From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:52:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:52:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/22-prov-irc 14:52:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:52:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:52:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:52:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:52:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:52:20 <trackbot> Date: 22 March 2012 14:52:25 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:52:28 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:44 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.22 14:52:51 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 14:53:04 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes 14:53:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 14:55:18 <pgroth> anybody, having problems with Zakim? 14:55:45 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:55:56 <pgroth> curt, thanks for scribing 14:56:00 <pgroth> it's all set up 14:56:00 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:56:02 <Curt> np 14:56:07 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 14:56:25 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 14:56:48 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov 14:57:23 <pgroth> anybody having problems with Zakim? 14:57:50 <Zakim> +??P39 14:58:06 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:58:50 <MacTed> I'm not familiar enough with Hg.... 14:58:50 <MacTed> can someone tweak the opposite-of-generated example from "prov:consumedBy" to "prov:wasConsumedBy" to more properly parallel "prov:wasGeneratedBy"? 14:59:14 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 14:59:21 <pgroth> having trouble joining 14:59:22 <satya> satya has joined #prov 14:59:50 <Zakim> + +4238059aaaa 14:59:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:59:55 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 15:00:06 <Zakim> +[OpenLink] 15:00:07 <Luc> zakim, +4238059aaaa is me 15:00:08 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 15:00:09 <MacTed> (it's either add "was" to the consumption, or remove it from the generation...) 15:00:18 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me 15:00:18 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:00:20 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:00:20 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:00:28 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:00:39 <Luc> trackbot, start telcon 15:00:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:00:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 15:00:44 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:00:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:00:44 <trackbot> Date: 22 March 2012 15:00:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:00:50 <Zakim> ok, Luc, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started 15:00:54 <Zakim> +??P44 15:00:56 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov 15:00:58 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:01:04 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 15:01:18 <mike_> mike_ has joined #prov 15:01:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44 15:01:22 <Zakim> +tlebo 15:01:29 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P44 is me 15:01:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44, tlebo 15:01:40 <Paolo> zakim, ??P39 is me 15:01:40 <Zakim> + +1.443.708.aabb 15:01:43 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:01:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see GK1, dgarijo, satya, zednik, Paolo, Luc, tlebo, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro 15:02:01 <Zakim> +??P1 15:02:03 <MacTed> Luc has a somewhat bad connection... fuzzes a lot on vocals 15:02:07 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 15:02:10 <dgarijo> zakim, ??P1 is me 15:02:14 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 15:02:39 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:02:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:02:49 <Zakim> -Luc 15:03:22 <kai> kai has joined #prov 15:03:24 <Zakim> +Luc 15:03:39 <Zakim> +??P18 15:03:54 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:03:54 <GK> zakim, ??P18 is me 15:03:57 <pgroth> Topic: Admin <pgroth> Summary: The group was reminded of the time change next week. Additionally, the schedule until the synchronous release was gone over. Paul gave an update on his progress on developing a new version of the prov-aq. 15:04:01 <Zakim> +sandro 15:04:05 <pgroth> Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-15 15:04:09 <Zakim> +GK; got it 15:04:12 <Curt> +1 15:04:16 <dgarijo> +1 15:04:19 <Paolo> +1 15:04:20 <mike_> +1 15:04:21 <zednik> +1 15:04:25 <satya> +1 15:04:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:04:35 <GK> +1 15:04:41 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 15:04:58 <pgroth> Approved Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon 15:05:12 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:05:13 <Zakim> +??P21 15:05:18 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:05:26 <Curt> pgroth: time change reminder -- return next week to normal times 15:05:45 <Curt> ... please sign up scribes 15:06:08 <Curt> ... open actions - paul has drafted PAQ review 15:06:12 <Zakim> +??P8 15:06:20 <jcheney> zakim, ??P8 is me 15:06:20 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:06:24 <Curt> ... graham still needs to review that 15:06:45 <pgroth> +q? 15:06:46 <Curt> ... he just got it -- he will address this week or next 15:06:47 <Luc> q+ 15:06:48 <pgroth> q? 15:07:04 <GK> I'm tied up with project work this week, but should havew time to review next week. 15:07:04 <Curt> luc: is the plan to release the PAQ synced with the others? 15:07:32 <Curt> pgroth: depends -- it may be difficult to do that, graham may be able to get things and we might be able to do it 15:07:42 <pgroth> q? 15:07:42 <Curt> ... we'll at least try to get a synced draft release 15:07:44 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:07:45 <pgroth> ack ? 15:07:46 <GK> (lost my sound briefly then) 15:07:48 <Zakim> -jun 15:08:09 <pgroth> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc 15:08:09 <Zakim> +??P25 15:08:15 <Curt> pgroth: review updated time schedule from google doc 15:08:18 <jun> zakim, ??P25 is me 15:08:18 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:08:34 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov 15:08:36 <Curt> ... synced release of docs in mid-april 15:08:54 <Curt> ... drafts available to the group by the end of next week for internal review 15:09:12 <pgroth> q? 15:09:15 <Zakim> +??P10 15:09:20 <Curt> ... a lot of work has happened, we need the synced release to show progress 15:09:26 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-dm <pgroth> Summary: Luc and Paolo presented the status of prov-dm. In particular, the component organization was focused on. The group was asked to give input on the definitions for alternate and specialization. Reviewers were identified for the three different documents that make up the DM: Prov-dm - Tim, Khalid, Satya, Curt, Jun ; Prov-dm-constraints - James, Tim, Graham ; Prov-N - Khalid, Simon, Tim 15:09:48 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html 15:10:04 <Curt> luc: much work in the last week, revised editors draft exists, not quite ready for review 15:10:12 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#data-model-components 15:10:16 <Curt> ... structure revised 15:10:34 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:10:41 <Paolo> you'll need to scroll down as usual 15:10:54 <Curt> ... section 4 beginning, has a picture of the 6 components 15:11:26 <Curt> ... for each component, we have a short overview and UML diagram depicting the relationships between components 15:11:41 <Luc> : http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#section-example-a 15:11:43 <Curt> ... things are taking shape, the essence we wanted to incorporate is there 15:11:55 <Zakim> +??P15 15:12:01 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P15 is me 15:12:01 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:12:07 <tlebo> colors and tetris. All right! 15:12:12 <Curt> ... section 3.1 has a revised picture taking into account feedback 15:12:17 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html 15:12:29 <Curt> ... PROV-N updated editors draft 15:12:31 <GK> (This linking problem is a respec anomaly -- once page is loaded, clicking on section link works.) 15:12:49 <Curt> ... definition of production, some conflicts resolved, taking shape now 15:12:50 <Paolo> @tlebo I like to think it's a tangram :-) 15:13:04 <Curt> ... still working on collections -- more expected in the coming week 15:13:08 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#glossary-alternate 15:13:19 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#glossary-specialization 15:13:32 <Curt> ... solicit contributions for short english definitions for some concepts 15:13:44 <pgroth> q? 15:13:46 <Curt> ... please email suggestions to luc/paolo and they will incorporate 15:13:57 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-wasInformedBy 15:14:07 <GK> Do we really need alternates/specialization in part 1? 15:14:23 <Luc> Communication 15:14:39 <Luc> Start By Activity (wasStartedByActivity) http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-wasStartedByActivity 15:14:49 <Curt> ... wasInformedBy relation unclear -- suggesting "communication", read that section of the document 15:14:49 <dgarijo> what about dependency? 15:15:27 <Curt> luc: next steps to get to release, still going through some feedback 15:16:06 <Curt> paolo: constraints need some work 15:16:33 <Curt> ... how hard is the deadline next week? many things have to happen in the next week... 15:17:22 <Curt> luc: it is challenging to get 3 documents all together at once. section 2 needs some work 15:17:47 <Curt> ... help on definitions would be welcome 15:18:08 <Curt> paolo: part1, 3 are the priority 15:18:28 <Curt> pgroth: review other documents status, then discuss timeline 15:18:48 <Curt> ... still need to line up reviewers for various documents 15:19:01 <pgroth> q? 15:19:03 <Curt> ... that will help inform timeline 15:19:43 <pgroth> Prov-dm Reviewers 15:19:47 <tlebo> +1 15:19:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:19:50 <satya> +1 15:19:54 <Curt> pgroth: need reviewers for each of three documents 15:19:58 <Curt> +1 15:20:15 <jun> +1 15:20:15 <satya> q+ 15:20:53 <Luc> @satya: documents are not ready!!!!!! 15:21:07 <pgroth> ack satya 15:21:21 <pgroth> Prov-dm-constraints Reviewers 15:21:30 <Luc> q+ 15:21:35 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:21:38 <jcheney> +1 15:21:40 <tlebo> +1 15:21:56 <GK> I'll plan to review "constraints", provided it's available before April 15:22:28 <pgroth> Prov-n Reviewers 15:22:33 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:22:36 <smiles> +1 15:22:37 <tlebo> +1 15:23:03 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o <pgroth> Summary: An update on the status of prov-o was given. The document has been reorganized and authors have been identified to contribute to the various parts of the document. The group is on track to release by next week. Reviewers were identified for prov-o: Luc, Paul, Simon 15:23:37 <Curt> tlebo: reorganized HTML document, emphasizing difference between simple/extended 15:23:48 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.22#PROV-O 15:23:55 <Curt> ... new design in progress, met monday and assigned some writing sections 15:24:12 <Curt> ... getting together early next week, draft available next friday 15:24:15 <pgroth> q? 15:25:05 <pgroth> Reviewers Prov-o 15:25:08 <Luc> +1 15:25:16 <pgroth> +1 15:25:40 <smiles> +1 15:25:58 <Luc> q+ 15:26:03 <GK> I think the most important reviews of PROV-O will come from implementers like Stian 15:26:22 <Curt> luc: for next week, editors of the documents should identify specific questions for reviewers to address 15:26:37 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, Stian is part of the provo team :-) 15:26:53 <Curt> pgroth: this is a review to determine public release, should they go public? 15:26:58 <pgroth> q? 15:27:00 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:27:05 <pgroth> Topic: Primer <pgroth> Summary: An update on the status of the primer was given. Input was given to Simon by Stian and Paolo. Simon is looking for examples for some of the constructs and was pointed to the coverage page. The primer should be on schedule for release. Reviewers were identified for the next release: Paolo, Christine, Curt 15:27:06 <GK> @Khalid - Even better! 15:27:07 <Curt> luc: that is one question, there may be others 15:27:42 <Zakim> -??P10 15:27:52 <Curt> gk: still revising, determine if other docs are stable to incorporate any change back into the primer 15:28:18 <GK> @Curt ^^ That was Simon, I think 15:28:34 <Curt> s/gk/smiles/ 15:28:37 <pgroth> q? 15:29:03 <Curt> smiles: looking for examples to put in 15:29:11 <Curt> tlebo: use the big example collection online 15:29:23 <Zakim> +??P10 15:29:37 <Curt> smiles: examples organized by domain, not by concept -- need to find focused examples for concepts 15:30:02 <Curt> tlebo: we might try to pick trivial examples for each concept 15:30:26 <Curt> ... look at the descriptions -- it lists the constructs that various examples use 15:30:37 <pgroth> q? 15:30:40 <pgroth> q? 15:30:49 <pgroth> Primer Reviewers 15:30:50 <Curt> ... might be out of date, let me know if something needs to get updated 15:30:58 <Paolo> +1 15:30:58 <tlebo> coverage page: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/provrdf-owl-coverage shows which constructs are used in which examples (or did, or should...) 15:30:59 <Christine> +1 if you think it would be useful 15:30:59 <Curt> +1 15:31:05 <Zakim> -??P10 15:31:19 <Luc> Will review, but may not meet deadline if still editing prov-dm-* 15:31:27 <pgroth> Topic: Schedule <pgroth> Summary: The group revisited the schedule based on current progress. The following time table was agreed to: April 2 - drafts released to the working group for review. April 9 reviews submitted. A vote on release will happen on April 12 if possible but otherwise on April 19. 15:31:41 <smiles> @tlebo great, thanks 15:31:49 <Curt> pgroth: schedule -- editors can you meet the target dates? 15:31:51 <pgroth> q? 15:32:03 <Paolo> q+ 15:32:15 <tlebo> @smiles, some of it looks broken, if there's a particualr question you need answered, point it out to me, please. 15:32:21 <GK> Might it be helpful to stagger releases, so reviewers aren't overcommitted? 15:32:36 <Curt> paolo: two out of three parts, next friday possible, part 2 maybe the next week 15:32:41 <pgroth> ack Paolo 15:32:48 <tlebo> q+ 15:32:51 <Curt> luc: yes, I would like to do that 15:33:11 <tlebo> Friday is reasonable target, early the follwoing week is realistic 15:33:12 <Curt> luc: PROV-DM,PROV-N by friday; constraints early the next week 15:33:32 <GK> It might be difficult for me to get a printed copy for review oif not available by 3-Apr 15:33:32 <Curt> tlebo: next friday possible, early the next week more realistic for PROV-O 15:33:47 <Curt> smiles: next friday ok 15:34:11 <Curt> pgroth: how about Monday the second, but earlier if possible 15:34:21 <smiles> Fine by me 15:34:22 <Luc> review timetable? 15:34:52 <Curt> pgroth: if we do Monday 2nd, then use 1 week for review 15:34:54 <pgroth> 4/9 for reviews back 15:35:04 <Luc> easter vacations .... 15:35:21 <GK> 1 week for review would be OK for me. 15:35:32 <tlebo> leaves 1.5 weeks to review, no? (was 2 weeks) 15:35:43 <Luc> i can review provo on 4th in time for the 5th telecon 15:35:57 <Paolo> if I am doing just the primer, won't take long. I would like to contribute a new example for collections. So, 2 days 15:36:11 <Curt> pgroth: the 2 weeks was 1 week to review, 1 week to respond to the review 15:36:19 <tlebo> @paul, got it. 1 week to review and 1 week to reflect feedback. 15:36:56 <Curt> luc: release/voting had been planned for 12th, probably not realistic with new schedule, esp. with Easter et al. 15:37:27 <Curt> pgroth: what about 4/19 for formal vote for release 15:37:31 <pgroth> Vote April 19 15:37:33 <Curt> luc: at the latest 15:37:56 <smiles> q+ 15:38:02 <pgroth> ack tlebo 15:38:04 <pgroth> ack smiles 15:38:29 <Curt> smiles: clarify 15:38:49 <Curt> pgroth: one of the questions for review -- are there release blockers? 15:39:07 <Curt> ... if there are things that can be addressed later, that's ok 15:39:41 <Curt> smiles: even non-reviewers need to read enough to determine their vote 15:39:55 <Luc> yes, everybody will be invited to review 15:40:34 <pgroth> Revised schedule 15:40:43 <pgroth> 4/2 for release to reviewers 15:40:54 <pgroth> and working group 15:41:12 <pgroth> 4/9 reviews in 15:41:23 <pgroth> 4/19 vote by working group 15:41:27 <pgroth> q? 15:41:37 <tlebo> looks fine 15:41:49 <Paolo> works for me 15:41:50 <satya> works for me 15:41:53 <jun> +1 15:42:00 <jcheney> I may need another day or two = the period from 4/2-4/9 is super busy for me 15:42:00 <Curt> luc: potentially earlier, perhaps 4/12 if possible 15:42:06 <khalidbelhajjame> good for me 15:42:18 <smiles> Yes, possible I think 15:42:45 <Curt> pgroth: reviewers should focus on question of release 15:42:47 <pgroth> q? 15:42:58 <pgroth> Topic: Namespace Unification <pgroth> Summary: The idea for a common namespace across the various products of the WG has been proposed a number of times. Paul put out a concrete proposal to adopt a particular namespace with a corresponding landing page. This approach seemed to have broad support in the group, however, there were questions about the ramifications of a choice of namespace on both XML and rdf processing tools (i.e. do we have a # or not in the namespace). Sandro agreed to ask xml experts on the issue and get back to the group with their opinion. 15:43:11 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0386.html 15:43:37 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# 15:43:42 <Curt> pgroth: put out proposal^ 15:43:59 <Curt> pgroth: that would point to landing page with glossary of all the terms 15:44:27 <Curt> ... content negotiation would return OWL/TTL/XSD as requested 15:44:33 <pgroth> q? 15:44:35 <GK> q+ to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate accept headers? 15:45:08 <pgroth> ack GK 15:45:08 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate accept headers? 15:45:26 <MacTed> voice is there, but it's not OK.... lots of breakup. some is comprehensible, most is not. 15:45:33 <Curt> gk: <breaking up> will the tools be able to retrieve the right thing? 15:45:37 <tlebo> @gk, AFIAK, yes. Tools do request RDF. If they don't, they should. 15:45:46 <Luc> q+ 15:45:52 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:46:27 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# in rdf 15:46:34 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema in xml. 15:46:59 <Curt> luc: I'm fine with pgroth proposal, but we also had a namespace for the XML schema, is the hash compatible? 15:47:30 <Zakim> -??P21 15:47:45 <GK> AFAIK, The choice of XML namespace for XSD preceded the use of namespaces for RDF, and the issue of concatanating namespace+local to forkm a URI didn't arise. 15:47:46 <tlebo> q+ to state that # is part of the fragid, and is taken off before HTTP request. Also, all w3 namespaces uses the #. 15:48:00 <Curt> pgroth: if you use RDF, you use the hash, with XML, you don't [??] you still dereference to the same place 15:48:20 <Curt> tlebo: you have to remove the fragement when you request the URI with HTTP 15:48:32 <Curt> s/fragement/fragment/ 15:48:46 <pgroth> sandro are you there? 15:48:50 <Curt> tlebo: others use the hash the way we are proposing 15:48:56 <GK> (I('m looking in XML namespace spec at moment) 15:48:59 <zednik> '#' is for client side processing, yes? 15:49:19 <pgroth> : http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# 15:49:21 <Curt> luc: not sure -- it is frustrating to have to use two different namespaces 15:49:22 <pgroth> : http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema## 15:49:29 <sandro> (I am here, pgroth and trying to page in the details) 15:49:39 <Curt> pgroth: XML usage would double the hash 15:49:46 <GK> [Definition: An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#URIRef; element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using the mechanisms described in this specification. ] 15:49:53 <GK> That's from XML namespace spec 15:49:59 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/rif 15:50:07 <GK> That allows a '#' in the namespace URI for XML namespaces 15:50:24 <GK> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#concepts 15:50:33 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:50:34 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 15:50:35 <Curt> sandro: RIF used the hash within the XML usage, didn't get pushback 15:50:38 <MacTed> q+ 15:50:46 <pgroth> ack tlebo 15:50:46 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to state that # is part of the fragid, and is taken off before HTTP request. Also, all w3 namespaces uses the #. 15:50:49 <Curt> sandro: the hash is very normal within RDF community 15:51:09 <Curt> macted: hash is problematic, esp. since it is really a client side thing 15:51:10 <GK> q+ to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above 15:51:30 <pgroth> ack MacTed 15:51:31 <GK> Tools that send '#' are BROKEN 15:51:31 <Curt> macted: a small number of tools send it to the server 15:51:53 <MacTed> Zakim, mute 15:51:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mute', MacTed 15:51:55 <pgroth> can you not talk into your mike 15:51:56 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:51:56 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:52:24 <Curt> pgroth: how can we best resolve this? 15:52:50 <Curt> pgroth: this plan sounds good, but how can we determine if it is correct? 15:53:14 <Curt> sandro: I'll consult with XML experts, schema workgroup, etc. 15:53:45 <Curt> pgroth: semantic web activity group? 15:53:54 <GK> What we could do for now is choose a '#' URI and document our rationale that this is OK in XML (see above), and ask for explcit review in PWD. 15:53:58 <Curt> sandro: this is really an XML question 15:54:25 <Curt> sandro: could also ask semantic web coordination group 15:54:31 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used refers to #used at http://www.w3.org/ns/prov -- isn't this the same as what luc's xml schema is referencing? 15:54:35 <tlebo> q+ 15:54:43 <pgroth> ack GK 15:54:43 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above 15:54:46 <GK> ack gk 15:54:48 <Curt> sandro: will draft an email requesting input from others 15:54:55 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:54:59 <pgroth> ack tlebo 15:55:27 <Curt> tlebo: namespace shouldn't have the hash 15:55:37 <Curt> sandro: do any tools break? 15:56:20 <GK> RDF really likes the namespace to end with '#' or '/' - so that the parts can be teased apart later. 15:56:28 <Curt> luc: esp. with RDFa, you are using RDF and XML together, namespace declarations just define 'prov' 15:56:32 <pgroth> q? 15:56:39 <sandro> <prov xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#">... 15:56:41 <MacTed> are there any known examples where NOT having the # in the namespace leads to problem? 15:56:41 <MacTed> we've come up with various ways having it *MIGHT* cause trouble... 15:56:41 <MacTed> so why do we *want* it to be part of the namespace? 15:56:45 <MacTed> what's the argument to include it? 15:56:48 <GK> RDF/XML commonly uses XML namespace decls with '#' at end of URI 15:57:04 <Luc> q+ 15:57:15 <Luc> http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/49 15:57:18 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:57:26 <Curt> luc: see blog^ she talks about this problem 15:57:41 <Curt> luc: maybe she could help us 15:57:53 <GK> Yes, that;s the issue - RDF concatenates, XML doesn't assume the pair are used to create a new URI 15:58:06 <Curt> pgroth: let's consult with all these groups/people to figure out the right common namespace 15:58:27 <GK> I think a common namespace is nice, but if we can't it's not a total disaster IMO 15:58:45 <pgroth> q? 15:58:50 <Curt> sandro: will review the blog and include jeni as well 15:59:00 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 15:59:02 <Zakim> -tlebo 15:59:02 <Zakim> -dgarijo 15:59:03 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 15:59:03 <Zakim> -Paolo 15:59:07 <Zakim> -sandro 15:59:09 <Zakim> -jcheney 15:59:12 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 15:59:13 <Zakim> -MacTed 15:59:23 <Zakim> - +1.443.708.aabb 15:59:25 <Zakim> -pgroth 15:59:31 <Zakim> -Luc 15:59:35 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 15:59:46 <GK> http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/49 - this may be Jeni's blog post 16:00:06 <GK> Dated 2007, "Things that make me scream ..." 16:00:46 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 16:00:51 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth 16:00:56 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 16:00:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:00:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, Luc, MacTed, tlebo, +1.443.708.aabb, pgroth, Paolo, dgarijo, sandro, GK, jun, jcheney, 16:00:59 <Zakim> ... khalidbelhajjame 16:01:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:01:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:01:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:01:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000402