Chatlog 2013-01-31

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

15:53:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:53:14 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:53:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:53:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:53:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:53:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:53:19 <trackbot> Date: 31 January 2013
15:53:19 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:53:20 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:34 <Luc> Agenda:
15:53:43 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:53:49 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:54:02 <Luc> Regrets: Simon Miles, Tom De Nies
15:54:34 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov
15:55:02 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:56:56 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:57:30 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:57:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:57:40 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:57:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
15:57:48 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:57:48 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:57:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:13 <Paolo> do you still need a scribe
15:59:19 <Zakim> +Luc
15:59:38 <Luc> yes paolo
15:59:42 <Paolo> ok
15:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:59:52 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:59:54 <Luc> can you do it? it's all set up
16:00:03 <Luc> scribe: Paolo Missier
16:00:05 <stain> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:00:07 <Zakim> +stain; got it
16:00:18 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:00:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:00:19 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:00:24 <Zakim> + +44.131.651.aaaa
16:00:28 <stain> I didn't know it could do outgoing!
16:00:29 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me
16:00:29 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:00:31 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
16:00:49 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
16:00:58 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
16:01:06 <Zakim> + +1.315.941.aabb
16:01:13 <lebot> zakim, I am aabb
16:01:13 <Zakim> +lebot; got it
16:01:19 <Luc> topic: Admin
16:01:33 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:01:33 <Zakim> +??P5
16:01:34 <Zakim> +??P27
16:01:42 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P5 is me
16:01:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:02:10 <Luc> Proposed: To approve the Minutes of Jan. 24, 2013
16:02:12 <lebot> +1
16:02:13 <stain>
16:02:18 <dgarijo> +1
16:02:20 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
16:02:23 <Paolo> +1
16:02:23 <GK1> +0 (not present)
16:02:24 <hook> +1
16:02:27 <Curt> +1
16:02:29 <stain> +1
16:02:29 <ivan> 0 (not present)
16:02:38 <jcheney> that link is from 2 weeks ago
16:02:47 <GK1> zakim, ??p27 is me
16:02:47 <Zakim> +GK1; got it
16:02:48 <Curt>
16:02:49 <stain>
16:02:56 <jcheney> +1
16:02:58 <Luc> Accepted: the Minutes of Jan. 24, 2013
16:03:01 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:03:05 <stain> I clicked Agendwa in topic you see
16:03:17 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
16:03:39 <pgroth> done
16:03:40 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: /topic *
16:03:49 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: Agenda:
16:04:02 <Luc> Topic: WG Implementations
<Luc> Summary: Paul updated the group on implementation surveys. We are now meeting the CR exit criteria set for prov-o. For prov-n, all features but six are exchanged by an interoperability pair in which the two implementations are software systems; all features are exchanged by an interoperability pair  in which the "producer" is a document, and the consumer a software system.  All prov-constraint test cases except one are passed by two independent applications. The last test case, using bnodes in turtle, will be rewritten with explicit URIs.  While the group welcomes further implementation surveys, the group considers that it has met the CR exit criteria: Paul and Dong will begin drafting the implementation report.
16:04:04 <pgroth> q+
16:04:13 <Paolo> action 162 to be closed
16:04:13 <trackbot> Error finding '162'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
16:04:22 <Paolo> (oops sorry)
16:04:39 <pgroth>
16:04:56 <Paolo> pgroth: deeper analysis of current implementations
16:05:18 <Paolo> pgroth: do we meet out exit criteria?
16:05:27 <Paolo> pgroth: PROV-O no problem
16:05:27 <Luc>
16:06:07 <Paolo> pgroth: PROV-N: we do meet our exit criteria, 2 kinds of apps implementation, have a vocabulary usage that covers the additional features
16:06:12 <Luc> q?
16:06:16 <pgroth> q-
16:06:18 <Paolo> pgroth: so we can conclude we do have impl. that interoperate with PROV-N
16:06:43 <Paolo> pgroth: PROV-CONSTRAINTS: we meet the criteria here too, with caveats:
16:07:18 <jcheney> stephen and I are working on a prolog impl, hoping to have something ready to go today or tomorrow
16:07:19 <Paolo> pgroth: one implementation has one test case not passing. That is one short of the total required
16:07:22 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:07:27 <Paolo> pgroth: Ivan to look at it, probably ok
16:07:31 <jcheney> but need xml-valid prov-xml examples
16:07:36 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:07:39 <jcheney> (stephen cresswell)
16:07:50 <Paolo> pgroth: it would look better if we had one more implementation
16:07:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:07:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:08:02 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:08:06 <Paolo> pgroth: on the other hand, it's the hardest of the docs to implement
16:08:07 <Zakim> +??P17
16:08:09 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:08:09 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
16:08:39 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:08:39 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:08:44 <Luc> which one is failing?
16:09:03 <Paolo> ivan: what is the issue with the one failing test case?
16:09:16 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:09:28 <Paolo> pgroth: has to do with bnodes, could probably be fixed
16:09:39 <Luc> q+
16:09:41 <Zakim> +??P31
16:10:02 <Paolo> ivan: there will be a need to explain as to why we don't pass all tests
16:10:03 <lebot> q+ to propose that pgroth bangs head :-)
16:10:06 <lebot> q-
16:10:08 <TomDN> Zakim, +??P31 is probably me
16:10:09 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not understand your question
16:10:12 <jcheney> heh heh
16:10:20 <Paolo> Luc: the exit criteria don't define the tests -- we are free to define the test set
16:10:25 <TomDN> Zakim, P31 is  me
16:10:25 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not recognize a party named 'P31'
16:10:33 <TomDN> Zakim, +??P31 is  me
16:10:33 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not recognize a party named '+??P31'
16:10:51 <Paolo> Luc: can the test itself be rephrased?
16:10:53 <pgroth> prov-dm-ex23_start-PASS.ttl
16:11:24 <TomDN> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:11:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, [IPcaller], Luc, stain, Ivan, jcheney, lebot, dgarijo, GK1, Curt_Tilmes, +1.818.731.aacc, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller.aa], ??P17, Satya_Sahoo, ??P31
16:11:38 <TomDN> Zakim, ??P31 is me
16:11:38 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
16:12:00 <Paolo> Luc: this has been discussed elsewhere and there seems to be an easy way to fix the problem in the test case
16:12:21 <lebot> +1000 to using URIs over bnodes.
16:12:52 <Paolo> Luc: propose to change the ttl example to use explicit URIs, that will take care of it
16:13:35 <Paolo> Luc: pgroth has indicated 6-7 features that are not exchanged using the prov representation. this is about prov-n
16:13:48 <Paolo> Luc: how do we know that all features have been exchanged in prov-o?
16:14:12 <Paolo> pgroth: two implementations have reported that -- simon's and Luc's.
16:15:06 <Paolo> Luc: then propose to use the same example for prov-n -- one produces prov-n, the other consumes prov-n
16:15:19 <TomDN> neither do I
16:16:14 <Paolo> pgroth: the two impl, should be independent so using two from soton won't work
16:16:42 <Paolo> Luc: are we fine then wrt prov-n?
16:17:05 <TomDN> The problem is: if I want to support all of prov-n, I could just use the ProvToolbox
16:17:52 <pgroth> q+
16:18:00 <Luc> ack luc
16:18:42 <Paolo> pgroth: majority of prov-n is consumed by two independent impl., but not all features are coverd by each implementation -- does that have a bearing on interop?
16:19:12 <Paolo> pgroth: different people use different combinations of features
16:19:58 <Paolo> pgroth: so comfortable that they are interchangeable, but do we need to be stricter than that about the exit criteria?
16:20:01 <Luc> q?
16:20:17 <Luc> ack  pg
16:20:48 <GK> I don't think there should be a requirement for single implementation that does everything.  Each feature should be implementable (interoperably) by some pair of implementations.
16:21:01 <stain> I was hacking together a PROV-DM "API" in Clojure, but struggled with PROV-N parsing as EBNF is so many things and not something you can just throw at a parser library without massaging first
16:22:26 <Paolo> Luc: TomDN can you export more features than you do now?
16:22:52 <Paolo> TomDN: not much sense because the app is about reconstructing provenance --
16:22:55 <Luc> q?
16:23:12 <Luc> topic: cr exit
<Luc>Summary: We discussed the contents of the implementation report. Dong will try to generate table from WBS data; Paul will draft the prose introducing the tables.  We reviewed outstanding tasks on the recommendation track documents. No outstanding issue for prov-dm and prov-n.  Formal issues on prov-o have been addressed, but minor editorial issues (concerning examples) remain to be addressed. A few explanatory remarks are planned to be added to prov-constraints. Plan is to complete changes by next teleconference, or shortly afterwards.  We also discussed the note-track documents: prov-dc are planning a revised version for internal review next week. The group is invited to submit issues if they want changes addressed to the remaining documents. All documents will have to add prov-dictionary to the "status of this document" paragraph.
16:23:29 <Paolo> Luc: time to writing up the implementation report
16:23:29 <pgroth> that's me
16:23:47 <Dong> yes
16:23:56 <jcheney> q+
16:23:59 <Paolo> Luc: proposed authors: Dong zednik pgroth
16:24:32 <pgroth> q+
16:24:34 <Paolo> jcheney: XML test cases: xml examples not all valid, so not all can be parsed
16:24:43 <Dong> I can fix those
16:24:55 <Paolo> Luc: it should be possible to fix them
16:25:06 <Luc> q?
16:25:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth
<luc>Topic: PROV-O
<luc> log missing
<luc>Resolved: as a Working Group Response
<luc>Summary: The group endorsed the response as to why some constraints are not implemented in PROV-O.  Paul will feedback to reviewers.
<luc>Topic: PROV-AQ
<luc> log missing
<luc>Summary: Editors are still working through the reviewer's feedback. They are invited to initiate debate by email on outstanding issues, with a view to vote on some of them shortly.
<luc>Topic: PROV-XML
<luc> log missing
<luc>Summary: Luc left the call at that point. The group discussed outstanding issues informally.