Schedule for internal release and review
Editors reported the following. prov-primer is ready for review. prov-dm/prov-n are ready, except for role and hasProvenanceIn currently under discussion. prov-o should be ready by mid-next week, except for role and hasProvenanceIn. There is currently no schedule for prov-constraints. We agreed that reviews will start when all issues are tackled to decide whether we go for last call. We will revisit this agenda item next week.
Kai, Daniel, and Simon have worked with Dublin Core members and produced a draft document explaining how to map some DC concepts to Prov. Tim, Paul, Satya, Stephan and Sam will review the document. Other WG members are invited to provide feedback on the document as well. The document will be transferred to the W3C infrastructure shortly.
We discussed the property provo:hadRole (the attribute provdm:role ). The object of the discussion was the domain of this property, and the corresponding English definition. There is a preference to have a domain as broad as possible, the challenge is now to find an English definition for this notion. We didn't reach a conclusion. Graham volunteered to draft a definition. Discussion is to continue by email. In the interest of time, chairs will seek to put forward a consensus proposal.
Provenance Locator (hasProvenanceIn)
Luc summarized issues related to the proposed relation hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, [alias]). The debate seemed to converge on the question of whether we define a new qualified relation to allow optional alias. We didn't reach a conclusion either. Discussion is to continue by email. In the interest of time, chairs will seek to put forward a consensus proposal.
14:47:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/31-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/31-prov-irc ←
14:47:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:47:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
14:47:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
14:47:23 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
14:47:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:47:24 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes ←
14:47:24 <trackbot> Date: 31 May 2012
14:47:32 <Luc> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.31
14:47:44 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:47:54 <Luc> Scribe: Tom DeNies
(Scribe set to Tom De Nies)
14:47:59 <Luc> rrsagent, make log public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make log public ←
14:48:04 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
14:48:04 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc ←
14:48:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
14:48:17 <Luc> Regrets: James Cheney, Paolo Missier
14:50:58 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
14:51:05 <Zakim> +BrendanIAB
Zakim IRC Bot: +BrendanIAB ←
14:53:17 <Luc> topic: Admin
14:57:47 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←
14:58:26 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaaa ←
14:59:12 <Zakim> +Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc ←
14:59:28 <Zakim> +??P49
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P49 ←
15:00:18 <Zakim> +TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN ←
15:00:26 <sandro> [ Luc - regrets from me for today, sorry for the late notice ]
Sandro Hawke: [ Luc - regrets from me for today, sorry for the late notice ] ←
15:00:33 <Zakim> +??P42
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P42 ←
15:00:48 <Zakim> -??P42
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P42 ←
15:00:56 <Luc> @sandro, ok, had you emailed the announcements of working drafts to various w3c lists?
Luc Moreau: @sandro, ok, had you emailed the announcements of working drafts to various w3c lists? ←
15:01:07 <sandro> Yes, I did.
Sandro Hawke: Yes, I did. ←
15:01:15 <Luc> thanks, action can be closed.
Luc Moreau: thanks, action can be closed. ←
15:01:18 <sandro> thanks
Sandro Hawke: thanks ←
15:01:27 <Zakim> +??P53
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P53 ←
15:01:33 <Zakim> +??P54
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P54 ←
15:01:41 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P54 is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P54 is me ←
15:01:43 <GK> zakim, ??p53 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p53 is me ←
15:01:43 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
15:01:49 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
15:02:29 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.31
Daniel Garijo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.31 ←
15:02:48 <Luc> proposed: to approve Minutes of the May 24 2012 Telecon
PROPOSED: to approve Minutes of the May 24 2012 Telecon ←
15:02:55 <GK> Thanks
Graham Klyne: Thanks ←
15:03:00 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-24
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-24 ←
15:03:02 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
15:03:04 <TomDN> +1
+1 ←
15:03:04 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:03:09 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:03:13 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
15:03:15 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
15:03:18 <satya> 0 (did not attend)
Satya Sahoo: 0 (did not attend) ←
15:03:27 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:03:34 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:03:34 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:03:36 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:03:40 <Luc> resolved: Minutes of the May 24 2012 Telecon
RESOLVED: Minutes of the May 24 2012 Telecon ←
15:04:03 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:04:05 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:04:11 <TomDN> Luc: review open actions
Luc Moreau: review open actions ←
15:04:15 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
15:04:34 <TomDN> Luc: there was an action on Graham to review the constraints, and he did
Luc Moreau: there was an action on Graham to review the constraints, and he did ←
15:04:35 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
Sam Coppens: zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN ←
15:04:38 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
Timothy Lebo: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:04:41 <Luc> topic: Schedule for internal release and review
Summary: Editors reported the following. prov-primer is ready for review. prov-dm/prov-n are ready, except for role and hasProvenanceIn currently under discussion. prov-o should be ready by mid-next week, except for role and hasProvenanceIn. There is currently no schedule for prov-constraints. We agreed that reviews will start when all issues are tackled to decide whether we go for last call. We will revisit this agenda item next week.
<Luc>Summary: Editors reported the following. prov-primer is ready for review. prov-dm/prov-n are ready, except for role and hasProvenanceIn currently under discussion. prov-o should be ready by mid-next week, except for role and hasProvenanceIn. There is currently no schedule for prov-constraints. We agreed that reviews will start when all issues are tackled to decide whether we go for last call. We will revisit this agenda item next week.
15:04:57 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←
15:04:58 <TomDN> Luc: all other open actions closed as well
Luc Moreau: all other open actions closed as well ←
15:04:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see BrendanIAB, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aaaa, Luc, ??P49, TomDN, GK, dgarijo, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), BrendanIAB.a, ??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see BrendanIAB, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aaaa, Luc, ??P49, TomDN, GK, dgarijo, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), BrendanIAB.a, ??P30 ←
15:05:02 <Zakim> TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens ←
15:05:06 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa
Timothy Lebo: zakim, I am aaaa ←
15:05:17 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it ←
15:05:22 <TomDN> Luc: we need to agree on the time when the documents can be released for review, and for how long
Luc Moreau: we need to agree on the time when the documents can be released for review, and for how long ←
15:05:50 <TomDN> ... there are still 2 open issues
... there are still 2 open issues ←
15:06:04 <TomDN> ... on the agenda today to close them
... on the agenda today to close them ←
15:06:23 <TomDN> ... but release of documents would not be held up by these issues
... but release of documents would not be held up by these issues ←
15:06:37 <TomDN> ... It is unclear when the CONSTRAINTS document would be ready for review
... It is unclear when the CONSTRAINTS document would be ready for review ←
15:06:54 <TomDN> SimonM: prov-primer is ready for review
Simon Miles: prov-primer is ready for review ←
15:07:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:07:15 <TomDN> Luc: prov-o?
Luc Moreau: prov-o? ←
15:07:30 <TomDN> tlebo: About a dozen issues in the tracker
Timothy Lebo: About a dozen issues in the tracker ←
15:08:18 <TomDN> ... most important issues is hasprovenancein and dictionary
... most important issues is hasprovenancein and dictionary ←
15:08:33 <TomDN> ... most others are editorial issues and shouldn't pose many problems
... most others are editorial issues and shouldn't pose many problems ←
15:08:44 <TomDN> Luc: When would the document be ready for review then?
Luc Moreau: When would the document be ready for review then? ←
15:08:54 <TomDN> tlebo: Could be by early next week
Timothy Lebo: Could be by early next week ←
15:09:15 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
15:09:20 <TomDN> ... except hasProvenanceIn
... except hasProvenanceIn ←
15:09:24 <GK> If PAQ terminology is part of hasPriovenanceIn discussion, I'd move to put it in a separate namespace ... if only to keep the issues distinct in our discussion.
Graham Klyne: If PAQ terminology is part of hasPriovenanceIn discussion, I'd move to put it in a separate namespace ... if only to keep the issues distinct in our discussion. ←
15:09:44 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:09:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:09:49 <TomDN> Luc: Should we wait until these issues are resolved, or proceed with review?
Luc Moreau: Should we wait until these issues are resolved, or proceed with review? ←
15:10:23 <TomDN> Paul: It would be nice to have reviewers take a look at it before the last call
Paul Groth: It would be nice to have reviewers take a look at it before the last call ←
15:10:49 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:11:02 <tlebo> +1, would be nice to have reviewers be for "Last Call" (for real)
Timothy Lebo: +1, would be nice to have reviewers be for "Last Call" (for real) ←
15:11:14 <TomDN> ... We already released something recently, so there is no real pressure to release something right now. It would be better to wait until everyone agrees that the document is ready for last call
... We already released something recently, so there is no real pressure to release something right now. It would be better to wait until everyone agrees that the document is ready for last call ←
15:11:17 <pgroth> yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
15:11:23 <dgarijo> i think so, yes
Daniel Garijo: i think so, yes ←
15:11:31 <TomDN> Luc: Should we postpone this to next telecon?
Luc Moreau: Should we postpone this to next telecon? ←
15:11:34 <GK> I shall miss the next two teleconferences .. travelling, meetings, etc.
Graham Klyne: I shall miss the next two teleconferences .. travelling, meetings, etc. ←
15:11:50 <Luc> topic: Dublin Core Best Practice
Summary: Kai, Daniel, and Simon have worked with Dublin Core members and produced a draft document explaining how to map some DC concepts to Prov. Tim, Paul, Satya, Stephan and Sam will review the document. Other WG members are invited to provide feedback on the document as well. The document will be transferred to the W3C infrastructure shortly.
<luc>Summary: Kai, Daniel, and Simon have worked with Dublin Core members and produced a draft document explaining how to map some DC concepts to Prov. Tim, Paul, Satya, Stephan and Sam will review the document. Other WG members are invited to provide feedback on the document as well. The document will be transferred to the W3C infrastructure shortly.
15:11:50 <TomDN> ... By then we will have agreed on outstanding issues.
... By then we will have agreed on outstanding issues. ←
15:12:19 <dgarijo> https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Mapping-Primer
Daniel Garijo: https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Mapping-Primer ←
15:12:25 <TomDN> danielG: I have sent an email this morning with the mapping links
Daniel Garijo: I have sent an email this morning with the mapping links ←
15:13:47 <TomDN> ... We have divided the mapping in a primer, a specialization of prov-o, a direct mappings doc and finally, a complex mappings doc
... We have divided the mapping in a primer, a specialization of prov-o, a direct mappings doc and finally, a complex mappings doc ←
15:14:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:14:07 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:14:15 <TomDN> ... next steps are to complete the round trip
... next steps are to complete the round trip ←
15:14:38 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
15:14:39 <GK> OCLC?
Graham Klyne: OCLC? ←
15:14:58 <TomDN> didn't hear the question properly, sorry
didn't hear the question properly, sorry ←
15:15:09 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
Zakim, mute me ←
15:15:09 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
15:15:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:15:18 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
15:15:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:15:31 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:15:41 <TomDN> danielG: if we have more problems, we will move it to the W3C wiki
Daniel Garijo: if we have more problems, we will move it to the W3C wiki ←
15:16:17 <TomDN> Luc: I think it is important that we move this document to the W3C website (for intellectual property reasons)
Luc Moreau: I think it is important that we move this document to the W3C website (for intellectual property reasons) ←
15:16:44 <TomDN> ... My suggestion is: move to wiki (or most appropriate location)
... My suggestion is: move to wiki (or most appropriate location) ←
15:16:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:16:51 <TomDN> danielG: OK, will do this
Daniel Garijo: OK, will do this ←
15:17:10 <TomDN> Luc: Who would be willing to review the DC mapping document?
Luc Moreau: Who would be willing to review the DC mapping document? ←
15:17:16 <tlebo> I'll try.
Timothy Lebo: I'll try. ←
15:17:17 <dgarijo> It is not very long i promise :)
Daniel Garijo: It is not very long i promise :) ←
15:17:20 <pgroth> +1
Paul Groth: +1 ←
15:17:31 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:17:33 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
15:17:34 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:17:43 <dgarijo> thanks to all.
Daniel Garijo: thanks to all. ←
15:18:10 <Luc> topic: definition of role
Summary: We discussed the property provo:hadRole (the attribute provdm:role ). The object of the discussion was the domain of this property, and the corresponding English definition. There is a preference to have a domain as broad as possible, the challenge is now to find an English definition for this notion. We didn't reach a conclusion. Graham volunteered to draft a definition. Discussion is to continue by email. In the interest of time, chairs will seek to put forward a consensus proposal.
<luc>Summary: We discussed the property provo:hadRole (the attribute provdm:role ). The object of the discussion was the domain of this property, and the corresponding English definition. There is a preference to have a domain as broad as possible, the challenge is now to find an English definition for this notion. We didn't reach a conclusion. Graham volunteered to draft a definition. Discussion is to continue by email. In the interest of time, chairs will seek to put forward a consensus proposal.
15:18:19 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384 ←
15:18:25 <TomDN> Luc: thanks to Daniel for putting the effort into this document, it is great that we can connect to the Dublin Core community
Luc Moreau: thanks to Daniel for putting the effort into this document, it is great that we can connect to the Dublin Core community ←
15:18:38 <GK> The documet looks good to me on cursory glance. Exposes and analyses issues nicely
Graham Klyne: The documet looks good to me on cursory glance. Exposes and analyses issues nicely ←
15:19:29 <TomDN> Luc: As I was reviewing the PROV-DM, I came across this issue http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384
Luc Moreau: As I was reviewing the PROV-DM, I came across this issue http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/384 ←
15:19:48 <TomDN> ... The challenge is getting the right definition for the DM
... The challenge is getting the right definition for the DM ←
15:20:20 <TomDN> Luc: Suggestions are welcome.
Luc Moreau: Suggestions are welcome. ←
15:20:25 <tlebo> q+ to respond to role
Timothy Lebo: q+ to respond to role ←
15:21:06 <TomDN> GK: my initial inclination here is consistence with the DM
Graham Klyne: my initial inclination here is consistence with the DM ←
15:21:41 <TomDN> ... It is difficult to find a definition that is both technically correct, and suits all the intuitions
... It is difficult to find a definition that is both technically correct, and suits all the intuitions ←
15:22:21 <TomDN> ... I would be inclined to choose the technical definition, and then provide further illustration
... I would be inclined to choose the technical definition, and then provide further illustration ←
15:23:15 <TomDN> GK: All of these roles are subtle variations of existing relations of the DM
Graham Klyne: All of these roles are subtle variations of existing relations of the DM ←
15:23:26 <TomDN> Luc: is the word "role" appropriate?
Luc Moreau: is the word "role" appropriate? ←
15:23:40 <TomDN> GK: In many cases, yes.
Graham Klyne: In many cases, yes. ←
15:23:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:23:56 <TomDN> ... In most of the useful cases, it fits.
... In most of the useful cases, it fits. ←
15:24:16 <TomDN> ... It invokes intuition, without being too committing
... It invokes intuition, without being too committing ←
15:24:28 <TomDN> Tim: I have some comments
Timothy Lebo: I have some comments ←
15:24:38 <TomDN> ... I'd rather try to keep it broad.
... I'd rather try to keep it broad. ←
15:24:54 <TomDN> ... and avoid constraining it too much, to where it can be used.
... and avoid constraining it too much, to where it can be used. ←
15:25:39 <tlebo> * prefer to keep it broad - avoid pinning down and constraining where it can be used.
Timothy Lebo: * prefer to keep it broad - avoid pinning down and constraining where it can be used. ←
15:25:44 <tlebo> * having role on Involvement seems to make sense.
Timothy Lebo: * having role on Involvement seems to make sense. ←
15:25:48 <tlebo> * the name of the role should prefer the "object" instead the "subject" (it's the role of the prov:involvee)
Timothy Lebo: * the name of the role should prefer the "object" instead the "subject" (it's the role of the prov:involvee) ←
15:25:52 <TomDN> thanks :)
thanks :) ←
15:26:07 <TomDN> Luc: Not sure it works.
Luc Moreau: Not sure it works. ←
15:26:40 <TomDN> ... In some cases the role applies to the subject, in others to the object. For example in usage-generation
... In some cases the role applies to the subject, in others to the object. For example in usage-generation ←
15:27:00 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:27:04 <GK> But isn't the role a *relation*, applying to the combination of subject *and* object?
Graham Klyne: But isn't the role a *relation*, applying to the combination of subject *and* object? ←
15:27:04 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
15:27:19 <TomDN> ... Finding something that is intuitive for the user is the point, and maybe "role" is not the right word.
... Finding something that is intuitive for the user is the point, and maybe "role" is not the right word. ←
15:27:32 <TomDN> Paul: I wouldn't go with over-specification
Paul Groth: I wouldn't go with over-specification ←
15:27:41 <GK> @paul +1
Graham Klyne: @paul +1 ←
15:28:21 <TomDN> ... We want to provide syntax for people to use when describing their provenance. I don't know if further specifying "role" would affect the semantics much.
... We want to provide syntax for people to use when describing their provenance. I don't know if further specifying "role" would affect the semantics much. ←
15:28:33 <TomDN> ... Better to wait to see how it will be used.
... Better to wait to see how it will be used. ←
15:28:48 <tlebo> @paul, but concerned about the "subject vs. object" of swapping - can lead to confusion.
Timothy Lebo: @paul, but concerned about the "subject vs. object" of swapping - can lead to confusion. ←
15:28:48 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
15:28:52 <Luc> a role is the function of an entity, agent, or activity with respect to another entity, agent, or activity
Luc Moreau: a role is the function of an entity, agent, or activity with respect to another entity, agent, or activity ←
15:28:56 <TomDN> Luc: I just want to find a good English definition
Luc Moreau: I just want to find a good English definition ←
15:28:57 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:28:57 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
15:29:05 <GK> I would offer to provide some word, but I have very limited time in the next two weeks.
Graham Klyne: I would offer to provide some word, but I have very limited time in the next two weeks. ←
15:29:06 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:29:46 <TomDN> MacTed: My sense of "role" in this space is that there are some primitives which that some entity may be acting as
Ted Thibodeau: My sense of "role" in this space is that there are some primitives which that some entity may be acting as ←
15:29:53 <TomDN> ... in a provenance description
... in a provenance description ←
15:30:15 <TomDN> ... An entity is acting as an entity in a defined process
... An entity is acting as an entity in a defined process ←
15:30:22 <Luc> @macted, current definition is: A role is the function of an entity or an agent with respect to an activity
Luc Moreau: @macted, current definition is: A role is the function of an entity or an agent with respect to an activity ←
15:30:43 <TomDN> ... I don't think that people will use this kind of terminology
... I don't think that people will use this kind of terminology ←
15:30:52 <GK> @macted ... actually one place where roles do come up is in inputs to workflow elements, which ism exactly like divisor, etc.
Graham Klyne: @macted ... actually one place where roles do come up is in inputs to workflow elements, which ism exactly like divisor, etc. ←
15:31:02 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:31:03 <tlebo> so @macted just wants agents to be able to have roles, and not entities?
Timothy Lebo: so @macted just wants agents to be able to have roles, and not entities? ←
15:31:05 <Luc> ack macted
Luc Moreau: ack macted ←
15:31:26 <TomDN> GK: One of the areas where roles are important in is workflow provenance
Graham Klyne: One of the areas where roles are important in is workflow provenance ←
15:31:42 <tlebo> @gk, yes, role = input and role = parameters is useful to describe the Entity's Usage in an Activity.
Timothy Lebo: @gk, yes, role = input and role = parameters is useful to describe the Entity's Usage in an Activity. ←
15:32:03 <TomDN> ... This is exactly the place where the object-subject problem is posed
... This is exactly the place where the object-subject problem is posed ←
15:32:13 <pgroth> yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
15:32:15 <Luc> @macted, current definition is: A role is the function of an entity or an agent with respect to an activity
Luc Moreau: @macted, current definition is: A role is the function of an entity or an agent with respect to an activity ←
15:33:08 <TomDN> Luc: in the model, we have relations that don't mention an activity
Luc Moreau: in the model, we have relations that don't mention an activity ←
15:33:39 <TomDN> Luc: Do we go for the current definition, or with a broader domain? (but no definition yet)
Luc Moreau: Do we go for the current definition, or with a broader domain? (but no definition yet) ←
15:33:40 <satya> But, why is role only applicable in context of activity
Satya Sahoo: But, why is role only applicable in context of activity ←
15:33:56 <TomDN> MacTed: examples of these relations?
Ted Thibodeau: examples of these relations? ←
15:34:03 <tlebo> thats meta-provenance, @macted.
Timothy Lebo: thats meta-provenance, @macted. ←
15:34:03 <TomDN> Luc: Attribution for example
Luc Moreau: Attribution for example ←
15:34:16 <TomDN> ... Derivation
... Derivation ←
15:34:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:35:30 <TomDN> Luc: We have a choice. Either decide what the domain is and work out a definition. or take the definition and adapt the domain to fit it
Luc Moreau: We have a choice. Either decide what the domain is and work out a definition. or take the definition and adapt the domain to fit it ←
15:35:35 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:35:50 <TomDN> ... What would people prefer?
... What would people prefer? ←
15:36:25 <TomDN> pgroth: Its hard to define, but maybe we can get around it by being more open
Paul Groth: Its hard to define, but maybe we can get around it by being more open ←
15:36:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:36:38 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
15:36:45 <TomDN> GK: Broadly, I agree with Paul.
Graham Klyne: Broadly, I agree with Paul. ←
15:37:25 <TomDN> ... Would like to take a shot at a definition, but will be travelling the next week, so it is possible that I don;t have the time
... Would like to take a shot at a definition, but will be travelling the next week, so it is possible that I don;t have the time ←
15:38:17 <TomDN> Luc: Let's do that. We make the domain as unrestricted as possible. and try to work out a definition
Luc Moreau: Let's do that. We make the domain as unrestricted as possible. and try to work out a definition ←
15:38:18 <Luc> topic: Provenance Locator (hasProvenanceIn)
Summary: Luc summarized issues related to the proposed relation hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, [alias]). The debate seemed to converge on the question of whether we define a new qualified relation to allow optional alias. We didn't reach a conclusion either. Discussion is to continue by email. In the interest of time, chairs will seek to put forward a consensus proposal.
<Luc>Summary: Luc summarized issues related to the proposed relation hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, [alias]). The debate seemed to converge on the question of whether we define a new qualified relation to allow optional alias. We didn't reach a conclusion either. Discussion is to continue by email. In the interest of time, chairs will seek to put forward a consensus proposal.
15:38:29 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceLocator
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceLocator ←
15:38:41 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/385
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/385 ←
15:38:54 <TomDN> Luc: I drafted a summary of the issue on the wiki (see link above)
Luc Moreau: I drafted a summary of the issue on the wiki (see link above) ←
15:38:55 <tlebo> FWIW, what about making prov:oHadRole and prov:sHadRole to distinguish between talking about the subject or object of the Involvement?
Timothy Lebo: FWIW, what about making prov:oHadRole and prov:sHadRole to distinguish between talking about the subject or object of the Involvement? ←
15:39:12 <tlebo> \ prov: sHadRole and prov:o HadRole
Timothy Lebo: \ prov: sHadRole and prov:o HadRole ←
15:39:29 <tlebo> \ prov: oHadRole
Timothy Lebo: \ prov: oHadRole ←
15:39:36 <TomDN> ... It is important to be able to navigate the distributed graph structure we create using the PROV-DM
... It is important to be able to navigate the distributed graph structure we create using the PROV-DM ←
15:39:46 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120525/prov-dm.html#term-hasProvenanceIn
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/ED-prov-dm-20120525/prov-dm.html#term-hasProvenanceIn ←
15:39:55 <Luc> hasProvenanceIn(id, subject, bundle, target, attrs),
Luc Moreau: hasProvenanceIn(id, subject, bundle, target, attrs), ←
15:40:06 <MacTed> (not past tense?)
Ted Thibodeau: (not past tense?) ←
15:40:48 <TomDN> ... With this relation, we are sayign that a given subject has some provenance in a bundle, and the target is an alias that is known under a different name in the bundle
... With this relation, we are sayign that a given subject has some provenance in a bundle, and the target is an alias that is known under a different name in the bundle ←
15:41:03 <TomDN> ... The issue was raised that this is too complicated.
... The issue was raised that this is too complicated. ←
15:41:15 <dgarijo> @MacTed: good point, but it is referring to where the provenance IS located, not where it was located.
Daniel Garijo: @MacTed: good point, but it is referring to where the provenance IS located, not where it was located. ←
15:41:16 <Luc> hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle)
Luc Moreau: hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle) ←
15:41:29 <TomDN> Luc: It was then suggested to simplify to above
Luc Moreau: It was then suggested to simplify to above ←
15:41:50 <tlebo> "shock" sioc
Timothy Lebo: "shock" sioc ←
15:42:06 <Luc> hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, alias)
Luc Moreau: hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, alias) ←
15:42:15 <TomDN> ... there are some precedents in literature for this kind of relation
... there are some precedents in literature for this kind of relation ←
15:42:35 <TomDN> ... Target may be better understood as alias (see above)
... Target may be better understood as alias (see above) ←
15:42:40 <Luc> hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle)
Luc Moreau: hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle) ←
15:42:46 <Luc> alternateOf(subject, alias)
Luc Moreau: alternateOf(subject, alias) ←
15:42:46 <tlebo> +1 to "alias" instead of "target-uri"
Timothy Lebo: +1 to "alias" instead of "target-uri" ←
15:43:03 <TomDN> ... It was suggested that 2 binary relations might be better than 1 ternary
... It was suggested that 2 binary relations might be better than 1 ternary ←
15:43:49 <TomDN> ... There was a comment made that it still not precise enough, and it isn't clear what the alias is in the bundle
... There was a comment made that it still not precise enough, and it isn't clear what the alias is in the bundle ←
15:43:51 <Luc> hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, alias, [prov:type="..."])
Luc Moreau: hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, alias, [prov:type="..."]) ←
15:43:56 <GK> q+ to comment on not knowing what to look for in the bundle...
Graham Klyne: q+ to comment on not knowing what to look for in the bundle... ←
15:44:25 <tlebo> @luc @gk, you look up "any" of the alternateOfs?
Timothy Lebo: @luc @gk, you look up "any" of the alternateOfs? ←
15:44:28 <Luc> hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, alias)
Luc Moreau: hasProvenanceIn(subject, bundle, alias) ←
15:44:43 <GK> @tlebo yes!
Graham Klyne: @tlebo yes! ←
15:44:53 <TomDN> ... When we talk about the alias, we refer to a name, not a resource
... When we talk about the alias, we refer to a name, not a resource ←
15:44:54 <smiles> @tlebo agreed
Simon Miles: @tlebo agreed ←
15:44:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:45:05 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
15:45:50 <TomDN> GK: In response to issue that it doesn;t help with navigation: you would look for all of them
Graham Klyne: In response to issue that it doesn;t help with navigation: you would look for all of them ←
15:45:56 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
15:45:56 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to comment on not knowing what to look for in the bundle...
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to comment on not knowing what to look for in the bundle... ←
15:46:45 <TomDN> SimonM: Replacing the target with alternateOf is depending on how the entities are related
Simon Miles: Replacing the target with alternateOf is depending on how the entities are related ←
15:46:58 <TomDN> ... which is important
... which is important ←
15:47:18 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:47:22 <tlebo> FWIW, I think I proposed hasProvenanceIn() can decompose into prov:isTopicOf, prov:alternateOf, and prov:atLocation
Timothy Lebo: FWIW, I think I proposed hasProvenanceIn() can decompose into prov:isTopicOf, prov:alternateOf, and prov:atLocation ←
15:47:30 <TomDN> ... Even if you have the alias in hasProvenanceIn, you should still have the alternateOf relation
... Even if you have the alias in hasProvenanceIn, you should still have the alternateOf relation ←
15:47:33 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:47:34 <GK> q+ to ask my broader question: why do we need aliases at all?
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask my broader question: why do we need aliases at all? ←
15:47:36 <TomDN> (or specializationOf)
(or specializationOf) ←
15:47:38 <Luc> ack smi
Luc Moreau: ack smi ←
15:48:02 <TomDN> pgroth: Aren't we trying to put too much into this hasProvenanceIn?
Paul Groth: Aren't we trying to put too much into this hasProvenanceIn? ←
15:48:15 <MacTed> \ owl:sameAs serves the purpose of saying joe:thing1 and fred:thing2 are aliases for the same entity
Ted Thibodeau: \ owl:sameAs serves the purpose of saying joe:thing1 and fred:thing2 are aliases for the same entity ←
15:48:16 <TomDN> ... simpler would be: look in this bundle.
... simpler would be: look in this bundle. ←
15:48:21 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:48:25 <tlebo> q+ to say that the only new thing that hasProvenanceIn offers is prov:isTopicOf, so we should reduce it to just that.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that the only new thing that hasProvenanceIn offers is prov:isTopicOf, so we should reduce it to just that. ←
15:48:40 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
15:48:40 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask my broader question: why do we need aliases at all?
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask my broader question: why do we need aliases at all? ←
15:49:04 <TomDN> GK: My broader issue is that the requirement is to be able to navigate a distributed graph. The hasProvenanceIn is suitable for this
Graham Klyne: My broader issue is that the requirement is to be able to navigate a distributed graph. The hasProvenanceIn is suitable for this ←
15:49:14 <pgroth> are main purpose is to do provenance of provenance
Paul Groth: are main purpose is to do provenance of provenance ←
15:49:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:49:18 <pgroth> which is why we need bundles
Paul Groth: which is why we need bundles ←
15:49:24 <TomDN> ... The stuff that is being added is causing more confusion than adding useful properties.
... The stuff that is being added is causing more confusion than adding useful properties. ←
15:49:28 <pgroth> and thus hasProvenanceIn
Paul Groth: and thus hasProvenanceIn ←
15:49:40 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:50:00 <tlebo> I think I proposed hasProvenanceIn() can decompose into prov:isTopicOf, prov:alternateOf, and prov:atLocation
Timothy Lebo: I think I proposed hasProvenanceIn() can decompose into prov:isTopicOf, prov:alternateOf, and prov:atLocation ←
15:50:15 <TomDN> tlebo: I think that hasProvenanceIn can be composed into a new istopicOf relation and alternateOf that we already have
Timothy Lebo: I think that hasProvenanceIn can be composed into a new istopicOf relation and alternateOf that we already have ←
15:50:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:50:26 <tlebo> the only new thing that hasProvenanceIn offers is prov:isTopicOf, so we should reduce it to just that.
Timothy Lebo: the only new thing that hasProvenanceIn offers is prov:isTopicOf, so we should reduce it to just that. ←
15:50:26 <Luc> ack tlebo
Luc Moreau: ack tlebo ←
15:50:26 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that the only new thing that hasProvenanceIn offers is prov:isTopicOf, so we should reduce it to just that.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to say that the only new thing that hasProvenanceIn offers is prov:isTopicOf, so we should reduce it to just that. ←
15:50:31 <TomDN> ... It might be better to reuse the thing we already have.
... It might be better to reuse the thing we already have. ←
15:50:43 <dgarijo> @Tim: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_primaryTopic?
Daniel Garijo: @Tim: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_primaryTopic? ←
15:51:04 <tlebo> @dgarijo, need to relax the "primary-ness"
Timothy Lebo: @dgarijo, need to relax the "primary-ness" ←
15:51:25 <tlebo> if foaf:primaryTopic had a superproperty foaf:topic, then yes.
Timothy Lebo: if foaf:primaryTopic had a superproperty foaf:topic, then yes. ←
15:51:30 <GK> SO why not just use the same name?
Graham Klyne: SO why not just use the same name? ←
15:51:33 <TomDN> Luc: I think that having to search the entire bundle when looking for an alias is not a good solution.
Luc Moreau: I think that having to search the entire bundle when looking for an alias is not a good solution. ←
15:51:42 <MacTed> +1 GK
Ted Thibodeau: +1 GK ←
15:51:45 <tlebo> @gk @who?
Timothy Lebo: @gk @who? ←
15:51:47 <TomDN> ... When you assert provenance, you want to release your bundles fast
... When you assert provenance, you want to release your bundles fast ←
15:51:55 <TomDN> ... but also connect them properly.
... but also connect them properly. ←
15:52:05 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
15:52:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see BrendanIAB, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc, ??P49, TomDN (muted), GK, dgarijo, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, BrendanIAB.a, ??P30, ??P2, ??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see BrendanIAB, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc, ??P49, TomDN (muted), GK, dgarijo, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, BrendanIAB.a, ??P30, ??P2, ??P13 ←
15:52:08 <Zakim> TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN has TomDN, SamCoppens ←
15:52:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see stephenc, Christine, dcorsar, tlebo, zednik, SamCoppens, satya, dgarijo, TomDN, smiles, GK, GK_, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see stephenc, Christine, dcorsar, tlebo, zednik, SamCoppens, satya, dgarijo, TomDN, smiles, GK, GK_, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
15:52:09 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:52:12 <TomDN> ... and currently we have no suitable mechanism for this
... and currently we have no suitable mechanism for this ←
15:52:33 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
15:52:40 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:52:52 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:52:59 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:53:12 <tlebo> @gk, waht about "using same name"?
Timothy Lebo: @gk, waht about "using same name"? ←
15:53:20 <TomDN> ... The challenge is that you can't just extend an existing relation with an alias, since it is binary
... The challenge is that you can't just extend an existing relation with an alias, since it is binary ←
15:53:36 <GK> @tlebo didn't I just say that? :)
Graham Klyne: @tlebo didn't I just say that? :) ←
15:53:39 <TomDN> Macted: this problem is inherent to a distributed graph
Ted Thibodeau: this problem is inherent to a distributed graph ←
15:53:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:53:49 <tlebo> @gk, yes, but what are you saying?
Timothy Lebo: @gk, yes, but what are you saying? ←
15:53:50 <Luc> ack mact
Luc Moreau: ack mact ←
15:53:55 <TomDN> ... At some point asserters will assert in the wrong way.
... At some point asserters will assert in the wrong way. ←
15:54:08 <pgroth> i think I have a nice way out
Paul Groth: i think I have a nice way out ←
15:54:08 <TomDN> ... We can't stop that.
... We can't stop that. ←
15:54:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:54:34 <GK> Ah, ... I mean use the same name when referring to the same thing. URIs are, after all, a global namespace.
Graham Klyne: Ah, ... I mean use the same name when referring to the same thing. URIs are, after all, a global namespace. ←
15:54:50 <GK> So use the same name in different budles.
Graham Klyne: So use the same name in different budles. ←
15:55:05 <tlebo> @gk, ok, so you're not referring to my proposed name of isTopicOf ?
Timothy Lebo: @gk, ok, so you're not referring to my proposed name of isTopicOf ? ←
15:55:14 <TomDN> pgroth: A way around this is: we have hasProvenanceIn, but we allow it to be extended
Paul Groth: A way around this is: we have hasProvenanceIn, but we allow it to be extended ←
15:55:57 <TomDN> Luc: this is a possibility. It would imply that you need a qualified relation for it. But the idea seems to be that we don;t want that.
Luc Moreau: this is a possibility. It would imply that you need a qualified relation for it. But the idea seems to be that we don;t want that. ←
15:56:03 <tlebo> why do we need a qualified relation on this?
Timothy Lebo: why do we need a qualified relation on this? ←
15:56:11 <pgroth> for extension
Paul Groth: for extension ←
15:56:12 <GK> @tlebo ... not sure. I haven't really studied that - or is it just a name change?
Graham Klyne: @tlebo ... not sure. I haven't really studied that - or is it just a name change? ←
15:56:21 <tlebo> gimmie isTopicOf and we're done.
Timothy Lebo: gimmie isTopicOf and we're done. ←
15:56:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:56:31 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
15:56:33 <pgroth> gotta go, sorry
Paul Groth: gotta go, sorry ←
15:56:41 <tlebo> @gk, no, it's a rename and reduction to hasProvnenaceIn - alternateOf - atLocation.
Timothy Lebo: @gk, no, it's a rename and reduction to hasProvnenaceIn - alternateOf - atLocation. ←
15:57:05 <tlebo> q+ to say qualifying this property seems like overkill.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say qualifying this property seems like overkill. ←
15:57:12 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
15:57:33 <TomDN_> (connection dropped out)
(connection dropped out) ←
15:57:53 <TomDN_> GK: I don't see why would need really this alias mechanism
Graham Klyne: I don't see why would need really this alias mechanism ←
15:58:22 <tlebo> so luc's problem is linking to "already created" bundles?
Timothy Lebo: so luc's problem is linking two "already created" bundles? ←
15:58:32 <tlebo> s/to/two/
15:58:55 <TomDN_> satya: my concern is that it is a very narrow scenario. I'm not sure we as a WG should meddle in thi
Satya Sahoo: my concern is that it is a very narrow scenario. I'm not sure we as a WG should meddle in thi ←
15:59:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:59:13 <Luc> ack sat
Luc Moreau: ack sat ←
15:59:19 <TomDN> satya: we should avoid making the model overcomplicated
Satya Sahoo: we should avoid making the model overcomplicated ←
16:00:27 <TomDN> tlebo: If we reduce hasProvenanceIn to hasTopicOf it would solve this problem
Timothy Lebo: If we reduce hasProvenanceIn to hasTopicOf it would solve this problem ←
16:00:36 <TomDN> Luc: the problem is aliasing
Luc Moreau: the problem is aliasing ←
16:00:54 <TomDN> tlebo: When you change the id, use alternateOf
Timothy Lebo: When you change the id, use alternateOf ←
16:01:15 <TomDN> Luc: then you would end up looking for all alternateOf relations, which is unfortunate
Luc Moreau: then you would end up looking for all alternateOf relations, which is unfortunate ←
16:01:57 <GK> It seems to me that this whole issue is being motivated by implementation concerns, when what we are defining here is a data model. Premature optimization ... and all that.
Graham Klyne: It seems to me that this whole issue is being motivated by implementation concerns, when what we are defining here is a data model. Premature optimization ... and all that. ←
16:01:59 <TomDN> ... Then you could en up with multiple specializations for the same agent in one bundle
... Thend you could end up with multiple specializations for the same agendt in one bundle ←
16:02:03 <MacTed> +1 GK
Ted Thibodeau: +1 GK ←
16:02:05 <TomDN> s/en/end
16:02:21 <tlebo> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
16:02:23 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
16:02:34 <TomDN> Luc: we will continue this discussion via email
Luc Moreau: we will continue this discussion via email ←
16:02:47 <tlebo> thanks!
Timothy Lebo: thanks! ←
16:02:51 <Zakim> -??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P13 ←
16:02:52 <Zakim> -??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P2 ←
16:02:53 <Zakim> -??P49
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P49 ←
16:02:55 <GK> I am feeling inclined to appeal to the decisoioin from the last F2F -- lacking consensus, drop it.
Graham Klyne: I am feeling inclined to appeal to the decisoioin from the last F2F -- lacking consensus, drop it. ←
16:02:56 <Zakim> -tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←
16:02:59 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
16:03:03 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
16:03:05 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
16:03:08 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:03:11 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←
16:03:13 <Zakim> -??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P30 ←
16:03:15 <Zakim> -TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN ←
16:03:19 <Zakim> -GK
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←
16:03:22 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
16:03:23 <Zakim> Attendees were BrendanIAB, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aaaa, Luc, TomDN, dgarijo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, SamCoppens, tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were BrendanIAB, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aaaa, Luc, TomDN, dgarijo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, MacTed, SamCoppens, tlebo ←
Formatted by CommonScribe