14:53:25 RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:53:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc 14:53:27 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:53:27 Zakim has joined #prov 14:53:29 Zakim, this will be PROV 14:53:29 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 14:53:30 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:53:30 Date: 14 March 2013 14:53:33 Zakim, this will be PROV 14:53:34 ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 14:53:49 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14 14:53:57 Chair: Paul Groth 14:54:05 Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes 14:54:09 Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, Satya Sahoo 14:54:16 rrsagent, make logs public 14:58:08 GK1 has joined #prov 14:58:37 GK has joined #prov 14:58:48 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:58:55 +[IPcaller] 14:59:14 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:59:15 +pgroth; got it 15:00:11 Luc has joined #prov 15:00:47 +??P14 15:00:48 jcheney has joined #prov 15:00:59 zakim, ??p14 is me 15:00:59 +GK; got it 15:01:00 + +44.131.467.aaaa 15:01:05 zakim, aaaa is me 15:01:05 +jcheney; got it 15:01:11 +[IPcaller] 15:01:35 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:01:35 +Luc; got it 15:01:55 dgarijo has joined #prov 15:02:29 +??P21 15:02:35 Zakim, ??P21 is me 15:02:35 +dgarijo; got it 15:02:42 @stain you ready? 15:03:23 I'm joining 15:03:28 KhalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 15:03:31 great 15:03:36 sorry 15:03:37 +[IPcaller] 15:03:44 zakim, +IPcaller is me 15:03:44 sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller' 15:03:48 zakim, IPcaller is me 15:03:48 +stain; got it 15:03:58 +[IPcaller] 15:04:07 zakim, +[IPcaller] is me 15:04:07 sorry, KhalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 15:04:30 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:04:30 +KhalidBelhajjame; got it 15:05:07 time change only affecting europeans 15:05:14 stain has changed the topic to: Provenance WG http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14 15:05:17 Topic: Admin 15:05:27 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07 15:05:38 pgroth: Votes on minutes, please 15:05:45 0 (not present) 15:05:46 Dong has joined #prov 15:05:47 +1 15:05:48 +1 15:05:54 +1 15:05:54 +??P13 15:06:26 +1 15:06:27 accepted: Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon 15:06:42 :-) 15:06:42 Zakim, ??P13 is me 15:06:42 +Dong; got it 15:06:51 pgroth: Hoping http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/122 will be done eventually by end of WG .. 15:06:56 Topic: Documents are published 15:07:05 http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/12/call-for-review-prov-family-of-documents-published-as-proposed-recommendations/ 15:07:12 4! 15:07:19 pgroth: Congratulations everyone, here is Ivan's blogpost. 15:07:23 +1 15:07:29 pgroth: not that much of a hazzle, got it published in the end 15:07:47 pgroth: one thing we did in the rush (13 documents) was to not do our standards of writing blog posts and PR as for other releases 15:08:01 pgroth: and so I wanted to see if people would be willing to write a blog post and/or send emails to particular mailing lists 15:08:09 pgroth: announcing specially the working drafts 15:08:20 pgroth: we still have 9 Working Drafts we would like to have reviewed 15:08:30 q? 15:08:32 pgroth: can I get some volunteers to write blog posts or email lists? 15:08:47 q+ to write PAQ blog post 15:08:47 q? 15:08:48 I can send mails to mailing lists: DataOne, DbWorld, and others 15:08:52 I guess I could send email to the LDP group as king for review of prov-aq 15:08:52 I write a blog post, similar to Ivan's: http://linkingresearch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-prov-family-of-specifications-is-released/ 15:08:58 *wrote 15:09:24 pgroth: Khalid, yeah, great, could you do that 15:09:32 stain: volunteers to do a blog post about PAQ 15:09:42 pgroth: and GK if you could write the LDP group 15:09:51 ok 15:09:53 pgroth: Dani, I will write an overview blog post; perhaps you could write something about the DC Note? 15:10:06 pgroth: and did you/Kai notify the DC people abou tthe draft? 15:10:22 dgarijo: yes, it was announced on the web page (?) ; but not sure if was announced on public list, will ping him abou tthat 15:10:27 pgroth: that's everything 15:10:44 pgroth: will send emails to group.. 15:11:02 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results 15:11:12 pgroth: with the proposed REC, we need to give ?C refs to vote for our documents. They have to vote that it goes to recommendations 15:11:19 https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList 15:11:28 pgroth: we would like you to contact your AC representative to vote for the recommendation 15:11:32 pgroth: here you can find your representative 15:11:44 q? 15:11:47 pgroth: we need as many votes as possible can to push to REC 15:11:47 ack stain 15:11:47 stain, you wanted to write PAQ blog post 15:12:08 I'll ask the Manchester one 15:12:11 i've mentioned it to henry 15:12:15 i did it for soton 15:12:25 q? 15:12:36 Topic: PROV-AQ 15:12:48 pgroth: What we want to do is to resolve some of the core issues 15:13:02 pgroth: sent around a reminder to look at these issues 15:13:07 pgroth: GK to add some context? 15:13:24 GK: It makes sense to talk about the individual issues.. added a couple of small thigns to the agenda 15:13:41 GK: do we want to confirm that the issues that I propose to close without further discussion are OK? 15:13:48 GK: in the order you proposed, or different order? 15:14:03 pgroth: does not matter order, but want to talk about the core issues (which could take time) - the pending ones we can go through fast 15:14:11 GK: it might make sense to do the PENDING ones first... 15:14:15 pgroth: no, at the end 15:14:36 pgroth: first issue is ISSUE-618 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/618 15:14:40 Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ? 15:15:23 GK: since we've put the revised pingback proposal in the document (which was published), which to my mind looks more like a provenance discovery mechanism, .. the question was put to the mailing list eariler ; do we want to include or exclude this 15:15:43 GK: Luc commented to exclude it.. there was statements of inclusion support from at least 3 people - with me that is 4 15:15:49 SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:16:00 GK: as I see it, there is a good reason to include it in that there is reasonable, if not overwhelming support to keep it in place 15:16:19 zednik has joined #prov 15:16:22 GK: there was no co??? reason to exclude it, it was brought within the general scope of the document 15:16:31 GK: but many did not like the name "Forward provenance" - we do need a better name 15:16:36 what about provenance? 15:16:40 GK: one possibility - was "downstream provenance" 15:17:02 + +329331aabb 15:17:03 GK: Two issues: i) Does anyone have any reason not to include it? ii) Alternative names - here throwing in "Downstream provenance" 15:17:06 q? 15:17:11 q+ 15:17:17 ack Luc 15:17:20 zakim, +329331aabb is me 15:17:20 +SamCoppens; got it 15:17:28 Luc: I still maintain the view expressed in the email 15:17:43 Luc: feel that the requirements as (??) should be, never really been agreed by the WG 15:17:54 Luc: as for the rest of the document it was guided by the scenario 15:18:08 Luc: it seems to be that what is proposed is (?) solution; (?) there was another one.. there could be others 15:18:19 Luc: but nowhere can I (?) them, we did not agree what are the rquirements 15:18:20 q+ to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design 15:18:23 Luc: so that is an issue with it 15:18:36 Luc: But if the group decides to include it, we should discuss the name 15:19:03 agreed by the Working Group!!!! 15:19:03 GK: Disagree with the characterisation of not having requirements; in the wiki what Tim initialyl proposed was a requirement that was guiding the design 15:19:10 zednik has joined #prov 15:19:18 GK: would have to dig to find the URI.. This was mentioned in my email response to Luc 15:19:38 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Provenance_ping-backs 15:19:51 is there a group resolution endording this document? 15:20:22 GK: there are 3 scenarios in this wiki page; while we did not go into the same level of detailed analysis; I don't think this is fair to say it was not proposed without requirements 15:20:27 q+ 15:20:33 ack GK 15:20:33 GK, you wanted to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design 15:20:46 zakim, mute me 15:20:46 SamCoppens should now be muted 15:20:58 Luc: there was no set of requirements which was agreed by the WG - there is no resolution deciding this 15:21:00 q+ 15:21:11 q- 15:21:22 GK: these were up for discussion, but nobody disagreed with them ; but agree there was no formal resolution 15:21:23 smiles has joined #prov 15:21:27 +??P7 15:21:38 GK: from what Ivan said I did not believe a formal resolution as needed 15:21:47 pgroth: I think we did agree to try it out when we talked about it at last F2F 15:21:58 pgroth: I can try to dig that up and confirm. 15:22:13 pgroth: what I actually asked on the mailing list was what is the role (?) 15:22:20 My recollection concurs with Paul - we did agree to look at pingback 15:22:28 pgroth: agree in a sense with Luc; the.. (?) 15:22:56 pgroth: whether the requirement ...(?) design requirements. Tim had a go at it, and proposed a solution, then Stian proposed a solution. I did not. 15:23:16 pgroth: If we say that this is a note.. but if this was a recommendation; then I would agree we shoudl not do this; too experimental. 15:23:25 pgroth: and we have not look ed at it as long as the other thrings. But this is a note. 15:23:40 pgroth: in other cases, like PROV Links, or other things we thought were useful, but preliminary, we just publish them as NOTE 15:23:48 q+ 15:23:51 ack pgroth 15:23:53 q? 15:23:53 pgroth: It would come under the status of a note 15:24:13 Agree. Nothing more to add. 15:24:51 pgroth: I could propose one solution, is that we are currently in a WD phase; and this is included now in Stian's proposal. And so we would like to particularly get review on the pingback. 15:24:54 +1 15:25:00 i don't think there is time 15:25:01 pgroth: and based on that decide to remove or keep 15:25:11 pgroth: but there's a review period now 15:25:25 Luc: do you mean internally or externally? 15:25:36 pgroth: right now we are in a phase were we have released a WD for external feedback 15:25:37 (That is: go forward with it as is, and pull it if there are significant problems i review) 15:25:43 pgroth: and we are in a phase doing internal reviewing 15:26:00 pgroth: and so if we get comments from external reviews.. or if internal reviews show issues.. 15:26:01 q+ 15:26:03 I plan to ask LDP to review: I could draw their attention to this area. 15:26:03 q+ 15:26:14 Luc: that (?) is already there.. 15:26:22 Luc: we are in that situation.. it's time to make a decission 15:26:31 GK: are there others than yourself that said it was not fine 15:26:40 Luc: No.. and I am not going to vote on this 15:26:58 pgroth: so you don't want to re-review ? 15:27:11 Luc: when I sent my email this week; I had just read the text for the first time 15:27:17 +[IPcaller] 15:27:28 Luc: perhaps we can have an informal vote on if there are other objections 15:27:37 Luc: then it could be a resolved matter 15:27:52 CraigTrim has joined #PROV 15:28:04 straw poll: include ping back in the paq 15:28:19 + +1.661.382.aacc 15:28:21 Luc: +1 is to keep, and -1 if you want to remove 15:28:25 +1 15:28:25 +0 (haven't reviewed but don't object) 15:28:26 +1 15:28:29 +1 15:28:31 +0 15:28:33 +0 15:28:36 +0 15:28:40 +1 15:28:47 +0 15:28:50 +0 15:29:01 It seems to me that a note is an appropriate place for a preliminary design, as long as it's clearly marked as such 15:29:01 I would call that luke warm calling for more review.. 15:29:17 Zakim, aacc is me 15:29:18 +CraigTrim; got it 15:29:18 q+ 15:29:26 q- 15:29:40 Luc: would like to hear pgroth's view as an PAQ editor 15:29:49 pgroth: my view is that I kind of like it; but needs more review 15:30:01 pgroth: because it's the newest thing in the PAQ it needs another round of review 15:30:10 +1 15:30:12 pgroth: if there is (?) I would want it out because of time 15:30:30 s/(?)/errors 15:30:39 I'm with Paul's view here - if problems are exposed pull it. 15:30:43 pgroth: if that is the concensus.. GK are you OK to proceed like that? 15:30:53 GK: ok, that is entirely reasonable. If there are problems we don't have time to rework it. 15:31:24 pgroth: and we just released the WD, so encourage people to re-read it properly. Also contacting the LDP group etc 15:31:31 GK: not technical reworks. 15:31:41 q+ 15:31:44 pgroth: and then the renaming issue.. we should be able to deal with it without changing technical bits 15:32:12 Luc: if we keep it in, I am of the view that we shoudl not qualify (?) prospective... don't think it is suitable. It is provenance. 15:32:20 Luc: no kind of qualification of the provenance 15:32:55 pgroth: OK, suggest to leave the renaming issue out 15:32:56 q+ to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation. 15:33:02 q- 15:33:04 pgroth: some concerns about the name 15:33:15 ack GK 15:33:15 GK, you wanted to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation. 15:33:35 GK: technically it's fine to not commit to upstream or downstream.. but would be useful with motivation for what the mechanism is there for. Just editorial. 15:33:46 q? 15:33:48 q+ 15:33:57 ack stain 15:35:37 stain: thinks that there should be an editorial motivation on the most typical usecase of notifying-upstream-pingback; but not technically limit one way or another ; I should be free to pingback some provenance about how King Richard III was found under a parking lot 15:36:04 proposed: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback 15:36:15 OK 15:36:24 accepted: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback 15:36:49 pgroth: should we recommend RDF for provenance? http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428 15:37:05 GK: the mechanisms that are presented in indepdendent from provenance format (as requested) 15:37:21 GK: there is still a weak recommendation that PROV-O in a "standardized RDF format" is suggested, but not required for the mechanism 15:37:31 GK: Luc had a comment abou tthat.. if we want to change it I would be fine 15:37:49 GK: but many of the feedback we have got is to use PROV-O and RDF, and perhaps nudging people in that direction 15:38:00 q? 15:38:02 q+ 15:38:09 (I've had people asking me today about PROV-JSON via PROV-AQ) 15:38:33 Curent text: "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation." 15:38:34 Luc: lots of REST services out there just XML and JSON. It would be fine if they could export provenance. It would be good to help them indivdiually.. (?) 15:38:43 Luc: that I would think they want to export provenance in the same formats 15:38:51 Luc: so my view is to not promote RDF in this case 15:38:57 Luc: just recommend the use of PROV serializations 15:39:23 Luc: we have already media types for PROV-N, there's PROV-XML (media type?), and then RDF 15:39:33 I'm OK with this change if that's the group's view. 15:39:34 pgroth: also in favour of that personally. Just say "Use PROV" should be good enough 15:39:46 pgroth: PROV-O will rpobably win the day anyway.. I don't think PAQ needs it 15:39:48 q? 15:39:48 q+ 15:39:51 ack Luc 15:39:55 ack stain 15:40:28 q? 15:41:00 stain: was initially pushing for the "Should be RDF" bit so that there would be some kind of promise or recommendation of what kind of serialization you would find; but is buying into Luc's argument to just go for any PROV serialization 15:41:07 Suggest "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " 15:41:19 proposed: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " 15:41:29 it's good, thanks 15:41:30 +1 (RECOMMENDED) 15:41:36 +1 15:41:38 +1 15:41:45 +1 15:41:49 pgroth: any objections? 15:41:52 +1 15:41:54 +1 15:41:54 +1 15:42:03 +1 15:42:13 accepted: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " 15:42:59 is this 425? 15:43:19 issue-425? 15:43:19 ISSUE-425 -- Why does the service description need to be rdf? -- pending review 15:43:19 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425 15:43:24 thnx 15:43:34 trackbot is clever :) 15:43:34 Sorry, stain, I don't understand 'trackbot is clever :)'. Please refer to for help. 15:43:53 GK: one comment has been that Why does Service Description have to be RDF in 15:44:06 GK: and the other by Stian, was to mention JSON-LD as an explicit format 15:44:49 GK: My response ; Similar to the provenance format.. the mechanism would work with any service description format; but the only one we are actually describing is one based on RDF. There is more bias towards RDF in this case. but does not precelude the use of alternative formats 15:45:17 GK: the main reason here was that the RDF one was the easiest one to expecify. The format we use use the RDF linked data properties (?) - allow us to have multiple serve descriptions in the same document. 15:45:36 GK: would think it was too late to define anything else.. but what we have is a service description based on RDF.. but left open in the document to use other formats. 15:45:55 GK: as a final comment.. the idea to use other formats came out strongly from LDP group as well (Linked Data Platform) 15:46:11 using content-negotiation to get different service description is common in world of XML web serices 15:46:20 GK: and so remain compatible; but taking it further in our use of RDF 15:46:46 pgroth: to summarize - we allow any service description format using conneg ; we give one example of how it is described in RDF 15:46:52 GK: ok, but stronger than example 15:46:54 pgroth: ONE way 15:47:03 q? 15:47:04 GK: not mandatory, but only one we specify 15:47:15 q+ 15:47:20 ack stain 15:47:53 q+ 15:48:23 q+ 15:48:29 q+ to say have sympathy with describing other formats, but problem is where do we stop? 15:49:03 stain: Still think that Luc's argument from before also applies here; my JSON-LD proposal was a way to give a simple JSON format that just happens to also be valid JSON-LD (and therefore correspond to our RDF format) 15:49:27 pgroth: (???) leaving the door open forservice descriptions; specially in terms of REST. There is no common way to do REST service descriptions 15:49:35 pgroth: we can give one easy way to do it. But we don't mandate it. 15:49:40 ack Luc 15:49:54 Luc: If I was to write it, I would do it the way you said, Paul 15:50:04 q- 15:50:08 ack pgroth 15:50:11 Luc: I noticed how a service description language format... (?) We identified this is the information we expect to find. 15:50:17 Luc: and for illustration, here's an example using RDF 15:50:28 Luc: using content-negotiation to find the representation 15:50:29 Paul's formulation sounded good. Would be happy to work on that. 15:50:49 pgroth: think my formulation is not too far from what's there.. I can fine-tune it 15:50:50 agreed, it's minor fine tuning 15:51:19 GK: happy with that. The way it came over in pgroth's expla=nation was good. So that they can use whatever works in their environment 15:51:32 (sorry I did not get to scribe most of what pgroth said before!) 15:52:04 proposed: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq 15:52:17 pgroth: any objections? 15:52:22 accepted: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq 15:52:37 should we make that action? 15:52:52 pgroth: now to go through list of pendingreview 15:52:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Mar/0090.html 15:53:00 action: pgroth to update service description editorial 15:53:00 Created ACTION-165 - Update service description editorial [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-21]. 15:53:16 zakim, mute luc 15:53:16 Luc should now be muted 15:53:21 GK: running through the document of MUST and MAY.. done in last editing/review 15:53:30 GK: Oh, right! 15:53:43 GK: we just figured out what to do with 425 in this meeting 15:53:56 issue-300? 15:53:56 ISSUE-300 -- Quote vs Quotation (Involvement versus Activity) -- closed 15:53:56 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/300 15:54:00 GK: ISSUE-600 PROV-pingback was an old issue to add pingback, now toclose 15:54:05 \issue-609? 15:54:06 iisue-600 15:54:14 issue-609? 15:54:14 ISSUE-609 -- Specify how to locate a SPARQL endpoint for querying provenance -- pending review 15:54:14 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609 15:54:15 GK: ISSUE-609 is how to locate a SPARQL endpoint.. now covered by Service Description 15:54:20 issue-622? 15:54:20 ISSUE-622 -- Should PROV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? -- pending review 15:54:20 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622 15:54:30 GK: ISSUE-622 about JSON-LD.. I think we just agreed how to address that 15:54:36 issue-624? 15:54:36 ISSUE-624 -- Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? -- pending review 15:54:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624 15:54:47 GK: The ISSUE-624 - about specifying service URI or template.. this was going back to an earlier discussion 15:55:00 GK: where we are we always get the direct access URI by means of a template in service description 15:55:08 issue-628? 15:55:08 ISSUE-628 -- Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent -- pending review 15:55:08 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/628 15:55:28 GK: and ISSUE-628 there was an issue raised by others about inconsistency aobut anchor specification in HTML vs HTTP 15:55:46 GK: there is an inconsistency.. which we discussed earlier.. but one which is of small importance only arrising in edge cases 15:55:57 GK: the document specifies how to use these things in a way that avoids the inconsistencies 15:56:01 q+ 15:56:07 GK: that means we invent less new mechanisms 15:56:24 GK: so that is the list of issues that is now PENDINGREVIEW and I propose to CLOSE - given no objections 15:56:28 Zakim, unmute luc 15:56:28 Luc should no longer be muted 15:56:31 zakim, unmute me 15:56:31 Luc was not muted, Luc 15:57:07 Luc: to me, I was not asking for a redesign.. just meant a note in the text; there is a difference between what the two approaches (?) could do. 15:57:17 GK: ok, that is a good point. I'll make a note to myself to do that 15:57:39 action: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http 15:57:39 Created ACTION-166 - Add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [on Graham Klyne - due 2013-03-21]. 15:57:42 +1 15:57:45 q? 15:57:47 ack luc 15:58:11 accepted: close the pending review issues listed in the minutes 15:58:36 pgroth: on response to James Anderson.. running out of time 15:58:41 Topic: timetable check 15:58:42 pgroth: important topic.. 15:58:49 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication 15:58:58 pgroth: we have essentially trying to close shop some time end of April 15:59:06 pgroth: we need to stage all documents by 2013-04-23 15:59:21 pgroth: asking all editors to put their final proposals for timeline (when things are to be done) 15:59:27 pgroth: I think all editors have done that 15:59:32 q? 15:59:33 pgroth: are any of the editors concerned about the time? 15:59:57 zakim, unmute me 15:59:57 SamCoppens should no longer be muted 16:00:00 pgroth: have a couple of other tasks on that page to be done 16:00:13 pgroth: namespace pages 16:00:25 pgroth: updating the FAQ 16:00:30 pgroth: making the PROV page on the wiki better 16:00:41 pgroth: need volunteers for those other tasks 16:00:51 pgroth: I would do the namespace task 16:00:56 pgroth: Provenance of Documents 16:01:09 pgroth: Luc said he would do that.. Tim would look at PROV-O's prov 16:01:16 pgroth: but editors should write their own PROV 16:01:51 stain: should not each of the formats use their own format for their PROV..? 16:02:00