Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 17 May 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.17
Seen
Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Ted Thibodeau, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies
Regrets
Paul Groth, Tom De Nies, Paolo Missier
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
Simon Miles
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. minutes of last week's teleconference link
Topics
  1. admin

    Last week's minutes were approved.

  2. PAQ release

    no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.

  3. other documents

    this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents. Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections. The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented). Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference.

  4. constraints document

    Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.

  5. Responsibility

    The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'.

  6. bundles

    discussion on bundles to continue over email.

14:50:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-prov-irc

14:50:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:50:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:50:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

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

14:50:37 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:37 <trackbot> Date: 17 May 2012
14:50:37 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:50:37 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes

14:50:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.17
14:51:36 <Luc> Chair: Moreau
14:51:44 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

14:51:49 <Luc> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

14:51:49 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc

14:51:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro

14:52:03 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies
14:52:17 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies, Paolo Missier
14:58:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

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

14:58:08 <Zakim> +??P16

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16

14:59:10 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.330.aaaa

14:59:13 <Zakim> -??P16

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P16

14:59:19 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa

Timothy Lebo: zakim, I am aaaa

14:59:19 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it

14:59:54 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

15:00:20 <Zakim> +??P21

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21

15:00:21 <Luc> Scribe: simon miles

(Scribe set to Simon Miles)

15:00:30 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call?

15:00:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21

15:01:04 <Luc> topic: admin

1. admin

Summary: Last week's minutes were approved.

<luc>Summary: Last week's minutes were approved.
15:01:31 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

15:01:46 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[OpenLink]

15:01:58 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me

15:01:59 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:02:00 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

15:02:06 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

15:02:51 <Luc> proposed: to accept minute of last week's teleconference

PROPOSED: to accept minute of last week's teleconference

15:03:19 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-10

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-10

15:03:20 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:03:21 <Curt> 0 (not present)

Curt Tilmes: 0 (not present)

15:03:23 <smiles> +1

+1

15:03:26 <MacTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:03:38 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aabb

15:03:54 <Luc> resolved: minutes of last week's teleconference

RESOLVED: minutes of last week's teleconference

15:03:54 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here?

15:03:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb

15:03:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro

15:04:09 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

15:04:10 <smiles> Luc: Action review

Luc Moreau: Action review

15:04:20 <GK1> oops, sorry, still getting audio together

Graham Klyne: oops, sorry, still getting audio together

15:04:40 <smiles> Luc: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list

Luc Moreau: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list

15:04:54 <tlebo> I just sent my review

Timothy Lebo: I just sent my review

15:05:02 <smiles> Luc: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later

Luc Moreau: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later

15:05:14 <Luc> Topic: PAQ release

2. PAQ release

Summary: no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.

<luc>Summary: no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.
15:05:41 <smiles> Graham?

Graham?

15:05:41 <Zakim> +??P49

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P49

15:05:44 <Luc> graham?

Luc Moreau: graham?

15:05:59 <GK> zakim, ??P49 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??P49 is me

15:06:01 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

15:06:01 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

15:06:03 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted

15:06:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:06:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

15:06:29 <Zakim> +??P50

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P50

15:06:31 <Zakim> +??P44

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P44

15:06:38 <jun> zakim, ?P44 is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, ?P44 is me

15:06:40 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44'

15:06:49 <jun> zakim, ??P44 is me

Jun Zhao: zakim, ??P44 is me

15:06:51 <smiles> GK: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet

Graham Klyne: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet

15:07:05 <Zakim> +jun; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it

15:07:09 <smiles> GK: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge

Graham Klyne: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge

15:07:17 <smiles> Luc: Please agree release date soon

Luc Moreau: Please agree release date soon

15:07:22 <Luc> topic: other documents

3. other documents

Summary: this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents. Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections. The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented). Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference.

<Luc>Summary: there was a brief overview of progress on the various other documents. For prov-o, prov-n, prov-dm, editors are addressing issues on tracker. They are on time for internal release at the end of month.
15:07:37 <Zakim> +??P51

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P51

15:07:43 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6

15:07:48 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P51 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P51 is me

15:07:49 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

15:08:02 <smiles> Luc: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues

Luc Moreau: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues

15:08:26 <Zakim> -??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P6

15:08:32 <smiles> ... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim

... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim

15:08:36 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it

15:08:39 <GK> Issue 88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned

Graham Klyne: ISSUE-88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned

15:08:44 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

15:08:57 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P3 is me

15:08:57 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:08:57 <smiles> ... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation

... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation

15:09:04 <smiles> ... soon ready for review

... soon ready for review

15:09:18 <GK> Just closed issue 88

Graham Klyne: Just closed ISSUE-88

15:09:21 <smiles> ... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback?

... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback?

15:09:25 <smiles> jcheney: confirms

James Cheney: confirms

15:09:35 <Luc> @graham, thanks

Luc Moreau: @graham, thanks

15:09:57 <smiles> tlebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing

Timothy Lebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing

15:10:25 <smiles> ... added cross-references for terms within HTML document

... added cross-references for terms within HTML document

15:10:34 <smiles> ... latest draft linked on agenda

... latest draft linked on agenda

15:10:42 <smiles> ... feedback on the cross-references welcome

... feedback on the cross-references welcome

15:10:48 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:10:50 <smiles> ... on track for release June 1

... on track for release June 1

15:11:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:11:25 <smiles> smiles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week

Simon Miles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week

15:11:29 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

15:11:31 <smiles> Luc: any comments on progress?

Luc Moreau: any comments on progress?

<luc>Summary: this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents.  Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections.  The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented).  Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference.
15:12:21 <smiles> Luc: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are

Luc Moreau: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are

15:12:39 <smiles> ... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document

... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document

15:12:54 <smiles> ... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM

... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM

15:13:10 <smiles> ... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring

... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring

15:13:21 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring

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

15:14:13 <smiles> GK: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes

Graham Klyne: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes

15:14:57 <smiles> ... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea

... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea

15:15:51 <Zakim> -??P50

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P50

15:15:54 <smiles> ... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things

... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things

15:17:03 <smiles> ... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns

... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns

15:17:42 <MacTed> apropos of GK's "core" patterns...  this came to my eyes today -- http://linkedevents.org/ontology/

Ted Thibodeau: apropos of GK's "core" patterns... this came to my eyes today -- http://linkedevents.org/ontology/

15:17:43 <smiles> ... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability

... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability

15:18:15 <smiles> ... Core: entity, activity, agent

... Core: entity, activity, agent

15:18:45 <smiles> Luc: Your proposal is to break DM document in two?

Luc Moreau: Your proposal is to break DM document in two?

15:18:48 <smiles> GK: Yes

Graham Klyne: Yes

15:18:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:19:08 <Luc> paolo?

Luc Moreau: paolo?

15:19:15 <Luc> just on irc? paolo?

Luc Moreau: just on irc? paolo?

15:20:02 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Collections

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Collections

15:20:13 <smiles> tlebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo

Timothy Lebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo

15:20:57 <smiles> ... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document

... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document

15:21:03 <smiles> ... aim to simplify PROV-O

... aim to simplify PROV-O

15:21:06 <Paolo> sorry guys text only,

Paolo Missier: sorry guys text only,

15:21:10 <Paolo> and very unstable

Paolo Missier: and very unstable

15:21:37 <smiles> ... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing

... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing

15:21:40 <Paolo> thanks smiles for minuting

Paolo Missier: thanks smiles for minuting

15:21:44 <tlebo> I can fit http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-collections-terms into 1.25 screens.  http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms takes up 4 screens.  http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms takes up 1.5 screens

Timothy Lebo: I can fit http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-collections-terms into 1.25 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms takes up 4 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms takes up 1.5 screens

15:21:48 <Luc> @paolo, it's ok, tim filling in

Luc Moreau: @paolo, it's ok, tim filling in

15:22:31 <smiles> ... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections

... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections

15:22:35 <Paolo> yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise

Paolo Missier: yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise

15:22:57 <smiles> ... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document

... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document

15:23:16 <Paolo> we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want

Paolo Missier: we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want

15:23:30 <smiles> Luc: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document

Luc Moreau: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document

15:24:08 <smiles> ... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions

... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions

15:24:36 <smiles> ... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O

... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O

15:25:17 <smiles> ... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed?

... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed?

15:25:20 <smiles> tlebo: Yes

Timothy Lebo: Yes

15:25:28 <tlebo> (and that was the agreement of the prov-o team)

Timothy Lebo: (and that was the agreement of the prov-o team)

15:25:41 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:25:56 <smiles> Luc: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal

Luc Moreau: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal

15:26:04 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

15:26:55 <smiles> tlebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts

Timothy Lebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts

15:27:06 <smiles> ... (as in section 1 of Graham's document)

... (as in section 1 of Graham's document)

15:28:24 <smiles> tlebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)?

Timothy Lebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)?

15:28:36 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#data-model-components

Curt Tilmes: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#data-model-components

15:28:46 <smiles> GK: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way

Graham Klyne: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way

15:28:51 <Luc> ack tlebo

Luc Moreau: ack tlebo

15:28:52 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

15:29:30 <smiles> Luc: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document

Luc Moreau: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document

15:29:40 <smiles> ... but had reviews critical of this separation

... but had reviews critical of this separation

15:29:57 <smiles> ... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension

... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension

15:30:32 <smiles> ... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties

... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties

15:31:01 <smiles> ... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful

... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful

15:31:18 <smiles> ... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document

... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document

15:31:44 <smiles> ... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents

... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents

15:32:11 <smiles> ... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model

... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model

15:32:17 <MacTed> what is background of these outside readers?  philosophers, scientists, programmers, other?  experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand...

Ted Thibodeau: what is background of these outside readers? philosophers, scientists, programmers, other? experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand...

15:33:00 <smiles> ... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM

... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM

15:33:47 <smiles> ... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes

... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes

15:34:01 <smiles> ... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1)

... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1)

15:34:53 <smiles> ... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage

... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage

15:35:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:35:43 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

15:36:36 <smiles> satya: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers?

Satya Sahoo: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers?

15:36:44 <MacTed> q+

Ted Thibodeau: q+

15:36:48 <satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q-

15:37:00 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

15:37:00 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted

15:37:01 <smiles> Luc: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped

Luc Moreau: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped

15:37:44 <smiles> MacTed: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience

Ted Thibodeau: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience

15:37:59 <smiles> ... in favour of GK's restructuring

... in favour of GK's restructuring

15:38:24 <smiles> ... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements

... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements

15:38:51 <smiles> ... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those

... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those

15:39:26 <tlebo> perhaps if we organized http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring#Provenance_core_concepts by components?

Timothy Lebo: perhaps if we organized http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring#Provenance_core_concepts by components?

15:39:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:39:30 <Luc> ack mact

Luc Moreau: ack mact

15:39:56 <smiles> ... root primitives need to be clearly presented

... root primitives need to be clearly presented

15:40:25 <smiles> Luc: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented

Luc Moreau: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented

15:40:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:40:37 <GK> q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments

15:41:43 <smiles> GK: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose

Graham Klyne: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose

15:42:31 <smiles> ... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear

... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear

15:43:19 <tlebo> q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline?

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline?

15:43:23 <smiles> ... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are

... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are

15:43:34 <smiles> ... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns

... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns

15:43:45 <jcheney> q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring

James Cheney: q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring

15:44:32 <smiles> ... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite

... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite

15:44:39 <smiles> ... of what is intended

... of what is intended

15:44:40 <tlebo> @jcheny, I'll  yield :-)

Timothy Lebo: @jcheny, I'll yield :-)

15:45:14 <smiles> ... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed

... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed

15:45:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:45:22 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

15:45:30 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q-

15:45:46 <Luc> ack jcheney

Luc Moreau: ack jcheney

15:45:46 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring

15:45:56 <Luc> topic: constraints document

4. constraints document

Summary: Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.

<luc>Summary: Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.
15:46:08 <tlebo> go ahead, graham.

Timothy Lebo: go ahead, graham.

15:46:28 <jcheney> high-level impression is fine

James Cheney: high-level impression is fine

15:46:41 <smiles> GK: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach

Graham Klyne: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach

15:46:54 <smiles> ... definitions and inferences presented crisply

... definitions and inferences presented crisply

15:47:10 <smiles> ... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good

... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good

15:47:35 <smiles> tlebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content

Timothy Lebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content

15:47:48 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo

15:47:50 <smiles> ... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go

... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go

15:48:20 <smiles> ... minor detailed comments sent (above)

... minor detailed comments sent (above)

15:49:17 <smiles> jcheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail

James Cheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail

15:49:27 <smiles> ... good to know happy with direction

... good to know happy with direction

15:49:59 <GK> I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM

Graham Klyne: I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM

15:50:06 <tlebo> @jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-)

Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-)

15:50:16 <smiles> ... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email

... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email

15:51:16 <tlebo> @jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting.

Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting.

15:51:27 <smiles> ... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed

... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed

15:51:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:52:05 <Luc> Topic: Responsibility

5. Responsibility

Summary: The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'.

<luc>Summary: The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'.
15:52:18 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility

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

15:53:01 <smiles> tlebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed

Timothy Lebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed

15:53:34 <jcheney> I may have suggested "delegation" at some point

James Cheney: I may have suggested "delegation" at some point

15:54:03 <smiles> ... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email

... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email

15:54:16 <satya> is there an issue raised for responsibility?

Satya Sahoo: is there an issue raised for responsibility?

15:54:37 <Luc> topic: bundles

6. bundles

Summary: discussion on bundles to continue over email.

<luc>Summary: discussion on bundles to continue over email.
15:54:46 <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

15:55:03 <smiles> Luc: Circulated text addressing issues raised

Luc Moreau: Circulated text addressing issues raised



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#2) generated 2012-05-18 11:40:21 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'wrote summaries'