The editors wanted to make changes to improve clarity over the currently FPWD approved document. It was decided to vote again next week on releasing any updated version as FPWD.
It is ready to be sent for a transition request and then published although probably after Christmas.
The PROV-O FPWD will be released on Tue next week. Editors will prepare everything to ensure timely release. It was noted that we need to send out announcements after Christmas as well about these releases. The Best Practice document was discussed. It was decided that it should wait for FPWD until the editors are happy with its state.
The WG approved the release of the second public working draft of PROV-DM. A discussion on wasComplementOf was held. The group emerged with two notions that related a notion of viewOf and hierarchal relations of intervals. PROV-DM editors agreed to come-up with a proposal encapsulating these suggestions. A discussion of replacing recipeLink with Plan was held. There was general support for renaming a Recipe to Plan. There was consensus that relation hadPlan would be used to link Activities and Plans. It was agreed to investigate further the notion of hasPlan as a specialization of wasAssociatedWith.
15:47:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-prov-irc ←
15:47:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:47:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
15:47:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
15:47:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:08 <trackbot> Date: 08 December 2011
15:47:17 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:47:17 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes ←
15:47:27 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:47:33 <pgroth> Scribe: Yogesh Simmhan
(Scribe set to Yogesh Simmhan)
15:47:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
15:55:17 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
15:55:24 <Zakim> +Yogesh
Zakim IRC Bot: +Yogesh ←
15:55:34 <pgroth> it's all setup yogesh
Paul Groth: it's all setup yogesh ←
15:55:41 <Yogesh> thanks pgroth
thanks pgroth ←
15:57:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:57:26 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
Paul Groth: Zakim, [IPCaller] is me ←
15:57:26 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it ←
15:57:51 <Zakim> +Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc ←
15:57:52 <Zakim> +adamretter
Zakim IRC Bot: +adamretter ←
15:58:46 <Luc> Hi Adam
Luc Moreau: Hi Adam ←
15:59:15 <Luc> Did you see my message last week? Shall we try to meet in London before Xmas?
Luc Moreau: Did you see my message last week? Shall we try to meet in London before Xmas? ←
15:59:53 <adamretter> Hi Luc, no i think I must have missed your message - let me check..
Adam Retter: Hi Luc, no i think I must have missed your message - let me check.. ←
16:00:44 <adamretter> Luc: I cant see anything, which addr did you use? @exist-db.org ?
Luc Moreau: I cant see anything, which addr did you use? @exist-db.org ? [ Scribe Assist by Adam Retter ] ←
16:01:27 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.723.aaaa ←
16:01:42 <dgarijo> Zakim, +1.315.723.aaaa is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, +1.315.723.aaaa is me ←
16:01:45 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
16:01:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:02:08 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
16:02:12 <Zakim> +[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI] ←
16:02:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←
16:02:55 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-12-01
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-12-01 ←
16:02:59 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
16:03:05 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Dec. 1 telecon
Paul Groth: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Dec. 1 telecon ←
16:03:16 <dgarijo> +0 (I wasn't here last week)
Daniel Garijo: +0 (I wasn't here last week) ←
16:03:23 <Yogesh> +1
+1 ←
16:03:24 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:03:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aa] ←
16:03:58 <Yogesh> pgroth: more votes for the minutes?
Paul Groth: more votes for the minutes? ←
16:04:02 <Zakim> +stain
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain ←
16:04:21 <Zakim> + +1.706.461.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.706.461.aabb ←
16:04:23 <dgarijo> Satya:+1
Satya Sahoo: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
16:04:30 <dgarijo> Stian:+1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
16:04:34 <pgroth> Accepted: Minutes of Dec 1, 2011 telecon
RESOLVED: Minutes of Dec 1, 2011 telecon ←
16:04:42 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open ←
16:05:00 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
16:05:04 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
16:05:04 <MacTed> zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: zakim, mute me ←
16:05:16 <Yogesh> pgroth: Action item on F2F meeting, holidays
Paul Groth: Action item on F2F meeting, holidays ←
16:05:49 <tlebo> I just closed the last of several issues in my action: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/49
Timothy Lebo: I just closed the last of several issues in my action: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/49 ←
16:05:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:05:56 <Yogesh> pgroth: Satya, Yolanda were to close open items
Paul Groth: Satya, Yolanda were to close open items ←
16:05:59 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
16:06:00 <jcheney> zakim, +[IPCaller.aaa] is me
James Cheney: zakim, +[IPCaller.aaa] is me ←
16:06:01 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
16:06:06 <Yogesh> Yolanda: They are closed now
Yolanda Gil: They are closed now ←
16:06:27 <Yogesh> pgroth: Closing all action items
Paul Groth: Closing all action items ←
16:06:30 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2 ←
16:07:00 <Zakim> sorry, jcheney, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPCaller.aaa]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, jcheney, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPCaller.aaa]' ←
16:07:01 <Yogesh> ...Reminder about F2F. Hotels listed. Contact pgroth is you have any questions. Book hotels early.
...Reminder about F2F. Hotels listed. Contact pgroth is you have any questions. Book hotels early. ←
16:07:21 <Yogesh> ...pgroth working on video for conference call at F2F.
...pgroth working on video for conference call at F2F. ←
16:07:23 <tlebo> +q
Timothy Lebo: +q ←
16:07:54 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:07:57 <Yogesh> tlebo: Should people in boston get together rather than everyone connect separately?
Timothy Lebo: Should people in boston get together rather than everyone connect separately? ←
16:08:08 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
16:08:29 <Yogesh> pgroth: Asked in poll. Send email to mailing list if there is interest. Did not seem so.
Paul Groth: Asked in poll. Send email to mailing list if there is interest. Did not seem so. ←
16:08:53 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-primer
Summary: The editors wanted to make changes to improve clarity over the currently FPWD approved document. It was decided to vote again next week on releasing any updated version as FPWD.
<pgroth> Summary: The editors wanted to make changes to improve clarity over the currently FPWD approved document. It was decided to vote again next week on releasing any updated version as FPWD.
16:09:12 <Yogesh> pgroth: What is status of FPWD?
Paul Groth: What is status of FPWD? ←
16:09:46 <Yogesh> smiles: Copy of current doc is in repoitory.
Simon Miles: Copy of current doc is in repoitory. ←
16:10:10 <MacTed> it would help me (and I imagine others) to have the agenda include links to docs under consideration ... I always lose time tracking them down (and am never quite sure I'm looking at the right stuff)
Ted Thibodeau: it would help me (and I imagine others) to have the agenda include links to docs under consideration ... I always lose time tracking them down (and am never quite sure I'm looking at the right stuff) ←
16:10:20 <pgroth> sorry MacTed
Paul Groth: sorry MacTed ←
16:10:27 <pgroth> I'll remember next time
Paul Groth: I'll remember next time ←
16:10:29 <Yogesh> YolandaGil: Will be useful to include diagram present in prov-dm document
Yolanda Gil: Will be useful to include diagram present in prov-dm document ←
16:10:38 <stain> +1 on diagram inclusion
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 on diagram inclusion ←
16:10:40 <pgroth> Primer - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
Paul Groth: Primer - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html ←
16:10:47 <MacTed> thanks, pgroth
Ted Thibodeau: thanks, pgroth ←
16:11:19 <Yogesh> YolandaGil: Remove section on complimentarity. Note that WG is looking into it.
Yolanda Gil: Remove section on complimentarity. Note that WG is looking into it. ←
16:11:37 <Yogesh> smiles: There was a vote last week that there was not going to be changes in doc.
Simon Miles: There was a vote last week that there was not going to be changes in doc. ←
16:11:47 <Luc> we can vote again
Luc Moreau: we can vote again ←
16:11:54 <Yogesh> ...What is the group's suggestion on making changes or not at this point?
...What is the group's suggestion on making changes or not at this point? ←
16:12:04 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
16:12:20 <Yogesh> Luc: We can vote again next week if we edit it.
Luc Moreau: We can vote again next week if we edit it. ←
16:12:33 <stain> there will be few on next weeek call
Stian Soiland-Reyes: there will be few on next weeek call ←
16:13:16 <Yogesh> Luc: Work on asusmption that vote will be positive next week. Make the changes and we can take a vote next week.
Luc Moreau: Work on asusmption that vote will be positive next week. Make the changes and we can take a vote next week. ←
16:13:36 <Luc> +1 to pgroth's suggestion
Luc Moreau: +1 to pgroth's suggestion ←
16:13:43 <Yogesh> pgroth: Send mail so that people who are not around next week can review the changes and vote next week
Paul Groth: Send mail so that people who are not around next week can review the changes and vote next week ←
16:13:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:13:50 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:14:14 <Luc> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
16:14:22 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
Summary: It is ready to be sent for a transition request and then published although probably after Christmas.
<pgroth> Summary: It is ready to be sent for a transition request and then published although probably after Christmas.
16:14:22 <Yogesh> Luc: Suggest pgroth/Luc notify the group that there will be a request for vote by email for the changes
Luc Moreau: Suggest pgroth/Luc notify the group that there will be a request for vote by email for the changes ←
16:15:12 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:15:14 <Yogesh> pgroth: Ready to go. Wanted feedback from W3C (sandro, evan) on the abstract. It seemed terse. Just got feedback. Just need to send email
Paul Groth: Ready to go. Wanted feedback from W3C (sandro, evan) on the abstract. It seemed terse. Just got feedback. Just need to send email ←
16:15:42 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O
Summary: The PROV-O FPWD will be released on Tue next week. Editors will prepare everything to ensure timely release. It was noted that we need to send out announcements after Christmas as well about these releases. The Best Practice document was discussed. It was decided that it should wait for FPWD until the editors are happy with its state.
16:16:03 <Yogesh> pgroth: Releasing PROV-O as FPWD
Paul Groth: Releasing PROV-O as FPWD ←
<pgroth> Summary: The PROV-O FPWD will be released on Tue next week. Editors will prepare everything to ensure timely release. It was noted that we need to send out announcements after Christmas as well about these releases. The Best Practice document was discussed. It was decided that it should wait for FPWD until the editors are happy with its state.
16:16:21 <Yogesh> Satya: Scheduled to be released on Tue, Dec/13
Satya Sahoo: Scheduled to be released on Tue, Dec/13 ←
16:16:25 <stain> i have done the directory
Stian Soiland-Reyes: i have done the directory ←
16:16:47 <Yogesh> Luc: Satya needs to get everything ready and respond to Dennis so he can do the checks.
Luc Moreau: Satya needs to get everything ready and respond to Dennis so he can do the checks. ←
16:17:01 <Yogesh> Satya: Will be using sub-folder than a separate branch. Can make changes tomorrow.
Satya Sahoo: Will be using sub-folder than a separate branch. Can make changes tomorrow. ←
16:17:15 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:17:53 <dgarijo> we're also working on the best practices document
Daniel Garijo: we're also working on the best practices document ←
16:18:08 <Yogesh> pgroth: FPWD are coming out before christmas. We need to send announcement again after new year to get feedback.
Paul Groth: FPWD are coming out before christmas. We need to send announcement again after new year to get feedback. ←
16:18:09 <stain> ontology/fpwd/ in dvcs
Stian Soiland-Reyes: ontology/fpwd/ in dvcs ←
16:18:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: sandro, what is automatic process in W3C?
Paul Groth: sandro, what is automatic process in W3C? ←
16:18:48 <stain> @dgarijo, yes, need a schedule for BP !
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @dgarijo, yes, need a schedule for BP ! ←
16:19:14 <Yogesh> Sandro: It will appear in W3C main page. We can also send to other W3C community mailing lists. We can go ahead and publicize as soon as it is published on w3.org frontpage. We can send a link to that
Sandro Hawke: It will appear in W3C main page. We can also send to other W3C community mailing lists. We can go ahead and publicize as soon as it is published on w3.org frontpage. We can send a link to that ←
16:19:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:19:24 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:19:25 <Yogesh> ...It may be automatically tweeted
...It may be automatically tweeted ←
16:19:44 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:19:55 <Yogesh> Luc: Are we proposing to release best practise doc as FPWD?
Luc Moreau: Are we proposing to release best practise doc as FPWD? ←
16:20:12 <Yogesh> ...There was no vote on it since doc did not exist.
...There was no vote on it since doc did not exist. ←
16:20:23 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
16:20:35 <Yogesh> ...Need to decide if we should do an internal review and vote to release it.
...Need to decide if we should do an internal review and vote to release it. ←
16:20:46 <Yogesh> pgroth: We have to properly circulate it
Paul Groth: We have to properly circulate it ←
16:20:49 <stain> do we need it fpwd at same time or refer to live version?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: do we need it fpwd at same time or refer to live version? ←
16:20:50 <stain> sorry, Im on bus.. not best connection
Stian Soiland-Reyes: sorry, Im on bus.. not best connection ←
16:21:08 <Zakim> +stain
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain ←
16:21:28 <Yogesh> dgarijo: Need more work. Only 3 people on the call, so we did not have consensus.
Daniel Garijo: Need more work. Only 3 people on the call, so we did not have consensus. ←
16:21:37 <Yogesh> ...Will meet next monday
...Will meet next monday ←
16:21:49 <Zakim> +??P67
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P67 ←
16:22:01 <Yogesh> ...The current doc is linked from PROV-O
...The current doc is linked from PROV-O ←
16:22:13 <Yogesh> pgroth: Is there a need to rush it to FPWD?
Paul Groth: Is there a need to rush it to FPWD? ←
16:22:22 <Yogesh> dgarijo: We can release it later.
Daniel Garijo: We can release it later. ←
16:22:24 <stain> just ED in dvcs
Stian Soiland-Reyes: just ED in dvcs ←
16:22:25 <stain> I would prefer to not rush it
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I would prefer to not rush it ←
16:22:47 <dgarijo> @Luc: +1
Daniel Garijo: @Luc: +1 ←
16:22:54 <Yogesh> Luc: The authors should be convinced that the doc is ready to be released internally. We should then read and decide on it. Not there yet.
Luc Moreau: The authors should be convinced that the doc is ready to be released internally. We should then read and decide on it. Not there yet. ←
16:23:11 <pgroth> Topic: prov-dm issues
Summary: The WG approved the release of the second public working draft of PROV-DM. A discussion on wasComplementOf was held. The group emerged with two notions that related a notion of viewOf and hierarchal relations of intervals. PROV-DM editors agreed to come-up with a proposal encapsulating these suggestions. A discussion of replacing recipeLink with Plan was held. There was general support for renaming a Recipe to Plan. There was consensus that relation hadPlan would be used to link Activities and Plans. It was agreed to investigate further the notion of hasPlan as a specialization of wasAssociatedWith.
<pgroth> Summary: The WG approved the release of the second public working draft of PROV-DM. A discussion on wasComplementOf was held. The group emerged with two notions that related a notion of viewOf and hierarchal relations of intervals. PROV-DM editors agreed to come-up with a proposal encapsulating these suggestions. A discussion of replacing recipeLink with Plan was held. There was general support for renaming a Recipe to Plan. There was consensus that relation hadPlan would be used to link Activities and Plans. It was agreed to investigate further the notion of hasPlan as a specialization of wasAssociatedWith.
16:23:35 <Yogesh> pgroth: Several issues raised. Editors want to discuss.
Paul Groth: Several issues raised. Editors want to discuss. ←
16:24:06 <Yogesh> Luc: Need to decide if we are ready to release the second working draft.
Luc Moreau: Need to decide if we are ready to release the second working draft. ←
16:24:30 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:25:10 <pgroth> PROPOSED: Release PROV-DM as a second first public working draft
PROPOSED: Release PROV-DM as a second first public working draft ←
16:25:39 <pgroth> PROPOSED: Release PROV-DM as second public working draft
PROPOSED: Release PROV-DM as second public working draft ←
16:25:40 <sandro> I like "WD2"
Sandro Hawke: Like "WD2" ←
16:25:47 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:25:49 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:25:51 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:25:52 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:25:57 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
16:26:00 <stain> 0 (University of Manchester) -- not had chance to review it yet
Stian Soiland-Reyes: 0 (University of Manchester) -- not had chance to review it yet ←
16:26:00 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:26:14 <Yogesh> 0
0 ←
16:27:04 <Yogesh> Satya: +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:27:20 <pgroth> ACCEPTED: Release PROV-DM as second public working draft
RESOLVED: Release PROV-DM as second public working draft ←
16:28:27 <Yogesh> Luc: Many issues to discuss. Decided to try and address several points in the WD3.
Luc Moreau: Many issues to discuss. Decided to try and address several points in the WD3. ←
16:28:40 <Yogesh> ...To give a better defintion of recipe.
...To give a better defintion of recipe. ←
16:29:08 <Yogesh> ...Issues raised by satya and others has been addressed by email.
...Issues raised by satya and others has been addressed by email. ←
16:29:17 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases#A_proposal
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases#A_proposal ←
16:29:20 <Yogesh> Please review them and respond by email.
Please review them and respond by email. ←
16:29:45 <Yogesh> ...Thanks for submitting use cases to the Wiki.
...Thanks for submitting use cases to the Wiki. ←
16:29:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:30:31 <Yogesh> ...Paolo has made proposal to define "asymmetric viewOf and a symmetric complementOf with the entailment"
...Paolo has made proposal to define "asymmetric viewOf and a symmetric complementOf with the entailment" ←
16:30:45 <Yogesh> Luc: would like a sense of what the WG thinks
Luc Moreau: would like a sense of what the WG thinks ←
16:30:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:31:11 <jcheney> How do the definitions differ?
James Cheney: How do the definitions differ? ←
16:31:17 <Zakim> - +1.706.461.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.706.461.aabb ←
16:31:19 <Yogesh> satya: will need some time to read thru that and comment by emails. Needs to leave now.
Satya Sahoo: will need some time to read thru that and comment by emails. Needs to leave now. ←
16:31:29 <stain> name "complementOf" must go, another big issue is the undefined "overlapping characterisation intrval"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: name "complementOf" must go, another big issue is the undefined "overlapping characterisation intrval" ←
16:31:42 <tlebo> just looking at definition now: "e1 viewOf e2" means that the attributes of e1 are a subset of those of e2 --- seems backwards. Wouldn't e1 have MORE attributes? We're being more specific/contextual by adding more details.
Timothy Lebo: just looking at definition now: "e1 viewOf e2" means that the attributes of e1 are a subset of those of e2 --- seems backwards. Wouldn't e1 have MORE attributes? We're being more specific/contextual by adding more details. ←
16:32:07 <adamretter> tlebo: I did wonder that - but after a while it makes sense to me
Timothy Lebo: I did wonder that - but after a while it makes sense to me [ Scribe Assist by Adam Retter ] ←
16:32:39 <stain> viewOf(a,b) should require that the attribs of B was always true for A, and As attrib true during B
Stian Soiland-Reyes: viewOf(a,b) should require that the attribs of B was always true for A, and As attrib true during B ←
16:32:46 <GK1> Jumping in late - the asymmetric "viewOf" seems overcomplex - it seesms to me that the "inrtersectionof validity interval" is redundant, as I'd expect the validty interval of e1 to be a subset of the validity interfal of e2.
Graham Klyne: Jumping in late - the asymmetric "viewOf" seems overcomplex - it seesms to me that the "inrtersectionof validity interval" is redundant, as I'd expect the validty interval of e1 to be a subset of the validity interfal of e2. ←
16:32:46 <Yogesh> (finding it hard to hear jcheney)
(finding it hard to hear jcheney) ←
16:33:17 <jcheney> typing because behind slow internet connection
James Cheney: typing because behind slow internet connection ←
16:33:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:33:29 <GK1> (Sorry for late arrival - had some home commitments.)
Graham Klyne: (Sorry for late arrival - had some home commitments.) ←
16:33:38 <jcheney> just asking for clarification of what the proposed new definitions are
James Cheney: just asking for clarification of what the proposed new definitions are ←
16:33:44 <tlebo> (BTW, I finally see how symmetric and asymmetric are being used. - that definition helped)
Timothy Lebo: (BTW, I finally see how symmetric and asymmetric are being used. - that definition helped) ←
16:34:00 <stain> @GK1 exactly, e2 must time:intervalContain e1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK1 exactly, e2 must time:intervalContain e1 ←
16:34:08 <Yogesh> Luc: GK1, can you explain what you typed on IRC?
Luc Moreau: GK1, can you explain what you typed on IRC? ←
16:34:09 <stain> gk, sound?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: gk, sound? ←
16:34:18 <tlebo> @adamretter, what made you accept the swap of subset?
Timothy Lebo: @adamretter, what made you accept the swap of subset? ←
16:34:28 <stain> no sound from gk
Stian Soiland-Reyes: no sound from gk ←
16:34:39 <GK1> Have no audio yet ... still firing up other computer.
Graham Klyne: Have no audio yet ... still firing up other computer. ←
16:34:53 <GK1> ... @stian, you seem to agree - can you explain?
Graham Klyne: ... @stian, you seem to agree - can you explain? ←
16:35:29 <Yogesh> Luc: have a question about using attribute in this definition
Luc Moreau: have a question about using attribute in this definition ←
16:35:31 <jcheney> My question is answerewd by the wiki page, will read and comment on it.
James Cheney: My question is answerewd by the wiki page, will read and comment on it. ←
16:35:41 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:35:43 <tlebo> +1 to concerns about using attributes to define viewOf.
Timothy Lebo: +1 to concerns about using attributes to define viewOf. ←
16:35:44 <Yogesh> ...FPWD had a strong notion of attribute
...FPWD had a strong notion of attribute ←
16:35:45 <adamretter> tlebo: e.g. - "Luc in Boston" viewOf "Luc" - so Luc in boston is a more specific version of Luc so it is a view of luc, but only when he is in boston - thats how i understood thatr
Timothy Lebo: e.g. - "Luc in Boston" viewOf "Luc" - so Luc in boston is a more specific version of Luc so it is a view of luc, but only when he is in boston - thats how i understood thatr [ Scribe Assist by Adam Retter ] ←
16:35:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:35:59 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
16:36:04 <Yogesh> ...It made sense to define WasComplementOf based on attributes.
...It made sense to define WasComplementOf based on attributes. ←
16:36:18 <Yogesh> ...Now, attributes may not even characterize entities.
...Now, attributes may not even characterize entities. ←
16:36:31 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:36:34 <Yogesh> ...Should we define based on number or inclusion of attributes?
...Should we define based on number or inclusion of attributes? ←
16:36:40 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:36:42 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:37:08 <Yogesh> (finding it hard to hear stain)
(finding it hard to hear stain) ←
16:37:09 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:37:33 <stain> sorry, bus noise..
Stian Soiland-Reyes: sorry, bus noise.. ←
16:37:40 <Yogesh> pgroth: @stain said it is more hierarchical, and attributes are not as important as they once were
Paul Groth: @stain said it is more hierarchical, and attributes are not as important as they once were ←
16:37:41 <StephenCresswell> q+
Stephen Cresswell: q+ ←
16:38:08 <Yogesh> pgroth: We need an imprecise view of wasComplementOf. Current definiton is very precise about subsetting.
Paul Groth: We need an imprecise view of wasComplementOf. Current definiton is very precise about subsetting. ←
16:38:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:38:14 <tlebo> I have been thinking of an imprecise viewOf much like skos:broader.
Timothy Lebo: I have been thinking of an imprecise viewOf much like skos:broader. ←
16:38:21 <Yogesh> ...We should be able to express viewOf without much semantics.
...We should be able to express viewOf without much semantics. ←
16:38:47 <tlebo> stephen: a viewOf b, then a is a time interval that B is in.
Stephen Cresswell: a viewOf b, then a is a time interval that B is in. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
16:38:54 <GK1> I think a key feature of e1 viewOf e2 means that any (non-account-scoped) provenance assertions about e2 are also true of e1.
Graham Klyne: I think a key feature of e1 viewOf e2 means that any (non-account-scoped) provenance assertions about e2 are also true of e1. ←
16:38:57 <stain> viewOf- hierarchical, not bound to attribute, just a way to say that e1 descrived what e2 described, and e2 contains fully e1 timespan
Stian Soiland-Reyes: viewOf- hierarchical, not bound to attribute, just a way to say that e1 descrived what e2 described, and e2 contains fully e1 timespan ←
16:38:57 <Luc> yes, stephen, your interval inclusion is not captured in this definition
Luc Moreau: yes, stephen, your interval inclusion is not captured in this definition ←
16:39:06 <tlebo> simple temporal containment (and avoiding attribute discussions)?
Timothy Lebo: simple temporal containment (and avoiding attribute discussions)? ←
16:39:26 <stain> not just partial overlap as in wCO has now, that is not aa useful
Stian Soiland-Reyes: not just partial overlap as in wCO has now, that is not aa useful ←
16:40:04 <Yogesh> stephen: We cant define intervals in terms of attributes but time scales and identity
Stephen Cresswell: We cant define intervals in terms of attributes but time scales and identity ←
16:40:05 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:40:11 <pgroth> ack StephenCresswell
Paul Groth: ack StephenCresswell ←
16:40:12 <tlebo> +1 to using only temporal containment for viewOf and avoiding attributes.
Timothy Lebo: +1 to using only temporal containment for viewOf and avoiding attributes. ←
16:40:19 <GK1> I think temporal containment applies in most practical cases I can think of ... and that may be the simple way to proceed ... but I'm not sure if we might find a different way of looking at this that does not depend o time interval nesting.
Graham Klyne: I think temporal containment applies in most practical cases I can think of ... and that may be the simple way to proceed ... but I'm not sure if we might find a different way of looking at this that does not depend o time interval nesting. ←
16:40:25 <Yogesh> Luc: Stephen, did you put a usecase in the wiki page?
Luc Moreau: Stephen, did you put a usecase in the wiki page? ←
16:40:39 <Yogesh> Stephen: yes, in th last hour
Stephen Cresswell: yes, in th last hour ←
16:40:46 <jcheney> I will try to take this issue into account in semantics draft
James Cheney: I will try to take theis issue into account in semantics draft ←
16:40:51 <Yogesh> s/th/the/
16:40:57 <stain> I am going to do a seperate proposal about time relation
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I am going to do a seperate proposal about time relation ←
16:41:00 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases#State_changes_and_relating_entities_at_different_timescales_.28stephen.29 was straightforward
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases#State_changes_and_relating_entities_at_different_timescales_.28stephen.29 was straightforward ←
16:41:27 <Yogesh> Stephen: One enough details of the attributes to help state both are the same entity.
Stephen Cresswell: One enough details of the attributes to help state both are the same entity. ←
16:41:27 <stain> it must be same thing, and contained time
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it must be same thing, and contained time ←
16:41:43 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:41:48 <Yogesh> Luc: is that not what SameAs does in OWL?
Luc Moreau: is that not what SameAs does in OWL? ←
16:41:54 <stain> that is what viewOf should be
Stian Soiland-Reyes: that is what viewOf should be ←
16:41:54 <GK1> Not the same as "sameAs" (sic)
Graham Klyne: Not the same as "sameAs" (sic) ←
16:41:55 <Yogesh> Stephen: But that is stronger.
Stephen Cresswell: But that is stronger. ←
16:42:01 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:42:04 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:42:27 <stain> which would allow different prov statement
Stian Soiland-Reyes: which would allow different prov statement ←
16:42:43 <Yogesh> Luc: is GK1's view the same as Stephen?
Luc Moreau: is GK1's view the same as Stephen? ←
16:42:51 <Yogesh> GK1: For practical purposes, yes.
Graham Klyne: For practical purposes, yes. ←
16:43:10 <Yogesh> ...Was trying to think of e.g. that has value over a spatial field wth different types of containement
...Was trying to think of e.g. that has value over a spatial field wth different types of containement ←
16:43:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:43:33 <Yogesh> ...It does seem like an interval containment
...It does seem like an interval containment ←
16:43:58 <Yogesh> pgroth: Stephen commented that there has to be a sub view of something else.
Paul Groth: Stephen commented that there has to be a sub view of something else. ←
16:44:06 <GK1> +1 pgroth comment about sub-view
Graham Klyne: +1 pgroth comment about sub-view ←
16:44:11 <Yogesh> ...Can Luc in soton be a sub view of Luc in his entire life?
...Can Luc in soton be a sub view of Luc in his entire life? ←
16:44:21 <Yogesh> Stephen: Yes
Stephen Cresswell: Yes ←
16:44:37 <Yogesh> ..There is a hierachical nature.
..There is a hierachical nature. ←
16:44:39 <stain> +1 for subview
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 for subview ←
16:44:58 <GK1> Luc today <= luc in soton <= luc in his lifetime
Graham Klyne: Luc today <= luc in soton <= luc in his lifetime ←
16:45:10 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
16:45:14 <smiles> would have to be contiguous period of time in southampton
Simon Miles: would have to be contiguous period of time in southampton ←
16:45:16 <Yogesh> ...And Luc@life is not a view of Luc@soton
...And Luc@life is not a view of Luc@soton ←
16:45:22 <stain> not sure wr need complement of?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: not sure wr need complement of? ←
16:45:38 <Yogesh> ...Anti-symmetric
...Anti-symmetric ←
16:45:38 <GK1> ... unpess a==b
Graham Klyne: ... unpess a==b ←
16:45:40 <smiles> not just luc in southampton ever (as he will travel in and out)
Simon Miles: not just luc in southampton ever (as he will travel in and out) ←
16:45:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:45:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:45:49 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:45:58 <stain> can contain eachother only if same interval
Stian Soiland-Reyes: can contain eachother only if same interval ←
16:46:16 <Yogesh> Luc: is anyone against interval containment?
Luc Moreau: is anyone against interval containment? ←
16:46:21 <smiles> yes, supportive
Simon Miles: yes, supportive ←
16:46:35 <Yogesh> ...Should it be the only notion?
...Should it be the only notion? ←
16:46:43 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:46:44 <GK1> I don't mind about something else.
Graham Klyne: I don't mind about something else. ←
16:46:45 <tlebo> supportive of just temporal intervals, until we see it written up.
Timothy Lebo: supportive of just temporal intervals, until we see it written up. ←
16:46:47 <Yogesh> ...Do we retain wasComplementOf?
...Do we retain wasComplementOf? ←
16:46:48 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:46:56 <stain> +1 to interval containment, -1 to wasCompOf
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 to interval containment, -1 to wasCompOf ←
16:47:23 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
16:47:27 <Yogesh> pgroth: Looking for a lighter view in addition to interval containment
Paul Groth: Looking for a lighter view in addition to interval containment ←
16:47:28 <stain> its like a sibbling view with time overlap
Stian Soiland-Reyes: its like a sibbling view with time overlap ←
16:47:28 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:47:45 <tlebo> I think wasComplementOf is a derivative, ancillary relation that is based on a viewOf "hierarchy"
Timothy Lebo: I think wasComplementOf is a derivative, ancillary relation that is based on a viewOf "hierarchy" ←
16:47:47 <GK1> @pgroth - that's kind of "top" of the interval space, isn't it?
Graham Klyne: @pgroth - that's kind of "top" of the interval space, isn't it? ←
16:48:22 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:48:23 <Yogesh> Luc: For both attributes and intervals, we may not be able to verify
Luc Moreau: For both attributes and intervals, we may not be able to verify ←
16:48:24 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
16:48:31 <GK1> @luc, think that's OK - it becomnes an existential assertion/.
Graham Klyne: @luc, think that's OK - it becomnes an existential assertion/. ←
16:48:38 <StephenCresswell> +q
Stephen Cresswell: +q ←
16:48:55 <pgroth> ack StephenCresswell
Paul Groth: ack StephenCresswell ←
16:48:57 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
16:48:59 <stain> and specially if not yet finished..
Stian Soiland-Reyes: and specially if not yet finished.. ←
16:49:30 <GK1> @luc; I think this relates to the idea that attributes are most important foir interop with other systems.
Graham Klyne: @luc; I think this relates to the idea that attributes are most important foir interop with other systems. ←
16:49:31 <stain> what if we split it in two, viewOf just needs time overlap
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what if we split it in two, viewOf just needs time overlap ←
16:49:39 <Yogesh> Stephen: If we cannot say anything about intervals, two weak notions are (1) complementOf, where the intervals overlap, (2) or both are views of a wider entity
Stephen Cresswell: If we cannot say anything about intervals, two weak notions are (1) complementOf, where the intervals overlap, (2) or both are views of a wider entity ←
16:49:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:49:49 <stain> and state time contain as welk seperateky
Stian Soiland-Reyes: and state time contain as welk seperateky ←
16:49:55 <GK1> @stephen +1
Graham Klyne: @stephen +1 ←
16:50:29 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
16:50:31 <Zakim> +stain
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain ←
16:50:40 <Yogesh> ...We still have viewOf, but it is very long term spanning all time
...We still have viewOf, but it is very long term spanning all time ←
16:51:11 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
16:51:15 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
16:51:18 <Yogesh> smiles: if entity exists, it cannot be verified in itself. Why does ti matter if the assertion can be verified?
Simon Miles: if enitty exists, it cannot be verified in itself. Why does it matter if the asseriton can be verified? ←
16:51:25 <Yogesh> s/ti/it/
16:51:29 <tlebo> smiles: we can't verify that an assertion that at document exists is true, so verification can't be necessary.
Simon Miles: we can't verify that an assertion that a document exists is true, so verification can't be necessary. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
16:51:30 <GK1> @smiles +1
Graham Klyne: @smiles +1 ←
16:51:40 <tlebo> s/at doc/a doc/
16:51:43 <Yogesh> Luc: acknowledges the point
Luc Moreau: acknowledges the point ←
16:51:47 <GK1> (to repeat...) I think a key feature of e1 viewOf e2 means that any (non-account-scoped) provenance assertions about e2 are also true of e1.
Graham Klyne: (to repeat...) I think a key feature of e1 viewOf e2 means that any (non-account-scoped) provenance assertions about e2 are also true of e1. ←
16:51:48 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:52:01 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:52:24 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:52:45 <GK1> My vote would be -0 - i.e. prefer not talking of attributes, but could live with it.
Graham Klyne: My vote would be -0 - i.e. prefer not talking of attributes, but could live with it. ←
16:53:01 <stain> -0 as well
Stian Soiland-Reyes: -0 as well ←
16:53:06 <Yogesh> Stephen: Only interval containment of the same entity.
Stephen Cresswell: Only interval containment of the same entity. ←
16:53:20 <smiles> i don't see a need for referring to attributes, just say "talking about same thing"
Simon Miles: i don't see a need for referring to attributes, just say "talking about same thing" ←
16:53:29 <tlebo> @GK1, no, the assertions on e2 apply differently to the assertions on e1 - you can't just copy/paste them up the viewOf hierarchy.
Timothy Lebo: @GK1, no, the assertions on e2 apply differently to the assertions on e1 - you can't just copy/paste them up the viewOf hierarchy. ←
16:53:31 <stain> (The discussion made me get off bus 2 stops late!)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: (The discussion made me get off bus 2 stops late!) ←
16:53:45 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:53:52 <Yogesh> Luc: will make a proposal to review next week
Luc Moreau: will make a proposal to review next week ←
16:53:58 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/RecipeDiscussion
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/RecipeDiscussion ←
16:54:04 <GK1> a viewOf b => exists(realworldobjec) s.t. a and b are each viewOf realworldobject
Graham Klyne: a viewOf b => exists(realworldobjec) s.t. a and b are each viewOf realworldobject ←
16:54:08 <Yogesh> Luc: talking about recipe. See link.
Luc Moreau: talking about recipe. See link. ←
16:54:19 <tlebo> (@GK1, l like FRBR and "maker" - maker of the paperbound is not the maker of the story it conveys)
Timothy Lebo: (@GK1, l like FRBR and "maker" - maker of the paperbound is not the maker of the story it conveys) ←
16:54:27 <Yogesh> Luc: Use the term Plan rather recipe?
Luc Moreau: Use the term Plan rather recipe? ←
16:54:31 <tlebo> s/I like/Like/
16:54:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a] ←
16:54:38 <Yogesh> Luc: It seems that Plan can evolve, so should a Plan be a kind of entity?
Luc Moreau: It seems that Plan can evolve, so should a Plan be a kind of entity? ←
16:54:47 <stain> plan fits better than recipe with activity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: plan fits better than recipe with activity ←
16:54:50 <Yogesh> Luc: If so, then do we have a new relationship hadPlan - activity -> entity?
Luc Moreau: If so, then do we have a new relationship hadPlan - activity -> entity? ←
16:54:50 <GK1> @tlebo - I worry about trying to make to strong a parallel with FRBR.
Graham Klyne: @tlebo - I worry about trying to make to strong a parallel with FRBR. ←
16:55:09 <Yogesh> Luc: Is this a specialization of wasAssociatedWith? If not, how do we distinguish this new relationship from wasAssociatedWith?
Luc Moreau: Is this a specialization of wasAssociatedWith? If not, how do we distinguish this new relationship from wasAssociatedWith? ←
16:55:10 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:55:18 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:55:30 <tlebo> @GK1, we won't mention FRBR, just like we don't mention reification for QualifiedInvolvements :-)
Timothy Lebo: @GK1, we won't mention FRBR, just like we don't mention reification for QualifiedInvolvements :-) ←
16:56:18 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:56:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:56:22 <YolandaGil> q+
Yolanda Gil: q+ ←
16:56:25 <Yogesh> pgroth: Plan to to be associated with activity. So a specialization.
Paul Groth: Plan to to be associated with activity. So a specialization. ←
16:56:27 <tlebo> is "wasAssociatedWith" the too-weak relation between agent and activity?
Timothy Lebo: is "wasAssociatedWith" the too-weak relation between agent and activity? ←
16:56:42 <tlebo> (too weak in name)
Timothy Lebo: (too weak in name) ←
16:56:44 <stain> plan is not used by activity, but might be usrd by agent who is also activitu
Stian Soiland-Reyes: plan is not used by activity, but might be usrd by agent who is also activitu ←
16:56:48 <stain> activity
Stian Soiland-Reyes: activity ←
16:57:01 <Yogesh> YolandaGil: the plan may be "The Plan" in some cases. But in most cases, it may be more than one and may evolve
Yolanda Gil: the plan may be "The Plan" in some cases. But in most cases, it may be more than one and may evolve ←
16:57:17 <stain> have to go, sorry
Stian Soiland-Reyes: have to go, sorry ←
16:57:34 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
16:57:40 <Yogesh> ...Maybe the lesser the commitment we make to the plan, the better?
...Maybe the lesser the commitment we make to the plan, the better? ←
16:58:03 <tlebo> yolandaGil: the plan may not apply universally to an activity, there may be multiple plans at different times (used by different agents).
Yolanda Gil: the plan may not apply universally to an activity, there may be multiple plans at different times (used by different agents). [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
16:58:08 <Yogesh> ...What if there are multiple plans depending on how far before the activity it is defined?
...What if there are multiple plans depending on how far before the activity it is defined? ←
16:58:11 <pgroth> ack YolandaGil
Paul Groth: ack YolandaGil ←
16:58:12 <Luc> hadPlan - 1 to many relationship?
Luc Moreau: hadPlan - 1 to many relationship? ←
16:58:25 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:58:47 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:58:53 <Yogesh> YolandaGil: Activity points to one or more plans.
Yolanda Gil: Activity points to one or more plans. ←
16:59:11 <Yogesh> ...Someone can make the plan an entity and make further associations.
...Someone can make the plan an entity and make further associations. ←
16:59:29 <YolandaGil> +1 for plan
Yolanda Gil: +1 for plan ←
16:59:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:59:53 <Yogesh> pgroth: Always though Plan was going to be a hook to other things, but not to define a planning language
Paul Groth: Always though Plan was going to be a hook to other things, but not to define a planning language ←
16:59:53 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
17:00:07 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:00:07 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:00:07 <Yogesh> ...suggest we dont have cardinality or semantics to that.
...suggest we dont have cardinality or semantics to that. ←
17:00:08 <GK1> @pgroth +1 (we just had similar discussions w.r.t. our project :)
Graham Klyne: @pgroth +1 (we just had similar discussions w.r.t. our project :) ←
17:00:59 <Yogesh> Luc: Paolo and Luc will write this up and circulate it.
Luc Moreau: Paolo and Luc will write this up and circulate it. ←
17:01:08 <tlebo> @pgroth, but does the hook apply to JUST the activity (universally), or does the hook apply to the controlling agents' control of the activity?
Timothy Lebo: @pgroth, but does the hook apply to JUST the activity (universally), or does the hook apply to the controlling agents' control of the activity? ←
17:01:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
17:01:44 <YolandaGil> Your proposal for plan sounds good Luc
Yolanda Gil: Your proposal for plan sounds good Luc ←
17:01:53 <Luc> wasAssociatedWith
Luc Moreau: wasAssociatedWith ←
17:02:22 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:02:26 <tlebo> -1 naming, no counterproposal :-(
Timothy Lebo: -1 naming, no counterproposal :-( ←
17:02:41 <Yogesh> Luc: Any counter proposal for WasAssociatedWith?
Luc Moreau: Any counter proposal for WasAssociatedWith? ←
17:02:46 <YolandaGil> I like it
Yolanda Gil: I like it ←
17:03:17 <GK1> @tlebo I think the hook may apply directly to something like the activity (only), but that in turn may be linked to to other aspects.
Graham Klyne: @tlebo I think the hook may apply directly to something like the activity (only), but that in turn may be linked to to other aspects. ←
17:03:26 <Yogesh> Luc: In the absence of counter proposal, we cant resolve. We can wait for vote after christmas.
Luc Moreau: In the absence of counter proposal, we cant resolve. We can wait for vote after christmas. ←
17:03:33 <Zakim> -[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←
17:03:34 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
17:03:36 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
17:03:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:03:39 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aa] ←
17:03:40 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
17:03:42 <Zakim> -??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1 ←
17:03:43 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
17:04:03 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
17:04:12 <Zakim> -??P67
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P67 ←
17:04:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
17:04:19 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
17:04:20 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:04:20 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Yogesh, pgroth, Luc, adamretter, sandro, [IPcaller], dgarijo, [ISI], stain, +1.706.461.aabb, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Yogesh, pgroth, Luc, adamretter, sandro, [IPcaller], dgarijo, [ISI], stain, +1.706.461.aabb, MacTed ←
17:04:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:04:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:04:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:04:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
17:04:22 <Zakim> -adamretter
Zakim IRC Bot: -adamretter ←
Formatted by CommonScribe