Chatlog 2012-05-24

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.

14:51:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:31 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:51:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:51:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:51:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:36 <trackbot> Date: 24 May 2012
14:51:39 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:51:39 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:52:03 <pgroth> Agenda:
14:52:14 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:52:19 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
14:52:26 <pgroth> Regrets: Paolo Missier
14:52:34 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:52:44 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
14:53:21 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:53:28 <Zakim> +jfuller
14:53:36 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?
14:53:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see jfuller
14:53:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro
14:55:01 <Zakim> + +329331aaaa
14:55:14 <TomDN> Zakim, +329331aaaa is me
14:55:14 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
14:55:35 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
14:55:36 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
14:55:56 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here?
14:55:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see jfuller, TomDN (muted)
14:55:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro
14:58:45 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:07 <Zakim> +Luc
15:00:36 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb
15:00:40 <Zakim> +jfuller.a
15:01:00 <jun> zakim, who is here?
15:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see jfuller, TomDN (muted), Luc, ??P22, +1.518.276.aabb, jfuller.a
15:01:06 <jun> zakim, ??P22 is me
15:01:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see jun, SamCoppens, tlebo, Curt, TomDN, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro
15:01:06 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb
15:01:12 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:01:15 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:01:41 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
15:01:46 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:01:48 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:02:04 <Zakim> +??P15
15:02:12 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:02:14 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:02:20 <dgarijo> hi all
15:02:32 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:43 <Zakim> +??P17
15:02:48 <pgroth>
15:03:02 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P17 is me
15:03:02 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:03:02 <pgroth> proposed: approve Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon
15:03:05 <tlebo> +1
15:03:06 <dgarijo> +1
15:03:07 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:03:07 <Curt> +1
15:03:10 <Zakim> +jfuller.aa
15:03:11 <jun> +1
15:03:11 <TomDN> +1
15:03:21 <smiles> +1
15:03:22 <SamCoppens> 0 (did not attend the meeting)
15:03:39 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the May 17 2012 Telecon
15:03:49 <Curt> pgroth: 2 open actions
15:04:05 <Zakim> +??P3
15:04:05 <Curt> ... sandro to send working drafts
15:04:08 <pgroth> sandro?
15:04:42 <Zakim> +??P7
15:04:44 <Curt> ... graham to review constraints.  some emails flowing.
15:04:52 <Luc> there is an email that just arrived on the mailing list
15:05:08 <GK1> zakim, ??p7 is me
15:05:08 <Zakim> +GK1; got it
15:05:18 <Curt> pgroth: scribes, need them, please sign up
15:05:27 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Restructuring
<pgroth> Summary: The group agreed do divide prov-dm into core and extended. The group agreed on what concepts are in the core (see resolution). There was consensus that this organization should not impact the organization of prov-o. There was consensus that the organization of prov-dm is primarily for pedagological reasons.
15:05:42 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aacc
15:05:46 <Curt> pgroth: past weeks, discussed several options
15:05:56 <Curt> ... graham made a proposal discussed last week
15:06:04 <Curt> ... chairs actioned to counter-propose
15:06:09 <GK> Sorry I'm late ... re actions, I just took a look at constraints.  Basically looking good.    Comments in email.
15:06:34 <Curt> ... many comments going around.  Consensus proposal looking good, good approach
15:06:58 <Curt> ... core vs. extended has support on mailing list, try to confirm that today
15:07:32 <Luc>
15:07:38 <Curt> luc: worked on text based on mailling list feedback
15:08:00 <Curt> ... revised section 2, now an overview with 3 subsections
15:08:15 <Curt> ... core, extended, organization and components
15:08:39 <Curt> ... 2.1 now has the diagram
15:09:04 <Curt> ... some work to go on content, ready for external review/feedback soon
15:09:10 <pgroth> q+
15:09:13 <pgroth> q?
15:09:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:09:40 <khalidbelhajjame> My only comment is that it looks good
15:10:07 <Luc> See figure:
15:10:21 <Curt> pgroth: core structures in editors draft, are these what we want?
15:10:23 <pgroth> q?
15:10:28 <tlebo> +q to ask about wasInformedBy
15:10:29 <GK> I think it's about right.
15:10:37 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:10:53 <Curt> tlebo: prov-o also has wasInformedBy as a starting point, propose to add to DM core
15:11:08 <Luc> q+
15:11:12 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:11:12 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about wasInformedBy
15:11:17 <pgroth> ack luc
15:11:42 <Curt> luc: that's the only difference between dm and prov-o now...
15:12:11 <jun> +1 to @tlebo
15:12:18 <Curt> ... a good reason to add wasInformedBy is that it makes sense in the core
15:12:22 <GK> I'm OK either way... I can see the case.
15:12:29 <smiles> Structure looks good; also makes sense for someone who's just read the primer, I think
15:12:35 <Curt> ... but it isn't really 'primitive' -- it is really a shortcut for other concepts in the core
15:12:40 <GK> Isn't the same true of derivation?
15:12:47 <TomDN> so is wasDerivedFrom, technically...
15:13:18 <pgroth> q?
15:13:21 <GK> q+
15:13:22 <Curt> ... I lean toward not including wasInformedBy in the core, but it is somewhat subjective
15:13:26 <pgroth> ack GK
15:13:41 <Curt> GK: Could go either way
15:13:48 <Curt> ... I see Tim's point
15:13:49 <tlebo> not sure that "primitiveness" should be the dominating consideration - the point is to give a conceptual basis to begin the story for any potential adopter.
15:14:22 <tlebo> +1 @GK !
15:14:24 <Luc> q+
15:14:32 <Curt> GK: Is its primitiveness similar to wasDerivedFrom?
15:14:36 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:14:57 <Luc> used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a)
15:15:29 <Luc> used(a2,e) wasGeneratedBy(e,a1)
15:15:39 <Luc> wasInformedBy(a2,a1)
15:15:42 <pgroth> +q
15:15:50 <tlebo> Perhaps we should point out that this is the "core" of the DM, not the "core" of the constraints document. ("primitiveness" would be more appropriate in dm-constraints)
15:15:55 <Curt> luc: ^used + wasGeneratedBy implies wasInformedBy
15:16:05 <Luc> used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDrivedFrom(e2,e1)
15:16:18 <GK> That's unexpected to me
15:16:36 <pgroth> q?
15:16:43 <Curt> ... wasInformedBy is a real shortcut, but wasDerivedFrom isn't a shortcut, since you can't make such an implication
15:16:45 <GK> (Hunts in spec...)
15:17:13 <Curt> pgroth: is having it in the core of value?
15:17:14 <GK> q+
15:17:24 <jcheney> Definition currently given at:
15:17:25 <tlebo> +q to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.
15:17:34 <Curt> ... people have asked about constructs to show certain relationships
15:17:46 <Curt> ... having it in the core helps understanding
15:17:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:18:34 <pgroth> activities aren't functions
15:18:54 <khalidbelhajjame> An activity does not have to use all inputs to produce a given output
15:19:06 <Curt> GK: notion of influence is captured by derivation, you need an activity to create the new entity
15:19:06 <dgarijo> @Khalid: +1
15:19:29 <Curt> ... if we have got the consumption/generation, we have derivation
15:19:31 <khalidbelhajjame> Graham, you may be talking about traceability
15:19:38 <dgarijo> @Khalid: it may use e1 for a later generation than e2
15:20:31 <Curt> ... if an activity uses an entity, and generates another, then derivation is happening
15:20:35 <pgroth> ack GK
15:20:53 <Curt> tlebo: the purpose of 'core' is to orient new adopters
15:21:02 <pgroth> q?
15:21:10 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:21:10 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to restate that the purpose is to orient potential adopters, not to slip into the semantics among the constructs.
15:21:11 <GK> @tlebo +1 that's more compelling :)
15:21:14 <dgarijo> @GK: Activities have an star time and an end time. That does not imply that all used entities influence all generated entities...
15:21:14 <Luc> q+
15:21:16 <Curt> ... other distinctions are secondary
15:21:33 <Luc>  used(a,e1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a) does not imply wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)
15:21:41 <Luc> used(a,e1,t1) wasGeneratedBy(e2,a,t2)  where t2<t1, so cannot imply  wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)
15:21:46 <Curt> luc: dgarijo is right, you can't imply derivation in that way
15:22:02 <jun> @gklyne, I don't know whether what @Luc said is in the DM or not. But that notion was the part of the reason for the provenance community to have wasDerivedFrom
15:22:14 <jun> s/gklyne/GK/
15:22:45 <GK> I see the point Luc makes, but I also agree @tlebos point
15:23:01 <Luc> q+
15:23:09 <Curt> pgroth: Current core contents except for wasInformedBy is ok, is there strong objection to including it?
15:23:25 <jun> @GK, yes. I think the discussion was a bit off the original topic:)
15:23:28 <dgarijo> if it helps (as Tim suggested), then I think it should go in there..
15:23:42 <Curt> luc: we haven't formally defined what is 'core', but it is misleading to consider wasInformedBy on the same level as the others
15:24:03 <Curt> luc: but it is subjective, and we could include if the groups wants to
15:24:28 <Curt> luc: I think it should not be there, since it is misleading
15:24:46 <jun> @Luc, misleading, but might still be helpful?
15:25:43 <pgroth> proposed: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy
15:25:48 <Luc> @jun, of course,  i am not suggesting to drop it from the model, it is among the extended structures
15:26:09 <GK> +0.5  (happy either way, lean to this, but slightly)
15:26:09 <dgarijo> +1
15:26:10 <TomDN> +1
15:26:16 <tlebo> +1
15:26:18 <jcheney> +1
15:26:19 <smiles> +1 (ambivalent about wasInformedBy)
15:26:23 <stephenc> +1
15:26:31 <Curt> +0.5 (ambivalent as well)
15:26:34 <zednik> +0.5
15:26:35 <SamCoppens> +1
15:26:46 <jun> +0.5 (because time was all excluded, but I am fine with it)
15:26:47 <khalidbelhajjame> +0.5
15:27:23 <pgroth> accepted: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith, wasInformedBy
15:27:28 <Luc> q+
15:27:34 <Curt> pgroth: ambivalence plus support, so that seems the way to go
15:28:11 <Curt> luc: should consider the choice
15:28:12 <pgroth> proposed: the core consists of entity, activity, agent, wasDerivedFrom, used, wasGeneratedBy, wasAttibutedTo, actedOnBehalf, wasAssociatedWith
15:28:17 <GK> +0
15:28:19 <dgarijo> +1 as well
15:28:22 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:28:27 <TomDN> +0
15:28:30 <smiles> +1
15:28:31 <Curt> +0.5
15:28:37 <jcheney> +1 happy either way
15:28:42 <SamCoppens> +1
15:29:01 <tlebo> q+ to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.
15:29:06 <tlebo> -1
15:29:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:29:47 <Luc> q|+
15:29:51 <Curt> tlebo: what does this mean for startedAtTime/endedAtTime for its starting point
15:29:51 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:29:51 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if prov-o must remove "startedAtTime" and "endedAtTime" because of this resolution.
15:30:05 <Curt> pgroth: prov-o should remove those, so core is consistent
15:30:08 <GK> I assumed that each document could make it's own evaluation
15:30:18 <jun> +0 fine either way
15:30:26 <Curt> luc: no, prov-dm core doesn't talk about some things like time
15:30:44 <dgarijo> @Tim: when you say remove you mean to put it in expanded terms, right?
15:30:49 <Curt> luc: we could, but I don't think prov-o would have to remove those from its starting point
15:31:01 <tlebo> @dgarijo, yes. Moving them to expanded.
15:31:04 <tlebo> q-
15:31:07 <tlebo> thanks!
15:31:08 <dgarijo> @tlebo: ok, thx
15:31:12 <Curt> pgroth: ok, you could leave them in the starting points
15:31:23 <GK> The question is:  wasInformedBy core or not?
15:31:40 <Curt> pgroth: looking at votes, leans to add wasInformedBy to core
15:31:49 <dgarijo> @GK: according to the votes it should be included in the core.
15:32:17 <pgroth> proposed: is wasInformedBy including in the core in prov-dm
15:32:32 <Curt> +0
15:32:35 <smiles> 0
15:32:37 <dgarijo> +0
15:32:38 <khalidbelhajjame> 0
15:32:38 <GK> I assume +foires for, - votes against?
15:32:41 <TomDN> +0.5
15:32:45 <GK> +0.5
15:32:50 <stephenc> +1
15:33:04 <SamCoppens> 0
15:33:21 <jun> +0.5
15:33:44 <jcheney> +1 seems useful to cover it for symmetry with derivation even if it is redundant
15:33:45 <dgarijo> what does 0.5 mean? Is that support, partial support or that you don't care?
15:33:47 <zednik> +0
15:33:52 <GK> (dropped off audio briefly there)
15:34:24 <GK> @dgarijo I use +0.5 to mean I lean towards, but happy either way.
15:34:24 <Curt> pgroth: fairly positive, ok luc?
15:34:26 <Curt> luc: that's fine.
15:34:28 <TomDN> means that I wouldn't object if it goes the other way
15:34:28 <pgroth> accepted: wasInformedBy included in the core
15:34:33 <dgarijo> @GK: ok, thx!
15:35:02 <Curt> pgroth: want to confirm other terminology 'core' vs. 'extended', other options?
15:35:23 <pgroth> proposed: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs
15:35:27 <TomDN> +1
15:35:28 <Curt> +1
15:35:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:35:29 <SamCoppens> +1
15:35:34 <zednik> +1
15:35:35 <smiles> +1
15:35:40 <GK> +1
15:35:45 <tlebo> +1
15:35:46 <dgarijo> +1
15:35:47 <jcheney> +1
15:35:54 <satya> +1
15:35:57 <Luc> does it mean that prov-o starting points becomes prov-o core?
15:35:59 <jun> +1 (for the DM, right? not in every document)
15:36:11 <pgroth> accepted: Use the term core and extended to categorize the constructs
15:36:39 <Curt> pgroth: these decisions are on prov-dm, what is the impact on prov-o?
15:36:53 <Curt> ... prov-o editors? what do you want to do with this?
15:37:23 <Curt> tlebo: I'm comfortable changing 'starting point' to 'core', but the time concepts are inconsistent with that
15:37:24 <pgroth> q?
15:37:54 <jun> q+ in prov-o we also have terms for qualified patterns
15:37:57 <Zakim> +??P12
15:38:19 <GK> I propose no immediate impact on PROV-O, unless some one raises an issue.  I have no problem with apparent inconsistency, since it doesn't have any technical impact.
15:38:22 <Curt> jun: we have further categorization for other sections, what about those?
15:38:27 <pgroth> +q
15:38:31 <pgroth> q?
15:39:04 <Curt> pgroth: It is reasonable for prov-o to keep starting point and mention these are similar to the prov-dm core
15:39:12 <jun> q-
15:39:22 <Curt> ... different terminology might help limit confusion, even if there is less parallelism
15:39:28 <pgroth> q?
15:39:30 <Luc> q+
15:39:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:39:32 <zednik> q+
15:39:34 <Curt> ... prov-dm doesn't have the qualified terms
15:39:35 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:39:43 <Zakim> -??P12
15:40:09 <Curt> luc: in section 2.1 of prov-dm, it just talks about the key classes/types/associations, it doesn't get into the notion of time
15:40:32 <Curt> ... that comes in much later, 2.1 is just conceptual, doesn't get into syntax
15:40:53 <Curt> ... it doesn't preclude time being part of the core, shouldn't be a problem with prov-o having that in its starting points
15:41:27 <zednik> q-
15:41:28 <GK> Luc: "examples of syntax don't come until section 4"
15:41:37 <pgroth> q?
15:41:39 <Curt> ... with regard to the qualified relations, there are association classes later
15:41:54 <Curt> pgroth: include time in the core points?
15:42:04 <Zakim> +??P5
15:42:25 <Curt> luc: the representation in dm core doesn't really allow discussion of time, but it isn't really a problem to consider time part of that
15:42:45 <pgroth> q?
15:42:50 <GK> WFM
15:42:57 <Curt> pgroth: Keep that terminology?  Core for DM and 'starting points' for prov-o?
15:43:03 <khalidbelhajjame> I thought that Luc was suggesting that the core in dm and starting points in provo are the same
15:43:10 <khalidbelhajjame> which I think is the case
15:43:26 <GK> @khalid - I think he said they were not incosistent, just that
15:43:35 <Curt> pgroth: they aren't the same, since time isn't in the dm core
15:43:58 <Luc> I don't show any attribute in this class diagram
15:44:56 <Luc>
15:44:59 <Luc> q+
15:45:16 <Zakim> -??P5
15:45:33 <Luc>
15:46:08 <Curt> luc: to clarify: activities in figure do show time, but those attributes aren't really discussed in the core
15:46:36 <GK1> - st and et are mandatory, so I think their appearance (as distinct terms) in PROV-O start is entirely consistent as it can be due to nature of RDF representation.
15:46:46 <Curt> pgroth: either we align, or we don't, tim is right, we do know what is part of dm core, maybe we can address alignment later
15:46:53 <jun> +1
15:46:55 <GK> +1
15:46:56 <dgarijo> +1
15:46:56 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:47:01 <SamCoppens> +1
15:47:04 <TomDN> +1
15:47:13 <pgroth> Topic: Name for Responsibility
<pgroth> Summary: Resolved to use the name Delegation for what is currently Responsibility and to leave actedOnBehalfOf as the relation name.
15:47:17 <Curt> pgroth: luc can proceed based on this for now
15:47:29 <tlebo>
15:47:50 <Curt> tlebo: name for responsibility is ambiguous
15:48:32 <Curt> ... tlebo too broad, too general, would like to rename to 'delegation'
15:48:51 <pgroth> q?
15:49:00 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:49:01 <Luc> q+
15:49:09 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:49:20 <Curt> luc: confirm you are now happy with 'delegation'?
15:50:31 <Curt> tlebo: choosing between delegation or OnBehalfOf
15:50:47 <pgroth> q?
15:51:02 <Luc> q+
15:51:02 <pgroth> q?
15:51:06 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:51:06 <Curt> tlebo: I would problem lean toward actedOnBehalfOf, but either that or delegation better than responsibility
15:51:10 <Luc> Responsibility is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.
15:51:16 <Curt> s/problem/probably/
15:51:22 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aadd
15:51:39 <dgarijo> @Tim: so, if we choose delegation, would we change "actedOnBehalfOf" to something like delegated?
15:51:49 <tlebo> @luc, it is strange.
15:51:59 <Curt> luc: behalf sounds strange
15:52:06 <Curt> GK: yes, it does
15:52:22 <Curt> luc: it isn't really used on its own like that
15:52:31 <Curt> pgroth: does it have to be one noun?
15:52:32 <Curt> luc: yes
15:52:33 <tlebo> "Act" ?
15:52:43 <Luc> @tlebo, too close to activity
15:52:50 <pgroth> q?
15:52:52 <tlebo> true
15:53:08 <Luc> q+
15:53:11 <TomDN> "Action" also too close?
15:53:14 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:53:18 <Curt> pgroth: delegation does sound good
15:53:27 <JimMcCusker> "actedFor"?
15:53:46 <tlebo> POI we already have "qualified" v. "unqualifed" naming mismatches, so it's not a show stopper.
15:53:48 <Curt> luc: delegation has a benefit, and clarifies the presentation in both documents
15:53:55 <tlebo> (wasinformedBy and Communication)
15:54:33 <pgroth> proposed: Use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility
15:54:57 <smiles> +1 unless it means changing actedOnBehalfOf to wasDelegatedTo
15:54:59 <tlebo> +1 (it "stands along" better than "Behalf")
15:55:04 <tlebo> s/along/alone/
15:55:05 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:55:06 <GK> +1
15:55:07 <SamCoppens> +1
15:55:09 <dgarijo> +1
15:55:13 <TomDN> +1
15:55:13 <Curt> +1
15:55:15 <jcheney> +.999
15:55:18 <jun> +1 (it seems clearer)
15:55:19 <jcheney> +1
15:55:22 <stainPhone> +1
15:55:40 <Curt> pgroth: simon -- I don't like 'wasDelegatedTo' either
15:55:48 <Luc> q+
15:55:53 <Curt> smiles: actedOnBehalfOf is better
15:55:56 <zednik> +1 (Delegation better than Responsibility)
15:56:07 <Curt> luc: yes, wouldn't want to change it to 'wasDelegatedTo'
15:56:17 <Luc> Delegation is the fact that an agent is accountable for the actions of a "subordinate" agent, in the context of an activity.
15:56:37 <Curt> luc: can I simply replace 'responsibility' with 'delegation'?
15:56:41 <TomDN> +q
15:56:46 <TomDN> zakim, unmute me
15:56:46 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
15:56:47 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:56:52 <pgroth> ack TomDm
15:57:01 <pgroth> ack TomDN
15:57:27 <Curt> TomDN: keyword subordinate doesn't really work -- you can delegate to a peer
15:57:29 <pgroth> q?
15:57:29 <stainPhone> And what is "accountable" now.
15:57:46 <smiles> Yes, I find it fine just replacing Responsibility with Delegation
15:57:49 <GK> "assignment of responsibility" -> "delegation"
15:58:11 <pgroth> q?
15:58:15 <Curt> pgroth: simple search replace should be ok
15:58:31 <GK> I think an editorial pass may be needed.
15:58:32 <zednik> from wikipedia, slightly longer definition
15:58:34 <zednik> Delegation (or deputation) is the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person (normally from a manager to a subordinate) to carry out specific activities. However the person who delegated the work remains accountable for the outcome of the delegated work.
15:58:39 <TomDN> I don't disagree, but it is what we define it is
15:58:54 <tlebo> one can look at "senior" with a localized context - even a peer is "senior" if they give a responsibility to a peer (or if a peer "just does it" without the "senior"  asking).
15:58:54 <Curt>
15:58:54 <TomDN> so basically it is up to us, no?
15:59:01 <Luc> @zednik: I like your text
15:59:06 <stainPhone> Scribe please? I could not hear what pgroth said.
15:59:19 <pgroth> accepted: use Delegation as the name for what is now Responsibility
15:59:36 <pgroth> Topic: Reviewers
<pgroth> Summary: The following working group members agreed to act as reviewers for the forthcoming releases of the various documents. prov-dm: Daniel, Tom, Khalid. prov-o: Sam, Paul, Luc. prov-constraints: Simon, Tom. prov-n: Sam James, Khalid
15:59:53 <stainPhone> Sorry, lag on irc..
15:59:58 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aadd
16:00:02 <Curt> pgroth: who is willing to review when they are ready to go?
16:00:02 <pgroth> prov-dm
16:00:06 <tlebo> @luc, @zednick, I think we should also cover the case where an agent "just does it without asking" for another agent. (altruism)
16:00:06 <dgarijo> I do
16:00:10 <TomDN> I'll review it as well
16:00:11 <khalidbelhajjame> I do
16:00:12 <Curt> +1
16:00:35 <pgroth> reviewers for prov-o
16:00:42 <dgarijo> so, just to be sure, the document to review is : ??
16:00:44 <SamCoppens> +1
16:00:44 <pgroth> i will
16:01:00 <Luc> @tlebo, ok, i will circulate definition suggestions
16:01:02 <dgarijo> @pgroth: ok, thanks
16:01:12 <SamCoppens> i will
16:01:13 <Curt> pgroth: Just picking reviewers to review in 1-2 weeks when documents are ready
16:01:15 <Luc> +1
16:01:31 <pgroth> prov-constraints
16:01:34 <smiles> +1
16:01:43 <TomDN> I'll read this one too
16:01:52 <pgroth> prov-n
16:02:08 <SamCoppens> +1
16:02:14 <jcheney> +1
16:02:17 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:02:45 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:02:45 <dgarijo> bye!
16:02:47 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:02:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:48 <Zakim> -TomDN
16:02:48 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aacc
16:02:48 <Luc> bye
16:02:51 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:02:56 <Luc> @gk
16:02:58 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:02:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth
16:03:01 <Zakim> -??P3
16:03:04 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:03:11 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:03:11 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:03:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro,
16:03:14 <Zakim> ... +44.789.470.aadd
16:03:16 <Zakim> -Luc
16:03:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:03:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:03:39 <Zakim> -jun
16:04:27 <Zakim> -GK1
16:04:28 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:04:28 <Zakim> Attendees were jfuller, TomDN, Luc, +1.518.276.aabb, jun, tlebo, SamCoppens, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, khalidbelhajjame, GK1, +44.131.467.aacc, Sandro, +44.789.470.aadd