From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 16:24, 15 March 2012 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:46:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:46:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-prov-irc 14:46:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:46:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:46:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:46:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:46:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:46:09 <trackbot> Date: 15 March 2012 14:46:09 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:46:09 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 14:46:27 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.15 14:47:24 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:47:29 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:56:52 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:56:52 <Zakim> +Luc 14:57:07 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:57:09 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth 14:57:15 <Zakim> +??P15 14:57:17 <Zakim> -??P15 14:57:17 <Zakim> +??P15 14:57:19 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 14:57:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, ??P15 14:57:32 <Paolo> zakim, ??P15 is me 14:57:32 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:58:16 <Zakim> +??P31 14:58:54 <Luc> q? 14:58:58 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 14:59:04 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 14:59:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, Paolo, ??P31 14:59:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:59:20 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 14:59:22 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:59:36 <Zakim> +??P42 14:59:36 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 14:59:37 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 14:59:42 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 14:59:44 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 14:59:45 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 14:59:45 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft5 14:59:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:00:04 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is probably me 15:00:15 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 15:00:15 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 15:00:22 <Zakim> +dgarijo?; got it 15:00:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, Paolo, ??P31, dgarijo?, ??P42, MacTed (muted), Curt_Tilmes 15:00:42 <smiles> I can scribe 15:00:45 <dgarijo> I h ave to leave very early today, sorry :( 15:00:50 <smiles> Scribe: smiles 15:01:00 <dgarijo> @smiles: thanks 15:01:01 <gK1> gK1 has joined #prov 15:01:04 <Luc> topic: Admin <Luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. 15:01:05 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:01:33 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa 15:01:41 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa 15:01:41 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 15:01:46 <mike_> mike_ has joined #prov 15:01:50 <smiles> Luc: any other business? 15:01:58 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aabb 15:02:00 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aacc 15:02:05 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov 15:02:09 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:02:17 <smiles> dgarijo: Pending reviews on ontology, please send 15:02:22 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-08 15:02:34 <dgarijo> +1 15:02:36 <smiles> Luc: Express support for minutes 15:02:43 <Curt> +1 15:02:45 <Paolo> +1 15:02:46 <tlebo> +1 15:02:46 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov 15:02:53 <smiles> +1 15:02:54 <Zakim> +??P55 15:03:02 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:03:05 <jun> zakim, ??P55 is me 15:03:06 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:03:20 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of 2012-03-08 teleconference 15:03:23 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:03:28 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 15:03:35 <Zakim> + +329331aadd 15:03:46 <Zakim> +??P57 15:03:52 <jcheney> zakim, ??P57 is me 15:03:52 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:03:54 <smiles> Luc: Action on Paul to produce revised version of PAQ, sends his regrets for today 15:04:04 <smiles> Graham? 15:04:12 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aadd is me 15:04:12 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it 15:04:22 <GK> I'm not dialled in yet. No progress on action AFAIK. 15:04:41 <smiles> Action to Tim to ensure WD4 comments addressed 15:04:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to 15:04:46 <smiles> Tim: Yes, completed 15:05:11 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aabb 15:05:21 <smiles> Luc: Reminder, next week same as this, tc is one hour earlier 15:05:30 <smiles> ... Also need scribes for future tcs 15:05:37 <Luc> Topic: f2F3 <Luc>Summary: The third face to face meeting will take place on 22-23 June in Santa Barbara. James Frew will be the host of the meeting. Logistics details will be made available shortly. 15:05:49 <Zakim> +??P60 15:05:57 <GK> zakim, ??p60 is me 15:05:57 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:06:06 <smiles> Luc: Good support in poll, so will proceed with 22-23 June in Santa Barbara 15:06:21 <Luc> q? 15:06:27 <smiles> ... preceded by IPAW, James Frew will provide hotel suggestions soon 15:06:51 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3 15:06:52 <GK> (Unfortunately, the date clashes with an important family commitment) 15:06:41 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O <Luc>Summary: Tim reported back on progress on the prov-o html document. The style, the automatically generated part, the manual generated part have been identified. The team will write up the various sections. Please respond to request to review changes and close issues you have raised. 15:06:56 <tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o 15:07:13 <smiles> tlebo: PROV-O completed iterating on HTML document 15:07:24 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aaee 15:07:37 <smiles> ... now automatically generating cross-reference reflecting Jun/Khalid's proposed structure 15:07:44 <olaf> zakim, aaee is me 15:07:46 <Zakim> +olaf; got it 15:07:52 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me 15:07:52 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted 15:07:55 <smiles> ... request any feedback from the WG, please raise issues directly using tracker 15:08:18 <smiles> ... Now preparing to assign people to write narrative for individual sections 15:08:55 <smiles> tlebo: Daniel done great reviewing of sections, please help bring issues to closure where replied to 15:09:03 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:09:13 <smiles> Luc: Been tremendous work on ontology and document 15:09:22 <GK> It looks v good to me. Well done! 15:09:27 <smiles> ... Is there a stable ontology? 15:09:38 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:09:54 <smiles> tlebo: Needs to be in sync with DM WD4, so may be couple of changes to ontology (and automatically HTML) 15:10:05 <Zakim> +??P69 15:10:09 <smiles> ... currently using PROVRDF to track mapping to DM 15:10:11 <dgarijo> @All: please check out http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3. There are 8 or 9 issues pending review, so if you have raised them please see if they can be closed. 15:10:22 <smiles> Luc: HTML also looks great 15:10:24 <Luc> q? 15:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P69 is me 15:10:28 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:10:44 <GK> Does anyone think we can get it to REC with the title unchanged? 15:10:56 <Luc> ;-) 15:10:59 <tlebo> @GK ;-) 15:11:13 <smiles> dgarijo: Link pasted above issues against ontology, so if you raised issues please check whether they can be closed 15:11:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:11:37 <smiles> Luc: Suggest for next telecon, have summary of issues open and who raised them 15:11:47 <smiles> dgarijo: Have already sent individual emails on issues 15:11:48 <jun> @tlebo, is there a link to check all issues related to provo.html? 15:11:58 <smiles> Luc: Also mail list to add pressure 15:12:16 <Luc> q? 15:12:16 <tlebo> @jun, yes. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10 15:12:23 <jun> @tlebo, thx! :) 15:12:33 <tlebo> "PROV-O HTML" in pull down on tracker. 15:12:34 <smiles> dgarijo: Have also divided issues to those on ontology, those on HTML, those on mapping 15:12:41 <Luc> q? 15:12:54 <Luc> topic: prov-primer <luc>Summary: Simon will aim to get a revised version of the primer by the end of the month. He is relying on Stian and Paolo, to ensure the primer is synchronized with prov-o and prov-dm, respectively. 15:14:04 <Paolo> oops that may have fallen through, sorry about that 15:15:43 <Luc> q? 15:16:30 <Luc> q? 15:16:43 <smiles> Luc: aim to have drafts on all docs for end of month, including primer 15:16:53 <Luc> topic: prov-dm <Luc>Summary: The results of the votes that took place during the week were presented. There was support for two proposals. While there was no opposition for the first proposal, support was not strong enough. Editors will go back to the drawing board. Paolo explained all the edits that took place during the week, tackling issues related to presentation (component based approach rather than core/common distinction), quotation, original source, prov-n, collections, optional plan. They are about to be integrated in the Editor's Draft. 15:17:04 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:17:04 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 15:17:10 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0230.html 15:17:13 <MacTed> q+ 15:17:16 <smiles> smiles: Will prepare for end of the month, with input from Paolo on inconsistencies with DM, from Stian on inconsistencies with PROVO 15:19:09 <tlebo> +1 @macted, we should stick to eggs and unchewed gum. 15:19:33 <smiles> MacTed: express examples in terms of real world things, as expiry and change over time unclear with current examples 15:19:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:19:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:20:14 <smiles> Luc: three proposals circulated, second and third had support 15:20:56 <smiles> ... first did not have consensus, cannot be adopted, so will try to change and discuss 15:21:11 <GK> q+ to say I think a concrete example for wanting prop 1 would help 15:21:21 <smiles> ... can incorporate second, third proposal in editors draft, can raise issues against in tracker in usual way 15:21:27 <Luc> ack mac 15:21:46 <smiles> GK: First proposal needs motivating example 15:21:57 <GK> ack gk 15:21:57 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think a concrete example for wanting prop 1 would help 15:22:21 <dgarijo> +q 15:22:21 <GK> I'm hearing, but see chat if you can't hear me 15:22:32 <Luc> we can't hear you 15:22:44 <smiles> GK: <some random sounds> 15:22:50 <GK> Yes 15:23:03 <GK> Well, that was it -- a concrete example that shows... 15:23:14 <GK> ... why it's useful to have entioty expiration. 15:23:28 <smiles> Luc: Are examples in proposal not satisfactory? 15:23:31 <GK> I didn't find them compelling ... need to rechack. 15:23:51 <Luc> ACCEPTED: to rename wasStartedBy(activity,activity) in wasStartedByActivity(activity,activity) 15:23:54 <Zakim> -GK 15:24:06 <Luc> AcceptED: to formulate start and end of activities independently of responsibility and agents. Hence, start and end of activity would no longer be a form of activity association. Instead of an agent, an optional entity trigger would be allowed. 15:24:16 <Zakim> +??P28 15:24:20 <dgarijo> I had a question about proposal 2 :( 15:24:28 <GK> zakim, ??p28 is me 15:24:28 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:24:39 <Paolo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft5 15:24:57 <kai> kai has joined #prov 15:25:08 <dgarijo> well, the subject has changed.. 15:25:11 <dgarijo> -q 15:25:13 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:25:17 <smiles> Paolo: Work in progress on WD5, some of to do list are being tracked 15:25:18 <Luc> q? 15:25:39 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-components.html 15:26:12 <smiles> ... As seen on agenda, component structure now excludes core/component divide 15:26:41 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-quote.html 15:26:47 <smiles> ... New structure reflects discussion on list, please look at it and raise objections 15:26:59 <Zakim> +??P62 15:27:10 <GK> To follow up my previous comment, the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?) 15:27:15 <kai> zakim, ??P62 is me. 15:27:15 <Zakim> +kai; got it 15:27:23 <smiles> ... Quotation / orginal source controversy - could not see where distinction is 15:27:31 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-components.html#term-value 15:27:32 <dgarijo> I really have to leave. Apologies... 15:27:36 <dgarijo> bye! 15:27:45 <Zakim> -??P42 15:27:46 <kai> @dgarijo: i take over :-) 15:28:18 <smiles> ... Literals are now expressed as syntactic construct, all we say about values is that they have a type: qualified name, XSD type 15:28:45 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-collections.html 15:29:34 <smiles> ... Collections is work in progress, tried to accommodate open issues and agreed with Stian what to include, final iterations with proposed version in above link 15:30:13 <smiles> ... primitive relations regarding insertion, deletion; data types for collections; additional relations to simplify expressions with multiple key-value pairs 15:30:37 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-plan.html 15:31:05 <smiles> ... Agents in association: proposed new formulation for wasAssociatedWith; plan to open for discussion; if no controversy will be in next draft 15:31:13 <Luc> q? 15:31:53 <smiles> Luc: For all edits, discussed issues with people, will now include in WD and notify WG when done 15:32:20 <Luc> q? 15:32:25 <smiles> ... still to address feedback on WD4 to incorporate in document, go through remaining issues; revision by end of the month 15:32:28 <smiles> q+ 15:33:00 <smiles> smiles: What is controversial, under development? 15:33:23 <smiles> Luc: Once collections issues addressed, only presentational issues remain, so stable model 15:33:40 <smiles> ... Proposal 1 above is still controversial: expiry 15:33:45 <Luc> q? 15:33:50 <Luc> ack sm 15:34:08 <smiles> Paolo: Agreed, everything before expiry proposal, everything settling down 15:34:35 <smiles> ... Not everything in collections draft is uncontroversial but getting there 15:34:42 <khalidbelhajjame> @smiles, do you intend to speak about collections in the primer? 15:35:08 <Luc> q? 15:35:27 <smiles> ... New pieces in BNF for optional arguments, impact on PROVN examples 15:35:33 <Luc> q? 15:37:22 <Luc> q? 15:37:28 <smiles> Paolo: should be pedagogical text on collections in primer 15:37:47 <Luc> q? <Luc>Topic: Free form discussion on destruction/expiry <Luc>Summary: We had a free discussion around proposal 1. Two salient points were made: the proposal lacks a compelling example of this notion of 'destruction', and it lacks an explanation of why it matters from a provenance viewpoint. Macted suggested an example of a painting burned in a fire (destruction event) and reappearing later at an auction. The editors will revisit the proposal in the light of these suggestions. 15:38:14 <smiles> Luc: Finished agenda, but useful to discuss expiry 15:38:33 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:38:33 <Zakim> MacTed was not muted, MacTed 15:39:23 <GK> I can hear OK, but not speak 15:39:34 <GK> To follow up my previous comment, the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?) 15:40:01 <khalidbelhajjame> Is the objection against the example or the notion of expiration? 15:40:18 <smiles> MacTed: An entity may be referred to after being destroyed 15:40:36 <Paolo> q? 15:40:41 <smiles> ... what do we mean here? 15:40:43 <tlebo> unbroken eggs and unchewed gum! 15:40:45 <Curt> "invalid" = no longer can be 'used' by an activity 15:40:47 <GK> The notion. In my case, I'm not seeing why it's useful for provenance. Use-case? 15:41:04 <GK> I'm not opposing it, just not supporting it. 15:41:09 <GK> Why do we care? 15:41:09 <Paolo> q+ 15:41:35 <jcheney> q+ 15:42:22 <smiles> ... Table example (logs to table, table broken up and burnt); in contrast, resolution on web gets latest revision, so not really identifying one entity 15:42:50 <tlebo> Let the web people deal with the web problems, not the provenance people. "not able to be used again" is a useful notion (eggs and gum) 15:43:01 <Luc> q? 15:43:03 <Luc> ack pao 15:43:28 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 15:43:38 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (55%), Paolo (85%), MacTed (24%) 15:43:47 <MacTed> Zakim, mute [IPcaller] 15:43:47 <Zakim> [IPcaller] should now be muted 15:44:13 <MacTed> I don't know who [IPcaller] is ... but hopefully they can unmute themselves when they figure it out 15:45:17 <smiles> Paolo: Want to demarcate lifetime of entity, existence to non-existence (becomes another entity), but can refer to forever 15:45:17 <Luc> q? 15:45:20 <Curt> The examples *don't* discuss things that are 'destroyed', just things that are no longer accessible/available. 15:45:27 <tlebo> having the symmetric to "Generated" seems to be rather nice. 15:45:29 <GK> So what does the entity URI identify when the entity ceases to exist? 15:45:29 <smiles> ... Nothing to do with real thing getting destroyed 15:46:25 <smiles> jcheney: Important to distinguish entity which is information valid during a time interval from thing described by that information which can be created, destroyed 15:47:02 <smiles> ... start and end of both are valid to talk about 15:47:22 <khalidbelhajjame> The entity is invalidated not when the thing is distroyed, but when it the entity is no longer reflect the thing it represents. 15:47:29 <smiles> MacTed: An entity is a thing which is described, not the description 15:47:29 <Paolo> + 15:47:39 <Luc> q? 15:47:40 <Paolo> q+ 15:47:53 <smiles> Luc: Description holds or not 15:47:58 <GK> If there's any meaning here, I think its to do with validity of statements *about* the entity. 15:49:22 <smiles> jcheney: Lack of entity expiry in semantics not difficult in itself, but awkward if want to say "table stopped being in room on Wednesday" 15:49:28 <Luc> q? 15:49:28 <Curt> If the characterization of an entity includes the attribute that it be available through a URL, then when that URL no longer refers to that content, then entity is 'destroyed'. 15:49:41 <Paolo> q? 15:49:51 <jcheney> q- 15:49:59 <smiles> MacTed: Entity is the thing not the desciption of the thing 15:50:03 <GK> I suppose it might be seen as implying a contextual constraint on statements like "entity dc:creator Foo"? 15:50:33 <smiles> Luc: Agree with GK that it is about validity of statements about the entity 15:50:39 <Curt> an entity is a set of attributes that characterize something When one of those attributes changes (any of them), you are talking about a different entity. 15:51:02 <Paolo> I am going by this definition: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entities 15:51:13 <tlebo> @macted, yes. 15:51:13 <Luc> q? 15:51:50 <Luc> ack paol 15:51:51 <GK> If we think of provenance in terms of entities interacting with processes, then the points at which provenance applies are exactly when those interactions occur? 15:52:06 <smiles> Paolo: Should follow definitions in strawman formal semantics 15:52:46 <smiles> ... If no compelling reason to have concept, then more trouble than its worth 15:53:31 <GK> ... or in spans delimited by those interactions? 15:53:38 <jcheney> Current version is at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD3#Entities 15:54:04 <smiles> MacTed: An entity has internal integrity solidified by attributes which are immutable, depending on timeslice 15:54:37 <smiles> ... e.g. a table is an entity which is a timeslice of the wood comprising it 15:55:01 <Luc> q? 15:55:04 <GK> I *would* see some point if there were an action that "expired" an entity. 15:55:05 <khalidbelhajjame> q+ 15:55:09 <jcheney> @MacTed, please raise issues against semantics if what is there is unclear or could be improved 15:55:20 <smiles> Luc: Do not want unbounded discussion, so need prepration, proposals 15:55:35 <GK> The problem is I don't oppose this idea, just don't support it :) 15:55:43 <Luc> q? 15:56:13 <smiles> Luc: Can MacTed, others formulate notion of end of lifetime in your terms? 15:56:26 <khalidbelhajjame> -q 15:56:32 <Paolo> q+ 15:57:00 <GK> I think the onus is on those who think the concept is useful to come up with compelling examples. 15:57:20 <GK> They didn't compel me. 15:57:29 <Luc> q? 15:57:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 15:57:30 <Curt> I agree - they are not compelling 15:57:41 <Luc> ack kh 15:57:54 <GK> ... the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?) 15:58:21 <smiles> khalid: Do we need notion of destroy/expire in any application? 15:58:40 <MacTed> if a Great Master's painting (original canvas) is burned in a museum fire, this is important knowledge when it apparently surfaces later at auction... 15:58:48 <Curt> I've got to go, but I'll think about this some more... 15:58:52 <Luc> q? 15:58:54 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 15:58:56 <GK> I see here there's a weak consensus for leaving expiration as proposed. Nobody opposed it, just lots of people didn't care. 15:58:58 <Zakim> -olaf 15:59:01 <MacTed> (concrete, real world, not rotten eggs...) 15:59:40 <smiles> Paolo: Will come up with a couple more examples, seems odd to express only one end of timeslice 16:00:03 <Luc> q? 16:00:11 <Luc> ack paolo 16:01:00 <GK> @paolo I mentioned earlier that if there were a specific activity-related event that causes an entity toi be invalidated, that would make sense. 16:01:08 <smiles> Luc: MacTed please share definition by email 16:01:32 <GK> @Luc - burned poainting - se eprevious comment :) 16:01:36 <smiles> ... GK, MacTed's example is interesting one to motivate 16:01:43 <Luc> q? 16:01:52 <GK> Bye. 16:01:53 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:01:54 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:01:55 <Zakim> -jun 16:01:56 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 16:01:56 <Zakim> -kai 16:01:59 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aacc 16:02:00 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:02:01 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:02:02 <Zakim> -GK 16:02:08 <Zakim> -Luc 16:02:10 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:02:25 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:02:34 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:02:37 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:02:42 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 16:02:42 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 16:03:15 <smiles> trackbot, end telecon 16:03:15 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:03:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Paolo, MacTed, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo?, +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, +49.302.093.aabb, +1.443.708.aacc, jun, jcheney, SamCoppens, GK, 16:03:19 <Zakim> ... +49.302.093.aaee, olaf, khalidbelhajjame, [IPcaller], kai 16:03:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:03:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:03:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:03:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000345