
16:10:37 <Luc> q?
16:10:37 <dgarijo> ... could you vote today?
16:10:45 <zednik> +q
16:11:12 <dgarijo> dgarijo: if we correct the wasAssociatedWith I think we can release it.
16:11:53 <dgarijo> StephanZ: they are not synchronized, so we shouldn't release it yet.
16:12:03 <dgarijo> ... until we fix it
16:12:16 <dgarijo> Luc: it is not practical to synchornize releases.
16:12:18 <YolandaGil> q+
16:12:27 <dgarijo> ... we could release something in between.
16:12:40 <jcheney> The prov-o FPWD refers to the (October) DM FPWD.
16:13:05 <dgarijo> ... if we synchronize everuthing, documents get delayed.
16:13:19 <dgarijo> StephanZ: it can be confusing.
16:13:38 <dgarijo> Luc: is there a particular version that can be more or less aligned?
16:13:53 <dgarijo> smiles: there is a previous one.
16:13:54 <Paolo> q+
16:14:34 <dgarijo> Luc: the picture you incorporated is from the 15th, not 18th.
16:14:42 <GK> On reflection, I think it's acceptable for FPWDs to be out of sync, on the basis we need to show the world where we're headed, but we should aim for stabilization of central concepts for subsequent releases, as far as practical.
16:14:47 <dgarijo> smiles: we'll use the most recent in the primer
16:14:50 <jcheney> There are links to the HG repository drafts in the primer.  
16:14:50 <dgarijo> Luc: ok
16:15:31 <dgarijo> Luc: I think that is worth adding a paragraph to adress Stephan's point
16:16:12 <Paolo> can we just have a summary of these discrepancies upfront?
16:16:16 <dgarijo> smiles: yes, it's reasonable.
16:16:22 <Luc> q?
16:16:25 <dgarijo> zednik: ok
16:16:26 <Paolo> more informative than just a ref to a specific previous version
16:16:28 <Luc> ack zed
16:16:30 <zednik> -q
16:16:34 <zednik> q-
16:16:55 <Paolo> q- []
16:17:03 <Paolo> q-
16:17:05 <Luc> ack yol
16:17:13 <Luc> q?
16:17:26 <dgarijo> Yolanda: I was going to propose what you just proposed, Luc. Last week we took things that seemed complicated from the model, so it is easier as a starting point.
16:17:58 <dgarijo> Luc: the document will be very helpful for the community.
16:18:28 <Luc> proposed: to release prov-primer as fpwd
16:18:40 <Paolo> +1
16:18:41 <dgarijo> dgarijo:+1
16:18:46 <jcheney> +1 (UoE)
16:18:46 <YolandaGil> +1
16:18:48 <zednik> +1
16:18:52 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:18:55 <GK> +1 (Oxford)
16:19:06 <SamCoppens> +1 (IBBT)
16:19:22 <smiles> +1 (note I'm an editor)
16:19:26 <sandro> +1
16:19:44 <Luc> accepted: to release prov-primer as fpwd
16:20:05 <dgarijo> Luc: now you have green lights to start the process of releasing these documents.
16:20:37 <dgarijo> ... no publication will take place before January, but we could start the set of requests for the publication.
16:20:53 <dgarijo> smiles: patent information?
16:21:11 <GK> I copied the patent URI from the DM document
16:21:19 <GK> .. for PROV-AQ
16:21:24 <dgarijo> Luc: this document will be a note, so the rest is fine.
16:22:26 <dgarijo> GK: I added the same phrase to the prov-aq
16:22:42 <dgarijo> Luc: there is a link wrong in the primer.
16:23:07 <dgarijo> ... plans for the second working draft?
16:23:13 <dgarijo> ... plans for releasing it?
16:23:30 <Luc> q?
16:23:35 <dgarijo> smiles: first of all, synchronize it with the latest dm
16:23:41 <dgarijo> yolanda?
16:24:11 <Luc> topic: prov-aq
<luc>Summary: Transition request was approved. Publication request for January release in progress. The editors will also plan changes for WD2 and timing for WD2. WG is invited to provide feedback on the current version of the document.
16:24:17 <dgarijo> Luc: share with us your plans on the next telecon, when you're available
16:24:23 <GK>
16:24:42 <dgarijo> GK: since last week Paul has been working on it
16:24:58 <dgarijo> ... had a response from people
16:25:12 <dgarijo> ... will be published next year
16:25:38 <dgarijo> ... Paul is taking care of the last issues.
16:25:59 <dgarijo> ... We haven't started discussing the 2nd working draft plan
16:26:02 <Luc> q?
16:26:13 <dgarijo> ... still have some issues before we release the first draft
16:26:47 <dgarijo> ... we have to look for feedback and anwer it
16:27:24 <dgarijo> Luc: worried about discussing the release at the F2F meeting.
16:27:52 <dgarijo> ... will you have a revised draft before?
16:27:54 <Luc> q?
16:27:58 <dgarijo> GK: will try to.
16:28:20 <Luc> q?
16:28:25 <Luc> topic: prov-o
<Luc>Summary: The editors will plan the next release WD2 and its timing.  All editors were reminded the objectives of the second Face to Face meeting, and the inputs the Working Group agreed to work towards.
16:28:27 <dgarijo> Luc: please provide comments on these drafts. It is key for the editors to progress.
16:28:46 <GK> FWIW, PROV-AQ issues:
16:28:51 <dgarijo> Luc: plan for the second WD?
16:29:04 <Luc> q?
16:29:36 <dgarijo> khalid: we haven talked about that yet. But We'll work on synchronize the current version with prov dm
16:29:57 <Luc>
16:29:57 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be nice if you could talk about it. 
16:30:05 <Luc>
16:30:27 <dgarijo> ... Reminder of the objectives and inputs we wanted to have before the second f2F meeting.
16:30:58 <Luc> q?
16:31:11 <Luc> topic: prov-sem
<Luc>Summary: James is making good progress about the semantics. He will notify the group about its availability for comments.
16:31:13 <dgarijo> ... what you suggest here is in line with what we agreed on, but we have to make sure we progress on the objectives
16:31:28 <jcheney>
16:31:28 <dgarijo> Luc: James has been drafting the semantics.
16:32:09 <dgarijo> JamesC: gone through the strawman and updated the notation
16:32:45 <dgarijo> ... the html is not on the right format, but I rather spend some time on the wiki and work on the content and what we agreed on.
16:33:01 <dgarijo> Luc: at this stage it is better through the wiki
16:33:14 <dgarijo> JamesC: happy to stick with the wiki.
16:33:26 <Luc> q?
16:33:32 <dgarijo> ... discussion of wasComplement of that has to be updated
16:33:51 <Luc> q?
16:34:02 <dgarijo> ... friday is the deadline, so it is better to wait for monday
16:34:09 <GK> q+
16:34:20 <Luc> q?
16:34:25 <Luc> ack GK
16:34:26 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks for doing this work. Others will join you
16:34:54 <dgarijo> GK: the document is similar to model theoretical semantics
16:34:59 <Luc> q?
16:35:00 <dgarijo> JamesC: Yes.
16:35:16 <Luc> topic: prov-dm
<Luc>Summary: A vote took place during the week. Two proposals were accepted. There was no support for the third one.  During the vote, Stephan flagged a point in the document and he will raise an issue.Changes were made to three different sections in the prov-dm document: wasComplementOf, recipeLink (now hadPlan) and the event ordering constraint. The WG is invited to comment on these. The participants debated the proposed viewOf relation. Two notions seem to be competing: viewOf and complementOf.  The section will be revised to take this distinction into account. The issue of interval containment was also brought up. The editors will try to mediate between the various participants to converge towards an agreeable solution.
16:35:25 <Luc>
16:35:40 <dgarijo> Luc: last week I sent an email with 3 proposal for events.
16:35:58 <dgarijo> ... we had 10-15 votes during the week
16:36:20 <Luc> ACCEPTED: PROPOSAL 1. Adopt the following Definition for generation. In PROV-DM, a generation record is a representation of a world event, the completed creation of a new entity by an activity. This entity did not exist before this event; this entity is available for usage after this event.
16:36:24 <dgarijo> ... the outcome is: The first proposal to redefine generation was supported.
16:36:45 <Luc> ACCEPTED: PROPOSAL 2. Adopt the following Definition for usage. In PROV-DM, a usage record is a representation of a world event: the start of an entity consumption by an activity. Before this event, this entity was not consumed or used in any form or shape by the activity, totally or partially.
16:36:50 <dgarijo> ... the second proposal to define usage was strongly supported. It could be rephrased better though.
16:36:57 <Luc> PROPOSAL 3. Replace the word event by action.
16:37:21 <dgarijo> ... the 3rd proposal did not have enough support.
16:38:10 <dgarijo> ... 3 quarters of the people voted no. Suggestions are milestone or Instantaneous Event.
16:38:24 <dgarijo> ... I will not try to resolve it here now
16:38:42 <dgarijo> ... Raise issues regarding the term
16:38:48 <Luc> q?
16:38:59 <zednik> q+
16:39:03 <dgarijo> ... happy to take any comments
16:39:39 <dgarijo> zednik: about the last sentence of proposal 1. Can we discuss it or should I raise an issue?
16:39:59 <dgarijo> Luc: before generation it is not an entity, because it is not generated get.
16:40:24 <dgarijo> zednik: I understand the intent
16:40:36 <dgarijo> Luc: If you have another phrasing, please raise an issue
16:40:50 <Luc> q?
16:40:52 <dgarijo> zednik: will do.
16:40:56 <zednik> q-
16:40:56 <Luc> ack ze
16:40:56 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks
16:41:20 <dgarijo> Luc: since last week we've made a set of changes. 
16:41:21 <Luc>
16:41:29 <dgarijo> ... the first one is regarding wasViewOf
16:41:37 <Luc> 
16:41:57 <dgarijo> ... did anyone have the oportunity to go through the text?
16:42:14 <dgarijo> ... spent some time discussing with paolo
16:42:24 <StephenCresswell> +q
16:42:26 <dgarijo> ... feedback would be appreciated.
16:42:30 <GK> q+
16:42:30 <Luc> q?
16:42:43 <Luc> ack steph
16:43:01 <GK> q-
16:43:09 <dgarijo> Stephen: What was discussed last week is not still reflected on prov dm
16:43:13 <GK> I was about to same the same as Stephan
16:44:08 <Paolo> q+
16:44:09 <Luc> ... the text mentions: Note that, as a particular case, the validity interval of e1 may be contained within the validity interval of e1.  
16:44:41 <dgarijo> ... not agreeing with the current definition of interval containment.
16:45:02 <Luc> q?
16:45:05 <Luc> ack pao
16:45:11 <dgarijo> Luc: containment is mentioned as a special case of what is being defined.
16:45:16 <GK> q+ to note (again) that I think the important feature of "a viewOf b" is that all provenance about b is also true of a
16:45:41 <dgarijo> paolo: it doesn't  make sense to assert that when intervals do not overlap.
16:45:45 <Luc> q?
16:46:28 <dgarijo> paolo: I don't think that we have discussed that the validity of the intervals can be inferred from the assertions.
16:47:01 <dgarijo> ... you can complete the model with the assertions that you make.
16:47:17 <dgarijo> ... we should just make a decission
16:47:32 <StephenCresswell> +q
16:47:52 <dgarijo> ... the containment issue: there is no need to insist on containment or intervals
16:48:51 <dgarijo> ... assuming or infering interval containment may not be the best thing
16:49:01 <lebot> +1 to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.
16:49:45 <GK> IMO, bob the twiotter account holder is NOT view of bob the facebook account holder
16:49:46 <Luc> ack GK
16:49:46 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note (again) that I think the important feature of "a viewOf b" is that all provenance about b is also true of a
16:49:50 <dgarijo> Luc: is the example that is discussed here one that we want to capture with this relation. If it is, does it make sense?
16:49:55 <lebot> also, it's not the _account_, it's the _person with_ the account.
16:50:56 <Luc> @tim, did you mean to join the queue?
16:51:11 <lebot> +q to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.
16:51:12 <Paolo> q+
16:51:13 <dgarijo> GK: testability. If a is a view of b, then all the problems that b would have because of the changes would also be applicable to a?
16:51:16 <Luc> q?
16:51:20 <StephenCresswell> I added an alternative proposal to the wiki after last week's meeting
16:52:06 <dgarijo> Stephen: interval containment is useful. I have added a proposal to the wiki
16:52:07 <Luc> q?
16:52:10 <Luc> ack ste
16:52:50 <GK> @stephen +1
16:52:50 <dgarijo> tlebo: looks like complement of is a rename for view of. Facebook account is a view of Tim, not from anoither Twitter cccount
16:53:32 <GK> I just looked a Stephen's entry on wiki page, think it looks good.
16:53:34 <dgarijo> tlebo: we renamed the relation and now it can be confusing. The example is right, but not well written.
16:54:14 <GK> ..
16:54:18 <Luc> q?
16:54:22 <Luc> ack leb
16:54:22 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.
16:54:33 <dgarijo> paolo: disagree with all 3 comments.
16:54:52 <dgarijo> ... complement of was based on a level of how much knowledge you have of an entity
16:54:55 <Luc> q?
16:54:58 <Luc> ack pao
16:55:04 <dgarijo> ... it has completely disappeared here.
16:55:32 <dgarijo> ... now we have time intervals and create minimum assertions about them. 
16:56:55 <dgarijo> ... we felt that 2 characterizations of the same entity should not have a hierarchy.
16:57:56 <dgarijo> ... I don't think that having the 2 accounts view of each others does not violate anything.
16:57:57 <Luc> q?
16:58:12 <StephenCresswell> We want something with actual transitivity, not just pseudo-transitivity.  I don't see what use pseudo-transitivity is.
16:58:14 <GK> I was previously looking at the wrong document ... What Paolo says is reasonable, except that I think the name viewOf should  
16:58:16 <GK> q+
16:58:18 <dgarijo> Luc: not made much progress.
16:58:24 <lebot> Still wondering how "me via facebook" is a view of "me via twitter" and "me via prov-wg call"
16:58:36 <khalidbelhajjame> It is always a good idea to leave complimentarity discussions til the end of the agenda :-)
16:58:54 <dgarijo> GK: problem may be with the names
16:59:07 <Paolo> pseudo-transitivity is simply transitivity with the additional condition on consistency of intervals
16:59:11 <lebot> +1 GK!
16:59:17 <dgarijo> ... paolo's view Of should be complement of
16:59:43 <dgarijo> ... 2 competing set of intuitions.
17:00:23 <dgarijo> GK: I din't see the necessity for interval containment, although it could be there in practice.
17:00:43 <Luc> q?
17:01:02 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:01:08 <StephenCresswell> @Paolo Pseudo-transitivity seems to allow us to derive things which are meaningless - or depend on a separate test which we might not always be able to make.
17:01:15 <dgarijo> Luc: just to clarify this issue. Tim, are you supportive to what Graham said?
17:01:25 <dgarijo> tlebo: yes
17:02:01 <Zakim> +SamCoppens
17:02:06 <dgarijo> ... view is complement.
17:02:14 <GK> @tlebo thanks - just what I was trying to say!
17:02:17 <dgarijo> s/view/view of
17:02:20 <Paolo> if you go for "abstract" vs "concrete" then you could argue that the "abstract" version has a longer lifetime than the "concrete", hence containment, but I still feel that's arbitrary
17:03:09 <dgarijo> Luc: would not be against the renaming proposed by Tim and Graham.
17:03:11 <GK> @paolo ... I don't see it as abstract vs concrete
17:03:16 <Paolo> if we had both the "vertical" and "horizontal", would that help? with suitable renaming of the relation names
17:03:45 <Luc> q?
17:03:49 <lebot> q+
17:03:54 <dgarijo> Luc: I will work in a proposal. We will try to adress Stephen's concerns
17:03:54 <Paolo> @GK Stephen Z use that terminology
17:03:59 <lebot> q-
17:04:08 <lebot> q+ to clarify the changes that paolo made
17:04:15 <Luc> ack gk
17:04:25 <Zakim> -[ISI]
17:04:46 <dgarijo> Tim: question about the attributes in the new proposal.
17:04:57 <StephenCresswell> It's also changed to become symmetric.
17:05:03 <Luc> q?
17:05:05 <dgarijo> paolo: There is no attributes anywhere at this point.
17:05:23 <dgarijo> s/is/are.
17:06:25 <dgarijo> Tim: will read and put a comment on the list
17:06:53 <dgarijo> Luc: you seem to be in agreement. Can you agree on a text and send it to the rest of the group?
17:06:59 <lebot> q-
17:07:08 <dgarijo> Luc: GK, Tim, paolo
17:07:47 <StephenCresswell> +q
17:08:22 <dgarijo> GK: what os proposed in the wiki sounds reasonable.
17:08:30 <dgarijo> s/os/is
17:08:43 <dgarijo> paolo: maybe we are running in circles.
17:08:59 <StephenCresswell> +q
17:09:09 <dgarijo> Luc: how do we move this forward
17:09:40 <dgarijo> stephen: transitivity **I missed something here**
17:10:26 <Luc> q?
17:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
17:10:29 <dgarijo> paolo: we don't know normally what this intervals are. I don't see this intervals as that relevant.
17:10:36 <Luc> ack steph
17:10:41 <GK> @paulo, even if we don't know what they are, the properties may be inferred existentially
17:11:03 <dgarijo> stephen: we should be allowed to assert to assert something about the interval even if we don't know the time
17:11:40 <dgarijo> paolo: the model is missing a facility to make clear when entities exist.
17:12:09 <dgarijo> khalid: instead talking about intervals, talk about the validity of an entity.
17:12:14 <jcheney> Got to go, sorry
17:12:18 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:12:28 <Luc> q?
17:12:33 <Luc> ack khal
17:12:38 <dgarijo> paolo: will have to ground validity.
17:12:54 <dgarijo> khalid: we don't have means to ground it. My proposal is to let it be
17:13:56 <Paolo> q+
17:14:00 <dgarijo> Luc: we're editing the WD with this. Is it better to revert back to the previous version of that section and then review both proposals separately?
17:14:18 <lebot> I'd rather keep the rewrite in as it is (so I can read the new stuff)
17:14:37 <dgarijo> GK: the document is not the main issue. The consensus is the main issue.
17:14:48 <Paolo> -1 for reverting back
17:14:51 <lebot> will the rewrite stand somewhere else?
17:15:03 <dgarijo> Luc: should revert and THEN reach consensus, knowing that some people will look at the doc.
17:15:10 <dgarijo> GK: No.
17:15:25 <Luc> q?
17:15:32 <dgarijo> Luc: ok, lets keep it
17:15:43 <Luc>
17:16:04 <GK> @luc: I need to properly read Paolo's current proposal, and comment.  Would like to see if can find a consensus view (sic).
17:16:08 <dgarijo> Luc: 2 other sections that we edited: the section about hadPlan (to change recipelink).
17:16:24 <dgarijo> Luc: please add feedback
17:16:26 <Luc>
17:16:33 <dgarijo> s/add/provide some/.
17:16:54 <dgarijo> Luc: interpretation sections with the constraints for intervals
17:17:04 <Luc> q?
17:17:12 <Luc> ack pao
17:17:45 <dgarijo> paolo: propose to rewrite the proposal with today's comments.
17:17:56 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:18:13 <dgarijo> Luc: ok
17:18:27 <dgarijo> ... send an email to get feedback
17:18:39 <dgarijo> Luc: too late to start discussion on accounts.
17:18:52 <Luc> q?