Difference between revisions of "Chatlog 2013-01-31"
From Provenance WG Wiki
|Line 179:||Line 179:|
<luc> log missing
<luc> log missing
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000167
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000167
Latest revision as of 16:43, 5 February 2013
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:53:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:53:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-prov-irc 15:53:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:53:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:53:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:53:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 15:53:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:53:19 <trackbot> Date: 31 January 2013 15:53:19 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:53:20 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 15:53:34 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.31 15:53:43 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 15:53:49 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 15:54:02 <Luc> Regrets: Simon Miles, Tom De Nies 15:54:34 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov 15:55:02 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 15:56:56 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:57:30 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 15:57:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:57:40 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:57:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller] 15:57:48 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:57:48 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 15:57:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:59:13 <Paolo> do you still need a scribe 15:59:19 <Zakim> +Luc 15:59:38 <Luc> yes paolo 15:59:42 <Paolo> ok 15:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:59:52 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:59:54 <Luc> can you do it? it's all set up 16:00:03 <Luc> scribe: Paolo Missier 16:00:05 <stain> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 16:00:07 <Zakim> +stain; got it 16:00:18 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:00:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:00:19 <Zakim> +Ivan 16:00:24 <Zakim> + +44.131.651.aaaa 16:00:28 <stain> I didn't know it could do outgoing! 16:00:29 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me 16:00:29 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it 16:00:31 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 16:00:49 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov 16:00:58 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 16:01:06 <Zakim> + +1.315.941.aabb 16:01:13 <lebot> zakim, I am aabb 16:01:13 <Zakim> +lebot; got it 16:01:19 <Luc> topic: Admin 16:01:33 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:01:33 <Zakim> +??P5 16:01:34 <Zakim> +??P27 16:01:42 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P5 is me 16:01:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 16:02:10 <Luc> Proposed: To approve the Minutes of Jan. 24, 2013 16:02:12 <lebot> +1 16:02:13 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17 16:02:18 <dgarijo> +1 16:02:20 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 16:02:23 <Paolo> +1 16:02:23 <GK1> +0 (not present) 16:02:24 <hook> +1 16:02:27 <Curt> +1 16:02:29 <stain> +1 16:02:29 <ivan> 0 (not present) 16:02:38 <jcheney> that link is from 2 weeks ago 16:02:47 <GK1> zakim, ??p27 is me 16:02:47 <Zakim> +GK1; got it 16:02:48 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-24 16:02:49 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-24 16:02:56 <jcheney> +1 16:02:58 <Luc> Accepted: the Minutes of Jan. 24, 2013 16:03:01 <GK> GK has joined #prov 16:03:05 <stain> I clicked Agendwa in topic you see 16:03:17 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc 16:03:39 <pgroth> done 16:03:40 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: /topic * 16:03:49 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.31 16:04:02 <Luc> Topic: WG Implementations <Luc> Summary: Paul updated the group on implementation surveys. We are now meeting the CR exit criteria set for prov-o. For prov-n, all features but six are exchanged by an interoperability pair in which the two implementations are software systems; all features are exchanged by an interoperability pair in which the "producer" is a document, and the consumer a software system. All prov-constraint test cases except one are passed by two independent applications. The last test case, using bnodes in turtle, will be rewritten with explicit URIs. While the group welcomes further implementation surveys, the group considers that it has met the CR exit criteria: Paul and Dong will begin drafting the implementation report. 16:04:04 <pgroth> q+ 16:04:13 <Paolo> action 162 to be closed 16:04:13 <trackbot> Error finding '162'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>. 16:04:22 <Paolo> (oops sorry) 16:04:39 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0153.html 16:04:56 <Paolo> pgroth: deeper analysis of current implementations 16:05:18 <Paolo> pgroth: do we meet out exit criteria? 16:05:27 <Paolo> pgroth: PROV-O no problem 16:05:27 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria 16:06:07 <Paolo> pgroth: PROV-N: we do meet our exit criteria, 2 kinds of apps implementation, have a vocabulary usage that covers the additional features 16:06:12 <Luc> q? 16:06:16 <pgroth> q- 16:06:18 <Paolo> pgroth: so we can conclude we do have impl. that interoperate with PROV-N 16:06:43 <Paolo> pgroth: PROV-CONSTRAINTS: we meet the criteria here too, with caveats: 16:07:18 <jcheney> stephen and I are working on a prolog impl, hoping to have something ready to go today or tomorrow 16:07:19 <Paolo> pgroth: one implementation has one test case not passing. That is one short of the total required 16:07:22 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 16:07:27 <Paolo> pgroth: Ivan to look at it, probably ok 16:07:31 <jcheney> but need xml-valid prov-xml examples 16:07:36 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 16:07:39 <jcheney> (stephen cresswell) 16:07:50 <Paolo> pgroth: it would look better if we had one more implementation 16:07:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:07:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 16:08:02 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 16:08:06 <Paolo> pgroth: on the other hand, it's the hardest of the docs to implement 16:08:07 <Zakim> +??P17 16:08:09 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 16:08:09 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it 16:08:39 <satya> satya has joined #prov 16:08:39 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 16:08:44 <Luc> which one is failing? 16:09:03 <Paolo> ivan: what is the issue with the one failing test case? 16:09:16 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 16:09:28 <Paolo> pgroth: has to do with bnodes, could probably be fixed 16:09:39 <Luc> q+ 16:09:41 <Zakim> +??P31 16:10:02 <Paolo> ivan: there will be a need to explain as to why we don't pass all tests 16:10:03 <lebot> q+ to propose that pgroth bangs head :-) 16:10:06 <lebot> q- 16:10:08 <TomDN> Zakim, +??P31 is probably me 16:10:09 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not understand your question 16:10:12 <jcheney> heh heh 16:10:20 <Paolo> Luc: the exit criteria don't define the tests -- we are free to define the test set 16:10:25 <TomDN> Zakim, P31 is me 16:10:25 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not recognize a party named 'P31' 16:10:33 <TomDN> Zakim, +??P31 is me 16:10:33 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not recognize a party named '+??P31' 16:10:51 <Paolo> Luc: can the test itself be rephrased? 16:10:53 <pgroth> prov-dm-ex23_start-PASS.ttl 16:11:24 <TomDN> Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:11:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, [IPcaller], Luc, stain, Ivan, jcheney, lebot, dgarijo, GK1, Curt_Tilmes, +1.818.731.aacc, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller.aa], ??P17, Satya_Sahoo, ??P31 16:11:38 <TomDN> Zakim, ??P31 is me 16:11:38 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it 16:12:00 <Paolo> Luc: this has been discussed elsewhere and there seems to be an easy way to fix the problem in the test case 16:12:21 <lebot> +1000 to using URIs over bnodes. 16:12:52 <Paolo> Luc: propose to change the ttl example to use explicit URIs, that will take care of it 16:13:35 <Paolo> Luc: pgroth has indicated 6-7 features that are not exchanged using the prov representation. this is about prov-n 16:13:48 <Paolo> Luc: how do we know that all features have been exchanged in prov-o? 16:14:12 <Paolo> pgroth: two implementations have reported that -- simon's and Luc's. 16:15:06 <Paolo> Luc: then propose to use the same example for prov-n -- one produces prov-n, the other consumes prov-n 16:15:19 <TomDN> neither do I 16:16:14 <Paolo> pgroth: the two impl, should be independent so using two from soton won't work 16:16:42 <Paolo> Luc: are we fine then wrt prov-n? 16:17:05 <TomDN> The problem is: if I want to support all of prov-n, I could just use the ProvToolbox 16:17:52 <pgroth> q+ 16:18:00 <Luc> ack luc 16:18:42 <Paolo> pgroth: majority of prov-n is consumed by two independent impl., but not all features are coverd by each implementation -- does that have a bearing on interop? 16:19:12 <Paolo> pgroth: different people use different combinations of features 16:19:58 <Paolo> pgroth: so comfortable that they are interchangeable, but do we need to be stricter than that about the exit criteria? 16:20:01 <Luc> q? 16:20:17 <Luc> ack pg 16:20:48 <GK> I don't think there should be a requirement for single implementation that does everything. Each feature should be implementable (interoperably) by some pair of implementations. 16:21:01 <stain> I was hacking together a PROV-DM "API" in Clojure, but struggled with PROV-N parsing as EBNF is so many things and not something you can just throw at a parser library without massaging first 16:22:26 <Paolo> Luc: TomDN can you export more features than you do now? 16:22:52 <Paolo> TomDN: not much sense because the app is about reconstructing provenance -- 16:22:55 <Luc> q? 16:23:12 <Luc> topic: cr exit <Luc>Summary: We discussed the contents of the implementation report. Dong will try to generate table from WBS data; Paul will draft the prose introducing the tables. We reviewed outstanding tasks on the recommendation track documents. No outstanding issue for prov-dm and prov-n. Formal issues on prov-o have been addressed, but minor editorial issues (concerning examples) remain to be addressed. A few explanatory remarks are planned to be added to prov-constraints. Plan is to complete changes by next teleconference, or shortly afterwards. We also discussed the note-track documents: prov-dc are planning a revised version for internal review next week. The group is invited to submit issues if they want changes addressed to the remaining documents. All documents will have to add prov-dictionary to the "status of this document" paragraph. 16:23:29 <Paolo> Luc: time to writing up the implementation report 16:23:29 <pgroth> that's me 16:23:47 <Dong> yes 16:23:56 <jcheney> q+ 16:23:59 <Paolo> Luc: proposed authors: Dong zednik pgroth 16:24:32 <pgroth> q+ 16:24:34 <Paolo> jcheney: XML test cases: xml examples not all valid, so not all can be parsed 16:24:43 <Dong> I can fix those 16:24:55 <Paolo> Luc: it should be possible to fix them 16:25:06 <Luc> q? 16:25:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth <luc>Topic: PROV-O <luc> log missing <luc>Resolved: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-617 as a Working Group Response <luc>Summary: The group endorsed the response as to why some constraints are not implemented in PROV-O. Paul will feedback to reviewers. <luc>Topic: PROV-AQ <luc> log missing <luc>Summary: Editors are still working through the reviewer's feedback. They are invited to initiate debate by email on outstanding issues, with a view to vote on some of them shortly. <luc>Topic: PROV-XML <luc> log missing <luc>Summary: Luc left the call at that point. The group discussed outstanding issues informally. # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000167