Chatlog 2012-03-15

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:46:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:46:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-prov-irc
14:46:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:46:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:46:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:46:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:46:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:46:09 <trackbot> Date: 15 March 2012
14:46:09 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:46:09 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:27 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.15
14:47:24 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:47:29 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:56:52 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:56:52 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:07 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:57:09 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth
14:57:15 <Zakim> +??P15
14:57:17 <Zakim> -??P15
14:57:17 <Zakim> +??P15
14:57:19 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
14:57:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, ??P15
14:57:32 <Paolo> zakim, ??P15 is me
14:57:32 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:58:16 <Zakim> +??P31
14:58:54 <Luc> q?
14:58:58 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:59:04 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
14:59:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, Paolo, ??P31
14:59:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:20 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:59:22 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:36 <Zakim> +??P42
14:59:36 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:59:37 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:59:42 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:59:44 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:59:45 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:59:45 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft5
14:59:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:00:04 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is probably me
15:00:15 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:00:15 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:22 <Zakim> +dgarijo?; got it
15:00:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, Paolo, ??P31, dgarijo?, ??P42, MacTed (muted), Curt_Tilmes
15:00:42 <smiles> I can scribe
15:00:45 <dgarijo> I h ave to leave very early today, sorry :(
15:00:50 <smiles> Scribe: smiles
15:01:00 <dgarijo> @smiles: thanks
15:01:01 <gK1> gK1 has joined #prov
15:01:04 <Luc> topic: Admin
<Luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved.
15:01:05 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:01:33 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
15:01:41 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa
15:01:41 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:01:46 <mike_> mike_ has joined #prov
15:01:50 <smiles> Luc: any other business?
15:01:58 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aabb
15:02:00 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aacc
15:02:05 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
15:02:09 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:02:17 <smiles> dgarijo: Pending reviews on ontology, please send
15:02:22 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-08 
15:02:34 <dgarijo> +1
15:02:36 <smiles> Luc: Express support for minutes
15:02:43 <Curt> +1
15:02:45 <Paolo> +1
15:02:46 <tlebo> +1
15:02:46 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
15:02:53 <smiles> +1
15:02:54 <Zakim> +??P55
15:03:02 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:05 <jun> zakim, ??P55 is me
15:03:06 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:03:20 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of 2012-03-08 teleconference
15:03:23 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:03:28 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:03:35 <Zakim> + +329331aadd
15:03:46 <Zakim> +??P57
15:03:52 <jcheney> zakim, ??P57 is me
15:03:52 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:03:54 <smiles> Luc: Action on Paul to produce revised version of PAQ, sends his regrets for today
15:04:04 <smiles> Graham?
15:04:12 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aadd is me
15:04:12 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:04:22 <GK> I'm not dialled in yet.  No progress on action AFAIK.
15:04:41 <smiles> Action to Tim to ensure WD4 comments addressed
15:04:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
15:04:46 <smiles> Tim: Yes, completed
15:05:11 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aabb
15:05:21 <smiles> Luc: Reminder, next week same as this, tc is one hour earlier
15:05:30 <smiles> ... Also need scribes for future tcs
15:05:37 <Luc> Topic: f2F3
<Luc>Summary: The third face to face meeting will take place on 22-23 June in Santa Barbara. James Frew will be the host of the meeting. Logistics details will be made available shortly.
15:05:49 <Zakim> +??P60
15:05:57 <GK> zakim, ??p60 is me
15:05:57 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:06:06 <smiles> Luc: Good support in poll, so will proceed with 22-23 June in Santa Barbara
15:06:21 <Luc> q?
15:06:27 <smiles> ... preceded by IPAW, James Frew will provide hotel suggestions soon
15:06:51 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3
15:06:52 <GK> (Unfortunately, the date clashes with an important family commitment)
15:06:41 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O
<Luc>Summary: Tim reported back on progress on the prov-o html document. The style, the automatically generated part, the manual generated part have been identified. The team will write up the various sections. Please respond to request to review changes and close issues you have raised.
15:06:56 <tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
15:07:13 <smiles> tlebo: PROV-O completed iterating on HTML document
15:07:24 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aaee
15:07:37 <smiles> ... now automatically generating cross-reference reflecting Jun/Khalid's proposed structure
15:07:44 <olaf> zakim, aaee is me
15:07:46 <Zakim> +olaf; got it
15:07:52 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me
15:07:52 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted
15:07:55 <smiles> ... request any feedback from the WG, please raise issues directly using tracker
15:08:18 <smiles> ... Now preparing to assign people to write narrative for individual sections
15:08:55 <smiles> tlebo: Daniel done great reviewing of sections, please help bring issues to closure where replied to
15:09:03 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:09:13 <smiles> Luc: Been tremendous work on ontology and document
15:09:22 <GK> It looks v good to me.  Well done!
15:09:27 <smiles> ... Is there a stable ontology?
15:09:38 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:09:54 <smiles> tlebo: Needs to be in sync with DM WD4, so may be couple of changes to ontology (and automatically HTML)
15:10:05 <Zakim> +??P69
15:10:09 <smiles> ... currently using PROVRDF to track mapping to DM
15:10:11 <dgarijo> @All: please check out  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3. There are 8 or 9 issues pending review, so if you have raised them please see if they can be closed.
15:10:22 <smiles> Luc: HTML also looks great
15:10:24 <Luc> q?
15:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P69 is me
15:10:28 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:10:44 <GK> Does anyone think we can get it to REC with the title unchanged?
15:10:56 <Luc> ;-)
15:10:59 <tlebo> @GK ;-)
15:11:13 <smiles> dgarijo: Link pasted above issues against ontology, so if you raised issues please check whether they can be closed
15:11:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:11:37 <smiles> Luc: Suggest for next telecon, have summary of issues open and who raised them
15:11:47 <smiles> dgarijo: Have already sent individual emails on issues
15:11:48 <jun> @tlebo, is there a link to check all issues related to provo.html?
15:11:58 <smiles> Luc: Also mail list to add pressure
15:12:16 <Luc> q?
15:12:16 <tlebo> @jun, yes. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
15:12:23 <jun> @tlebo, thx! :)
15:12:33 <tlebo> "PROV-O HTML" in pull down on tracker.
15:12:34 <smiles> dgarijo: Have also divided issues to those on ontology, those on HTML, those on mapping
15:12:41 <Luc> q?
15:12:54 <Luc> topic: prov-primer
<luc>Summary: Simon will aim to get a revised version of the primer by the end of the month. He is relying on Stian and Paolo, to ensure the primer is synchronized with prov-o and prov-dm, respectively.
15:14:04 <Paolo> oops that may have fallen through, sorry about that
15:15:43 <Luc> q?
15:16:30 <Luc> q?
15:16:43 <smiles> Luc: aim to have drafts on all docs for end of month, including primer
15:16:53 <Luc> topic: prov-dm
<Luc>Summary: The results of the votes that took place during the week were presented. There was support for two proposals. While there was no opposition for the first proposal, support was not strong enough. Editors will go back to the drawing board.  Paolo explained all the edits that took place during the week, tackling issues related to presentation (component based approach rather than core/common distinction), quotation, original source, prov-n, collections, optional plan. They are about to be integrated in the Editor's Draft.
15:17:04 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:17:04 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:17:10 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0230.html
15:17:13 <MacTed> q+
15:17:16 <smiles> smiles: Will prepare for end of the month, with input from Paolo on inconsistencies with DM, from Stian on inconsistencies with PROVO 
15:19:09 <tlebo> +1 @macted, we should stick to eggs and unchewed gum.
15:19:33 <smiles> MacTed: express examples in terms of real world things, as expiry and change over time unclear with current examples
15:19:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:19:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:20:14 <smiles> Luc: three proposals circulated, second and third had support
15:20:56 <smiles> ... first did not have consensus, cannot be adopted, so will try to change and discuss
15:21:11 <GK> q+ to say I think a concrete example for wanting prop 1 would help
15:21:21 <smiles> ... can incorporate second, third proposal in editors draft, can raise issues against in tracker in usual way
15:21:27 <Luc> ack mac
15:21:46 <smiles> GK: First proposal needs motivating example
15:21:57 <GK> ack gk
15:21:57 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think a concrete example for wanting prop 1 would help
15:22:21 <dgarijo> +q
15:22:21 <GK> I'm hearing, but see chat if you can't hear me
15:22:32 <Luc> we can't hear you
15:22:44 <smiles> GK: <some random sounds>
15:22:50 <GK> Yes
15:23:03 <GK> Well, that was it -- a concrete example that shows...
15:23:14 <GK> ... why it's useful to have entioty expiration.
15:23:28 <smiles> Luc: Are examples in proposal not satisfactory?
15:23:31 <GK> I didn't find them compelling ... need to rechack.
15:23:51 <Luc> ACCEPTED: to rename wasStartedBy(activity,activity) in wasStartedByActivity(activity,activity) 
15:23:54 <Zakim> -GK
15:24:06 <Luc> AcceptED: to formulate start and end of activities independently of responsibility and agents. Hence, start and end of activity would no longer be a form of activity association. Instead of an agent, an optional entity trigger would be allowed.
15:24:16 <Zakim> +??P28
15:24:20 <dgarijo> I had a question about proposal 2 :(
15:24:28 <GK> zakim, ??p28 is me
15:24:28 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:24:39 <Paolo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft5
15:24:57 <kai> kai has joined #prov
15:25:08 <dgarijo> well, the subject has changed..
15:25:11 <dgarijo> -q
15:25:13 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:25:17 <smiles> Paolo: Work in progress on WD5, some of to do list are being tracked
15:25:18 <Luc> q?
15:25:39 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-components.html
15:26:12 <smiles> ... As seen on agenda, component structure now excludes core/component divide
15:26:41 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-quote.html
15:26:47 <smiles> ... New structure reflects discussion on list, please look at it and raise objections
15:26:59 <Zakim> +??P62
15:27:10 <GK> To follow up my previous comment, the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?)
15:27:15 <kai> zakim, ??P62 is me.
15:27:15 <Zakim> +kai; got it
15:27:23 <smiles> ... Quotation / orginal source controversy - could not see where distinction is
15:27:31 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-components.html#term-value
15:27:32 <dgarijo> I really have to leave. Apologies...
15:27:36 <dgarijo> bye!
15:27:45 <Zakim> -??P42
15:27:46 <kai> @dgarijo: i take over :-)
15:28:18 <smiles> ... Literals are now expressed as syntactic construct, all we say about values is that they have a type: qualified name, XSD type
15:28:45 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-collections.html
15:29:34 <smiles> ... Collections is work in progress, tried to accommodate open issues and agreed with Stian what to include, final iterations with proposed version in above link
15:30:13 <smiles> ... primitive relations regarding insertion, deletion; data types for collections; additional relations to simplify expressions with multiple key-value pairs
15:30:37 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-plan.html
15:31:05 <smiles> ... Agents in association: proposed new formulation for wasAssociatedWith; plan to open for discussion; if no controversy will be in next draft
15:31:13 <Luc> q?
15:31:53 <smiles> Luc: For all edits, discussed issues with people, will now include in WD and notify WG when done
15:32:20 <Luc> q?
15:32:25 <smiles> ... still to address feedback on WD4 to incorporate in document, go through remaining issues; revision by end of the month
15:32:28 <smiles> q+
15:33:00 <smiles> smiles: What is controversial, under development?
15:33:23 <smiles> Luc: Once collections issues addressed, only presentational issues remain, so stable model
15:33:40 <smiles> ... Proposal 1 above is still controversial: expiry
15:33:45 <Luc> q?
15:33:50 <Luc> ack sm
15:34:08 <smiles> Paolo: Agreed, everything before expiry proposal, everything settling down
15:34:35 <smiles> ... Not everything in collections draft is uncontroversial but getting there
15:34:42 <khalidbelhajjame> @smiles,  do you intend to speak about collections in the primer?
15:35:08 <Luc> q?
15:35:27 <smiles> ... New pieces in BNF for optional arguments, impact on PROVN examples
15:35:33 <Luc> q?
15:37:22 <Luc> q?
15:37:28 <smiles> Paolo: should be pedagogical text on collections in primer
15:37:47 <Luc> q?
<Luc>Topic: Free form discussion on destruction/expiry
<Luc>Summary: We had a free discussion around proposal 1. Two salient points were made: the proposal lacks a compelling example of this notion of 'destruction', and it lacks an explanation of why it matters from a provenance viewpoint. Macted suggested an example of a painting burned in a fire (destruction event) and reappearing later at an auction.  The editors will revisit the proposal in the light of these suggestions.
15:38:14 <smiles> Luc: Finished agenda, but useful to discuss expiry

15:38:33 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:38:33 <Zakim> MacTed was not muted, MacTed
15:39:23 <GK> I can hear OK, but not speak
15:39:34 <GK> To follow up my previous comment, the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?)
15:40:01 <khalidbelhajjame> Is the objection against the example or the notion of expiration?
15:40:18 <smiles> MacTed: An entity may be referred to after being destroyed
15:40:36 <Paolo> q?
15:40:41 <smiles> ... what do we mean here?
15:40:43 <tlebo> unbroken eggs and unchewed gum!
15:40:45 <Curt> "invalid" = no longer can be 'used' by an activity
15:40:47 <GK> The notion.  In my case, I'm not seeing why it's useful for provenance.  Use-case?
15:41:04 <GK> I'm not opposing it, just not supporting it.
15:41:09 <GK> Why do we care?
15:41:09 <Paolo> q+
15:41:35 <jcheney> q+
15:42:22 <smiles> ... Table example (logs to table, table broken up and burnt); in contrast, resolution on web gets latest revision, so not really identifying one entity
15:42:50 <tlebo> Let the web people deal with the web problems, not the provenance people. "not able to be used again" is a useful notion (eggs and gum)
15:43:01 <Luc> q?
15:43:03 <Luc> ack pao
15:43:28 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:43:38 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (55%), Paolo (85%), MacTed (24%)
15:43:47 <MacTed> Zakim, mute [IPcaller]
15:43:47 <Zakim> [IPcaller] should now be muted
15:44:13 <MacTed> I don't know who [IPcaller] is ... but hopefully they can unmute themselves when they figure it out
15:45:17 <smiles> Paolo: Want to demarcate lifetime of entity, existence to non-existence (becomes another entity), but can refer to forever
15:45:17 <Luc> q?
15:45:20 <Curt> The examples *don't* discuss things that are 'destroyed', just things that are no longer accessible/available.
15:45:27 <tlebo> having the symmetric to "Generated" seems to be rather nice.
15:45:29 <GK> So what does the entity URI identify when the entity ceases to exist?
15:45:29 <smiles> ... Nothing to do with real thing getting destroyed
15:46:25 <smiles> jcheney: Important to distinguish entity which is information valid during a time interval from thing described by that information which can be created, destroyed
15:47:02 <smiles> ... start and end of both are valid to talk about
15:47:22 <khalidbelhajjame> The entity is invalidated not when the thing is distroyed, but when it the entity is no longer reflect the thing it represents.
15:47:29 <smiles> MacTed: An entity is a thing which is described, not the description
15:47:29 <Paolo> +
15:47:39 <Luc> q?
15:47:40 <Paolo> q+
15:47:53 <smiles> Luc: Description holds or not
15:47:58 <GK> If there's any meaning here, I think its to do with validity of statements *about* the entity.
15:49:22 <smiles> jcheney: Lack of entity expiry in semantics not difficult in itself, but awkward if want to say "table stopped being in room on Wednesday"
15:49:28 <Luc> q?
15:49:28 <Curt> If the characterization of an entity includes the attribute that it be available through a URL, then when that URL no longer refers to that content, then entity is 'destroyed'.
15:49:41 <Paolo> q?
15:49:51 <jcheney> q-
15:49:59 <smiles> MacTed: Entity is the thing not the desciption of the thing
15:50:03 <GK> I suppose it might be seen as implying a contextual constraint on statements like "entity dc:creator Foo"?
15:50:33 <smiles> Luc: Agree with GK that it is about validity of statements about the entity
15:50:39 <Curt> an entity is a set of attributes that characterize something  When one of those attributes changes (any of them), you are talking about a different entity.
15:51:02 <Paolo> I am going by this definition: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsStrawman#Entities
15:51:13 <tlebo> @macted, yes.
15:51:13 <Luc> q?
15:51:50 <Luc> ack paol
15:51:51 <GK> If we think of provenance in terms of entities interacting with processes, then the points at which provenance applies are exactly when those interactions occur?
15:52:06 <smiles> Paolo: Should follow definitions in strawman formal semantics
15:52:46 <smiles> ... If no compelling reason to have concept, then more trouble than its worth
15:53:31 <GK> ... or in spans delimited by those interactions?
15:53:38 <jcheney> Current version is at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD3#Entities
15:54:04 <smiles> MacTed: An entity has internal integrity solidified by attributes which are immutable, depending on timeslice
15:54:37 <smiles> ... e.g. a table is an entity which is a timeslice of the wood comprising it
15:55:01 <Luc> q?
15:55:04 <GK> I *would* see some point if there were an action that "expired" an entity.
15:55:05 <khalidbelhajjame> q+
15:55:09 <jcheney> @MacTed, please raise issues against semantics if what is there is unclear or could be improved
15:55:20 <smiles> Luc: Do not want unbounded discussion, so need prepration, proposals
15:55:35 <GK> The problem is I don't oppose this idea, just don't support it :)
15:55:43 <Luc> q?
15:56:13 <smiles> Luc: Can MacTed, others formulate notion of end of lifetime in your terms?
15:56:26 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
15:56:32 <Paolo> q+
15:57:00 <GK> I think the onus is on those who think the concept is useful to come up with compelling examples.
15:57:20 <GK> They didn't compel me.
15:57:29 <Luc> q?
15:57:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:57:30 <Curt> I agree - they are not compelling
15:57:41 <Luc> ack kh
15:57:54 <GK> ... the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?)
15:58:21 <smiles> khalid: Do we need notion of destroy/expire in any application?
15:58:40 <MacTed> if a Great Master's painting (original canvas) is burned in a museum fire, this is important knowledge when it apparently surfaces later at auction...
15:58:48 <Curt> I've got to go, but I'll think about this some more...
15:58:52 <Luc> q?
15:58:54 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
15:58:56 <GK> I see here there's a weak consensus for leaving expiration as proposed.  Nobody opposed it, just lots of people didn't care.
15:58:58 <Zakim> -olaf
15:59:01 <MacTed> (concrete, real world, not rotten eggs...)
15:59:40 <smiles> Paolo: Will come up with a couple more examples, seems odd to express only one end of timeslice
16:00:03 <Luc> q?
16:00:11 <Luc> ack paolo
16:01:00 <GK> @paolo I mentioned earlier that if there were a specific activity-related event that causes an entity toi be invalidated, that would make sense.
16:01:08 <smiles> Luc: MacTed please share definition by email
16:01:32 <GK> @Luc - burned poainting - se eprevious comment :)
16:01:36 <smiles> ... GK, MacTed's example is interesting one to motivate
16:01:43 <Luc> q?
16:01:52 <GK> Bye.
16:01:53 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:01:54 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:01:55 <Zakim> -jun
16:01:56 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:01:56 <Zakim> -kai
16:01:59 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aacc
16:02:00 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:02:01 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:02:02 <Zakim> -GK
16:02:08 <Zakim> -Luc
16:02:10 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:02:25 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:02:34 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 
16:02:37 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:02:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-prov-minutes.html Luc
16:02:42 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 
16:02:42 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:03:15 <smiles> trackbot, end telecon
16:03:15 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:03:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Paolo, MacTed, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo?, +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, +49.302.093.aabb, +1.443.708.aacc, jun, jcheney, SamCoppens, GK,
16:03:19 <Zakim> ... +49.302.093.aaee, olaf, khalidbelhajjame, [IPcaller], kai
16:03:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:03:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000345