Chatlog 2012-03-22

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.

14:52:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:52:15 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:52:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:52:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:52:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:52:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:52:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:52:20 <trackbot> Date: 22 March 2012
14:52:25 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:28 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:44 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:52:51 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:53:04 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
14:53:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:55:18 <pgroth> anybody, having problems with Zakim?
14:55:45 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:55:56 <pgroth> curt, thanks for scribing
14:56:00 <pgroth> it's all set up
14:56:00 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:56:02 <Curt> np
14:56:07 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:56:25 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:56:48 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:57:23 <pgroth> anybody having problems with Zakim?
14:57:50 <Zakim> +??P39
14:58:06 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:58:50 <MacTed> I'm not familiar enough with Hg....  
14:58:50 <MacTed> can someone tweak the opposite-of-generated example from "prov:consumedBy" to "prov:wasConsumedBy" to more properly parallel "prov:wasGeneratedBy"?
14:59:14 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:59:21 <pgroth> having trouble joining
14:59:22 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:59:50 <Zakim> + +4238059aaaa
14:59:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:55 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:00:06 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
15:00:07 <Luc> zakim, +4238059aaaa is me
15:00:08 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:09 <MacTed> (it's either add "was" to the consumption, or remove it from the generation...)
15:00:18 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:00:18 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:20 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:20 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:00:28 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:00:39 <Luc> trackbot, start telcon 
15:00:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:00:44 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
15:00:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:00:44 <trackbot> Date: 22 March 2012
15:00:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:00:50 <Zakim> ok, Luc, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:00:54 <Zakim> +??P44
15:00:56 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:00:58 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:01:04 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:01:18 <mike_> mike_ has joined #prov
15:01:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44
15:01:22 <Zakim> +tlebo
15:01:29 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P44 is me
15:01:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44, tlebo
15:01:40 <Paolo> zakim, ??P39 is me
15:01:40 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aabb
15:01:43 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:01:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, dgarijo, satya, zednik, Paolo, Luc, tlebo, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:02:01 <Zakim> +??P1
15:02:03 <MacTed> Luc has a somewhat bad connection...  fuzzes a lot on vocals
15:02:07 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:02:10 <dgarijo> zakim, ??P1 is me
15:02:14 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:02:39 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:02:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:02:49 <Zakim> -Luc
15:03:22 <kai> kai has joined #prov
15:03:24 <Zakim> +Luc
15:03:39 <Zakim> +??P18
15:03:54 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:03:54 <GK> zakim, ??P18 is me
15:03:57 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: The group was reminded of the time change next week. Additionally, the schedule until the synchronous release was gone over. Paul gave an update on his progress on developing a new version of the prov-aq. 
15:04:01 <Zakim> +sandro
15:04:05 <pgroth> Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon
15:04:09 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:04:12 <Curt> +1
15:04:16 <dgarijo> +1
15:04:19 <Paolo> +1
15:04:20 <mike_> +1
15:04:21 <zednik> +1
15:04:25 <satya> +1
15:04:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:04:35 <GK> +1
15:04:41 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:04:58 <pgroth> Approved Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon
15:05:12 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:05:13 <Zakim> +??P21
15:05:18 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:05:26 <Curt> pgroth: time change reminder -- return next week to normal times
15:05:45 <Curt> ... please sign up scribes
15:06:08 <Curt> ... open actions - paul has drafted PAQ review
15:06:12 <Zakim> +??P8
15:06:20 <jcheney> zakim, ??P8 is me
15:06:20 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:06:24 <Curt> ... graham still needs to review that
15:06:45 <pgroth> +q?
15:06:46 <Curt> ... he just got it -- he will address this week or next
15:06:47 <Luc> q+
15:06:48 <pgroth> q?
15:07:04 <GK> I'm tied up with project work this week, but should havew time to review next week.
15:07:04 <Curt> luc: is the plan to release the PAQ synced with the others?
15:07:32 <Curt> pgroth: depends -- it may be difficult to do that, graham may be able to get things and we might be able to do it
15:07:42 <pgroth> q?
15:07:42 <Curt> ... we'll at least try to get a synced draft release
15:07:44 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:07:45 <pgroth> ack ?
15:07:46 <GK> (lost my sound briefly then)
15:07:48 <Zakim> -jun
15:08:09 <pgroth>
15:08:09 <Zakim> +??P25
15:08:15 <Curt> pgroth: review updated time schedule from google doc
15:08:18 <jun> zakim, ??P25 is me
15:08:18 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:08:34 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:08:36 <Curt> ... synced release of docs in mid-april
15:08:54 <Curt> ... drafts available to the group by the end of next week for internal review
15:09:12 <pgroth> q?
15:09:15 <Zakim> +??P10
15:09:20 <Curt> ... a lot of work has happened, we need the synced release to show progress
15:09:26 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm
<pgroth> Summary: Luc and Paolo presented the status of prov-dm. In particular, the component organization was focused on. The group was asked to give input on the definitions for alternate and specialization. Reviewers were identified for the three different documents that make up the DM: Prov-dm - Tim, Khalid, Satya, Curt, Jun ; Prov-dm-constraints - James, Tim, Graham ; Prov-N - Khalid, Simon, Tim
15:09:48 <Luc>
15:10:04 <Curt> luc: much work in the last week, revised editors draft exists, not quite ready for review
15:10:12 <Luc>
15:10:16 <Curt> ... structure revised
15:10:34 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:10:41 <Paolo> you'll need to scroll down as usual
15:10:54 <Curt> ... section 4 beginning, has a picture of the 6 components
15:11:26 <Curt> ... for each component, we have a short overview and UML diagram depicting the relationships between components
15:11:41 <Luc> :
15:11:43 <Curt> ... things are taking shape, the essence we wanted to incorporate is there
15:11:55 <Zakim> +??P15
15:12:01 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:12:01 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:12:07 <tlebo> colors and tetris. All right!
15:12:12 <Curt> ... section 3.1 has a revised picture taking into account feedback
15:12:17 <Luc>
15:12:29 <Curt> ... PROV-N updated editors draft
15:12:31 <GK> (This linking problem is a respec anomaly -- once page is loaded, clicking on section link works.)
15:12:49 <Curt> ... definition of production, some conflicts resolved, taking shape now
15:12:50 <Paolo> @tlebo  I like to think it's a tangram :-)
15:13:04 <Curt> ... still working on collections -- more expected in the coming week
15:13:08 <Luc>
15:13:19 <Luc>
15:13:32 <Curt> ... solicit contributions for short english definitions for some concepts
15:13:44 <pgroth> q?
15:13:46 <Curt> ... please email suggestions to luc/paolo and they will incorporate
15:13:57 <Luc>
15:14:07 <GK> Do we really need alternates/specialization in part 1?
15:14:23 <Luc> Communication
15:14:39 <Luc> Start By Activity (wasStartedByActivity) 
15:14:49 <Curt> ... wasInformedBy relation unclear -- suggesting "communication", read that section of the document
15:14:49 <dgarijo> what about dependency?
15:15:27 <Curt> luc: next steps to get to release, still going through some feedback
15:16:06 <Curt> paolo: constraints need some work
15:16:33 <Curt> ... how hard is the deadline next week?  many things have to happen in the next week...
15:17:22 <Curt> luc: it is challenging to get 3 documents all together at once.  section 2 needs some work
15:17:47 <Curt> ... help on definitions would be welcome
15:18:08 <Curt> paolo: part1, 3 are the priority 
15:18:28 <Curt> pgroth: review other documents status, then discuss timeline
15:18:48 <Curt> ... still need to line up reviewers for various documents
15:19:01 <pgroth> q?
15:19:03 <Curt> ... that will help inform timeline
15:19:43 <pgroth> Prov-dm Reviewers
15:19:47 <tlebo> +1
15:19:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:19:50 <satya> +1
15:19:54 <Curt> pgroth: need reviewers for each of three documents
15:19:58 <Curt> +1
15:20:15 <jun> +1
15:20:15 <satya> q+
15:20:53 <Luc> @satya: documents are not ready!!!!!!
15:21:07 <pgroth> ack satya 
15:21:21 <pgroth> Prov-dm-constraints Reviewers
15:21:30 <Luc> q+
15:21:35 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:21:38 <jcheney> +1
15:21:40 <tlebo> +1
15:21:56 <GK> I'll plan to review "constraints", provided it's available before April
15:22:28 <pgroth> Prov-n Reviewers
15:22:33 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:22:36 <smiles> +1
15:22:37 <tlebo> +1
15:23:03 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o
<pgroth> Summary: An update on the status of prov-o was given. The document has been reorganized and authors have been identified to contribute to the various parts of the document. The group is on track to release by next week. Reviewers were identified for prov-o: Luc, Paul, Simon
15:23:37 <Curt> tlebo: reorganized HTML document, emphasizing difference between simple/extended
15:23:48 <tlebo>
15:23:55 <Curt> ... new design in progress, met monday and assigned some writing sections
15:24:12 <Curt> ... getting together early next week, draft available next friday
15:24:15 <pgroth> q?
15:25:05 <pgroth> Reviewers Prov-o
15:25:08 <Luc> +1
15:25:16 <pgroth> +1
15:25:40 <smiles> +1
15:25:58 <Luc> q+
15:26:03 <GK> I think the most important reviews of PROV-O will come from implementers like Stian
15:26:22 <Curt> luc: for next week, editors of the documents should identify specific questions for reviewers to address
15:26:37 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, Stian is part of the provo team :-)
15:26:53 <Curt> pgroth: this is a review to determine public release, should they go public?
15:26:58 <pgroth> q?
15:27:00 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:27:05 <pgroth> Topic: Primer
<pgroth> Summary: An update on the status of the primer was given. Input was given to Simon by Stian and Paolo. Simon is looking for examples for some of the constructs and was pointed to the coverage page. The primer should be on schedule for release. Reviewers were identified for the next release: Paolo, Christine, Curt
15:27:06 <GK> @Khalid - Even better!
15:27:07 <Curt> luc: that is one question, there may be others
15:27:42 <Zakim> -??P10
15:27:52 <Curt> gk: still revising, determine if other docs are stable to incorporate any change back into the primer
15:28:18 <GK> @Curt ^^ That was Simon, I think
15:28:34 <Curt> s/gk/smiles/
15:28:37 <pgroth> q?
15:29:03 <Curt> smiles: looking for examples to put in
15:29:11 <Curt> tlebo: use the big example collection online
15:29:23 <Zakim> +??P10
15:29:37 <Curt> smiles: examples organized by domain, not by concept -- need to find focused examples for concepts
15:30:02 <Curt> tlebo: we might try to pick trivial examples for each concept
15:30:26 <Curt> ... look at the descriptions -- it lists the constructs that various examples use
15:30:37 <pgroth> q?
15:30:40 <pgroth> q?
15:30:49 <pgroth> Primer Reviewers
15:30:50 <Curt> ... might be out of date, let me know if something needs to get updated
15:30:58 <Paolo> +1
15:30:58 <tlebo> coverage page: shows which constructs are used in which examples (or did, or should...)
15:30:59 <Christine> +1 if you think it would be useful
15:30:59 <Curt> +1
15:31:05 <Zakim> -??P10
15:31:19 <Luc> Will review, but may not meet deadline if still editing prov-dm-*
15:31:27 <pgroth> Topic: Schedule
<pgroth> Summary: The group revisited the schedule based on current progress. The following time table was agreed to: April 2 - drafts released to the working group for review. April 9 reviews submitted. A vote on release will happen on April 12 if possible but otherwise on April 19. 
15:31:41 <smiles> @tlebo great, thanks
15:31:49 <Curt> pgroth: schedule -- editors can you meet the target dates?
15:31:51 <pgroth> q?
15:32:03 <Paolo> q+
15:32:15 <tlebo> @smiles, some of it looks broken, if there's a particualr question you need answered, point it out to me, please.
15:32:21 <GK> Might it be helpful to stagger releases, so reviewers aren't overcommitted?
15:32:36 <Curt> paolo: two out of three parts, next friday possible, part 2 maybe the next week
15:32:41 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:32:48 <tlebo> q+
15:32:51 <Curt> luc: yes, I would like to do that
15:33:11 <tlebo> Friday is reasonable target, early the follwoing week is realistic
15:33:12 <Curt> luc: PROV-DM,PROV-N by friday; constraints early the next week
15:33:32 <GK> It might be difficult for me to get a printed copy for review oif not available by 3-Apr
15:33:32 <Curt> tlebo: next friday possible, early the next week more realistic for PROV-O
15:33:47 <Curt> smiles: next friday ok
15:34:11 <Curt> pgroth: how about Monday the second, but earlier if possible
15:34:21 <smiles> Fine by me
15:34:22 <Luc> review timetable?
15:34:52 <Curt> pgroth: if we do Monday 2nd, then use 1 week for review
15:34:54 <pgroth> 4/9 for reviews back
15:35:04 <Luc> easter vacations ....
15:35:21 <GK> 1 week for review would be OK for me.
15:35:32 <tlebo> leaves 1.5 weeks to review, no? (was 2 weeks)
15:35:43 <Luc> i can review provo on 4th in time for the 5th telecon
15:35:57 <Paolo> if I am doing just the primer, won't take long. I would like to contribute a new example for collections. So, 2 days
15:36:11 <Curt> pgroth: the 2 weeks was 1 week to review, 1 week to respond to the review
15:36:19 <tlebo> @paul, got it. 1 week to review and 1 week to reflect feedback.
15:36:56 <Curt> luc: release/voting had been planned for 12th, probably not realistic with new schedule, esp. with Easter et al.
15:37:27 <Curt> pgroth: what about 4/19 for formal vote for release
15:37:31 <pgroth> Vote April 19
15:37:33 <Curt> luc: at the latest
15:37:56 <smiles> q+
15:38:02 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:38:04 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:38:29 <Curt> smiles: clarify
15:38:49 <Curt> pgroth: one of the questions for review -- are there release blockers?
15:39:07 <Curt> ... if there are things that can be addressed later, that's ok
15:39:41 <Curt> smiles: even non-reviewers need to read enough to determine their vote
15:39:55 <Luc> yes, everybody will be invited to review
15:40:34 <pgroth> Revised schedule 
15:40:43 <pgroth> 4/2 for release to reviewers
15:40:54 <pgroth> and working group
15:41:12 <pgroth> 4/9 reviews in
15:41:23 <pgroth> 4/19 vote by working group
15:41:27 <pgroth> q?
15:41:37 <tlebo> looks fine
15:41:49 <Paolo> works for me
15:41:50 <satya> works for me
15:41:53 <jun> +1
15:42:00 <jcheney> I may need another day or two = the period from 4/2-4/9 is super busy for me
15:42:00 <Curt> luc: potentially earlier, perhaps 4/12 if possible
15:42:06 <khalidbelhajjame> good for me
15:42:18 <smiles> Yes, possible I think
15:42:45 <Curt> pgroth: reviewers should focus on question of release
15:42:47 <pgroth> q?
15:42:58 <pgroth> Topic: Namespace Unification
<pgroth> Summary: The idea for a common namespace across the various products of the WG has been proposed a number of times. Paul put out a concrete proposal to adopt a particular namespace with a corresponding landing page. This approach seemed to have broad support in the group, however, there were questions about the ramifications of a choice of namespace on both XML and rdf processing tools (i.e. do we have a # or not in the namespace). Sandro agreed to ask xml experts on the issue and get back to the group with their opinion. 
15:43:11 <pgroth>
15:43:37 <pgroth>
15:43:42 <Curt> pgroth: put out proposal^
15:43:59 <Curt> pgroth: that would point to landing page with glossary of all the terms
15:44:27 <Curt> ... content negotiation would return OWL/TTL/XSD as requested
15:44:33 <pgroth> q?
15:44:35 <GK> q+ to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate  accept headers?
15:45:08 <pgroth> ack GK
15:45:08 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate  accept headers?
15:45:26 <MacTed> voice is there, but it's not OK....  lots of breakup.  some is comprehensible, most is not.
15:45:33 <Curt> gk: <breaking up> will the tools be able to retrieve the right thing?
15:45:37 <tlebo> @gk, AFIAK, yes. Tools do request RDF. If they don't, they should.
15:45:46 <Luc> q+
15:45:52 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:46:27 <Luc> in rdf
15:46:34 <Luc> in xml.
15:46:59 <Curt> luc: I'm fine with pgroth proposal, but we also had a namespace for the XML schema, is the hash compatible?
15:47:30 <Zakim> -??P21
15:47:45 <GK> AFAIK, The choice of XML namespace for XSD preceded the use of namespaces for RDF, and the issue of concatanating namespace+local to forkm a URI didn't arise.
15:47:46 <tlebo> q+ to state that # is part of the fragid, and is taken off before HTTP request. Also, all w3 namespaces uses the #.
15:48:00 <Curt> pgroth: if you use RDF, you use the hash, with XML, you don't [??] you still dereference to the same place
15:48:20 <Curt> tlebo: you have to remove the fragement when you request the URI with HTTP
15:48:32 <Curt> s/fragement/fragment/
15:48:46 <pgroth> sandro are you there?
15:48:50 <Curt> tlebo: others use the hash the way we are proposing
15:48:56 <GK> (I('m looking in XML namespace spec at moment)
15:48:59 <zednik> '#' is for client side processing, yes?
15:49:19 <pgroth> :
15:49:21 <Curt> luc: not sure -- it is frustrating to have to use two different namespaces
15:49:22 <pgroth> :
15:49:29 <sandro> (I am here, pgroth and trying to page in the details)
15:49:39 <Curt> pgroth: XML usage would double the hash
15:49:46 <GK> [Definition: An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference; element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using the mechanisms described in this specification. ]
15:49:53 <GK> That's from XML namespace spec
15:49:59 <sandro>
15:50:07 <GK> That allows a '#' in the namespace URI for XML namespaces
15:50:24 <GK>
15:50:33 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:50:34 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:50:35 <Curt> sandro: RIF used the hash within the XML usage, didn't get pushback
15:50:38 <MacTed> q+
15:50:46 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:50:46 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to state that # is part of the fragid, and is taken off before HTTP request. Also, all w3 namespaces uses the #.
15:50:49 <Curt> sandro: the hash is very normal within RDF community
15:51:09 <Curt> macted: hash is problematic, esp. since it is really a client side thing
15:51:10 <GK> q+ to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above
15:51:30 <pgroth> ack MacTed
15:51:31 <GK> Tools that send '#' are BROKEN
15:51:31 <Curt> macted: a small number of tools send it to the server
15:51:53 <MacTed> Zakim, mute 
15:51:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mute', MacTed
15:51:55 <pgroth> can you not talk into your mike
15:51:56 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:51:56 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:52:24 <Curt> pgroth: how can we best resolve this?
15:52:50 <Curt> pgroth: this plan sounds good, but how can we determine if it is correct?
15:53:14 <Curt> sandro: I'll consult with XML experts, schema workgroup, etc.
15:53:45 <Curt> pgroth: semantic web activity group?
15:53:54 <GK> What we could do for now is choose a '#' URI and document our rationale that this is OK in XML (see above), and ask for explcit review in PWD.
15:53:58 <Curt> sandro: this is really an XML question
15:54:25 <Curt> sandro: could also ask semantic web coordination group
15:54:31 <tlebo> refers to #used at -- isn't this the same as what luc's xml schema is referencing?
15:54:35 <tlebo> q+
15:54:43 <pgroth> ack GK
15:54:43 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above
15:54:46 <GK> ack gk
15:54:48 <Curt> sandro: will draft an email requesting input from others
15:54:55 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:54:59 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:55:27 <Curt> tlebo: namespace shouldn't have the hash
15:55:37 <Curt> sandro: do any tools break?
15:56:20 <GK> RDF really likes the namespace to end with '#' or '/' - so that the parts can be teased apart later.
15:56:28 <Curt> luc: esp. with RDFa, you are using RDF and XML together, namespace declarations just define 'prov'
15:56:32 <pgroth> q?
15:56:39 <sandro> <prov xmlns="">...
15:56:41 <MacTed> are there any known examples where NOT having the # in the namespace leads to problem?
15:56:41 <MacTed> we've come up with various ways having it *MIGHT* cause trouble...  
15:56:41 <MacTed> so why do we *want* it to be part of the namespace?
15:56:45 <MacTed> what's the argument to include it?
15:56:48 <GK> RDF/XML commonly uses XML namespace decls with '#' at end of URI
15:57:04 <Luc> q+
15:57:15 <Luc>
15:57:18 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:57:26 <Curt> luc: see blog^ she talks about this problem
15:57:41 <Curt> luc: maybe she could help us
15:57:53 <GK> Yes, that;s the issue - RDF concatenates, XML doesn't assume the pair are used to create a new URI 
15:58:06 <Curt> pgroth: let's consult with all these groups/people to figure out the right common namespace
15:58:27 <GK> I think a common namespace is nice, but if we can't it's not a total disaster IMO
15:58:45 <pgroth> q?
15:58:50 <Curt> sandro: will review the blog and include jeni as well
15:59:00 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
15:59:02 <Zakim> -tlebo
15:59:02 <Zakim> -dgarijo
15:59:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
15:59:03 <Zakim> -Paolo
15:59:07 <Zakim> -sandro
15:59:09 <Zakim> -jcheney
15:59:12 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:59:13 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:59:23 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aabb
15:59:25 <Zakim> -pgroth
15:59:31 <Zakim> -Luc
15:59:35 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
15:59:46 <GK> - this may be Jeni's blog post
16:00:06 <GK> Dated 2007, "Things that make me scream ..."
16:00:46 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:00:51 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:00:56 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:00:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:00:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, Luc, MacTed, tlebo, +1.443.708.aabb, pgroth, Paolo, dgarijo, sandro, GK, jun, jcheney,
16:00:59 <Zakim> ... khalidbelhajjame
16:01:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:01:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:01:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items