15:54:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:54:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc
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> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.24
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> +[IPcaller]
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> +Luc
15:59:31 <Zakim> +stain
16:00:12 <stain> can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break?
16:00:24 <pgroth> ok
16:00:26 <pgroth> yes
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> +??P10
16:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
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> +??P9
16:02:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
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> +??P14
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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-17
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> +1
16:03:39 <stain> +1
16:03:40 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:03:47 <jcheney> +1
16:03:59 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:04:02 <GK> +1
16:04:19 <pgroth> ACCEPTED Minutes of Nov 17  telecon
16:04:23 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
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> +[IPcaller]
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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:07:58 <dgarijo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:08:07 <stain> I'll timestamp it
16:08:29 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:08:31 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:08:38 <stain> pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?
16:09:02 <Zakim> +Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath
16:09:05 <Luc> q+
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> zednik
16:09:31 <pgroth> ?
16:09:32 <stain> q?
16:10:06 <Zakim> +??P27
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> q+
16:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon
16:10:51 <jcheney> q-
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> Monday
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> q+
16:12:18 <stain> satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O
16:12:38 <stain> (Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints ) 
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> q?
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> q-
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> q?
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> q+
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> q?
16:20:05 <stain> q+
16:20:50 <satya> q+
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> q?
16:21:10 <pgroth> q+
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> q?
16:24:16 <GK> q-
16:24:17 <stain> pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD
16:24:23 <satya> q-
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> q?
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> q+
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> q+
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> q?
16:27:53 <stain> satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document
16:27:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
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> q?
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> q+
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> +1
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> q?
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> +q
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> q?
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> @stian:+1
16:33:12 <Luc> @stain, yes, plus a small intro
16:33:18 <Zakim> +??P29
16:33:30 <pgroth> q?
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> +1
16:34:15 <jcheney> +1
16:34:17 <satya> +1
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> q+
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 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications
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> right
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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints
16:38:15 <GK> @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.
16:38:19 <stain> ;)
16:38:26 <pgroth> q?
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> q?
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> sorry
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> +1
16:43:20 <smiles> +1
16:43:20 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:43:20 <stain> +1 (witout the ] thing)
16:43:20 <dgarijo> +1
16:43:22 <pgroth> +1
16:43:23 <jcheney> +1
16:43:23 <dcorsar> +1
16:43:23 <satya> +1
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> Hurray
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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html
16:47:08 <stain> GK: might not be available in the near future
16:47:17 <pgroth> q?
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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version
16:47:49 <pgroth> lots of echo
16:47:57 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html
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> q?
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> Activity
16:51:31 <pgroth> q?
16:51:44 <pgroth> q?
16:51:52 <stain> so when do we get the internal review?
16:51:57 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-JSON
16:52:01 <stain> if second WD is in 2 weeks
16:52:07 <Luc> @stain, hopefully, next week
16:52:26 <stain> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/
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> -Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath
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 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction
16:56:29 <stain> examples
16:56:37 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json
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> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json
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> q?
16:59:23 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:59:24 <stain> DongHuynh: questions?
16:59:31 <stain> GK: (skipping the queue!)
16:59:37 <stain> GK: JSON-LD? 
16:59:52 <stain> GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga
16:59:55 <stain> glance
17:00:08 <stain> http://json-ld.org/
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> q?
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> http://json-schema.org/
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> q?
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> q+
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> +1
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> q?
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> -Paolo
17:07:37 <stain> thanks everybody!
17:07:38 <jcheney> bye
17:07:41 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
17:07:42 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:07:42 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:07:44 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:07:48 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:07:50 <dgarijo> happy thanksgiving
17:07:50 <Zakim> -??P27
17:07:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:07:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:08:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:08:03 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf :
17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]
17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57