Minutes of Jan 19 2012 telcon accepted. Satya agreed to respond to open issues but will do so later. He said that it these issues should not hinder release of prov-dm as third public working draft.
Brief update on each of the documents before the F2F. All were in reasonable shape for discussion at the F2F. There was a discussion about annotations in the prov-o and the impact on prov-primer. Simon Miles is to discuss the issue with the prov-o team.
Prov-dm for the 3rd working draft
Prov-dm was approved to be released as a third public working draft. Editors clarified that the issue of identifiers and accounts will be addressed in the fourth working draft.
Continued discussion of identifiers in prov-dm. The key goal was to provide guidance to the editors in creating proposals. It was agreed that Entities, Activities and Events should be considered part of of the universe of discourse. There was agreement that association should be part of the universe of discourse as well. There was still debate about Derivation and other relations due to the question of whether these releations are descriptions of activities or entities or whether describe something else. A long discussion around whether provenance record should be part of the universe of discourse was held. A key question that came up was how the provenance of provenance would be supported. There was consensus that provenance of provenance should be supported. There was some idea that one should be able to "put" a provenance record into the universe of discourse but that provenance records were not automatically part of it. The issue remains open.
15:59:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-irc ←
15:59:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:59:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
15:59:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
16:00:07 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started ←
16:00:22 <Curt> scribe: Curt
(Scribe set to Curt Tilmes)
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
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
16:01:44 <Curt> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Paolo Missier, Khalid Belhajjame, Daniel Garijo
16:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.708.aaaa ←
16:02:05 <Zakim> + +1.646.389.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.646.389.aabb ←
16:02:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
16:02:13 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
16:02:15 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:02:21 <Zakim> +tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo ←
16:02:29 <Zakim> +??P51
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P51 ←
16:02:37 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.633.aacc ←
16:03:05 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
16:03:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P54
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P54 ←
16:03:39 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
16:03:54 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:04:16 <Zakim> +??P60
Zakim IRC Bot: +??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
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
James Cheney: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
david schaengold: Zakim, aabb is me ←
<pgroth>Topic: Admin
Summary: Minutes of Jan 19 2012 telcon accepted. Satya agreed to respond to open issues but will do so later. He said that it these issues should not hinder release of prov-dm as third public working draft.
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of Jan 19 2012 telcon accepted. Satya agreed to respond to open issues but will do so later. He said that it these issues should not hinder release of prov-dm as third public working draft.
16:05:43 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-19
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-01-19 ←
16:05:45 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it ←
16:05:52 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan. 19 telecon
Paul Groth: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Jan. 19 telecon ←
16:05:54 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:05:57 <davidschaengold> +1
david schaengold: +1 ←
16:05:58 <Curt> 0 (not present)
0 (not present) ←
16:06:13 <Christine> 0 (not present)
Christine Runnegar: 0 (not present) ←
16:06:13 <kai> 0 (not present)
Kai Eckert: 0 (not present) ←
16:06:15 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:06:16 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +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
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidschaengold; got it ←
16:06:32 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
16:06:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←
16:07:02 <Zakim> +??P73
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P73 ←
16:07:05 <pgroth> Accepted: minutes Jan 19 telecon
RESOLVED: minutes Jan 19 telecon ←
16:07:26 <kai> Zakim, ??P73 is me.
Kai Eckert: Zakim, ??P73 is me. ←
16:07:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week, F2F, lots of scribes :)
Paul Groth: next week, F2F, lots of scribes :) ←
16:07:58 <Zakim> +kai; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +kai; got it ←
16:08:27 <Curt> pgroth: actions: satya reviewing issues
Paul Groth: 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
Satya Sahoo: 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
... many already addressed, satya just needs to review and make proper recommendations ←
16:09:18 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:09:30 <pgroth> Topic: F2F prep document updates
Summary: Brief update on each of the documents before the F2F. All were in reasonable shape for discussion at the F2F. There was a discussion about annotations in the prov-o and the impact on prov-primer. Simon Miles is to discuss the issue with the prov-o team.
<pgroth> Summary: Brief update on each of the documents before the F2F. All were in reasonable shape for discussion at the F2F. There was a discussion about annotations in the prov-o and the impact on prov-primer. Simon Miles is to discuss the issue with the prov-o team.
16:09:48 <Curt> pgroth: going through documents to determine status and if changes are needed before F2F
Paul Groth: going through documents to determine status and if changes are needed before F2F ←
16:10:04 <Curt> ... prov-primer
... prov-primer ←
16:11:15 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:11:27 <Curt> working out updates needed, not changed since last editors version
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
Satya Sahoo: rdfs already provides way to do annotations, not currently modeled like that ←
16:12:29 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:13:11 <Curt> satya: trying to bring everything into sync with prov-o and prov-dm in primer,
Satya Sahoo: trying to bring everything into sync with prov-o and prov-dm in primer, ←
16:13:28 <Curt> pgroth: prov-aq
Paul Groth: prov-aq ←
16:14:03 <Curt> ...: Graham has made changes responding to most of issues, a few issues need discussion at F2F and after
...: Graham has made changes responding to most of issues, a few issues need discussion at F2F and after ←
16:14:04 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:14:11 <Curt> ... in good shape for F2F
... in good shape for F2F ←
16:14:19 <Curt> pgroth: prov-dm
Paul Groth: prov-dm ←
16:14:29 <Curt> luc: third working draft to release today for F2F
Luc Moreau: third working draft to release today for F2F ←
16:14:36 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:14:40 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o
Paul Groth: prov-o ←
16:15:23 <Curt> many issues addressed at prov-o working group level, some still need whole WG to discuss
many issues addressed at prov-o working group level, some still need whole WG to discuss ←
16:15:24 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:15:28 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:15:33 <Curt> current version has edits
current version has edits ←
16:15:55 <Curt> luc: no update for precise/imprecise derivations
Luc Moreau: no update for precise/imprecise derivations ←
16:16:08 <Curt> satya: still under discussion, consensus not yet determined
Satya Sahoo: still under discussion, consensus not yet determined ←
16:16:29 <Curt> luc: some decisions made
Luc Moreau: some decisions made ←
16:16:53 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:16:57 <Curt> satya: progress has been made, but some things still unclear, need more discussion
Satya Sahoo: progress has been made, but some things still unclear, need more discussion ←
16:17:02 <Curt> pgroth: prov-sem
Paul Groth: prov-sem ←
16:17:32 <Curt> jcheney: not much changed recently, watching prov-o domain of discourse discussion, which may have an impact
James Cheney: 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
James Cheney: waiting for final determination to incorporate ←
16:17:56 <Curt> jcheney: a few more things to flesh out that will happen prior to F2F
James Cheney: 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
Paul Groth: most documents in reasonable sync. given work that has been done ←
16:18:37 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm for the 3rd working draft
Summary: Prov-dm was approved to be released as a third public working draft. Editors clarified that the issue of identifiers and accounts will be addressed in the fourth working draft.
<pgroth> Summary: Prov-dm was approved to be released as a third public working draft. Editors clarified that the issue of identifiers and accounts will be addressed in the fourth working draft.
16:19:22 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-second-public-working-draft
Luc Moreau: 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
Luc Moreau: work on complement, specialization, examples, derivation, collections, restructuring, new section 7 with constraints on data model ←
16:20:53 <Curt> ... ... agent and hadPlan
... ... agent and hadPlan ←
16:21:11 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft
PROPOSED: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft ←
16:21:19 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:21:24 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:21:24 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
16:21:25 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:21:28 <Curt> +1
+1 ←
16:21:32 <kai> +1
Kai Eckert: +1 ←
16:21:53 <Curt> satya: is the 3rd WD to reflect universe of discourse discussion identifiers?
Satya Sahoo: is the 3rd WD to reflect universe of discourse discussion identifiers? ←
16:22:05 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:22:30 <Curt> luc: no, those aren't incorporated yet, those will go into the 4th WD, identifiers and accounts
Luc Moreau: 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
... too many changes to incorporate, still determining final agreement on identifiers/accounts, may take a while ←
16:23:37 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:23:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:23:40 <Curt> satya: yes, those may have broad impact
Satya Sahoo: yes, those may have broad impact ←
16:24:03 <pgroth> Accepted: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft
RESOLVED: Release Prov-dm as a third working draft ←
16:24:21 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:24:48 <Curt> satya: good to freeze changes at a defined point and release a good draft
Satya Sahoo: 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
... we should follow that model for prov-o ←
16:25:07 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:25:13 <Curt> pgroth: required by W3C to release each 3 months
Paul Groth: required by W3C to release each 3 months ←
16:25:21 <Curt> luc: good to have well-defined goals for each release
Luc Moreau: good to have well-defined goals for each release ←
16:25:31 <pgroth> Topic: Identifiers in Prov-dm
Summary: Continued discussion of identifiers in prov-dm. The key goal was to provide guidance to the editors in creating proposals. It was agreed that Entities, Activities and Events should be considered part of of the universe of discourse. There was agreement that association should be part of the universe of discourse as well. There was still debate about Derivation and other relations due to the question of whether these releations are descriptions of activities or entities or whether describe something else. A long discussion around whether provenance record should be part of the universe of discourse was held. A key question that came up was how the provenance of provenance would be supported. There was consensus that provenance of provenance should be supported. There was some idea that one should be able to "put" a provenance record into the universe of discourse but that provenance records were not automatically part of it. The issue remains open.
<pgroth> Summary: Continued discussion of identifiers in prov-dm. The key goal was to provide guidance to the editors in creating proposals. It was agreed that Entities, Activities and Events should be considered part of of the universe of discourse. There was agreement that association should be part of the universe of discourse as well. There was still debate about Derivation and other relations due to the question of whether these releations are descriptions of activities or entities or whether describe something else. A long discussion around whether provenance record should be part of the universe of discourse was held. A key question that came up was how the provenance of provenance would be supported. There was consensus that provenance of provenance should be supported. There was some idea that one should be able to "put" a provenance record into the universe of discourse but that provenance records were not automatically part of it. The issue remains open.
16:25:40 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/UniverseOfDiscourse
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/UniverseOfDiscourse ←
16:26:06 <Luc> I hope I included all the votes (I just added James')
Luc Moreau: 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
Paul Groth: *All* objects of discourse ("entities") MUST be identifiable by all ←
16:26:07 <pgroth> participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and
Paul Groth: participants in discourse. Object descriptions ("entity records" and ←
16:26:07 <pgroth> otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an
Paul Groth: otherwise) SHOULD use an unambiguous identifier (either reusing an ←
16:26:07 <pgroth> existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects
Paul Groth: existing identifier, or introducing a new identifier) for the objects ←
16:26:07 <pgroth> described." (intent)
Paul Groth: described." (intent) ←
16:27:07 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:27:18 <Curt> pgroth: a series of items were considered to determine what should be part of the universe of discourse
Paul Groth: 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.
Paul Groth: Proposal 1: Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse. ←
16:27:48 <Luc> all votes were positive
Luc Moreau: 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...
Ted Thibodeau: 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)
(many who voted are not present) ←
16:28:57 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:28:57 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
16:29:08 <Curt> luc/pgroth: record previous vote for minutes rather than re-voting here
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.
RESOLVED: Proposal 1. Entities and Activities belong to the universe of discourse. ←
16:30:01 <pgroth> Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event,
Paul Groth: Proposal 2: Events (Entity Usage event, Entity Generation Event, ←
16:30:01 <pgroth> Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of
Paul Groth: Activity Start Event, Activity End event) belong to the universe of ←
16:30:02 <pgroth> discourse
Paul Groth: discourse ←
16:30:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED:
RESOLVED: ←
16:30:27 <MacTed> I accept Proposals 1-4, and have concerns or issues with 5-9
Ted Thibodeau: 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
RESOLVED: 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+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:31:21 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
16:31:24 <pgroth> ack satay
Paul Groth: ack satay ←
16:31:33 <Curt> satya: with respect to prov-o, those were included
Satya Sahoo: 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.
Luc Moreau: 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)
Luc Moreau: Stian voted -1 (for all but associations) ←
16:32:36 <Curt> ... not sure of his rationale
... 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
Timothy Lebo: 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?
Luc Moreau: satya suppoted derivation, association and activity ordering, do you support those? ←
16:34:07 <Curt> tim: yes
Timothy Lebo: yes ←
16:34:31 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:34:43 <Curt> luc: why doesn't stian think association should not be part of universe of discourse?
Luc Moreau: 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?
Paul Groth: possibly rephrase proposal 3 and re-vote? ←
16:35:17 <Curt> luc: association belongs, since stian and tim do support those
Luc Moreau: association belongs, since stian and tim do support those ←
16:35:17 <Luc> Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the unvierse of discourse
PROPOSED: 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
Luc Moreau: we'll discuss with stian further and rephrase rest of proposal 3 ←
16:36:17 <Curt> tim: accepts association
Timothy Lebo: accepts association ←
16:36:26 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:36:35 <Luc> ACCEPTED: Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the universe of discourse
RESOLVED: Proposal: 3a: Association belongs to the universe of discourse ←
16:36:40 <pgroth> Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of
Paul Groth: Proposal 4: AlternateOf and SpecializationOf belong to the universe of ←
16:36:40 <pgroth> discourse
Paul Groth: discourse ←
16:37:20 <Curt> pgroth: may need more discussion of proposal 4, postpone for now
Paul Groth: may need more discussion of proposal 4, postpone for now ←
16:37:20 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:37:33 <Luc> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse This includes Account Record.
Luc Moreau: Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse This includes Account Record. ←
16:38:02 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:38:09 <Curt> pgroth: satya and macted disagree
Paul Groth: 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
Satya Sahoo: 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?
Ted Thibodeau: is this to differentiate data/metadata in a given context? ←
16:39:23 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:39:27 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:39:45 <Curt> ... in a database world, the fields are filled with data, the table has the metadata
... in a database world, the fields are filled with data, the table has the metadata ←
16:39:58 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
16:39:58 <Curt> luc: we're trying to establish that
Luc Moreau: we're trying to establish that ←
16:40:07 <Curt> macted: we need to make that distinction
Ted Thibodeau: we need to make that distinction ←
16:40:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: 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
Luc Moreau: 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
... account records are at that second level ←
16:41:05 <Curt> ... we can go even higher to talk about provenance of provenance
... we can go even higher to talk about provenance of provenance ←
16:41:31 <Curt> macted: that isn't clear in these proposals
Ted Thibodeau: that isn't clear in these proposals ←
16:41:38 <Curt> luc: we're trying to represent that intent
Luc Moreau: we're trying to represent that intent ←
16:42:10 <Curt> macted: things/entities are interchangeable, the proposals aren't clear
Ted Thibodeau: 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
Luc Moreau: we're trying to determine how to represent our intent into the documents ←
16:42:46 <Curt> macted: difficult with text alone
Ted Thibodeau: difficult with text alone ←
16:42:47 <jcheney> See also ISSUE-212
James Cheney: See also ISSUE-212 ←
16:42:56 <Curt> luc: yes, more graphics would help explain the concepts
Luc Moreau: 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.
Stephan Zednik: yes, confusing, perhaps graphics or ASN could help explain this better, esp. things like prov. of prov. ←
16:43:26 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: 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
James Cheney: 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
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
16:43:42 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:43:44 <Curt> pgroth: there is some demand of prov. of prov. from the group
Paul Groth: there is some demand of prov. of prov. from the group ←
16:44:22 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:44:25 <Curt> macted: this is a perpetual problem in graphs, the recursion. These levels can be better described graphically
Ted Thibodeau: 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
Luc Moreau: 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"
Stephan 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
... 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-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
16:45:38 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
16:45:40 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:45:44 <Curt> ... do we want to have prov. of prov.? is that part of the scope we should cover?
... do we want to have prov. of prov.? is that part of the scope we should cover? ←
16:45:47 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
16:46:06 <Curt> zednik: we don't want to preclude describing prov. of prov.
Stephan 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
Luc Moreau: 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
... looking for guidelines/recommendations of where we are going with this ←
16:47:12 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:47:41 <Curt> pgroth: if we remove notion of account record from proposal 5, would that be in line with our thinking?
Paul Groth: 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.)
Timothy Lebo: +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
Stephen Cresswell: We have a use case for provenance-of-provenance on legislation ←
16:47:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:48:10 <pgroth> Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse
Paul Groth: Proposal 5: Records do not belong to the Universe of discourse ←
16:48:35 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: 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
Ted Thibodeau: 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+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:49:20 <Curt> macted: difficult to express without a picture
Ted Thibodeau: difficult to express without a picture ←
16:49:35 <Curt> luc: we need more guidance to even draw the picture
Luc Moreau: 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)
Timothy Lebo: +1 (if i want to talk about Records, I make an entity about it) ←
16:50:02 <pgroth> i agree with you tlebo
Paul Groth: 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
... 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?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:50:40 <Curt> macted: example - i have a table, built 1727, joe smith, sold on jan 19, 1728, sold again, again, again
Ted Thibodeau: 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
... we track that journey through the world -- the provenance ←
16:50:58 <Curt> ... the records of that provenance are a distinct entity
... 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
... 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
... that shift the perspective up a level ←
16:51:30 <kai> +1 for provenance on provenance.
Kai Eckert: +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.
... 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
Kai Eckert: That's metadata provenance ←
16:51:59 <tlebo> (so Records out outside of DM's "current" macted:Shift)
Timothy Lebo: (so Records out outside of DM's "current" macted:Shift) ←
16:52:03 <Curt> macted: this can be difficult to follow
Ted Thibodeau: this can be difficult to follow ←
16:52:25 <tlebo> @macted, good example
Timothy Lebo: @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?
Paul Groth: 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
Ted Thibodeau: 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
... have to look at both sides to make sure it all works ←
16:53:24 <pgroth> q
Paul Groth: q ←
16:53:24 <Curt> ... doing the abstract first makes this harder
... doing the abstract first makes this harder ←
16:53:26 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:53:32 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:53:49 <zednik> +1 to use concrete example before decidiing on abstract model restrictions
Stephan 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
Satya Sahoo: 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
... when we want to talk about prov-of-prov, we need to have a universal construct for that ←
16:54:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:54:41 <Curt> ... we have been discussing this notion already. records should be part of the universe of discourse
... we have been discussing this notion already. records should be part of the universe of discourse ←
16:54:49 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:55:00 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:55:10 <tlebo> @satya, did you say that you need Account Records AND Accounts in UOD?
Timothy Lebo: @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
James Cheney: 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
... some ambiguity. Some entities might contain information about provenance records contained elsewhere ←
16:55:53 <Curt> ... in order to express prov-of-prov
... in order to express prov-of-prov ←
16:56:04 <kai> q+
Kai Eckert: 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"
... 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?
Paul Groth: 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)
Timothy Lebo: +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
Kai Eckert: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P51 ←
16:58:06 <tlebo> +1 "it's nothing special'!
Timothy Lebo: +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.
... 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
... 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
... 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)
Timothy Lebo: +1 keep it simple (knowing that it can be shifted) ←
16:58:48 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:58:51 <pgroth> ack kai
Paul Groth: ack kai ←
16:58:53 <Curt> ... simply handles the recursion
... 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
Paul Groth: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them ←
16:59:33 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:59:47 <tlebo> records are only a means of transmission. We only care about the content of the transmission.
Timothy Lebo: 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?
Paul Groth: 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...
Ted Thibodeau: see SKOS - containers of entities, which are containers of entities, which are containers... ←
17:00:03 <Curt> luc: yes, that and the emails
Luc Moreau: yes, that and the emails ←
17:00:16 <Zakim> -??P54
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P54 ←
17:00:24 <tlebo> I'm at the top of the hour
Timothy Lebo: 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)
James Cheney: OK with me (that's actually tlebo's wording, but I like it) ←
17:00:27 <MacTed> er, sorry, SIOC not SKOS
Ted Thibodeau: 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).
Kai Eckert: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
17:00:51 <Curt> pgroth: next few proposals need even more discussion
Paul Groth: 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
PROPOSED: by default records are not in domain of discouse, but can be if entities are used to discuss them ←
17:01:38 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
17:01:42 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
17:02:03 <Curt> satya: what does "by default" mean?
Satya Sahoo: what does "by default" mean? ←
17:02:10 <tlebo> "the current layers of the shift"
Timothy Lebo: "the current layers of the shift" ←
17:02:31 <Curt> pgroth: when you describe provenance, you use things like entities, derivations, etc. not records
Paul Groth: 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.
James Cheney: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: -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
... 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
Satya Sahoo: 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.
Timothy Lebo: 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
Satya Sahoo: decision not critical to move on ←
17:03:46 <Curt> pgroth: this is important for modeling
Paul Groth: this is important for modeling ←
17:03:54 <pgroth> q
Paul Groth: q ←
17:03:56 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: 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.
James Cheney: @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
Kai Eckert: -1 ←
17:04:10 <Luc> @tlebo: i dont think we would introudce more layers, but a "shift operator"
Luc Moreau: @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
Kai Eckert: 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
Kai Eckert: 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)
Timothy Lebo: @ 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)
Stephan 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
Paul Groth: 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
... 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?
Kai Eckert: what is the problem giving them an identifier? ←
17:06:16 <Curt> pgroth: sometimes, we might not want to assign them identifiers
Paul Groth: sometimes, we might not want to assign them identifiers ←
17:06:32 <pgroth> entity(w3c.org)
Paul Groth: entity(w3c.org) ←
17:06:55 <tlebo> (apologies)
Timothy Lebo: (apologies) ←
17:06:59 <Curt> pgroth: is that in our UofD?
Paul Groth: is that in our UofD? ←
17:07:00 <Zakim> -tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←
17:07:26 <satya> Sorry, I have to leave.
Satya Sahoo: 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
Kai Eckert: 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
... 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" ???
James Cheney: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
17:08:25 <Curt> pgroth: some agreement, but try different wording
Paul Groth: 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
Paul Groth: 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" ???
James Cheney: 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"?
James Cheney: 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
Kai Eckert: 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"
Kai Eckert: "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
Luc Moreau: 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
... 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
... 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?
... 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)
James Cheney: 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
... 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?
Kai Eckert: 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
Luc Moreau: 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....
Ted Thibodeau: 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?
Luc Moreau: 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
Ted Thibodeau: of particular use -- http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/#sec-overview ←
17:13:28 <Curt> ... are account records part of the UofD?
... are account records part of the UofD? ←
17:13:42 <Curt> kai: Is there a problem if that are not in the UofD?
Kai Eckert: 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
Luc Moreau: 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
... 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
... this is a radical departure to current work ←
17:15:08 <Curt> ^to^from
^to^from ←
17:15:25 <Curt> luc: we need guidance on this
Luc Moreau: we need guidance on this ←
17:15:37 <Curt> kai: we can discuss at F2F
Kai Eckert: we can discuss at F2F ←
17:15:50 <Curt> ... we don't want to destroy current work
... we don't want to destroy current work ←
17:16:04 <Curt> ... we should be able to figure out something that works next week
... we should be able to figure out something that works next week ←
17:16:34 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +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
Paul Groth: 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
... 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
Kai Eckert: 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.
James Cheney: 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
... 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?
James Cheney: 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
Kai Eckert: we are mostly in agreement -- just need to detail ←
17:18:13 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:18:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a] ←
17:18:30 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
17:18:32 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.633.aacc ←
17:18:33 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
17:18:35 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:18:40 <Zakim> -kai
Zakim IRC Bot: -kai ←
17:19:01 <pgroth> curt
Paul Groth: curt ←
17:19:04 <pgroth> I'll take care of it
Paul Groth: I'll take care of it ←
17:19:06 <Curt> ok
ok ←
17:19:07 <Curt> bye
bye ←
17:19:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
17:19:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: 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
RRSAgent IRC Bot: 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
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
17:19:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:19:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:19:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe