15:21:07 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, use the purl: http://purl.org/twc/pub/mccusker2012parallel

James McCusker: Sorry, use the purl: http://purl.org/twc/pub/mccusker2012parallel ←

15:21:24 <GK> @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ

Graham Klyne: @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ ←

15:21:28 <JimMyers> One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, theJstatement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy...

James Myers: One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, theJstatement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy... ←

15:21:33 <sandro> tlebo, maybe the tools are different.   n3 has nice syntax for it.

Sandro Hawke: tlebo, maybe the tools are different. n3 has nice syntax for it. ←

15:22:04 <Curt> paolo: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model

Paolo Missier: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model ←

15:22:14 <Curt> ... conceptual model will drive formal model

... conceptual model will drive formal model ←

15:22:16 <JimMcCusker> sandro, I can take that as an action.

James McCusker: sandro, I can take that as an action. ←

15:22:35 <Curt> ... if OWL2 falls short, we can address

... if OWL2 falls short, we can address ←

15:22:55 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.213.290.aaee ←

15:23:09 <Curt> ... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model

... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model ←

15:23:21 <smiles> zakim, ??24 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??24 is me ←

15:23:21 <Zakim> sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24' ←

15:23:22 <Curt> ... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like

... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like ←

15:23:27 <Curt> ... consider other direction

... consider other direction ←

15:23:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:23:30 <smiles> zakim, ??P24 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??P24 is me ←

15:23:30 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it ←

15:23:58 <Curt> ... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model

... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model ←

15:24:21 <Curt> satya: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL

Satya Sahoo: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL ←

15:24:37 <Curt> ... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities

... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities ←

15:24:45 <Curt> ... they have proposed ways to model information

... they have proposed ways to model information ←

15:24:56 <Curt> ... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there

... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there ←

15:25:03 <Curt> ... are subtle differences

... are subtle differences ←

15:25:30 <Curt> paolo: some things won't map into OWL2 easily

Paolo Missier: some things won't map into OWL2 easily ←

15:25:34 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213 is me

Yogesh Simmhan: zakim, +1.213 is me ←

15:25:34 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Yogesh; got it ←

15:25:38 <Luc> q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies

Luc Moreau: q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies ←

15:25:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:25:58 <Curt> satya: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages

Satya Sahoo: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages ←

15:26:11 <GK> @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now

Graham Klyne: @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now ←

15:26:18 <Curt> ... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification

... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification ←

15:26:43 <Curt> ... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it

... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it ←

15:27:08 <GK> q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack ←

15:27:11 <Curt> paolo: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed?

Paolo Missier: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed? ←

15:27:30 <khalidbelhajjame> The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best"

Khalid Belhajjame: The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best" ←

15:27:50 <Curt> ... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack

... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack ←

15:28:20 <GK> @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL

Graham Klyne: @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL ←

15:28:31 <Paolo> Q?

Paolo Missier: Q? ←

15:28:39 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, agreed

Khalid Belhajjame: @Graham, agreed ←

15:29:06 <Curt> satya: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first

Satya Sahoo: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first ←

15:29:08 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:29:08 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies ←

15:29:14 <Curt> ... then we'll address OWL2 representation

... then we'll address OWL2 representation ←

15:29:23 <pgroth> can't hear you well

Paul Groth: can't hear you well ←

15:29:30 <GK> @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts

Graham Klyne: @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts ←

15:29:32 <Curt> Luc: <breaking up>

Luc Moreau: <breaking up> ←

15:29:44 <stain> Luc - we can't hear you well

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Luc - we can't hear you well ←

15:29:49 <Paolo> Luc going dalek...

Paolo Missier: Luc going dalek... ←

15:29:56 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←

15:29:59 <Curt> Luc: provenance ... something ...

Luc Moreau: provenance ... something ... ←

15:30:59 <Curt> pgroth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies

Paul Groth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies ←

15:31:17 <Curt> ... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across

... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across ←

15:31:24 <Luc> thanks paul

Luc Moreau: thanks paul ←

15:31:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:31:54 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:32:21 <Luc> my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability

Luc Moreau: my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability ←

15:32:32 <Curt> satya: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using

Satya Sahoo: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using ←

15:32:49 <Curt> ... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack

... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack ←

15:32:52 <pgroth> graham you on the phone?

Paul Groth: graham you on the phone? ←

15:33:02 <Curt> ... it may not be possible to please every technology

... it may not be possible to please every technology ←

15:33:33 <Curt> paolo: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack?

Paolo Missier: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack? ←

15:33:44 <Curt> paolo: that can affect our design choices

Paolo Missier: that can affect our design choices ←

15:33:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:34:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:34:11 <Curt> satya: agreed, there are semantic web constraints

Satya Sahoo: agreed, there are semantic web constraints ←

15:34:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful

Khalid Belhajjame: Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful ←

15:35:00 <Curt> ... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation

... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation ←

15:35:32 <Curt> paolo: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check

Paolo Missier: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check ←

15:35:35 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:35:39 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

15:35:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack ←

15:35:40 <stain> and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about

Stian Soiland-Reyes: and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about ←

15:35:47 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←

15:35:48 <dgarijo> @khalid: I think you're right

Daniel Garijo: @khalid: I think you're right ←

15:36:38 <Curt> GK: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack?

Graham Klyne: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack? ←

15:36:39 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:37:03 <Luc> as the ONLY stack supported?

Luc Moreau: as the ONLY stack supported? ←

15:37:11 <Curt> pgroth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2

Paul Groth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2 ←

15:37:28 <Curt> satya: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together

Satya Sahoo: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together ←

15:37:59 <Curt> pgroth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies

Paul Groth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies ←

15:38:12 <GK> @Luc:  as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others.

Graham Klyne: @Luc: as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others. ←

15:38:22 <satya> @GK +!

Satya Sahoo: @GK +! ←

15:38:24 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

15:38:35 <Curt> ... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies

... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies ←

15:38:36 <Luc> from charter:

Luc Moreau: from charter: ←

15:38:38 <Luc> The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today.

Luc Moreau: The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today. ←

15:39:05 <Curt> paolo: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern

Paolo Missier: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern ←

15:39:12 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

15:39:14 <tlebo> btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value.

Timothy Lebo: btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value. ←

15:39:18 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

15:39:32 <Curt> satya: ideally we should just support semantic web

Satya Sahoo: ideally we should just support semantic web ←

15:39:48 <Curt> ... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things

... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things ←

15:39:57 <Luc> why do we have a conceptual model then?

Luc Moreau: why do we have a conceptual model then? ←

15:39:59 <Curt> ... we should keep that in mind

... we should keep that in mind ←

15:40:10 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

15:40:14 <tlebo> @luc, regarding "just RDF"?

Timothy Lebo: @luc, regarding "just RDF"? ←

15:40:20 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←

15:40:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:40:39 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies

Khalid Belhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies ←

15:40:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:41:03 <Curt> ... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies

... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies ←

15:41:12 <Luc> thanks khalid

Luc Moreau: thanks khalid ←

15:41:28 <Curt> pgroth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints

Paul Groth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints ←

15:41:50 <GK> @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too)

Graham Klyne: @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too) ←

15:41:53 <Curt> ... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break

... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break ←

15:41:53 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:41:59 <stain> but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost

Stian Soiland-Reyes: but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost ←

15:41:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:42:13 <Curt> paolo: modeling of roles still needs work

Paolo Missier: modeling of roles still needs work ←

15:42:30 <Curt> ... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me

... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me ←

15:42:56 <Curt> ... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications

... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications ←

15:42:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:42:59 <GK> @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF

Graham Klyne: @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF ←

15:42:59 <Luc> if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology?

Luc Moreau: if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology? ←

15:43:33 <satya> @GK +1

Satya Sahoo: @GK +1 ←

15:43:38 <Curt> pgroth: we need to see where things are hard to represent

Paul Groth: we need to see where things are hard to represent ←

15:43:48 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK +1

Khalid Belhajjame: @GK +1 ←

15:44:02 <Curt> ... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode

... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode ←

15:44:12 <Zakim> +stain

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain ←

15:44:20 <Curt> paolo: it is an ongoing process,

Paolo Missier: it is an ongoing process, ←

15:44:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:44:25 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←

15:44:49 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:44:53 <Curt> satya: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group

Satya Sahoo: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group ←

15:44:54 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:45:15 <Curt> Luc: how do we progress?

Luc Moreau: how do we progress? ←

15:45:35 <Curt> pgroth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model

Paul Groth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model ←

15:45:38 <Luc> proposal: park roles for now, and move on

PROPOSED: park roles for now, and move on ←

15:45:57 <Curt> ... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that

... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that ←

15:45:57 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:46:03 <Luc> ack

Luc Moreau: ack ←

15:46:05 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:46:33 <Curt> satya: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy

Satya Sahoo: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy ←

15:46:51 <Curt> ... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model

... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model ←

15:46:58 <Luc> why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'?

Luc Moreau: why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'? ←

15:47:00 <GK> @satya: +1

Graham Klyne: @satya: +1 ←

15:47:01 <Curt> ... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model

... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model ←

15:47:09 <Curt> ... iterative feedback to make them match

... iterative feedback to make them match ←

15:47:29 <Curt> satya: roles is one issues, there are others

Satya Sahoo: roles is one issues, there are others ←

15:47:51 <Curt> satya: e.g. versioning perspectives

Satya Sahoo: e.g. versioning perspectives ←

15:47:52 <GK> q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier

Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier ←

15:48:07 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←

15:48:09 <Luc> saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document

Luc Moreau: saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document ←

15:48:12 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me

Jörn Hees: zakim, ??p5 is me ←

15:48:12 <Zakim> +jorn; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jorn; got it ←

15:48:17 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

15:48:17 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier ←

15:48:42 <Curt> GK: difficulty is in coming to understanding.  latest version of the model has helped clarify some things

Graham Klyne: difficulty is in coming to understanding. latest version of the model has helped clarify some things ←

15:48:48 <satya> sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis

Satya Sahoo: sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis ←

15:48:57 <Curt> ... recent direction has helped discussion progress

... recent direction has helped discussion progress ←

15:49:00 <khalidbelhajjame> GK: I agree, the last version is much clearer

Graham Klyne: I agree, the last version is much clearer [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ] ←

15:49:21 <dgarijo> I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion.

Daniel Garijo: I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion. ←

15:49:26 <Curt> pgroth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them

Paul Groth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them ←

15:49:39 <pgroth> Topic: Conceptual Model

<Curt> Summary: New iteration release for discussion.  Plan to release first public working draft, some things can remain open, but please raise major issues immediately.

15:49:49 <satya> @Daniel: Agree, working on it now :)

15:49:51 <Curt> paolo: New iteration released for discussion

15:49:58 <Curt> paolo: few comments so far.

15:50:09 <Curt> ... that version has many improvements that address issues

15:50:15 <dgarijo> @Satya :)

15:50:19 <Curt> ... several things resolved pending review

15:50:45 <Curt> ... addressing Khalid's comments

15:50:53 <Curt> ... process is converging

15:51:11 <Curt> ... some issues open, some are old and will be closed soon

15:51:20 <Curt> ... will F2F with Luc to resolve some things

15:51:34 <Curt> ... planning to address remaining issues

15:51:35 <GK> +1 paolo: "if the process is convergent, no need to over-fromalize the process" :)

15:52:08 <Curt> ... good input on several issues, some have more discussion than others

15:52:09 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are they issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.

15:52:23 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are there issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.

15:52:26 <satya> @Tim, Jim - can you please share your work on RDF named graph - maybe as a technical report?

15:52:33 <Curt> ... when issues don't get a lot of input, little guiidance to resolve them, we do what we can

15:52:34 <pgroth> q?

15:52:49 <Curt> ... issue 89, 99 need work

15:52:54 <Zakim> -Vinh

15:53:01 <GK> Ideally, an issue will have a proposed resolution that the editors can accept or discuss

15:53:11 <pgroth> q?

15:53:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week we will vote on whether to release public working draft?

15:53:47 <Curt> Luc: Yes, correct

15:54:12 <Curt> Luc: We need to flag outstanding issues and prioritize and address them prior to release

15:54:13 <GK> q+ to check that FPWD doesn have to imply group consensus

15:54:23 <Curt> pgroth: please raise major blocks asap

15:54:40 <Curt> GK: a public working draft doesn't need complete consensus, some things can remain open

15:54:47 <satya> @GK - I agree

15:54:51 <Curt> pgroth: correct

15:54:53 <sandro> agreed.    wd does not need to be consensus.

15:54:55 <Luc> i am very happy to write in document issues still to be addressed

15:55:18 <sandro> but it's very good to point out in the draft wherever there is still an open issue.

15:55:20 <Curt> pgroth: some issues may be open, that's ok and need discussion, but if there are major blockers,

15:55:27 <Curt> ... prior to release to public, raise them now

15:55:55 <Curt> GK: are we ready to release and ask for public comment.

15:56:08 <Curt> paolo: are there showstoppers we need to be aware of?

15:56:33 <Curt> paolo: please raise them asap, we are meeting tomorrow, please let us know right away about any red flags

15:56:55 <Luc> @GK, you mention by email you had issues you wanted to raise, can you give us a preview for us to work on?

15:56:56 <GK> I don't mind doc going FPWD if I'm still allowed to disagree with bits :)

15:57:10 <pgroth> Topic: Formal Model

<Curt> Summary: New release addressing many issues, some more remain.  It now includes information about extensions for specific domains including a Taverna scientific workflow example.

15:57:13 <GK> @luc I'll try

15:57:32 <Luc> @GK, thanks, if you want we can also have quick call tomorrow

15:57:38 <Curt> satya: formal model has been updated with help

15:57:58 <Curt> ... some parts missing, diagrams, taking longer than we had hoped

15:58:11 <Curt> ... pre-release to this group soon

15:58:39 <Curt> ... changes illustrating how to extend to handle domain specific may be helpful

15:58:57 <Curt> ... scientific workflow extension to be included

15:59:08 <Zakim> -Luc

15:59:25 <Curt> ... New concepts in conceptual model not yet in formal model

15:59:35 <Curt> ... still need to digest new additions to conceptual model

16:00:01 <Curt> ... some gaps need clarifications to map notions from conceptual model to formal model

16:00:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +q to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model

16:00:13 <Curt> ... some continuous updates will happen as conceptual model changes

16:00:17 <Curt> ... iterative process

16:00:27 <Paolo> Q?

16:00:29 <GK> q-

16:00:34 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

16:00:34 <Zakim> khalidbelhajjame, you wanted to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model

16:00:48 <JimMcCusker> @satya, regarding content identity and named graphs, we will talk to our co-authors to see if we can do that.

16:00:52 <pgroth> q?

16:00:57 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: will every concept in conceptual model need to be in formal model, or a subset?

16:01:18 <satya> @Jim - thanks

16:01:22 <Curt> pgroth: a correct set is more important than to be complete

16:01:32 <pgroth> q?

16:01:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Paul, thanks

16:01:35 <satya> @Paul: thanks

16:01:38 <pgroth> q?

16:01:43 <dgarijo> @khalid: I thought the formal model was supposed to be a lightweight notion of the conceptual model.

16:02:03 <satya> @Daniel: no

16:02:07 <Curt> pgroth: please get comments on everything in

16:02:12 <Curt> ... need to vote on public releases

16:02:13 <Zakim> -tlebo

16:02:15 <Zakim> -smiles

16:02:16 <Zakim> -Paolo

16:02:18 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

16:02:20 <Zakim> -Yogesh

16:02:22 <Zakim> -Sandro

16:02:24 <Zakim> -jcheney

16:02:26 <Zakim> -stain

16:02:28 <Zakim> -JimMyers

16:02:30 <Zakim> -jorn

16:02:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

16:02:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

16:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:02:42 <Zakim> -??P6

16:02:47 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

16:02:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

16:02:48 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

16:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

16:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items