Chatlog 2012-04-12

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.

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 [1]. In case of slippage, the issue(s) causing slippage will be a candidate for removal. [1]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