Chatlog 2012-09-20

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:50:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:50:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-irc
14:50:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:50:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:50:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:50:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:31 <trackbot> Date: 20 September 2012
14:50:33 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:50:33 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:51 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.20
14:50:58 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:51:10 <pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies
14:51:20 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:51:46 <pgroth> Regrets: James Cheney, Curt Tilmes, Ivan Herman
14:53:57 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
14:54:57 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:55:04 <Zakim> +??P9
14:55:12 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P9 is me
14:55:12 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:55:13 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
14:58:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:58:26 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:58:26 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:58:35 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
14:58:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc
14:59:10 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P11
15:00:00 <christine> christine has joined #prov
15:00:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:22 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:00:23 <TomDN> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:00:23 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
15:00:55 <TomDN> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P11, TomDN
15:01:06 <pgroth> Zakim, who is loud?
15:01:06 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
15:01:11 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:01:21 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TomDN (65%)
15:01:23 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:24 <Zakim> +??P25
15:01:30 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:30 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:01:32 <jun> zakim, ??P25 is me
15:01:32 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:01:32 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:01:34 <TomDN> yes
15:01:34 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:50 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:37 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-13
15:02:46 <TomDN> pgroth: approval of last week's minutes
15:02:48 <pgroth> Minutes of the September 13, 2012 Telecon
15:02:58 <TomDN> +1
15:03:03 <Dong> +1
15:03:08 <jun> +1
15:03:37 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 13, 2012 Telecon
15:03:52 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:04:31 <pgroth> Topic: Charter Extension
<pgroth> Summary: The group was notified that the charter for the group was extended to September 2013, however, the goal is to stay on the schedule outlined at the last face-to-face meeting. 
15:04:39 <TomDN> pgroth: we need scribes, please sign up in advance
15:04:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:03 <TomDN> pgroth: We are close to the end of the charter, but our extension request was approved
15:05:14 <pgroth>  http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter
15:05:19 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaaa
15:05:29 <TomDN> ... initially, we wanted it up to April/May, but we got an extension to september 2013
15:05:57 <TomDN> ... However, we're still aiming to deliver everything according to the schedule agreed at F2F3
15:06:18 <pgroth> +q
15:06:19 <TomDN> ... We will make an updated timeline some time next week
15:06:21 <pgroth> q-
15:06:23 <pgroth> q?
15:06:37 <pgroth> Topic: FAQ
<pgroth> Summary: An FAQ for PROV was created on the Semantic Web Activity wiki. The group was encouraged to add any information or faq entries there. 
15:07:03 <TomDN> pgroth: Last week, we had an action to make an FAQ on PROV
15:07:12 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV
15:07:19 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
15:07:24 <TomDN> ... Among others, the use of dc:hasPart for sub-activities is in there
15:07:55 <TomDN> ... the WG is invited to populate this FAQ
15:07:58 <pgroth> +q
15:08:00 <pgroth> q?
15:08:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:08:12 <pgroth> q?
15:08:45 <pgroth> q?
15:08:49 <TomDN> pgroth: This is at the Semantic Web activity wiki, which means that we can keep updating this, even after the WG is finished
15:08:55 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-XML
<pgroth> Summary: An update on prov-xml was given. Curt had resolved several issues. ISSUE-493 was resolved - the group agreed that serializations are free to adopt their own type representation. The prov-xml team is getting close to be able to begin on creating the note associated with prov-xml. An update will be given next week.
15:09:38 <TomDN> pgroth: There were a couple of issues that we didn't resolve last week, perhaps Stephan can go over them
15:10:00 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/493
15:10:23 <TomDN> pgroth: Where are we in issue 493?
15:10:41 <TomDN> zednik: Right now the schema reflects the DM completely
15:11:04 <TomDN> ... We didn't want to move away from the DM, so we haven't made any changes in the schema
15:11:51 <TomDN> ... We use RDF types, to respresent type information, as it is the most natural/intuitive way
15:12:13 <TomDN> ... We are still discussing.
15:12:30 <Luc> q+
15:12:34 <TomDN> pgroth: So each serialization can have its own type. Do we all agree to this?
15:12:55 <TomDN> zednik: Not sure, the telecon on monday was too small to tell if everyone agrees
15:13:13 <TomDN> Luc: We don't want to be too restrictive for these types
15:13:23 <TomDN> ... to avoid overconstraining things.
15:14:08 <TomDN> ... In the ontology, we use RDF types, which is fine for the RDF mapping, but I'm not sure what we should use in XML
15:14:10 <pgroth> q?
15:14:12 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:14:18 <TomDN> ... It would be up to the translator to determine this.
15:15:06 <TomDN> pgroth: Seems like a good idea, except that it would be problematic to convert PROV-XML to RDF, if the types don't agree
15:15:16 <Luc> in xml, we have prov:type and not xsd:type
15:15:26 <Luc> in xml, we have prov:type and not xsi:type
15:15:41 <TomDN> zednik: We don't have a complex type for agents that are also entities
15:15:55 <TomDN> ... e.g. "this is an entity with type agent"
15:16:23 <TomDN> pgroth: So the resolution would be to leave things as they are: loose like in the DM.
15:16:36 <TomDN> ... and leave typing up to the implementer
15:17:21 <TomDN> Luc: elaborates on "in xml, we have prov:type and not xsi:type"
15:17:30 <TomDN> ... which is an xml attribute
15:17:46 <TomDN> zednik: so you can only have one?
15:18:02 <TomDN> ... That is not the case in the DM or ontology
15:18:26 <pgroth> proposed: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should define their own type system
15:18:29 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:18:37 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P11, TomDN, MacTed (muted), jun, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aaaa
15:18:40 <Luc> q+
15:18:45 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa
15:18:45 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:18:58 <christine> zakim, ??P11 is me
15:18:58 <Zakim> +christine; got it
15:19:06 <pgroth> proposed: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should adopt their own type representation
15:19:14 <TomDN> Luc: it would be better to say "should adopt their own type representation"
15:19:17 <TomDN> +1
15:19:19 <MacTed> +1
15:19:21 <Luc> q-
15:19:21 <zednik> +1
15:19:24 <Dong> +1
15:19:30 <tlebo> +1
15:19:49 <pgroth> accepted: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should adopt their own type representation
15:20:04 <TomDN> pgroth: that resolves issue 493
15:20:09 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/551
15:20:11 <TomDN> issue 551?
15:20:44 <TomDN> zednik: Curt made some changes to the schema that resolved this
15:20:52 <Luc> I think it was a good solution to introduce this documentElement
15:21:26 <TomDN> ... It basically flattened out the schema
15:21:31 <zednik> div - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/b88f0f02344f
15:21:57 <TomDN> ... so you don't have a separate section for the relations
15:22:03 <Luc> q+
15:22:07 <TomDN> pgroth: Were there any objections?
15:22:11 <TomDN> zednik: no
15:22:14 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:23:14 <TomDN> Luc: There was some refactoring of the schema that took place. All the attributes were placed in a single group "commonattributes"
15:23:47 <TomDN> zednik: We havent been able to talk about it in the group, so we should probably raise an issue about it
15:24:30 <pgroth> +q
15:24:33 <TomDN> sorry i missed that last
15:25:13 <TomDN> pgroth: I think we did have a resolution about how close you have to get to the DM in a serialization
15:25:48 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:26:01 <TomDN> ... If we favour something that's "natural" for RDF, we should do the same for XML
15:26:36 <TomDN> zednik: Since you can have attributes on almost anything, we grouped it as such
15:27:01 <TomDN> ... I think it's doable to revert, although it unsimplifies the schema.
15:27:01 <Luc> it's already done http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/7c238aba1d07
15:27:10 <Luc> q+
15:28:09 <TomDN> Luc: the group commonattributes has been removed from the schema
15:28:10 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:28:13 <Luc> q-
15:28:39 <TomDN> pgroth: So how far are we away from a draft document?
15:28:51 <TomDN> zednik: So how ready/stable is the schema?
15:29:33 <TomDN> ... Well, Curt and I have been going through the issues. Most are resolved now, so it is pretty stable.
15:29:41 <Luc> there is still the type of identifiers to address
15:30:18 <TomDN> Zednik: So we are getting close to being able to start on the draft of the Note
15:30:30 <Luc> q+
15:30:34 <TomDN> pgroth: OK, we'll check back next week
15:30:37 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:30:44 <TomDN> Luc: Will there be a call on monday?
15:31:06 <TomDN> zednik: Curt can't make it, but I can, and will send out an email to ask if it's possible.
15:31:09 <Luc> q-
15:31:13 <pgroth> Topic: Resolving Public Issues
<pgroth> Summary: The group agreed that the chairs would be responsible for responding to public comments. Luc went through some additional issues that he had proposed resolutions for. The same pattern as last time would be followed, where the group had several days to review the responses and object if they didn't agree with the resoultions. The group also made a formal vote resolving previously resolved public issues. 
15:31:20 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:31:31 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:31:52 <Zakim> +??P12
15:31:56 <TomDN> pgroth: We need to clarify who is responsible for response to public comments.
15:32:08 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P12 is me
15:32:08 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:32:12 <pgroth> q?
15:32:19 <TomDN> ... My tendency would be to have me or Luc do it.
15:32:22 <tlebo> q+
15:32:26 <TomDN> ... Any other suggestions?
15:33:10 <TomDN> tlebo: It would be best if we work at the response on the weekly telecons, and then consistently have the chairs formulate the response to the commenter
15:33:23 <christine> +1
15:33:33 <TomDN> pgroth: Any objections to this?
15:33:52 <tlebo> note -  "formulate" -> "provide", naturally, the group would be formulating the response in our usual way.
15:33:59 <TomDN> pgroth: So it's agreed. Paul will handle the responses
15:34:50 <TomDN> Luc: There were no objections to the resolutions to the following issues:
15:35:33 <TomDN> ... (Lists the issues)
15:36:04 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:36:24 <pgroth> accepted: the suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-532, ISSUE-525, ISSUE-507, ISSUE-504, ISSUE-503, ISSUE-447 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support
15:38:00 <pgroth> q?
15:38:05 <pgroth> ack tlebo 
15:38:11 <tlebo> q-
15:38:12 <TomDN> Luc: I'm happy to take feedback on the proposed responses now, but I will also follow the usual protocol, and ask for feedback on the mailinglist
15:38:35 <pgroth> q?
15:38:36 <TomDN> ... If there's no objections by next Thursday, those will be our responses.
15:38:49 <pgroth> s/Thursday/Tuesday
15:38:55 <TomDN> tnx 
15:38:56 <pgroth> q?
15:39:18 <dgarijo> thanks for the links, I'll have a look at the responses.
15:40:11 <TomDN> Luc: We have addressed about 10 of the 35 issues about the DM. I'm planning to draft responses next week
15:40:56 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o issues
<pgroth> Summary: PROV-O Issues with open actions were gone through. Stian and Satya were not on the call so Paul agreed to follow-up with them on their open issues. Jun agreed to talk to Graham about how to resolve issue 461 about the printable layout of the PROV-o document. The group discussed two issues to do with subclassing (issues 523 and 552) particularly with Influence. It was decided that the PROV-O issue 552 was subsumed by 523. This is a complicated issue and 523 should be resolved before moving on to 552. 
15:41:32 <TomDN> pgroth: Last week, on Monday, we tried to clean up some issues in PROV-O, and defined some actions
15:41:45 <TomDN> ... We will walk through them here
15:41:54 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491
15:42:13 <Luc> stian?
15:42:25 <TomDN> ... Stian was going to handle ACTION-107, I will follow up on this with him
15:42:46 <tlebo> the trig example.
15:42:48 <TomDN> issue 479?
15:42:53 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
15:43:25 <MacTed> issue-479?
15:43:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-479 -- cite TriG for examples -- open
15:43:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
15:44:04 <TomDN> ... Satya was going to take ACTION-108. No changes have been made yet, will follow up.
15:44:18 <TomDN> (tnx macted, forgot the hyphen)
15:44:59 <TomDN> pgroth: Next one is ACTION-109 on issue-349
15:45:23 <TomDN> Jun: I took over David's actions
15:45:31 <TomDN> ... and ACTION-109 is done.
15:45:54 <TomDN> issue-349?
15:45:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-349 -- examples for each term in cross-reference section -- open
15:45:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349
15:46:30 <TomDN> pgroth: There were two more actions for this issue: ACTION-110 and ACTION-111 for Satya and Stian
15:46:30 <dgarijo> we reviewed the examples to check that they were updated with the latest DM
15:46:49 <TomDN> tlebo: I've seen no changes to the examples yet.
15:47:12 <TomDN> ... also. ACTION-112 was on the same issue
15:47:34 <pgroth> daniel?
15:47:35 <TomDN> pgroth: last one was on Daniel, ACTION-113 about issue 446
15:47:40 <dgarijo> I have lost connection
15:47:43 <TomDN> issue-446?
15:47:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-446 -- prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O -- open
15:47:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446
15:47:44 <tlebo> daniels' action 113 is "prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O"
15:47:50 <dgarijo> I have restarted the discussions
15:47:57 <dgarijo> with Kai, Simon and Michael
15:48:09 <dgarijo> we plan to address his comments next week
15:48:16 <Zakim> -dgarijo
15:48:34 <Zakim> +??P12
15:48:45 <TomDN> pgroth: Tim, do you need help on closing any other issues?
15:49:15 <TomDN> tlebo: Yes, could use help with issue 461 
15:49:20 <TomDN> issue-461?
15:49:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-461 -- provo cross reference inadequate in printed form -- raised
15:49:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461
15:49:43 <TomDN> ... Would be nice if someone could take over this one.
15:50:15 <TomDN> pgroth: Someone needs to talk to Graham to identify what he needs
15:50:22 <TomDN> jun: I can do that
15:50:55 <dgarijo> +q
15:51:19 <TomDN> pgroth: It would be good to know all the remaining issues on PROV-O
15:51:39 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
15:52:18 <TomDN> tlebo: 349 is closed
15:52:40 <TomDN> ... Not sure about 446, 479 and 491
15:53:29 <TomDN> dgarijo: What happened with the issues about the figures?
15:54:04 <TomDN> tlebo: There's no formal issue, but it is being looked into
15:54:21 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 
15:54:22 <TomDN> ... now waiting on review of the changes made in the draft
15:54:40 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
15:54:58 <TomDN> pgroth: 552 was an external comment about subclasses
15:55:12 <Luc> issue-552?
15:55:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised
15:55:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
15:55:12 <TomDN> ... Is this a DM issue or PROV-O issue?
15:55:27 <Luc> issue-523?
15:55:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-523 -- Data Model Section 5.3.5 -- open
15:55:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/523
15:56:01 <Luc> q+
15:56:09 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html
15:56:25 <TomDN> tlebo: seems like a problem with the interpretation of the DM, so it is a PROV-O issue
15:56:27 <pgroth> ack Luc 
15:56:37 <christine> Thank you Paul, Luc and everyone. Apologies, I have to leave to chair a call starting on the hour.
15:56:46 <Zakim> -christine
15:56:54 <TomDN> Luc: I think there's a general problem about inheritance that we may want to revisit in the DM
15:57:18 <TomDN> ... , illustrated by issue 523, about influence
15:58:37 <TomDN> ... In the constraints, we say that IF wasDerivedFrom(b,a) THEN wasInfluencedBy(b,a)
15:59:02 <TomDN> ... So we may want to opt for inheritance, which is what PROV-O does
15:59:12 <pgroth> q+
15:59:28 <TomDN> ... and it works well for most ontologies I think. However, I am not sure if we'd also want it in PROV-XML
15:59:50 <TomDN> ... Would be nice to have feedback here.
15:59:52 <tlebo> +1 to what luc said
16:00:07 <TomDN> pgroth: Would that only apply to influence? or all of the DM?
16:00:20 <TomDN> Luc: I'm focusing on influence, currently
16:00:47 <tlebo> does "influence" == "relation" ?
16:01:13 <TomDN> pgroth: My only issue with that is: whether or not we would change the UML in correspondence with that
16:01:36 <TomDN> ... It may not be normative, but developers do use it for their implementations
16:01:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
16:01:50 <jun> [have to go now. will catch up on the minutes]
16:02:07 <Zakim> -jun
16:02:09 <TomDN> Luc: any subtype of influence can be used in any position of influence.
16:02:39 <TomDN> ... Perhaps "interface" would be better than inheritance
16:03:07 <TomDN> ... to indicate that all subtypes are all "influence"
16:04:11 <Luc> issue-552?
16:04:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised
16:04:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
16:04:41 <TomDN> pgroth: For now, this issue should be considered together with issue-523
16:05:04 <TomDN> Luc: There's another issue in the DM, dealing with inheritance
16:05:21 <TomDN> ... So we should tackle these as a set.
16:05:51 <TomDN> Luc: Stephan, working with the XML schema, have you considered extension of types?
16:06:16 <pgroth> q?
16:06:22 <TomDN> zednik: It has come up, but we haven't looked into it. It should be done after the schema is stabilized.
16:06:58 <dgarijo> Sure
16:07:02 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:07:07 <TomDN> pgroth: Given the time, we will save the topic on notes for next week. 
16:07:11 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:07:12 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:07:13 <Zakim> -Luc
16:07:14 <TomDN> ok, tnx!
16:07:15 <Zakim> -??P12
16:07:16 <TomDN> bye
16:07:25 <Zakim> -TomDN
16:07:32 <pgroth> rrsagnet, set log public
16:07:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:07:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:07:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:08:04 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:08:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:08:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:08:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:08:05 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, Luc, TomDN, MacTed, jun, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aaaa, tlebo, christine, dgarijo
16:08:05 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:08:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:08:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:08:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:08:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000315