Provenance Working Group Teleconference -- 01 Mar 2012

<trackbot> Date: 01 March 2012

<Luc> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 01 March 2012

<Luc> have we got a scribe?

<Luc> Scribe: GK

Admin

<pgroth> Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-23

Vote on minutes of last week telecon

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Curt> +1

<tlebo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<satya> +1

OK, with revervartion per email

<Mike_> +1

<kai> +0, wasn't there

<tlebo> gk: did we explicitly agree to 3 parts, or a nod to the editors?

<pgroth> Vote Minutes of F2F2:

<Paolo> +1

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-02

<tlebo> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<kai> +1

<Luc> ACCEPTED: Minutes of the Feb 23 2012 Telecon

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-03

<Curt> 0 (not present)

+1 (I think)

<MacTed> +0

<Mike_> 0 (not present)

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<smiles> +1 (from a very quick look)

<SamCoppens> +0 (not present)

<jcheney> +1

<Luc> ACCEPTED: Minutes of the second face to face meeting (F2F2)

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

Open actions

PROV-O: not yet due

Action-63? Khalid needs more time - con tinues

Actions 64-67 continue

Action 57 continues

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 57

<dgarijo> @Khalid: Jun said she was interested in helping you. Maybe she'll contact you.

All please note that next teleconferences 11 mar - 25 Mar are one hour earlier in Europe

<MacTed> sending .ics files as invitations, based on Boston-local-time, helps get correct times into calendars...

NOTE: time shift ONLY for Europe

<pgroth> agenda: Timetable for Release

<khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, yes Jun sent me a document, which I will use in the structure that I ll propose

Timetable for Release

<dgarijo> @Khalid: great

<pgroth> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc#gid=0

Timetable for syncronized release of PROV-DM and PROV-O:

Paul: Timetable is very aggressive.
... Many documents will follow same timeline
... beginning March - aim top have public WD5 at end of March for internal review
... 2-week review period
... feedback by ?? April, last call for all specifications at end of May
... Candidate REC in August
... Proposed REC in October
... REC in Jan 2013

The next document needing to be looked at is PROV-O :

scribe: WD2 draft public mid-April, then same timeframe as DM
... PROV0-AQ and Primer to follow same procedure as DM and Ont (End Mar internal, April(?) public)

<pgroth> +q

Paul: Need to be aggressive in ,making progress, cull topics that inhibit progress.

Simon: what happens after WD3 for Primer and PAQ?

Paul: those are notes,m can be less aggressive, but need syncronized set for next round.

PROV-DM

Update on PROV-DM:

Luc: going through comments, have raised issues for each. This will lead to completion of WD4.

<pgroth> q/

Luc: plan for WD5 to tackle remaining issues in the charter, (collections, ..., ..., derivation). Also Jun's comments about structure of DM (why core + common relations). Edxpect all core technical issues to be addressed by WD5.

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ProvDMWorkingDraft5&action=edit&section=2

Paul: on agenda for 2-3 weeks, proposal for simplifying several relations in DM to make it more compatible with Ontology.

<pgroth> Proposal: remove id and and attribute from alternateOf, specializationOf, and hasNote

<tlebo> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<Curt> +1

alternativeOf, specializationOf, hasNote to be binary relations.

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Mike_> +1

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if these are still needed?

Paul: will deal with that separately.

<kai> +1

James: (can't hear clearly)

James asked if binary relations contained typo. A> yes, there is typo.

<pgroth> Proposal: remove id and and attribute from alternateOf, specializationOf, and hasNote

<tlebo> +1

<Curt> +1

<jcheney> +1

<smiles> +1

<MacTed> +1

<kai> +1

<Mike_> +1

<SamCoppens> +1+1

<satya> +1

<stephenc> +1

<dcorsar> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<zednik> +1

<Paolo> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<pgroth> accepted: remove id and and attribute from alternateOf, specializationOf, and hasNote

PROV-O

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.01#PROV-O.27s_prov-wg_telecon_report_2012-03-01

Next topic: PROV-O :

<jcheney> @GK: sorry, lots of us are all in same room at Dagstuhl so trying to avoid feedback

(Missed something) Progress on design for catalogue of examples. Hoping for this second round to be final structure for examples.

scribe: issues with alignment between DM, Primer and PROV-O. Have overview wiki page (link?)
... fielding issues from reviewers
... planning organization for next rev of prov-o HTML doc, following style of SiOC/FOAF/OPMV...

Luc: were you going to ask DM people to do something similar.

Tim: asking for annotations in document to facilitate comparison. Will send email with details.

<tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/provrdf-owl-coverage

Cool: )

(GK question was about use of services: github for compare and RPI service for formatting; A: yes)

<dgarijo> @tlebo:wasquotedFrom not mentioned?

<tlebo> @gk, the commands in the email thread can be ignored. the wg can focus on the results at http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/provrdf-owl-coverage

Khalid: need to think about minimal ... examples for every concept and property ...
... details to help structure the ontology better. Also structuring the ontology into "models" - what does this mean?

@tlebo I was curious about thye tooling :)

Example Catalog

Next Topic: example catalogue

Tim put together a structure for this

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_examples

Tim: link to description of proposed structure. Section 3 what we're trying to organize, section 4 patterns of organization. Use number to ensure uniqueness. Title optional, might change if that helps. Different directories for different formats.

<tlebo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-1/rdf/convert/asn/eg-1.asn

Tim: transcriptions section... above path indicates in and out formats, can be extended across multiple steps
... query directory for query tests; compare for comparing output of queries
... document at any level for adding notes
... wiki namespace for references to wiki
... links to web pages

@tlebo looked good to me first time, and getting better I think :)

<tlebo> @gk, thanks. More feedback welcome :-)

<pgroth> Consensus that we adopt this example catalog approach

<Paolo> +1

<satya> +1

<smiles> +1 looks good

<zednik> +1

<kai> +1

<MacTed> +1

Chair declares consensus to adopt this approach

<pgroth> Accepted: adopt example catalog approach from agenda

<tlebo> thanks, I'll press forward and make some real examples that people can follow.

<khalidbelhajjame> Can we add a link to the wiki page created by Tim to the main wiki page

Paul: call for volunteers to populate with examples

<tlebo> +1

<Curt> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<Mike_> +1

<Luc> +1

<pgroth> Volunteers: Curt, Sam, Mike, Tim, Luc

<tlebo> please bug me if you have any questions about the organization.

Paul: Others may contribute later!

(Slick chairing :)

open discussion around accounts

Tim: asks to revisit F2F decision about accounts - believed we had removed account scoping, but still have bundles.

GK: had same understanding, but wonderedf if "bundles" might be called "accounts". But not strong feeling about this.

Luc: mechanism for giving name to provenance assertions is outside scope of DM. But assume that mechanism exists.

<khalidbelhajjame> That's was my understanding too. When we need to speak about the provenance of a collection of provenance assertions, then we simply use Entity

Luc: would like to see accounts in model, but OIK to compromose.

I recall something along the lines of what Luc said, too (assume mechanism for labeling bundles)

Paulk: fundamentally agreed to make accounts a lot simpler.
... deferred discussion about where the mechanism might lie.

Luc: can we reproduce something similar to what ? did for ?

<tlebo> I think Luc was citing http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Account

Luc: what is the minimal notion of accout we can put in, without getting bogged down in details.

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think the important thing may be to not prohibit private extensions for account-like functionality, but niot necessarily define now.

<Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to say that the can of worms was citing the asserter and having name scopes.

GK: thinks minimal notion of accounts may useful way move forwards

Tim: think accounts are victiome of name scope issue, but minimal notion may avoid this problem, as long as timeline not impacted.

Paul: if we can do this without impacting timeline, that's good, but must not cause delay.

Luc: we could produce a NOTE on accounts if time runs out

<smiles> bye

Meeting closed.

<dgarijo> bye

<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

@paul: are you Ok from here - have meeting to retrun to now

- DRAFT -

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

01 Mar 2012

Attendees

Contents

Admin

Timetable for Release

PROV-DM

Update on PROV-DM:

PROV-O

Example Catalog

open discussion around accounts

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output