From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 17:00, 12 April 2012 by Jcheney
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:38:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:38:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-prov-irc 14:38:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:38:12 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:38:13 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:38:13 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes 14:38:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:38:14 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:38:15 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:38:15 <trackbot> Date: 12 April 2012 14:38:25 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.12 14:38:38 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:38:47 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth 14:39:00 <Luc> Scribe: James Cheney 14:39:07 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:39:17 <Luc> TOPIC: Admin <jcheney> Summary: The minutes were approved. Open actions are due on Monday and should be discussed in the PROV-O telecon. 14:54:31 <tdenies> tdenies (Tom De Nies) has joined #prov 14:55:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:55:37 <Zakim> + +329331aaaa 14:56:17 <tdenies> Zakim, +329331aaaa is me 14:56:17 <Zakim> +tdenies; got it 14:56:29 <tdenies> Zakim, mute me 14:56:29 <Zakim> sorry, tdenies, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 14:57:42 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:58:22 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 14:58:57 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aabb 14:59:10 <tdenies> Zakim, mute me 14:59:10 <Zakim> tdenies should now be muted 14:59:12 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aabb is me 14:59:13 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:59:27 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 15:00:06 <Zakim> +??P9 15:00:27 <Zakim> +[ISI] 15:00:48 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:00:49 <Zakim> +??P14 15:00:57 <bvillazo> bvillazo (Daniel Garijo) has joined #prov 15:01:00 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see tdenies (muted), Curt_Tilmes, Luc, ??P9, [ISI], ??P14 15:01:07 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aacc 15:01:11 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:01:11 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:01:14 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov 15:01:16 <Zakim> -??P14 15:01:24 <lebot> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see tdenies (muted), Curt_Tilmes, Luc, ??P9, [ISI], +1.315.330.aacc 15:01:26 <Zakim> +??P17 15:01:28 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:01:28 <Zakim> +??P19 15:01:31 <lebot> zakim, I am aacc 15:01:31 <Zakim> +lebot; got it 15:01:35 <Zakim> +??P18 15:01:37 <Zakim> +??P14 15:01:42 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:43 <jcheney> zakim, ??p14 isme 15:01:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see tdenies (muted), Curt_Tilmes, Luc, ??P9, [ISI], lebot, ??P17, ??P19, ??P18, ??P14 15:01:46 <jcheney> zakim, ??p14 is me 15:01:47 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with tdenies 15:01:50 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p14 isme', jcheney 15:01:52 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 15:01:55 <bvillazo> Zakim, ??P19 is probably me 15:01:56 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it 15:02:00 <Zakim> +??P21 15:02:02 <christine> christine has joined #prov 15:02:03 <Zakim> +bvillazo; got it 15:02:04 <jun> zakim, ??P21 is me 15:02:11 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:02:48 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:02:49 <jcheney> Luc: Minutes of the April 05 2012 Telecon 15:02:55 <Zakim> +??P24 15:03:16 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-04-05 15:03:21 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov 15:03:23 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov 15:03:28 <lebot> +0 did not attend. 15:03:30 <jcheney> +1 15:03:31 <Curt> +1 15:03:32 <tdenies> +1 15:03:32 <Paolo> +1 15:03:33 <SamCoppens> +1 15:03:34 <bvillazo> +0 (I didn't attend) 15:03:36 <jun> +1 15:03:37 <christine> +0 did not attend 15:03:39 <smiles> +1 15:03:55 <jcheney> Approved minutes of the April 05 2012 Telecon 15:04:39 <jcheney> Luc: open actions 15:05:06 <jcheney> ... Six actions due on the 16th, to be reviewed at prov-o telecon 15:05:12 <Luc> Topic: PAQ <jcheney> Summary: A new draft of PAQ is available. Curt, Olaf, Sam, Tim and Luc agreed to review it, mostly by around April 20. Review questions are listed in the agenda. 15:05:16 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 15:05:24 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:05:25 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/prov-aq.html 15:05:32 <jcheney> Luc: New draft available 15:05:53 <jcheney> ... needs reviewers 15:06:06 <lebot> When is the review due? 15:06:39 <Curt> I'll review PAQ 15:06:42 <jun> Olaf said via email that he could do it 15:06:43 <SamCoppens> I can 15:06:46 <Curt> Olaf also volunteered on mailing list 15:07:21 <Luc> reviewers Curt, Olaf, Sam, Tim(*), Luc(*) 15:07:36 <tdenies> Zakim, unmute me 15:07:36 <Zakim> tdenies should no longer be muted 15:08:16 <jcheney> ... due April 20th tentatively 15:08:22 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:08:38 <jcheney> ... Three questions for reviewers 15:08:52 <Luc> q? 15:08:56 <jcheney> ... (see agenda) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.12#PAQ 15:09:02 <Zakim> +??P34 15:09:14 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P34 is me 15:09:14 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:09:16 <jcheney> Topic: Word from the chairs <jcheney> Summary: Many detailed reviews are in. Some documents are ready to go, while others have significant problems. The strategy agreed at the F2F meeting for keeping to the timetable was reviewed. 15:09:46 <jcheney> Luc: Lots of detailed reviews are in, some blocking issues identified 15:09:46 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-02#resolution_1 15:09:57 <Luc> The strategy is to be time-driven along the proposed time table . In case of slippage, the issue(s) causing slippage will be a candidate for removal. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2Intro#Revisited_Timetable 15:10:02 <jcheney> ... Strategy from f2f meeting 15:11:47 <jcheney> sandro: timetable important, should keep it updated w.r.t. reality 15:12:08 <jcheney> Luc: last PROV-O release was in December 2011, need to update now 15:12:33 <jcheney> ... had agreed on synchronized release 15:12:42 <jcheney> ... better for showing progress and getting feedback 15:13:12 <Zakim> +??P36 15:13:29 <Luc> q? 15:13:45 <jcheney> ... comments? 15:13:54 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:14:02 <pgroth> +q 15:14:06 <pgroth> q- 15:14:12 <pgroth> sorry 15:14:17 <Luc> topic: Release of documents <jcheney> Summary: The reviews and readiness for release of the main documents was summarized. PROV-O and PROV-PRIMER were generally agreed to be ready for release. PROV-N is also mostly ready, but some issues have been identified and will be worked on. The three reviews of PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS by Graham, James and Tim identified a number of problems which block release. The reviews of PROV-DM were mixed, and there are some blocking issues. Two options were discussed: (A) revising the documents for synchronized release next week, or (B) delaying until challenging issues are resolved. The options were discussed, along with process issues concerning last call, and the group supported option A. 15:14:34 <pgroth> zakim, who is on the call? 15:14:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see tdenies, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, ??P9, [ISI], lebot, ??P17, bvillazo, christine, jcheney, jun, Sandro, ??P24, Satya_Sahoo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth 15:14:40 <Zakim> tdenies has tdenies, SamCoppens 15:14:43 <jcheney> Luc: Had identified reviewers. Most reviews are in now 15:14:46 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P36 is me 15:14:46 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 15:14:54 <jcheney> ... any pending reviews? 15:15:13 <jcheney> smiles: Christine may be reviewing primer 15:16:06 <jcheney> christine: Will review if helpful 15:16:42 <jcheney> Luc: MacTed's reviews not in - seems not to be on the call 15:16:51 <lebot> @macted, are you planning to review provo? 15:16:51 <jcheney> ... overall recommendations: 15:17:06 <jcheney> primer, prov-o: ready to release 15:17:07 <pgroth> sorry I was late... did we get reviews for the paq 15:17:20 <jun> @pgroth, yes we did 15:17:21 <pgroth> reviewers for the paq? 15:17:24 <jcheney> ... prov-n: mostly yes, but some issues raised by simon to be addressed 15:17:28 <pgroth> @jun thanks 15:17:33 <jcheney> ... prov-dm-constraints: no 15:17:48 <jcheney> ... prov-dm: mixed reviews, some blocking issues 15:18:08 <jcheney> ... options: A. release early 15:18:43 <jcheney> ... vote on 19th, benefit: external feedback 15:18:55 <jcheney> ... in parallel, start work on remaining issues 15:19:21 <jcheney> ... option B. delay release, so that we tackle issues prior to last call 15:19:34 <jcheney> ... unclear how long release will be delayed 15:19:49 <jcheney> ... won't get feedback 15:20:58 <Luc> q? 15:21:01 <jcheney> ... want to take vote on these 15:21:11 <smiles> q+ 15:21:40 <Luc> ack smi 15:21:52 <jcheney> q+ 15:22:47 <pgroth> +q 15:22:52 <Luc> ack jc 15:23:27 <bvillazo> I agree with Simon: it would be useful to see if external feedback also agrees on the issues we already have for releasing the documents. 15:23:47 <jcheney> jcheney: confirm we want to release synchronously. 15:23:59 <jcheney> ... in what order do we decide what to drop (if anything) 15:24:07 <lebot> q+ let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've been baking this iteration for long enough. 15:24:21 <jcheney> Luc: plan to address concerns and release what we have after a week, not remove things by next week 15:24:30 <jcheney> ... any dropping will happen after the release 15:24:32 <Luc> q? 15:24:45 <lebot> q+ to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've been baking this iteration for long enough. 15:25:05 <jcheney> jcheney: then we will decide what to drop by last call release 15:25:30 <jcheney> pgroth: we can change until last call 15:25:54 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:25:58 <pgroth> thanks sandro 15:26:07 <jcheney> sandro: can change after last call but changes should be motivated by external review 15:26:14 <jcheney> ... any group input should happen before lc 15:26:23 <pgroth> material change 15:26:37 <jcheney> Luc: no change? 15:26:59 <pgroth> it's key to get the ontology right for example 15:27:01 <jcheney> sandro: improving text is fine, but changes that break implementations are not, and require reverting to last call 15:27:06 <pgroth> before last call 15:27:27 <jcheney> Luc: with several documents, what happens to others? 15:27:30 <Luc> q? 15:27:33 <jcheney> sandro: can be separated if we want 15:27:53 <jcheney> lebot: recommend A, have been working on this for some time and external feedback needed 15:28:00 <Luc> q? 15:28:04 <Luc> ack lebot 15:28:04 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've 15:28:08 <Zakim> ... been baking this iteration for long enough. 15:28:25 <jcheney> Luc: any argument in favor of option b? 15:28:34 <Luc> proposed: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th 15:28:39 <satya> +1 15:28:43 <lebot> +1 15:28:44 <jun> +1 15:28:45 <jcheney> +1 15:28:45 <smiles> +1 15:28:45 <Curt> +1 15:28:46 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:28:47 <tdenies> +1 15:28:48 <bvillazo> +1 to A 15:29:00 <SamCoppens> +1 for A 15:29:21 <Luc> q? 15:29:40 <Luc> accepted: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th 15:30:02 <smiles> q+ 15:31:25 <Luc> ack smiles 15:31:36 <Luc> Topic: Challenging issues <jcheney> Summary: Remaining challenging issues were discussed. 15:32:12 <jcheney> Luc: Outstanding problems for discussion/decisions 15:32:19 <jcheney> subtopic: PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS <jcheney> Summary: James will help edit PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS in advance of release, incorporating feedback from Graham and Tim. 15:32:57 <jcheney> ... Reviews identified consistent problems 15:33:26 <jcheney> ... jcheney to help 15:34:04 <jcheney> lebot: biggest point: organization & navigation poor 15:34:28 <jcheney> ... suggested naming/consistency and navigation improvements 15:34:52 <Luc> q? 15:34:58 <jcheney> Subtopic: PROV-N <jcheney> Summary: PROV-N was mostly agreed to be ready to go, but would benefit from linking to allow naviagtion of the grammar. There are tools to turn YACC grammars into HTML with appropriate hyperlinks. Luc and Sandro will look into using existing tools. 15:35:19 <jcheney> ... request from Tim to navigate the productions 15:35:27 <jcheney> ... there is a tool that generates html from YACC 15:35:43 <jcheney> ... would like to see if anyone can write such a grammar 15:35:53 <Luc> q? 15:36:01 <jcheney> (I've used yacc, but is it that hard?) 15:36:12 <Paolo> I missed the lastpart of your sentence 15:36:17 <jcheney> ok 15:36:23 <lebot> @luc, sorry, I'm YACC-impaired :-( 15:36:35 <jcheney> I can probably write something if someone else can maintain it 15:36:57 <pgroth> +q 15:37:01 <stephenc> Interested in helping - not sure exactly what you're asking for 15:37:16 <Paolo> antlr 15:37:52 <jcheney> YACC deals with LALR gramars, but if you just want to use it to generate html this shouldn't matter 15:38:10 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:38:10 <jcheney> Luc: Have LL grammar, SPARQL is also LL 15:38:22 <jcheney> sandro: Eric Prud'hommeaux has tools 15:38:29 <pgroth> +10 15:38:46 <jcheney> http://www.quut.com/berlin/ht/yacc2html.html ?? 15:39:10 <Zakim> -pgroth 15:39:11 <Luc> q? 15:39:19 <jcheney> Luc: will coordinate with sandro to look into this 15:39:54 <jcheney> ... Want to ask about PROV-O status 15:40:21 <jcheney> lebot: current focus on feedback from reviews, no major issues. RL constraint limits what can be done. 15:40:32 <jcheney> ... need to iterate and include examples in cross-reference 15:40:41 <jcheney> ... and check against ontology to stay in sync 15:40:50 <jcheney> q+ 15:40:57 <jcheney> Luc: issues in tracker? 15:41:35 <jcheney> lebot: backlog, being cleared slowly 15:41:41 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, did you get the text I sent you on collections yesterday? 15:41:46 <jcheney> q- 15:41:52 <jcheney> Subtopic: PROV-DM <jcheney> Summary: Many challenging issues remain in PROV-DM. The discussion addressed how to make progress on them without (mostly) slipping into technical discussion of the merits of different approaches. 15:41:54 <lebot> @khalid, via email? 15:41:56 <lebot> (no) 15:42:02 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, yes 15:42:03 <jcheney> ... how to address: 15:42:20 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, I ll send it again 15:42:31 <jcheney> ... (and who to assign actions to address) 15:42:35 <lebot> @khalid, I'll fight my spam filter again. 15:42:44 <Zakim> -[ISI] <jcheney> subsubtopic: Specialization/alternate <jcheney> Summary: Specialization and alternate lack agreed informal definitions. Tim nominated Jim McCusker to formulate a proposal, and James and/or Tom de Nies may also discuss. The goal is to develop a natural language definition, agreed properties, and examples that are all consistent and that reflect the consensus. 15:43:16 <jcheney> ... specialization/alternate issue - thought there was consensus 15:43:21 <jcheney> ... debate continues 15:43:42 <bvillazo> I would also want to remember everyone aout the issues pending review (offtopic, sorry). 15:44:10 <jcheney> ... any volunteers? 15:44:11 <lebot> q+ to throw McCusker under the bus. 15:44:19 <Paolo> @daniel I just closed mine on ontology 15:44:32 <jcheney> lebot: Nominates Jim McCusker 15:44:45 <jcheney> q+ 15:44:52 <bvillazo> @paolo, thanks! 15:44:57 <satya> me too 15:44:58 <jcheney> lebot: concerned parties - Graham, James? 15:45:00 <jun> me too 15:45:04 <tdenies> I have some concerns as well 15:45:06 <jcheney> ... Satya? 15:45:21 <satya> @james, concerns about specialization 15:46:20 <jcheney> lebot: will point Jim to IRC and definitions 15:46:31 <jcheney> Luc: worth having 2 people to look at it? 15:46:46 <Zakim> +??P3 15:46:49 <jcheney> jun: would like to help but on the road 15:47:08 <jcheney> ... in meetings 15:47:29 <tdenies> +q 15:47:30 <pgroth_> pgroth_ has joined #prov 15:47:52 <pgroth_> q? 15:47:53 <lebot> q-= 15:47:55 <lebot> q- 15:47:57 <Luc> ack leb 15:48:40 <jcheney> jcheney: what is the specialization lead expected to do? 15:49:08 <jcheney> Luc: would like to see agreement that definitions for entity, specialization, alternate are fine 15:49:20 <jcheney> ... and examples in DM documents accurate 15:49:26 <jcheney> ... and properties are supported 15:49:29 <lebot> entity, specialization, alternate definitions == okay. examples of each are also == okay. property properties (trans, reflex) == okay. 15:50:51 <jcheney> jcheney: let's make sure we're happy with the formal thing in semantics document. 15:52:33 <Luc> q? 15:52:33 <lebot> james busy next week, travel the following. 15:52:41 <Luc> ack jc 15:52:58 <jcheney> tdenies: concerns about alt/specialization 15:53:05 <jcheney> ... not sure if 2 leads would be right way to go 15:53:11 <jcheney> ... lots of chaos on discussion 15:53:25 <jcheney> ... jcheney to coordinate/formulate proposal? 15:53:32 <jcheney> s/too/to/ 15:53:36 <lebot> spec/alt interested parties: jun, tom, satya, tim, james, (graham?) 15:53:38 <Luc> ack tom 15:54:04 <pgroth_> we need one definition and should then vote 15:54:08 <pgroth_> in my opinion 15:54:13 <khalidbelhajjame> Wouldn't it help speed up the process of reaching an agreement if the people that are opposed to the notion of specialization and alternate as it is in the current document participate in that effort? 15:54:51 <lebot> spec/alt interested parties: jun, tom, satya, tim, james, (graham?), jim 15:54:57 <jcheney> Luc: starting semantics seems like a good approach, but why can't we define things informally? 15:55:22 <lebot> +q to table this. 15:57:11 <Luc> q? 15:58:24 <jcheney> Luc: moving on... 15:58:51 <pgroth_> can jim and james lead 15:58:51 <lebot> q- 15:58:52 <sandro> lebot, americans put things on a table, brits take things off a table, or something like that. 15:59:03 <jcheney> ... process: Jim McCusker (via tim), James, Thomas to iterate over email 15:59:14 <lebot> american : table :-) 15:59:23 <jcheney> subsubtopic: Responsibility <jcheney> Summary: One criticism of PROV-DM is the overloading of the term "responsibility" for both "association" and "delegation". Also, it may be counterintuitive to say that software agents can be "responsible". Issues should be raised to discuss and formulate a proposal. 15:59:38 <jcheney> ... Graham criticized "software agents being accoutnable" 16:00:18 <jcheney> ... overloading of "association" and "delegation" senses 16:00:40 <Luc> q? 16:00:57 <jcheney> ... how to converge to common view? 16:01:10 <pgroth_> just would say that this was in wd3 no? 16:02:07 <khalidbelhajjame> I think the latter option to rename the responsibility associated with "actedOnBehalfOn" would be a quick fix to this issue 16:02:10 <lebot> paul broke up 16:02:14 <jcheney> pgroth: <breaking connection> 16:02:30 <pgroth_> my point is that if there's not a quorom of objection 16:02:36 <pgroth_> yes 16:02:36 <jcheney> Luc: suggetions/alternatives should be raised 16:02:59 <pgroth_> formal issue needs to be raised with suggested alternatives 16:03:14 <jcheney> subsubtopic: Collections <jcheney> Summary: The need for, and generality of, collections has been questioned in reviews. Several WG members expressed support since there are many colections on the Web and if PROV does not provide a standard way of describing the provenance of collections then people will invent lots of different ways. On the other hand, it is not yet clear that collections are important enough to be an integral part of PROV, since the same argument could be made about a lot of other data structures. Jun and Satya are to be assigned actions to come up with examples of limitations of the current proposal. 16:03:32 <jcheney> ... Graham questions why collections are in DM at all, and are key-value maps too restrictive 16:03:46 <smiles> q+ 16:03:50 <Luc> q? 16:04:12 <jcheney> smiles: collections important because many web resources are collections 16:04:15 <jun> q+ 16:04:17 <satya> q+ 16:04:19 <Luc> ack sm 16:04:30 <Luc> ack jun 16:04:59 <Paolo> q+ 16:05:02 <jcheney> jun: agree collections important, but concerned that model is so restrictive 16:05:02 <Curt> q+ 16:05:54 <jcheney> Luc: examples? 16:05:57 <christine> apologies, I need to leave 16:06:03 <christine> ?quit 16:06:07 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:06:09 <jcheney> jun: think collections can express things but too complicated 16:06:58 <jcheney> satya: collections are important, but key-value pairs are over-specifying; issues with insertion and deletion expressions 16:07:27 <Luc> ack 16:07:33 <Luc> q? 16:07:36 <Luc> ack sat 16:07:36 <satya> q- 16:07:42 <Luc> ack pao 16:07:54 <jcheney> Paolo: collections simplified to containers of anything, minimal insertion, deletion, membership operations 16:08:29 <pgroth_> the debate should be held offline 16:08:31 <jcheney> ... sets of entities rather than key-value maps? 16:08:35 <pgroth_> but it's a clear criticism 16:08:50 <Luc> q? 16:08:52 <pgroth_> q? 16:09:05 <Luc> ack cur 16:09:15 <jcheney> Curt: Agree that collections are important, people will want to represent provenance, but that's true of a lot of other important things 16:09:28 <jcheney> ... Is this so fundamental to provenance that it needs to be in PROV-DM 16:09:56 <jcheney> ... or could it be built on top later? Believe it is separable from the fundamental concepts of PROV-DM 16:10:03 <smiles> @Curt agreed that it is separable (but still seems particularly important) 16:10:07 <pgroth_> so curt suggests a note 16:10:11 <jcheney> ... Don't mind putting it in but could be a separate effort 16:10:18 <jun> @Paolo, I'll be happy with a set:) But I'll take this offline 16:10:27 <lebot> +1 curt, it does stand alone well. (but whether that means remove it, who knows...) 16:10:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +q 16:10:38 <Luc> q? 16:11:02 <pgroth_> a note would give us more time but would also not have the "weight" of a recommendation 16:11:04 <jcheney> khalid: if we don't include collections, then many people will hack it later 16:11:20 <Luc> q? 16:11:24 <Luc> ack kha 16:11:35 <jcheney> ... defining members as key-value pairs is general 16:12:03 <jcheney> Luc: technical discussion on mailing list, actions for jun and satya 16:12:16 <SamCoppens> Sorry, need to go 16:12:22 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov <jcheney> subsubtopic: Accounts <jcheney> Summary: Work on accounts has been delayed until after the release, Tim and Luc plan to look at it after release 16:12:25 <jcheney> ... accounts: downgraded to minimal role in WD4, back burner until rest reorganized 16:12:47 <jcheney> ... Plan to work on this after synchronized release; related to annotations 16:13:01 <Luc> q? 16:13:09 <pgroth_> +q 16:13:23 <jcheney> ...volunteers? 16:13:49 <jcheney> lebot: plan to look at it, may be able to help 16:13:59 <Luc> ack pg 16:14:16 <jcheney> pgroth: should be lightweight (agreed at F2F2) 16:14:30 <jcheney> ...needed for provenance of provenance 16:14:32 <lebot> q+ to say I'd like to take more away :-) 16:14:45 <jcheney> Luc: discussion after document release 16:14:48 <lebot> q- 16:14:59 <pgroth_> great 16:15:08 <jcheney> lebot: prefer to take things away 16:15:12 <pgroth_> happy to chime is as well 16:15:25 <jcheney> Luc: need to fix date for proposal for WG <jcheney> subsubtopic: Invalidation/destruction <jcheney> Summary: Paul and Tim plan to discuss and develop a proposal for the invalidation/destruction event after the release 16:15:36 <jcheney> ... appetite for invaludation/destruction? 16:15:46 <pgroth_> suggest we should produce a final version 16:15:50 <pgroth_> me 16:15:52 <jcheney> ... technical issues: is someone willing to help with this 16:16:10 <lebot> I'd like to help with destruction 16:16:12 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to come up with a proposal for a vote 16:16:16 <smiles> I'm also happy to give feedback 16:16:36 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 16:16:36 <jcheney> Luc: adjourned 16:16:37 <Zakim> -lebot 16:16:37 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame 16:16:38 <Zakim> -??P9 16:16:38 <Zakim> -Sandro 16:16:38 <Zakim> -??P3 16:16:40 <Zakim> -jun 16:16:40 <Zakim> -bvillazo 16:16:43 <Zakim> -tdenies 16:16:44 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 16:16:44 <pgroth_> luc do you want a call? 16:16:46 <Zakim> -Luc 16:16:54 <Zakim> -??P17 16:17:25 <jcheney> rrsagent, set log public 16:17:26 <pgroth_> rrssagent, make logs public 16:17:51 <jcheney> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:17:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-prov-minutes.html jcheney 16:18:06 <jcheney> trackbot, end telcon 16:18:06 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:18:06 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tdenies, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [ISI], +1.315.330.aacc, lebot, jcheney, SamCoppens, bvillazo, jun, Sandro, Satya_Sahoo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth 16:18:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:18:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:18:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:18:15 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000415