Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 12 July 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.12
Seen
Craig Trim, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, David Corsar, Graham Klyne, Hook Hua, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stephen Cresswell, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies, Trung Huynh
Regrets
Simon Miles, Tom De Nies, Daniel Garijo
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
James Cheney
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. we have ONLY: Collection, binary hadMember, and EmptyCollection link
  2. charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8. link
  3. publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft link
  4. publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft link
  5. publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft link
  6. publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft link
  7. publication date is July 24 link
  8. end of review 2012-09-18 link
Topics
  1. Admin

    Minutes of last week's teleconference were circulated just before the call, so their approval was deferred to next week.

  2. Release of documents

    After checking that all expected reviews were in, Luc thanked all the reviewers for their thorough work. Out of these reviews, four technical issues were outstanding.

    1. Relation prov-o - prov-dm

      Graham suggested that our documents should explain the relationship between PROV-DM, PROV-O, and PROV-N. In the PROV-O document, Tim has inserted links to prov-dm concepts. In the PROV-DM document, Luc has created a table listing concepts and their manifestation in prov-o and prov-n. The group supported the approaches and suggested editorial improvements. In particular, it is not appropriate to talk about "mapping".

    2. Security section, raised by Graham

      Graham suggested consolidating all security considerations in a single section of prov-dm, and refer to it from other documents. There was some push back from some participants, who felt that security considerations were not in scope of a conceptual model/ontology. After discussion, it was decided that no change would be introduced, and security considerations would be kept in prov-n (as part of the mime type application) and prov-aq.

    3. Collection membership

      In his review of prov-o, Luc identified a mismatch between a binary hadMember relation in prov-o, and a n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-dm (with identifier, attribute, and complete flag). While attempting to define an n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-o, Tim made it a kind of influence (so as to be able to use the qualified pattern). However, in prov-dm, membership is not an Influence. After discussion, and as suggested by some reviewers, the WG decided to have a binary hadMember relation in both prov-dm and prov-o. Both prov-o and prov-dm also have a notion of Empty Collection. It was suggested that the n-ary version should be kept in the dictionary note.

    4. character set optional parameter

      The group approved Graham's suggestion about the charset parameter in the prov-n mime type application. In accordance to RFC 6657, the charset parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

    5. Vote

      The participants unanimously voted for the release of PROV-DM, PROV-O, PROV-N as last call working drafts, and of PROV-PRIMER as working draft. The chairs congratulated the Working Group for this significant milestone.

  3. Publication date

    It was agreed that documents would be published on July 24 (post meeting note: date was agreed with Webmaster) and the end of last call review would be the 18th of September.

  4. Managing public comments

    the group reviewed and made minor changes to the process for managing public comments. Paul will handle incoming comments, as per process, till end of July. A timetable is being set up, and volunteers are invited to sign up for this task.

14:25:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-irc

14:25:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:25:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:25:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

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

14:25:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:25:29 <trackbot> Date: 12 July 2012
14:25:29 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:25:29 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 35 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 35 minutes

14:25:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.12
14:25:54 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:26:00 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

14:26:05 <Luc> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

14:26:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc

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

14:26:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot

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

14:26:22 <Luc> Regrets: Simon Miles, Tom DeNies, DanielG
14:42:49 <Luc> Scribe: James Cheney

(No events recorded for 16 minutes)

(Scribe set to James Cheney)

14:48:46 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

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

14:48:52 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

14:49:06 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P5 is me

Paul Groth: Zakim, ??P5 is me

14:49:06 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it

14:52:43 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.661.382.aaaa

14:56:17 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

14:56:25 <Luc> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here?

14:56:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc

14:56:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see jcheney, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot

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

14:56:28 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aabb

14:57:34 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo

14:57:58 <jcheney> zakim, +44.131.467.aabb is probably me

zakim, +44.131.467.aabb is probably me

14:57:58 <Zakim> +jcheney?; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney?; got it

14:58:10 <Zakim> +??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12

14:58:22 <Paolo> zakim, ??P12 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P12 is me

14:58:22 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

14:59:43 <pgroth> do we have a scribe?

Paul Groth: do we have a scribe?

15:00:06 <jcheney> I volunteered...

I volunteered...

15:00:35 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

15:00:47 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aacc

15:00:53 <tlebo> zakim, I am aacc

Timothy Lebo: zakim, I am aacc

15:00:53 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it

15:00:56 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aadd

15:02:01 <CraigTrim> I am aaaa

Craig Trim: I am aaaa

15:02:06 <CraigTrim> zakim, I am aaaa

Craig Trim: zakim, I am aaaa

15:02:06 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +CraigTrim; got it

15:02:23 <Zakim> +sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro

15:02:25 <jcheney> scribe: jcheney
15:02:29 <Zakim> +Luc.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc.a

15:02:31 <jcheney> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were circulated just before the call, so their approval was deferred to next week.

<luc> Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were circulated just before the call, so their approval was deferred to next week.
15:02:48 <Zakim> +??P17

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17

15:03:04 <GK> zakim, ??p17

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p17

15:03:04 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p17', GK

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '??p17', GK

15:03:10 <jcheney> Minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-05

Minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-05

15:03:15 <GK> zakim ??p17 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim ??p17 is me

15:03:16 <Dong> zakim, I am p17

Trung Huynh: zakim, I am p17

15:03:16 <Zakim> sorry, Dong, I do not see a party named 'p17'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Dong, I do not see a party named 'p17'

15:03:21 <jcheney> Luc: Suggest postponing approval until next week

Luc Moreau: Suggest postponing approval until next week

15:03:28 <jcheney> Paul: Fine

Paul Groth: Fine

15:03:32 <Zakim> +??P18

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18

15:03:58 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

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

15:03:59 <Dong> zakim, ??p18 is me

Trung Huynh: zakim, ??p18 is me

15:03:59 <Zakim> +Dong; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it

15:04:13 <jcheney> Paulo has not done 98,97

Paulo has not done 98,97

15:04:26 <pgroth> i continue to be a bad person

Paul Groth: i continue to be a bad person

15:04:30 <jcheney> Curt: will do action Zakim Zakim 101 after LC releases

Curt Tilmes: will do action Zakim Zakim 101 after LC releases

15:04:48 <jcheney> pgroth: will do action pgroth 102 later

Paul Groth: will do action pgroth 102 later

15:04:58 <jcheney> Curt: will do action 101 after LC releases

Curt Tilmes: will do ACTION-101 after LC releases

15:05:09 <jcheney> Topic: Release of documents

2. Release of documents

Summary: After checking that all expected reviews were in, Luc thanked all the reviewers for their thorough work. Out of these reviews, four technical issues were outstanding.

<luc>Summary: After checking that all expected reviews were in, Luc thanked all the reviewers for their thorough work.  Out of these reviews, four technical issues were outstanding.
<luc>Subtopic: Relation prov-o - prov-dm

2.1. Relation prov-o - prov-dm

Summary: Graham suggested that our documents should explain the relationship between PROV-DM, PROV-O, and PROV-N. In the PROV-O document, Tim has inserted links to prov-dm concepts. In the PROV-DM document, Luc has created a table listing concepts and their manifestation in prov-o and prov-n. The group supported the approaches and suggested editorial improvements. In particular, it is not appropriate to talk about "mapping".

<luc>Summary: Graham suggested that our documents should explain the relationship between PROV-DM, PROV-O, and PROV-N. In the PROV-O document, Tim has inserted links to prov-dm concepts. In the PROV-DM document, Luc has created a table listing concepts and their manifestation in prov-o and prov-n.  The group supported the approaches and suggested editorial improvements. In particular, it is not appropriate to talk about "mapping".
15:05:25 <jcheney> Luc: Many reviews in.  Are any outstanding?

Luc Moreau: Many reviews in. Are any outstanding?

15:05:48 <jcheney> Luc: No?  Thanks to all reviewers.

Luc Moreau: No? Thanks to all reviewers.

15:05:58 <pgroth> +1 to all the reviewers

Paul Groth: +1 to all the reviewers

15:06:09 <jcheney> Luc: A number of technical issues raised, most resolved now.  They are:

Luc Moreau: A number of technical issues raised, most resolved now. They are:

15:06:50 <jcheney> Luc: Mapping between prov-o and prov-dm

Luc Moreau: Mapping between prov-o and prov-dm

15:06:59 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.12

Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.12

15:06:59 <jcheney> ... raised by Graham

... raised by Graham

15:07:11 <jcheney> ... Tim noted that there are hyperlinks showing the mapping

... Tim noted that there are hyperlinks showing the mapping

15:07:22 <jcheney> ... Luc suggested a table suggesting the mapping

... Luc suggested a table suggesting the mapping

15:07:23 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-to-prov-o-and-prov-n

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-to-prov-o-and-prov-n

15:07:54 <jcheney> ... table is at end of document

... table is at end of document

15:08:01 <Zakim> +??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19

15:08:02 <jcheney> ... Graham, comments?

... Graham, comments?

15:08:19 <sandro> (if you follow the URL, then press enter in the URL bar, you should get the table.  at least I do in firefox)

Sandro Hawke: (if you follow the URL, then press enter in the URL bar, you should get the table. at least I do in firefox)

15:08:29 <Zakim> +??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20

15:08:35 <jcheney> GK: Table seems to do the job, modulo editorial (post LC) issues

Graham Klyne: Table seems to do the job, modulo editorial (post LC) issues

15:08:52 <satya> Are these cross-references between documents or mappings?

Satya Sahoo: Are these cross-references between documents or mappings?

15:09:03 <jcheney> ... regarding Tim's comments, the hyperlinks cannot be dereferenced on paper

... regarding Tim's comments, the hyperlinks cannot be dereferenced on paper

15:09:17 <jcheney> ... not clear that they're links unless reading on screen

... not clear that they're links unless reading on screen

15:09:21 <tlebo> @GK, I've rephrased it to "alternate     as in <a>prov-dm</a>"

Timothy Lebo: @GK, I've rephrased it to "alternate as in <a>prov-dm</a>"

15:09:34 <jcheney> ... table does it better because it shows where single DM concept maps to multiple terms in PROV-O

... table does it better because it shows where single DM concept maps to multiple terms in PROV-O

15:09:41 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:09:45 <tlebo> +q

Timothy Lebo: +q

15:10:04 <jcheney> tlebo: Rephrased links to DM within cross-sections in irc above

Timothy Lebo: Rephrased links to DM within cross-sections in irc above

15:10:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:10:10 <Luc> ack tl

Luc Moreau: ack tl

15:10:26 <jcheney> ... Is rephrasing more natural?

... Is rephrasing more natural?

15:10:40 <tlebo> as in http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#wasEndedBy

Timothy Lebo: as in http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#wasEndedBy

15:10:47 <jcheney> GK: Need to look, but don't thikn it's a blocker.

Graham Klyne: Need to look, but don't thikn it's a blocker.

15:10:48 <pgroth> so it's editorial

Paul Groth: so it's editorial

15:10:53 <tlebo> sure, it's not a blocker.

Timothy Lebo: sure, it's not a blocker.

15:11:05 <jcheney> Luc: Can always refine this post LC

Luc Moreau: Can always refine this post LC

15:11:07 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:11:21 <jcheney> Luc: Is this addressed?

Luc Moreau: Is this addressed?

15:11:30 <jcheney> GK: Yes

Graham Klyne: Yes

15:11:30 <satya> Agree - but I think this table should be called cross-references rather than mappings

Satya Sahoo: Agree - but I think this table should be called cross-references rather than mappings

15:11:38 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:11:46 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

15:12:09 <tlebo> +1 to rename "mapping"

Timothy Lebo: +1 to rename "mapping"

15:12:15 <jcheney> satya: This is helpful, but should call it a cross-reference table to avoid connotations of "mapping"

Satya Sahoo: This is helpful, but should call it a cross-reference table to avoid connotations of "mapping"

15:12:16 <satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q-

15:12:21 <tlebo> "alternates" :-)

Timothy Lebo: "alternates" :-)

15:12:33 <pgroth> it's titled "Mappings to PROV-O and PROV-N"

Paul Groth: it's titled "Mappings to PROV-O and PROV-N"

15:12:34 <GK> @satya - I tend to agree - "cross reference" is more neutral

Graham Klyne: @satya - I tend to agree - "cross reference" is more neutral

15:12:39 <jcheney> Luc: Satya, can you review and come back with comments?

Luc Moreau: Satya, can you review and come back with comments?

15:12:41 <tlebo> bad naming "Table 8 ◊: PROV-DM Mapping to PROV-O and PROV-N"

Timothy Lebo: bad naming "Table 8 ◊: PROV-DM Mapping to PROV-O and PROV-N"

15:12:42 <Luc> ack sat

Luc Moreau: ack sat

15:12:43 <jcheney> satya: Yes

Satya Sahoo: Yes

15:13:03 <jcheney> Next issue: Security section, raised by Graham

Next issue: Security section, raised by Graham

15:13:21 <jcheney> subtopic: Security section, raised by Graham

2.2. Security section, raised by Graham

Summary: Graham suggested consolidating all security considerations in a single section of prov-dm, and refer to it from other documents. There was some push back from some participants, who felt that security considerations were not in scope of a conceptual model/ontology. After discussion, it was decided that no change would be introduced, and security considerations would be kept in prov-n (as part of the mime type application) and prov-aq.

<luc>Summary: Graham suggested consolidating all security considerations in a single section of prov-dm, and refer to it from other documents. There was some push back from some participants, who felt that security considerations were not in scope of a conceptual model/ontology.   After discussion, it was decided that no change would be introduced, and security considerations would be kept in prov-n (as part of the mime type application) and prov-aq.
15:13:40 <jcheney> GK: There are security considerations in multiple places, should be brought together

Graham Klyne: There are security considerations in multiple places, should be brought together

15:13:55 <jcheney> ... so they're easy to find and review

... so they're easy to find and review

15:13:58 <Zakim> +??P22

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22

15:14:10 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P22 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P22 is me

15:14:10 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it

15:14:32 <tlebo> -1 in Rec, +1 as Note.

Timothy Lebo: -1 in Rec, +1 as Note.

15:14:34 <jcheney> ... prov-dm seems to be the appropriate place, with cross-references

... prov-dm seems to be the appropriate place, with cross-references

15:14:46 <jcheney> Luc: Should this be done before LC?

Luc Moreau: Should this be done before LC?

15:15:01 <jcheney> GK: Beneficial for it to be in LC, collecting what we already have.

Graham Klyne: Beneficial for it to be in LC, collecting what we already have.

15:15:45 <jcheney> Luc: Security is mentioned in PROV-AQ, but some of it is irrelevant to DM.  Do we need more?

Luc Moreau: Security is mentioned in PROV-AQ, but some of it is irrelevant to DM. Do we need more?

15:16:02 <jcheney> GK: No, but it should be there in the document to attract feedback on security

Graham Klyne: No, but it should be there in the document to attract feedback on security

15:16:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:16:33 <jcheney> tlebo: Surprised this is coming up just before LC, with no discussion over past year

Timothy Lebo: Surprised this is coming up just before LC, with no discussion over past year

15:16:40 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

15:16:45 <jcheney> GK: Should have raised sooner, but did not see big picture

Graham Klyne: Should have raised sooner, but did not see big picture

15:17:04 <jcheney> ... also W3C has different culture about security

... also W3C has different culture about security

15:17:10 <jcheney> ... but for provenance it is more important

... but for provenance it is more important

15:17:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:17:17 <tlebo> q+ to say this is more like a best practices document and should be Note. Notes suits the maturity of the material that reflects our level of work on the topic.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say this is more like a best practices document and should be Note. Notes suits the maturity of the material that reflects our level of work on the topic.

15:17:32 <jcheney> pgroth: reasonable to make a section in PROV-DM intro that addresses security

Paul Groth: reasonable to make a section in PROV-DM intro that addresses security

15:17:40 <Luc> @pgroth not in intro, but as section at end of document

Luc Moreau: @pgroth not in intro, but as section at end of document

15:17:41 <Curt> Does the security section really change the specification, or is it more editorial/discussion?  If so, could that be added even after LC?

Curt Tilmes: Does the security section really change the specification, or is it more editorial/discussion? If so, could that be added even after LC?

15:18:06 <jcheney> ... Graham is saying we should put it in core document to ensure it is seen/raises issue

... Graham is saying we should put it in core document to ensure it is seen/raises issue

15:18:15 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:18:29 <jcheney> Luc: Answering Curt: put it in before LC so we get feedback.

Luc Moreau: Answering Curt: put it in before LC so we get feedback.

15:18:47 <GK> @curt it can be changed later, but my point is that by having it in last call reviewers will be prompted to think/comment about this.

Graham Klyne: @curt it can be changed later, but my point is that by having it in last call reviewers will be prompted to think/comment about this.

15:18:53 <jcheney> tlebo: Better suited as best practice rather than part of spec

Timothy Lebo: Better suited as best practice rather than part of spec

15:19:13 <zednik> +1 to security in best practices

Stephan Zednik: +1 to security in best practices

15:19:16 <jcheney> ... but if there is existing narrative that can be added in that is ok too

... but if there is existing narrative that can be added in that is ok too

15:19:45 <jcheney> Luc: RDF concepts doesn't discuss security

Luc Moreau: RDF concepts doesn't discuss security

15:19:52 <jcheney> ... why needed in DM?

... why needed in DM?

15:19:58 <jcheney> GK: Need may be too strong

Graham Klyne: Need may be too strong

15:20:00 <jcheney> q+

q+

15:20:05 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

15:20:17 <jcheney> ... but because of specific role that provenance plays in establishign trust, worth drawing attention to security considerations

... but because of specific role that provenance plays in establishign trust, worth drawing attention to security considerations

15:20:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:20:36 <tlebo> @GK, but we're not IETF, we're W3C.

Timothy Lebo: @GK, but we're not IETF, we're W3C.

15:20:38 <jcheney> ... was looking at elements of IETF process where every spec must mention security

... was looking at elements of IETF process where every spec must mention security

15:20:51 <jcheney> ... because many problems can arise

... because many problems can arise

15:21:12 <jcheney> ... not part of w3c culture but should be more so in future

... not part of w3c culture but should be more so in future

15:21:13 <Paolo> but, what are these security considerations? I think I miss the point

Paolo Missier: but, what are these security considerations? I think I miss the point

15:21:14 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aaee

15:21:21 <tlebo> "good thing to think about" suggestions Note.

Timothy Lebo: "good thing to think about" suggests Note.

15:21:27 <Paolo> wrt DM I mean

Paolo Missier: wrt DM I mean

15:21:30 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me

15:21:30 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it

15:21:31 <tlebo> s/suggestions/suggests/
15:21:34 <stain> sorry I am late

Stian Soiland-Reyes: sorry I am late

15:22:16 <Luc> See http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (section 6) subsection security considerations

Luc Moreau: See http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (section 6) subsection security considerations

15:22:29 <jcheney> jcheney: qustion: is it normative or informative?

James Cheney: qustion: is it normative or informative?

15:22:43 <jcheney> ... observation: provenance isn't magic fairy dust, we should make this clear

... observation: provenance isn't magic fairy dust, we should make this clear

15:22:57 <jcheney> Luc: informative probably ok, Graham?

Luc Moreau: informative probably ok, Graham?

15:23:18 <jcheney> GK: informative probably OK

Graham Klyne: informative probably OK

15:23:31 <jcheney> ... if others feel this is unnecessary, will back off, but wanted to raise it

... if others feel this is unnecessary, will back off, but wanted to raise it

15:24:01 <jcheney> Luc: How about if we take security considerations from prov-n and prov-aq and transplant to prov-dm.

Luc Moreau: How about if we take security considerations from prov-n and prov-aq and transplant to prov-dm.

15:24:11 <pgroth> fine with me

Paul Groth: fine with me

15:24:13 <jcheney> GK: Works for me.

Graham Klyne: Works for me.

15:24:22 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

15:24:23 <tlebo> tyep it out?

Timothy Lebo: tyep it out?

15:24:27 <jcheney> Luc: Any objection/discussion?

Luc Moreau: Any objection/discussion?

15:24:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:24:40 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

15:24:41 <jcheney> ack jc

ack jc

15:24:43 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

15:24:48 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik

15:25:06 <jcheney> zednik: We aren't developing communication protocol, so security feels out of scope

Stephan Zednik: We aren't developing communication protocol, so security feels out of scope

15:25:10 <jcheney> ... like SKOS

... like SKOS

15:25:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:25:29 <jcheney> ... security should not block or even necessarily be part of a note

... security should not block or even necessarily be part of a note

15:25:47 <GK> @stephan  security considerations apply to data as well as protocol - hence they appear in media type registrations

Graham Klyne: @stephan security considerations apply to data as well as protocol - hence they appear in media type registrations

15:25:56 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:26:02 <jcheney> Luc: plese read sectionlinked on IRC

Luc Moreau: plese read sectionlinked on IRC

15:26:03 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

15:26:19 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

15:26:26 <tlebo> Security considerations is there to suit IETF, that's the only reason it is there.

Timothy Lebo: Security considerations is there to suit IETF, that's the only reason it is there.

15:26:30 <jcheney> Paolo: Reading section, still unclear what is going on.  Agree with stephan that security seems out of scope

Paolo Missier: Reading section, still unclear what is going on. Agree with stephan that security seems out of scope

15:26:59 <jcheney> ... Can be part of Prov-AQ, but seems like a disclaimer: don't necessarily trust data expressed in this vocabulary.

... Can be part of Prov-AQ, but seems like a disclaimer: don't necessarily trust data expressed in this vocabulary.

15:27:10 <jcheney> ... Seems like this goes without saying.

... Seems like this goes without saying.

15:27:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:27:20 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

15:27:32 <jcheney> ... Didn't see it earlier, don't see what it says

... Didn't see it earlier, don't see what it says

15:28:03 <jcheney> hook: Security considerations seem domain specific

Hook Hua: Security considerations seem domain specific

15:28:24 <jcheney> ... not always needed but within earth science, security is a consideration

... not always needed but within earth science, security is a consideration

15:28:36 <stain> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-mediaReg has a very similar section

Stian Soiland-Reyes: http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-mediaReg has a very similar section

15:28:42 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:28:45 <jcheney> ... agree with stephan that it is domain specific and not part of vocabulary

... agree with stephan that it is domain specific and not part of vocabulary

15:28:46 <Luc> ack hook

Luc Moreau: ack hook

15:29:16 <jcheney> sandro: Sympathetic to claim of being patronizing - have wanted to say something that tries to be useful

Sandro Hawke: Sympathetic to claim of being patronizing - have wanted to say something that tries to be useful

15:29:21 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:29:21 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

15:29:27 <jcheney> ... Could say less, or that considerations are domain specific or out of scope

... Could say less, or that considerations are domain specific or out of scope

15:29:27 <Paolo> sorry maybe it's just me not being familiar with the W3C / IETF  culture but I find this is out of our scope

Paolo Missier: sorry maybe it's just me not being familiar with the W3C / IETF culture but I find this is out of our scope

15:29:28 <stain> but I think that is mainly part of the IETF registration.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: but I think that is mainly part of the IETF registration.

15:29:51 <tlebo> security in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type and ONLY in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (to suit IETF)

Timothy Lebo: security in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type and ONLY in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (to suit IETF)

15:30:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:30:10 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

15:30:14 <jcheney> Luc: We should have it for media type registration no matter what

Luc Moreau: We should have it for media type registration no matter what

15:30:35 <Paolo> if it's a req, then so be it, but...  can we remove phrasing like "inferences of potential medical treatments would likely require different trust than inferences for trip planning."

Paolo Missier: if it's a req, then so be it, but... can we remove phrasing like "inferences of potential medical treatments would likely require different trust than inferences for trip planning."

15:30:36 <stain> I would also propose to leave it in the PROV-N registration as it is.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I would also propose to leave it in the PROV-N registration as it is.

15:30:51 <stain> hehehe, yes

Stian Soiland-Reyes: hehehe, yes

15:30:56 <jcheney> pgroth: Need to leave it in PROV-N, could draw attention to it in email announcements.

Paul Groth: Need to leave it in PROV-N, could draw attention to it in email announcements.

15:31:02 <stain> Paolo: that's stolen right from the Turtle spec!

Paolo Missier: that's stolen right from the Turtle spec! [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ]

15:31:03 <jcheney> ... with pointer to where it is

... with pointer to where it is

15:31:19 <jcheney> sandro: could say this is a building block for security, not claim that it is secure itself

Sandro Hawke: could say this is a building block for security, not claim that it is secure itself

15:31:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:31:31 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed

15:31:44 <pgroth> @stephan that's not right

Paul Groth: @stephan that's not right

15:31:48 <pgroth> that's in prov-aq

Paul Groth: that's in prov-aq

15:31:52 <jcheney> zednik: Need to look at media type section, but talking about security we can just leverage existing security specifications

Stephan Zednik: Need to look at media type section, but talking about security we can just leverage existing security specifications

15:31:55 <pgroth> were not talking about it here

Paul Groth: were not talking about it here

15:32:03 <jcheney> ... why can't we use common mechanisms

... why can't we use common mechanisms

15:32:08 <Paolo> @Stian that's no justification, right? copy and paste bad paragraphs doesn't make them better :-)

Paolo Missier: @Stian that's no justification, right? copy and paste bad paragraphs doesn't make them better :-)

15:32:17 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:32:34 <jcheney> Luc: already says that; just says "use common methods/common sense"

Luc Moreau: already says that; just says "use common methods/common sense"

15:32:35 <pgroth> arg

Paul Groth: arg

15:32:36 <GK> It is.

Graham Klyne: It is.

15:32:39 <GK> in PAQ

Graham Klyne: in PAQ

15:32:45 <pgroth> it's in PAQ and PROV-N now

Paul Groth: it's in PAQ and PROV-N now

15:32:52 <stain> Paolo: so we can refine it - removing other things like IRI overlap concerns sounds like "This is not an issue in PROV-N" - but really PROV-N has almost all the same issues as Turtle

Paolo Missier: so we can refine it - removing other things like IRI overlap concerns sounds like "This is not an issue in PROV-N" - but really PROV-N has almost all the same issues as Turtle [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ]

15:32:54 <jcheney> zednik: Then seems sensible to put it in PAQ which deals with transmission

Stephan Zednik: Then seems sensible to put it in PAQ which deals with transmission

15:32:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:33:34 <jcheney> Luc: Asked for feedback on this section last week.

Luc Moreau: Asked for feedback on this section last week.

15:33:49 <jcheney> ... Looks like there is not a consensus to move this to prov-dm

... Looks like there is not a consensus to move this to prov-dm

15:33:53 <jcheney> ... any objections?

... any objections?

15:33:56 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes

15:33:59 <tlebo> +1, stays where it is.

Timothy Lebo: +1, stays where it is.

15:33:59 <jcheney> ... (to keeping as is)

... (to keeping as is)

15:34:09 <Paolo> I am not opposing moving it BTW -- but I now realize I have comments on the content, which I will raise

Paolo Missier: I am not opposing moving it BTW -- but I now realize I have comments on the content, which I will raise

15:34:19 <jcheney> GK: Given lack of support, not pushing for it

Graham Klyne: Given lack of support, not pushing for it

15:34:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:34:49 <jcheney> Luc: Can add something later; this is informative anyway

Luc Moreau: Can add something later; this is informative anyway

15:34:56 <jcheney> Subtopic: Collection membership

2.3. Collection membership

Summary: In his review of prov-o, Luc identified a mismatch between a binary hadMember relation in prov-o, and a n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-dm (with identifier, attribute, and complete flag). While attempting to define an n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-o, Tim made it a kind of influence (so as to be able to use the qualified pattern). However, in prov-dm, membership is not an Influence. After discussion, and as suggested by some reviewers, the WG decided to have a binary hadMember relation in both prov-dm and prov-o. Both prov-o and prov-dm also have a notion of Empty Collection. It was suggested that the n-ary version should be kept in the dictionary note.

<Luc>Summary: In his review of prov-o, Luc identified a mismatch between a binary hadMember relation in prov-o, and a n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-dm (with identifier, attribute, and complete flag). While attempting to define an n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-o, Tim made it a kind of influence (so as to be able to use the qualified pattern).  However, in prov-dm, membership is not an Influence.  After discussion, and as suggested by some reviewers, the WG decided to have a binary hadMember relation in both prov-dm and prov-o. Both prov-o and prov-dm also have a notion of Empty Collection.  It was suggested that the n-ary version should be kept in the dictionary note.
15:34:58 <pgroth> charset?

Paul Groth: charset?

15:35:23 <jcheney> Luc: At f2f3 decided to move dictionaries to note, keeping collection and membership.

Luc Moreau: At f2f3 decided to move dictionaries to note, keeping collection and membership.

15:35:33 <jcheney> ... interpreted this as keep "membership" as it was

... interpreted this as keep "membership" as it was

15:36:08 <GK> @paul - re charset - I now have a recommendation from Ned Freed to always require charset=utf-8 parameter - forwarded to list.

Graham Klyne: @paul - re charset - I now have a recommendation from Ned Freed to always require charset=utf-8 parameter - forwarded to list.

15:36:13 <jcheney> ... to align with PROV-O, this would require making membership qualified and supporting n-ary membership

... to align with PROV-O, this would require making membership qualified and supporting n-ary membership

15:36:32 <jcheney> ... Tim updated ontology to fit (Membership subtype of Influence)

... Tim updated ontology to fit (Membership subtype of Influence)

15:37:00 <jcheney> ... But at f2f3 it was not agreed that membership is a derivation or influence

... But at f2f3 it was not agreed that membership is a derivation or influence

15:37:04 <tlebo> POI\: the prov-o terms involved: EmptyCollection, CompleteCollection, IncompleteCollection, qualifiedMembership + Membership

Timothy Lebo: POI\: the prov-o terms involved: EmptyCollection, CompleteCollection, IncompleteCollection, qualifiedMembership + Membership

15:37:12 <jcheney> ... Several solutions were explored (see agenda)

... Several solutions were explored (see agenda)

15:37:24 <jcheney> ... Only workable option at this point seems to be binary membership

... Only workable option at this point seems to be binary membership

15:37:33 <jcheney> ... as suggested by some reviewers

... as suggested by some reviewers

15:37:52 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:38:03 <jcheney> tlebo: related terms are as above

Timothy Lebo: related terms are as above

15:38:03 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:38:07 <jcheney> ... what should we do with them?

... what should we do with them?

15:38:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:38:34 <jcheney> Luc: proposal would be Collection, EmptyCollection, and hadMember relating collections to entities

Luc Moreau: proposal would be Collection, EmptyCollection, and hadMember relating collections to entities

15:38:46 <stain> one collection to one entity

Stian Soiland-Reyes: one collection to one entity

15:38:56 <jcheney> pgroth: This doesn't mean that we can't have something more complex when we move to dictionary, if desired

Paul Groth: This doesn't mean that we can't have something more complex when we move to dictionary, if desired

15:39:01 <tlebo> so, we have ONLY: Collection, hadMember, and EmptyCollection (and nothing else)

Timothy Lebo: so, we have ONLY: Collection, hadMember, and EmptyCollection (and nothing else)

15:39:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:39:13 <jcheney> ... Interpreted f2f3 resolution as "we want a simple collection/membership"

... Interpreted f2f3 resolution as "we want a simple collection/membership"

15:39:17 <tlebo> +1 #pgroth that was my impression - keep it simple, no qualification

Timothy Lebo: +1 #pgroth that was my impression - keep it simple, no qualification

15:39:26 <jcheney> tlebo: That seems fine.

Timothy Lebo: That seems fine.

15:39:33 <tlebo> @luc, easier to remove than to add.

Timothy Lebo: @luc, easier to remove than to add.

15:39:35 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

15:39:39 <jcheney> Luc: Any opposition?

Luc Moreau: Any opposition?

15:39:44 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo

15:39:45 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

15:40:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:40:28 <jcheney> Paolo: Not opposition, but set notation can be syntactic sugar for binary membership.  We should avoid tight coupling between prov-n and prov-o

Paolo Missier: Not opposition, but set notation can be syntactic sugar for binary membership. We should avoid tight coupling between prov-n and prov-o

15:40:36 <stain> @Paolo, right, without the attributes/id of the membership we don't need the entity sets in PROV-O (as there is no qualification)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Paolo, right, without the attributes/id of the membership we don't need the entity sets in PROV-O (as there is no qualification)

15:40:42 <tlebo> @paolo, not sure I follow, if it influences how prov-o should look, please let me know.

Timothy Lebo: @paolo, not sure I follow, if it influences how prov-o should look, please let me know.

15:40:49 <jcheney> q+

q+

15:41:37 <Luc> accepted:  we have ONLY: Collection, binary hadMember, and EmptyCollection

RESOLVED: we have ONLY: Collection, binary hadMember, and EmptyCollection

15:41:45 <Paolo> @tlebo: no it doesn't it's all fine -- I just  thought hadMember(c, {...}) is acceptable syntax that is compatible with the binary nature of hadMember

Paolo Missier: @tlebo: no it doesn't it's all fine -- I just thought hadMember(c, {...}) is acceptable syntax that is compatible with the binary nature of hadMember

15:41:47 <Luc> ack jc

Luc Moreau: ack jc

15:42:02 <Paolo> not bih deal

Paolo Missier: not bih deal

15:42:02 <jcheney> subtopic: character set optional parameter

2.4. character set optional parameter

Summary: The group approved Graham's suggestion about the charset parameter in the prov-n mime type application. In accordance to RFC 6657, the charset parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

<luc> Summary:  The group approved Graham's suggestion about the charset parameter in the prov-n mime type application. In accordance to RFC 6657, the charset parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.
15:42:16 <jcheney> GK: Commented on media type registration in prov-n

Graham Klyne: Commented on media type registration in prov-n

15:42:36 <jcheney> ... overtaken by events, due to new rfc changing rules on text media type registrations

... overtaken by events, due to new rfc changing rules on text media type registrations

15:42:52 <jcheney> ... rules changing to deprecate US ASCII being default, and avoid default charsets

... rules changing to deprecate US ASCII being default, and avoid default charsets

15:43:11 <stain> latest response from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg06676.html  says

Stian Soiland-Reyes: latest response from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg06676.html says

15:43:14 <stain> Then my suggestion would be to make the charset parameter mandatory, with the only legal value being utf-8. The alternative would be to omit

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Then my suggestion would be to make the charset parameter mandatory, with the only legal value being utf-8. The alternative would be to omit

15:43:17 <stain> it and specify utf-8 as the default, but as I said, that's not likely

Stian Soiland-Reyes: it and specify utf-8 as the default, but as I said, that's not likely

15:43:20 <stain> to interoperate well.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: to interoperate well.

15:43:25 <jcheney> ... asked IETF and response is (Ned Freed) for PROV-N, safest thing to do is always require a charset parameter set to UTF-8

... asked IETF and response is (Ned Freed) for PROV-N, safest thing to do is always require a charset parameter set to UTF-8

15:43:34 <jcheney> ... least likey to cause compatibility problems

... least likey to cause compatibility problems

15:43:36 <sandro> GK, what's the RFC?

Sandro Hawke: GK, what's the RFC?

15:43:45 <sandro> (interesting news, makes sense)

Sandro Hawke: (interesting news, makes sense)

15:43:47 <Luc> charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

Luc Moreau: charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

15:43:47 <stain> @sandro: RFC 6657 - see that mail archive link

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @sandro: RFC 6657 - see that mail archive link

15:43:59 <jcheney> Luc: Are we OK that this text will be adopted?

Luc Moreau: Are we OK that this text will be adopted?

15:44:01 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1

15:44:07 <jcheney> GK: Yes

Graham Klyne: Yes

15:44:09 <Luc> ACCEPTED: charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

RESOLVED: charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

15:44:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:44:31 <jcheney> Luc: This concludes technical issues.  Any others?

Luc Moreau: This concludes technical issues. Any others?

<luc>Subtopic: Vote

2.5. Vote

Summary: The participants unanimously voted for the release of PROV-DM, PROV-O, PROV-N as last call working drafts, and of PROV-PRIMER as working draft. The chairs congratulated the Working Group for this significant milestone.

<luc>Summary: The participants unanimously voted for the release of PROV-DM, PROV-O, PROV-N as last call working drafts, and of PROV-PRIMER as working draft. The chairs congratulated the Working Group for this significant milestone.
15:44:42 <Zakim> -CraigTrim

Zakim IRC Bot: -CraigTrim

15:44:51 <jcheney> ... Proceed to votes.

... Proceed to votes.

15:45:09 <jcheney> sandro: For LC, please add name of organization after vote (one vote per organization)

Sandro Hawke: For LC, please add name of organization after vote (one vote per organization)

15:45:12 <pgroth> and can chairs vote?

Paul Groth: and can chairs vote?

15:45:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:45:26 <sandro> (yes, chairs can vote)

Sandro Hawke: (yes, chairs can vote)

15:45:37 <jcheney> Luc: Do people have objections to the four proposals on agenda?

Luc Moreau: Do people have objections to the four proposals on agenda?

15:45:46 <stain> @khalidBelhajjame are you going to vote or me?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @khalidBelhajjame are you going to vote or me?

15:45:51 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft

PROPOSED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft

15:45:58 <satya> +1, IE

Satya Sahoo: +1, IE

15:46:02 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

+1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:46:02 <pgroth> +1 VU University Amsterdam

Paul Groth: +1 VU University Amsterdam

15:46:04 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)

15:46:06 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

Graham Klyne: +1 (Oxford U)

15:46:10 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI)

15:46:10 <Dong> +1, University of Southampton

Trung Huynh: +1, University of Southampton

15:46:10 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:46:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:46:12 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

Curt Tilmes: +1 (NASA)

15:46:13 <hook> +1 (IE)

Hook Hua: +1 (IE)

15:46:14 <Luc> +1 (university of Southampton)

Luc Moreau: +1 (university of Southampton)

15:46:23 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle Uni)

Paolo Missier: +1 (Newcastle Uni)

15:46:26 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

David Corsar: +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:46:29 <pgroth> southampton twice!

Paul Groth: southampton twice!

15:46:31 <stain>   DUPLICATE ORG -  +1 (University of Manchester)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: DUPLICATE ORG - +1 (University of Manchester)

15:46:31 <pgroth> :-)

Paul Groth: :-)

15:46:38 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, I think you can also vote, I don't think we have one vote per instituion, or is it the case?

Khalid Belhajjame: @Stian, I think you can also vote, I don't think we have one vote per instituion, or is it the case?

15:46:53 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft

RESOLVED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:01 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft

PROPOSED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:05 <satya> +1, IE

Satya Sahoo: +1, IE

15:47:07 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

Paul Groth: +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

15:47:09 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

Curt Tilmes: +1 (NASA)

15:47:10 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

Graham Klyne: +1 (Oxford U)

15:47:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:47:11 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI)

15:47:12 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:47:13 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

David Corsar: +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:47:13 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton

Trung Huynh: +1, Univerisity of Southampton

15:47:14 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

+1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:47:15 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)

15:47:16 <hook> +1 (IE)

Hook Hua: +1 (IE)

15:47:19 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)

Luc Moreau: +1 (University of Southampton)

15:47:32 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle Uni)

Paolo Missier: +1 (Newcastle Uni)

15:47:46 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft

RESOLVED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:55 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft

PROPOSED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:58 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:47:58 <satya> +1, IE

Satya Sahoo: +1, IE

15:48:02 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)

Luc Moreau: +1 (University of Southampton)

15:48:03 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

Paul Groth: +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

15:48:04 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

Graham Klyne: +1 (Oxford U)

15:48:04 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

+1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:48:06 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:48:07 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

Curt Tilmes: +1 (NASA)

15:48:07 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI)

15:48:08 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton

Trung Huynh: +1, Univerisity of Southampton

15:48:08 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)

15:48:09 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

David Corsar: +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:48:18 <hook> +1 (IE)

Hook Hua: +1 (IE)

15:48:22 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle University)

Paolo Missier: +1 (Newcastle University)

15:48:29 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft

RESOLVED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft

15:48:53 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft

PROPOSED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft

15:49:00 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton

Trung Huynh: +1, Univerisity of Southampton

15:49:03 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)

15:49:04 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

Graham Klyne: +1 (Oxford U)

15:49:04 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

+1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:49:05 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:49:05 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

Curt Tilmes: +1 (NASA)

15:49:06 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 (University of Manchester)

15:49:06 <satya> +1, IE

Satya Sahoo: +1, IE

15:49:07 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

Paul Groth: +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

15:49:07 <stephenc> +1 (legislation.gov.uk)

Stephen Cresswell: +1 (legislation.gov.uk)

15:49:09 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

David Corsar: +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:49:11 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI)

15:49:11 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)

Luc Moreau: +1 (University of Southampton)

15:49:12 <hook> +1 (IE)

Hook Hua: +1 (IE)

15:49:19 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle University)

Paolo Missier: +1 (Newcastle University)

15:49:30 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft

RESOLVED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft

15:49:42 <Paolo> clap clap clap

Paolo Missier: clap clap clap

15:49:44 <sandro> +1 round of applause  :-)

Sandro Hawke: +1 round of applause :-)

15:49:44 <pgroth> congrats everyone

Paul Groth: congrats everyone

15:49:55 <jcheney> Topic: Publication date

3. Publication date

Summary: It was agreed that documents would be published on July 24 (post meeting note: date was agreed with Webmaster) and the end of last call review would be the 18th of September.

<Luc>Summary:  It was agreed that documents would be published on July 24 (post meeting note: date was agreed with Webmaster) and the end of last call review would be the 18th of September.
15:50:13 <jcheney> Luc: Simon is ready, PROV-DM mostly ready.  PROV-O?

Luc Moreau: Simon is ready, PROV-DM mostly ready. PROV-O?

15:50:15 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q

15:50:30 <jcheney> tlebo: Producing valid HTML and most links confirmed.  A few hours work.

Timothy Lebo: Producing valid HTML and most links confirmed. A few hours work.

15:50:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:50:49 <jcheney> Luc: Cannot publish next week, but can request for pub following week.

Luc Moreau: Cannot publish next week, but can request for pub following week.

15:51:15 <jcheney> pgroth: If we make request this week, good because next week we should work on blog/announcement for LC

Paul Groth: If we make request this week, good because next week we should work on blog/announcement for LC

15:51:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:51:32 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes

15:51:43 <jcheney> Luc: Publication Tuesday July 24, make request today?

Luc Moreau: Publication Tuesday July 24, make request today?

15:51:49 <Luc> accepted: publication date is July 24

RESOLVED: publication date is July 24

15:52:22 <jcheney> sandro: confirms this is not a transition request.  Only formal step is need to post to chairs@w3c.org

Sandro Hawke: confirms this is not a transition request. Only formal step is need to post to chairs@w3c.org

15:52:32 <jcheney> Luc: On day of publication?

Luc Moreau: On day of publication?

15:52:40 <jcheney> sandro: right after is probably best so that links wokr

Sandro Hawke: right after is probably best so that links wokr

15:52:44 <jcheney> sandro: right after is probably best so that links work

Sandro Hawke: right after is probably best so that links work

15:53:11 <jcheney> Luc: Review period, hoped at f2f3 to release by end of july and review period ending mid-september.

Luc Moreau: Review period, hoped at f2f3 to release by end of july and review period ending mid-september.

15:53:17 <Luc> 2012-09-12???

Luc Moreau: 2012-09-12???

15:53:32 <jcheney> ... Suggest september 12?

... Suggest september 12?

15:53:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:53:35 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:54:09 <jcheney> pgroth: Think this will cause pushback.  What about the 18th?  Let people have 3 weeks in not-August

Paul Groth: Think this will cause pushback. What about the 18th? Let people have 3 weeks in not-August

15:54:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:54:23 <jcheney> sandro: 18th is reasonable too

Sandro Hawke: 18th is reasonable too

15:54:29 <Luc> accepted: end of review 2012-09-18

RESOLVED: end of review 2012-09-18

15:54:44 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:55:12 <jcheney> pgroth: Looking for volunteers to write intro blog posts on last call, particularly updates

Paul Groth: Looking for volunteers to write intro blog posts on last call, particularly updates

15:55:20 <Luc> +1 on prov-dm

Luc Moreau: +1 on prov-dm

15:55:28 <jcheney> ... Will write overview post but would be helpful especally for prov-o

... Will write overview post but would be helpful especally for prov-o

15:55:31 <Luc> +1 on prov-n

Luc Moreau: +1 on prov-n

15:55:41 <tlebo> @pgroth I'll add it to our agenda for Monday.

Timothy Lebo: @pgroth I'll add it to our agenda for Monday.

15:55:49 <khalidBelhajjame> @pgroth, when do you need that?

Khalid Belhajjame: @pgroth, when do you need that?

15:55:57 <pgroth> by the publication date

Paul Groth: by the publication date

15:56:01 <pgroth> july 24

Paul Groth: july 24

15:56:05 <khalidBelhajjame> @pgroth, thanks

Khalid Belhajjame: @pgroth, thanks

15:56:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:56:21 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

15:56:36 <pgroth> no

Paul Groth: no

15:56:47 <jcheney> pgroth: would like by 24th so that blogs & twitter can happen at same time

Paul Groth: would like by 24th so that blogs & twitter can happen at same time

15:56:53 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments

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

15:56:54 <jcheney> Topic: Managing public comments

4. Managing public comments

Summary: the group reviewed and made minor changes to the process for managing public comments. Paul will handle incoming comments, as per process, till end of July. A timetable is being set up, and volunteers are invited to sign up for this task.

<luc>Summary: the group reviewed and made minor changes to the process for managing public comments. Paul will handle incoming comments, as per process, till end of July. A timetable is being set up, and volunteers are invited to sign up for this task.
15:57:13 <tlebo> I like process ;-)

Timothy Lebo: I like process ;-)

15:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: Paul wrote tracking policy with input from Tim

Luc Moreau: Paul wrote tracking policy with input from Tim

15:57:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Have already seen that some comments start discussion, which overwhelms commenter with different responses

Paul Groth: Have already seen that some comments start discussion, which overwhelms commenter with different responses

15:58:10 <jcheney> ... Luc or nominated member to raise an issue on appropriate product, list issue on tracking public comments page, acknowledge issue to reviewer

... Luc or nominated member to raise an issue on appropriate product, list issue on tracking public comments page, acknowledge issue to reviewer

15:58:30 <jcheney> ... Start talking about it on wg mailing list, telecon etc.

... Start talking about it on wg mailing list, telecon etc.

15:58:35 <Luc> @sandro: is there a timeliness requirement for response?

Luc Moreau: @sandro: is there a timeliness requirement for response?

15:58:48 <jcheney> ... If questions raised for reviewer, contact them and ultimately respond to commenter

... If questions raised for reviewer, contact them and ultimately respond to commenter

15:58:56 <GK> q+ to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)

Graham Klyne: q+ to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)

15:59:03 <Luc> @pgroth: can we nominate a member directly ;-)

Luc Moreau: @pgroth: can we nominate a member directly ;-)

15:59:05 <jcheney> ... Only concern - is this too heavy on one person?

... Only concern - is this too heavy on one person?

15:59:13 <pgroth> agree on the url

Paul Groth: agree on the url

15:59:18 <pgroth> i'll update the wiki

Paul Groth: i'll update the wiki

15:59:34 <jcheney> GK: when acknowledging receipt, include link to issue page

Graham Klyne: when acknowledging receipt, include link to issue page

15:59:38 <sandro> @luc nothing formal except we need the responses done before the next transition.

Sandro Hawke: @luc nothing formal except we need the responses done before the next transition.

15:59:38 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:59:41 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

15:59:41 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)

15:59:42 <pgroth> ack gk

Paul Groth: ack gk

15:59:53 <jcheney> Luc: sandro, is there a timeliness requirement

Luc Moreau: sandro, is there a timeliness requirement

16:00:07 <jcheney> sandro: We are supposed to be, but only requirement is have to be done by next transition

Sandro Hawke: We are supposed to be, but only requirement is have to be done by next transition

16:00:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:00:23 <GK> Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

Graham Klyne: Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

16:00:30 <jcheney> Luc: Polite to acknowledge, but don't have to conclude too quickly?

Luc Moreau: Polite to acknowledge, but don't have to conclude too quickly?

16:00:33 <tlebo> q+ to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.

16:00:41 <jcheney> sandro: Would be polite to indicate if it takes more than a month

Sandro Hawke: Would be polite to indicate if it takes more than a month

16:00:47 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:00:50 <Luc> ack tl

Luc Moreau: ack tl

16:00:50 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.

16:01:17 <jcheney> tlebo: List responds back to us thanking us for comments.  Should we avoid responding to the comments list?

Timothy Lebo: List responds back to us thanking us for comments. Should we avoid responding to the comments list?

16:01:25 <GK> q+ to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

16:01:26 <jcheney> sandro: OK to ignore response and move on.

Sandro Hawke: OK to ignore response and move on.

16:01:42 <jcheney> Luc: Put issue number in response so that issue raiser will be indexed properly

Luc Moreau: Put issue number in response so that issue raiser will be indexed properly

16:01:42 <pgroth> q+ getting the tracker to follow the comments

Paul Groth: q+ getting the tracker to follow the comments

16:01:51 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:01:54 <sandro> (that is, okay to delete the email autoresponse from the list)

Sandro Hawke: (that is, okay to delete the email autoresponse from the list)

16:02:02 <GK> ack gk

Graham Klyne: ack gk

16:02:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

16:02:09 <jcheney> Luc: At some point need to go back and ask if issue addressed.

Luc Moreau: At some point need to go back and ask if issue addressed.

16:02:34 <jcheney> GK: Process used to require confirmation that raiser believes it's been addressed

Graham Klyne: Process used to require confirmation that raiser believes it's been addressed

16:02:58 <jcheney> sandro: Confirms that we need to record whether responder was satisfied

Sandro Hawke: Confirms that we need to record whether responder was satisfied

16:03:13 <pgroth> added

Paul Groth: added

16:03:13 <jcheney> ... f yes, green box on final report

... f yes, green box on final report

16:03:21 <jcheney> ... if no, need to discuss on transition document

... if no, need to discuss on transition document

16:03:34 <jcheney> ... need to track this.

... need to track this.

16:03:38 <jcheney> Luc: Add this to process?

Luc Moreau: Add this to process?

16:03:41 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:03:42 <jcheney> pgroth: Already done

Paul Groth: Already done

16:04:02 <jcheney> pgroth: Does tracker track public-prov-comments?

Paul Groth: Does tracker track public-prov-comments?

16:04:06 <jcheney> sandro: no, not sure if it can

Sandro Hawke: no, not sure if it can

16:04:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:04:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:04:40 <GK> (would subscribing the main mailing list to public comments achieve this?)

Graham Klyne: (would subscribing the main mailing list to public comments achieve this?)

16:04:59 <jcheney> Luc: can we nominate a non-chair member?

Luc Moreau: can we nominate a non-chair member?

16:05:22 <tlebo> -1 to anyone

Timothy Lebo: -1 to anyone

16:05:24 <jcheney> pgroth: It could be anyone in the group, subsequent discussion led by someone specific.

Paul Groth: It could be anyone in the group, subsequent discussion led by someone specific.

16:05:26 <GK> How about a rota of (say) pairs of people

Graham Klyne: How about a rota of (say) pairs of people

16:05:34 <tlebo> too likely to fall on the floor (someone else will do it syndrome)

Timothy Lebo: too likely to fall on the floor (someone else will do it syndrome)

16:05:37 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:05:44 <jcheney> pgroth: Happy to do it until august,then we need someone else since I'm on vacation

Paul Groth: Happy to do it until august,then we need someone else since I'm on vacation

16:05:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:06:01 <pgroth> is anyone here in august?

Paul Groth: is anyone here in august?

16:06:08 <GK> (I don't yet know my availability)

Graham Klyne: (I don't yet know my availability)

16:06:12 <Paolo> off most of August, sorry

Paolo Missier: off most of August, sorry

16:06:26 <tlebo> @pgroth can we list the person responsible and their timeframes on the wiki?

Timothy Lebo: @pgroth can we list the person responsible and their timeframes on the wiki?

16:06:37 <pgroth> sounds good tim

Paul Groth: sounds good tim

16:06:43 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

16:06:46 <tlebo> that gives us 2 weeks to find an Auguster.

Timothy Lebo: that gives us 2 weeks to find an Auguster.

16:06:49 <pgroth> will do

Paul Groth: will do

16:06:55 <jcheney> Luc: suggest wiki page with availability

Luc Moreau: suggest wiki page with availability

16:06:59 <GK> (Would be happy to be one of (say) two people who look out)

Graham Klyne: (Would be happy to be one of (say) two people who look out)

16:07:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:07:06 <pgroth> I have to go catch a train

Paul Groth: I have to go catch a train

16:07:28 <pgroth> congrats everyone

Paul Groth: congrats everyone

16:07:31 <Zakim> +stain

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain

16:07:33 <pgroth> really good result

Paul Groth: really good result

16:07:38 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments - new section

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments - new section

16:07:41 <tlebo> bye bye

Timothy Lebo: bye bye

16:07:49 <pgroth> +10 to the editors

Paul Groth: +10 to the editors

16:07:51 <tlebo> off for a beverage! yeah LC!

Timothy Lebo: off for a beverage! yeah LC!

16:07:52 <jcheney> Luc: will handle rest of agenda next week; adjourned

Luc Moreau: will handle rest of agenda next week; adjourned

16:07:53 <Paolo> byes

Paolo Missier: byes

16:07:53 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame

16:07:54 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth

16:07:54 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo

16:07:56 <Zakim> -sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro

16:07:57 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes

16:07:58 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

16:07:58 <Zakim> -Dong

Zakim IRC Bot: -Dong

16:07:59 <Zakim> -??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P19

16:08:00 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo

16:08:01 <GK> Bye

Graham Klyne: Bye

16:08:02 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

16:08:03 <Dong> bye

Trung Huynh: bye

16:08:04 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo

16:08:06 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aadd

16:08:08 <Zakim> -??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P20

16:08:58 <jcheney> rrsagent, set log public

rrsagent, set log public

16:09:05 <jcheney> rrsagent, draft minutes

rrsagent, draft minutes

16:09:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html jcheney

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html jcheney

16:09:17 <jcheney> trackbot, end telcon

trackbot, end telcon

16:09:17 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:09:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, jcheney?, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aacc, tlebo, +1.818.731.aadd, CraigTrim, sandro, Dong,

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, jcheney?, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aacc, tlebo, +1.818.731.aadd, CraigTrim, sandro, Dong,

16:09:21 <Zakim> ... khalidBelhajjame, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: ... khalidBelhajjame, stain

16:09:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:09:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:09:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:09:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#3) generated 2012-07-16 10:24:55 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'minutes with summaries'