IRC log of prov on 2011-08-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:44:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:44:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-prov-irc
14:44:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:44:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:44:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:44:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:44:23 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:44:23 [trackbot]
Date: 04 August 2011
14:44:30 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:44:30 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
14:44:53 [Luc]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.08.04
14:45:02 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
14:45:18 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:45:58 [Luc]
Regrets: Deborah McGuinness
14:52:07 [Luc]
Scribe: Christine
14:52:17 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:52:27 [Luc]
Topic: Admin
14:52:53 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:59 [Zakim]
+??P33
14:53:12 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P33 is me
14:53:12 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:53:26 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
14:53:28 [Zakim]
+??P34
14:53:47 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
14:53:48 [Zakim]
+??P42
14:53:57 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P42 is me
14:53:57 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
14:54:47 [Zakim]
-Paolo
14:55:14 [Zakim]
+??P42
14:55:19 [Luc]
zakim, ??P42 is me
14:55:19 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
14:55:26 [Luc]
Paolo, you must be ??P34
14:55:43 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:56:07 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P34
14:56:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P34', Paolo
14:56:12 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P34 is me
14:56:12 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
14:56:40 [Vinh]
Vinh has joined #prov
14:57:04 [Zakim]
+Curt
14:59:42 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
14:59:44 [Edoardo]
Edoardo has joined #prov
14:59:59 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:00:01 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:00:02 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
15:00:11 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:11 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:00:11 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:36 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:07 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:01:07 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
15:01:30 [Zakim]
+??P17
15:01:35 [Zakim]
+??P53
15:01:36 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P17 is me
15:01:39 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:01:42 [GK1_]
GK1_ has joined #prov
15:01:51 [olaf]
olaf has joined #prov
15:01:53 [Zakim]
+??P57
15:01:55 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P53 is me
15:01:59 [kai]
zakim, ??P57 is me.
15:02:15 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:02:18 [Christine]
[Discussion of the agenda]
15:02:28 [Zakim]
+kai; got it
15:02:32 [JimM]
JimM has joined #prov
15:02:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.216.368.aaaa
15:02:37 [Christine]
No additional agenda items
15:02:38 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens
15:02:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aabb
15:02:41 [Luc]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-28
15:02:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aacc
15:02:49 [Reza_BFar]
Reza_BFar has joined #prov
15:02:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.454.aadd
15:02:52 [satya]
+1
15:02:52 [khalidbelhajjame]
+1
15:02:54 [Zakim]
+??P28
15:02:54 [tlebo]
+1
15:02:55 [Curt]
+1
15:02:55 [Christine]
Item 1 of agenda - to approve the minutes of the last telecon
15:02:56 [Paolo]
+1
15:02:56 [SamCoppens]
+1
15:03:00 [Zakim]
+ +49.302.093.aaee
15:03:02 [olaf]
+1
15:03:05 [dcorsar]
+1
15:03:09 [JimM]
+1
15:03:09 [jcheney]
+1
15:03:11 [Edoardo]
+1
15:03:27 [kai]
+1
15:03:32 [olaf]
zakim, aacc is me
15:03:37 [smiles]
+1
15:03:46 [Luc]
APPROVED: last week's teleconference minutes.
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+olaf; got it
15:04:04 [MacTed]
Zakim, code?
15:04:09 [Christine]
Item 2 of agenda - review outstanding items
15:04:30 [Zakim]
+??P62
15:04:31 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
15:04:35 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed
15:04:35 [satya]
zakim, 1.216.368.aaaa is me
15:04:40 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is me
15:04:45 [GK1]
zakim, ??P62 is me (I think)
15:04:55 [Zakim]
sorry, satya, I do not recognize a party named '1.216.368.aaaa'
15:04:59 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:04:59 [Christine]
need to follow up to see if new questionnaire is being produced
15:04:59 [MacTed]
Zakim, MacTed is OpenLink_Software
15:05:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P62 is me (I think)', GK1
15:05:06 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:05:06 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:08 [Christine]
Paul to follow up to see how this is progressing
15:05:09 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software; got it
15:05:11 [Luc]
Topic: Name suggestions
15:05:11 [satya]
zakim, +1.216.368.aaaa is me
15:05:13 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:05:15 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:05:17 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:05:22 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
15:05:24 [Zakim]
+satya; got it
15:05:24 [GK1]
zakim, ??P62 is me
15:05:26 [Zakim]
+Yogesh
15:05:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Curt, ??P20, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, kai, satya, +1.518.276.aabb, SamCoppens, olaf, +1.714.454.aadd, ??P28, +49.302.093.aaee, ??P62,
15:05:35 [Zakim]
... MacTed (muted), Yogesh
15:05:37 [Christine]
Item 3 of agenda - the name for the standard
15:05:55 [dgraijo]
dgraijo has joined #prov
15:05:56 [Luc]
q?
15:05:59 [Christine]
Luc: Paul circulated a form to express views
15:06:04 [Zakim]
+GK1; got it
15:06:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Yogesh, Reza_BFar, JimM, olaf, GK1_, kai, smiles, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, Christine, tlebo, GK1, SamCoppens, Edoardo, dcorsar, Vinh, Curt, Paolo, satya, pgroth,
15:06:15 [Zakim]
... Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, edsu, sandro, trackbot
15:06:26 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:06:50 [Christine]
Paul: 16 responses - 2 biggest PIL (6 votes) PAS (5 votes) 1 vote for ..
15:06:58 [Reza_BFar]
I didn't vote yet, but +1 for PIL
15:07:11 [Christine]
Luc: Is it representative?
15:07:24 [Luc]
q?
15:07:29 [Christine]
Paul: Could vote now or take another vote
15:07:44 [Zakim]
+??P10
15:07:47 [Paolo]
I think the appeal of PAS is that it is actually PAST
15:07:51 [Christine]
Luc: Concern about voting now is that a lot of people are on holiday
15:07:53 [Zakim]
+??P12
15:08:04 [Luc]
q?
15:08:06 [Christine]
Luc: Graham also suggested another 2 or 3 names which could be considered
15:08:08 [satya]
I also suggesed one - added to wiki
15:08:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.915.603.aaff
15:08:11 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
15:08:11 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:08:27 [GK1]
+1 to have a name by FPWD, not not urgent until then
15:08:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.343.aagg
15:08:32 [Paulo]
Paulo has joined #prov
15:08:33 [Christine]
Paul: We need a name before going to public draft. Can leave poll open and close later.
15:08:47 [GK1]
Maybe re-run the vote ...?
15:08:48 [Luc]
q?
15:08:50 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:08:53 [GK1]
(offline)
15:08:53 [Christine]
Luc: Agree. Put on agenda in September for decision by mid-September.
15:09:12 [Vinh]
+1.915.603.aaff is me
15:09:14 [Christine]
Paul: agree and will add other proposals and encourage people to vote
15:09:38 [Luc]
q?
15:09:41 [Paolo]
q+
15:09:48 [Luc]
ack pao
15:10:05 [Christine]
Paolo: PIL has the term "language" in it - be aware
15:10:10 [satya]
right
15:10:12 [satya]
q+
15:10:21 [Luc]
ack satya
15:10:32 [Christine]
Satya: agree with Paolo re concern on "language"
15:10:40 [Christine]
Paul: add proposals to the wiki page
15:11:13 [Luc]
q?
15:11:19 [Luc]
Topic: Provenance Access Document
15:11:21 [Christine]
Luc: "language" is problematic - need to explain names on wiki page
15:11:43 [Luc]
q?
15:11:49 [GK1]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/a055a7987aa7/paq/provenance-access.html
15:12:48 [Luc]
q?
15:13:27 [Christine]
Graham: since last week, a lot of comments came in. I have been through Olaf's editorial comments and updated text accordingly. One issue defered - is it provenance information or another term. Also working on mercurial to include a proposal for simple HTTP interface for provenance discovery.
15:14:09 [Christine]
Graham: Will need a little more work but thrust is visible from the proposal.
15:14:14 [Luc]
q?
15:15:05 [Christine]
Lu and Graham: [discussion of timing and availability]
15:15:21 [Luc]
q?
15:15:26 [Christine]
Luc: first working draft by end of Sept?
15:16:38 [Christine]
Luc: then final revision?
15:16:40 [khalidbelhajjame]
end of August
15:16:43 [khalidbelhajjame]
?
15:17:09 [Luc]
q?
15:17:48 [Luc]
q?
15:17:54 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:18:04 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.302.093.aaee (23%), GK1 (20%)
15:18:33 [Luc]
Topic: Provenance Ontology
15:18:39 [MacTed]
(whoever's breathing heavy in their headset... please note that you're causing other people's speech to drop out)
15:19:24 [Christine]
Satya: [reporting on progress] - meeting on Monday with volunteers - are working on conceptual model and ontology
15:19:43 [dgarijo]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
15:19:57 [satya]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
15:20:02 [jorn]
jorn has joined #prov
15:20:23 [Christine]
Satya: comment on whether agree or not with document
15:20:54 [Luc]
q?
15:21:11 [Christine]
Satya: not clear - since defining with OWL ...what other entailments? .. are we going to add other provenance semantics to our work?
15:21:48 [Christine]
Luc: discuss later today. re transitive which you raised - why is not explained in OWL
15:22:05 [Luc]
q?
15:22:18 [Christine]
Satya: no comments received on available documents
15:22:40 [khalidbelhajjame]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
15:22:41 [tlebo]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
15:22:47 [Paolo]
well, the OWL file it opens well in my protege :-)
15:22:48 [dgarijo]
yes, it is the link I posted before
15:22:49 [GK1]
(I probably won't attempt to review the formal model until the main conceptual model document settles.)
15:23:08 [Luc]
q?
15:23:09 [dgarijo]
@Paolo: Satya prepared it in Protege :)
15:23:15 [Paolo]
q+
15:23:21 [Luc]
ack paolo
15:23:53 [Christine]
Paolo: Clear distinction of OWL as encoding model and as a language for defining the semantics
15:24:31 [tlebo]
+1 paolo's distinction on conceptual model's semantics vs. the semantics encoded in OWL.
15:24:33 [GK1]
q+ to say that using OWL for structural definition could be confusing
15:24:45 [GK1]
q- ... what Paolo is saying :)
15:24:46 [Christine]
Satya: quick answer - by defn - OWL has own semantics - can't avoid that
15:24:50 [GK1]
q-
15:25:08 [GK1]
s./Paolo/Satya/ (sorry)
15:25:35 [Luc]
q?
15:25:46 [Zakim]
+??P4
15:25:55 [Christine]
Satya: making sure conceptual model is captured in ontology
15:26:38 [Luc]
q?
15:26:56 [Christine]
Luc and Satya: discuss further outside call
15:27:19 [Christine]
Luc: [discussing availability of editors]
15:27:31 [Luc]
q?
15:27:45 [Luc]
Agenda: Provenance Model Document
15:27:49 [Paolo]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
15:28:01 [Christine]
Paolo: link to latest version
15:28:30 [Christine]
Paolo: more discussion on the list and some offlist - Luc did a good job of mapping issues to the document
15:29:24 [Christine]
Paolo: a number of open issues - 2 main changes to document - issues now interleved in document - open/pending issues marked in document
15:30:29 [Christine]
Paolo: with Luc - sections up to 5.3 have been reconsidered in view of the issues - can see the result
15:31:16 [Christine]
Luc: aim to have a new version by Monday night
15:31:24 [Luc]
q?
15:31:33 [dcorsar_]
dcorsar_ has joined #prov
15:32:06 [Luc]
q?
15:32:10 [pgroth]
+q
15:32:20 [smiles]
q+
15:32:27 [Christine]
Luc: we will continue working on doc in September
15:32:56 [Christine]
Paul: Are we still discussing core definitions? How settled are the core concepts?
15:33:49 [Edoardo]
Edoardo has joined #prov
15:34:20 [GK1]
I acknowledge that I need to come back with something approaching an evaluatable proposal.
15:34:27 [Christine]
Luc: Difficult to answer. Issues have been raised regarding the core of the model.
15:34:46 [pgroth]
q+ to ask about "other concepts"
15:34:54 [satya]
q+
15:34:56 [Luc]
ack pg
15:34:56 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to ask about "other concepts"
15:35:11 [pgroth]
q+ to ask about "other concepts"
15:35:13 [GK1]
I came round to agree with transitivity of derivation.
15:35:33 [Christine]
Luc: For example. Transitivity is a difficult issue.
15:35:59 [GK1]
My main concern is the nature of "Entities".
15:36:15 [khalidbelhajjame]
+q
15:36:31 [Zakim]
- +49.302.093.aaee
15:36:54 [Paolo]
q+
15:36:55 [Christine]
Simon; Are we intended to release anything in September? How might use the model? or the access document?
15:37:05 [Luc]
q?
15:37:10 [Christine]
Luc: Good question - are they stable enough to write a primer?
15:37:29 [Zakim]
+ +49.302.093.aahh
15:37:38 [Christine]
Luc: Did not commit to release primer by then
15:37:50 [Luc]
ack smi
15:37:58 [Paolo]
I really believe the primer[model] should go hand in hand with the model conceptualization
15:38:13 [GK1]
q+ to note that part of my problem in responding to the model has been that the language used seems to over-specialized in places.
15:38:47 [Christine]
Paul: Don't think we can expect to have a draft primer for this - not enough bandwidth and not close enough to being finished - more to reach out to technical people
15:38:49 [tlebo]
@paolo "hand in hand" - interleaved within same document?
15:38:57 [Luc]
q?
15:39:05 [Luc]
ack satya
15:39:06 [Christine]
Luc: Could we express the model with alternate ways of encoding? not a primer in itself
15:39:14 [Paolo]
@tlebo -- no, rather meant just what Luc just said
15:39:38 [Christine]
Satya: Daniel mentioned - have concepts of location and time in ontology but no properties linking these concepts to entity
15:39:56 [Paolo]
challenge the model with new examples where we are able to describe how the model is used in plain language
15:40:01 [dgarijo]
it's true, I forgot to bring'em on here >.<
15:40:16 [Luc]
ack pg
15:40:16 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to ask about "other concepts"
15:40:51 [Christine]
Paul: Brought up an issue a month ago about particular concepts I thought were vital to have that may be able to expressed within current concepts of the model. Would like your view on that.
15:41:04 [Christine]
Paul: Things like attribution
15:41:12 [Zakim]
-??P4
15:41:46 [Paolo]
Q?
15:41:50 [Zakim]
+??P4
15:41:53 [Christine]
Luc: It is a good idea. The issue is raised in the document. A new section has been added. Hope to have something in it by Monday.
15:41:59 [jorn]
zakim, ??p4 is me
15:41:59 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:42:13 [Zakim]
- +1.714.454.aadd
15:42:15 [Luc]
ack kh
15:42:53 [Christine]
Khalid: Would it help to priortise issues that are fixed to coverge more quickly on core issues such as transitivity.
15:43:23 [Christine]
Luc: Paolo and I have tried to prioritise. Some natural selection on issues via email traffic.
15:43:42 [Luc]
q?
15:43:46 [Luc]
ack pao
15:43:49 [Christine]
Luc: We hope to have proposals by Monday.
15:44:50 [satya]
+1 for Paolo's point - I actually see the conceptual model as a primer
15:44:50 [Christine]
Paolo: Clarifying earlier comment. Need more examples [sound dropped out] ... we need some easy explanation of what we are trying to get at .. does not need to be released .. internal
15:44:55 [satya]
q+
15:46:25 [Christine]
Graham: Comment cuts across primer and concept document - one problem I had when I was reviewing this - a lot of the language was over specialised even for a technical audience - implicit or tacit knowledge bound up in what was explained.
15:46:49 [Paolo]
@GK +1
15:46:51 [Luc]
ack gk
15:46:52 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to note that part of my problem in responding to the model has been that the language used seems to over-specialized in places.
15:46:53 [Christine]
Graham: Perhaps less specialised language document - to explain
15:47:07 [Luc]
ack saty
15:47:18 [Paulo]
q+
15:47:20 [Christine]
Satya: primer in the sense that Luc and Simon - aggregation on model and access?
15:47:31 [Zakim]
-Curt
15:47:39 [Luc]
q?
15:47:48 [GK1]
+1
15:47:49 [Christine]
Satya: primer should only be done after closure on the models - otherwise premature
15:48:33 [Christine]
Paolo: Like the idea of challenging the model - doing this through issue 26
15:48:57 [Christine]
Paolo: Looking for response to my issue by email
15:48:58 [satya]
Paolo/Paulo
15:49:17 [Christine]
[Scribe apologising for name]
15:49:50 [Luc]
q?
15:49:53 [Luc]
ack pau
15:50:16 [Zakim]
+Curt
15:50:17 [Christine]
Luc: vote during the week - entity was definitely leading
15:50:30 [Luc]
q?
15:50:37 [Christine]
Luc: using "entity" for the document
15:50:59 [Christine]
Luc: formal semantics - would like to open the debate again and understand the scope of the semantics
15:51:09 [Luc]
Topic: Formal semantics
15:52:04 [Christine]
James: As Satya mentioned, we discussed on Monday. Things such as transitivity.
15:52:18 [Luc]
q?
15:52:37 [jcheney]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemantics
15:52:40 [Christine]
James: end result - some comments will be added to OWL ontology doc
15:52:49 [satya]
@James, can you please repeat the example - missed the issue sorry
15:53:32 [Christine]
James: In the meantime look at the wiki (see link)
15:54:28 [Christine]
James: various constraints mentioned in the document - simple one - [stating an order on data values related to class in OWL] - not sure if can be expressed
15:55:07 [Christine]
Satya: now looking at "source assertion" - exactly what I mean about entailments [?]
15:55:59 [Christine]
@Satya pls write your example for the minutes
15:56:38 [Luc]
q?
15:57:17 [Zakim]
-jorn
15:57:35 [Paulo]
if look into the owl specification itself, we will see that they talk about entailment but also about consistency, equivalence, etc
15:57:52 [Luc]
q?
15:58:03 [pgroth]
+q
15:58:18 [Christine]
Luc: comments/suggestions for scoping semantics?
15:58:31 [Zakim]
+??P4
15:58:34 [satya]
@James OWL2 direct semantics: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/ was the document I was refering to
15:58:53 [Christine]
Paul; conceptual model should do what it needs to do for standardising services - should not constrain with what we can do in OWL
15:58:57 [Luc]
q?
15:59:00 [Luc]
ack pg
15:59:08 [GK1]
@paul +1
15:59:09 [Christine]
PauL; OWL seems to be working
15:59:13 [satya]
@Christine, sorry the example?
16:00:07 [dgarijo]
what about the rules? (some of them can be produced while we do the ontology, in RIFF, for instance)
16:00:10 [Christine]
@satya - when you were talking about entailment - [perhaps someone else can help]
16:00:47 [GK1]
q+ to say following paul to identify what inferences are desired to standardize, then figure out what formal semantics can achieve that
16:01:03 [satya]
@James, can we add a link to your page from the formal model wiki page created by TimL?
16:01:33 [dgarijo]
@satya I think that will be a good idea.
16:01:46 [Luc]
q?
16:02:52 [Luc]
ack GK
16:02:52 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say following paul to identify what inferences are desired to standardize, then figure out what formal semantics can achieve that
16:03:02 [Christine]
.... Luc: agree with you - trying to gather requirements for formal semantics makes sense
16:03:13 [tlebo]
I already added a reference to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemantics from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Initial_comments.2Fsuggestions_about_the_ontology and http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Model_Task_Force#Materials_discussing_Concepts
16:03:28 [Zakim]
-SamCoppens
16:03:36 [dgarijo]
@tlebo nice!
16:03:55 [satya]
@GK, agree with this approach
16:04:09 [Luc]
q?
16:04:10 [Christine]
GrahaM; if can identify inferences that are desired and then later as the other aspects of the formal semantic settle can see if are covered or not. Thinking of the discussion on transitivity and derviation.
16:04:31 [satya]
q+
16:04:43 [Luc]
ack saty
16:04:51 [Christine]
Satya: what was the resolution?
16:05:10 [Christine]
Luc: my view is that we should keep it separate
16:05:30 [pgroth]
we make the decision later
16:05:50 [Zakim]
- +1.915.603.aaff
16:06:18 [Luc]
q?
16:06:22 [GK1]
I think I'm less interested in completeness; obviously want soundness :)
16:06:38 [jcheney]
q+
16:07:17 [GK1]
@satya: auto verification - surely that's only for constraints expressible in OWL?
16:07:36 [Luc]
ack jch
16:07:37 [khalidbelhajjame]
do we need to make the decision now as to whether to have a separate formal (in the mathematical sense) semantics or not?
16:07:44 [satya]
@GK yes agree
16:08:03 [khalidbelhajjame]
we can postopone that to later, when we have the OWL schema
16:08:42 [GK1]
@jch +1
16:08:57 [Luc]
q?
16:09:08 [Zakim]
- +49.302.093.aahh
16:09:18 [satya]
@James, agree that is why we are facing difficulty in encoding the conceptual model in OWL
16:09:37 [satya]
since many of the concepts are still not well/stably defined
16:09:46 [GK1]
Makes sense, but may be a tough call :)
16:09:51 [Zakim]
-satya
16:09:52 [Zakim]
-olaf
16:09:53 [Zakim]
-Yogesh
16:09:53 [Zakim]
-??P4
16:09:53 [Zakim]
- +1.518.276.aabb
16:09:54 [Zakim]
-pgroth
16:09:54 [Zakim]
-khalidbelhajjame
16:09:54 [pgroth]
pgroth has left #prov
16:09:57 [Zakim]
-Curt
16:09:58 [Zakim]
-jcheney
16:10:00 [Zakim]
-GK1
16:10:02 [Zakim]
-Paolo
16:10:04 [Zakim]
-??P28
16:10:04 [jorn]
jorn has left #prov
16:10:06 [Zakim]
-??P20
16:10:08 [Zakim]
-kai
16:10:10 [Zakim]
-Luc
16:10:12 [Zakim]
-dgarijo
16:10:15 [Zakim]
-MacTed
16:10:16 [Zakim]
- +1.937.343.aagg
16:10:35 [satya]
sorry Christine, I don't remember the example, we can leave it out of the mins?
16:11:02 [Zakim]
-??P10
16:11:04 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:11:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were pgroth, Paolo, Luc, Curt, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, kai, SamCoppens, +1.518.276.aabb, +1.518.276.aacc, +1.714.454.aadd, +49.302.093.aaee, olaf, MacTed, satya,
16:11:09 [Zakim]
... Yogesh, GK1, +1.915.603.aaff, dgarijo, +1.937.343.aagg, +49.302.093.aahh, jorn
16:19:31 [GK1]
GK1 has left #prov