Difference between revisions of "Meetings:Telecon2012.03.29"

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Admin)
(PROV-Primer)
Line 51: Line 51:
 
* Reviewer Reminder: Paolo, Christine, Curt
 
* Reviewer Reminder: Paolo, Christine, Curt
 
* Review Questions:
 
* Review Questions:
 +
** In constrast to the DM and PROV-O, the primer talks about "roles" rather than "qualified involvement" in general. The rationale is that it is a more intuitive starting point for readers new to PROV. However, two (internal WG) reviewers have both suggested that "qualified involvement" should be discussed instead. What is your opinion?
 
** Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
 
** Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
  

Revision as of 14:51, 29 March 2012

Agenda PROV-WG telecon 29 March 2012

Teleconferences (official participants and invited guests only):
- Thursdays, 8 am San Francisco, 11 am Boston, 4 pm London, 5 pm Paris 
- For up to 90 minutes, goal is 60 minutes.
- Dial +1-617-761-6200 or sip:zakim@voip.w3.org then conference code 7768#
- IRC channel: #prov (http://irc.w3.org/?channels=prov).
- Zakim instructions:  http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
- RRSAgent instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
- Scribe list: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes


Admin

  • Chair: Paul Groth
  • Scribe: Daniel Garijo
  • Regrets: Simon Miles

PROV-DM

  • Status update
  • Questions to be reviewed for.
    • Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
    • Is the structure of the document approved?
    • Can the short name of the document be confirmed (in particular, for prov-n, prov-dm-constraints, since request needs to be sent for publication)?
    • If a reviewer raised some issues (closed pending review), can they be closed?
  • Reviewer Reminder:
    • DM: Prov-dm - Tim, Khalid, Satya, Curt, Jun ;
      • Feedback to raised under ISSUE-331 or raised as an individual issue against product prov-dm
    • Prov-dm-constraints - James, Tim, Graham ;
      • Feedback to raised under ISSUE-333 or raised as an individual issue against product prov-dm-constraints
    • Prov-N - Khalid, Simon, Tim
      • Feedback to raised under ISSUE-332 or raised as an individual issue against product prov-n

PROV-O

  • Status update
  • Questions to be reviewed for.
    • Does the HTML file provide an adequate overview of the OWL design elements?
    • Do the different organizations of PROV-O HTML and DM complement each other, or is it distracting?
    • Would any additional comments (or attributes) help you read the cross reference list in PROV-O HTML?
    • Are the comments within the OWL file adequate to familiarize with the structure? If not, what kinds of comments would help?
    • Should the OWL file contain any links to documentation (e.g., to the DM, to examples, etc.)?
    • Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?
  • Reviewer Reminder: Luc, Paul, Simon

PROV-Primer

  • Reviewer Reminder: Paolo, Christine, Curt
  • Review Questions:
    • In constrast to the DM and PROV-O, the primer talks about "roles" rather than "qualified involvement" in general. The rationale is that it is a more intuitive starting point for readers new to PROV. However, two (internal WG) reviewers have both suggested that "qualified involvement" should be discussed instead. What is your opinion?
    • Can the document be released as a next public working draft? If no, what are the blocking issues?

PAQ

Namespace Unification

AOB