public-prov-wg@w3.org from August 2011 by author

Carl Reed

• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Cresswell, Stephen

• RE: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Tuesday, 2 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)

Curt Tilmes

• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Tuesday, 2 August)

Daniel Garijo

• Re: playing with pil ontology (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Sunday, 21 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Wednesday, 17 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• defining shortcuts and extensions (Wednesday, 10 August)
• Re: call for new question ideas for the 2nd implementation stakeholder questionnaire (Wednesday, 10 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Tuesday, 2 August)

Deborah L. McGuinness

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: Updated stakeholders survey on wiki, need to compile list of communities to inform when survey goes live (Wednesday, 17 August)

Deus, Helena

• RE: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 16 August)
• RE: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• playing with pil ontology (Thursday, 11 August)
• RE: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Wednesday, 3 August)

Eric Stephan

• Re: PROV-WG Telecon Agenda 01 Sep 2011 (Wednesday, 31 August)
• Weekly Connection Task Force Call - each Monday (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: Connection Task Force Conference Call (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: Connection Task Force Conference Call (Tuesday, 9 August)

Graham Klyne

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: Provenance requirements for RDF named graphs (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: formal semantics strawman (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Thursday, 25 August)
• Provenance model document is over-complicated and hard to understand (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: [PAQ] rel="me" (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: [PAQ] rel="me" (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-80 (about-provenance-template): Query about provenance template [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-WG Telecon Agenda 25 August 2011 (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Provenance context URIs for RDF data (was: PAQ document update, target renamed as context) (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• views, complements and invariants (was: updates to PAQ doc for discussion) (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Saturday, 20 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Saturday, 20 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 19 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 19 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Friday, 19 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Friday, 19 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 19 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Friday, 19 August)
• PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Wednesday, 17 August)
• Possible regrets (was: Telecon Agenda Aug 18, 2011) (Wednesday, 17 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Wednesday, 17 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: [paq] using anchor or different links (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: [paq] using anchor or different links (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: naming the standard (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• PAQ: revised section on querying (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• PAQ: further revision of simple HTTP interface for discovery (ISSUE 53) (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: [PAQ] editorial issues (Thursday, 4 August)
• PAQ closing issues (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-68 (http-link-domain): Domain of HTTP links with rel=provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: [PAQ] editorial issues (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-53 (sparql-query-is-overkill): can't we have a lighter method to retrieve provenance-uri, given a document uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: Straw Poll - Naming the Provenance Standard (Wednesday, 3 August)

James Cheney

• Re: formal semantics strawman (Saturday, 27 August)
• Re: formal semantics strawman (Saturday, 27 August)
• Re: formal semantics strawman (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Thursday, 25 August)
• formal semantics strawman (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Monday, 22 August)
• cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Thursday, 18 August)

Jim McCusker

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Saturday, 27 August)
• Re: [Spam:***** SpamScore] Re: formal semantics strawman (Saturday, 27 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Friday, 12 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Wednesday, 3 August)

Kai Eckert

• Guidelines for the Connection Task Force Report (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: Dates for second F2F (Friday, 12 August)
• Re: Connection Task Force Conference Call (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Connection Task Force Conference Call (Tuesday, 9 August)

Khalid Belhajjame

• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• Regrets ... (Thursday, 18 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Wednesday, 17 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Wednesday, 17 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Friday, 12 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 11 August)
• Re: naming the standard (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)

Luc Moreau

• PROV-WG Telecon Agenda 01 Sep 2011 (Wednesday, 31 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: [PAQ] rel="me" (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 24 August)
• PROV-WG Telecon Agenda 25 August 2011 (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: closing issues for the Model Document (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 22 August)
• closing issues for the Model Document (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-59 (generation-definition): on generation [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-58 (time-iso8601): is reference to iso8601 appropriate? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-48 (Provenance Concept: Revision): Revision should be a class and not a property [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: cross-referencing constraints in conceptual model and formal model (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 7 August)
• provenance model document (Friday, 5 August)
• Meeting minutes 2011-08-04 (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: Dates for second F2F (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• scribe required for teleconference (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Prov WG Telecon Agenda 04 August 2011 (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Myers, Jim

• RE: PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 30 August)
• RE: views, complements and invariants (was: updates to PAQ doc for discussion) (Monday, 29 August)
• RE: [Spam:***** SpamScore] Re: formal semantics strawman (Saturday, 27 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 22 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Saturday, 20 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 19 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 19 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 19 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Wednesday, 17 August)
• RE: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 16 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 16 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 16 August)
• RE: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Sunday, 14 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 12 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 11 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 11 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): What is a PE? (was) Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 6 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 6 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• RE: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Olaf Hartig

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Sunday, 21 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Sunday, 21 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Thursday, 18 August)
• Re: [PAQ] editorial issues (Thursday, 18 August)
• Re: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Thursday, 18 August)
• Dates for second F2F (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Wednesday, 3 August)
• [PAQ] editorial issues (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-53 (sparql-query-is-overkill): can't we have a lighter method to retrieve provenance-uri, given a document uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 1 August)

Paolo Missier

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-57 (comment-on-ivp-of): comment on ivp of (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: relation <--> property (Tuesday, 2 August)

Paul Groth

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 26 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: [PAQ] rel="me" (Thursday, 25 August)
• [PAQ] rel="me" (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Telecon Agenda Aug 18, 2011 (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Sunday, 14 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 12 August)
• Re: [paq] using anchor or different links (Friday, 12 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Friday, 12 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Thursday, 11 August)
• [paq] using anchor or different links (Thursday, 11 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 11 August)
• Minutes of Aug. 11 2011 Telecon (Thursday, 11 August)
• updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Wednesday, 10 August)
• Telecon Agenda Aug 11, 2011 (Wednesday, 10 August)
• Re: defining shortcuts and extensions (Wednesday, 10 August)
• Re: naming the standard (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Re: defining shortcuts and extensions (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Discussion focus for the next two weeks (Tuesday, 9 August)
• defining shortcuts and extensions (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Re: naming the standard (Tuesday, 9 August)
• name of standards - responses (Monday, 8 August)
• naming the standard (Monday, 8 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 6 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Straw Poll - Naming the Provenance Standard (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Minutes from July 28, 2011 Telecon (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)

Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker

• PROV-ISSUE-84 (namespace-for-properties): What should namespace for properties be? [Formal Model] (Friday, 26 August)
• ISSUE-83: Express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology (Thursday, 25 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-82 (pidm-event): Should we introduce a notion of event in the data model? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-81 (identity-clash-scope): In a given scope, are entities with same identifier but different attributes legal? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 24 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-80 (about-provenance-template): Query about provenance template [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-79 (provenance-uri-contract): what is the contract associated with provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-78 (contexts-and-provenance-uris): multiple contexts and provenance-uris [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 22 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-77 (paq-terminology): terminology issues [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 22 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-76 (xml-examples): Shouldn't we have proper examples in XML and not RDF/XML [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 22 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-75 (provenance-service-and-provenance-uri): What do we do when we get both provenance service and provenance-uri? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 22 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-74: Consider renaming target-uri as context-uri to be consistent with RFC 5988 [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 11 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-73: Use "anchor" context URI instead of introducing a "target" relationship in HTTP [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 11 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Thursday, 11 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 6 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-70 (provenance-term): PAQ document uses inconsistent terminology for "provenance" (Thursday, 4 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• PROV-ISSUE-68 (http-link-domain): Domain of HTTP links with rel=provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Tuesday, 2 August)

Ralph Hodgson

• RE: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Wednesday, 24 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Monday, 22 August)
• CIDOC-CRM Ontology (Thursday, 18 August)
• test message please ignore (Thursday, 18 August)

Reza B'far

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)

Ryan Golden

• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Satya Sahoo

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-84 (namespace-for-properties): What should namespace for properties be? [Formal Model] (Friday, 26 August)
• Provenance requirements for RDF named graphs (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-71 (Conceptual Model draft): Section 3.2 of Conceptual Model draft (Content and Editing) [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Tuesday, 16 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Monday, 15 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-69 (Process Execution): Process execution occurs over a "continuous time interval"? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 2 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Simon Dobson

• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Simon Miles

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 31 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 31 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 25 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: playing with pil ontology (Wednesday, 24 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Tuesday, 23 August)
• Re: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Sunday, 14 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-72 (DGarijo): Uses should be renamed as used [Formal Model] (Thursday, 11 August)
• Re: defining shortcuts and extensions (Tuesday, 9 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 5 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 4 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 3 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 1 August)

Stephan Zednik

• regrets for telecon 8/18, 8/25, and stakeholder questionnaire status update (Thursday, 18 August)
• Updated stakeholders survey on wiki, need to compile list of communities to inform when survey goes live (Tuesday, 16 August)
• call for new question ideas for the 2nd implementation stakeholder questionnaire (Monday, 8 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Wednesday, 3 August)

Timothy Lebo

• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)
• Re: vote on replacement for BOB (deadline: Wednesday 03 Aug 8am GMT) (Monday, 1 August)

Yogesh Simmhan

• RE: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Friday, 19 August)
• RE: Telecon Agenda Aug 18, 2011 (Thursday, 18 August)
• RE: PAQ document update, target renamed as context (Thursday, 18 August)
• RE: [paq] using anchor or different links (Monday, 15 August)
• RE: [paq] using anchor or different links (Thursday, 11 August)
• RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion (Thursday, 11 August)

Last message date: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 17:35:27 UTC