15:59:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:59:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-irc
15:59:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:59:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:59:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:59:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:59:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:59:58 <trackbot> Date: 26 January 2012
16:00:02 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
16:00:07 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
16:00:22 <Curt> scribe: Curt
16:00:23 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.01.25
16:00:43 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
16:00:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
16:01:30 <Mike> Mike has joined #prov
16:01:44 <Curt> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Paolo Missier, Khalid Belhajjame, Daniel Garijo
16:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aaaa
16:01:58 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
16:02:03 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:02:05 <Zakim> + +1.646.389.aabb
16:02:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:02:13 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:02:15 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:02:21 <Zakim> +tlebo
16:02:29 <Zakim> +??P51
16:02:37 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aacc
16:03:05 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:03:08 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:03:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P54
16:03:39 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:03:54 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?
16:04:08 <davidschaengold> davidschaengold has joined #prov
16:04:16 <Zakim> +??P60
16:04:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60
16:04:30 <jcheney> zakim, ??P60 is me
16:04:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, MacTed (muted), tlebo, ??P51, +1.518.633.aacc, ??P54, ??P60
16:04:55 <davidschaengold> Zakim, aabb is me
16:04:57 <kai> kai has joined #prov
16:04:59 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:05:43 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-19
16:05:45 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:05:52 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan. 19 telecon
16:05:54 <satya> +1
16:05:57 <davidschaengold> +1
16:05:58 <Curt> 0 (not present)
16:06:13 <Christine> 0 (not present)
16:06:13 <kai> 0 (not present)
16:06:15 <smiles> +1
16:06:16 <jcheney> +1
16:06:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see davidschaengold, jcheney, smiles, Christine, Mike, Zakim, RRSAgent, zednik, pgroth, GK_, Curt, Luc, MacTed, mdmdm, stain, trackbot, sandro
16:06:24 <Zakim> +davidschaengold; got it
16:06:32 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:06:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:07:02 <Zakim> +??P73
16:07:05 <pgroth> Accepted: minutes Jan 19 telecon
16:07:15 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
16:07:26 <kai> Zakim, ??P73 is me.
16:07:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week, F2F, lots of scribes :)
16:07:58 <Zakim> +kai; got it
16:08:27 <Curt> pgroth: actions: satya reviewing issues
16:08:50 <Curt> satya: will try to respond to each on list, but time is short, progress on many of them
16:09:13 <Curt> ... many already addressed, satya just needs to review and make proper recommendations 
16:09:18 <pgroth> q?
16:09:30 <pgroth> Topic: F2F prep document updates
16:09:48 <Curt> pgroth: going through documents to determine status and if changes are needed before F2F
16:10:04 <Curt> ... prov-primer
16:11:15 <satya> q+
16:11:27 <Curt> working out updates needed, not changed since last editors version
16:11:58 <Curt> satya: rdfs already provides way to do annotations, not currently modeled like that
16:12:29 <pgroth> ack satya
16:13:11 <Curt> satya: trying to bring everything into sync with prov-o and prov-dm in primer, 
16:13:28 <Curt> pgroth: prov-aq
16:14:03 <Curt> ...: Graham has made changes responding to most of issues, a few issues need discussion at F2F and after
16:14:04 <pgroth> q?
16:14:11 <Curt> ... in good shape for F2F
16:14:19 <Curt> pgroth: prov-dm
16:14:29 <Curt> luc: third working draft to release today for F2F
16:14:36 <pgroth> q?
16:14:40 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o
16:15:23 <Curt> many issues addressed at prov-o working group level, some still need whole WG to discuss
16:15:24 <Luc> q+
16:15:28 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:15:33 <Curt> current version has edits
16:15:55 <Curt> luc: no update for precise/imprecise derivations
16:16:08 <Curt> satya: still under discussion, consensus not yet determined
16:16:29 <Curt> luc: some decisions made
16:16:53 <pgroth> q?
16:16:57 <Curt> satya: progress has been made, but some things still unclear, need more discussion
16:17:02 <Curt> pgroth: prov-sem
16:17:32 <Curt> jcheney: not much changed recently, watching prov-o domain of discourse discussion, which may have an impact
16:17:44 <Curt> jcheney: waiting for final determination to incorporate
16:17:56 <Curt> jcheney: a few more things to flesh out that will happen prior to F2F
16:18:14 <Curt> pgroth: most documents in reasonable sync. given work that has been done
16:18:37 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm for the 3rd working draft
16:19:22 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-second-public-working-draft
16:20:30 <Curt> luc: work on complement, specialization, examples, derivation, collections, restructuring, new section 7 with constraints on data model
16:20:53 <Curt> ... ... agent and hadPlan
16:21:11 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft 
16:21:19 <smiles> +1
16:21:24 <satya> q+
16:21:24 <jcheney> +1
16:21:25 <MacTed> +1
16:21:28 <Curt> +1
16:21:32 <kai> +1
16:21:53 <Curt> satya: is the 3rd WD to reflect universe of discourse discussion identifiers?
16:22:05 <pgroth> ack satya
16:22:30 <Curt> luc: no, those aren't incorporated yet, those will go into the 4th WD, identifiers and accounts
16:23:12 <Curt> ... too many changes to incorporate, still determining final agreement on identifiers/accounts, may take a while
16:23:37 <satya> +1
16:23:38 <pgroth> q?
16:23:40 <Curt> satya: yes, those may have broad impact
16:24:03 <pgroth> Accepted: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft
16:24:21 <satya> q+
16:24:48 <Curt> satya: good to freeze changes at a defined point and release a good draft
16:25:01 <Curt> ... we should follow that model for prov-o
16:25:07 <pgroth> ack satya
16:25:13 <Curt> pgroth: required by W3C to release each 3 months
16:25:21 <Curt> luc: good to have well-defined goals for each release
16:25:31 <pgroth> Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm
16:25:40 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/UniverseOfDiscourse
16:26:06 <Luc> I hope I included all the votes (I just added James')
16:26:06 <pgroth> *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all 
16:26:07 <pgroth> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and 
16:26:07 <pgroth> otherwise)     SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an 
16:26:07 <pgroth> existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects 
16:26:07 <pgroth> described." (intent)
16:27:07 <pgroth> q?
16:27:18 <Curt> pgroth: a series of items were considered to determine what should be part of the universe of discourse
16:27:28 <pgroth> Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
16:27:48 <Luc> all votes were positive
16:28:34 <MacTed> I have failed to keep up with the list this week, and see argument with several of these proposals...
16:28:43 <Curt> (many who voted are not present)
16:28:57 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:28:57 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:29:08 <Curt> luc/pgroth: record previous vote for minutes rather than re-voting here
16:29:42 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal 1. Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse.
16:30:01 <pgroth> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
16:30:01 <pgroth> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
16:30:02 <pgroth> discourse
16:30:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: 
16:30:27 <MacTed> I accept Proposals 1-4, and have concerns or issues with 5-9
16:30:32 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of discourse
16:30:48 <satya> q+
16:31:21 <satya> q-
16:31:24 <pgroth> ack satay
16:31:33 <Curt> satya: with respect to prov-o, those were included
16:31:37 <Luc> Proposal 3: Derivation, Association, Responsibility chains, Traceability, Activity Ordering, Revision, Attribution, Quotation, Summary, Original SOurce, CollectionAfterInsertion/Collection After removal belong to the universe of discourse. 
16:32:11 <Curt> luc: Stian voted -1 (for all but associations)
16:32:36 <Curt> ... not sure of his rationale
16:33:35 <Curt> tim: laundry list is long, a concern to determine how each should be modeled in prov-o
16:34:06 <Curt> luc: satya suppoted derivation, association and activity ordering, do you support those?
16:34:07 <Curt> tim: yes
16:34:31 <pgroth> q?
16:34:43 <Curt> luc: why doesn't stian think association should not be part of universe of discourse?
16:34:57 <Curt> pgroth: possibly rephrase proposal 3 and re-vote?
16:35:17 <Curt> luc: association belongs, since stian and tim do support those
16:35:17 <Luc> Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the unvierse of discourse 
16:35:44 <Curt> luc: we'll discuss with stian further and rephrase rest of proposal 3
16:36:17 <Curt> tim: accepts association
16:36:26 <pgroth> q?
16:36:35 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the universe of discourse 
16:36:40 <pgroth> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
16:36:40 <pgroth> discourse
16:37:13 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:37:20 <Curt> pgroth: may need more discussion of proposal 4, postpone for now
16:37:20 <pgroth> q?
16:37:33 <Luc> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse This includes Account Record. 
16:38:02 <pgroth> q?
16:38:09 <Curt> pgroth: satya and macted disagree
16:38:44 <Curt> satya: we need a construct to aggregate prov. assertions, if we remove records/accounts, we won't have a good way to do that
16:39:21 <Curt> macted: is this to differentiate data/metadata in a given context?
16:39:23 <Luc> q+
16:39:27 <pgroth> q?
16:39:45 <Curt> ... in a database world, the fields are filled with data, the table has the metadata
16:39:58 <zednik> q+
16:39:58 <Curt> luc: we're trying to establish that
16:40:07 <Curt> macted: we need to make that distinction
16:40:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:40:41 <Curt> luc: we are talking about different levels, the world where things happen; level 2 descriptions of what happened in the world
16:40:54 <Curt> ... account records are at that second level
16:41:05 <Curt> ... we can go even higher to talk about provenance of provenance
16:41:31 <Curt> macted: that isn't clear in these proposals
16:41:38 <Curt> luc: we're trying to represent that intent
16:42:10 <Curt> macted: things/entities are interchangeable, the proposals aren't clear 
16:42:34 <Curt> luc: we're trying to determine how to represent our intent into the documents
16:42:46 <Curt> macted: difficult with text alone
16:42:47 <jcheney> See also ISSUE-212
16:42:52 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:42:56 <Curt> luc: yes, more graphics would help explain the concepts
16:43:26 <Curt> zednik: yes, confusing, perhaps graphics or ASN could help explain this better, esp. things like prov. of prov.
16:43:26 <Luc> q+
16:43:29 <jcheney> Is prov of prov on the critical path?  I agree it's important but perhaps we should table it until one-layer prov is stable
16:43:32 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:43:42 <satya> q+
16:43:44 <Curt> pgroth: there is some demand of prov. of prov. from the group
16:44:22 <pgroth> q?
16:44:25 <Curt> macted: this is a perpetual problem in graphs, the recursion.  These levels can be better described graphically
16:44:36 <Curt> luc: we haven't determined how to express prov. of prov. yet
16:45:09 <zednik> @jcheney from http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov-20101214/#Broad_Recommendations "Recommendation # 4: A provenance framework should include a standard way to express the provenance of provenance assertions, as there can be several accounts of provenance and with different granularity and that may possibly conflict"
16:45:21 <Curt> ... for some account records aren't part of discourse, but if you do want to talk about them, then you will have to identify them
16:45:34 <satya> q-
16:45:38 <zednik> q+
16:45:40 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:45:44 <Curt> ... do we want to have prov. of prov.?  is that part of the scope we should cover?
16:45:47 <pgroth> ack zednik 
16:46:06 <Curt> zednik: we don't want to preclude describing prov. of prov.
16:46:47 <Curt> luc: the term 'thing' -- if we use an account record, we need to make the 'thing' an entity so we can describe it
16:47:06 <Curt> ... looking for guidelines/recommendations of where we are going with this
16:47:12 <pgroth> q?
16:47:41 <Curt> pgroth: if we remove notion of account record from proposal 5, would that be in line with our thinking?
16:47:47 <tlebo> +1 luc: the way to talk about things is by introducing entities. (we get provenance of provenance by making entities about the records - we effectively have shifted the two levels.)
16:47:57 <stephenc> We have a use case for provenance-of-provenance on legislation
16:47:58 <pgroth> q?
16:48:10 <pgroth> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
16:48:35 <pgroth> q?
16:49:07 <Curt> macted: this is the recursion problem.  prov. of a thing is itself a thing (an entity) when asserting provenance about it
16:49:19 <satya> q+
16:49:20 <Curt> macted: difficult to express without a picture
16:49:35 <Curt> luc: we need more guidance to even draw the picture
16:49:50 <tlebo> +1 (if i want to talk about Records, I make an entity about it)
16:50:02 <pgroth> i agree with you tlebo
16:50:05 <Curt> ... if all records have an identity, that is a different direction that if records are not part of the universe of discourse
16:50:33 <pgroth> q?
16:50:40 <Curt> macted: example - i have a table, built 1727, joe smith, sold on jan 19, 1728, sold again, again, again
16:50:50 <Curt> ... we track that journey through the world -- the provenance
16:50:58 <Curt> ... the records of that provenance are a distinct entity
16:51:11 <Curt> ... the provenance of the provenance are that I said it was built in 1727
16:51:22 <Curt> ... that shift the perspective up a level
16:51:30 <kai> +1 for provenance on provenance. 
16:51:42 <Curt> ... one level talks about the table, one about the provenance, one about the provenance of the records of the provenance.
16:51:45 <kai> That's metadata provenance
16:51:59 <tlebo> (so Records out outside of DM's "current" macted:Shift)
16:52:03 <Curt> macted: this can be difficult to follow
16:52:25 <tlebo> @macted, good example
16:52:35 <Curt> pgroth: that use case is clear, but how do we best communicate that?   what construct should prov-dm have?
16:52:56 <Curt> macted: use a concrete example to figure that out, rather than trying to solve in the abstract
16:53:14 <Curt> ... have to look at both sides to make sure it all works
16:53:24 <pgroth> q
16:53:24 <Curt> ... doing the abstract first makes this harder
16:53:26 <pgroth> q?
16:53:32 <pgroth> ack satya 
16:53:49 <zednik> +1 to use concrete example before decidiing on abstract model restrictions
16:53:52 <Curt> satya: the way to talk about things is to introduce entities
16:54:13 <Curt> ... when we want to talk about prov-of-prov, we need to have a universal construct for that
16:54:38 <pgroth> q?
16:54:41 <Curt> ... we have been discussing this notion already.  records should be part of the universe of discourse
16:54:49 <jcheney> q+
16:55:00 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:55:10 <tlebo> @satya, did you say that you need Account Records AND Accounts in UOD?
16:55:25 <Curt> jcheney: I said I agree there is a difference between saying all records are part of the UofD, or if some could be
16:55:44 <Curt> ... some ambiguity.  Some entities might contain information about provenance records contained elsewhere
16:55:53 <Curt> ... in order to express prov-of-prov
16:56:04 <kai> q+
16:56:41 <Curt> ... this isn't something we have to decide now to make progress, could we say "by default records aren't necessarily identified entities in the UofD, but they might be"
16:56:42 <pgroth> q?
16:57:07 <tlebo> +1 james: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them (this shifts the perspective)
16:57:29 <Curt> kai: we have a similar problem in dublin core, we can describe everything, but then we have to describe the description
16:57:29 <Zakim> -??P51
16:58:06 <tlebo> +1 "it's nothing special'!
16:58:07 <Curt> ... we need to be able to describe prov-of-prov, need to consider the prov itself as an entity.
16:58:17 <Curt> ... if we do that, then we don't have a problem
16:58:46 <Curt> ... keep it simple, just say that prov. itself can be an entity, then you can describe it just like you describe the prov. of any entity
16:58:48 <tlebo> +1 keep it simple (knowing that it can be shifted)
16:58:48 <pgroth> q?
16:58:51 <pgroth> ack kai
16:58:53 <Curt> ... simply handles the recursion
16:59:12 <pgroth> by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them 
16:59:33 <smiles> +1
16:59:47 <tlebo> records are only a means of transmission. We only care about the content of the transmission.
16:59:50 <Curt> pgroth: trying to capture this -- james' proposal allows us to shift perspective, is that ok? is that sufficient guidance for luc?
16:59:53 <MacTed> see SKOS - containers of entities, which are containers of entities, which are containers...
17:00:03 <Curt> luc: yes, that and the emails 
17:00:16 <Zakim> -??P54
17:00:24 <tlebo> I'm at the top of the hour
17:00:26 <jcheney> OK with me (that's actually tlebo's wording, but I like it)
17:00:27 <MacTed> er, sorry, SIOC not SKOS
17:00:28 <kai> Don't make the mistake that in the end you can describe the provenance of everything, the only exception would be the provenance (records).
17:00:40 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:00:51 <Curt> pgroth: next few proposals need even more discussion
17:01:27 <pgroth> Proposal: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them
17:01:38 <tlebo> +1
17:01:42 <jcheney> +1
17:01:44 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #prov
17:02:03 <Curt> satya: what does "by default" mean?
17:02:10 <tlebo> "the current layers of the shift"
17:02:31 <Curt> pgroth: when you describe provenance, you use things like entities, derivations, etc. not records
17:02:38 <jcheney> I think it means that you can't infer that a record is in the domain of discourse.  You have to assert it.
17:02:40 <Zakim> -davidschaengold
17:02:56 <Curt> ... but if you want to describe prov-of-prov, you would (in some fashion) make the records into entities and use those
17:03:31 <satya> 0
17:03:35 <tlebo> If we argue for a third layer, we are not being compact and eloquent. And we could argue for the fourth, and fifth. It won't end.
17:03:35 <Curt> satya: decision not critical to move on
17:03:46 <Curt> pgroth: this is important for modeling 
17:03:54 <pgroth> q
17:03:56 <pgroth> q?
17:04:05 <jcheney> @satya: There is a difference between saying records "MAY" be in hte domain of discourse and records MUST be in the domain of discourse.
17:04:05 <kai> -1
17:04:10 <Luc> @tlebo: i dont think we would introudce more layers, but a "shift operator"
17:04:32 <Curt> kai: I can describe the provenance of data, not just things
17:04:54 <Curt> kai: provenance of data is itself data, so we can describe it the same way
17:05:11 <tlebo> @ speaker, because we already have what we need to discuss provenance (Entities)
17:05:25 <zednik> -1 (show concrete example before making modeling decision, not other way around)
17:05:29 <Curt> pgroth: we have "provenance records".  last week we said things in the UofD are identified
17:05:53 <Curt> ... if we say records are part of the UofD, then we have to give them identifiers -- that affects the modeling
17:06:04 <Curt> kai: what is the problem giving them an identifier?
17:06:16 <Curt> pgroth: sometimes, we might not want to assign them identifiers
17:06:32 <pgroth> entity(w3c.org)
17:06:55 <tlebo> (apologies)
17:06:59 <Curt> pgroth: is that in our UofD?
17:07:00 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:07:26 <satya> Sorry, I have to leave.
17:07:34 <Curt> kai: I can only describe identifiable things, so if we want to describe them, we have to identify them
17:07:57 <Curt> ... just a collection of statements might not have an identifier, so we'll have to identify them if we want to describe them
17:07:58 <jcheney> alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ???
17:08:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:08:25 <Curt> pgroth: some agreement, but try different wording
17:08:27 <pgroth> records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse
17:08:30 <jcheney> alternative wording: "records MAY be in the domain of discourse, but we don't assume that all records are in the domain of discourse" ???
17:08:52 <jcheney> is that at least clearer than "by default"?
17:09:11 <Curt> kai: I think records are in the UofD, but only if they have an identity
17:09:42 <Curt> kai: "every record that has its own identity is in the UofD"
17:10:06 <Curt> luc: we were using accounts to handle this, not every single record
17:10:25 <Curt> ... we weren't going to have provenance of other records
17:11:01 <Curt> ... if we revisit this, we need to change more of the data model.  we were previously only using accounts as a way to describe prov-of-prov
17:11:13 <Curt> ... are we questioning those decisions made 6 months ago?
17:11:39 <jcheney> It may not have been clear to everyone whether "records" included or excluded accounts in this discussion (it wasn't to me)
17:11:42 <Curt> ... the latest draft still says the only way to describe provenance itself is through accounts
17:12:07 <Curt> kai: something that has a URI, an identity, is something that exists.  why restrict how you can describe that thing?
17:12:34 <Curt> luc: we aren't considering resources in general, just the way we model those things in prov-dm
17:12:46 <MacTed> SIOC Ontology -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/ -- may save us reinventing many wheels....
17:12:57 <Curt> luc: are we making provenance records part of the UofD.  Can we represent prov. of accounts?
17:13:11 <MacTed> of particular use -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#sec-overview
17:13:28 <Curt> ... are account records part of the UofD?
17:13:42 <Curt> kai: Is there a problem if that are not in the UofD?  
17:14:24 <Curt> luc: we are breaking early design decisions.  saying they are part of UofD, we say that all records have to have identifiers
17:14:43 <Curt> ... implications is every prov. record would have to have a named graph to give the set an identifier
17:15:02 <Curt> ... this is a radical departure to current work
17:15:08 <Curt> ^to^from
17:15:25 <Curt> luc: we need guidance on this
17:15:37 <Curt> kai: we can discuss at F2F
17:15:50 <Curt> ... we don't want to destroy current work
17:16:04 <Curt> ... we should be able to figure out something that works next week
17:16:34 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aaaa
17:16:50 <Curt> pgroth: kai isn't saying we have to have identifiers for everything, we don't have to have mint identifiers for every prov. record
17:17:03 <Curt> ... we can use that as preliminary guidance
17:17:33 <Curt> kai: yes, that is what I think, they CAN have an identifier, with that you can describe the records' provenance
17:17:43 <jcheney> That sounds like what I was trying to say.
17:17:47 <Curt> ... we should indicate that it is possible to describe prov-of-prov
17:18:02 <jcheney> Might be good to give a small meta-prov example like MacTed's in PROV-DM?
17:18:12 <Curt> kai: we are mostly in agreement -- just need to detail
17:18:13 <pgroth> q?
17:18:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
17:18:30 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:18:32 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aacc
17:18:33 <Zakim> -Luc
17:18:35 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:18:40 <Zakim> -kai
17:18:55 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
17:19:01 <pgroth> curt
17:19:04 <pgroth> I'll take care of it
17:19:06 <Curt> ok
17:19:07 <Curt> bye
17:19:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:19:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:19:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html pgroth
17:19:46 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:19:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:19:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [IPcaller], +1.443.708.aaaa, +1.646.389.aabb, tlebo, +1.518.633.aacc, MacTed, jcheney, davidschaengold, Satya_Sahoo, kai
17:19:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:19:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:19:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:19:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items