Chatlog 2012-05-17

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.

14:50:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:50:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-prov-irc
14:50:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:50:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:50:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:50:37 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:37 <trackbot> Date: 17 May 2012
14:50:37 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:50:37 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.17
14:51:36 <Luc> Chair: Moreau
14:51:44 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
14:51:49 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
14:51:49 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc
14:51:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:52:03 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies
14:52:17 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies, Paolo Missier
14:57:34 <Paolo_> Paolo_ has joined #prov
14:57:54 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:58:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:58:08 <Zakim> +??P16
14:59:01 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:59:10 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaaa
14:59:13 <Zakim> -??P16
14:59:19 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa
14:59:19 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
14:59:54 <Zakim> +Luc
15:00:13 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:00:20 <Zakim> +??P21
15:00:21 <Luc> Scribe: simon miles
15:00:30 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21
15:01:04 <Luc> topic: admin
<luc>Summary: Last week's minutes were approved.
15:01:31 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:01:46 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
15:01:56 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:01:58 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:01:59 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:00 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:02:06 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:02:51 <Luc> proposed: to accept minute of last week's teleconference 
15:03:06 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:19 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-10
15:03:20 <tlebo> +1
15:03:21 <Curt> 0 (not present)
15:03:23 <smiles> +1
15:03:26 <MacTed> +1
15:03:38 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
15:03:54 <Luc> resolved: minutes of last week's teleconference
15:03:54 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:03:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb
15:03:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:04:09 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:04:10 <smiles> Luc: Action review
15:04:20 <GK1> oops, sorry, still getting audio together
15:04:30 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:04:40 <smiles> Luc: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list
15:04:49 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:04:54 <tlebo> I just sent my review
15:05:02 <smiles> Luc: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later
15:05:05 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:05:14 <Luc> Topic: PAQ release
<luc>Summary: no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.
15:05:41 <smiles> Graham?
15:05:41 <Zakim> +??P49
15:05:44 <Luc> graham?
15:05:59 <GK> zakim, ??P49 is me
15:06:01 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:06:01 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:06:03 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:06:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:06:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:06:17 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:06:29 <Zakim> +??P50
15:06:31 <Zakim> +??P44
15:06:38 <jun> zakim, ?P44 is me
15:06:40 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44'
15:06:42 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:06:49 <jun> zakim, ??P44 is me
15:06:51 <smiles> GK: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet
15:07:05 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:07:09 <smiles> GK: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge
15:07:17 <smiles> Luc: Please agree release date soon
15:07:22 <Luc> topic: other documents
<Luc>Summary: there was a brief overview of progress on the various other documents. For prov-o, prov-n, prov-dm, editors are addressing issues on tracker. They are on time for internal release at the end of month.
15:07:37 <Zakim> +??P51
15:07:37 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:07:43 <Zakim> +??P6
15:07:48 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P51 is me
15:07:49 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:08:02 <smiles> Luc: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues
15:08:26 <Zakim> -??P6
15:08:32 <smiles> ... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim
15:08:36 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:08:39 <GK> Issue 88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned
15:08:44 <Zakim> +??P3
15:08:57 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me
15:08:57 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:08:57 <smiles> ... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation
15:09:04 <smiles> ... soon ready for review
15:09:18 <GK> Just closed issue 88
15:09:21 <smiles> ... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback?
15:09:25 <smiles> jcheney: confirms
15:09:35 <Luc> @graham, thanks
15:09:57 <smiles> tlebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing
15:10:25 <smiles> ... added cross-references for terms within HTML document
15:10:34 <smiles> ... latest draft linked on agenda
15:10:42 <smiles> ... feedback on the cross-references welcome
15:10:48 <Luc> q?
15:10:50 <smiles> ... on track for release June 1
15:11:13 <Luc> q?
15:11:22 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:11:25 <smiles> smiles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week
#15:11:28 <Luc> topic: collections organization
15:11:29 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:11:31 <smiles> Luc: any comments on progress?
<luc>Summary: this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents.  Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections.  The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented).  Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference. 
15:12:21 <smiles> Luc: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are
15:12:39 <smiles> ... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document
15:12:54 <smiles> ... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM
15:13:10 <smiles> ... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring
15:13:21 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
15:14:13 <smiles> GK: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes
15:14:57 <smiles> ... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea
15:15:51 <Zakim> -??P50
15:15:54 <smiles> ... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things
15:17:03 <smiles> ... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns
15:17:42 <MacTed> apropos of GK's "core" patterns...  this came to my eyes today -- http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
15:17:43 <smiles> ... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability
15:18:15 <smiles> ... Core: entity, activity, agent
15:18:45 <smiles> Luc: Your proposal is to break DM document in two?
15:18:48 <smiles> GK: Yes
15:18:51 <Luc> q?
15:19:08 <Luc> paolo?
15:19:15 <Luc> just on irc? paolo?
15:20:02 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Collections
15:20:13 <smiles> tlebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo
15:20:57 <smiles> ... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document
15:21:03 <smiles> ... aim to simplify PROV-O
15:21:06 <Paolo> sorry guys text only, 
15:21:10 <Paolo> and very unstable
15:21:37 <smiles> ... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing
15:21:40 <Paolo> thanks smiles for minuting
15:21:44 <tlebo> I can fit http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-collections-terms into 1.25 screens.  http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms takes up 4 screens.  http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms takes up 1.5 screens
15:21:48 <Luc> @paolo, it's ok, tim filling in
15:22:31 <smiles> ... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections
15:22:35 <Paolo> yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise
15:22:57 <smiles> ... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document
15:23:16 <Paolo> we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want
15:23:30 <smiles> Luc: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document
15:24:08 <smiles> ... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions
15:24:36 <smiles> ... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O
15:25:17 <smiles> ... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed?
15:25:20 <smiles> tlebo: Yes
15:25:28 <tlebo> (and that was the agreement of the prov-o team)
15:25:41 <Luc> q?
15:25:56 <smiles> Luc: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal
15:26:04 <tlebo> q+
15:26:55 <smiles> tlebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts
15:27:06 <smiles> ... (as in section 1 of Graham's document)
15:28:24 <smiles> tlebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)?
15:28:36 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#data-model-components
15:28:46 <smiles> GK: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way
15:28:51 <Luc> ack tlebo
15:28:52 <tlebo> q-
15:29:30 <smiles> Luc: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document
15:29:40 <smiles> ... but had reviews critical of this separation
15:29:57 <smiles> ... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension
15:30:23 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:30:32 <smiles> ... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties
15:31:01 <smiles> ... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful
15:31:18 <smiles> ... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document
15:31:44 <smiles> ... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents
15:32:11 <smiles> ... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model
15:32:17 <MacTed> what is background of these outside readers?  philosophers, scientists, programmers, other?  experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand...
15:33:00 <smiles> ... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM
15:33:47 <smiles> ... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes
15:34:01 <smiles> ... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1)
15:34:53 <smiles> ... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage
15:35:40 <Luc> q?
15:35:43 <satya> q+
15:36:36 <smiles> satya: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers?
15:36:44 <MacTed> q+
15:36:48 <satya> q-
15:37:00 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:37:00 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:37:01 <smiles> Luc: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped
15:37:44 <smiles> MacTed: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience
15:37:59 <smiles> ... in favour of GK's restructuring
15:38:24 <smiles> ... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements
15:38:51 <smiles> ... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those
15:39:26 <tlebo> perhaps if we organized http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring#Provenance_core_concepts by components?
15:39:26 <Luc> q?
15:39:30 <Luc> ack mact
15:39:56 <smiles> ... root primitives need to be clearly presented
15:40:25 <smiles> Luc: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented
15:40:28 <Luc> q?
15:40:37 <GK> q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments
15:41:43 <smiles> GK: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose
15:42:31 <smiles> ... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear
15:43:19 <tlebo> q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline?
15:43:23 <smiles> ... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are
15:43:34 <smiles> ... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns
15:43:45 <jcheney> q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
15:44:32 <smiles> ... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite
15:44:39 <smiles> ... of what is intended
15:44:40 <tlebo> @jcheny, I'll  yield :-)
15:45:14 <smiles> ... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed
15:45:22 <Luc> q?
15:45:22 <tlebo> q-
15:45:30 <GK> q-
15:45:46 <Luc> ack jcheney
15:45:46 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
15:45:56 <Luc> topic: constraints document
<luc>Summary: Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.
15:46:08 <tlebo> go ahead, graham.
15:46:28 <jcheney> high-level impression is fine
15:46:41 <smiles> GK: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach
15:46:54 <smiles> ... definitions and inferences presented crisply
15:47:10 <smiles> ... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good
15:47:35 <smiles> tlebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content
15:47:48 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo
15:47:50 <smiles> ... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go
15:48:20 <smiles> ... minor detailed comments sent (above)
15:49:17 <smiles> jcheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail
15:49:27 <smiles> ... good to know happy with direction
15:49:59 <GK> I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM
15:50:06 <tlebo> @jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-)
15:50:16 <smiles> ... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email
15:51:16 <tlebo> @jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting.
15:51:27 <smiles> ... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed
15:51:30 <Luc> q?
15:52:05 <Luc> Topic: Responsibility
<luc>Summary: The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'. 
15:52:18 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility
15:53:01 <smiles> tlebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed
15:53:34 <jcheney> I may have suggested "delegation" at some point
15:54:03 <smiles> ... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email
15:54:16 <satya> is there an issue raised for responsibility?
15:54:37 <Luc> topic: bundles
<luc>Summary: discussion on bundles to continue over email.
15:54:46 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html
15:55:03 <smiles> Luc: Circulated text addressing issues raised
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000239