The minutes of the Oct 18, 2012 were approved. The group was reminded that about the european time change for next week's telcon.
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.
A set of responses for public comment issues was approved as working group responses (see resolution). Paul agreed to send out the responses.
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.
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.
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
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> +!
15:03:08 <hook> +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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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