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
16:01:48 <pgroth> Scribe: Daniel
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> Paul: 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 <MikeLang> +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> Paul: review of actions items
16:04:21 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:04:26 <dgarijo> ... 1) Action on Paul 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> Paul: 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
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> ... paul has 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> prov-dm
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 <AndroUser> AndroUser 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 <AndroUser> zakim, +44.789.470.aahh is me
16:14:21 <Zakim> sorry, AndroUser, 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> paul: are this already in your action?
16:15:09 <dgarijo> Luc: no. That action is from several weeks ago
16:15:20 <AndroUser> the "vacant" conference bridge is fighting me
16:15:20 <dgarijo> paul: 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
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> Stephan: 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 <AndroUser> not tim?
16:23:38 <dgarijo> paul: 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
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> paul: 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> paul: 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> ... paul, satya are volunteers.
16:39:20 <tlebo> q+
16:39:20 <pgroth> Topic: Accounts in Prov
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> paul: 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 paulo and paul have 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/paul/
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> paul: 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 [1]
17:17:29 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-prov-irc#T16-15-32