From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 09:42, 23 February 2012 by Pgroth
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:52:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:52:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-irc 15:52:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:52:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:52:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 15:52:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:52:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:52:21 <trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012 15:52:29 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:52:29 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 15:52:45 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.16 15:52:55 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 15:53:00 <pgroth> Scribe: Eric Stephan 15:53:11 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 15:53:20 <pgroth> Regrets: Michael Lang 15:54:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 15:54:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:54:21 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:54:21 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 15:54:59 <Zakim> + +1.509.967.aaaa 15:55:46 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:56:40 <Zakim> +Luc 15:58:20 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 15:58:28 <Zakim> +??P28 15:58:56 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 15:59:14 <Helena> Helena has joined #prov 15:59:26 <Zakim> + +329331aabb 15:59:33 <Zakim> +??P48 15:59:46 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aabb is me 15:59:46 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it 15:59:53 <Helena> zakim, ??P48 is me 15:59:53 <Zakim> +Helena; got it 16:00:08 <Zakim> -Helena 16:00:42 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 16:01:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:01:16 <jun> jun has joined #prov 16:01:32 <Zakim> +??P63 16:01:47 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 16:01:57 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 16:02:10 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P63 is probably me 16:02:21 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 16:02:41 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 16:02:44 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 16:02:56 <Zakim> +tlebo 16:03:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:03:09 <Zakim> +dgarijo?; got it 16:03:31 <Zakim> +Helena 16:03:44 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 16:03:50 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 16:03:54 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 16:03:55 <Helena> zakim, who is making noise? 16:04:27 <pgroth> Topic: Admin 16:04:48 <ERICstephan> pgroth: Paul still has to do the minues of the f2f2 meeting. 16:04:58 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (51%), Luc (13%), [IPcaller] (54%) 16:04:59 <ERICstephan> pgroth: will be getting to it asap 16:05:00 <pgroth> Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-09 16:05:12 <Zakim> Helena, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (39%), Luc (34%), [IPcaller] (11%) 16:05:19 <Curt> +1 16:05:23 <tlebo> +1 16:05:24 <ERICstephan> +1 16:05:26 <jun> +1 16:05:28 <Helena> +1 16:05:34 <SamCoppens> +1 16:05:56 <pgroth> Approved - Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon 16:06:03 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov 16:06:06 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 16:06:09 <ERICstephan> pgroth: go over open actions, but not all 16:06:23 <ERICstephan> pgroth: Action #52: 16:06:58 <dgarijo> +1 for the minutes too 16:07:18 <ERICstephan> pgroth:52 not closed yet because of 106 16:07:27 <ERICstephan> s/106/105 16:07:37 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 16:07:39 <pgroth> Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others) 16:07:46 <MacTed> s/52/Action-52/ 16:08:07 <MacTed> s/of 106/of Issue-105/ 16:08:32 <satya> satya has joined #prov 16:08:48 <ERICstephan> bring in HCLS and hoping stephan can validdate. 16:08:52 <ERICstephan> Who was speaking? 16:08:55 <Zakim> +??P29 16:08:59 <jcheney> zakim, ??p29 is me 16:09:01 <Helena> ERICstephan: I was speaking 16:09:04 <dgarijo> that sounds very interesting indeed. 16:09:06 <ERICstephan> thank you 16:09:15 <Luc> date was not set 16:09:20 <Zakim> +Yolanda 16:09:48 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 16:09:55 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 16:10:33 <ERICstephan> pgroth: action-63 due in one week's time 16:10:53 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Simplification <pgroth> Summary: Luc provided an overview of the preliminary draft of a simplification of the data model. Reviewers were asked to provide feedback with one week according to the criteria listed in the minutes. The following reviewers agreed to provide review: Tim, Eric, Daniel, MacTed, Curt, Sam, Jun 16:10:54 <ERICstephan> pgroth: need more scribes after next week 16:11:01 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 16:11:02 <pgroth> ACTION-62 - Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16:11:02 <trackbot> ACTION-62 Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb notes added 16:11:23 <MacTed> action-62? 16:11:23 <trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Luc Moreau to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb -- due 2012-02-16 -- OPEN 16:11:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/62 16:11:30 <Luc> - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft4 16:11:31 <ERICstephan> pgroth: update and produce intro to simplification 16:11:51 <ERICstephan> Luc: Wiki page describes current work 16:12:29 <ERICstephan> Luc: 3 parts, dropping the notion of account records 16:12:35 <Zakim> +??P38 16:12:50 <ERICstephan> Luc: 3 levels of description and removed one of the levels, positive feedback 16:13:23 <ERICstephan> Luc: 2nd doc, events, attributes been given values over periods of time, and constraints designed to data model 16:13:32 <Zakim> -Yolanda 16:13:59 <ERICstephan> Luc: Last section, scrappy vs proper provenance. Consider various levels of description provide different refinements 16:14:30 <ERICstephan> Luc: Move out the grammer and put it in a different document 16:14:42 <pgroth> +q 16:14:45 <pgroth> q? 16:14:52 <pgroth> q- 16:15:02 <dgarijo> @Eric: I think it's scruffy, not scruppy ;) 16:15:24 <ERICstephan> Luc: at the moment, the working copy there is not an editors draft yet 16:15:39 <pgroth> Goals of the review: 16:15:41 <pgroth> decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification objective 16:15:46 <pgroth> recommend whether they become the new editor's draft 16:15:50 <ERICstephan> for the reviewers, do the documents align with the simplification goals 16:16:21 <ERICstephan> Luc: (these comments written by me from Luc) 16:16:54 <pgroth> q? 16:16:55 <ERICstephan> Luc: If we can get agreement based on recommendations from the reviewers next week 16:17:00 <ERICstephan> +q 16:17:12 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 16:17:12 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 16:17:13 <MacTed> q+ 16:17:17 <pgroth> ack ERICstephan 16:17:18 <Zakim> +??P51 16:17:34 <christine> christine has joined #prov 16:17:43 <pgroth> ack MacTed 16:18:18 <ERICstephan> MacTed: How do you give editor comments "this sentence is unweildy" (example) 16:18:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 16:18:27 <pgroth> q? 16:18:29 <ERICstephan> Luc: Add it to wiki page 16:18:36 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 16:18:51 <ERICstephan> pgroth: assign specific reviewers with specific tasks 16:19:01 <Luc> @helena, these are internal reviewers 16:19:03 <MacTed> s/wiki page/http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2011\/prov\/wiki\/ProvDMWorkingDraft4#Feedback_on_These_Working_Copies/ 16:19:05 <pgroth> TimL 16:19:11 <tlebo> +1 16:19:49 <jun> I can also do it 16:19:51 <ERICstephan> pgroth: confirm Tim +1, Eric +1, Graham ?, Daniel + 1, MacTed +1, Curt +1 (already done) 16:20:02 <SamCoppens> I can also 16:20:13 <pgroth> EricS, Daniel, Jun, MacTed, Curt, SamCoppens 16:20:23 <jun> the new structure looks good at a glance 16:20:52 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O Ontology updated <pgroth> Summary: Satya went over an updated OWL file for prov-o. Reviewers agreed to review the ontology within 1 week according to the criteria listed in the minutes. Reviewers were Luc, Paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt. 16:20:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:21:09 <ERICstephan> pgroth: next topic, updated OWL file 16:21:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:21:26 <ERICstephan> pgroth: released and Satya update? 16:21:27 <jun> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me 16:21:27 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 16:21:37 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:21:37 <Zakim> +jun; got it 16:22:04 <satya> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF 16:22:16 <dgarijo> and the summaries of the call are at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology 16:22:26 <ERICstephan> satya: after 2 weeks agreed on a series of changes 16:22:46 <pgroth> owl file is at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl 16:23:04 <ERICstephan> satya: all incorporated in doc, there are still a number of issues, but for now the most recent changes have been reflected 16:23:10 <Luc> q? 16:23:44 <dgarijo> Changes (which are the titan pad logs): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-13, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-14 16:23:57 <ERICstephan> pgroth: PROV-O, does it have a good alignment with PROV-DM working draft 3? 16:24:15 <ERICstephan> pgroth: has the ontology provide a simplified naming? 16:24:40 <ERICstephan> pgroth: does the ontology fit within OWL with itself and does it create some type of natural RDF? 16:25:01 <pgroth> q? 16:25:08 <Luc> q+ 16:25:15 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:25:16 <ERICstephan> pgroth: reviewers, does it meet these goals any questions on review period 16:25:37 <ERICstephan> luc: what process are we going to use to align PROV-O and PROV-DM? 16:25:49 <dgarijo> +q 16:25:56 <ERICstephan> pgroth: good question can we defer to next section? 16:26:01 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 16:26:31 <ERICstephan> dgarijo: alignment be discussed in PROV-O task force? 16:26:42 <ERICstephan> Luc: alignment could be both directions 16:27:22 <jcheney> alignment deliverable ==? ProvRDF? 16:27:25 <dgarijo> +1 to pgroth. 16:27:26 <ERICstephan> Luc: alignmnet deliverable and raise issues against that? 16:27:40 <pgroth> q? 16:28:28 <dgarijo> smiles and Jun have already provided some feedback :) 16:28:29 <stephenc> OK 16:28:36 <Curt> I'll be going over PROV-O too. 16:28:55 <ERICstephan> pgroth: another one week review, confirm, Luc +1, Paolo +1, Eric +1, Stephen C +1, Curt +1 16:28:58 <pgroth> Review prov-o: Luc, paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt 16:29:14 <satya> Thanks everyone for the reviewing! 16:29:29 <pgroth> q? 16:29:31 <ERICstephan> pgroth: same process applies, goes to list and we talk about it next week. 16:29:37 <pgroth> Topic: ProvRDF Mappings <pgroth>Summary: The ProvRDF mappings were largely complete. The group agreed on a process to harmonize the prov-dm and prov-o via the mappings page. A new product (Product 9) corresponding to the ProvRDF mappings was created in the tracker. Issues with respect to harmonization should be raised there. 16:30:49 <ERICstephan> jcheney: did this for a small subset for PROV-DM during f2f2. 16:31:05 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa] 16:31:18 <ERICstephan> jcheney: Tim has been adding record form from PROV-DM to collections of RDF triples 16:31:22 <ERICstephan> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF 16:32:08 <zednik_> zednik_ has joined #prov 16:32:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:32:57 <pgroth> q? 16:33:25 <dgarijo> yes, more or less. 16:33:28 <ERICstephan> pgroth: Is what we see in the doc, in the right hand side of the page reflect the current prov-o ontology? 16:33:45 <tlebo> @paul, that is the intent. If the RHS are not aligned with the OWL file, ISSUES should be raised. 16:35:02 <ERICstephan> jcheney: left hand side match DM working draft 3 16:35:26 <pgroth> q? 16:35:46 <ERICstephan> pgroth: how do we sync prov-o prov-dm? 16:35:48 <pgroth> q? 16:36:22 <jcheney> q+ 16:36:22 <ERICstephan> pgroth: in the issue tracker, make a new deliverable for mappings, if inconsistencies report them there. 16:36:23 <satya> +1 @Paul 16:36:24 <dgarijo> @pgroth:+1 16:37:00 <tlebo> q+ to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML 16:37:01 <ERICstephan> jcheney: making deliverable in tracker, that it makes a separate deliverable in working group? Paulg no 16:37:05 <pgroth> ack jcheney 16:37:12 <pgroth> ack tlebo 16:37:13 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML 16:37:22 <satya> @Tim: I agree 16:37:37 <ERICstephan> tlebo: useful and at least interesting to PROV-O html doc 16:37:38 <dgarijo> +1 to Tim's point. 16:37:55 <pgroth> q? 16:38:02 <Luc> q+ 16:38:07 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:38:07 <dgarijo> If it helped us, it could help other people too... 16:38:12 <pgroth> ack I hung up 16:38:21 <ERICstephan> luc: we can close action-56? 16:38:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 16:38:37 <ERICstephan> jcheney: +1 16:38:56 <ERICstephan> satya: action on me is closed? 16:39:05 <pgroth> Zakim, IPcaller.aa is me 16:39:05 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 16:39:10 <satya> ok 16:39:11 <ERICstephan> pgroth: action is still open based on action-105 16:39:13 <satya> thanks! 16:39:17 <pgroth> q? 16:39:28 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:39:57 <ERICstephan> pgroth: okay on deliverable on RDF mappings? 16:40:03 <ERICstephan> who spoke? 16:40:09 <tlebo> macted did 16:40:20 <ERICstephan> MacTed: not sure this is going to meet the goals of harmonization 16:40:44 <tlebo> @macted, what are you looking for? 16:40:54 <Luc> created https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/9 16:40:54 <satya> can you please explain macted? 16:41:02 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/HarmonizingProvDMAndProvO 16:41:04 <Luc> q+ 16:41:14 <dgarijo> @satya: I think he is just concerned about the naming 16:41:17 <ERICstephan> satya: What are you suggesting macted? 16:41:18 <dgarijo> of the document.. 16:41:45 <ERICstephan> MacTed: harmony does not equate to RDF mapping to me 16:42:08 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:42:41 <pgroth> Raise Issue against Product 9 16:42:41 <ERICstephan> luc: posting url to new product I created, to raise issues in the tracker between PROV-DM and PROV-O 16:43:03 <pgroth> Topic: Timetable for Release <pgroth> Summary: A discussion on when we could release a synchronous set of working drafts between prov-dm, prov-o and prov-primer. March 14 was proposed as a deadline, however, it was unclear whether this would be viable in terms of both delivery and progress on other drafts. It was decided to finalize this at the next telecon. 16:43:42 <satya> @Luc, I just mailed you to close ISSUE-105 16:43:59 <ERICstephan> pgroth: what should be the goal of the release? 16:44:12 <pgroth> q+ 16:44:14 <pgroth> q? 16:44:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:44:53 <satya> q+ 16:45:21 <Luc> q+ 16:45:24 <pgroth> ack satya 16:45:38 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:45:42 <ERICstephan> pgroth: sync one version of working draft against another for ( Prov-dm, prov-o, and prov-primer) 16:45:54 <Zakim> -Helena 16:46:20 <ERICstephan> luc: the whole point was that we change the presentation, simplify, but we do not change any of the terms 16:46:31 <dgarijo> so then we are already done :D :D 16:46:46 <dgarijo> @satya: Account is now "bundle" 16:46:47 <ERICstephan> luc: if you have aligned the prov-o to the current working draft you have aligned them 16:47:14 <Luc> @Satya, i closed issue-105 and action-52 16:47:29 <ERICstephan> pgroth: those set of issues need to be addressed before wd4 16:47:41 <ERICstephan> luc: wd4 March 1 16:48:07 <ERICstephan> luc: without sync with prov-o 16:49:16 <ERICstephan> pgroth: when do we do a sync release within the group? reviews this week, two weeks for alignment, propose March 14? 16:49:18 <pgroth> q? 16:50:00 <pgroth> Deadline to release internally to the WG for review of primer + dm + ontology sync release March 14 16:50:03 <Zakim> +Yolanda 16:50:32 <pgroth> q? 16:50:48 <ERICstephan> luc: what does the prov-o team think? 16:50:56 <satya> yes, we now concentrate on html 16:51:03 <satya> document 16:51:39 <ERICstephan> satya: On our monday meeting we are already started restructuring HTML, maybe by next Thursday report progress? 16:51:56 <ERICstephan> satya: maybe 2 weeks time reasonable? 16:51:58 <pgroth> q? 16:52:40 <ERICstephan> pgroth: key comments, is raising all issues on the mapping styles and harmonization products, what is remaining to achieve harmonization? 16:52:54 <ERICstephan> pgroth: I think we should aim for 14th 16:52:58 <pgroth> q? 16:53:19 <ERICstephan> luc: concern that we are drifting again on the time table. 16:53:56 <ERICstephan> luc: We need to Start working on 5th working draft 16:54:31 <ERICstephan> luc: working in parallel on 5th working draft 16:55:12 <ERICstephan> luc: finalize timeline next week? 16:55:15 <pgroth> suggestion March 14, but finalize next week 16:55:21 <ERICstephan> +1 agree with luc 16:55:26 <pgroth> q? 16:55:28 <tlebo> q+ did the content of http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF get moved to another page? 16:56:33 <pgroth> Topic: Agent Types <pgroth> Summary: A discussion was had about renaming of the current agent subtypes. There was believed to be consensus on the mailing list for renaming. However, there was no consensus on the call. Use cases for agent subtypes from prior working group discussions were asked for. Paul agreed to send a pointer to the mailing list. 16:56:44 <ERICstephan> pgroth: Tim it stays where its been 16:57:14 <tlebo> q- 16:57:17 <ERICstephan> pgroth: agent typings discussion in the mail list 16:57:32 <ERICstephan> pgroth: concerns about not broad enough use cases 16:57:37 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0225.html 16:58:03 <ERICstephan> pgroth: can we get concensus for a vote today? 16:58:08 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 16:58:31 <pgroth> Current - Person, Software Agent, Organization 16:58:50 <pgroth> Proposal - Change core agent subtypes to Human, System, Organization 16:58:55 <pgroth> q? 16:59:00 <Curt> European (Organisation) or American (Organization) spelling? 16:59:18 <pgroth> q? 16:59:26 <satya> q+ 16:59:26 <MacTed> +1 to change, with z spelling 16:59:32 <dgarijo> +1 16:59:51 <tlebo> -1 b/c organizations are systems 17:00:14 <Luc> @paul, wasn't it ComputingSystem ? 17:00:17 <dgarijo> @tim: but they are not all disjoint, right? 17:00:35 <Curt> +1 Systems can include persons or organizations, but are still distinct from them 17:00:37 <dgarijo> @tim: so an Organization CAN be a system. 17:01:01 <dgarijo> I'd say that Human and System are disjoint though. 17:01:21 <stephenc> Would prov:Human be a subclass of foaf:Person? 17:01:29 <zednik_> q+ 17:01:34 <satya> q- 17:01:39 <pgroth> ack zednik 17:01:40 <ERICstephan> satya: when a human is not regarded in the context of an agent is there a problem? 17:01:44 <tlebo> abstain. Agent has been hard enough. I'll make my own subtypes. 17:01:56 <dgarijo> +q 17:02:15 <ERICstephan> zednik: Why human over person? 17:02:27 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 17:02:45 <ERICstephan> what if an animal is an agent? 17:03:09 <ERICstephan> agreed with tlebo 17:03:42 <pgroth> q? 17:03:42 <zednik_> q+ 17:03:51 <pgroth> ack zednik_ 17:03:52 <MacTed> thinking deeper.... foaf:Person <> prov:Person, which is clearer if we say prov:Human 17:04:10 <jun> do we have a use case to drive sub-typing agent? I am against over sub-typing 17:04:10 <MacTed> - prov:Human may be but is not necessarily prov:Agent 17:04:46 <ERICstephan> zednik: talk about humans without typing them automatically to agent? 17:04:53 <jun> q+ 17:05:00 <MacTed> - prov:Agent might have *range* (as opposed to subClass) which includes foaf:Person, prov:Human, prov:Person... 17:05:02 <pgroth> ack jun 17:05:08 <tlebo> +1 to avoiding direct connection to FOAF. 17:05:12 <dgarijo> @why are you against? If prov is supposed to be a generic ontology, you will have to adapt it to you domain imo 17:05:22 <dgarijo> @jun 17:05:52 <ERICstephan> jun: what is driving this task? 17:06:12 <satya> @Jun, +1 - subytping leads to reduced interoperability 17:06:24 <Zakim> -Yolanda 17:06:25 <ERICstephan> pgroth: We already agreed about these broad categories and wanted to get agreement on naming 17:06:47 <zednik_> is agent itself enough to address the use cases? 17:06:52 <ERICstephan> MacTed: What is the distinction? 17:07:17 <Luc> and originally software ... 17:07:24 <ERICstephan> MacTed: Human and Inhuman? 17:07:59 <jcheney> Suggest Nonhuman instead of Inhuman - a human can be inhuman. 17:08:10 <ERICstephan> link to use case? 17:08:13 <tlebo> is a foaf:Organization Human or InHuman? 17:08:27 <zednik_> what attributes are different for human vs nonhuman in prov? 17:08:47 <jun> @jcheney, +1. if we have to have it, then at least we have nonhuman 17:08:50 <zednik_> what relations are different for human vs nonhuman? 17:08:53 <satya> jcheney, tlebo :) 17:09:17 <MacTed> human vs nonhuman is fine with me ... once I understand why the distinction is necessary here... 17:09:21 <tlebo> we can kill -9 NonHuman without going to jail 17:09:38 <ERICstephan> lol tlebo 17:09:41 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0159.html 17:09:42 <MacTed> but corporations are people! ;-) 17:09:56 <ERICstephan> is a cow a system on a dairy farm? 17:10:56 <satya> I think this is one of our best discussion in the WG :o) 17:11:16 <zednik_> what is our definition of system? 17:11:22 <pgroth> +q 17:11:44 <pgroth> ack pgroth 17:11:59 <pgroth> q? 17:12:04 <ERICstephan> pgroth: there is a key use case, it looks like there was naming, but we get on phone call and no consensus. 17:12:37 <ERICstephan> pgroth: would like to issue this to be done. This is a necessary to have. 17:13:06 <ERICstephan> pgroth: Will email around again this use case. 17:13:30 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 17:13:31 <tlebo> bye bye! 17:13:32 <Zakim> -tlebo 17:13:33 <Zakim> -jun 17:13:33 <Zakim> -??P38 17:13:34 <zednik_> bye 17:13:35 <Zakim> -jcheney 17:13:36 <Zakim> -pgroth 17:13:36 <Zakim> -dgarijo 17:13:39 <Zakim> -MacTed 17:13:40 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 17:13:40 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 17:13:42 <Zakim> -Luc 17:13:42 <ERICstephan> bye 17:13:46 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 17:13:48 <Zakim> - +1.509.967.aaaa 17:13:51 <Zakim> -??P51 17:15:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 17:15:11 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 17:15:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-minutes.html pgroth 17:15:16 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon 17:15:16 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 17:15:16 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.509.967.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, SamCoppens, Helena, tlebo, dgarijo?, MacTed, Yolanda, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller] 17:15:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:15:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:15:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 17:15:25 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000385