See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012
<pgroth> Scribe: Eric Stephan
pgroth: Paul still has to do the
minues of the f2f2 meeting.
... will be getting to it asap
<pgroth> Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-09
<pgroth> Approved: Minutes of the Feb 9 2012 Telecon
pgroth: go over open actions, but
... Action #52:
<dgarijo> +1 for the minutes too
pgroth: Action-52 not closed yet because of 105
<pgroth> Engage implementation task force to begin developing of a test harness around examples (from tim or others)
<MacTed> s/of 106/of Issue-105/
bring in HCLS and hoping stephan can validdate.
Who was speaking?
<Helena> ERICstephan: I was speaking
<dgarijo> that sounds very interesting indeed.
<Luc> date was not set
pgroth: action-63 due in one week's time
pgroth: need more scribes after next week
<pgroth> ACTION-62: Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model
<trackbot> ACTION-62 Provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb notes added
<trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Luc Moreau to provide a preliminary simplified introduction to the data model 16 Feb -- due 2012-02-16 -- OPEN
pgroth: update and produce intro to simplification
Luc: Wiki page describes current
... 3 parts, dropping the notion of account records
... 3 levels of description and removed one of the levels, positive feedback
... 2nd doc, events, attributes been given values over periods of time, and constraints designed to data model
... Last section, scrappy vs proper provenance. Consider various levels of description provide different refinements
... Move out the grammer and put it in a different document
<dgarijo> @Eric: I think it's scruffy, not scruppy ;)
Luc: at the moment, the working copy there is not an editors draft yet
<pgroth> Goals of the review:
<pgroth> decide whether the new documents are inline with the simplification objective
<pgroth> recommend whether they become the new editor's draft
for the reviewers, do the documents align with the simplification goals
Luc: (these comments written by
me from Luc)
... If we can get agreement based on recommendations from the reviewers next week
MacTed: How do you give editor comments "this sentence is unweildy" (example)
Luc: Add it to wiki page
pgroth: assign specific reviewers with specific tasks
<Luc> @helena, these are internal reviewers
<MacTed> s/wiki page/http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2011\/prov\/wiki\/ProvDMWorkingDraft4#Feedback_on_These_Working_Copies/
<jun> I can also do it
pgroth: confirm Tim +1, Eric +1, Graham ?, Daniel + 1, MacTed +1, Curt +1 (already done)
<SamCoppens> I can also
<pgroth> EricS, Daniel, Jun, MacTed, Curt, SamCoppens
<jun> the new structure looks good at a glance
pgroth: next topic, updated OWL
... released and Satya update?
<dgarijo> and the summaries of the call are at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
satya: after 2 weeks agreed on a series of changes
<pgroth> owl file is at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
satya: all incorporated in doc, there are still a number of issues, but for now the most recent changes have been reflected
<dgarijo> Changes (which are the titan pad logs): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-13, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2012-02-14
pgroth: PROV-O, does it have a
good alignment with PROV-DM working draft 3?
... has the ontology provide a simplified naming?
... does the ontology fit within OWL with itself and does it create some type of natural RDF?
... reviewers, does it meet these goals any questions on review period
luc: what process are we going to use to align PROV-O and PROV-DM?
pgroth: good question can we defer to next section?
dgarijo: alignment be discussed in PROV-O task force?
Luc: alignment could be both directions
<jcheney> alignment deliverable ==? ProvRDF?
<dgarijo> +1 to pgroth.
Luc: alignmnet deliverable and raise issues against that?
<dgarijo> smiles and Jun have already provided some feedback :)
<Curt> I'll be going over PROV-O too.
pgroth: another one week review, confirm, Luc +1, Paolo +1, Eric +1, Stephen C +1, Curt +1
<pgroth> Review prov-o: Luc, paolo, EricS, Stephen, Curt
<satya> Thanks everyone for the reviewing!
pgroth: same process applies, goes to list and we talk about it next week.
jcheney: did this for a small
subset for PROV-DM during f2f2.
... Tim has been adding record form from PROV-DM to collections of RDF triples
<dgarijo> yes, more or less.
pgroth: Is what we see in the doc, in the right hand side of the page reflect the current prov-o ontology?
<tlebo> @paul, that is the intent. If the RHS are not aligned with the OWL file, ISSUES should be raised.
jcheney: left hand side match DM working draft 3
pgroth: how do we sync prov-o
... in the issue tracker, make a new deliverable for mappings, if inconsistencies report them there.
<satya> +1 @Paul
jcheney: making deliverable in tracker, that it makes a separate deliverable in working group? Paulg no
<Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if it can become an appendix of the PROV-O HTML
<satya> @Tim: I agree
tlebo: useful and at least interesting to PROV-O html doc
<dgarijo> +1 to Tim's point.
<dgarijo> If it helped us, it could help other people too...
<pgroth> ack I hung up
luc: we can close action-56?
satya: action on me is closed?
pgroth: action is still open based on action-105
pgroth: okay on deliverable on RDF mappings?
<tlebo> macted did
MacTed: not sure this is going to meet the goals of harmonization
<tlebo> @macted, what are you looking for?
<Luc> created https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/9
<satya> can you please explain macted?
<dgarijo> @satya: I think he is just concerned about the naming
satya: What are you suggesting macted?
<dgarijo> of the document..
MacTed: harmony does not equate to RDF mapping to me
<pgroth> Raise Issue against Product 9
luc: posting url to new product I created, to raise issues in the tracker between PROV-DM and PROV-O
<satya> @Luc, I just mailed you to close ISSUE-105
pgroth: what should be the goal
of the release?
... sync one version of working draft against another for ( Prov-dm, prov-o, and prov-primer)
luc: the whole point was that we change the presentation, simplify, but we do not change any of the terms
<dgarijo> so then we are already done :D :D
<dgarijo> @satya: Account is now "bundle"
luc: if you have aligned the prov-o to the current working draft you have aligned them
<Luc> @Satya, i closed issue-105 and action-52
pgroth: those set of issues need to be addressed before wd4
luc: wd4 March 1
... without sync with prov-o
pgroth: when do we do a sync release within the group? reviews this week, two weeks for alignment, propose March 14?
<pgroth> Deadline to release internally to the WG for review of primer + dm + ontology sync release March 14
luc: what does the prov-o team think?
<satya> yes, we now concentrate on html
satya: On our monday meeting we
are already started restructuring HTML, maybe by next Thursday
... maybe 2 weeks time reasonable?
pgroth: key comments, is raising
all issues on the mapping styles and harmonization products,
what is remaining to achieve harmonization?
... I think we should aim for 14th
luc: concern that we are drifting
again on the time table.
... We need to Start working on 5th working draft
... working in parallel on 5th working draft
... finalize timeline next week?
<pgroth> suggestion March 14, but finalize next week
+1 agree with luc
pgroth: Tim it stays where its
... agent typings discussion in the mail list
... concerns about not broad enough use cases
pgroth: can we get concensus for a vote today?
<pgroth> Current: Person, Software Agent, Organization
<pgroth> Proposal: Change core agent subtypes to Human, System, Organization
<Curt> European (Organisation) or American (Organization) spelling?
<MacTed> +1 to change, with z spelling
<tlebo> -1 b/c organizations are systems
<Luc> @paul, wasn't it ComputingSystem ?
<dgarijo> @tim: but they are not all disjoint, right?
<Curt> +1 Systems can include persons or organizations, but are still distinct from them
<dgarijo> @tim: so an Organization CAN be a system.
<dgarijo> I'd say that Human and System are disjoint though.
<stephenc> Would prov:Human be a subclass of foaf:Person?
satya: when a human is not regarded in the context of an agent is there a problem?
<tlebo> abstain. Agent has been hard enough. I'll make my own subtypes.
zednik: Why human over person?
what if an animal is an agent?
agreed with tlebo
<MacTed> thinking deeper.... foaf:Person <> prov:Person, which is clearer if we say prov:Human
<jun> do we have a use case to drive sub-typing agent? I am against over sub-typing
<MacTed> prov:Human may be but is not necessarily prov:Agent
zednik: talk about humans without typing them automatically to agent?
<MacTed> prov:Agent might have *range* (as opposed to subClass) which includes foaf:Person, prov:Human, prov:Person...
<tlebo> +1 to avoiding direct connection to FOAF.
<dgarijo> @why are you against? If prov is supposed to be a generic ontology, you will have to adapt it to you domain imo
jun: what is driving this task?
<satya> @Jun, +1 - subytping leads to reduced interoperability
pgroth: We already agreed about these broad categories and wanted to get agreement on naming
<zednik_> is agent itself enough to address the use cases?
MacTed: What is the distinction?
<Luc> and originally software ...
MacTed: Human and Inhuman?
<jcheney> Suggest Nonhuman instead of Inhuman - a human can be inhuman.
link to use case?
<tlebo> is a foaf:Organization Human or InHuman?
<zednik_> what attributes are different for human vs nonhuman in prov?
<jun> @jcheney, +1. if we have to have it, then at least we have nonhuman
<zednik_> what relations are different for human vs nonhuman?
<satya> jcheney, tlebo :)
<MacTed> human vs nonhuman is fine with me ... once I understand why the distinction is necessary here...
<tlebo> we can kill -9 NonHuman without going to jail
<MacTed> but corporations are people! ;-)
is a cow a system on a dairy farm?
<satya> I think this is one of our best discussion in the WG :o)
<zednik_> what is our definition of system?
pgroth: there is a key use case,
it looks like there was naming, but we get on phone call and no
... would like to issue this to be done. This is a necessary to have.
... Will email around again this use case.
<tlebo> bye bye!
<pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/106/105/ Succeeded: s/52/Action-52/ FAILED: s/of 106/of Issue-105/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/wiki page/http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2011\/prov\/wiki\/ProvDMWorkingDraft4#Feedback_on_These_Working_Copies/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: ERICstephan Found Scribe: Eric Stephan Default Present: pgroth, +1.509.967.aaaa, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, SamCoppens, Helena, tlebo, dgarijo?, MacTed, Yolanda, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun, [IPcaller] Present: pgroth +1.509.967.aaaa Luc Curt_Tilmes SamCoppens Helena tlebo dgarijo? MacTed Yolanda jcheney Satya_Sahoo jun [IPcaller] Regrets: Mike Lang Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.16 Found Date: 16 Feb 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-prov-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]