Chatlog 2011-06-23

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:47:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:47:14 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:47:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:47:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:47:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:47:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:47:19 <trackbot> Date: 23 June 2011
14:47:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:59 <pgroth> Zakim, list conferences
14:47:59 <Zakim> I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM, UW_POI(POIWG)10:00AM, Team_Comm()10:30AM active
14:48:01 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are INC_LLDXG()10:00AM, INC_(DecisionXG)10:00AM, Team_Global(review)8:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM, WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM, XML_PMWG()10:00AM,
14:48:05 <Zakim> ... WAI_RDWG()11:00AM, VB_VBWG(CCXML)11:00AM, Team_(test)14:20Z, Styl_XSL-FO-()11:00AM, Math_IG()10:00AM, Team_(audio-webrtc)14:00Z, MM_MMI(EMMA)10:00AM, SW_(PROV)11:00AM,
14:48:08 <Zakim> ... SW_HCLS(TMO)11:00AM, WF_TF()9:00AM, WAI_PFWG(AAPI)10:00AM, I18N_WG(MLW)11:00AM
14:48:34 <pgroth> Zakim, this is SW_(PROV)
14:48:34 <Zakim> pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be SW_(PROV)".
14:48:49 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be SW_(PROV)
14:48:49 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:49:47 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:49:53 <Zakim> +??P2
14:50:03 <jorn> Zakim, ??p2 is me
14:50:03 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
14:50:15 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth
14:50:59 <Zakim> + +1.312.348.aaaa
14:51:12 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:51:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa
14:52:24 <pgroth> +1.312.348.aaaa is me
14:52:44 <Zakim> - +1.312.348.aaaa
14:53:02 <jorn> Zakim, aaaa is pgroth 
14:53:02 <Zakim> sorry, jorn, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:53:13 <Zakim> +??P3
14:53:22 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:53:22 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:53:39 <pgroth> Scribe: Satya Sahoo
14:55:13 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:56:26 <GK> GK has joined #prov
14:57:36 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:58:04 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:58:33 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aabb
14:58:42 <Zakim> +??P4
14:58:47 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov
14:58:48 <stain> Zakim: +??P4 is me
14:59:01 <Zakim> +??P0
14:59:02 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213 is me
14:59:02 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
14:59:06 <jorn> zakim, ??p4 is stain
14:59:06 <Zakim> +stain; got it
14:59:25 <GK> zakim, ??p0 is me
14:59:25 <Zakim> +GK; got it
14:59:26 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc
14:59:36 <Zakim> + +1.832.386.aadd
14:59:46 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaee
14:59:53 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aaff
14:59:58 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
15:00:05 <JimM> zakim, +1.518 is me
15:00:05 <Zakim> sorry, JimM, I do not recognize a party named '+1.518'
15:00:28 <JimM> zakim, +1.518.276.aacc is me
15:00:28 <Zakim> +JimM; got it
15:00:33 <stain>  I can't find as linked to in the agenda
15:00:47 <Zakim> +??P10
15:00:51 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:00:57 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:00:59 <pgroth>
15:00:59 <Zakim> +??P11
15:01:09 <tfrancart> tfrancart has joined #prov
15:01:15 <pgroth> stain, you're right
15:01:29 <Zakim> +??P12
15:01:29 <pgroth> Sandro, can you check
15:01:46 <Zakim> +??P13
15:01:59 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:01:59 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:02:00 <Paolo> zakim, ??P12 is me
15:02:00 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:02:05 <pgroth> here are the minutes from last week
15:02:07 <jorn>
15:02:09 <GK> Previous minutes link in agenda at seems to be broken...
15:02:42 <stain> GK: it was just magically fixed
15:02:44 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:02:59 <Zakim> - +1.509.375.aaff
15:03:04 <Zakim> +??P15
15:03:04 <stain> where's our Luc!
15:03:20 <stain> oh wait, it's pgroth chairing today
15:03:33 <jorn> zakim, who is speaking?
15:03:39 <pgroth> Regrets: Luc Moreau, Edoardo
15:03:42 <Paolo> very noisy. can't hear a thing
15:03:44 <jorn> zakim, who is noisy?
15:03:45 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:03:55 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: GK (73%), Yogesh (31%)
15:04:01 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:04:07 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aagg
15:04:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:32 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:04:45 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:04:46 <Paolo> can the people who are typing please mute themselves
15:04:46 <GK> @stain Yeah... by the time I got there with a fix it was fixed
15:04:59 <stain> Zakim: whois noisy?
15:05:01 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aahh
15:05:04 <dgarijo> satya, are you in the call yet?
15:05:07 <stain> Zakim: who is noisy?
15:05:10 <jorn> zakim, who is noisy?
15:05:17 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:05:21 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: GK (33%), Yogesh (34%), pgroth (16%), +1.832.386.aadd (9%), +1.509.375.aagg (16%), +1.216.368.aahh (42%)
<pgroth> TOPIC: Agenda
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes were accepted. Action-11 was closed. Scribes are encouraged to sign up.
15:05:27 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:05:46 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 16 Jun telecon
15:05:51 <dgarijo> there is a lot of noise ...
15:05:52 <Yogesh> zakim, mute Yogesh
15:05:52 <Zakim> Yogesh should now be muted
15:06:08 <pgroth>
15:06:13 <Zakim> +??P28
15:06:18 <dgarijo> +1
15:06:20 <Yogesh> +1
15:06:21 <zednik> +1
15:06:21 <smiles> +1
15:06:23 <dcorsar> +1
15:06:28 <SamCoppens> +1
15:06:30 <Paolo> (I was not there)
15:06:31 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:06:32 <tfrancart> +1
15:06:34 <JimM> +1
15:06:37 <stain> +1
15:06:40 <jorn> +1
15:06:45 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:06:52 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:06:56 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.832.386.aadd (37%)
15:07:13 <satya> pgroth:Minutes of Jun 16 meeting approved
<pgroth> RESOLVED: minutes of last week's teleconference
15:07:16 <pgroth>
15:07:30 <Zakim> -Paolo
15:08:06 <satya> pgroth: Scribes needed for next week's telcon, please volunteer
15:08:43 <satya> pgroth: Update on the connection task force for the first F2F
15:08:47 <Zakim> +??P12
15:08:48 <edoardo> edoardo has joined #prov
<pgroth> TOPIC: Connection TF Plan to F2F1
<pgroth> Summary: Connections Catalog has begun to be filed in. Members are encouraged to submit information about potential connections.
15:08:58 <pgroth>
15:08:59 <Zakim> +??P29
15:09:00 <Paolo> zakim, ??P12 is me
15:09:00 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:09:10 <jcheney> zakim, ??P29 is me
15:09:10 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:09:23 <pgroth> catalog -
15:09:44 <satya> Eric Stephan: Feedback invited for the catalogs created by the connection task force
15:09:51 <kai> kai has joined #prov
15:09:55 <pgroth> Kai = Eric
15:09:58 <pgroth> Erik
15:10:21 <Zakim> +??P31
15:10:29 <Zakim> -stain
15:10:36 <stain> Zakim: +??P31 is me
15:10:41 <Zakim> +kai
15:10:44 <pgroth> Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1
<pgroth> TOPIC: Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1
<pgroth> Summary: Introduction to the form for gathering information about implementation stockholders. Members are encouraged to broadcast the spreadsheet widely. Form is available at
15:10:47 <satya> pgroth: Update on the implementation and test task force
15:11:03 <Lena> 
<pgroth> Lena: Form is at
15:11:26 <satya> Lena: Created forms to elicit feedback from provenance users and stakeholders
15:12:15 <satya> Lena: Forms will be used to understand needs of provenance users
15:12:19 <jcheney> +q
15:12:41 <iker> iker has joined #prov
15:12:45 <pgroth> ack jcheney
15:13:12 <jcheney>
15:13:18 <jcheney> q-
15:13:33 <satya> jcheney: Attended a workshop describing users requirements for provenance use in computing trust
15:14:01 <Paolo> the paper James just referred to:,
<pgroth> TOPIC: Access and Query TF Plan to F2F1
<pgroth> Summary: Updates on status of current discussions. Action-12 created to make a summary of higher-level consensus points. 
15:14:06 <satya> pgroth: Update on the Access and Query task force
15:14:15 <Paolo> (I think!)
15:15:06 <satya> smiles: Several proposals and still no agreement on any one of them
15:15:45 <dgarijo>
15:15:50 <Yogesh> q+
15:15:55 <Yogesh> zakim, unmute me
15:15:55 <Zakim> Yogesh should no longer be muted
15:16:08 <satya> smiles: Curate the draft for the F2F and create a concrete set of points for further discussion 
15:16:48 <Yogesh> zakim, mute me
15:16:48 <Zakim> Yogesh should now be muted
15:17:46 <GK> (My comment: not *necessarily* a separate service.  SImple case is just use URI for provemamce)
15:18:12 <satya> Yogesh: Scope for provenance access service needs to be defined 
15:19:05 <satya> smiles: Close to consensus on the technical points in the draft, but there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved
15:19:36 <dgarijo> +q
15:19:43 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
15:19:44 <Zakim> -jorn
15:19:53 <Paolo> q?
15:19:53 <stain> find a set of agreed principles
15:20:00 <Zakim> +??P2
15:20:03 <Yogesh> zakim, mute me
15:20:03 <Zakim> Yogesh should now be muted
15:20:06 <jorn> zakim, ??p2 is me
15:20:06 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:20:43 <pgroth> ACTION Simon to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus
15:20:43 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Simon
15:20:43 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)
15:20:44 <satya> smiles: Additional points can be added to the access and query task force draft for discussion in the F2F
15:20:58 <pgroth> ACTION smiles to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus
15:20:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Create a proposal for a set of points of consensus [on Simon Miles - due 2011-06-30].
15:21:13 <Yogesh> q+
15:22:06 <satya> dgarijo: Will the issues related to provenance from multiple sources (?) be discussed in the F2F?
15:22:07 <dgarijo> -q
15:22:07 <stain> I guess those are the kind of thing we'll have to extract as general principles
15:22:22 <GK> q+ to suggest first nailing down points about which consensus is easy - then move on
15:22:37 <Yogesh> zakim, unmute me
15:22:37 <Zakim> Yogesh should no longer be muted
15:23:38 <dgarijo> @satya I meant multiple sources describing the provenance of a resource.
15:23:41 <Yogesh> zakim, mute me
15:23:41 <Zakim> Yogesh should now be muted
15:23:43 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
15:23:54 <Yogesh> zakim, mute me
15:23:54 <Zakim> Yogesh should now be muted
15:23:58 <Paolo> @satya who is reporting on the Model TF?
15:24:03 <pgroth> ack GK
15:24:03 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest first nailing down points about which consensus is easy - then move on
15:24:19 <satya> GK: Contentious points can be deferred
15:24:37 <satya> @Daniel: thanks for clarifying 
15:25:24 <satya> smiles: Prioritize issues that can be discussed and resolved in the F2F
<pgroth> TOPIC: Model Task Force Update
<pgroth> Summary: Discussion on how to move towards consensus and which concepts can be synthesized for the F2F. Task force leaders to meet Friday June 24.
15:26:10 <satya> pgroth: Update on Model task force
15:26:33 <dgarijo> @Paul=Paolo
15:26:40 <satya> Paolo: Three step plan, (a) cleaning up the provenance concept definitions
15:27:02 <dgarijo> ips
15:27:14 <satya> Paolo: Conference call tomorrow to discuss the F2F draft
15:27:35 <satya> Paolo: (b) Create draft by end of June
15:27:57 <satya> Paolo: (c) Put the draft for discussion during F2F
15:28:48 <satya> pgroth: Definitions derived from CS will make it more complex
15:28:51 <JimM> +q
15:29:17 <satya> Paolo: We can use existing modeling work to define the provenance terms
15:29:56 <satya> Paolo: There are inconsistencies in the provenance concept terms
15:31:02 <satya> Jim: The definitions are consistent but specific parameters associated with terms are not very clear (?)
15:31:04 <smiles> q+
15:31:28 <JimM> -q
15:32:04 <satya> Paolo: Will try to reconcile the different descriptions 
15:32:41 <satya> pgroth: Agreed to derive common sense definitions 
15:33:13 <satya> pgroth: Agreed on the definition of "thing"
15:33:36 <satya> q+
15:34:07 <satya> Paolo: Tomorrow's Model task force telcon can help in reconciling the different definitions
15:34:59 <satya> smiles: The primer of the WG will help users to understand the provenance concept definitions
15:35:41 <stain> @paolo +10
15:35:49 <smiles> q-
15:36:52 <satya> q-
15:37:01 <GK> q+ to note a common WG principle is that consensus can be reviewed *iff* there is new information.
15:37:58 <satya> pgroth: We need to move forward after a consensus is reached
15:38:08 <stain> .. almost like a court case
15:38:58 <GK> q-
15:39:38 <satya> Paolo: Model task force participants will be present at F2F
15:40:52 <Paolo> @satya: agree
15:41:26 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaii
15:41:37 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
<pgroth> TOPIC: Discussion on Temporal Concepts for the Model Task Force
<pgroth> Summary: There was a discussion around whether time needed to be explicit in the model or whether it was optional. Additional, the difference between temporal ordering and time was discussed. 
15:41:40 <satya> pgroth: Discussion on temporal properties
15:41:50 <pgroth> Temporal Property: Thing proposed Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times
15:42:15 <stain> +1
15:42:16 <jcheney> +1
15:42:20 <tfrancart> +1
15:42:21 <GK> 0
15:42:22 <satya> pgroth: Should we discuss about temporal properties now?
15:42:27 <dgarijo> +1
15:42:29 <Paolo> -1 : none seems controversial to me
15:42:29 <satya> 0
15:42:30 <Lena> 0
15:42:31 <JimM> 0
15:42:32 <iker> +1
15:42:33 <zednik> 0
15:42:35 <Yogesh> 0
15:42:41 <dcorsar> 0
15:42:44 <smiles> 0
15:42:50 <kai> 0
15:42:55 <tlebo> 0
15:43:39 <pgroth> Proposed: Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times
15:43:51 <zednik> q+
15:43:52 <stain> -1
15:43:53 <stain> q+
15:44:03 <satya> pgroth: Agreement over the proposed definition?
15:44:21 <Paolo> q+
15:44:31 <smiles> q+
15:44:37 <Zakim> -jcheney
15:44:47 <tlebo> q+
15:45:10 <satya> Zednik: We should be careful about setting restrictions about measurement of the time associated with a thing
15:45:37 <Zakim> +??P29
15:45:37 <GK> Agree with not saying too much ... part of more general problem: do we assume provenance is always 100% correct?
15:45:43 <jcheney> zakim, ??P29 is me
15:45:43 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:45:47 <satya> Stain: Agrees with stephan zednik
15:46:34 <satya> Stain and Paolo: Measurement of time especially in distributed systems may be problematic
15:46:44 <tlebo> q?
15:46:50 <zednik> q-
15:46:51 <pgroth> ack zednik
15:46:55 <pgroth> ack stain
15:46:59 <pgroth> acd Paolo
15:47:02 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:47:05 <Paolo> @Stian: I can't believe you just brought relativity into the scope of provenance observations :-))
15:47:08 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:47:15 <tlebo> q-
15:47:18 <tlebo> q+ (for Paulo)
15:47:22 <Paolo> q?
15:47:23 <tlebo> q+
15:47:25 <satya> smiles: Agrees with past three speakers, seems to be unnecessary 
15:47:33 <smiles> q-
15:47:37 <satya> smiles: Discussing about this
15:47:39 <tlebo> q
15:47:43 <tlebo> q-
15:47:45 <stain> @Paolo - well - if you send a probe on a one-way mission to outer space provenance of its data might be quite important! :)
15:47:48 <tlebo> q?
15:48:06 <tlebo> q- (for Paulo)
15:48:08 <satya> Paulo: What kind of time is being discussed - when measurement was done or provenance was recorded
15:48:23 <dgarijo> @stain: that's a nice point.
15:48:50 <GK> @stian, @dgarijo +1
15:49:29 <satya> Paulo: We need to understand the context of the notion of time 
15:49:31 <JimM> +q
15:49:55 <Zakim> -jorn
15:50:09 <GK> Ah, yes, pseudo-time?
15:50:26 <stain> @JimM - but what about compound accounts? Can you not combine provenances without sorting out the clocks?
15:50:32 <satya> Jim: Timestamp is associated with an OPM account
15:50:56 <smiles> yes
15:50:59 <stain> yes
15:50:59 <Paolo> @pgroth: yes
15:51:00 <zednik> yes
15:51:03 <tlebo> no
15:51:06 <GK> q+ I think we *can* have provenance without time
15:51:08 <satya> pgroth: Can we have discussion about provenance without discussing time
15:51:09 <Lena> yes
15:51:14 <GK> I think we *can* have provenance without time
15:51:15 <JimM> @stain: a judge would have to decide how to synchronize clocks
15:51:23 <JimM> -q
15:51:27 <stain> q+
15:51:29 <Zakim> +??P2
15:51:33 <satya> GK: We can have provenance time
15:51:33 <jorn> zakim, ??p2 is me
15:51:33 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:51:41 <dgarijo> I agree with GK. We can but for some domains it is necessary.
15:51:58 <JimM> yes - prov w/o time is OK, time is a nice annotation...useful evidence supporting provenance
15:52:00 <GK> @dgarijo, agreed.
15:52:09 <satya> Stian: Likes to have notion of profile
15:52:13 <satya> q+
15:52:16 <smiles> @stain completely agree
15:52:20 <pgroth> ack stain
15:52:24 <pgroth> ack satya
15:52:40 <stain> Stian: Also that you can have provenance without Time (Taverna workflow system has that in current OPM export - but the provenance still makes sense)
15:52:45 <Paolo> better say: as long as timestamps on events are not used for reasoning, that's fine
15:52:49 <tlebo> q+
15:53:20 <smiles> q+
15:53:22 <stain> and such a common order might not even exist
15:53:52 <JimM> would common order matter if there were no hidden dependencies?
15:53:57 <GK> Sometimes, you just don't know.  If time info is available that that can help.
15:54:24 <satya> Tim: When two provenance accounts are being combined, we need to use time
15:54:24 <stain> @GK exactly.. it's very useful information - but might not have that luxury or it might be giving wrong indications
15:54:27 <Paolo> indeed you may not be able to synchronize different accounts that are obtained using different clocks
15:54:36 <stain> so you need provenance of the timestamps!
15:55:20 <Paolo> @Stian knowledge of which clocks you've used is not necessarily sufficient for this
15:55:56 <Zakim> -jcheney
15:56:00 <satya> @Stian: you need provenance of timestamps is your application requires it - it  is not a universal requirement
15:56:22 <stain> say account1 is a probe orbiting the sun and reporting solar spots. Account2 is the same, but from a telescope at earth. If they also look at some astronomical event, they might not even going to agree on temporal ordering.
15:56:22 <GK> For me, this important/interesting thing about this discussion is how to reconcile conflicting provenance accounts; provenance for provenance may help, and may include time and other factors (e.g. trust)
15:56:33 <satya> pgroth: Is there a need for temporal ordering
15:56:56 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
15:57:15 <satya> GK: It may make sense to talk about provenance without temporal information
15:57:24 <Paolo> if your provenance inferences/assertions do depend on time, you are in trouble
15:57:25 <stain> GK: +1 - so we can make time important to the model, but not required
15:57:35 <Zakim> +??P29
15:57:54 <stain> if we don't have a model of time, then "traditional provenance" (ie. a lab book) would not be matching our mdoel
15:58:16 <JimM> timestamps are useful and potentially independent evidence for/against provenance assertions
15:58:19 <stain> +1
15:58:20 <GK> q+ to add a qualification if consensus can be found
15:58:22 <Yogesh> +1
15:58:27 <smiles> +1
15:58:27 <zednik> +1 : time stamps addressed, but not required
15:58:31 <satya> pgroth: Timestamp should be catered for by the model but not required by it
15:58:33 <Zakim> -??P28
15:58:35 <jcheney> +1 to allowing time without over-constraining its semantics
15:58:38 <JimM> q?
15:58:40 <iker> iker has left #prov
15:58:43 <smiles> ack smiles
15:58:47 <tlebo> q-
15:58:54 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:59:21 <JimM> +q
15:59:26 <pgroth> ack GK
15:59:26 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to add a qualification if consensus can be found
15:59:30 <pgroth> ack JimM
15:59:31 <Lena> is it in the scope of this WG to define what is "required" and what is not?
15:59:32 <GK> +1, (subject to consensus qualification)
15:59:56 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
16:00:14 <Lena> or should we focus on representing what can be useful for representing provenance?
16:00:22 <satya> Jim: Time is important parameter of provenance descriptions
16:00:53 <GK> (Bruce schneier did some work on secure logs that might eb an alternative approach - but don't want to discuss that)
16:01:05 <satya> Jim: Time also helps in computing trust of provenance description
16:01:24 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:01:27 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aaii
16:01:30 <Zakim> - +1.509.375.aagg
16:01:31 <pgroth> zakim, bye
16:01:37 <jorn> bye
16:01:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov
16:01:40 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa, pgroth, +1.213.290.aabb, Yogesh, stain, GK, +1.832.386.aadd, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.509.375.aaff, JimM, dgarijo,
16:01:40 <JimM> time is not core to provenance, but it is good evidence
16:01:43 <Zakim> ... Paolo, +1.509.375.aagg, [IPcaller], +1.216.368.aahh, Yolanda, jcheney, kai, +1.315.330.aaii
16:01:48 <pgroth> zakim, make log public
16:01:51 <Paolo> Paolo has left #prov
16:02:02 <pgroth> rrsagent, make log public
16:02:11 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:03:13 <pgroth>
16:04:54 <pgroth> pgroth has left #prov