From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 17:49, 29 November 2012 by Pgroth
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:56:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:56:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-prov-irc 15:56:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:56:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:56:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:56:34 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started 15:56:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:56:36 <trackbot> Date: 29 November 2012 15:56:51 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.11.29 15:56:53 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 15:57:04 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 15:57:13 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes 15:57:18 <pgroth> Regrets: Paolo Missier, Hook Hua 15:57:30 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 15:58:22 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 15:58:31 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:59:42 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 15:59:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], Curt_Tilmes 15:59:53 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:59:53 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 16:00:07 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 16:00:10 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa 16:00:18 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 16:00:20 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 16:00:25 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me 16:00:25 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 16:00:38 <Zakim> +??P13 16:00:49 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 16:00:55 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 16:00:55 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 16:00:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 16:00:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 16:00:58 <smiles> zakim, ??P13 is me 16:00:58 <Zakim> +smiles; got it 16:01:07 <pgroth> Topic: Admin <pgroth> Summary: Minutes were approved 16:01:14 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-22 16:01:20 <pgroth> Minutes of Nov. 22, 2012 16:01:28 <Curt> 0 (not present) 16:01:36 <smiles> +1 16:01:38 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.11.29 16:01:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:01:53 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb 16:02:19 <pgroth> Accepted: Minutes of Nov. 22, 2012 telcon 16:02:41 <Curt> pgroth: open action items 16:02:46 <Zakim> +??P19 16:02:50 <Zakim> +SamCoppens 16:03:03 <GK> zakim, ??P19 is me 16:03:03 <Zakim> +GK; got it 16:03:32 <pgroth> Topic Congratulations 16:03:33 <Curt> pgroth: action 153 should be complete -- will double check 16:03:35 <Luc> q+ 16:03:47 <Curt> pgroth: request for transition to CR sent out 16:04:40 <pgroth> Topic: Actions <pgroth> Summary: Outstanding actions were stepped through. Most were complete. 16:05:01 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 16:05:04 <Luc> it's for december 16:05:04 <Zakim> +??P9 16:05:07 <Curt> tlebo: 116 -- haven't done yet, will soon 16:05:14 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P9 is me 16:05:14 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 16:05:29 <pgroth> close Action-128 16:05:30 <trackbot> ACTION-128 Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o closed 16:05:33 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 16:05:38 <Zakim> +Luc.a 16:05:45 <pgroth> close action-129 16:05:46 <trackbot> ACTION-129 Editor check prov-o closed 16:05:47 <TomDN> Zakim, TomDN is with SamCoppens 16:05:47 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it 16:05:50 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 16:05:56 <Curt> pgroth: action 122 still open, complete by next week 16:06:03 <Zakim> +jcheney 16:06:06 <pgroth> close action-133 16:06:06 <trackbot> ACTION-133 Draft a first one page overview closed 16:07:00 <Curt> SamCoppens: action 134, timetable for prov-dictionary has been proposed 16:07:17 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dictionary.html 16:07:40 <Luc> we said we would do an "internal" release 16:07:41 <pgroth> q? 16:07:45 <pgroth> ace Luc 16:07:51 <Luc> q- 16:07:56 <Curt> pgroth: after dec 14, there is a moratorium until after xmas -- then we can release prov-dict FPWD 16:08:13 <pgroth> close action-134 16:08:13 <trackbot> ACTION-134 draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference closed 16:08:16 <satya> satya has joined #prov 16:08:22 <pgroth> close action-135 16:08:22 <trackbot> ACTION-135 Create a mention of document closed 16:08:24 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 16:08:24 <Luc> @Sam, did you see the current draft for dictionary 16:08:31 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV 16:08:45 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 16:08:46 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 16:08:47 <TomDN> yes, we did, thanks Luc 16:08:52 <Curt> pgroth: 3 actions on stephan on questionnaire will discuss later 16:08:59 <Luc> @Tom, great! 16:09:01 <TomDN> Good place to start :) 16:09:14 <pgroth> q? 16:09:25 <pgroth> Topic: Congratulations <pgroth> Summary: The editors of the recommendation track documents were congratulated on making their documents available in-time to send the request for candidate recommendation. Jun was also thanked for putting together the response to the Organization Ontology 16:09:32 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Nov/0295.html 16:09:58 <Luc> @Tom, you may want to move this document into a separate directory in hg 16:10:16 <TomDN> @Luc: ok, will do 16:10:20 <Luc> PROV WG is in good company, HTML5 went CR at same time as us 16:10:27 <pgroth> q? 16:11:03 <pgroth> q? 16:11:15 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Overview <pgroth> Summary: Paul went over the PROV-Overview. There was no objection for releasing the document as FPWD from email reviews. Paul agreed to make the suggested changes before staging the document next week. The group voted to make prov-overview a first public working draft. The timetable for staging and publication request was reviewed again. All note editors agreed they could make this time. 16:11:22 <pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/overview/overview.html 16:11:38 <Curt> pgroth: special thanks to editors of standards and Jun for org ont feedback 16:11:49 <GK> Jun say's she's received offline ack of org ontology feedback 16:12:13 <Curt> pgroth: small PROV-Overview for intro to PROV 16:12:17 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me 16:12:17 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted 16:12:34 <jun> jun has joined #prov 16:12:43 <Curt> pgroth: feedback from khalid, paolo, one other, minor changes, concerns about picture, all approved going to FPWD 16:12:44 <pgroth> q? 16:12:47 <smiles> I read it through and seemed good 16:13:10 <dgarijo> @curt: the other was me 16:13:15 <pgroth> proposed: release of PROV-Overview as a FPWD 16:13:20 <tlebo> +1 16:13:21 <dgarijo> +1 16:13:22 <smiles> +1 16:13:24 <Curt> +1 16:13:25 <zednik> +1 16:13:28 <Dong> +1 16:13:28 <TomDN> +1 16:13:30 <jun> +1 16:13:30 <jcheney> +1 16:13:32 <SamCoppens> +1 16:13:34 <GK> +1 16:13:41 <satya> +1 16:13:52 <pgroth> accepted: release of PROV-Overview as a FPWD 16:14:11 <Curt> pgroth: will add recommended changes next week 16:14:16 <Luc> q+ 16:14:26 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:14:49 <Curt> pgroth: timetable to release discussed last week 16:14:53 <Luc> Luc summarized the timetable to CR publication. CR documents must be ready by noon GMT on November 26th, for final check by chairs and Ivan. Announcement on Nov 27th. CR transition teleconference on Dec 6, and planned publication on Dec 11th. Notes to be ready for staging on Dec 5th. Vote for release of notes on Nov 29th. Questionnaires must be ready by Dec 11th. 16:16:56 <Curt> Luc: many documents being released, we would like to go by the 4th noon 16:17:16 <pgroth> q? 16:17:20 <dgarijo> very clear 16:17:20 <GK> Plan fopr PROV-AQ? 16:17:25 <smiles> Yes 16:17:57 <GK> OK. 16:18:01 <Curt> pgroth: postponing PROV-AQ for now for review 16:18:01 <pgroth> q? 16:18:09 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Links <pgroth> Summary: Luc went over the feedback on PROV-Links. Graham noted he had several comments but these were not blocking and he would try to get them before Friday. The group voted to release PROV-Links as a first public working draft. 16:18:24 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/links/prov-links.html 16:18:57 <Curt> Luc: extracted text from mention from PROV-DM, N, CONSTRAINTS, O, XML and added the intro, editted into a note 16:19:00 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 16:19:08 <Curt> Luc: paolo reviewed and recommended release 16:19:18 <smiles> I skimmed it, and it looked fine to me 16:19:25 <jcheney> q+ to ask a pedantic question 16:19:25 <GK> q+ to say I've reviewed links docs, have some issues with a couple of points but not fatal 16:19:26 <Curt> Luc: Curt pointed out a typo, recommended releasse 16:19:36 <pgroth> ack GK 16:19:36 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I've reviewed links docs, have some issues with a couple of points but not fatal 16:19:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:20:13 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 16:20:13 <Zakim> +jun; got it 16:20:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:20:17 <Curt> GK: have read the document, I have significant comments I will write up, but ok to release as a draft 16:20:30 <pgroth> ack jcheney 16:20:30 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask a pedantic question 16:20:31 <Curt> GK: will write up and send after this call 16:20:56 <Curt> jcheney: as a note, it should only have informative references 16:21:04 <smiles> q+ 16:21:11 <pgroth> ack smiles 16:21:11 <Curt> Luc: right, will fix 16:21:38 <pgroth> q? 16:21:49 <pgroth> proposed: Release of PROV-Links as a FPWD 16:21:58 <smiles> +1 16:21:59 <dgarijo> +1 16:21:59 <Curt> +1 16:22:03 <tlebo> +1 16:22:03 <stain> +1 16:22:10 <zednik> +1 16:22:10 <GK> +1 16:22:10 <Dong> +1 16:22:14 <satya> +1 16:22:18 <TomDN> +1 16:22:20 <jcheney> +1 16:22:33 <pgroth> accepted: release of PROV-Links as a FPWD 16:22:42 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DC <pgroth> Summary: Daniel went over the current status of PROV-DC. He is working through all the reviews. Luc felt that he's issue to do with constraints in the document needed to be addressed before publication as a draft. Daniel agreed to focus on that issue and place marking notices for other outstanding issues. The group voted to release PROV-DC as a first public working draft. 16:22:46 <stain> quick Q: would the XML bit work as an extension to PROV-XML when it is using the same namespace? 16:22:56 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dc-note/Overview.html 16:22:59 <SamCoppens1> SamCoppens1 has joined #prov 16:23:00 <Curt> dgarijo: reviews from craig, luc, simon 16:23:12 <Curt> dgarijo: haven't discussed with kai (?) yet 16:23:46 <Curt> dgarijo: will contact him and discuss and ready by next tuesday 16:23:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 16:24:02 <SamCoppens1> +1 fro release of PROV-links (just got disconnected when voting) 16:24:09 <GK> @stian hopefully the PROV-XML spec will have extension points that can be "colonized" by the links/mention elements. Haven't actually looked, though. 16:24:11 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me 16:24:11 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it 16:24:37 <pgroth> q? 16:24:38 <Curt> pgroth: are the changes blockers to FPWD? 16:24:42 <Luc> q+ 16:24:58 <dgarijo> YES, I'll do that today 16:25:03 <dgarijo> thanks, Simon 16:25:04 <Curt> dgarijo: no, some references need to fix, actual content no blockers 16:25:08 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:25:33 <GK> @smiles … you can include Luc's references quite easily - I've done that for PROV-AQ; it's quite easy 16:25:59 <dgarijo> +q 16:26:07 <Curt> Luc: the example for figure 2 was valid, not invalid as document indicated -- must be fixed to clarify constraints 16:26:50 <Curt> dgarijo: correct, I need to fix that, will work on that before week-end 16:27:28 <Curt> pgroth: add a box noting some sections are still under discussion prior to draft 16:27:33 <pgroth> q? 16:27:35 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 16:27:45 <Curt> pgroth: but should fix the constraint now 16:27:51 <pgroth> proposed: Release of PROV-DC as a FPWD 16:27:57 <smiles> +1 16:27:58 <dgarijo> +1 16:27:58 <TomDN> +1 16:27:59 <tlebo> +1 16:27:59 <satya> +1 16:27:59 <jcheney> +1 16:28:00 <SamCoppens1> +1 16:28:01 <zednik> +1 16:28:01 <stain> +1 16:28:06 <Curt> +1 16:28:21 <pgroth> accepted: Release of PROV-DC as a FPWD 16:28:37 <Curt> pgroth: all notes should be ready before next tuesday 16:28:46 <pgroth> Topic: Implementation Questionnaire <pgroth> Summary: Stephan went over the current status of the implementation survey. The group discussed the benefits and disadvantages of using the W3C WBS system for the questionnaire. The group felt that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages and would continue on this track. 16:29:04 <zednik> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey 16:29:06 <stain> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 16:29:06 <Zakim> +stain; got it 16:29:06 <Curt> zednik: looked at WBS to host survey 16:29:49 <pgroth> q? 16:29:49 <Luc> q+ 16:29:51 <Curt> zednik: have implemented implementation questionnaire -- need feedback 16:29:53 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:30:15 <Curt> Luc: can 1 individual submit multiple implementation reports 16:30:48 <Curt> zednik: you can do it by logging in with multiple email addresses, otherwise it retrieves your old report 16:30:53 <Curt> (that's a kludge) 16:31:12 <stain> perhaps you can do the + trick for making additional email addresses.. for instance: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 16:31:45 <Curt> pgroth: some questions are awkward to ask with WBS 16:32:53 <pgroth> q? 16:32:55 <Curt> pgroth: should we pursue with WBS given the issues? 16:33:00 <Luc> the good think is that we see all questions that are being asked 16:33:06 <Luc> the good thing is that we see all questions that are being asked 16:33:23 <Luc> q+ 16:34:11 <Curt> Luc: I understand the issues, they're awkward, but acceptable -- what do you recommend? 16:34:26 <Luc> +1 16:34:33 <Curt> pgroth: I think WBS is a bit better than google docs, can return and continue editting 16:34:57 <Curt> pgroth: most respondents will already have a W3C account, tallying is nice, on W3C site is good 16:34:58 <tlebo> returning to the survey is +100. It's reassuring for a tentative implementer. 16:35:34 <Curt> pgroth: a little annoying with multiple implementations, (e.g. vocabulary + application), but those 16:35:48 <Curt> pgroth: are already separate questionnaires 16:35:58 <stain> Feature Coverage" should have some more details about using the +++ ratings for different feature level. Add "Indicate covered features by selecting one of the following in the dropdown lists" 16:36:01 <Curt> pgroth: could easily work around the multiple email issue 16:36:40 <Curt> zednik: very nice to be able to come back to it, email in responses works too, a lot of advantages, some awkwardness in questions, but we can cope with it 16:36:56 <Curt> zednik: reporting is nice, haven't seen in detail yet 16:37:11 <pgroth> q? 16:37:14 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:37:25 <stain> oh hang on, I can fix it myself. Done! 16:37:46 <tlebo> @stian ;-) 16:37:47 <zednik> text version of the questionnaire: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/text 16:37:50 <Curt> pgroth: it may be easier in putting together the implementation report -- can refer to these results 16:37:52 <pgroth> q? 16:38:00 <Luc> Stephan and Paul, thanks for doing this! 16:38:09 <pgroth> Topic: Constraints Test cases <pgroth> Summary: Dong updated the status of the constraints document. Additional test cases have been added as well as a coverage appendix. Goal is to now work on making the introduction to the document more accessible to developers. The naming convention was now fixed. Stian suggested to add the serialization used to the response submissions, Dong agreed. 16:38:31 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/process.html 16:38:31 <Dong> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/process.html 16:39:27 <Curt> Dong: lots of test cases, examples from documents, a table in the doc describes coverage by test cases 16:39:46 <Curt> Dong: can do gap analysis to figure out which we still need 16:40:09 <Luc> @zednik, is it possible to change the URL and have them point to the date urls for the CR documents? also, can we have links for everything? 16:40:12 <Curt> Dong: I've done categorization, but could use help with that 16:40:31 <Curt> pgroth: several comments online about doc organization 16:40:56 <Luc> @Dong, same comment as for Stephan, we need to use urls to CR documents 16:40:58 <Curt> Dong: Haven't revised doc yet, plan is to restructure doc for implementors 16:41:11 <Curt> Dong: will do that very soon 16:41:26 <Luc> q+ 16:41:29 <stain> q+ 16:41:32 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:41:56 <Curt> Luc: table for coverage, is it complete? 16:42:12 <Curt> Dong: we cover all constraints, but some only pass, not fail yet 16:42:13 <zednik> @Luc, is your question concerning the links in the Feature Coverage question? If so, yes. I will need to determine the best link anchor for the Person, Organization, etc. 16:42:50 <pgroth> ack stain 16:43:23 <Curt> stain: it says the implementation can use the representation to test the constraint -- would be good to know which representation was used for each case 16:44:09 <Curt> Dong: good idea -- would be good to have representations equivalent, but in some cases that may not be perfect. That is doable, we'll add that to the cases and extract into the repot 16:44:12 <Luc> q+ 16:44:25 <Curt> pgroth: have we decided on the test case naming convention? 16:45:04 <Curt> Dong: arbitrary name + pass/fail + constraint number 16:45:34 <Curt> pgroth: other two tables from PROV-O examples / test cases, those don't have constraint numbers 16:45:58 <Curt> Dong: yes, they are complex and cover multiple constraints, they aren't unit tests, but they should still pass the validator 16:46:14 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:47:11 <Curt> Luc: the links to the documents should point to the dated URLs to the other docs (questionnaire document too) 16:48:04 <Curt> Dong: will do for release 16:48:14 <Curt> Luc: we want them prior to the telecon 16:48:17 <Curt> Dong: will do 16:48:24 <pgroth> Topic: Other Documents <pgroth> Summary: The primer is staged and ready to go except for perhaps a change in the figure colors. Likewise, xml is staged as well incorporating all feedback from the F2F meeting. The group then discussed the issue of multiple XML schemas for each note. It was unclear if this was possible using the same namespace as with the OWL ontologies. The group agreed to investigate further. 16:49:02 <Curt> smiles: working on other docs, will update primer this week-end 16:49:04 <pgroth> q? 16:49:11 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:49:31 <Curt> pgroth: XML status? voted to release as FPWD already, all staged and ready to go? 16:49:39 <zednik> discconnected from audio, calling back in 16:50:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:50:06 <zednik> back 16:50:24 <Curt> Curt: I think the changes were all made and everything is staged 16:50:38 <Curt> zednik: it is staged now, the CR links don't resolve 16:51:11 <Luc> q+ 16:51:12 <pgroth> q? 16:51:21 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:51:38 <Curt> Luc: Curt raised a question about how to handle XML namespace 16:52:06 <Curt> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Nov/0311.html 16:52:17 <Dong> Sorry, I have to go. 16:52:24 <pgroth> q? 16:52:25 <pgroth> \ 16:52:26 <pgroth> q? 16:52:30 <Curt> pgroth: we merge the various namespaces together for PROV-O, can we do something similar for PROV-XML? 16:52:30 <Dong> Bye all. 16:53:16 <Curt> Luc: If you look at the ontology, we have mentionOf defined in a separate document, but it still uses the prov: namespace 16:54:06 <pgroth> yes 16:54:36 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/releases/WD-prov-xml-20121211/Overview.html uses <xs:any namespace="##other"/> -- so here you can't extend this using the same namespace 16:54:41 <stain> you would have to use <xs:any /> instead 16:54:43 <Curt> Luc: a separate ontology defines mention, but the subject/object are prov entities, is that ok? I don't think we can do that with XML. 16:55:07 <Curt> pgroth: with PROV-O, you can load both files into your reasoner 16:55:37 <stain> q+ 16:55:48 <pgroth> ack stain 16:55:50 <Curt> Luc: will this work with XML? 16:56:17 <Curt> stain: I don't think that will work with XML 16:56:42 <pgroth> q? 16:56:56 <Curt> q+ 16:57:04 <pgroth> ack Curt 16:57:34 <pgroth> q? 16:57:36 <Luc> q+ 16:57:39 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:57:48 <Curt> Curt: could manually maintain separate complete XSDs, one with just core, one with core+extensions 16:58:40 <Curt> Luc: this can affect overall extensibility approach 16:58:50 <stain> @Curt two schema versions could be tricky - if I import a schema which is using the 'core' schema, then I can't (easily!) use the 'extended' schema. 16:59:09 <Curt> Luc: I don't think we can use the same approach to extend XML we use for OWL 17:00:21 <pgroth> q? 17:00:27 <Curt> pgroth: XML is a note, so we could just put all the notes extensions together 17:00:34 <Curt> pgroth: it isn't a specification 17:01:13 <Curt> Luc: that may give more weight to dictionaries, mention, etc. than we intend to have 17:01:37 <GK> "Can't do it with XML schema" sounds wrong to me. I'm not expert on XML, but I don't see what breaks if one has multiple schema documents that define different aspects of an XML structure, creating some elements in a common namespace. The main thing that I see is that the core schema MUST have suitable extension points. 17:01:42 <Luc> yes you can import 17:01:48 <Curt> pgroth: Can we check to see if we can technically handle it by combining them? 17:01:58 <zednik> q+ 17:02:17 <pgroth> no 17:02:25 <Curt> zednik: dictionary/mention will have notes, could we use separate namespaces for them? 17:02:46 <Curt> pgroth: wouldn't be consistent with other docs, want to use just one namespace 17:02:56 <satya> * sorry have to leave now 17:03:01 <satya> bye 17:03:10 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 17:03:17 <tlebo> q+ to ask if xml terms overlap with prov-o terms. 17:03:22 <Curt> I'd like to experiment a bit before making a decision 17:03:28 <stain> I can try to experiment as well 17:03:46 <Curt> Luc: add a note in the document that the namespace may change 17:03:47 <tlebo> I still need to play with it, too. 17:03:51 <TomDN> gotta go, bye 17:04:23 <tlebo> q? 17:04:25 <stain> but there is a reason why XML community has moved away from XSD and over to lightweight, less strict formats like RelaxNG 17:04:31 <Curt> Luc: there may not be a technical solution, we want the schema to validate 17:04:34 <zednik> q- 17:04:56 <pgroth> all of them 17:05:02 <Curt> there is no overlap 17:05:27 <Curt> but if you use mentionof and validate against core without links, it should fail 17:05:56 <Luc> xml does not work with uri, per se 17:06:28 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/releases/WD-prov-xml-20121211/Overview.html shows lots of overlap and non-overlap, for instance <prov:wasGeneratedBy> (overlaps with prov:wasGeneratedBy) and <prov:time> (not overlapping with prov:atTime) 17:07:19 <tlebo> q- 17:07:35 <Curt> Address in next revision past FPWD 17:08:02 <Luc> I also would like to check that this is implementable 17:08:07 <GK> I would assume we can have multiple schemas defining terms in a common namespace, and do some background checking with XML experts. 17:08:17 <Curt> It's just a note, and its just FPWD, people know it might change 17:08:31 <tlebo> +1 curt 17:08:54 <stain> I'm going now, but I'll check. Have we got an ISSUE for this (common email thread) ? 17:08:54 <dgarijo> bbye 17:08:55 <tlebo> bye bye! 17:08:57 <Zakim> -stain 17:08:58 <SamCoppens1> bye 17:09:01 <Zakim> -dgarijo 17:09:02 <Curt> I'll make an issue 17:09:03 <Zakim> -pgroth 17:09:05 <Zakim> - +1.315.330.aabb 17:09:06 <Zakim> -SamCoppens 17:09:07 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame 17:09:09 <Zakim> -jcheney 17:09:10 <Zakim> -Luc 17:09:10 <Zakim> -jun 17:09:12 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 17:09:12 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 17:09:13 <pgroth> curt, i'll sort out the minutes 17:09:13 <Zakim> -smiles 17:09:21 <Zakim> -MacTed 17:09:23 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 17:09:27 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 17:09:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-prov-minutes.html pgroth 17:09:32 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 17:09:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 17:09:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Luc, MacTed, smiles, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aabb, SamCoppens, GK, dgarijo, TomDN, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun, 17:09:35 <Zakim> ... khalidBelhajjame, stain 17:09:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:09:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:09:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 17:09:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000392