edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 25 October 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.25
Seen
Christine Runnegar, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, Hook Hua, Ivan Herman, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Ted Thibodeau, Timothy Lebo
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Daniel Garijo
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon link
  2. ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses link
  3. response for ISSUE-446 is a working group response link
Topics
  1. Admin

    The minutes of the Oct 18, 2012 were approved. The group was reminded that about the european time change for next week's telcon.

  2. Organization Ontology

    The Government Linked Data Group has asked us to review the Organization Ontology which has gone Last Call. Jun agreed to coordinate the working group response. The due date for comments is November 25.

  3. PROV-DM issues

    A set of responses for public comment issues was approved as working group responses (see resolution). Paul agreed to send out the responses.

  4. Prov-o issues

    The group approved the response to ISSUE-446. The group discussed subclassing with respect to qualification patterns in PROV-O. It became clear that the current approach was a design decision that needed clarification. Tim agreed to come up with a proposal on how to resolve the issue.

  5. Discussion of Mention and relation to RDF Semantics

    The group discussed whether mention would break RDF Semantics. The conversation then turned toward whether given that RDF WG does not define semantics for the relation between a name and its graph whether PROV should define a semantics for bundles and their identifiers, in particular for the retrieval of bundles. Tim noted that we had already discussed this within the group and it had not gained traction. There was some discussion about whether this would belong in PROV-AQ. There was no resolution of the discussion. It was suggested that the discussion continues on-line.

  6. PROV-Constraints issue

    James gave an overview of a recently recieved public comment on PROV-Constraints ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0260.html). He then outlined an approach for responding to the comment. In particular, the question as to whether we should provide a declarative logical version of the constraints. The approach would be to say that this would go in PROV-SEM if that gets produced. There was no objection to the outlined approach for resolving the issues raised by the public comment.

14:36:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-irc

14:36:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:36:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:36:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:36:29 <trackbot> Date: 25 October 2012
14:36:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes

14:36:40 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:36:41 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes

14:36:53 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.25
14:37:01 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:37:06 <pgroth> Scribe: Daniel Garijo

(Scribe set to Daniel Garijo)

14:37:41 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

14:38:42 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.25

Ted Thibodeau: MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.25

14:50:42 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 12 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

14:50:49 <Zakim> +??P0

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0

14:50:57 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P0 is me

Paul Groth: Zakim, ??P0 is me

14:50:57 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it

14:57:33 <pgroth> hi daniel, it's all set-up to scribe

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Paul Groth: hi daniel, it's all set-up to scribe

14:58:05 <dgarijo> hi, thanks

hi, thanks

14:58:16 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.238.059.aaaa

14:58:48 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

14:58:49 <Luc> @pgroth: can you tell the group that the teleconference will be 1 h earlier next week, for those calling from Europe.

Luc Moreau: @pgroth: can you tell the group that the teleconference will be 1 h earlier next week, for those calling from Europe.

14:59:06 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P7 is me

Zakim, ??P7 is me

14:59:06 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

14:59:14 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me

Luc Moreau: zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me

14:59:14 <Zakim> +Luc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it

14:59:18 <pgroth> @luc

Paul Groth: @luc

14:59:21 <pgroth> yes good reminder

Paul Groth: yes good reminder

14:59:51 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

15:00:20 <Zakim> +??P15

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15

15:00:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:00:32 <smiles> zakim, ??P15 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??P15 is me

15:00:32 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it

15:00:33 <Paolo> zakim, ??P15 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P15 is me

15:00:33 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as smiles, Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P15 as smiles, Paolo

15:00:39 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

15:00:49 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:00:49 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

15:00:50 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:00:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

15:01:11 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here?

15:01:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, smiles, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, smiles, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted)

15:01:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, khalidBelhajjame, Curt, dgarijo, Paolo, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see smiles, khalidBelhajjame, Curt, dgarijo, Paolo, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot

15:01:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a]

15:01:41 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me

15:01:41 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it

15:01:58 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aabb

15:02:14 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: The minutes of the Oct 18, 2012 were approved. The group was reminded that about the european time change for next week's telcon.

<pgroth> Summary: The minutes of the Oct 18, 2012 were approved. The group was reminded that about the european time change for next week's telcon.
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aacc

15:02:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-10-18

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-10-18

15:02:38 <pgroth> Proposed: Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon

PROPOSED: Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon

15:02:46 <dgarijo> pgroth:vote on the minutes

Paul Groth: vote on the minutes

15:02:47 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

15:02:47 <dgarijo> +1

+1

15:02:49 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:02:49 <jcheney> 0 was absent

James Cheney: 0 was absent

15:02:51 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:02:56 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:03:01 <hook> +!

Hook Hua: +!

15:03:08 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1

15:03:31 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon

RESOLVED: Minutes of the October 18, 2012 Telecon

15:03:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a]

15:03:54 <dgarijo> pgroth: reminder in europe the telecon will be 1 h earlier next week

Paul Groth: reminder in europe the telecon will be 1 h earlier next week

15:04:04 <dgarijo> ... open actions

... open actions

15:04:06 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aadd

15:04:11 <dgarijo> ... most of them are getting done

... most of them are getting done

15:04:23 <Zakim> +??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27

15:04:27 <dgarijo> ... cross ref and subclassing. Tim is not here

... cross ref and subclassing. Tim is not here

15:04:31 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.330.aaee

15:04:42 <GK> zakim, ??p27 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p27 is me

15:04:42 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

15:04:53 <dgarijo> ... please sign up for scribing

... please sign up for scribing

15:04:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:05:03 <pgroth> Topic: Organization Ontology

2. Organization Ontology

Summary: The Government Linked Data Group has asked us to review the Organization Ontology which has gone Last Call. Jun agreed to coordinate the working group response. The due date for comments is November 25.

<pgroth> Summary: The Government Linked Data Group has asked us to review the Organization Ontology which has gone Last Call. Jun agreed to coordinate the working group response. The due date for comments is November 25.
15:05:16 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

15:05:24 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/

15:05:36 <dgarijo> ... Linked Data Government  has come out with the Organization Ontology first draft

... Government Linked Data WG has come out with the Organization Ontology first draft

15:05:38 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?

Timothy Lebo: zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, smiles, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted), khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, [IPcaller.a], +44.789.470.aadd, GK,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, smiles, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted), khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, [IPcaller.a], +44.789.470.aadd, GK,

15:05:42 <Zakim> ... +1.315.330.aaee, ??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.315.330.aaee, ??P1

15:05:50 <dgarijo> ...  they have included prov as an extension (similar to OPMV)

... they have included prov as an extension (similar to OPMV)

15:05:55 <christine> Zakim I am ??P1

Christine Runnegar: Zakim I am ??P1

15:06:00 <dgarijo> ... someone to review this

... someone to review this

15:06:04 <Luc> ... and Last Call Working Draft

Luc Moreau: ... and Last Call Working Draft

15:06:14 <jun> I can take a look

Jun Zhao: I can take a look

15:06:17 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:06:23 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:06:24 <MacTed> s/Linked Data Government/Government Linked Data WG/
15:06:32 <dgarijo> Luc: First and Last Call WD

Luc Moreau: First and Last Call WD

15:07:07 <jun> I am happy to coordinate with you, Luc

Jun Zhao: I am happy to coordinate with you, Luc

15:07:09 <dgarijo> ... there may be things where modelling can be improved (no derivation included). It would be doog to spend some time on this.

... there may be things where modelling can be improved (no derivation included). It would be doog to spend some time on this.

15:07:19 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

15:07:31 <dgarijo> pgroth: Jun will take a Luc and can post her thoughts to the mailing list

Paul Groth: Jun will take a Luc and can post her thoughts to the mailing list

15:07:37 <dgarijo> Jun: Ok

Jun Zhao: Ok

15:07:37 <Luc> what the deadline?

Luc Moreau: what the deadline?

15:07:48 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't know

Paul Groth: I don't know

15:07:57 <dgarijo> Luc: LC finishes on 26

Luc Moreau: LC finishes on 26

15:08:01 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:08:18 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM issues

3. PROV-DM issues

Summary: A set of responses for public comment issues was approved as working group responses (see resolution). Paul agreed to send out the responses.

<pgroth> Summary: A set of responses for public comment issues was approved as working group responses (see resolution). Paul agreed to send out the responses.
15:08:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29

15:08:36 <dgarijo> pgroth: Luc produced a number of responses during the week

Paul Groth: Luc produced a number of responses during the week

15:08:40 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:08:46 <dgarijo> ... most of the people seem to agree

... most of the people seem to agree

15:08:51 <dgarijo> ... any questions?

... any questions?

15:09:18 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses

PROPOSED: ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses

15:09:22 <dgarijo> +1

+1

15:09:25 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:09:25 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:09:26 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:09:28 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:09:34 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:09:41 <MacTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:09:42 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:09:44 <GK> 0 (not followed)

Graham Klyne: 0 (not followed)

15:10:03 <stain> 0 (not followed)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 0 (not followed)

15:10:11 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses

RESOLVED: ISSUE-499, ISSUE-529, ISSUE-449, ISSUE-462, ISSUE-498, ISSUE-569, ISSUE-463 are working group responses

15:10:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: do we still have anymore issues?

Paul Groth: do we still have anymore issues?

15:10:35 <dgarijo> Luc: there is still 1 about mention

Luc Moreau: there is still 1 about mention

15:10:41 <stain> @tlebo: Could you merge in https://github.com/timrdf/prov-lodspeakr/pull/3 ? It closes my ACTION-118.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tlebo: Could you merge in https://github.com/timrdf/prov-lodspeakr/pull/3 ? It closes my ACTION-118.

15:10:53 <stain> .. and regenerate

Stian Soiland-Reyes: .. and regenerate

15:10:55 <dgarijo> ... Bob came back to you with new comments

... Bob came back to you with new comments

15:11:11 <stain> (going off irc, then off phone 20 minuets later)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: (going off irc, then off phone 20 minuets later)

15:11:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: I will send him a new response about the new issues

Paul Groth: I will send him a new response about the new issues

15:11:55 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:11:57 <dgarijo> Luc: ok

Luc Moreau: ok

15:12:01 <tlebo> @stian, pulled.

Timothy Lebo: @stian, pulled.

15:12:05 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

15:12:26 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles

15:12:35 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o issues

4. Prov-o issues

Summary: The group approved the response to ISSUE-446. The group discussed subclassing with respect to qualification patterns in PROV-O. It became clear that the current approach was a design decision that needed clarification. Tim agreed to come up with a proposal on how to resolve the issue.

<pgroth> Summary: The group approved the response to ISSUE-446. The group discussed subclassing with respect to qualification patterns in PROV-O. It became clear that the current approach was a design decision that needed clarification. Tim agreed to come up with a proposal on how to resolve the issue.
15:12:50 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568

15:13:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aa]

15:13:12 <dgarijo> pgroth: did we need to do something about this?

Paul Groth: did we need to do something about this?

15:13:24 <dgarijo> Luc: we need to have all issues solved before CR

Luc Moreau: we need to have all issues solved before CR

15:13:32 <dgarijo> ... we don't need formal response

... we don't need formal response

15:13:34 <tlebo> I think it's solved.

Timothy Lebo: I think it's solved.

15:13:39 <dgarijo> Paul: is this solved?

Paul Groth: is this solved?

15:13:44 <dgarijo> Luc: I think it's fine

Luc Moreau: I think it's fine

15:13:51 <tlebo> I added forward references towards appendix.

Timothy Lebo: I added forward references towards appendix.

15:13:55 <dgarijo> pgroth: ok, it can be closed

Paul Groth: ok, it can be closed

15:13:56 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-O_.28Draft.29

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-O_.28Draft.29

15:14:21 <dgarijo> ... issue 446 documenting involvee, so it's out of date

... ISSUE-446 documenting involvee, so it's out of date

15:14:31 <pgroth> proposed: response for ISSUE-446 is a working group

PROPOSED: response for ISSUE-446 is a working group response

15:14:35 <dgarijo> +1

+1

15:14:37 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:14:38 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:14:39 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:14:55 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:15:00 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:15:03 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:15:07 <MacTed> reword proposal?  "response ... is a working group"?

Ted Thibodeau: reword proposal? "response ... is a working group"?

15:15:25 <MacTed> ok; +1

Ted Thibodeau: ok; +1

15:15:33 <MacTed> s/ISSUE-446 is a working group/ISSUE-446 is a working group response/
15:15:43 <pgroth> accepted:  response for ISSUE-446 is a working group response

RESOLVED: response for ISSUE-446 is a working group response

15:16:06 <dgarijo> pgroth: general issue of subclasses

Paul Groth: general issue of subclasses

15:16:15 <dgarijo> ISSUE 556

ISSUE-556

15:16:28 <dgarijo> tim: I still need to lay out a response

Timothy Lebo: I still need to lay out a response

15:17:01 <dgarijo> ... I'd like to know what people think about the flatness of the hierarchy

... I'd like to know what people think about the flatness of the hierarchy

15:17:12 <dgarijo> ... in the ontology

... in the ontology

15:17:32 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

15:17:32 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted

15:17:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:17:47 <dgarijo> ... any comments on keeping the way it is or change it

... any comments on keeping the way it is or change it

15:17:58 <dgarijo> Macted: I don't understand

Ted Thibodeau: I don't understand

15:18:26 <dgarijo> Macted: at the class level they are. Not just a subprpoperty

Ted Thibodeau: at the class level they are. Not just a subprpoperty

15:18:29 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:18:39 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:18:44 <stainPhone> q+

Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+

15:18:54 <dgarijo> Luc: Tim, does it cause a problem to make the quotation subclass of derivation?

Luc Moreau: Tim, does it cause a problem to make the quotation subclass of derivation?

15:18:58 <dgarijo> Tim: no

Timothy Lebo: no

15:20:13 <dgarijo> Stian: would you only have qualified derivation to qualify quotation?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: would you only have qualified derivation to qualify quotation?

15:20:19 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:20:21 <pgroth> ack stainPhone

Paul Groth: ack stainPhone

15:20:43 <dgarijo> tim: in the less flat structure you would get 1 extra inference that you don't have normally

Timothy Lebo: in the less flat structure you would get 1 extra inference that you don't have normally

15:21:15 <dgarijo> stian: so we could use qualified derivation to qualify quotations

Stian Soiland-Reyes: so we could use qualified derivation to qualify quotations

15:21:34 <dgarijo> tim: let me write down the proposal and send it to the group.

Timothy Lebo: let me write down the proposal and send it to the group.

15:21:36 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

15:21:40 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:21:43 <dgarijo> pgroth: repeat the problem please

Paul Groth: repeat the problem please

15:22:20 <dgarijo> tim: the qualification pattern there is no more distinction between agen and enitity. It was an attempt so simplify the ontology

Timothy Lebo: the qualification pattern there is no more distinction between agen and enitity. It was an attempt so simplify the ontology

15:22:22 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:22:29 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:22:44 <dgarijo> Luc: I quite like the current rationale

Luc Moreau: I quite like the current rationale

15:23:04 <dgarijo> ... if we change it, then we change the design around qualified pattern

... if we change it, then we change the design around qualified pattern

15:23:12 <dgarijo> ... we provide more structure

... we provide more structure

15:23:28 <ivan> zakim, code?

Ivan Herman: zakim, code?

15:23:28 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

15:23:37 <dgarijo> MacTed: then the change comes back to the other side

Ted Thibodeau: then the change comes back to the other side

15:23:47 <dgarijo> Luc: can you make it explicit please?

Luc Moreau: can you make it explicit please?

15:23:49 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

15:24:00 <dgarijo> MacTed: I think my direction is gonna be more complex.

Ted Thibodeau: I think my direction is gonna be more complex.

15:24:09 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:24:15 <dgarijo> ... quotation is a qualification of derivation

... quotation is a qualification of derivation

15:24:30 <dgarijo> Luc: I don't see it as with ramifications in other docs

Luc Moreau: I don't see it as with ramifications in other docs

15:25:17 <stainPhone> @tim, so your proposal is to no longer have many qualifiedXX properties?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @tim, so your proposal is to no longer have many qualifiedXX properties?

15:25:49 <Luc> @tim, coudl we do without quotation class, but only use the derivation class: isn't it enough to support the qualified pattern?

Luc Moreau: @tim, coudl we do without quotation class, but only use the derivation class: isn't it enough to support the qualified pattern?

15:25:58 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:26:06 <dgarijo> pgroth. the problem is that in the qualification patterns you can qualify the quotation. This may cause some confusion because the qualifiaction classes don't mirror the DM

pgroth. the problem is that in the qualification patterns you can qualify the quotation. This may cause some confusion because the qualifiaction classes don't mirror the DM

15:26:43 <dgarijo> tlebo: if you just match those definition, then they should be subclasses

Timothy Lebo: if you just match those definition, then they should be subclasses

15:27:07 <dgarijo> ... 1 approach is to reword each of the influences.

... 1 approach is to reword each of the influences.

15:27:29 <dgarijo> ... to make them look more like qualification instead dm's definition

... to make them look more like qualification instead dm's definition

15:27:58 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:28:05 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:28:13 <dgarijo> pgroth: we need the qualification pattern, even if it causes confusion. We could introduce the same organization that we have on the DM or reword the definitions.

Paul Groth: we need the qualification pattern, even if it causes confusion. We could introduce the same organization that we have on the DM or reword the definitions.

15:28:15 <Luc> A quotation ◊ relation is a particular case of derivation in whi

Luc Moreau: A quotation ◊ relation is a particular case of derivation in whi

15:29:04 <dgarijo> Luc: Can we check what is written in PROV-O?

Luc Moreau: Can we check what is written in PROV-O?

15:29:36 <pgroth> A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, by someone who may or may not be its original author. Quotation is a particular case of derivation.

Paul Groth: A quotation is the repeat of (some or all of) an entity, such as text or image, by someone who may or may not be its original author. Quotation is a particular case of derivation.

15:29:43 <dgarijo> tlebo: maybe PROV-O is behind on the def of the DM

Timothy Lebo: maybe PROV-O is behind on the def of the DM

15:30:04 <dgarijo> tlebo: the defs were taken from DM

Timothy Lebo: the defs were taken from DM

15:30:21 <dgarijo> Luc: the second sentence is not part of the DM definition.

Luc Moreau: the second sentence is not part of the DM definition.

15:30:27 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.789.470.aadd

15:31:08 <dgarijo> tlebo: I just need to lay some of these defs out so we can move forwards

Timothy Lebo: I just need to lay some of these defs out so we can move forwards

15:31:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: now we understand the issue better

Paul Groth: now we understand the issue better

15:31:38 <Luc> i am happy to edit the dm in that way

Luc Moreau: i am happy to edit the dm in that way

15:31:45 <jun> +1 to MacTed

Jun Zhao: +1 to MacTed

15:31:46 <dgarijo> MacTed: if DM does not have the word "relation" it changes interpretation

Ted Thibodeau: if DM does not have the word "relation" it changes interpretation

15:31:54 <dgarijo> +1 to macted

+1 to macted

15:32:15 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't think DM has that notion.

Paul Groth: I don't think DM has that notion.

15:32:39 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm happy to make that change. There is some inconsistency.

Luc Moreau: I'm happy to make that change. There is some inconsistency.

15:33:07 <dgarijo> pgroth: now primary source would be a relation?

Paul Groth: now primary source would be a relation?

15:33:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:33:52 <dgarijo> pgroth: Tim, I think you have enough to move on.

Paul Groth: Tim, I think you have enough to move on.

15:33:57 <dgarijo> tlebo: yes

Timothy Lebo: yes

15:34:08 <pgroth> Topic: Discussion of Mention and relation to RDF Semantics

5. Discussion of Mention and relation to RDF Semantics

Summary: The group discussed whether mention would break RDF Semantics. The conversation then turned toward whether given that RDF WG does not define semantics for the relation between a name and its graph whether PROV should define a semantics for bundles and their identifiers, in particular for the retrieval of bundles. Tim noted that we had already discussed this within the group and it had not gained traction. There was some discussion about whether this would belong in PROV-AQ. There was no resolution of the discussion. It was suggested that the discussion continues on-line.

<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed whether mention would break RDF Semantics. The conversation then turned toward whether given that RDF WG does not define semantics for the relation between a name and its graph whether PROV should define a semantics for bundles and their identifiers, in particular for the retrieval of bundles. Tim noted that we had already discussed this within the group and it had not gained traction. There was some discussion about whether this would belong in PROV-AQ. There was no resolution of the discussion. It was suggested that the discussion continues on-line.
15:34:18 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/475

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/475

15:34:33 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0198.html

Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0198.html

15:35:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:35:05 <dgarijo> pgroth: Issue 475, seeking some clarification from the group

Paul Groth: ISSUE-475, seeking some clarification from the group

15:35:11 <GK_> (NOTE: I said I'd recuse myself from WG discussion unless asked, as I made this a public comment onthe LC)

Graham Klyne: (NOTE: I said I'd recuse myself from WG discussion unless asked, as I made this a public comment onthe LC)

15:35:33 <dgarijo> Luc: aren't we going again the RDF semantics?

Luc Moreau: aren't we going again the RDF semantics?

15:36:22 <dgarijo> ... I'd like to separate the feedback in separate issues. Graham was concerned about breaking the RDF semantics. Is it still valid?

... I'd like to separate the feedback in separate issues. Graham was concerned about breaking the RDF semantics. Is it still valid?

15:36:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:37:01 <dgarijo> pgroth: from what I understand the semantics of a datasets are nothing

Paul Groth: from what I understand the semantics of a datasets are nothing

15:37:13 <dgarijo> ... our notion of bundle we have some semantics

... our notion of bundle we have some semantics

15:37:36 <dgarijo> ... if you take a dataset we can say it's a prov:Bundle without violating anything.

... if you take a dataset we can say it's a prov:Bundle without violating anything.

15:37:36 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:37:39 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:37:46 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:37:49 <dgarijo> Ivan: I think you are right

Ivan Herman: I think you are right

15:38:43 <tlebo> the ongoing discussion is about: what is the relationship between the URI for the bundle and the contents of the bundle

Timothy Lebo: the ongoing discussion is about: what is the relationship between the URI for the bundle and the contents of the bundle

15:38:50 <dgarijo> ... the question is what the relationship between the URI of the bundle and the content of the bundle. It has always been a discusion

... the question is what the relationship between the URI of the bundle and the content of the bundle. It has always been a discusion

15:38:50 <Luc> i think we didn't specify what that relation is

Luc Moreau: i think we didn't specify what that relation is

15:39:19 <dgarijo> ... if we make a get to an http URI, do we want to say anything about thay?

... if we make a get to an http URI, do we want to say anything about thay?

15:39:29 <dgarijo> ... the result must be a serializaton of the bundle?

... the result must be a serializaton of the bundle?

15:39:49 <dgarijo> ...  we may not want to define that, but we should take it into account.

... we may not want to define that, but we should take it into account.

15:39:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:40:08 <tlebo> I don't think we need to specify the relation between a Bundle's URI and its contents. Good Design can get the desirable behavior, or scruffy design can not.

Timothy Lebo: I don't think we need to specify the relation between a Bundle's URI and its contents. Good Design can get the desirable behavior, or scruffy design can not.

15:40:43 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:40:48 <dgarijo> ivan: we have to be clear on what we are doing, either defining it or not

Ivan Herman: we have to be clear on what we are doing, either defining it or not

15:40:49 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

15:41:26 <dgarijo> Luc: we didn't specify the relation between bundle and its content. Shall we make this clear?

Luc Moreau: we didn't specify the relation between bundle and its content. Shall we make this clear?

15:41:31 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:41:37 <dgarijo> ivan: I think it would be good

Ivan Herman: I think it would be good

15:41:40 <jun> I can see the distinction raised by Ivan is essential to make people be aware whether they are talking about the provenance of the bundle or the provenance of the content inside the bundle

Jun Zhao: I can see the distinction raised by Ivan is essential to make people be aware whether they are talking about the provenance of the bundle or the provenance of the content inside the bundle

15:41:47 <dgarijo> ... It doesn't change the design

... It doesn't change the design

15:42:05 <dgarijo> pgroth: when you make a bundle you make an entity

Paul Groth: when you make a bundle you make an entity

15:42:14 <dgarijo> ... so we do have a relationship

... so we do have a relationship

15:42:23 <dgarijo> Luc: you are naming the set of provenance assertions

Luc Moreau: you are naming the set of provenance assertions

15:42:29 <tlebo> @pgroth, but not what comes back on the wire.

Timothy Lebo: @pgroth, but not what comes back on the wire.

15:42:40 <tlebo> prov-aq!

Timothy Lebo: prov-aq!

15:42:45 <pgroth> :-)

Paul Groth: :-)

15:42:47 <dgarijo> MacTed: how do you get that set of assertions

Ted Thibodeau: how do you get that set of assertions

15:42:52 <dgarijo> ... ?

... ?

15:42:56 <dgarijo> Luc: prov aq

Luc Moreau: prov aq

15:43:19 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

15:43:23 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:43:27 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

15:43:30 <dgarijo> pgroth: we could say in the specs that we don't say anything

Paul Groth: we could say in the specs that we don't say anything

15:43:45 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:43:46 <dgarijo> tlebo: you can achieve the LD design that allows for that

Timothy Lebo: you can achieve the LD design that allows for that

15:43:54 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:44:01 <dgarijo> ... but we are allowing for the possibility

... but we are allowing for the possibility

15:44:20 <dgarijo> ivan: do we want to add to the document somewhere that it is a good design?

Ivan Herman: do we want to add to the document somewhere that it is a good design?

15:44:32 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:44:35 <dgarijo> tlebo: I tried for months, and it didn't work out

Timothy Lebo: I tried for months, and it didn't work out

15:45:02 <dgarijo> pgroth: is there something we can do in prov-aq?

Paul Groth: is there something we can do in prov-aq?

15:45:31 <dgarijo> ivan: we are not talking about the provenance of a bundle. We are talking about the contents of the bundle

Ivan Herman: we are not talking about the provenance of a bundle. We are talking about the contents of the bundle

15:45:35 <tlebo> prov-ag doesn't lead to contents?

Timothy Lebo: prov-ag doesn't lead to contents?

15:45:44 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:45:45 <dgarijo> ... there is a difference

... there is a difference

15:45:50 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth

15:45:52 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:45:57 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aabb

15:45:58 <ivan> ack luc

Ivan Herman: ack luc

15:46:16 <dgarijo> Luc: you will recall that I've been asking for some a mechanism to specify a  bundle, but there was a push back

Luc Moreau: you will recall that I've been asking for some a mechanism to specify a bundle, but there was a push back

15:46:37 <dgarijo> pgroth: so we haven't been able to agree

Paul Groth: so we haven't been able to agree

15:47:46 <dgarijo> tim: about a year ago I proposed examples for graph hashing and identifiers. I pointed to examples where I had constructed uris, but it never got traction. We can try to do it again, but what is it going gain the traction?

Timothy Lebo: about a year ago I proposed examples for graph hashing and identifiers. I pointed to examples where I had constructed uris, but it never got traction. We can try to do it again, but what is it going gain the traction?

15:47:54 <dgarijo> Luc, MacTed: greated understanding

Luc, MacTed: greated understanding

15:48:12 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

15:48:16 <dgarijo> pgroth: in the context of access and query it may be more straightforward

Paul Groth: in the context of access and query it may be more straightforward

15:48:22 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

15:48:26 <GK_> (The issue I raised isn't fixed by shunting semantics to PROV-AQ - commenting with PROV-AQ hat on)

Graham Klyne: (The issue I raised isn't fixed by shunting semantics to PROV-AQ - commenting with PROV-AQ hat on)

15:48:31 <dgarijo> jcheney: we drifted a bit of the mention issue

James Cheney: we drifted a bit of the mention issue

15:49:03 <dgarijo> ... it would be nice to know what people think about my suggestion

... it would be nice to know what people think about my suggestion

15:49:16 <dgarijo> pgroth: the current semantics are not compatible with RDF

Paul Groth: the current semantics are compatible with RDF

15:49:22 <tlebo> ARE!

Timothy Lebo: ARE!

15:49:25 <dgarijo> sorry

sorry

15:49:26 <tlebo> ;-)

Timothy Lebo: ;-)

15:49:42 <dgarijo> s/are not/are
15:50:18 <dgarijo> Luc: we have moved on this discussion. That's a different problem

Luc Moreau: we have moved on this discussion. That's a different problem

15:50:26 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:50:27 <jcheney> meant to say it would be nice to find out if there is consensus for next steps on PROV-CONSTRAINTS

James Cheney: meant to say it would be nice to find out if there is consensus for next steps on PROV-CONSTRAINTS

15:50:35 <dgarijo> ... what is your view, Paul?

... what is your view, Paul?

15:51:14 <dgarijo> GK: the RDF resolution reinforces my position

Graham Klyne: the RDF resolution reinforces my position

15:51:49 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame

15:51:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:51:52 <dgarijo> ... as it stands atm, I don't think it makes sense

... as it stands atm, I don't think it makes sense

15:52:00 <dgarijo> ... and I don't see a route

... and I don't see a route

15:52:19 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aaff

15:52:31 <pgroth> topic: PROV-Constraints issue

6. PROV-Constraints issue

Summary: James gave an overview of a recently recieved public comment on PROV-Constraints ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0260.html). He then outlined an approach for responding to the comment. In particular, the question as to whether we should provide a declarative logical version of the constraints. The approach would be to say that this would go in PROV-SEM if that gets produced. There was no objection to the outlined approach for resolving the issues raised by the public comment.

<pgroth> Summary: James gave an overview of a recently recieved  public comment on PROV-Constraints ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0260.html). He then outlined an approach for responding to the comment. In particular, the question as to whether we should provide a declarative logical version of the constraints. The approach would be to say that this would go in PROV-SEM if that gets produced. There was no objection to the outlined approach for resolving the issues raised by the public comment.
15:52:39 <tlebo> I'm a bit confused, how can we "perhaps maybe" break RDF semantics, then when the RDF 1.1. group punted on its semantics, we're still breaking something?

Timothy Lebo: I'm a bit confused, how can we "perhaps maybe" break RDF semantics, then when the RDF 1.1. group punted on its semantics, we're still breaking something?

15:52:58 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-CONSTRAINTS

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-CONSTRAINTS

15:52:58 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0260.html

Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0260.html

15:53:55 <dgarijo> jcheney: last week we got an email from a reviewer, who proposed a series of changes to simplify the document.

James Cheney: last week we got an email from a reviewer, who proposed a series of changes to simplify the document.

15:54:14 <dgarijo> ... I drafted a response to his points

... I drafted a response to his points

15:54:15 <GK_> @tim - I'll treat that as a direct question.  My objection is not about "breaking" semantics so much as introducing something that has unclear semantics - and no clear way to make sense of within the framework of RDF

Graham Klyne: @tim - I'll treat that as a direct question. My objection is not about "breaking" semantics so much as introducing something that has unclear semantics - and no clear way to make sense of within the framework of RDF

15:54:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa]

15:54:38 <dgarijo> ... basically we don't force people to use what we propose.

... basically we don't force people to use what we propose.

15:54:38 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aaff

15:54:49 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me

15:54:49 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it

15:54:54 <dgarijo> ... There are alwas trade offs

... There are alwas trade offs

15:55:00 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aagg

15:55:56 <dgarijo> ... Are people happy with addressing the way we have it right now, or something more specific across the document, which will imply to redesign the doc

... Are people happy with addressing the way we have it right now, or something more specific across the document, which will imply to redesign the doc

15:56:06 <dgarijo> ... ?

... ?

15:56:27 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:56:46 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:56:55 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:57:16 <dgarijo> ivan: why Antoine really wanted to use another formalism for this?

Ivan Herman: why Antoine really wanted to use another formalism for this?

15:57:45 <pgroth> i think we wouldn't change anything

Paul Groth: i think we wouldn't change anything

15:58:01 <dgarijo> ... appart from being elegant. For the practical purposes, does the document achieve its goal?

... appart from being elegant. For the practical purposes, does the document achieve its goal?

15:58:21 <dgarijo> ivan: what we have done is close but not aligned what he wanted to see

Ivan Herman: what we have done is close but not aligned what he wanted to see

15:59:19 <dgarijo> ... In my opinion, based on the discussion so far it would be much nicer to specify things in an abstract way, rather that make it more complicated (which is what he is suggesting)

... In my opinion, based on the discussion so far it would be much nicer to specify things in an abstract way, rather that make it more complicated (which is what he is suggesting)

15:59:40 <dgarijo> ivan: I very much agree

Ivan Herman: I very much agree

15:59:51 <dgarijo> ... this is the line RDF WG took

... this is the line RDF WG took

15:59:54 <GK> I had some sympathy with the commenter;  I think a normative definition based on established formalisms, with *non-normative* explanation in operational terms would be easier to get right.  But I recognize James' point about the amount of work that's gone into the current spec.

Graham Klyne: I had some sympathy with the commenter; I think a normative definition based on established formalisms, with *non-normative* explanation in operational terms would be easier to get right. But I recognize James' point about the amount of work that's gone into the current spec.

16:00:40 <dgarijo> ... and we know that although the semantic is good, we are having problems with the community for acceptance

... and we know that although the semantic is good, we are having problems with the community for acceptance

16:01:01 <dgarijo> MacTed: is it possible to present both approaches?

Ted Thibodeau: is it possible to present both approaches?

16:01:31 <dgarijo> jcheney: it may not be ideal from the formal point of view

James Cheney: it may not be ideal from the formal point of view

16:01:58 <dgarijo> ... but an abstract representation seems to be more accepted

... but an abstract representation seems to be more accepted

16:02:34 <GK> Formal semantics is hard to follow, however you do it, IMO.  And not everyone needs to follow it, as long as enough people who work in the area of formal inferences do understand it.  (Esp. w.r.t. RDF, IMO)

Graham Klyne: Formal semantics is hard to follow, however you do it, IMO. And not everyone needs to follow it, as long as enough people who work in the area of formal inferences do understand it. (Esp. w.r.t. RDF, IMO)

16:02:59 <ivan> + �1 to james

Ivan Herman: + �1 to james

16:03:22 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:04:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:04:07 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:04:11 <dgarijo> jcheney: is anyone having a problem to keeping the doc more or less how we have it? (No more formal stuff in there?)

James Cheney: is anyone having a problem to keeping the doc more or less how we have it? (No more formal stuff in there?)

16:04:30 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK

16:04:44 <MacTed> proposal: WG will make an effort to produce an informative NOTE roughly translating this doc into the other formalism?

PROPOSED: WG will make an effort to produce an informative NOTE roughly translating this doc into the other formalism?

16:04:54 <tlebo> (FWIW, the link to the work on named graphs and "bundles" from last year: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts )

Timothy Lebo: (FWIW, the link to the work on named graphs and "bundles" from last year: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts )

16:04:58 <dgarijo> jcheney: will respond point by point to the issues Antoine raised

James Cheney: will respond point by point to the issues Antoine raised

16:05:02 <jcheney> @MacTed: yes, that is the idea

James Cheney: @MacTed: yes, that is the idea

16:05:16 <tlebo> bye!

Timothy Lebo: bye!

16:05:18 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

16:05:19 <dgarijo> pgroth: thanks, bbye

Paul Groth: thanks, bbye

16:05:19 <jcheney> where informative NOTE == PROV-SEM

James Cheney: where informative NOTE == PROV-SEM

16:05:20 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.315.330.aaee

16:05:21 <Zakim> -??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1

16:05:22 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a]

16:05:23 <Zakim> -smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles

16:05:23 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

16:05:25 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aa]

16:05:27 <Zakim> - +44.131.467.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.131.467.aacc

16:05:28 <Zakim> -??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P4

16:05:28 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes

16:05:30 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth

16:05:31 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed

16:05:32 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

16:05:33 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aagg

16:05:37 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

16:05:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

16:05:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:05:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:06:03 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame

16:06:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

16:06:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:06:05 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, dgarijo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], smiles, MacTed, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, +44.789.470.aadd,

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, dgarijo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], smiles, MacTed, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, +44.789.470.aadd,

16:06:05 <Zakim> ... +1.315.330.aaee, GK, Ivan, +1.818.731.aaff, +1.818.731.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.315.330.aaee, GK, Ivan, +1.818.731.aaff, +1.818.731.aagg

16:06:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

16:06:05 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, dgarijo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], smiles, MacTed, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, +44.789.470.aadd, +1.315.330.aaee, GK, Ivan,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were pgroth, dgarijo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], smiles, MacTed, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aabb, +44.131.467.aacc, +44.789.470.aadd, +1.315.330.aaee, GK, Ivan,

16:06:09 <Zakim> ... +1.818.731.aaff, +1.818.731.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.818.731.aaff, +1.818.731.aagg

16:06:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:06:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/25-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:06:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:06:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items



Formatted by CommonScribe