Chatlog 2012-08-09

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:51:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-irc
14:51:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:51:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:51:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:38 <trackbot> Date: 09 August 2012
14:51:38 <Luc_> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:51:38 <Zakim> ok, Luc_; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:52:56 <Luc_> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.08.09
14:53:02 <Luc_> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:53:07 <Luc_> Regrets: Paul Groth, Stephan Zednik 
14:53:17 <Luc_> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:53:22 <Luc_> zakim, who is here? 
14:53:22 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc_
14:53:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:57:01 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
14:57:32 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:58:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:58:12 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:58:23 <Zakim> +Luc
14:58:42 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
14:58:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc
14:58:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:58:54 <Zakim> +jcheney
14:59:03 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:59:05 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:59:09 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:00:18 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:00:18 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:00:55 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:00:59 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
15:00:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted)
15:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:01:02 <gk> gk has joined #prov
15:01:07 <Luc_> i am looking for a scribe
15:01:12 <Zakim> +sandro
15:01:30 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaaa
15:01:41 <gk> Luc, I'll scribe when I get online.  Still bringing up apps.
15:01:50 <Luc_> thanks
15:01:54 <Luc_> scribe: gk
15:02:02 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:02:02 <Luc_> @gk, everything is set up for you
15:02:10 <Zakim> +??P19
15:02:10 <Luc_> topic: Admin
15:02:15 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:02:18 <Luc_> @gk can you let me know when ready?
15:02:26 <Luc_> scribe: gk1
15:02:43 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aabb
15:02:48 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
15:02:51 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aabb is me
15:02:51 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:03:07 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:03:18 <Zakim> +TomDN
15:03:38 <Luc_> zakim, who is here?
15:03:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan (muted), sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, ??P19, stain, TomDN
15:03:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see SamCoppens, TomDN, GK1, smiles, gk, hook, Curt, jcheney, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc_, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:03:45 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
15:03:45 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:03:47 <Zakim> +??P30
15:03:51 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:03:51 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:03:52 <stain> I can scribe until GK is connected to the cloud
15:03:56 <GK1> zakim, ??p30 is me
15:03:56 <Zakim> +GK1; got it
15:04:02 <stain> ah
15:04:48 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov
15:04:50 <Zakim> +??P31
15:04:59 <Luc_>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-08-02
15:05:06 <Luc_> proposed: to approve last week's teleconference minutes 
15:05:12 <GK1> 0 (not present)
15:05:14 <Curt> +1
15:05:15 <ivan> +1
15:05:16 <TomDN> +1
15:05:18 <SamCoppens> +1
15:05:26 <CraigTrim> +1
15:05:26 <jcheney> +1
15:05:27 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
15:05:29 <smiles> +1
15:05:31 <stain> +1
15:05:33 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc
15:05:40 <Luc_> accepted: last week's teleconference minutes 
#15:06:20 <Luc_> topic: prov-constraints
15:06:24 <GK1> scribe: gk
15:06:37 <GK1> Topic: PROV-constraints document
15:07:25 <GK1> JamesC: update on situation... Stian's review recvd Monday, identified things needing discussion, most have been resolved, 2-3 outstanding
<luc>Summary: all reviews for prov-constraints have been received. Most major and minor issues have been addressed by editors in the editor's draft and discussed by email. The remaining blocking technical issues were discussed at the teleconference.  In summary consensus was reached, resulting in issues being closed, or in two cases (issue-473: uniqueness of generation and issue-474: link between instance and bundle) a request was made to editors to propose a revised design. Given that not all technical issues had been addressed, the group did not vote for a LCWD, but intends to do so early September.  
<luc>Subtopic: issue 467
<luc>Summary:Stian asked the group to consider whether there was always a trigger for each activity.  The group considered two options: the current design, inferring the existence of a trigger for each activity, or a design where absence of trigger for an activity is accepted. A poll was conducted and the group opted for the first option, which allows for a cleaner formal design. It was recognized that this design does not force users to name and describe triggers, and therefore was not affecting usability. The issue was closed.
15:07:44 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:07:46 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:08:21 <GK1> ... have tried to address points in the draft, some ongoing discussion of resolution with Simon
15:08:51 <GK1> ... should we try and resolve outstanding issues now?
15:09:03 <GK1> Luc: we could review eachj outsatdning issue now...
15:09:05 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12
15:09:25 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467
15:09:57 <GK1> JamesC: re; http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/467 should we infer existence of trigger?  
15:10:59 <GK1> Stian: if an activity is starts and ends, do we require/assume existence of a trigger; seems odd as it may not apply to all activities.
15:11:25 <GK1> ... can lead to chicken-and-egg - where to triggers come from?
15:11:30 <GK1> s/to/do/
15:11:41 <Luc_> q?
15:12:17 <stain> To be clear, is it correct to say that the options are:
15:12:18 <stain> 1. [status quo] - allow expanding the trigger parameter to an existential variable denoting an unknown (but definite) trigger entity
15:12:20 <stain> 2. change the trigger parameter to be non-expandable, so that "-" means "absent trigger", as with plan and other non-expandables.
15:12:26 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:12:35 <GK1> ... not entirely sure which way this should be resolved; two options (1) trigger always exists and may be undefined, or (2) trigger may not exist.  leaning to (2).
15:12:42 <Luc_> q?
15:12:56 <Luc_> q+
15:13:18 <Luc_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0076.html
15:13:30 <Luc_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/311 
15:13:52 <Luc_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b9d2157889f7/model/optional.html
15:13:59 <stain> q+
15:14:01 <GK1> Luc: constraint document is as it is... regarding 3.1.1, and meaning of optional arguments
15:14:34 <GK1> ... 3rd of above links says existence is implied
15:14:57 <Luc_> q?
15:15:00 <GK1> ... sop this seems like reopening an issue previously closed?  is there new information?
15:15:00 <Luc_> ack luc
15:15:55 <Luc_> q?
15:16:02 <GK1> Stian: this is different because it's about identifying optional arguments; what are the consequences of all these things existing?  This is clearer now we have constraints document.
15:16:08 <Luc_> ack sti
15:16:13 <Luc_> ack sta
15:16:23 <GK1> q+ to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named
15:16:33 <Luc_> q?
15:16:54 <Luc_> ack gk
15:16:54 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to commetn about real numbers - many exist that are not named
15:17:00 <stain> @GK - right, PROV-Constraint don't force them to be named, just to exist
15:17:14 <GK1> GK: lots of real numbers exist for which there are no names... is this a similar issue?
15:17:25 <Luc_> q?
15:17:29 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
15:17:29 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
15:17:30 <jcheney> Q+
15:17:32 <TomDN> +q
15:17:35 <stain> I suggested a strawman poll
15:18:36 <GK1> jcheney: if the trigger parameter can denote something is absent... four other things line that (plan and 3 others) ... not implied if not specified.
15:19:10 <TomDN> -q
15:19:19 <Luc_> in effect, it's like having two relation  startWithTrigger and startWithoutTrigger
15:19:40 <GK1> ... all of these introduce a slight (formal?) complication needing to be specific when mentioning a constraint/association, can parameter be a null placeholder; needs additional editing of inferences.
15:20:15 <Luc_> ack jch
15:20:17 <jcheney> q-
15:20:17 <stain> @jcheney I agree #2 does not make it prettier :'(
15:20:18 <GK1> ... trigger inferrable if activity is specified an option, ... all this doable but may have unanticipated consequences.
15:20:23 <Luc_> q?
15:20:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:20:40 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:20:40 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:20:52 <Luc_> q?
15:21:15 <stain> but I think the concern is what the model should allow, not how easy to read the (already hard) PROV-Constraint document is
15:21:47 <GK1> Luc: also consider purpose of inferences... for validating provenance, not necessarily used outside.
15:22:30 <Luc_> q?
15:22:37 <GK1> Stian: are there too many inferences?  some of them always make sense.  PROV-constraints says...
15:23:25 <Luc_> q?
15:24:19 <GK1> GK: would prefer more compact option
15:24:20 <stain> my question is semantically - is there a problem with enforcing the existince of triggers for every activity start and end?
15:24:37 <GK1> Luc: concern is with always assumingthe existence of a trigger.
15:25:32 <Luc_> q?
15:26:18 <GK1> Stian: don't see any real complications, but does it reflect the boundaries of the PROV model?
15:27:43 <GK1> ... e.g. queue of cars on motorway, what triggered this?  Does it make sense, philosophically, for these to be part of the model?
15:28:18 <GK1> q+ to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger
15:29:12 <Luc_> q?
15:29:17 <stain> @Luc right, like an optional parameter would be done in Java and wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,-,-,-) 
15:29:22 <stain> without usage/gen/act
15:30:01 <Luc_> @gk, the trigger is the combination of all them
15:30:02 <stain> @GK, the trigger entity could be a collection though ;)
15:30:03 <jcheney> but there is no uniqueness constraint on triggers currently
15:30:08 <TomDN> @GK: just use a collection of cars as trigger?
15:30:22 <TomDN> @stain: you beat me to it ;)
15:30:28 <stain> @jcheney yes, by the merging rules
15:30:43 <GK1> @stian: what about weather factor?
15:30:44 <Luc_> option 1: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity
15:30:55 <stain> 0
15:31:00 <GK1> +1
15:31:02 <smiles> +1
15:31:02 <TomDN> +1
15:31:03 <ivan> 0
15:31:08 <SamCoppens> +1
15:31:09 <jun> 0
15:31:12 <hook> 0
15:31:14 <jcheney> @stian: ah yes, uniqueness of start events + key constraint does it
15:31:14 <Curt> +1
15:31:15 <stain> @gk you'll need entity(theworld) as trigger then.. 
15:31:20 <satya> 0.5
15:31:27 <jcheney> 0 (either way fine)
15:31:36 <GK1> @stian - OK, why not?
15:32:20 <Luc_> option 2: change current formalization, do not assume existence of a trigger for activity
15:32:28 <stain> +1
15:32:29 <GK1> 0
15:32:30 <ivan> 0
15:32:31 <smiles> 0
15:32:31 <SamCoppens> 0
15:32:34 <hook> 0
15:32:37 <Curt> 0
15:32:40 <TomDN> 0
15:32:44 <jcheney> -0 (don't wanna do it but not going to block it)
15:32:49 <satya> 0
15:32:57 <jun> +0 (This is really philosophical)
15:32:59 <GK1> Yeah, -0
15:33:46 <Luc_> proposed: is to keep currrent formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity
15:33:52 <jcheney> +1
15:33:54 <GK1> Staw pole indicates staying with current fortmalization, Stian is Ok with this
15:33:54 <TomDN> +1
15:33:58 <SamCoppens> +1
15:34:00 <smiles> +1
15:34:01 <Curt> +1
15:34:01 <jun> +1
15:34:02 <stain> +1
15:34:02 <GK1> s/pole/poll (doh)
15:34:06 <GK1> +1
15:34:06 <hook> +1
15:34:09 <ivan> 0
15:34:16 <satya> +1
15:34:21 <Luc_> accepted:  to keep current formalization, assuming existence of trigger for any activity
15:34:38 <stain> I have closed ISSUE-467
15:34:42 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/452
15:34:43 <GK1> Next issue
15:34:55 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 452
<luc>Summary: this issue is concerned with optional plans in wasAssociatedWith. It was agreed that comments written by James to clarify whether a plan exists or whether it is absent were satisfactory. The issue was closed.
15:35:45 <stain> 15/16 missing (but has remark)
15:35:59 <Luc_> q?
15:36:04 <stain> example at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-constraints.html#wasAssociatedWith-ordering_text (47(
15:36:16 <GK1> jcheney: "what is plan association inference" - where there are "not-expanable things" in inferences, ... (missed detail) ... does anyone have a problem
15:36:18 <Luc_> ackgk
15:36:22 <Luc_> ack gk
15:36:22 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say the bigger problem for me is that there is A unique trigger
15:36:45 <GK1> stian: not a blocking thing, inferences 15, 16 different.
15:37:09 <GK1> jcheney: will fix this, send email, and hopefully we'll close
15:37:16 <Luc_> accepted: close issue 452
15:37:26 <GK1> Next issue
15:37:27 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/459
15:38:41 <GK1> Catch-all for reviews... asking for feedback from reviewers.  Some reviewers on hols, but apart from Simon don't think there are any blocking issues remaining.
15:38:52 <GK1> ^^jcheney:
15:38:56 <satya> sorry, have to leave now
15:39:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
15:39:30 <Luc_> q?
15:39:30 <GK1> jcheney: some things in reviews have not been fixed yet - some figiures, non-technical text, happy to leave it pending review with no technical issues outstanding
15:39:38 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:39:49 <GK1> luc: we'll leave it that
15:39:50 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/473
15:39:54 <GK1> Next issue
15:40:11 <Zakim> +??P3
15:40:12 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 473
<luc>Summary: Simon raised this issue because according to the current design the primer example is not valid. Indeed, it contains an entity (chart 1), generated by two activities (compile and illustrate). For Simon, the generation event is unique, and one activity is "part" of the other.  This is rejected by the current design: uniqueness property and key property for generation.  It was recognized that Simon's example mixes descriptions at two levels of abstraction (compile is abstract vs illustrate which is detailed). This example also occurs in workflow executions, involving subworkflows. It was felt that these examples should not be considered invalid by prov-constraints, though validators may consider raising a warning when such a pattern occurs. An alternate design was not available for discussion and editors are invited to come back to the group with a proposal for discussion.
15:40:50 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me
15:40:51 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:41:04 <GK1> jcheney: simon ..., is everyone happy with unique generation event for each entity; then the associated activity is also unique?
15:41:21 <Luc_> q?
15:41:31 <stain> (this is also related to activities part-of activities)
15:42:03 <GK1> SimonM: original concern was that thetext mismatched the constraints, but that is resolved - every entity has a unique generating activity, not just unique event.
15:42:58 <dgarijo> @stain: I am late, so I wouldn't want to raise things that you have already discussed. Have you discussed the entity being generated by 2 activities at 2 levels of granularity?
15:43:00 <GK1> problem why an entities' generation coming from one single activity - would make primer examp,e invalid, as multiple levels of granularity are expressed.
15:43:14 <Luc_> q+
15:43:39 <stain> @dgarijo - no, put yourself on the queue!
15:44:07 <Luc_> q-
15:44:10 <GK1> ... could have two entities, related as specialized, linked to different levels of granularity.
15:44:27 <Luc_> q?
15:44:27 <stain> in workflow export we ended up with alternateOf for this, e1a, e1b, e1c which are generated by nested acitvities A, B and C (which made queries hard)
15:44:29 <GK1> ... implications of this constraint need justifying
15:44:52 <GK1> jcheney: easiet resolution would be to remove the constraint.
15:45:11 <dgarijo> q+
15:45:30 <GK1> Luc: concerned that if removed, some inferences around derivation may be no longer valid
15:46:26 <GK1> jcheney: taking away an inference won;'t make other inferences incorrect, but maybe non-derivable
15:46:50 <GK1> the uniqueness constraint is effectively saying "don't mix levels of abstraction"
15:46:58 <GK1> ^^Luc:
15:47:38 <Luc_> q?
15:47:56 <GK1> Luc: don't think we limit expressiveness, just providing structure - good for "proper" provenance?  Does it matter if the primer has "not proper" provenance?
15:48:56 <GK1> SimonM: does this need different instanbces for different levels of abstraction?  Can live with that, but it seems surprising (?)
15:49:02 <Luc_> q?
15:49:25 <Luc_> q/
15:49:31 <Luc_> ack dg
15:50:32 <GK1> dgarijo: other places this happens - entities in DC mapping - all the steps that comprise the proiduction of an entity
15:51:10 <GK1> ... in scientific workflows, complicated to query model if upper level activities generate different entities than lower level activities.
15:51:12 <stain> q+
15:51:17 <Luc_> ack st
15:52:12 <dgarijo> @gk: thx
15:52:32 <GK1> stian: ended up creating multiple entities corresponding to appearance at b"different doors" in a workflow
15:52:35 <jcheney> q+
15:53:38 <Luc_> ack jch
15:54:57 <dgarijo> @jcheney: +1!
15:55:26 <GK1> jcheney: seems to me that people want a validity checker - what's more useful is catching things that are definitely nonsense, or probably indicative of problem.  Uniqueness seems to be in the latter category.  We should be focusing on catching nonsense rather than limiting what people can do.
15:55:57 <dgarijo> I really like the Ok vs Warning vs Invalid.
15:55:58 <GK1> ... what are the consequences of being invalid?
15:56:47 <stain> I supposed it would be to drop the KEY property of wasGeneratedBy
15:57:15 <GK1> Straw poll... status quo vs dropping unique generation requirement?
15:57:37 <stain> Dropping key property: so that   wasGeneratedBy(id1; e1, a1, t1)  wasGeneratedBy(id2; e1, a2, t2)  would be allowed.    (a2 <> a1, t1 <> t2 ?)
15:58:17 <dgarijo> If we detect that an enitity is being generated by 2 activities, we could generate a warning, as James proposed.
15:58:26 <stain> for instance "When are you born?" - it depends on how you measure which activity
15:58:32 <GK1> jcheney: need to think about consequences of options
15:58:59 <Luc_> option 1: keep generation unique and key property on generation
15:59:02 <smiles> -1
15:59:06 <jcheney> 0
15:59:06 <dgarijo> -1
15:59:08 <jun> -1
15:59:10 <stephenc> -1
15:59:14 <stain> 0
15:59:16 <SamCoppens> 0
15:59:19 <GK1> -0
15:59:21 <Curt> 0
15:59:23 <hook> 0
15:59:24 <TomDN> +0
15:59:24 <ivan> 0
15:59:50 <Luc_> option 2: design a solution that relaxes uniqueness of generation
15:59:54 <smiles> +1
15:59:55 <dgarijo> +1
16:00:01 <jun> +1
16:00:01 <jcheney> 0
16:00:02 <TomDN> +1
16:00:06 <stephenc> +1 
16:00:06 <Curt> +1
16:00:07 <SamCoppens> +1
16:00:08 <GK1> +0
16:00:15 <hook> +0
16:00:16 <stain> +1
16:00:59 <dgarijo> yes
16:00:59 <GK1> Luc: Indication that we need to think about option to relax uniqueness of generation
16:01:08 <dgarijo> like generating a warning.
16:01:15 <Luc_> q?
16:01:16 <smiles> yes - but could be connected to levels of abstraction
16:01:30 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/474
16:01:32 <GK1> hmmm... I don't think we should get too far into implementations
16:01:34 <stain> I think adding something about activity abstractions would help
16:01:39 <Luc_> subtopic: issue 474
<luc>Summary: The link between bundle and instance is not clear, and editors are invited to clarify it.
16:02:49 <GK1> smiles: lack of clarity what is link between bundles and instances?
16:03:04 <GK1> ... text seems to make different assumptions in diufferent places
16:03:33 <Luc_> q?
16:04:01 <Luc_> can somebody take over from gk?
16:04:14 <GK1> jcheney: text here was written at last minute, may need clarification
16:04:15 <TomDN> (for reference, our definition of instance in 1.2: A PROV instance is a set of PROV statements, possibly including bundles, or named sets of statements. For example, such a PROV instance could be a .provn document, the result of a query, a triple store containing PROV statements in RDF, etc.)
16:04:51 <GK1> ... an instance may contain bundles
16:04:55 <Zakim> - +1.661.382.aacc
16:05:09 <GK1> ... initially, talk about instances that are single (unnamed) bundles
16:05:17 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov
16:05:26 <GK1> ... deal with named bundles independently, in same way
16:05:46 <GK1> ... statements inside a bundle is an instance
16:06:15 <GK1> ... collection of statements without identifier - currently calling this a top level bundle
16:06:45 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaaa
16:07:10 <TomDN> Would (b) be solved by calling it the "toplevel instance"?
16:07:11 <Luc_> prov-n has a top level bundle, i think that's what influenced this design
16:07:11 <GK1> smiles: per DM, bundle has identifier so we can express provenance-of-provenance ...
16:07:18 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
16:08:16 <GK1> jcheney: three things - blob of provenance (in  whatever form); a named set of statements (bundle); a set of statements.  have used two terms for these three things, probably confuses.
16:08:53 <GK1> ... will try to come up with less confusing terminology
16:09:28 <jcheney> q+
16:09:41 <GK1> Luc: summary - it appears editors have homework to do on two issues - biundles and generation uniqueness.  Can't really proceed for vote yet.
16:09:56 <smiles> I don't think the bundles thing is a blocking issue
16:10:07 <GK1> jcheney: could release as *a* working draft, it's been over 3 months.
16:10:24 <GK1> Luc: getting LC draft ready is more important.
16:11:17 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
16:11:17 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
16:11:38 <GK1> Luc: hoping for LC vote early September - is there any point in producing a WD now, then LC draft in september?
16:11:59 <GK1> ... given lots of ppl are on vacation
16:12:05 <GK1> Sandro: concurs
#16:12:38 <Luc_> topic: Tele-Conference Schedule over summer  
16:12:55 <GK1> Topic: teleconference schedule over summer
<luc>Summary: Both Paul and Luc are absent on August 16, 23, and 30.  It was agreed that there will be no teleconference on August 16 and 30. The next teleconference will be on August 23, chaired by Ivan. It is foreseen that the August 23 call will be used to discuss the xml schema design and the implementation of constraints using semantic web technologies.
16:13:11 <GK1> luc: Paul and Luc away for rest of August.
16:13:14 <stain> we can argue about wasGeneratedBy... ;)
16:13:27 <GK1> GK: I probably can't make next 2 weeks anyway.
16:13:31 <jcheney> i think the remaining issues can get done over email...
16:13:56 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:13:56 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:14:07 <Curt> I talked with Stephan yesterday (he's on a plane right now).  We might want to have an informal XML call, but it needn't be a formal working group teleconference..
16:16:17 <jun> We will still have separate prov-o calls, in which implementation of constraints can be discussed
16:16:23 <GK1> Curt(?): happy to chair informal meeing on 23rd; would help if Luc and/or Paul can sent out agenda
16:16:33 <GK1> Luc: will circulate agenda for 23rd.
16:16:41 <Curt> [not curt]
16:16:47 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:16:47 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
16:16:48 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:16:48 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:16:49 <Zakim> -TomDN
16:16:49 <Zakim> -jun
16:16:49 <GK1> Luc: we'll speak agin formally in September 
16:16:50 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
16:16:50 <Zakim> -??P19
16:16:52 <Zakim> -Luc
16:16:54 <Zakim> -sandro
16:16:56 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:16:58 <Zakim> -stain
16:17:01 <Zakim> -??P31
16:17:13 <Luc_> rrsagent, set log public 
16:17:15 <GK1> @Luc - I'm guessing you'll take it from here?
16:17:25 <Luc_> @GK, yes, thanks a lot for scribing!
16:17:33 <Luc_> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:17:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/09-prov-minutes.html Luc_
16:17:38 <Luc_> trackbot, end telcon 
16:17:38 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc_, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:17:43 <GK1> OK, bye
16:17:47 <Zakim> -GK1
16:17:48 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:17:48 <Zakim> Attendees were Curt_Tilmes, Luc, jcheney, Ivan, sandro, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK1, +1.661.382.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, jun, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aadd
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000384