Chatlog 2012-11-10

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.

13:27:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
13:27:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc
13:27:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:27:31 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
13:27:33 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
13:27:33 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 27 minutes ago
13:27:34 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
<pgroth> Meeting: F2F Meeting, Stata Center
13:27:34 <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2012
13:28:10 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F4Schedule
13:28:25 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
<pgroth>Guest: Laurent Lefort
13:34:14 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
13:34:15 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov
13:35:59 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
13:36:01 <lebot> Zakim, do you come in on Saturdays?
13:36:01 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, lebot.
13:36:59 <hook> hook has joined #prov
13:37:07 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
13:37:52 <Luc> @Dong, we are waiting for Ivan to bring in the speakerphone
13:41:42 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
13:42:48 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
13:43:04 <pgroth> dong are you online?
13:43:23 <lebot> Zakim, will the chairs be benevolent today?
13:43:23 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, lebot.
13:43:32 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
13:43:56 <GK> GK has joined #prov
13:44:06 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has now started
13:44:09 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
13:44:13 <Zakim> +??P0
13:44:31 <GK> (Silence)
13:44:35 <smiles> zakim, ??P0 is me
13:44:35 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
13:45:39 <pgroth> simon, dong can you get on skype
13:46:13 <pgroth> we don't have a polycom right now
13:46:54 <pgroth> Topic: Implementation Report
<pgroth> Summary: Went over the current status of the implementation report. A number of small comments were made which were raised as actions. The group agreed to update the naming conventions for prov-constraints tests to include success or failure in the names.  A discussion was had about the questionnaire. The group agreed to split the questionnaire into three different ones so that they could be seen on one complete page. The group discussed the use of google forms to implement the questionnaire and concerns about whether industry would be able to use this. Stephan agreed to look at the use of the W3C WBS system with the help of Paul. The group agreed that the questionaire should only ask about recommended serializations (e.g. PROV-N, PROV-O, PROV-XML) and give a slot for other serializations. 
13:47:04 <GK> Luc: this session will be about implementation report
13:47:13 <GK> Thinks we'd like to do:
13:47:23 <GK> 1. update on where we are
13:47:35 <GK> (Paul notices we're 15 minutes early)
13:48:26 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
13:48:39 <GK> OK… we'll restart in  15 minutes… maybe we'll have a speakerphone
13:48:41 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:48:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Curt_Tilmes
13:48:55 <GK> (Curt's experimenting with a mobile phone connected to Zakim)
13:48:57 <smiles> yes
13:49:02 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
13:49:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Curt_Tilmes
13:49:14 <Zakim> +??P2
13:49:16 <GK> I hear you!
13:49:42 <Dong> ??P2 is me
13:49:54 <Dong> zakim, ??P2 is me
13:49:54 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
13:51:07 <laurent> laurent has joined #prov
13:51:40 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
13:53:29 <Luc> scribe: GK
13:53:37 <Luc> chair: Luc
13:56:17 <ivan> ivan has joined #prov
13:56:39 <Zakim> + +1.617.715.aaaa
13:56:53 <ivan> zakim, this is f2f
13:56:53 <Zakim> ivan, this was already SW_(F2F)8:00AM
13:56:54 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
13:56:55 <Zakim> ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM
13:56:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa
13:56:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain
13:57:17 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
13:57:17 <pgroth_> pgroth_ has joined #prov
13:57:38 <pgroth> pgroth has left #prov
13:58:05 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
13:58:30 <GK> Restarting...
13:58:38 <GK> Session about implementation report
13:58:43 <GK> Would like to:
13:58:49 <GK> 1. update from Paul
13:59:42 <GK> concerned about getting to end of implementation phase, then finding features are not implemented
14:00:00 <GK> would like to have advance indication of what people will implemented
14:00:36 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
14:00:38 <GK> 2. review what we'll do for constraints;  in particular what we do for constraints
14:00:43 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations
14:01:16 <GK> Paul: talking about "gathering implementation evidence"
14:01:36 <GK> 3 parts (see page at link above)
14:01:57 <GK> Overall happy with framework as described
14:02:16 <GK> Ivan: what are the arrows on table 2?
14:02:59 <GK> Paul: link to implementation blue arrows consumes, green arrows produces term
14:03:05 <GK> s/Paul?Dong/
14:03:35 <Luc> action: Dong to describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document
14:03:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-138 - Describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].
14:03:38 <Luc> q?
14:03:49 <GK> Paul: more questions?
14:04:45 <GK> Ivan: minor thing… use usual W3C editorial style - do we intend to publish as note?  (Looks like it might be one)  Clarify that implementation report does not need to be published as TR.
14:05:20 <Dong> ok, I'll change it to a note
14:05:24 <Luc> action: pgroth to change the respec style for implementation report
14:05:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-139 - Change the respec style for implementation report [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].
14:05:31 <Luc> q?
14:05:44 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html
14:06:11 <GK> Paul: prov constraints process document… idea to outlines process for testing constraints
14:06:25 <GK> format for test case files (sect 2.1)
14:06:56 <Luc> q+
14:07:07 <pgroth> ack Luc
14:07:14 <GK> identifier… constraint identifiers are embodied in the test case identifier
14:07:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:07:41 <Luc> q-
14:07:42 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:07:43 <GK> Luc: some of the constraints will be renumbered following removal of mentionOf
14:07:49 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
14:07:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller]
14:07:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain
14:08:00 <pgroth> action: dong check constraints are matching to the updated document
14:08:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-140 - Check constraints are matching to the updated document [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].
14:08:30 <GK> GK: are constraint numbers fragile for this?
14:08:59 <GK> Paul: wanted automated reporting of test case coverage.
14:09:07 <Luc> q?
14:09:12 <GK> Ivan: change respec style for this document too
14:09:35 <Luc> q+
14:10:09 <GK> Paul: hasn't really been reviewed as yet.  Need some early review.
14:10:13 <ivan> zakim, aaaa has SamCoppens TomDN laurent hook Curt pgroth Luc jcheney ivan GK lebot CraigTrim
14:10:13 <Zakim> +SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim; got it
14:10:26 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
14:10:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller]
14:10:27 <Zakim> +1.617.715.aaaa has SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim
14:10:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain
14:10:54 <GK> Luc: would like to identify reviewers; preferebly developers; mostly not on call.
14:11:06 <Dong> The sound on the phone line is broken, I have to rely on the scribe :(
14:11:08 <hook> this one in respec.js? :   var respecConfig = { specStatus: "ED",  // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.).
14:11:37 <GK> jcheney: happy to look at this; biggest problem is managing data as number of test cases grows
14:12:10 <zednik> zakim [IPcaller] is zednik
14:12:20 <GK> Luc: need to be clear if test case is expected to succeed; currently in table, but should be in name for automated testing?
14:12:30 <GK> Paul: I'm happy with that.
14:13:09 <ivan> �hook: 'unofficial' or 'base' could be used
14:13:22 <GK> Dong: prefer using identifer to directory for different outcomes (pass/fail/etc.)
14:13:24 <ivan> (per http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html)
14:14:05 <Luc> action: Dong to update naming convention to include success/failure of test
14:14:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-141 - Update naming convention to include success/failure of test [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].
14:14:06 <pgroth> q?
14:14:09 <Luc> q-
14:14:28 <GK> Paul: last thing - questionnaire
14:15:09 <GK> … idea was to ask implementers to fill out - whatthey support, and also other implementations with which they interoperate
14:15:21 <GK> zednik: questionnaire is complete, has been reviewed
14:15:35 <GK> … want another round, get some more implementers to fill it out
14:15:42 <pgroth> @stephan can you add a link http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations#Gathering_Implementation_Evidenence
14:15:47 <ivan> q+
14:15:57 <GK> … discussion on mailing list about external vocabs using/extending prov
14:16:10 <GK> … ask these groups to fill out questionnair
14:16:13 <pgroth> q+
14:16:16 <Luc> ack iv
14:16:48 <GK> Ivan: if I am an implementer, do I see what's in the Google doc?
14:16:58 <GK> zednik: will add link to actial questionnaire
14:17:06 <pgroth> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?pli=1&formkey=dGM4cXZYMk0xaFBDT2VyRV92YkY5WkE6MQ
14:17:23 <GK> This is what implementers will see
14:18:06 <pgroth> q?
14:18:09 <pgroth> ack pgroth
14:18:15 <Dong> I think we'll need a (wiki) page to explain the whole process of reporting an implementation (with links to all the relevant documents), which will be sent with the call for reports
14:18:55 <Dong> Perhaps, the questionnaire can have include a link to the explanation as well
14:19:25 <smiles> q+
14:19:31 <pgroth> ack smiles
14:19:40 <GK> zednik: The first page collects information that controls information displayed on subsequent pages
14:19:42 <ivan> q+
14:20:14 <GK> Smiles: are tools like prov-python, ?, a framework of an application
14:20:16 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
14:20:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller]
14:20:17 <Zakim> +1.617.715.aaaa has SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim
14:20:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain
14:20:17 <Dong> Prov python is a framework
14:20:47 <GK> zednik: they go down same path, so could combine these as single item.
14:20:54 <ivan> q-
14:21:28 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is stain
14:21:28 <Zakim> +stain; got it
14:22:12 <GK> Paul: we have four divisions… is the distinction between libraries, services, applications clear?
14:22:24 <hook> q+
14:22:46 <GK> zednik: distinction is not large - maybe not needed?
14:23:05 <smiles> I think some people might unnecessarily worry about the distinction if there are multiple options
14:23:13 <Luc> q+
14:23:18 <GK> … also no sections for pure publishers of provenance.  Or is that a service?
14:23:22 <Luc> q?
14:23:41 <pgroth> q+
14:24:09 <GK> Hook: implementation type is single-choice, but some implementations may be more than one of these.
14:24:19 <Luc> ack ho
14:24:44 <GK> zednik: currently have to fill form multiple times; may want to change the questionnaire to clarify this.
14:25:01 <GK> … don't lnow if they can be handled in a single pass
14:25:14 <GK> Luc: MentionOf shoukd be removed from the questionnaire
14:25:22 <Luc> ack lu
14:25:46 <GK> Paul: poiple would like to be able click on the questionnaire and see all the questions before filling out.
14:26:39 <Luc> q?
14:26:40 <GK> … maybe have several different questionnaires for each kind of implementation.  Click on link, see all questions, without having to branch within the form.
14:26:47 <lebot> +1 to it's a barrier to "continue" in the survey.
14:26:47 <Luc> ack pg
14:26:50 <hook> q+
14:26:50 <GK> zednik: I think that's reasonable
14:27:11 <Luc> q?
14:27:39 <GK> q+ to ask if common questions across all questionnaiure tyopes can be auto-filled
14:27:49 <Luc> action: zednik to create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention)
14:27:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-142 - Create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17].
14:27:51 <Luc> q?
14:28:04 <Luc> ack ho
14:28:19 <lebot> q?
14:28:26 <GK> hook: clarofy what is meant by publisher(?) in this context
14:28:33 <lebot> I added PROV-O to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations#Publishers
14:28:50 <GK> paul: anyone who creates provenance that appears somewhere on the web.  (Following SKOS?)
14:29:02 <lebot> q+ to ask if prov-o's prov-o is in "Publishers" like Curt
14:29:14 <GK> ack gk
14:29:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if common questions across all questionnaiure tyopes can be auto-filled
14:29:22 <Dong> q+ to ask about translating answers to the questionnaire to the exit criteria
14:29:54 <GK> zednik: don't know how it can be done
14:29:59 <Luc> ack lebo
14:29:59 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to ask if prov-o's prov-o is in "Publishers" like Curt
14:30:50 <Luc> q?
14:30:53 <GK> Tim: Does the provenance in PROV-O the document count as publishing
14:30:58 <lebot> q-
14:31:45 <GK> Ivan: possible add provenance statement in ReSpec … that would be an implementation, also every published spec
14:31:49 <Luc> q?
14:32:24 <GK> Dong: mapping answers from  questionnaire to CR exit criteria
14:32:44 <pgroth> q_
14:32:46 <pgroth> q+
14:32:51 <Luc> ack don
14:32:51 <Zakim> Dong, you wanted to ask about translating answers to the questionnaire to the exit criteria
14:32:58 <GK> … need two implementations each feature.  Can they be vocabs, or apps that consume/produce ?
14:33:42 <GK> Paul: we need *pairs* of impl; vocabs count toward coverage, but not really qualifying as a member of a pair
14:33:51 <Luc> q?
14:34:01 <Luc> ack pg
14:34:29 <Luc> q+
14:34:52 <GK> Paul: we need applications that generate/consume every construct in each serialization
14:35:05 <GK> q+
14:35:37 <GK> q+ to say that I think consime/produce pairs for vocab terms - ensures devs agree about how the modelling works
14:36:26 <GK> Luc: hear something that bothers me - constraints don't need prodcue/conbsume pairs
14:36:32 <Luc> ack lu
14:37:13 <Luc> ack gk
14:37:13 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think consime/produce pairs for vocab terms - ensures devs agree about how the modelling works
14:37:14 <Luc> q?
14:37:39 <ivan> q+
14:38:20 <GK> Paul: my biggst concern.  We need to get constraint test cases in order and ready to go.  Wouldlike these available before/as we go to CR, before facing the the dragon\\\\\'director
14:38:31 <Luc> ack iv
14:40:05 <GK> Ivan: Director may ask:  Why did we not use W3C facilities make the forms; data belongs to Google.  Answer may be that form has branching structure ()but we just got rid of that).  But data ownership may be a concern.
14:40:32 <GK> q+ to ask if it's enough to take a data dump and put it on W3C site
14:40:46 <GK> Ivan: some companies may have concerns about giving data to another company
14:40:57 <GK> q-
14:41:20 <zednik> q+
14:41:47 <lebot> q?
14:41:59 <GK> Ivan: Once data ois stored by Google, it will stay there, can't be removed.  But companies (and comany lawyers) will say "no way".
14:42:09 <Luc> ack ze
14:42:11 <lebot> but, won't google crawl the w3c-native results that we publish at w3.org?
14:42:46 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:42:50 <GK> q+ can we have alternative of submitting a spreadsheet based on supplied template?
14:43:02 <Luc> q?
14:43:22 <pgroth> q+ to ask craig
14:43:23 <hook> q+
14:43:30 <GK> Ivan: Lawyers job is to be paranoid
14:43:51 <Luc> ack pg
14:43:51 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask craig
14:43:52 <Zakim> +??P4
14:44:08 <Paolo> zakim, ??P4 is me
14:44:08 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:44:18 <Luc> q?
14:44:28 <GK> Paul: suggest consider using WBS.  If it's easy, that's preferable, if it's hard we can argue the toss.
14:44:54 <zednik> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:44:54 <Zakim> sorry, zednik, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
14:45:14 <Luc> q?
14:45:52 <GK> Paul: I can help with WBS
14:45:55 <Luc> action: zednik to look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire
14:45:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-143 - Look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17].
14:46:11 <GK> zednik: I'll look.  Questionnaire just got simpler.
14:46:15 <Luc> q?
14:46:33 <GK> Hook: concern may be w.r.t. public release of intellectual property.
14:46:38 <jcheney> q+ to say what do sparql/xquery wgs do
14:46:42 <Luc> q?
14:46:46 <Luc> ack hoo
14:47:05 <GK> q+ to ask if there should be an option for confidential submission
14:47:27 <Curt> @gk -- results go into public implementation report
14:47:27 <Luc> q?
14:48:12 <Luc> q?
14:48:12 <GK> q-
14:48:32 <Luc> ack jc
14:48:32 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say what do sparql/xquery wgs do
14:48:36 <Luc> q?
14:48:50 <GK> Luc: moving on...
14:49:06 <GK> Luc: want to get a feel for which features people will implement
14:49:26 <GK> … have produced a Google doc to gather information (!)
14:49:34 <Luc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dEU1RHVFNnBvQTNrdzV1S3ZJd0ZjdFE
14:51:25 <GK> Form isn't editable yet...
14:51:34 <GK> … it should be now
14:52:38 <Paolo> q+
14:52:45 <lebot> POI - tracedTo is now wasInfluencedBy
14:56:50 <Curt> @zednik -- take a look at the GCIS line in the spreadsheet -- edit as needed
14:57:20 <pgroth> q+
14:58:16 <GK> (people are filling in the document)
14:58:25 <Luc> q?
14:58:34 <pgroth> ack Paolo
14:58:51 <zednik> q+
14:59:07 <pgroth> yes
14:59:24 <Luc> ack pg
15:01:48 <pgroth> ack zednik
15:02:01 <Luc> action: Dong to remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization"
15:02:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization" [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].
15:02:04 <Luc> q?
15:03:39 <Dong> q+ to ask about the eligibility for PROV-JSON only implementations
15:07:07 <Luc> q?
15:07:52 <Luc> q?
15:08:04 <pgroth> q+
15:08:16 <Luc> ack dong
15:08:16 <Zakim> Dong, you wanted to ask about the eligibility for PROV-JSON only implementations
15:08:37 <ivan> q+
15:08:45 <GK> General discussion as people look at spreadsheet...
15:08:50 <Luc> ack pg
15:08:50 <ivan> ack pgroth
15:09:18 <GK> (question from phone): do we have to support one of the specific formats to be included in the report?
15:09:50 <Luc> q?
15:09:53 <GK> Paul: no, we can include "other" than core serializations as evidence of use or/support for prov
15:10:13 <pgroth> q+
15:10:37 <Dong> How about NASA?
15:10:39 <Luc> ack iv
15:10:57 <GK> Ivan: implemenations listed so far are essentially from academic sources - not so many commercial implementations.
15:11:14 <Luc> q?
15:11:15 <GK> Paul: we have some
15:11:28 <GK> q+
15:12:25 <Dong> A few implementations from commercial company are currently listed here http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations
15:12:30 <Luc> ack pg
15:13:10 <Luc> ack gk
15:13:13 <Luc> q?
15:14:32 <GK> GK: would distinguish implementation for live service from for-academic-paper production
15:14:35 <Paolo> q+
15:14:52 <zednik> q+
15:15:12 <GK> Ivan: this might be a useful topic for the questionnaire: is their an intention to support the provenance application beyond a current research project?
15:15:33 <GK> Paul: this could be hard to formulate appropriately.
15:15:39 <Curt> even the grad students developing a prototype always hope that their product will spin off and live on in the long term
15:15:50 <GK> q+
15:15:53 <GK> q-
15:16:43 <GK> For demonstrating interoperable implementability, intended future deployment isn;t necessarily an issue, IMO
15:16:56 <Luc> q?
15:16:56 <pgroth> Q+
15:16:58 <GK> Paolo: how public is the list of intended implementations?
15:17:02 <GK> Ivan: ity's public
15:17:20 <ivan> s/ity's/it's/
15:17:22 <pgroth> the thing that is public is this: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations
15:17:30 <Luc> q?
15:17:48 <GK> Luc: we are not collecting commitments here and now - this is for WG planning, not public.
15:17:49 <ivan> ack Paolo
15:17:51 <Luc> ack pao
15:17:53 <Dong> It's useful to include such information (e.g. future support, live service, etc.) in the report, but what is the impact it has on the exit criteria, I'm wondering
15:17:54 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
15:17:56 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:18:00 <GK> Luc: see link above.
15:18:06 <Luc> q?
15:18:31 <pgroth> q+ to say I don't think it should be included
15:18:40 <Luc> ack ze
15:18:55 <GK> zednik: we have a structure for the implementation report; are we happy putting this distinction between research/commercial in the report -m don't want to ask things that don';t go in the report
15:18:56 <Luc> ack pg
15:18:57 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say I don't think it should be included
15:19:00 <Luc> q?
15:19:01 <GK> Paul: agree, shouldn't ask
15:19:08 <Luc> q?
15:19:21 <pgroth> @ivan we can battle :-)
15:19:27 <GK> Luc: next sub-topic
15:19:41 <GK> Constraints
15:19:41 <pgroth> Topic: Constraints Implementation
<pgroth> Summary: Checked who of the group would be implementing constraints. Paul said that he would, Paolo said that he might and Graham said he would check with Jun. It was agreed to include a question about whether constraints were used within an implementation that is not a validator. It was agreed to focus on specific "unit" style tests instead of the broad examples because of the difficulty in identifying all the constraints an example may exercise. 
15:19:42 <ivan> pgroth: it is an information we should have if the question comes
15:19:59 <TomDN> +q
15:20:08 <pgroth> raises hand
15:20:08 <jcheney> will try but may not have time
15:20:25 <GK> Luc: Would be good to knwo who is planning to implement any of the constraints features.  "show of hands" to IRC please
15:21:06 <Luc> q?
15:21:11 <Luc> ack to
15:21:13 <GK> Luc: thius could be intent to produce valid provenance, or to consume/assume/check it
15:21:14 <Paolo> I am planning to pursue the Datalog-based implementation which I started this year, although the extent to which that is possible using that particular framework still needs to be clarified
15:21:38 <lebot> implementing constraints: perhaps.
15:21:40 <Luc> q?
15:21:50 <GK> Paul: will implement, don;t know if will pass all tests, due to levels of inference needed.
15:21:50 <Luc> ack pg
15:21:57 <Luc> ack
15:22:15 <pgroth> q?
15:22:16 <pgroth> ack shows
15:22:17 <Luc> q?
15:22:23 <zednik> q+
15:22:35 <Luc> ack ze
15:23:05 <Luc> q?
15:23:06 <pgroth> good question
15:23:18 <GK> zednik: is there a distinction between validator or building a producer of valid prov?  JHad assumed implementation must be a validator.  True or false?
15:23:32 <GK> (Luc checks exit criteria)
15:23:33 <pgroth> so it must be a validator
15:23:38 <pgroth> or something similiar
15:23:39 <Luc> For each of the test cases defined by the working group, at least two independent implementations pass the tests and claim to conform to the document.
15:23:44 <pgroth> q+
15:24:17 <Luc> ack pg
15:25:02 <Luc> q?
15:25:03 <GK> q+ to say that an important part of the constraints spec is that devs can understand it well enough to produce only valid prov
15:25:14 <Luc> ack gk
15:25:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that an important part of the constraints spec is that devs can understand it well enough to produce only valid prov
15:25:51 <zednik> q+ does a implementation of the constraints require consumption + check vs. constraints
15:27:12 <zednik> @GK audio is breaking up while you are talking
15:27:40 <Luc> ack ze
15:28:34 <pgroth> q+ to say we implement some constraints
15:28:43 <Luc> q?
15:28:44 <jcheney> q+ to say there are guidelines we don't / can't easily check
15:28:51 <Luc> ac pg
15:28:58 <Luc> ack pg
15:28:58 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we implement some constraints
15:29:01 <GK> I was saying that I think the interop report depends on good will - useful evidence may not necessarily be specific to exit criteria, or help to show uo spec defficiencies.  So additional evidence that isn;t explicitly covered by the exit criteria may stil, be useful.
15:29:29 <Luc> q?
15:29:38 <TomDN> +q
15:29:43 <GK> ^^s/or help/but still help/
15:29:47 <TomDN> -q
15:30:00 <TomDN> +1 for what Paul just said
15:30:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:30:11 <TomDN> (the "one line" thing)
15:30:11 <Luc> ack jch
15:30:11 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say there are guidelines we don't / can't easily check
15:30:42 <Luc> q?
15:30:53 <GK> Paul: we need to show we have two validators, but also some indication that there is prov being produced that satisfies the constraints
15:31:24 <GK> jcheney: there is useful information we can collect that it may not be sensible to try and formalize
15:31:44 <TomDN> How about: "For the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?"
15:32:22 <jcheney> i will try but can't promis anything (maybe work with Paolo)
15:32:55 <jcheney> Reza also said he thought orcal would implement (but caveat about oracle)
15:32:56 <pgroth> action: zednik add a question to ask about use of constraints by applications (e.g. "or the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?")
15:32:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Add a question to ask about use of constraints by applications (e.g. "or the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?") [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17].
15:33:03 <jcheney> s/orcal/oracle/
15:33:39 <Luc> q?
15:35:50 <pgroth> q+
15:35:51 <GK> GK: expect to see implementations, producing and consuming, coming from the Wf4ever project.  Also Jun is looking at further work to build and evaluate provenance data from other sources.  Details not yet c,ear (to me), but expect something from this corner
15:36:10 <Luc> ack pg
15:36:27 <GK> Luc: how do we build the test cases?  (?)
15:36:39 <GK> Paul: I'd rather focus on implementation
15:37:25 <GK> Luc: I'll volunteer (Dong?) and myself to convert validator tests to a general test suite.
15:37:45 <Dong> Yes
15:38:13 <lebot> how does this differ from http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples ?
15:38:18 <Luc> action: GK to talk to Jun about implementation of constraints and specifically test cases
15:38:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-146 - Talk to Jun about implementation of constraints and specifically test cases [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-11-17].
15:38:20 <pgroth> q+
15:39:11 <Luc> q+
15:39:16 <Curt> You're also looking for examples both of success and failure
15:39:26 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:40:20 <pgroth> q+
15:40:24 <Luc> ack luc
15:40:30 <GK> q+ to ask if implementers of validators if they can report which constraints are validated by their systems, as a way to get a view of coverage
15:40:33 <Curt> separate "unit" tests from "integration" tests
15:40:53 <Luc> it's about to review
15:40:54 <Curt> some are focused on success/failure of a few particular tests
15:41:03 <jcheney> q+ to advocate small test cases
15:41:05 <Curt> some are more comprehensive
15:41:12 <Luc> ack pg
15:42:01 <Luc> ack gk
15:42:01 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if implementers of validators if they can report which constraints are validated by their systems, as a way to get a view of coverage
15:42:58 <Luc> that's what I produced
15:43:03 <Curt> edge cases
15:43:11 <Luc> q+
15:43:15 <pgroth> q+
15:43:32 <GK> jcheney: small constraint-focused tests are probably more useful than big multi-constraint provenance data
15:43:49 <zednik> @GK, yes, the constraint branch of the survey allows the user to specify constraint coverage
15:44:32 <Luc> q?
15:44:50 <jcheney> q-
15:44:58 <GK> @zednik I was thinking about having the *validators* report the constraint tests invoked by test data presented
15:45:34 <zednik> @GK that would be a nice feature of a validator
15:45:59 <Luc> q?
15:46:01 <Luc> ack pg
15:46:04 <jcheney> @ivan agree we need realistic examples too (for scalability etc.) not just corner cases
15:46:04 <Dong> @zednik, I think we're not going to ask people to fill the constraint questionnaire, but submit the results of the tests as per 1.2 in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html
15:46:38 <Curt> use simple identifiers, and put a structured comment with a list of constraints exercised at the top of each test case, use a script to pull those comments into a matrix to embed in the report
15:46:39 <Luc> q?
15:46:40 <zednik> @Dong, but does submitting the results of tests give us an idea of supported coverage?
15:46:40 <GK> Luc: useful to have tests marked with constraints they aer supposed to exercise, separately from examples that are additional data that can be used for testing/discussion
15:46:42 <Luc> ack luc
15:47:42 <Dong> @zednik, that's why we need to catalogue the test cases against specific constraints
15:48:14 <GK> Luc: what do we need to prepare for the CR teleconference?
15:48:23 <Luc> q?
15:49:33 <GK> Luc: propose to bootstrap the process with a few examples, then ask for volunteers to bulk out
15:51:20 <GK> … concern that as test case author and developer, test cases fro not properly independent
15:52:17 <GK> Ivan: would be concerned if you were the *only* implementer, but if other implementers do similar, and than merge test cases, then there's a reasonable level of cross-checking that takes place.
15:52:22 <Luc> q?
15:52:27 <Paolo> nothing substantial
15:52:39 <jcheney> q+
15:52:46 <CraigTrim> q+
15:52:55 <Paolo> my focus is to explore the boundaries of what can be supported using a particular implementation model
15:53:44 <GK> @paul: even if you just use Luc's test cases, that's effectively an independent review of those tests
15:53:50 <Luc> ack jch
15:53:50 <Paolo> (very hard to follow James BTW)
15:53:58 <Paolo> yes
15:54:02 <Paolo> thanks
15:54:31 <Paolo> I was planning to start from Luc's test suite
15:54:37 <Paolo> I would be happy to use that
15:54:39 <Luc> q?
15:54:43 <Luc> ack cr
15:55:38 <Luc> q?
15:55:38 <GK> q+
15:56:12 <pgroth> ack GK
15:56:52 <Luc> q?
15:56:54 <Curt> That would help with example development too...
15:56:54 <Paolo> I will prob skip the next session but this was useful thanks
15:57:29 <GK> Session ends.  Resume at 11:15, to discuss Primer
15:57:38 <Zakim> -Paolo
15:57:43 <Dong> bye all
15:58:33 <zednik> signing off for the day, bye all
15:58:49 <Zakim> -stain
16:04:13 <Zakim> -Dong
16:17:13 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
16:17:20 <pgroth> Topic: Primer
<pgroth> Summary: The group agreed to release the Primer as a working draft synchronised with the candidate recommendations. Simon agreed to do a final editor's check. Luc agreed to produce a small javascript file to ensure that prov documents are consistently cited by editors. 
16:17:35 <pgroth> Scribe: CraigTrim
16:18:08 <CraigTrim> pg: Primer - in particular the status and what we want to do about
16:18:32 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
16:18:33 <CraigTrim> smiles: big changes in draft; primarily to clarify/fix problems, but more extensive work on samples
16:18:49 <pgroth> craig use tab :-)
16:18:53 <pgroth> so pgroth
16:19:01 <pgroth> or smiles
16:20:21 <ivan> (there is a funny empty arrowhead on the figure right before section 3.6)
16:20:56 <CraigTrim> smiles: simon made various corrections suggested by Ivan - what prov-n means for arguments,
16:21:09 <ivan> (missing arrowhead on the figure right before 3.9, pointing at ex:compile)
16:21:36 <CraigTrim> smiles: also at some point want to include something on collection - this would be useful in primer (show relationship between web page and image on web page)
16:21:49 <CraigTrim> smiles: this will be moved to next working draft, but not on this one
16:22:36 <CraigTrim> smiles: two issues raised on primer; implements and informedBy - this might go into the appendix and one issue (now resolved) but need stephan to close, about delegation
16:22:52 <pgroth> q?
16:22:54 <pgroth> q?
16:22:55 <Luc> q+
16:23:01 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:24:15 <CraigTrim> pgroth: prov-dm should be normative
16:24:40 <pgroth> q?
16:25:07 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Is this ready for the CR doc as is?
16:25:09 <CraigTrim> smiles: yes
16:25:11 <pgroth> q?
16:25:32 <CraigTrim> pgroth: let's vote on releasing as working draft now - as we did yesterday for CR
16:25:36 <CraigTrim> pgroth: add editor's check
16:25:40 <Luc> q+
16:25:53 <ivan> q+
16:25:56 <pgroth> action: smiles editor's check on the primer
16:25:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-147 - Editor's check on the primer [on Simon Miles - due 2012-11-17].
16:25:58 <ivan> ack Luc
16:26:20 <CraigTrim> Luc: as part of this editorial action, bibliography needs updating because it doesn't have right editors from some specs
16:26:28 <CraigTrim> Luc: do we need to use short URIs?
16:26:36 <ivan> q-
16:26:37 <CraigTrim> ivan: yes - it's more consistent
16:26:59 <pgroth> q?
16:27:05 <CraigTrim> Luc: I will produce a javascript file that has bibliographic entries - and we can share this across
16:27:28 <Luc> action: Luc to produce js file with biblio entries for prov documents
16:27:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-148 - Produce js file with biblio entries for prov documents [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-17].
16:27:34 <CraigTrim> smiles: do we want an ack. on public comments by robert prior to deployment?
16:27:40 <CraigTrim> pgroth: not necessarily if we have sent out a reply
16:27:52 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in particular if we've tried to address his comments somewhere
16:27:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: this is also a note
16:28:09 <CraigTrim> smiles: can I set a deadline for which the WG can say they are happy with the responses?
16:28:21 <CraigTrim> pgroth: WG will say that it's fine ...
16:28:37 <CraigTrim> smiles: will send a reminder
16:29:01 <pgroth> q?
16:29:33 <pgroth> proposed: release primer as working draft synchronized with CR given that all editorial actions are complete
16:29:40 <ivan> +1
16:29:41 <TomDN> +1
16:29:42 <Curt> +1
16:29:44 <jcheney> +1
16:29:45 <lebot> +1
16:29:46 <SamCoppens> +1
16:29:47 <hook> +1
16:29:50 <smiles> +1
16:29:54 <CraigTrim> +1
16:30:06 <pgroth> accepted: release primer as working draft synchronized with CR given that all editorial actions are complete
16:30:34 <Zakim> -smiles
16:30:50 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DC
<pgroth> Summary: Discussed the prov-dc mapping. Ivan was unsure that we were viewing the correct version. Paul agreed to check this with Daniel. Simon and Craig agreed to review the document. The group confirmed that note's should use the prov namespace. 
16:31:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: this is important mapping
16:31:03 <Zakim> +??P0
16:31:12 <smiles> zakim, ??P0
16:31:12 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P0', smiles
16:31:15 <CraigTrim> pgroth: who has worked on this mapping?  anyone?
16:31:15 <smiles> zakim, ??P0 is me
16:31:15 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
16:32:05 <CraigTrim> pgroth: update - luc & I have read through it the other day - we think all content is there but the doc needs quite a bit of review and sculpting in terms of the text
16:32:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: lot of informal language ... there needs to be a check that lang is more like a spec - more precision
16:32:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: are all mappings in fact correct?
16:32:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: think most of them are, but need to check them through
16:32:53 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so would like another round of review - a second round prior to working draft
16:33:10 <CraigTrim> Luc: we want to check if mapping to prov is correct - we had identified a couple of issues
16:33:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: then someone to help with some of the english
16:33:33 <CraigTrim> pgroth: comments we had include ns for dc-prov not correctly entered, needs to be cleared that it's the prov ns
16:33:44 <CraigTrim> pgroth: there is graph inside doc not compat with our doc style
16:34:14 <CraigTrim> pgroth: some naming is different - "publication activity" - activity is appended to the end of definitions
16:34:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: and again emphasizing informal use of lang
16:34:27 <pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/6b795ed2e6c9/dc-note/Overview.html
16:34:33 <CraigTrim> I can help
16:34:36 <smiles> I can review and help edit for style (I should have before)
16:34:40 <Curt> I'll review the language/expression, but I'm not a DC expert..
16:34:40 <lebot> +1
16:35:19 <CraigTrim> ivan: are we sure this URL is the latest version?
16:35:41 <CraigTrim> ivan: I had similar comments, and had replies that things were changed - so let's make sure we have the right draft
16:36:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: will email and ask authors for most current version
16:36:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I want this as working draft for candidate rec in time - and the version above not ready
16:36:38 <CraigTrim> ivan: in mercurial there's a later version
16:36:58 <ivan> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/ef08de088793/dc-note/Overview.html
16:37:07 <CraigTrim> ivan: this URL comes from mercurial
16:37:58 <pgroth> action: pgroth check for the current version of dublin core mapping + then send email to tim and craig for review
16:37:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Check for the current version of dublin core mapping + then send email to tim and craig for review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].
16:38:18 <Curt> Daniel changed the one on HG on Oct. 28
16:39:23 <pgroth> accepted: short name for prov-dc is prov-dc and the namespace should be prov:
16:40:58 <pgroth> q?
16:41:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: on agenda - next thing is time tabling but I think in this primer (dc space) we should talk about FAQ
16:41:29 <pgroth> Topic: FAQ
<pgroth> Summary: Paul discussed the important role that the FAQ seems to be playing as an outlet for best practice and intuition. He asked for volunteers to update the FAQ. The following members agreed to produce an FAQ entry. Simon - influence/involved, Tom - something, Curt - one, Tim - FOAF and PROV, Hook ISO linage and PROV, Paul - scruffy and proper.
16:41:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ
16:42:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: lot of responses gave to external reviewers that were quite informal
16:43:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: lot of intuition about the design of prov, in addition to modeling (how do you use constructs, best ways, etc)
16:43:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: people want hints - best practices - about where to use constructs
16:43:07 <CraigTrim> pgroth: and design decisions that underly the entire spec (scruffy vs proper).
16:43:26 <CraigTrim> pgroth: let's populate this FAQ with this info and it could evolve into best practices or another document ...
16:43:38 <CraigTrim> pgroth: need contributions to updating/editing the FAQ with info - this is an easy task
16:43:42 <pgroth> q?
16:43:47 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we want to sign up people for this task
16:43:52 <smiles> q+
16:44:12 <CraigTrim> smiles: what is relation between FAQ and primer?
16:44:25 <CraigTrim> smiles: we originally had a third section in primer for FAQ but was then removed
16:44:32 <CraigTrim> smiles: is this a good section for it to me, or should it remain elsewhere?
16:44:47 <CraigTrim> pgroth: idea is that FAQ can be updated after primer.  The primer will eventually become static
16:44:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so making FAQ separate is a good idea
16:45:12 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:45:42 <CraigTrim> ivan: just to clarify - semantic web wiki - there will be a separate page for prov, as there is today for RDF
16:45:47 <CraigTrim> pgroth: already there
16:46:05 <CraigTrim> ivan: link this page in from home
16:46:23 <CraigTrim> ivan: it's a more generic space that will remain a wiki for this community to update FAQ etc
16:46:39 <CraigTrim> ivan: when WG closes, WG wiki will become read only - so community work can still happen on semantic web wiki
16:46:59 <CraigTrim> pgroth: any volunteers - just one FAQ entry?
16:47:10 <lebot> q?
16:47:18 <smiles> I can write one for the influenced/involved difference
16:47:23 <TomDN> I'll do at least 1 entry :)
16:47:38 <TomDN> (How do I refer to other PROV bundles?) ;)
16:47:44 <Curt> I'll do at least 1..
16:47:47 <lebot> +1 for why we didn't use FOAF
16:48:34 <Curt> Hook will write one about ISO lineage vs. PROV
16:49:36 <pgroth> accepted: Tim, Curt, Hook, Tom, Simon, Paul volunteer to create faq wiki entries
16:49:52 <ivan> (b.t.w., when we go to CR, I will also ask for a prov 'button' like the ones n http://www.w3.org/2007/10/sw-logos.html)
16:50:28 <pgroth> Topic: Messaging on document reading
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the problem of readers looking at the wrong specification first (e.g. starting with constraints not the primer) and thus being given a false impression. The group agreed that the overview was important from this perspective. It was agreed to add to the abstract of each document the following sentence: "The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents." The group also revised in-situ the boilerplate about how to read documents. It was noted that we should be talking about the "PROV Family of Documents" not the "PROV family of specifications"
16:50:36 <Luc> @ivan, do you mean an official prov logo?
16:51:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we have this issue where people read the constraints document first - before primer, before ontologies ... and they get scared
16:51:13 <TomDN> Isn't that why we'll have PROV-OVERVIEW?
16:51:29 <CraigTrim> pgroth: people go into wrong document - gives false impression
16:51:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: prov constriants for people writing validators ...
16:51:46 <CraigTrim> pgroth: how do we get people to go to the right document?
16:52:03 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we have the purpose of each document in the header of each document
16:52:11 <pgroth> q?
16:52:22 <Curt> Link to the YouTube intro talk
16:52:24 <CraigTrim> q+
16:52:49 <smiles> "This is not the document to read first." :)
16:52:57 <pgroth> color coding - for type of user
16:52:59 <lebot> +1 @GK, easy to glaze over the top of every W3C doc b/c it's boilerplate.
16:53:02 <ivan> q+
16:53:06 <pgroth> ack CraigTrim
16:53:09 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/
16:53:09 <pgroth> ack ivan
16:53:16 <CraigTrim> ivan: this URL has overview for OWL
16:53:18 <CraigTrim> ivan: OWL has similar issue
16:53:44 <CraigTrim> ivan: toward end of document there is table with color coding to give 1 sentence on what various docs are for
16:53:59 <CraigTrim> ivan: having something like this will be important
16:54:15 <CraigTrim> ivan: does not have to be identical or as complicate to URL above, but use as guidance
16:54:24 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is starting point in terms of references
16:54:45 <CraigTrim> pgroth: has already taken this action
16:54:45 <pgroth> Q?
16:55:10 <CraigTrim> q+
16:55:17 <Luc> q+
16:55:20 <pgroth> ack CraigTrim
16:55:24 <pgroth> ac Luc
16:55:26 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:55:33 <ivan> Another example: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/
16:55:42 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we could have boilerplate, color coding, overview/table
16:55:46 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim: not mutually exclusive
16:55:56 <pgroth> q?
16:55:58 <CraigTrim> ivan: this URL above - similar approach, but also different than OWL
16:56:03 <CraigTrim> ivan: semi primer -
16:56:15 <pgroth> q?
16:56:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: what changes should we make in our existing docs?
16:56:20 <CraigTrim> ivan: nothing ...
16:56:27 <CraigTrim> Luc: do we need to edit current specs?
16:56:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: you can leave boilerplate that is good guidance (assuming it's read)
16:56:46 <CraigTrim> pgroth: but additionally - what would we add - if any?
16:57:06 <CraigTrim> pgroth: key is to add overview doc - and we can also add additional sentence/feature in each doc
16:57:33 <pgroth> "The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents."
16:57:34 <CraigTrim> ivan: for SPARQL and OWL ... they have at beginning boilerplate that lists docs
16:57:47 <CraigTrim> ivan: in there they also list the reference to overview
16:57:50 <pgroth> q?
16:58:00 <GK> q+
16:58:05 <GK> q-
16:58:06 <CraigTrim> ivan: SPARQL had 11 docs, most were rec.   Prov only has 4 rec, so somewhat simpler
16:58:06 <pgroth> ack gk
16:58:18 <Luc> q?
16:58:18 <CraigTrim> GK: SPARQL doc are all hyperlinked, but we don't have this in the primer
16:58:26 <CraigTrim> GK: hyperlinks will make nav simpler
16:59:18 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in primer there is boilerplate for prov family specs ...
16:59:44 <CraigTrim> smiles: are boilerplates centrally managed, or up to each editor to manage?
17:00:00 <CraigTrim> Luc: maybe we should make this a common javascript addition?
17:00:09 <GK> It's also a bug in PROV-AQ (no hyperlinks in the "family of specifications)
17:00:40 <CraigTrim> ivan: this editorial check should be done by hand - javascript may just take more time and have to debug etc
17:00:45 <jcheney> q+
17:01:05 <pgroth> ack jcheney
17:01:14 <CraigTrim> jcheney: suggest we make one clean copy we are all happy then copy+paste
17:01:27 <smiles> +1 to jcheney's suggestion
17:02:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: first there is question - we need to update status to be correct and it must be consistent
17:02:47 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/
17:02:54 <CraigTrim> Luc: we have two sections in above URL
17:03:08 <CraigTrim> Luc: (1) that documents and (2) that talks about how to read ... specs
17:03:25 <CraigTrim> Luc: list must be updated ...
17:04:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: how do we order?  maintain existing order?  or adjust ... ?
17:04:19 <CraigTrim> ivan: starts with dm
17:04:26 <CraigTrim> Luc: should start with recs
17:04:31 <pgroth> q?
17:04:43 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I think primer should be order of operations vs the recs
17:04:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I would have notations first - primer, then maybe dm, then notations, constraints and then the notes
17:05:12 <pgroth> q?
17:05:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: that is how to read the family ...
17:05:56 <TomDN> +q
17:06:00 <CraigTrim> ivan: my instinct is similar to Paul's ... we want reader to start with primer or better yet overview then primer (assuming overview exists)
17:06:20 <CraigTrim> ivan: "specifications are ... " - but neither primer nor overview are specs
17:06:34 <CraigTrim> ivan: make it clear in each of those whether this is note or rec
17:06:42 <pgroth> ack TomDN
17:06:55 <CraigTrim> TomDN: I agree with Paul re: order - this is least confusing
17:07:13 <hook> q+
17:07:13 <CraigTrim> TomDN: but if you want to make sure recommendations stand out - do color coding, or specifically mention - or something like that
17:07:19 <TomDN> -q
17:08:19 <pgroth> q+
17:08:22 <pgroth> ack hook
17:08:28 <CraigTrim> hook: sounds like there are more facets to each description now
17:08:36 <CraigTrim> hook: so maybe table format shows each doc name and intention, then color code rows
17:08:41 <CraigTrim> ivan: that should go in overview
17:08:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: but perhaps not in each rec
17:08:52 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/#Documentation_Roadmap
17:08:54 <Curt> q+
17:09:07 <CraigTrim> ivan: in overview this is good entry point
17:09:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
17:09:21 <pgroth> ack Curt
17:09:22 <CraigTrim> Curt: in one of the presentations there is a diagram of one of the relatoinships - and that would really help on overview
17:09:31 <CraigTrim> ivan: I will review overview
17:09:41 <pgroth> "The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents."
17:10:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we should add something like this to every abstract in every spec
17:10:07 <CraigTrim> +1
17:10:08 <Curt> +1
17:10:42 <ivan> +1
17:11:24 <Curt> With the link to PROV-OVERVIEW in the sentence
17:11:29 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/
17:11:31 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so do we refer to overall as ... ?  "prov" .. ?
17:11:35 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/sw-logos.html
17:12:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: "prov family"
17:12:41 <pgroth> approved add sentence "The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents."
17:12:49 <pgroth> q?
17:13:04 <CraigTrim> Luc: is this something that can be used to say "this is prov compliant"
17:13:44 <pgroth> accepted: add sentence "The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents." in the last sentence of the abstract of each specification
17:14:08 <pgroth> q?
17:14:26 <CraigTrim> Luc: will commit changes for review
17:15:06 <pgroth> action: pgroth remind simon what he's supposed to do
17:15:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Remind simon what he's supposed to do [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].
17:15:31 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html
17:15:52 <Curt> That sentence should link to the PROV-OVERVIEW document.
17:16:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: "prov family of specifications" ... but some of these aren't specs - is that ok?  or "prov family of documents"
17:16:49 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so this latter phrase should be used everywhere
17:16:52 <CraigTrim> ivan: only in status section
17:17:12 <CraigTrim> ivan: how committed are we for notes will be published later?
17:17:22 <CraigTrim> Luc: we have to be cautious
17:17:51 <CraigTrim> ivan: I think dc ... for first public draft - we can trust it will be there - so ok to add to list
17:17:58 <CraigTrim> ivan: pending is dictionary ... ?
17:18:09 <CraigTrim> pgroth: only want to put things there that are first public working draft
17:18:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: we hope dc will be there in time
17:18:29 <CraigTrim> ivan: pending dictionary, semantics ...
17:18:40 <CraigTrim> Luc: will see if I can get mention ready in time for CR
17:18:46 <pgroth> q?
17:19:00 <TomDN> PROV-LINKING !
17:19:01 <CraigTrim> pgroth: can we use another ... the name prov-mention is ... can we use something else?
17:19:21 <pgroth> q?
17:20:11 <CraigTrim> pgroth: remaining is time-tabling and out reach - planning out reach
17:20:36 <CraigTrim> Luc: have Ivan explain what's coming up ...
17:20:37 <pgroth> Topic: Planning
<pgroth> Summary: Ivan went over the steps going to Candidate Rec and then to Proposed Rec. 
17:20:45 <CraigTrim> ivan: CR then PR ... these are the foremost steps
17:20:59 <CraigTrim> ivan: this requires approval formally from director that everything is kosher and can be published
17:21:30 <CraigTrim> ivan: prior to physically publishing doc ... we have to have call (2 chairs, Ivan and editors optional)
17:21:37 <CraigTrim> ivan: and also on W3C side 2 or 3 ppl
17:21:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: a tranistion call to defend our case that we did everything necessary
17:22:08 <CraigTrim> ivan: we answered all comments and record of that .... a clean plan ... we have covered all outstanding issues etc
17:22:12 <pgroth> q+ to ask about call for implementations?
17:22:13 <CraigTrim> ivan: proves we are done - this must be well documented and presented
17:22:22 <CraigTrim> Luc: is there an actual presentation?
17:22:33 <CraigTrim> ivan: we have telco - on telco there is agenda - various points
17:22:46 <CraigTrim> ivan: we list various links - in those links (eg to impl plan)
17:22:52 <CraigTrim> ivan: so there is a pattern for that
17:23:06 <CraigTrim> ivan: we have to find right time of about an hour .. 5 people ...
17:23:17 <CraigTrim> ivan: means that timing this can be a challenge - so must prep
17:23:34 <CraigTrim> ivan: to get to transition call there must be a call for all other working group chairs - tell them we declare ourselves ready
17:23:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: tell them that we are going to impl and other working groups can object
17:24:15 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is the declaration of intent call ... and between this call and the transition call - there must be 5 biz days
17:24:24 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is how we calculate back our own timing
17:24:42 <CraigTrim> this means if we say we want to publish on a given day in nov - then we have to come back ... a week or 2 weeks to be on safe side
17:24:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: to account for all readiness on our side
17:25:01 <CraigTrim> ivan: we have to try to get  date - then set date with webmaster that date of pub is OK
17:25:26 <CraigTrim> ivan: when we call out to other WG - here it is - the document should not change after that point
17:25:30 <CraigTrim> ivan: that is point of readiness for docs
17:25:41 <CraigTrim> ivan: only change is if we don't make it to proposed date, then things will change
17:25:48 <CraigTrim> pgroth: question about call for impl ...
17:25:53 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is official named CR
17:26:12 <CraigTrim> ivan: you send out email to chairs - we intend to do CR - once the transition call happens and publication has happened
17:26:21 <CraigTrim> ivan: then all members are told and it appears on home page
17:26:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth
17:26:25 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about call for implementations?
17:26:30 <CraigTrim> ivan: and we are looking for implementations
17:26:45 <CraigTrim> ivan: that will be W3C-side announcement of this
17:27:18 <CraigTrim> ivan: looking ahead for proposed rec - mechanism is set - proposed rec we will have same transition call to prove there has been an impl
17:27:38 <CraigTrim> ivan: it is a similar mechanism - but at the end of PR, the team officially votes and members can agree yes or no to publish
17:27:41 <pgroth> q?
17:27:45 <CraigTrim> ivan: and we simply need enough votes
17:28:23 <CraigTrim> pgroth: what kinds of changes we can do between CR and PR?
17:28:38 <CraigTrim> ivan: minimal
17:28:42 <CraigTrim> ivan: editorial can be done between PR and rec - even though this is stricter
17:28:57 <CraigTrim> ivan: but beyond that guiding principle is that any change which would affect impl means we have to go back to last call
17:29:09 <CraigTrim> ivan: if we make a change that invalidates a validation process - we need that last call round again
17:29:18 <CraigTrim> ivan: editorial change is ok
17:30:35 <CraigTrim> ivan: changes are a case by case basis - but basically, are impls changed?  this is guiding principle
17:30:47 <jcheney> q+
17:30:53 <pgroth> ack jcheney
17:31:13 <CraigTrim> jcheney: for example in constraints doc where I think what I've written in clear - so putting more detail is OK
17:31:26 <CraigTrim> ivan: yes - clarification is always ok - it helps implementation
17:32:09 <CraigTrim> ivan: let's set a date for the CR pub
17:33:18 <laurent> laurent has joined #prov
17:35:31 <CraigTrim> jcheney: suggest that doc list be consistent in ordering
17:35:39 <CraigTrim> jcheney: eg read prov-n before constraints
17:36:02 <CraigTrim> ivan: re-ordering is a good idea
17:40:40 <pgroth> start back at 1:30
18:15:16 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
18:15:22 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
18:26:21 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
18:34:16 <pgroth> Topic: Outreach & Planning
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed how to encourage implementations. Paul agreed to write a section in the call for implementations that gives guidance to implementors defining why they should implement but also what they should return in the survey and why this is beneficial for them. Craig agreed to writing a motivating paragraph around use cases. The group agreed to the following schedule: Announcement of intention to go to CR, Nov. 27, 2012; Request for CR Publication Dec 4, 2012; Publication of CR of recs along with notes for prov-dc, prov-primer, prov-xml, prov-overview: Dec 11, 2012;  End of CR period Feb. 1, 2013. As per the discussion on the day before the group agreed to put mentionOf in a separate note and also approved public responses for the primer. 
18:34:22 <laurent> laurent has joined #prov
18:34:38 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
18:34:45 <smiles> yes
18:35:01 <hook> pgroth: wrt to outreach, couple of things. need easier way/entry point for external implementors to know what we want them to do.
18:35:13 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov
18:35:23 <hook> ... would be good to have text on guidance, why it is important, what they get in return.
18:36:13 <hook> pgroth: I'll give it a go. could add separate section for request for implementations.
18:36:20 <pgroth> action: pgroth to add a section on implementing prov and why and how
18:36:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-151 - Add a section on implementing prov and why and how [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].
18:36:51 <CraigTrim> q+
18:36:57 <hook> pgroth: anything we can do to encourage more implementations of PROV. Any ideas?
18:37:31 <hook> CraigTrim: business to have use cases. want to target the enterprise. To help them in their line of business.
18:38:04 <hook> ... there are people in healthcare, auditing and compliance, risk management, military context for following rules of engagement
18:38:18 <hook> ... legal and police work, logistical supply chains.
18:38:33 <pgroth> q?
18:38:35 <ivan> q+
18:38:39 <hook> ... I can take this up. a paragraph of directed text of how it can help in this context.
18:38:40 <ivan> ack CraigTrim
18:38:48 <hook> pgroth: would also help to have a template.
18:39:41 <hook> ivan: would also be great if use case also has 1-2 sentences of why provenance is important and how the model we have is useful this way.
18:39:49 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements
18:39:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Cases#Original_Use_Cases_Proposed
18:40:22 <pgroth> action: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance
18:40:22 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find CraigTrim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.
18:41:00 <pgroth> action: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance
18:41:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find CraigTrim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.
18:41:14 <lebot> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users?login
18:41:19 <pgroth> action: Craig Trim to write a paragraph mot�ivating needs for provenance
18:41:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-152 - Trim to write a paragraph mot�ivating needs for provenance [on Craig Trim - due 2012-11-17].
18:41:28 <hook> GK: what time frame are we looking at for this outreach material?
18:42:11 <hook> pgroth: ASAP, but we don't really have a deadline except for end of WG. But it would be useful to get this out to the implementors. To encourage adoption.
18:42:19 <hook> ... we are not at point where specs are stable.
18:42:43 <hook> CraigTrim: has blog post with 1500 hit. on abridged prov primer.
18:42:59 <hook> ivan: would it be possible to make a copy of that?
18:43:04 <lebot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/OutreachInformation
18:43:20 <hook> ... could give completed blog text to chairs.
18:43:28 <pgroth> q?
18:43:32 <pgroth> ack ivan
18:43:59 <hook> pgroth: we had a question on is there a simple implementation that we could do?
18:44:59 <hook> ivan: Christine would like to have a webpage where I can fill out provenance form and it would produce PROV RDF and/or Turtle output.
18:45:12 <hook> lebot: like the FOAF generator.
18:45:14 <lebot> http://www.ldodds.com/foaf/foaf-a-matic
18:45:32 <Curt> q+
18:45:55 <pgroth> ack Curt
18:46:02 <hook> ivan: from my own experience, going back band forth to find the right terms. would be useful for this example.
18:46:47 <hook> Curt: we had information modeling people working with scientists. would be useful to tie it all together.
18:46:56 <lebot> q+
18:47:19 <hook> ivan: for my use case, it's only me. but would still be a useful service.
18:47:46 <pgroth> ack lebot
18:47:51 <hook> lebot: could write web page with even 3 buttons to incrementally generate trace.
18:48:02 <Curt> q+
18:48:06 <pgroth> ack Curt
18:48:35 <hook> Curt: we are working with Peter Fox and Marshall (Ma?), if lebot has ideas to help drive that, it would be useful.
18:49:04 <hook> Luc: what can we advertise on implementation?
18:49:50 <hook> ivan: some WGs do not really make good use of it. anything that is relevant is ok.
18:50:09 <pgroth> q?
18:50:12 <hook> pgroth: we can also do a blog post. i.e. a link to the tutorial material.
18:50:54 <hook> ivan: regarding timelines, what is a reasonable time that we an expect all of the documents to be ready?
18:52:17 <hook> Luc: my intent would be aiming for this week. complete the changes by 2012-11-21.
18:52:28 <hook> jcheney: 2-weeks would probably be doable.
18:52:47 <hook> ivan: we should take whatever is realistic.
18:53:37 <hook> lebot: 2-weeks is during Thanksgiving holiday for US folks.
18:54:21 <hook> pgroth: I have Overview document as well.
18:54:50 <hook> ivan: Nov 27th is Tussday. a good day to have the documents publication ready.
18:55:41 <hook> pgroth: Overview currently does not exists. we also have DC, so have to check when Daniel is back. And XML is also new. Do these have more leeway?
18:56:48 <hook> ivan: for the time being, only counting CRs. the documents will be ready by Nov 27th. pgroth and Luc to send out email to the chairs on the Monday. this means the transition call sometime Dec 4th. which means publication date to be set on Dec 6th.
18:57:19 <hook> ivan: what we have to do then in 1-2 weeks to have a feeling of where we are, and contact Ralph and Thomas.
18:57:37 <hook> ... the other possibility is to put the publication date on 11th (Tuesday).
18:57:51 <hook> pgroth: we should try to start getting the informal meeting already.
18:58:20 <hook> ivan: are we ready? the meeting should be on the 5th. it needs 5-working days in advance.
18:58:38 <hook> pgroth: need to start now since busy schedules for pgroth and Luc.
18:58:51 <hook> ivan: we need to find time between 5th and 10th.
18:59:02 <hook> pgroth: publication date on 11th is fine.
18:59:22 <hook> Luc: Tim, is it possible to have documents complete before Thanksgiving holiday?
18:59:49 <hook> lebot: will try to get things done sooner than later. have 3-4 day window before Thanksgiving. will work on DM and PROV-O.
19:00:04 <hook> lebot: could push to get it done by the 20th.
19:00:42 <hook> ivan: we should not push for tight restrictions. let's be realistic. Let's aim for the 11th, so as soon as the mail goes out to the chairs, we can contact Thomas and Ralph.
19:00:59 <hook> pgroth: we need to schedule it now.
19:01:23 <hook> ivan: we can write email. or simplest thing is setup a Doodle for that week.
19:02:06 <hook> ivan: publication date is Tuesday 11th. setup Doodle for those 4 days prior.
19:02:59 <hook> pgroth: with publication date and CR on 11th, what about Notes?
19:03:28 <hook> pgroth: should we aim for Dec 4th for publication request for Notes?
19:03:41 <hook> Luc: do we need to have group resolution that we go for publication?
19:04:30 <hook> ivan: the DC exists, needs beautifying. for first public draft is ok as is. have no problem voting for it now.
19:04:42 <hook> pgroth: we an do that on upcoming telecon or email.
19:05:22 <pgroth> accepted: proposed publication date of cr dec 11
19:06:05 <pgroth> accepted: request for publication of prov-dc, prov-primer, prov-overview dec 4 with pub date dec 11
19:06:17 <hook> ivan: CR publication request goes out Nov 27th. pgroth to setup Doodle on Dec 5-10.
19:06:42 <pgroth> accepted: announce cr on Nov 27
19:06:52 <hook> Luc: I will produce a bibliographic file. should include URIs of all the documents.
19:06:57 <lebot> 20121211 is a good pile of digits
19:07:21 <hook> ivan: will see with the web master if he is ok with the dates as well.
19:07:43 <hook> pgroth: we are fine with dates.
19:08:22 <hook> Luc: from yesterday, "mentions" will be a Note.
19:08:47 <hook> ivan: for CR we have one more date to finalize. will be part of CR call.
19:09:33 <hook> Luc: there are no Constraints. will look at all of the implementations and compile the implementation report. then go through same exercise for PR.
19:11:05 <hook> ivan: will go through same exercise for PR, but people can work on it sooner. but consider Christmas holiday break. the period after CR could be shortened if we plan ahead. could shoot for Friday, Feb 1st
19:11:25 <pgroth> accepted: Feb 1, 2013 end of CR
19:11:41 <pgroth> q?
19:12:00 <hook> Luc: what happens when we are there, and a feature X does not have two implementation.
19:12:10 <hook> ivan: that means that feature is useless and we remove it.
19:13:06 <hook> pgroth: we have a bigger issue with Constraints. bigger task to implement.
19:13:34 <hook> ... already have Provtoolbox, can throw provenance at it and visualize. then that's two implementations.
19:13:44 <hook> Luc: consumer has to be generic.
19:14:10 <hook> ivan: don't have to be overly generic. it's the intention that counts.
19:14:37 <hook> ... it forces us to think through all of the implementation issues.
19:15:25 <hook> Luc: we need a resolution for DC for first public draft. we don't have it.
19:16:16 <hook> pgroth: we said we will need first acceptance of public draft in telecon...Nov 29th. or can do by email.
19:16:34 <hook> ivan: I will be on travel on Nov 29th.
19:17:35 <hook> pgroth: we need to accept the "mentions" as a Note.
19:18:11 <hook> ... (1) voting for documents and (2) we would create a Note for mentionOf.
19:18:14 <Curt> and what should you call the mention note?
19:18:39 <pgroth> accepted: mentionOf will be put in a separate note as per action-135
19:19:55 <hook> pgroth: smiles, you sent mail to working group list for public comments responses.
19:20:18 <hook> smiles: was sending reminder for repsonses.
19:20:46 <hook> Luc: I thought it was for the eternal reviewers and not for the working group.
19:20:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV_Primer_.28Draft.29
19:20:55 <hook> smiles: as you like.
19:21:26 <smiles> @lebot :)
19:23:08 <lebot> are we proposing to accept those responses?
19:23:10 <pgroth> proposed: the responses to public comments for primer ISSUE-561 ISSUE-562, ISSUE-563, ISSUE-564  are working group responses
19:23:13 <lebot> +1
19:23:14 <ivan> +1
19:23:14 <jcheney> +1
19:23:19 <Curt> +1
19:23:19 <SamCoppens> +1
19:23:21 <CraigTrim> +1
19:23:23 <GK> +1
19:23:25 <hook> +1
19:24:14 <pgroth> accepted: the responses to public comments for primer ISSUE-561 ISSUE-562, ISSUE-563, ISSUE-564  are working group responses
19:24:27 <hook> pgroth: smiles, you can make those changes.
19:24:35 <hook> smiles: changes made. so we are done.
19:25:18 <hook> Luc: looking at responses to public comment, an I invite the editors to check that everything is fine in terms of responses.
19:25:51 <hook> ... ISSUE-592. made resolution yesterday but need response.
19:26:04 <hook> lebot: will update and send out request for group response.
19:26:42 <GK> GK has left #prov
19:26:44 <smiles> Bye, talk to you soon!
19:26:45 <hook> pgroth: wrapping up, earlier than planned. thank you everyone.
19:27:04 <Curt> Curt has left #prov
19:27:06 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
19:27:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
19:27:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth
19:27:21 <Zakim> -smiles
19:27:24 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
19:27:24 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:27:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been smiles, Curt_Tilmes, Dong, SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim, stain, Paolo
19:27:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:27:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot
19:27:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-actions.rdf :
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dong to describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document [1]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-03-35
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to change the respec style for implementation report [2]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-05-24
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: dong check constraints are matching to the updated document [3]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-08-00
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dong to update naming convention to include success/failure of test [4]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-14-05
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention) [5]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-27-49
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire [6]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-45-55
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dong to remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization" [7]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T15-02-01
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik add a question to ask about use of constraints by applications (e.g. "or the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?") [8]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T15-32-56
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: GK to talk to Jun about implementation of constraints and specifically test cases [9]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T15-38-18
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: smiles editor's check on the primer [10]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T16-25-56
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to produce js file with biblio entries for prov documents [11]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T16-27-28
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth check for the current version of dublin core mapping + then send email to tim and craig for review [12]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T16-37-58
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth remind simon what he's supposed to do [13]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T17-15-06
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to add a section on implementing prov and why and how [14]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-36-20
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance [15]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-40-22
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance [16]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-41-00
19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Craig Trim to write a paragraph mot�ivating needs for provenance [17]
19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-41-19
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000993