From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 12:11, 16 January 2012 by Pgroth
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 http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-prov-irc 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.12 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-05 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 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> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/01/11/feedback-welcome-an-overview-of-the-provenance-prov-family-of-specs/ 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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/prov-aq.html 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm 16:15:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Address issues in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm [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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-09 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-12-29 16:19:53 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-01-04#Did_not_get_to_in_this_telecon ? 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> www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Objects_vs._Things_vs._entities 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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/overview.png 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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/overview.png 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 http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-prov-actions.rdf : 17:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Satya to address issues in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.05#prov-dm  17:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-prov-irc#T16-15-32 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000379