Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2012-09-27
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.
14:46:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:46:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-prov-irc 14:46:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:46:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:46:06 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:46:06 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 14:46:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:46:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:46:08 <trackbot> Date: 27 September 2012 14:46:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:47:28 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.27 14:47:34 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:50:22 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 14:52:42 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:52:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:52:57 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:52:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller] 14:53:05 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:53:05 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 14:55:17 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:59:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:59:13 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa 14:59:28 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me 14:59:28 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:59:40 <Luc> Hi, we don't have a scribe 14:59:57 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb 15:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 15:00:08 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software 15:00:08 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it 15:00:10 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:00:15 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:00:15 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:00:17 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:00:17 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:00:19 <Zakim> +??P20 15:00:38 <hook> hook has joined #prov 15:00:45 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 15:00:47 <Luc> @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? 15:00:51 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc 15:00:59 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me 15:00:59 <Zakim> +stain; got it 15:01:00 <Zakim> +??P30 15:01:07 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:01:07 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 15:01:13 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:01:15 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P30 is me 15:01:15 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it 15:01:17 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd 15:01:21 <Luc> @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? 15:01:23 <gk1> gk1 has joined #prov 15:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:01:38 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:01:38 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:01:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Luc I can try, but I have a bad connection 15:01:41 <Zakim> +Ivan 15:01:43 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov 15:01:51 <khalidBelhajjame> I can try though 15:01:53 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:01:53 <Zakim> + +329331aaee 15:01:55 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaff 15:01:56 <jun> zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me 15:01:56 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]' 15:01:59 <stain> I can fill in for 30 minutes 15:02:01 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me 15:02:01 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it 15:02:04 <Luc> Scribe: khalidBelhajjame 15:02:07 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me 15:02:07 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted 15:02:07 <Paolo> luc apologies, my keyboard is acting up 15:02:08 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 15:02:08 <jcheney> zakim, aaff is me 15:02:09 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:02:09 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:02:11 <Paolo> can barely type 15:02:26 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aagg 15:02:32 <tlebo> zakim, I am aagg 15:02:32 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 15:02:46 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:03:00 <Luc> Topic: admin <Luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were accepted. 15:03:03 <Luc> proposed: to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon 15:03:07 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: approve the minutes of last week 15:03:09 <jcheney> 0 (absent) 15:03:16 <smiles> 0 15:03:17 <TomDN> +1 15:03:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-20 15:03:21 <khalidBelhajjame> 0 (absent) 15:03:24 <stain> 0 (absent) 15:03:36 <Paolo> 0 (absent) 15:03:38 <jun> +1 15:03:43 <tlebo> +1 15:03:51 <hook> 0 (absent) 15:04:00 <Luc> accepted: minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon 15:04:08 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: minutes approved 15:04:22 <pgroth> :-) 15:04:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action assigned to Paulo 15:04:27 <pgroth> every week 15:04:32 <pgroth> now it's a running joke 15:04:33 <Zakim> +??P1 15:04:37 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:04:41 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action on Paul to produce an overview slide 15:04:44 <pgroth> it's just to make me feel guilty every week 15:04:48 <GK> zakim, ??p1 is me 15:04:48 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:04:49 <Zakim> +??P21 15:04:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we can leave it for another week 15:04:57 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:05:15 <Luc> Topic: Timetable to CR <Luc>Summary: WG members are invited to check the timetable at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec. The plan is to vote on release of Candidate Recommendation on November 1st, which requires all issues to be tackled and exit criteria to CR to be defined. Timely response to email would be very appreciated. 15:05:25 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: timetable to candidate recommendation 15:05:48 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec 15:05:53 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we are in the phase where we need to tackle external feeback 15:05:57 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 15:06:15 <Luc> End LC review for prov-dm/prov-o/prov-n: 2012-9-18 15:06:16 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the link contains the document submitted to have the extention for th eWG 15:06:37 <Luc> End LC review for prov-constraints: 2012-10-10 15:06:51 <Luc> CR Publication: 2012-11-15 15:06:54 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the lc review for prov-dm was the 18th of September 15:07:09 <Luc> Vote for CR: 2012-11-01 15:07:11 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we want to publish candidate recomendation of the 15th of November 15:07:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we should have a vote around the 1st of Novemer 15:07:45 <khalidBelhajjame> luc: the issues needs to be addressed by then 15:07:53 <ivan> q+ 15:07:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: that is not a lot of time 15:08:19 <Luc> q? 15:08:47 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we also have a clear plan what the exit criteria are 15:09:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... how do we judge that we have the correct implementation, how do we judge it, etc. 15:09:09 <pgroth> +q 15:09:26 <Luc> ack iv 15:10:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:10:25 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we are still expecting feedback from other WGs, we didnt get any feedback and the deadline for feedback is over, can we still process late feedback? 15:10:51 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we can say sorry it is too late 15:11:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... with the RDF WG we have issues, I would hope that ? will send feedback on teh constrainst document by next week 15:11:50 <GK> q+ to ask: do we have any knowledge of areas where RDF group might have feedback for us 15:12:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... which WGs did we ask? 15:12:40 <Luc> q? 15:13:14 <Luc> ... and we did it too for IETF mime type and we got feedback 15:14:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov 15:14:43 <pgroth> q+ to say what we asked 15:14:51 <GK> q- 15:14:55 <khalidBelhajjme> khalidBelhajjme has joined #prov 15:15:22 <Luc> q? 15:15:23 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 15:15:32 <pgroth> ack 15:16:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we asked about the construct of mention and about RDF types 15:16:19 <GK> @pgroth thanks 15:16:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:16:32 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say what we asked 15:16:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: keep in mind that we have 4 weeks to complete the document 15:17:03 <Luc> q? 15:17:11 <khalidBelhajjame> .. no more question on the time table? 15:17:17 <khalidBelhajjame> @luc, yes 15:17:21 <khalidBelhajjame> yes 15:17:28 <Luc> topic: PROV-O issues <Luc> Summary: Outstanding issues in the tracker were reviewed. They are either complete or require minor work to be completed by the end of the week. The only outstanding issue was related to some received public comment, and is being processed according to the agreed process. The chair congratulated the prov-o team for resolving the backlog of issues. 15:17:43 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item, review of the outstanding issues in the tracker 15:17:53 <Zakim> +Luc.a 15:18:00 <khalidBelhajjame> ... we need to close some of those actions 15:18:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: Stian, you sent an email on issue 491 15:18:23 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 15:18:27 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: we wanted to discuss that with Tim 15:19:00 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: I suggested a definition 15:19:27 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: the definitions of the properties reuse the definition of the classes 15:19:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I would like to keep them consistent 15:20:02 <khalidBelhajjame> ... if they are confusing, then I will need to revise the generation algorithm to let you know which annotations we should use 15:20:21 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: my argument is that we shouldnt use them 15:20:49 <khalidBelhajjame> ... between agent and agent inference, it becomes confusing untangling the properties 15:21:13 <Luc> q? 15:21:35 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we can leave the definitions there for consistency and add a link 15:21:54 <khalidBelhajjame> ... instead of redefining everything 15:22:19 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: we can discuss that offline 15:22:37 <Luc> can we try to converge quickly? 15:22:41 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will respond to that by email 15:22:57 <Luc> good! 15:23:00 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: can we try to converge quickly to close the issue by tomorrow? 15:23:36 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: for issue 479, Stian tried to make changes, but I think we still need more changes becase Trig syntax is still there 15:23:53 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I have not been able to respond to your email 15:24:24 <Luc> timing? 15:24:26 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I will revisit the changes 15:24:38 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: that will be done by this week? 15:24:47 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: yes 15:25:04 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 349 is now closed 15:25:10 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: yes 15:25:22 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will double check 15:25:23 <Luc> q+ 15:25:47 <pgroth> good point 15:25:57 <tlebo> q+ 15:25:58 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: are we keeping track of the changes we are aking the document to use them when publishing the next version 15:26:18 <Luc> ack L 15:26:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: for example in prov-dm i put in the appendix the changes made 15:26:24 <pgroth> ack tlebo 15:26:48 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I added a section that reflect the changes, but we need to check that it was updated 15:27:02 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: it would be a good policy that any change is reflected in that section 15:27:15 <tlebo> The section for changes: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724 15:28:07 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: for issue 349 we need also to change the identifiers used in the examples 15:28:22 <Luc> q? 15:28:24 <stain> ^^ stian 15:28:51 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 446, Daniele? 15:29:04 <khalidBelhajjame> ... will send an email to Daniele 15:29:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10 15:29:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... provo has only one open issue, 15:30:06 <Luc> what about http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3? 15:30:14 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I will address the issue given the email sent by Graham 15:30:14 <pgroth> @luc was getting there 15:30:33 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: issue 476 is an externa comment 15:30:44 <khalidBelhajjame> ... what is the processing for it given that it is resolved 15:31:00 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments 15:31:32 <stain> ACTION stain: Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o 15:31:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2012-10-04]. 15:31:47 <smiles> @tlebo OK, I have checked issue 445 is resolved and will close it now 15:32:12 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: there are a couple of issues regarding the ontologies 15:32:41 <GK> (As an aside, when trying to review the proposed responses, it would have been really helpful to me to have a link back to the *original* email to the prov-comments list) 15:32:47 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 552, which need the resolution of the issue on influence 15:33:08 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments 15:33:08 <pgroth> thanks stain 15:33:14 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: all the responses are on the wiki 15:33:27 <Luc> q? 15:33:46 <pgroth> it has the original email 15:33:59 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: information about who send the original comment is missing 15:34:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/463 15:34:55 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: you need to go to the tracker 15:35:11 <pgroth> +q 15:35:40 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM issues <Luc>Summary: It was resolved that responses to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 can be sent to reviewers. Some further 20 issues have been tackled, and the group is invited to review responses by Wednesday October 03. The group discussed which section of the prov-dm document are normative. Some guidance to editors was provided: Section 5 would be the only section to be normative, provided some minor editorial issues are addressed. Finally, we began discussing ISSUE-519 and ISSUE-523 which identify problems in UML diagrams regarding inheritance associated with Influence. We ran out of time, and were unable to reach consensus: a detailed solution needs to be drafted, and reviewed by the working group. 15:35:54 <Luc> ack pg 15:36:07 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we obtain the email from Robert, and then issued the issue.Given that his comments were extensive, we proke them into several issues 15:36:39 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: there is no simple way to get to the oriinal email 15:36:47 <Luc> q? 15:36:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments regarding prov-o? 15:37:13 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29 15:37:15 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next topic, prov-dm issues 15:37:28 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: during this week I sent proposed responses to 4 issues 15:37:32 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 15:37:41 <ivan> issue-492? 15:37:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-492 -- typo in example -- pending review 15:37:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/492 15:37:45 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we had supportive feedback during the week 15:37:48 <ivan> issue-500? 15:37:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-500 -- Data Model Section 2.1.1, hierarchies -- open 15:37:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/500 15:37:52 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 15:37:54 <ivan> issue-505? 15:37:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-505 -- Data Model Section 3 -- open 15:37:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505 15:37:55 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the deadline was yesterday 15:37:59 <ivan> issue-508? 15:37:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-508 -- Data Model Table 5 -- pending review 15:37:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508 15:38:08 <Luc> accepted: The suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support 15:38:14 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the responses are accepted by the group 15:38:16 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:38:41 <Zakim> +??P2 15:38:48 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P2 is me 15:38:48 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:39:02 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Draft.29 15:39:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I sent few emails and drafted responses to 20 issues 15:39:23 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov 15:39:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will ask the group to comment on them, the deadline is wednesday next week 15:39:42 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0263.html 15:40:01 <khalidBelhajjame> ... there was one negative comment fro PAolo regarding some attributes that we debated at lenth 15:40:06 <khalidBelhajjame> ... length 15:41:03 <khalidBelhajjame> Paolo: I am happy with the resolution at the end 15:41:13 <Luc> q? 15:41:18 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments? 15:41:25 <pgroth> are we talking about influence next? 15:41:38 <pgroth> q+ 15:41:42 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I will send an email asking to give feedback 15:41:46 <Luc> q? 15:41:52 <khalidBelhajjame> ... and you will have until next wednesday night 15:42:02 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:42:09 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: are we goining to talk about influence? 15:42:16 <pgroth> ok great 15:42:22 <Luc> q? 15:42:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: they are not ready for feedback 15:42:36 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item of prov-dm 15:42:39 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0271.html 15:43:39 <pgroth> +q to say yes 15:43:50 <Luc> q? 15:43:51 <hook> hook has joined #prov 15:45:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:45:12 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say yes 15:45:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm 15:45:51 <jcheney> happy either way, but just thought it should be discussed 15:46:05 <Luc> @jcheney: agreed james 15:46:24 <jcheney> as long as any repeated definitions are *identical* 15:46:34 <pgroth> +q you use MAY 15:46:38 <pgroth> +q 15:46:43 <Luc> @jcheney: they are, they are included automatically from a single file 15:46:57 <Luc> section 2 defines the core 15:47:11 <Luc> q? 15:48:05 <jcheney> If core vs. non-core is a key property then I think that's a good enough reason. 15:48:26 <TomDN> I have to go, bye 15:48:33 <Zakim> -TomDN 15:48:59 <Luc> q? 15:50:13 <ivan> q+ 15:50:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:50:18 <ivan> ack pgroth 15:50:48 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:51:12 <dgarijo> Ivan: it bothers me that there are 2 places where an entity is defined 15:51:23 <Luc> table 5 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-dm-types-and-relations still shows what is core 15:51:31 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame 15:51:34 <GK> Did I mishear Paul? I thought he was saying the same as Ivan 15:51:38 <dgarijo> ... if one has more info than the other, then it is an editorial problem 15:51:42 <GK> (in thrust) 15:52:06 <Luc> q? 15:52:07 <dgarijo> Luc: the overview is not normative 15:52:24 <dgarijo> Ivan: did I misunderstand Paul? 15:52:29 <jcheney> I think it would be good to ensure that the MAY is reflected in sec. 5 too. 15:52:49 <Luc> @jcheney: +1 15:52:55 <dgarijo> pgroth: if we say that section 2 is informative, then we have to make sure that no command words appear there. 15:52:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:53:10 <Luc> yes, james had already indentified a similar problem in section 6 15:53:23 <pgroth> ok 15:53:25 <dgarijo> Ivan: that is even more true if both sections are normative 15:53:33 <khalidBelhajjame_> khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov 15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... there should not be discrepancy 15:53:45 <GK> I spotted one MAY in section 2. 15:53:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> @dgarijo thanks, I can take over 15:53:53 <dgarijo> ... between both of them. That should be checked 15:53:58 <dgarijo> @khalid ok! 15:54:19 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: to come to a conclusion, as pgroth we need to come back to the document 15:54:22 <ivan> q+ 15:54:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and do soe editorial clean up 15:54:34 <GK> .. that was sect 2.1.3 - I didn't see any others. 15:54:34 <Luc> q? 15:54:37 <pgroth> but section 5 would be the only normative one 15:54:41 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... are we of the view that section 2 is not normative? 15:54:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: I would think so 15:55:12 <jcheney> q+ to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5 15:55:13 <GK> OK, I'm happy with this too. (i.e. sect 2 informative) 15:55:39 <stainPhone> +1 for (making) sec 2 informative 15:55:40 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: it is fine to have only section 5 as the normative one 15:55:55 <pgroth> they are 15:55:57 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm 15:56:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: the use of may in that section is not always an ITF may but is an english one 15:56:30 <GK> I think ReSpec picks up capitalized MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc and applies different styling. 15:56:54 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is fine, but I want to make sure that the use of those terms are checked in the definitions 15:56:58 <GK> So the thing to do is use capitalization consistently when editing source. 15:57:00 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm 15:57:00 <khalidBelhajjame_> luc: i did that 15:57:11 <pgroth> james is on the queue 15:57:15 <Luc> q? 15:57:17 <Luc> ack iva 15:57:40 <ivan> ack jcheney 15:57:40 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5 15:58:11 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: are we happy with the proposal? 15:58:38 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am looking at section 7 to work out if there is something normative in that section 15:59:03 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I agree that section 2 is inforative, but we need to check the rest 15:59:05 <pgroth> the goal is to make Section 5 the only normative one 15:59:08 <Luc> proposed: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm 15:59:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I will make edits and will ask people for review 15:59:30 <GK> +1 15:59:36 <Luc> accepted: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm 15:59:56 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29 16:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: issue of inheritance with influence 16:01:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... thinking about this issue, I think that it is not mandatory for generation, usage, ... sub-relations of influence 16:01:44 <jcheney> luc, you seem to be cutting in and out 16:02:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I formulated a response here, and I would like a feedback on this 16:02:21 <Luc> q? 16:02:23 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... before implementing it 16:02:37 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: any comments? 16:02:41 <pgroth> q+ 16:02:58 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am not sure what inheritance means here 16:03:16 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... what is being described is sub-property relation 16:03:16 <pgroth> yes 16:03:26 <pgroth> this is what I asked online 16:03:30 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: but that will have ipact on how the ontology is defined 16:03:43 <satya> It will in prov-o by owl2 rdf semantics 16:04:06 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: in the ontology you will have the class influence and its subclasses, and the same for sub-properties 16:04:27 <Luc> q? 16:04:34 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... but in the XML schema, that is not the case 16:04:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: I am worring about the ramifications on other form of relations 16:05:35 <satya> sorry, I have to leave 16:05:38 <satya> bye 16:05:43 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I was not planning to do changes based on this 16:05:43 <jun> Sorry, I have to go now ... bye 16:05:48 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 16:05:49 <Zakim> -jun 16:06:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the prov constraints states what we mean 16:06:10 <pgroth> yeah but I'm reading prov-dm 16:06:10 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference 16:06:27 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: as stated in inference 15 16:06:53 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... it can be done through inheritance, but it doesnt have to be done that way 16:07:12 <stainPhone> I guess the reviewer might wonder if you can have wasInfluencedBy while none of the prov subproperies (so to speak) could apply. 16:07:15 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: is the problem stems from the use of the UML diagram? 16:07:16 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:07:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: no 16:07:31 <Luc> q? 16:07:44 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: this is something taht we need to follow on 16:07:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: is Tim still on the call? 16:08:17 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... have you got a view on whether influence should be represented as a superclasss in the UML diagram 16:08:25 <khalidBelhajjame_> tlebo: I am inclined towards to 16:08:57 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the problem with inheritance, is that the attributes are inherited, which pose problem, like influencer and influencee 16:09:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 16:09:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 16:09:03 <Luc> q? 16:09:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: UML is closer to object oriented programming style 16:10:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is not desirable in our context 16:10:32 <Luc> q? 16:10:33 <stainPhone> For instance wasInfluencedBy(agent, activity) 16:10:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:10:50 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: we have to revisit this issue 16:10:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and come back with a concrete proposal 16:11:02 <Zakim> -Ivan 16:11:04 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:11:05 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:11:05 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:11:07 <Zakim> -??P20 16:11:10 <Zakim> -stain 16:11:12 <khalidBelhajjame_> #luc thanks 16:11:14 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:11:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> @luc, thanks 16:11:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 16:11:31 <Zakim> -??P21 16:11:35 <Zakim> -pgroth # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000411