Chatlog 2012-02-16

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.

15:52:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:52:16 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:52:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:52:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:52:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:52:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:52:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:52:21 <trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012
15:52:29 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:52:29 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:45 <pgroth> Agenda:
15:52:55 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:00 <pgroth> Scribe: Eric Stephan
15:53:11 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:20 <pgroth> Regrets: Michael Lang
15:54:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:54:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:54:21 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:54:21 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:54:59 <Zakim> + +1.509.967.aaaa
15:55:46 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:56:40 <Zakim> +Luc
15:58:20 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:58:28 <Zakim> +??P28
15:58:56 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:59:14 <Helena> Helena has joined #prov
15:59:26 <Zakim> + +329331aabb
15:59:33 <Zakim> +??P48
15:59:46 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aabb is me
15:59:46 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:59:53 <Helena> zakim, ??P48 is me
15:59:53 <Zakim> +Helena; got it
16:00:08 <Zakim> -Helena
16:00:42 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
16:01:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:01:16 <jun> jun has joined #prov
16:01:32 <Zakim> +??P63
16:01:47 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:57 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:02:10 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P63 is probably me
16:02:21 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:02:41 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 
16:02:44 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:02:56 <Zakim> +tlebo
16:03:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:03:09 <Zakim> +dgarijo?; got it
16:03:31 <Zakim> +Helena
16:03:44 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
16:03:50 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:03:54 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:03:55 <Helena> zakim, who is making noise?
16:04:27 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
16:04:48 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  Paul still  has to do the minues of the f2f2 meeting.
16:04:58 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (51%), Luc (13%), [IPcaller] (54%)
16:04:59 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  will be getting to it asap
16:05:00 <pgroth> Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon:
16:05:12 <Zakim> Helena, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (39%), Luc (34%), [IPcaller] (11%)
16:05:19 <Curt> +1
16:05:23 <tlebo> +1
16:05:24 <ERICstephan> +1
16:05:26 <jun> +1
16:05:28 <Helena> +1
16:05:34 <SamCoppens> +1
16:05:56 <pgroth> Approved - Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon
16:06:03 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
16:06:06 <pgroth>
16:06:09 <ERICstephan> pgroth: go over open actions, but not all
16:06:23 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  Action #52:
16:06:58 <dgarijo> +1 for the minutes too
16:07:18 <ERICstephan> pgroth:52  not closed yet because of 106
16:07:27 <ERICstephan> s/106/105
16:07:37 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:07:39 <pgroth> Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
16:07:46 <MacTed> s/52/Action-52/
16:08:07 <MacTed> s/of 106/of Issue-105/
16:08:32 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:08:48 <ERICstephan> bring in HCLS and hoping stephan can validdate.
16:08:52 <ERICstephan> Who was speaking?
16:08:55 <Zakim> +??P29
16:08:59 <jcheney> zakim, ??p29 is me
16:09:01 <Helena> ERICstephan: I was speaking
16:09:04 <dgarijo> that sounds very interesting indeed.
16:09:06 <ERICstephan> thank you
16:09:15 <Luc> date was not set
16:09:20 <Zakim> +Yolanda
16:09:48 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:09:55 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:10:33 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  action-63 due in one week's time
16:10:53 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Simplification
<pgroth> Summary: Luc provided an overview of the preliminary draft of a simplification of the data model. Reviewers were asked to provide feedback with one week according to the criteria listed in the minutes. The following reviewers agreed to provide review:  Tim, Eric, Daniel, MacTed, Curt, Sam, Jun
16:10:54 <ERICstephan> pgroth: need more scribes after next week
16:11:01 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:11:02 <pgroth> ACTION-62 - Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model
16:11:02 <trackbot> ACTION-62 Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb notes added
16:11:23 <MacTed> action-62?
16:11:23 <trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Luc Moreau to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb -- due 2012-02-16 -- OPEN
16:11:23 <trackbot>
16:11:30 <Luc> -
16:11:31 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  update and produce intro to simplification
16:11:51 <ERICstephan> Luc:  Wiki page describes current work
16:12:29 <ERICstephan> Luc:  3 parts, dropping the notion of account records
16:12:35 <Zakim> +??P38
16:12:50 <ERICstephan> Luc:  3 levels of description and removed one of the levels, positive feedback
16:13:23 <ERICstephan> Luc:  2nd doc, events, attributes been given values over periods of time, and constraints designed to data model
16:13:32 <Zakim> -Yolanda
16:13:59 <ERICstephan> Luc:  Last section, scrappy vs proper provenance. Consider various levels of description provide different refinements
16:14:30 <ERICstephan> Luc:  Move out the grammer and put it in a different document
16:14:42 <pgroth> +q
16:14:45 <pgroth> q?
16:14:52 <pgroth> q-
16:15:02 <dgarijo> @Eric: I think it's scruffy, not scruppy ;)
16:15:24 <ERICstephan> Luc:  at the moment, the working copy there is not an editors draft yet
16:15:39 <pgroth> Goals of the review:
16:15:41 <pgroth> decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification objective
16:15:46 <pgroth> recommend whether they become the new editor's draft
16:15:50 <ERICstephan> for the reviewers, do the documents align with the simplification goals
16:16:21 <ERICstephan> Luc:  (these comments written by me from Luc)
16:16:54 <pgroth> q?
16:16:55 <ERICstephan> Luc:  If we can get agreement based on recommendations from the reviewers next week
16:17:00 <ERICstephan> +q
16:17:12 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:17:12 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:17:13 <MacTed> q+
16:17:17 <pgroth> ack ERICstephan 
16:17:18 <Zakim> +??P51
16:17:34 <christine> christine has joined #prov
16:17:43 <pgroth> ack MacTed 
16:18:18 <ERICstephan> MacTed:  How do you give editor comments "this sentence is unweildy" (example)
16:18:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:18:27 <pgroth> q?
16:18:29 <ERICstephan> Luc:  Add it to wiki page
16:18:36 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:18:51 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  assign specific reviewers with specific tasks
16:19:01 <Luc> @helena, these are internal reviewers
16:19:03 <MacTed> s/wiki page/http:\/\/\/2011\/prov\/wiki\/ProvDMWorkingDraft4#Feedback_on_These_Working_Copies/
16:19:05 <pgroth> TimL
16:19:11 <tlebo> +1
16:19:49 <jun> I can also do it
16:19:51 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  confirm Tim +1, Eric +1, Graham ?, Daniel + 1, MacTed +1, Curt +1 (already done)
16:20:02 <SamCoppens> I can also
16:20:13 <pgroth> EricS, Daniel, Jun, MacTed, Curt, SamCoppens
16:20:23 <jun> the new structure looks good at a glance
16:20:52 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O Ontology updated
<pgroth> Summary: Satya went over an updated OWL file for prov-o. Reviewers agreed to review the ontology within 1 week according to the criteria listed in the minutes. Reviewers were  Luc, Paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt.
16:20:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:21:09 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  next topic, updated OWL file
16:21:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:21:26 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  released and Satya update?
16:21:27 <jun> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
16:21:27 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
16:21:37 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:21:37 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:22:04 <satya>
16:22:16 <dgarijo> and the summaries of the call are at:
16:22:26 <ERICstephan> satya:  after 2 weeks agreed on a series of changes
16:22:46 <pgroth> owl file is at:
16:23:04 <ERICstephan> satya:  all incorporated in doc, there are still a number of issues, but for now the most recent changes have been reflected
16:23:10 <Luc> q?
16:23:44 <dgarijo> Changes (which are the titan pad logs):,
16:23:57 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  PROV-O, does it have a good alignment with PROV-DM working draft 3?
16:24:15 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  has the ontology provide a simplified naming?
16:24:40 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  does the ontology fit within OWL with itself and does it create some type of natural RDF?
16:25:01 <pgroth> q?
16:25:08 <Luc> q+
16:25:15 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:25:16 <ERICstephan> pgroth: reviewers, does it meet these goals any questions on review period
16:25:37 <ERICstephan> luc:  what process are we going to use to align PROV-O and PROV-DM?
16:25:49 <dgarijo> +q
16:25:56 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  good question can we defer to next section?
16:26:01 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 
16:26:31 <ERICstephan> dgarijo:  alignment be discussed in PROV-O task force?
16:26:42 <ERICstephan> Luc:  alignment could be both directions
16:27:22 <jcheney> alignment deliverable ==? ProvRDF?
16:27:25 <dgarijo> +1 to pgroth.
16:27:26 <ERICstephan> Luc:  alignmnet deliverable and raise issues against that?
16:27:40 <pgroth> q?
16:28:28 <dgarijo> smiles and Jun have already provided some feedback :)
16:28:29 <stephenc> OK
16:28:36 <Curt> I'll be going over PROV-O too.
16:28:55 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  another one week review, confirm, Luc +1, Paolo +1, Eric +1, Stephen C +1, Curt +1
16:28:58 <pgroth> Review prov-o: Luc, paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt 
16:29:14 <satya> Thanks everyone for the reviewing!
16:29:29 <pgroth> q?
16:29:31 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  same process applies, goes to list and we talk about it next week.
16:29:37 <pgroth> Topic: ProvRDF Mappings
<pgroth>Summary: The ProvRDF mappings were largely complete. The group agreed on a process to harmonize the prov-dm and prov-o via the mappings page. A new product (Product 9) corresponding to the ProvRDF mappings was created in the tracker. Issues with respect to harmonization should be raised there.
16:30:49 <ERICstephan> jcheney:  did this for a small subset for PROV-DM during f2f2.
16:31:05 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:31:18 <ERICstephan> jcheney:  Tim has been adding record form from PROV-DM to collections of RDF triples
16:31:22 <ERICstephan>
16:32:08 <zednik_> zednik_ has joined #prov
16:32:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:32:57 <pgroth> q?
16:33:25 <dgarijo> yes, more or less.
16:33:28 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  Is what we see in the doc, in the right hand side of the page reflect the current prov-o ontology?
16:33:45 <tlebo> @paul, that is the intent. If the RHS are not aligned with the OWL file, ISSUES should be raised.
16:35:02 <ERICstephan> jcheney:  left hand side match DM working draft 3
16:35:26 <pgroth> q?
16:35:46 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  how do we sync prov-o prov-dm?
16:35:48 <pgroth> q?
16:36:22 <jcheney> q+
16:36:22 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  in the issue tracker, make a new deliverable for mappings, if inconsistencies report them there.
16:36:23 <satya> +1 @Paul
16:36:24 <dgarijo> @pgroth:+1
16:37:00 <tlebo> q+ to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
16:37:01 <ERICstephan> jcheney:  making deliverable in tracker, that it makes a separate deliverable in working group?  Paulg no
16:37:05 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
16:37:12 <pgroth> ack tlebo 
16:37:13 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
16:37:22 <satya> @Tim: I agree
16:37:37 <ERICstephan> tlebo:  useful and at least interesting to PROV-O html doc
16:37:38 <dgarijo> +1 to Tim's point.
16:37:55 <pgroth> q?
16:38:02 <Luc> q+
16:38:07 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:38:07 <dgarijo> If it helped us, it could help other people too...
16:38:12 <pgroth> ack I hung up
16:38:21 <ERICstephan> luc:  we can close action-56?
16:38:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:38:37 <ERICstephan> jcheney: +1
16:38:56 <ERICstephan> satya:  action on me is closed?
16:39:05 <pgroth> Zakim, IPcaller.aa is me
16:39:05 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
16:39:10 <satya> ok
16:39:11 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  action is still open based on action-105
16:39:13 <satya> thanks!
16:39:17 <pgroth> q?
16:39:28 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:39:57 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  okay on deliverable on RDF mappings?
16:40:03 <ERICstephan> who spoke?
16:40:09 <tlebo> macted did
16:40:20 <ERICstephan> MacTed: not sure this is going to meet the goals of harmonization
16:40:44 <tlebo> @macted, what are you looking for?
16:40:54 <Luc> created
16:40:54 <satya> can you please explain macted?
16:41:02 <jcheney>
16:41:04 <Luc> q+
16:41:14 <dgarijo> @satya: I think he is just concerned about the naming
16:41:17 <ERICstephan> satya:  What are you suggesting macted?
16:41:18 <dgarijo> of the document..
16:41:45 <ERICstephan> MacTed:  harmony does not equate to RDF mapping to me
16:42:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:42:41 <pgroth> Raise Issue against Product 9
16:42:41 <ERICstephan> luc:  posting url to new product I created, to raise issues in the tracker between PROV-DM and PROV-O
16:43:03 <pgroth> Topic: Timetable for Release
<pgroth> Summary: A discussion on when we could release a synchronous set of working drafts between prov-dm, prov-o and prov-primer. March 14 was proposed as a deadline, however, it was unclear whether this would be viable in terms of both delivery and progress on other drafts.  It was decided to finalize this at the next telecon.
16:43:42 <satya> @Luc, I just mailed you to close ISSUE-105
16:43:59 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  what should be the goal of the release?
16:44:12 <pgroth> q+
16:44:14 <pgroth> q?
16:44:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:44:53 <satya> q+
16:45:21 <Luc> q+
16:45:24 <pgroth> ack satya
16:45:38 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:45:42 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  sync one version of working draft against another for ( Prov-dm, prov-o, and prov-primer)
16:45:54 <Zakim> -Helena
16:46:20 <ERICstephan> luc:  the whole point was that we change the presentation, simplify, but we do not change any of the terms
16:46:31 <dgarijo> so then we are already done :D :D
16:46:46 <dgarijo> @satya: Account is now "bundle"
16:46:47 <ERICstephan> luc:  if you have aligned the prov-o to the current working draft you have aligned them
16:47:14 <Luc> @Satya, i closed issue-105 and action-52
16:47:29 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  those set of issues need to be addressed before wd4
16:47:41 <ERICstephan> luc:  wd4 March 1
16:48:07 <ERICstephan> luc:  without sync with prov-o
16:49:16 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  when do we do a sync release  within the group?  reviews this week, two weeks for alignment, propose March 14?
16:49:18 <pgroth> q?
16:50:00 <pgroth> Deadline to release internally to the WG for review of primer + dm + ontology sync release March 14
16:50:03 <Zakim> +Yolanda
16:50:32 <pgroth> q?
16:50:48 <ERICstephan> luc:  what does the prov-o team think?
16:50:56 <satya> yes, we now concentrate on html
16:51:03 <satya> document
16:51:39 <ERICstephan> satya:  On our monday meeting we are already started restructuring HTML, maybe by next Thursday report progress?
16:51:56 <ERICstephan> satya:  maybe 2 weeks time reasonable?
16:51:58 <pgroth> q?
16:52:40 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  key comments, is raising all issues on the mapping styles and harmonization products, what is remaining to achieve harmonization?
16:52:54 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  I think we should aim for 14th
16:52:58 <pgroth> q?
16:53:19 <ERICstephan> luc:  concern that we are drifting again on the time table.
16:53:56 <ERICstephan> luc:  We need to Start working on 5th working draft 
16:54:31 <ERICstephan> luc:  working in parallel on 5th working draft
16:55:12 <ERICstephan> luc:  finalize timeline next week?
16:55:15 <pgroth> suggestion March 14, but finalize next week
16:55:21 <ERICstephan> +1 agree with luc
16:55:26 <pgroth> q?
16:55:28 <tlebo> q+ did the content of get moved to another page? 
16:56:33 <pgroth> Topic: Agent Types
<pgroth> Summary: A discussion was had about renaming of the current agent subtypes. There was believed to be consensus on the mailing list for renaming. However, there was no consensus on the call. Use cases for agent subtypes from prior  working group discussions were asked for. Paul agreed to send a pointer to the mailing list.
16:56:44 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  Tim it stays where its been
16:57:14 <tlebo> q-
16:57:17 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  agent typings discussion in the mail list
16:57:32 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  concerns about not broad enough use cases
16:57:37 <pgroth>
16:58:03 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  can we get concensus for a vote today?
16:58:08 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:58:31 <pgroth> Current - Person, Software Agent, Organization
16:58:50 <pgroth> Proposal - Change core agent subtypes to Human, System, Organization 
16:58:55 <pgroth> q?
16:59:00 <Curt> European (Organisation) or American (Organization) spelling?
16:59:18 <pgroth> q?
16:59:26 <satya> q+
16:59:26 <MacTed> +1 to change, with z spelling
16:59:32 <dgarijo> +1
16:59:51 <tlebo> -1 b/c organizations are systems
17:00:14 <Luc> @paul, wasn't it ComputingSystem ?
17:00:17 <dgarijo> @tim: but they are not all disjoint, right?
17:00:35 <Curt> +1 Systems can include persons or organizations, but are still distinct from them
17:00:37 <dgarijo> @tim: so an Organization CAN be a system.
17:01:01 <dgarijo> I'd say that Human and System are disjoint though.
17:01:21 <stephenc> Would prov:Human be a subclass of  foaf:Person?
17:01:29 <zednik_> q+
17:01:34 <satya> q-
17:01:39 <pgroth> ack zednik
17:01:40 <ERICstephan> satya:  when a human is not regarded in the context of an agent is there a problem?
17:01:44 <tlebo> abstain. Agent has been hard enough. I'll make my own subtypes.
17:01:56 <dgarijo> +q
17:02:15 <ERICstephan> zednik:  Why human over person?
17:02:27 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 
17:02:45 <ERICstephan> what if an animal is an agent?
17:03:09 <ERICstephan> agreed with tlebo
17:03:42 <pgroth> q?
17:03:42 <zednik_> q+
17:03:51 <pgroth> ack zednik_ 
17:03:52 <MacTed> thinking deeper....  foaf:Person <> prov:Person, which is clearer if we say prov:Human
17:04:10 <jun> do we have a use case to drive sub-typing agent? I am against over sub-typing
17:04:10 <MacTed> - prov:Human may be but is not necessarily prov:Agent
17:04:46 <ERICstephan> zednik:  talk about humans without typing them automatically to agent?
17:04:53 <jun> q+
17:05:00 <MacTed> - prov:Agent might have *range* (as opposed to subClass) which includes foaf:Person, prov:Human, prov:Person...
17:05:02 <pgroth> ack jun
17:05:08 <tlebo> +1 to avoiding direct connection to FOAF.
17:05:12 <dgarijo> @why are you against? If prov is supposed to be a generic ontology, you will have to adapt it to you domain imo
17:05:22 <dgarijo> @jun
17:05:52 <ERICstephan> jun:  what is driving this task?
17:06:12 <satya> @Jun, +1 - subytping leads to reduced interoperability
17:06:24 <Zakim> -Yolanda
17:06:25 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  We already agreed about these broad categories and wanted to get agreement on naming
17:06:47 <zednik_> is agent itself enough to address the use cases?
17:06:52 <ERICstephan> MacTed:  What is the distinction?  
17:07:17 <Luc> and originally software ...
17:07:24 <ERICstephan> MacTed:  Human and Inhuman?
17:07:59 <jcheney> Suggest Nonhuman instead of Inhuman - a human can be inhuman.
17:08:10 <ERICstephan> link to use case?
17:08:13 <tlebo> is a foaf:Organization Human or InHuman?
17:08:27 <zednik_> what attributes are different for human vs nonhuman in prov?
17:08:47 <jun> @jcheney, +1. if we have to have it, then at least we have nonhuman
17:08:50 <zednik_> what relations are different for human vs nonhuman?
17:08:53 <satya> jcheney, tlebo :)
17:09:17 <MacTed> human vs nonhuman is fine with me ... once I understand why the distinction is necessary here...
17:09:21 <tlebo> we can kill -9 NonHuman without going to jail
17:09:38 <ERICstephan> lol tlebo
17:09:41 <pgroth>
17:09:42 <MacTed> but corporations are people!  ;-)
17:09:56 <ERICstephan> is a cow a system on a dairy farm?
17:10:56 <satya> I think this is one of our best discussion in the WG :o)
17:11:16 <zednik_> what is our definition of system?
17:11:22 <pgroth> +q
17:11:44 <pgroth> ack pgroth
17:11:59 <pgroth> q?
17:12:04 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  there is a key use case, it looks like there was naming, but we get on phone call and no consensus.
17:12:37 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  would like to issue this to be done.  This is a necessary to have.
17:13:06 <ERICstephan> pgroth:  Will email around again this use case.
17:13:30 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:13:31 <tlebo> bye bye!
17:13:32 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:13:33 <Zakim> -jun
17:13:33 <Zakim> -??P38
17:13:34 <zednik_> bye
17:13:35 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:13:36 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:13:36 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:13:39 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:13:40 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:13:40 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:13:42 <Zakim> -Luc
17:13:42 <ERICstephan> bye
17:13:46 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:13:48 <Zakim> - +1.509.967.aaaa
17:13:51 <Zakim> -??P51
17:15:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:15:11 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:15:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:15:16 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
17:15:16 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:15:16 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.509.967.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, SamCoppens, Helena, tlebo, dgarijo?, MacTed, Yolanda, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller]
17:15:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:15:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:15:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:15:25 <RRSAgent> I see no action items