16:07:40 <stain> Luc: Feedback on PROV-DM simplification. Last week we released 3 separate documents, one called PROV-DM, one PROV-DM constraints, and one PROV-ASN

16:07:47 <stain> Luc: We lined up reviewers and invited for review of docs

16:07:55 <Zakim> +Sandro

16:07:57 <stain> Luc: to identify/decide a number of issues that are in the agenda

16:08:00 <GK> In agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0415.html - but I reviewed the wrong document; I've just posted a brief update

16:08:08 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-DM_Simplification:_Reviewer_feedback

16:08:23 <stain> Luc: Try to reach consensus - if possible - links to emails sent by reviewers

16:08:30 <stain> Luc: perhaps a quick summary from each of them?

16:08:41 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

16:08:41 <stain> Luc: about if restructuring of docs are addressing points

16:08:53 <stain> Luc: Tim first

16:09:10 <stain> Tim: Feel that new draft has dramatically adressed the concerns.

16:09:17 <stain> Tim: Sent email this morning with detailed comments

16:09:27 <stain> Luc: Missed link to that email

16:09:29 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0416.html

16:09:45 <pgroth> i'll edit the agenda

16:09:46 <stain> Eric?

16:10:01 <stain> Eric: Document was over-all, great job of meeting simplification objective

16:10:05 <stain> Daniel?

16:10:13 <Zakim> +??P13

16:10:22 <stain> DanielG: Have not finished whole document, made it to the middle.. made some notes that I was planning to send

16:10:35 <stain> DanielG: Try to take my W3C hat off, and try to identify what is confusing to me

16:10:41 <stain> DanielG: Will send small details in separate emails

16:10:49 <Zakim> +SamCoppens

16:10:50 <stain> Luc: What about meeting simplification objectives from F2F?

16:11:14 <stain> DanielG: Think that it more or less has accomplished this, but not gone through the whole doc. Much clearer now.

16:11:29 <stain> Luc: MacTed? Might not be on call yet

16:11:29 <pgroth> MacTed?

16:11:46 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P13 is probably me

16:11:46 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

16:11:54 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]

16:12:08 <stain> Curt: First part easier to read, many things still confuse me. Second and Third, mechanics work well.

16:12:11 <stain> (??)

16:12:24 <stain> Sam: Find the overall structure very clear, nice separation of concerns

16:12:27 <stain> conserns

16:12:44 <stain> Sam: All 3 well written. Sent list of some remarks. (to whome?)

16:12:53 <stain> Sam: has also reviewed part 2 and 3, which I'll send

16:12:55 <tlebo> (back onto IRC, @luc, my email with comments is http://www.w3.org/mid/995BD58C-DB94-4052-BE85-BE9A271695C0@rpi.edu )

16:13:02 <pgroth> sam I don't see your email

16:13:05 <stain> Sam: Can recognize this person to become editor of draft

16:13:25 <Paolo> Q?

16:13:26 <SamCoppens> Excuse me, I have sent it to Luc

16:13:27 <stain> Jun: First time I read this document - did not read previous version, and so have no comparison

16:13:31 <Paolo> q?

16:13:32 <stain> SamCoppens: sorry :

16:13:40 <stain> @

16:13:58 <stain> Jun: To summarise, don't think the simplify document.. (?)

16:13:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]

16:14:14 <stain> Jun: Not ready for editorial draft at the moment

16:14:22 <stain> Jun: 1) Lack of context and explanation

16:14:34 <stain> ... Reading it for the first time it was difficult to follow

16:14:35 <SamCoppens> My remark was for Paul

16:14:42 <tlebo> glad we're getting @jun's fresh eyes :-)

16:14:54 <stain> ... Second paul I want to say is, I did not make a clean/clear explanation about.. provenance.

16:15:01 <stain> ... I'm just referring to minutes of F2F meeting

16:15:09 <Luc> q?

16:15:11 <stain> ... not exchanged in current draft (?)

16:15:19 <stain> ... Does not help me explain how this reach the new goal.

16:15:41 <stain> ... Luc might tell me how this structure, part1/part2/part3, how it is reflected in part 1

16:15:45 <pgroth> jun which document did you read?

16:15:45 <stain> (??)

16:15:58 <stain> (I'm very confused)

16:16:06 <Zakim> +Yolanda

16:16:22 <stain> Luc: Many things not consistent -f or instance figure not consistent with section with overview

16:16:26 <stain> ^^ Jun:

16:16:38 <stain> Jun: Mixed terminology, elements/edges/properties/classes

16:16:54 <stain> Jun: I don't mind which terminology we use, as long as it's used precisely, but that is not the case in this document

16:17:01 <pgroth> q+

16:17:10 <stain> Jun: There's lots of references to other sections not existing anymore, terminology that might become obsolete.. too

16:17:18 <stain> ... too early to raise comments on those now?

16:17:24 <stain> ... Perhaps focus on something different?

16:17:34 <stain> ... Interested in Luc's feedback

16:17:43 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/

16:17:51 <stain> Luc: Have responded to your email. We'll ask the reviewers what they have addressed.

16:18:00 <stain> Luc: ^^ is the second working draft

16:18:22 <stain> Luc: what we are standing is wether the document as it stands can be used as an editors draft

16:18:26 <stain> (is that a different document?)

16:18:38 <pgroth> point of clarification

16:18:40 <stain> Luc: If you believe that we should not do this, then what are the blocking issues form your point

16:19:00 <stain> Jun: Not quite covered in my email - how this new structure corresponds to the scruffy and precise notation

16:19:07 <Paolo> q+

16:19:16 <stain> Luc: I think these are terms we've used informally, not used specifically

16:19:21 <pgroth> q-

16:19:22 <Curt> scruffy = you forgot to read part II

16:19:29 <GK> (I agree that "scruffy" and "precise" are informal)

16:19:30 <stain> Luc: We have defined a vocabulary, those using the vocabulary will make scruffy provenance

16:19:34 <pgroth> +1 curt

16:19:47 <stain> Luc: If you follow the constraints of part 2, then it is a more refined provenance, more precise about what it is asserting.

16:20:01 <stain> Jun: So you are saying that this new working draft is related to an even longer document..?

16:20:02 <Paolo> @Jun: yes!

16:20:18 <stain> Luc: Yes, all those 3 documents were 1 big document

16:20:23 <Luc> q?

16:20:28 <stain> Luc: We've tried to also simplify the presentation

16:20:36 <stain> Paolo?

16:20:47 <stain> Paolo: Trying to locate an email I sent to Jun..

16:20:50 <Luc> @Curt, I like this!

16:21:04 <stain> Paolo: Main point is that according to the process/goals we put in place at F2F

16:21:05 <pgroth> q+

16:21:09 <stain> Paolo: simplify what was there

16:21:10 <Luc> ack paolo

16:21:28 <stain> ... question is, what that achived to an extent that we can discard the previous version

16:21:32 <stain> ... and use this as a new baseline

16:21:36 <stain> ... that is the question.

16:21:58 <stain> ... So Jun, I would ask you to look at the current baseline with that perspective - which is different than coming from blank

16:22:15 <stain> ... we're aware that that's what you promised.. so question is, is this a sufficiently good baseline

16:22:24 <stain> ... but then you need to know what the old massive document was

16:22:53 <stain> ... in my email, this scruffy vs proper is a placeholder to say is there something we can isolate as essential (part 1) and the rest in part 2.

16:23:05 <stain> ... this split should give a simplification - not labelling everything as scruffy or proper

16:23:10 <Luc> q?

16:23:20 <stain> ... just a way to encode a progression from simplest possible to be useful, to more sophisticated use

16:23:30 <stain> ... That is the email I think I sent 30 minutes ago

16:23:53 <stain> Jun: I think you managed to convince me, I must apologize. Where we started is this massive long document.

16:24:11 <stain> Jun: so this is an encouraging first step. And I hope my comments can be used for consideration further in the editorial process

16:24:20 <stain> Jun: So YES, it could be a baseline for further work

16:24:28 <Luc> q?

16:24:36 <stain> Paolo: Some things pointed out not taken into account - like what is this about. That is coming.

16:24:47 <stain> pgroth: about process..

16:25:10 <stain> pgroth: we've had pretty sophisticated reviews, need to figure out how to distill these to editorial issues, and 'real' issues on concepts

16:25:16 <stain> GK?

16:25:20 <Luc> q?

16:25:23 <Luc> ack pgr

16:25:28 <GK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0448.html

16:25:29 <stain> GK: spent all morning reviewing the wrong document

16:25:35 <stain> GK: posted a brief update ^^

16:25:47 <stain> GK: first comment: New document is definetly moving in right direction

16:25:55 <stain> GK: some comments from my review this morning still apply

16:26:06 <stain> GK: but many have been addressed, so I think this is  something we can build on

16:26:15 <stain> GK: rest of the issues are technical issues

16:26:22 <stain> GK: which we'll discuss as we get on with it

16:26:36 <stain> Luc: Sorry you spent so much time reviewing WD3 - the wrong document

16:26:44 <Luc> q?

16:26:49 <stain> Luc: for the working draft it would be good to get a number of resolutions approved

16:26:58 <stain> Luc: have anyone else reviewed the documents and want to provide feedback?

16:27:24 <stain> (Stian: I've had a quick look at part 1, which looks good, but no review)

16:27:40 <stain> Luc: Want a clear statement from working group that we want the document split into 3

16:27:52 <stain> Luc: we need to do this to get a transition request to get the new documents approved

16:27:54 <GK> Just to clarify: I think there are both editorial and technical issues to address in DM

16:28:01 <pgroth> q+

16:28:02 <stain> Luc: need to work with sandro and ivan to make a strong case for W3C

16:28:06 <Luc> q?

16:28:11 <stain> Luc: to have that resolution agreed..

16:28:15 <stain> pgroth: is that really the case?

16:28:18 <Curt> Is this 3 documents or 3 parts of 1 document?

16:28:25 <GK> q+ to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?

16:28:32 <stain> pgroth: Sandro?

16:28:45 <stain> sandro: not a strong case.. if the WG resolves that it's the right thing to do, we can make it happen

16:28:51 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.

16:28:59 <stain> sandro: question is what happens with the older one.. should these have the same URLs?

16:29:14 <jun> @curt and gk, that's what confused me:) and now i understood their relationship

16:29:14 <stain> Luc: Propose to keep same name for PROV-DM

16:29:18 <stain> sandro: yes, that solves that issue

16:29:25 <stain> Luc: propose two new names.

16:29:34 <stain> sandro: just consider them as new working drafts

16:29:46 <stain> Luc: but procedurally we need to make sure it's the same deliverable, for recommendations, etc

16:29:48 <Curt> 3 URLs = 3 html documents

16:29:50 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaaaa]

16:29:53 <stain> sandro: yes, same deliverable in 3 documents

16:30:03 <Luc> q?

16:30:04 <stain> Luc: if we are happy with this proposal, can you express your support?

16:30:08 <pgroth> q-

16:30:09 <stain> Paul?

16:30:15 <stain> (?)

16:30:17 <Zakim> +[ISI]

16:30:21 <stain> GK: Do we need to split it into 3 documents?

16:30:22 <Zakim> -Yolanda

16:30:42 <Luc> q?

16:30:43 <stain> GK: Division of material in part 1, part 2 in particular, (part 3 is useful), do we then need 3 separate documents? OR structure it within a single document?

16:30:45 <pgroth> +q

16:30:51 <stain> Luc: my recommendation as editor is 3 documents

16:30:56 <pgroth> +1 to 3 documents

16:30:58 <stain> Luc: which gives the entry points to DM much lighter

16:31:07 <stain> Luc: many are not interested in constraints, just want a description

16:31:11 <stain> Luc: a long document is daunthing

16:31:22 <Luc> q?

16:31:24 <stain> Luc: external feedback from Tom Baker and IVan both suggest splitting deliverable in separate documents

16:31:26 <Luc> ack gk

16:31:26 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?

16:31:27 <stain> q+

16:31:30 <Curt> +1 make 3 separate documents, include introduction/scope in each describing there relationship clearly

16:31:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]

16:31:32 <jcheney> afk, supportive of splitting (for now at least)

16:31:35 <Luc> ack pgro

16:31:38 <Paolo> +1 for spliitng

16:31:43 <stain> pgroth: also think we should have 3 docs

16:31:45 <Curt> s/there/their

16:31:46 <stain> hang on

16:31:49 <Luc> ack st

16:32:20 <pgroth> +q

16:32:26 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me

16:32:26 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

16:32:30 <Luc> ack pg

16:32:38 <stain> stain: could it not just be 3 html pages on one document (same base URI)?

16:32:46 <stain> stain: some recommendations do that

16:32:57 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.

16:33:08 <GK> @paul +1 (easiest way in w3c process; editor's discretion)

16:33:15 <stain> stain: if it is to be 3 separate documents, then they should be valuable on its own, say referring to PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS alone. Don't have a view if that 's the case or not

16:33:27 <stain> Luc: we can come back to working group if needed

16:33:28 <pgroth> good with me

16:33:31 <stain> Luc: Express your support

16:33:33 <dgarijo> +1

16:33:33 <smiles> +1

16:33:33 <GK> +1

16:33:34 <stain> +1

16:33:35 <Paolo> +1

16:33:35 <stain> (or not)

16:33:36 <ericstephan> +1

16:33:36 <Curt> +1

16:33:36 <SamCoppens> +1+1

16:33:37 <sandro> +1

16:33:39 <satya> +1

16:33:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

16:33:43 <zednik_> +1

16:33:52 <jun> +1

16:34:05 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.

16:34:35 <stain> Luc: Second point is to agree or not if the document as it stands can become editorial draft

16:34:49 <Luc> PROPOSED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft.

16:34:51 <stain> Luc: that does not mean we have to release them as editors draft.. but they are the current editors draft according to w3c terminology

16:34:59 <Paolo> +1

16:35:00 <SamCoppens> +1

16:35:01 <Curt> +1

16:35:01 <dgarijo> +1

16:35:02 <jun> +1

16:35:02 <ericstephan> +1

16:35:05 <zednik_> +1

16:35:05 <sandro> +1

16:35:05 <GK> +1

16:35:06 <stain> 0 - not read

16:35:06 <tlebo> +1

16:35:06 <smiles> +1

16:35:14 <satya> 0 - not read it yet

16:35:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft.

16:35:33 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

16:35:34 <GK> (I haven't read the others, but I'm happy for them to be editor's drafts for now)

16:35:42 <Luc> q?

16:35:43 <stain> Luc: Last question, do we have the agreement we have reached, from F2F?

16:35:45 <pgroth> +q

16:35:46 <stain> Luc: can we resolve it?

16:36:02 <Luc> ack pg

16:36:08 <stain> pgroth: suggest there are still editorial adddress to address first

16:36:09 <GK> q+ to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD

16:36:18 <stain> pgroth: before we can say we have achived the goal

16:36:26 <tlebo> +q to say that I think WD4 handles "conceptual versus technical" but not "scruffy versus proper"

16:36:28 <stain> pgroth: as GK pointed out, we can discuss that once it's public

16:36:39 <stain> GK: resolution that matters is when we release it (?)

16:36:40 <Luc> ack gk

16:36:40 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD

16:37:09 <stain> Tim: As Jun gave her feedback, I realised that clarity is conceptual vs. technical. That transition path that we promised, that Ivan passes to distinguish .. (?)

16:37:16 <stain> Tim: others agree with that?

16:37:27 <stain> Luc: good point, time to talk about process

16:37:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]

16:37:38 <tlebo> q-

16:37:40 <stain> Luc: as we agree they will become editors working drafts, we can raise issues in the tracker

16:37:46 <GK> @tim do you mean what we've been calling "scruffy/precise" transition?

16:37:48 <stain> Luc: and a point like that, Tim, can be raised as an issue

16:37:55 <Luc> q?

16:37:55 <stain> Luc: and then debate -> resolve it

16:38:05 <GK> ... if so, then I assume we'll work on that

16:38:05 <Luc> decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed

16:38:12 <tlebo> @gk ??

16:38:17 <stain> Luc: another point addressed from review - can issues relating to identifiers be closed?

16:38:33 <pgroth> q+

16:38:35 <stain> Luc: perhaps do that offline due to time constraints. I propose to close it, and those who raise it will answer

16:38:46 <GK> @tim When you talked about conceptual vs technical, I meant.

16:38:47 <stain> pgroth: set a time limit in the email

16:38:56 <Luc> ack pg

16:38:57 <stain> pgroth: for responses

16:39:09 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O Ontology: Reviewer feedback

<luc>Summary: Six reviewers provided feedback on the prov-o owl ontology.  There was a consensus that good progress had been made, and that prov-dm could be mapped to prov-o.  In his review of the ontology, Luc indicated that PROV-O allows for the formulation of descriptions that cannot be mapped to PROV-DM. A discussion followed, about the nature of the alignment between PROV-O and PROV-DM, but no consensus was reached about this. We were running out of time, and few participants were still on the call when we agreed on guidelines for the prov-o team.  For the avoidance of doubt, the team is invited to look at the issues that were raised, while at the same time, initiating the documentation of the ontology.

16:39:15 <stain> Luc: completes PROV-DM

Luc Moreau: completes PROV-DM ←

16:39:20 <tlebo> @GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper.

Timothy Lebo: @GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper. ←

16:39:27 <stain> Luc: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo?

Luc Moreau: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo? ←

16:39:39 <pgroth> @tlebo - i would disagree

Paul Groth: @tlebo - i would disagree ←

16:39:47 <stain> Luc: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF

Luc Moreau: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF ←

16:39:59 <Zakim> -[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←

16:39:59 <stain> Paolo: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction

Paolo Missier: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction ←

16:40:08 <pgroth> @tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II

Paul Groth: @tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II ←

16:40:16 <stain> ... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed

... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed ←

16:40:22 <stain> ... others in my email might have been addressed already

... others in my email might have been addressed already ←

16:40:34 <stain> ... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?)

... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?) ←

16:40:44 <stain> ... not seen any reply to my comment yet.

... not seen any reply to my comment yet. ←

16:40:44 <tlebo> (oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!)

Timothy Lebo: (oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!) ←

16:40:52 <stain> ... good alignment

... good alignment ←

16:40:55 <tlebo> @all, sorry...

Timothy Lebo: @all, sorry... ←

16:40:57 <stain> Eric?

Eric? ←

16:41:10 <stain> tlebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :)

Timothy Lebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :) ←

16:41:16 <stain> ericstephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment?

Eric Stephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment? ←

16:41:24 <stain> Luc: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :)

Luc Moreau: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :) ←

16:41:29 <stain> Luc: now moving target.. wait a few days?

Luc Moreau: now moving target.. wait a few days? ←

16:41:34 <stain> stephenc?

stephenc? ←

16:41:53 <stain> stephenc: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping

Stephen Cresswell: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping ←

16:41:55 <stain> stephenc: which makes sense

Stephen Cresswell: which makes sense ←

16:42:12 <stain> stephenc: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense

Stephen Cresswell: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense ←

16:42:31 <stain> stephenc: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply

Stephen Cresswell: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply ←

16:42:42 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes ←

16:42:44 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:42:48 <stain> stephenc: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements

Stephen Cresswell: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements ←

16:42:51 <stain> (yes)

(yes) ←

16:42:52 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaa] ←

16:42:56 <Paolo> @stian:  s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-)

Paolo Missier: @stian: s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-) ←

16:43:02 <stain> stephenc: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things

Stephen Cresswell: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things ←

16:43:02 <tlebo> @stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own.

Timothy Lebo: @stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own. ←

16:43:22 <stain> stephenc: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc.

Stephen Cresswell: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc. ←

16:43:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa] ←

16:43:37 <stain> stephenc: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?)

Stephen Cresswell: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?) ←

16:43:44 <stain> q+

q+ ←

16:44:04 <Luc> ack st

Luc Moreau: ack st ←

16:44:22 <tlebo> @stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them?

Timothy Lebo: @stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them? ←

16:44:23 <stain> stian: what did you mean?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: what did you mean? ←

16:44:35 <stain> stephenc: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement

Stephen Cresswell: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement ←

16:44:44 <stain> stephenc: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property

Stephen Cresswell: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property ←

16:44:54 <stain> stephenc: and then what informed by, used and qualified

Stephen Cresswell: and then what informed by, used and qualified ←

16:44:55 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:44:57 <satya> @Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules

Satya Sahoo: @Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules ←

16:45:25 <satya> @Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology)

Satya Sahoo: @Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology) ←

16:45:27 <khalidbelhajjame> @Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it?

Khalid Belhajjame: @Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it? ←

16:45:36 <stain> Stian: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules

Stian Soiland-Reyes: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules ←

16:45:51 <stain> stephenc: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties

Stephen Cresswell: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties ←

16:46:01 <pgroth> aren't property chains in owl-rl?

Paul Groth: aren't property chains in owl-rl? ←

16:46:04 <stain> stephenc: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult

Stephen Cresswell: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult ←

16:46:20 <stain> q?

q? ←

16:46:26 <khalidbelhajjame> My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties

Khalid Belhajjame: My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties ←

16:46:30 <stain> Luc: (?) did you go through OWL?

Luc Moreau: (?) did you go through OWL? ←

16:46:44 <stain> ?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything

?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything ←

16:46:49 <tlebo> stephenc: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create.

Stephen Cresswell: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←

16:46:51 <stain> ^^Curt

^^Curt ←

16:47:09 <stain> simonM: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer

Simon Miles: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer ←

16:47:34 <stain> simonM: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all

Simon Miles: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all ←

16:47:38 <stain> seemed separated from ontology

seemed separated from ontology ←

16:47:47 <stain> Paul?

Paul? ←

16:47:55 <stain> pgroth: going in right direction

Paul Groth: going in right direction ←

16:48:11 <stain> ... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records

... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records ←

16:48:40 <stain> ... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation

... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation ←

16:48:48 <sandro> zakim, mute ??P9

Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute ??P9 ←

16:48:48 <Zakim> ??P9 should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: ??P9 should now be muted ←

16:48:54 <stain> ... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM

... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM ←

16:48:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:48:59 <stain> ... but a good step in right direction

... but a good step in right direction ←

16:49:03 <stain> ... in reflecting DM

... in reflecting DM ←

16:49:21 <stain> Luc: any other comments before I give my feedback?

Luc Moreau: any other comments before I give my feedback? ←

16:49:35 <stain> Luc: pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!)

Luc Moreau: pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!) ←

16:49:46 <stain> Luc: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM

Luc Moreau: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM ←

16:49:52 <tlebo> q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul  - anyone else's that I should look for?

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul - anyone else's that I should look for? ←

16:49:59 <stain> Luc: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association

Luc Moreau: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association ←

16:50:02 <stain> generation

generation ←

16:50:08 <pgroth> @tlebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23

Paul Groth: @tlebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23 ←

16:50:10 <stain> Luc: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly

Luc Moreau: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly ←

16:50:11 <pgroth> in the agenda

Paul Groth: in the agenda ←

16:50:28 <stain> Luc: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping

Luc Moreau: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping ←

16:50:30 <tlebo> @pgroth, thanks.

Timothy Lebo: @pgroth, thanks. ←

16:50:31 <stain> Luc: I've implemented part of it

Luc Moreau: I've implemented part of it ←

16:50:33 <stain> Luc: working fine

Luc Moreau: working fine ←

16:50:48 <stain> Luc: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM

Luc Moreau: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM ←

16:51:09 <stain> Luc: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent

Luc Moreau: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent ←

16:51:24 <stain> Luc: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice

Luc Moreau: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice ←

16:51:38 <stain> Luc: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc

Luc Moreau: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc ←

16:51:54 <stain> Luc: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent

Luc Moreau: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent ←

16:52:00 <stain> Luc: what are we trying to achieve?

Luc Moreau: what are we trying to achieve? ←

16:52:04 <stain> Luc: interoperability concern

Luc Moreau: interoperability concern ←

16:52:22 <stain> Luc: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies

Luc Moreau: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies ←

16:52:31 <stain> Luc: they may not have all the same notions

Luc Moreau: they may not have all the same notions ←

16:52:39 <stain> Luc: if it is not part of data model

Luc Moreau: if it is not part of data model ←

16:52:40 <stain> q+

q+ ←

16:52:52 <stain> Luc: every mapping to a technology would include nice features

Luc Moreau: every mapping to a technology would include nice features ←

16:53:03 <stain> Luc: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks

Luc Moreau: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks ←

16:53:09 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

16:53:12 <stain> Luc: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes

Luc Moreau: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes ←

16:53:15 <stain> Luc: which would make sense there

Luc Moreau: which would make sense there ←

16:53:24 <stain> Luc: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core

Luc Moreau: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core ←

16:53:30 <stain> Luc: what are the nice features.. mapping specific

Luc Moreau: what are the nice features.. mapping specific ←

16:53:36 <stain> Luc: at the moment, the ontology has both

Luc Moreau: at the moment, the ontology has both ←

16:53:38 <stain> Luc: mixed together

Luc Moreau: mixed together ←

16:53:57 <stain> Luc: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL

Luc Moreau: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL ←

16:54:00 <stain> Luc: and let users decide

Luc Moreau: and let users decide ←

16:54:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:54:05 <GK> Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO

Graham Klyne: Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO ←

16:54:11 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

16:55:19 <stain> Stian: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split

Stian Soiland-Reyes: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split ←

16:55:35 <stain> Luc: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity

Luc Moreau: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity ←

16:55:40 <stain> Luc: that is allowed by ontology now

Luc Moreau: that is allowed by ontology now ←

16:55:43 <stain> Luc: which is not part of DM

Luc Moreau: which is not part of DM ←

16:55:47 <GK> q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal

Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal ←

16:55:50 <stain> (OK, that's a fair point)

(OK, that's a fair point) ←

16:55:55 <satya> @GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different)

Satya Sahoo: @GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different) ←

16:56:02 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

16:56:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal ←

16:56:18 <stain> GK: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies

Graham Klyne: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies ←

16:56:22 <tlebo> q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement ←

16:56:24 <stain> GK: Not sure if comments here prevent that

Graham Klyne: Not sure if comments here prevent that ←

16:56:45 <stain> GK: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another

Graham Klyne: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another ←

16:57:08 <stain> GK: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability

Graham Klyne: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability ←

16:57:08 <pgroth> q+ to make a proposal

Paul Groth: q+ to make a proposal ←

16:57:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←

16:57:16 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement ←

16:57:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, yes Luc sent an email

Khalid Belhajjame: @Tim, yes Luc sent an email ←

16:57:35 <stain> (yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities)

(yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities) ←

16:57:38 <dgarijo> i think Ivan proposed it

Daniel Garijo: i think Ivan proposed it ←

16:57:44 <stain> tlebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed?

Timothy Lebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed? ←

16:57:57 <stain> pgroth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable

Paul Groth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable ←

16:58:04 <stain> pgroth: to increase adoption

Paul Groth: to increase adoption ←

16:58:11 <stain> pgroth: and there was some census.. and now it's there

Paul Groth: and there was some census.. and now it's there ←

16:58:33 <stain> pgroth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that

Paul Groth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that ←

16:58:37 <GK> AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems

Graham Klyne: AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems ←

16:58:48 <stain> tlebo: will not raise my concerns here

Timothy Lebo: will not raise my concerns here ←

16:59:18 <stain> pgroth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3?

Paul Groth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3? ←

16:59:23 <stain> pgroth: a valid consern, but that's my question

Paul Groth: a valid consern, but that's my question ←

16:59:27 <pgroth> q0

Paul Groth: q0 ←

16:59:28 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q- ←

16:59:32 <jcheney> Luc: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means?

Luc Moreau: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means? [ Scribe Assist by James Cheney ] ←

16:59:39 <stain> Luc: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O

Luc Moreau: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O ←

16:59:41 <tlebo> Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied.

Timothy Lebo: Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied. ←

16:59:42 <sandro> tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email.

Sandro Hawke: tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email. ←

16:59:55 <stain> Luc: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity

Luc Moreau: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity ←

16:59:58 <stain> Luc: that's too much to me

Luc Moreau: that's too much to me ←

17:00:07 <stain> Luc: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible

Luc Moreau: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible ←

17:00:10 <stain> Luc: too permittive

Luc Moreau: too permittive ←

17:00:19 <tlebo> @luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow.

Timothy Lebo: @luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow. ←

17:00:25 <stain> @tlebo +1

@tlebo +1 ←

17:00:38 <satya> @tim +1

Satya Sahoo: @tim +1 ←

17:00:40 <stain> Luc: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns

Luc Moreau: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns ←

17:00:53 <stain> pgroth: what does that mean in terms of process

Paul Groth: what does that mean in terms of process ←

17:01:03 <dgarijo> @tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified..

Daniel Garijo: @tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified.. ←

17:01:08 <stain> Luc: notion of time is crucial to data model

Luc Moreau: notion of time is crucial to data model ←

17:01:24 <stain> Luc: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events

Luc Moreau: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events ←

17:01:39 <stain> Luc: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time

Luc Moreau: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time ←

17:01:45 <stain> Luc: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene

Luc Moreau: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene ←

17:02:02 <stain> Luc: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints?

Luc Moreau: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints? ←

17:02:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:02:17 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

17:02:18 <stain> (my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"]

(my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"] ←

17:02:20 <khalidbelhajjame> @prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it.

Khalid Belhajjame: @prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it. ←

17:02:29 <stain> Luc: but that needs to be addressed

Luc Moreau: but that needs to be addressed ←

17:02:30 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q- ←

17:02:31 <GK> q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL

Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL ←

17:02:31 <stain> Satya?

Satya? ←

17:02:34 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q- ←

17:02:36 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

17:02:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:02:47 <stain> Satya: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants?

Satya Sahoo: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants? ←

17:02:50 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←

17:02:53 <stain> sorry I can't scribe

sorry I can't scribe ←

17:02:55 <stain> lost battery

lost battery ←

17:02:58 <stain> NEW SCRIBE please

NEW SCRIBE please ←

17:03:05 <GK> Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document?

Graham Klyne: Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document? ←

17:03:06 <dgarijo> I'll scribe

Daniel Garijo: I'll scribe ←

17:03:24 <dgarijo> luc: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that

Luc Moreau: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:03:40 <dgarijo> ... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned.

Daniel Garijo: ... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned. ←

17:03:49 <dgarijo> satya: we have similar issues with location

Satya Sahoo: we have similar issues with location [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:03:58 <dgarijo> ... the domain is everything

Daniel Garijo: ... the domain is everything ←

17:04:05 <tlebo> OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said.

Timothy Lebo: OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said. ←

17:04:05 <zednik_> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

17:04:19 <pgroth> ack zednik_

Paul Groth: ack zednik_ ←

17:04:20 <GK> I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL.  TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND

Graham Klyne: I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL. TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND ←

17:04:37 <GK> @stephan +1

Graham Klyne: @stephan +1 ←

17:04:44 <dgarijo> zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements

Stephan Zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:05:03 <dgarijo> ... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern

Daniel Garijo: ... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern ←

17:05:08 <Zakim> +??P24

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←

17:05:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel

Khalid Belhajjame: Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel ←

17:06:00 <stain> Zakim, ??P24 is me

Zakim, ??P24 is me ←

17:06:01 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←

17:06:03 <stain> Zakim, mute me

Zakim, mute me ←

17:06:03 <Zakim> stain should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: stain should now be muted ←

17:06:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use

Paul Groth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:06:27 <satya> @pgroth: is that part of the best practices?

Satya Sahoo: @pgroth: is that part of the best practices? ←

17:06:30 <GK> @pgroth +1

Graham Klyne: @pgroth +1 ←

17:06:31 <dgarijo> I think it makes sense

Daniel Garijo: I think it makes sense ←

17:06:42 <dgarijo> @pgroth: +1

Daniel Garijo: @pgroth: +1 ←

17:06:45 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:06:59 <stain> @dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline

@dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline ←

17:07:00 <tlebo> q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development. ←

17:07:01 <dgarijo> luc: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team

Luc Moreau: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:07:10 <dgarijo> @stain: no prob

Daniel Garijo: @stain: no prob ←

17:08:14 <dgarijo> ...?

Daniel Garijo: ...? ←

17:08:16 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

17:08:20 <pgroth> Proposed: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints

PROPOSED: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints ←

17:08:20 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+ ←

17:08:26 <dgarijo> :)

Daniel Garijo: :) ←

17:08:28 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←

17:09:00 <dgarijo> jcheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have?

James Cheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:09:04 <GK> @paul That's two parts.  I fully support 1st part;  2nd part I half support.

Graham Klyne: @paul That's two parts. I fully support 1st part; 2nd part I half support. ←

17:09:10 <Curt> If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc.

Curt Tilmes: If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc. ←

17:09:22 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-relation

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-relation ←

17:09:24 <Curt> I think that's ok ;-) GIGO

Curt Tilmes: I think that's ok ;-) GIGO ←

17:09:29 <stain> @Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O

@Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O ←

17:09:40 <stain> @Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints

@Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints ←

17:09:42 <dgarijo> luc: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda)

Luc Moreau: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda) [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:09:45 <satya> @Curt, Stian: rules

Satya Sahoo: @Curt, Stian: rules ←

17:09:59 <dgarijo> ... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance

Daniel Garijo: ... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance ←

17:10:19 <jun> @curt, or examples?

Jun Zhao: @curt, or examples? ←

17:10:50 <dgarijo> luc: the solution is go to the email and discuss it.

Luc Moreau: the solution is go to the email and discuss it. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:11:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document

Paul Groth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:11:24 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

17:11:27 <jun> rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale?

Jun Zhao: rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale? ←

17:11:29 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

17:11:32 <zednik_> we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage

Stephan Zednik: we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage ←

17:11:36 <pgroth> q+ Luc

Paul Groth: q+ Luc ←

17:11:41 <stain> { ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity }

{ ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity } ←

17:11:43 <dgarijo> jcheney: missinterpreting what Luc said.

James Cheney: missinterpreting what Luc said. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:12:01 <GK> @jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator

Graham Klyne: @jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator ←

17:12:10 <stain> exactly

exactly ←

17:12:25 <stain> people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL

people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL ←

17:12:27 <dgarijo> luc: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM

Luc Moreau: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:12:30 <stain> use it as an RDFS vocabulary

use it as an RDFS vocabulary ←

17:12:43 <tlebo> @jcheney, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ?

Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ? ←

17:12:55 <jun> @gk, ack. gotcha

Jun Zhao: @gk, ack. gotcha ←

17:13:14 <dgarijo> jcheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl

James Cheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:13:24 <Curt> A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o

Curt Tilmes: A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o ←

17:13:29 <satya> 1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over)

Satya Sahoo: 1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over) ←

17:13:50 <dgarijo> ... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it?

Daniel Garijo: ... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it? ←

17:13:59 <Luc> That' s how I suggested we can address the issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0414.html

Luc Moreau: That' s how I suggested we can address the issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0414.html ←

17:13:59 <pgroth> q

Paul Groth: q ←

17:14:00 <satya> 2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile

Satya Sahoo: 2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile ←

17:14:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:14:04 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

17:14:05 <GK> I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information

Graham Klyne: I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information ←

17:14:15 <dgarijo> luc: I don't have a formal ..?..

Luc Moreau: I don't have a formal ..?.. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:14:42 <dgarijo> ... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM

Daniel Garijo: ... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM ←

17:14:54 <dgarijo> ... I made a suggestion on the email

Daniel Garijo: ... I made a suggestion on the email ←

17:14:55 <satya> 3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF)

Satya Sahoo: 3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF) ←

17:15:28 <dgarijo> ... I am concerned about the interoperability issues

Daniel Garijo: ... I am concerned about the interoperability issues ←

17:15:33 <Paolo> have to go now, apologies

Paolo Missier: have to go now, apologies ←

17:15:40 <GK> My definition of interoperability above:  anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information

Graham Klyne: My definition of interoperability above: anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information ←

17:15:47 <dgarijo> ... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition

Daniel Garijo: ... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition ←

17:16:10 <stain> @GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things

@GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things ←

17:16:13 <dgarijo> pgroth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff

Paul Groth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:16:17 <stephenc> @satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL

Stephen Cresswell: @satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL ←

17:16:33 <dgarijo> ... that shouldn't be a blocker

Daniel Garijo: ... that shouldn't be a blocker ←

17:16:39 <GK> @stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability

Graham Klyne: @stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability ←

17:16:42 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaa] ←

17:16:57 <dgarijo> ... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is

Daniel Garijo: ... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is ←

17:17:08 <jcheney> @GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means).

James Cheney: @GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means). ←

17:17:10 <dgarijo> ... but we could raise issues

Daniel Garijo: ... but we could raise issues ←

17:17:12 <stain> @GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard.

@GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard. ←

17:17:14 <dgarijo> luc: agrees

Luc Moreau: agrees [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:17:28 <Zakim> -??P0

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P0 ←

17:17:32 <dgarijo> luc: what Tim thinks about this?

Luc Moreau: what Tim thinks about this? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:17:40 <Zakim> -SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens ←

17:17:49 <stain> jcheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough

James Cheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough ←

17:17:50 <dgarijo> tlebo: james just said what I wanted to say

Timothy Lebo: james just said what I wanted to say [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:18:11 <GK> @jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable?

Graham Klyne: @jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable? ←

17:18:15 <dgarijo> ---a lot of typiing noise!!--

Daniel Garijo: ---a lot of typiing noise!!-- ←

17:18:41 <jcheney> @GK: not sure yet...

James Cheney: @GK: not sure yet... ←

17:18:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:18:42 <dgarijo> luc: there have been some recent changes

Luc Moreau: there have been some recent changes [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:18:47 <dgarijo> @GK: thanks!

Daniel Garijo: @GK: thanks! ←

17:19:12 <stain> the ontology has always allowed  even :entity1 prov:used :entity2   as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL)

the ontology has always allowed even :entity1 prov:used :entity2 as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL) ←

17:19:14 <dgarijo> tlebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model

Timothy Lebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:19:24 <stain> eh// entity and activity

eh// entity and activity ←

17:19:31 <dgarijo> @stian: you are actually right..

Daniel Garijo: @stian: you are actually right.. ←

17:19:53 <dgarijo> tlebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements

Timothy Lebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:20:08 <dgarijo> ... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns

Daniel Garijo: ... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns ←

17:20:39 <dgarijo> ... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository

Daniel Garijo: ... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository ←

17:20:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:20:51 <dgarijo> luc: it is a very good idea

Luc Moreau: it is a very good idea [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:20:55 <satya> @tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements)

Satya Sahoo: @tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements) ←

17:20:56 <GK> Test cases are good.

Graham Klyne: Test cases are good. ←

17:21:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is

Paul Groth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:21:31 <dgarijo> ... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going

Daniel Garijo: ... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going ←

17:21:53 <dgarijo> luc: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback

Luc Moreau: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:21:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

17:22:10 <dgarijo> ... it will be good to see what the response is

Daniel Garijo: ... it will be good to see what the response is ←

17:22:26 <GK> Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean?  What really matters is can we proceed with this?

Graham Klyne: Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean? What really matters is can we proceed with this? ←

17:22:31 <dgarijo> ... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec

Daniel Garijo: ... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec ←

17:22:32 <stain> @Luc

@Luc ←

17:22:33 <stain> +1

+1 ←

17:22:49 <dgarijo> pgroth: what's next for that team?

Paul Groth: what's next for that team? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:22:51 <tlebo> (just blacked out for a minute)

Timothy Lebo: (just blacked out for a minute) ←

17:23:12 <dgarijo> ... can they start working on the doc?

Daniel Garijo: ... can they start working on the doc? ←

17:23:25 <dgarijo> ... solve all the issues of the ontology first?

Daniel Garijo: ... solve all the issues of the ontology first? ←

17:23:39 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:23:40 <dgarijo> +q

Daniel Garijo: +q ←

17:23:42 <stain> q+

q+ ←

17:23:47 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←

17:24:09 <khalidbelhajjame> I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation

Khalid Belhajjame: I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation ←

17:24:18 <stain> Zakim, unmute me

Zakim, unmute me ←

17:24:18 <Zakim> stain should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: stain should no longer be muted ←

17:24:24 <pgroth> ack dgarijo

Paul Groth: ack dgarijo ←

17:24:26 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

17:24:54 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:24:59 <stain> Zakim, mute me

Zakim, mute me ←

17:24:59 <Zakim> stain should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: stain should now be muted ←

17:25:07 <Luc> what do other reviewers think?

Luc Moreau: what do other reviewers think? ←

17:25:11 <dgarijo> stain: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues

Stian Soiland-Reyes: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:25:15 <tlebo> the HTML needs to stop being postponed.

Timothy Lebo: the HTML needs to stop being postponed. ←

17:25:17 <GK> @paul +1

Graham Klyne: @paul +1 ←

17:25:19 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:25:40 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:25:50 <dgarijo> pgroth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point

Paul Groth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:26:20 <jun> as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel

Jun Zhao: as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel ←

17:26:24 <dgarijo> ... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not

Daniel Garijo: ... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not ←

17:27:03 <dgarijo> ... issues 64, 262..?

Daniel Garijo: ... issues 64, 262..? ←

17:27:07 <dgarijo> ah ok

Daniel Garijo: ah ok ←

17:27:27 <Luc> 253, 262, 263

Luc Moreau: 253, 262, 263 ←

17:27:30 <GK> Alternative definition of interop:  any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information.  I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN.

Graham Klyne: Alternative definition of interop: any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information. I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN. ←

17:27:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

17:27:48 <pgroth> proposed: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back

PROPOSED: prov-o team look at the ISSUE-253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back ←

17:27:57 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

17:27:59 <stain> +1

+1 ←

17:28:07 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

17:28:07 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

17:28:10 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

17:28:11 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1 ←

17:28:11 <zednik_> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

17:28:12 <Luc> @GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression?

Luc Moreau: @GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression? ←

17:28:23 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

17:28:24 <tlebo> bye bye!

Timothy Lebo: bye bye! ←

<Luc> ACCEPTED: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back

RESOLVED: prov-o team look at the ISSUE-253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back ←

17:28:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: bye

Paul Groth: bye [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

17:28:29 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a] ←

17:28:30 <stain> bye!

bye! ←

17:28:30 <ericstephan> see ya!

Eric Stephan: see ya! ←

17:28:30 <Zakim> - +1.315.723.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.315.723.aaaa ←

17:28:31 <khalidbelhajjame> bye

Khalid Belhajjame: bye ←

17:28:32 <Zakim> -??P25

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P25 ←

17:28:33 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←

17:28:33 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←

17:28:34 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←

17:28:37 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←

17:28:38 <GK> @luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL

Graham Klyne: @luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL ←

17:28:39 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←

17:28:45 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaaa]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaaa] ←

17:28:46 <pgroth> are you doing the minutes luc?

Paul Groth: are you doing the minutes luc? ←

17:28:47 <Zakim> - +1.509.967.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.509.967.aabb ←

17:28:49 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←

17:28:52 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aa] ←

17:28:53 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←

17:28:53 <GK> Bye.

Graham Klyne: Bye. ←

17:28:57 <Luc> It would be good if it could be mechanical!

Luc Moreau: It would be good if it could be mechanical! ←

17:28:58 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←

17:29:07 <pgroth> Zakim, make logs public

Paul Groth: Zakim, make logs public ←

17:29:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth ←

17:29:14 <GK> @luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not

Graham Klyne: @luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not ←

17:29:57 <Zakim> -??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P9 ←

17:30:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, make records public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make records public ←

17:30:18 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←

17:30:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←

17:30:25 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←

17:30:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←

17:30:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo, Yolanda,

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo, Yolanda, ←

17:30:28 <Zakim> ... [ISI], stain

Zakim IRC Bot: ... [ISI], stain ←

17:30:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←

17:30:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←

17:30:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←

17:30:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---

This revision (#3) generated 2012-02-23 21:45:09 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None