all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference. In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.
Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity. The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.
this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.
Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other. This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation. It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.
The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.
teleconference schedule over summer
Both chairs are absent on August 16, 23, and 30. It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.
14:51:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-irc ←
14:51:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:51:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
14:51:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
14:51:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:38 <trackbot> Date: 09 August 2012
14:51:38 <Luc_> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
14:51:38 <Zakim> ok, Luc_; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc_; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes ←
14:52:56 <Luc_> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.08.09
14:53:02 <Luc_> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:53:07 <Luc_> Regrets: Paul Groth, Stephan Zednik
14:53:17 <Luc_> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
14:53:22 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
14:53:22 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc_
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc_ ←
14:53:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
14:58:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
14:58:12 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←
14:58:23 <Zakim> +Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc ←
14:58:42 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
14:58:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc ←
14:58:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
14:58:54 <Zakim> +jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney ←
14:59:03 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:59:05 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:59:09 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:00:18 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
15:00:18 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
15:00:59 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
15:00:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted) ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
15:01:07 <Luc_> i am looking for a scribe
Luc Moreau: i am looking for a scribe ←
15:01:12 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
15:01:30 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aaaa ←
15:01:41 <gk> Luc, I'll scribe when I get online. Still bringing up apps.
Graham Klyne: Luc, I'll scribe when I get online. Still bringing up apps. ←
15:01:50 <Luc_> thanks
Luc Moreau: thanks ←
15:01:54 <Luc_> scribe: gk
(Scribe set to Graham Klyne)
15:02:02 <Luc_> @gk, everything is set up for you
Luc Moreau: @gk, everything is set up for you ←
15:02:10 <Zakim> +??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←
15:02:10 <Luc_> topic: Admin
15:02:18 <Luc_> @gk can you let me know when ready?
Luc Moreau: @gk can you let me know when ready? ←
15:02:26 <Luc_> scribe: gk1
15:02:43 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aabb ←
15:02:51 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aabb is me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, +44.789.470.aabb is me ←
15:02:51 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
15:03:18 <Zakim> +TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN ←
15:03:38 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
15:03:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted), sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, ??P19, stain, TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted), sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, ??P19, stain, TomDN ←
15:03:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see SamCoppens, TomDN, GK1, smiles, gk, hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see SamCoppens, TomDN, GK1, smiles, gk, hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
15:03:45 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
Tom De Nies: Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN ←
15:03:45 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←
15:03:47 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
15:03:51 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←
15:03:51 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
15:03:52 <stain> I can scribe until GK is connected to the cloud
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I can scribe until GK is connected to the cloud ←
15:03:56 <GK1> zakim, ??p30 is me
zakim, ??p30 is me ←
15:03:56 <Zakim> +GK1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK1; got it ←
15:04:02 <stain> ah
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ah ←
15:04:50 <Zakim> +??P31
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P31 ←
15:04:59 <Luc_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-08-02
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-08-02 ←
15:05:06 <Luc_> proposed: to approve last week's teleconference minutes
PROPOSED: to approve last week's teleconference minutes ←
15:05:12 <GK1> 0 (not present)
0 (not present) ←
15:05:14 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
15:05:15 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:05:16 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:05:18 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:05:26 <CraigTrim> +1
Craig Trim: +1 ←
15:05:26 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:05:29 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:05:31 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:05:33 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.661.382.aacc ←
15:05:40 <Luc_> accepted: last week's teleconference minutes
RESOLVED: last week's teleconference minutes ←
15:06:24 <GK1> scribe: gk
15:06:37 <GK1> Topic: PROV-constraints document
Summary: all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference. In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.
15:07:25 <GK1> JamesC: update on situation... Stian's review recvd Monday, identified things needing discussion, most have been resolved, 2-3 outstanding
James Cheney: update on situation... Stian's review recvd Monday, identified things needing discussion, most have been resolved, 2-3 outstanding ←
<luc>Summary: all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference. In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.
<luc>Subtopic: issue 467
Summary: Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity. The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.
<luc>Summary:Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity. The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.
15:07:44 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
15:08:21 <GK1> ... have tried to address points in the draft, some ongoing discussion of resolution with Simon
... have tried to address points in the draft, some ongoing discussion of resolution with Simon ←
15:08:51 <GK1> ... should we try and resolve outstanding issues now?
... should we try and resolve outstanding issues now? ←
15:09:03 <GK1> Luc: we could review eachj outsatdning issue now...
Luc Moreau: we could review eachj outsatdning issue now... ←
15:09:05 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12 ←
15:09:25 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467 ←
15:09:57 <GK1> JamesC: re; http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467 should we infer existence of trigger?
James Cheney: re; http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467 should we infer existence of trigger? ←
15:10:59 <GK1> Stian: if an activity is starts and ends, do we require/assume existence of a trigger; seems odd as it may not apply to all activities.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: if an activity is starts and ends, do we require/assume existence of a trigger; seems odd as it may not apply to all activities. ←
15:11:25 <GK1> ... can lead to chicken-and-egg - where to triggers come from?
... can lead do chicken-and-egg - where do triggers come from? ←
15:11:30 <GK1> s/to/do/
15:11:41 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:12:17 <stain> To be clear, is it correct to say that the options are:
Stian Soiland-Reyes: To be clear, is it correct to say that the options are: ←
15:12:18 <stain> 1. [status quo] - allow expanding the trigger parameter to an existential variable denoting an unknown (but definite) trigger entity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 1. [status quo] - allow expanding the trigger parameter to an existential variable denoting an unknown (but definite) trigger entity ←
15:12:20 <stain> 2. change the trigger parameter to be non-expandable, so that "-" means "absent trigger", as with plan and other non-expandables.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 2. change the trigger parameter to be non-expandable, so that "-" means "absent trigger", as with plan and other non-expandables. ←
15:12:35 <GK1> ... not entirely sure which way this should be resolved; two options (1) trigger always exists and may be undefined, or (2) trigger may not exist. leaning to (2).
... not entirely sure which way this should be resolved; two options (1) trigger always exists and may be undefined, or (2) trigger may not exist. leaning to (2). ←
15:12:42 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:12:56 <Luc_> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:13:18 <Luc_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0076.html
Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0076.html ←
15:13:30 <Luc_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/311
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/311 ←
15:13:52 <Luc_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b9d2157889f7/model/optional.html
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b9d2157889f7/model/optional.html ←
15:13:59 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
15:14:01 <GK1> Luc: constraint document is as it is... regarding 3.1.1, and meaning of optional arguments
Luc Moreau: constraint document is as it is... regarding 3.1.1, and meaning of optional arguments ←
15:14:34 <GK1> ... 3rd of above links says existence is implied
... 3rd of above links says existence is implied ←
15:14:57 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:15:00 <GK1> ... sop this seems like reopening an issue previously closed? is there new information?
... sop this seems like reopening an issue previously closed? is there new information? ←
15:15:00 <Luc_> ack luc
Luc Moreau: ack luc ←
15:15:55 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:16:02 <GK1> Stian: this is different because it's about identifying optional arguments; what are the consequences of all these things existing? This is clearer now we have constraints document.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: this is different because it's about identifying optional arguments; what are the consequences of all these things existing? This is clearer now we have constraints document. ←
15:16:08 <Luc_> ack sti
Luc Moreau: ack sti ←
15:16:13 <Luc_> ack sta
Luc Moreau: ack sta ←
15:16:23 <GK1> q+ to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named
q+ to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named ←
15:16:33 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:16:54 <Luc_> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
15:16:54 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named ←
15:17:00 <stain> @GK - right, PROV-Constraint don't force them to be named, just to exist
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK - right, PROV-Constraint don't force them to be named, just to exist ←
15:17:14 <GK1> GK: lots of real numbers exist for which there are no names... is this a similar issue?
Graham Klyne: lots of real numbers exist for which there are no names... is this a similar issue? ←
15:17:25 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:17:29 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:17:29 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted ←
15:17:30 <jcheney> Q+
James Cheney: Q+ ←
15:17:32 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
15:17:35 <stain> I suggested a strawman poll
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I suggested a strawman poll ←
15:18:36 <GK1> jcheney: if the trigger parameter can denote something is absent... four other things line that (plan and 3 others) ... not implied if not specified.
James Cheney: if the trigger parameter can denote something is absent... four other things line that (plan and 3 others) ... not implied if not specified. ←
15:19:10 <TomDN> -q
Tom De Nies: -q ←
15:19:19 <Luc_> in effect, it's like having two relation startWithTrigger and startWithoutTrigger
Luc Moreau: in effect, it's like having two relation startWithTrigger and startWithoutTrigger ←
15:19:40 <GK1> ... all of these introduce a slight (formal?) complication needing to be specific when mentioning a constraint/association, can parameter be a null placeholder; needs additional editing of inferences.
... all of these introduce a slight (formal?) complication needing to be specific when mentioning a constraint/association, can parameter be a null placeholder; needs additional editing of inferences. ←
15:20:15 <Luc_> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
15:20:17 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
15:20:17 <stain> @jcheney I agree #2 does not make it prettier :'(
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @jcheney I agree #2 does not make it prettier :'( ←
15:20:18 <GK1> ... trigger inferrable if activity is specified an option, ... all this doable but may have unanticipated consequences.
... trigger inferrable if activity is specified an option, ... all this doable but may have unanticipated consequences. ←
15:20:23 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:20:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:20:40 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Jun Zhao: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
15:20:40 <Zakim> +jun; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it ←
15:20:52 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:21:15 <stain> but I think the concern is what the model should allow, not how easy to read the (already hard) PROV-Constraint document is
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but I think the concern is what the model should allow, not how easy to read the (already hard) PROV-Constraint document is ←
15:21:47 <GK1> Luc: also consider purpose of inferences... for validating provenance, not necessarily used outside.
Luc Moreau: also consider purpose of inferences... for validating provenance, not necessarily used outside. ←
15:22:30 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:22:37 <GK1> Stian: are there too many inferences? some of them always make sense. PROV-constraints says...
Stian Soiland-Reyes: are there too many inferences? some of them always make sense. PROV-constraints says... ←
15:23:25 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:24:19 <GK1> GK: would prefer more compact option
Graham Klyne: would prefer more compact option ←
15:24:20 <stain> my question is semantically - is there a problem with enforcing the existince of triggers for every activity start and end?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: my question is semantically - is there a problem with enforcing the existince of triggers for every activity start and end? ←
15:24:37 <GK1> Luc: concern is with always assumingthe existence of a trigger.
Luc Moreau: concern is with always assumingthe existence of a trigger. ←
15:25:32 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:26:18 <GK1> Stian: don't see any real complications, but does it reflect the boundaries of the PROV model?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: don't see any real complications, but does it reflect the boundaries of the PROV model? ←
15:27:43 <GK1> ... e.g. queue of cars on motorway, what triggered this? Does it make sense, philosophically, for these to be part of the model?
... e.g. queue of cars on motorway, what triggered this? Does it make sense, philosophically, for these to be part of the model? ←
15:28:18 <GK1> q+ to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger
q+ to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger ←
15:29:12 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:29:17 <stain> @Luc right, like an optional parameter would be done in Java and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,-,-,-)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Luc right, like an optional parameter would be done in Java and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,-,-,-) ←
15:29:22 <stain> without usage/gen/act
Stian Soiland-Reyes: without usage/gen/act ←
15:30:01 <Luc_> @gk, the trigger is the combination of all them
Luc Moreau: @gk, the trigger is the combination of all them ←
15:30:02 <stain> @GK, the trigger entity could be a collection though ;)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK, the trigger entity could be a collection though ;) ←
15:30:03 <jcheney> but there is no uniqueness constraint on triggers currently
James Cheney: but there is no uniqueness constraint on triggers currently ←
15:30:08 <TomDN> @GK: just use a collection of cars as trigger?
Tom De Nies: @GK: just use a collection of cars as trigger? ←
15:30:22 <TomDN> @stain: you beat me to it ;)
Tom De Nies: @stain: you beat me to it ;) ←
15:30:28 <stain> @jcheney yes, by the merging rules
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @jcheney yes, by the merging rules ←
15:30:43 <GK1> @stian: what about weather factor?
@stian: what about weather factor? ←
15:30:44 <Luc_> option 1: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity
Luc Moreau: option 1: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity ←
15:30:55 <stain> 0
15:31:00 <GK1> +1
+1 ←
15:31:02 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:31:02 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:31:03 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:31:08 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:31:09 <jun> 0
15:31:12 <hook> 0
15:31:14 <jcheney> @stian: ah yes, uniqueness of start events + key constraint does it
James Cheney: @stian: ah yes, uniqueness of start events + key constraint does it ←
15:31:14 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
15:31:15 <stain> @gk you'll need entity(theworld) as trigger then..
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @gk you'll need entity(theworld) as trigger then.. ←
15:31:20 <satya> 0.5
Satya Sahoo: 0.5 ←
15:31:27 <jcheney> 0 (either way fine)
James Cheney: 0 (either way fine) ←
15:31:36 <GK1> @stian - OK, why not?
@stian - OK, why not? ←
15:32:20 <Luc_> option 2: change current formalization, do not assume existence of a trigger for activity
Luc Moreau: option 2: change current formalization, do not assume existence of a trigger for activity ←
15:32:28 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:32:29 <GK1> 0
0 ←
15:32:30 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:32:31 <smiles> 0
Simon Miles: 0 ←
15:32:31 <SamCoppens> 0
Sam Coppens: 0 ←
15:32:34 <hook> 0
15:32:37 <Curt> 0
Curt Tilmes: 0 ←
15:32:40 <TomDN> 0
Tom De Nies: 0 ←
15:32:44 <jcheney> -0 (don't wanna do it but not going to block it)
James Cheney: -0 (don't wanna do it but not going to block it) ←
15:32:49 <satya> 0
Satya Sahoo: 0 ←
15:32:57 <jun> +0 (This is really philosophical)
Jun Zhao: +0 (This is really philosophical) ←
15:32:59 <GK1> Yeah, -0
Yeah, -0 ←
15:33:46 <Luc_> proposed: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity
PROPOSED: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity ←
15:33:52 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:33:54 <GK1> Staw pole indicates staying with current fortmalization, Stian is Ok with this
Staw poll (doh) indicates staying with current fortmalization, Stian is Ok with this ←
15:33:54 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:33:58 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:34:00 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:34:01 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
15:34:01 <jun> +1
15:34:02 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:34:02 <GK1> s/pole/poll (doh)
15:34:06 <GK1> +1
+1 ←
15:34:06 <hook> +1
15:34:09 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:34:16 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:34:21 <Luc_> accepted: to keep current formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity
RESOLVED: to keep current formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity ←
15:34:38 <stain> I have closed ISSUE-467
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I have closed ISSUE-467 ←
15:34:42 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452 ←
15:34:43 <GK1> Next issue
Next issue ←
15:34:55 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 452
Summary: this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.
<luc>Summary: this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.
15:35:45 <stain> 15/16 missing (but has remark)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 15/16 missing (but has remark) ←
15:35:59 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:36:04 <stain> example at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#wasAssociatedWith-ordering_text (47(
Stian Soiland-Reyes: example at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#wasAssociatedWith-ordering_text (47( ←
15:36:16 <GK1> jcheney: "what is plan association inference" - where there are "not-expanable things" in inferences, ... (missed detail) ... does anyone have a problem
James Cheney: "what is plan association inference" - where there are "not-expanable things" in inferences, ... (missed detail) ... does anyone have a problem ←
15:36:18 <Luc_> ackgk
Luc Moreau: ackgk ←
15:36:22 <Luc_> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
15:36:22 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger ←
15:36:45 <GK1> stian: not a blocking thing, inferences 15, 16 different.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: not a blocking thing, inferences 15, 16 different. ←
15:37:09 <GK1> jcheney: will fix this, send email, and hopefully we'll close
James Cheney: will fix this, send email, and hopefully we'll close ←
15:37:16 <Luc_> accepted: close issue 452
15:37:26 <GK1> Next issue
Next issue ←
15:37:27 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/459
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/459 ←
15:38:41 <GK1> Catch-all for reviews... asking for feedback from reviewers. Some reviewers on hols, but apart from Simon don't think there are any blocking issues remaining.
Catch-all for reviews... asking for feedback from reviewers. Some reviewers on hols, but apart from Simon don't think there are any blocking issues remaining. ←
15:38:52 <GK1> ^^jcheney:
^^jcheney: ←
15:38:56 <satya> sorry, have to leave now
Satya Sahoo: sorry, have to leave now ←
15:39:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
15:39:30 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:39:30 <GK1> jcheney: some things in reviews have not been fixed yet - some figiures, non-technical text, happy to leave it pending review with no technical issues outstanding
James Cheney: some things in reviews have not been fixed yet - some figiures, non-technical text, happy to leave it pending review with no technical issues outstanding ←
15:39:49 <GK1> luc: we'll leave it that
Luc Moreau: we'll leave it that ←
15:39:50 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/473
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/473 ←
15:39:54 <GK1> Next issue
Next issue ←
15:40:11 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
15:40:12 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 473
Summary: Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other. This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation. It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.
<luc>Summary: Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other. This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation. It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.
15:40:50 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P3 is me ←
15:40:51 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
15:41:04 <GK1> jcheney: simon ..., is everyone happy with unique generation event for each entity; then the associated activity is also unique?
James Cheney: simon ..., is everyone happy with unique generation event for each entity; then the associated activity is also unique? ←
15:41:21 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:41:31 <stain> (this is also related to activities part-of activities)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (this is also related to activities part-of activities) ←
15:42:03 <GK1> SimonM: original concern was that thetext mismatched the constraints, but that is resolved - every entity has a unique generating activity, not just unique event.
Simon Miles: original concern was that thetext mismatched the constraints, but that is resolved - every entity has a unique generating activity, not just unique event. ←
15:42:58 <dgarijo> @stain: I am late, so I wouldn't want to raise things that you have already discussed. Have you discussed the entity being generated by 2 activities at 2 levels of granularity?
Daniel Garijo: @stain: I am late, so I wouldn't want to raise things that you have already discussed. Have you discussed the entity being generated by 2 activities at 2 levels of granularity? ←
15:43:00 <GK1> problem why an entities' generation coming from one single activity - would make primer examp,e invalid, as multiple levels of granularity are expressed.
problem why an entities' generation coming from one single activity - would make primer examp,e invalid, as multiple levels of granularity are expressed. ←
15:43:14 <Luc_> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:43:39 <stain> @dgarijo - no, put yourself on the queue!
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @dgarijo - no, put yourself on the queue! ←
15:44:07 <Luc_> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
15:44:10 <GK1> ... could have two entities, related as specialized, linked to different levels of granularity.
... could have two entities, related as specialized, linked to different levels of granularity. ←
15:44:27 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:44:27 <stain> in workflow export we ended up with alternateOf for this, e1a, e1b, e1c which are generated by nested acitvities A, B and C (which made queries hard)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: in workflow export we ended up with alternateOf for this, e1a, e1b, e1c which are generated by nested acitvities A, B and C (which made queries hard) ←
15:44:29 <GK1> ... implications of this constraint need justifying
... implications of this constraint need justifying ←
15:44:52 <GK1> jcheney: easiet resolution would be to remove the constraint.
James Cheney: easiet resolution would be to remove the constraint. ←
15:45:11 <dgarijo> q+
Daniel Garijo: q+ ←
15:45:30 <GK1> Luc: concerned that if removed, some inferences around derivation may be no longer valid
Luc Moreau: concerned that if removed, some inferences around derivation may be no longer valid ←
15:46:26 <GK1> jcheney: taking away an inference won;'t make other inferences incorrect, but maybe non-derivable
James Cheney: taking away an inference won;'t make other inferences incorrect, but maybe non-derivable ←
15:46:50 <GK1> the uniqueness constraint is effectively saying "don't mix levels of abstraction"
the uniqueness constraint is effectively saying "don't mix levels of abstraction" ←
15:46:58 <GK1> ^^Luc:
^^Luc: ←
15:47:38 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:47:56 <GK1> Luc: don't think we limit expressiveness, just providing structure - good for "proper" provenance? Does it matter if the primer has "not proper" provenance?
Luc Moreau: don't think we limit expressiveness, just providing structure - good for "proper" provenance? Does it matter if the primer has "not proper" provenance? ←
15:48:56 <GK1> SimonM: does this need different instanbces for different levels of abstraction? Can live with that, but it seems surprising (?)
Simon Miles: does this need different instanbces for different levels of abstraction? Can live with that, but it seems surprising (?) ←
15:49:02 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:49:25 <Luc_> q/
Luc Moreau: q/ ←
15:49:31 <Luc_> ack dg
Luc Moreau: ack dg ←
15:50:32 <GK1> dgarijo: other places this happens - entities in DC mapping - all the steps that comprise the proiduction of an entity
Daniel Garijo: other places this happens - entities in DC mapping - all the steps that comprise the proiduction of an entity ←
15:51:10 <GK1> ... in scientific workflows, complicated to query model if upper level activities generate different entities than lower level activities.
... in scientific workflows, complicated to query model if upper level activities generate different entities than lower level activities. ←
15:51:12 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
15:51:17 <Luc_> ack st
Luc Moreau: ack st ←
15:52:12 <dgarijo> @gk: thx
Daniel Garijo: @gk: thx ←
15:52:32 <GK1> stian: ended up creating multiple entities corresponding to appearance at b"different doors" in a workflow
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ended up creating multiple entities corresponding to appearance at b"different doors" in a workflow ←
15:52:35 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
15:53:38 <Luc_> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
15:54:57 <dgarijo> @jcheney: +1!
Daniel Garijo: @jcheney: +1! ←
15:55:26 <GK1> jcheney: seems to me that people want a validity checker - what's more useful is catching things that are definitely nonsense, or probably indicative of problem. Uniqueness seems to be in the latter category. We should be focusing on catching nonsense rather than limiting what people can do.
James Cheney: seems to me that people want a validity checker - what's more useful is catching things that are definitely nonsense, or probably indicative of problem. Uniqueness seems to be in the latter category. We should be focusing on catching nonsense rather than limiting what people can do. ←
15:55:57 <dgarijo> I really like the Ok vs Warning vs Invalid.
Daniel Garijo: I really like the Ok vs Warning vs Invalid. ←
15:55:58 <GK1> ... what are the consequences of being invalid?
... what are the consequences of being invalid? ←
15:56:47 <stain> I supposed it would be to drop the KEY property of wasGeneratedBy
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I supposed it would be to drop the KEY property of wasGeneratedBy ←
15:57:15 <GK1> Straw poll... status quo vs dropping unique generation requirement?
Straw poll... status quo vs dropping unique generation requirement? ←
15:57:37 <stain> Dropping key property: so that wasGeneratedBy(id1; e1, a1, t1) wasGeneratedBy(id2; e1, a2, t2) would be allowed. (a2 <> a1, t1 <> t2 ?)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Dropping key property: so that wasGeneratedBy(id1; e1, a1, t1) wasGeneratedBy(id2; e1, a2, t2) would be allowed. (a2 <> a1, t1 <> t2 ?) ←
15:58:17 <dgarijo> If we detect that an enitity is being generated by 2 activities, we could generate a warning, as James proposed.
Daniel Garijo: If we detect that an enitity is being generated by 2 activities, we could generate a warning, as James proposed. ←
15:58:26 <stain> for instance "When are you born?" - it depends on how you measure which activity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: for instance "When are you born?" - it depends on how you measure which activity ←
15:58:32 <GK1> jcheney: need to think about consequences of options
James Cheney: need to think about consequences of options ←
15:58:59 <Luc_> option 1: keep generation unique and key property on generation
Luc Moreau: option 1: keep generation unique and key property on generation ←
15:59:02 <smiles> -1
Simon Miles: -1 ←
15:59:06 <jcheney> 0
James Cheney: 0 ←
15:59:06 <dgarijo> -1
Daniel Garijo: -1 ←
15:59:08 <jun> -1
15:59:10 <stephenc> -1
Stephen Cresswell: -1 ←
15:59:14 <stain> 0
15:59:16 <SamCoppens> 0
Sam Coppens: 0 ←
15:59:19 <GK1> -0
-0 ←
15:59:21 <Curt> 0
Curt Tilmes: 0 ←
15:59:23 <hook> 0
15:59:24 <TomDN> +0
Tom De Nies: +0 ←
15:59:24 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:59:50 <Luc_> option 2: design a solution that relaxes uniqueness of generation
Luc Moreau: option 2: design a solution that relaxes uniqueness of generation ←
15:59:54 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:59:55 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:00:01 <jun> +1
16:00:01 <jcheney> 0
James Cheney: 0 ←
16:00:02 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
16:00:06 <stephenc> +1
Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←
16:00:06 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
16:00:07 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
16:00:08 <GK1> +0
+0 ←
16:00:15 <hook> +0
16:00:16 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
16:00:59 <dgarijo> yes
Daniel Garijo: yes ←
16:00:59 <GK1> Luc: Indication that we need to think about option to relax uniqueness of generation
Luc Moreau: Indication that we need to think about option to relax uniqueness of generation ←
16:01:08 <dgarijo> like generating a warning.
Daniel Garijo: like generating a warning. ←
16:01:15 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:01:16 <smiles> yes - but could be connected to levels of abstraction
Simon Miles: yes - but could be connected to levels of abstraction ←
16:01:30 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474 ←
16:01:32 <GK1> hmmm... I don't think we should get too far into implementations
hmmm... I don't think we should get too far into implementations ←
16:01:34 <stain> I think adding something about activity abstractions would help
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I think adding something about activity abstractions would help ←
16:01:39 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 474
Summary: The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.
<luc>Summary: The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.
16:02:49 <GK1> smiles: lack of clarity what is link between bundles and instances?
Simon Miles: lack of clarity what is link between bundles and instances? ←
16:03:04 <GK1> ... text seems to make different assumptions in diufferent places
... text seems to make different assumptions in diufferent places ←
16:03:33 <Luc_> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:04:01 <Luc_> can somebody take over from gk?
Luc Moreau: can somebody take over from gk? ←
16:04:14 <GK1> jcheney: text here was written at last minute, may need clarification
James Cheney: text here was written at last minute, may need clarification ←
16:04:15 <TomDN> (for reference, our definition of instance in 1.2: A PROV instance is a set of PROV statements, possibly including bundles, or named sets of statements. For example, such a PROV instance could be a .provn document, the result of a query, a triple store containing PROV statements in RDF, etc.)
Tom De Nies: (for reference, our definition of instance in 1.2: A PROV instance is a set of PROV statements, possibly including bundles, or named sets of statements. For example, such a PROV instance could be a .provn document, the result of a query, a triple store containing PROV statements in RDF, etc.) ←
16:04:51 <GK1> ... an instance may contain bundles
... an instance may contain bundles ←
16:04:55 <Zakim> - +1.661.382.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.661.382.aacc ←
16:05:09 <GK1> ... initially, talk about instances that are single (unnamed) bundles
... initially, talk about instances that are single (unnamed) bundles ←
16:05:26 <GK1> ... deal with named bundles independently, in same way
... deal with named bundles independently, in same way ←
16:05:46 <GK1> ... statements inside a bundle is an instance
... statements inside a bundle is an instance ←
16:06:15 <GK1> ... collection of statements without identifier - currently calling this a top level bundle
... collection of statements without identifier - currently calling this a top level bundle ←
16:06:45 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aaaa ←
16:07:10 <TomDN> Would (b) be solved by calling it the "toplevel instance"?
Tom De Nies: Would (b) be solved by calling it the "toplevel instance"? ←
16:07:11 <Luc_> prov-n has a top level bundle, i think that's what influenced this design
Luc Moreau: prov-n has a top level bundle, i think that's what influenced this design ←
16:07:11 <GK1> smiles: per DM, bundle has identifier so we can express provenance-of-provenance ...
Simon Miles: per DM, bundle has identifier so we can express provenance-of-provenance ... ←
16:07:18 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aadd ←
16:08:16 <GK1> jcheney: three things - blob of provenance (in whatever form); a named set of statements (bundle); a set of statements. have used two terms for these three things, probably confuses.
James Cheney: three things - blob of provenance (in whatever form); a named set of statements (bundle); a set of statements. have used two terms for these three things, probably confuses. ←
16:08:53 <GK1> ... will try to come up with less confusing terminology
... will try to come up with less confusing terminology ←
16:09:28 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:09:41 <GK1> Luc: summary - it appears editors have homework to do on two issues - biundles and generation uniqueness. Can't really proceed for vote yet.
Luc Moreau: summary - it appears editors have homework to do on two issues - biundles and generation uniqueness. Can't really proceed for vote yet. ←
16:09:56 <smiles> I don't think the bundles thing is a blocking issue
Simon Miles: I don't think the bundles thing is a blocking issue ←
16:10:07 <GK1> jcheney: could release as *a* working draft, it's been over 3 months.
James Cheney: could release as *a* working draft, it's been over 3 months. ←
16:10:24 <GK1> Luc: getting LC draft ready is more important.
Luc Moreau: getting LC draft ready is more important. ←
16:11:17 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←
16:11:17 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←
16:11:38 <GK1> Luc: hoping for LC vote early September - is there any point in producing a WD now, then LC draft in september?
Luc Moreau: hoping for LC vote early September - is there any point in producing a WD now, then LC draft in september? ←
16:11:59 <GK1> ... given lots of ppl are on vacation
... given lots of ppl are on vacation ←
16:12:05 <GK1> Sandro: concurs
Sandro Hawke: concurs ←
16:12:55 <GK1> Topic: teleconference schedule over summer
Summary: Both chairs are absent on August 16, 23, and 30. It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.
<luc>Summary: Both chairs are absent on August 16, 23, and 30. It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.
16:13:11 <GK1> luc: Paul and Luc away for rest of August.
Luc Moreau: Paul and Luc away for rest of August. ←
16:13:14 <stain> we can argue about wasGeneratedBy... ;)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: we can argue about wasGeneratedBy... ;) ←
16:13:27 <GK1> GK: I probably can't make next 2 weeks anyway.
Graham Klyne: I probably can't make next 2 weeks anyway. ←
16:13:31 <jcheney> i think the remaining issues can get done over email...
James Cheney: i think the remaining issues can get done over email... ←
16:13:56 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←
16:13:56 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
16:14:07 <Curt> I talked with Stephan yesterday (he's on a plane right now). We might want to have an informal XML call, but it needn't be a formal working group teleconference..
Curt Tilmes: I talked with Stephan yesterday (he's on a plane right now). We might want to have an informal XML call, but it needn't be a formal working group teleconference.. ←
16:16:17 <jun> We will still have separate prov-o calls, in which implementation of constraints can be discussed
Jun Zhao: We will still have separate prov-o calls, in which implementation of constraints can be discussed ←
16:16:23 <GK1> Curt(?): happy to chair informal meeing on 23rd; would help if Luc and/or Paul can sent out agenda
Curt(?): happy to chair informal meeing on 23rd; would help if Luc and/or Paul can sent out agenda ←
16:16:33 <GK1> Luc: will circulate agenda for 23rd.
Luc Moreau: will circulate agenda for 23rd. ←
16:16:41 <Curt> [not curt]
Curt Tilmes: [not curt] ←
16:16:47 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
16:16:48 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:16:48 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
16:16:49 <Zakim> -TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN ←
16:16:49 <Zakim> -jun
Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←
16:16:49 <GK1> Luc: we'll speak agin formally in September
Luc Moreau: we'll speak agin formally in September ←
16:16:50 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aadd ←
16:16:50 <Zakim> -??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P19 ←
16:16:52 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
16:16:54 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
16:16:56 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←
16:16:58 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
16:17:01 <Zakim> -??P31
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P31 ←
16:17:13 <Luc_> rrsagent, set log public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, set log public ←
16:17:15 <GK1> @Luc - I'm guessing you'll take it from here?
@Luc - I'm guessing you'll take it from here? ←
16:17:25 <Luc_> @GK, yes, thanks a lot for scribing!
Luc Moreau: @GK, yes, thanks a lot for scribing! ←
16:17:33 <Luc_> rrsagent, draft minutes
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
16:17:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-minutes.html Luc_
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-minutes.html Luc_ ←
16:17:38 <Luc_> trackbot, end telcon
Luc Moreau: trackbot, end telcon ←
16:17:38 <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 ←
16:17:43 <GK1> OK, bye
OK, bye ←
16:17:47 <Zakim> -GK1
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK1 ←
16:17:48 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
16:17:48 <Zakim> Attendees were Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan, sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK1, +1.661.382.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, jun, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan, sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK1, +1.661.382.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, jun, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aadd ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#5) generated 2012-08-10 04:51:02 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None