edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 15 December 2011

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.15
Seen
Christine Runnegar, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Sandro Hawke, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stephen Cresswell, Timothy Lebo, Yolanda Gil
Regrets
Paul Groth, Christine Runnegar, Curt Tilmes
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
Daniel Garijo
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. to release prov-primer as fpwd link
  2. PROPOSAL 1. Adopt the following Definition for generation. In PROV-DM, a generation record is a representation of a world event, the completed creation of a new entity by an activity. This entity did not exist before this event; this entity is available for usage after this event. link
  3. PROPOSAL 2. Adopt the following Definition for usage. In PROV-DM, a usage record is a representation of a world event: the start of an entity consumption by an activity. Before this event, this entity was not consumed or used in any form or shape by the activity, totally or partially. link
Topics
  1. Admin

    Apologies, minutes of last weeks call are unedited. We will get them approved next week. No outstanding action.

  2. releases

    Congratulations to the working group for the release of the prov-o fpwd and prov-dm WD2. In January, we should discuss how to proactively disseminate these.

  3. Prov-primer

    It was agreed to add an introductory paragraph explaining the differences (wasControlledBy/wasAssociatedWith) between the prov-o and prov-dm documents and to update the bibliography. The goup approved the release of the primer as a FPWD. The editors will plan what changes they want to make for WD2 and its timing.

  4. prov-aq

    Transition request was approved. Publication request for January release in progress. The editors will also plan changes for WD2 and timing for WD2. WG is invited to provide feedback on the current version of the document.

  5. prov-o

    The editors will plan the next release WD2 and its timing. All editors were reminded the objectives of the second Face to Face meeting, and the inputs the Working Group agreed to work towards.

  6. prov-sem

    James is making good progress about the semantics. He will notify the group about its availability for comments.

  7. prov-dm

    A vote took place during the week. Two proposals were accepted. There was no support for the third one. During the vote, Stephan flagged a point in the document and he will raise an issue.Changes were made to three different sections in the prov-dm document: wasComplementOf, recipeLink (now hadPlan) and the event ordering constraint. The WG is invited to comment on these. The participants debated the proposed viewOf relation. Two notions seem to be competing: viewOf and complementOf. The section will be revised to take this distinction into account. The issue of interval containment was also brought up. The editors will try to mediate between the various participants to converge towards an agreeable solution.

15:44:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-prov-irc

15:44:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

15:44:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

15:44:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

15:44:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:44:31 <trackbot> Date: 15 December 2011
15:44:32 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

15:44:32 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes

15:44:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.15
15:45:08 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:46:00 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Christine Runnegar, Curt Tilmes
15:46:08 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo

(Scribe set to Daniel Garijo)

15:46:15 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

15:46:20 <Luc> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: Apologies, minutes of last weeks call are unedited. We will get them approved next week. No outstanding action.

<luc> summary: Apologies, minutes of last weeks call are unedited. We will get them approved next week. No outstanding action.
15:54:47 <Luc> hi daniel, everything set up for you

(No events recorded for 8 minutes)

Luc Moreau: hi daniel, everything set up for you

15:54:53 <dgarijo> thanks, Luc

thanks, Luc

15:55:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

15:55:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:55:44 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

15:55:59 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

15:55:59 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:57:44 <dgarijo> how many grahams have we got :o?

how many grahams have we got :o?

15:58:25 <GK> Just one, but with two computers :)

Graham Klyne: Just one, but with two computers :)

15:58:36 <dgarijo> :)

:)

15:59:20 <dgarijo> Agenda for today's meeting: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.15

Agenda for today's meeting: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.15

15:59:27 <Zakim> +??P52

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P52

15:59:50 <Zakim> +[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI]

15:59:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

16:00:07 <GK> zakim, ??P52 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??P52 is me

16:00:19 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

16:00:25 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2

16:00:33 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.633.aaaa

16:00:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P2 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P2 is me

16:00:48 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.330.aabb

16:00:50 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

16:00:58 <lebot> zakim, aabb is tlebo

Timothy Lebo: zakim, aabb is tlebo

16:01:03 <dgarijo> Zakim, who is here?

Zakim, who is here?

16:01:14 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it

16:01:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, dgarijo, GK, [ISI], [IPcaller], Paolo, +1.518.633.aaaa, tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Luc, dgarijo, GK, [ISI], [IPcaller], Paolo, +1.518.633.aaaa, tlebo

16:01:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see khalidbelhajjame, lebot, Paolo, zednik, GK, Lena, GK1, dgarijo, MacTed, RRSAgent, Luc, trackbot, mdmdm, stain, Zakim, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see khalidbelhajjame, lebot, Paolo, zednik, GK, Lena, GK1, dgarijo, MacTed, RRSAgent, Luc, trackbot, mdmdm, stain, Zakim, sandro

16:01:46 <GK> @luc - do you need scribe?

Graham Klyne: @luc - do you need scribe?

16:01:55 <Zakim> +??P32

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P32

16:02:01 <Luc> daniel has volunteered, thank you Graham

Luc Moreau: daniel has volunteered, thank you Graham

16:02:21 <zednik> zakim, aaaa is me

Stephan Zednik: zakim, aaaa is me

16:02:38 <dgarijo> Luc: agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.15

Luc Moreau: agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.15

16:03:05 <dgarijo> ... aob?

... aob?

16:03:29 <Zakim> +zednik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik; got it

16:03:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a]

16:03:53 <Zakim> +sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro

16:03:55 <dgarijo> ... we will propose to accept the minutes of last week next week

... we will propose to accept the minutes of last week next week

16:04:02 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me

16:04:12 <dgarijo> actions\: Yolanda and Satya had some, but they were closed last week

actions\: Yolanda and Satya had some, but they were closed last week

16:04:32 <dgarijo> Luc: scribes are still needed. Please volunteer.

Luc Moreau: scribes are still needed. Please volunteer.

16:04:45 <Luc> topic: releases

2. releases

Summary: Congratulations to the working group for the release of the prov-o fpwd and prov-dm WD2. In January, we should discuss how to proactively disseminate these.

<Luc> summary: Congratulations to the working group for the release of the prov-o fpwd and prov-dm WD2.  In January, we should discuss how to proactively disseminate these.
16:04:38 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111213/

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111213/

16:04:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215/

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111215/

16:05:01 <dgarijo> ... 2 releases: On tuesday the FPWD for the prpov-o document. Today we'll have the release of prov dm

... 2 releases: On tuesday the FPWD for the prpov-o document. Today we'll have the release of prov dm

16:05:19 <dgarijo> ... Congratulations to everyone

... Congratulations to everyone

16:05:20 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it

16:05:28 <Zakim> +??P16

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16

16:05:34 <Zakim> +SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens

16:05:37 <dgarijo> ... feedback from outside is already appearing, which is great.

... feedback from outside is already appearing, which is great.

16:06:01 <jcheney> zakim, ??p16 is me

James Cheney: zakim, ??p16 is me

16:06:07 <dgarijo> ... it would be good to plan some disemination for the releases on Jan. Any ideas?

... it would be good to plan some disemination for the releases on Jan. Any ideas?

16:06:40 <dgarijo> ... khalid, stian, have you planned advertising this?

... khalid, stian, have you planned advertising this?

16:06:41 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it

16:07:02 <jcheney> I thought the idea was to publicize all the new WDs after the holidays

James Cheney: I thought the idea was to publicize all the new WDs after the holidays

16:07:07 <dgarijo> khalid: we haven't thought about that yet. We should spend some time on that.

Khalid Belhajjame: we haven't thought about that yet. We should spend some time on that.

16:07:37 <dgarijo> ... it will be discussed on the next prov-o telecon.

... it will be discussed on the next prov-o telecon.

16:08:06 <dgarijo> Luc: congrats to the team again.

Luc Moreau: congrats to the team again.

16:08:34 <Luc> topic: Prov-primer

3. Prov-primer

Summary: It was agreed to add an introductory paragraph explaining the differences (wasControlledBy/wasAssociatedWith) between the prov-o and prov-dm documents and to update the bibliography. The goup approved the release of the primer as a FPWD. The editors will plan what changes they want to make for WD2 and its timing.

<Luc>Summary: It was agreed to add an introductory paragraph explaining the differences (wasControlledBy/wasAssociatedWith) between the prov-o and prov-dm documents and to update the bibliography. The goup approved the release of the primer as a FPWD. The editors will plan what changes they want to make for WD2 and its timing.
16:08:49 <dgarijo> Luc: what is the situation?

Luc Moreau: what is the situation?

16:08:59 <dgarijo> smiles: Yolanda made some edits.

Simon Miles: Yolanda made some edits.

16:10:01 <dgarijo> ... wednseday we distributed the new version of the primer, although there was 1 comment about a statement on which there is no consensus yet

... wednseday we distributed the new version of the primer, although there was 1 comment about a statement on which there is no consensus yet

16:10:14 <dgarijo> ... feedback is welcome

... feedback is welcome

16:10:29 <dgarijo> Luc: next week we may not have many people on the call.

Luc Moreau: next week we may not have many people on the call.

16:10:37 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:10:37 <dgarijo> ... could you vote today?

... could you vote today?

16:10:45 <zednik> +q

Stephan Zednik: +q

16:11:12 <dgarijo> dgarijo: if we correct the wasAssociatedWith I think we can release it.

Daniel Garijo: if we correct the wasAssociatedWith I think we can release it.

16:11:53 <dgarijo> StephanZ: they are not synchronized, so we shouldn't release it yet.

Stephan Zednik: they are not synchronized, so we shouldn't release it yet.

16:12:03 <dgarijo> ... until we fix it

... until we fix it

16:12:16 <dgarijo> Luc: it is not practical to synchornize releases.

Luc Moreau: it is not practical to synchornize releases.

16:12:18 <YolandaGil> q+

Yolanda Gil: q+

16:12:27 <dgarijo> ... we could release something in between.

... we could release something in between.

16:12:40 <jcheney> The prov-o FPWD refers to the (October) DM FPWD.

James Cheney: The prov-o FPWD refers to the (October) DM FPWD.

16:13:05 <dgarijo> ... if we synchronize everuthing, documents get delayed.

... if we synchronize everuthing, documents get delayed.

16:13:19 <dgarijo> StephanZ: it can be confusing.

Stephan Zednik: it can be confusing.

16:13:38 <dgarijo> Luc: is there a particular version that can be more or less aligned?

Luc Moreau: is there a particular version that can be more or less aligned?

16:13:53 <dgarijo> smiles: there is a previous one.

Simon Miles: there is a previous one.

16:13:54 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:14:34 <dgarijo> Luc: the picture you incorporated is from the 15th, not 18th.

Luc Moreau: the picture you incorporated is from the 15th, not 18th.

16:14:42 <GK> On reflection, I think it's acceptable for FPWDs to be out of sync, on the basis we need to show the world where we're headed, but we should aim for stabilization of central concepts for subsequent releases, as far as practical.

Graham Klyne: On reflection, I think it's acceptable for FPWDs to be out of sync, on the basis we need to show the world where we're headed, but we should aim for stabilization of central concepts for subsequent releases, as far as practical.

16:14:47 <dgarijo> smiles: we'll use the most recent in the primer

Simon Miles: we'll use the most recent in the primer

16:14:50 <jcheney> There are links to the HG repository drafts in the primer.

James Cheney: There are links to the HG repository drafts in the primer.

16:14:50 <dgarijo> Luc: ok

Luc Moreau: ok

16:15:31 <dgarijo> Luc: I think that is worth adding a paragraph to adress Stephan's point

Luc Moreau: I think that is worth adding a paragraph to adress Stephan's point

16:16:12 <Paolo> can we just have a summary of these discrepancies upfront?

Paolo Missier: can we just have a summary of these discrepancies upfront?

16:16:16 <dgarijo> smiles: yes, it's reasonable.

Simon Miles: yes, it's reasonable.

16:16:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:16:25 <dgarijo> zednik: ok

Stephan Zednik: ok

16:16:26 <Paolo> more informative than just a ref to a specific previous version

Paolo Missier: more informative than just a ref to a specific previous version

16:16:28 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed

16:16:30 <zednik> -q

Stephan Zednik: -q

16:16:34 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

16:16:55 <Paolo> q- []

Paolo Missier: q- []

16:17:03 <Paolo> q-

Paolo Missier: q-

16:17:05 <Luc> ack yol

Luc Moreau: ack yol

16:17:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:17:26 <dgarijo> Yolanda: I was going to propose what you just proposed, Luc. Last week we took things that seemed complicated from the model, so it is easier as a starting point.

Yolanda Gil: I was going to propose what you just proposed, Luc. Last week we took things that seemed complicated from the model, so it is easier as a starting point.

16:17:58 <dgarijo> Luc: the document will be very helpful for the community.

Luc Moreau: the document will be very helpful for the community.

16:18:28 <Luc> proposed: to release prov-primer as fpwd

PROPOSED: to release prov-primer as fpwd

16:18:40 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

16:18:41 <dgarijo> dgarijo:+1

Daniel Garijo: +1

16:18:46 <jcheney> +1 (UoE)

James Cheney: +1 (UoE)

16:18:46 <YolandaGil> +1

Yolanda Gil: +1

16:18:48 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

16:18:52 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

16:18:55 <GK> +1 (Oxford)

Graham Klyne: +1 (Oxford)

16:19:06 <SamCoppens> +1 (IBBT)

Sam Coppens: +1 (IBBT)

16:19:22 <smiles> +1 (note I'm an editor)

Simon Miles: +1 (note I'm an editor)

16:19:26 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

16:19:44 <Luc> accepted: to release prov-primer as fpwd

RESOLVED: to release prov-primer as fpwd

16:20:05 <dgarijo> Luc: now you have green lights to start the process of releasing these documents.

Luc Moreau: now you have green lights to start the process of releasing these documents.

16:20:37 <dgarijo> ... no publication will take place before January, but we could start the set of requests for the publication.

... no publication will take place before January, but we could start the set of requests for the publication.

16:20:53 <dgarijo> smiles: patent information?

Simon Miles: patent information?

16:21:11 <GK> I copied the patent URI from the DM document

Graham Klyne: I copied the patent URI from the DM document

16:21:19 <GK> .. for PROV-AQ

Graham Klyne: .. for PROV-AQ

16:21:24 <dgarijo> Luc: this document will be a note, so the rest is fine.

Luc Moreau: this document will be a note, so the rest is fine.

16:22:26 <dgarijo> GK: I added the same phrase to the prov-aq

Graham Klyne: I added the same phrase to the prov-aq

16:22:42 <dgarijo> Luc: there is a link wrong in the primer.

Luc Moreau: there is a link wrong in the primer.

16:23:07 <dgarijo> ... plans for the second working draft?

... plans for the second working draft?

16:23:13 <dgarijo> ... plans for releasing it?

... plans for releasing it?

16:23:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:23:35 <dgarijo> smiles: first of all, synchronize it with the latest dm

Simon Miles: first of all, synchronize it with the latest dm

16:23:41 <dgarijo> yolanda?

yolanda?

16:24:11 <Luc> topic: prov-aq

4. prov-aq

Summary: Transition request was approved. Publication request for January release in progress. The editors will also plan changes for WD2 and timing for WD2. WG is invited to provide feedback on the current version of the document.

<luc>Summary: Transition request was approved. Publication request for January release in progress. The editors will also plan changes for WD2 and timing for WD2. WG is invited to provide feedback on the current version of the document.
16:24:17 <dgarijo> Luc: share with us your plans on the next telecon, when you're available

Luc Moreau: share with us your plans on the next telecon, when you're available

16:24:23 <GK> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/WD-PROV-AQ-20111212.html

Graham Klyne: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/WD-PROV-AQ-20111212.html

16:24:42 <dgarijo> GK: since last week Paul has been working on it

Graham Klyne: since last week Paul has been working on it

16:24:58 <dgarijo> ... had a response from people

... had a response from people

16:25:12 <dgarijo> ... will be published next year

... will be published next year

16:25:38 <dgarijo> ... Paul is taking care of the last issues.

... Paul is taking care of the last issues.

16:25:59 <dgarijo> ... We haven't started discussing the 2nd working draft plan

... We haven't started discussing the 2nd working draft plan

16:26:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:26:13 <dgarijo> ... still have some issues before we release the first draft

... still have some issues before we release the first draft

16:26:47 <dgarijo> ... we have to look for feedback and anwer it

... we have to look for feedback and anwer it

16:27:24 <dgarijo> Luc: worried about discussing the release at the F2F meeting.

Luc Moreau: worried about discussing the release at the F2F meeting.

16:27:52 <dgarijo> ... will you have a revised draft before?

... will you have a revised draft before?

16:27:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:27:58 <dgarijo> GK: will try to.

Graham Klyne: will try to.

16:28:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:28:25 <Luc> topic: prov-o

5. prov-o

Summary: The editors will plan the next release WD2 and its timing. All editors were reminded the objectives of the second Face to Face meeting, and the inputs the Working Group agreed to work towards.

<Luc>Summary: The editors will plan the next release WD2 and its timing.  All editors were reminded the objectives of the second Face to Face meeting, and the inputs the Working Group agreed to work towards.
16:28:27 <dgarijo> Luc: please provide comments on these drafts. It is key for the editors to progress.

Luc Moreau: please provide comments on these drafts. It is key for the editors to progress.

16:28:46 <GK> FWIW, PROV-AQ issues: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5

Graham Klyne: FWIW, PROV-AQ issues: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5

16:28:51 <dgarijo> Luc: plan for the second WD?

Luc Moreau: plan for the second WD?

16:29:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:29:36 <dgarijo> khalid: we haven talked about that yet. But We'll work on synchronize the current version with prov dm

Khalid Belhajjame: we haven talked about that yet. But We'll work on synchronize the current version with prov dm

16:29:57 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2#Objectives

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2#Objectives

16:29:57 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be nice if you could talk about it.

Luc Moreau: it would be nice if you could talk about it.

16:30:05 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2#Inputs_for_F2F2

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2#Inputs_for_F2F2

16:30:27 <dgarijo> ... Reminder of the objectives and inputs we wanted to have before the second f2F meeting.

... Reminder of the objectives and inputs we wanted to have before the second f2F meeting.

16:30:58 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:31:11 <Luc> topic: prov-sem

6. prov-sem

Summary: James is making good progress about the semantics. He will notify the group about its availability for comments.

<Luc>Summary: James is making good progress about the semantics. He will notify the group about its availability for comments.
16:31:13 <dgarijo> ... what you suggest here is in line with what we agreed on, but we have to make sure we progress on the objectives

... what you suggest here is in line with what we agreed on, but we have to make sure we progress on the objectives

16:31:28 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman

16:31:28 <dgarijo> Luc: James has been drafting the semantics.

Luc Moreau: James has been drafting the semantics.

16:32:09 <dgarijo> JamesC: gone through the strawman and updated the notation

James Cheney: gone through the strawman and updated the notation

16:32:45 <dgarijo> ... the html is not on the right format, but I rather spend some time on the wiki and work on the content and what we agreed on.

... the html is not on the right format, but I rather spend some time on the wiki and work on the content and what we agreed on.

16:33:01 <dgarijo> Luc: at this stage it is better through the wiki

Luc Moreau: at this stage it is better through the wiki

16:33:14 <dgarijo> JamesC: happy to stick with the wiki.

James Cheney: happy to stick with the wiki.

16:33:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:33:32 <dgarijo> ... discussion of wasComplement of that has to be updated

... discussion of wasComplement of that has to be updated

16:33:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:34:02 <dgarijo> ... friday is the deadline, so it is better to wait for monday

... friday is the deadline, so it is better to wait for monday

16:34:09 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

16:34:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:34:25 <Luc> ack GK

Luc Moreau: ack GK

16:34:26 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks for doing this work. Others will join you

Luc Moreau: thanks for doing this work. Others will join you

16:34:54 <dgarijo> GK: the document is similar to model theoretical semantics

Graham Klyne: the document is similar to model theoretical semantics

16:34:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:35:00 <dgarijo> JamesC: Yes.

James Cheney: Yes.

16:35:16 <Luc> topic: prov-dm

7. prov-dm

Summary: A vote took place during the week. Two proposals were accepted. There was no support for the third one. During the vote, Stephan flagged a point in the document and he will raise an issue.Changes were made to three different sections in the prov-dm document: wasComplementOf, recipeLink (now hadPlan) and the event ordering constraint. The WG is invited to comment on these. The participants debated the proposed viewOf relation. Two notions seem to be competing: viewOf and complementOf. The section will be revised to take this distinction into account. The issue of interval containment was also brought up. The editors will try to mediate between the various participants to converge towards an agreeable solution.

<Luc>Summary: A vote took place during the week. Two proposals were accepted. There was no support for the third one.  During the vote, Stephan flagged a point in the document and he will raise an issue.Changes were made to three different sections in the prov-dm document: wasComplementOf, recipeLink (now hadPlan) and the event ordering constraint. The WG is invited to comment on these. The participants debated the proposed viewOf relation. Two notions seem to be competing: viewOf and complementOf.  The section will be revised to take this distinction into account. The issue of interval containment was also brought up. The editors will try to mediate between the various participants to converge towards an agreeable solution.
16:35:25 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0148.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0148.html

16:35:40 <dgarijo> Luc: last week I sent an email with 3 proposal for events.

Luc Moreau: last week I sent an email with 3 proposal for events.

16:35:58 <dgarijo> ... we had 10-15 votes during the week

... we had 10-15 votes during the week

16:36:20 <Luc> ACCEPTED: PROPOSAL 1. Adopt the following Definition for generation. In PROV-DM, a generation record is a representation of a world event, the completed creation of a new entity by an activity. This entity did not exist before this event; this entity is available for usage after this event.

RESOLVED: PROPOSAL 1. Adopt the following Definition for generation. In PROV-DM, a generation record is a representation of a world event, the completed creation of a new entity by an activity. This entity did not exist before this event; this entity is available for usage after this event.

16:36:24 <dgarijo> ... the outcome is: The first proposal to redefine generation was supported.

... the outcome is: The first proposal to redefine generation was supported.

16:36:45 <Luc> ACCEPTED: PROPOSAL 2. Adopt the following Definition for usage. In PROV-DM, a usage record is a representation of a world event: the start of an entity consumption by an activity. Before this event, this entity was not consumed or used in any form or shape by the activity, totally or partially.

RESOLVED: PROPOSAL 2. Adopt the following Definition for usage. In PROV-DM, a usage record is a representation of a world event: the start of an entity consumption by an activity. Before this event, this entity was not consumed or used in any form or shape by the activity, totally or partially.

16:36:50 <dgarijo> ... the second proposal to define usage was strongly supported. It could be rephrased better though.

... the second proposal to define usage was strongly supported. It could be rephrased better though.

16:36:57 <Luc> PROPOSAL 3. Replace the word event by action.

Luc Moreau: PROPOSAL 3. Replace the word event by action.

16:37:21 <dgarijo> ... the 3rd proposal did not have enough support.

... the 3rd proposal did not have enough support.

16:38:10 <dgarijo> ... 3 quarters of the people voted no. Suggestions are milestone or Instantaneous Event.

... 3 quarters of the people voted no. Suggestions are milestone or Instantaneous Event.

16:38:24 <dgarijo> ... I will not try to resolve it here now

... I will not try to resolve it here now

16:38:42 <dgarijo> ... Raise issues regarding the term

... Raise issues regarding the term

16:38:48 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:38:59 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

16:39:03 <dgarijo> ... happy to take any comments

... happy to take any comments

16:39:39 <dgarijo> zednik: about the last sentence of proposal 1. Can we discuss it or should I raise an issue?

Stephan Zednik: about the last sentence of proposal 1. Can we discuss it or should I raise an issue?

16:39:59 <dgarijo> Luc: before generation it is not an entity, because it is not generated get.

Luc Moreau: before generation it is not an entity, because it is not generated get.

16:40:24 <dgarijo> zednik: I understand the intent

Stephan Zednik: I understand the intent

16:40:36 <dgarijo> Luc: If you have another phrasing, please raise an issue

Luc Moreau: If you have another phrasing, please raise an issue

16:40:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:40:52 <dgarijo> zednik: will do.

Stephan Zednik: will do.

16:40:56 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

16:40:56 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze

16:40:56 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks

Luc Moreau: thanks

16:41:20 <dgarijo> Luc: since last week we've made a set of changes.

Luc Moreau: since last week we've made a set of changes.

16:41:21 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0190.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0190.html

16:41:29 <dgarijo> ... the first one is regarding wasViewOf

... the first one is regarding wasViewOf

16:41:37 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-complement-of

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#record-complement-of

16:41:57 <dgarijo> ... did anyone have the oportunity to go through the text?

... did anyone have the oportunity to go through the text?

16:42:14 <dgarijo> ... spent some time discussing with paolo

... spent some time discussing with paolo

16:42:24 <StephenCresswell> +q

Stephen Cresswell: +q

16:42:26 <dgarijo> ... feedback would be appreciated.

... feedback would be appreciated.

16:42:30 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

16:42:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:42:43 <Luc> ack steph

Luc Moreau: ack steph

16:43:01 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q-

16:43:09 <dgarijo> Stephen: What was discussed last week is not still reflected on prov dm

Stephen Cresswell: What was discussed last week is not still reflected on prov dm

16:43:13 <GK> I was about to same the same as Stephan

Graham Klyne: I was about to same the same as Stephan

16:44:08 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:44:09 <Luc> ... the text mentions: Note that, as a particular case, the validity interval of e1 may be contained within the validity interval of e1.

Luc Moreau: ... the text mentions: Note that, as a particular case, the validity interval of e1 may be contained within the validity interval of e1.

16:44:41 <dgarijo> ... not agreeing with the current definition of interval containment.

... not agreeing with the current definition of interval containment.

16:45:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:45:05 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

16:45:11 <dgarijo> Luc: containment is mentioned as a special case of what is being defined.

Luc Moreau: containment is mentioned as a special case of what is being defined.

16:45:16 <GK> q+ to note (again) that I think the important feature of "a viewOf b" is that all provenance about b is also true of a

Graham Klyne: q+ to note (again) that I think the important feature of "a viewOf b" is that all provenance about b is also true of a

16:45:41 <dgarijo> paolo: it doesn't  make sense to assert that when intervals do not overlap.

Paolo Missier: it doesn't make sense to assert that when intervals do not overlap.

16:45:45 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:46:28 <dgarijo> paolo: I don't think that we have discussed that the validity of the intervals can be inferred from the assertions.

Paolo Missier: I don't think that we have discussed that the validity of the intervals can be inferred from the assertions.

16:47:01 <dgarijo> ... you can complete the model with the assertions that you make.

... you can complete the model with the assertions that you make.

16:47:17 <dgarijo> ... we should just make a decission

... we should just make a decission

16:47:32 <StephenCresswell> +q

Stephen Cresswell: +q

16:47:52 <dgarijo> ... the containment issue: there is no need to insist on containment or intervals

... the containment issue: there is no need to insist on containment or intervals

16:48:51 <dgarijo> ... assuming or infering interval containment may not be the best thing

... assuming or infering interval containment may not be the best thing

16:49:01 <lebot> +1 to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.

Timothy Lebo: +1 to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.

16:49:45 <GK> IMO, bob the twiotter account holder is NOT view of bob the facebook account holder

Graham Klyne: IMO, bob the twiotter account holder is NOT view of bob the facebook account holder

16:49:46 <Luc> ack GK

Luc Moreau: ack GK

16:49:46 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note (again) that I think the important feature of "a viewOf b" is that all provenance about b is also true of a

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to note (again) that I think the important feature of "a viewOf b" is that all provenance about b is also true of a

16:49:50 <dgarijo> Luc: is the example that is discussed here one that we want to capture with this relation. If it is, does it make sense?

Luc Moreau: is the example that is discussed here one that we want to capture with this relation. If it is, does it make sense?

16:49:55 <lebot> also, it's not the _account_, it's the _person with_ the account.

Timothy Lebo: also, it's not the _account_, it's the _person with_ the account.

16:50:56 <Luc> @tim, did you mean to join the queue?

Luc Moreau: @tim, did you mean to join the queue?

16:51:11 <lebot> +q to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.

Timothy Lebo: +q to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.

16:51:12 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:51:13 <dgarijo> GK: testability. If a is a view of b, then all the problems that b would have because of the changes would also be applicable to a?

Graham Klyne: testability. If a is a view of b, then all the problems that b would have because of the changes would also be applicable to a?

16:51:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:51:20 <StephenCresswell> I added an alternative proposal to the wiki after last week's meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases

Stephen Cresswell: I added an alternative proposal to the wiki after last week's meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases

16:52:06 <dgarijo> Stephen: interval containment is useful. I have added a proposal to the wiki

Stephen Cresswell: interval containment is useful. I have added a proposal to the wiki

16:52:07 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:52:10 <Luc> ack ste

Luc Moreau: ack ste

16:52:50 <GK> @stephen +1

Graham Klyne: @stephen +1

16:52:50 <dgarijo> tlebo: looks like complement of is a rename for view of. Facebook account is a view of Tim, not from anoither Twitter cccount

Timothy Lebo: looks like complement of is a rename for view of. Facebook account is a view of Tim, not from anoither Twitter cccount

16:53:32 <GK> I just looked a Stephen's entry on wiki page, think it looks good.

Graham Klyne: I just looked a Stephen's entry on wiki page, think it looks good.

16:53:34 <dgarijo> tlebo: we renamed the relation and now it can be confusing. The example is right, but not well written.

Timothy Lebo: we renamed the relation and now it can be confusing. The example is right, but not well written.

16:54:14 <GK> .. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases#An_alternative_proposal_.28stephen.29

Graham Klyne: .. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases#An_alternative_proposal_.28stephen.29

16:54:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:54:22 <Luc> ack leb

Luc Moreau: ack leb

16:54:22 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.

Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to ask how a facebook account is a viewOf a twitter account. complementOf was just renamed here.

16:54:33 <dgarijo> paolo: disagree with all 3 comments.

Paolo Missier: disagree with all 3 comments.

16:54:52 <dgarijo> ... complement of was based on a level of how much knowledge you have of an entity

... complement of was based on a level of how much knowledge you have of an entity

16:54:55 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:54:58 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

16:55:04 <dgarijo> ... it has completely disappeared here.

... it has completely disappeared here.

16:55:32 <dgarijo> ... now we have time intervals and create minimum assertions about them.

... now we have time intervals and create minimum assertions about them.

16:56:55 <dgarijo> ... we felt that 2 characterizations of the same entity should not have a hierarchy.

... we felt that 2 characterizations of the same entity should not have a hierarchy.

16:57:56 <dgarijo> ... I don't think that having the 2 accounts view of each others does not violate anything.

... I don't think that having the 2 accounts view of each others does not violate anything.

16:57:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:58:12 <StephenCresswell> We want something with actual transitivity, not just pseudo-transitivity.  I don't see what use pseudo-transitivity is.

Stephen Cresswell: We want something with actual transitivity, not just pseudo-transitivity. I don't see what use pseudo-transitivity is.

16:58:14 <GK> I was previously looking at the wrong document ... What Paolo says is reasonable, except that I think the name viewOf should

Graham Klyne: I was previously looking at the wrong document ... What Paolo says is reasonable, except that I think the name viewOf should

16:58:16 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

16:58:18 <dgarijo> Luc: not made much progress.

Luc Moreau: not made much progress.

16:58:24 <lebot> Still wondering how "me via facebook" is a view of "me via twitter" and "me via prov-wg call"

Timothy Lebo: Still wondering how "me via facebook" is a view of "me via twitter" and "me via prov-wg call"

16:58:36 <khalidbelhajjame> It is always a good idea to leave complimentarity discussions til the end of the agenda :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: It is always a good idea to leave complimentarity discussions til the end of the agenda :-)

16:58:54 <dgarijo> GK: problem may be with the names

Graham Klyne: problem may be with the names

16:59:07 <Paolo> pseudo-transitivity is simply transitivity with the additional condition on consistency of intervals

Paolo Missier: pseudo-transitivity is simply transitivity with the additional condition on consistency of intervals

16:59:11 <lebot> +1 GK!

Timothy Lebo: +1 GK!

16:59:17 <dgarijo> ... paolo's view Of should be complement of

... paolo's view Of should be complement of

16:59:43 <dgarijo> ... 2 competing set of intuitions.

... 2 competing set of intuitions.

17:00:23 <dgarijo> GK: I din't see the necessity for interval containment, although it could be there in practice.

Graham Klyne: I din't see the necessity for interval containment, although it could be there in practice.

17:00:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:01:02 <Zakim> -SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens

17:01:08 <StephenCresswell> @Paolo Pseudo-transitivity seems to allow us to derive things which are meaningless - or depend on a separate test which we might not always be able to make.

Stephen Cresswell: @Paolo Pseudo-transitivity seems to allow us to derive things which are meaningless - or depend on a separate test which we might not always be able to make.

17:01:15 <dgarijo> Luc: just to clarify this issue. Tim, are you supportive to what Graham said?

Luc Moreau: just to clarify this issue. Tim, are you supportive to what Graham said?

17:01:25 <dgarijo> tlebo: yes

Timothy Lebo: yes

17:02:01 <Zakim> +SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens

17:02:06 <dgarijo> ... view is complement.

... view of is complement.

17:02:14 <GK> @tlebo thanks - just what I was trying to say!

Graham Klyne: @tlebo thanks - just what I was trying to say!

17:02:17 <dgarijo> s/view/view of
17:02:20 <Paolo> if you go for "abstract" vs "concrete" then you could argue that the "abstract" version has a longer lifetime than the "concrete", hence containment, but I still feel that's arbitrary

Paolo Missier: if you go for "abstract" vs "concrete" then you could argue that the "abstract" version has a longer lifetime than the "concrete", hence containment, but I still feel that's arbitrary

17:03:09 <dgarijo> Luc: would not be against the renaming proposed by Tim and Graham.

Luc Moreau: would not be against the renaming proposed by Tim and Graham.

17:03:11 <GK> @paolo ... I don't see it as abstract vs concrete

Graham Klyne: @paolo ... I don't see it as abstract vs concrete

17:03:16 <Paolo> if we had both the "vertical" and "horizontal", would that help? with suitable renaming of the relation names

Paolo Missier: if we had both the "vertical" and "horizontal", would that help? with suitable renaming of the relation names

17:03:45 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:03:49 <lebot> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

17:03:54 <dgarijo> Luc: I will work in a proposal. We will try to adress Stephen's concerns

Luc Moreau: I will work in a proposal. We will try to adress Stephen's concerns

17:03:54 <Paolo> @GK Stephen Z use that terminology

Paolo Missier: @GK Stephen Z use that terminology

17:03:59 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

17:04:08 <lebot> q+ to clarify the changes that paolo made

Timothy Lebo: q+ to clarify the changes that paolo made

17:04:15 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

17:04:25 <Zakim> -[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI]

17:04:46 <dgarijo> Tim: question about the attributes in the new proposal.

Timothy Lebo: question about the attributes in the new proposal.

17:04:57 <StephenCresswell> It's also changed to become symmetric.

Stephen Cresswell: It's also changed to become symmetric.

17:05:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:05:05 <dgarijo> paolo: There is no attributes anywhere at this point.

Paolo Missier: There are. no attributes anywhere at thare. point.

17:05:23 <dgarijo> s/is/are.
17:06:25 <dgarijo> Tim: will read and put a comment on the list

Timothy Lebo: will read and put a comment on the list

17:06:53 <dgarijo> Luc: you seem to be in agreement. Can you agree on a text and send it to the rest of the group?

Luc Moreau: you seem to be in agreement. Can you agree on a text and send it to the rest of the group?

17:06:59 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

17:07:08 <dgarijo> Luc: GK, Tim, paolo

Luc Moreau: GK, Tim, paolo

17:07:47 <StephenCresswell> +q

Stephen Cresswell: +q

17:08:22 <dgarijo> GK: what os proposed in the wiki sounds reasonable.

Graham Klyne: what is propised in the wiki sounds reasonable.

17:08:30 <dgarijo> s/os/is
17:08:43 <dgarijo> paolo: maybe we are running in circles.

Paolo Missier: maybe we are running in circles.

17:08:59 <StephenCresswell> +q

Stephen Cresswell: +q

17:09:09 <dgarijo> Luc: how do we move this forward

Luc Moreau: how do we move this forward

17:09:40 <dgarijo> stephen: transitivity **I missed something here**

Stephen Cresswell: transitivity **I missed something here**

17:10:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

17:10:29 <dgarijo> paolo: we don't know normally what this intervals are. I don't see this intervals as that relevant.

Paolo Missier: we don't know normally what this intervals are. I don't see this intervals as that relevant.

17:10:36 <Luc> ack steph

Luc Moreau: ack steph

17:10:41 <GK> @paulo, even if we don't know what they are, the properties may be inferred existentially

Graham Klyne: @paulo, even if we don't know what they are, the properties may be inferred existentially

17:11:03 <dgarijo> stephen: we should be allowed to assert to assert something about the interval even if we don't know the time

Stephen Cresswell: we should be allowed to assert to assert something about the interval even if we don't know the time

17:11:40 <dgarijo> paolo: the model is missing a facility to make clear when entities exist.

Paolo Missier: the model is missing a facility to make clear when entities exist.

17:12:09 <dgarijo> khalid: instead talking about intervals, talk about the validity of an entity.

Khalid Belhajjame: instead talking about intervals, talk about the validity of an entity.

17:12:14 <jcheney> Got to go, sorry

James Cheney: Got to go, sorry

17:12:18 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

17:12:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:12:33 <Luc> ack khal

Luc Moreau: ack khal

17:12:38 <dgarijo> paolo: will have to ground validity.

Paolo Missier: will have to ground validity.

17:12:54 <dgarijo> khalid: we don't have means to ground it. My proposal is to let it be

Khalid Belhajjame: we don't have means to ground it. My proposal is to let it be

17:13:56 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

17:14:00 <dgarijo> Luc: we're editing the WD with this. Is it better to revert back to the previous version of that section and then review both proposals separately?

Luc Moreau: we're editing the WD with this. Is it better to revert back to the previous version of that section and then review both proposals separately?

17:14:18 <lebot> I'd rather keep the rewrite in as it is (so I can read the new stuff)

Timothy Lebo: I'd rather keep the rewrite in as it is (so I can read the new stuff)

17:14:37 <dgarijo> GK: the document is not the main issue. The consensus is the main issue.

Graham Klyne: the document is not the main issue. The consensus is the main issue.

17:14:48 <Paolo> -1 for reverting back

Paolo Missier: -1 for reverting back

17:14:51 <lebot> will the rewrite stand somewhere else?

Timothy Lebo: will the rewrite stand somewhere else?

17:15:03 <dgarijo> Luc: should revert and THEN reach consensus, knowing that some people will look at the doc.

Luc Moreau: should revert and THEN reach consensus, knowing that some people will look at the doc.

17:15:10 <dgarijo> GK: No.

Graham Klyne: No.

17:15:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:15:32 <dgarijo> Luc: ok, lets keep it

Luc Moreau: ok, lets keep it

17:15:43 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0161.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0161.html

17:16:04 <GK> @luc: I need to properly read Paolo's current proposal, and comment.  Would like to see if can find a consensus view (sic).

Graham Klyne: @luc: I need to properly read Paolo's current proposal, and comment. Would like to see if can find a consensus view (sic).

17:16:08 <dgarijo> Luc: 2 other sections that we edited: the section about hadPlan (to change recipelink).

Luc Moreau: 2 other sections that we edited: the section about hadPlan (to change recipelink).

17:16:24 <dgarijo> Luc: please add feedback

Luc Moreau: please provide some feedback

17:16:26 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0163.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Dec/0163.html

17:16:33 <dgarijo> s/add/provide some/.
17:16:54 <dgarijo> Luc: interpretation sections with the constraints for intervals

Luc Moreau: interpretation sections with the constraints for intervals

17:17:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:17:12 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

17:17:45 <dgarijo> paolo: propose to rewrite the proposal with today's comments.

Paolo Missier: propose to rewrite the proposal with today's comments.

17:17:56 <Zakim> -SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens

17:18:13 <dgarijo> Luc: ok

Luc Moreau: ok

17:18:27 <dgarijo> ... send an email to get feedback

... send an email to get feedback

17:18:39 <dgarijo> Luc: too late to start discussion on accounts.

Luc Moreau: too late to start discussion on accounts.

17:18:52 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?



Formatted by CommonScribe