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

Carl Reed

• Re: W3C Privacy Interest Group (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: W3C Privacy Interest Group (Monday, 25 July)

Cresswell, Stephen

• RE: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Thursday, 14 July)
• RE: Regarding the definition of IVP OF (Friday, 8 July)

Curt Tilmes

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 22 July)

Daniel Garijo

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: assertion language (Friday, 1 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-7: trying to reach consensus on derivation (deadline: Wednesday midnight GMT) (Friday, 1 July)

Deborah L. McGuinness

• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Tuesday, 5 July)

Deus, Helena

• regrets (Thursday, 28 July)
• implementation task force plan and telco (Thursday, 21 July)
• RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)

Eric Stephan

• Apologies for not attending tomorrow's meeting... (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: Connection to semantic news group (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Saturday, 9 July)
• Re: Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Thursday, 7 July)
• Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Thursday, 7 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Tuesday, 5 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Saturday, 2 July)

ericphb@gmail.com

• Homework for Connection Task Force and Interested Parties! (Sunday, 10 July)

Graham Klyne

• 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] (Friday, 29 July)
• 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, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Review of provenance model draft (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-37: Section 3.3 and Section 3.4: on provenance information specified by third-parties [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: blimey! is it just me or someone just kicked the W3C mail server? (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-37: Section 3.3 and Section 3.4: on provenance information specified by third-parties [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: Formal semantics notes (Thursday, 21 July)
• PAQ draft in W3C repository (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Thursday, 21 July)
• Agent terminology (was: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes?) (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Fwd: Fwd: Discontinuing UK and FR dial-in numbers for Zakim (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Wednesday, 13 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: Access plan for next 3 months (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Simplicity (was: Regarding the definition of IVP OF) (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: Provenance Access Query example (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity (Friday, 8 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Tuesday, 5 July)

James Cheney

• Re: Formal semantics notes (Thursday, 21 July)
• Formal semantics notes (Thursday, 21 July)

Jim McCusker

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Tuesday, 12 July)

Kai Eckert

• Re: Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Thursday, 14 July)

Khalid Belhajjame

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 30 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent" (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 22 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Saturday, 16 July)
• Regarding the definition of IVP OF (Friday, 8 July)

Luc Moreau

• Re: prov-wg mercurial error (Sunday, 31 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• resolution about pil:Entity/pil:BOB (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: Review of provenance model draft (Friday, 29 July)
• 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] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Prov WG Telecon Agenda 28 July 2011 (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Meeting Minutes 2011-07-21 (Monday, 25 July)
• Provenance Model draft document (Thursday, 21 July)
• irc handle (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Thursday, 21 July)
• Prov WG Telecon Agenda 21 July 2011 (Wednesday, 20 July)
• long list of actions (Wednesday, 20 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Thursday, 14 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Consolidated Concepts page (Monday, 11 July)
• who is who? (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: Provenance Access Query example (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: Regarding the definition of IVP OF (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: Regarding the definition of IVP OF (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: Consolidated Concepts page (Sunday, 10 July)
• Prov WG F2F Agenda 6-7 July 2011 (Wednesday, 6 July)
• Meeting Minutes 2011-06-30 (Tuesday, 5 July)

martin

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)

Myers, Jim

• RE: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent" (Sunday, 24 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Tuesday, 19 July)
• RE: [Spam:***** SpamScore] Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• RE: Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Saturday, 16 July)
• RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• RE: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• FW: the nature of a bob (was Re: Models and their use) (Thursday, 14 July)
• re: IVPof proposal (was Re: Models and their use) (Thursday, 14 July)
• RE: Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Thursday, 14 July)
• RE: Models and their use (Wednesday, 13 July)
• RE: Models and their use (Wednesday, 13 July)
• RE: Regarding the definition of IVP OF (Friday, 8 July)
• RE: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity (Thursday, 7 July)

Paolo Missier

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• relation <--> property (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-48 (Provenance Concept: Revision): Revision should be a class and not a property [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• blimey! is it just me or someone just kicked the W3C mail server? (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent" (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Monday, 18 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Monday, 18 July)
• Fwd: Fwd: Discontinuing UK and FR dial-in numbers for Zakim (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Regarding the definition of IVP OF (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: Consolidated Concepts page (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: who is who? (Monday, 11 July)

Paul Groth

• irc/zakim nick name (Sunday, 31 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Closed Actions (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: ISSUE-22: We lose which entity was used to generate which entity. (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent" (Saturday, 23 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Tuesday, 19 July)
• Blog post on F2F (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: Agent terminology (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Thursday, 14 July)
• Prov WG Telecon Agenda 14 July 2011 (Wednesday, 13 July)
• Re: Access plan for next 3 months (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: who is who? (Monday, 11 July)
• change in my email (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity (Thursday, 7 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Friday, 1 July)
• Re: Implementation Stakeholder questionnaire approval (Friday, 1 July)
• Task forces - brief presentations (Friday, 1 July)

Pgroth

• Consolidated Concepts page (Tuesday, 5 July)

Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker

• PROV-ISSUE-67 (single-execution): Why is there a difference in what is represented by one vs multiple executions? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-66 (is-execution-a-bob): Why is process execution not defined as a characterised entity? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-65 (domain-specific-info): How is domain specific data combined with the generic model [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-64 (definition-use): definition of use [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-63 (about the example): about the example [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-62 (about-prov-language): about provenance language [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-61 (is-revision-necessary): is revision necessary? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-60: comments on bob [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-59 (generation-definition): on generation [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-58 (time-iso8601): is reference to iso8601 appropriate? [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-57 (comment-on-ivp-of): comment on ivp of (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-56 (derivation-definition-does-not-imply-transitivity): Derivation as defined is not transitive [Conceptual Model] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-55 (are-provenance-uris-needed): Are provenance URIs really needed [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 29 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-54 (which-provenance-is-expected-to-be-retrieved?): What is it we expect to obtain when we say "retrieving the provenance of something" [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 29 July)
• 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, 28 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-52 (provenance-source-equal-treatment): why handling provider and third parties differently? [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-50 (Ordering of Process): Defintion for Ordering of Process [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-48 (Provenance Concept: Revision): Revision should be a class and not a property [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 25 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Monday, 25 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-45: isDerivedFrom and IVPof are transitive. [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-44 (shortcuts): Introduce widely used provenance concepts as shortcuts in the model [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-42 (derivation-agent): Derivation should specifically mention agent in its definition [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-41 (distinct-roles): Distinct roles should be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-40 (recommended-roles): Roles should not be SHOULD and not MUST [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-38: Section 3.4: Third party services are SPARQL endpoints [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 22 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-37: Section 3.3 and Section 3.4: on provenance information specified by third-parties [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 22 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 22 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-34: Section 4: definition of "Agent" (Thursday, 21 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-33: Section 3.1 and Section 3.2: example of IVPof [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-31 (standard-names): what names do we use to refer to the language, ontology, and access/query methods [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-29 (mutual-iVP-of): can two bobs be mutually "IVP of" each other [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 11 July)
• ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity (Thursday, 7 July)
• ISSUE-27: Consider ordering of event in model and semantics (Thursday, 7 July)
• PROV-ISSUE-26 (uses and generates questions): How can one figure out the provenance of a given entity? (Thursday, 7 July)
• ISSUE-25: Semantics group to incorporate ""derivation" or "partially determined by" relationship could be subjective or context-dependent assertion, not an objectively true or false statement." Derivation issue # 2 (Wednesday, 6 July)
• ISSUE-24: Semantic document address "P and things used by P determine values of some of X's invariant properties (less strict)" (Wednesday, 6 July)
• ISSUE-23: Create definition of involve to replace Use (Wednesday, 6 July)
• ISSUE-22: We lose which entity was used to generate which entity. (Wednesday, 6 July)

Reza B'far

• 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] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Monday, 18 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Sunday, 17 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Wednesday, 13 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Introduction + Comments on Concepts (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Implementation Stakeholder questionnaire approval (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: Defining Agent using FOAF's definition (Thursday, 30 June)

runnegar@isoc.org

• Re: W3C Privacy Interest Group (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Identity and a thing (Monday, 25 July)
• OECD Paper (Monday, 25 July)
• W3C Privacy Interest Group (Tuesday, 19 July)

Ryan Golden

• Re: Identity and a thing (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Monday, 25 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Saturday, 16 July)
• simon:ivpOf (Friday, 15 July)
• simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Proposed changes to Process Execution and related concepts (Tuesday, 12 July)

Sandro Hawke

• Access control for "Implementation Stakeholder Questionnaire Response Report" (Thursday, 21 July)
• f2f1 whiteboard image (Thursday, 7 July)
• Dietary Requirements for Lunch at Meeting Next Week (Friday, 1 July)

Satya Sahoo

• Re: relation <--> property (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-48 (Provenance Concept: Revision): Revision should be a class and not a property [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-51 (asserter-def): Asserter needs to be defined with respect to a provenance container/account [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 28 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Provenance Model (ontology and formal model documentation) (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-39 (generation-identifiable-activity): Generation should be defined as an identifable activity [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model] (Tuesday, 26 July)
• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-4: agent subtypes? (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Tuesday, 5 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Tuesday, 5 July)

Simon Miles

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-46 (where-is-D-in-provenance): Where do I find document D in provenance [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Friday, 29 July)
• Re: Connection to semantic news group (Thursday, 14 July)
• Connection to semantic news group (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Wednesday, 13 July)
• Re: Models and their use (Wednesday, 13 July)
• Models and their use (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Access plan for next 3 months (Tuesday, 12 July)
• Re: who is who? (Monday, 11 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Tuesday, 5 July)
• Re: Task forces - brief presentations (Friday, 1 July)

Stephan Zednik

• Re: PROV-ISSUE-49 (Participation): Suggested definition for Participation [Conceptual Model] (Wednesday, 27 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Sunday, 24 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] (Saturday, 23 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] (Thursday, 21 July)
• Planning page for generating the 2nd iteration of the Implementation Stakeholder questionnaire (Thursday, 21 July)
• Status of Plan for Report on Results of Implementation Stakeholders Questionnaire (Thursday, 21 July)
• Re: simon:entity (or Identifiable) (Friday, 15 July)
• Re: Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Bobs, IVP and time intervals (Thursday, 14 July)
• Implementation TF F2F1 Presentation (Wednesday, 6 July)

Stian Soiland-Reyes

• Re: Consolidated Concepts page (Tuesday, 5 July)

Timothy Lebo

• Re: prov-wg mercurial error (Saturday, 30 July)
• prov-wg mercurial error (Saturday, 30 July)
• Re: Provenance Access Query example (Saturday, 9 July)
• Re: Consolidated Concepts page (Saturday, 9 July)
• Re: Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Saturday, 9 July)
• data transformations named by Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (Friday, 8 July)
• Re: Provenance Access Query example (Thursday, 7 July)
• Provenance Access Query example (Thursday, 7 July)

Yogesh Simmhan

• RE: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-47 (third-party-provenance): How to obtain provenance from a third party known by the user [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)
• RE: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] (Thursday, 28 July)

Yolanda Gil

• Re: Agent Sub-Types (Thursday, 14 July)
• Re: Connection Task Force Informal Report Outline (Wednesday, 13 July)

Last message date: Sunday, 31 July 2011 16:07:50 UTC