15:09:21 <paolo> Luc: we invited people to sign up to Task forces, some have not yet done so

15:10:18 <paolo> Luc: Model task force: Jun, Satya, Khalid, Paolo have started adding their definitions on the wiki

15:10:22 <Zakim> -DavidSchaengold

15:10:23 <paolo> Luc: others please contribute

15:10:41 <GK> q+ to ask what it means to be a member of a TF beyond being member of this WG

15:10:46 <paolo> Luc: provenance access and query TF: Yogesh, Simon Miles have agreed to be coordinators

15:11:09 <paolo> Luc: Connection TF: Eric Stephan, Kai coordinate

15:11:32 <paolo> Luc: Implementation TF: still looking for confirmed coordinators

15:11:37 <tlebo> are the coordinators listed someplace other than http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces ?

15:12:21 <paolo> Graham: what does it mean to be a TF member wrt membership of group at large?

15:12:51 <paolo> Luc: TF membership involves active contributions + author/review docs

15:14:30 <paolo> Luc: roles and activities within a TF may vary, people can choose. This is to understand who the coordinators can expect to interact with

15:14:59 <paolo> Kai: need more contributors to the connection TF

15:15:50 <paolo> Luc: TF3/4 -- possible model is: template to be produced by coordinators, contributors to fill in the template

15:16:28 <paolo> Luc: means that for these TF workload is expected to be very distributed

15:17:32 <paolo> Luc: coordinators expected to propose a doc structure in the short term in view of the F2F. Outlines to be discussed in next week's telecon

<luc>  See ACTION-9 and ACTION-10

15:18:21 <paolo> Yogesh: will work with Simon to get something ready for next week

15:19:02 <paolo> Luc: natural deadline is F2F meeting date, however one week review time would be good. This means end of June effective deadline

15:19:26 <paolo> Luc: actions will be created on each coordinator for doc outlines to be created

15:20:02 <jorn> already italized [sic] coords of TF3

15:20:15 <paolo> tlebo: are coordinators listed on the TF page?

15:20:24 <paolo> Luc: not yet, will do

15:21:17 <GK> @tlebo TF wiki page has space for coordinators: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces

15:21:22 <paolo> Topic: model task force

<luc>Summary: The strategy is to reach consensus on concept properties from email  and wiki discussions. Four proposals were put forward in the agenda. Three were discussed very constructively. We reached consensus on the first two. We were also converging towards consensus for the third proposal, but we run out of time. Actions were assigned to Satya, Kai and Jim (Action-6, Action-7,and Action-8) to formulate variants of the third proposal, to be debated by email and next week at the telcon.

15:22:02 <paolo> Luc: need provenance about the definitions that are added to wiki! :-)

Luc Moreau: need provenance about the definitions that are added to wiki! :-) ←

15:23:21 <paolo> Luc: at SW coordination teleconf: debate on Web architecture takes majority of time and resources W3C-wide. We need to have time bounds

Luc Moreau: at SW coordination teleconf: debate on Web architecture takes majority of time and resources W3C-wide. We need to have time bounds ←

15:24:13 <paolo> Luc: Luc and Paul identified few key points on which consensus is critically needed

Luc Moreau: Luc and Paul identified few key points on which consensus is critically needed ←

15:24:47 <paolo> Luc: following 5 proposals identified in the agenda

Luc Moreau: following 5 proposals identified in the agenda ←

15:25:38 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 1: discussions on provenance model and provenance in the Web architecture are best kept separate at this time

15:25:40 <Jmyers4> +1 - is the mapping to web arch part of the access task force? or still model?

James Myers: +1 - is the mapping to web arch part of the access task force? or still model? ←

15:26:21 <paolo> Luc: soliciting comments on this

Luc Moreau: soliciting comments on this ←

15:27:02 <paolo> GK: concerned that we may end up with different views that may be hard to reconcile at a later time

Graham Klyne: concerned that we may end up with different views that may be hard to reconcile at a later time ←

15:27:33 <paolo> Luc: possibly so, but at least we will have made progress on both

Luc Moreau: possibly so, but at least we will have made progress on both ←

15:27:55 <satya> I tend to agree with GK

Satya Sahoo: I tend to agree with GK ←

15:28:21 <paolo> GK: sees common thread emerging

Graham Klyne: sees common thread emerging ←

15:30:02 <paolo> jcheney: we many not need to resolve all divergences in the group, let's keep working with provisional definitions, try to be cohesive on each of the two threads separately

James Cheney: we many not need to resolve all divergences in the group, let's keep working with provisional definitions, try to be cohesive on each of the two threads separately ←

15:30:03 <GK> Agree with @jcheney's thrust - don't get hung up on perfect definitions, say something and make progress, review later

Graham Klyne: Agree with @jcheney's thrust - don't get hung up on perfect definitions, say something and make progress, review later ←

15:30:40 <paolo> Luc: separation of model/arch to continue only up to F2F, at which point we will reassess

Luc Moreau: separation of model/arch to continue only up to F2F, at which point we will reassess ←

15:31:27 <paolo> Luc: use of term "resource" not helpful in the context of the model

Luc Moreau: use of term "resource" not helpful in the context of the model ←

15:32:16 <paolo> Luc: first define concepts, worry about mapping of model onto Web arch later

Luc Moreau: first define concepts, worry about mapping of model onto Web arch later ←

15:33:09 <paolo> smiles: given this separation: def for resource is just "what is the subject of provenance"?

Simon Miles: given this separation: def for resource is just "what is the subject of provenance"? ←

15:33:54 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" may not be adequate for the model on its own

Luc Moreau: term "resource" may not be adequate for the model on its own ←

15:33:57 <GK> Listening to this discussion: I would move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

Graham Klyne: Listening to this discussion: I would move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks. ←

15:34:20 <stain> GK, yup, sounds like the resource discussion is on again.. :)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: GK, yup, sounds like the resource discussion is on again.. :) ←

15:34:31 <GK> q+ to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

Graham Klyne: q+ to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks. ←

15:34:40 <dgarijo> +1 to what satya said

Daniel Garijo: +1 to what satya said ←

15:34:42 <paolo> satya: use journalism example to ground a concrete def. for resource, and then expand from there. Model and arch view may be reconciled more easily in the context of the example

Satya Sahoo: use journalism example to ground a concrete def. for resource, and then expand from there. Model and arch view may be reconciled more easily in the context of the example ←

15:35:18 <paolo> Luc: but, in practice issues have emerged recently precisely in the context of the example

Luc Moreau: but, in practice issues have emerged recently precisely in the context of the example ←

15:35:39 <zednik> +1 for separation of concept model from mapping to web architecture (access)

Stephan Zednik: +1 for separation of concept model from mapping to web architecture (access) ←

15:36:09 <jorn> q+ to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?

Jörn Hees: q+ to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time? ←

15:37:10 <paolo> Luc: not yet clear what we mean by "provenance of a resource". leads to "mutable thing" vs "immutable thing" debate

Luc Moreau: not yet clear what we mean by "provenance of a resource". leads to "mutable thing" vs "immutable thing" debate ←

15:37:44 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks. ←

15:37:46 <paolo> satya: propose to ask "what should be a resource" in the context of the journalism example

Satya Sahoo: propose to ask "what should be a resource" in the context of the journalism example ←

15:39:02 <paolo> GK: propose to accept proposal 1 with option to review in case a divergence is evident

Graham Klyne: propose to accept proposal 1 with option to review in case a divergence is evident ←

15:40:04 <zednik> +1 for renaming resource

Stephan Zednik: +1 for renaming resource ←

15:40:12 <paolo> jorn: term "resource" seems overloaded. so should also rename "resource" as part of this proposal

Jörn Hees: term "resource" seems overloaded. so should also rename "resource" as part of this proposal ←

15:40:40 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?

Zakim IRC Bot: jorn, you wanted to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time? ←

15:40:47 <paolo> Luc: agree. need a good term to refer to "the thing that doesn't change"

Luc Moreau: agree. need a good term to refer to "the thing that doesn't change" ←

15:41:05 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:41:07 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:41:13 <paolo> Luc: propose to accept proposal 1 and review it in 2 weeks

Luc Moreau: propose to accept proposal 1 and review it in 2 weeks ←

15:41:17 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1 ←

15:41:17 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

15:41:18 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1 ←

15:41:18 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:41:21 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:41:21 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:41:21 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1 ←

15:41:22 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

15:41:23 <Luc> proposed: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks

PROPOSED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks ←

15:41:24 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:41:24 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:41:24 <iker> +1

Iker Huerga: +1 ←

15:41:27 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:41:27 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1 ←

15:41:28 <paolo> +1

+1 ←

15:41:28 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1 ←

15:41:32 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:42:24 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

15:43:32 <paolo> satya agrees with Luc's proposal in current subtopic

satya agrees with Luc's proposal in current subtopic ←

<luc>ACCEPTED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks

RESOLVED: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks ←

15:43:51 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 2: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

15:44:40 <paolo> frew: if the model TF agreed with the OPM definitions at this time, would the TF be done?

James Frew: if the model TF agreed with the OPM definitions at this time, would the TF be done? ←

15:45:37 <paolo> GK: not having been involved in OPM or other prior initiatives, my position is to avoid simply adopting one of those models

Graham Klyne: not having been involved in OPM or other prior initiatives, my position is to avoid simply adopting one of those models ←

15:47:08 <paolo> Luc: with my co-chair tat off, I note that not all is good in OPM. So even coming from there, I do not think it should be adopted as is. Community will want to evolve the model anyways

Luc Moreau: with my co-chair tat off, I note that not all is good in OPM. So even coming from there, I do not think it should be adopted as is. Community will want to evolve the model anyways ←

15:47:38 <satya> agree

Satya Sahoo: agree ←

15:47:43 <smiles> yes

Simon Miles: yes ←

15:47:49 <paolo> proposed: "the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise"

PROPOSED: "the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise" ←

15:47:53 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:47:54 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

15:47:56 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:47:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:47:59 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:48:02 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:48:04 <paolo>  the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise ←

15:48:04 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise

PROPOSED: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise ←

15:48:07 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:48:07 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1 ←

15:48:07 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1 ←

15:48:08 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

15:48:08 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1 ←

15:48:08 <Jmyers4> agent was a special case (like PML:source) to capture the idea of a resource that could participate in processes (along the lines of my emails and wiki entries) - agent just couldn't be an artifact if they are completely immutable

James Myers: agent was a special case (like PML:source) to capture the idea of a resource that could participate in processes (along the lines of my emails and wiki entries) - agent just couldn't be an artifact if they are completely immutable ←

15:48:09 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:48:10 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:48:11 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1 ←

15:48:12 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1 ←

15:48:13 <paolo> +1

+1 ←

15:48:15 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:48:35 <YolandaGil> I wonder what category is "otherwise"

Yolanda Gil: I wonder what category is "otherwise" ←

15:49:11 <Jmyers4> conceptual, logical

James Myers: conceptual, logical ←

15:49:38 <GK> I wouldn't prohibit imaginary, conceptual at this time

Graham Klyne: I wouldn't prohibit imaginary, conceptual at this time ←

15:49:45 <paolo> YolandaGil: is the subject of provenance anything that we can refer to?

Yolanda Gil: is the subject of provenance anything that we can refer to? ←

15:50:35 <tlebo> anything to which one may want to refer.

Timothy Lebo: anything to which one may want to refer. ←

15:50:53 <zednik> mutable?

Stephan Zednik: mutable? ←

15:50:56 <GK> Yes, point taken about "can refer to" - maybe the TF can tighten up the definition?

Graham Klyne: Yes, point taken about "can refer to" - maybe the TF can tighten up the definition? ←

15:51:00 <paulo> in PML, we use the  identifiedThing concept (something that we can refer to)

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: in PML, we use the identifiedThing concept (something that we can refer to) ←

15:51:03 <paolo> YolandaGil: then, correct as "physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise"?

Yolanda Gil: then, correct as "physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise"? ←

15:51:13 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise

PROPOSED: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise ←

15:51:16 <Jmyers4> +1

James Myers: +1 ←

15:51:22 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

15:51:23 <satya> +!

Satya Sahoo: +! ←

15:51:24 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1 ←

15:51:25 <kai> +1

Kai Eckert: +1 ←

15:51:25 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:51:26 <Edoardo> +1

Edoardo Pignotti: +1 ←

15:51:26 <tlebo> +100

Timothy Lebo: +100 ←

15:51:26 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1 ←

15:51:28 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:51:29 <frew> +1

James Frew: +1 ←

15:51:29 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

15:51:29 <jorn> +1

Jörn Hees: +1 ←

15:51:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:51:31 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:51:31 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:51:33 <YolandaGil> +1

Yolanda Gil: +1 ←

15:51:38 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:52:04 <paolo> accepted: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise

RESOLVED: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise ←

15:52:24 <paulo> if it is anything, can it be a thing that we cannot refer to?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: if it is anything, can it be a thing that we cannot refer to? ←

15:52:47 <GK> q+ to say I think its fine to focus on immutable resources but not to arbitrarily exclude mutable ones

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I think its fine to focus on immutable resources but not to arbitrarily exclude mutable ones ←

15:53:04 <paolo> Luc: mutability seems to get in the way. Provenance of immutable things is a low hanging fruit. A few people made proposals

Luc Moreau: mutability seems to get in the way. Provenance of immutable things is a low hanging fruit. A few people made proposals ←

15:53:15 <jorn> q+ to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)

Jörn Hees: q+ to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system) ←

15:53:39 <paolo> subtopic:  proposal 3: "in a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of a thing that does not change"

15:54:12 <paolo> GK: fine to focus on immutable resources initially. but not make immutability an a priori requirement

Graham Klyne: fine to focus on immutable resources initially. but not make immutability an a priori requirement ←

15:54:26 <satya> +1 for GK's point

Satya Sahoo: +1 for GK's point ←

15:54:56 <paolo> satya: what do we mean by immutable things?

Satya Sahoo: what do we mean by immutable things? ←

15:55:36 <GK> @satya Good question: it's kind of why I don't want to exclude the mutable.

Graham Klyne: @satya Good question: it's kind of why I don't want to exclude the mutable. ←

15:56:35 <paolo> satya: use journalism example and understand what is required regardless of mutable/immutable

Satya Sahoo: use journalism example and understand what is required regardless of mutable/immutable ←

15:56:45 <GK> @satya, agree, focus on what's required

Graham Klyne: @satya, agree, focus on what's required ←

15:57:28 <paolo> Jmyers4: mutability leads to a number of special cases

James Myers: mutability leads to a number of special cases ←

15:57:37 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)

Zakim IRC Bot: jorn, you wanted to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system) ←

15:58:57 <tlebo> is there anything that is universally immutable? Roles seems to be a good approach.

Timothy Lebo: is there anything that is universally immutable? Roles seems to be a good approach. ←

15:59:19 <satya> good point @jorn (good point on owl:sameAs)

Satya Sahoo: good point @jorn (good point on owl:sameAs) ←

15:59:39 <paolo> jorn: if we restrict certain things to be immutable, that may be an artificial constraint that may not work for whoever uses the model

Jörn Hees: if we restrict certain things to be immutable, that may be an artificial constraint that may not work for whoever uses the model ←

15:59:44 <Jmyers4> I don't know how to explain except in the context of my proposed 'solution' - mutability is a role of a resource w.r.t. a process - if that's a good model, I don't see how we could discuss immutability first and then change the definition of resource in some way to address mutability

James Myers: I don't know how to explain except in the context of my proposed 'solution' - mutability is a role of a resource w.r.t. a process - if that's a good model, I don't see how we could discuss immutability first and then change the definition of resource in some way to address mutability ←

16:00:14 <tlebo> must go. apologies.

Timothy Lebo: must go. apologies. ←

16:01:40 <GK> I think everyone is basically agreeing... focus on the case of immutable resource example, but don't assume immutability unless we really have to

Graham Klyne: I think everyone is basically agreeing... focus on the case of immutable resource example, but don't assume immutability unless we really have to ←

16:02:50 <paolo> smiles: immutability may not be the issue

Simon Miles: immutability may not be the issue ←

16:03:49 <GK> @smiles like your phrasing "insofar as it's immutable we can talk about its provenance"

Graham Klyne: @smiles like your phrasing "insofar as it's immutable we can talk about its provenance" ←

16:04:19 <paolo> khalidbelhajjame: if we tackle mutability at a later time, that may lead to revisiting many other definitions

Khalid Belhajjame: if we tackle mutability at a later time, that may lead to revisiting many other definitions ←

16:04:37 <Jmyers4> if the question is whether we should have a way other than resources to describe changes in state - +1 - there's a role for mutable resources but we don't need a mechanism to define state changes of mutable resources separt from defining immutable resources that encapsulate that state (but are just resources)

James Myers: if the question is whether we should have a way other than resources to describe changes in state - +1 - there's a role for mutable resources but we don't need a mechanism to define state changes of mutable resources separt from defining immutable resources that encapsulate that state (but are just resources) ←

16:05:31 <paolo> paolo: isn't that the case that things that do not change only have a provenance if they have changed in the past? I am confused

Paolo Missier: isn't that the case that things that do not change only have a provenance if they have changed in the past? I am confused ←

16:05:43 <frew> "WORM" resource?

James Frew: "WORM" resource? ←

16:05:52 <satya> I think we need more discussion - over mailing list?

Satya Sahoo: I think we need more discussion - over mailing list? ←

16:05:55 <GK> Agree in principle with wjhat we discussed

Graham Klyne: Agree in principle with wjhat we discussed ←

16:05:59 <paolo> Luc: is there a consensus?

Luc Moreau: is there a consensus? ←

16:06:09 <Jmyers4> -1 - I'd like to discuss things together...

James Myers: -1 - I'd like to discuss things together... ←

16:06:17 <jcheney> what's the formal proposal now?

James Cheney: what's the formal proposal now? ←

16:07:04 <satya> Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object

PROPOSED: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object ←

16:07:19 <zednik> +q statement about mutability

Stephan Zednik: +q statement about mutability ←

16:07:37 <kai> I think we have too many mutable resources out there so I would try to deal with them from the beginning.

Kai Eckert: I think we have too many mutable resources out there so I would try to deal with them from the beginning. ←

16:07:45 <paolo> satya: a few things not clear, but we can go with mutability/immutability in the context of the running example

Satya Sahoo: a few things not clear, but we can go with mutability/immutability in the context of the running example ←

16:08:25 <GK> @satya broadly agree with "Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object" but would add "unless the use-case requires us to"

Graham Klyne: @satya broadly agree with "Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object" but would add "unless the use-case requires us to" ←

16:08:59 <paolo> Jmyers4: the distinction is significant in the context of (relative to) processes. possibly this pov gives us a way forward in the discussion

James Myers: the distinction is significant in the context of (relative to) processes. possibly this pov gives us a way forward in the discussion ←

16:09:00 <Luc> would it help if we said state of a thing

Luc Moreau: would it help if we said state of a thing ←

16:09:12 <Luc> instead of a thing that does not change

Luc Moreau: instead of a thing that does not change ←

16:09:12 <dgarijo> even the example has "mutable things", so it will be difficult to leave them out of the discussion

Daniel Garijo: even the example has "mutable things", so it will be difficult to leave them out of the discussion ←

16:09:16 <satya> @GK agree, if required for use case

Satya Sahoo: @GK agree, if required for use case ←

16:10:32 <paolo> action: Jmyers4, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week

ACTION: Jmyers4, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week ←

16:10:34 <Jmyers4> I put a 'definition' of resource on the wiki page just before the call - that's my proposal for a model

James Myers: I put a 'definition' of resource on the wiki page just before the call - that's my proposal for a model ←

16:10:54 <Jmyers4> Perhaps I could try to apply that to the use case to make it clearer...

James Myers: Perhaps I could try to apply that to the use case to make it clearer... ←

16:11:28 <jorn> subject ?

Jörn Hees: subject ? ←

16:11:34 <satya> entity?

Satya Sahoo: entity? ←

16:11:37 <zednik> entity

Stephan Zednik: entity ←

16:11:42 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" not useful here as too loaded as architectural term

Luc Moreau: term "resource" not useful here as too loaded as architectural term ←

16:11:43 <kai> +1 for entity

Kai Eckert: +1 for entity ←

16:11:51 <GK> "Subject of provenance" (Luc's phrase from an earlier proposal)?

Graham Klyne: "Subject of provenance" (Luc's phrase from an earlier proposal)? ←

16:12:26 <paolo> +1 for "Subject of provenance" (SoP)

+1 for "Subject of provenance" (SoP) ←

16:12:46 <dgarijo> +1 for Subject of Provenance

Daniel Garijo: +1 for Subject of Provenance ←

16:13:10 <paolo> paulo: makes connection b/w mut/immut and physical/digital

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: makes connection b/w mut/immut and physical/digital ←

16:14:59 <paolo> paulo: other topic to discuss is how to refer to things, either mutable or immutable

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: other topic to discuss is how to refer to things, either mutable or immutable ←

16:15:07 <paolo> Luc: true, but not current topic

Luc Moreau: true, but not current topic ←

16:15:09 <stain> mutability is very related to identifiable - depending on how you identify it might be mutable or immutable

Stian Soiland-Reyes: mutability is very related to identifiable - depending on how you identify it might be mutable or immutable ←

16:15:39 <kai> Maybe it would be doable to restrict provenance to immutable subjects and provide ways to see mutable subjects as immutable, e.g. by adding a version or a timestamp.

Kai Eckert: Maybe it would be doable to restrict provenance to immutable subjects and provide ways to see mutable subjects as immutable, e.g. by adding a version or a timestamp. ←

<luc> ACTION-6, ACTION-7, ACTION-8 to Kai, Jim and Satya, respectively

Luc Moreau: ACTION-6, ACTION-7, ACTION-8 to Kai, Jim and Satya, respectively ←

16:15:55 <paolo> Luc: reminder - provXG summary presentation by Yolanda tomorrow

Luc Moreau: reminder - provXG summary presentation by Yolanda tomorrow ←

16:16:23 <stain> I am wondering if some kind of "observation" is needed

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I am wondering if some kind of "observation" is needed ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---