IRC log of prov on 2012-03-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:52:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:52:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:52:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:52:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:52:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:52:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:52:20 [trackbot]
Date: 22 March 2012
14:52:25 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:28 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:44 [pgroth]
14:52:51 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
14:53:04 [pgroth]
Scribe: Curt Tilmes
14:53:12 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:55:18 [pgroth]
anybody, having problems with Zakim?
14:55:45 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:55:56 [pgroth]
curt, thanks for scribing
14:56:00 [pgroth]
it's all set up
14:56:00 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:56:02 [Curt]
14:56:07 [Zakim]
14:56:25 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
14:56:48 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
14:57:23 [pgroth]
anybody having problems with Zakim?
14:57:50 [Zakim]
14:58:06 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
14:58:50 [MacTed]
I'm not familiar enough with Hg....
14:58:50 [MacTed]
can someone tweak the opposite-of-generated example from "prov:consumedBy" to "prov:wasConsumedBy" to more properly parallel "prov:wasGeneratedBy"?
14:59:14 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
14:59:21 [pgroth]
having trouble joining
14:59:22 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
14:59:50 [Zakim]
+ +4238059aaaa
14:59:53 [Zakim]
14:59:55 [Zakim]
15:00:06 [Zakim]
15:00:07 [Luc]
zakim, +4238059aaaa is me
15:00:08 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
15:00:09 [MacTed]
(it's either add "was" to the consumption, or remove it from the generation...)
15:00:18 [MacTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:00:18 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:00:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:20 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:00:28 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:00:39 [Luc]
trackbot, start telcon
15:00:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:44 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:00:44 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:00:44 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:00:44 [trackbot]
Date: 22 March 2012
15:00:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:00:50 [Zakim]
ok, Luc, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:00:54 [Zakim]
15:00:56 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
15:00:58 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:01:04 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:01:18 [mike_]
mike_ has joined #prov
15:01:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P44 is me
15:01:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44, tlebo
15:01:40 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P39 is me
15:01:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.708.aabb
15:01:43 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:01:45 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GK1, dgarijo, satya, zednik, Paolo, Luc, tlebo, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:02:01 [Zakim]
15:02:03 [MacTed]
Luc has a somewhat bad connection... fuzzes a lot on vocals
15:02:07 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:02:10 [dgarijo]
zakim, ??P1 is me
15:02:14 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:02:39 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:02:42 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:02:49 [Zakim]
15:03:22 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
15:03:24 [Zakim]
15:03:39 [Zakim]
15:03:54 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:03:54 [GK]
zakim, ??P18 is me
15:03:57 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
15:04:01 [Zakim]
15:04:05 [pgroth]
Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon
15:04:09 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:04:12 [Curt]
15:04:16 [dgarijo]
15:04:19 [Paolo]
15:04:20 [mike_]
15:04:21 [zednik]
15:04:25 [satya]
15:04:27 [Zakim]
15:04:35 [GK]
15:04:41 [jun]
zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:04:58 [pgroth]
Approved: Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon
15:05:12 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
15:05:13 [Zakim]
15:05:18 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:05:26 [Curt]
pgroth: time change reminder -- return next week to normal times
15:05:45 [Curt]
... please sign up scribes
15:06:08 [Curt]
... open actions - paul has drafted PAQ review
15:06:12 [Zakim]
15:06:20 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P8 is me
15:06:20 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:06:24 [Curt]
... graham still needs to review that
15:06:45 [pgroth]
15:06:46 [Curt]
... he just got it -- he will address this week or next
15:06:47 [Luc]
15:06:48 [pgroth]
15:07:04 [GK]
I'm tied up with project work this week, but should havew time to review next week.
15:07:04 [Curt]
luc: is the plan to release the PAQ synced with the others?
15:07:32 [Curt]
pgroth: depends -- it may be difficult to do that, graham may be able to get things and we might be able to do it
15:07:42 [pgroth]
15:07:42 [Curt]
... we'll at least try to get a synced draft release
15:07:44 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:07:45 [pgroth]
ack ?
15:07:46 [GK]
(lost my sound briefly then)
15:07:48 [Zakim]
15:08:09 [pgroth]
15:08:09 [Zakim]
15:08:15 [Curt]
pgroth: review updated time schedule from google doc
15:08:18 [jun]
zakim, ??P25 is me
15:08:18 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
15:08:34 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:08:36 [Curt]
... synced release of docs in mid-april
15:08:54 [Curt]
... drafts available to the group by the end of next week for internal review
15:09:12 [pgroth]
15:09:15 [Zakim]
15:09:20 [Curt]
... a lot of work has happened, we need the synced release to show progress
15:09:26 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-dm
15:09:48 [Luc]
15:10:04 [Curt]
luc: much work in the last week, revised editors draft exists, not quite ready for review
15:10:12 [Luc]
15:10:16 [Curt]
... structure revised
15:10:34 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:10:41 [Paolo]
you'll need to scroll down as usual
15:10:54 [Curt]
... section 4 beginning, has a picture of the 6 components
15:11:26 [Curt]
... for each component, we have a short overview and UML diagram depicting the relationships between components
15:11:41 [Luc]
15:11:43 [Curt]
... things are taking shape, the essence we wanted to incorporate is there
15:11:55 [Zakim]
15:12:01 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P15 is me
15:12:01 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:12:07 [tlebo]
colors and tetris. All right!
15:12:12 [Curt]
... section 3.1 has a revised picture taking into account feedback
15:12:17 [Luc]
15:12:29 [Curt]
... PROV-N updated editors draft
15:12:31 [GK]
(This linking problem is a respec anomaly -- once page is loaded, clicking on section link works.)
15:12:49 [Curt]
... definition of production, some conflicts resolved, taking shape now
15:12:50 [Paolo]
@tlebo I like to think it's a tangram :-)
15:13:04 [Curt]
... still working on collections -- more expected in the coming week
15:13:08 [Luc]
15:13:19 [Luc]
15:13:32 [Curt]
... solicit contributions for short english definitions for some concepts
15:13:44 [pgroth]
15:13:46 [Curt]
... please email suggestions to luc/paolo and they will incorporate
15:13:57 [Luc]
15:14:07 [GK]
Do we really need alternates/specialization in part 1?
15:14:23 [Luc]
15:14:39 [Luc]
Start By Activity (wasStartedByActivity)
15:14:49 [Curt]
... wasInformedBy relation unclear -- suggesting "communication", read that section of the document
15:14:49 [dgarijo]
what about dependency?
15:15:27 [Curt]
luc: next steps to get to release, still going through some feedback
15:16:06 [Curt]
paolo: constraints need some work
15:16:33 [Curt]
... how hard is the deadline next week? many things have to happen in the next week...
15:17:22 [Curt]
luc: it is challenging to get 3 documents all together at once. section 2 needs some work
15:17:47 [Curt]
... help on definitions would be welcome
15:18:08 [Curt]
paolo: part1, 3 are the priority
15:18:28 [Curt]
pgroth: review other documents status, then discuss timeline
15:18:48 [Curt]
... still need to line up reviewers for various documents
15:19:01 [pgroth]
15:19:03 [Curt]
... that will help inform timeline
15:19:43 [pgroth]
Prov-dm Reviewers
15:19:47 [tlebo]
15:19:49 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:19:50 [satya]
15:19:54 [Curt]
pgroth: need reviewers for each of three documents
15:19:58 [Curt]
15:20:15 [jun]
15:20:15 [satya]
15:20:53 [Luc]
@satya: documents are not ready!!!!!!
15:21:07 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:21:21 [pgroth]
Prov-dm-constraints Reviewers
15:21:30 [Luc]
15:21:35 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:21:38 [jcheney]
15:21:40 [tlebo]
15:21:56 [GK]
I'll plan to review "constraints", provided it's available before April
15:22:28 [pgroth]
Prov-n Reviewers
15:22:33 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:22:36 [smiles]
15:22:37 [tlebo]
15:23:03 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-o
15:23:37 [Curt]
tlebo: reorganized HTML document, emphasizing difference between simple/extended
15:23:48 [tlebo]
15:23:55 [Curt]
... new design in progress, met monday and assigned some writing sections
15:24:12 [Curt]
... getting together early next week, draft available next friday
15:24:15 [pgroth]
15:25:05 [pgroth]
Reviewers Prov-o
15:25:08 [Luc]
15:25:16 [pgroth]
15:25:40 [smiles]
15:25:58 [Luc]
15:26:03 [GK]
I think the most important reviews of PROV-O will come from implementers like Stian
15:26:22 [Curt]
luc: for next week, editors of the documents should identify specific questions for reviewers to address
15:26:37 [khalidbelhajjame]
@Graham, Stian is part of the provo team :-)
15:26:53 [Curt]
pgroth: this is a review to determine public release, should they go public?
15:26:58 [pgroth]
15:27:00 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:27:05 [pgroth]
Topic: Primer
15:27:06 [GK]
@Khalid - Even better!
15:27:07 [Curt]
luc: that is one question, there may be others
15:27:42 [Zakim]
15:27:52 [Curt]
gk: still revising, determine if other docs are stable to incorporate any change back into the primer
15:28:18 [GK]
@Curt ^^ That was Simon, I think
15:28:34 [Curt]
15:28:37 [pgroth]
15:29:03 [Curt]
smiles: looking for examples to put in
15:29:11 [Curt]
tlebo: use the big example collection online
15:29:23 [Zakim]
15:29:37 [Curt]
smiles: examples organized by domain, not by concept -- need to find focused examples for concepts
15:30:02 [Curt]
tlebo: we might try to pick trivial examples for each concept
15:30:26 [Curt]
... look at the descriptions -- it lists the constructs that various examples use
15:30:37 [pgroth]
15:30:40 [pgroth]
15:30:49 [pgroth]
Primer Reviewers
15:30:50 [Curt]
... might be out of date, let me know if something needs to get updated
15:30:58 [Paolo]
15:30:58 [tlebo]
coverage page: shows which constructs are used in which examples (or did, or should...)
15:30:59 [Christine]
+1 if you think it would be useful
15:30:59 [Curt]
15:31:05 [Zakim]
15:31:19 [Luc]
Will review, but may not meet deadline if still editing prov-dm-*
15:31:27 [pgroth]
15:31:41 [smiles]
@tlebo great, thanks
15:31:49 [Curt]
pgroth: schedule -- editors can you meet the target dates?
15:31:51 [pgroth]
15:32:03 [Paolo]
15:32:15 [tlebo]
@smiles, some of it looks broken, if there's a particualr question you need answered, point it out to me, please.
15:32:21 [GK]
Might it be helpful to stagger releases, so reviewers aren't overcommitted?
15:32:36 [Curt]
paolo: two out of three parts, next friday possible, part 2 maybe the next week
15:32:41 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:32:48 [tlebo]
15:32:51 [Curt]
luc: yes, I would like to do that
15:33:11 [tlebo]
Friday is reasonable target, early the follwoing week is realistic
15:33:12 [Curt]
luc: PROV-DM,PROV-N by friday; constraints early the next week
15:33:32 [GK]
It might be difficult for me to get a printed copy for review oif not available by 3-Apr
15:33:32 [Curt]
tlebo: next friday possible, early the next week more realistic for PROV-O
15:33:47 [Curt]
smiles: next friday ok
15:34:11 [Curt]
pgroth: how about Monday the second, but earlier if possible
15:34:21 [smiles]
Fine by me
15:34:22 [Luc]
review timetable?
15:34:52 [Curt]
pgroth: if we do Monday 2nd, then use 1 week for review
15:34:54 [pgroth]
4/9 for reviews back
15:35:04 [Luc]
easter vacations ....
15:35:21 [GK]
1 week for review would be OK for me.
15:35:32 [tlebo]
leaves 1.5 weeks to review, no? (was 2 weeks)
15:35:43 [Luc]
i can review provo on 4th in time for the 5th telecon
15:35:57 [Paolo]
if I am doing just the primer, won't take long. I would like to contribute a new example for collections. So, 2 days
15:36:11 [Curt]
pgroth: the 2 weeks was 1 week to review, 1 week to respond to the review
15:36:19 [tlebo]
@paul, got it. 1 week to review and 1 week to reflect feedback.
15:36:56 [Curt]
luc: release/voting had been planned for 12th, probably not realistic with new schedule, esp. with Easter et al.
15:37:27 [Curt]
pgroth: what about 4/19 for formal vote for release
15:37:31 [pgroth]
Vote April 19
15:37:33 [Curt]
luc: at the latest
15:37:56 [smiles]
15:38:02 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
15:38:04 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:38:29 [Curt]
smiles: clarify
15:38:49 [Curt]
pgroth: one of the questions for review -- are there release blockers?
15:39:07 [Curt]
... if there are things that can be addressed later, that's ok
15:39:41 [Curt]
smiles: even non-reviewers need to read enough to determine their vote
15:39:55 [Luc]
yes, everybody will be invited to review
15:40:34 [pgroth]
Revised schedule:
15:40:43 [pgroth]
4/2 for release to reviewers
15:40:54 [pgroth]
and working group
15:41:12 [pgroth]
4/9 reviews in
15:41:23 [pgroth]
4/19 vote by working group
15:41:27 [pgroth]
15:41:37 [tlebo]
looks fine
15:41:49 [Paolo]
works for me
15:41:50 [satya]
works for me
15:41:53 [jun]
15:42:00 [jcheney]
I may need another day or two = the period from 4/2-4/9 is super busy for me
15:42:00 [Curt]
luc: potentially earlier, perhaps 4/12 if possible
15:42:06 [khalidbelhajjame]
good for me
15:42:18 [smiles]
Yes, possible I think
15:42:45 [Curt]
pgroth: reviewers should focus on question of release
15:42:47 [pgroth]
15:42:58 [pgroth]
Topic: Namespace Unification
15:43:11 [pgroth]
15:43:37 [pgroth]
15:43:42 [Curt]
pgroth: put out proposal^
15:43:59 [Curt]
pgroth: that would point to landing page with glossary of all the terms
15:44:27 [Curt]
... content negotiation would return OWL/TTL/XSD as requested
15:44:33 [pgroth]
15:44:35 [GK]
q+ to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate accept headers?
15:45:08 [pgroth]
ack GK
15:45:08 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate accept headers?
15:45:26 [MacTed]
voice is there, but it's not OK.... lots of breakup. some is comprehensible, most is not.
15:45:33 [Curt]
gk: <breaking up> will the tools be able to retrieve the right thing?
15:45:37 [tlebo]
@gk, AFIAK, yes. Tools do request RDF. If they don't, they should.
15:45:46 [Luc]
15:45:52 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:46:27 [Luc] in rdf
15:46:34 [Luc] in xml.
15:46:59 [Curt]
luc: I'm fine with pgroth proposal, but we also had a namespace for the XML schema, is the hash compatible?
15:47:30 [Zakim]
15:47:45 [GK]
AFAIK, The choice of XML namespace for XSD preceded the use of namespaces for RDF, and the issue of concatanating namespace+local to forkm a URI didn't arise.
15:47:46 [tlebo]
q+ to state that # is part of the fragid, and is taken off before HTTP request. Also, all w3 namespaces uses the #.
15:48:00 [Curt]
pgroth: if you use RDF, you use the hash, with XML, you don't [??] you still dereference to the same place
15:48:20 [Curt]
tlebo: you have to remove the fragement when you request the URI with HTTP
15:48:32 [Curt]
15:48:46 [pgroth]
sandro are you there?
15:48:50 [Curt]
tlebo: others use the hash the way we are proposing
15:48:56 [GK]
(I('m looking in XML namespace spec at moment)
15:48:59 [zednik]
'#' is for client side processing, yes?
15:49:19 [pgroth]
15:49:21 [Curt]
luc: not sure -- it is frustrating to have to use two different namespaces
15:49:22 [pgroth]
15:49:29 [sandro]
(I am here, pgroth and trying to page in the details)
15:49:39 [Curt]
pgroth: XML usage would double the hash
15:49:46 [GK]
[Definition: An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference; element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using the mechanisms described in this specification. ]
15:49:53 [GK]
That's from XML namespace spec
15:49:59 [sandro]
15:50:07 [GK]
That allows a '#' in the namespace URI for XML namespaces
15:50:24 [GK]
15:50:33 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:50:34 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:50:35 [Curt]
sandro: RIF used the hash within the XML usage, didn't get pushback
15:50:38 [MacTed]
15:50:46 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
15:50:46 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to state that # is part of the fragid, and is taken off before HTTP request. Also, all w3 namespaces uses the #.
15:50:49 [Curt]
sandro: the hash is very normal within RDF community
15:51:09 [Curt]
macted: hash is problematic, esp. since it is really a client side thing
15:51:10 [GK]
q+ to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above
15:51:30 [pgroth]
ack MacTed
15:51:31 [GK]
Tools that send '#' are BROKEN
15:51:31 [Curt]
macted: a small number of tools send it to the server
15:51:53 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute
15:51:53 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mute', MacTed
15:51:55 [pgroth]
can you not talk into your mike
15:51:56 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:51:56 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:52:24 [Curt]
pgroth: how can we best resolve this?
15:52:50 [Curt]
pgroth: this plan sounds good, but how can we determine if it is correct?
15:53:14 [Curt]
sandro: I'll consult with XML experts, schema workgroup, etc.
15:53:45 [Curt]
pgroth: semantic web activity group?
15:53:54 [GK]
What we could do for now is choose a '#' URI and document our rationale that this is OK in XML (see above), and ask for explcit review in PWD.
15:53:58 [Curt]
sandro: this is really an XML question
15:54:25 [Curt]
sandro: could also ask semantic web coordination group
15:54:31 [tlebo]"> refers to #used at -- isn't this the same as what luc's xml schema is referencing?
15:54:35 [tlebo]
15:54:43 [pgroth]
ack GK
15:54:43 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above
15:54:46 [GK]
ack gk
15:54:48 [Curt]
sandro: will draft an email requesting input from others
15:54:55 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:54:59 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
15:55:27 [Curt]
tlebo: namespace shouldn't have the hash
15:55:37 [Curt]
sandro: do any tools break?
15:56:20 [GK]
RDF really likes the namespace to end with '#' or '/' - so that the parts can be teased apart later.
15:56:28 [Curt]
luc: esp. with RDFa, you are using RDF and XML together, namespace declarations just define 'prov'
15:56:32 [pgroth]
15:56:39 [sandro]
<prov xmlns="">...
15:56:41 [MacTed]
are there any known examples where NOT having the # in the namespace leads to problem?
15:56:41 [MacTed]
we've come up with various ways having it *MIGHT* cause trouble...
15:56:41 [MacTed]
so why do we *want* it to be part of the namespace?
15:56:45 [MacTed]
what's the argument to include it?
15:56:48 [GK]
RDF/XML commonly uses XML namespace decls with '#' at end of URI
15:57:04 [Luc]
15:57:15 [Luc]
15:57:18 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:57:26 [Curt]
luc: see blog^ she talks about this problem
15:57:41 [Curt]
luc: maybe she could help us
15:57:53 [GK]
Yes, that;s the issue - RDF concatenates, XML doesn't assume the pair are used to create a new URI
15:58:06 [Curt]
pgroth: let's consult with all these groups/people to figure out the right common namespace
15:58:27 [GK]
I think a common namespace is nice, but if we can't it's not a total disaster IMO
15:58:45 [pgroth]
15:58:50 [Curt]
sandro: will review the blog and include jeni as well
15:59:00 [Zakim]
15:59:02 [Zakim]
15:59:02 [Zakim]
15:59:03 [Zakim]
15:59:03 [Zakim]
15:59:07 [Zakim]
15:59:09 [Zakim]
15:59:12 [Zakim]
15:59:13 [Zakim]
15:59:23 [Zakim]
- +1.443.708.aabb
15:59:25 [Zakim]
15:59:31 [Zakim]
15:59:35 [Zakim]
15:59:46 [GK] - this may be Jeni's blog post
16:00:06 [GK]
Dated 2007, "Things that make me scream ..."
16:00:46 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
16:00:51 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:00:56 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
16:00:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:00:57 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, Luc, MacTed, tlebo, +1.443.708.aabb, pgroth, Paolo, dgarijo, sandro, GK, jun, jcheney,
16:00:59 [Zakim]
... khalidbelhajjame
16:01:04 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:01:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:01:05 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items