From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 18:04, 3 January 2013 by Lmoreau
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:38:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:38:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-irc 15:38:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:38:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:38:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:38:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes 15:38:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:38:41 <trackbot> Date: 03 January 2013 15:38:41 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:38:42 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes 15:38:56 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03 15:39:03 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 15:39:10 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 15:39:20 <Luc> Regrets: Ivan Herman 15:39:59 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo 15:46:02 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:49:04 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 15:49:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended 15:49:11 <Zakim> Attendees were 15:52:36 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov 15:54:34 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:54:34 <Zakim> apparently SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended, Luc 15:54:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain 15:54:50 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:54:50 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 15:55:15 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 15:55:20 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 15:55:20 <Zakim> apparently SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended, Luc 15:55:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain 15:57:16 <GK> Luc, Zakim's mutterings about conference ended may be because I dialled in briefly a few minutes ago, to test a new VoIP client. 15:57:16 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:57:31 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:57:31 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 15:58:01 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 15:58:24 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 15:58:31 <Zakim> +Luc 15:58:39 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:58:49 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 15:58:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc 15:58:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, Curt, pgroth, GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain 15:59:33 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 15:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:59:54 <Zakim> +??P5 15:59:56 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:59:56 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 16:00:03 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P5 is me 16:00:03 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 16:00:28 <Zakim> +??P7 16:00:34 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 16:00:43 <Zakim> +??P8 16:00:48 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 16:00:54 <dgarijo> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03 16:00:55 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 16:00:55 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 16:00:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 16:00:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 16:01:01 <GK> zakim, ??p7 is maybe me 16:01:01 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p7 is maybe me', GK 16:01:06 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:01:07 <smiles> zakim, ??P8 is me 16:01:07 <Zakim> +smiles; got it 16:01:18 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 16:01:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, dgarijo, ??P7, smiles, MacTed (muted) 16:01:19 <GK> zakim, ??p7 is me 16:01:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, smiles, dgarijo, Curt, pgroth, GK1, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain 16:01:20 <Zakim> +GK; got it 16:01:21 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 16:01:35 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:01:52 <dgarijo> Luc: Happy new year. Best wishes 16:01:56 <Zakim> +jcheney 16:02:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-12-13 16:02:13 <dgarijo> ... vote for the minutes of last telecon 16:02:20 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaaa 16:02:20 <Luc> proposed: approved last telecon's minutes 16:02:28 <dgarijo> +1 16:02:32 <Curt> +1 16:02:32 <smiles> +1 16:02:35 <jcheney> +1 16:02:39 <stain> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:02:39 <Zakim> +stain; got it 16:02:40 <stain> 0 16:02:50 <hook> +1 16:03:02 <Luc> resolved: last telecon's minutes 16:03:05 <GK> +1 16:03:32 <dgarijo> Luc: actions. Tim had one. Another on Luc (not done) 16:03:43 <dgarijo> ... James do you want to add anything? 16:03:48 <dgarijo> jcheney: no 16:04:09 <dgarijo> Luc: Dong will respond to your feedback 16:04:23 <dgarijo> ... action on stephan to review the proposal of xml namespaces 16:04:34 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 16:04:37 <Luc> topic: WG implementations <luc>Summary: The WG was reminded that the deadline for submitting implementation reports is the end of January. An implementation report (as specified by the forms defined by the WG) identifies which features were successfully implemented. Hence, an implementation is not required to support all PROV features: instead, for each implementation, implementers should identify which features are supported. The participants were reminded that we are keen to identify implementations consuming provenance produced by others. Effort on implementing the constraints is also required. Stephan will investigate the possibility of converting information submitted to WBS into a summary of all implementations, so that we can understand features coverage. 16:04:40 <dgarijo> ... will tackle that next week (stephan is not on the call) 16:04:52 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 16:04:56 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03 16:05:02 <dgarijo> ... Paul went through the survey system and circulated the results. 16:05:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:05:20 <dgarijo> ... 6 implementations, 2 extensions. 16:05:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:05:33 <dgarijo> ... we're still far from where we thought we would be 16:05:51 <Luc> q? 16:05:53 <Paolo> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:05:53 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 16:05:56 <pgroth> me 16:05:59 <smiles> I still hope to do so 16:06:01 <dgarijo> ... we have to make a call for filling the survey 16:06:05 <pgroth> q+ 16:06:11 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 16:06:16 <Luc> q? 16:06:19 <Luc> ack pg 16:06:24 <dgarijo> I have already filled 1 extension and 1 implenentation. 16:06:29 <Paolo> quite a way away from constraints impl. 16:06:39 <dgarijo> pgroth: 1 constraints and 1 implementation. 16:06:52 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 16:06:52 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it 16:06:55 <Luc> q? 16:06:56 <stain> q+ 16:06:57 <dgarijo> smiles: impl report and vocabulary usage 16:07:01 <Paolo> several half-baked implementations but would need additional resources to pull them off 16:07:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:07:09 <khalidBelhajjame> I have filled in one extension report, and Stian will submit one implementation report 16:07:24 <dgarijo> paolo: several threads ongoing 16:07:31 <stain> I sent one implementation and one vocab-extension earlier today 16:07:40 <dgarijo> ... the main one is related to the constraints implementation 16:07:41 <stain> another vocab-extension coming hopefully next week 16:07:44 <stain> q- 16:08:11 <dgarijo> ... I'll see if resources come along. Then I'll submit the report 16:08:13 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 16:08:19 <Zakim> +??P17 16:08:22 <stain> dgarijo: have we submitted our corpus? 16:08:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, yes 16:08:42 <Curt> I will work with Stephan to submit a vocab usage for us 16:08:46 <dgarijo> ... submitted a paper for the prov corpus. 16:08:55 <khalidBelhajjame> I mean not to as a report 16:09:03 <dgarijo> Luc: it can be a proof of concept. It doesn't have to use the whole prov. 16:09:12 <dgarijo> @Stian, yes, we did. 16:09:21 <pgroth> @paolo that's fine 16:09:55 <dgarijo> paolo: if it doesn't have to be complete, then I'll be happy to fill the survey 16:09:57 <stain> @dgarijo - should that not be a "Vocabulary usage" submission then..? 16:10:17 <dgarijo> @Khalid: did Raul submit roevo? 16:10:31 <Luc> q? 16:10:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, but that is covered by the tavernaprov and wing-plugin, which have already been submitted! 16:10:50 <dgarijo> @Stian: Ah, I haven't filled an entry for the corpus. We do have submitted to the prov-bench. 16:11:08 <GK> @paolo, I think that's useful information to record. 16:11:24 <GK> (i.e. about constructs that need datalog extensions) 16:11:43 <stain> @dgarijo I think we should submit the corpus to the survey as well 16:11:43 <Luc> q? 16:11:52 <dgarijo> Luc: if yur system tells us that a set of constraints have failed then it is ok. 16:12:15 <Luc> q? 16:12:24 <dgarijo> paolo: ok. I'll work to realign the parser to the current version in the toolbox. 16:12:38 <dgarijo> @stian: it makes sense. 16:13:12 <dgarijo> khalid: I have submitted wfprov and Stian has submitted tavernaprov plugin. 16:14:17 <jun> jun has joined #prov 16:14:40 <dgarijo> jcheney: Looking to wraping datalog into a java program (similar to what paolo is working on). 16:14:47 <dgarijo> +q 16:15:19 <dgarijo> Luc: hook? 16:15:43 <dgarijo> Hook: we got approval to work on an extension of Prov (meeting next week regarding that) 16:15:49 <dgarijo> ... 1 year effort 16:16:24 <dgarijo> ... processing and data analysis -> prov-o. We have an initial extension of the ontology. 16:16:40 <dgarijo> Luc: Will you have something to submit by the end of Jan? 16:16:43 <Luc> q? 16:16:44 <dgarijo> Hook: yes 16:17:23 <dgarijo> ... but it's an effort that will take more than a year 16:17:38 <dgarijo> GK: No plan to do an implementation at the moment 16:18:03 <dgarijo> Curt: Will work with Stephan and submit something 16:18:28 <dgarijo> zednik: Will submit something together with Curt 16:18:41 <dgarijo> Stain: I'll register a new voc extension next week. 16:18:56 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 16:18:56 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 16:19:09 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 16:19:09 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 16:19:09 <pgroth> q+ to ask about getting report results and interchange 16:19:13 <dgarijo> MacTed: I don't think I'll submit something. 16:19:19 <dgarijo> q- 16:19:43 <dgarijo> pgroth: I can't take the questionnaires to display all the result. Do we have all these emails anywhere? 16:19:48 <dgarijo> stephan? 16:19:57 <dgarijo> zednik: I do have the e mails. 16:20:11 <dgarijo> ... I'll look into it, but I do have the emails 16:20:26 <dgarijo> pgroth: concerned about the interchange 16:20:42 <dgarijo> zednik: we are getting some responses. 16:21:06 <dgarijo> Luc: stephan, it will be useful to know what the actual coverage is. Some features may not be supported yet. 16:21:25 <pgroth> q+ 16:21:36 <Dong> @Paul: My Provenance Service consumes provenance deposited by Luc's validator 16:21:38 <dgarijo> ... maybe we need to know whether we need to put more effor in those concepts. 16:21:55 <dgarijo> zednik: I will look into it 16:22:28 <jun> <@luc, we will try to encourage prov-bench submitters to also submit the questionnaire.> 16:22:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: we need other people to submit to the survey 16:22:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:22:55 <pgroth> @Dong - it has to be from different institutions 16:23:04 <Luc> action pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports 16:23:11 <Luc> action: pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports 16:23:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Send reminder about implementation reports [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-10]. 16:23:34 <dgarijo> jun: we have coordinated several submissions for the wf4Ever project 16:24:01 <dgarijo> Luc: are you still planning to work on the ocnstraints? 16:24:17 <dgarijo> Jun: pressed with a project review. Will try 16:24:23 <Luc> topic: Prov-Dictionary <luc>Summary: We had a discussion about hadMember. The editors are invited to specify a ternary relation, such as hadDictionaryMember (name to be decided by editors), such that hadDictionaryMember(d,e,k) implies hadMember(d,e). Editors are invited to produce a document, ready for review by 2013-01-10. Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul will review the document then. Other volunteers welcome! 16:24:24 <Dong> @Paul, I understand. Anyone can post provenance documents to my service if they use our PROV-JSON format :) 16:24:24 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame 16:24:25 <Luc> q? 16:24:28 <Luc> ack pg 16:24:28 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about getting report results and interchange and to 16:25:05 <dgarijo> Luc: is the doc ready for review? 16:25:20 <dgarijo> pgroth: we should recruit reviewers for today 16:25:21 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 16:25:28 <Paolo> I would like to review it 16:25:29 <dgarijo> ... any volunteers? 16:25:30 <Dong> @Paul: and Luc has the translation service for all the official representations to PROV-JSON 16:25:38 <stain> +1 16:25:46 <jcheney> I'll have a look, not much time 16:25:46 <GK> I already did a brief review over the holiday. 16:25:48 <pgroth> q+ 16:25:48 <stain> all the historic authors.. 16:25:57 <Luc> prov dictionary reviewers: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc 16:25:57 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:25:58 <pgroth> +1 16:26:05 <dgarijo> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Paul. 16:26:12 <pgroth> no 16:26:16 <Luc> prov dictionary reviewers: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, Paul 16:26:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 16:26:34 <pgroth> q+ 16:26:36 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me 16:26:36 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it 16:26:40 <dgarijo> Luc: very good. Are we in a position to discuss hadMember? 16:27:22 <zednik> +q 16:27:26 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:27:27 <Luc> ack pg 16:27:32 <dgarijo> Luc: I didn't follow all the discussion, but I got the feeling that there was some kind of consensus 16:27:39 <pgroth> ack zednik 16:28:15 <dgarijo> stephanZ: currently hadMember doesn't support attributes. 16:28:26 <pgroth> q+ 16:29:12 <dgarijo> Luc: there seems to be an aproval among the members of the call. The ternary relation sounds good. 16:29:31 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:29:34 <Luc> q? 16:29:42 <Luc> topic: PROV-AQ 16:24:23 <Luc> Summary: Graham updated us on the status of prov-aq. No change took place since the previous teleconference, though solutions are shaping for the link relation type and default provenance representation. Editors will produce a document ready for review by 2013-01-10. Tim (kindly invited in absentia), Simon, Luc, Dong, and Stian will then review the document. Volunteers welcome! 16:29:58 <pgroth> we can hear you! 16:29:59 <pgroth> :-) 16:30:14 <dgarijo> GK: no change since the last teleconf 16:30:36 <dgarijo> ... the main progress is about the discussion of the provenance service access. In particular sparql 16:30:41 <GK> My latest proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0002.html 16:30:47 <dgarijo> my latest proposal ^^ 16:30:54 <GK> Main points (re http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609): 16:30:54 <GK> - propose to use single link relation type for provenance service via template and SPARQL endpoint 16:30:54 <GK> - stick with RDF for service description (there's some uncertainty about this among some LDPers) 16:30:54 <GK> - expand service description to allow either or both service option 16:30:55 <GK> - service description with URI template unchecked (but see below) 16:30:55 <GK> - SPARQL service description per http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/ (i.e. nothing new here) 16:32:59 <dgarijo> ... small changes to the existing document, which keeps us in line with the events happening in other places.I'm waiting for Tim's response. 16:33:34 <dgarijo> ... the question is about prov provenance service term. Does it apply to all service options? 16:34:03 <pgroth> I liked the solution is with multi-typing 16:34:29 <Luc> q? 16:34:30 <dgarijo> ... when Tim comes I'll update the document. 16:34:57 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425 16:34:57 <GK> [[ 16:34:57 <GK> While use of RDF for service descriptions is a recommended option, this specification does not preclude the use of non-RDF formats that a service may choose to offer, and which can be selected using HTTP content negotiation. 16:34:57 <GK> ]] 16:34:58 <GK> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#provenance-service-description 16:35:00 <dgarijo> 2 other issues raised at the previous telecon: 1) Service description format. 16:35:11 <dgarijo> ...^^ 16:35:23 <dgarijo> ... I think this is sufficient for now. 16:35:28 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428 16:35:28 <GK> 16:35:28 <GK> Broadly, my position is to make no further change. The use of other formats than RDF is not precluded, but RDF is the most developed option, and apparently has most interest. As such, it provides a reasonable basis for interoperability. 16:35:45 <dgarijo> ... The other issue is related to the format of provenance. 16:35:58 <dgarijo> ... discussion about interoperability vs flexibility 16:36:12 <dgarijo> ... rdf seems to be the most developed option 16:36:19 <Luc> q+ 16:36:46 <dgarijo> Luc: regarding the last point, I didn't understand. 16:36:57 <dgarijo> GK: myme types are allowed. 16:37:26 <dgarijo> Luc: this group is defining 2 mymetypes for provenance, so they should be allowed. 16:37:52 <pgroth> q+ 16:37:57 <dgarijo> GK: facing interoperability, what should we recommend implementers to give the maximum of interoperability? 16:38:04 <Luc> q? 16:38:08 <Luc> ack luc 16:38:13 <dgarijo> Luc: my view is that we should not do that. 16:39:29 <dgarijo> pgroth: several options for tackling the issue. One way is that we don't say anything. Another one is to provide a default. 16:39:37 <Luc> q? 16:39:42 <Luc> ack pgr 16:39:47 <Luc> translators can help 16:39:50 <dgarijo> ... this is kind of the discussion we are having 16:40:01 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks pgroth 16:40:04 <Luc> q? 16:40:26 <dgarijo> ... what is the timetable? 16:40:51 <dgarijo> GK: affected by fb during christmas 16:41:08 <pgroth> q+ 16:41:20 <Luc> ack pg 16:41:21 <dgarijo> ... it also depends on Tim's availability. 16:41:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: it would be better to get it out on thursday 16:42:03 <dgarijo> ... we want to have something for the Jan deadline. 16:42:03 <Dong> I think it'll be difficult to force implementations to support a particular representation, even a single default one. Can the supported representation included in the service description? 16:42:28 <Luc> q? 16:42:45 <dgarijo> GK: just made the proposals, but I don't think there will be big changes. 16:43:23 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm keen to make sure to make this doc ready when we make the recommendations out. It would be good if we had it ready for next week 16:43:45 <pgroth> yep happy to do it 16:44:00 <dgarijo> GK: pgroth will take the lead of the doc next week. 16:44:17 <dgarijo> Luc: that's the last time it will be released before the final release. 16:44:27 <dgarijo> GK: I think we're pretty good. 16:45:10 <dgarijo> Luc: the document no longer emphasizes query. Is it still reasonable to have the term "query" in the the title 16:45:26 <dgarijo> GK: the query will gain relevance after the latest changes+ 16:45:28 <pgroth> q+ 16:45:52 <Luc> ack pgr 16:45:58 <dgarijo> Luc: if we drop query then we have to change the short name. We have to keep that in mind. 16:46:18 <dgarijo> pgroth: I would prefer to change it, but maybe that should be a question for the reviewers. 16:46:25 <Dong> +1 16:46:26 <Luc> q? 16:46:31 <dgarijo> Luc: sounds good 16:46:46 <smiles> I can review this 16:46:48 <dgarijo> Luc: who will review the document? 16:46:49 <pgroth> @graham, let me know when I should take the editing token 16:46:59 <GK> @paul, sure 16:47:00 <Dong> I can as well 16:47:09 <Luc> prov-aq reviewers: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong 16:47:13 <stain> +1 16:47:20 <Luc> prov-aq reviewers: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong, Stian 16:47:21 <smiles> q+ 16:47:43 <dgarijo> smiles: are we reviewing now or from thursday next week. 16:47:47 <dgarijo> Luc: next week. 16:47:52 <Luc> q? 16:47:55 <Luc> ack smil 16:48:11 <dgarijo> tty next week 16:48:12 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:48:14 <dgarijo> good bye 16:48:14 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:48:15 <khalidBelhajjame> bye 16:48:16 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 16:48:17 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:48:17 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame 16:48:19 <zednik> bye 16:48:19 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:48:19 <Zakim> -stain 16:48:21 <Dong> thanks, bye all 16:48:21 <GK> Bye. +10mins :) 16:48:21 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaaa 16:48:23 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:48:23 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 16:48:26 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:48:27 <Zakim> -smiles 16:48:30 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:48:32 <Zakim> -GK 16:48:35 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:48:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:48:38 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 16:48:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:48:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, dgarijo, MacTed, smiles, GK, jcheney, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, Paolo, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller] 16:48:42 <Zakim> -??P17 16:48:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:48:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:48:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:48:47 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-actions.rdf : 16:48:47 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports  16:48:47 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-irc#T16-23-11 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000349