Chatlog 2012-12-13

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 14:13, 14 December 2012 by Pgroth (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

15:15:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:15:18 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:15:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:15:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:15:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:15:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
15:15:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:15:23 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2012
15:26:10 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG - - current agenda
15:45:30 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
15:51:47 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:54:41 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:55:10 <pgroth> trackbot, start telcon
15:55:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:55:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:55:14 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:15 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:55:15 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2012
15:55:17 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:55:17 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:26 <pgroth> Agenda:
15:55:35 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:40 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier
15:55:48 <pgroth> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Luc Moreau
15:57:07 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:35 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:57:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:57:54 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:57:54 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:58:11 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:01 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:59:06 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:59:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:59:10 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:59:10 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:59:15 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:59:17 <Paolo> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:17 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:59:39 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
16:00:12 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:00:13 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:00:36 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaaa
16:00:36 <Zakim> +??P8
16:00:43 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me
16:00:43 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:00:43 <jun> jun has joined #prov
16:01:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:01:36 <ivan> zakim, code?
16:01:36 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
16:01:44 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:01:44 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:01:53 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:02:07 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:02:11 <Zakim> +ivan
16:02:38 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
16:02:44 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb
16:02:44 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:03:29 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes were approved. Several action items were closed.
16:03:44 <Zakim> +??P37
16:03:49 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
16:03:56 <pgroth>
16:04:02 <Zakim> + +329331aadd
16:04:02 <pgroth> Minutes of Dec. 06, 2012
16:04:08 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
16:04:08 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
16:04:09 <tlebo> +1
16:04:16 <ivan> +!
16:04:17 <dgarijo> I wasn't there, +0
16:04:18 <TomDN> +1
16:04:19 <ivan> +1
16:04:23 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me
16:04:23 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:04:25 <Paolo> 0 (not present)
16:04:28 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:04:30 <smiles> +1
16:04:32 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:04:37 <hook> 0 (not present)
16:04:41 <jcheney> 0 (not present; I seem to be listed as both present & absent)
16:04:43 <Curt> 0 (not present)
16:04:48 <SamCoppens> +1
16:05:01 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of Dec. 06, 2012 Telcon
16:05:03 <SamCoppens> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:05:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:05:34 <Paolo> pgroth: tlebo still working on his action
16:05:54 <Paolo> pgroth: we can close all issues around questionnaire
16:06:09 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:06:18 <pgroth> q?
16:06:18 <Paolo> pgroth: stephan not on the call, we are closing the issues, we assume the questionnaires are done
16:07:07 <Paolo> pgroth: action 151 done. will elaborate. action-153 also done
16:07:11 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:07:16 <Zakim> +??P49
16:07:35 <Paolo> pgroth: still open actions 154, 155
16:07:47 <Paolo> jcheney: working on it, please leave it open
16:07:59 <Paolo> Paolo: er, wil get to that, thanks for the reminder
16:08:18 <Paolo> pgroth: action 156 to be discussed in the XML section of the agenda
16:08:59 <tlebo> :-)
16:09:01 <pgroth> Topic: Congrats CR
<pgroth> Summary: The release of the candidate recs and other notes was discussed. Group members were encouraged to advertise the release. Jun, Ivan, Paolo and Hook agreed to send the announcement to various mailing lists. Editor's were reminded to make sure the various editor's drafts were marked as such. 
16:09:36 <pgroth>
16:09:51 <pgroth>
16:09:54 <Paolo> pgroth: we went to CR, this implies a major release of the whole set of docs. now is the time to advertise these. may use blog and web page for this
16:10:22 <Paolo> pgroth: encourage people to comment, implement, use
16:10:39 <Paolo> Paolo: I will send to DataONE as I have done in the past
16:10:58 <Paolo> q+
16:11:05 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:11:45 <Paolo> Paolo: will send to DBWorld as well
16:11:45 <jun> I can send to pub-lif list
16:12:16 <jun> s/pub-lif/hcls/
16:12:33 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:12:33 <Paolo> ivan: will post to sem-web list
16:12:42 <hook> there is also the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)'s semantic web mailing list and the preservation & stewardship mailing list
16:12:54 <hook> sure
16:13:24 <Zakim> +??P54
16:13:28 <pgroth>
16:13:48 <tlebo> ok.
16:13:53 <zednik> ok
16:13:56 <dgarijo> ok
16:14:01 <Paolo> pgroth: editors to update the drafts back to "editor's draft" status
16:14:20 <dgarijo> ok
16:14:28 <pgroth> q?
16:14:29 <Paolo> pgroth: please dgarijo check the link to DC
16:14:47 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:14:55 <Paolo> pgroth: we've got nice PROV logos
16:14:55 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
<pgroth> Summary: Group members were asked to fill out the implementation survey by the first week of January. This will allow us to check progress to meeting the exit criteria.
16:15:53 <Paolo> pgroth: please fill in implementation survey, so we know how we are going to meet our exit criteria
16:15:58 <dgarijo> **linked fix in the page**
16:16:07 <dgarijo> s/fix/fixed
16:16:26 <dgarijo> I will fill in a survey
16:16:28 <Paolo> pgroth: in particular if an impl.  builds upon (?) or connect with another impl
16:16:29 <jun> q+ what's the deadline?
16:16:39 <pgroth> ack jun
16:17:01 <Zakim> +??P56
16:17:04 <Dong> Southampton will submit reports soon (by the end of 2012), 9 applications in total
16:17:13 <GK> zakim, ??p56 is me
16:17:13 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:17:20 <jun> ok, thanks!
16:17:20 <dgarijo> so, internal deadline: First week of January. Got it
16:17:21 <Paolo> pgroth: official deadline end of January, but internally fist week of Jan. would be ideal, so we know where our gaps are
16:17:29 <pgroth> q?
16:17:53 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ Reminder
<pgroth> Summary: Paul walked through four major changes to the PROV-AQ document. Group members were asked to respond via the mailing list. The goal is to release a draft for review by the group the second week of Jan.
16:18:28 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:18:29 <Paolo> pgroth: a number of issues on the list by GK
16:18:34 <GK> I just joined the call.  Will trtyto field any questions.
16:18:50 <pgroth> i think i will do it
16:18:57 <Paolo> GK: (very hard to hear)
16:18:57 <ivan> graham, we do not understand you
16:19:00 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:19:25 <GK> OK.  VOIP problems again.
16:19:31 <Paolo> pgroth: (reporting for GK)
16:20:07 <Paolo> pgroth: major proposal ew need comments on: we introduced a description of content negotiation -- in spec. provenance services
16:20:16 <Paolo> pgroth: this is new to the doc
16:20:52 <Paolo> pgroth: also updated def. of prov services description, specifically on whether our use of RDF for service description is appropriate
16:21:25 <Paolo> pgroth: also support for SPARQL query endpoints that can answer questions about provenance
16:21:39 <Paolo> pgroth: does that reuire a new link type? (?)
16:22:07 <Paolo> pgroth: also provenance pingback -- forward pointers to provenance
16:22:08 <pgroth> q?
16:22:19 <GK> It's not using *provenance* from somewhere else…. it's generating provenance somewhere else...
16:22:20 <Paolo> s/reuire/require
16:22:38 <GK> … i.e. using the resource, and being able to provide priovenance back to the resource spublisher
16:22:58 <GK> Im thinkl you giot it.
16:23:23 <Paolo> pgroth: please all look a these issues and contribute to the discussion on the list
16:23:38 <Paolo> pgroth: hopefully all sorted by 2nd week in Jan
16:23:41 <GK> I also need to follow up some responses from LDP particpants
16:23:50 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Dictionary
<pgroth> Tom  and Sam presented a draft of the prov-dictionary note. They went through some issues and changes that they wanted to discuss with the group. The conclusion was to circulate these with the group before an internal review. 
16:23:52 <TomDN>
16:24:25 <TomDN>
16:24:53 <Paolo> TomDN: need to open the txt file above to follow the discussion...
16:25:28 <Paolo> TomDN: problems with the constraints and notation the editors did not like
16:25:39 <Paolo> TomDN: txt file includes new proposed notation
16:26:28 <Paolo> TomDN: problem is that all membership must be in one relation. This won't work for long lists
16:27:14 <Paolo> TomDN: propose the hadMember notation to align with Collections. multiple such statements are allowed
16:27:44 <ivan> q+
16:27:56 <pgroth> ack ivan
16:28:12 <tlebo> It's been a while since this group's made a design decision. Do we still remember how to do this ;-)
16:28:19 <Paolo> TomDN: the proposed change is local to the dictionary doc
16:28:23 <pgroth> q?
16:28:26 <smiles> q+
16:28:31 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:29:08 <tlebo> KeyValue pairs can be Entities.
16:29:09 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:29:18 <Paolo> smiles: is that really true that this has no effect in prov-n?  now the second parameter is no longer an entity
16:29:38 <pgroth> q+
16:29:41 <Paolo> TomDN: yes but that's one of the extensions for dictionary
16:29:57 <pgroth> ack
16:30:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:30:30 <GK> Hmmm.. if entities can be key-value pairs, then maybe can align with LDP containers proposal more?
16:30:39 <Paolo> pgroth: if there are no issues with this, it's ok to go ahead with the changes, but give the group an opportunity to review them
16:31:04 <tlebo> +1 on issue 1
16:31:14 <Luc> just stepping in, without having heard the discussion: it may be problematic to have hadMember(c,{k,e})  {k,e} is not an entity, but e is
16:31:22 <Paolo> TomDN: issue 2 is on completeness of dictionaries
16:31:32 <GK> cf.
16:32:16 <Paolo> TomDN: old notation (with the 'true" flag) is problematic -- see the comment in txt file, section 2
16:33:07 <Paolo> TomDN: proposed / alt 1: add complete attribute to dictionary itself
16:33:11 <MacTed> GK - is there a conflict between LDP containers and what we're discussing (i.e., would what's here break LDP containers)?  note that PROV is general case, and LDP is a specific case, so they needn't be in perfect sync; e.g., LDP may be more restrictive
16:33:16 <GK> I'm worried that this might fall foul of RDF monotonicity
16:34:24 <Paolo> TomDN: proposed alt 2: start from EmptyDictionary, then insert
16:34:38 <Paolo> TomDN: the result must be complete
16:34:39 <GK> @MacTed - not seeing any breakage, just trying to make sure we're aware and making sure things can be used together.  I guess my thinking is that (if it makes sense) use LDP structure as base and focus PROV effort on container-based provenance
16:34:43 <Paolo> q+
16:34:54 <MacTed> GK - I'm not understanding your concern.  "RDF monotonicity" meaning?
16:35:09 <tlebo> I'm not sure you'd "be sure" that it's complete in ALTERNATIVE 2... since other derivations could have inserted elements.
16:35:25 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:35:25 <GK> @macted - meaning that it should not be possible to invalidfate anyinference by adding a new RDF statement
16:35:43 <MacTed> GK - "Linked Data Platform" is not parallel to nor core of "Linked Data" nor "RDF".  interpretation based on naming is unfortunate.
16:36:36 <tlebo> +1 to "I'm telling you that I think it's closed" as opposed to relying on walking through a derivation to see.
16:36:38 <Paolo> Paolo: does alt 2 really entail completeness?
16:36:41 <GK> i.e. whenever   a |= b   then a \/ x |= b for any x, where a, b and x are RDF graphs.
16:37:01 <pgroth> q?
16:37:37 <Paolo> pgroth: can we leave both of these in the draft and have people discuss/select?
16:37:54 <Paolo> TomDN: sec. 3 is on constraints
16:37:58 <GK> @macted - agreed, but if it makes sense to re-use it seems that would be a Good Thing.
16:38:24 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
16:39:25 <Zakim> +Luc
16:40:30 <pgroth> q?
16:40:39 <Paolo> TomDN: seeking help with the very last constraint
16:41:32 <Paolo> jcheney: conclusion of the rule can be fixed and formalized (each member of d1 is also a member of d2 and vice versa)
16:41:50 <Paolo> jcheney: this requires a more expressive logic than what we currently use
16:42:00 <Paolo> q+
16:42:08 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:42:25 <MacTed> GK - I think LDP is too much moving target, and also too much "subset" to be considered for this re-use.
16:43:57 <Paolo> Paolo: last constraint effectively *defines* that provenance of dictionaries is complete
16:44:42 <Paolo> pgroth: next steps: you could solicit a discussion on these issues, and then go for a proper review
16:45:10 <Paolo> pgroth: or: we do a draft first, then "discuss by review"
16:45:12 <GK> @macted I more than partly agree.   OTOH, don't want to completely ignore what seems to be a significant effort.  I was specifically asked to consider LDP views for PROV-AQ stuff (which I know isn't the same thing, but the principle seems applicabl;e).
16:45:52 <Paolo> TomDN: agree on option 1
16:46:03 <Paolo> pgroth: so please start a discussion and then we will appoint reviewers
16:46:54 <Paolo> TomDN: nothing about prov-xml in the doc. are the prov-xml people planning to implement dictionaries? if so they would be best placed to add this part
16:47:05 <tlebo> seems like it's not stable enough to fill out the PROV-XML examples.
16:47:17 <Paolo> pgroth: best to first agree on these issues, add XML examples later
16:47:25 <TomDN> :)
16:47:27 <tlebo> +1 great stuff, @TomDN
16:47:28 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-xml
<pgroth> Summary: Stephan gave an update. We discussed the problem of upper case and lower case names causing some confusion about the relationship between PROV-XML and RDF/XML. One idea was to ensure that the document level elements were shown within examples. 
16:47:35 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:47:35 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:47:45 <TomDN> @tlebo, tnx!
16:47:48 <Paolo> pgroth: status update?
16:48:06 <Paolo> zednik: FPWD with good feedback from the group
16:48:23 <Paolo> zednik: still processing the feedback
16:48:54 <Paolo> zednik: need to differentiate the two XML serial. that we have (one native, one for prov-o)
16:49:16 <Paolo> zednik: will add naming conventions to the editor's draft. should be ready very soon
16:49:21 <smiles> Could someone raise an issue for the primer, so I can be clear what is required?
16:49:40 <pgroth> q?
16:49:54 <Paolo> pgroth: any feedback from xml people?
16:50:13 <hook> we also got feedback from Stian on namespaces
16:50:16 <Paolo> zednik: early to tell
16:50:29 <Paolo> pgroth: comments?
16:50:29 <pgroth> q?
16:50:38 <smiles> q+
16:51:04 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:51:40 <pgroth> -- prov:Entity
16:51:42 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:51:47 <pgroth> <prov:entity
16:52:01 <Paolo> pgroth: people who looked at the XMl in the primer under Turtle, thought it was for the RDF. that was confusing
16:52:09 <zednik> q+
16:52:10 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:52:15 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:52:18 <Paolo> pgroth: need to clarify
16:53:04 <zednik> q-
16:53:42 <MacTed> putting an inline comment in the example(s) might be worthwhile...
16:54:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:54:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:54:19 <Paolo> smiles: problem is there are many examples, it would be messy
16:55:09 <Paolo> MacTed: there is a risk we are creating confusion, can't expect others to be clear about the distinction amongst the XML versions
16:55:09 <tlebo> @smiles, perhaps replace "XML Example (hide all)" with "PROV-XML Example (hide all)"+= link to prov-xml in every title to an example.
16:55:29 <Paolo> pgroth: it's just a matter of clarifying that prov-xml is not prov-o xml
16:55:53 <zednik> q+
16:55:56 <Paolo> pgroth: only have one type of XML serial visible
16:56:13 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:56:13 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:56:13 <tlebo> -.5 to @pgroth 's "show only one"
16:56:13 <smiles> @tlebo Could do, certainly, but I'm not clear if it completely solves the problem
16:56:14 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:56:37 <tlebo> @smiles every bit throughout helps.
16:56:43 <Paolo> zednik: technically it can be easy to add the message to convey the distinction without too much manual effort
16:56:51 <pgroth> that's fair enough
16:56:53 <Curt> Would it be worth adding a sentence in the OVERVIEW saying PROV-XML is not an RDF/XML version of PROV-O (in addition to adding to primer)
16:57:00 <Paolo> zednik: we should present rather than hide the distinction
16:57:16 <Luc> q+
16:57:25 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:57:30 <MacTed> +1 present distinction, don't hid it.  confusion won't only come in *here* -- what happens when PROV-XML is encountered in the wild, and taken for RDF/XML?
16:57:53 <smiles> q+
16:57:54 <tlebo> +1 to seeing the entire document. That's why PROV-O's examples have full TTL in every one.
16:58:05 <Paolo> Luc: XML examples contain just entities, if we added the context, would it be clear enough indication that it's native XML
16:58:09 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:58:20 <tlebo> (and adding the <xml> bit at the very top)
16:58:23 <Paolo> Luc: i.e., by adding the root elements to the examples
16:58:32 <zednik> +1 to show entire <prov:document> in xml examples
16:58:51 <pgroth> Topic: Namespace
<pgroth> Summary: Brief updates on creating consolidated documents (XML, RDF, HTML) for hosting at the prov namespace. 
16:59:11 <Luc> @smiles: instead of say XML example, can we say PROV-XML example?
16:59:11 <Paolo> pgroth: status update on XML namespace:?
16:59:36 <tlebo> yup, I"m fine with it.
17:00:27 <tlebo> ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to the @xmlns: issue...
17:00:30 <Paolo> pgroth: on merging multiple docs into one ns in XML:?
17:00:42 <Paolo> zednik: need to look at what stian is proposing
17:01:19 <pgroth>
17:01:46 <Paolo> pgroth: need a glossary off the landing page
17:02:04 <pgroth> q+
17:02:06 <pgroth> q?
17:02:09 <MacTed> +1 "say PROV-XML example"
17:02:10 <pgroth> ack pgroth
17:02:23 <tlebo> bye!
17:02:25 <SamCoppens> bye!
17:02:27 <dgarijo> bye
17:02:29 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:02:30 <Zakim> -TomDN
17:02:31 <Zakim> -jun
17:02:32 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:02:32 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:02:34 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:02:34 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
17:02:35 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:02:35 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:02:36 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
17:02:36 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:02:36 <Zakim> -??P37
17:02:36 <Dong> bye all
17:02:38 <Zakim> -??P54
17:02:40 <GK> Bye
17:02:40 <Zakim> -Luc
17:02:43 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:02:45 <zednik> bye
17:02:47 <Zakim> -GK
17:02:53 <GK> GK has left #prov
17:03:00 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:03:04 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:03:10 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:03:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:03:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, MacTed, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +44.131.467.aaaa, dgarijo, jun, ivan, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, +1.818.731.aacc, +329331aadd, TomDN,
17:03:13 <Zakim> ... jcheney, SamCoppens, GK, Satya_Sahoo, Luc
17:03:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:03:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items