Chatlog 2012-02-23

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.

15:43:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:43:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-irc
15:43:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:43:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:43:34 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
15:43:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
15:43:34 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
15:43:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:43:35 <trackbot> Date: 23 February 2012
15:43:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:43:49 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23
15:43:59 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:44:05 <Luc> Scribe: stain
15:44:20 <Luc> hi Stian, thanks for volunteering!
15:44:27 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
15:54:29 <Luc> @macted, any feedback on prov-dm proposed restructuring. Can you share some feedback?
15:56:27 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:57:56 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:58:19 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:58:26 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:58:26 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:30 <Helena> Helena has joined #prov
15:58:47 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:58:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:59:12 <pgroth> hi sandro are you on today?
15:59:30 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:59:42 <stain> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:59:46 <Zakim> +Luc
15:59:53 <Luc> hi stian, it's all set up, are you ready?
15:59:55 <stain> yes
16:00:00 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Curt_Tilmes (40%), [IPcaller.a] (18%), [IPcaller] (42%), Luc (66%)
16:00:02 <Luc> great, thanks for volunteering
16:00:04 <stain> not sure if zakim recognized me, but that's not important
16:00:16 <Zakim> +??P9
16:00:17 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
16:00:24 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
16:00:28 <Luc> topic: admin
<LUc> Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. F2F2 minutes are being circulated for review. Prov-o team has released a version of the ontology for review: so ACTION-55 can be closed.
16:00:36 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:00:43 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
16:00:48 <Luc> paul, should we get f2f2 minutes approved today?
16:01:08 <Paolo> for SIP users: can we connect to zakim@voip.w3.org??  I can't
16:01:14 <Paolo> s/we/you
16:01:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:01:24 <jun> jun has joined #prov
16:01:54 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
16:01:55 <stain> Luc: Call now starting.
16:02:07 <stain> Luc: Review PROV-DM and PROV-O
16:02:22 <stain> Luc: release of documents.. if time, we'll look at proposal for binary relations for 5th working draft (of DM?)
16:02:24 <Luc> PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16
16:02:26 <tlebo> +1
16:02:31 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:02:34 <stain> +1
16:02:40 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:02:41 <ericstephan> +1
16:02:42 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:02:43 <Curt> +1
16:02:50 <GK> ABSTAIN - NOT SEEN THEM YET
16:02:51 <stephenc> +1
16:02:52 <Zakim> + +1.509.967.aabb
16:02:59 <pgroth> +q to comment on f2f minutes
16:03:00 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:03:09 <pgroth> q+ to comment on f2f minutes
16:03:18 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16
16:03:21 <Luc> q?
16:03:54 <Zakim> +??P27
16:03:57 <stain> Paul: Just finished the minutes - but we can't do approval now as people have not read it yet
16:03:59 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:04:00 <jun> zakim, ??p27 is me
16:04:10 <stain> ... the minutes of the F2F2
16:04:12 <Zakim> +??P25
16:04:16 <stain> ... apologies for delay
16:04:26 <Zakim> +??P0
#16:04:27 <stain> Topic: Review of actions
16:04:35 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:04:47 <pgroth> q-
16:04:54 <stain> Luc: Action-55 was reopened to complete OWL file - this seems now done and can be closed. We'll review it.
16:05:13 <stain> Luc: Action on Paul to propose proposal, 
16:05:13 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:05:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:05:20 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:05:23 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:05:27 <stain> Paul: Talked about it last week, and to talk about it in two weeks time (ie. next week?)
16:05:29 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:05:37 <stain> is that 2 weeks from today or last week?
16:05:38 <Luc> q?
16:05:56 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to comment on f2f minutes and to comment on f2f minutes
16:06:10 <stain> Luc: ACTION-61 to update prov-sem
16:06:37 <stain> JamesC: Travelling next week, so will have it done before then, not yet done
16:06:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
16:06:41 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
16:06:44 <GK> @paul I should be in a position to be a little responsive on PAQ issues next week
16:06:48 <stain> ^^.. action on Paul was ACTION-57
16:06:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaaa]
16:07:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaaaa]
16:07:02 <stain> Luc: ACTION-63 Structure of HTML file for PROV-O document  - postponed
16:07:09 <Luc> TOPIC: PROV-DM Simplification: Reviewer feedback  
<luc>Summary: 7 reviewers provided feedback on the prov-dm restructuring (see links in the agenda).   The working group endorsed the restructuring into 3 separate documents (prov-dm, prov-dm-constraints and prov-asn), and it was agreed that they should become the new Editors' working draft, replacing the previous version.  Valuable feedback was provided in the reviews and should now be raised as issues against the documents.
16:07:35 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
16:07:40 <stain> Luc: Feedback on PROV-DM simplification. Last week we released 3 separate documents, one called PROV-DM, one PROV-DM constraints, and one PROV-ASN
16:07:47 <stain> Luc: We lined up reviewers and invited for review of docs
16:07:55 <Zakim> +Sandro
16:07:57 <stain> Luc: to identify/decide a number of issues that are in the agenda
16:08:00 <GK> In agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0415.html - but I reviewed the wrong document; I've just posted a brief update
16:08:08 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-DM_Simplification:_Reviewer_feedback
16:08:23 <stain> Luc: Try to reach consensus - if possible - links to emails sent by reviewers
16:08:30 <stain> Luc: perhaps a quick summary from each of them?
16:08:35 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:08:41 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:08:41 <stain> Luc: about if restructuring of docs are addressing points
16:08:53 <stain> Luc: Tim first
16:09:10 <stain> Tim: Feel that new draft has dramatically adressed the concerns.
16:09:17 <stain> Tim: Sent email this morning with detailed comments
16:09:27 <stain> Luc: Missed link to that email
16:09:29 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0416.html
16:09:45 <pgroth> i'll edit the agenda
16:09:46 <stain> Eric?
16:10:01 <stain> Eric: Document was over-all, great job of meeting simplification objective
16:10:05 <stain> Daniel?
16:10:13 <Zakim> +??P13
16:10:22 <stain> DanielG: Have not finished whole document, made it to the middle.. made some notes that I was planning to send
16:10:35 <stain> DanielG: Try to take my W3C hat off, and try to identify what is confusing to me
16:10:41 <stain> DanielG: Will send small details in separate emails
16:10:49 <Zakim> +SamCoppens
16:10:50 <stain> Luc: What about meeting simplification objectives from F2F?
16:11:14 <stain> DanielG: Think that it more or less has accomplished this, but not gone through the whole doc. Much clearer now. 
16:11:29 <stain> Luc: MacTed? Might not be on call yet
16:11:29 <pgroth> MacTed?
16:11:46 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P13 is probably me
16:11:46 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:11:54 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
16:12:08 <stain> Curt: First part easier to read, many things still confuse me. Second and Third, mechanics work well. 
16:12:08 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:12:11 <stain> (??)
16:12:17 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:12:24 <kai_> kai_ has joined #prov
16:12:24 <stain> Sam: Find the overall structure very clear, nice separation of concerns
16:12:27 <stain> conserns
16:12:44 <stain> Sam: All 3 well written. Sent list of some remarks. (to whome?)
16:12:53 <stain> Sam: has also reviewed part 2 and 3, which I'll send
16:12:55 <tlebo> (back onto IRC, @luc, my email with comments is http://www.w3.org/mid/995BD58C-DB94-4052-BE85-BE9A271695C0@rpi.edu )
16:13:02 <pgroth> sam I don't see your email
16:13:05 <stain> Sam: Can recognize this person to become editor of draft
16:13:23 <zednik_> zednik_ has joined #prov
16:13:25 <Paolo> Q?
16:13:26 <SamCoppens> Excuse me, I have sent it to Luc
16:13:27 <stain> Jun: First time I read this document - did not read previous version, and so have no comparison
16:13:31 <Paolo> q?
16:13:32 <stain> SamCoppens: sorry :
16:13:40 <stain> @
16:13:58 <stain> Jun: To summarise, don't think the simplify document.. (?) 
16:13:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:14:14 <stain> Jun: Not ready for editorial draft at the moment
16:14:22 <stain> Jun: 1) Lack of context and explanation
16:14:34 <stain> ... Reading it for the first time it was difficult to follow
16:14:35 <SamCoppens> My remark was for Paul
16:14:42 <tlebo> glad we're getting @jun's fresh eyes :-)
16:14:54 <stain> ... Second paul I want to say is, I did not make a clean/clear explanation about.. provenance. 
16:15:01 <stain> ... I'm just referring to minutes of F2F meeting
16:15:09 <Luc> q?
16:15:11 <stain> ... not exchanged in current draft (?) 
16:15:19 <stain> ... Does not help me explain how this reach the new goal.
16:15:41 <stain> ... Luc might tell me how this structure, part1/part2/part3, how it is reflected in part 1
16:15:45 <pgroth> jun which document did you read?
16:15:45 <stain> (??)
16:15:58 <stain> (I'm very confused)
16:16:06 <Zakim> +Yolanda
16:16:14 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
16:16:22 <stain> Luc: Many things not consistent -f or instance figure not consistent with section with overview
16:16:26 <stain> ^^ Jun:
16:16:38 <stain> Jun: Mixed terminology, elements/edges/properties/classes
16:16:54 <stain> Jun: I don't mind which terminology we use, as long as it's used precisely, but that is not the case in this document
16:17:01 <pgroth> q+
16:17:10 <stain> Jun: There's lots of references to other sections not existing anymore, terminology that might become obsolete.. too 
16:17:18 <stain> ... too early to raise comments on those now?
16:17:24 <stain> ... Perhaps focus on something different?
16:17:34 <stain> ... Interested in Luc's feedback
16:17:43 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/
16:17:51 <stain> Luc: Have responded to your email. We'll ask the reviewers what they have addressed.
16:18:00 <stain> Luc: ^^ is the second working draft
16:18:22 <stain> Luc: what we are standing is wether the document as it stands can be used as an editors draft
16:18:26 <stain> (is that a different document?)
16:18:38 <pgroth> point of clarification
16:18:40 <stain> Luc: If you believe that we should not do this, then what are the blocking issues form your point
16:19:00 <stain> Jun: Not quite covered in my email - how this new structure corresponds to the scruffy and precise notation
16:19:07 <Paolo> q+
16:19:16 <stain> Luc: I think these are terms we've used informally, not used specifically
16:19:21 <pgroth> q-
16:19:22 <Curt> scruffy = you forgot to read part II
16:19:29 <GK> (I agree that "scruffy" and "precise" are informal)
16:19:30 <stain> Luc: We have defined a vocabulary, those using the vocabulary will make scruffy provenance
16:19:34 <pgroth> +1 curt
16:19:47 <stain> Luc: If you follow the constraints of part 2, then it is a more refined provenance, more precise about what it is asserting.
16:20:01 <stain> Jun: So you are saying that this new working draft is related to an even longer document..?
16:20:02 <Paolo> @Jun: yes!
16:20:18 <stain> Luc: Yes, all those 3 documents were 1 big document
16:20:23 <Luc> q?
16:20:28 <stain> Luc: We've tried to also simplify the presentation
16:20:36 <stain> Paolo?
16:20:47 <stain> Paolo: Trying to locate an email I sent to Jun..
16:20:50 <Luc> @Curt, I like this!
16:21:04 <stain> Paolo: Main point is that according to the process/goals we put in place at F2F
16:21:05 <pgroth> q+
16:21:09 <stain> Paolo: simplify what was there
16:21:10 <Luc> ack paolo
16:21:28 <stain> ... question is, what that achived to an extent that we can discard the previous version 
16:21:32 <stain> ... and use this as a new baseline
16:21:36 <stain> ... that is the question.
16:21:58 <stain> ... So Jun, I would ask you to look at the current baseline with that perspective - which is different than coming from blank
16:22:15 <stain> ... we're aware that that's what you promised.. so question is, is this a sufficiently good baseline
16:22:24 <stain> ... but then you need to know what the old massive document was
16:22:53 <stain> ... in my email, this scruffy vs proper is a placeholder to say is there something we can isolate as essential (part 1) and the rest in part 2. 
16:23:05 <stain> ... this split should give a simplification - not labelling everything as scruffy or proper
16:23:10 <Luc> q?
16:23:20 <stain> ... just a way to encode a progression from simplest possible to be useful, to more sophisticated use
16:23:30 <stain> ... That is the email I think I sent 30 minutes ago
16:23:53 <stain> Jun: I think you managed to convince me, I must apologize. Where we started is this massive long document.
16:24:11 <stain> Jun: so this is an encouraging first step. And I hope my comments can be used for consideration further in the editorial process
16:24:20 <stain> Jun: So YES, it could be a baseline for further work
16:24:28 <Luc> q?
16:24:36 <stain> Paolo: Some things pointed out not taken into account - like what is this about. That is coming.
16:24:47 <stain> pgroth: about process.. 
16:25:10 <stain> pgroth: we've had pretty sophisticated reviews, need to figure out how to distill these to editorial issues, and 'real' issues on concepts
16:25:16 <stain> GK?
16:25:20 <Luc> q?
16:25:23 <Luc> ack pgr
16:25:28 <GK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0448.html
16:25:29 <stain> GK: spent all morning reviewing the wrong document
16:25:35 <stain> GK: posted a brief update ^^
16:25:47 <stain> GK: first comment: New document is definetly moving in right direction
16:25:55 <stain> GK: some comments from my review this morning still apply
16:26:06 <stain> GK: but many have been addressed, so I think this is  something we can build on
16:26:15 <stain> GK: rest of the issues are technical issues
16:26:22 <stain> GK: which we'll discuss as we get on with it
16:26:36 <stain> Luc: Sorry you spent so much time reviewing WD3 - the wrong document
16:26:44 <Luc> q?
16:26:49 <stain> Luc: for the working draft it would be good to get a number of resolutions approved
16:26:58 <stain> Luc: have anyone else reviewed the documents and want to provide feedback?
16:27:24 <stain> (Stian: I've had a quick look at part 1, which looks good, but no review)
16:27:40 <stain> Luc: Want a clear statement from working group that we want the document split into 3
16:27:52 <stain> Luc: we need to do this to get a transition request to get the new documents approved
16:27:54 <GK> Just to clarify: I think there are both editorial and technical issues to address in DM
16:28:01 <pgroth> q+
16:28:02 <stain> Luc: need to work with sandro and ivan to make a strong case for W3C
16:28:06 <Luc> q?
16:28:11 <stain> Luc: to have that resolution agreed..
16:28:15 <stain> pgroth: is that really the case?
16:28:18 <Curt> Is this 3 documents or 3 parts of 1 document?
16:28:25 <GK> q+ to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?
16:28:32 <stain> pgroth: Sandro?
16:28:45 <stain> sandro: not a strong case.. if the WG resolves that it's the right thing to do, we can make it happen
16:28:51 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
16:28:59 <stain> sandro: question is what happens with the older one.. should these have the same URLs? 
16:29:14 <jun> @curt and gk, that's what confused me:) and now i understood their relationship
16:29:14 <stain> Luc: Propose to keep same name for PROV-DM
16:29:18 <stain> sandro: yes, that solves that issue
16:29:25 <stain> Luc: propose two new names. 
16:29:34 <stain> sandro: just consider them as new working drafts
16:29:46 <stain> Luc: but procedurally we need to make sure it's the same deliverable, for recommendations, etc
16:29:48 <Curt> 3 URLs = 3 html documents
16:29:50 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaaaa]
16:29:53 <stain> sandro: yes, same deliverable in 3 documents
16:30:03 <Luc> q?
16:30:04 <stain> Luc: if we are happy with this proposal, can you express your support?
16:30:08 <pgroth> q-
16:30:09 <stain> Paul?
16:30:15 <stain> (?)
16:30:17 <Zakim> +[ISI]
16:30:21 <stain> GK: Do we need to split it into 3 documents?
16:30:22 <Zakim> -Yolanda
16:30:42 <Luc> q?
16:30:43 <stain> GK: Division of material in part 1, part 2 in particular, (part 3 is useful), do we then need 3 separate documents? OR structure it within a single document?
16:30:45 <pgroth> +q
16:30:51 <stain> Luc: my recommendation as editor is 3 documents
16:30:56 <pgroth> +1 to 3 documents
16:30:58 <stain> Luc: which gives the entry points to DM much lighter
16:31:07 <stain> Luc: many are not interested in constraints, just want a description
16:31:11 <stain> Luc: a long document is daunthing
16:31:22 <Luc> q?
16:31:24 <stain> Luc: external feedback from Tom Baker and IVan both suggest splitting deliverable in separate documents
16:31:26 <Luc> ack gk
16:31:26 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?
16:31:27 <stain> q+
16:31:30 <Curt> +1 make 3 separate documents, include introduction/scope in each describing there relationship clearly
16:31:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
16:31:32 <jcheney> afk, supportive of splitting (for now at least)
16:31:35 <Luc> ack pgro
16:31:38 <Paolo> +1 for spliitng
16:31:43 <stain> pgroth: also think we should have 3 docs
16:31:45 <Curt> s/there/their
16:31:46 <stain> hang on
16:31:49 <Luc> ack st
16:32:20 <pgroth> +q
16:32:26 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me
16:32:26 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:32:30 <Luc> ack pg
16:32:38 <stain> stain: could it not just be 3 html pages on one document (same base URI)?
16:32:46 <stain> stain: some recommendations do that
16:32:57 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
16:33:08 <GK> @paul +1 (easiest way in w3c process; editor's discretion)
16:33:15 <stain> stain: if it is to be 3 separate documents, then they should be valuable on its own, say referring to PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS alone. Don't have a view if that 's the case or not
16:33:27 <stain> Luc: we can come back to working group if needed
16:33:28 <pgroth> good with me
16:33:31 <stain> Luc: Express your support
16:33:33 <dgarijo> +1
16:33:33 <smiles> +1
16:33:33 <GK> +1
16:33:34 <stain> +1
16:33:35 <Paolo> +1
16:33:35 <stain> (or not)
16:33:36 <ericstephan> +1
16:33:36 <Curt> +1
16:33:36 <SamCoppens> +1+1
16:33:37 <sandro> +1
16:33:39 <satya> +1
16:33:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:33:43 <zednik_> +1
16:33:52 <jun> +1
16:34:05 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
16:34:35 <stain> Luc: Second point is to agree or not if the document as it stands can become editorial draft
16:34:49 <Luc> PROPOSED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft. 
16:34:51 <stain> Luc: that does not mean we have to release them as editors draft.. but they are the current editors draft according to w3c terminology
16:34:59 <Paolo> +1
16:35:00 <SamCoppens> +1
16:35:01 <Curt> +1
16:35:01 <dgarijo> +1
16:35:02 <jun> +1
16:35:02 <ericstephan> +1
#16:35:03 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame.a
16:35:05 <zednik_> +1
16:35:05 <sandro> +1
16:35:05 <GK> +1
16:35:06 <stain> 0 - not read
16:35:06 <tlebo> +1
16:35:06 <smiles> +1
16:35:14 <satya> 0 - not read it yet
16:35:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft. 
16:35:33 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
16:35:34 <GK> (I haven't read the others, but I'm happy for them to be editor's drafts for now)
16:35:42 <Luc> q?
16:35:43 <stain> Luc: Last question, do we have the agreement we have reached, from F2F?
16:35:45 <pgroth> +q
16:35:46 <stain> Luc: can we resolve it?
16:36:02 <Luc> ack pg
16:36:08 <stain> pgroth: suggest there are still editorial adddress to address first
16:36:09 <GK> q+ to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD
16:36:18 <stain> pgroth: before we can say we have achived the goal
16:36:26 <tlebo> +q to say that I think WD4 handles "conceptual versus technical" but not "scruffy versus proper"
16:36:28 <stain> pgroth: as GK pointed out, we can discuss that once it's public
16:36:39 <stain> GK: resolution that matters is when we release it (?)
16:36:40 <Luc> ack gk
16:36:40 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD
16:37:09 <stain> Tim: As Jun gave her feedback, I realised that clarity is conceptual vs. technical. That transition path that we promised, that Ivan passes to distinguish .. (?) 
16:37:16 <stain> Tim: others agree with that?
16:37:27 <stain> Luc: good point, time to talk about process
16:37:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
16:37:38 <tlebo> q-
16:37:40 <stain> Luc: as we agree they will become editors working drafts, we can raise issues in the tracker
16:37:46 <GK> @tim do you mean what we've been calling "scruffy/precise" transition?
16:37:48 <stain> Luc: and a point like that, Tim, can be raised as an issue
16:37:55 <Luc> q?
16:37:55 <stain> Luc: and then debate -> resolve it
16:38:05 <GK> ... if so, then I assume we'll work on that
16:38:05 <Luc> decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed 
16:38:12 <tlebo> @gk ??
16:38:17 <stain> Luc: another point addressed from review - can issues relating to identifiers be closed?
16:38:33 <pgroth> q+
16:38:35 <stain> Luc: perhaps do that offline due to time constraints. I propose to close it, and those who raise it will answer
16:38:46 <GK> @tim When you talked about conceptual vs technical, I meant.
16:38:47 <stain> pgroth: set a time limit in the email
16:38:56 <Luc> ack pg
16:38:57 <stain> pgroth: for responses
16:39:09 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O Ontology: Reviewer feedback  
<luc>Summary: Six reviewers provided feedback on the prov-o owl ontology.  There was a consensus that good progress had been made, and that prov-dm could be mapped to prov-o.  In his review of the ontology, Luc indicated that PROV-O allows for the formulation of descriptions that cannot be mapped to PROV-DM. A discussion followed, about the nature of the alignment between PROV-O and PROV-DM, but no consensus was reached about this. We were running out of time, and few participants were still on the call when we agreed on guidelines for the prov-o team.  For the avoidance of doubt, the team is invited to look at the issues that were raised, while at the same time, initiating the documentation of the ontology.
16:39:15 <stain> Luc: completes PROV-DM 
16:39:20 <tlebo> @GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper.
16:39:27 <stain> Luc: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo?
16:39:39 <pgroth> @tlebo - i would disagree
16:39:47 <stain> Luc: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF
16:39:59 <Zakim> -[ISI]
16:39:59 <stain> Paolo: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction
16:40:08 <pgroth> @tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II
16:40:16 <stain> ... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed
16:40:22 <stain> ... others in my email might have been addressed already
16:40:34 <stain> ... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?) 
16:40:44 <stain> ... not seen any reply to my comment yet. 
16:40:44 <tlebo> (oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!)
16:40:52 <stain> ... good alignment
16:40:55 <tlebo> @all, sorry...
16:40:57 <stain> Eric?
16:41:10 <stain> tlebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :)
16:41:16 <stain> ericstephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment?
16:41:24 <stain> Luc: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :)
16:41:29 <stain> Luc: now moving target.. wait a few days?
16:41:34 <stain> stephenc?
16:41:53 <stain> stephenc: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping
16:41:55 <stain> stephenc: which makes sense
16:42:12 <stain> stephenc: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense
16:42:31 <stain> stephenc: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply
16:42:42 <pgroth> yes
16:42:44 <Luc> q?
16:42:48 <stain> stephenc: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements
16:42:51 <stain> (yes)
16:42:52 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
16:42:56 <Paolo> @stian:  s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-)
16:43:02 <stain> stephenc: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things
16:43:02 <tlebo> @stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own.
16:43:22 <stain> stephenc: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc. 
16:43:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
16:43:37 <stain> stephenc: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?) 
16:43:44 <stain> q+
16:44:04 <Luc> ack st
16:44:22 <tlebo> @stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them?
16:44:23 <stain> stian: what did you mean?
16:44:35 <stain> stephenc: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement
16:44:44 <stain> stephenc: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property
16:44:54 <stain> stephenc: and then what informed by, used and qualified
16:44:55 <Luc> q?
16:44:57 <satya> @Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules
16:45:25 <satya> @Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology)
16:45:27 <khalidbelhajjame> @Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it?
16:45:36 <stain> Stian: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules
16:45:51 <stain> stephenc: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties
16:46:01 <pgroth> aren't property chains in owl-rl?
16:46:04 <stain> stephenc: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult
16:46:20 <stain> q?
16:46:26 <khalidbelhajjame> My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties
16:46:30 <stain> Luc: (?) did you go through OWL?
16:46:44 <stain> ?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything
16:46:49 <tlebo> stephenc: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create.
16:46:51 <stain> ^^Curt
16:47:09 <stain> simonM: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer
16:47:34 <stain> simonM: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all
16:47:38 <stain> seemed separated from ontology
16:47:47 <stain> Paul?
16:47:55 <stain> pgroth: going in right direction
16:48:11 <stain> ... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records
16:48:40 <stain> ... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation
16:48:48 <sandro> zakim, mute ??P9
16:48:48 <Zakim> ??P9 should now be muted
16:48:54 <stain> ... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM
16:48:57 <Luc> q?
16:48:59 <stain> ... but a good step in right direction
16:49:03 <stain> ... in reflecting DM
16:49:21 <stain> Luc: any other comments before I give my feedback?
16:49:35 <stain> Luc: pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!)
16:49:46 <stain> Luc: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM
16:49:52 <tlebo> q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul  - anyone else's that I should look for?
16:49:59 <stain> Luc: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association
16:50:02 <stain> generation
16:50:08 <pgroth> @tlebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23
16:50:10 <stain> Luc: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly
16:50:11 <pgroth> in the agenda
16:50:28 <stain> Luc: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping
16:50:30 <tlebo> @pgroth, thanks.
16:50:31 <stain> Luc: I've implemented part of it
16:50:33 <stain> Luc: working fine
16:50:48 <stain> Luc: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM
16:51:09 <stain> Luc: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent
16:51:24 <stain> Luc: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice
16:51:38 <stain> Luc: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc 
16:51:54 <stain> Luc: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent
16:52:00 <stain> Luc: what are we trying to achieve?
16:52:04 <stain> Luc: interoperability concern
16:52:22 <stain> Luc: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies
16:52:31 <stain> Luc: they may not have all the same notions
16:52:39 <stain> Luc: if it is not part of data model
16:52:40 <stain> q+
16:52:52 <stain> Luc: every mapping to a technology would include nice features
16:53:03 <stain> Luc: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks
16:53:09 <tlebo> q-
16:53:12 <stain> Luc: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes
16:53:15 <stain> Luc: which would make sense there
16:53:24 <stain> Luc: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core
16:53:30 <stain> Luc: what are the nice features.. mapping specific
16:53:36 <stain> Luc: at the moment, the ontology has both
16:53:38 <stain> Luc: mixed together
16:53:57 <stain> Luc: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL
16:54:00 <stain> Luc: and let users decide
16:54:00 <pgroth> q?
16:54:05 <GK> Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO
16:54:11 <pgroth> ack stain
16:55:19 <stain> Stian: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split
16:55:35 <stain> Luc: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity
16:55:40 <stain> Luc: that is allowed by ontology now
16:55:43 <stain> Luc: which is not part of DM
16:55:47 <GK> q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal
16:55:50 <stain> (OK, that's a fair point)
16:55:55 <satya> @GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different)
16:56:02 <pgroth> ack GK
16:56:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal
16:56:18 <stain> GK: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies
16:56:22 <tlebo> q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement
16:56:24 <stain> GK: Not sure if comments here prevent that
16:56:45 <stain> GK: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another
16:57:08 <stain> GK: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability
16:57:08 <pgroth> q+ to make a proposal
16:57:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo 
16:57:16 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement
16:57:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, yes Luc sent an email
16:57:35 <stain> (yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities)
16:57:38 <dgarijo> i think Ivan proposed it
16:57:44 <stain> tlebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed?
16:57:57 <stain> pgroth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable
16:58:04 <stain> pgroth: to increase adoption
16:58:11 <stain> pgroth: and there was some census.. and now it's there
16:58:33 <stain> pgroth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that
16:58:37 <GK> AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems
16:58:48 <stain> tlebo: will not raise my concerns here
16:59:18 <stain> pgroth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3?
16:59:23 <stain> pgroth: a valid consern, but that's my question
16:59:27 <pgroth> q0
16:59:28 <pgroth> q-
16:59:32 <jcheney> Luc: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means?
16:59:39 <stain> Luc: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O
16:59:41 <tlebo> Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied.
16:59:42 <sandro> tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email.
16:59:55 <stain> Luc: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity
16:59:58 <stain> Luc: that's too much to me
17:00:07 <stain> Luc: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible
17:00:10 <stain> Luc: too permittive
17:00:19 <tlebo> @luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow.
17:00:25 <stain> @tlebo +1
17:00:38 <satya> @tim +1
17:00:40 <stain> Luc: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns
17:00:53 <stain> pgroth: what does that mean in terms of process
17:01:03 <dgarijo> @tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified..
17:01:08 <stain> Luc: notion of time is crucial to data model
17:01:24 <stain> Luc: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events
17:01:39 <stain> Luc: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time
17:01:45 <stain> Luc: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene
17:02:02 <stain> Luc: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints?
17:02:08 <pgroth> q?
17:02:17 <satya> q+
17:02:18 <stain> (my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"]
17:02:20 <khalidbelhajjame> @prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it.
17:02:29 <stain> Luc: but that needs to be addressed
17:02:30 <pgroth> q-
17:02:31 <GK> q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL
17:02:31 <stain> Satya? 
17:02:34 <GK> q-
17:02:36 <pgroth> ack satya 
17:02:41 <pgroth> q?
17:02:47 <stain> Satya: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants?
17:02:50 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:02:53 <stain> sorry I can't scribe
17:02:55 <stain> lost battery
17:02:58 <stain> NEW SCRIBE please
17:03:05 <GK> Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document?
17:03:06 <dgarijo> I'll scribe
17:03:24 <dgarijo> luc: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that
17:03:40 <dgarijo> ... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned.
17:03:49 <dgarijo> satya: we have similar issues with location
17:03:58 <dgarijo> ... the domain is everything
17:04:05 <tlebo> OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said.
17:04:05 <zednik_> q+
17:04:19 <pgroth> ack zednik_ 
17:04:20 <GK> I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL.  TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND
17:04:37 <GK> @stephan +1
17:04:44 <dgarijo> zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements
17:05:03 <dgarijo> ... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern
17:05:08 <Zakim> +??P24
17:05:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel
17:06:00 <stain> Zakim, ??P24 is me
17:06:01 <Zakim> +stain; got it
17:06:03 <stain> Zakim, mute me
17:06:03 <Zakim> stain should now be muted
17:06:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use
17:06:27 <satya> @pgroth: is that part of the best practices?
17:06:30 <GK> @pgroth +1
17:06:31 <dgarijo> I think it makes sense
17:06:42 <dgarijo> @pgroth: +1
17:06:45 <pgroth> q?
17:06:59 <stain> @dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline
17:07:00 <tlebo> q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development.
17:07:01 <dgarijo> luc: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team
17:07:10 <dgarijo> @stain: no prob
17:08:14 <dgarijo> ...?
17:08:16 <tlebo> q-
17:08:20 <pgroth> Proposed: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints
17:08:20 <jcheney> q+
17:08:26 <dgarijo> :)
17:08:28 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
17:09:00 <dgarijo> jcheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have?
17:09:04 <GK> @paul That's two parts.  I fully support 1st part;  2nd part I half support.
17:09:10 <Curt> If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc.
17:09:22 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-relation
17:09:24 <Curt> I think that's ok ;-) GIGO
17:09:29 <stain> @Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O
17:09:40 <stain> @Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints
17:09:42 <dgarijo> luc: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda)
17:09:45 <satya> @Curt, Stian: rules 
17:09:59 <dgarijo> ... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance
17:10:19 <jun> @curt, or examples?
17:10:50 <dgarijo> luc: the solution is go to the email and discuss it.
17:11:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document
17:11:24 <Luc> q+
17:11:27 <jun> rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale?
17:11:29 <pgroth> ack Luc
17:11:32 <zednik_> we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage
17:11:36 <pgroth> q+ Luc
17:11:41 <stain> { ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity } 
17:11:43 <dgarijo> jcheney: missinterpreting what Luc said.
17:12:01 <GK> @jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator
17:12:10 <stain> exactly
17:12:25 <stain> people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL
17:12:27 <dgarijo> luc: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM
17:12:30 <stain> use it as an RDFS vocabulary
17:12:43 <tlebo> @jcheney, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ?
17:12:55 <jun> @gk, ack. gotcha
17:13:14 <dgarijo> jcheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl
17:13:24 <Curt> A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o
17:13:29 <satya> 1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over)
17:13:50 <dgarijo> ... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it?
17:13:59 <Luc> That' s how I suggested we can address the issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0414.html
17:13:59 <pgroth> q
17:14:00 <satya> 2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile
17:14:02 <pgroth> q?
17:14:04 <pgroth> ack Luc
17:14:05 <GK> I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information
17:14:15 <dgarijo> luc: I don't have a formal ..?..
17:14:42 <dgarijo> ... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM
17:14:54 <dgarijo> ... I made a suggestion on the email
17:14:55 <satya> 3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF)
17:15:28 <dgarijo> ... I am concerned about the interoperability issues
17:15:33 <Paolo> have to go now, apologies
17:15:40 <GK> My definition of interoperability above:  anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information
17:15:47 <dgarijo> ... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition
17:16:10 <stain> @GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things
17:16:13 <dgarijo> pgroth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff
17:16:17 <stephenc> @satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL
17:16:33 <dgarijo> ... that shouldn't be a blocker
17:16:39 <GK> @stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability
17:16:42 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
17:16:57 <dgarijo> ... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is
17:17:08 <jcheney> @GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means).
17:17:10 <dgarijo> ... but we could raise issues 
17:17:12 <stain> @GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard.
17:17:14 <dgarijo> luc: agrees
17:17:28 <Zakim> -??P0
17:17:32 <dgarijo> luc: what Tim thinks about this?
17:17:40 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:17:49 <stain> jcheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough
17:17:50 <dgarijo> tlebo: james just said what I wanted to say
17:18:11 <GK> @jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable?
17:18:15 <dgarijo> ---a lot of typiing noise!!--
17:18:41 <jcheney> @GK: not sure yet...
17:18:41 <pgroth> q?
17:18:42 <dgarijo> luc: there have been some recent changes
17:18:47 <dgarijo> @GK: thanks!
17:19:12 <stain> the ontology has always allowed  even :entity1 prov:used :entity2   as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL)
17:19:14 <dgarijo> tlebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model
17:19:24 <stain> eh// entity and activity
17:19:31 <dgarijo> @stian: you are actually right..
17:19:53 <dgarijo> tlebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements
17:20:08 <dgarijo> ... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns
17:20:39 <dgarijo> ... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository
17:20:46 <pgroth> q?
17:20:51 <dgarijo> luc: it is a very good idea
17:20:55 <satya> @tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements)
17:20:56 <GK> Test cases are good.
17:21:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is
17:21:31 <dgarijo> ... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going
17:21:53 <dgarijo> luc: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback
17:21:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:22:10 <dgarijo> ... it will be good to see what the response is
17:22:26 <GK> Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean?  What really matters is can we proceed with this?
17:22:31 <dgarijo> ... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec
17:22:32 <stain> @Luc 
17:22:33 <stain> +1
17:22:49 <dgarijo> pgroth: what's next for that team?
17:22:51 <tlebo> (just blacked out for a minute)
17:23:12 <dgarijo> ... can they start working on the doc?
17:23:25 <dgarijo> ... solve all the issues of the ontology first?
17:23:39 <pgroth> q?
17:23:40 <dgarijo> +q
17:23:42 <stain> q+
17:23:47 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:24:09 <khalidbelhajjame> I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation
17:24:18 <stain> Zakim, unmute me
17:24:18 <Zakim> stain should no longer be muted
17:24:24 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 
17:24:26 <pgroth> ack stain 
17:24:54 <pgroth> q?
17:24:59 <stain> Zakim, mute me
17:24:59 <Zakim> stain should now be muted
17:25:07 <Luc> what do other reviewers think?
17:25:11 <dgarijo> stain: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues 
17:25:15 <tlebo> the HTML needs to stop being postponed.
17:25:17 <GK> @paul +1
17:25:19 <pgroth> q?
17:25:40 <pgroth> q?
17:25:50 <dgarijo> pgroth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point
17:26:20 <jun> as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel
17:26:24 <dgarijo> ... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not
17:27:03 <dgarijo> ... issues 64, 262..?
17:27:07 <dgarijo> ah ok
17:27:27 <Luc> 253, 262, 263
17:27:30 <GK> Alternative definition of interop:  any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information.  I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN. 
17:27:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:27:48 <pgroth> proposed: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back
17:27:57 <dgarijo> +1
17:27:59 <stain> +1
17:28:07 <GK> +1
17:28:07 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
17:28:10 <satya> +1
17:28:11 <ericstephan> +1 
17:28:11 <zednik_> +1
17:28:12 <Luc> @GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression?
17:28:23 <pgroth> q?
17:28:24 <tlebo> bye bye!
<Luc> ACCEPTED: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back
17:28:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: bye
17:28:29 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
17:28:30 <stain> bye!
17:28:30 <ericstephan> see ya!
17:28:30 <Zakim> - +1.315.723.aaaa
17:28:31 <khalidbelhajjame> bye
17:28:32 <Zakim> -??P25
17:28:33 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
17:28:33 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:28:34 <Zakim> -stain
17:28:37 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:28:38 <GK> @luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL
17:28:39 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:28:45 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaaa]
17:28:46 <pgroth> are you doing the minutes luc?
17:28:47 <Zakim> - +1.509.967.aabb
17:28:49 <Zakim> -Luc
17:28:52 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
17:28:53 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:28:53 <GK> Bye.
17:28:57 <Luc> It would be good if it could be mechanical!
17:28:58 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:29:07 <pgroth> Zakim, make logs public
17:29:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth
17:29:14 <GK> @luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not
17:29:57 <Zakim> -??P9
17:30:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, make records public
17:30:18 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:30:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth
17:30:25 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:30:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:30:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo, Yolanda,
17:30:28 <Zakim> ... [ISI], stain
17:30:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:30:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:30:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:30:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000746