Chatlog 2013-01-17

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 19:33, 20 January 2013 by Lmoreau (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.

15:57:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:57:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-irc
15:57:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:57:10 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:57:12 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:57:12 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:57:13 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:57:13 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2013
15:57:14 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:57:14 <Zakim> ok, Luc, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:57:16 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:57:27 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.17
15:57:31 <pgroth> pgroth has left #prov
15:57:38 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:57:44 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:58:44 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:58:54 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:59:00 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
15:59:07 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:59:13 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
15:59:14 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:59:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:26 <Zakim> +??P6
15:59:33 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P6 is me
15:59:34 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:59:35 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:35 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:59:46 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:59:54 <dgarijo> Luc, if nobody volunteers, I can be the scribe
16:00:30 <Luc> it's very kind daniel, first, let's see if we can find somebody else,
16:00:39 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
16:00:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, pgroth, dgarijo
16:00:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, Paolo, dgarijo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Curt, Luc, TallTed, ivan, trackbot, stain
16:00:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:00:54 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:00:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:00:56 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:01:00 <Paolo> HI I have done it quite recently but can do it again
16:01:02 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy?
16:01:02 <Paolo> if needed
16:01:03 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:12 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ivan (2%)
16:01:14 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:01:20 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.17
16:01:20 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, pgroth, dgarijo, [IPcaller], Ivan, +1.315.330.aabb
16:01:26 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb
16:01:26 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:01:47 <Luc> scribe: tlebo
16:01:59 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:02:05 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy?
16:02:16 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ivan (56%)
16:02:26 <tlebo> (I think this IRC client has dropped me before, so I might need to hand off to someone mid-stream)
16:02:33 <pgroth> ivan has the loudest keyboard ever
16:02:37 <ivan> zakim, mute me
16:02:37 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
16:02:42 <ivan> :-(
16:02:48 <tlebo> :-)
16:03:04 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:03:19 <Zakim> +??P41
16:03:22 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:03:24 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10
16:03:27 <dgarijo> 0 (I wasn't there)
16:03:28 <tlebo> proposed: approve minutes
16:03:29 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
16:03:40 <Luc> proposed: to approve last week's minutes
16:03:41 <ivan> +1
16:03:42 <tlebo> 0 (was not here)
16:03:48 <Curt> 0 (not present)
16:03:48 <Paolo> 0 (missed it)
16:03:49 <dgarijo> 0
16:03:52 <smiles> +1
16:03:56 <Dong> +1
16:03:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:04:11 <Luc> resolved:  last week's minutes
16:04:34 <tlebo> luc: action on Tim for cross referencing.
16:04:43 <Zakim> +??P22
16:04:46 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:04:48 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:04:55 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:05:05 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:05:05 <tlebo> tim: I'll look at the cross reference.
16:05:06 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
16:05:06 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
16:05:12 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
16:05:12 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
16:05:15 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
16:05:15 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
16:05:17 <tlebo> luc: action on himself...
16:05:26 <tlebo> luc: action on Stephan for namespaces.
16:05:40 <tlebo> zednik: have looked at identifiers
16:06:05 <tlebo> pgroth: I've done all actions on me.
16:06:22 <Zakim> +??P13
16:06:42 <Luc> topic: Implementations
<LUC>Summary: Paul reviewed all implementation surveys submitted so far. While the numbers look healthy, it was noted that 7 implementation reports were submitted by Southampton. Many implementers are known to have implemented PROV but have not submitted yet. Group members are strongly reminded to submit their reports. The discussion focused on interoperability pairs. It is important to identify which application one exports provenance to or one imports provenance from. Some generic services such as the provenance validator are hopefully good candidates for interoperability with other applications.
16:06:55 <tlebo> luc: paul went through surveys recently.
16:07:01 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0073.html
16:07:02 <dgarijo> I've added all the remaining implementations that I had added in the wiki. Some of them today
16:07:09 <tlebo> pgroth: announced it via email
16:07:27 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:07:32 <tlebo> ... reports from 9 organizations
16:07:58 <tlebo> ... southampton has 7 implementations.
16:08:01 <Zakim> +Ruben
16:08:13 <TomDN> Zakim, +Ruben is me
16:08:13 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not recognize a party named '+Ruben'
16:08:14 <tlebo> ... provo is good track; all constructs supported by 2 sep implementations.
16:08:21 <TomDN> Zakim, Ruben is me
16:08:21 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
16:08:25 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:08:33 <tlebo> ... provo needs a pair of implmeentations to exchange.
16:08:39 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:08:39 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:08:44 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:08:44 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:08:47 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov
16:08:55 <tlebo> ... it's easy to hit that min by having SH and Kings to exchange prov.
16:08:58 <GK_> Zakim, ??p13 is me
16:08:58 <Zakim> +GK_; got it
16:09:11 <tlebo> ... for prov-n it is less satisfying. only 2 orgs: SH and weblab.
16:09:22 <tlebo> ... tom and sam have prov-n implementations.
16:09:32 <tlebo> ... but do weblab actually support it?
16:09:42 <tlebo> ... they say openRDF sesame as the library (implies prov-o)
16:09:50 <Paolo> I am going to add implementation with prov-n support
16:09:52 <Luc> q+
16:09:55 <tlebo> ... need to rely on tom/sam implementation
16:09:55 <Paolo> (applications)
16:10:13 <tlebo> ... constraints: luc's implementation, but we need one more impl.
16:10:31 <pgroth> it's a good thing!
16:10:44 <tlebo> luc: # implementations on southampton, some on different languages.
16:10:46 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:11:00 <tlebo> ... we can demonstrate language independence if not org independence.
16:11:15 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:11:15 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:11:18 <tlebo> ... TomDN implementing? isn't he using the provtoolbox?
16:11:46 <Paolo> q+
16:11:50 <tlebo> TomDN: not really using the toolbox.
16:12:09 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:12:15 <pgroth> ace paolo
16:12:18 <pgroth> ack paolo
16:12:27 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:12:27 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:12:31 <Luc> q+
16:12:35 <tlebo> Paolo: Tom's note, if I produce prov-n w/o provtoolbox then it counts as a new implementation.
16:12:44 <pgroth> ack luc
16:13:02 <tlebo> luc: ideally, we want full independence.
16:13:13 <tlebo> ... but we made the case that prov-n is aimed at human consumption.
16:13:19 <tlebo> ... so no need for interoperability.
16:13:46 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:13:46 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:13:49 <tlebo> pgroth: for prov-n, does TomDN consume prov info as prov-n?
16:13:50 <Luc> prov-dm contains examples of prov-dm, consumable by prov toolbox. So it's a pair!
16:14:01 <Luc> prov-dm contains examples of PROV-N, consumable by prov toolbox. So it's a pair!
16:14:19 <tlebo> TomDN: I read it == I evaluate. It generates it == write.
16:14:23 <GK> A precedent we might look at is the "human" syntax(es) for OWL - what do they do?
16:14:39 <Luc> @TomDN, can you validate your prov-n with my validator?
16:15:12 <tlebo> TomDN: I can produce a file from my tool as prov-n.
16:15:18 <Luc> @TomDN, can you paste your prov-n into http://openprovenance.org/prov/validator.html
16:15:25 <tlebo> pgroth: we want to give TomDN's prov-n to luc's validator.
16:15:33 <tlebo> ... then we have a pair.
16:15:41 <Luc> or  http://openprovenance.org/prov/translator.html
16:16:00 <tlebo> pgroth: tom doens't use all of the constructs.
16:16:05 <tlebo> TomDN: no.
16:16:11 <tlebo> pgroth: extend to use other constructs?
16:16:14 <tlebo> TomDN: not easy.
16:16:27 <Luc> q+
16:16:32 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:16:47 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:16:47 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:16:58 <tlebo> Luc: prov-dm doc is an example of prov-n generation. so all statements can be validated by toolbox.
16:17:02 <tlebo> .. thus an interop pair
16:17:27 <tlebo> pgroth: we need to add it to the quesionnaire
16:17:33 <TomDN> (I will provide some rationale on my questionaire answers to explain the read/write answers
16:17:48 <tlebo> pgroth: we should do it as the WG
16:17:49 <GK> q+ to suggest looking in to how http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/ was handled
16:18:01 <Zakim> -GK_
16:18:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
16:18:07 <GK> Losrt my client
16:18:08 <tlebo> pgroth: we seem to have coverage on prov-n (with these steps)
16:18:23 <GK> Sorry lost connection
16:18:23 <Luc> q?
16:18:37 <Zakim> +??P13
16:18:46 <pgroth> q+ to say we need a pair for prov-o
16:18:46 <GK> zakim, ??p13 is me
16:18:47 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:18:51 <tlebo> Luc: please submit the implementation reports.
16:18:58 <stain> Zakim, ??P13 is me
16:18:58 <Zakim> I already had ??P13 as GK, stain
16:19:08 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:19:19 <tlebo> GK: prov-n and interop -- find out what OWL WG did with their functional syntax.
16:19:22 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
16:19:25 <tlebo> ... it's similar role.
16:19:28 <Luc> q?
16:19:32 <ivan> unmute ivan
16:19:34 <Luc> ack gk
16:19:34 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest looking in to how http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/ was handled
16:19:39 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
16:19:39 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
16:20:15 <pgroth> i think we have a solution now for prov-n
16:20:15 <tlebo> ivan: i don't remember how function syntax was handled. it was just a specification language - not a cand rec requiement to parse it.
16:20:16 <Luc> q?
16:20:38 <tlebo> ... for OWL systems, they needed to exchange RDF/XML. the ONLY one.
16:20:39 <GK> That was my guess - I think PROV-N might be presented similarly?
16:20:45 <pgroth> Tom's implementation + validator  and prov-dm docs + validator
16:20:45 <Luc> q?
16:20:48 <Luc> ack pg
16:20:48 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we need a pair for prov-o
16:21:03 <tlebo> pgroth: provo coverage is fine, we need some pairs.
16:21:09 <Zakim> +??P44
16:21:15 <tlebo> ... could simon and luc make that pair?
16:21:48 <tlebo> Luc: the service is available online. anyone can paste them in to validator or translator.
16:21:52 <tlebo> ... they can just report it.
16:21:56 <smiles> Luc - Can you give the URL again?
16:22:07 <stain> Zakim: ??P44 is me
16:22:11 <stain> Zakim, ??P44 is me
16:22:11 <Zakim> +stain; got it
16:22:11 <tlebo> pgroth: a pair isn't one directional?
16:22:22 <stain> Zakim, ??P44 is also khalidBelhajjame
16:22:22 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P44 is also khalidBelhajjame', stain
16:22:25 <tlebo> pgroth: simon, dump out provo and validate it?
16:22:34 <tlebo> smiles: yes, if it takes turtle
16:22:36 <ivan> zakim, mute me
16:22:36 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
16:22:50 <Luc> http://openprovenance.org/prov/validator.html
16:23:01 <tlebo> Luc: anybody can do that.
16:23:04 <Luc> q?
16:23:04 <pgroth> constraints
16:23:04 <GK> I think producer -> consumer (one way) is OK - it shoews two developers read spec and had some common understanding
16:23:11 <pgroth> q+
16:23:30 <tlebo> pgroth: constraints. luc did them, pgroth is slowing working them.
16:23:41 <tlebo> ... obviously good to have more than 2
16:23:47 <tlebo> ... or even if other parts of implementations.
16:23:59 <tlebo> ... 47 unit tests away from full coverage.
16:24:16 <tlebo> ... shoiuld be able to do it.
16:24:21 <tlebo> +1 :-)
16:24:35 <tlebo> luc: Paolo was working on partial constriants
16:24:44 <Luc> Regrets: jcheney
16:24:53 <TomDN> Does your implementation need to be completely finished by Jan. 31st?
16:24:57 <tlebo> Paolo: jun and I havent' worked on it.
16:25:07 <pgroth> @TomDN it's about the report really
16:25:17 <tlebo> Luc: when? by end of month?
16:25:20 <tlebo> Paolo: not by then.
16:25:26 <pgroth> +q to ask about stardog
16:25:29 <Luc> q?
16:25:31 <TomDN> @pgroth, thanks, that's what i thought
16:25:55 <tlebo> pgroth: we knwo there are implementations out there than what is reported.
16:26:04 <tlebo> ... we should all sign up to report implementations.
16:26:22 <tlebo> ... e.g. stardog is doing it.
16:26:27 <tlebo> ... approach individually.
16:26:50 <Luc> q?
16:26:52 <Luc> ack pg
16:26:52 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about stardog
16:26:54 <tlebo> (I tried to poke the LInkedTV via twitter yesterday -- it's not coming out till Feb)
16:27:01 <pgroth> but there's also dbpedia, and qudt, etc
16:27:04 <Luc> topic: Response to public comments
<luc>Summary: the drafted response were approved. Reviewers will be contacted by Paul with the Group responses. Outstanding issues will be tackled in the coming week.
16:27:08 <tlebo> zakim, who is making noise?
16:27:09 <pgroth> simon can you mute
16:27:12 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
16:27:18 <Zakim> tlebo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (83%), ??P41 (28%)
16:27:30 <pgroth> zakim, mute ??P41
16:27:30 <Zakim> ??P41 should now be muted
16:27:30 <GK> (There's also the possibility of submitting "third party" reports for public implemenbtations)
16:27:43 <Luc> q?
16:27:47 <pgroth> @GK i didn't no that
16:27:52 <pgroth> s/no/know
16:28:00 <Luc> q?
16:28:09 <Luc> Proposed: the group endorses the responses to issues 611 and 612
16:28:14 <TomDN> +1
16:28:17 <ivan> +1
16:28:18 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
16:28:18 <tlebo> +1
16:28:19 <satya> +1
16:28:21 <zednik> +1
16:28:23 <stain> +1
16:28:26 <Dong> +q
16:28:26 <TallTed> +1
16:28:27 <GK> @paul - I don't *know* that, but I can't see any reason why now
16:28:34 <SamCoppens> +1
16:28:36 <Luc> q?
16:28:36 <dgarijo> +0 (I haven't reviewed them yet)
16:28:38 <hook> +1
16:28:39 <smiles> +1 (noting that I sent a suggestion just before this call)
16:28:41 <GK> +0
16:28:50 <Paolo> 0 haven't reviewed in detail
16:28:53 <Luc> Resolved: the group endorses the responses to issues 611 and 612
16:28:54 <Curt> +0 (haven't reviewed)
16:29:04 <stain> @TallTed what happened to McTed over New Year? :)
16:29:13 <tlebo> luc: who to respond to reviewers?
16:29:15 <Dong> q-
16:29:15 <pgroth> sure
16:29:17 <Luc> q?
16:29:21 <tlebo> Luc: : is it paul?
16:29:25 <tlebo> pgroth: I can do that.
16:29:33 <tlebo> ... we had a question about derivation.
16:29:57 <tlebo> ... wasQUotedFrom, not derivation.
16:30:08 <dgarijo> I think it was about the name of wasQuotedFrom.
16:30:12 <tlebo> (I think it's the same mix-up that "Tim vs. Stian+Daniel" had.
16:30:13 <stain> it was about the directionality - as I originally complained about it
16:30:23 <stain> he suggested hadQuoteFrom
16:30:27 <dgarijo> yep
16:30:35 <Luc> q?
16:30:57 <pgroth> action: pgroth to respond to public comments
16:30:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Respond to public comments [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-24].
16:30:58 <Dong> @Luc and Tim: I've just remember that some PROV-O examples might need to be revised in ISSUE-611
16:31:02 <tlebo> luc: wasquotedFrom, can't recall.
16:31:17 <TomDN> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0006.html
16:31:27 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:31:29 <stain> I think we need another WG discussion on email about it
16:31:57 <TallTed> stain - just unifying my nick across a few spaces (Twitter, a couple of IRC nets, etc.) ...
16:32:03 <stain> if the term was confusing in the primer.. then it's confusing all over
16:32:04 <tlebo> q+ to note that we couldn't converge last time on the naming.
16:32:15 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
16:32:44 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
16:32:56 <tlebo> ECHO
16:32:57 <pgroth> echo madness
16:33:02 <stain> zakim, who is noisy?
16:33:06 <pgroth> simon
16:33:07 <Luc> q?
16:33:13 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tlebo (31%)
16:33:14 <pgroth> ack tlebo
16:33:16 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to note that we couldn't converge last time on the naming.
16:33:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:34:00 <smiles> @tlebo - Do you have a link to that email conversation?
16:34:01 <Luc> q?
16:34:10 <stain> but this email was from Chuck Norris - which sounds like a native speaker
16:34:11 <Luc> q?
16:34:15 <tlebo> smiles: I can dig up the ISSUE.
16:34:17 <stain> MORRIS
16:34:19 <stain> hihi
16:34:26 <smiles> OK
16:34:26 <dgarijo> @stian:lol
16:34:56 <Zakim> +??P32
16:35:15 <Luc> q?
16:35:17 <Paolo> zakim, ??P32 is me
16:35:17 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:35:25 <Luc> topic: prov-dictionary
<luc>Summary: As the editor's draft was just released, it was agreed that reviewers have till Wednesday to complete their review.
16:35:27 <tlebo> tlebo: I'll dig through them. thanks for the reminder
16:35:44 <TomDN> no
16:35:54 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:35:54 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:36:03 <tlebo> smiles: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/352 is the wasQuotedFrom naming discussion
16:36:13 <Paolo> deadline is 23rd, right?
16:36:31 <pgroth> fine with me
16:36:35 <tlebo> Luc: reviewers should give feedback by next wed.
16:36:41 <pgroth> paul
16:36:49 <smiles> @tlebo Thanks!
16:36:59 <TomDN> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul,
16:37:02 <Luc> q?
16:37:11 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:37:11 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:37:12 <Luc> topic: prov-aq
<luc>Summary: All reviewers have submitted their report. All are fine for a new working draft to be released.  The editors will produced a revised version for the next teleconference (or the following one) and vote for release will then take place.
16:37:38 <Luc> q?
16:37:41 <tlebo> GK: I've seen 4 reviews in
16:37:57 <tlebo> pgroth: tim, simon, luc, dong, stian
16:38:18 <tlebo> h!
16:38:22 <pgroth> your back
16:38:46 <tlebo> pgroth: all have reviewed.
16:38:54 <pgroth> shall i go
16:39:08 <pgroth> q+
16:39:11 <tlebo> GK: through 1.5 sets of comments.
16:39:15 <tlebo> ... most are editorial.
16:39:25 <tlebo> ... hoping to pick out those that are more than editorial.
16:39:42 <pgroth> that's not the main issue
16:39:45 <tlebo> ... issue on REST interface vs. simple convention for URI to retrieve prov.
16:40:04 <tlebo> pgroth: everyone but stian said doc can go LC
16:40:10 <stain> q+
16:40:17 <tlebo> ... stian has 8-9 blocking issues.
16:40:39 <Luc> q+
16:40:44 <Luc> ack pg
16:40:46 <tlebo> ... we should concentrate on blocking issues from stian.
16:40:46 <GK> Ah, I hadn't yet looked at those blocking issues from Stian
16:41:07 <tlebo> stain: my issues: it was heavy.
16:41:16 <Luc> q?
16:41:20 <Luc> ack sta
16:41:24 <tlebo> ... as a draft, fine. but not as final technical.
16:41:25 <stain> @GK sorry about that..
16:41:27 <Luc> ack luc
16:41:40 <tlebo> Luc: i'm fine wiht doc released as next WD.
16:41:58 <tlebo> ... I felt that feedback required changes, and so not last call.
16:42:02 <pgroth> q+
16:42:04 <tlebo> ... we don't have notion of last call in Note.
16:42:09 <tlebo> ... we're abusing that name.
16:42:20 <Luc> q?
16:42:21 <tlebo> ... as next draft, fine.
16:42:44 <tlebo> pgroth: we should distinguish between release and not wanting to do any more to it.
16:43:08 <tlebo> ... address all comments, release a WD at a minimum. OR when we go PRec with other docs.
16:43:17 <tlebo> ... but can we get another iteration?
16:43:17 <Luc> q?
16:43:19 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:43:22 <tlebo> ... before PR
16:43:25 <GK> @paul +1 review/revise as much as possible
16:43:32 <Luc> q?
16:43:32 <tlebo> ... we need two more itnerations on PAQ
16:43:55 <tlebo> Luc: we should be pragmatic about Notes and making it too perfect.
16:44:00 <GK> If the issues are substantive, I don't think they should be "offline"
16:44:09 <Luc> q?
16:44:30 <pgroth> @gk i was talking about scheduling
16:44:44 <GK> @paul Ah, OK.
16:44:46 <tlebo> Luc: do we vote? or do work and editors cycle?
16:44:57 <tlebo> pgroth: next week or following for WD.
16:45:01 <Luc> ack pg
16:45:11 <TomDN> (can be synced with dictionary then)
16:45:18 <tlebo> ... take off "final" terminology"
16:45:28 <Luc> q?
16:45:45 <tlebo> topic: prov-xml
<luc>Summary: Stephan updated the group on recent changes made by editors. He is going to summarise these by email, on the tracker. We then discussed the namespace convention to adopted. The ideal is to align with the conventions we have adapted for the ontology, while still being compatible with the xml approach. Stephan was tasked to come up with a proposal for next teleconference.
16:46:02 <GK> Next week is likely busy for me.  I'll try to complete my pass through the reviews today.
16:46:25 <tlebo> luc: namespace, schema management, etc.
16:46:44 <tlebo> zednik: some feedback on original note. extended types was confusing with prov:type.
16:46:52 <tlebo> ... made native XML type for those.
16:47:30 <tlebo> ... identifiers: work natively for XML
16:47:33 <tlebo> ... id and idref
16:47:40 <tlebo> id uses xsi:id
16:47:54 <tlebo> ... base type of idRef -- xml tooling is familiar.
16:48:12 <tlebo> .. cannot start with numbers, other constraints.
16:48:24 <tlebo> ... it's native but doesn't work with our examples or URIs.
16:48:33 <tlebo> ... alternative: anyURI or QNames
16:48:34 <pgroth> @gk see where you can get and see what needs to be debated
16:48:44 <tlebo> ... not sure which would be better.
16:48:50 <tlebo> ... also xlinks and xpointers.
16:49:06 <GK> @paul - that's my plan - I'm making notes as I go.  I'll email you a copy when done.
16:49:13 <pgroth> @gk awesome
16:49:16 <ivan> q+
16:49:23 <tlebo> ... xpointers and xlinks might let us verify references existing.
16:49:28 <ivan> ack ivan
16:49:32 <tlebo> ... the group needs to read up on xlinks/xpointers.
16:49:35 <Luc> ack iv
16:49:46 <tlebo> ivan: how widely is xlink implemented?
16:50:03 <tlebo> ... do tools really do it? xlink is an unlucky standard.
16:50:10 <Luc> q?
16:50:23 <hook> q+
16:50:32 <tlebo> ... might not be worth adopting, could be more harm than good.
16:50:48 <tlebo> hook: xlinks ISO community uses them to reference external XML traces.
16:50:59 <tlebo> ... in bundles, can reference across bundles.
16:51:09 <tlebo> ... but good point on how much it's used.
16:51:15 <Luc> q?
16:51:22 <Luc> ack ho
16:51:31 <tlebo> ... we still need to look into xlinks.
16:51:50 <tlebo> Luc: have your changes surfaced to the WG?
16:52:00 <tlebo> ... some may want to get insight into your changes.
16:52:20 <tlebo> ... (are you using issue tracker?)
16:52:30 <Luc> q?
16:52:54 <tlebo> zednik: announced, but did not tag into ISSUE.
16:53:12 <Luc> q?
16:53:37 <tlebo> zednik: last modeling was valid.
16:53:55 <tlebo> Luc: namespace management issue
16:54:08 <tlebo> ... the namespace HTML is waiting on it.
16:54:30 <tlebo> zednik: seems like we're misusing xml namesapces.
16:54:49 <tlebo> ... the extension should have a different namespace.
16:54:58 <tlebo> ... including dictionary in new namespace
16:55:24 <tlebo> ... stian proposed an organization, but not ideal.
16:55:37 <tlebo> ... the xml schema should have different namespaces.
16:55:58 <TomDN> (didn't we vote on this a few months ago?)
16:56:03 <Luc> q?
16:56:03 <pgroth> q+
16:56:18 <Luc> ack pg
16:56:37 <tlebo> pgroth: prov dictionary etc being in different docs doesn't mean it's not in the same thing.
16:56:54 <tlebo> ... (they are in same group, it's just broken up to aid understanding).
16:56:58 <Luc> zakim. who is noisy?
16:57:07 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy?
16:57:14 <tlebo> pgroth: from practice, developers do not like separate namespaces.
16:57:17 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (90%)
16:57:30 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:57:30 <tlebo> ... PROV namespace will included in RDFa automatically.
16:57:44 <ivan> s/RDFa/RDFa 1.1/
16:57:57 <tlebo> Luc: is nice to have one ns
16:58:24 <tlebo> Luc: a prov-xml dictionary namespace?
16:58:37 <TomDN> then we need a prov-links namespace as well
16:58:55 <GK> IMO, if any of the XML namespaces are different from the corresponding RDF, then they should *all* be different
16:59:10 <stain> q+
16:59:13 <GK> .. including the "core" namespace
16:59:31 <Curt> just do 2, core, and core + all extensions
16:59:51 <Luc> q?
16:59:52 <stain> exactly.. we do a single schema with only core, and one with core-everything
16:59:53 <tlebo> q+ to ask zednik where the motivation for different namespaces comes from
16:59:59 <Luc> ack st
17:00:25 <tlebo> stain: oen for core prov xml, one that is prov-everything xml schema. If you don't like either of those, then you're on your own.
17:00:26 <zednik> q+
17:00:43 <Luc> ack tl
17:00:43 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask zednik where the motivation for different namespaces comes from
17:01:57 <Luc> q+
17:02:27 <Curt> I'm ok with one schema with everything
17:02:46 <pgroth> q+ prov-xml is a note
17:02:57 <pgroth> i like that
17:02:57 <tlebo> q-
17:03:02 <zednik> q-
17:04:01 <tlebo> Luc: : single schema file with all terms that use one namespace, THEN half-way house of a single schema for just the core Rec terms.
17:04:03 <pgroth> q+ to say that it is a single namespace
17:04:20 <Luc> ack luc
17:04:33 <stain> I think this is mainly an artifact of XML Schema being very strict of linking schemas and namespaces - this is not a big deal in other ways to express XML schemas like Relax NG
17:05:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth
17:05:03 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that it is a single namespace
17:05:25 <tlebo> pgroth: everyone should be able to paste the namespace to a browser and get all serializations documented.
17:05:34 <khalidBelhajjame> bye
17:05:34 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:05:36 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:05:36 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:05:37 <Zakim> -??P22
17:05:37 <Zakim> -TomDN
17:05:37 <GK> Bye
17:05:37 <SamCoppens> bye
17:05:38 <dgarijo> bbye
17:05:39 <Zakim> -stain
17:05:40 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
17:05:41 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:05:43 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
17:05:44 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:05:45 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
17:05:46 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:05:46 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:05:46 <tlebo> Luc: I am done scribing?
17:05:47 <ivan> ivan has left #prov
17:05:48 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
17:05:50 <Zakim> -??P41
17:05:53 <Zakim> -TallTed
17:05:54 <Zakim> -GK
17:06:20 <GK> GK has left #prov
17:06:31 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:06:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-minutes.html Luc
17:06:35 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon
17:06:35 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:06:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Luc, dgarijo, pgroth, [IPcaller], Ivan, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aacc, TallTed, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK_,
17:06:36 <Zakim> ... GK, stain, +1.818.731.aadd, Paolo
17:06:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:06:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:06:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:06:44 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-actions.rdf :
17:06:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to respond to public comments [1]
17:06:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-irc#T16-30-57
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000527