IRC log of prov on 2012-02-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:43:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:43:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:43:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:43:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
15:43:34 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:43:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:43:34 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
15:43:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:43:35 [trackbot]
Date: 23 February 2012
15:43:36 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:43:49 [Luc]
15:43:59 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
15:44:05 [Luc]
Scribe: stain
15:44:20 [Luc]
hi Stian, thanks for volunteering!
15:44:27 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:54:29 [Luc]
@macted, any feedback on prov-dm proposed restructuring. Can you share some feedback?
15:56:27 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
15:57:56 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:58:19 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:58:26 [Zakim]
15:58:26 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:30 [Helena]
Helena has joined #prov
15:58:47 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:58:59 [Zakim]
15:59:03 [Zakim]
15:59:12 [pgroth]
hi sandro are you on today?
15:59:30 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:59:42 [stain]
Zakim, who is noisy?
15:59:46 [Zakim]
15:59:53 [Luc]
hi stian, it's all set up, are you ready?
15:59:55 [stain]
16:00:00 [Zakim]
stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Curt_Tilmes (40%), [IPcaller.a] (18%), [IPcaller] (42%), Luc (66%)
16:00:02 [Luc]
great, thanks for volunteering
16:00:04 [stain]
not sure if zakim recognized me, but that's not important
16:00:16 [Zakim]
16:00:17 [ericstephan]
ericstephan has joined #prov
16:00:24 [stephenc]
stephenc has joined #prov
16:00:28 [Luc]
topic: admin
16:00:36 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:00:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.723.aaaa
16:00:48 [Luc]
paul, should we get f2f2 minutes approved today?
16:01:08 [Paolo]
for SIP users: can we connect to I can't
16:01:14 [Paolo]
16:01:22 [Zakim]
16:01:24 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
16:01:54 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
16:01:55 [stain]
Luc: Call now starting.
16:02:07 [stain]
Luc: Review PROV-DM and PROV-O
16:02:22 [stain]
Luc: release of documents.. if time, we'll look at proposal for binary relations for 5th working draft (of DM?)
16:02:24 [Luc]
PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon:
16:02:26 [tlebo]
16:02:31 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:02:34 [stain]
16:02:40 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:41 [ericstephan]
16:02:42 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:02:43 [Curt]
16:02:50 [GK]
16:02:51 [stephenc]
16:02:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.967.aabb
16:02:59 [pgroth]
+q to comment on f2f minutes
16:03:00 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:03:09 [pgroth]
q+ to comment on f2f minutes
16:03:18 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon:
16:03:21 [Luc]
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:03:57 [stain]
Paul: Just finished the minutes - but we can't do approval now as people have not read it yet
16:03:59 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:04:00 [jun]
zakim, ??p27 is me
16:04:10 [stain]
... the minutes of the F2F2
16:04:12 [Zakim]
16:04:16 [stain]
... apologies for delay
16:04:26 [Zakim]
16:04:27 [stain]
Topic: Review of actions
16:04:35 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:04:47 [pgroth]
16:04:54 [stain]
Luc: Action-55 was reopened to complete OWL file - this seems now done and can be closed. We'll review it.
16:05:13 [stain]
Luc: Action on Paul to propose proposal,
16:05:13 [Zakim]
16:05:17 [Zakim]
16:05:20 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:05:23 [Zakim]
16:05:27 [stain]
Paul: Talked about it last week, and to talk about it in two weeks time (ie. next week?)
16:05:29 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
16:05:37 [stain]
is that 2 weeks from today or last week?
16:05:38 [Luc]
16:05:56 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to comment on f2f minutes and to comment on f2f minutes
16:06:10 [stain]
Luc: ACTION-61 to update prov-sem
16:06:37 [stain]
James: Travelling next week, so will have it done before then, not yet done
16:06:41 [Zakim]
16:06:41 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
16:06:44 [GK]
@paul I should be in a position to be a little responsive on PAQ issues next week
16:06:48 [stain]
^^.. action on Paul was ACTION-57
16:06:54 [Zakim]
16:07:02 [Zakim]
16:07:02 [stain]
Luc: ACTION-63 Structure of HTML file for PROV-O document - postponed
16:07:09 [Luc]
TOPIC: PROV-DM Simplification: Reviewer feedback
16:07:35 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
16:07:40 [stain]
Luc: Feedback on PROV-DM simplification. Last week we released 3 separate documents, one called PROV-DM, one PROV-DM constraints, and one PROV-ASN
16:07:47 [stain]
Luc: We lined up reviewers and invited for review of docs
16:07:55 [Zakim]
16:07:57 [stain]
Luc: to identify/decide a number of issues that are in the agenda
16:08:00 [GK]
In agenda: - but I reviewed the wrong document; I've just posted a brief update
16:08:08 [stain]
16:08:23 [stain]
Luc: Try to reach consensus - if possible - links to emails sent by reviewers
16:08:30 [stain]
Luc: perhaps a quick summary from each of them?
16:08:35 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:08:41 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:08:41 [stain]
Luc: about if restructuring of docs are addressing points
16:08:53 [stain]
Luc: Tim first
16:09:10 [stain]
Tim: Feel that new draft has dramatically adressed the concerns.
16:09:17 [stain]
Tim: Sent email this morning with detailed comments
16:09:27 [stain]
Luc: Missed link to that email
16:09:29 [pgroth]
16:09:45 [pgroth]
i'll edit the agenda
16:09:46 [stain]
16:10:01 [stain]
Eric: Document was over-all, great job of meeting simplification objective
16:10:05 [stain]
16:10:13 [Zakim]
16:10:22 [stain]
Daniel: Have not finished whole document, made it to the middle.. made some notes that I was planning to send
16:10:35 [stain]
Daniel: Try to take my W3C hat off, and try to identify what is confusing to me
16:10:41 [stain]
Daniel: Will send small details in separate emails
16:10:49 [Zakim]
16:10:50 [stain]
Luc: What about meeting simplification objectives from F2F?
16:11:14 [stain]
Daniel: Think that it more or less has accomplished this, but not gone through the whole doc. Much clearer now.
16:11:29 [stain]
Luc: MacTed? Might not be on call yet
16:11:29 [pgroth]
16:11:46 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P13 is probably me
16:11:46 [Zakim]
+dgarijo?; got it
16:11:54 [Zakim]
16:12:08 [stain]
Curt: First part easier to read, many things still confuse me. Second and Third, mechanics work well.
16:12:08 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:12:11 [stain]
16:12:17 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:12:24 [kai_]
kai_ has joined #prov
16:12:24 [stain]
Sam: Find the overall structure very clear, nice separation of concerns
16:12:27 [stain]
16:12:44 [stain]
Sam: All 3 well written. Sent list of some remarks. (to whome?)
16:12:53 [stain]
Sam: has also reviewed part 2 and 3, which I'll send
16:12:55 [tlebo]
(back onto IRC, @luc, my email with comments is )
16:13:02 [pgroth]
sam I don't see your email
16:13:05 [stain]
Sam: Can recognize this person to become editor of draft
16:13:23 [zednik_]
zednik_ has joined #prov
16:13:25 [Paolo]
16:13:26 [SamCoppens]
Excuse me, I have sent it to Luc
16:13:27 [stain]
Jun: First time I read this document - did not read previous version, and so have no comparison
16:13:31 [Paolo]
16:13:32 [stain]
SamCoppens: sorry :
16:13:40 [stain]
16:13:58 [stain]
Jun: To summarise, don't think the simplify document.. (?)
16:13:59 [Zakim]
16:14:14 [stain]
Jun: Not ready for editorial draft at the moment
16:14:22 [stain]
Jun: 1) Lack of context and explanation
16:14:34 [stain]
... Reading it for the first time it was difficult to follow
16:14:35 [SamCoppens]
My remark was for Paul
16:14:42 [tlebo]
glad we're getting @jun's fresh eyes :-)
16:14:54 [stain]
... Second paul I want to say is, I did not make a clean/clear explanation about.. provenance.
16:15:01 [stain]
... I'm just referring to minutes of F2F meeting
16:15:09 [Luc]
16:15:11 [stain]
... not exchanged in current draft (?)
16:15:19 [stain]
... Does not help me explain how this reach the new goal.
16:15:41 [stain]
... Luc might tell me how this structure, part1/part2/part3, how it is reflected in part 1
16:15:45 [pgroth]
jun which document did you read?
16:15:45 [stain]
16:15:58 [stain]
(I'm very confused)
16:16:06 [Zakim]
16:16:14 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:16:22 [stain]
Luc: Many things not consistent -f or instance figure not consistent with section with overview
16:16:26 [stain]
^^ Jun:
16:16:38 [stain]
Jun: Mixed terminology, elements/edges/properties/classes
16:16:54 [stain]
Jun: I don't mind which terminology we use, as long as it's used precisely, but that is not the case in this document
16:17:01 [pgroth]
16:17:10 [stain]
Jun: There's lots of references to other sections not existing anymore, terminology that might become obsolete.. too
16:17:18 [stain]
... too early to raise comments on those now?
16:17:24 [stain]
... Perhaps focus on something different?
16:17:34 [stain]
... Interested in Luc's feedback
16:17:43 [Luc]
16:17:51 [stain]
Luc: Have responded to your email. We'll ask the reviewers what they have addressed.
16:18:00 [stain]
Luc: ^^ is the second working draft
16:18:22 [stain]
Luc: what we are standing is wether the document as it stands can be used as an editors draft
16:18:26 [stain]
(is that a different document?)
16:18:38 [pgroth]
point of clarification
16:18:40 [stain]
Luc: If you believe that we should not do this, then what are the blocking issues form your point
16:19:00 [stain]
Jun: Not quite covered in my email - how this new structure corresponds to the scruffy and precise notation
16:19:07 [Paolo]
16:19:16 [stain]
Luc: I think these are terms we've used informally, not used specifically
16:19:21 [pgroth]
16:19:22 [Curt]
scruffy = you forgot to read part II
16:19:29 [GK]
(I agree that "scruffy" and "precise" are informal)
16:19:30 [stain]
Luc: We have defined a vocabulary, those using the vocabulary will make scruffy provenance
16:19:34 [pgroth]
+1 curt
16:19:47 [stain]
Luc: If you follow the constraints of part 2, then it is a more refined provenance, more precise about what it is asserting.
16:20:01 [stain]
Jun: So you are saying that this new working draft is related to an even longer document..?
16:20:02 [Paolo]
@Jun: yes!
16:20:18 [stain]
Luc: Yes, all those 3 documents were 1 big document
16:20:23 [Luc]
16:20:28 [stain]
Luc: We've tried to also simplify the presentation
16:20:36 [stain]
16:20:47 [stain]
Paolo: Trying to locate an email I sent to Jun..
16:20:50 [Luc]
@Curt, I like this!
16:21:04 [stain]
Paolo: Main point is that according to the process/goals we put in place at F2F
16:21:05 [pgroth]
16:21:09 [stain]
Paolo: simplify what was there
16:21:10 [Luc]
ack paolo
16:21:28 [stain]
... question is, what that achived to an extent that we can discard the previous version
16:21:32 [stain]
... and use this as a new baseline
16:21:36 [stain]
... that is the question.
16:21:58 [stain]
... So Jun, I would ask you to look at the current baseline with that perspective - which is different than coming from blank
16:22:15 [stain]
... we're aware that that's what you promised.. so question is, is this a sufficiently good baseline
16:22:24 [stain]
... but then you need to know what the old massive document was
16:22:53 [stain]
... in my email, this scruffy vs proper is a placeholder to say is there something we can isolate as essential (part 1) and the rest in part 2.
16:23:05 [stain]
... this split should give a simplification - not labelling everything as scruffy or proper
16:23:10 [Luc]
16:23:20 [stain]
... just a way to encode a progression from simplest possible to be useful, to more sophisticated use
16:23:30 [stain]
... That is the email I think I sent 30 minutes ago
16:23:53 [stain]
Jun: I think you managed to convince me, I must apologize. Where we started is this massive long document.
16:24:11 [stain]
Jun: so this is an encouraging first step. And I hope my comments can be used for consideration further in the editorial process
16:24:20 [stain]
Jun: So YES, it could be a baseline for further work
16:24:28 [Luc]
16:24:36 [stain]
Paolo: Some things pointed out not taken into account - like what is this about. That is coming.
16:24:47 [stain]
pgroth: about process..
16:25:10 [stain]
pgroth: we've had pretty sophisticated reviews, need to figure out how to distill these to editorial issues, and 'real' issues on concepts
16:25:16 [stain]
16:25:20 [Luc]
16:25:23 [Luc]
ack pgr
16:25:28 [GK]
16:25:29 [stain]
GK: spent all morning reviewing the wrong document
16:25:35 [stain]
GK: posted a brief update ^^
16:25:47 [stain]
GK: first comment: New document is definetly moving in right direction
16:25:55 [stain]
GK: some comments from my review this morning still apply
16:26:06 [stain]
GK: but many have been addressed, so I think this is something we can build on
16:26:15 [stain]
GK: rest of the issues are technical issues
16:26:22 [stain]
GK: which we'll discuss as we get on with it
16:26:36 [stain]
Luc: Sorry you spent so much time reviewing WD3 - the wrong document
16:26:44 [Luc]
16:26:49 [stain]
Luc: for the working draft it would be good to get a number of resolutions approved
16:26:58 [stain]
Luc: have anyone else reviewed the documents and want to provide feedback?
16:27:24 [stain]
(Stian: I've had a quick look at part 1, which looks good, but no review)
16:27:40 [stain]
Luc: Want a clear statement from working group that we want the document split into 3
16:27:52 [stain]
Luc: we need to do this to get a transition request to get the new documents approved
16:27:54 [GK]
Just to clarify: I think there are both editorial and technical issues to address in DM
16:28:01 [pgroth]
16:28:02 [stain]
Luc: need to work with sandro and ivan to make a strong case for W3C
16:28:06 [Luc]
16:28:11 [stain]
Luc: to have that resolution agreed..
16:28:15 [stain]
pgroth: is that really the case?
16:28:18 [Curt]
Is this 3 documents or 3 parts of 1 document?
16:28:25 [GK]
q+ to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?
16:28:32 [stain]
pgroth: Sandro?
16:28:45 [stain]
sandro: not a strong case.. if the WG resolves that it's the right thing to do, we can make it happen
16:28:51 [Luc]
PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
16:28:59 [stain]
sandro: question is what happens with the older one.. should these have the same URLs?
16:29:14 [jun]
@curt and gk, that's what confused me:) and now i understood their relationship
16:29:14 [stain]
Luc: Propose to keep same name for PROV-DM
16:29:18 [stain]
sandro: yes, that solves that issue
16:29:25 [stain]
Luc: propose two new names.
16:29:34 [stain]
sandro: just consider them as new working drafts
16:29:46 [stain]
Luc: but procedurally we need to make sure it's the same deliverable, for recommendations, etc
16:29:48 [Curt]
3 URLs = 3 html documents
16:29:50 [Zakim]
16:29:53 [stain]
sandro: yes, same deliverable in 3 documents
16:30:03 [Luc]
16:30:04 [stain]
Luc: if we are happy with this proposal, can you express your support?
16:30:08 [pgroth]
16:30:09 [stain]
16:30:15 [stain]
16:30:17 [Zakim]
16:30:21 [stain]
GK: Do we need to split it into 3 documents?
16:30:22 [Zakim]
16:30:42 [Luc]
16:30:43 [stain]
GK: Division of material in part 1, part 2 in particular, (part 3 is useful), do we then need 3 separate documents? OR structure it within a single document?
16:30:45 [pgroth]
16:30:51 [stain]
Luc: my recommendation as editor is 3 documents
16:30:56 [pgroth]
+1 to 3 documents
16:30:58 [stain]
Luc: which gives the entry points to DM much lighter
16:31:07 [stain]
Luc: many are not interested in constraints, just want a description
16:31:11 [stain]
Luc: a long document is daunthing
16:31:22 [Luc]
16:31:24 [stain]
Luc: external feedback from Tom Baker and IVan both suggest splitting deliverable in separate documents
16:31:26 [Luc]
ack gk
16:31:26 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?
16:31:27 [stain]
16:31:30 [Curt]
+1 make 3 separate documents, include introduction/scope in each describing there relationship clearly
16:31:32 [Zakim]
16:31:32 [jcheney]
afk, supportive of splitting (for now at least)
16:31:35 [Luc]
ack pgro
16:31:38 [Paolo]
+1 for spliitng
16:31:43 [stain]
pgroth: also think we should have 3 docs
16:31:45 [Curt]
16:31:46 [stain]
hang on
16:31:49 [Luc]
ack st
16:32:20 [pgroth]
16:32:26 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, [] is me
16:32:26 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:32:30 [Luc]
ack pg
16:32:38 [stain]
stain: could it not just be 3 html pages on one document (same base URI)?
16:32:46 [stain]
stain: some recommendations do that
16:32:57 [Luc]
PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
16:33:08 [GK]
@paul +1 (easiest way in w3c process; editor's discretion)
16:33:15 [stain]
stain: if it is to be 3 separate documents, then they should be valuable on its own, say referring to PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS alone. Don't have a view if that 's the case or not
16:33:27 [stain]
Luc: we can come back to working group if needed
16:33:28 [pgroth]
good with me
16:33:31 [stain]
Luc: Express your support
16:33:33 [dgarijo]
16:33:33 [smiles]
16:33:33 [GK]
16:33:34 [stain]
16:33:35 [Paolo]
16:33:35 [stain]
(or not)
16:33:36 [ericstephan]
16:33:36 [Curt]
16:33:36 [SamCoppens]
16:33:37 [sandro]
16:33:39 [satya]
16:33:41 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:33:43 [zednik_]
16:33:52 [jun]
16:34:05 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
16:34:35 [stain]
Luc: Second point is to agree or not if the document as it stands can become editorial draft
16:34:49 [Luc]
PROPOSED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft.
16:34:51 [stain]
Luc: that does not mean we have to release them as editors draft.. but they are the current editors draft according to w3c terminology
16:34:59 [Paolo]
16:35:00 [SamCoppens]
16:35:01 [Curt]
16:35:01 [dgarijo]
16:35:02 [jun]
16:35:02 [ericstephan]
16:35:03 [Zakim]
16:35:05 [zednik_]
16:35:05 [sandro]
16:35:05 [GK]
16:35:06 [stain]
0 - not read
16:35:06 [tlebo]
16:35:06 [smiles]
16:35:14 [satya]
0 - not read it yet
16:35:21 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft.
16:35:33 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:35:34 [GK]
(I haven't read the others, but I'm happy for them to be editor's drafts for now)
16:35:42 [Luc]
16:35:43 [stain]
Luc: Last question, do we have the agreement we have reached, from F2F?
16:35:45 [pgroth]
16:35:46 [stain]
Luc: can we resolve it?
16:36:02 [Luc]
ack pg
16:36:08 [stain]
pgroth: suggest there are still editorial adddress to address first
16:36:09 [GK]
q+ to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD
16:36:18 [stain]
pgroth: before we can say we have achived the goal
16:36:26 [tlebo]
+q to say that I think WD4 handles "conceptual versus technical" but not "scruffy versus proper"
16:36:28 [stain]
pgroth: as GK pointed out, we can discuss that once it's public
16:36:39 [stain]
GK: resolution that matters is when we release it (?)
16:36:40 [Luc]
ack gk
16:36:40 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD
16:37:09 [stain]
Tim: As Jun gave her feedback, I realised that clarity is conceptual vs. technical. That transition path that we promised, that Ivan passes to distinguish .. (?)
16:37:16 [stain]
Tim: others agree with that?
16:37:27 [stain]
Luc: good point, time to talk about process
16:37:33 [Zakim]
16:37:38 [tlebo]
16:37:40 [stain]
Luc: as we agree they will become editors working drafts, we can raise issues in the tracker
16:37:46 [GK]
@tim do you mean what we've been calling "scruffy/precise" transition?
16:37:48 [stain]
Luc: and a point like that, Tim, can be raised as an issue
16:37:55 [Luc]
16:37:55 [stain]
Luc: and then debate -> resolve it
16:38:05 [GK]
... if so, then I assume we'll work on that
16:38:05 [Luc]
decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed
16:38:12 [tlebo]
@gk ??
16:38:17 [stain]
Luc: another point addressed from review - can issues relating to identifiers be closed?
16:38:33 [pgroth]
16:38:35 [stain]
Luc: perhaps do that offline due to time constraints. I propose to close it, and those who raise it will answer
16:38:46 [GK]
@tim When you talked about conceptual vs technical, I meant.
16:38:47 [stain]
pgroth: set a time limit in the email
16:38:56 [Luc]
ack pg
16:38:57 [stain]
pgroth: for responses
16:39:09 [Luc]
Topic: PROV-O Ontology: Reviewer feedback
16:39:15 [stain]
Luc: completes PROV-DM
16:39:20 [tlebo]
@GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper.
16:39:27 [stain]
Luc: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo?
16:39:39 [pgroth]
@tlebo - i would disagree
16:39:47 [stain]
Luc: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF
16:39:59 [Zakim]
16:39:59 [stain]
Paolo: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction
16:40:08 [pgroth]
@tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II
16:40:16 [stain]
... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed
16:40:22 [stain]
... others in my email might have been addressed already
16:40:34 [stain]
... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?)
16:40:44 [stain]
... not seen any reply to my comment yet.
16:40:44 [tlebo]
(oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!)
16:40:52 [stain]
... good alignment
16:40:55 [tlebo]
@all, sorry...
16:40:57 [stain]
16:41:10 [stain]
tlebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :)
16:41:16 [stain]
ericstephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment?
16:41:24 [stain]
Luc: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :)
16:41:29 [stain]
Luc: now moving target.. wait a few days?
16:41:34 [stain]
16:41:53 [stain]
stephenc: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping
16:41:55 [stain]
stephenc: which makes sense
16:42:12 [stain]
stephenc: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense
16:42:31 [stain]
stephenc: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply
16:42:42 [pgroth]
16:42:44 [Luc]
16:42:48 [stain]
stephenc: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements
16:42:51 [stain]
16:42:52 [Zakim]
16:42:56 [Paolo]
@stian: s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-)
16:43:02 [stain]
stephenc: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things
16:43:02 [tlebo]
@stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own.
16:43:22 [stain]
stephenc: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc.
16:43:37 [Zakim]
16:43:37 [stain]
stephenc: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?)
16:43:44 [stain]
16:44:04 [Luc]
ack st
16:44:22 [tlebo]
@stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them?
16:44:23 [stain]
stian: what did you mean?
16:44:35 [stain]
stephenc: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement
16:44:44 [stain]
stephenc: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property
16:44:54 [stain]
stephenc: and then what informed by, used and qualified
16:44:55 [Luc]
16:44:57 [satya]
@Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules
16:45:25 [satya]
@Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology)
16:45:27 [khalidbelhajjame]
@Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it?
16:45:36 [stain]
Stian: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules
16:45:51 [stain]
stephenc: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties
16:46:01 [pgroth]
aren't property chains in owl-rl?
16:46:04 [stain]
stephenc: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult
16:46:20 [stain]
16:46:26 [khalidbelhajjame]
My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties
16:46:30 [stain]
Luc: (?) did you go through OWL?
16:46:44 [stain]
?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything
16:46:49 [tlebo]
stephenc: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create.
16:46:51 [stain]
16:47:09 [stain]
simon: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer
16:47:34 [stain]
simon: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all
16:47:38 [stain]
seemed separated from ontology
16:47:47 [stain]
16:47:55 [stain]
pgroth: going in right direction
16:48:11 [stain]
... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records
16:48:40 [stain]
... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation
16:48:48 [sandro]
zakim, mute ??P9
16:48:48 [Zakim]
??P9 should now be muted
16:48:54 [stain]
... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM
16:48:57 [Luc]
16:48:59 [stain]
... but a good step in right direction
16:49:03 [stain]
... in reflecting DM
16:49:21 [stain]
Luc: any other comments before I give my feedback?
16:49:35 [stain]
pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!)
16:49:46 [stain]
Luc: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM
16:49:52 [tlebo]
q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul - anyone else's that I should look for?
16:49:59 [stain]
Luc: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association
16:50:02 [stain]
16:50:08 [pgroth]
16:50:10 [stain]
Luc: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly
16:50:11 [pgroth]
in the agenda
16:50:28 [stain]
Luc: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping
16:50:30 [tlebo]
@pgroth, thanks.
16:50:31 [stain]
Luc: I've implemented part of it
16:50:33 [stain]
Luc: working fine
16:50:48 [stain]
Luc: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM
16:51:09 [stain]
Luc: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent
16:51:24 [stain]
Luc: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice
16:51:38 [stain]
Luc: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc
16:51:54 [stain]
Luc: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent
16:52:00 [stain]
Luc: what are we trying to achieve?
16:52:04 [stain]
Luc: interoperability concern
16:52:22 [stain]
Luc: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies
16:52:31 [stain]
Luc: they may not have all the same notions
16:52:39 [stain]
Luc: if it is not part of data model
16:52:40 [stain]
16:52:52 [stain]
Luc: every mapping to a technology would include nice features
16:53:03 [stain]
Luc: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks
16:53:09 [tlebo]
16:53:12 [stain]
Luc: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes
16:53:15 [stain]
Luc: which would make sense there
16:53:24 [stain]
Luc: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core
16:53:30 [stain]
Luc: what are the nice features.. mapping specific
16:53:36 [stain]
Luc: at the moment, the ontology has both
16:53:38 [stain]
Luc: mixed together
16:53:57 [stain]
Luc: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL
16:54:00 [stain]
Luc: and let users decide
16:54:00 [pgroth]
16:54:05 [GK]
Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO
16:54:11 [pgroth]
ack stain
16:55:19 [stain]
Stian: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split
16:55:35 [stain]
Luc: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity
16:55:40 [stain]
Luc: that is allowed by ontology now
16:55:43 [stain]
Luc: which is not part of DM
16:55:47 [GK]
q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal
16:55:50 [stain]
(OK, that's a fair point)
16:55:55 [satya]
@GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different)
16:56:02 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:56:02 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal
16:56:18 [stain]
GK: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies
16:56:22 [tlebo]
q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement
16:56:24 [stain]
GK: Not sure if comments here prevent that
16:56:45 [stain]
GK: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another
16:57:08 [stain]
GK: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability
16:57:08 [pgroth]
q+ to make a proposal
16:57:16 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
16:57:16 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement
16:57:33 [khalidbelhajjame]
@Tim, yes Luc sent an email
16:57:35 [stain]
(yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities)
16:57:38 [dgarijo]
i think Ivan proposed it
16:57:44 [stain]
tlebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed?
16:57:57 [stain]
pgroth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable
16:58:04 [stain]
pgroth: to increase adoption
16:58:11 [stain]
pgroth: and there was some census.. and now it's there
16:58:33 [stain]
pgroth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that
16:58:37 [GK]
AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems
16:58:48 [stain]
tlebo: will not raise my concerns here
16:59:18 [stain]
pgroth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3?
16:59:23 [stain]
pgroth: a valid consern, but that's my question
16:59:27 [pgroth]
16:59:28 [pgroth]
16:59:32 [jcheney]
Luc: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means?
16:59:39 [stain]
Luc: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O
16:59:41 [tlebo]
Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied.
16:59:42 [sandro]
tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email.
16:59:55 [stain]
Luc: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity
16:59:58 [stain]
Luc: that's too much to me
17:00:07 [stain]
Luc: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible
17:00:10 [stain]
Luc: too permittive
17:00:19 [tlebo]
@luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow.
17:00:25 [stain]
@tlebo +1
17:00:38 [satya]
@tim +1
17:00:40 [stain]
Luc: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns
17:00:53 [stain]
pgroth: what does that mean in terms of process
17:01:03 [dgarijo]
@tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified..
17:01:08 [stain]
Luc: notion of time is crucial to data model
17:01:24 [stain]
Luc: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events
17:01:39 [stain]
Luc: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time
17:01:45 [stain]
Luc: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene
17:02:02 [stain]
Luc: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints?
17:02:08 [pgroth]
17:02:17 [satya]
17:02:18 [stain]
(my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"]
17:02:20 [khalidbelhajjame]
@prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it.
17:02:29 [stain]
Luc: but that needs to be addressed
17:02:30 [pgroth]
17:02:31 [GK]
q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL
17:02:31 [stain]
17:02:34 [GK]
17:02:36 [pgroth]
ack satya
17:02:41 [pgroth]
17:02:47 [stain]
Satya: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants?
17:02:50 [Zakim]
17:02:53 [stain]
sorry I can't scribe
17:02:55 [stain]
lost battery
17:02:58 [stain]
17:03:05 [GK]
Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document?
17:03:06 [dgarijo]
I'll scribe
17:03:24 [dgarijo]
luc: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that
17:03:40 [dgarijo]
... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned.
17:03:49 [dgarijo]
satya: we have similar issues with location
17:03:58 [dgarijo]
... the domain is everything
17:04:05 [tlebo]
OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said.
17:04:05 [zednik_]
17:04:19 [pgroth]
ack zednik_
17:04:20 [GK]
I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL. TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND
17:04:37 [GK]
@stephan +1
17:04:44 [dgarijo]
zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements
17:05:03 [dgarijo]
... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern
17:05:08 [Zakim]
17:05:49 [khalidbelhajjame]
Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel
17:06:00 [stain]
Zakim, ??P24 is me
17:06:01 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
17:06:03 [stain]
Zakim, mute me
17:06:03 [Zakim]
stain should now be muted
17:06:11 [dgarijo]
pgroth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use
17:06:27 [satya]
@pgroth: is that part of the best practices?
17:06:30 [GK]
@pgroth +1
17:06:31 [dgarijo]
I think it makes sense
17:06:42 [dgarijo]
@pgroth: +1
17:06:45 [pgroth]
17:06:59 [stain]
@dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline
17:07:00 [tlebo]
q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development.
17:07:01 [dgarijo]
luc: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team
17:07:10 [dgarijo]
@stain: no prob
17:08:14 [dgarijo]
17:08:16 [tlebo]
17:08:20 [pgroth]
Proposed: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints
17:08:20 [jcheney]
17:08:26 [dgarijo]
17:08:28 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
17:09:00 [dgarijo]
jcheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have?
17:09:04 [GK]
@paul That's two parts. I fully support 1st part; 2nd part I half support.
17:09:10 [Curt]
If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc.
17:09:22 [Luc]
17:09:24 [Curt]
I think that's ok ;-) GIGO
17:09:29 [stain]
@Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O
17:09:40 [stain]
@Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints
17:09:42 [dgarijo]
luc: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda)
17:09:45 [satya]
@Curt, Stian: rules
17:09:59 [dgarijo]
... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance
17:10:19 [jun]
@curt, or examples?
17:10:50 [dgarijo]
luc: the solution is go to the email and discuss it.
17:11:11 [dgarijo]
pgroth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document
17:11:24 [Luc]
17:11:27 [jun]
rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale?
17:11:29 [pgroth]
ack Luc
17:11:32 [zednik_]
we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage
17:11:36 [pgroth]
q+ Luc
17:11:41 [stain]
{ ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity }
17:11:43 [dgarijo]
jcheney: missinterpreting what Luc said.
17:12:01 [GK]
@jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator
17:12:10 [stain]
17:12:25 [stain]
people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL
17:12:27 [dgarijo]
luc: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM
17:12:30 [stain]
use it as an RDFS vocabulary
17:12:43 [tlebo]
@jcheney, ?
17:12:55 [jun]
@gk, ack. gotcha
17:13:14 [dgarijo]
jcheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl
17:13:24 [Curt]
A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o
17:13:29 [satya]
1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over)
17:13:50 [dgarijo]
... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it?
17:13:59 [Luc]
That' s how I suggested we can address the issue
17:13:59 [pgroth]
17:14:00 [satya]
2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile
17:14:02 [pgroth]
17:14:04 [pgroth]
ack Luc
17:14:05 [GK]
I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information
17:14:15 [dgarijo]
luc: I don't have a formal ..?..
17:14:42 [dgarijo]
... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM
17:14:54 [dgarijo]
... I made a suggestion on the email
17:14:55 [satya]
3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF)
17:15:28 [dgarijo]
... I am concerned about the interoperability issues
17:15:33 [Paolo]
have to go now, apologies
17:15:40 [GK]
My definition of interoperability above: anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information
17:15:47 [dgarijo]
... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition
17:16:10 [stain]
@GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things
17:16:13 [dgarijo]
pgroth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff
17:16:17 [stephenc]
@satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL
17:16:33 [dgarijo]
... that shouldn't be a blocker
17:16:39 [GK]
@stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability
17:16:42 [Zakim]
17:16:57 [dgarijo]
... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is
17:17:08 [jcheney]
@GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means).
17:17:10 [dgarijo]
... but we could raise issues
17:17:12 [stain]
@GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard.
17:17:14 [dgarijo]
luc: agrees
17:17:28 [Zakim]
17:17:32 [dgarijo]
luc: what Tim thinks about this?
17:17:40 [Zakim]
17:17:49 [stain]
jcheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough
17:17:50 [dgarijo]
tlebo: james just said what I wanted to say
17:18:11 [GK]
@jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable?
17:18:15 [dgarijo]
---a lot of typiing noise!!--
17:18:41 [jcheney]
@GK: not sure yet...
17:18:41 [pgroth]
17:18:42 [dgarijo]
luc: there have been some recent changes
17:18:47 [dgarijo]
@GK: thanks!
17:19:12 [stain]
the ontology has always allowed even :entity1 prov:used :entity2 as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL)
17:19:14 [dgarijo]
tlebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model
17:19:24 [stain]
eh// entity and activity
17:19:31 [dgarijo]
@stian: you are actually right..
17:19:53 [dgarijo]
tlebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements
17:20:08 [dgarijo]
... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns
17:20:39 [dgarijo]
... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository
17:20:46 [pgroth]
17:20:51 [dgarijo]
luc: it is a very good idea
17:20:55 [satya]
@tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements)
17:20:56 [GK]
Test cases are good.
17:21:11 [dgarijo]
pgroth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is
17:21:31 [dgarijo]
... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going
17:21:53 [dgarijo]
luc: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback
17:21:58 [Zakim]
17:22:10 [dgarijo]
... it will be good to see what the response is
17:22:26 [GK]
Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean? What really matters is can we proceed with this?
17:22:31 [dgarijo]
... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec
17:22:32 [stain]
17:22:33 [stain]
17:22:49 [dgarijo]
pgroth: what's next for that team?
17:22:51 [tlebo]
(just blacked out for a minute)
17:23:12 [dgarijo]
... can they start working on the doc?
17:23:25 [dgarijo]
... solve all the issues of the ontology first?
17:23:39 [pgroth]
17:23:40 [dgarijo]
17:23:42 [stain]
17:23:47 [Zakim]
17:24:09 [khalidbelhajjame]
I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation
17:24:18 [stain]
Zakim, unmute me
17:24:18 [Zakim]
stain should no longer be muted
17:24:24 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
17:24:26 [pgroth]
ack stain
17:24:54 [pgroth]
17:24:59 [stain]
Zakim, mute me
17:24:59 [Zakim]
stain should now be muted
17:25:07 [Luc]
what do other reviewers think?
17:25:11 [dgarijo]
stain: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues
17:25:15 [tlebo]
the HTML needs to stop being postponed.
17:25:17 [GK]
@paul +1
17:25:19 [pgroth]
17:25:40 [pgroth]
17:25:50 [dgarijo]
pgroth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point
17:26:20 [jun]
as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel
17:26:24 [dgarijo]
... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not
17:27:03 [dgarijo]
... issues 64, 262..?
17:27:07 [dgarijo]
ah ok
17:27:27 [Luc]
253, 262, 263
17:27:30 [GK]
Alternative definition of interop: any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information. I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN.
17:27:30 [Zakim]
17:27:48 [pgroth]
proposed: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back
17:27:57 [dgarijo]
17:27:59 [stain]
17:28:07 [GK]
17:28:07 [khalidbelhajjame]
17:28:10 [satya]
17:28:11 [ericstephan]
17:28:11 [zednik_]
17:28:12 [Luc]
@GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression?
17:28:23 [pgroth]
17:28:24 [tlebo]
bye bye!
17:28:27 [dgarijo]
pgroth: bye
17:28:29 [Zakim]
17:28:30 [stain]
17:28:30 [ericstephan]
see ya!
17:28:30 [Zakim]
- +1.315.723.aaaa
17:28:31 [khalidbelhajjame]
17:28:32 [Zakim]
17:28:33 [Zakim]
17:28:33 [Zakim]
17:28:34 [Zakim]
17:28:37 [Zakim]
17:28:38 [GK]
@luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL
17:28:39 [Zakim]
17:28:45 [Zakim]
17:28:46 [pgroth]
are you doing the minutes luc?
17:28:47 [Zakim]
- +1.509.967.aabb
17:28:49 [Zakim]
17:28:52 [Zakim]
17:28:53 [Zakim]
17:28:53 [GK]
17:28:57 [Luc]
It would be good if it could be mechanical!
17:28:58 [Zakim]
17:29:07 [pgroth]
Zakim, make logs public
17:29:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth
17:29:14 [GK]
@luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not
17:29:57 [Zakim]
17:30:05 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make records public
17:30:18 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:30:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:30:25 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
17:30:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:30:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo?, Yolanda,
17:30:28 [Zakim]
... [ISI], stain
17:30:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:30:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:30:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:30:34 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items