- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:26:28 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Message-ID: <EMEW3|afa83626ee5d5123fd4f534570a17753o6B9QW08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4FFE8A34>
Dear all, Tim,
After sleeping on this issue, I think there is only one workable outcome:
*Membership should be a binary relation without associated qualified
class.*
Context: after F2F3, Dictionaries were dropped from prov-dm, but the n-ary
membership relation was kept:
hadMembers(mId, c, {e1, e2, e3}, true, [prov:label="A beautiful
collection"])
Recently, Tim re-introduced this relationship in prov-o as a form of
Influence.
There was some push back for membership to be a kind of Derivation.
Making it Influence
and not Derivation would suddenly introduce a new relation in the model
we don't
understand the implications. Not making it an Influence would break the
prov-o design.
Some reviewers had suggested to make it binary. It seems it is the
right choice, in
the circumstances, as the minimum we can agree on, given such a short time.
So, I will implement the changes very shortly. Please should if there
is a problem.
Tim, ..., sorry to ask, can you revert back to a binary hadMember
without associated
class?
Luc
On 07/11/2012 11:15 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> We have a number of possibilities for qualified Membership. None
> seems particularly good.
>
> 1. Membership is an Influence and a Derivation.
> Some F2F3 participants seemed to be against membership as
> derivation.
>
> 2. Membership is an Influence and not a Derivation
>
> I feel that this is not realistic. To me, all forms of influence
> between two entities are derivations.
>
> It would also be surprising that a concept that was about
> to be dropped from the provenance model, is in fact a primitive
> form of influence, not expressible differently.
>
> 3. Membership is still qualified, but not an Influence.
> This would break the prov-o design consistency.
>
> 4. Membership should not be qualified.
> Some wanted to keep it qualified.
>
> 5. ... drop membership ... timeout!
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 11/07/12 21:54, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> Luc,
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the updated membership.
>>>
>>> /We do have misalignment between provo and prov-dm.
>>> And I don't know how to solve it.
>>> /
>>> In prov-dm, membership is not a subtype of influence.
>>> I recall explicitly some F2F3 participants didn't want membership as
>>> a form of derivation. I am not sure what their view would be about
>>> influence.
>>>
>>> If the group agrees that membership *is* a kind of influence,
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to say that an element of a set influences
>> the set.
>>
>>> I don't know
>>> where Influence should go in prov-dm, since it would no longer
>>> belong to
>>> component 3.
>>>
>>> If the group decides that membership *is* not a kind of influence,
>>> can you still
>>> express Membership using the qualified pattern ... without influence?
>>
>>
>> To do so will lose a lot of design consistency.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hhhhmmm?
>>>
>>> What ever the decision ... more editing in perspective :-(
>>> Sorry about that.
>>
>> :-/
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/07/12 18:15, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>> prov-wg,
>>>>
>>>> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
>>>>
>>>> now has the qualified membership terms (I added IncompleteCollection, which we haven't discussed before).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ontology in it's usual place:
>>>>
>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The examples need to be reviewed and updated. Any pointers to flaws would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> send a link and I'll try to look at it later today
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/07/2012 14:31, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I put qualified membership back into the OWL file.
>>>>>> I need to regenerate the HTML and will check through the update today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can take a look and provide any early feedback, I'd appreciate it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understood [1] as take the 'dictionary' concepts and move them in a separate document,
>>>>>>> and keep the rest unchanged. We had just been through a round of discussion, for
>>>>>>> which there seems to be agreement on Collection, EmptyCollection and the membership
>>>>>>> as currently described in the dm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree though that it is a good idea to change the name to hadMembers or similar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-22#resolution_2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Timothy Lebo [lebot@rpi.edu]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:39 PM
>>>>>>> To: Luc Moreau
>>>>>>> Cc:public-prov-wg@w3.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Luc,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:05 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... and no qualified form for membership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dont' we want subtyping and identification ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never got the impression that qualified membership was part of what "stayed in" during our F2F vote.
>>>>>>> We continually said "Collection and hadMember", and never mentioned "qualifiedMembership and Membership".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what was the intent of the group?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, does DM intrinsically connect these and I just misinterpreted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/09/2012 09:02 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi prov-o team,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems there is another non-alignment between prov-o and prov-dm.
>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a prov:EmptyCollection class in the ontology?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 07/04/2012 03:02 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi prov-o team, again,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Find below some specific comments about the provo document.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the extensive work!
>>>>>>>>>> It needs some polishing, but the majority of it, can happen after LC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Answer to your questions:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Minor Issues in the ontology raised in my previous message
>>>>>>>>>> - Definition alignment, and make sure that example don't use constructs incorrectly (e..g hadRole)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Yes, though I couldn't follow the scenario anymore without a picture. Can a picture be added, with the style adopted by other documents
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - See comment below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Specific comments:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Section 1
>>>>>>>>>> - owl-rl -> orl-rl ++
>>>>>>>>>> - para 3: provdm introduces a MINIMAL set of concepts ... delete MINIMAL
>>>>>>>>>> - "... which facilitate a fixed interpretation and use of the prov data model concepts based on the formal semantics of owl2: " delete
>>>>>>>>>> - reference to xml-schema should be to xml-schema11 (owl2 automatically switched to xml-schema11)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> section 2:
>>>>>>>>>> - "the terms in this category ARE APPLIED IN the same way ..." not sure what this mean.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> section 3.1:
>>>>>>>>>> - "the starting point category is a small COLLECTION ..." to avoid confusion, use SET instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - definitions entity/activity/etc need updating
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - "In this case, the Agent that influenced an Activity or Entity prov:actedOnBehalfOf another Agent that MAY HAVE HAD LESS INFLUENCE, but still bears some responsibility for the resulting Activity or Entity." I am not sure we should say this at all. The agent may or may not have had more or less influence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "example.org" claiming to be* http://example.org# ->http://example.org/# ? everywhere
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - example after fig 1: it would be nice to see a "prov-style" picture
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - example 2 (agent derek) ... it was suggested for prov-dm that
>>>>>>>>>> examples should be described in past tense. It should be done here
>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - i don't understand wy ex:post9821v1 is a specialization of ex:post9821,
>>>>>>>>>> I can see it's an alternate. (in example code and in text)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - inmediately->immediately
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - "Since the provenance produced by the activities of Derek and Monica correspond to different user views, the system automatically publish it in different prov:Bundles (ex:bundlePost and ex:bundlePost1)." I don't understand. It is part of the scenario? or is part of prov?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - I am lost in the example without a picture
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Suggestion: number examples
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - an example still has prov:hasAnnotation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - "and all the data related to the post is lost. " permanently?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - example: bundles have not been used, so what is their point?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - figure 3: can we keep the conventions used elsewhere: agent is represented by pentagon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - comments in some of the example (e.g. qualified usage) go beyond the box, into the margin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - cross referencing, I am not against it, I am concern about the additional space it takes.
>>>>>>>>>> Can it be folded in the title section?
>>>>>>>>>> It's probably too early at this stage to link to constraints, though
>>>>>>>>>> this would be valuable once the prov-constraints document is stable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - examples: dererk -> dereck
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - examples: to save space, can we define all prefixes upfront and avoid repeating them
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:wasDerivedFrom contains definition of entity, and not of derivation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Bundle: the text talks about account
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Bundle: maybe should state the purpose: provenance of provenance
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:alternateOf: contains definition of software agent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -<> prov:wasDerivedFrom< .... dm ...> :
>>>>>>>>>> I guess it's always good to eat our own dog food, but I think this complicates
>>>>>>>>>> the examples.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:invalidatedAtTime the painter seem to be destroyed in 2012???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:mentionOf/specializationOf: have software agent as definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:value: "The main value ... of a STRUCTURED value."
>>>>>>>>>> What is structured, here?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:wasInvalidatedBy example:
>>>>>>>>>> Is it right to say swissair_flight_111_crash prov:used<http//db.... swissair_flight_111>?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Influence and its subclasses: can they be used alone without a concrete influence?
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't the text say something and RECOMMEND the use of subclasses?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Communication is not allowed in the domain of atLocation (see
>>>>>>>>>> example for prov:Communication)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - typo: prov:Actvity in example with policySale
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Delegation is not in the domain of hadRole (see insuranceAgent_Frank)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - example of derivation goes into margin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - EntityInvolvment: comments that appear in the example should be given in the narrative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Quotation no longer has hadQuoter and hadQuoted in prov-dm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:Revision, the binary wasAttributedTo is incorrectly qualified by an Association
>>>>>>>>>> instead of Attribution
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - example for prov:hadGeneration
>>>>>>>>>> has a qulaifiedDerivation,
>>>>>>>>>> dont' you need to specifiy influencer entity?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - no role allowed in attribution
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> :nationalRegionsList
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Entity;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:qualifedAttribution [
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Attribution;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:agent :civil_action_group;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:hadRole :owner;
>>>>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - no role in delegation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> :chauffeur
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Person;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:actedOnBehalfOf :celebrity-in-car;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:qualifiedDelegation [
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Delegation;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:agent :celebrity-in-car;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:hadRole :employer; # The celebrity employed the chauffeur during the enforcement.
>>>>>>>>>> ];
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:qualifiedDerivation
>>>>>>>>>> :bar_chart
>>>>>>>>>> prov:wasDerivedFrom :aggregatedByRegions;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:qualifiedDerivation [
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Derivation;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:hadGeneration :illustration;
>>>>>>>>>> ];
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't you link to :aggregatedByRegions;?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - qualifiedInvalidation: check time of crash
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - prov:qualifiedQuotation uses quoter/quotedAgent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - qualified source
>>>>>>>>>> :temperatureDisplay
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Entity;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:hadOriginalSource :sensorReading20120510;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:qualifiedSource [
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Source;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:entity :sensorReading20120510;
>>>>>>>>>> ];
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't there a RECOMMENDation to use the qualified pattern only if it adds new information?
>>>>>>>>>> It does not do it here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - qualified usage
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> :newsPublication
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Activity;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:used :tsunami_image;
>>>>>>>>>> prov:qualifiedUsage [
>>>>>>>>>> a prov:Usage;
>>>>>>>>>> :hasCopyrightPermission :licensedUse;
>>>>>>>>>> :hasOwner :reuters;
>>>>>>>>>> ];
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Need to add prov:influencer tsunami_image
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> prov:ProvenanceService
>>>>>>>>>> prov:hasAnchor prov:hasProvenance prov:hasProvenanceService prov:provenanceUriTemplate
>>>>>>>>>> Should not be described in the html document, but in the paq document.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - appendix
>>>>>>>>>> # Instead of defining their own, modelers should use the
>>>>>>>>>> # recommended inverse local name within the PROV namespace:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is confusing. So, it would be better to say that they are defined in prov namespace
>>>>>>>>>> though not defined in prov-o.html ( a bit like paq stuff). It would be informative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - OWL2 primer should be normative reference
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 10:26, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi prov-o team,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for producing the document. Here are a few comments on the ontology, before I start reading
>>>>>>>>>>> the html document.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you removed too many of the property characteristics, some of which are prov-o specific
>>>>>>>>>>> (as opposed to being prov-constraints specific).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I think the ontology is aligned with prov-dm. I think that Influence and influencer are
>>>>>>>>>>> quite nice!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. hadRole: why is domain defined as intersection of Influence and six of its subclasses.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not the subclasses directly?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. qualifiedXXX: shouldn't they be inverseFunctional?
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, this would allow for a given Influence instance, to be a qualified Influence
>>>>>>>>>>> for multiple subjects. This is not intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The qualified pattern is prov-o specific. It was inverse functional before, but I think
>>>>>>>>>>> this characteristic was incorrectly removed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 influencer: should it be functional: there is only one influencer per
>>>>>>>>>>> qualified pattern instance, isn't there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Likewise:
>>>>>>>>>>> hadPlan: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> hadUsage: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> hadGeneration: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>> hadActivity: is functional
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As per prov-dm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. generatedAtTime: In owl file: editorialNote "It is the intent that the property chain holds: (prov:qualifiedGeneration o prov:atTime) rdfs:subPropertyOf prov:generatedAtTime."@en
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --> It cannot be functional since qualifiedGeneration is not functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also applies to all the others, invalidatedAtTime, startedAtTime, endedAtTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Luc
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-444 (prov-o-to-last-call): Review PROV-O for last call [PROV-O HTML]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/444
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>>>>>>>>>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PROV-O is ready for internal review for Last Call release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The document is at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/last-call/2012-07-03-internal-review/Overview.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to this thread with general feedback and answers to the following questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are there any issues that should delay the WG's release of PROV-O as Last Call (i.e., is all of the technical work done).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Are the examples and scenario adequate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Should the links to prov-dm, prov-constraints, and prov-n stay in the cross reference?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim prov:actedOnBehalfOf :prov-o-team .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>>>>>>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>>>>> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>>>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>>>> United Kingdomhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 08:27:12 UTC