Chatlog 2011-11-24

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

15:54:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:54:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc
15:54:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:54:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:54:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:54:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:54:24 <trackbot> Date: 24 November 2011
15:54:27 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:54:27 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:54:33 <stain> @pgroth I can scribe
15:54:43 <pgroth> thanks stain!
15:54:58 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.24
15:55:05 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:12 <pgroth> Scribe: stain
15:55:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:55:33 <pgroth> Regrets: Christine Runnegar
15:55:44 <stain> will you do the magic things for bumping to the next agendum
15:56:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:56:01 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:56:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:56:17 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:56:17 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:56:28 <pgroth> i actually don't know how to do it
15:56:37 <stain> ok, I'll do it
15:56:48 <pgroth> I'll do the topics
15:57:12 <stain> that's what I meant :)
15:58:37 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
15:59:25 <Zakim> +Luc
15:59:31 <Zakim> +stain
16:00:12 <stain> can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break?
16:00:24 <pgroth> ok
16:00:26 <pgroth> yes
16:00:39 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
16:00:42 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:01:02 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:01:24 <Zakim> +??P10
16:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:01:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:01:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:01:50 <jcheney> zakim, ??P10 is me
16:01:50 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:01:53 <Zakim> +??P9
16:02:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:14 <dgarijo> well it looks like many people are on holiday today :)
16:02:39 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:02:39 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:03:08 <Zakim> +??P14
16:03:09 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:03:20 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<stain> summary: Luc proposed that we continue telcons through Christmas period except the 2011-12-29 - Paul Groth will send email to confirm. If too many are on holiday we might skip the call on 2011-12-22 as well. Still need more scribes.
16:03:25 <GK> zakim, ??P14 is me
16:03:25 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:03:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-17
16:03:34 <stain> short meeting today
16:03:34 <pgroth> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the Nov. 17 telecon
16:03:37 <dgarijo> +1
16:03:39 <stain> +1
16:03:40 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:03:47 <jcheney> +1
16:03:59 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:04:02 <GK> +1
16:04:19 <pgroth> RESOLVED: Accepted Minutes of Nov 17 telecon
16:04:23 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
16:04:55 <stain> ACTION-43 - Pgroth organising now - just waiting for actual confirmation before sending out email - hopefully by end of tomorrow
16:05:06 <stain> ACTION-44 on Graham - we can come back to this when we talk about PAQ
16:05:12 <GK> Oops, that fell of my Radar
16:05:30 <stain> Stian asked about what we do over Christmas break
16:06:04 <stain> Luc: Propose to have last call just before Christmas, Thurs 22 - not call 29th - resume on 5th of Jan
16:06:09 <GK> (I'll be on holiday on 22 Dec)
16:06:13 <stain> (me too)
16:06:16 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:06:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:06:34 <stain> pgroth: sounds reasonable - but if too many o vacation 22nd we'll cancel
16:06:36 <dgarijo> I'll be on holidays, but I think I can make it
16:06:49 <stain> ACTION Pgroth: Send email about holiday break
16:06:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Send email about holiday break [on Paul Groth - due 2011-12-01].
16:06:58 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O
<stain> Summary: PROV-O document is almost ready for first public working draft (FPWD) release. We agreed to move Section 4 (examples of ontology extensions) out to a new document called "Best Practices". The annex with current/outdated issues should be commented out from the FPWD. Assuming these changes, the working group voted for releasing the PROV-O document and the Best Practices document as FPWD. 
16:07:20 <stain> (I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once)
16:07:28 <stain> dgarijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up
16:07:35 <stain> dgarijo: updated document - almost ready for release
16:07:50 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:07:58 <dgarijo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:08:07 <stain> I'll timestamp it
16:08:29 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
16:08:31 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:08:38 <stain> pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?
16:09:02 <Zakim> +Bjorn_Bringert
16:09:02 <Zakim> +Satish_Sampath
16:09:05 <Luc> q+
16:09:08 <stain> dgarijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document
16:09:14 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:09:30 <pgroth> zednik
16:09:31 <pgroth> ?
16:09:32 <stain> q?
16:10:06 <Zakim> +??P27
16:10:14 <satya> @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O?
16:10:16 <stain> Luc: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document
16:10:27 <jcheney> q+
16:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon
16:10:51 <jcheney> q-
16:10:51 <stain> Luc: what is happening with section 4, 5
16:11:15 <stain> satya: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long
16:11:27 <stain> satya: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML 
16:11:29 <dgarijo> when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry.
16:11:33 <stain> Monday
16:11:51 <stain> satya: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O
16:12:05 <stain> satya: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability
16:12:16 <jcheney> q+
16:12:18 <stain> satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O
16:12:38 <stain> (Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints ) 
16:13:05 <stain> Luc: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent
16:13:43 <khalidbelhajjame> Can then Section 4 be released as a note?
16:13:53 <stain> Luc: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally
16:13:58 <GK> q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence
16:14:16 <stain> Luc: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally
16:14:35 <stain> Luc: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view
16:14:49 <stain> Luc: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed
16:15:00 <stain> Luc: what is the message of all those issues?
16:15:16 <stain> Luc: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document
16:15:22 <stain> q?
16:15:30 <pgroth> ack luc
16:15:57 <stain> Satya: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated. 
16:16:15 <stain> satya: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time
16:17:00 <stain> satya: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate
16:17:04 <dgarijo> what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there.
16:17:25 <jcheney> q-
16:17:25 <stain> satya: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative
16:17:36 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:17:48 <jcheney> I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document
16:18:04 <stain> GK: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism.
16:18:12 <pgroth> q?
16:18:14 <stain> GK: so it *is* supported by charter
16:18:15 <pgroth> ack GK
16:18:15 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence
16:18:20 <Luc> q+
16:18:26 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:18:34 <stain> Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative
16:18:58 <stain> Luc: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts
16:19:21 <stain> (but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?)
16:19:35 <dgarijo> @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc.
16:19:58 <stain> Luc: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems.
16:20:03 <pgroth> q?
16:20:05 <stain> q+
16:20:50 <satya> q+
16:20:57 <pgroth> ack stain
16:21:06 <stain> stain: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning?
16:21:08 <pgroth> q?
16:21:10 <pgroth> q+
16:21:11 <stain> Luc: yes, that's what I meant
16:21:20 <GK> q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well
16:21:40 <stain> satya: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them?
16:21:49 <stain> satya: in particular if it prevents interoperability
16:22:14 <stain> Luc: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace 
16:22:32 <stain> pgroth: I think we need to separate questions
16:22:53 <stain> pgroth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability..
16:22:56 <stain> pgroth: q2 is where this belongs
16:23:03 <GK> @paul - good intervention!
16:23:13 <stain> pgroth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices
16:23:26 <stain> pgroth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question.
16:23:48 <stain> pgroth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note
16:23:59 <stain> pgroth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long
16:24:16 <pgroth> q?
16:24:16 <GK> q-
16:24:17 <stain> pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD
16:24:23 <satya> q-
16:24:24 <pgroth> ack satya
16:24:25 <Luc> +1 to Paul's comment
16:24:29 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:24:29 <pgroth> q?
16:24:35 <stain> +1 to make a Best Practice document
16:25:04 <stain> Luc: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document
16:25:14 <stain> q+
16:25:51 <Luc> what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples?
16:25:53 <pgroth> ack stain
16:25:58 <GK> @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material?
16:26:04 <satya> q+
16:26:05 <stain> stain: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD?
16:26:13 <dgarijo> +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right?
16:26:15 <pgroth> ack satya
16:27:00 <stain> satya: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that.  If such a user comes to see what is the use for me 
16:27:07 <GK> ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM
16:27:14 <stain> satya: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised
16:27:42 <stain> satya: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4
16:27:53 <pgroth> q?
16:27:53 <stain> satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document
16:27:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:28:54 <GK> q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table.  Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative?
16:29:04 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM
16:29:10 <satya> @GK +1
16:29:14 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples
16:29:20 <dgarijo> +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice?
16:29:33 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only
16:29:36 <pgroth> q?
16:29:41 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
16:30:06 <stain> GK: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that. 
16:30:15 <pgroth> q+
16:30:21 <pgroth> ack GK
16:30:21 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table.  Meanwhile, just signal the current as
16:30:22 <stain> GK: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative
16:30:24 <Zakim> ... non-normative?
16:30:25 <stain> +1
16:30:34 <stain> pgroth: issue is that it is a lot of material
16:30:45 <stain> pgroth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression
16:30:52 <stain> pgroth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs
16:31:13 <stain> pgroth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but.. 
16:31:18 <pgroth> q?
16:31:39 <stain> GK: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document?
16:31:52 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:31:56 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:31:57 <stain> pgroth: would prefer just to move it out for now
16:32:16 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down
16:32:19 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
16:32:20 <Luc> what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document?
16:32:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative
16:32:43 <pgroth> q?
16:32:46 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
16:32:46 <GK> (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?)
16:32:53 <stain> Luc: OK, can do that :) 
16:32:59 <stain> just copy and delete
16:33:11 <dgarijo> @stian:+1
16:33:12 <Luc> @stain, yes, plus a small intro
16:33:18 <Zakim> +??P29
16:33:30 <pgroth> q?
16:33:31 <stain> pgroth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice   b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it
16:33:31 <Paolo> zakim, ??P29 is me
16:33:31 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:33:48 <pgroth> option a
16:34:07 <stain> +1
16:34:15 <jcheney> +1
16:34:17 <satya> +1
16:34:31 <stain> option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice
16:34:40 <stain> option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there
16:34:40 <GK> (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5
16:34:47 <dgarijo> +1 to b.
16:34:51 <stain> +1 to b
16:34:51 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK :-)
16:34:59 <satya> +1 to b
16:35:09 <smiles> +1 to b
16:35:12 <dcorsar> +1 to b
16:35:16 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 to b
16:35:24 <stain> I can take the action
16:35:30 <jcheney> Happy with either.
16:35:32 <satya> q+
16:35:45 <Luc> proposal: release both documents at the same time as fpwd
16:35:57 <stain> ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document
16:35:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01].
16:36:11 <stain> satya: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document
16:36:31 <stain> pgroth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications
16:36:39 <stain> satya: yes, and with link to examples in best practice
16:36:44 <stain> Luc: sounds reasonable
16:36:54 <khalidbelhajjame> :-)
<stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/bestpractices/BestPractices.html
16:36:54 <stain> RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :)
16:37:23 <pgroth> Resolved: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document
16:37:37 <GK> I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain
16:37:42 <stain> right
16:37:46 <stain> but that is the same
16:38:11 <stain> pgroth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad
16:38:14 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints
16:38:15 <GK> @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.
16:38:19 <stain> ;)
16:38:26 <pgroth> q?
16:38:29 <pgroth> ack satya
16:38:52 <stain> satya: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document?
16:39:06 <stain> I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict
16:39:17 <khalidbelhajjame> We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-)
16:39:31 <satya> @Khalid :)
16:39:32 <stain> pgroth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O
16:39:42 <stain> pgroth: but we commented it out from the FPWD
16:40:02 <stain> satya: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document
16:40:08 <stain> pgroth: does that resolve it?
16:40:13 <stain> Luc: Believe so
16:40:23 <stain> (issues are public anyway, remember!)
16:40:34 <pgroth> q?
16:40:40 <stain> pgroth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right?
16:40:59 <stain> Luc: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD   [ at the same time ] 
16:41:03 <dgarijo> +1 to that
16:41:09 <stain> sorry
16:41:14 <stain> the Best PRactice document
16:41:19 <stain> (which does not yet exist! ;) )
16:41:21 <GK> q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?
16:41:29 <khalidbelhajjame> Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document?
16:41:30 <stain> GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial!
16:41:56 <stain> it will only be section 4 for now
16:42:16 <stain> pgroth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week
16:42:21 <jcheney> I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now.
16:42:29 <stain> can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial  ? 
16:42:52 <stain> Luc: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O 
16:43:11 <pgroth> Proposed: release PROV-O as first public wor�king draft with above mentioned changes
16:43:19 <GK> +1
16:43:20 <smiles> +1
16:43:20 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:43:20 <stain> +1 (witout the �]� thing)
16:43:20 <dgarijo> +1
16:43:22 <pgroth> +1
16:43:23 <jcheney> +1
16:43:23 <dcorsar> +1
16:43:23 <satya> +1
16:43:54 <stain> (we're all waiting for Luc!)
16:44:23 <pgroth> Accepted:  release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes 
16:44:24 <stain> Luc: supportive - but don't vote as a chair
16:44:36 <stain> pgroth: but I've been voting as a chair !!
16:44:38 <satya> @Paul :)
16:44:41 <stain> congrats everyone!
16:44:45 <khalidbelhajjame> Hurray
16:44:52 <stain> pgroth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along
16:44:56 <Luc> congrats to the prov-o team!
16:45:04 <dgarijo> :)
16:45:05 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
<stain> Summary: Almost ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) - Graham asked Paul Groth to step in if needed.
16:45:51 <stain> GK: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else
16:46:22 <stain> GK: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball?
16:46:25 <stain> pgroth: happy to do the test
16:46:29 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html
16:47:08 <stain> GK: might not be available in the near future
16:47:17 <pgroth> q?
16:47:19 <pgroth> ack GK
16:47:19 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?
16:47:20 <stain> pgroth: getting close to FPWD
16:47:32 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM
<stain> Summary: PROV-DM document updated to reflect the recently voted on proposals. Derivation still not settled. Yolanda's agent proposal being worked on. Current document is not quite ready for general review by the working group as Luc and Paolo, but feel free to have a look. PROV-DM document should be ready for internal review next week, aiming for second public working draft the week after. 
16:47:39 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version
16:47:49 <pgroth> lots of echo
16:47:57 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html
16:48:17 <stain> Luc: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented
16:48:25 <stain> Luc: some questions on derivations
16:48:37 <stain> Luc: being edited as we speak
16:48:48 <stain> Luc: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well
16:49:03 <stain> Luc: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo
16:49:09 <stain> Luc: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review
16:49:24 <stain> Luc: don't file issues on the actual current document yet
16:49:31 <stain> Luc: hoping to have feedback soon
16:49:40 <stain> Luc: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation
16:49:52 <stain> Luc: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible
16:50:01 <stain> (You mean before christmas?)
16:50:14 <Luc> @stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time
16:50:20 <stain> Paolo: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment
16:50:27 <stain> Paolo: most changes would be simplifying
16:50:35 <stain> Paolo: and not throw everyting up in the air again
16:50:50 <pgroth> q?
16:50:54 <stain> @Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 ..
16:51:13 <stain> Paolo: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility
16:51:16 <dgarijo> @Stian: you mean Activity, right?
16:51:21 <Luc> @stain, what is this? PE -> account?
16:51:21 <stain> yes, sorry
16:51:25 <stain> Activity
16:51:31 <pgroth> q?
16:51:44 <pgroth> q?
16:51:52 <stain> so when do we get the internal review?
16:51:57 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-JSON
<stain> Summary: Dong Huynh from Southampton presented their work on making a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM. (See http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/ ). The working group showed interest in working in a similar official PROV-JSON approach, volunteering was Stian, Khalid, Graham and possibly James; however it was agreed to not focus on PROV-JSON until a later stage. Chairs will look at the schedule..
16:52:01 <stain> if second WD is in 2 weeks
16:52:07 <Luc> @stain, hopefully, next week
16:52:26 <stain> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/
16:52:49 <stain> pgroth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed?
16:53:08 <stain> pgroth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM
16:53:19 <stain> pgroth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed
16:53:29 <stain> pgroth: given time.. let us hear about it
<stain> Guest: Trung Dong (DongHuynh) Huynh, University of Southampton
<stain> Guest: Bjorn (Bjorn_Bringert) Bringert
<stain> Guest: Satish (Satish_Sampath) Sampath
16:53:50 <stain> DongHuynh: observing WG development
16:53:55 <stain> DongHuynh: first time in meeting
16:54:09 <stain> DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications
16:54:21 <stain> DongHuynh: to have a common format 
16:54:29 <stain> DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs. 
16:54:48 <stain> DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications
16:54:54 <stain> DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM
16:54:55 <Zakim> -Bjorn_Bringert
16:54:55 <Zakim> -Satish_Sampath
16:55:11 <stain> DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation. 
16:55:31 <stain> DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types
16:55:54 <stain> DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when  not needed. 
16:56:05 <stain> DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?]
16:56:11 <Luc> design rationale http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction
16:56:29 <stain> examples
16:56:37 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json
16:57:07 <stain> DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository
16:57:22 <stain> DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default
16:57:45 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json
16:57:47 <stain> DongHuynh: second example exands
16:58:23 <stain> DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information
16:58:30 <stain> (line 35 is not valid JSON btw)
16:58:48 <stain> DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level
16:58:53 <stain> DongHuynh: at next level is the entity
16:58:58 <stain> DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs
16:59:14 <Luc> @stain, yes, looks like a typo
16:59:19 <pgroth> q?
16:59:23 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:59:24 <stain> DongHuynh: questions?
16:59:31 <stain> GK: (skipping the queue!)
16:59:37 <stain> GK: JSON-LD? 
16:59:52 <stain> GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga
16:59:55 <stain> glance
17:00:08 <stain> http://json-ld.org/
17:00:24 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
17:00:24 <stain> DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues
17:00:34 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent.. 
17:00:50 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?) 
17:01:00 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: JSON schema?
17:01:09 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to say how it can be serialised
17:01:10 <pgroth> q?
17:01:23 <stain> DongHuynh: could not hear very well..
17:01:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON
17:01:53 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ? 
17:02:01 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching
17:02:10 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON
17:02:27 <stain> DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability
17:02:37 <stain> DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON
17:02:47 <stain> DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity
17:02:51 <stain> DongHuynh: working on this
17:03:16 <pgroth> http://json-schema.org/
17:03:23 <stain> DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure
17:03:34 <stain> DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics
17:03:45 <stain> DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema 
17:03:53 <stain> DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML
17:04:04 <stain> DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema
17:04:11 <stain> DongHuynh: is it really used
17:04:31 <stain> DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example
17:04:39 <khalidbelhajjame> Thanks Dong
17:04:42 <pgroth> q?
17:04:44 <stain> DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process
17:04:59 <stain> pgroth: we are running out of time now 
17:05:03 <stain> pgroth: very interesting work
17:05:14 <stain> pgroth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed
17:05:14 <Luc> q+
17:05:30 <stain> Luc: Is it possible to  have a sense here now?
17:05:42 <stain> Luc: who would be interested in working on this spec?
17:05:54 <stain> +1
17:05:55 <jcheney> +0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?)
17:06:00 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate)
17:06:18 <stain> Luc: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG
17:06:25 <GK> It depends on timing, and principles.  I'd want us to see DM very stable first.
17:06:34 <stain> @GK +1
17:06:46 <stain> @GK perhaps this is a spring project
17:06:57 <GK> Yes, maybe in spring.
17:06:59 <jcheney> @GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync
17:07:00 <pgroth> q?
17:07:05 <stain> I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment
17:07:06 <pgroth> ack Luc
17:07:16 <jcheney> same with PROV-XML
17:07:16 <GK> @jcheney +1
17:07:20 <stain> @jcheney +1
17:07:34 <stain> pgroth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this 
17:07:37 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:07:37 <stain> thanks everybody!
17:07:38 <jcheney> bye
17:07:41 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
17:07:42 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:07:42 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:07:44 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:07:48 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:07:50 <dgarijo> happy thanksgiving
17:07:50 <Zakim> -??P27
17:07:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:07:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth
17:08:01 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:08:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:08:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo
17:08:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:08:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:08:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:08:03 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf :
17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]
17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49
17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2]
17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000457