IRC log of prov on 2011-11-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:54:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:54:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:54:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:54:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:54:23 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:54:24 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:54:24 [trackbot]
Date: 24 November 2011
15:54:27 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:54:27 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:54:33 [stain]
pgroth: I can scribe
15:54:43 [pgroth]
thanks stain!
15:54:58 [pgroth]
15:55:05 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:12 [pgroth]
Scribe: stain
15:55:21 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:55:33 [pgroth]
Regrets: Christian Runnegar
15:55:44 [stain]
will you do the magic things for bumping to the next agendum
15:56:01 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:56:01 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:56:08 [Zakim]
15:56:17 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:56:17 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:56:28 [pgroth]
i actually don't know how to do it
15:56:37 [stain]
ok, I'll do it
15:56:48 [pgroth]
I'll do the topics
15:57:12 [stain]
that's what I meant :)
15:58:37 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
15:59:25 [Zakim]
15:59:31 [Zakim]
16:00:12 [stain]
can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break?
16:00:24 [pgroth]
16:00:26 [pgroth]
16:00:39 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
16:00:42 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:01:02 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:01:24 [Zakim]
16:01:30 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [dgarijo]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:01:44 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
16:01:50 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P10 is me
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
16:01:53 [Zakim]
16:02:01 [Zakim]
16:02:14 [dgarijo]
well it looks like many people are on holiday today :)
16:02:39 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:02:39 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:03:08 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:03:20 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:03:25 [GK]
zakim, ??P14 is me
16:03:25 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
16:03:27 [pgroth]
16:03:34 [stain]
short meeting today
16:03:34 [pgroth]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 17 telecon
16:03:37 [dgarijo]
16:03:39 [stain]
16:03:40 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:03:47 [jcheney]
16:03:59 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
16:04:02 [GK]
16:04:19 [pgroth]
ACCEPTED Minutes of Nov 17 telecon
16:04:23 [pgroth]
16:04:55 [stain]
ACTION-43 - Pgroth organising now - just waiting for actual confirmation before sending out email - hopefully by end of tomorrow
16:05:06 [stain]
ACTION-44 on Graham - we can come back to this when we talk about PAQ
16:05:12 [GK]
Oops, that fell of my Radar
16:05:30 [stain]
Stian asked about what we do over Christmas break
16:06:04 [stain]
Luc: Propose to have last call just before Christmas, Thurs 22 - not call 29th - resume on 5th of Jan
16:06:09 [GK]
(I'll be on holiday on 22 Dec)
16:06:13 [stain]
(me too)
16:06:16 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:06:19 [Zakim]
16:06:34 [stain]
pgroth: sounds reasonable - but if too many o vacation 22nd we'll cancel
16:06:36 [dgarijo]
I'll be on holidays, but I think I can make it
16:06:49 [stain]
ACTION Pgroth: Send email about holiday break
16:06:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-45 - Send email about holiday break [on Paul Groth - due 2011-12-01].
16:06:58 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-O
16:07:20 [stain]
(I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once)
16:07:28 [stain]
dgarijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up
16:07:35 [stain]
dgarijo: updated document - almost ready for release
16:07:50 [stain]
16:07:58 [dgarijo]
16:08:07 [stain]
I'll timestamp it
16:08:29 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
16:08:31 [stain]
16:08:38 [stain]
pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?
16:09:02 [Zakim]
16:09:05 [Luc]
16:09:08 [stain]
dgarijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document
16:09:14 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:09:30 [pgroth]
16:09:31 [pgroth]
16:09:32 [stain]
16:10:06 [Zakim]
16:10:14 [satya]
@Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O?
16:10:16 [stain]
Luc: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document
16:10:27 [jcheney]
16:10:28 [khalidbelhajjame]
Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon
16:10:51 [jcheney]
16:10:51 [stain]
Luc: what is happening with section 4, 5
16:11:15 [stain]
satya: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long
16:11:27 [stain]
satya: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML
16:11:29 [dgarijo]
when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry.
16:11:33 [stain]
16:11:51 [stain]
satya: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O
16:12:05 [stain]
satya: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability
16:12:16 [jcheney]
16:12:18 [stain]
satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O
16:12:38 [stain]
(Annex: )
16:13:05 [stain]
Luc: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent
16:13:43 [khalidbelhajjame]
Can then Section 4 be released as a note?
16:13:53 [stain]
Luc: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally
16:13:58 [GK]
q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence
16:14:16 [stain]
Luc: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally
16:14:35 [stain]
Luc: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view
16:14:49 [stain]
Luc: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed
16:15:00 [stain]
Luc: what is the message of all those issues?
16:15:16 [stain]
Luc: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document
16:15:22 [stain]
16:15:30 [pgroth]
ack luc
16:15:57 [stain]
Satya: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated.
16:16:15 [stain]
satya: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time
16:17:00 [stain]
satya: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate
16:17:04 [dgarijo]
what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there.
16:17:25 [jcheney]
16:17:25 [stain]
satya: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative
16:17:36 [pgroth]
ack zednik
16:17:48 [jcheney]
I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document
16:18:04 [stain]
GK: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism.
16:18:12 [pgroth]
16:18:14 [stain]
GK: so it *is* supported by charter
16:18:15 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:18:15 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence
16:18:20 [Luc]
16:18:26 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:18:34 [stain]
Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative
16:18:58 [stain]
Luc: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts
16:19:21 [stain]
(but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?)
16:19:35 [dgarijo]
@Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc.
16:19:58 [stain]
Luc: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems.
16:20:03 [pgroth]
16:20:05 [stain]
16:20:50 [satya]
16:20:57 [pgroth]
ack stain
16:21:06 [stain]
stain: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning?
16:21:08 [pgroth]
16:21:10 [pgroth]
16:21:11 [stain]
Luc: yes, that's what I meant
16:21:20 [GK]
q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well
16:21:40 [stain]
satya: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them?
16:21:49 [stain]
satya: in particular if it prevents interoperability
16:22:14 [stain]
Luc: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace
16:22:32 [stain]
pgroth: I think we need to separate questions
16:22:53 [stain]
pgroth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability..
16:22:56 [stain]
pgroth: q2 is where this belongs
16:23:03 [GK]
@paul - good intervention!
16:23:13 [stain]
pgroth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices
16:23:26 [stain]
pgroth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question.
16:23:48 [stain]
pgroth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note
16:23:59 [stain]
pgroth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long
16:24:16 [pgroth]
16:24:16 [GK]
16:24:17 [stain]
pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD
16:24:23 [satya]
16:24:24 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:24:25 [Luc]
+1 to Paul's comment
16:24:29 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:24:29 [pgroth]
16:24:35 [stain]
+1 to make a Best Practice document
16:25:04 [stain]
Luc: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document
16:25:14 [stain]
16:25:51 [Luc]
what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples?
16:25:53 [pgroth]
ack stain
16:25:58 [GK]
@satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material?
16:26:04 [satya]
16:26:05 [stain]
stain: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD?
16:26:13 [dgarijo]
+1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right?
16:26:15 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:27:00 [stain]
satya: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that. If such a user comes to see what is the use for me
16:27:07 [GK]
... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM
16:27:14 [stain]
satya: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised
16:27:42 [stain]
satya: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4
16:27:53 [pgroth]
16:27:53 [stain]
satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document
16:27:57 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:28:54 [GK]
q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative?
16:29:04 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM
16:29:10 [satya]
@GK +1
16:29:14 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples
16:29:20 [dgarijo]
+1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice?
16:29:33 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only
16:29:36 [pgroth]
16:29:41 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
16:30:06 [stain]
GK: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that.
16:30:15 [pgroth]
16:30:21 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:30:21 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as
16:30:22 [stain]
GK: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative
16:30:24 [Zakim]
... non-normative?
16:30:25 [stain]
16:30:34 [stain]
pgroth: issue is that it is a lot of material
16:30:45 [stain]
pgroth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression
16:30:52 [stain]
pgroth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs
16:31:13 [stain]
pgroth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but..
16:31:18 [pgroth]
16:31:39 [stain]
GK: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document?
16:31:52 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:31:56 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:31:57 [stain]
pgroth: would prefer just to move it out for now
16:32:16 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down
16:32:19 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
16:32:20 [Luc]
what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document?
16:32:36 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative
16:32:43 [pgroth]
16:32:46 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
16:32:46 [GK]
(So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?)
16:32:53 [stain]
Luc: OK, can do that :)
16:32:59 [stain]
just copy and delete
16:33:11 [dgarijo]
16:33:12 [Luc]
@stain, yes, plus a small intro
16:33:18 [Zakim]
16:33:30 [pgroth]
16:33:31 [stain]
pgroth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it
16:33:31 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P29 is me
16:33:31 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
16:33:48 [pgroth]
option a
16:34:07 [stain]
16:34:15 [jcheney]
16:34:17 [satya]
16:34:31 [stain]
option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice
16:34:40 [stain]
option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there
16:34:40 [GK]
(a) +0.5, (b) +0.5
16:34:47 [dgarijo]
+1 to b.
16:34:51 [stain]
+1 to b
16:34:51 [khalidbelhajjame]
@GK :-)
16:34:59 [satya]
+1 to b
16:35:09 [smiles]
+1 to b
16:35:12 [dcorsar]
+1 to b
16:35:16 [khalidbelhajjame]
+1 to b
16:35:24 [stain]
I can take the action
16:35:30 [jcheney]
Happy with either.
16:35:32 [satya]
16:35:45 [Luc]
proposal: release both documents at the same time as fpwd
16:35:57 [stain]
ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document
16:35:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01].
16:36:11 [stain]
satya: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document
16:36:31 [stain]
pgroth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on
16:36:39 [stain]
satya: yes, and with link to examples in best practice
16:36:44 [stain]
Luc: sounds reasonable
16:36:54 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:36:54 [stain]
RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :)
16:37:23 [pgroth]
Resolved: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document
16:37:37 [GK]
I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain
16:37:42 [stain]
16:37:46 [stain]
but that is the same
16:38:11 [stain]
pgroth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad
16:38:14 [stain]
16:38:15 [GK]
@Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.
16:38:19 [stain]
16:38:26 [pgroth]
16:38:29 [pgroth]
ack satya
16:38:52 [stain]
satya: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document?
16:39:06 [stain]
I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict
16:39:17 [khalidbelhajjame]
We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-)
16:39:31 [satya]
@Khalid :)
16:39:32 [stain]
pgroth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O
16:39:42 [stain]
pgroth: but we commented it out from the FPWD
16:40:02 [stain]
satya: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document
16:40:08 [stain]
pgroth: does that resolve it?
16:40:13 [stain]
Luc: Believe so
16:40:23 [stain]
(issues are public anyway, remember!)
16:40:34 [pgroth]
16:40:40 [stain]
pgroth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right?
16:40:59 [stain]
Luc: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD [ at the same time ]
16:41:03 [dgarijo]
+1 to that
16:41:09 [stain]
16:41:14 [stain]
the Best PRactice document
16:41:19 [stain]
(which does not yet exist! ;) )
16:41:21 [GK]
q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?
16:41:29 [khalidbelhajjame]
Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document?
16:41:30 [stain]
GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial!
16:41:56 [stain]
it will only be section 4 for now
16:42:16 [stain]
pgroth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week
16:42:21 [jcheney]
I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now.
16:42:29 [stain]
can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial ?
16:42:52 [stain]
Luc: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O
16:43:11 [pgroth]
Proposed: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes
16:43:19 [GK]
16:43:20 [smiles]
16:43:20 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:43:20 [stain]
+1 (witout the ] thing)
16:43:20 [dgarijo]
16:43:22 [pgroth]
16:43:23 [jcheney]
16:43:23 [dcorsar]
16:43:23 [satya]
16:43:54 [stain]
(we're all waiting for Luc!)
16:44:23 [pgroth]
Accepted: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes
16:44:24 [stain]
Luc: supportive - but don't vote as a chair
16:44:36 [stain]
pgroth: but I've been voting as a chair !!
16:44:38 [satya]
@Paul :)
16:44:41 [stain]
congrats everyone!
16:44:45 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:44:52 [stain]
pgroth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along
16:44:56 [Luc]
congrats to the prov-o team!
16:45:04 [dgarijo]
16:45:05 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-AQ
16:45:51 [stain]
GK: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else
16:46:22 [stain]
GK: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball?
16:46:25 [stain]
pgroth: happy to do the test
16:46:29 [stain]
16:47:08 [stain]
GK: might not be available in the near future
16:47:17 [pgroth]
16:47:19 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:47:19 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?
16:47:20 [stain]
pgroth: getting close to FPWD
16:47:32 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-DM
16:47:39 [Luc]
16:47:49 [pgroth]
lots of echo
16:47:57 [stain]
16:48:17 [stain]
Luc: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented
16:48:25 [stain]
Luc: some questions on derivations
16:48:37 [stain]
Luc: being edited as we speak
16:48:48 [stain]
Luc: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well
16:49:03 [stain]
Luc: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo
16:49:09 [stain]
Luc: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review
16:49:24 [stain]
Luc: don't file issues on the actual current document yet
16:49:31 [stain]
Luc: hoping to have feedback soon
16:49:40 [stain]
Luc: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation
16:49:52 [stain]
Luc: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible
16:50:01 [stain]
(You mean before christmas?)
16:50:14 [Luc]
@stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time
16:50:20 [stain]
Paolo: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment
16:50:27 [stain]
Paolo: most changes would be simplifying
16:50:35 [stain]
Paolo: and not throw everyting up in the air again
16:50:50 [pgroth]
16:50:54 [stain]
@Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 ..
16:51:13 [stain]
Paolo: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility
16:51:16 [dgarijo]
@Stian: you mean Activity, right?
16:51:21 [Luc]
@stain, what is this? PE -> account?
16:51:21 [stain]
yes, sorry
16:51:25 [stain]
16:51:31 [pgroth]
16:51:44 [pgroth]
16:51:52 [stain]
so when do we get the internal review?
16:51:57 [pgroth]
16:52:01 [stain]
if second WD is in 2 weeks
16:52:07 [Luc]
@stain, hopefully, next week
16:52:26 [stain]
16:52:49 [stain]
pgroth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed?
16:53:08 [stain]
pgroth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM
16:53:19 [stain]
pgroth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed
16:53:29 [stain]
pgroth: given time.. let us hear about it
16:53:50 [stain]
DongHuynh: observing WG development
16:53:55 [stain]
DongHuynh: first time in meeting
16:54:09 [stain]
DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications
16:54:21 [stain]
DongHuynh: to have a common format
16:54:29 [stain]
DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs.
16:54:48 [stain]
DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications
16:54:54 [stain]
DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM
16:54:55 [Zakim]
16:55:11 [stain]
DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation.
16:55:31 [stain]
DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types
16:55:54 [stain]
DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when not needed.
16:56:05 [stain]
DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?]
16:56:11 [Luc]
design rationale
16:56:29 [stain]
16:56:37 [DongHuynh]
16:57:07 [stain]
DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository
16:57:22 [stain]
DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default
16:57:45 [DongHuynh]
16:57:47 [stain]
DongHuynh: second example exands
16:58:23 [stain]
DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information
16:58:30 [stain]
(line 35 is not valid JSON btw)
16:58:48 [stain]
DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level
16:58:53 [stain]
DongHuynh: at next level is the entity
16:58:58 [stain]
DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs
16:59:14 [Luc]
@stain, yes, looks like a typo
16:59:19 [pgroth]
16:59:23 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:59:24 [stain]
DongHuynh: questions?
16:59:31 [stain]
GK: (skipping the queue!)
16:59:37 [stain]
16:59:52 [stain]
GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga
16:59:55 [stain]
17:00:08 [stain]
17:00:24 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
17:00:24 [stain]
DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues
17:00:34 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent..
17:00:50 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?)
17:01:00 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: JSON schema?
17:01:09 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: to say how it can be serialised
17:01:10 [pgroth]
17:01:23 [stain]
DongHuynh: could not hear very well..
17:01:36 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON
17:01:53 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ?
17:02:01 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching
17:02:10 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON
17:02:27 [stain]
DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability
17:02:37 [stain]
DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON
17:02:47 [stain]
DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity
17:02:51 [stain]
DongHuynh: working on this
17:03:16 [pgroth]
17:03:23 [stain]
DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure
17:03:34 [stain]
DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics
17:03:45 [stain]
DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema
17:03:53 [stain]
DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML
17:04:04 [stain]
DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema
17:04:11 [stain]
DongHuynh: is it really used
17:04:31 [stain]
DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example
17:04:39 [khalidbelhajjame]
Thanks Dong
17:04:42 [pgroth]
17:04:44 [stain]
DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process
17:04:59 [stain]
pgroth: we are running out of time now
17:05:03 [stain]
pgroth: very interesting work
17:05:14 [stain]
pgroth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed
17:05:14 [Luc]
17:05:30 [stain]
Luc: Is it possible to have a sense here now?
17:05:42 [stain]
Luc: who would be interested in working on this spec?
17:05:54 [stain]
17:05:55 [jcheney]
+0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?)
17:06:00 [khalidbelhajjame]
+1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate)
17:06:18 [stain]
Luc: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG
17:06:25 [GK]
It depends on timing, and principles. I'd want us to see DM very stable first.
17:06:34 [stain]
@GK +1
17:06:46 [stain]
@GK perhaps this is a spring project
17:06:57 [GK]
Yes, maybe in spring.
17:06:59 [jcheney]
@GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync
17:07:00 [pgroth]
17:07:05 [stain]
I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment
17:07:06 [pgroth]
ack Luc
17:07:16 [jcheney]
same with PROV-XML
17:07:16 [GK]
@jcheney +1
17:07:20 [stain]
@jcheney +1
17:07:34 [stain]
pgroth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this
17:07:37 [Zakim]
17:07:37 [stain]
thanks everybody!
17:07:38 [jcheney]
17:07:41 [Zakim]
17:07:42 [Zakim]
17:07:42 [Zakim]
17:07:44 [Zakim]
17:07:48 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:07:50 [dgarijo]
happy thanksgiving
17:07:50 [Zakim]
17:07:55 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:07:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:08:01 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
17:08:01 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:08:01 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo
17:08:02 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:08:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:08:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2]
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in