Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 14 March 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14
Seen
Craig Trim, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Graham Klyne, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Trung Huynh
Regrets
Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, Satya Sahoo
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Stian Soiland-Reyes
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon link
  2. to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback link
  3. "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " link
  4. work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq link
  5. close the pending review issues listed in the minutes link
Topics
  1. Admin

    The minutes were approved

  2. Documents are published

    Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs.

  3. PROV-AQ

    The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed.

  4. timetable check

    The group was asked to volunteer for tasks defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.

  5. GLD last call

    There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.

14:53:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc

14:53:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:53:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:53:29 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

14:53:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:30 <trackbot> Date: 14 March 2013
14:53:33 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:53:34 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

14:53:49 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14
14:53:57 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:05 <pgroth> Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes

(Scribe set to Stian Soiland-Reyes)

14:54:09 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, Satya Sahoo
14:54:16 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

14:58:48 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

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

14:58:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

14:59:14 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Paul Groth: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

14:59:15 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it

15:00:47 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

15:00:59 <GK> zakim, ??p14 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p14 is me

15:00:59 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

15:01:00 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aaaa

15:01:05 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me

James Cheney: zakim, aaaa is me

15:01:05 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it

15:01:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:01:35 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Luc Moreau: zakim, [IPcaller] is me

15:01:35 <Zakim> +Luc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it

15:02:29 <Zakim> +??P21

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21

15:02:35 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P21 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P21 is me

15:02:35 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:02:42 <pgroth> @stain you ready?

Paul Groth: @stain you ready?

15:03:23 <stain> I'm joining

I'm joining

15:03:31 <pgroth> great

Paul Groth: great

15:03:36 <stain> sorry

sorry

15:03:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:03:44 <stain> zakim, +IPcaller is me

zakim, +IPcaller is me

15:03:44 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'

15:03:48 <stain> zakim, IPcaller is me

zakim, IPcaller is me

15:03:48 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it

15:03:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:04:07 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, +[IPcaller] is me

15:04:07 <Zakim> sorry, KhalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, KhalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'

15:04:30 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller] is me

15:04:30 <Zakim> +KhalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +KhalidBelhajjame; got it

15:05:07 <Luc> time change only affecting europeans

Luc Moreau: time change only affecting europeans

15:05:14 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: Provenance WG http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14

stain has changed the topic to: Provenance WG http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14

15:05:17 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: The minutes were approved

<pgroth> Summary: The minutes were approved
15:05:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07

15:05:38 <stain> pgroth: Votes on minutes, please

Paul Groth: Votes on minutes, please

15:05:45 <stain> 0 (not present)

0 (not present)

15:05:47 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:05:48 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:05:54 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:05:54 <Zakim> +??P13

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13

15:06:26 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:06:27 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon

RESOLVED: Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon

15:06:42 <Luc> :-)

Luc Moreau: :-)

15:06:42 <Dong> Zakim, ??P13 is me

Trung Huynh: Zakim, ??P13 is me

15:06:42 <Zakim> +Dong; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it

15:06:51 <stain> pgroth: Hoping http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/122 will be done eventually by end of WG ..

Paul Groth: Hoping http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/122 will be done eventually by end of WG ..

15:06:56 <pgroth> Topic: Documents are published

2. Documents are published

Summary: Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs.

<pgroth> Summary: Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs.
15:07:05 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/12/call-for-review-prov-family-of-documents-published-as-proposed-recommendations/

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/12/call-for-review-prov-family-of-documents-published-as-proposed-recommendations/

15:07:12 <Luc> 4!

Luc Moreau: 4!

15:07:19 <stain> pgroth: Congratulations everyone, here is Ivan's blogpost.

Paul Groth: Congratulations everyone, here is Ivan's blogpost.

15:07:23 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

15:07:29 <stain> pgroth: not that much of a hazzle, got it published in the end

Paul Groth: not that much of a hazzle, got it published in the end

15:07:47 <stain> pgroth: one thing we did in the rush (13 documents) was to not do our standards of writing blog posts and PR as for other releases

Paul Groth: one thing we did in the rush (13 documents) was to not do our standards of writing blog posts and PR as for other releases

15:08:01 <stain> pgroth: and so I wanted to see if people would be willing to write a blog post and/or send emails to particular mailing lists

Paul Groth: and so I wanted to see if people would be willing to write a blog post and/or send emails to particular mailing lists

15:08:09 <stain> pgroth: announcing specially the working drafts

Paul Groth: announcing specially the working drafts

15:08:20 <stain> pgroth: we still have 9 Working Drafts we would like to have reviewed

Paul Groth: we still have 9 Working Drafts we would like to have reviewed

15:08:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:08:32 <stain> pgroth: can I get some volunteers to write blog posts or email lists?

Paul Groth: can I get some volunteers to write blog posts or email lists?

15:08:47 <stain> q+ to write PAQ blog post

q+ to write PAQ blog post

15:08:47 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:08:48 <KhalidBelhajjame> I can send mails to mailing lists: DataOne, DbWorld, and others

Khalid Belhajjame: I can send mails to mailing lists: DataOne, DbWorld, and others

15:08:52 <GK> I guess I could send email to the LDP group as king for review of prov-aq

Graham Klyne: I guess I could send email to the LDP group as king for review of prov-aq

15:08:52 <dgarijo> I write a blog post, similar to Ivan's: http://linkingresearch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-prov-family-of-specifications-is-released/

Daniel Garijo: I write a blog post, similar to Ivan's: http://linkingresearch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-prov-family-of-specifications-is-released/

15:08:58 <dgarijo> *wrote

Daniel Garijo: *wrote

15:09:24 <stain> pgroth: Khalid, yeah, great, could you do that

Paul Groth: Khalid, yeah, great, could you do that

15:09:32 <stain> stain: volunteers to do a blog post about PAQ

Stian Soiland-Reyes: volunteers to do a blog post about PAQ

15:09:42 <stain> pgroth: and GK if you could write the LDP group

Paul Groth: and GK if you could write the LDP group

15:09:51 <dgarijo> ok

Daniel Garijo: ok

15:09:53 <stain> pgroth: Dani, I will write an overview blog post; perhaps you could write something about the DC Note?

Paul Groth: Dani, I will write an overview blog post; perhaps you could write something about the DC Note?

15:10:06 <stain> pgroth: and did you/Kai notify the DC people abou tthe draft?

Paul Groth: and did you/Kai notify the DC people abou tthe draft?

15:10:22 <stain> dgarijo: yes, it was announced on the web page (?) ; but not sure if was announced on public list, will ping him abou tthat

Daniel Garijo: yes, it was announced on the web page (?) ; but not sure if was announced on public list, will ping him abou tthat

15:10:27 <stain> pgroth: that's everything

Paul Groth: that's everything

15:10:44 <stain> pgroth: will send emails to group..

Paul Groth: will send emails to group..

15:11:02 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results

15:11:12 <stain> pgroth: with the proposed REC, we need to give ?C refs to vote for our documents. They have to vote that it goes to recommendations

Paul Groth: with the proposed REC, we need to give ?C refs to vote for our documents. They have to vote that it goes to recommendations

15:11:19 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList

15:11:28 <stain> pgroth: we would like you to contact your AC representative to vote for the recommendation

Paul Groth: we would like you to contact your AC representative to vote for the recommendation

15:11:32 <stain> pgroth: here you can find your representative

Paul Groth: here you can find your representative

15:11:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:11:47 <stain> pgroth: we need as many votes as possible can to push to REC

Paul Groth: we need as many votes as possible can to push to REC

15:11:47 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

15:11:47 <Zakim> stain, you wanted to write PAQ blog post

Zakim IRC Bot: stain, you wanted to write PAQ blog post

15:12:08 <stain> I'll ask the Manchester one

I'll ask the Manchester one

15:12:11 <jcheney> i've mentioned it to henry

James Cheney: i've mentioned it to henry

15:12:15 <Luc> i did it for soton

Luc Moreau: i did it for soton

15:12:25 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:12:36 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ

3. PROV-AQ

Summary: The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed.

<pgroth> Summary: The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed.
15:12:48 <stain> pgroth: What we want to do is to resolve some of the core issues

Paul Groth: What we want to do is to resolve some of the core issues

15:13:02 <stain> pgroth: sent around a reminder to look at these issues

Paul Groth: sent around a reminder to look at these issues

15:13:07 <stain> pgroth: GK to add some context?

Paul Groth: GK to add some context?

15:13:24 <stain> GK: It makes sense to talk about the individual issues.. added a couple of small thigns to the agenda

Graham Klyne: It makes sense to talk about the individual issues.. added a couple of small thigns to the agenda

15:13:41 <stain> GK: do we want to confirm that the issues that I propose to close without further discussion are OK?

Graham Klyne: do we want to confirm that the issues that I propose to close without further discussion are OK?

15:13:48 <stain> GK: in the order you proposed, or different order?

Graham Klyne: in the order you proposed, or different order?

15:14:03 <stain> pgroth: does not matter order, but want to talk about the core issues (which could take time) - the pending ones we can go through fast

Paul Groth: does not matter order, but want to talk about the core issues (which could take time) - the pending ones we can go through fast

15:14:11 <stain> GK: it might make sense to do the PENDING ones first...

Graham Klyne: it might make sense to do the PENDING ones first...

15:14:15 <stain> pgroth: no, at the end

Paul Groth: no, at the end

15:14:36 <stain> pgroth: first issue is ISSUE-618 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/618

Paul Groth: first issue is ISSUE-618 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/618

15:14:40 <stain> Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ?

Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ?

15:15:23 <stain> GK: since we've put the revised pingback proposal in the document (which was published), which to my mind looks more like a provenance discovery mechanism, .. the question was put to the mailing list eariler ; do we want to include or exclude this

Graham Klyne: since we've put the revised pingback proposal in the document (which was published), which to my mind looks more like a provenance discovery mechanism, .. the question was put to the mailing list eariler ; do we want to include or exclude this

15:15:43 <stain> GK: Luc commented to exclude it.. there was statements of inclusion support from at least 3 people - with me that is 4

Graham Klyne: Luc commented to exclude it.. there was statements of inclusion support from at least 3 people - with me that is 4

15:16:00 <stain> GK: as I see it, there is a good reason to include it in that there is reasonable, if not overwhelming support to keep it in place

Graham Klyne: as I see it, there is a good reason to include it in that there is reasonable, if not overwhelming support to keep it in place

15:16:22 <stain> GK: there was no co??? reason to exclude it, it was brought within the general scope of the document

Graham Klyne: there was no co??? reason to exclude it, it was brought within the general scope of the document

15:16:31 <stain> GK: but many did not like the name "Forward provenance" - we do need a better name

Graham Klyne: but many did not like the name "Forward provenance" - we do need a better name

15:16:36 <Luc> what about provenance?

Luc Moreau: what about provenance?

15:16:40 <stain> GK: one possibility - was "downstream provenance"

Graham Klyne: one possibility - was "downstream provenance"

15:17:02 <Zakim> + +329331aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aabb

15:17:03 <stain> GK: Two issues: i) Does anyone have any reason not to include it?  ii) Alternative names - here throwing in "Downstream provenance"

Graham Klyne: Two issues: i) Does anyone have any reason not to include it? ii) Alternative names - here throwing in "Downstream provenance"

15:17:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:17:11 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:17:17 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:17:20 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aabb is me

Sam Coppens: zakim, +329331aabb is me

15:17:20 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it

15:17:28 <stain> Luc: I still maintain the view expressed in the email

Luc Moreau: I still maintain the view expressed in the email

15:17:43 <stain> Luc: feel that the requirements as (??) should be, never really been agreed by the WG

Luc Moreau: feel that the requirements as (??) should be, never really been agreed by the WG

15:17:54 <stain> Luc: as for the rest of the document it was guided by the scenario

Luc Moreau: as for the rest of the document it was guided by the scenario

15:18:08 <stain> Luc: it seems to be that what is proposed is (?) solution; (?) there was another one.. there could be others

Luc Moreau: it seems to be that what is proposed is (?) solution; (?) there was another one.. there could be others

15:18:19 <stain> Luc: but nowhere can I (?) them, we did not agree what are the rquirements

Luc Moreau: but nowhere can I (?) them, we did not agree what are the rquirements

15:18:20 <GK> q+ to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design

Graham Klyne: q+ to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design

15:18:23 <stain> Luc: so that is an issue with it

Luc Moreau: so that is an issue with it

15:18:36 <stain> Luc: But if the group decides to include it, we should discuss the name

Luc Moreau: But if the group decides to include it, we should discuss the name

15:19:03 <Luc> agreed by the Working Group!!!!

Luc Moreau: agreed by the Working Group!!!!

15:19:03 <stain> GK: Disagree with the characterisation of not having requirements; in the wiki what Tim initialyl proposed was a requirement that was guiding the design

Graham Klyne: Disagree with the characterisation of not having requirements; in the wiki what Tim initialyl proposed was a requirement that was guiding the design

15:19:18 <stain> GK: would have to dig to find the URI.. This was mentioned in my email response to Luc

Graham Klyne: would have to dig to find the URI.. This was mentioned in my email response to Luc

15:19:38 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Provenance_ping-backs

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Provenance_ping-backs

15:19:51 <Luc> is there a group resolution endording this document?

Luc Moreau: is there a group resolution endording this document?

15:20:22 <stain> GK: there are 3 scenarios in this wiki page; while we did not go into the same level of detailed analysis; I don't think this is fair to say it was not proposed without requirements

Graham Klyne: there are 3 scenarios in this wiki page; while we did not go into the same level of detailed analysis; I don't think this is fair to say it was not proposed without requirements

15:20:27 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:20:33 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:20:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design

15:20:46 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me

Sam Coppens: zakim, mute me

15:20:46 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: SamCoppens should now be muted

15:20:58 <stain> Luc: there was no set of requirements which was agreed by the WG - there is no resolution deciding this

Luc Moreau: there was no set of requirements which was agreed by the WG - there is no resolution deciding this

15:21:00 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:21:11 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q-

15:21:22 <stain> GK: these were up for discussion, but nobody disagreed with them ; but agree there was no formal resolution

Graham Klyne: these were up for discussion, but nobody disagreed with them ; but agree there was no formal resolution

15:21:27 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

15:21:38 <stain> GK: from what Ivan said I did not believe a formal resolution as needed

Graham Klyne: from what Ivan said I did not believe a formal resolution as needed

15:21:47 <stain> pgroth: I think we did agree to try it out when we talked about it at last F2F

Paul Groth: I think we did agree to try it out when we talked about it at last F2F

15:21:58 <stain> pgroth: I can try to dig that up and confirm.

Paul Groth: I can try to dig that up and confirm.

15:22:13 <stain> pgroth: what I actually asked on the mailing list was what is the role (?)

Paul Groth: what I actually asked on the mailing list was what is the role (?)

15:22:20 <GK> My recollection concurs with Paul - we did agree to look at pingback

Graham Klyne: My recollection concurs with Paul - we did agree to look at pingback

15:22:28 <stain> pgroth: agree in a sense with Luc; the.. (?)

Paul Groth: agree in a sense with Luc; the.. (?)

15:22:56 <stain> pgroth: whether the requirement ...(?)  design requirements. Tim had a go at it, and proposed a solution, then Stian proposed a solution. I did not.

Paul Groth: whether the requirement ...(?) design requirements. Tim had a go at it, and proposed a solution, then Stian proposed a solution. I did not.

15:23:16 <stain> pgroth: If we say that this is a note.. but if this was a recommendation; then I would agree we shoudl not do this; too experimental.

Paul Groth: If we say that this is a note.. but if this was a recommendation; then I would agree we shoudl not do this; too experimental.

15:23:25 <stain> pgroth: and we have not look ed at it as long as the other thrings. But this is a note.

Paul Groth: and we have not look ed at it as long as the other thrings. But this is a note.

15:23:40 <stain> pgroth: in other cases, like PROV Links, or other things we thought were useful, but preliminary, we just publish them as NOTE

Paul Groth: in other cases, like PROV Links, or other things we thought were useful, but preliminary, we just publish them as NOTE

15:23:48 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:23:51 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:23:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:23:53 <stain> pgroth: It would come under the status of a note

Paul Groth: It would come under the status of a note

15:24:13 <GK> Agree. Nothing more to add.

Graham Klyne: Agree. Nothing more to add.

15:24:51 <stain> pgroth: I could propose one solution, is that we are currently in a WD phase; and this is included now in Stian's proposal. And so we would like to particularly get review on the pingback.

Paul Groth: I could propose one solution, is that we are currently in a WD phase; and this is included now in Stian's proposal. And so we would like to particularly get review on the pingback.

15:24:54 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:25:00 <Luc> i don't think there is time

Luc Moreau: i don't think there is time

15:25:01 <stain> pgroth: and based on that decide to remove or keep

Paul Groth: and based on that decide to remove or keep

15:25:11 <stain> pgroth: but there's a review period now

Paul Groth: but there's a review period now

15:25:25 <stain> Luc: do you  mean internally or externally?

Luc Moreau: do you mean internally or externally?

15:25:36 <stain> pgroth: right now we are in a phase were we have released a WD for external feedback

Paul Groth: right now we are in a phase were we have released a WD for external feedback

15:25:37 <GK> (That is: go forward with it as is, and pull it if there are significant problems i review)

Graham Klyne: (That is: go forward with it as is, and pull it if there are significant problems i review)

15:25:43 <stain> pgroth: and we are in a phase doing internal reviewing

Paul Groth: and we are in a phase doing internal reviewing

15:26:00 <stain> pgroth: and so if we get comments from external reviews.. or if internal reviews show issues..

Paul Groth: and so if we get comments from external reviews.. or if internal reviews show issues..

15:26:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:26:03 <GK> I plan to ask LDP to review: I could draw their attention to this area.

Graham Klyne: I plan to ask LDP to review: I could draw their attention to this area.

15:26:03 <stain> q+

q+

15:26:14 <stain> Luc: that (?) is already there..

Luc Moreau: that (?) is already there..

15:26:22 <stain> Luc: we are in that situation.. it's time to make a decission

Luc Moreau: we are in that situation.. it's time to make a decission

15:26:31 <stain> GK: are there others than yourself that said it was not fine

Graham Klyne: are there others than yourself that said it was not fine

15:26:40 <stain> Luc: No.. and I am not going to vote on this

Luc Moreau: No.. and I am not going to vote on this

15:26:58 <stain> pgroth: so you don't want to re-review ?

Paul Groth: so you don't want to re-review ?

15:27:11 <stain> Luc: when I sent my email this week; I had just read the text for the first time

Luc Moreau: when I sent my email this week; I had just read the text for the first time

15:27:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:27:28 <stain> Luc: perhaps we can have an informal vote on if there are other objections

Luc Moreau: perhaps we can have an informal vote on if there are other objections

15:27:37 <stain> Luc: then it could be a resolved matter

Luc Moreau: then it could be a resolved matter

15:28:04 <pgroth> straw poll: include ping back in the paq

Paul Groth: straw poll: include ping back in the paq

15:28:19 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.661.382.aacc

15:28:21 <stain> Luc: +1 is to keep, and -1 if you want to remove

Luc Moreau: +1 is to keep, and -1 if you want to remove

15:28:25 <stain> +1

+1

15:28:25 <jcheney> +0 (haven't reviewed but don't object)

James Cheney: +0 (haven't reviewed but don't object)

15:28:26 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:28:29 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:28:31 <dgarijo> +0

Daniel Garijo: +0

15:28:33 <KhalidBelhajjame> +0

Khalid Belhajjame: +0

15:28:36 <zednik> +0

Stephan Zednik: +0

15:28:40 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

15:28:47 <SamCoppens> +0

Sam Coppens: +0

15:28:50 <CraigTrim> +0

Craig Trim: +0

15:29:01 <jcheney> It seems to me that a note is an appropriate place for a preliminary design, as long as it's clearly marked as such

James Cheney: It seems to me that a note is an appropriate place for a preliminary design, as long as it's clearly marked as such

15:29:01 <stain> I would call that luke warm calling for more review..

I would call that luke warm calling for more review..

15:29:17 <CraigTrim> Zakim, aacc is me

Craig Trim: Zakim, aacc is me

15:29:18 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +CraigTrim; got it

15:29:18 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:29:26 <stain> q-

q-

15:29:40 <stain> Luc: would like to hear pgroth's view as an PAQ editor

Luc Moreau: would like to hear pgroth's view as an PAQ editor

15:29:49 <stain> pgroth: my view is that I kind of like it; but needs more review

Paul Groth: my view is that I kind of like it; but needs more review

15:30:01 <stain> pgroth: because it's the newest thing in the PAQ it needs another round of review

Paul Groth: because it's the newest thing in the PAQ it needs another round of review

15:30:10 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

15:30:12 <stain> pgroth: if there is (?) I would want it out because of time

Paul Groth: if there is errors I would want it out because of time

15:30:30 <Luc> s/(?)/errors
15:30:39 <GK> I'm with Paul's view here - if problems are exposed pull it.

Graham Klyne: I'm with Paul's view here - if problems are exposed pull it.

15:30:43 <stain> pgroth: if that is the concensus.. GK are you OK to proceed like that?

Paul Groth: if that is the concensus.. GK are you OK to proceed like that?

15:30:53 <stain> GK: ok, that is entirely reasonable. If there are problems we don't have time to rework it.

Graham Klyne: ok, that is entirely reasonable. If there are problems we don't have time to rework it.

15:31:24 <stain> pgroth: and we just released the WD, so encourage people to re-read it properly. Also contacting the LDP group etc

Paul Groth: and we just released the WD, so encourage people to re-read it properly. Also contacting the LDP group etc

15:31:31 <stain> GK: not technical reworks.

Graham Klyne: not technical reworks.

15:31:41 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:31:44 <stain> pgroth: and then the renaming issue.. we should be able to deal with it without changing technical bits

Paul Groth: and then the renaming issue.. we should be able to deal with it without changing technical bits

15:32:12 <stain> Luc: if we keep it in, I am of the view that we shoudl not qualify (?) prospective... don't think it is suitable. It is provenance.

Luc Moreau: if we keep it in, I am of the view that we shoudl not qualify (?) prospective... don't think it is suitable. It is provenance.

15:32:20 <stain> Luc: no kind of qualification of the provenance

Luc Moreau: no kind of qualification of the provenance

15:32:55 <stain> pgroth: OK, suggest to leave the renaming issue out

Paul Groth: OK, suggest to leave the renaming issue out

15:32:56 <GK> q+ to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.

15:33:02 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q-

15:33:04 <stain> pgroth: some concerns about the name

Paul Groth: some concerns about the name

15:33:15 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

15:33:15 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.

15:33:35 <stain> GK: technically it's fine to not commit to upstream or downstream.. but would be useful with motivation for what the mechanism is there for. Just editorial.

Graham Klyne: technically it's fine to not commit to upstream or downstream.. but would be useful with motivation for what the mechanism is there for. Just editorial.

15:33:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:33:48 <stain> q+

q+

15:33:57 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

15:35:37 <stain> stain: thinks that there should be an editorial motivation on the most typical usecase of notifying-upstream-pingback; but not technically limit one way or another ; I should be free to pingback some provenance about how King Richard III was found under a parking lot

Stian Soiland-Reyes: thinks that there should be an editorial motivation on the most typical usecase of notifying-upstream-pingback; but not technically limit one way or another ; I should be free to pingback some provenance about how King Richard III was found under a parking lot

15:36:04 <pgroth> proposed: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback

PROPOSED: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback

15:36:15 <GK> OK

Graham Klyne: OK

15:36:24 <pgroth> accepted:  to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback

RESOLVED: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback

15:36:49 <stain> pgroth: should we recommend RDF for provenance?  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428

Paul Groth: should we recommend RDF for provenance? http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428

15:37:05 <stain> GK: the mechanisms that are presented in indepdendent from provenance format (as requested)

Graham Klyne: the mechanisms that are presented in indepdendent from provenance format (as requested)

15:37:21 <stain> GK: there is still a weak recommendation that PROV-O in a "standardized RDF format" is suggested, but not required for the mechanism

Graham Klyne: there is still a weak recommendation that PROV-O in a "standardized RDF format" is suggested, but not required for the mechanism

15:37:31 <stain> GK: Luc had a comment abou tthat.. if we want to change it I would be fine

Graham Klyne: Luc had a comment abou tthat.. if we want to change it I would be fine

15:37:49 <stain> GK: but many of the feedback we have got is to use PROV-O and RDF, and perhaps nudging people in that direction

Graham Klyne: but many of the feedback we have got is to use PROV-O and RDF, and perhaps nudging people in that direction

15:38:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:38:02 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:38:09 <stain> (I've had people asking me today about PROV-JSON via PROV-AQ)

(I've had people asking me today about PROV-JSON via PROV-AQ)

15:38:33 <GK> Curent text: "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation."

Graham Klyne: Curent text: "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation."

15:38:34 <stain> Luc: lots of REST services out there just XML and JSON. It would be fine if they could export provenance. It would be good to help them indivdiually.. (?)

Luc Moreau: lots of REST services out there just XML and JSON. It would be fine if they could export provenance. It would be good to help them indivdiually.. (?)

15:38:43 <stain> Luc: that I would think they want to export provenance in the same formats

Luc Moreau: that I would think they want to export provenance in the same formats

15:38:51 <stain> Luc: so my view is to not promote RDF in this case

Luc Moreau: so my view is to not promote RDF in this case

15:38:57 <stain> Luc: just recommend the use of PROV serializations

Luc Moreau: just recommend the use of PROV serializations

15:39:23 <stain> Luc: we have already media types for PROV-N, there's PROV-XML (media type?), and then RDF

Luc Moreau: we have already media types for PROV-N, there's PROV-XML (media type?), and then RDF

15:39:33 <GK> I'm OK with this change if that's the group's view.

Graham Klyne: I'm OK with this change if that's the group's view.

15:39:34 <stain> pgroth: also in favour of that personally. Just say "Use PROV" should be good enough

Paul Groth: also in favour of that personally. Just say "Use PROV" should be good enough

15:39:46 <stain> pgroth: PROV-O will rpobably win the day anyway.. I don't think PAQ needs it

Paul Groth: PROV-O will rpobably win the day anyway.. I don't think PAQ needs it

15:39:48 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:39:48 <stain> q+

q+

15:39:51 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:39:55 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

15:40:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:41:00 <stain> stain: was initially pushing for the "Should be RDF" bit so that there would be some kind of promise or recommendation of what kind of serialization you would find; but is buying into Luc's argument to just go for any PROV serialization

Stian Soiland-Reyes: was initially pushing for the "Should be RDF" bit so that there would be some kind of promise or recommendation of what kind of serialization you would find; but is buying into Luc's argument to just go for any PROV serialization

15:41:07 <GK> Suggest "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "

Graham Klyne: Suggest "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "

15:41:19 <pgroth> proposed: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "

PROPOSED: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "

15:41:29 <Luc> it's good, thanks

Luc Moreau: it's good, thanks

15:41:30 <stain> +1  (RECOMMENDED)

+1 (RECOMMENDED)

15:41:36 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

15:41:38 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:41:45 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

15:41:49 <stain> pgroth: any objections?

Paul Groth: any objections?

15:41:52 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:41:54 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:41:54 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:42:03 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

15:42:13 <pgroth> accepted: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "

RESOLVED: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "

15:42:59 <stain> is this 425?

is this 425?

15:43:19 <Luc> issue-425?

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-425?

15:43:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-425 -- Why does the service description need to be rdf? -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-425 -- Why does the service description need to be rdf? -- pending review

15:43:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425

15:43:24 <stain> thnx

thnx

15:43:34 <stain> trackbot is clever :)

trackbot is clever :)

15:43:34 <trackbot> Sorry, stain, I don't understand 'trackbot is clever :)'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, stain, I don't understand 'trackbot is clever :)'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

15:43:53 <stain> GK: one comment has been that Why does Service Description have to be RDF in

Graham Klyne: one comment has been that Why does Service Description have to be RDF in

15:44:06 <stain> GK: and the other by Stian, was to mention JSON-LD as an explicit format

Graham Klyne: and the other by Stian, was to mention JSON-LD as an explicit format

15:44:49 <stain> GK: My response ; Similar to the provenance format.. the mechanism would work with any service description format; but the only one we are actually describing is one based on RDF. There is more bias towards RDF in this case. but does not precelude the use of alternative formats

Graham Klyne: My response ; Similar to the provenance format.. the mechanism would work with any service description format; but the only one we are actually describing is one based on RDF. There is more bias towards RDF in this case. but does not precelude the use of alternative formats

15:45:17 <stain> GK: the main reason here was that the RDF one was the easiest one to expecify. The format we use use the RDF linked data properties (?) - allow us to have multiple serve descriptions in the same document.

Graham Klyne: the main reason here was that the RDF one was the easiest one to expecify. The format we use use the RDF linked data properties (?) - allow us to have multiple serve descriptions in the same document.

15:45:36 <stain> GK: would think it was too late to define anything else.. but what we have is a service description based on RDF.. but left open in the document to use other formats.

Graham Klyne: would think it was too late to define anything else.. but what we have is a service description based on RDF.. but left open in the document to use other formats.

15:45:55 <stain> GK: as a final comment.. the idea to use other formats came out strongly from LDP group as well (Linked Data Platform)

Graham Klyne: as a final comment.. the idea to use other formats came out strongly from LDP group as well (Linked Data Platform)

15:46:11 <stain> using content-negotiation to get different service description is common in world of XML web serices

using content-negotiation to get different service description is common in world of XML web serices

15:46:20 <stain> GK: and so remain compatible; but taking it further in our use of RDF

Graham Klyne: and so remain compatible; but taking it further in our use of RDF

15:46:46 <stain> pgroth: to summarize - we allow any service description format using conneg ; we give one example of how it is described in RDF

Paul Groth: to summarize - we allow any service description format using conneg ; we give one example of how it is described in RDF

15:46:52 <stain> GK: ok, but stronger than example

Graham Klyne: ok, but stronger than example

15:46:54 <stain> pgroth: ONE way

Paul Groth: ONE way

15:47:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:47:04 <stain> GK: not mandatory, but only one we specify

Graham Klyne: not mandatory, but only one we specify

15:47:15 <stain> q+

q+

15:47:20 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

15:47:53 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:48:23 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:48:29 <GK> q+ to say have sympathy with describing other formats, but problem is where do we stop?

Graham Klyne: q+ to say have sympathy with describing other formats, but problem is where do we stop?

15:49:03 <stain> stain: Still think that Luc's argument from before also applies here; my JSON-LD proposal was a way to give a simple JSON format that just happens to also be valid JSON-LD (and therefore correspond to our RDF format)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Still think that Luc's argument from before also applies here; my JSON-LD proposal was a way to give a simple JSON format that just happens to also be valid JSON-LD (and therefore correspond to our RDF format)

15:49:27 <stain> pgroth: (???) leaving the door open forservice descriptions; specially in terms of REST. There is no common way to do REST service descriptions

Paul Groth: (???) leaving the door open forservice descriptions; specially in terms of REST. There is no common way to do REST service descriptions

15:49:35 <stain> pgroth: we can give one easy way to do it. But we don't mandate it.

Paul Groth: we can give one easy way to do it. But we don't mandate it.

15:49:40 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:49:54 <stain> Luc: If I was to write it, I would do it the way you said, Paul

Luc Moreau: If I was to write it, I would do it the way you said, Paul

15:50:04 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q-

15:50:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

15:50:11 <stain> Luc: I noticed how a service description language format... (?)  We identified this is the information we expect to find.

Luc Moreau: I noticed how a service description language format... (?) We identified this is the information we expect to find.

15:50:17 <stain> Luc: and for illustration, here's an example using RDF

Luc Moreau: and for illustration, here's an example using RDF

15:50:28 <stain> Luc: using content-negotiation to find the representation

Luc Moreau: using content-negotiation to find the representation

15:50:29 <GK> Paul's formulation sounded good.  Would be happy to work on that.

Graham Klyne: Paul's formulation sounded good. Would be happy to work on that.

15:50:49 <stain> pgroth: think my formulation is not too far from what's there.. I can fine-tune it

Paul Groth: think my formulation is not too far from what's there.. I can fine-tune it

15:50:50 <Luc> agreed, it's minor fine tuning

Luc Moreau: agreed, it's minor fine tuning

15:51:19 <stain> GK: happy with that. The way it came over in pgroth's expla=nation was good. So that they can use whatever works in their environment

Graham Klyne: happy with that. The way it came over in pgroth's expla=nation was good. So that they can use whatever works in their environment

15:51:32 <stain> (sorry I did not get to scribe most of what pgroth said before!)

(sorry I did not get to scribe most of what pgroth said before!)

15:52:04 <pgroth> proposed: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq

PROPOSED: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq

15:52:17 <stain> pgroth: any objections?

Paul Groth: any objections?

15:52:22 <pgroth> accepted: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq

RESOLVED: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq

15:52:37 <stain> should we make that action?

should we make that action?

15:52:52 <stain> pgroth: now to go through list of pendingreview

Paul Groth: now to go through list of pendingreview

15:52:58 <GK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Mar/0090.html

Graham Klyne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Mar/0090.html

15:53:00 <pgroth> action: pgroth to update service description editorial

ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial

15:53:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - Update service description editorial [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-21].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-165 - Update service description editorial [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-21].

15:53:16 <pgroth> zakim, mute luc

Paul Groth: zakim, mute luc

15:53:16 <Zakim> Luc should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc should now be muted

15:53:21 <stain> GK: running through the document of MUST and MAY.. done in last editing/review

Graham Klyne: running through the document of MUST and MAY.. done in last editing/review

15:53:30 <stain> GK: Oh, right!

Graham Klyne: Oh, right!

15:53:43 <stain> GK: we just figured out what to do with 425 in this meeting

Graham Klyne: we just figured out what to do with 425 in this meeting

15:53:56 <Luc> issue-300?

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-300?

15:53:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-300 -- Quote vs Quotation (Involvement versus Activity) -- closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-300 -- Quote vs Quotation (Involvement versus Activity) -- closed

15:53:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/300

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/300

15:54:00 <stain> GK: ISSUE-600 PROV-pingback was an old issue to add pingback, now toclose

Graham Klyne: ISSUE-600 PROV-pingback was an old issue to add pingback, now toclose

15:54:05 <Luc> \issue-609?

Luc Moreau: \ISSUE-609?

15:54:06 <pgroth> iisue-600

Paul Groth: iisue-600

15:54:14 <Luc> issue-609?

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-609?

15:54:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-609 -- Specify how to locate a SPARQL endpoint for querying provenance -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-609 -- Specify how to locate a SPARQL endpoint for querying provenance -- pending review

15:54:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609

15:54:15 <stain> GK: ISSUE-609 is how to locate a SPARQL endpoint.. now covered by Service Description

Graham Klyne: ISSUE-609 is how to locate a SPARQL endpoint.. now covered by Service Description

15:54:20 <Luc> issue-622?

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-622?

15:54:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-622 -- Should PROV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-622 -- Should PROV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? -- pending review

15:54:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622

15:54:30 <stain> GK: ISSUE-622 about JSON-LD.. I think we just agreed how to address that

Graham Klyne: ISSUE-622 about JSON-LD.. I think we just agreed how to address that

15:54:36 <Luc> issue-624?

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-624?

15:54:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-624 -- Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-624 -- Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? -- pending review

15:54:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624

15:54:47 <stain> GK: The ISSUE-624 - about specifying service URI or template.. this was going back to an earlier discussion

Graham Klyne: The ISSUE-624 - about specifying service URI or template.. this was going back to an earlier discussion

15:55:00 <stain> GK: where we are we always get the direct access URI by means of a template in service description

Graham Klyne: where we are we always get the direct access URI by means of a template in service description

15:55:08 <Luc> issue-628?

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-628?

15:55:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-628 -- Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-628 -- Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent -- pending review

15:55:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/628

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/628

15:55:28 <stain> GK: and ISSUE-628 there was an issue raised by others about inconsistency aobut anchor specification in HTML vs HTTP

Graham Klyne: and ISSUE-628 there was an issue raised by others about inconsistency aobut anchor specification in HTML vs HTTP

15:55:46 <stain> GK: there is an inconsistency.. which we discussed earlier.. but one which is of small importance only arrising in edge cases

Graham Klyne: there is an inconsistency.. which we discussed earlier.. but one which is of small importance only arrising in edge cases

15:55:57 <stain> GK: the document specifies how to use these things in a way that avoids the inconsistencies

Graham Klyne: the document specifies how to use these things in a way that avoids the inconsistencies

15:56:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:56:07 <stain> GK: that means we invent less new mechanisms

Graham Klyne: that means we invent less new mechanisms

15:56:24 <stain> GK: so that is the list of issues that is now PENDINGREVIEW and I propose to CLOSE - given no objections

Graham Klyne: so that is the list of issues that is now PENDINGREVIEW and I propose to CLOSE - given no objections

15:56:28 <pgroth> Zakim, unmute luc

Paul Groth: Zakim, unmute luc

15:56:28 <Zakim> Luc should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc should no longer be muted

15:56:31 <Luc> zakim, unmute me

Luc Moreau: zakim, unmute me

15:56:31 <Zakim> Luc was not muted, Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc was not muted, Luc

15:57:07 <stain> Luc: to me, I was not asking for a redesign.. just meant a note in the text; there is a difference between what the two approaches (?) could do.

Luc Moreau: to me, I was not asking for a redesign.. just meant a note in the text; there is a difference between what the two approaches (?) could do.

15:57:17 <stain> GK: ok, that is a good point. I'll make a note to myself to do that

Graham Klyne: ok, that is a good point. I'll make a note to myself to do that

15:57:39 <pgroth> action: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http

ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http

15:57:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [on Graham Klyne - due 2013-03-21].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-166 - Add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [on Graham Klyne - due 2013-03-21].

15:57:42 <stain> +1

+1

15:57:45 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:57:47 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

15:58:11 <pgroth> accepted: close the pending review issues listed in the minutes

RESOLVED: close the pending review issues listed in the minutes

15:58:36 <stain> pgroth: on response to James Anderson.. running out of time

Paul Groth: on response to James Anderson.. running out of time

15:58:41 <pgroth> Topic: timetable check

4. timetable check

Summary: The group was asked to volunteer for tasks defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.

<pgroth> Summary: The group was asked to volunteer for tasks  defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.
15:58:42 <stain> pgroth: important topic..

Paul Groth: important topic..

15:58:49 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication

15:58:58 <stain> pgroth: we have essentially trying to close shop some time end of April

Paul Groth: we have essentially trying to close shop some time end of April

15:59:06 <stain> pgroth: we need to stage all documents by 2013-04-23

Paul Groth: we need to stage all documents by 2013-04-23

15:59:21 <stain> pgroth: asking all editors to put their final proposals for timeline (when things are to be done)

Paul Groth: asking all editors to put their final proposals for timeline (when things are to be done)

15:59:27 <stain> pgroth: I think all editors have done that

Paul Groth: I think all editors have done that

15:59:32 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:59:33 <stain> pgroth: are any of the editors concerned about the time?

Paul Groth: are any of the editors concerned about the time?

15:59:57 <SamCoppens> zakim, unmute me

Sam Coppens: zakim, unmute me

15:59:57 <Zakim> SamCoppens should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: SamCoppens should no longer be muted

16:00:00 <stain> pgroth: have a couple of other tasks on that page to be done

Paul Groth: have a couple of other tasks on that page to be done

16:00:13 <stain> pgroth: namespace pages

Paul Groth: namespace pages

16:00:25 <stain> pgroth: updating the FAQ

Paul Groth: updating the FAQ

16:00:30 <stain> pgroth: making the PROV page on the wiki better

Paul Groth: making the PROV page on the wiki better

16:00:41 <stain> pgroth: need volunteers for those other tasks

Paul Groth: need volunteers for those other tasks

16:00:51 <stain> pgroth: I would do the namespace  task

Paul Groth: I would do the namespace task

16:00:56 <stain> pgroth: Provenance of Documents

Paul Groth: Provenance of Documents

16:01:09 <stain> pgroth: Luc said he would do that.. Tim would look at PROV-O's prov

Paul Groth: Luc said he would do that.. Tim would look at PROV-O's prov

16:01:16 <stain> pgroth: but editors should write their own PROV

Paul Groth: but editors should write their own PROV

16:01:51 <stain> stain: should not each of the formats use their own format for their PROV..?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: should not each of the formats use their own format for their PROV..?

16:02:00 <stain> pgroth: to use content-negotiation between formats

Paul Groth: to use content-negotiation between formats

16:02:02 <GK> (and a .htaccess to handle the content negotiation?)

Graham Klyne: (and a .htaccess to handle the content negotiation?)

16:02:03 <stain> pgroth: but need templates?

Paul Groth: but need templates?

16:02:16 <stain> pgroth: running out of time.. could people volunteer for the rest of this?

Paul Groth: running out of time.. could people volunteer for the rest of this?

16:02:20 <stain> q+

q+

16:02:51 <stain> pgroth: yes, deadline would be bout 2013-04-23.. or really 2013-04-30

Paul Groth: yes, deadline would be bout 2013-04-23.. or really 2013-04-30

16:02:51 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

16:03:14 <stain> (personally that's too short for me to help, given easter etc)

(personally that's too short for me to help, given easter etc)

16:03:19 <GK> (Difficult for me to commit to more than prov-aq on that timescale)

Graham Klyne: (Difficult for me to commit to more than prov-aq on that timescale)

16:03:21 <pgroth> Topic: GLD last call

5. GLD last call

Summary: There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.

<pgroth> Summary: There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.
16:03:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20121023/

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20121023/

16:03:32 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:03:41 <stain> pgroth: Government Linked Data Group has published their last call for their ontology.. and it uses PROV. It would be good for some of us to review it before last call

Paul Groth: Government Linked Data Group has published their last call for their ontology.. and it uses PROV. It would be good for some of us to review it before last call

16:03:48 <stain> Luc: we've already reviewed...?

Luc Moreau: we've already reviewed...?

16:03:55 <stain> Luc: was published in october

Luc Moreau: was published in october

16:04:09 <stain> Luc: Jun and I drafter a response from the WG. The document has not changed.

Luc Moreau: Jun and I drafter a response from the WG. The document has not changed.

16:04:29 <stain> pgroth: so you asked them to change it, but they have not?

Paul Groth: so you asked them to change it, but they have not?

16:04:33 <Dong> @Paul, can you give brief descriptions for "Other Tasks" on the wiki page, so I can see what I can help? Thanks.

Trung Huynh: @Paul, can you give brief descriptions for "Other Tasks" on the wiki page, so I can see what I can help? Thanks.

16:04:44 <stain> Luc: right, that is still the bversion in October. It was only announced on..(?)

Luc Moreau: right, that is still the bversion in October. It was only announced on..(?)

16:04:52 <stain> pgroth: but I was reading this email..

Paul Groth: but I was reading this email..

16:05:10 <stain> Luc: perhaps we should talk to Ivan. About derivation.. was assuming (?) with activities

Luc Moreau: perhaps we should talk to Ivan. About derivation.. was assuming (?) with activities

16:05:13 <KhalidBelhajjame> Teher is a more recent version that dates of March the 14th: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html

Khalid Belhajjame: Teher is a more recent version that dates of March the 14th: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html

16:05:20 <stain> Luc: there was another one

Luc Moreau: there was another one

16:05:23 <stain> Luc: not sure what they are doing

Luc Moreau: not sure what they are doing

16:05:34 <pgroth> action: luc and paul to talk about gld

ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld

16:05:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - And paul to talk about gld [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-03-21].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-167 - And paul to talk about gld [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-03-21].

16:06:12 <stain> pgroth: for everyine to think about how we can promote draft and the proposed recommendations

Paul Groth: for everyine to think about how we can promote draft and the proposed recommendations

16:06:20 <stain> pgroth: DO get your AC ref to vote

Paul Groth: DO get your AC ref to vote

16:06:22 <dgarijo> bbye

Daniel Garijo: bbye

16:06:23 <KhalidBelhajjame> thanks, bye

Khalid Belhajjame: thanks, bye

16:06:25 <Luc> bye

Luc Moreau: bye

16:06:28 <Zakim> -KhalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -KhalidBelhajjame

16:06:29 <SamCoppens> Bye

Sam Coppens: Bye

16:06:30 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

16:06:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

16:06:32 <zednik> bye

Stephan Zednik: bye

16:06:32 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

16:06:32 <Zakim> -??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P7

16:06:34 <Zakim> -CraigTrim

Zakim IRC Bot: -CraigTrim

16:06:34 <jcheney> bye

James Cheney: bye

16:06:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:06:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:06:37 <Zakim> -SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens

16:06:39 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

16:06:41 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

16:06:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:06:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, GK, +44.131.467.aaaa, jcheney, Luc, dgarijo, stain, KhalidBelhajjame, Dong, SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, GK, +44.131.467.aaaa, jcheney, Luc, dgarijo, stain, KhalidBelhajjame, Dong, SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim

16:06:44 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

16:06:44 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth

16:06:48 <GK> Bye

Graham Klyne: Bye

16:06:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:06:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:06:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:06:50 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-actions.rdf :

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-actions.rdf :

16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial [1]

ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial [1]

16:06:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-53-00

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-53-00

16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [2]

ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [2]

16:06:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-57-39

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-57-39

16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld [3]

ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld [3]

16:06:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T16-05-34

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T16-05-34

16:06:50 <Dong> bye

Trung Huynh: bye

16:06:54 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2013-03-17 11:47:39 UTC by 'pgroth', comments: 'summaries added'