14:36:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:36:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-irc
14:36:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:36:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:36:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:36:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:36:29 <trackbot> Date: 25 October 2012
14:36:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
14:36:40 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:36:41 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
14:36:53 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.25
14:37:01 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:37:06 <pgroth> Scribe: Daniel Garijo
14:37:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:38:42 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.25
14:49:50 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:50:42 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:50:49 <Zakim> +??P0
14:50:57 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P0 is me
14:50:57 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:55:12 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:55:25 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:57:33 <pgroth> hi daniel, it's all set-up to scribe
14:58:05 <dgarijo> hi, thanks
14:58:16 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:58:48 <Zakim> +??P7
14:58:49 <Luc> @pgroth: can you tell the group that the teleconference will be 1 h earlier next week, for those calling from Europe.
14:59:06 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P7 is me
14:59:06 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:59:14 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:59:14 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:59:18 <pgroth> @luc
14:59:21 <pgroth> yes good reminder
14:59:28 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:59:51 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:00:16 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:16 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:00:20 <Zakim> +??P15
15:00:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:32 <smiles> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:00:32 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
15:00:33 <Paolo> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:00:33 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as smiles, Paolo
15:00:39 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:49 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:49 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:50 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:11 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:01:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, smiles, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted)
15:01:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, khalidBelhajjame, Curt, dgarijo, Paolo, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot
15:01:16 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:41 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:01:41 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:01:58 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb
15:02:12 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:02:14 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aacc
15:02:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-10-18
15:02:38 <pgroth> Proposed: Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon
15:02:46 <dgarijo> pgroth:vote on the minutes
15:02:47 <Curt> +1
15:02:47 <dgarijo> +1
15:02:49 <Paolo> +1
15:02:49 <jcheney> 0 was absent
15:02:51 <smiles> +1
15:02:52 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:02:56 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
15:03:01 <hook> +!
15:03:05 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
15:03:08 <hook> +1
15:03:29 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:03:31 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon
15:03:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:03:54 <dgarijo> pgroth: reminder in europe the telecon will be 1 h earlier next week
15:04:04 <dgarijo> ... open actions
15:04:06 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aadd
15:04:11 <dgarijo> ... most of them are getting done
15:04:23 <Zakim> +??P27
15:04:27 <dgarijo> ... cross ref and subclassing. Tim is not here
15:04:31 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaee
15:04:42 <GK> zakim, ??p27 is me
15:04:42 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:04:43 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:04:53 <dgarijo> ... please sign up for scribing
15:04:56 <pgroth> q?
15:05:03 <pgroth> Topic: Organization Ontology
15:05:16 <Zakim> +??P1
15:05:24 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
15:05:31 <christine> christine has joined #prov
15:05:32 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov
15:05:36 <dgarijo> ... Linked Data Government  has come out with the Organization Ontology first draft
15:05:38 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, smiles, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted), khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, [IPcaller.a], +44.789.470.aadd, GK,
15:05:42 <Zakim> ... +1.315.330.aaee, ??P1
15:05:50 <dgarijo> ...  they have included prov as an extension (similar to OPMV)
15:05:55 <christine> Zakim I am ??P1
15:06:00 <dgarijo> ... someone to review this
15:06:04 <Luc> ... and Last Call Working Draft
15:06:14 <jun> I can take a look
15:06:17 <Luc> q+
15:06:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:06:24 <MacTed> s/Linked Data Government/Government Linked Data WG/
15:06:32 <dgarijo> Luc: First and Last Call WD
15:07:07 <jun> I am happy to coordinate with you, Luc
15:07:09 <dgarijo> ... there may be things where modelling can be improved (no derivation included). It would be doog to spend some time on this.
15:07:19 <Zakim> +??P4
15:07:31 <dgarijo> pgroth: Jun will take a Luc and can post her thoughts to the mailing list
15:07:37 <dgarijo> Jun: Ok
15:07:37 <Luc> what the deadline?
15:07:48 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't know
15:07:57 <dgarijo> Luc: LC finishes on 26
15:08:01 <pgroth> q?
15:08:18 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM issues
15:08:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29
15:08:36 <dgarijo> pgroth: Luc produced a number of responses during the week
15:08:40 <pgroth> q?
15:08:46 <dgarijo> ... most of the people seem to agree
15:08:51 <dgarijo> ... any questions?
15:09:18 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses
15:09:22 <dgarijo> +1
15:09:25 <smiles> +1
15:09:25 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
15:09:26 <jcheney> +1
15:09:28 <tlebo> +1
15:09:34 <Paolo> +1
15:09:41 <MacTed> +1
15:09:42 <jun> +1
15:09:44 <GK> 0 (not followed)
15:10:03 <stain> 0 (not followed)
15:10:11 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses
15:10:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: do we still have anymore issues?
15:10:35 <dgarijo> Luc: there is still 1 about mention
15:10:41 <stain> @tlebo: Could you merge in https://github.com/timrdf/prov-lodspeakr/pull/3 ? It closes my ACTION-118.
15:10:53 <stain> .. and regenerate
15:10:55 <dgarijo> ... Bob came back to you with new comments
15:11:11 <stain> (going off irc, then off phone 20 minuets later)
15:11:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: I will send him a new response about the new issues
15:11:55 <pgroth> q?
15:11:57 <dgarijo> Luc: ok
15:12:01 <tlebo> @stian, pulled.
15:12:05 <smiles> q+
15:12:21 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:12:26 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:12:35 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o issues
15:12:50 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568
15:13:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
15:13:12 <dgarijo> pgroth: did we need to do something about this?
15:13:24 <dgarijo> Luc: we need to have all issues solved before CR
15:13:32 <dgarijo> ... we don't need formal response
15:13:34 <tlebo> I think it's solved.
15:13:39 <dgarijo> Paul: is this solved?
15:13:44 <dgarijo> Luc: I think it's fine
15:13:51 <tlebo> I added forward references towards appendix.
15:13:55 <dgarijo> pgroth: ok, it can be closed
15:13:56 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-O_.28Draft.29
15:14:21 <dgarijo> ... issue 446 documenting involvee, so it's out of date
15:14:31 <pgroth> proposed: response for ISSUE-446 is a working group
15:14:35 <dgarijo> +1
15:14:37 <tlebo> +1
15:14:38 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
15:14:39 <Paolo> +1
15:14:55 <smiles> +1
15:15:00 <zednik> +1
15:15:03 <jcheney> +1
15:15:07 <MacTed> reword proposal?  "response ... is a working group"?
15:15:25 <MacTed> ok; +1
15:15:33 <MacTed> s/ISSUE-446 is a working group/ISSUE-446 is a working group response/
15:15:43 <pgroth> accepted:  response for ISSUE-446 is a working group response
15:15:58 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:16:06 <dgarijo> pgroth: general issue of subclasses
15:16:15 <dgarijo> ISSUE 556
15:16:28 <dgarijo> tim: I still need to lay out a response
15:17:01 <dgarijo> ... I'd like to know what people think about the flatness of the hierarchy
15:17:12 <dgarijo> ... in the ontology
15:17:32 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:17:32 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:17:41 <pgroth> q?
15:17:47 <dgarijo> ... any comments on keeping the way it is or change it
15:17:58 <dgarijo> Macted: I don't understand
15:18:26 <dgarijo> Macted: at the class level they are. Not just a subprpoperty
15:18:29 <Luc> q+
15:18:39 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:18:44 <stainPhone> q+
15:18:54 <dgarijo> Luc: Tim, does it cause a problem to make the quotation subclass of derivation?
15:18:58 <dgarijo> Tim: no
15:20:13 <dgarijo> Stian: would you only have qualified derivation to qualify quotation?
15:20:19 <pgroth> q+
15:20:21 <pgroth> ack stainPhone
15:20:43 <dgarijo> tim: in the less flat structure you would get 1 extra inference that you don't have normally
15:21:15 <dgarijo> stian: so we could use qualified derivation to qualify quotations
15:21:34 <dgarijo> tim: let me write down the proposal and send it to the group.
15:21:36 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:21:40 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:21:43 <dgarijo> pgroth: repeat the problem please
15:22:20 <dgarijo> tim: the qualification pattern there is no more distinction between agen and enitity. It was an attempt so simplify the ontology
15:22:22 <Luc> q+
15:22:29 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:22:44 <dgarijo> Luc: I quite like the current rationale
15:23:04 <dgarijo> ... if we change it, then we change the design around qualified pattern
15:23:12 <dgarijo> ... we provide more structure
15:23:28 <ivan> zakim, code?
15:23:28 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
15:23:37 <dgarijo> MacTed: then the change comes back to the other side
15:23:47 <dgarijo> Luc: can you make it explicit please?
15:23:49 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:24:00 <dgarijo> MacTed: I think my direction is gonna be more complex.
15:24:09 <pgroth> q+
15:24:15 <dgarijo> ... quotation is a qualification of derivation
15:24:30 <dgarijo> Luc: I don't see it as with ramifications in other docs
15:25:17 <stainPhone> @tim, so your proposal is to no longer have many qualifiedXX properties?
15:25:49 <Luc> @tim, coudl we do without quotation class, but only use the derivation class: isn't it enough to support the qualified pattern?
15:25:58 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:26:06 <dgarijo> pgroth. the problem is that in the qualification patterns you can qualify the quotation. This may cause some confusion because the qualifiaction classes don't mirror the DM
15:26:43 <dgarijo> tlebo: if you just match those definition, then they should be subclasses
15:27:07 <dgarijo> ... 1 approach is to reword each of the influences.
15:27:29 <dgarijo> ... to make them look more like qualification instead dm's definition
15:27:58 <Luc> q+
15:28:05 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:28:13 <dgarijo> pgroth: we need the qualification pattern, even if it causes confusion. We could introduce the same organization that we have on the DM or reword the definitions.
15:28:15 <Luc> A quotation ◊ relation is a particular case of derivation in whi
15:29:04 <dgarijo> Luc: Can we check what is written in PROV-O?
15:29:36 <pgroth> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, by someone who may or may not be its original author. Quotation is a particular case of derivation.
15:29:43 <dgarijo> tlebo: maybe PROV-O is behind on the def of the DM
15:30:04 <dgarijo> tlebo: the defs were taken from DM
15:30:21 <dgarijo> Luc: the second sentence is not part of the DM definition.
15:30:27 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aadd
15:31:08 <dgarijo> tlebo: I just need to lay some of these defs out so we can move forwards
15:31:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: now we understand the issue better
15:31:38 <Luc> i am happy to edit the dm in that way
15:31:45 <jun> +1 to MacTed
15:31:46 <dgarijo> MacTed: if DM does not have the word "relation" it changes interpretation
15:31:54 <dgarijo> +1 to macted
15:32:15 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't think DM has that notion.
15:32:39 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm happy to make that change. There is some inconsistency.
15:33:07 <dgarijo> pgroth: now primary source would be a relation?
15:33:47 <pgroth> q?
15:33:52 <dgarijo> pgroth: Tim, I think you have enough to move on.
15:33:57 <dgarijo> tlebo: yes
15:34:08 <pgroth> Topic: Discussion of Mention and relation to RDF Semantics
15:34:18 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/475
15:34:33 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0198.html
15:35:00 <pgroth> q?
15:35:05 <dgarijo> pgroth: Issue 475, seeking some clarification from the group
15:35:11 <GK_> (NOTE: I said I'd recuse myself from WG discussion unless asked, as I made this a public comment onthe LC)
15:35:33 <dgarijo> Luc: aren't we going again the RDF semantics?
15:36:22 <dgarijo> ... I'd like to separate the feedback in separate issues. Graham was concerned about breaking the RDF semantics. Is it still valid?
15:36:30 <pgroth> q?
15:37:01 <dgarijo> pgroth: from what I understand the semantics of a datasets are nothing
15:37:13 <dgarijo> ... our notion of bundle we have some semantics
15:37:14 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:37:36 <dgarijo> ... if you take a dataset we can say it's a prov:Bundle without violating anything.
15:37:36 <pgroth> q?
15:37:39 <ivan> q+
15:37:46 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:37:49 <dgarijo> Ivan: I think you are right
15:38:43 <tlebo> the ongoing discussion is about: what is the relationship between the URI for the bundle and the contents of the bundle
15:38:50 <dgarijo> ... the question is what the relationship between the URI of the bundle and the content of the bundle. It has always been a discusion
15:38:50 <Luc> i think we didn't specify what that relation is
15:39:19 <dgarijo> ... if we make a get to an http URI, do we want to say anything about thay?
15:39:29 <dgarijo> ... the result must be a serializaton of the bundle?
15:39:49 <dgarijo> ...  we may not want to define that, but we should take it into account.
15:39:52 <pgroth> q?
15:40:08 <tlebo> I don't think we need to specify the relation between a Bundle's URI and its contents. Good Design can get the desirable behavior, or scruffy design can not.
15:40:43 <Luc> q+
15:40:48 <dgarijo> ivan: we have to be clear on what we are doing, either defining it or not
15:40:49 <pgroth> ack luc
15:41:26 <dgarijo> Luc: we didn't specify the relation between bundle and its content. Shall we make this clear?
15:41:31 <pgroth> q+
15:41:37 <dgarijo> ivan: I think it would be good
15:41:40 <jun> I can see the distinction raised by Ivan is essential to make people be aware whether they are talking about the provenance of the bundle or the provenance of the content inside the bundle
15:41:47 <dgarijo> ... It doesn't change the design
15:42:05 <dgarijo> pgroth: when you make a bundle you make an entity
15:42:14 <dgarijo> ... so we do have a relationship
15:42:23 <dgarijo> Luc: you are naming the set of provenance assertions
15:42:29 <tlebo> @pgroth, but not what comes back on the wire.
15:42:40 <tlebo> prov-aq!
15:42:45 <pgroth> :-)
15:42:47 <dgarijo> MacTed: how do you get that set of assertions
15:42:52 <dgarijo> ... ?
15:42:56 <dgarijo> Luc: prov aq
15:43:19 <tlebo> q+
15:43:23 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:43:27 <pgroth> ack tlebo
15:43:30 <dgarijo> pgroth: we could say in the specs that we don't say anything
15:43:45 <ivan> q+
15:43:46 <dgarijo> tlebo: you can achieve the LD design that allows for that
15:43:54 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:44:01 <dgarijo> ... but we are allowing for the possibility
15:44:20 <dgarijo> ivan: do we want to add to the document somewhere that it is a good design?
15:44:32 <pgroth> q+
15:44:35 <dgarijo> tlebo: I tried for months, and it didn't work out
15:45:02 <dgarijo> pgroth: is there something we can do in prov-aq?
15:45:31 <dgarijo> ivan: we are not talking about the provenance of a bundle. We are talking about the contents of the bundle
15:45:35 <tlebo> prov-ag doesn't lead to contents?
15:45:44 <Luc> q+
15:45:45 <dgarijo> ... there is a difference
15:45:50 <ivan> ack pgroth
15:45:52 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:45:57 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb
15:45:58 <ivan> ack luc
15:46:16 <dgarijo> Luc: you will recall that I've been asking for some a mechanism to specify a  bundle, but there was a push back
15:46:37 <dgarijo> pgroth: so we haven't been able to agree
15:47:46 <dgarijo> tim: about a year ago I proposed examples for graph hashing and identifiers. I pointed to examples where I had constructed uris, but it never got traction. We can try to do it again, but what is it going gain the traction?
15:47:54 <dgarijo> Luc, MacTed: greated understanding
15:48:12 <jcheney> q+
15:48:16 <dgarijo> pgroth: in the context of access and query it may be more straightforward
15:48:22 <pgroth> ack jcheney
15:48:26 <GK_> (The issue I raised isn't fixed by shunting semantics to PROV-AQ - commenting with PROV-AQ hat on)
15:48:31 <dgarijo> james: we drifted a bit of the mention issue
15:49:03 <dgarijo> ... it would be nice to know what people think about my suggestion
15:49:16 <dgarijo> pgroth: the current semantics are not compatible with RDF
15:49:22 <tlebo> ARE!
15:49:25 <dgarijo> sorry
15:49:26 <tlebo> ;-)
15:49:42 <dgarijo> s/are not/are
15:50:18 <dgarijo> Luc: we have moved on this discussion. That's a different problem
15:50:26 <pgroth> q?
15:50:27 <jcheney> meant to say it would be nice to find out if there is consensus for next steps on PROV-CONSTRAINTS
15:50:35 <dgarijo> ... what is your view, Paul?
15:51:14 <dgarijo> GK: the RDF resolution reinforces my position
15:51:49 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
15:51:52 <pgroth> q?
15:51:52 <dgarijo> ... as it stands atm, I don't think it makes sense
15:52:00 <dgarijo> ... and I don't see a route
15:52:19 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaff
15:52:31 <pgroth> topic: PROV-Constraints issue
15:52:39 <tlebo> I'm a bit confused, how can we "perhaps maybe" break RDF semantics, then when the RDF 1.1. group punted on its semantics, we're still breaking something?
15:52:58 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-CONSTRAINTS
15:52:58 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0260.html
15:53:50 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:53:55 <dgarijo> james: last week we got an email from a reviewer, who proposed a series of changes to simplify the document.
15:54:14 <dgarijo> ... I drafted a response to his points
15:54:15 <GK_> @tim - I'll treat that as a direct question.  My objection is not about "breaking" semantics so much as introducing something that has unclear semantics - and no clear way to make sense of within the framework of RDF
15:54:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
15:54:38 <dgarijo> ... basically we don't force people to use what we propose.
15:54:38 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaff
15:54:49 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me
15:54:49 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:54:54 <dgarijo> ... There are alwas trade offs
15:55:00 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aagg
15:55:56 <dgarijo> ... Are people happy with addressing the way we have it right now, or something more specific across the document, which will imply to redesign the doc
15:56:06 <dgarijo> ... ?
15:56:27 <pgroth> q?
15:56:46 <ivan> q+
15:56:55 <pgroth> ack ivan
15:57:16 <dgarijo> ivan: why Antoine really wanted to use another formalism for this?
15:57:45 <pgroth> i think we wouldn't change anything
15:58:01 <dgarijo> ... appart from being elegant. For the practical purposes, does the document achieve its goal?
15:58:21 <dgarijo> ivan: what we have done is close but not aligned what he wanted to see
15:59:19 <dgarijo> ... In my opinion, based on the discussion so far it would be much nicer to specify things in an abstract way, rather that make it more complicated (which is what he is suggesting)
15:59:40 <dgarijo> ivan: I very much agree
15:59:51 <dgarijo> ... this is the line RDF WG took
15:59:54 <GK> I had some sympathy with the commenter;  I think a normative definition based on established formalisms, with *non-normative* explanation in operational terms would be easier to get right.  But I recognize James' point about the amount of work that's gone into the current spec.
16:00:40 <dgarijo> ... and we know that although the semantic is good, we are having problems with the community for acceptance
16:01:01 <dgarijo> MacTed: is it possible to present both approaches?
16:01:31 <dgarijo> james: it may not be ideal from the formal point of view
16:01:58 <dgarijo> ... but an abstract representation seems to be more accepted
16:02:13 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
16:02:34 <GK> Formal semantics is hard to follow, however you do it, IMO.  And not everyone needs to follow it, as long as enough people who work in the area of formal inferences do understand it.  (Esp. w.r.t. RDF, IMO)
16:02:59 <ivan> + 1 to james
16:03:22 <pgroth> q?
16:04:02 <pgroth> q?
16:04:07 <pgroth> q?
16:04:11 <dgarijo> james: is anyone having a problem to keeping the doc more or less how we have it? (No more formal stuff in there?)
16:04:26 <GK> GK has left #prov
16:04:30 <Zakim> -GK
16:04:44 <MacTed> proposal: WG will make an effort to produce an informative NOTE roughly translating this doc into the other formalism?
16:04:54 <tlebo> (FWIW, the link to the work on named graphs and "bundles" from last year: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts )
16:04:58 <dgarijo> james: will respond point by point to the issues Antoine raised
16:05:02 <jcheney> @MacTed: yes, that is the idea
16:05:16 <tlebo> bye!
16:05:18 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:05:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: thanks, bbye
16:05:19 <jcheney> where informative NOTE == PROV-SEM
16:05:20 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aaee
16:05:21 <Zakim> -??P1
16:05:22 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:05:23 <Zakim> -smiles
16:05:23 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:05:25 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:05:27 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aacc
16:05:28 <Zakim> -??P4
16:05:28 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:05:30 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:05:31 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:05:32 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:05:33 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aagg
16:05:37 <Zakim> -Luc
16:05:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:05:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:06:03 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
16:06:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:06:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:05 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, dgarijo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], smiles, MacTed, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, +44.789.470.aadd,
16:06:05 <Zakim> ... +1.315.330.aaee, GK, Ivan, +1.818.731.aaff, +1.818.731.aagg
16:06:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:06:05 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, dgarijo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], smiles, MacTed, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, +44.789.470.aadd, +1.315.330.aaee, GK, Ivan,
16:06:09 <Zakim> ... +1.818.731.aaff, +1.818.731.aagg
16:06:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:06:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:06:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items