From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 09:36, 11 January 2013 by Pgroth
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 http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc 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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.10 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 <pgroth> Summary: Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed. 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10 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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-03 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 <pgroth> Summary: The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email. 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 <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>. 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> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results 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> firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, 16:10:40 <Luc> these are the responders 16:10:45 <Luc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/email-list 16:11:01 <jcheney> ivan: <listing some of the responses> 16:11:56 <Luc> that's my 10 :-) 16:11:59 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/results 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> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, 16:13:48 <Luc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/email-list 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> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/closed 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> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results 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 <pgroth> Summary: Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul 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> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html 16:30:39 <jcheney> pgroth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review 16:30:46 <pgroth> q? 16:31:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ <pgroth> Summary: Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian 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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0032.html 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 <pgroth> Summary: The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response. 16:34:26 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612 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 <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR 16:45:36 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/611 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR 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 http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:04:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-actions.rdf : 17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires  17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-09 17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires  17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-22 17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group  17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-15-53 17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive  17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-37-37 17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints  17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-45-10 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 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000306