15:31:04 <dgarijo> Luc: everybody can comment even if it is not on your tf

15:31:11 <dgarijo> Luc: Model TF

15:31:19 <jun> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Model_Proposal

15:32:16 <dgarijo> satya: there were discussions on the mailing list

15:32:19 <Zakim> +??P21

15:32:24 <dgarijo> ... people can comment on the wiki pages

15:32:32 <jorn> zakim, ??p21 is me

15:32:32 <Zakim> +jorn; got it

15:32:37 <Luc> q?

15:32:42 <dgarijo> ... or send an email to the mailing list

15:33:41 <dgarijo> Luc: the curation process. It would be nice to have some comments as to why we are not adopting a definition. Is something you are planning to do?

15:34:48 <dgarijo> khalid: group concepts that people have agreed on

15:35:12 <Zakim> +??P60

15:35:19 <dgarijo> satya: for the f2f try to constraint the journalist example & the concepts that model the example

15:35:25 <stain> Zakim: +??P60 is me

15:36:18 <pgroth> q+

15:36:37 <dgarijo> Luc: khalid proposed a definition of derivation. It would be useful to add comments why this def has been revised in terms of IVPT

15:36:46 <dgarijo> pgroth: Jun's definition of derivation is a good model for tracking the updates of definitions

15:36:55 <Luc> q?

15:36:55 <khalidbelhajjame> Ok,

15:37:02 <dgarijo> Luc: where to put these comments is up to you :)

15:37:05 <Luc> ack pgroth

15:37:19 <Luc> q?

15:38:00 <pgroth> +1 yes thank you coordinators

15:38:00 <Luc> TOPIC: Model Task Force

<luc> Summary: Consensus was reached on two proposals: a) Process executions start in the past, b)   Initial definitions for the concept "Thing" and the relation "Invariant View or Perspective of".  It was agreed that decisions are not final, but are a way to move forward to allows us to define other core concepts of the provenance interchange language.

15:38:33 <dgarijo> Luc: properties to gather consensus

Luc Moreau: properties to gather consensus ←

15:38:45 <Luc> A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past.

Luc Moreau: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past. ←

15:38:47 <dgarijo> Luc: paul sent a proposal to vote

Luc Moreau: paul sent a proposal to vote ←

15:39:29 <dgarijo> Luc: it would be nice to reach consensus here

Luc Moreau: it would be nice to reach consensus here ←

15:39:58 <dgarijo> Luc: suggestion by Simon to add additional info to the definition

Luc Moreau: suggestion by Simon to add additional info to the definition ←

15:40:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:41:00 <Luc> A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the position of any assertion made about it.

Luc Moreau: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the position of any assertion made about it. ←

15:41:21 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+ ←

15:41:25 <dgarijo> Luc: should it be rephrased?

Luc Moreau: should it be rephrased? ←

15:41:28 <Luc> ack jcheney

Luc Moreau: ack jcheney ←

15:41:32 <Zakim> + +1.650.386.aakk

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.386.aakk ←

15:42:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:05 <dgarijo> jcheney: if we approve this now is it going to be definitive or just agreeing on terminology as a starting point

James Cheney: if we approve this now is it going to be definitive or just agreeing on terminology as a starting point ←

15:42:07 <dgarijo> ... ?

... ? ←

15:42:10 <pgroth> q+ to respond to that

Paul Groth: q+ to respond to that ←

15:42:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:19 <dgarijo> ... maybe it will contraint us later

... maybe it will contraint us later ←

15:42:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:44 <Luc> ack pgroth

Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←

15:42:44 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond to that

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to respond to that ←

15:43:06 <Christine> +q

Christine Runnegar: +q ←

15:43:22 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q- ←

15:43:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: to get a set of terminology to agree in the beggining. Doesn't mean that we can't change it later, but just to understand us right now

Paul Groth: to get a set of terminology to agree in the beggining. Doesn't mean that we can't change it later, but just to understand us right now ←

15:43:32 <dgarijo> Luc: agrees

Luc Moreau: agrees ←

15:43:48 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

15:43:57 <Luc> ack Christine

Luc Moreau: ack Christine ←

15:44:15 <Christine> -q

Christine Runnegar: -q ←

15:44:16 <YolandaGil> Why don't you make these plans explicit, ie, say somewhere when will you allow a cycle of revisions to the model

Yolanda Gil: Why don't you make these plans explicit, ie, say somewhere when will you allow a cycle of revisions to the model ←

15:44:21 <Christine> q-

Christine Runnegar: q- ←

15:44:24 <dgarijo> Christine: might be more useful to separate process execution in the past from the one is now occurring

Christine Runnegar: might be more useful to separate process execution in the past from the one is now occurring ←

15:44:27 <dgarijo> Luc: why?

Luc Moreau: why? ←

15:44:38 <pgroth> Yolanda, good point

Paul Groth: Yolanda, good point ←

15:44:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:44:54 <dgarijo> Christine: it would make it easier to understand by the community.

Christine Runnegar: it would make it easier to understand by the community. ←

15:45:13 <Luc> ack Christine

Luc Moreau: ack Christine ←

15:45:43 <dgarijo> introduction of Ralph Hodgson a future new memeber for the group.

introduction of Ralph Hodgson a future new memeber for the group. ←

15:45:46 <pgroth> welcome, ralph

Paul Groth: welcome, ralph ←

15:46:03 <dgarijo> has not joined yet

has not joined yet ←

15:46:15 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:46:34 <pgroth> absolutely

Paul Groth: absolutely ←

15:46:46 <Luc> ack satya

Luc Moreau: ack satya ←

15:46:53 <satya> ...from the time instant any assertion is made about it

Satya Sahoo: ...from the time instant any assertion is made about it ←

15:47:03 <dgarijo> satya: small modification to de definition

Satya Sahoo: small modification to de definition ←

15:47:16 <dgarijo> ... simon's definition

... simon's definition ←

15:47:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:47:46 <Zakim> -jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: -jorn ←

15:47:49 <dgarijo> Luc: anyone has any problems with that?

Luc Moreau: anyone has any problems with that? ←

15:47:55 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:48:02 <Zakim> +??P21

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←

15:48:08 <jorn> zakim, ??p21 is me

Jörn Hees: zakim, ??p21 is me ←

15:48:08 <Zakim> +jorn; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jorn; got it ←

15:48:36 <jorn> zakim, aakk is maybe ralphtq

Jörn Hees: zakim, aakk is maybe ralphtq ←

15:48:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aakk is maybe ralphtq', jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'aakk is maybe ralphtq', jorn ←

15:48:44 <dgarijo> satya: time dimension is always involved

Satya Sahoo: time dimension is always involved ←

15:48:50 <jorn> zakim, aakk maybe is ralphtq

Jörn Hees: zakim, aakk maybe is ralphtq ←

15:48:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aakk maybe is ralphtq', jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'aakk maybe is ralphtq', jorn ←

15:49:00 <smiles> A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.

Simon Miles: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. ←

15:49:10 <dgarijo> smiles: posts a suggestion to the definition

Simon Miles: posts a suggestion to the definition ←

15:49:27 <stain> what is 'the past' ?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: what is 'the past' ? ←

15:49:44 <Luc> PROPOSED: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.

PROPOSED: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. ←

15:49:44 <ralphtq> I am the person that asked about joining the call

Ralph Hodgson: I am the person that asked about joining the call ←

15:49:57 <ralphtq> my email is rhodgson@topquadrant.com

Ralph Hodgson: my email is rhodgson@topquadrant.com ←

15:49:57 <dgarijo> Luc: vote on this proposal

Luc Moreau: vote on this proposal ←

15:49:58 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

15:50:02 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:50:03 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1 ←

15:50:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:50:04 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1 ←

15:50:04 <dgarijo> dgarijo: +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:50:05 <stain> 0

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 0 ←

15:50:05 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:50:07 <olaf> +1

Olaf Hartig: +1 ←

15:50:09 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

15:50:10 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1 ←

15:50:11 <smiles> +1 (though probably could still be phrased better)

Simon Miles: +1 (though probably could still be phrased better) ←

15:50:13 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:50:14 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo (Edoardo, Edoardo_and_David) Pignotti: +1 ←

15:50:17 <ilkayaltintas> +1

Ilkay Altintas: +1 ←

15:50:18 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:50:18 <tfrancart> 0

Thomas Francart: 0 ←

15:50:27 <JimM> +1  - provenance is past tense

James Myers: +1 - provenance is past tense ←

15:50:32 <YolandaGil> +1

Yolanda Gil: +1 ←

15:50:39 <Christine> Christine: not voting (the definition would benefit from some rephrasing for clarity)

Christine Runnegar: not voting (the definition would benefit from some rephrasing for clarity) [ Scribe Assist by Christine Runnegar ] ←

15:50:39 <jorn> zakim, aakk may be ralphtq

Jörn Hees: zakim, aakk may be ralphtq ←

15:50:39 <Zakim> +ralphtq?; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ralphtq?; got it ←

15:50:48 <Luc> ACCEPTED: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.

RESOLVED: A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it. ←

15:50:56 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:51:22 <dgarijo> Luc: discussion on resources and IVPT

Luc Moreau: discussion on resources and IVPT ←

15:51:37 <Luc>  1. We began definitions using resources, but were not progressing, because there is no universal definition of resource, and challenge with dealing with stateful resources 2. Two weeks ago, we decided to separate web architecture discussions from model discussions 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist.  Hence, we introduced the

Luc Moreau: 1. We began definitions using resources, but were not progressing, because there is no universal definition of resource, and challenge with dealing with stateful resources 2. Two weeks ago, we decided to separate web architecture discussions from model discussions 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist. Hence, we introduced the ←

15:51:44 <dgarijo> ... would like to paste a small summary of the discussions from the mailing list

... would like to paste a small summary of the discussions from the mailing list ←

15:52:16 <dgarijo> ... 1 duscussion on resources, but got stuck

... 1 duscussion on resources, but got stuck ←

15:52:42 <ralphtq> my work is on the web as VOAG - Vocabulary of Attribution and Governance (this currently includes some Provenance concepts) - see http://www.linkedmodels.org/doc/voag/1.0

Ralph Hodgson: my work is on the web as VOAG - Vocabulary of Attribution and Governance (this currently includes some Provenance concepts) - see http://www.linkedmodels.org/doc/voag/1.0 ←

15:52:42 <dgarijo> ... there is no universal agreement on resource, and the state of the resources.

... there is no universal agreement on resource, and the state of the resources. ←

15:52:56 <dgarijo> ... then we separated the discussions

... then we separated the discussions ←

15:53:06 <dgarijo> ... arch/model

... arch/model ←

15:53:14 <Luc> 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist.  Hence, we introduced the idea of "Invariant View or Perspective on Thing" (IVPT)

Luc Moreau: 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist. Hence, we introduced the idea of "Invariant View or Perspective on Thing" (IVPT) ←

15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... we recognised that we needed to have something immutable to assert provenance

... we recognised that we needed to have something immutable to assert provenance ←

15:53:46 <ralphtq> I finish my introduction with this link to my web page - I am the second person listed - http://www.topquadrant.com/company/mgmt.html

Ralph Hodgson: I finish my introduction with this link to my web page - I am the second person listed - http://www.topquadrant.com/company/mgmt.html ←

15:53:54 <Luc> 4. Last WE's discussions between Jim and I were about whether IVPT was a type on its own, distinct from other things

Luc Moreau: 4. Last WE's discussions between Jim and I were about whether IVPT was a type on its own, distinct from other things ←

15:54:16 <dgarijo> ... idea of IVPT. Generation in terms of IVPT

... idea of IVPT. Generation in terms of IVPT ←

15:54:43 <dgarijo> ... IVPT as a new concept, different than anything that we had

... IVPT as a new concept, different than anything that we had ←

15:54:51 <Luc> 5. I was convinced  by Jim's argument that there is only a concept of "thing" with properties that are stable with respect to other things.  So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between types.

Luc Moreau: 5. I was convinced by Jim's argument that there is only a concept of "thing" with properties that are stable with respect to other things. So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between types. ←

15:55:15 <Luc> but a relationship between things.

Luc Moreau: but a relationship between things. ←

15:55:22 <dgarijo> ... So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between things

... So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between things ←

15:55:22 <Luc> 6. We came up with the definition http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29

Luc Moreau: 6. We came up with the definition http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29 ←

15:55:47 <dgarijo> ... have a Luc at this definition and provide feedback

... have alookat this definition and provide feedback ←

15:56:08 <dgarijo> s/ Luc /look

15:56:30 <dgarijo> Luc: it is my perspective

Luc Moreau: it is my perspective ←

15:56:49 <Christine> What do you mean by "identity" in this context?

Christine Runnegar: What do you mean by "identity" in this context? ←

15:57:13 <dgarijo> ... using invariant properties and mutable properties

... using invariant properties and mutable properties ←

15:57:22 <dgarijo> ... first definition of thing

... first definition of thing ←

15:57:49 <dgarijo> ... relationship between things

... relationship between things ←

15:57:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:57:56 <ralphtq> I raise my hand to speak about SBFI and distinctions between Perspective, Viewpoint and Aspect

Ralph Hodgson: I raise my hand to speak about SBFI and distinctions between Perspective, Viewpoint and Aspect ←

15:57:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:57:57 <dgarijo> ... a thing can be invariant from another

... a thing can be invariant from another ←

15:57:58 <pgroth> christine

Paul Groth: christine ←

15:57:59 <Christine> q+

Christine Runnegar: q+ ←

15:58:19 <dgarijo> Christine: whta is identity in this context?

Christine Runnegar: what is identity in this context? ←

15:58:30 <jorn> s/whta/what

15:58:35 <jorn> s/whta/what/

15:58:42 <dgarijo> Luc: to me, it's the ability to distinguish 2 entities

Luc Moreau: to me, it's the ability to distinguish 2 entities ←

15:58:45 <Zakim> -Yolanda

Zakim IRC Bot: -Yolanda ←

15:59:11 <ralphtq> SBFI stands for Structure, Behavior, Function adn Interface/Interaction - dimensions that characterize a system + BDI - Beliefs, Desires and Intentions

Ralph Hodgson: SBFI stands for Structure, Behavior, Function adn Interface/Interaction - dimensions that characterize a system + BDI - Beliefs, Desires and Intentions ←

15:59:21 <dgarijo> Christine: identity is diferent from identification

Christine Runnegar: identity is diferent from identification ←

15:59:25 <Luc> he collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known:

Luc Moreau: he collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known: ←

16:00:01 <ralphtq> DOCLE ontology defines endurants and perdurants - are you wanting to be that deep about the nature of the world?

Ralph Hodgson: DOCLE ontology defines endurants and perdurants - are you wanting to be that deep about the nature of the world? ←

16:00:03 <dgarijo> Luc: identity: the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known

Luc Moreau: identity: the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known ←

16:00:05 <ralphtq> DOLCE

Ralph Hodgson: DOLCE ←

16:00:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:00:20 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

16:00:20 <Christine> q-

Christine Runnegar: q- ←

16:00:27 <Luc> ack pgroth

Luc Moreau: ack pgroth ←

16:01:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:01:06 <satya> @Christine: Can we limit the scope of the definition to the journalism example for now?

Satya Sahoo: @Christine: Can we limit the scope of the definition to the journalism example for now? ←

16:01:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: reasonable, but concerned that it might be to deepas a definitio.

Paul Groth: reasonable, but concerned that it might be to deepas a definitio. ←

16:01:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:01:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:01:36 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:01:38 <ralphtq> q+

Ralph Hodgson: q+ ←

16:01:43 <JimM> q+

James Myers: q+ ←

16:01:54 <Christine> Paul, understand the need to reach consensus on language for definition

Christine Runnegar: Paul, understand the need to reach consensus on language for definition ←

16:02:01 <dgarijo> Luc: not trying to get a final def today

Luc Moreau: not trying to get a final def today ←

16:02:35 <dgarijo> Luc: but process exectution, generation, etc will refer to thing

Luc Moreau: but process exectution, generation, etc will refer to thing ←

16:02:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:02:47 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:02:50 <Christine> Perhaps we just need to briefly explain "identity" as it is used here

Christine Runnegar: Perhaps we just need to briefly explain "identity" as it is used here ←

16:02:55 <Luc> ack ralphtq

Luc Moreau: ack ralphtq ←

16:02:58 <dgarijo> ... we should get agreement asap, but not necessarily today

... we should get agreement asap, but not necessarily today ←

16:03:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:03:30 <Zakim> -jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: -jorn ←

16:03:47 <Zakim> +??P0

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←

16:03:48 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:04:04 <jorn> zakim, ??p0 is me

Jörn Hees: zakim, ??p0 is me ←

16:04:04 <Zakim> +jorn; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jorn; got it ←

16:04:27 <dgarijo> ralph: entity/thing. The DOLCE ontology has concepts to model some of the concepts endurants/perdurants

Ralph Hodgson: entity/thing. The DOLCE ontology has concepts to model some of the concepts endurants/perdurants ←

16:04:45 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:05:01 <dgarijo> ... viewpoints helps with the notion of identity

... viewpoints helps with the notion of identity ←

16:05:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:05:19 <dgarijo> ... because it is driven by context.

... because it is driven by context. ←

16:05:41 <satya> @ralph: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) has similar concepts called continuants/occurrent

Satya Sahoo: @ralph: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) has similar concepts called continuants/occurrent ←

16:05:42 <dgarijo> ... desires to have a lightweight notion for provenance

... desires to have a lightweight notion for provenance ←

16:05:59 <pgroth> thanks ralph

Paul Groth: thanks ralph ←

16:06:12 <Luc> ack JimM

Luc Moreau: ack JimM ←

16:07:03 <dgarijo> JimM: we have the use cases and we are looking for the lightweight notion to cover the user cases.

James Myers: we have the use cases and we are looking for the lightweight notion to cover the user cases. ←

16:07:11 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←

16:07:16 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←

16:07:27 <Zakim> -jorn

Zakim IRC Bot: -jorn ←

16:07:43 <satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q- ←

16:08:07 <dgarijo> JimM: been trying to put consitent defs of all the concepts.

James Myers: been trying to put consitent defs of all the concepts. ←

16:08:18 <JimM> q-

James Myers: q- ←

16:08:36 <Luc> ack satya

Luc Moreau: ack satya ←

16:08:43 <dgarijo> satya: +1 to a lightweight notion to cover the use cases

Satya Sahoo: +1 to a lightweight notion to cover the use cases ←

16:08:53 <dgarijo> (+1 to that too)

(+1 to that too) ←

16:09:16 <Luc> Proposed: to use a notion of thing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29  as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts

PROPOSED: to use a notion of thing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29 as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts ←

16:09:32 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

16:09:37 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

16:09:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

16:09:39 <dgarijo> Luc: proposes to use the notion of thing on the wiki

Luc Moreau: proposes to use the notion of thing on the wiki ←

16:09:44 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

16:09:46 <dgarijo> 0

0 ←

16:09:47 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

16:09:54 <JimM> +1

James Myers: +1 ←

16:09:56 <tfrancart> +1

Thomas Francart: +1 ←

16:09:57 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo (Edoardo, Edoardo_and_David) Pignotti: +1 ←

16:10:01 <olaf> +1

Olaf Hartig: +1 ←

16:10:09 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1 ←

16:10:09 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1 ←

16:10:12 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

16:10:18 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

16:10:18 <ilkayaltintas> +1

Ilkay Altintas: +1 ←

16:10:28 <satya> 0

Satya Sahoo: 0 ←

16:10:28 <ralphtq> +1

Ralph Hodgson: +1 ←

16:10:30 <Christine> 0

Christine Runnegar: 0 ←

16:11:09 <Luc> accepted: to use a notion of thing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29  as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts

RESOLVED: to use a notion of thing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29 as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts ←

16:11:16 <dgarijo> Luc: we don't have unanimity

Luc Moreau: we don't have unanimity ←

16:11:41 <dgarijo> Luc: we really should back to this def once we have a consistent set of definitions

Luc Moreau: we really should back to this def once we have a consistent set of definitions ←

16:12:10 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.276.aahh ←

16:12:11 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.509.554.aacc ←

16:12:11 <Zakim> - +1.216.368.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.216.368.aaee ←

16:12:11 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←

16:12:11 <Zakim> -edsu

Zakim IRC Bot: -edsu ←

16:12:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:12:13 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←

16:12:16 <Zakim> -SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens ←

16:12:18 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←

16:12:19 <Zakim> -??P40

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P40 ←

16:12:20 <dgarijo> Luc: now we can revise the other defs according to this one. Look forwardto see your contributions

Luc Moreau: now we can revise the other defs according to this one. Look forwardto see your contributions ←

16:12:21 <Zakim> - +1.915.603.aajj

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.915.603.aajj ←

16:12:23 <Zakim> -??P60

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P60 ←

16:12:25 <Zakim> -olaf

Zakim IRC Bot: -olaf ←

16:12:27 <Zakim> -??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1 ←

16:12:29 <Zakim> -smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles ←

16:12:33 <Zakim> -Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: -Yogesh ←

16:12:35 <Zakim> -??P13

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P13 ←

16:12:38 <Zakim> -Ralph Hodgson

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ralph Hodgson ←

16:12:41 <ralphtq> yes

Ralph Hodgson: yes ←

16:12:43 <Zakim> -??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P9 ←

16:12:46 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.633.aadd ←

16:12:46 <Luc> daniel, i can do the necessary incantations and have it for you to edit on the wiki

Luc Moreau: daniel, i can do the necessary incantations and have it for you to edit on the wiki ←

16:13:07 <ralphtq> zakim - did you want to ask me something?

Ralph Hodgson: zakim - did you want to ask me something? ←

16:13:55 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, set log public ←

16:14:04 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, draft minutes ←

16:14:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-prov-minutes.html Luc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-prov-minutes.html Luc ←

16:14:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon

Luc Moreau: trackbot, end telcon ←

16:14:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---

This revision (#3) generated 2011-06-17 08:09:58 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'updated summary for last item'