14:52:15 RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:52:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/22-prov-irc 14:52:17 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:52:17 Zakim has joined #prov 14:52:19 Zakim, this will be 14:52:19 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:52:20 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:52:20 Date: 22 March 2012 14:52:25 Zakim, this will be PROV 14:52:28 ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:44 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.22 14:52:51 Chair: Paul Groth 14:53:04 Scribe: Curt Tilmes 14:53:12 rrsagent, make logs public 14:55:18 anybody, having problems with Zakim? 14:55:45 Curt has joined #prov 14:55:56 curt, thanks for scribing 14:56:00 it's all set up 14:56:00 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:56:02 np 14:56:07 +Curt_Tilmes 14:56:25 tlebo has joined #prov 14:56:48 Luc has joined #prov 14:57:23 anybody having problems with Zakim? 14:57:50 +??P39 14:58:06 Paolo has joined #prov 14:58:50 I'm not familiar enough with Hg.... 14:58:50 can someone tweak the opposite-of-generated example from "prov:consumedBy" to "prov:wasConsumedBy" to more properly parallel "prov:wasGeneratedBy"? 14:59:14 zednik has joined #prov 14:59:21 having trouble joining 14:59:22 satya has joined #prov 14:59:50 + +4238059aaaa 14:59:53 +[IPcaller] 14:59:55 +Satya_Sahoo 15:00:06 +[OpenLink] 15:00:07 zakim, +4238059aaaa is me 15:00:08 +Luc; got it 15:00:09 (it's either add "was" to the consumption, or remove it from the generation...) 15:00:18 Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me 15:00:18 +MacTed; got it 15:00:20 Zakim, mute me 15:00:20 MacTed should now be muted 15:00:28 dgarijo has joined #prov 15:00:39 trackbot, start telcon 15:00:41 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:00:44 Zakim, this will be 15:00:44 Zakim, this will be PROV 15:00:44 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:00:44 Date: 22 March 2012 15:00:46 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:00:50 ok, Luc, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started 15:00:54 +??P44 15:00:56 GK1 has joined #prov 15:00:58 Zakim, who's here? 15:01:04 Zakim, who is on the call? 15:01:18 mike_ has joined #prov 15:01:20 On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44 15:01:22 +tlebo 15:01:29 Zakim, ??P44 is me 15:01:30 On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, ??P39, Luc, [IPcaller], Satya_Sahoo, MacTed (muted), ??P44, tlebo 15:01:40 zakim, ??P39 is me 15:01:40 + +1.443.708.aabb 15:01:43 GK has joined #prov 15:01:45 On IRC I see GK1, dgarijo, satya, zednik, Paolo, Luc, tlebo, Curt, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro 15:02:01 +??P1 15:02:03 Luc has a somewhat bad connection... fuzzes a lot on vocals 15:02:07 +pgroth; got it 15:02:10 zakim, ??P1 is me 15:02:14 +Paolo; got it 15:02:39 jun has joined #prov 15:02:42 +dgarijo; got it 15:02:49 -Luc 15:03:22 kai has joined #prov 15:03:24 +Luc 15:03:39 +??P18 15:03:54 smiles has joined #prov 15:03:54 zakim, ??P18 is me 15:03:57 Topic: Admin 15:04:01 +sandro 15:04:05 Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-03-15 15:04:09 +GK; got it 15:04:12 +1 15:04:16 +1 15:04:19 +1 15:04:20 +1 15:04:21 +1 15:04:25 +1 15:04:27 +[IPcaller.a] 15:04:35 +1 15:04:41 zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 15:04:58 Approved: Minutes of the March 15 2012 Telecon 15:05:12 +jun; got it 15:05:13 +??P21 15:05:18 jcheney has joined #prov 15:05:26 pgroth: time change reminder -- return next week to normal times 15:05:45 ... please sign up scribes 15:06:08 ... open actions - paul has drafted PAQ review 15:06:12 +??P8 15:06:20 zakim, ??P8 is me 15:06:20 +jcheney; got it 15:06:24 ... graham still needs to review that 15:06:45 +q? 15:06:46 ... he just got it -- he will address this week or next 15:06:47 q+ 15:06:48 q? 15:07:04 I'm tied up with project work this week, but should havew time to review next week. 15:07:04 luc: is the plan to release the PAQ synced with the others? 15:07:32 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 q? 15:07:42 ... we'll at least try to get a synced draft release 15:07:44 ack Luc 15:07:45 ack ? 15:07:46 (lost my sound briefly then) 15:07:48 -jun 15:08:09 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc 15:08:09 +??P25 15:08:15 pgroth: review updated time schedule from google doc 15:08:18 zakim, ??P25 is me 15:08:18 +jun; got it 15:08:34 Christine has joined #prov 15:08:36 ... synced release of docs in mid-april 15:08:54 ... drafts available to the group by the end of next week for internal review 15:09:12 q? 15:09:15 +??P10 15:09:20 ... a lot of work has happened, we need the synced release to show progress 15:09:26 Topic: Prov-dm 15:09:48 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html 15:10:04 luc: much work in the last week, revised editors draft exists, not quite ready for review 15:10:12 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#data-model-components 15:10:16 ... structure revised 15:10:34 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:10:41 you'll need to scroll down as usual 15:10:54 ... section 4 beginning, has a picture of the 6 components 15:11:26 ... for each component, we have a short overview and UML diagram depicting the relationships between components 15:11:41 : http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#section-example-a 15:11:43 ... things are taking shape, the essence we wanted to incorporate is there 15:11:55 +??P15 15:12:01 zakim, ??P15 is me 15:12:01 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:12:07 colors and tetris. All right! 15:12:12 ... section 3.1 has a revised picture taking into account feedback 15:12:17 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html 15:12:29 ... PROV-N updated editors draft 15:12:31 (This linking problem is a respec anomaly -- once page is loaded, clicking on section link works.) 15:12:49 ... definition of production, some conflicts resolved, taking shape now 15:12:50 @tlebo I like to think it's a tangram :-) 15:13:04 ... still working on collections -- more expected in the coming week 15:13:08 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#glossary-alternate 15:13:19 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#glossary-specialization 15:13:32 ... solicit contributions for short english definitions for some concepts 15:13:44 q? 15:13:46 ... please email suggestions to luc/paolo and they will incorporate 15:13:57 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-wasInformedBy 15:14:07 Do we really need alternates/specialization in part 1? 15:14:23 Communication 15:14:39 Start By Activity (wasStartedByActivity) http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-wasStartedByActivity 15:14:49 ... wasInformedBy relation unclear -- suggesting "communication", read that section of the document 15:14:49 what about dependency? 15:15:27 luc: next steps to get to release, still going through some feedback 15:16:06 paolo: constraints need some work 15:16:33 ... how hard is the deadline next week? many things have to happen in the next week... 15:17:22 luc: it is challenging to get 3 documents all together at once. section 2 needs some work 15:17:47 ... help on definitions would be welcome 15:18:08 paolo: part1, 3 are the priority 15:18:28 pgroth: review other documents status, then discuss timeline 15:18:48 ... still need to line up reviewers for various documents 15:19:01 q? 15:19:03 ... that will help inform timeline 15:19:43 Prov-dm Reviewers 15:19:47 +1 15:19:49 +1 15:19:50 +1 15:19:54 pgroth: need reviewers for each of three documents 15:19:58 +1 15:20:15 +1 15:20:15 q+ 15:20:53 @satya: documents are not ready!!!!!! 15:21:07 ack satya 15:21:21 Prov-dm-constraints Reviewers 15:21:30 q+ 15:21:35 ack Luc 15:21:38 +1 15:21:40 +1 15:21:56 I'll plan to review "constraints", provided it's available before April 15:22:28 Prov-n Reviewers 15:22:33 +1 15:22:36 +1 15:22:37 +1 15:23:03 Topic: Prov-o 15:23:37 tlebo: reorganized HTML document, emphasizing difference between simple/extended 15:23:48 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.03.22#PROV-O 15:23:55 ... new design in progress, met monday and assigned some writing sections 15:24:12 ... getting together early next week, draft available next friday 15:24:15 q? 15:25:05 Reviewers Prov-o 15:25:08 +1 15:25:16 +1 15:25:40 +1 15:25:58 q+ 15:26:03 I think the most important reviews of PROV-O will come from implementers like Stian 15:26:22 luc: for next week, editors of the documents should identify specific questions for reviewers to address 15:26:37 @Graham, Stian is part of the provo team :-) 15:26:53 pgroth: this is a review to determine public release, should they go public? 15:26:58 q? 15:27:00 ack Luc 15:27:05 Topic: Primer 15:27:06 @Khalid - Even better! 15:27:07 luc: that is one question, there may be others 15:27:42 -??P10 15:27:52 gk: still revising, determine if other docs are stable to incorporate any change back into the primer 15:28:18 @Curt ^^ That was Simon, I think 15:28:34 s/gk/smiles/ 15:28:37 q? 15:29:03 smiles: looking for examples to put in 15:29:11 tlebo: use the big example collection online 15:29:23 +??P10 15:29:37 smiles: examples organized by domain, not by concept -- need to find focused examples for concepts 15:30:02 tlebo: we might try to pick trivial examples for each concept 15:30:26 ... look at the descriptions -- it lists the constructs that various examples use 15:30:37 q? 15:30:40 q? 15:30:49 Primer Reviewers 15:30:50 ... might be out of date, let me know if something needs to get updated 15:30:58 +1 15:30:58 coverage page: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/provrdf-owl-coverage shows which constructs are used in which examples (or did, or should...) 15:30:59 +1 if you think it would be useful 15:30:59 +1 15:31:05 -??P10 15:31:19 Will review, but may not meet deadline if still editing prov-dm-* 15:31:27 Schedule: 15:31:41 @tlebo great, thanks 15:31:49 pgroth: schedule -- editors can you meet the target dates? 15:31:51 q? 15:32:03 q+ 15:32:15 @smiles, some of it looks broken, if there's a particualr question you need answered, point it out to me, please. 15:32:21 Might it be helpful to stagger releases, so reviewers aren't overcommitted? 15:32:36 paolo: two out of three parts, next friday possible, part 2 maybe the next week 15:32:41 ack Paolo 15:32:48 q+ 15:32:51 luc: yes, I would like to do that 15:33:11 Friday is reasonable target, early the follwoing week is realistic 15:33:12 luc: PROV-DM,PROV-N by friday; constraints early the next week 15:33:32 It might be difficult for me to get a printed copy for review oif not available by 3-Apr 15:33:32 tlebo: next friday possible, early the next week more realistic for PROV-O 15:33:47 smiles: next friday ok 15:34:11 pgroth: how about Monday the second, but earlier if possible 15:34:21 Fine by me 15:34:22 review timetable? 15:34:52 pgroth: if we do Monday 2nd, then use 1 week for review 15:34:54 4/9 for reviews back 15:35:04 easter vacations .... 15:35:21 1 week for review would be OK for me. 15:35:32 leaves 1.5 weeks to review, no? (was 2 weeks) 15:35:43 i can review provo on 4th in time for the 5th telecon 15:35:57 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 pgroth: the 2 weeks was 1 week to review, 1 week to respond to the review 15:36:19 @paul, got it. 1 week to review and 1 week to reflect feedback. 15:36:56 luc: release/voting had been planned for 12th, probably not realistic with new schedule, esp. with Easter et al. 15:37:27 pgroth: what about 4/19 for formal vote for release 15:37:31 Vote April 19 15:37:33 luc: at the latest 15:37:56 q+ 15:38:02 ack tlebo 15:38:04 ack smiles 15:38:29 smiles: clarify 15:38:49 pgroth: one of the questions for review -- are there release blockers? 15:39:07 ... if there are things that can be addressed later, that's ok 15:39:41 smiles: even non-reviewers need to read enough to determine their vote 15:39:55 yes, everybody will be invited to review 15:40:34 Revised schedule: 15:40:43 4/2 for release to reviewers 15:40:54 and working group 15:41:12 4/9 reviews in 15:41:23 4/19 vote by working group 15:41:27 q? 15:41:37 looks fine 15:41:49 works for me 15:41:50 works for me 15:41:53 +1 15:42:00 I may need another day or two = the period from 4/2-4/9 is super busy for me 15:42:00 luc: potentially earlier, perhaps 4/12 if possible 15:42:06 good for me 15:42:18 Yes, possible I think 15:42:45 pgroth: reviewers should focus on question of release 15:42:47 q? 15:42:58 Topic: Namespace Unification 15:43:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Mar/0386.html 15:43:37 http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# 15:43:42 pgroth: put out proposal^ 15:43:59 pgroth: that would point to landing page with glossary of all the terms 15:44:27 ... content negotiation would return OWL/TTL/XSD as requested 15:44:33 q? 15:44:35 q+ to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate accept headers? 15:45:08 ack GK 15:45:08 GK, you wanted to ask Do tools that try to read ontologies generally generate accept headers? 15:45:26 voice is there, but it's not OK.... lots of breakup. some is comprehensible, most is not. 15:45:33 gk: will the tools be able to retrieve the right thing? 15:45:37 @gk, AFIAK, yes. Tools do request RDF. If they don't, they should. 15:45:46 q+ 15:45:52 ack Luc 15:46:27 http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# in rdf 15:46:34 http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema in xml. 15:46:59 luc: I'm fine with pgroth proposal, but we also had a namespace for the XML schema, is the hash compatible? 15:47:30 -??P21 15:47:45 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 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 pgroth: if you use RDF, you use the hash, with XML, you don't [??] you still dereference to the same place 15:48:20 tlebo: you have to remove the fragement when you request the URI with HTTP 15:48:32 s/fragement/fragment/ 15:48:46 sandro are you there? 15:48:50 tlebo: others use the hash the way we are proposing 15:48:56 (I('m looking in XML namespace spec at moment) 15:48:59 '#' is for client side processing, yes? 15:49:19 : http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# 15:49:21 luc: not sure -- it is frustrating to have to use two different namespaces 15:49:22 : http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema## 15:49:29 (I am here, pgroth and trying to page in the details) 15:49:39 pgroth: XML usage would double the hash 15:49:46 [Definition: An XML namespace is identified by a URI reference http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#URIRef; element and attribute names may be placed in an XML namespace using the mechanisms described in this specification. ] 15:49:53 That's from XML namespace spec 15:49:59 http://www.w3.org/2007/rif 15:50:07 That allows a '#' in the namespace URI for XML namespaces 15:50:24 http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#concepts 15:50:33 Zakim, unmute me 15:50:34 MacTed should no longer be muted 15:50:35 sandro: RIF used the hash within the XML usage, didn't get pushback 15:50:38 q+ 15:50:46 ack tlebo 15:50:46 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 sandro: the hash is very normal within RDF community 15:51:09 macted: hash is problematic, esp. since it is really a client side thing 15:51:10 q+ to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above 15:51:30 ack MacTed 15:51:31 Tools that send '#' are BROKEN 15:51:31 macted: a small number of tools send it to the server 15:51:53 Zakim, mute 15:51:53 I don't understand 'mute', MacTed 15:51:55 can you not talk into your mike 15:51:56 Zakim, mute me 15:51:56 MacTed should now be muted 15:52:24 pgroth: how can we best resolve this? 15:52:50 pgroth: this plan sounds good, but how can we determine if it is correct? 15:53:14 sandro: I'll consult with XML experts, schema workgroup, etc. 15:53:45 pgroth: semantic web activity group? 15:53:54 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 sandro: this is really an XML question 15:54:25 sandro: could also ask semantic web coordination group 15:54:31 http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used refers to #used at http://www.w3.org/ns/prov -- isn't this the same as what luc's xml schema is referencing? 15:54:35 q+ 15:54:43 ack GK 15:54:43 GK, you wanted to note that my reading of spec says '#' OK in XML namespace ... see notes above 15:54:46 ack gk 15:54:48 sandro: will draft an email requesting input from others 15:54:55 ack Luc 15:54:59 ack tlebo 15:55:27 tlebo: namespace shouldn't have the hash 15:55:37 sandro: do any tools break? 15:56:20 RDF really likes the namespace to end with '#' or '/' - so that the parts can be teased apart later. 15:56:28 luc: esp. with RDFa, you are using RDF and XML together, namespace declarations just define 'prov' 15:56:32 q? 15:56:39 ... 15:56:41 are there any known examples where NOT having the # in the namespace leads to problem? 15:56:41 we've come up with various ways having it *MIGHT* cause trouble... 15:56:41 so why do we *want* it to be part of the namespace? 15:56:45 what's the argument to include it? 15:56:48 RDF/XML commonly uses XML namespace decls with '#' at end of URI 15:57:04 q+ 15:57:15 http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/49 15:57:18 ack Luc 15:57:26 luc: see blog^ she talks about this problem 15:57:41 luc: maybe she could help us 15:57:53 Yes, that;s the issue - RDF concatenates, XML doesn't assume the pair are used to create a new URI 15:58:06 pgroth: let's consult with all these groups/people to figure out the right common namespace 15:58:27 I think a common namespace is nice, but if we can't it's not a total disaster IMO 15:58:45 q? 15:58:50 sandro: will review the blog and include jeni as well 15:59:00 -khalidbelhajjame 15:59:02 -tlebo 15:59:02 -dgarijo 15:59:03 -Satya_Sahoo 15:59:03 -Paolo 15:59:07 -sandro 15:59:09 -jcheney 15:59:12 -[IPcaller] 15:59:13 -MacTed 15:59:23 - +1.443.708.aabb 15:59:25 -pgroth 15:59:31 -Luc 15:59:35 -Curt_Tilmes 15:59:46 http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/49 - this may be Jeni's blog post 16:00:06 Dated 2007, "Things that make me scream ..." 16:00:46 rrsagent, set log public 16:00:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:00:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth 16:00:56 trackbot, end telcon 16:00:56 Zakim, list attendees 16:00:57 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 ... khalidbelhajjame 16:01:04 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:01:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:01:05 RRSAgent, bye 16:01:05 I see no action items