Chatlog 2013-01-10

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 09:20, 11 January 2013 by Pgroth (Talk | contribs)

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.

15:52:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:52:36 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:52:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:52:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:52:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:52:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:52:41 <trackbot> Date: 10 January 2013
15:52:42 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:52:42 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:57 <pgroth> Agenda:
15:53:07 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:22 <pgroth> rrsagent, make log publics
15:53:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:38 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Khalid Belhajjame, Jun Zhao, Paolo Missier, zednik, hook
15:59:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:59:45 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
15:59:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:55 <pgroth> can someone scribe?
16:01:46 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:02:00 <pgroth> weka
16:02:19 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
16:02:21 <pgroth> mallet
16:02:47 <jcheney> zakim, aabb is me
16:02:47 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:03:06 <pgroth> scribe: jcheney
16:03:08 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P33
16:03:18 <jcheney> topic: admin
16:03:49 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:04:43 <Zakim> + +329331aacc
16:04:48 <jcheney> pgroth: WF4Ever meeting so lots of people away
16:04:52 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
16:04:52 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
16:04:52 <pgroth>
16:05:00 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:05:03 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:05:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:05:05 <jcheney> pgroth: any objections to minutes?
16:05:34 <pgroth>
16:05:44 <jcheney> ... minutes from last week
16:05:59 <pgroth> accepted: January 3, 2012 minutes
16:06:10 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:06:10 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:06:11 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:06:24 <jcheney> ... open action items:
16:06:43 <Luc> close action-154
16:06:43 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-154 Review the test cases.
16:06:47 <jcheney> ... closing some that were closed last week
16:06:47 <Luc> close action-155
16:06:47 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-155 Review the test cases.
16:07:03 <jcheney> ..stefan working on xml namespace
16:07:14 <jcheney> ... paul to send note on implementations, will do today/tomorrow
16:07:28 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
16:07:28 <jcheney> ...stephan working on xml namespace
16:07:46 <jcheney> ... was hoping for update from stephan (who gets the emails)
16:07:59 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:08:05 <jcheney> ... would like to see how to make a report from survey results
16:08:12 <Luc> 10 implementations, 5 vocab extensions
16:08:15 <Zakim> +??P7
16:08:44 <jcheney> ... Now have 9 impls, 5 vocabulary extensions
16:08:53 <jcheney> ... Would like to know what these are
16:09:09 <pgroth> action: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires
16:09:09 <trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
16:09:22 <pgroth> action: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires
16:09:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
16:09:41 <pgroth>
16:10:04 <jcheney> ivan: can see all the responses
16:10:23 <jcheney> pgroth: who has done what?  why can't anyone else see it?
16:10:31 <Luc>,,,,,,,,,
16:10:40 <Luc> these are the responders
16:10:45 <Luc>
16:11:01 <jcheney> ivan: <listing some of the responses>
16:11:56 <Luc> that's my 10 :-)
16:11:59 <pgroth>
16:12:30 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:12:30 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:13:17 <jcheney> ivan: should be visible to members of "this group" but not sure which group it is.
16:13:30 <jcheney> ... vocabulary extensions: 5 for prov-o, none for others
16:13:43 <Luc>,,,,,
16:13:48 <Luc>
16:13:54 <jcheney> q+
16:14:14 <jcheney> ivan: what would extension mean for prov-n?
16:14:40 <Luc> you could write an xml schema that extends prov-xml schema (but this is not recommendation track)
16:14:40 <jcheney> pgroth: no results for vocabulary usage
16:14:43 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:14:49 <jcheney>
16:15:51 <jcheney> jcheney: the questionnaires are in the "Test Group".  Can we move them to our group?
16:15:53 <pgroth> action: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group
16:15:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
16:16:07 <jcheney> ivan: this may be a mistake... will ask sysadmins if it can be fixed
16:16:14 <pgroth> q+
16:16:17 <pgroth> q?
16:16:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:16:30 <jcheney> ivan: do you want to see the feature coverage?
16:17:11 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to see feature coverage & interoperability in implementation report
16:17:21 <pgroth>
16:17:21 <pgroth> [4:06pm]
16:18:21 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy
16:18:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney
16:18:23 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy?
16:18:33 <Zakim> jcheney, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (4%), ??P33 (55%), Ivan (48%)
16:18:44 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33
16:18:44 <Zakim> ??P33 should now be muted
16:19:16 <jcheney> @ivan: could you make a screenshot of results and people can look at it off-line?
16:19:22 <Luc> q+
16:20:11 <jcheney> luc: we have 4 impls that write Entity and 5 that read / write Entity
16:20:11 <pgroth> yeah that's correct
16:20:56 <jcheney> ivan: then averages are meaningful: 4.56 is good
16:21:38 <jcheney> pgroth: for entity, agent we're fine
16:22:09 <jcheney> luc: 6 say no support for invalidation, 1 r/o, 2 r/2.  can we assume one reads what the other has written?
16:22:30 <jcheney> pgroth: would be good to see the actual people, so we can check this
16:23:15 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to make this public/group readable, and see where there are gaps
16:23:19 <pgroth> ack luc
16:23:20 <pgroth> q?
16:23:26 <jcheney> ivan: sounds reasonable
16:23:36 <Luc> q+
16:24:07 <jcheney> luc: just after averages table there are details, but only for two responses - why?
16:24:19 <Dong> that's what I see as well
16:24:56 <jcheney> ivan: can see all 9 rows
16:25:04 <jcheney> ... with all responses
16:25:20 <jcheney> pgroth: we need to see what ivan sees asap
16:25:30 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:26:00 <jcheney> pgroth: wanted to ask dong what we expect back on constraints
16:26:05 <Luc> q?
16:26:22 <jcheney> ... should they email prov-public-comments or fill out a form or what?
16:26:38 <pgroth> q?
16:26:47 <pgroth> no dong
16:26:48 <Luc> dong?
16:26:56 <jcheney> zakim, unmute ??P33
16:26:56 <Zakim> ??P33 should no longer be muted
16:27:06 <jcheney> zakim, ??P33 is Dong
16:27:06 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
16:27:37 <jcheney> Dong: Decided to use questionnaire and not email, haven't removed email yet, will do soon
16:27:59 <jcheney> ... put link in call for implementations
16:28:08 <pgroth> it's not on the main page
16:28:42 <jcheney> pgroth: will update main page after changes made
16:28:45 <pgroth> i will do that
16:28:48 <jcheney> Dong: need to update front page
16:28:59 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33
16:28:59 <Zakim> sorry, jcheney, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P33
16:29:04 <jcheney> zakim, mute Dong
16:29:04 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted
16:29:13 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Dictionary
16:29:19 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:29:19 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:29:47 <jcheney> TomDN: prov-dict pushed just before call; everything done except prov-xml
16:29:58 <jcheney> ... can be reviewed starting tomorrow
16:30:08 <jcheney> ... incorporates results of discussion on mailing list
16:30:25 <jcheney> ... can be considered for fpwd after review
16:30:28 <TomDN>
16:30:39 <jcheney> pgroth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review
16:30:46 <pgroth> q?
16:31:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
16:31:06 <Luc> q+
16:31:12 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:31:12 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:31:20 <jcheney> Luc: can we confirm reviewers for prov-dictionary?
16:31:55 <jcheney> pgroth: paolo, stian, james(?), luc, pgroth
16:31:57 <Luc> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul
16:32:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:32:08 <Luc> ack luc
16:32:19 <pgroth>
16:32:49 <jcheney> pgroth: reviewable version is available, questions for review in issue 613
16:32:58 <jcheney> ... would like feedback on pingback
16:33:10 <pgroth> Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
16:33:14 <pgroth> q?
16:33:14 <jcheney> ... "last call" before prov-aq released as ready for implementation
16:33:52 <pgroth> q?
16:33:59 <jcheney> ... deadline for review is thursday next week
16:34:19 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o encoding constraints
16:34:26 <pgroth>
16:34:46 <jcheney> pgroth: comments from two implementors working with prov-o and constraints
16:35:08 <jcheney> ... looking for constraints implementable in OWL to be part of prov-o
16:35:40 <jcheney> ... this was discussed and resolved not to do this earlier, but this could be an implementation technique
16:35:46 <Luc> q+
16:35:50 <jcheney> ... how to address?
16:36:22 <jcheney> Luc: no consensus for derivation to be transitive; we voted against this and it is not a constraint in the document.
16:37:01 <pgroth> ack luc
16:37:15 <jcheney> luc: should review & approve responses, but would be good to tell them this specific point
16:37:34 <ivan> q+
16:37:37 <Luc> action: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive
16:37:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-01-17].
16:37:41 <pgroth> ack Ivan
16:38:01 <jcheney> ivan: what is wrong with putting expressible constraints in separate document?
16:38:33 <jcheney> ... don't see a case for editing prov-o core document
16:39:06 <jcheney> pgroth: fine if people (in or out of wg) want to encode constraints, but not necessarily part of wg delierables
16:39:14 <jcheney> s/delierables/deliverables/
16:39:27 <jcheney> ivan: if wg members do this, we can at least publish it somewhere
16:39:28 <pgroth> q?
16:39:42 <Luc> q+
16:39:47 <pgroth> ack luc
16:40:07 <jcheney> Luc: need to respond to reviewers, along lines Paul gave
16:40:16 <jcheney> ... open questions whether some/all constraints implementable and how
16:40:52 <jcheney> ... wg decided to view this as an implementation issue, we can offer to gather experiences with this/axioms suggested by implementors
16:41:27 <jcheney> pgroth: sounds fine, but it seems to come up - should we say this in prov-o or constraints saying this?
16:42:11 <pgroth> q?
16:42:17 <jcheney> Luc: seems reasonable. not sure where. james?
16:43:58 <pgroth> q?
16:44:16 <jcheney> jcheney: could put disclaimer/explanation in constraints, maybe signpost elsewhere
16:44:39 <jcheney> pgroth: could say something in overview, prov-o also
16:45:10 <pgroth> action: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints
16:45:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
16:45:28 <pgroth> topic: Test cases response
16:45:36 <pgroth>
16:46:34 <jcheney> pgroth: james responded to questions about constraints; this seems fine as response to that part if wg can endorse
16:46:44 <jcheney> ... also asked about prov-constraints test cases
16:46:54 <jcheney> ... should they be part of spec?
16:47:07 <pgroth>  We
16:47:07 <pgroth> would like to see test suites for the other operational parts of PROV,
16:47:07 <pgroth> in particular for testing inferences separate from validation.
16:47:26 <jcheney> ... in particular, in a normative place.
16:47:39 <jcheney> ... and would like further test cases for other documents
16:47:43 <pgroth> q?
16:47:45 <jcheney> ... how should we respond
16:47:54 <jcheney> ivan: why do they want it in normative spec?
16:48:11 <jcheney> pgroth: if normative, then better interoperability (they say)
16:48:42 <jcheney> ivan: that's a matter of opinion.  otoh, if list of test cases become normative, cannot extend them later, or would have normative  & non-normative tests
16:49:00 <jcheney> ... if test suite is non-normative, then we have capability to add new tests even when docs published
16:49:14 <jcheney> ... had this in rdfa wg
16:49:23 <Dong> q+
16:49:46 <jcheney> ... discrepancies between implementations arose, which were addressed through additional tests
16:49:52 <Dong> Zakim, unmute me
16:49:52 <Zakim> Dong should no longer be muted
16:49:52 <pgroth> q?
16:50:26 <jcheney> Dong: if we move test cases into normative, are we saying that an impl that passes all test cases are compliant?  We would have two definitions
16:50:34 <jcheney> ... test cases and original spec
16:50:44 <jcheney> ... cannot be sure that test cases cover all constraints.
16:50:59 <jcheney> ... would provide false sense of ciompliance
16:51:00 <pgroth> q?
16:51:03 <pgroth> ack Dong
16:51:06 <Dong> Zakim, mute me
16:51:06 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted
16:51:06 <Luc> q+
16:51:08 <jcheney> s/ciompliance/compliance
16:51:33 <jcheney> Luc: other issue is that we don't have formal mappings / equivalence between the serializations
16:51:39 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:51:50 <jcheney> ... it could be that some test cases would work in prov-n and not rdf or vice versa.
16:52:07 <jcheney> ... not in favor of normative test cases
16:52:40 <jcheney> ... do we need other test cases for other specs?
16:52:49 <jcheney> (previous line is pgroth)
16:52:57 <jcheney> pgroth: do we need other test cases for other specs?
16:52:59 <pgroth> q?
16:53:04 <Luc> q+
16:53:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:54:08 <jcheney> Luc: the test suite contains typical examples expressed in prov-n, prov-o.  what else could we do beyond having weird examples to exercise syntax?
16:54:17 <jcheney> ... more interesting to have useful provenance examples
16:54:49 <jcheney> pgroth: test cases provide example repository, can be used to test compliance with other specs
16:54:55 <pgroth> q?
16:55:03 <Luc> this was a suggestion from the SW coordination group that we have a set of useful provenance examples
16:55:22 <Luc> q+
16:55:28 <jcheney> pgroth: we seem to have outline of response
16:55:49 <jcheney> Luc: important to try to provide responses promptly because they are trying to implement and may be waiting before submitting reports
16:56:10 <Luc> i have updated page
16:56:13 <Luc> q+
16:56:36 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:56:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Luc will do response to Kerry, Paul will respond to general question need one for test cases and their comments on constraints
16:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: created page for responses
16:58:04 <jcheney> ... suggest we assign people to address these
16:58:53 <jcheney> pgroth: prov-o (611) essentially same as 612 about encoding constraints in owl, paul will do these
16:59:22 <jcheney> ... jcheney will do 611 (constraints)
17:00:06 <Dong> ok
17:00:09 <jcheney> ... 611 (normative test cases) - Dong
17:00:32 <jcheney> ... can we do this by monday?
17:01:20 <jcheney> Luc: who will do test cases for other specifications?
17:01:24 <jcheney> pgroth: will do that
17:01:39 <jcheney> pgroth: goal do send for approval by wg on monday
17:01:46 <jcheney> pgroth: goal to send for approval by wg on monday
17:01:52 <jcheney> ... so we can send back on tuesday
17:01:54 <pgroth> q?
17:02:42 <jcheney> pgroth: seems uncontroversial so hopefully we can approve over mailing list
17:02:47 <jcheney> ... or at least try
17:02:59 <Dong> Monday is fine for my part
17:03:16 <pgroth> q?
17:03:30 <SamCoppens> Bye
17:03:34 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:03:34 <Zakim> - +44.238.059.aaaa
17:03:34 <Zakim> -??P7
17:03:36 <Zakim> -TomDN
17:03:43 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
17:03:46 <Dong> bye everyone
17:03:47 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:03:49 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:03:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:03:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:04:03 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:04:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:04:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong
17:04:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:04:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in :
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [1]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [2]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [3]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [4]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [5]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:13 <Zakim> -Dong
17:04:14 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:04:14 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong