Chatlog 2011-11-17

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.

15:42:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:42:35 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:42:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:42:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:42:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:42:39 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
15:42:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:42:40 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
15:42:40 <trackbot> Date: 17 November 2011
15:42:50 <Luc> Agenda:
15:43:00 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:43:05 <Luc> Scribe: James Cheney
15:43:13 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
15:52:49 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:52:49 <Zakim> apparently SW_(OWL)12:00PM has ended, Luc
15:52:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, Zakim, trackbot, sandro, stain
15:53:31 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:53:31 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:51 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:56:03 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:56:08 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:56:15 <Zakim> +??P2
15:56:21 <Paolo> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:56:21 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:57:08 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:57:22 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
15:57:37 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
15:57:37 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:58:26 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:58:37 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:58:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:58:51 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:59:07 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
15:59:07 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:59:31 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
16:00:16 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:00:36 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:00:57 <Zakim> +??P19
16:01:06 <christine> christine has joined #prov
16:01:18 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:01:24 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:40 <Zakim> +??P44
16:01:53 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:01:58 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:02 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb
16:02:18 <Zakim> +??P43
16:02:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Satya_Sahoo, ??P19, ??P44, +1.518.276.aabb, ??P43
16:02:22 <Luc> james, are you ready to scribe?
16:02:30 <GK> zakim, i may be ??p44
16:02:42 <jcheney> Yes
16:02:42 <Luc> @jcheney, james, are you ready to scribe?
16:02:48 <Zakim> sorry, GK, I do not understand your question
16:02:52 <Zakim> +??P27
16:03:11 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
16:03:14 <Zakim> +stain
<luc>Topic: Admin
<luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved and the outstanding action on Satya was closed.
16:03:16 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:03:19 <Zakim> -??P43
16:03:20 <tlebo> zakim, aabb is tlebo
16:03:20 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
16:03:21 <MacTed> zakim, mute me
16:03:28 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:03:28 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:03:30 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:03:32 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:03:35 <satya> F2F?
16:03:44 <jcheney> Agenda:
16:03:44 <Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 10 telecon 
16:03:53 <jcheney> SubTopic: Review minutes of last week's telecon
16:03:53 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:03:54 <satya> +1
16:03:58 <jcheney> +1
16:04:00 <GK> +1
16:04:04 <Curt> +1
16:04:11 <stain> 0
16:04:16 <stain> (not there)
16:04:18 <Zakim> +??P52
16:04:22 <Paolo> +1
16:04:22 <smiles> +1
16:04:27 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:04:33 <Luc> Accepted: the minutes of the Nov. 10 telecon
16:04:34 <GK> zakim, I am ??P52
16:04:34 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:04:42 <Zakim> +Yolanda
16:04:51 <jcheney> subTopic: Review actions
16:05:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
#16:05:24 <Luc> topic: F2F2
16:05:26 <Zakim> + +329331aacc
16:05:33 <Luc> 
16:05:36 <jcheney> Luc: Action to Satya closed
16:05:40 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aacc is me
16:05:40 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:05:41 <jcheney> Topic: F2F2
<luc>Summary: The second face to face meeting will take place on February 2-3, in Amsterdam. Paul will make all details (venue, hotel, etc) available shortly.
16:05:52 <pgroth> jcheney it should be closed
16:06:03 <Paolo> not allowed :-(
16:06:12 <satya> @James, I think Luc said that the action is now closed
16:06:19 <jcheney> Do'h.
16:06:31 <stain> and probably easier to travel to from US
16:06:32 <jcheney> Luc: action to be closed [correction]
16:06:39 <Luc> q?
16:06:43 <pgroth> +q
16:06:46 <Zakim> +??P63
16:06:52 <jcheney> Luc: Strong preference for Amsterdam Feb 2-3
16:06:57 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
16:07:09 <jcheney> pgroth: Will send information about travel to/from meeting place - close to airport
16:07:27 <satya> q+
16:07:31 <stain> train from AMS to city centre is fairly fast as far as I remember
16:07:33 <Luc> Action: pgroth to confirm F2F2 venue and make hotel suggestions 
16:07:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Confirm F2F2 venue and make hotel suggestions  [on Paul Groth - due 2011-11-24].
16:07:35 <pgroth> q-
16:07:39 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:07:42 <Luc> ack sat
16:08:00 <jcheney> Satya: Logistics.  Letters from Paul/university for visa purposes?
16:08:17 <jcheney> pgroth: Will include this in the visit information
16:08:24 <jcheney> Scribe: jcheney
16:08:38 <Luc> q?
16:08:41 <Vinh_> Vinh_ has joined #prov
16:08:54 <Zakim> +sandro
16:08:59 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aadd
16:09:12 <Vinh_> zakim, +1.937.343.aadd is me
16:09:12 <Zakim> +Vinh_; got it
16:09:14 <stain> we need a new fight for F2F now that both EntityInRole and IVPof is gone
16:09:22 <Luc> q?
16:09:38 <pgroth> video conferencing
16:09:40 <jcheney> Luc: pgroth, will there be university facilities?
16:09:44 <jcheney> pgroth: Still checking
16:09:51 <jcheney> Luc: Can people call in?
16:09:53 <jcheney> pgroth: Yes
16:10:06 <Luc> q?
16:10:12 <jcheney> pgroth: Internet also, video conferencing maybe
16:10:18 <Luc> topic: PAQ document
<luc>Summary: The group voted to release the PAQ document as a first public working draft.  It was agreed that some editorial comments should be written explicit as note, to avoid confusing readers.
16:10:39 <pgroth> graham?
16:10:44 <jcheney> Luc: Status update from Graham or pgroth
16:10:49 <Zakim> +[ISI]
16:10:56 <Zakim> -Yolanda
16:11:13 <jcheney> Graham: Changes from last week
16:11:27 <jcheney> pgroth: Defining provenance service section moved to same place as provenance URI
16:11:35 <YolandaGil> Zakim, [ISI] is really me
16:11:35 <Zakim> +YolandaGil; got it
16:12:09 <jcheney> Graham: Clarify that entity-uri can use any scheme, need not be dereferenceable
16:12:41 <jcheney> Graham: Text discussing fact that provenance information may not be stable as long as it doesn't contradict previous assertions
16:12:51 <jcheney> Luc: Plans further changes?
16:12:55 <pgroth> q+
16:13:03 <jcheney> Graham: Title discussion; author list
16:13:03 <Luc> @gk: the problem was example of section 6 which said entity -uri will be dereferenced
16:13:35 <jcheney> Luc: Last week decided to hold vote; needs to be recorded for W3C publication
16:13:44 <jcheney> Graham: happy for vote to proceed
16:13:59 <jcheney> pgroth: Likewise; still some open issues but feedback good
16:14:44 <jcheney> Luc: Think we should go ahead
16:15:13 <jcheney> Graham: Email discussion?
16:15:20 <Luc> q?
16:15:24 <pgroth> q-
16:15:27 <jcheney> Luc: Email discussion not helping; need to talk
16:15:30 <smiles> q+
16:16:14 <jcheney> smiles: Happy with document release, still a lot of TODOs though
16:16:32 <kai> kai has joined #prov
16:16:34 <jcheney> (@gk, you are coming through somewhat distorted...)
16:16:42 <MacTed> -1 for removing the ToDos
16:16:54 <jcheney> GK: TODOs not unusual, but can clean up first
16:17:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:17:20 <Luc> q?
16:17:23 <pgroth> so formatting
16:17:24 <Luc> ack sm
16:17:25 <jcheney> smiles: OK if we make sure people understand that document is still early stage; partly about aesthetics/readability
16:17:27 <kai> zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me.
16:17:27 <Zakim> sorry, kai, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]'
16:17:32 <kai> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me.
16:17:32 <Zakim> +kai; got it
16:18:10 <jcheney> gk: Unlikely to be able to do this until next week
16:18:18 <jcheney> Luc: Compliance with W3C requirements?
16:18:23 <jcheney> gk: Not yet
16:19:09 <pgroth> +q
16:20:33 <jcheney> smiles: Pending issues in 4.1.2; meaning of annotations unclear
16:20:42 <pgroth> q+
16:21:19 <Luc> ack pgr
16:21:42 <jcheney> pgroth: Suggest we put all TODOs and notes in boxes - won't change actual text
16:21:55 <MacTed> +1 clarification via formatting cleanup
16:22:05 <jcheney> pgroth: as part of cleanup
16:22:33 <Paolo> notes used to good effect in PROV-DM as well -- there's a DIV class for it
16:22:44 <Luc> @GK, your voice is *VERY* distorted
16:22:52 <jcheney> gk: Pulling out placeholder TODOs  may make things less readable
16:22:52 <pgroth> yes
16:23:03 <jcheney> gk: Plan to do a pass and handle easy cases
16:23:23 <Luc> q?
16:23:31 <Luc> proposed: 'To Release PAQ document as a first public working draft'
16:23:47 <MacTed> +1
16:23:48 <smiles> +1
16:23:50 <jcheney> +1
16:23:51 <stain> +1 (with those minor edits)
16:23:51 <satya> +1
16:23:53 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:23:55 <SamCoppens> +1
16:23:57 <Curt> +1
16:24:09 <Paolo> +1 -- will go along with the editors' decision
16:24:33 <Luc> q?
16:24:35 <GK> +1
16:24:35 <zednik> +1
16:24:35 <pgroth> +1 
16:24:37 <sandro> +1
16:24:59 <Luc> accepted: 'To Release PAQ document as a first public working draft'
16:25:20 <GK> @pgroth: I cab do a quick pass through the @@ after this telecon
16:25:43 <Luc> q?
16:25:44 <pgroth> @GK cool
16:25:49 <GK> ACTION GK need to write "status of this document para"
16:25:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Need to write "status of this document para" [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-11-24].
#16:25:56 <Luc> topic: prov-o
16:25:57 <jcheney> Luc: need to do pass to meet W3C formal publication requirements
16:26:02 <jcheney> TOPIC: Prov-O
<luc>Summary: the prov-o team has released the prov-o document for internal review. Please review it. Next week we will decide if we can release it as a first public working draft.
16:26:06 <jcheney> (oops :)
16:26:40 <jcheney> Satya: Status update; updating HTML and OWL file to incorporate QualifiedInvolvement, update diagrams
16:27:06 <Luc> q?
16:27:08 <jcheney> ... Ontology call agrees that current version handles qualification information closer to prov-dm
16:27:24 <jcheney> ... Going through issues; happy to take questions or move forward to FPWD
16:27:31 <Luc> q?
16:28:00 <pgroth> i haven't
16:28:06 <smiles> me neither
16:28:09 <jcheney> Luc: Haven't had time to review yet; 
16:28:10 <Paolo> I have not had a chance either I'm afraid
16:28:22 <pgroth> could we vote on it next week?
16:28:26 <pgroth> q+
16:28:32 <GK> I didn't have time to review properly ... but I don't object to its release
16:28:33 <Paolo> @paul +1
16:28:35 <Luc> q?
16:28:39 <jcheney> Luc: Possible vote next week?
16:29:07 <pgroth> q-
16:29:07 <jcheney> pgroth: We could proceed as with PAQ - one week comment/review period before possible vote
16:29:10 <Luc> q?
16:29:10 <Paolo> I would actually like to get a chance to see it in detail before it goes out
16:29:42 <jcheney> Luc: PROV-DM has changed; should we coordinate releases?
16:30:04 <pgroth> q+
16:30:09 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc, good point
16:30:27 <Paolo> @simon: this reminds me that my ASN rendering of examples in the primer need realigning with the new PROV-DM terminology
16:30:39 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:30:40 <GK> I think it would be good to have coordinated, aligned releases of PROV-DM and PROV-O
16:30:53 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:31:23 <jcheney> Luc: In prov-O which version of Prov-DM is being referenced?
16:31:33 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy
16:31:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's noisy', MacTed
16:31:37 <Luc> q?
16:31:38 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
16:31:48 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (10%), Satya_Sahoo (84%), stain (79%)
16:31:49 <jcheney> Satya: Probably somewhere in between.  Have tried to cover changes discussed on mailing list.
16:31:56 <khalidbelhajjame> Mostly aligned with the first released working draft
16:31:58 <pgroth> stain can you mute?
16:32:02 <stain> sorry
16:32:07 <GK> ... but coordinated doesn't necessarily mean simultaneous release?
16:32:29 <jcheney> Satya: As Paul said, if we keep changing prov-o to sync with prov-dm then may need to wait for prov-dm.
16:32:42 <Luc> q?
16:32:47 <Luc> ack kh
16:33:11 <jcheney> Khalid: When is next release of prov-dm?
16:33:46 <jcheney> Luc: Would like to release prov-dm soon, 2-3 weeks.  Needs review.
16:34:16 <jcheney> ... Could release FPWD of PROV-O next week and 2nd release syncd with PROV-DM
16:34:25 <pgroth> q+
16:34:29 <jcheney> Satya: Makes sense, but there will always be time lag
16:34:50 <Luc> q?
16:35:04 <Luc> ack pg
16:35:18 <Paolo> q+
16:35:35 <jcheney> pgroth: PROV-O not an exact reflection of PROV-DM FPWD.  Somewhere in between
16:36:14 <jcheney> ... This is fine but need to pick out important changes and reflect them, e.g. renaming PE -> activity
16:36:34 <Luc> q?
16:36:37 <khalidbelhajjame> Noooo, I will have to redo all the diagrams because of that change :-)
16:36:42 <jcheney> ... More complicated changes can wait; may make it look more synchronized
16:36:43 <pgroth> lol
16:37:33 <jcheney> Paolo: Linking releases good, gives strong signal, but danger of lag - snags may throw everything off track
16:37:55 <Luc> q?
16:37:56 <stain> +1
16:37:57 <jcheney> ... Would like to see well-defined PROV-DM schedule with PROV-O following
16:37:59 <Luc> ack pa
16:38:28 <jcheney> Satya: Updating prov-o to model constraints fed back into prov-dm.
16:38:41 <jcheney> Paolo: Overall effect of linking two is dangerous.
16:38:45 <Luc> q?
16:38:46 <jcheney> +q
16:38:46 <Paolo> q-
16:39:13 <Luc> ack jch
16:39:28 <jcheney> jcheney: will have to converge eventually...
16:40:16 <jcheney> Luc: Could have section in preamble of PROV-O summarizing relation to FPWD of PROV-DM
16:40:28 <MacTed> +1 preamble noting "changes already made over there mean changes will be made here.  here's a short list:..."
16:40:50 <jcheney> Satya: Would it enable us to make PROV-DM and PROV-O in lock step?  
16:40:58 <jcheney> ... there will always be something to do
16:41:39 <pgroth> q+
16:41:51 <MacTed> Zakim, unmte me
16:41:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmte me', MacTed
16:41:55 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:41:55 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:41:59 <pgroth> q-
16:42:05 <khalidbelhajjame> I think that this list can be useful for purposes other than prov-o, e.g., for the primer, paq, or simply to keep tracks of the changes made between releases
16:42:12 <jcheney> Luc: This is list of changes already made in prov-dm and will be implemented in prov-o
16:42:20 <jcheney> Satya: Can do this, need to keep it updated
16:42:26 <Luc> q?
16:42:33 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:42:33 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:43:00 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:43:34 <jcheney> Luc: Will review and decide about moving towards FPWD
16:44:14 <jcheney> Khalid: can be useful if list is on wiki page also - changelog for prov-dm.
16:44:28 <MacTed> +1 -- this sort of list is relevant to all cross-dependent docs in parallel production...
16:44:33 <Luc>
16:44:34 <jcheney> Luc: Yes, it would be useful and already exists
16:44:34 <Paolo> @khalid ood idea
16:44:41 <Paolo> s/ood/good
16:45:01 <Luc> q?
16:45:04 <Luc> ack khal
16:45:05 <khalidbelhajjame> thanks
16:45:25 <jcheney> TOPIC: PROV-PRIMER
<Luc>Summary: The primer team produced a first version of the document. Please review it and comment on it. We will decide next week if it can be released as a first public working draft.  For both the prov-o and prov-primer documents, we discussed the pros and cons of releasing these documents synchronously with new versions of prov-dm. We agreed not to synchronize releases, to avoid publication delays.  
16:45:57 <jcheney> smiles: First version available for review; has been extended recently with PROV-ASN examples in appendix
16:46:03 <jcheney> ... Comments welcome
16:46:21 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:46:30 <pgroth> q+
16:46:31 <jcheney> ... Concept illustrations focus on the apparently most stable things; more needs to be done for next version
16:46:52 <jcheney> Luc: Does this follow PROV-DM or PROV-O?  In between?
16:47:01 <smiles>
16:47:07 <jcheney> smiles: Following PROV-DM as of FPWD
16:47:14 <Luc> q?
16:47:27 <jcheney> ... Worked examples include rdf/prov-o 
16:47:38 <Paolo> q+
16:47:39 <jcheney> Luc: Activities or process executions?
16:47:58 <jcheney> smiles: Have updated terminology to use "activity"
16:48:30 <Luc> q?
16:48:35 <jcheney> ... ASN uses PEs, needs to be updated
16:48:40 <Luc> ack pgr
16:48:49 <Paolo> q-
16:49:10 <jcheney> pgroth: Same question about PROV-O and PROV-DM: synchronization would be good, how much work to sync with PROV-O
16:49:12 <GK> @paul +1
16:49:15 <Paolo> @simon: yes I am the one who is lagging behind PROV-dM (shame)
16:49:45 <jcheney> ... Good to release to public to get this on radar, people may want to start implementing.
16:50:09 <Luc> q?
16:50:15 <satya> q+
16:50:17 <GK> I think the primer will help other people to review the rest of the specs
16:50:32 <jcheney> smiles: Agree releasing soon would be good, to find out if people find it readable, have't kept up with prov-o
16:50:40 <Luc> ack sat
16:50:55 <pgroth> q+ to respond
16:51:04 <jcheney> satya: Right now primer does not have inference rules, qualified involvement.  Planning to vote on prov-o next week.
16:51:13 <jcheney> ... Do you think we should delay prov-o pending changes?
16:51:17 <GK> I think it's just fine that the primer doesn't concern itself with the inferencde rules.  It the vocab that's key.
16:51:31 <GK> @paul +1
16:51:40 <jcheney> pgroth: Primer doesn't have to represent everything.  Ontology may not have to change, just primer
16:52:19 <jcheney> ... Revert activity to process execution?  Review this week for possible vote next week?
16:52:20 <Luc> q?
16:52:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:52:27 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond
16:52:32 <Luc> ack pro
16:53:27 <jcheney> Luc: Earlier hesitated to delay prov-o until primer ready.  
16:53:37 <jcheney> ... Simon, suggesting that this is ready for FPWD?
16:53:48 <YolandaGil> q+
16:53:55 <jcheney> q+
16:53:59 <Luc> ack yo
16:54:22 <jcheney> smiles: if there is consensus
16:54:53 <jcheney> YolandaGil: sandro, others - what should we do to relate to other W3C actvities or context?
16:54:57 <Luc> q?
16:55:08 <jcheney> zakim, who is speaking
16:55:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is speaking', jcheney
16:55:13 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy?
16:55:19 <GK> q+ to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM.  I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas.
16:55:25 <Zakim> jcheney, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (85%)
16:55:50 <jcheney> sandro: hard to know what people will see - important to annonce and find reviewers/colleagues in target audience
16:56:00 <jcheney> ... semantic web people not already familiar with provenance?
16:56:20 <jcheney> Luc: Got good feedback from Tom Baker on Prov-DM, was keen to see updates
16:56:21 <pgroth> so are we saying an internal review
16:56:25 <pgroth> without fpwd
16:56:25 <Paolo> agree with the idea of a semi-internal review from a slightly less "primed" panel
16:56:26 <Luc> q?
16:56:37 <jcheney> Yolanda: good suggestion - small group review
16:56:50 <jcheney> Luc: before FPWD?
16:56:59 <jcheney> Yolanda: Yes
16:57:30 <pgroth> q+
16:57:42 <jcheney> jcheney: is primer a recommendation, and do we need to worry about FPWD status
16:57:52 <pgroth> we have to do FPWD and LC
16:57:55 <jcheney> Luc:Primer will be a Note
16:58:20 <pgroth> q-
16:58:21 <jcheney> sandro: Only difference is phrase that says that it is not intended to be recommendation track
16:58:24 <jcheney> q-
16:58:32 <jcheney> (Thanks, that answers my question!)
16:58:42 <jcheney> sandro: Otherwise process is the same
16:58:52 <pgroth> gk talk softer
16:58:53 <stain> try 10 cm away from mic
16:59:00 <pgroth> better
16:59:03 <stain> +1
16:59:14 <jcheney> gk: think primer is too useful to hold back on release.  found reading helped understand discussion issues better.
16:59:29 <jcheney> ... if we can get primer out, it will help seed interest/understanding in other docs
16:59:30 <Luc> q?
16:59:33 <Luc> ack gk
16:59:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM.  I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas.
16:59:34 <pgroth> q+
16:59:37 <satya> @GK, +1
16:59:44 <Luc> ack pg
16:59:59 <jcheney> pgroth: is there a pseudo-way of making primer available pre FPWD?  
17:00:22 <jcheney> sandro: can point people to respec version, circulate as editor's draft
17:00:50 <jcheney> smiles: editor's draft circulation sounds good
17:01:08 <jcheney> sandro: editor's draft has connotation of being "even more work in progress"
17:01:26 <Luc> q?
17:01:32 <jcheney> Luc: likely to get feedback on all 3 - dm, o, primer
17:02:10 <jcheney> Luc: Suggested names for internal reviewers; next week, decide whether to release as ED or FPWD
17:02:35 <Luc> q?
17:02:43 <jcheney> smiles: Pass on to sympathetic reviewers who will offer constructive feedback
17:03:00 <Luc> q?
17:03:14 <jcheney> Luc: adjourned
17:03:14 <Zakim> -??P19
17:03:16 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:03:17 <Zakim> -Vinh_
17:03:17 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:03:17 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:03:18 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:03:19 <Zakim> -kai
17:03:21 <Zakim> -sandro
17:03:23 <Zakim> -stain
17:03:25 <pgroth> luc shall we talk?
17:03:29 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:03:31 <Luc> @pgroth, yes
17:03:36 <Zakim> -??P44
17:03:41 <Zakim> -YolandaGil
17:03:43 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:03:53 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:03:55 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:03:59 <GK> @pgroth I'm editing the PAQ @@s as we chat...
17:04:01 <Zakim> -??P27
17:04:03 <Zakim> -Luc
17:04:27 <Zakim> -??P63
17:04:31 <Zakim> -GK
17:04:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:04:35 <Zakim> Attendees were Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, Satya_Sahoo, pgroth, +1.518.276.aabb, stain, tlebo, MacTed, GK, Yolanda, [IPcaller], SamCoppens, sandro, Vinh_, YolandaGil, kai