Chatlog 2012-01-12

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 12:11, 16 January 2012 by Pgroth (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.

16:00:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
16:00:16 <RRSAgent> logging to
16:00:16 <Luc> are you back?
16:00:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
16:00:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
16:00:20 <trackbot> Date: 12 January 2012
16:00:24 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be prove
16:00:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
16:00:30 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
16:00:30 <jun> Yes! Glad to be back! First week back at work!
16:00:35 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
16:00:38 <pgroth> Agenda:
16:00:39 <Luc> congratulations!
16:00:39 <dgarijo> Hi Jun!
16:00:48 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
16:00:53 <Luc> only a few thousand messages to catch up with ;-)
16:00:53 <jun> @luc: thanks
16:01:03 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:01:05 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:05 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:01:06 <jun> @luc, yep:)
16:01:11 <pgroth> Zakim, make logs public
16:01:19 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
16:01:30 <pgroth> scribe?
16:01:40 <satya> I can scribe
16:01:41 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:01:45 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:01:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth
16:01:53 <pgroth> Scribe: Daniel Garijo
16:02:01 <dgarijo> although I have a bad sound quality today :(
16:02:03 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:02:03 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:02:10 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
16:02:23 <Zakim> +??P18
16:02:59 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:03:01 <Zakim> +tlebo
16:03:09 <dgarijo> pgroth: as usual, vote on the minutes of last week
16:03:12 <pgroth> Minutes
16:03:14 <dgarijo> +1
16:03:15 <satya> +1
16:03:20 <jcheney> +1
16:03:22 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
16:03:23 <jun> +1
16:03:23 <tlebo> +1
16:03:23 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:03:26 <Curt> +1
16:03:31 <Paolo> +1
16:03:39 <MLang> +1
16:03:43 <jcheney> zakim, ??P18 is me
16:03:51 <pgroth> Accepted Minutes January 5 2012
16:04:05 <pgroth>
16:04:06 <dgarijo> pgroth: review of actions items
16:04:21 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:04:26 <dgarijo> ... 1) Action on pgroth to write a blog on overview
16:04:40 <dgarijo> ... about the PROV activities
16:04:45 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:04:47 <pgroth>
16:05:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:05:04 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:05:11 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, IPcaller.aa is me
16:05:27 <Zakim> +sandro
16:05:34 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:05:39 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aacc
16:05:43 <Zakim> +??P46
16:05:45 <dgarijo> ... Luc had an action item to write a blog post with the diffs
16:05:57 <dgarijo> ... Satya had an action to look at a number of issues
16:06:12 <olaf> zakim, aacc is me
16:06:14 <dgarijo> Satya: I have been working on it
16:06:23 <Zakim> +olaf; got it
16:06:57 <dgarijo> pgroth: please sign on the f2f page so I can make the appropriate arrangements
16:07:03 <dgarijo> ... we need scribes
16:07:14 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-AQ changes
<pgroth> Summary: Review of PROV-AQ changes in response to raised issues. Editors ask for review and response to solved issues. Editors still have a number of outstanding issues to address.
16:08:10 <pgroth>
16:08:29 <dgarijo> ... gk tried to address a number of issues
16:08:52 <dgarijo> ... made a review and a bunch of editorial clarifications
16:08:57 <pgroth>
16:09:04 <Zakim> +[ISI]
16:09:18 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aadd
16:09:33 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:09:43 <dgarijo> ... question about xml examples. Do we want them? where should they come in?
16:09:51 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:10:33 <dgarijo> ... ??? suggested pingback to know when the provenance has been recorded
16:10:41 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaee
16:10:52 <pgroth> +q
16:10:55 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:10:57 <pgroth> q?
16:10:59 <dgarijo> ... pgrothhas to still to review the changes to see if completely agrees with it
16:11:22 <Zakim> + +329331aaff
16:11:25 <pgroth> q?
16:11:44 <pgroth> Topic: Updates of Prov-DM
<pgroth> Summary: review of outstanding older issues. Satya is in the process of checking whether the outstanding issues have been resolved or are superseded by new issues. He agreed to complete these by next week.
16:11:52 <pgroth>
16:11:57 <dgarijo> ... update on issues in prov-dm
16:12:06 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaff is me
16:12:06 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:12:07 <stain> stain has joined #prov
16:12:17 <dgarijo> ... most of the issues have been raised/resolved.
16:12:18 <Zakim> + +1.518.608.aagg
16:12:35 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aaee
16:12:45 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov
16:12:48 <dgarijo> Luc: we have to group the issues. 105 is still open.
16:13:03 <dgarijo> ... will follow up a response
16:13:15 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aahh
16:13:52 <satya> @Luc, yes I am now reviewing the updates in DM and will respond to these issues soon
16:13:53 <pgroth> q?
16:13:59 <dgarijo> ... tomorrow morning will start another pass on the document to prepare it for review by the next telecon
16:14:08 <Luc> @satya, thanks
16:14:08 <dgarijo> ... please satya review the pending issues
16:14:09 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aahh
16:14:21 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aahh is me
16:14:21 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+44.789.470.aahh'
16:14:22 <dgarijo> satya: ok
16:14:41 <DeborahM> DeborahM has joined #prov
16:14:52 <dgarijo> pgroth: are this already in your action?
16:15:09 <dgarijo> Luc: no. That action is from several weeks ago
16:15:20 <stain> the "vacant" conference bridge is fighting me
16:15:20 <dgarijo> pgroth: satya, replace the action with a new one.
16:15:32 <pgroth> Action: Satya to address issues in
16:15:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Address issues in [on Satya Sahoo - due 2012-01-19].
16:15:44 <pgroth> Topic: prov-o
<pgroth> Summary: Overview of the status of Prov-O. Team has prepared a list of outstanding issues on the document. This list will be circulated. Issues to do with the prov-dm will be raised soon.
16:16:02 <satya> Meeting minutes from last PROV-O call:
16:16:07 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaii
16:16:38 <dgarijo> satya: dgarijo has created a list of issues, and we have been resolving them
16:16:53 <dgarijo> ... still have 3 main bullets to complete the list.
16:17:12 <dgarijo> ... we have been recording the changes to make in the doc
16:17:27 <pgroth> q?
16:17:34 <dgarijo> ... some issues have been raised.
16:17:56 <Luc> can you indicate what requires discussion with dm?
16:18:02 <dgarijo> +q
16:18:16 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 
16:18:21 <Luc> q+
16:18:33 <pgroth> ack luc
16:18:49 <dgarijo> satya: you'll see the changes to the html doc soon (next telecon)
16:19:15 <dgarijo> Luc: can you identify what are the issues to be discused within dm?
16:19:15 <satya> Meeting minutes PROV_O:
16:19:53 <tlebo> ?
16:20:02 <dgarijo> satya: some concerns about making wasStartedBy and wasEndedBy subclasses of wasAssociatedWith
16:20:41 <dgarijo> szednik: some classes seem to be modeling things with different semantics. Also actedOnBehalfOf
16:21:42 <dgarijo> luc: some of the issues could be raised as issues against prov-o
16:22:20 <dgarijo> luc: none of the editors will be at f2f
16:22:49 <khalidbelhajjame> I ll be there
16:22:51 <tlebo> I'll be calling in to F2F2.
16:22:53 <dgarijo> satya: some of the authors are going to attend: Daniel, Stian, Khalid
16:22:56 <pgroth> q?
16:22:57 <stain> not tim?
16:23:38 <dgarijo> pgroth: so, in summary, you will be raising issues against dm soon. 
16:23:42 <dgarijo> satya: yes
16:23:50 <pgroth> q?
16:24:08 <jcheney>
16:24:10 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Semantics
<pgroth> Summary: James has been updating the document to both address issues and attempt to follow the evolving discussion on the mailing list. Satya and Paul agreed to read the document and provide feedback.
16:24:29 <dgarijo> jcheney: I've been updating what's there
16:24:43 <dgarijo> ... answered some emails
16:25:31 <dgarijo> ... diference between the 3 level and 2 level ???
16:25:47 <jcheney>
16:26:44 <satya> q+
16:26:47 <dgarijo> ... what the alternatives are about this issue
16:27:01 <Zakim> -??P46
16:27:15 <dgarijo> luc: this could be raised as an issue against the semantics
16:27:35 <dgarijo> jcheney: will do that
16:27:40 <pgroth> ack satya
16:28:20 <dgarijo> satya: Ithink the distinction between entities and real world entities is very important 
16:28:46 <stian> +1 to satua
16:28:47 <dgarijo> ... the real world things have no relevance in our context
16:29:18 <Luc> q+
16:29:20 <Paolo> @satya: not relevant for the language, but important distinction for the semantics! 
16:29:55 <pgroth> Q?
16:29:59 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:30:00 <Paolo> so "things" are not part of the description, but we are talking about the semantics here, i.e., the interpretaion of the language constructs
16:30:13 <dgarijo> luc: From the beggining we made a distinction between the record and the real world thing. Thus it is part of dm
16:30:48 <satya> @Paolo: In our context that is any computer science application  - there are no real world things
16:31:12 <pgroth> q?
16:31:15 <Paolo> q+
16:31:24 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:31:35 <dgarijo> @satya: what about the provenance of Mona Lisa? That is a real world thing..
16:32:30 <dgarijo> Paolo: we're not talking about provenance within a specific system.
16:32:40 <stian> @dharijo no, you are talking about a characterisaton 
16:32:45 <satya> @Daniel: No, the "Mona Lisa" in any application is a representation/abstraction of the real world thing - the real world thing is never part of any computer science application
16:32:50 <pgroth> q?
16:33:17 <dgarijo> pgroth: maybe we can pick this at the end of the call
16:33:46 <stian>  is it the painting? the model?
16:34:02 <dgarijo> @stian, satya: ok
16:34:33 <stian> (have to go now)
16:34:35 <dgarijo> luc: will try to catch up with the tracker.
16:34:41 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aaii
16:35:01 <pgroth> q?
16:35:15 <dgarijo> jcheney: we have to identify where are we going to find this at the time of the f2f (next 2 weeks)
16:35:20 <Zakim> -sandro
16:35:43 <Zakim> -??P30
16:35:51 <dgarijo> ... alternate of, specialization of semantics.
16:37:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: when do you like people to read the document?
16:37:49 <dgarijo> jcheney: people can look at it now and provide feedback
16:38:01 <Paolo> sorry I have to go...
16:38:33 <satya> I will review 
16:38:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: volunteers?
16:38:52 <pgroth> q?
16:38:52 <pgroth> \
16:38:57 <dgarijo> ... pgroth, satya are volunteers.
16:39:20 <tlebo> q+
16:39:20 <pgroth> Topic: Accounts in Prov
<pgroth> Summary: Accounts and identifiers are seen as deeply related. The group had a long discussion about what is and what is not being identified in the prov-dm, in particular whether records or entities were being identified or both. The group agreed that it was important to settle this soon to gain a clear understanding. It was agreed that Luc would write up an example and that discussion should continue on the mailing list. 
16:39:30 <pgroth> ack tlebo
16:39:42 <dgarijo> tlebo: I haven't had a chance to answer all the people yet
16:39:44 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:39:59 <dgarijo> ... if anibody has something right now it will be ok
16:40:02 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
16:40:22 <dgarijo> khalid: how entities are differentiated in different accounts
16:40:29 <dgarijo> ... ?
16:40:46 <pgroth> q?
16:40:49 <dgarijo> ... it's more a practical point of view.
16:41:06 <dgarijo> tim: TRIG syntax is a bit confusing in those examples.
16:41:43 <dgarijo> ... how can we have this scoped entities without the dcterms:identifiers.
16:42:21 <dgarijo> khalid: so you think there could be problems having different entities scoped in different accounts
16:42:28 <satya> @Tim: +1, also having scoped identifiers (aka URI) is contrary to RDF semantics and global scope of URIs
16:43:09 <dgarijo> khalid: how do I identify an entity across different accounts.
16:43:24 <dgarijo> Tim. the same URI is mentioned in both named graphs.
16:43:34 <pgroth> q?
16:44:10 <dgarijo> ... there is no requirement that the inner accounts have to be mentioned in the outer accounts
16:44:11 <pgroth> q?
16:44:15 <dgarijo> khalid: thanks
16:45:03 <Luc> q+
16:45:04 <dgarijo> pgroth: are you having problems with ids in dm?
16:45:18 <dgarijo> tim: maybe I'm misreading ids in dm
16:45:30 <dgarijo> luc: your interpretation is ok
16:45:45 <dgarijo> ... I'm not sure that we have the same understanding of record
16:46:56 <dgarijo> tim: in the rdf world a reocrd is a triple or an rdf graph.
16:46:57 <satya> @Luc, what are the columns of these tables - Entity, Agent, wasGeneratedBy?
16:47:15 <dgarijo> luc: that would be routed in a specific subject.
16:47:23 <MacTed> s/routed/rooted/
16:47:32 <stian> stian has joined #prov
16:48:03 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:48:03 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:48:03 <dgarijo> ... if we have an entity Luc in Boston type person type entity, everything would be rooted from that.
16:48:07 <pgroth> q?
16:48:10 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:48:10 <satya> q+
16:48:12 <MacTed> q+
16:48:38 <pgroth> ack MacTed
16:48:50 <dgarijo> MacTed: a record in my mind is a single row in a database. In the rdf world is a triple
16:49:31 <dgarijo> luc: a record in dm is a set of triples in the rdf context
16:49:40 <zednik> record
16:49:41 <zednik> noun |ˈrekərd|
16:49:41 <zednik> 1 a thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, esp. an account of an act or occurrence kept in writing or some other permanent form: identification was made through dental records | a record of meter readings.
16:50:07 <dgarijo> MacTed: so you're changing the understanding of record that is different in many areas.
16:50:31 <dgarijo> ... I keep going in circles
16:50:53 <dgarijo> ... the common terms are not used according to their common meanings.
16:50:59 <dgarijo> luc: I disagree
16:51:21 <dgarijo> ... nobody has suggested an alternative to this terms
16:51:30 <zednik> database terminology is not common term usage
16:51:52 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:52:26 <dgarijo> satya: if an entity is mapped to a table, what would be the columns of the table?
16:52:43 <dgarijo> luc: activity, sart, end, etc.
16:52:49 <dgarijo> ... (example)
16:53:13 <Luc>
16:53:20 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:53:22 <tlebo> it's sounding like "expression" _was_ a better term (the original "record"). What motivated the rename?
16:54:11 <dgarijo> luc: satya, how are you suggesting to express that?
16:54:15 <MacTed> :LucInBoston :wasWearing :whiteShirt
16:54:27 <dgarijo> satya: Luc in Boston is an entity
16:55:11 <tlebo> entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color "white"])
16:55:35 <Zakim> +??P3
16:55:40 <dgarijo> satya: discussion about the Luc in Boston entity.
16:55:46 <GK> zakim, ??p3 is me
16:55:46 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:55:50 <pgroth> q?
16:55:53 <Zakim> -[ISI]
16:56:41 <Luc> entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color "white", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
16:57:25 <Luc> entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color="white", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
16:57:34 <dgarijo> satya: I was trying to understand what an entity record mean. Luc in Boston has type person would be an entity record
16:57:49 <dgarijo> Luc: I've extended what tim just posted
16:58:19 <dgarijo> ... you would map this to a series of triples
16:58:41 <dgarijo> ... entity record seems to map to a set of triples
16:58:54 <dgarijo> satya: this is an example of relational db to rdf
16:59:03 <pgroth> q?
16:59:08 <dgarijo> luc: I'm not reinventing the world
16:59:17 <Luc>
17:00:08 <dgarijo> luc: I've posted the diagram of the document. That is how it would be recorded in a relational world
17:00:43 <dgarijo> satya: it is an assertion about luc in boston. It is an important distinction to make
17:01:20 <tlebo> I'm wondering what motivation we had to rename "expression" to "record".
17:01:36 <pgroth> q?
17:01:57 <tlebo> +1 to satya pointing out the confusion of identifying the record or the characterized thing
17:02:31 <tlebo> @luc, thanks. 
17:02:31 <dgarijo> luc: I'd like to explain what pgrotho and pgrothhave been discussing. There are some inconsistencies in dm  and we're trying to resolve them.
17:02:42 <tlebo> luc: too much "language association" and was inappropriate.
17:02:44 <MacTed> so, "entity record" is a collection of (one or more) assertions about an entity...
17:02:44 <MacTed> (and an "entity record" is an entity in its own right, with assertions about it, etc.)
17:03:07 <MacTed> some of the assertions about the "entity record" comprise the provenance of that record
17:03:10 <dgarijo> luc: every record has an id
17:03:20 <GK> +1 to Satya too (the "record" is artifact of ASN; shouldn't have representation in RDF translation)
17:03:20 <dgarijo> satya: no, every entity has an id
17:04:03 <pgroth> q?
17:04:25 <GK> What Luc is now describing is artifact of "the relational view" i.e. an implementation detail for *some* implementations.
17:04:43 <dgarijo> tim: let luc describe the problem, and we try to solve it offline
17:04:58 <dgarijo> luc: coming back what satya was saying
17:05:01 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:05:05 <tlebo> s/tim/pgroth/
17:05:23 <dgarijo> ... luc in boston in my view is not the key of the record.
17:05:36 <dgarijo> @tlebo: thanks, sorry.
17:05:42 <Luc> entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color="black", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
17:06:16 <Luc> entity id + account id = natural key for entity record 
17:06:21 <satya> exactly - so luc_in_boston is key for Entity "Luc in Boston"
17:06:22 <dgarijo> ... luc in boston could have different color of tshirts, but it would be the same entity
17:06:28 <satya> not the record
17:06:32 <tlebo> luc: white and black shirt on same :luc_in_boston
17:06:36 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
17:07:19 <satya> @Luc, then we need a distinct identifier for the record itself
17:07:30 <Luc> entity_reocrd_id001 - entity(:luc_in_boston, [:shirt_color="black", :name="Luc", :type="Person"])
17:07:52 <dgarijo> ... an approach to this is to have an entity record Id that would be the key for that record. Now I would need an extra column
17:08:08 <satya> @Luc: ok
17:08:14 <dgarijo> ... if we do that, that's great.
17:08:15 <dgarijo> ...
17:08:24 <GK> @satya - isn't the record its own identifier?
17:08:25 <dgarijo> ... we can simplify a lot of the text
17:08:25 <tlebo> entity(:luc_in_boston_on_Monday, [shirt_color="black", location=Boston, name="luc", specializationOf=:luc_in_boston_in_July])
17:08:30 <MacTed> "Named Graph"  :-)
17:08:34 <tlebo> entity(:luc_in_boston_on_Tuesday, [shirt_color="white", location=Boston, name="luc", specializationOf=:luc_in_boston_in_July])
17:08:43 <Luc> entity id + account id = natural key for entity record 
17:08:46 <dgarijo> ... but from the rdf perspective may not be nice. It would imply new ids
17:09:15 <satya> @Luc: the natural key for entity record is something different from key for entity
17:09:27 <tlebo> @luc, but that throws the benefits of URIs out the window (and violates AWWW)
17:09:36 <satya> @GK: I didn't understand
17:09:39 <pgroth> q?
17:09:39 <GK> I think we are trying to turn ASn "records" into implementation artifacts, when they are explicitly an *abstract* syntax for talking about provenance assertions.
17:09:50 <pgroth> q?
17:09:51 <MacTed> G-box would give the ontology of the accounts (i.e., the schema of the "entity records")
17:09:51 <MacTed> G-snaps would be the account ("entity record") instances
17:09:51 <MacTed> G-texts are the serializations of those instances
17:09:59 <Luc> q?
17:10:03 <tlebo> q+
17:10:13 <dgarijo> pgroth: the issue is clear.
17:10:46 <dgarijo> tim: trying to respond to Luc about naming the resource within the account.
17:10:53 <pgroth> ack tlebo
17:11:05 <dgarijo> luc: luc in Boston is the name of the entity.
17:11:30 <dgarijo> MacTed: so the entity could have 1 million entities
17:11:40 <dgarijo> ... and be referring to the same thing
17:11:44 <GK> Why does ASN use URIs anyway?
17:11:45 <MacTed> s/entities/names/
17:11:56 <MacTed> s/names/URIs, identifiers, names/
17:11:59 <tlebo> q-
17:12:38 <pgroth> q?
17:13:21 <dgarijo> ... problem on discovering other descriptions of the same entity the first time that I'm going to describe it. How do I know that there are others?
17:13:22 <pgroth> q?
17:14:12 <pgroth> q?
17:14:51 <dgarijo> luc: the uri luc in boston is not enough to identify the records
17:15:09 <dgarijo> ... that is why you need to know which account belongs to
17:15:11 <tlebo> @luc, then you mistakenly named luc in account 2.
17:15:45 <Luc> @tlebo, why?
17:15:47 <tlebo> @luc, you knew that they are different, but named them the same thing.
17:15:56 <dgarijo> satya: adding the acocunt id + the record does not make it an ? entity record?
17:16:18 <Luc> @tlebo, no, it's intentional, I am giving two hypothesis about what luc did
17:16:20 <dgarijo> luc: raising issues might be the best thing
17:16:32 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:16:35 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:16:36 <Zakim> -olaf
17:16:37 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
17:16:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:16:38 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:16:39 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:16:40 <Zakim> -Luc
17:16:42 <Zakim> -??P31
17:16:43 <Zakim> - +1.202.223.aabb
17:16:46 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aaaa
17:16:59 <Zakim> - +1.518.608.aagg
17:17:02 <Curt> zakim, +1.202.223.aabb is me
17:17:02 <Zakim> sorry, Curt, I do not recognize a party named '+1.202.223.aabb'
17:17:09 <Zakim> -??P9
17:17:16 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:17:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:17:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:17:21 <Zakim> -GK
17:17:25 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
17:17:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:17:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.443.708.aaaa, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.202.223.aabb, MacTed, Satya_Sahoo, tlebo, jcheney, sandro, khalidbelhajjame, +49.302.093.aacc, olaf,
17:17:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:17:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:17:28 <Zakim> ... [ISI], +1.518.633.aadd, +44.789.470.aaee, SamCoppens, +1.518.608.aagg, +44.789.470.aahh, +44.789.470.aaii, GK
17:17:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:17:29 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in :
17:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Satya to address issues in [1]
17:17:29 <RRSAgent>   recorded in