- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:51:09 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <06F2A3EF-AA8B-4DC5-B775-1F2510BDB1D7@rpi.edu>
Luc,
On Jul 12, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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?
I'm reluctant to revert until we have group consensus, so that I can avoid the risk of re-un-reverting.
Can this be a topic in today's call, perhaps as part of the LC vote?
Thanks,
Tim
>
> 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 Kingdom http://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 Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 14:54:15 UTC