See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 01 December 2011
<Luc> Scribe: Tim Lebo
review documents today, then discuss semantics.
<Luc> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the Nov. 24 telecon
<pgroth> there here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-24
0 (was eating turkey)
<Curt> 0 (not present)
<smiles> +1 (from a quick read)
<Yogesh> 0 (not present)
<Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of the Nov. 24 telecon
on Paul, F2F page? Will do tonight.
on Graham, status paragraph. Not on call. Should be done soon. Needs to validate HTML rspec stuff.
on Paul, email about holiday break. Did not do.
on Stian, move prov-o to new best practice. Stian did it.
we need scribes, please sign up.
luc: we produced revised
document, would like feedback from members.
... objective is to release as second working draft at next week's telecon.
... a number of issues - satya, yolanda, and tim need to close their issues.
<adamretter> Hi I just joined the Working Group, but I am afraid that I will not be able to attend this weeks telecon, as its too short notice and I am travelling in Germany
<satya> @Luc, I will be responding in a couple of days
@luc, I'll start on them after the call.
luc: changes in DM beyond 2PWD
<pgroth> @adamretter welcome to the WG
<adamretter> pgroth: thank you
luc: all constraints goign to a separate section.
<adamretter> bye for now
those are plans for 3PWD
pgroth: how do the editors want
to manage feedback?
... raise issues against now or later?
luc: normal process; people should raise issues.
satya: when releasing public
working draft, what role does raising current issues
... how do issues correlate?
luc: issue creator should not which draft the issue is against.
@satya, sounds like we're just running with it.
luc: PWD every 3 months is a strict requirement of W3C
<satya> @Luc, ok I understand that point, I was clarifying another point
<GK> zakim ??P74 is me
luc: will satya, yolanda, and tim be able to review?
<satya> @Luc, sure
I'll start it after the call.
smiles: tried to address more
comments raised recently. nothing looked like blockers.
... complementarity was difficult to explain.
... okay to go to public working draft.
<Luc> PROPOSED: to release the primer (prov-primer) as a first public working draft
<khalidbelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
<jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)
<GK> +1 (Oxford)
<stain_> +1 (University of Manchester)
<Yogesh> +1 (IE)
<Curt> +1 (NASA)
<smiles> +1 (IE)
<MacTed> institution isn't typically necessary, for these, but...
<zednik> +1 (RPI)
<MacTed> +1 (OpenLink Software)
<SamCoppens> +1 (IBBT)
<satya> +1 (Case Western)
<Luc> ACCEPTED: to release the primer (prov-primer) as a first public working draft
<GK> I wonder if the difficulty of describing "Complementarity" is indicative of a problem here
gk: asking for some justification for complementarity.
luc: we are delaying complement
... complement proposals forthcoming.
<stain_> I can see the need for aligning accounts, but rather for the hierarchical prov: viewOf
smiles: what are pubrules?
(+1 for prov:viewOf)
gk: feels caught up on issues
... wrestling with pubrules
pgroth: need to get authors correct. affiliations, etc.
pgroth will email authorlist.
satya: pubrulling doc
... how frozen is the HTML now?
satya: restructuring, text, responding to new DM.
luc: constrain to spell check
... make a branch for fpwd and keep editing head.
... satya waiting for sandro's review
simon: things in primer but not up to date in model (e.g. derivation) they should not be changed in PWD?
luc: cannot make changes b/c we voted on its release
luc: time to kick start prov-sem
<stain_> shoulid be ok with edit adding disclaimer about mismatching terminology
jcheney: need to start
... will work through other documents and piece together semantics.
... start writing myself or do regular telecons?
pgroth: last week we discussed two possibilities. before xmas, outline direction?
jcheney: sounds good
<satya> @paul, +1
luc: looking forward to prov-sem, good to exercise dm
jcheney: if anyone is interested, please let me know.
<satya> @James, I will be happy to work with you since it overlaps with PROV-O semantics
<jcheney> @satya: Thanks
<paolo> I will have to catch up but am def. interested
<khalidbelhajjame> I can but in 2 weeks
<pgroth> you'll send it on the list?
please announce on list.
jcheney: will have non-members review as well.
<paolo> me also available in 2 wks due to teaching semester endgame
jcheny: draft on 19th?
santa cheney is bringing semantics
luc: F2F2 needs to identify the
work to do on prov-dm before last call release
... discuss complementarity?
<paolo> good idea
<pgroth> let's use the time
<jcheney> happy to have discussion (or lurk)
<Luc> Proposal 1. wasComplementOf in WD is fine. No change required. Proposal 2. name of wasComplementOf to be changed, definition is fine. Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes. Proposal 4. WasComplementOf in current working draft is asymmetric. It should be replaced by a symmetric relation. Name to be determined. Proposal 5. WasComplementOf in current w
<GK> @pgroth - I'm having problems with the CSS validator - stuff that works seems to be not valid, and the messages don't seem to correspond to the actual source.
<Luc> Proposal 1. wasComplementOf in WD is fine. No change required.
<pgroth> @GK arg
<Luc> Proposal 2. name of wasComplementOf to be changed, definition is fine.
<Luc> Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes.
<pgroth> @GK do you want me to give it go?
<Luc> Proposal 4. WasComplementOf in current working draft is asymmetric. It should be replaced by a symmetric relation. Name to be determined.
<Luc> Proposal 5. WasComplementOf in current working draft is asymmetric. It should be kept, but a symmetric relation introduced. Name(s) to be determined.
<pgroth> paolo mute
<GK> @pgroth If I can't nail it in the next 20-30 mins, yes please.
<pgroth> ok will do
<smiles> +Proposal 4 or 5
<khalidbelhajjame> +1 Proposal 5
<GK> I'd support an asymmetric transitive rel;ation (with a different name)
I don't support any of these proposals. wasComplementOf skirts around the issue that viewOf can address directly.
<pgroth> Proposal 4 is better
<StephenCresswell> +1 for proposal 5
an Entity being a projection of another makes sense.
(oops, forgot my scribe role)
smiles said something earilier - can you note it @smiles?
pgroth time intervals and semantics are complicated. but it can be simply "a view of a thing that has anothere view _here_"
<smiles> me: It seems helpful in general to be able to express complement/view relations, but having asymmetric and symmetric all in one concept is too confusing
jcheney: this will need to be addressed heavily in semantics.
<GK> @smiles - yes. I'm still not understanding the use of the symmetric form.
paolo: viewOf assymetric vs. complementOf symmetric.
<GK> @paolo +1 (lack of strong motivating use case)
<satya> Following up on Proposal 3. wasComplementOf is not required. It should be dropped from prov-dm like all constraints associated with attributes. - how is viewOf important from perspective of provenance?
paolo: needs motivating examples for views, etc.
<pgroth> it is needed
<Luc> what about writing use cases on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ComplementarityUseCases
I have a viewOf example.
<GK> (For me, the motivation is that the view concept underpins the constraining relationship between Entities/Resources)
luc: please aggregate use cases for complementarity
stephen - shorter term views of another entity. luc in boston, southhampton.
<GK> @Stephen +1
stephen: temporal containment,
contained entity having more invariant attributes. we lost that
when we went to complement of.
... two complements are refering to the same real world thing.
+1 to having both.
stephan: make a symmetric and assymetric.
<satya> @Stephen: So, your example is related to contextualizing entities
<paolo> @Stephen -- I would agree to having both, separately, and each with a clear semantics
<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to discuss a use case
pgroth: RPI guys are talking
FRBR, we talk about provenance at different levels of
... is complemetn the only wah to say it?
<GK> I'm not convinced the FRBR levels are really complement/view related
<GK> @tlebo +1
<Luc> my concern now is a heavy reliance on attributes, which do not have any semantic constraint now in prov-dm
<paolo> it's symmetric in the PROV-DM
<GK> ( I see that asymmetry is a consequence rather than a fundamental driver)
<GK> I'm not sure this was ever about derivation.
I agree, @gk
<satya> @GK, Tim, Exactly, I am now confused how complementOf is related to QualifiedInvolvement?
<Luc> @tlebo, i will invoke the necessary commands, thanks for scribing!
<Luc> action on Satya to agree to close PROV-ISSUE-49 , PROV-ISSUE-50 , PROV-ISSUE-101, PROV-ISSUE-105, PROV-ISSUE-125, PROV-ISSUE-126, PROV-ISSUE-100, PROV-ISSUE-101 , PROV-ISSUE-127
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
<Luc> action Satya to agree to close PROV-ISSUE-49 , PROV-ISSUE-50 , PROV-ISSUE-101, PROV-ISSUE-105, PROV-ISSUE-125, PROV-ISSUE-126, PROV-ISSUE-100, PROV-ISSUE-101 , PROV-ISSUE-127
<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Agree to close PROV-ISSUE-49 , PROV-ISSUE-50 , PROV-ISSUE-101, PROV-ISSUE-105, PROV-ISSUE-125, PROV-ISSUE-126, PROV-ISSUE-100, PROV-ISSUE-101 , PROV-ISSUE-127 [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-12-08].
<Luc> ACTION: Yolanda to agree to close PROV-ISSUE-129, PROV-ISSUE-130 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/01-prov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Agree to close PROV-ISSUE-129, PROV-ISSUE-130 [on Yolanda Gil - due 2011-12-08].
<Luc> ACTION: TimLebo to agree to close PROV-ISSUE-142, PROV-ISSUE-156, PROV-ISSUE-158, PROV-ISSUE-160, PROV-ISSUE-161 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/01-prov-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - TimLebo
<Luc> ACTION: tlebo to agree to close PROV-ISSUE-142, PROV-ISSUE-156, PROV-ISSUE-158, PROV-ISSUE-160, PROV-ISSUE-161 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/01-prov-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - agree to close PROV-ISSUE-142, PROV-ISSUE-156, PROV-ISSUE-158, PROV-ISSUE-160, PROV-ISSUE-161 [on Timothy Lebo - due 2011-12-08].
<Luc> trackbot, end telcon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/retared/related/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: tlebo Found Scribe: Tim Lebo Default Present: pgroth, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, +1.315.330.aaaa, stain, +1.213.290.aabb, [IPcaller], jcheney, Yogesh, Satya_Sahoo, SamCoppens, khalidbelhajjame Present: pgroth Curt_Tilmes Luc +1.315.330.aaaa stain +1.213.290.aabb [IPcaller] jcheney Yogesh Satya_Sahoo SamCoppens khalidbelhajjame Regrets: Yogesh_Simmhan Mike_Lang Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.01 Found Date: 01 Dec 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/12/01-prov-minutes.html People with action items: timlebo tlebo yolanda WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]