Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2011-11-24
From Provenance WG Wiki
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