Chatlog 2013-01-24

From Provenance WG Wiki
Revision as of 12:05, 25 January 2013 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.

15:53:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:53:06 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:53:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:53:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:53:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:53:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:53:11 <trackbot> Date: 24 January 2013
15:53:14 <pgroth> zakim, this will be PROV
15:53:14 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:22 <pgroth> Agenda:
15:53:30 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:37 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
15:53:45 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:54:04 <pgroth> Regrets: Graham Klyne
15:56:36 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:57:00 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:57:07 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:57:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:57:42 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:57:43 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:58:31 <Curt> scribe: Curt
15:59:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:20 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa
15:59:20 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:59:30 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me
15:59:30 <Zakim> +stain; got it
16:00:37 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:00:38 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:00:41 <Zakim> +tlebo
16:00:44 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
16:00:49 <stain> minutes from last week, btw:
16:01:00 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:01:23 <Zakim> +??P8
16:01:29 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me
16:01:29 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:01:30 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG - - Agenda:
16:01:40 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:01:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:01:46 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:46 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
16:01:47 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
16:01:47 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
16:02:06 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes were approved after a correction from Stian. 
16:02:06 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb
16:02:13 <Zakim> +??P10
16:02:17 <pgroth>
16:02:21 <smiles> zakim, ??P10 is smiles
16:02:21 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
16:02:22 <tlebo> +1
16:02:25 <Curt> +1
16:02:25 <dgarijo> +1
16:02:26 <stain> -1
16:02:27 <stain> q+
16:02:32 <pgroth> ack stain
16:02:34 <stain> All reviewers have submitted their report. All are fine for a new working draft to be released.
16:02:47 <jcheney> 0 was away
16:02:57 <smiles> +1
16:02:58 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:03:16 <Luc> that was my understanding too
16:03:35 <Zakim> +jcheney
16:03:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:55 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:03:55 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
16:04:27 <Curt> pgroth: Will edit minutes to indicate Stain not ready to approve release
16:04:44 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:04:50 <Curt> pgroth: will delete the line about ready to release working draft
16:04:53 <stain> Stain: had not said yes/no to it being released as WD (I don't remember that being mentioned at all) but I said no for it to be last working draft.
16:04:56 <pgroth>
16:05:04 <stain> +1
16:05:13 <Zakim> +TomDN
16:05:17 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of Jan. 17, 2013
16:05:32 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:05:32 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:05:34 <Zakim> +??P4
16:06:07 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
<pgroth> Summary: We are getting more reports. For PROV-O we have now satisfied the exit criteria. For PROV-N Tom, Dong and Paolo were encouraged to get there implementations interchanging PROV-N with another implementation. All working group members were encouraged to submit reports. 
16:06:22 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:06:33 <Curt> pgroth: went through implementation reports, quite a few more submitted
16:06:45 <stain> I read the chat log - we agreed that we would in a later meeting vote if PROV-AQ would go out as a WD - not as LC
16:06:47 <Curt> ... we're ok with prov-o, need to check with prov-n to hit requirements
16:07:03 <Luc> paolo says that his implementation can consume prov-n
16:07:11 <Curt> pgroth: with constraints, Paul is still working on one, should be ready to go before next week, not sure if there will be others
16:07:15 <stain> what about the clarkparsia one
16:07:19 <Curt> pgroth: may get one more, not sure
16:07:20 <pgroth> q+
16:07:23 <Luc> maybe we can check he can consume prov-n generated by toolbox or Dong's store
16:07:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:07:38 <pgroth> q?
16:07:51 <Curt> pgroth: are other reports expected?
16:07:58 <Curt> Stephan and I will be submitting one
16:07:59 <tlebo> I owe at least one :-)
16:07:59 <Luc> GLD Org
16:08:01 <stain> I have my vocabulary to go in
16:08:03 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:08:16 <stain> PAV
16:08:18 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:08:22 <Luc> +q
16:08:29 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:08:37 <Curt> luc: paolo indicated he can consume prov-n
16:08:55 <Curt> Luc: dong's tool exports prov-n, so we can check if those implementations can exchange prov-n
16:09:00 <TomDN> not yet
16:09:05 <TomDN> will do next week
16:09:18 <Curt> pgroth: Tom, can your's work with prov-n?
16:09:37 <Luc> no he sent regrets
16:09:37 <Curt> pgroth: Try to get all reports in by next week to satisfy implementation requirements
16:09:59 <pgroth> q?
16:10:00 <Curt> pgroth: We will follow up with Paolo and Dong to try to get a prov-n repot
16:10:19 <Curt> pgroth: Keep encouraging others to submit
16:10:22 <pgroth> Topic: Public Response on wasQuotedFrom
<pgroth> Summary: Simon summarised his response to ISSUE-616 about the description of wasQuotedFrom in the primer. The group approved the response.
16:11:33 <Curt> smiles: the primer was unclear in the direction of the wasQuotedFrom, sounded incorrect to the reviewer -- will revise the language in the primer
16:11:54 <Curt> smiles: will also include something about collections, this might help explain the concepts
16:12:10 <pgroth>
16:12:23 <Curt> pgroth: several people expressed support for simon's proposed response already
16:12:30 <Curt> pgroth: any objections?
16:12:45 <pgroth> accepted: as a working group response
16:12:55 <smiles> I'm happy to send it
16:13:14 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O outstanding issue on inferences
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the issue of some inferences from prov-constraints being encoded in prov-o as an artefact of the prov-o design process. Tim agreed to do a survey of which constraints are currently proposed and to draft a response that gave a rationale behind the current design of prov-o for the encoding of inferences. 
16:13:41 <pgroth>
16:13:47 <Curt> pgroth: we responded to clarkparsia's issues, they were mostly fine with the responses except for one:
16:14:03 <tlebo> do we have a start of a response to this?
16:14:08 <Curt> pgroth: They are concerned we are encoded some constraints and not others and want to understand rationale
16:14:59 <hook_> hook_ has joined #prov
16:15:02 <Luc> q+
16:15:08 <Curt> tlebo: The critique is understandable, queried James about constraints, plan is to analyze constraints and come up with a rationale for which ones are in and which ones aren't
16:15:09 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:15:21 <tlebo> +1 to survey.
16:15:29 <Luc>
16:15:31 <tlebo> where is our draft response?
16:15:57 <Curt> Luc: not certain we need to change prov-o, the design had a hierarchy for influence
16:16:14 <pgroth> This was our original response
16:16:36 <tlebo> are we updating the same response for this?
16:16:41 <tlebo> q+
16:16:47 <Curt> Luc: This hierarchy happens to include one of the constraints, but it isn't really included because it is a constraint, rather it is satisfied by the expression of the hierarchy
16:16:50 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:16:51 <pgroth> ack tlebo
16:17:06 <dgarijo> @tlebo: I'm not been following this thread very much, but wasn't prov-o aimed to be as simple as possible (owl-RL profile)?. If no further violations happen, we could add some..
16:17:10 <Luc> q+
16:17:11 <stain> +1 @Luc  -- if we are to remove all subproperty/subclass rules that might happen to be also a constraint/inference - then it would just become a very flat vocabulary and not an ontology.
16:17:19 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:17:19 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:17:22 <satya> +1 @Daniel
16:17:23 <dgarijo> +1 to survey as well.
16:17:34 <Curt> tlebo: Until we understand which are in, which are out, can't respond.  If we can describe a rationale that matches the implementation, that will be fine.
16:17:39 <stain> We could however see the most obvious ones and see if they can go in without changing the design and OWL RL level - like revision-is-alternate-inference
16:18:01 <dgarijo> yep.
16:18:09 <Curt> pgroth: we didn't intend to include constraints in prov-o, we will create a new issue to address this
16:18:24 <dgarijo> +q
16:18:33 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:18:33 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
16:18:38 <Luc> q+
16:18:42 <Curt> dgarijo: are we planning to deliver a version with constraints?
16:18:43 <Curt> pgroth: no
16:18:56 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:19:10 <dgarijo> ok.
16:19:14 <Curt> Luc: Back to modifying prov-o -- that would take us back to last call: we don't want to take that step lightly
16:19:24 <stain> q+
16:19:31 <pgroth> ack stain
16:19:31 <Curt> tlebo: we'll search hard for a rule that describes the current implementation
16:19:54 <dgarijo> @stian : I can't hear you very well.
16:19:56 <Curt> stain: [mumble, mumble]
16:20:12 <Curt> stain: opposed to adding new things to current prov-o
16:20:48 <Curt> pgroth: we don't intend to put constraints in prov-o, but are fine if someone else develops an ontology that does so
16:20:55 <stain> sorry - I was suggesting to NOT add more to PROV-O - but make something on the side (another Note) with the OWL encodings of constraints - it could be based on the work that clarkparsia has already started if the licensing/sharing of that is OK.
16:21:06 <Curt> pgroth: we will describe the rationale for why certain constraints happen to be in prov-o
16:21:12 <pgroth> q?
16:21:22 <stain> q+
16:21:39 <satya> +1 @paul, the original design aim of prov-o was a reference ontology, so we should be careful of adding new constructs
16:21:40 <pgroth> ack stain
16:21:45 <Luc> scruffy provenance
16:22:01 <pgroth> q?
16:22:14 <Luc> q+
16:22:26 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:22:29 <Curt> Luc: Tim -- when do you think it will be ready?
16:22:34 <Curt> tlebo: a couple of hours at most
16:22:35 <stain> Stian: to also add to rational "why we do NOT include some 'obvious' constraints like property functionality  --- basically to support expressing 'scruffy provenance' according to PROV-DM  which might not be PROV-Constraint valid
16:22:53 <Curt> Luc: Would be nice to draft response by Monday and send ASAP
16:22:59 <pgroth> q?
16:23:51 <Luc> q+
16:23:56 <Curt> pgroth: There could be test cases for entailments -- would be fine if someone else supplied them
16:23:59 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:24:23 <Curt> Luc: not sure we would express them -- we are only concerned with validity of the provenance
16:24:40 <Dong> I wondering what would be the extra benefits of having such test cases for the working group?
16:24:47 <Curt> pgroth: If someone invented the test case, we would look at it
16:25:06 <Curt> pgroth: More test cases that conform to the spec are welcome
16:25:19 <Luc> +1
16:25:26 <Dong> I'm afraid that we don't have enough bandwidth for this
16:25:32 <Curt> pgroth: I'll write that up and send it out with the response on the prov-o
16:25:33 <pgroth> q?
16:25:49 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:25:49 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:25:51 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Dictionary
<pgroth> Summary: Tom went over the results of the prov-dictionary reviews and how they are addressing the issues. The group agreed to release as public working draft conditional on blocking issues being resolved or noted in the draft.
16:26:25 <Curt> TomDN: Looked at all the reviews, 3 already incorporated, 1 more extensive one will go in
16:26:38 <pgroth> Zakim, who is loud?
16:26:38 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
16:26:43 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:26:57 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: stain (7%)
16:27:22 <stain> but I'm on mute..
16:28:10 <TomDN> Tom: All sections got good, extensive reviews
16:28:11 <TomDN> Tom: Some remaining issues:
16:28:13 <TomDN> Tom: 1. (Luc) In the notation hadDictionaryMember(d, e0, "k0"), key follows entity, whereas it precedes in derivedByInsertionFrom(d2, d1, {("k1", e3)}). Should this be made uniform? Is it worth the extra effort?
16:28:15 <TomDN> Tom: 2. (Luc)  states: the predicate MUST be a qualifiedName with a non-empty prefix. However, we will be using the prov namespace. How do we proceed?
16:28:17 <TomDN> Tom: 3. (Luc) PROV-O: should qualifiedInsertion and qualifiedRemoval imply qualifiedDerivation? If yes, how do we specify this? Through a sub-property? Does that break anything?
16:28:19 <TomDN> Tom: 4. (Paolo) PROV-O: clarify delta with REC ontology
16:28:21 <TomDN> Tom: 5. (James) Do we need inference 7 to guarantee completeness when a dictionary is derived by insertions/removals from an empty dictionary?
16:28:22 <TomDN>
16:28:24 <TomDN> Tom: 6. Stian has lots of blocking issues, and I haven't had time to address them all.
16:28:25 <TomDN> Most are relatively easy to fix or have been fixed already. Most work will be to create the downloadable grammar, ontology and xml schema.
16:28:27 <TomDN> Propose we vote for publication as FPWD under the condition that all Stian's blockers are addressed, and that (placeholder) links are placed in the document, where the grammar, ontology and xml schema will become available next week.
16:28:28 <stain> q+ To suggest just adding note on the PROV-N namespace/extension for 1WD
16:28:40 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy
16:28:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', pgroth
16:28:50 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:29:02 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (4%), ??P4 (4%)
16:29:07 <Luc> given this is fpwd, grammar/schema/ontology can be released later
16:29:32 <pgroth> ack stain
16:29:32 <Zakim> stain, you wanted to suggest just adding note on the PROV-N namespace/extension for 1WD
16:29:58 <Curt> stain: Sorry about big list of blockers, but renaming can remain as now, other yellow boxes noting changes would be ok
16:30:27 <Curt> pgroth: Note where discussion is still underway or big changes are to come
16:30:59 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft
16:31:06 <TomDN> +1
16:31:06 <stain> q+
16:31:07 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
16:31:08 <satya> +1
16:31:16 <dgarijo> +1
16:31:16 <Dong> +1
16:31:19 <hook_> +1
16:31:21 <SamCoppens> +1
16:31:26 <TomDN> conditional :)
16:31:28 <smiles> +1
16:31:29 <tlebo> +1
16:31:31 <Curt> stain: is FPWD conditional on my blockers?
16:32:02 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft conditional on addressing or noting blocking issues in the document
16:32:03 <Curt> pgroth: they will be addressed or noted
16:32:04 <stain> +1
16:32:08 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
16:32:09 <Curt> +1
16:32:10 <TomDN> +1
16:32:11 <dgarijo> +1
16:32:12 <smiles> +1
16:32:13 <jcheney> +1
16:32:14 <hook_> +1
16:32:15 <stain> q-
16:32:30 <pgroth> Accepted: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft conditional on addressing or noting blocking issues in the document
16:32:38 <TomDN> and sam :)
16:32:55 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-xml
<pgroth> Summary: The status of PROV-XML was discussed. The group primarily had a discussion of which identifier scheme should be used. A key outcome was a set of guidance for selecting approach, namely, that PROV-XML should work well with XML tooling, allow for "scruffy provenance" and be able to link to other prov serializations. The editors agreed to revisit the current solutions at The editors requested that comments on the namespace solution be sent to the email list.
16:32:56 <TomDN> zakim, mute me
16:32:56 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:33:41 <Curt>
16:34:19 <pgroth> q+
16:34:22 <Curt> hook_: wiki document summarizes options and differences between them
16:36:03 <Luc> ID is now workable since we can have multiple assertions about a given resource in a same document (whether wihtin a same bundle or different bundles)
16:36:30 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:36:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:37:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:37:55 <zednik> I have joined, sorry for the late arrival
16:38:17 <Luc> q+
16:38:18 <stain> q+
16:38:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:39:23 <pgroth> maybe stephan can respond
16:39:28 <Curt> Luc: Why assume we need uniqueness of identifiers, we need to have multiple assertions about a given resource resource in the same document
16:40:04 <zednik> q+
16:40:13 <Curt> hook_: We don't have a requirement, but the uniqueness implemented by an XML would be useful, but not a hard requirement
16:40:41 <Curt> Luc: if you use xs:ID, it would require uniqueness
16:40:43 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:41:07 <Curt> zednik: looked at how parsers expect the document to act -- they expect identifiers to be unique.
16:41:22 <Curt> zednik: is this something we desire or do not?
16:41:42 <Curt> hook_: ID/IDREF are the normal, recommended ways to handle identifiers
16:42:03 <pgroth> ack stain
16:42:19 <Curt> stain: XML identifiers are useful for the external (non provenance) world
16:43:00 <Curt> stain: But for provenance, we need to express certain things
16:43:26 <Luc> good point stian
16:43:31 <Luc> q+
16:43:38 <Curt> stain: Do you want to force things to be explicitly identified in that manner?  It isn't required in the other forms
16:43:38 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:44:09 <Curt> Luc: We can express a usage between an activity and an entity without declaring them.
16:44:35 <Curt> pgroth: we could also use prov:ref?
16:44:35 <stain> also some XML libraries will parse the xml:idref as if the referenced element was actually inserted there - like a symlink
16:44:45 <hook_> q+
16:44:55 <pgroth> ack hook_
16:44:59 <Zakim> -smiles
16:45:16 <Luc> q+
16:45:24 <stain> @pgroth - ah, so you propose a hybrid approach where you could fall back to prov:ref to be 'loose'?
16:45:25 <Curt> hook_: You may want to declare activities/entities without the constraints on ids.  How can we validate the trace without a formal identification?
16:45:33 <stain> q+ it's not the job of the XML parser to do PROV validation
16:45:39 <stain> it's not the job of the XML parser to do PROV validation
16:45:57 <Curt> Luc: That is the job of PROV-CONSTRAINTS.
16:46:40 <Curt> Luc: With constraints, you can infer those things for validity, but we also want to allow "scruffy" provenance
16:47:16 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb
16:47:25 <Curt> Luc: With ID, you are making a schema for a 'normal form' of provenance, but we aren't really describing that in the other documents
16:47:30 <pgroth> q?
16:47:32 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:47:42 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
16:48:00 <Curt> stain: You can still use IDs to identify things outside of PROV
16:48:46 <Curt> zednik: We haven't tried something like that
16:48:55 <Luc> q+
16:49:00 <satya> * sorry, have to leave for a meeting
16:49:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:49:10 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:49:12 <Curt> pgroth: Some good feedback of the limitations to the approaches -- could you revisit the question?
16:49:53 <Curt> Luc: There are other options, in the schema we had prov:ref with xsd:QName, we could define them as in prov-n, that would work find with XSD2
16:50:12 <Curt> Luc: Consider that other option
16:50:43 <Luc> ---- ex:001
16:50:51 <Curt> Luc: If we require an identifier to be an xsd:QName, we can't use many URIs
16:50:53 <stain> some URIs can't be qname - even if you do an xmlns for it - as a qname can't have a 0-length local name
16:51:12 <stain> like...
16:51:22 <hook_> q+
16:51:28 <pgroth> ack hook_
16:52:10 <Curt> hook_: I see the need for "scruffy", the XML community uses ID/IDREF, but is there something we can use that is simple, but also allows scruffy
16:52:35 <Curt> hook_: perhaps the XPointers can enable the scruffiness, pointing to non-existent items
16:52:49 <pgroth> q?
16:52:50 <pgroth> q+
16:53:03 <stain> xpointer can select on anything ("has 3 children"), xpath needs element/id
16:53:14 <Luc> yes
16:53:14 <Curt> pgroth: QNames are widely used in XML community, right?
16:53:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:53:48 <Curt> pgroth: where do we want to go with this?  need a decision soon
16:54:20 <Curt> pgroth: Look at other options, come up with rationale for why you think one is the best and we can discuss on the mailing list
16:54:32 <Curt> pgroth: You are leaning toward ID/IDREF with XPointer?
16:54:34 <Luc> q+
16:54:50 <Curt> zednik: It fits best with XML community, but difficult constraints for provenance
16:54:57 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:55:02 <Curt> hook_: Need to take into account need for scruffy provenance
16:55:09 <stain> +1 - the PROV identifiers are like the open-world semantic web identifiers - they don't identify elements in an XML document, but things and activities in the world
16:55:41 <Curt> Luc: If I write my provenance in XML, can I use the XPointer to refer to entities in RDF?  Does this require everything to be in XML?
16:56:13 <tlebo> Why would RDF people bother with Xlink and Xpointers?
16:56:18 <Curt> hook_: Are there implementations of RDF that can use XLink/XPointers?
16:56:23 <zednik> +1 to tlebo
16:56:39 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 to tlebo
16:56:43 <zednik> +q
16:56:50 <Curt> pgroth: You have some feedback on identifiers, can you take another look at it and come back with a new proposal or recommendation?
16:56:53 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:57:23 <Curt> zednik: We can come up with some constraints to drive the search for a solution: "scruffy" must be allowed, must be compatible with PROV-O provenance
16:57:28 <stain> --- xlink:href can target anything with an URI, not just XML elements - it's just like HTML's <a href> for XML
16:57:57 <Luc> prov-dm says that qualified names can be mapped to uri
16:58:03 <Curt> zednik: We'll capture the constraints, which will probably eliminate ID/IDREF
16:58:31 <Curt> pgroth: Other constraint is to work well with XML tools
16:58:49 <Curt> pgroth: There might not be a solution that satisfies all of those, we need a rationale for a choice
16:58:54 <hook_> q+
16:59:01 <pgroth> ack hook_
16:59:04 <stain> @Luc - so there could be two different qnames resulting in same URI - right.  So if this is to be understood by regular XML tools you would have to represent everything as full URIs
16:59:21 <Curt> hook_: Constraints may be mutually exclusive, which is the most important? scruffy?
16:59:43 <Curt> pgroth: We want to enable adoption by the XML community, that should be number 1
16:59:49 <Luc> @stain yes, it's possible. XML tools don't map them to uris but a prov processor would
16:59:51 <stain> I guess the question is how much PROV 'tooling' do we imagine would be purely XML based - like using XPointers to find the activity that made an entity that tihs other entity was derived from
16:59:52 <pgroth> q?
16:59:58 <Luc> q+
17:00:01 <Curt> pgroth: what do others think about that?
17:00:03 <pgroth> ack Luc
17:00:25 <Curt> Luc: We didn't discuss the schema namespace reorg -- I have some questions about that
17:00:35 <zednik> q+
17:00:44 <Curt> pgroth: Let's discuss the namespace reorg next week
17:00:56 <stain> perhaps we can  make more example documents
17:00:57 <Curt> zednik: Could also put questions on mailing list and also discuss next week
17:01:09 <Curt> pgroth: Enough guidance for now?
17:01:11 <Curt> zednik: yes
17:01:24 <Luc> q+
17:01:30 <zednik> q-
17:01:32 <Curt> pgroth: Those are the two big issues: identifiers and namespace?
17:01:34 <pgroth> ack zednik
17:01:36 <pgroth> ack Luc
17:01:51 <Zakim> -TomDN
17:01:53 <Curt> Luc: We haven't resolved the ordering issue, subtyping either
17:01:54 <zednik> q+
17:01:59 <Curt> Luc: Still several other issues
17:02:01 <pgroth> ack zednik
17:02:24 <Curt> zednik: Subtyping -- we modified the schema to address that, extending elements with new elements
17:03:04 <Luc> @zednik: can you point to this message on primary source?
17:03:16 <Curt> pgroth: We want to wrap this up, resolving final issues
17:03:20 <zednik> @Luc I will look
17:03:22 <pgroth> q?
17:03:28 <Luc> thank
17:03:29 <Curt> pgroth: Remember to get in implementation reports
17:03:32 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:03:35 <dgarijo> bbye
17:03:36 <Zakim> -TallTed
17:03:41 <Dong> thanks, bye
17:03:42 <Zakim> -Luc
17:03:42 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:03:42 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:03:47 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:03:49 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:03:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:03:56 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:03:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:03:56 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Luc, stain, tlebo, dgarijo, TallTed, +1.818.731.aabb, smiles, jcheney, khalidBelhajjame, TomDN, Satya_Sahoo,
17:03:59 <Zakim> ... SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.818.731.aacc
17:03:59 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:03:59 <Zakim> -??P4
17:03:59 <Zakim> -stain
17:04:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:04:05 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
17:04:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:04:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items