Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 10 May 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.10
Seen
Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Ted Thibodeau, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies
Regrets
Curt Tilmes
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
Daniel Garijo
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. last week's minutes link
  2. to release PAQ as a working draft link
  3. drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly link
Topics
  1. Admin

  2. release of document

    We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message.

  3. PAQ

    The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time.

  4. all documents

    we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group.

  5. WasQuotedFrom

    the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email.

  6. WasStartedByActivity

    the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted.

  7. Collections

    Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document. He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed. On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section. Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification. It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents. It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week.

  8. bundle

    A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes. This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback.

14:43:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-irc

14:44:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:44:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:44:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

14:44:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:44:04 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2012
14:44:04 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:44:04 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes

14:44:15 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.10
14:44:23 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:34 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo

(Scribe set to Daniel Garijo)

14:44:40 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

14:44:49 <Luc> Regrets: Curt Tilmes
14:44:58 <Luc> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

14:51:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

14:51:26 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?

Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call?

14:51:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

14:51:47 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?

Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call?

14:51:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

14:51:50 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

14:51:51 <Zakim> Attendees were

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were

14:52:16 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

14:52:30 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?

Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call?

14:52:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

15:00:08 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

(No events recorded for 7 minutes)

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call?

15:00:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

15:00:23 <lebot> Zakim, I am no one

Timothy Lebo: Zakim, I am no one

15:00:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I am no one', lebot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'I am no one', lebot

15:00:31 <Luc> ;-)

Luc Moreau: ;-)

15:00:31 <lebot> zakim, who is on the phone?

Timothy Lebo: zakim, who is on the phone?

15:00:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

15:01:05 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call?

15:01:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

15:01:14 <dgarijo> scribe:dgarijo
15:02:14 <MacTed> Zakim who, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim who, who's here?

15:02:19 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here?

15:02:27 <Luc> @sandro, zakim does not seem to know we are on the phone. Suggestion?

Luc Moreau: @sandro, zakim does not seem to know we are on the phone. Suggestion?

15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

15:02:31 <dgarijo> Zakim is silent today...

Zakim is silent today...

15:02:38 <MacTed> Zakim, code?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, code?

15:02:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, jcheney, jun, stephenc, zednik, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, smiles, lebot, MacTed, Paolo, GK, GK_, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TomDN, jcheney, jun, stephenc, zednik, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, smiles, lebot, MacTed, Paolo, GK, GK_, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro

15:02:45 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed

15:03:38 <dgarijo> Luc: admin Issues, release of documents: PAQ, proposals, organization about connections and bundles

Luc Moreau: admin Issues, release of documents: PAQ, proposals, organization about connections and bundles

15:03:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03

15:03:54 <Luc> proposed: to accept last week's minutes

PROPOSED: to accept last week's minutes

15:03:57 <dgarijo> +1

+1

15:03:58 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:04:02 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:04:03 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:04:11 <khalidbelhajjame> +0 (wasn't present)

Khalid Belhajjame: +0 (wasn't present)

15:04:14 <lebot> "Presentation on editorial changes to e PAQ" ?

Timothy Lebo: "Presentation on editorial changes to e PAQ" ?

15:04:22 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1

15:04:29 <Paolo> where are the minutes?

Paolo Missier: where are the minutes?

15:04:40 <GK> e PAQ I think means "the PAQ"

Graham Klyne: e PAQ I think means "the PAQ"

15:04:49 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:04:56 <Luc> Accepted: last week's minutes

RESOLVED: last week's minutes

15:04:57 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:05:03 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:05:06 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call?

15:05:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one

15:05:34 <dgarijo> Luc: review of actions

Luc Moreau: review of actions

15:05:44 <dgarijo> ... 2 on Satya to announce the documents.

... 2 on Satya to announce the documents.

15:05:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I believe it is done

Luc Moreau: I believe it is done

15:06:05 <dgarijo> Paul: yes it is complete

Paul Groth: yes it is complete

15:06:05 <sandro> zakim, this is prov

Sandro Hawke: zakim, this is prov

15:06:05 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM

15:06:36 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes

15:06:36 <pgroth> he did it

Paul Groth: he did it

15:06:37 <dgarijo> Luc: action on Sandro, will do that next week. Another one on Paolo (Data One), done

Luc Moreau: action on Sandro, will do that next week. Another one on Paolo (Data One), done

15:06:54 <jun> yes, we got it!

Jun Zhao: yes, we got it!

15:07:05 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

15:07:10 <dgarijo> Luc: just a reminder for scribes

Luc Moreau: just a reminder for scribes

15:07:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:07:25 <dgarijo> Paul: comment on annoucements.

Paul Groth: comment on annoucements.

15:07:30 <pgroth> public-prov-wg

Paul Groth: public-prov-wg

15:07:39 <pgroth> public-prov-comments

Paul Groth: public-prov-comments

15:07:49 <jcheney> lots of echos

James Cheney: lots of echos

15:07:53 <dgarijo> ... We used public prov-wg as the mailing list, but it should be public-prov-comments.

... We used public prov-wg as the mailing list, but it should be public-prov-comments.

15:08:42 <dgarijo> sandro: I'll see if I can set up something to fix that.

Sandro Hawke: I'll see if I can set up something to fix that.

15:08:48 <GK> PAQ has public-prov-comments (though not included in this call)

Graham Klyne: PAQ has public-prov-comments (though not included in this call)

15:09:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:09:25 <Luc> topic: release of document

2. release of document

Summary: We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message.

<Luc>Summary: We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message.
15:09:28 <dgarijo> Luc: release of documents.

Luc Moreau: release of documents.

15:09:34 <dgarijo> ... how dissemination is going?

... how dissemination is going?

15:09:45 <dgarijo> ... stephan Zednick did something, I believe.

... stephan Zednick did something, I believe.

15:10:03 <dgarijo> stephanZ: I send an email to the stake holders that had filled the survey

Stephan Zednik: I send an email to the stake holders that had filled the survey

15:10:06 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks

Luc Moreau: thanks

15:10:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:10:17 <Luc> Topic: PAQ

3. PAQ

Summary: The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time.

<Luc>Summary: The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time.
15:10:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: I got a few responses with people reviewing / trying to implement

Paul Groth: I got a few responses with people reviewing / trying to implement

15:10:51 <dgarijo> ... 3 responses

... 3 responses

15:10:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I had 1 response too.

Luc Moreau: I had 1 response too.

15:11:03 <dgarijo> Luc: PAQ

Luc Moreau: PAQ

15:11:09 <GK_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html

Graham Klyne: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html

15:11:10 <Luc>  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html [edit]

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html [edit]

15:11:20 <Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft

PROPOSED: to release PAQ as a working draft

15:11:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:11:38 <dgarijo> ... release this version of the document as a working draft. Any comments/feedback?

... release this version of the document as a working draft. Any comments/feedback?

15:11:46 <Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft

PROPOSED: to release PAQ as a working draft

15:11:54 <smiles> +!

Simon Miles: +!

15:11:55 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:11:55 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:11:56 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:11:59 <dgarijo> +1

+1

15:12:00 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:12:01 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:12:02 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:12:03 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:12:08 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:12:12 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:12:14 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:12:21 <Luc> Accepted: to release PAQ as a working draft

RESOLVED: to release PAQ as a working draft

15:12:44 <Luc> Topic: all documents

4. all documents

Summary: we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group.

<Luc>Summary: we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group.
15:12:45 <dgarijo> Luc: editors have now de green light to proceed and contact the web master

Luc Moreau: editors have now de green light to proceed and contact the web master

15:12:59 <pgroth> @gk I'm on vacation next week so won't do anything then

Paul Groth: @gk I'm on vacation next week so won't do anything then

15:13:05 <dgarijo> ... on f2f2 we agreed on a time table

... on f2f2 we agreed on a time table

15:13:27 <dgarijo> ... we have plans to release new version of the docs for internal review for Jun 1st

... we have plans to release new version of the docs for internal review for June 1st

15:13:52 <dgarijo> ... we (Paul and I) would like to know the plans form various editors in order to achieve this.

... we (Paul and I) would like to know the plans form various editors in order to achieve this.

15:13:53 <jun> s/Jun/June/
15:13:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft6

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft6

15:14:06 <dgarijo> @Jun thanks.

@Jun thanks.

15:14:45 <dgarijo> Luc: we are going through the issues in the DM, will be dealing with bundles (hopefully today)

Luc Moreau: we are going through the issues in the DM, will be dealing with bundles (hopefully today)

15:15:36 <dgarijo> ... in terms of prov-n we are finilizing the syntax of identifiers + outstanding issues. We think we will achieve the deadline. What do other editors plan to do?

... in terms of prov-n we are finilizing the syntax of identifiers + outstanding issues. We think we will achieve the deadline. What do other editors plan to do?

15:15:46 <GK> @paul - I'm unclear about details of the publication procedure - I can have a go at the export and pubrules checking, but if I get stuck I guess it's not crucial if we don;'t make it until after next week?

Graham Klyne: @paul - I'm unclear about details of the publication procedure - I can have a go at the export and pubrules checking, but if I get stuck I guess it's not crucial if we don;'t make it until after next week?

15:16:33 <lebot> q+ to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for clarity (with more narrative on terms).

Timothy Lebo: q+ to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for clarity (with more narrative on terms).

15:16:54 <dgarijo> jamesC: The constraints haven't been reviewd yet. I hope to hear from Tim and Graham (not necessarily right now)

James Cheney: The constraints haven't been reviewed yet. I hope to hear from Tim and Graham (not necessarily right now)

15:17:09 <dgarijo> s/reviewd/reviewed
15:17:09 <lebot> q+ again to james - he's ready for another review?

Timothy Lebo: q+ again to james - he's ready for another review?

15:17:39 <dgarijo> ... I reorganized the doc.

... I reorganized the doc.

15:17:52 <sandro> +Testing

Sandro Hawke: +Testing

15:18:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:18:00 <dgarijo> Luc: we have not received feedback from the other 2 reviewers.

Luc Moreau: we have not received feedback from the other 2 reviewers.

15:18:46 <dgarijo> tlebo: I was waiting from James to say whether the doc war ready to be reviewed.

Timothy Lebo: I was waiting from James to say whether the doc war ready to be reviewed.

15:19:23 <dgarijo> jamesC: I'd like to know if previous issues have been fixed.

James Cheney: I'd like to know if previous issues have been fixed.

15:19:32 <Luc> Action on tlebot to review latest prov-constraints

Luc Moreau: Action on tlebot to review latest prov-constraints

15:19:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - on

15:19:39 <dgarijo> Luc: action on tim to review the doc

Luc Moreau: action on tim to review the doc

15:19:58 <Luc> Action tlebot to review latest prov-constraints

Luc Moreau: Action tlebot to review latest prov-constraints

15:19:58 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - tlebot

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - tlebot

15:20:01 <dgarijo> graham: I'll have a look too

Graham Klyne: I'll have a look too

15:20:20 <Luc> Action GK to review latest prov-constraints

Luc Moreau: Action GK to review latest prov-constraints

15:20:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Review latest prov-constraints  [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-05-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-89 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-05-17].

15:20:24 <dgarijo> ... my previous comments might have been overtaken by reorganization

... my previous comments might have been overtaken by reorganization

15:20:33 <lebot> @luc, sorry, I slipped to @lebot today...

Timothy Lebo: @luc, sorry, I slipped to @lebot today...

15:20:46 <lebot> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

15:20:47 <Luc> Action lebot to review latest prov-constraints

Luc Moreau: Action lebot to review latest prov-constraints

15:20:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Review latest prov-constraints  [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-05-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-90 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-05-17].

15:21:10 <dgarijo> Luc: prov-o document

Luc Moreau: prov-o document

15:21:41 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:21:43 <dgarijo> lebot: The plan for the next 3 weeks is to create examples for every term and clean the issues

Timothy Lebo: The plan for the next 3 weeks is to create examples for every term and clean the issues

15:21:48 <Luc> ack leb

Luc Moreau: ack leb

15:21:48 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for

Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for

15:21:52 <Zakim> ... clarity (with more narrative on terms).

Zakim IRC Bot: ... clarity (with more narrative on terms).

15:22:14 <dgarijo> smiles: alternative formats for the examples (prov-o and prov-n, xml)

Simon Miles: alternative formats for the examples (prov-o and prov-n, xml)

15:22:41 <dgarijo> ... (this is for the primer) Ask Stian and Paolo to see if ????

... (this is for the primer) Ask Stian and Paolo to see if ????

15:22:47 <Paolo> ok fine

Paolo Missier: ok fine

15:23:16 <dgarijo> Luc: Graham and Paul, can you synchronize for the next release of the PAQ?

Luc Moreau: Graham and Paul, can you synchronize for the next release of the PAQ?

15:23:41 <smiles> @dgarijo We will ask Paolo and Stian to check the primer hasn't become out of date with respect to the DM and ontology respectively

Simon Miles: @dgarijo We will ask Paolo and Stian to check the primer hasn't become out of date with respect to the DM and ontology respectively

15:23:52 <dgarijo> Paul: there are some issues about reorganization, I'll come back in a week

Paul Groth: there are some issues about reorganization, I'll come back in a week

15:24:00 <dgarijo> @smiles, thanks

@smiles, thanks

15:24:33 <dgarijo> Luc: have we got plans for releasing best practice documents?

Luc Moreau: have we got plans for releasing best practice documents?

15:24:48 <dgarijo> ... DC best practices.

... DC best practices.

15:25:17 <dgarijo> Paul: I'll ask offline.

Paul Groth: I'll ask offline.

15:26:06 <dgarijo> Dgarijo: I'll tell Kai about the deadline.

Daniel Garijo: I'll tell Kai about the deadline.

15:26:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:26:14 <Luc> ack again

Luc Moreau: ack again

15:26:14 <Zakim> again, you wanted to james - he's ready for another review?

Zakim IRC Bot: again, you wanted to james - he's ready for another review?

15:26:22 <Luc> topic: WasQuotedFrom

5. WasQuotedFrom

Summary: the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email.

<Luc>Summary: the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email.
15:26:32 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0109.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0109.html

15:26:38 <Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom

PROPOSED: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom

15:26:52 <dgarijo> Luc: change wasQuotedFrom->wasAQuoteFrom?

Luc Moreau: change wasQuotedFrom->wasAQuoteFrom?

15:27:03 <stainPhone> I'm struggling with Zakim passcode

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I'm struggling with Zakim passcode

15:27:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:27:17 <dgarijo> any comments?

any comments?

15:27:22 <Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom

PROPOSED: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom

15:27:27 <dgarijo> +1

+1

15:27:27 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:27:28 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:27:29 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:27:32 <MacTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:27:33 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:27:34 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:27:34 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:27:39 <jun> -1

Jun Zhao: -1

15:27:43 <lebot> -1

Timothy Lebo: -1

15:27:47 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:27:49 <GK> 0

Graham Klyne: 0

15:27:51 <zednik> 0

Stephan Zednik: 0

15:27:53 <jun> I never had trouble with this property name. so -1 from me

Jun Zhao: I never had trouble with this property name. so -1 from me

15:28:01 <sandro> 0

Sandro Hawke: 0

15:28:03 <lebot> if it was a quote, what is it now?

Timothy Lebo: if it was a quote, what is it now?

15:28:08 <stainPhone> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:28:42 <stainPhone> Now it really is a quote, not a "quoted"

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Now it really is a quote, not a "quoted"

15:28:46 <pgroth> he has a point

Paul Groth: he has a point

15:29:09 <dgarijo> Jun: it was clear for me before

Jun Zhao: it was clear for me before

15:29:18 <dgarijo> ... not convinced by the new name

... not convinced by the new name

15:29:26 <dgarijo> +q

+q

15:29:34 <stainPhone> Domain of wasQ should be a quote, right?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Domain of wasQ should be a quote, right?

15:29:42 <zednik> quote can be noun or verb, quoted is clear verb

Stephan Zednik: quote can be noun or verb, quoted is clear verb

15:29:52 <lebot> danielG: it's not clear, which is quoted, and which is quoted from? (it flips)

Daniel Garijo: it's not clear, which is quoted, and which is quoted from? (it flips) [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

15:29:58 <stainPhone> Q+

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Q+

15:30:12 <Luc> ack dga

Luc Moreau: ack dga

15:30:19 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:30:20 <lebot> danielG: DM def is clear, but from just the name it is confusing

Daniel Garijo: DM def is clear, but from just the name it is confusing [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

15:30:52 <jun> How is that different from wasDerivedFrom?

Jun Zhao: How is that different from wasDerivedFrom?

15:31:00 <dgarijo> stian: I got the same feeling as Daniel. And probelms with the direction too.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I got the same feeling as Daniel. And probelms with the direction too.

15:31:00 <Luc> ack st

Luc Moreau: ack st

15:31:12 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

15:31:25 <lebot> @jun, the other nice aspect of wasQuotedFrom was its parallel to wasDerivedFrom.

Timothy Lebo: @jun, the other nice aspect of wasQuotedFrom was its parallel to wasDerivedFrom.

15:31:34 <dgarijo> paul: given that there is no consensus, this has to be talked more on the mailing list.

Paul Groth: given that there is no consensus, this has to be talked more on the mailing list.

15:31:37 <lebot> +1 to taking it back to email (sorry that I missed it)

Timothy Lebo: +1 to taking it back to email (sorry that I missed it)

15:31:38 <khalidbelhajjame> Given Tim comment, then isAQuoteFrom may be a better candidate

Khalid Belhajjame: Given Tim comment, then isAQuoteFrom may be a better candidate

15:31:58 <jun> @lebot, yes. applying the pattern for names is also important for an ontology

Jun Zhao: @lebot, yes. applying the pattern for names is also important for an ontology

15:31:58 <stainPhone> I agree with Daniel, it is important that lhs of wasQ is a quote, not what was quoted or something that contains a quote

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I agree with Daniel, it is important that lhs of wasQ is a quote, not what was quoted or something that contains a quote

15:32:12 <dgarijo> Luc: agreed, the discussion should come back to the mailing list.

Luc Moreau: agreed, the discussion should come back to the mailing list.

15:32:13 <MacTed> "is" forces to "was" because of previous decisions to use past tense for all predicates

Ted Thibodeau: "is" forces to "was" because of previous decisions to use past tense for all predicates

15:32:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:32:25 <lebot> yes, @khalid, isAQuoteFrom would work (but violate our "past tense")

Timothy Lebo: yes, @khalid, isAQuoteFrom would work (but violate our "past tense")

15:32:31 <Luc> topic: WasStartedByActivity

6. WasStartedByActivity

Summary: the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted.

<Luc>Summary: the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted.
15:32:43 <jun> @MacTed, provenance is meant to record history, imo

Jun Zhao: @MacTed, provenance is meant to record history, imo

15:32:44 <dgarijo> @lebot: isAquoteFrom workf for me too...

@lebot: isAquoteFrom works for me too...

15:32:55 <dgarijo> s/workf/works
15:33:15 <lebot> @dgarijo, yes, but how to deal with the tense inconsistency?

Timothy Lebo: @dgarijo, yes, but how to deal with the tense inconsistency?

15:33:16 <satya> as Tim said, isAQuoteFrom is not "past" tense?

Satya Sahoo: as Tim said, isAQuoteFrom is not "past" tense?

15:33:36 <Luc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html

Luc Moreau: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html

15:33:36 <pgroth> (also "a" in a predicate name is just wierd)

Paul Groth: (also "a" in a predicate name is just wierd)

15:33:45 <stainPhone> Jun, could you make a "clear" example of the old wasQuotedFrom ?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Jun, could you make a "clear" example of the old wasQuotedFrom ?

15:33:47 <dgarijo> @lebot: I know, but I prefer the concept to be clear.

@lebot: I know, but I prefer the concept to be clear.

15:34:06 <khalidbelhajjame> @MacTed, @Jun, @Satya, maybe this example shows that past tense is not suitable for everything

Khalid Belhajjame: @MacTed, @Jun, @Satya, maybe this example shows that past tense is not suitable for everything

15:34:11 <Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

PROPOSED: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

15:34:17 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:34:24 <dgarijo> +q

+q

15:35:10 <jun> @all, I think we should take the discussion onto the mailing list. Afraid we are cluttering the chat

Jun Zhao: @all, I think we should take the discussion onto the mailing list. Afraid we are cluttering the chat

15:35:12 <lebot> danielG: concern is for prov-o and [] wasEstablsihedBy (?). Could do it in a single statement, must now use a qualified relationship to express it.

Daniel Garijo: concern is for prov-o and [] wasEstablsihedBy (?). Could do it in a single statement, must now use a qualified relationship to express it. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

15:35:17 <Luc> ack dga

Luc Moreau: ack dga

15:35:34 <stainPhone> I still think it is clearer than yet another relationship

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I still think it is clearer than yet another relationship

15:35:40 <lebot> @macted, that's were we started months ago (to expand the range)

Timothy Lebo: @macted, that's where we started months ago (to expand the range)

15:35:45 <lebot> s/were/where/
15:35:50 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

15:36:30 <dgarijo> lebot: expanding the range og wasStartedBy was where we were several months ago

Timothy Lebo: expanding the range og wasStartedBy was where we were several months ago

15:36:32 <stainPhone> We already had this issue for activity start time only

Stian Soiland-Reyes: We already had this issue for activity start time only

15:37:06 <dgarijo> lebot: I'm in favour of this proposal precisely because of the indirection

Timothy Lebo: I'm in favour of this proposal precisely because of the indirection

15:37:31 <dgarijo> stephanZ: do we have a wasTriggerebBy relationship

Stephan Zednik: do we have a wasTriggerebBy relationship

15:37:34 <dgarijo> Luc: no

Luc Moreau: no

15:37:52 <satya> @Zednick - we had it in an earlier version (wasTriggeredBy)

Satya Sahoo: @Zednick - we had it in an earlier version (wasTriggeredBy)

15:38:06 <Luc> ack zedn

Luc Moreau: ack zedn

15:38:17 <dgarijo> ... the start of an activity has a trigger which is an entity and we are allowing the activity to be there as well

... the start of an activity has a trigger which is an entity and we are allowing the activity to be there as well

15:38:17 <jun> @Zednick, I thought the current wasStartedByActivity is close to wasTriggeredBy of OPM

Jun Zhao: @Zednick, I thought the current wasStartedByActivity is close to wasTriggeredBy of OPM

15:38:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:38:31 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

15:38:36 <Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

PROPOSED: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

15:38:43 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

15:38:44 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:38:46 <stainPhone> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:38:49 <MacTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:38:51 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:38:55 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:38:56 <GK> 0

Graham Klyne: 0

15:38:56 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:38:58 <dgarijo> +0 (If everyone is ok I won't vote against it)

+0 (If everyone is ok I won't vote against it)

15:39:01 <satya> 0

Satya Sahoo: 0

15:39:05 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 for dropping wasActivity, +0 for revising wasStartBy

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 for dropping wasActivity, +0 for revising wasStartBy

15:39:07 <jun> 0

Jun Zhao: 0

15:39:08 <sandro> 0

Sandro Hawke: 0

15:39:20 <Luc> Accepted: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

RESOLVED: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly

15:39:36 <Luc> Topic: Collections

7. Collections

Summary: Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document. He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed. On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section. Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification. It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents. It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week.

<luc>Summary: Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document.  He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed.  On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section.  Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification.   It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents.  It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week.
15:39:40 <dgarijo> Luc:collections

Luc Moreau: collections

15:40:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: worried about the length of the section on collections.

Paul Groth: worried about the length of the section on collections.

15:40:39 <pgroth>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0051.html

Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0051.html

15:40:48 <dgarijo> ... I made a proposal last week that we should separate collections from PROV-O

... I made a proposal last week that we should separate collections from PROV-O

15:41:15 <dgarijo> ... pull collections from prov-DM and prov-o and just put them in a separate document

... pull collections from prov-DM and prov-o and just put them in a separate document

15:41:19 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0099.html

Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0099.html

15:41:47 <dgarijo> ... Graham proposed to have a greater separation in the document. Breaking the model into core and extensions

... Graham proposed to have a greater separation in the document. Breaking the model into core and extensions

15:42:47 <dgarijo> ... we already started with core and extensions, but in the end we put it all together. We would need to decide about this (break/not break )

... we already started with core and extensions, but in the end we put it all together. We would need to decide about this (break/not break )

15:43:04 <dgarijo> ... do we break just the collection or the rest of the concepts too?

... do we break just the collection or the rest of the concepts too?

15:43:34 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:43:38 <dgarijo> ... any comments on this?

... any comments on this?

15:44:09 <pgroth> there's a lot of echo

Paul Groth: there's a lot of echo

15:44:18 <pgroth> Zakim, who is making noise?

Paul Groth: Zakim, who is making noise?

15:44:29 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P17 (100%), ??P45 (19%), ??P50 (40%)

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P17 (100%), ??P45 (19%), ??P50 (40%)

15:44:46 <pgroth> Zakim, mute ??P50

Paul Groth: Zakim, mute ??P50

15:44:46 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P50

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P50

15:45:12 <dgarijo> lebot: the dictionaries section stands out as an outlier. The proposal made by Paul would allow us  to focus on the principal aspects of prov-o. I would be very happy to get rid of the dictionaries section

Timothy Lebo: the dictionaries section stands out as an outlier. The proposal made by Paul would allow us to focus on the principal aspects of prov-o. I would be very happy to get rid of the dictionaries section

15:45:46 <dgarijo> Luc: do you want to separate the namespace as well.

Luc Moreau: do you want to separate the namespace as well.

15:46:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:46:44 <pgroth> q+ to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion

Paul Groth: q+ to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion

15:46:54 <dgarijo> lebot: Prov-o is aimed to be expanded and specialized. It would make sense to have another namespace as well

Timothy Lebo: Prov-o is aimed to be expanded and specialized. It would make sense to have another namespace as well

15:47:04 <Luc> ack pgr

Luc Moreau: ack pgr

15:47:04 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion

15:47:08 <smiles> I agree with everything Tim said

Simon Miles: I agree with everything Tim said

15:47:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:47:34 <dgarijo> pgroth:  namespace discussion should be separated from the discussion of the documents. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Paul Groth: namespace discussion should be separated from the discussion of the documents. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

15:47:35 <Paolo> q?

Paolo Missier: q?

15:47:37 <lebot> +1 pgroth, namespace is separate; it can be decided after the "split" to collections document.

Timothy Lebo: +1 pgroth, namespace is separate; it can be decided after the "split" to collections document.

15:47:58 <TomDN> q+ to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?

Tom De Nies: q+ to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?

15:48:01 <Paolo> I have already expressed my support for this proposal

Paolo Missier: I have already expressed my support for this proposal

15:48:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:48:24 <Luc> ack TomDN

Luc Moreau: ack TomDN

15:48:24 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN, you wanted to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?

15:48:32 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

15:48:37 <pgroth> @TomDN I have no idea

Paul Groth: @TomDN I have no idea

15:48:39 <dgarijo> tom: wondering if we were to go for the second option, which other terms would be removed for the core?

Tom De Nies: wondering if we were to go for the second option, which other terms would be removed for the core?

15:48:42 <lebot> @tomdn, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ?

Timothy Lebo: @tomdn, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ?

15:48:44 <pgroth> it would be a huge debate

Paul Groth: it would be a huge debate

15:49:00 <stainPhone> I have to go, but I would vote for extension doc. We can then see if wasQuoteOf belong there as well.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I have to go, but I would vote for extension doc. We can then see if wasQuoteOf belong there as well.

15:49:04 <lebot> most of those are specializations (e.g. Person sub Agent)

Timothy Lebo: most of those are specializations (e.g. Person sub Agent)

15:49:05 <GK> My criteria for deciding core vs extension is fairly clear (to me).  The "core" is a structural pattern that applies to most if not all of the provenance terms, and is fairly light on specific knowledge.  The extension parts layer more detailed specific knowledge over the basic structure, without adding new structure.  (Roughly, this means that any new classes and properties can be defined as subclasses and subproperties of the structural core, or additional attrib

Graham Klyne: My criteria for deciding core vs extension is fairly clear (to me).  The "core" is a structural pattern that applies to most if not all of the provenance terms, and is fairly light on specific knowledge.  The extension parts layer more detailed specific knowledge over the basic structure, without adding new structure.  (Roughly, this means that any new classes and properties can be defined as subclasses and subproperties of the structural core, or additional attrib

15:49:21 <dgarijo> Graham: almost everything but the current starting points.

Graham Klyne: almost everything but the current starting points.

15:50:26 <dgarijo> ... some of the discussion of the terms is difficult for non provenance experts to pick up.

... some of the discussion of the terms is difficult for non provenance experts to pick up.

15:50:36 <dgarijo> ... the basic structural properties are very clear

... the basic structural properties are very clear

15:50:52 <dgarijo> ... the issue of core vs extensions came previously

... the issue of core vs extensions came previously

15:51:10 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:51:37 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

15:52:31 <dgarijo> Paolo: about the structure of collections: if we separate collections, would them all be in the same monolithic thing?

Paolo Missier: about the structure of collections: if we separate collections, would them all be in the same monolithic thing?

15:52:38 <dgarijo> ... (dm+ontology+examples)

... (dm+ontology+examples)

15:52:44 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:52:46 <dgarijo> ... or separated documents.

... or separated documents.

15:52:48 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:53:21 <dgarijo> pgroth: editorially, it's a lot of work.

Paul Groth: editorially, it's a lot of work.

15:53:53 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:53:53 <lebot> -1 to major redo for each "section" - yipes!

Timothy Lebo: -1 to major redo for each "section" - yipes!

15:53:59 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:54:08 <dgarijo> ... I'm afraid that even with a major redo we won't address graham's omments

... I'm afraid that even with a major redo we won't address graham's omments

15:54:09 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:55:07 <dgarijo> luc: this notion of starting points doesn't necessarily map to all technologies. What is in starting points is really the binary relationships.

Luc Moreau: this notion of starting points doesn't necessarily map to all technologies. What is in starting points is really the binary relationships.

15:55:19 <dgarijo> ... in other technologies, this is not the case.

... in other technologies, this is not the case.

15:55:51 <dgarijo> .... I see this as a challenge

.... I see this as a challenge

15:56:05 <dgarijo> ... how do we move on?

... how do we move on?

15:56:09 <TomDN_> @GK: I think it's a good idea, but it's a slippery slope if we don't clearly define what the "core" is. Like Paul said, it could lead to a huge discussion.

Tom De Nies: @GK: I think it's a good idea, but it's a slippery slope if we don't clearly define what the "core" is. Like Paul said, it could lead to a huge discussion.

15:56:17 <dgarijo> paul: some consensus aboyt separating collections

Paul Groth: some consensus aboyt separating collections

15:56:34 <MacTed> I see a LOT of potential reward from the described re-org.  but it would undeniably be a huge effort.

Ted Thibodeau: I see a LOT of potential reward from the described re-org. but it would undeniably be a huge effort.

15:56:44 <lebot> @tomdn, the prov-o team has some experience is determining which constructs are in which partition.

Timothy Lebo: @tomdn, the prov-o team has some experience is determining which constructs are in which partition.

15:56:49 <dgarijo> ... what do the group the think about the core proposal?

... what do the group the think about the core proposal?

15:56:52 <GK> @TomDN - did you seem the text I pasted above?

Graham Klyne: @TomDN - did you seem the text I pasted above?

15:56:59 <lebot> @tomdn, the owl file has annotations for those partitions.

Timothy Lebo: @tomdn, the owl file has annotations for those partitions.

15:57:26 <smiles> +q

Simon Miles: +q

15:57:27 <dgarijo> ... by next telecon it would be great to have concrete proposals so we can vote

... by next telecon it would be great to have concrete proposals so we can vote

15:57:41 <Luc> ack smi

Luc Moreau: ack smi

15:57:44 <GK> It's basically the three core concepts, plus the top-level properties that connect them in various ways.

Graham Klyne: It's basically the three core concepts, plus the top-level properties that connect them in various ways.

15:57:55 <TomDN_> (sorry, IRC keeps timing out)

Tom De Nies: (sorry, IRC keeps timing out)

15:58:13 <TomDN_> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

15:58:21 <dgarijo> ... I don't really get the problem. I can understand the collections out, but I'll wait for the proposal

... I don't really get the problem. I can understand the collections out, but I'll wait for the proposal

15:58:23 <Luc> ack tom

Luc Moreau: ack tom

15:58:46 <dgarijo> tom: maybe we should do this execrise with collections and then we get an idea of seeing how much work is that

Tom De Nies: maybe we should do this execrise with collections and then we get an idea of seeing how much work is that

15:58:48 <pgroth> this is a major major piece of work

Paul Groth: this is a major major piece of work

15:59:17 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm not in favour of these experiments because it is a lot of editing

Luc Moreau: I'm not in favour of these experiments because it is a lot of editing

15:59:28 <dgarijo> ... I don't want to do that iteratively

... I don't want to do that iteratively

15:59:32 <GK> q+ to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O

Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O

15:59:40 <Paolo> Collections are pervasive (except the primer) -- change impacts everything

Paolo Missier: Collections are pervasive (except the primer) -- change impacts everything

15:59:44 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:59:45 <dgarijo> Tom: agreed, specially in this stage of the process.

Tom De Nies: agreed, specially in this stage of the process.

15:59:46 <khalidbelhajjame> Instead of removing parts of the document, which I am reluctant to, I would prefer restructering

Khalid Belhajjame: Instead of removing parts of the document, which I am reluctant to, I would prefer restructering

15:59:51 <lebot> @luc, we need to find some way to relax the weight that Collections puts on all of the documents.

Timothy Lebo: @luc, we need to find some way to relax the weight that Collections puts on all of the documents.

16:00:06 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:00:06 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:00:29 <lebot> @gk, could you paraphrase waht you just said?

Timothy Lebo: @gk, could you paraphrase waht you just said?

16:00:46 <pgroth> he said he only wants to only adjust the dm document

Paul Groth: he said he only wants to only adjust the dm document

16:00:55 <dgarijo> Luc: you propose not to touch the ontology but to change the DM

Luc Moreau: you propose not to touch the ontology but to change the DM

16:01:13 <dgarijo> GK: yes

Graham Klyne: yes

16:01:31 <Paolo> q+ to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model

Paolo Missier: q+ to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model

16:01:41 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

16:01:41 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O

16:01:43 <dgarijo> Luc: so you are not seeing the DM document as a reference document.

Luc Moreau: so you are not seeing the DM document as a reference document.

16:02:06 <pgroth> q+ to say this was already decided at F2F

Paul Groth: q+ to say this was already decided at F2F

16:02:09 <dgarijo> GK: I think it has a central role in the family of specification. It should be an introduction + reference for the structure.

Graham Klyne: I think it has a central role in the family of specification. It should be an introduction + reference for the structure.

16:02:25 <dgarijo> jamesC: are we going to commit to this change now?

James Cheney: are we going to commit to this change now?

16:02:38 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

16:03:12 <dgarijo> ... I would be inclined to say: first create a document with all the collections and not delete the stuff from the current documents

... I would be inclined to say: first create a document with all the collections and not delete the stuff from the current documents

16:03:17 <MacTed> I'm sorry to say, but it's important to -- past decisions aren't always correct.  revisions happen.  just because something was decided at F2F doesn't mean it will stick throughout.

Ted Thibodeau: I'm sorry to say, but it's important to -- past decisions aren't always correct. revisions happen. just because something was decided at F2F doesn't mean it will stick throughout.

16:03:41 <dgarijo> Luc: we will come with proposals next week for restructure the docs.

Luc Moreau: we will come with proposals next week for restructure the docs.

16:03:48 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:04:05 <satya> sorry have to leave

Satya Sahoo: sorry have to leave

16:04:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Size should not be seen as an issue, if people want to read a short document, they can read the primer

Khalid Belhajjame: Size should not be seen as an issue, if people want to read a short document, they can read the primer

16:04:42 <dgarijo> Paolo: there was a discussion on the face to face on whether the ontology should be an entry point or not.

Paolo Missier: there was a discussion on the face to face on whether the ontology should be an entry point or not.

16:04:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:04:55 <Luc> ack paol

Luc Moreau: ack paol

16:04:55 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model

Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model

16:05:00 <dgarijo> ... the ontology is an encoding, not the reference for an entry point

... the ontology is an encoding, not the reference for an entry point

16:05:11 <dgarijo> ... it is ONE of the possible encodings

... it is ONE of the possible encodings

16:05:53 <TomDN> readers can of course always skip the section on collections and still understand the rest of the DM :)

Tom De Nies: readers can of course always skip the section on collections and still understand the rest of the DM :)

16:06:04 <dgarijo> paul: summary: primer is good. Provo would be improved if we removed collections. Prov DM should be reorganized (proposals the next week)

Paul Groth: summary: primer is good. Provo would be improved if we removed collections. Prov DM should be reorganized (proposals the next week)

16:06:27 <dgarijo> luc: what is the next step. Is it to create concrete proposals ?

Luc Moreau: what is the next step. Is it to create concrete proposals ?

16:06:30 <dgarijo> paul: yes

Paul Groth: yes

16:06:55 <dgarijo> ... this is all about organization, not editorial per se. We need to keep the text that was written

... this is all about organization, not editorial per se. We need to keep the text that was written

16:07:14 <dgarijo> luc: who would write which proposal?

Luc Moreau: who would write which proposal?

16:07:17 <GK> q+

Graham Klyne: q+

16:07:22 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:07:22 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say this was already decided at F2F

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say this was already decided at F2F

16:07:26 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

16:07:43 <dgarijo> graham: I guess this forces me to create one with core + extension of dm

Graham Klyne: I guess this forces me to create one with core + extension of dm

16:07:48 <dgarijo> luc: please use wiki

Luc Moreau: please use wiki

16:07:51 <dgarijo> GK: sure

Graham Klyne: sure

16:08:03 <dgarijo> luc: volunteers for a collection document?

Luc Moreau: volunteers for a collection document?

16:08:50 <dgarijo> .... we may have several proposals on the table: (TIM) We use this as a mechanism to show how the model can be extended.

.... we may have several proposals on the table: (TIM) We use this as a mechanism to show how the model can be extended.

16:09:09 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

16:09:09 <dgarijo> ... another which is lightweight is to separate collections in another document.

... another which is lightweight is to separate collections in another document.

16:09:32 <dgarijo> Paolo: I really had the first in mind. I can write an outline

Paolo Missier: I really had the first in mind. I can write an outline

16:10:23 <pgroth> so paolo will do it

Paul Groth: so paolo will do it

16:10:28 <pgroth> :-)

Paul Groth: :-)

16:10:28 <lebot> Like Paolo, I had the first in mind too. Take Collections from everything into a new document.

Timothy Lebo: Like Paolo, I had the first in mind too. Take Collections from everything into a new document.

16:10:40 <lebot> I'll help Paolo :-0

Timothy Lebo: I'll help Paolo :-0

16:10:58 <TomDN> if any of the proposals need help, id be happy to help as well

Tom De Nies: if any of the proposals need help, id be happy to help as well

16:11:00 <Luc> topic: bundle

8. bundle

Summary: A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes. This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback.

<Luc>Summary: A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes.  This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback.
16:11:02 <Paolo> great Tim, much appreciated

Paolo Missier: great Tim, much appreciated

16:11:08 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html

16:11:25 <pgroth> @TomDN maybe you want to discuss with GK

Paul Groth: @TomDN maybe you want to discuss with GK

16:11:28 <dgarijo> Luc: in the last iteration we didn't work on accounts.

Luc Moreau: in the last iteration we didn't work on accounts.

16:11:33 <TomDN> sure

Tom De Nies: sure

16:11:37 <dgarijo> ... Tim and GK had comments on accounts

... Tim and GK had comments on accounts

16:12:09 <dgarijo> ... if you follow that document you'll see an outline of what would go into DM for expressing provenance of provenance

... if you follow that document you'll see an outline of what would go into DM for expressing provenance of provenance

16:12:24 <GK> I thought we had discussed keeping the term "Account", but just to denote a bundle of proveance statement?

Graham Klyne: I thought we had discussed keeping the term "Account", but just to denote a bundle of proveance statement?

16:12:33 <dgarijo> ... relation hadProvenanceIn inspired by PAQ

... relation hadProvenanceIn inspired by PAQ

16:13:15 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:13:20 <dgarijo> ... I invite you to have a look at the document and start discussion on the mailing list

... I invite you to have a look at the document and start discussion on the mailing list

16:13:22 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes

16:13:23 <Paolo> ack

Paolo Missier: ack

16:13:35 <lebot> bye!

Timothy Lebo: bye!

16:13:38 <dgarijo> Luc: good bye

Luc Moreau: good bye

16:13:44 <khalidbelhajjame> bye

Khalid Belhajjame: bye

16:13:47 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, set log public

16:13:51 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:13:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html Luc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html Luc

16:14:02 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

16:14:04 <Zakim> Attendees were

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were

16:14:05 <Luc> hi daniel, I will take care of the minutes, thanks!

Luc Moreau: hi daniel, I will take care of the minutes, thanks!

16:14:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon

Luc Moreau: trackbot, end telcon

16:14:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

16:14:17 <TomDN> bye, @GK: i'll contact you via email

Tom De Nies: bye, @GK: i'll contact you via email

16:14:28 <dgarijo> @Luc, Ok, good bye!

@Luc, Ok, good bye!

16:35:56 <MacTed> trackbot, end call

(No events recorded for 21 minutes)

Ted Thibodeau: trackbot, end call

16:35:56 <trackbot> Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

16:36:03 <MacTed> trackbot, end meeting

Ted Thibodeau: trackbot, end meeting

16:36:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:36:03 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is

16:36:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:36:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:36:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:36:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#2) generated 2012-05-10 21:06:43 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: 'wrote summaries'