See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 June 2012
<pgroth> @Luc that should do it
<Luc> thanks
<Luc> did you receive my email to the mailing list, with copy of agenda
<pgroth> yes just got it
<Luc> scribe: paolo missier
<MacTed> (nothing's made public, if the draft isn't produced first)
<Luc> @craigTrim, do you want to introduce yourselve at the end of the admin topic?
<CraigTrim> Sure
<Luc> proposed: to accept Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Telecon
<Curt> +1
<satya> +1
<tlebo> +1
<smiles> +1
<TomDN> +1
<CraigTrim> +1
<dgarijo> +0 (I attended partially)
+1 but not sure I have seen the minutes
<Luc> resolved: Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Telecon
action on Luc: issue of collection membership completeness
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
Paolo and Luc consider this action complete
<scribe> new member CraigTrim
Craig IBM very interested in provenance -- have been disseminating current results on WG within IBM
Craig still catching up, main role is to disseminate results within IBM
CRaig will be at the F2F
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule
pgroth F2F will include an update on status -- then focus on last call
pgroth what remains to be done going into last call, what is the outreach strategy
pgroth discussion on notes as well as additional "outreach" notes (work with schema.org for example)
pgroth also discussion on implementations
(can't open the program page at w3c...0
<pgroth> if you have other topics please let us know
<dgarijo> @Paolo: I think the whole wiki is down
<pgroth> wiki is very shaky
@daniel back on now
<dgarijo> I can scribe
<tlebo> I'll scribe
<tlebo> go ahead, Dani
<dgarijo> ok
<dgarijo> Paolo: One action on Luc about completeness (done)
<dgarijo> ... discussion in the list, Paolo made edits in DM
<dgarijo> ... there can be some inconsistencies sometimes
<dgarijo> ... another issue, about membership, has already been addressed
<dgarijo> ... I joined prov-o call on monday
<dgarijo> ... and the changes were well received
<dgarijo> Luc: any questions?
Luc contextualization still an issue: Tim?
tlebo converged on contextualization being a case of specialization
tlebo DM has converged to that def
tlebo next step prov-o will capture that in the ontology
tlebo GK still has concerns about violating /breaking RDF semantics -- GK invited to discuss
tlebo is contextualization at risk? concerns that it's going too far, its capabilities don't warrant the extra level of explanation for that construct
Luc: setting an action on Graham
to elaborate on his concern and provide an example
... useful to see how the construct is expressed in RDF. when
is this happening?
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Bundle_contextualization
tlebo: early next week
<pgroth> +q
Luc: should contextualization be in the doc, or marked as "at risk"? propose to address this after the review, and make this a question to reviewers
<dgarijo> yes, I think it is reasonable
tlebo: agree
<khalidbelhajjame> I agree
pgroth: need not be a question to reviewers -- it will be addressed if it does come up during review
<pgroth> +q
Luc: Graham has raised an issue on contextualization so he will have an opportunity to respond to that
<khalidbelhajjame> I guess here we are talking about internal reviewing. A more important opinion w.r.t. contextualization is that of external reviewers
tlebo: state of prov-o
<pgroth> @khalidbelhajjame it's important that the group is good with it
tlebo: focus on resolving
dependencies on DM
... ... on getting DM settled. DM is becoming the blocker on
prov-o. once dm is through, it will be easier to release
prov-o
smiles: primer is ready to review
<dgarijo> @Tim: Thanks for putting all toghether in the doc, Tim.
Luc: no progress on Constraints, will meet at IPAW to agree on how to proceed (Luc, James, Paolo)
<pgroth> +q
<dgarijo> yes
Luc: DM; released today, all outstanding issues addressed AFA editors are concerned
<TomDN> yes :)
<dgarijo> I'll review it for next week.
<khalidbelhajjame> yes, I will review it
Luc: can reviewers confirm availability
<khalidbelhajjame> I will review the dm in the weekend
<dgarijo> next wednesday?
<TomDN> I'm planning to review it this weekend
<TomDN> (in the air)
Luc: propose DM review deadline by Wed June 20th
<TomDN> sounds good to me
<pgroth> +q
pgroth: additional informal reviews welcome by F2F or sooner
Luc: prov-n also released today. reviewers please confirm?
<TomDN> +q
TomDN: Sam on hols but still planning to do the review
Luc: propose PROV-N review
deadline by Thu June 21st
... PROV-O?
<dgarijo> @Luc: Khalid is not on the phone. He has told me to say that he will possibly review PROV-N as well
<TomDN> same here for Sam. (not available right now, but will still review the document, probable after f2f3)
tlebo: propose PROV-O ready for review July 13th
Luc: what are the outstanding issues?
<pgroth> +q
tlebo: contextualization, collections, working through examples, additional narrative for a variety of terms, existing narrative needs editing, harmonizing
pgroth: key issue for last call
is tech features are frozen. List of issues here are only
contextualization and collections. the latter have not changed
very much
... so what are the remaining /tech/ issues?
tlebo: contextualization and final review of collections
<pgroth> he's on vacation
pgroth: main issue with Last Call
is tech issues, editing can happen afterwards
... can review ontology to help separate out tech vs
editorial
tlebo: technically, close to being done -- provo html needs more work. so if all that matters is technical completeness, it can be done faster
<pgroth> +q
Luc: sandro and Ivan confirm that it is about technical content, i.e. frozen ontology is enough. then we get a chance to clarify and explain things better
tlebo: ontology can be finalized
by mid next week, and whatever falls out of it into html
(examples of terms etc.)
... to be released on June 14th
pgroth: process calls for >= 3 wks of last call feedback.
Luc: Sam, pgroth, Luc to review prov-o
pgroth: confirms
<CraigTrim> sure
Craig added to list of reviewers
Luc: constraints doc: not sure when it will be ready. Will report back to group at F2F with an estimate
<pgroth> +q
pgroth: the constraints doc "falls out" of the DM -- is it on rec track?
Luc: it is on Rec track
... we can pull it out and possibly make it a note
pgroth: concerned about timing -- lagging considerably behind and it's a complicated doc
Luc: yes, but it has been
simplified. Also, no need to release all docs at the same
time
... primer doc
smiles: ready for review
Luc: reviewers?
<TomDN> I'll review it
<pgroth> volunteer
<pgroth> +q to ask craig
<stephenc> OK, I volunteer
<CraigTrim> I've already been reviewing it, so go ahead and me in too
<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask craig
smiles: familiarity with prov-n desirable... (Paolo)
<CraigTrim> agreed - it's been a good doc so far back to IBM
<Luc> prov-primer reviewers: paolo, paul, stephenc, craig, luc
Luc: update to prov-aq to be
addressed later
... questions for reviewers: can the doc be released as a
/regular/ WD? if not, what are the blocking issues
... can the doc be pub as last call WD? see link to LC def by
W3C
... in particular, reviewers who have raised issues, can they
be closed?
... proposal wasREvisionOf -> wasRevisedFrom: no consensus,
so can reviewers look at that
... also in DM: "primitive data types" that are in RDF. However
RDF is changing, so which version are we referring to? RDF 1.1
WD data types are different
... worked with Ivan to make us robust wrt changes in RDF 1.1
-- should we list all data types as 1.1? reviewers should look
into this
<tlebo> paolo: what if someone says "no"?
<pgroth> +q
<tlebo> pgroth: we look at the issues and get to a resolution.
<tlebo> ... if no resolution, then we can vote.
pgroth: many options available -- if it is clear there is no resolution, we can vote.
<pgroth> +q
pgroth: is there a LC for notes (primer)?
Luc: LC question does not apply
to primer
... decision can be deferred, to allow for further changes to
the primer
pgroth: state of PAQ: next WD
ready by next Tue
... after F2F we'll look at PAQ in detail again
<TomDN> +q
Luc: call arrangements for next week?
pgroth: call should be cancelled next week
Luc: call cancelled
<dgarijo> byee
<TomDN> (I'll also be driving from San Francisco to SB on monday, by the way)
<pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
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/stephen/Sam/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Paolo Found Scribe: paolo missier WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: CraigTrim Curt Curt_Tilmes Jun Luc MacTed OpenLink_Software P1 P18 P2 P3 P32 P4 P9 Paolo TomDN aabb aacc aadd dgarijo joined jun_ khalidbelhajjame pgroth proposed prov sandro satya smiles stain stephenc tlebo trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Found Date: 14 Jun 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/14-prov-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]