<trackbot> Date: 03 May 2012

<pgroth> Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes

<pgroth> do you hear us?

<TomDN> I don't hear anyone atm

<TomDN> problems with the system?

<pgroth> i don't know

<pgroth> can you say something?

<pgroth> i can hear you

<stain> 1 sec

<stain> Zakim: one of those is me

<stain> at some point z knew my number..

Admin

<stain> pgroth: lots to talk about today

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-04-26

<pgroth> Minutes of the April 26 2012 Telecon

<dgarijo> +1

<TomDN> +1

<stain> pgroth: Approve minutes?

<stain> +1

<tlebo> +1

<Paolo> +1

<Curt> +1

<kai> +0 (wasn't there)

<smiles> +1

<satya> 0 (didn't attend)

<GK> +1

<zednik> +1

<pgroth> Approved Minutes of the April 26 2012 Telecon

<stain> APPROVED

<stain> pgroth: not reviewing action items now, we'll look at those later

<stain> pgroth: would hope to get scribes before the day of the telcon!

Release of Documents

<stain> pgroth: all documents available and published now - thanks everyone

<stain> pgroth: see http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.03#Release_of_Documents

<stain> pgroth: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/

<stain> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

<stain> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/

<stain> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/

<stain> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/

<stain> pgroth: now, how to announce this and promote this

<stain> pgroth: action items on announcement of documents

<stain> pgroth: one action on pgroth was to make a general blog post - DONE

<stain> pgroth: one on Jun to prepare a PROV-O blogpost, done with Stian

<jun> done that with Stian

<stain> pgroth: and last a post around DM

<stain> Luc: Drafted - will finalize it tonight, finish tomorrow

<stain> pgroth: wanted to talk a little bit about when we want to publish this together

<stain> pgroth: we want the overral view and things in order

<stain> Luc: would assume the other two blog posts were published! Need their URLs..

<stain> pgroth: I will post PROv-O blog and update its links - share it with you

<stain> pgroth: any questions on the announcements?

<stain> pgroth: semantic activity news - will also be on w3c main site

<stain> +q what about various mailing lists?

<stain> whatever!

<stain> Luc: to email various participants

<stain> pgroth: that's next on the agenda!

<stain> Stian: What about various mailing lists like semweb- lifesciences etc

<satya> I can do W3C HCLS and ACM SIGHIT

<stain> pgroth: happy to announce on semantic web mailing list and dagstuhl

<pgroth> action paul to send to semweb and dagstuhl mailing lists

<trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - Send to semweb and dagstuhl mailing lists [on Paul Groth - due 2012-05-10].

<stain> action satya announce PROV to W3C HCLS and ACM SIGHIT

<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Announce PROV to W3C HCLS and ACM SIGHIT [on Satya Sahoo - due 2012-05-10].

<pgroth> action satay w3c hcls arm and acm sighit

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

<stain> Satya to wait for pgroth's email and copy from there

<pgroth> action satya w3c hcls and arm sigit

<trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - W3c hcls and arm sigit [on Satya Sahoo - due 2012-05-10].

<jun> pub-lod?

<Paolo> there are project lists -- Wf4Ever, DataONE

<stain> pgroth: other mailing lists?

<Paolo> I can do both

<stain> ((?) could not hear you properly )

<pgroth> action sandro to send to w3c mailing lists

<trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Send to w3c mailing lists [on Sandro Hawke - due 2012-05-10].

<pgroth> action paolo mail to wf4ever and dataone

<trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Mail to wf4ever and dataone [on Paolo Missier - due 2012-05-10].

<stain> I can post it in G+ ;)

<jun> why don't you do that?

<Paolo> there is still a provenance-challenge list, right?

<GK> Sandro said he'd notify other RDF WGs within W3C (RDF, SPARQL, etc)

<Paolo> or is it just us :-)

<GK> (@stian^^)

<stain> @GK thnx

<stain> pgroth: we've identified people who are interested in the spec, from Connecting taskforce - who is leading that now? Stephan?

<stain> stephenc: (?) tech list

<stain> stephenc: a survey, did not think of it as a connection taskforce..

<stain> pgroth: would they get this already through the mailing lists?

<stain> stephenc: will send an email to people who said they were interested

<GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connection_Task_Force is not test case TF

<pgroth> action stepenc to send email to stockholders

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

PAQ

<GK> ... which is http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Implementation_and_Test_Cases_Task_Force

<stephenc> @stain - that was zednik, not stephenc

<stain> is http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/working/prov-aq.html the right URI?

<stain> GK: no changes since last meeting

<stain> ... feedback from Olaf, happy with changes. No objections on mailing list

<stain> ... lurking in the back are some other issues I've not tracked down, but don't think any blockers

<stain> pgroth: I've received comments from Luc that needs to be done, but all minor

<stain> (not minor?)

<stain> GK: addressed editorial stuff that came up on mailing lists, and a couple of issues mentioned there

<stain> pgroth: we are in a position that we can release a working draft

<pgroth> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft

<stain> stain: which url?

<stain> so that's http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/prov-aq.html

<stain> it claims: "PROV-DM, the PROV data model for provenance (this document),"

<stain> GK has last edited /working/prov-aq.html

<pgroth> hello

<stain> SCRIBE DROPPED OUT - backup scribe please

<smiles> ok, I'll scribe

<pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/paq/prov-aq.html

<stain> I'm back

<satya> pgroth: Which is the correct URL?

<stain> perhaps we need to sort out which document we are going to release.. ;)

<stain> GK: need to check this for a couple of minutes, and come back in the chatlog with the right URI

<stain> @GK in Mercurial, pgroth last edited /paq/ and you edited /paq/working/

Dublin Core Best Practice

<stain> Kai/Simon/Daniel?

<dgarijo> @Kai, do you give the update or shall i?

<kai> Can you hear me?

<stain> no

<pgroth> no

<MacTed> (action wasn't created above... zednik to send email to stockholders [or is that stakeholders?])

<kai> Daniel, can you jump in?

<GK> PAQ URI should be http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/ba89f8345d59/paq/working/prov-aq.html

<dgarijo> sure

<zednik> @MacTed stakeholders

<stain> dgarijo: I've been away this week, but catched up with Kai

<MacTed> action zednik to send email to stakeholders

<trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Send email to stakeholders [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-05-10].

<kai> Thanks.

<stain> dgarijo: a small time table

<dgarijo> https://github.com/dcmi/DC-PROV-Mapping/wiki/Mapping-overview

<stain> dgarijo: first, write down mappings we did at dagstuhl (link above)

<stain> dgarijo: in github so everyone can update and check

<stain> dgarijo: plan to develop some (?) with mappings we have in wiki page, stage 1 of mapping - the simple statements, but not missing statements from many different dublin core terms

<stain> dgarijo: SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries

<stain> dgarijo: put examples in wiki that can be reviewed - to be done over the next 2 weeks

<stain> dgarijo: after Kai has finished Masters' thesis we'll come up with an actual implementation to do it automatically

<MacTed> sorry -- the echoes are VERY hard to process thru

<stain> dgarijo: that's all

<kai> My question is, do we need a text and until when?

<stain> pgroth: sounds reasonable plan, any comments?

<kai> u can't hear me unfortunately

<MacTed> :-)

<kai> For some report text!

<stain> dgarijo: will there be any deadline for this task?

<kai> Or is the technical mapping enough?

<stain> pgroth: no hard deadlines, but really important part of specifications. Typical questions we get lot

<stain> relations to Dublin Core

<stain> pgroth: would be good to get an idea of how long it would take you to do something

<stain> pgroth: I don't know how much you want to spend on this..

<Luc> when would you like to release something internally, for us to review?

<GK> Audio is cutting in and out - is it just me?

<stain> pgroth: we should be at a good state to talk about this for the F2F #3 in June

<stain> but what is your time frame?

<kai> Ok, then we focus on the technical mapping and I assume that we document it afterwards.

<stain> dgarijo: will try to have something for review as soon as possible

<kai> Technical mapping should be available end of June.

<Zakim> kai, you wanted to ask for a deadline for some text.

<stain> pgroth: question: Do you think, github as a place to manage these drafts.. because of need to work with dublin core people?

<kai> Yes

<stain> dgarijo: yes, a place where we can all edit the wiki

<kai> But we will make sure to transfer everything to W3C

<stain> ?: Michael X to edit it, he's not in the W3C

<stain> ?2: can we add him as an invited expert to the group?

<dgarijo> Michael Panzer (he was in the incubator)

<stain> agreements on copyright, etc

<MacTed> +1 IE invitation -- IPR, editing version history is preserved, etc.

<stain> would avoid any intellectual property issues

<stain> who was last speaker?

<kai> Of course

<jun> test test

<tlebo> @stian, sandro

<stain> sandro: not particularly unusual to join for such a reason

<stain> ^^ ?2 is sandro

<stain> pgroth: would be best to keep contributions on w3c site for Intellectual property reasons

<dgarijo> ok, thanks.

<stain> (action on ? to invite?)

<GK> I seem to be having problems with audio, chat and w3c wiki access... problems with MIT network?

Definition of Alternate and Specialization

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/SpecializationAlternateDefinitions#Definitions_13_.28refinement_of_12.29

<stain> AGREED to invite Michael Panzer as invited expert

<stain> pgroth: we wanted a vote on that

<stain> pgroth: two options.. one is to include definitions as they stand in DM, and close issue

<stain> pgroth: wrappijng it all up

<stain> pgroth: option 2 - drop the definitions

<GK_> I'm not seeing chat on IRC ..

<GK_> .. only on web ... ah it's back aginb

<stain> any questions? No..

<stain> pgroth: go to vote on option 1

<JimMcCusker> +1

<pgroth> Option 1: Include proposed definitions in prov-dm document and close issue on alternate/specialization

<TomDN> +1

<Curt> +1

<Paolo> +1

<stain> PROPOSED

<stephenc> +1

<tlebo> +1

<stain> +1

<smiles> +1

<zednik> +1

<jcheney> +1

<MacTed> +1

<jun> +1

<Luc> PROPOSED: Option 1: Include proposed definitions in prov-dm document and close issue on alternate/specialization

<satya> +0.5

<GK> +0 (not wild about having to escape URIs)

<Luc> graham?

<GK> .. (but not objecting)

<kai> +0

<stain> for reference:

<stain> * An entity is a physical, digital, conceptual, or other kind of thing with some fixed aspects. Entities may be real or imaginary

<stain> * Two alternate entities present aspects of the same thing. These aspects may be the same or different, and the alternate entities may or may not overlap in time

<stain> * An entity that is a specialization of another entity shares all aspects of the latter, and additionally presents more specific aspects of the same thing as the latter. In particular, the lifetime of the specialized entity contains that of any specialization

<pgroth> Approved: Option 1 include proposed definitions in prov-dm document and close issue on alternate/specialization

<stain> pgroth: thanks, now we can consider option 2!

<stain> ;)

Responsibility

<stain> Luc to give an overview of what to do about responsibility

<stain> Luc: in DM we have a component on Derivation

<stain> Luc: that has got wasDerivedFrom and 3 sub-types (more or less)

<stain> Luc: and separate component on Agent and Responsibility

<stain> Luc: but they are not all orthagonal - some derivation relations that refer to agents

<stain> Luc: an agent that is responsible for making the revision

<stain> Luc: or an agent that is doing the quote, who produced the original entity

<stain> Luc: some discussion on mailing list

<stain> Luc: for simplicitation, it would be good to make derivation independent of agents/responsibility

<Luc> PROPOSED: drop the reference to agents in derivation relations.

<dgarijo> +1

<stain> Luc: but if you really want to express responsibility? Then you would use attribution in addition to say the wasrevisionof relation

<stain> Luc: would simplify both model and ontology

<Curt> +1

<dgarijo> Stian: so we no longer have hadQuoter and hadQuotee?

<dgarijo> Luc: no

<stain> Luc: so you would attribution instead

<dgarijo> Luc: Instead of having quoter you could use attribution

<TomDN> +1 seems more elegant, and also fits better when asserting what we used to call "imprecise" provenance

<MacTed> is there a link to the segment being discussed?

<TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368

<MacTed> I'm having a TERRIBLE time parsing speakers who are not in the room with the speakerphone.

<stain> people would then write wasQuoteOf(theSentence, romeoAndJuliet) wasAttributedTo(theSentence, Shakespeare) as opposed to wasAttributedTo(theSentence, guyWhoMadeTheQuote)

<stain> but we could add roles for quoter and quotee

<stain> L()

<stain> pgroth: any other implications?

<Curt> revision/quote are simply between entities instead of agents.. You can always figure out the agents from the attribution.

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368

<stain> Luc: on the examples.. they can all be expressed by the proposed changes

<tlebo> +1 to proposal, hadQuoter can be modeled with Attribution with role "quoter"

<stain> Luc: in issue 368

<stain> (we can't resolve it as w3c is flaky)

<stain> Google Chrome could not connect to www.w3.org (!!)

<stain> In the spirit of simplification, I would like to suggest that agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.

<stain> Instead of wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,ag,attrs)

<stain> we should write wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,attrs) and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag)

<stain> Instead of wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs)

<stain> we should write: wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,attrs) and wasAttributedTo(e1,ag1) and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag2)

<stain> (from Luc's email on ISSUE-368)

<pgroth> PROPOSED: drop the reference to agents in derivation relations.

<Paolo> silence...

<MacTed> +1 as proposed on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368 (which is not the same as "drop the reference to agents in derivation relations.")

<stain> I've not got any sound.. are anyone talking? Last one was "I got the implications now"

<TomDN> +1

<sandro> Luc ?

<Luc> can you hear us?

<GK> In the issue, I assume e1, e2 are entities?

<dgarijo> nope

<sandro> cant hear you luc

<tlebo> +1 to proposal, since hadQuoter can be modeled with Attribution with role "quoter"

<dgarijo> yes

<stain> Luc and pgroth are on the same phone

<jcheney> Speakerphone is causing everyone else to echo.

<stain> @tlebo agree

<stain> MacTed: Agree with text in ISSUE, but not on proposal

<tlebo> @stian, MacTed

<Luc> PROPOSED: agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.

<kai> @GK: same here

<stain> can we not say 'as in ISSUE-368' ?

<MacTed> PROPOSED: adopt changes as put forth in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368

<stain> ISSUE-368 can be changed, so we need to state explicitly

<stain> Vote now please

<smiles> +1

<TomDN> +1

<stain> +1

<MacTed> +1

<satya> +1

<jcheney> +1

<jun> +1

<sandro> +1

<GK> +1

<zednik> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<Paolo> +1

<tlebo> +1

<kai> +1

<Curt> +1

<sandro> quoting that issue page, for the record:

<pgroth> Accepted: adopt changes as put forth in drop http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/368

<sandro> In the spirit of simplification, I would like to suggest that agents should not be mentioned in derivation relations.

<sandro> Instead of

<sandro> wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,ag,attrs)

<sandro> we should write

<sandro> wasRevisionOf(id,e2,e1,attrs)

<sandro> and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag)

<sandro> Instead of

<sandro> wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,ag2,ag1,attrs)

<sandro> we should write:

<sandro> wasQuotedFrom(id,e2,e1,attrs)

<sandro> and wasAttributedTo(e1,ag1)

<sandro> and wasAttributedTo(e2,ag2)

PROV Notation Optional Identifiers Syntax

<sandro> We are not losing in expressivity, I believe, instead, we decouple components 2 and 3 in the data model.

<stain> pgroth: PROV-N editors to summarize for us..?

<stain> jcheney raised the issue

<jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=OptionalSyntax

<stain> jcheney: alternative proposals on this page

<stain> jcheney: some relations in PROV-N are... (?)

<stain> vox dead?

<stain> SCRIBE OFFLINE

<Luc> jcheney: prov-n notation difficult to parse for humans who have not studied the grammar

<GK> jcheney: in some cases, exp[ressions are hard to parse when some optional arguments are missing

<Luc> jcheney: in particular, for relations that takes an optional first identifier

<GK> jcheney - prefer option 1 as its more similar to current syntax

<stain> why does current syntax matter if we are proposing a solution for people who don't know syntax?

<stain> I' can scribe again

<Paolo> yes

<stain> Luc: not to make a change on PROV-N too often as we need to go through all the documents!

<stain> jcheney: At least if we make a simple change, then.. (?)

<stain> MacTed: made a comment on this in my review of PROV-O (?)

<stain> MacTed: on optional values, when they are not easilbly determinable, you need to put blanks all the time - no matter if it's comma or semicolon

<stain> MacTed: I would stay with comma as it is, but suggest that every expression would have at least a comma or space and a comma

<Luc> but we allow -

<pgroth> yes

<stain> MacTed: so you would need ,, to say which optional things are left out

<stain> jcheney: other things that seem ambigious.. namely sometimes two-three other optional arguments

<stain> jcheney: this proposal is only adressing identifer being optional

<stain> MacTed: just adressing identifiers is not going far enough, it should be for all optionals

<stain> jcheney: other proposals would give more owkr

<stain> work

<pgroth> paolo go ahead

<stain> jcheney: question now is to decrease the ambigioutity, and then think about further ambigiuoty

<stain> jcheney: if there's a ; - then first argument before ; is the identifier

<stain> jcheney: other ways have been discussed - not saying it's the only way, but it's the smallest change

<stain> MacTed: as it's not the only problem, w hy not address the whole problem?

<stain> jcheney: not deciding on how to put these as proposals

<stain> Paolo: the main reason why this was brought up is that several people spotted it was difficult to parse arguments with multiple optionals

<Luc> I believe all james suggestions are already implemented or become implementable, if we have a syntactic marker for optional identifier (such as ;)

<stain> Paolo: identifier is odd in taht it can be optional and left out totally, while the others hate placeholder -, except the attributes that are last

<Luc> I believe all james suggestions are already implemented or become implementable, if we have a syntactic marker for optional identifier (such as ';' )

<stain> Paolo: rational was that because identifers are expected to be used barely - so a placeholder fo rthem all the time is too verbose

<jcheney> @MacTed: here is the full proposal I suggested: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Optional_arguments

<jcheney> ... the three parts are orthogonal

<stain> Paolo: trying to retain readability - like if there's not a semicolon then there's no identifier, and other missing optionals expressed using -

<GK> Based on what Paolo says, no other changes would be needed ... or am I missing something?

<Paolo> @GK yes that's my implication, too

<satya> @GK, agree

<stain> @GK that's right, I think Luc has checked that everything else uses - for intermediate optionals in examples

<stain> ?: will we comprehend the full implications if we do it one by one

<stain> (MacTed?)

<stain> Luc: jcheney listed another suggestion.. one was .. to see if there was an optional identifier or not

<stain> Luc: once that is in place, there are a few tweaks that can be implemented

<stain> Luc: all suggestions by jcheney will be supported (??)

<stain> Luc: a lot of work to.. want to have guidance if it's the right step

<stain> Luc: to take the optional id with semicolon - parsers that check this.. time consuming

<tlebo> isn't prov-n for human readability?

<stain> Luc: if we know we don't want a certain notation

<Paolo> @Luc +1

<stain> I'm not sure what Luc is proposing - implement ALL of the proposals??

<tlebo> +1 for that semicolon, acknowledging that it's not a "complete solution", as @macted points out.

<stain> jcheney: is the idea now to propose one of these, or see if it's something we want to do in principle

<stain> jcheney: would you be happier if the proposal was not binding, but just start with this design decission, then a few others, and form a complete proposal?

<stain> MacTed: not able to see what the real question is

<stain> MacTed: if question is - do we need to deal specifally with optional identifiers - then if ; is OK is a second question

<stain> MacTed: how do we deal with optionals anywhere is a different question

<stain> MacTed: not just for identifier

<stain> jcheney: this is strictly for optional identifier

<stain> Paolo: my understanding is that the issue of identifiers separately, then everything else falls in place and no more need to do anything

<Curt> The optional identifier is special. Almost everything allows them, but they are quite frequently not required.

<stain> Paolo: the sooner we get a stable syntax, the better, tools are being made

<stain> Paolo: as far as I see there is no more work

<Curt> Quite frequently not needed by a particular application/use case I mean.

<stain> MacTed: then the other notations I would try to make sense of in PROV-O (?) would not..(?)

<tlebo> @macted, prov-n is used in prov-o ?

<stain> MacTed: no, Prov-N is used to understand PROv-O (??)

<stain> MacTed: there are too many optional things

<stain> MacTed: doing something about identifiers does not solve anything

<Luc> @macted, i don't understand what you said

<stain> @MacTed how is PROV-O using PROV-N?

<Luc> @macted, i don't understand how prov-n impacts prov-o

<jcheney> @MacTed: Please read this: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Optional_arguments

<stain> MacTed: adressing all optional things would also address identifiers

<stain> tlebo: confused by MacTed claiming PROV-N is used by PROV-O

<tlebo> *PROV-N is used to describe PROV-O

<Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask Macted for a URL to this prov-o that uses prov-n

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

<satya> peraps referring to our dm to RDF mapping wiki page?

<Paolo> well I guess it's the DM which specifies the optionals, and that is what impacts PROV-O?

<satya> per/h/aps

<stain> @Paolo yes

<stain> @Paolo but syntax and order, not

<Paolo> so I understand that the issue is not PROV-N after all

<Paolo> I mean MacTed's issue

<Paolo> is about PROV-DM, not PROV-N

<stain> I think MacTed should raise a separate issue if he has a problem relating PROV-O/PROV-N

<stain> MacTed: tere are other optionals, not just identifier. If every optional has placeholder, I don't see need for the special thing on identifier

<stain> MacTed: easiest solution is to make identifier the last argument

<stain> +1

<Luc> wasDerivedFrom(e1,e2)

<satya> @mac, agree, I think that will work better

<stain> Luc: we want to express simple things easily

<Luc> wasDerivedFrom(id;e1,e2)

<Luc> wasDerivedFrom(id;e1,e2,a,g,u)

<stain> and because of {attrs} it's easy to parse the argument after

<Luc> wasDerivedFrom(id;e1,e2,a,-,u)

<stain> Luc: .. or we may just keep identifier on some of them

<Paolo> @MacTed we are actually using the the "last argument omitted" rule for optional attributes already...

<tlebo> @mac, I disagree, the intent for prov-n is for Humans to read, the identifier (if there) is the SUBJECT of the assertion (and thus belongs in the beginning).

<jcheney> i.e. don't want to say wasDerivedFrom(-,e1,e2) when id is missing.

<stain> Luc: Rule is we got some mandatory arguments, like e1, e2, the others are optional.

<Luc> wasDerivedFrom(e1,e2)

<stain> Luc: if the remaining optional arguments are not expressed, nothing needs to be written, like above

<stain> Luc: otherwise, we do like suggested, with a placeholder for optional argument not there.

<stain> Luc: but to handle the first optional (the identifier) differently

<kai> Have to leave soon, too. FWIW, I prefer to externalize the ID, seems most intuitive to me for all people but LISPians.

<satya> the id is for "wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2)" so it should be "id(wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2))"

<stain> not just inside..

<Luc> @satya, we don't identify a description but a derivation!

<Paolo> @kai and but logic programmers as well :-)

<stain> so something like wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2) : id or id: wasDerivedFrom(e1, e2)

<satya> @stain, exactly

<stain> pgroth: suggest for now to send around page again and gather more suggestions

<stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/OptionalSyntax

<kai> @paolo: right. And indeed I don't like it for the entity statement, as there an ID is needed, IMHO.

<stain> vote next week

<satya> @luc, yes the id for the assertion about the derivation

<stain> it seems like there won't be progress on PROV-N until this is sorted

<Paolo> @satya, stian: please go through the wiki page, similar proposals to yours are there

<kai> @paolo: maybe a compromise, externalize it only if it is optional?

<stain> Luc: would not want to delay this, we want to do a revised draft in 4 weeks time

<stain> Luc: delay by 1 week is..

<satya> @paolo, yes I agree with the proposals - I was just trying to clarify the issues from Mac's statement

<Paolo> @kai ID /is/ optional!

<stain> Luc: putting those drafts in danger

<kai> @paolo: also for entity?

<stain> is there an id for the entity record? (bomb shell!)

<tlebo> @stian, no.

<stain> jcheney: sounds like we can say go ahead with this, without having to decide.. (?)

<stain> MacTed agrees

<jcheney> that wasn't me! (sandrio, I think)

<stain> hihi

<kai> @paolo: From the wiki: e AS entity(attrs). Makes entity(attrs) sense without e, i.e., the ID?

<Paolo> @kai yes it's the ID /of the relation/ we are talking about

<Paolo> not of the entity

<stain> pgroth: what about just using the semicolon as suggested, about making other things optional is about readability

<jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Optional_arguments

<tlebo> +1 semicolon

<kai> @paolo. ok. then I prefer externalization even more, to avoid that confusion

<Paolo> @kai that seems wrong! I'll check the wiki

<stain> jcheney: as pointed out there are other ambiguoities, listed on wiki page above

<kai> @paolo: not the first time that I confused that, sorry. But maybe this also is a point.

<stain> ... believe not many have looked at it

<tlebo> externalization is a scary slope - it looks like an identifier for the record itself (and it's not)

<stain> jcheney: will look at the other comments and revise this proposal

<Paolo> @kai agreed -- simple rule is, if we are confused, everyone else will be

<stain> @tlebo yeah

<stain> Page is difficult to understand

<stain> the optional syntax page

<MacTed> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/OptionalSyntax would be easier to comprehend as a table

<kai> Have to leave, sorry. Bye

<stain> (I'll reallyt have to go soon too.. any backup scribes?)

<dgarijo> @Stian I can continue

<stain> thanks, take over

<tlebo> scribe: dgarigo

<tlebo> scribe: dgarijo

<satya> @pgroth, +1

pgroth: that would be a good finish product that we can look as a whole
... which is what we are aiming for.

<tlebo> bye!

pgroth: goodbye!

<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/stepenc/zednik/
Succeeded: s/?:/MacTed:/
Succeeded: s/in drop/in/
Succeeded: s/jcheney/sandro/
Found Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes
Found Scribe: dgarigo
Found Scribe: dgarijo
Inferring ScribeNick: dgarijo

WARNING: 3 scribe lines found (out of 718 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: Stian Soiland-Reyes, dgarigo, dgarijo
Default Present: +49.674.180.aaaa, TomDN, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Satya_Sahoo, dgarijo?, Sandro, jun, kai?, GK, +44.131.467.aabb, MacTed, pgroth
Present: +49.674.180.aaaa TomDN Curt_Tilmes tlebo Satya_Sahoo dgarijo? Sandro jun kai? GK +44.131.467.aabb MacTed pgroth
Regrets: Khalid Belhajjame
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.03
Found Date: 03 May 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/03-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: