See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 12 April 2012
<Luc> Scribe: James Cheney
Luc: Minutes of the April 05 2012 Telecon
<lebot> +0 did not attend.
<dgarijo> +0 (I didn't attend)
<christine> +0 did not attend
<Luc> Approved: minutes of the April 05 2012 Telecon
Luc: open actions
... Six actions due on the 16th, to be reviewed at prov-o telecon
Luc: New draft available
... needs reviewers
<lebot> When is the review due?
<Curt> I'll review PAQ
<jun> Olaf said via email that he could do it
<SamCoppens> I can
<Curt> Olaf also volunteered on mailing list
<Luc> reviewers Curt, Olaf, Sam, Tim(*), Luc(*)
Luc: due April 20th
... Three questions for reviewers
... (see agenda) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.12#PAQ
Luc: Lots of detailed reviews are in, some blocking issues identified
<Luc> The strategy is to be time-driven along the proposed time table . In case of slippage, the issue(s) causing slippage will be a candidate for removal. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F2Intro#Revisited_Timetable
Luc: Strategy from f2f meeting
sandro: timetable important, should keep it updated w.r.t. reality
Luc: last PROV-O release was in
December 2011, need to update now
... had agreed on synchronized release
... better for showing progress and getting feedback
Luc: Had identified reviewers.
Most reviews are in now
... any pending reviews?
smiles: Christine may be reviewing primer
christine: Will review if helpful
Luc: MacTed's reviews not in - seems not to be on the call
<lebot> @macted, are you planning to review provo?
Luc: overall recommendations:
primer, prov-o: ready to release
<pgroth> sorry I was late... did we get reviews for the paq
<jun> @pgroth, yes we did
<pgroth> reviewers for the paq?
prov-n: mostly yes, but some issues raised by simon to be addressed
<pgroth> @jun thanks
prov-dm: mixed reviews, some
... options: A. release early
... vote on 19th, benefit: external feedback
... in parallel, start work on remaining issues
... option B. delay release, so that we tackle issues prior to last call
... unclear how long release will be delayed
... won't get feedback
... want to take vote on these
<dgarijo> I agree with Simon: it would be useful to see if external feedback also agrees on the issues we already have for releasing the documents.
jcheney: confirm we want to
... in what order do we decide what to drop (if anything)
Luc: plan to address concerns and
release what we have after a week, not remove things by next
... any dropping will happen after the release
jcheney: then we will decide what to drop by last call release
pgroth: we can change until last call
<pgroth> thanks sandro
sandro: can change after last
call but changes should be motivated by external review
... any group input should happen before lc
<pgroth> material change
Luc: no change?
<pgroth> it's key to get the ontology right for example
sandro: improving text is fine, but changes that break implementations are not, and require reverting to last call
<pgroth> before last call
Luc: with several documents, what hapens to others?
sandro: can be separated if we want
lebot: recommend A, have been working on this for some time and external feedback needed
<Zakim> lebot, you wanted to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've
Luc: any argument in favor of option b?
<Luc> proposed: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th
<dgarijo> +1 to A
<SamCoppens> +1 for A
<Luc> accepted: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th
Luc: Outstanding problems for
... Reviews identified consistent problems
... jcheney to help
lebot: biggest point:
organization & navigation poor
... suggested naming/consistency and navigation improvements
... request from Tim to navigate the productions
... there is a tool that generates html from YACC
... would like to see if anyone can write such a grammar
(I've used yacc, but is it that hard?)
<Paolo> I missed the lastpart of your sentence
<lebot> @luc, sorry, I'm YACC-impaired :-(
I can probably write something if someone else can maintain it
<stephenc> Interested in helping - not sure exactly what you're asking for
YACC deals with LALR gramars, but if you just want to use it to generate html this shouldn't matter
Luc: Have LL grammar, SPARQL is also LL
sandro: Eric Prud'hommeaux has tools
Luc: will coordinate with sandro
to look into this
... Want to ask about PROV-O status
lebot: current focus on feedback
from reviews, no major issues. RL constraint limits what can be
... need to iterate and include examples in cross-reference
... and check against ontology to stay in sync
Luc: issues in tracker?
lebot: backlog, being cleared slowly
<khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, did you get the text I sent you on collections yesterday?
<lebot> @khalid, via email?
<khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, yes
Luc: how to address:
<khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, I ll send it again
Luc: (and who to assign actions to address)
<lebot> @khalid, I'll fight my spam filter again.
issue - thought there was consensus
... debate continues
<dgarijo> I would also want to remember everyone aout the issues pending review (offtopic, sorry).
Luc: any volunteers?
<Paolo> @daniel I just closed mine on ontology
lebot: Nominates Jim McCusker
<dgarijo> @paolo, thanks!
<satya> me too
lebot: concerned parties - Graham, James?
<jun> me too
<TomDN> I have some concerns as well
<satya> @james, concerns about specialization
lebot: will point Jim to IRC and definitions
Luc: worth having 2 people to look at it?
jun: would liek to help but on
... in meetings
<lebot> jcheney: what is the specialization lead expected to do?
Luc: would like to see agreement
that definitions for entity, specialization, alternate are
... and examples in DM documents accurate
... and properties are supported
<lebot> entity, specialization, alternate definitions == okay. examples of each are also == okay. property properties (trans, reflex) == okay.
<lebot> jcheney: let's make sure we're happy with the formal thing in semantics document.
<lebot> james busy next week, travel the following.
TomDN: concerns about
... not sure if 2 leads would be right way to go
... lots of chaos on discussion
... jcheney to coordinate/formulate proposal?
<lebot> spec/alt interested parties: jun, tom, satya, tim, james, (graham?)
<pgroth_> we need one definition and should then vote
<pgroth_> in my opinion
<khalidbelhajjame> Wouldn't it help speed up the process of reaching an agreement if the people that are opposed to the notion of specialization and alternate as it is in the current document participate in that effort?
<lebot> spec/alt interested parties: jun, tom, satya, tim, james, (graham?), jim
Luc: starting semantics seems like a good approach, but why can't we define things informally?
<lebot> +q to table this.
Luc: moving on...
<pgroth_> can jim and james lead
<sandro> lebot, americans put things on a table, brits take things off a table, or something like that.
Luc: process: Jim McCusker (via tim), James, Thomas to iterate over email
<lebot> american:table :-)
Luc: Next: Responsibility
... Graham criticized "softwre agents being accoutnable"
... overloading of "association" and "delegation" senses
... how to converge to common view?
<pgroth_> just would say that this was in wd3 no?
<khalidbelhajjame> I think the latter option to rename the responsibility associated with "actedOnBehalfOn" would be a quick fix to this issue
<lebot> paul broke up
pgroth: <breaking connection>
<pgroth_> my point is that if there's not a quorom of objection
Luc: suggetions/alternatives should be raised
<pgroth_> formal issue needs to be raised with suggested alternatives
Luc: next: collections
... Graham questions why collections are in DM at all, and are key-value maps too restrictive
smiles: collections important because many web resources are collections
jun: agree collections important, but concerned that model is so restrictive
<christine> apologies, I need to leave
jun: think collections can express things but too complicated
satya: collections are important, but key-value pairs are over-specifying; issues with insertion and deletion expressions
Paolo: collections simplified to containers of anything, minimal insertion, deletion, membership operations
<pgroth_> the debate should be held offline
Paolo: sets of entities rather than key-value maps?
<pgroth_> but it's a clear criticism
Curt: Agree that collections are
important, people will want to represent provenance, but that's
true of a lot of other important things
... Is this so fundamental to provenance that it needs to be in PROV-DM
... or could it be built on top later? Believe it is separable from the fundamental concepts of PROV-DM
<smiles> @Curt agreed that it is separable (but still seems particularly important)
<pgroth_> so curt suggests a note
Curt: Don't mind putting it in but could be a separate effort
<jun> @Paolo, I'll be happy with a set:) But I'll take this offline
<lebot> +1 curt, it does stand alone well. (but whether that means remove it, who knows...)
<pgroth_> a note would give us more time but would also not have the "weight" of a recommendation
khalid: if we don't include
collections, then many people will hack it later
... defining members as key-value pairs is general
Luc: technical discussion on mailing list, actions for jun and satya
<SamCoppens> Sorry, need to go
Luc: accounts: downgraded to
minimal role in WD4, back burner until rest reorganized
... Plan to work on this after synchronized release; related to annotations
lebot: plan to look at it, may be able to help
pgroth: should be lightweight
(agreed at F2F2)
... needed for provenance of provenance
Luc: discussion after document release
lebot: prefer to take things away
<pgroth_> happy to chime is as well
Luc: need to fix date for
proposal for WG
... appetite for invaludation/destruction?
<pgroth_> suggest we should produce a final version
Luc: technical issues: is someone willing to help with this
<lebot> I'd like to help with destruction
pgroth: would like to come up with a proposal for a vote
<smiles> I'm also happy to give feedback
<pgroth_> luc do you want a call?
<pgroth_> rrssagent, make logs public
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/too/to/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jcheney Found Scribe: James Cheney Default Present: TomDN, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [ISI], +1.315.330.aacc, lebot, jcheney, SamCoppens, dgarijo?, jun, Sandro, Satya_Sahoo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth Present: TomDN Curt_Tilmes Luc [ISI] +1.315.330.aacc lebot jcheney SamCoppens dgarijo? jun Sandro Satya_Sahoo khalidbelhajjame pgroth Regrets: Paul Groth Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.12 Found Date: 12 Apr 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-prov-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]