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