IRC log of prov on 2012-06-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:01:08 [Luc]
00:01:24 [Paolo]
00:01:29 [Luc]
ack pg
00:01:42 [CraigTrim]
pgroth: maintain subProperty hierarchy in PROV-O since it exists in DM
00:01:55 [tlebo]
00:02:07 [Luc]
00:02:09 [Luc]
00:02:15 [TomDN]
00:02:15 [pgroth]
ack luc
00:03:05 [Luc]
proposed: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology
00:03:10 [jcheney]
00:03:12 [TomDN]
00:03:14 [khalidBelhajjame]
00:03:17 [CraigTrim]
00:03:18 [Curt]
00:03:19 [dcorsar_]
00:03:19 [Paolo]
00:03:26 [zednik]
00:03:31 [tlebo]
00:03:32 [Dong]
00:04:00 [Luc]
accepted: constraints that don't appear in prov-dm should not be encoded in the ontology
00:04:35 [Paulo]
00:05:07 [Curt]
I would word it "It should be possible to express anything compliant with the DM using the ontology"
00:05:19 [pgroth]
+1 for curt
00:05:31 [pgroth]
00:05:47 [Luc]
00:06:01 [TomDN]
That's exactly what makes it a nice line between syntactic validity and "semantic" validity
00:06:22 [Luc]
00:06:22 [TomDN]
(or "constrained" validity, whatever)
00:06:29 [Luc]
ack pg
00:06:56 [jcheney]
Since the constraints & inferences are still allowed/encouraged, in a REC, I don't think we lose anything here - just observe that there is an instance of PROV-O that bakes them in
00:07:11 [Paulo]
00:07:42 [Curt]
(keep a CM tag for the version of the .owl just prior to removing all the constraints)
00:08:59 [TomDN]
topic: PROV-N
00:10:06 [Paolo]
q+ to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation
00:10:12 [TomDN]
Paulo: about PROV-CONSTRAINTS: could we have a notion of "well-formed"-ness
00:10:18 [pgroth]
00:10:23 [TomDN]
Luc: Back to PROV-N: any issues?
00:10:29 [Luc]
ack pau
00:10:40 [Luc]
ack pao
00:10:40 [Zakim]
Paolo, you wanted to make a point later on prov-constraints regarding validation
00:11:33 [TomDN]
pg: for internationalization: we can go to LC, and ask internationalization responsibles if it's allright
00:11:51 [TomDN]
... or how we can do it
00:12:01 [pgroth]
action: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N
00:12:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-94 - Check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-06-30].
00:12:17 [TomDN]
Luc: In an earlier version there was a language tag over Strings, and it was removed
00:12:27 [TomDN]
... Any technical issues?
00:12:31 [Luc]
00:12:47 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
00:13:02 [TomDN]
Luc: There is an issue for LC, that a MIMETYPE is used, a request needs to be put in
00:13:20 [TomDN]
00:13:46 [TomDN]
Luc: 1st question: is the group fine with a MIMETYPE in PROV-N?
00:13:53 [Luc]
00:13:56 [TomDN]
Luc: 2nd question: are we happy with the name?
00:14:06 [pgroth]
00:14:21 [Luc]
00:14:52 [jcheney]
q+ to ask why not text/prov
00:15:00 [TomDN]
tlebo: we're already covered for RDF types (existing stuff out there)
00:15:18 [TomDN]
jcheney: why not text/prov ?
00:15:38 [tlebo]
00:15:38 [Luc]
00:15:40 [hook]
00:15:42 [TomDN]
... It automatically maps to prov-n
00:15:44 [Luc]
ack jche
00:15:44 [Zakim]
jcheney, you wanted to ask why not text/prov
00:16:00 [TomDN]
tlebo: recommend keeping the n
00:16:16 [TomDN]
... because of the various ways to specify provenance
00:16:18 [tlebo]
00:16:23 [Luc]
ack tl
00:16:24 [TomDN]
+1 tlebo
00:16:34 [TomDN]
hook: +1 tlebo
00:16:57 [Luc]
00:16:57 [TomDN]
... imagine prov-json etc
00:17:01 [Luc]
ack hoo
00:17:12 [TomDN]
jcheney: I planned for this! hahah!
00:17:24 [TomDN]
... (and you matched my expectations)
00:17:37 [Luc]
accepted: mime type for prov-n is text/prov-n
00:18:04 [Luc]
00:18:12 [TomDN]
00:18:20 [hook]
text/prov-{textual encoding scheme}
00:18:37 [TomDN]
Luc: coming back to the compliance section
00:19:08 [Dong]
@hook the MIME type for JSON is application/json
00:19:13 [TomDN]
jcheney: We need a clear idea whether there is consensus if something like what we have now is acceptable
00:19:53 [Dong]
@hook I don't think we should have new MIME types for XML, JSON, and RDF
00:20:06 [Luc]
00:20:15 [TomDN]
... so maybe more people should read it
00:20:36 [tlebo]
@dong (is there a mimetype for xml?)
00:21:14 [pgroth]
q+ to say what constraints doc is important for
00:21:24 [TomDN]
... To respond to Paulo's question (is it feasible to check validity?): we shouldn't include anything that's impossible to check computationally
00:21:24 [Dong]
tlebo: I thought it was application/xml
00:21:36 [Curt]
prov-json is more specific (more tightly defined) than application/json e.g.
00:21:42 [TomDN]
... So nothing undecidable
00:21:48 [tlebo]
@dong, ya. application/xml
00:22:21 [TomDN]
... I've tried to organize things in terms of inferences and definitions you can comply with
00:22:40 [TomDN]
... We still need to specify what to do with optional arguments
00:22:55 [TomDN]
... We may want uniqueness constraints.
00:23:20 [zednik]
@Don, tlebo: application/xml and text/xml
00:23:21 [zednik]
00:23:34 [TomDN]
... We also want to be able to say that some things are not allowed. (like cycles and stuff)
00:24:27 [TomDN]
... We also might want some normalization in there
00:24:43 [Luc]
00:24:47 [TomDN]
... So there are both technical and representation issues remaining.
00:25:06 [TomDN]
Paulo: Are the PROV- documents intended to be distributed?
00:25:42 [TomDN]
00:25:53 [TomDN]
00:25:57 [Luc]
00:26:25 [TomDN]
jcheney: yes, but it's up to the asserter to specify this
00:26:31 [Zakim]
- +1.805.893.aaaa
00:26:32 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended
00:26:32 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo
00:26:37 [tlebo]
@jcheney, as it should be "it's up to the reader to decide" what circumscribes the assertions.
00:26:45 [tlebo]
+1 @jcheney
00:26:49 [Luc]
00:26:58 [TomDN]
Paolo: it's basicly validating a set of assertions, regardless of where they are
00:27:25 [Luc]
00:27:28 [TomDN]
pg: We addressed the distributed validation pretty well with validators in the Semantic Wev
00:27:32 [TomDN]
00:27:37 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
00:27:51 [TomDN]
pg: This document is very important for building a validator
00:28:08 [jcheney]
Can we collect the feedback from developers somewhere?
00:28:23 [TomDN]
... it's part of the compromise of scruffiness
00:28:29 [TomDN]
... to have a validator
00:28:36 [TomDN]
00:28:50 [Paulo]
00:28:58 [Dong]
+1 to validator
00:29:22 [Dong]
00:29:26 [Luc]
ack to
00:29:33 [jcheney]
As I unerstand it there will have to be implementations of validation for the prov-constraints to proceed on REC track
00:29:49 [pgroth]
but they work - good enough
00:29:49 [TomDN]
tomdn: So that corresponds to what Luc said before, a validator is one of the implementations we really want to have
00:30:00 [TomDN]
,,, and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that
00:30:04 [Paolo]
00:30:10 [TomDN]
... and the CONSTRAINTS are the basis for that
00:30:18 [Luc]
ack pau
00:30:32 [TomDN]
... so everything should be computable (cfr. jcheney)
00:30:45 [pgroth]
something like
00:30:57 [tlebo]
@paulo, not enough prior art for us to standardize. You're expressing practical concerns that are application-specific, which we can't help as a WG.
00:31:04 [TomDN]
Paulo: we can't impose a closed world assumption
00:31:10 [Luc]
ack do
00:31:39 [TomDN]
dong: I like the idea of the 2 levels of compliance, syntactic and "semantically"valid
00:31:59 [Luc]
00:32:19 [pgroth]
ack paolo
00:32:21 [TomDN]
kind of like HTML strict, right?
00:32:22 [jcheney]
Just to be clear, curently VALID means "satisfies all constraints"
00:32:31 [TomDN]
(kind of)
00:33:01 [Luc]
00:33:03 [tlebo]
+1 @paolo "distribution is a secondary problem" that distracts from a validator.
00:33:23 [TomDN]
paolo: There's a good basis for this validation (ignoring the distribution issues), combined with what's out there
00:33:24 [Luc]
00:33:30 [pgroth]
00:33:33 [Paulo]
coonstraints and best practices may be co-designed
00:34:24 [TomDN]
Luc: So I don't see technical objections raised against the compliance section, except maybe the 2 levels of validation
00:34:40 [Luc]
00:34:54 [TomDN]
jcheney: agreed
00:34:55 [Luc]
ack pg
00:34:57 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
00:35:17 [Curt]
I would call the levels "DM compliant" and "CONSTRAINTS compliant"
00:35:21 [Luc]
00:35:34 [TomDN]
pg: I think it's fine to say there's only one level of validity, but that the validator has levels of response
00:35:37 [Paulo]
00:36:01 [TomDN]
... it's up to implementer of the validator, not to us
00:36:08 [Luc]
00:36:15 [TomDN]
jcheney: agreed
00:36:37 [Curt]
00:36:40 [Luc]
ack pau
00:36:49 [Paolo]
00:37:13 [TomDN]
Paulo: Validating everything at once is very hard, but smaller parts might be feasible
00:37:35 [Luc]
ack cu
00:37:36 [pgroth]
00:37:49 [TomDN]
Curt: I would define the levels of compliance with DM and CONSTRAINTS separatly
00:38:13 [Luc]
00:38:16 [Luc]
ack pao
00:38:39 [TomDN]
Paolo: It's not clear to me if there are problems with the decidability of the constraints
00:39:23 [TomDN]
Paolo: The technical discussion should be had offline, before dismissing the document
00:40:08 [Luc]
00:40:12 [Luc]
ack pg
00:40:17 [TomDN]
+q to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?
00:40:46 [Luc]
00:40:46 [TomDN]
Luc: maybe it shouldn't be called CONSTRAINTS, but VALIDITY?
00:40:59 [Luc]
ack tom
00:40:59 [Zakim]
TomDN, you wanted to ask if we should just make this a reviewer question: Are there things in the document that lead to undecidability?
00:41:27 [jcheney]
00:42:08 [TomDN]
Luc: i don't hear objections to the compliance section, on the contrary, there is large support for it
00:42:36 [Luc]
ack jch
00:42:57 [TomDN]
jcheney: Could use some help in editing the constraints
00:43:14 [TomDN]
... but input such as today's is valuable
00:43:56 [TomDN]
... We should keep in mind: There's no point in standardizing something that's not computable.
00:44:47 [TomDN]
... Would be happy with a proposal to comfirm this.
00:45:15 [Paulo]
00:45:22 [Luc]
proposed: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints
00:45:26 [TomDN]
00:45:27 [jcheney]
00:45:29 [khalidBelhajjame]
00:45:30 [tlebo]
00:45:33 [zednik]
00:45:33 [dcorsar]
00:45:34 [Dong]
00:45:38 [Curt]
00:45:41 [TomDN]
actually, +MAX_INT
00:45:54 [Luc]
accepted: prov-constraints document should ensure decidability of constraints
00:46:18 [Luc]
00:46:41 [pgroth]
trackbot end telcon
00:46:45 [khalidBelhajjame]
00:46:54 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
00:47:39 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
00:47:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
00:47:51 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set logs public
11:45:42 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:41:26 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:47:02 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
15:47:09 [pgroth]
trackbot, start telcon
15:47:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:47:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:47:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:47:14 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:14 [trackbot]
Date: 23 June 2012
15:47:27 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:27 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, pgroth
15:47:29 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
15:47:37 [pgroth]
Zakim, this with be PROV
15:47:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this with be PROV', pgroth
15:47:45 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:47:45 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
15:47:53 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:48:25 [pgroth]
15:48:39 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is here
15:48:39 [Zakim]
pgroth, you need to end that query with '?'
15:48:42 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is here?
15:48:42 [Zakim]
apparently SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended, pgroth
15:48:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Luc, pgroth, dgarijo, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, sandro, trackbot, stain
15:49:06 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:49:06 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:49:08 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:49:20 [pgroth]
Guest: Hook Hua
15:52:28 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started
15:52:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.805.893.aaaa
15:52:53 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:52:55 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:53:55 [Zakim]
15:53:57 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:54:13 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
15:54:13 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:54:26 [CraigTrim]
CraigTrim has joined #prov
15:55:23 [dgarijo]
are the minutes from yesterday available somewhere? I'd like to know what happened with contextualization :)
15:57:25 [Luc]
15:57:36 [dgarijo]
15:57:46 [reza_bfar]
reza_bfar has joined #prov
15:58:12 [zednik_]
zednik_ has joined #prov
15:59:38 [Luc]
Topic: Remaining Notes (prov-dc, prov-xml, prov-json, prov-bestpractice, prov-sem)
16:00:42 [tlebo]
Luc: We want to identify remaining work.
16:00:50 [tlebo]
... so we can write credible charter extension.
16:01:26 [tlebo]
16:01:34 [Luc]
ack pau
16:02:06 [pgroth]
+q to respond
16:03:10 [tlebo]
16:03:12 [pgroth]
16:03:14 [pgroth]
16:04:27 [Luc]
16:04:27 [pgroth]
other notes?
16:04:38 [tlebo]
Tim: RPI is looking to submit a member submission for PML 3.0
16:05:03 [tlebo]
Luc: The charter decided that mappings would not be done by the WG, but the individual organizations.
16:06:04 [tlebo]
Daniel: concerned that he has been the only one working on the prov-dc. Not enough feedback.
16:06:34 [tlebo]
Luc: moved everything to W3C infrastructure?
16:06:36 [tlebo]
Daniel: yes.
16:06:38 [pgroth]
@tlebo you could use the irc names :-)
16:06:43 [pgroth]
use tab
16:07:16 [tlebo]
luc: schedule?
16:07:32 [tlebo]
dgarijo: mappings by end of month, with bnodes.
16:07:58 [tlebo]
dgarijo: second stage of the mapping, removing the extra data - can't get to this.
16:08:15 [tlebo]
dgarijo: by end of month can get the document that they promised.
16:08:24 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
16:08:45 [Luc]
16:08:53 [tlebo]
dgarijo: many members will be away.
16:09:05 [tlebo]
luc: how important is the second part? can it be self-contained?
16:09:22 [tlebo]
dgarijo: the most important part is the direct mappings (we have concensus).
16:09:47 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
16:10:02 [GK_]
GK_ has joined #prov
16:10:13 [pgroth]
16:10:17 [tlebo]
luc: I'm trying to identify the reachable goals.
16:10:25 [tlebo]
... end of july need charter extension.
16:10:38 [tlebo]
... need to know what to put into the extension request. What to promise?
16:11:00 [Luc]
16:11:01 [tlebo]
dgarijo: will go discuss on Wed meeting with DC folks.
16:11:25 [tlebo]
pgroth: dc doc direct mappings are straight forward. No reason not to have direct mapping document.
16:11:41 [tlebo]
... does not need to be delivered like Rec documents.
16:11:56 [tlebo]
... reasonable to have direct mappings as a minimum.
16:12:19 [tlebo]
... yes DC doc as Note, we're done and its small.
16:12:35 [pgroth]
16:12:39 [tlebo]
... no reason for @dgarijo to go nuts.
16:13:08 [tlebo]
luc: the WG will produce a Note deliverable mapping DC and PROV.
16:13:30 [Luc]
proposed: the WG to produce a note DC to PROV mapping
16:13:41 [dgarijo]
16:13:45 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:13:45 [tlebo]
16:13:53 [jcheney]
16:13:54 [Curt]
16:13:54 [dcorsar]
16:14:03 [zednik_]
16:14:05 [reza_bfar]
16:14:14 [Luc]
accepted: the WG to produce a note DC to PROV mapping
16:15:00 [tlebo]
action: dgarijo to discuss note and make timetable and type of work with DC folks, when will it be done for final internal review?
16:15:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-95 - Discuss note and make timetable and type of work with DC folks, when will it be done for final internal review? [on Daniel Garijo - due 2012-06-30].
16:15:16 [Luc]
16:15:31 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:15:31 [tlebo]
topic: prov-xml
16:15:33 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
16:15:43 [tlebo]
subtopic: prov-xml
16:16:05 [tlebo]
luc: not much work on prov-xml. draft xml schema created and udpated by @luc
16:16:21 [tlebo]
... seems that since we're about LC for DM, prov-xml can start up.
16:16:38 [Paulo]
Paulo has joined #prov
16:16:51 [tlebo]
zednik_: the stakeholders were interested in XML.
16:17:09 [pgroth]
16:17:11 [tlebo]
luc: would be nice to have a few people to look over the schema.
16:18:37 [tlebo]
curt, hook, stephan, david offered to help.
16:18:58 [tlebo]
hook: patterns on ISO lineage spec that we can borrow.
16:19:22 [pgroth]
16:19:24 [pgroth]
16:19:26 [pgroth]
16:19:36 [Luc]
16:19:51 [tlebo]
pgroth: more importantly, how much text does prov-xml want to write?
16:20:10 [tlebo]
... as in prov-o, narrative around the constructs.
16:20:25 [tlebo]
... there hasn't been effort around the narrative on prov-xml.
16:20:36 [hook]
16:20:45 [Curt]
Using PROV-XML will require the user to read PROV-DM
16:20:45 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:20:47 [tlebo]
... can we make sure that we have no major narrative.
16:20:50 [Luc]
ack hook
16:21:02 [tlebo]
hook: mirror prov-o in that mirrors DM?
16:21:17 [tlebo]
prov-o's "no constraints" in prov-xml?
16:21:32 [tlebo]
pgroth: nobody explaining the prov-xml schema.
16:21:52 [tlebo]
... we should avoid that level of effort b/c we dont' have it.
16:22:00 [tlebo]
... what _exactly_ are we committing to.
16:22:05 [reza_bfar]
Is there an extension to Protege that generates XML from OWL?
16:22:09 [reza_bfar]
Can we just use a code generator?
16:22:19 [reza_bfar]
to go from Prov-O to Prov-XML?
16:22:24 [Luc]
accepted: the WG to produce a note for prov-xml with minimal narrative
16:22:32 [Curt]
a hand generated PROV-XML will be more friendly to use...
16:22:33 [tlebo]
luc: not accepted!
16:22:36 [zednik_]
Do we have UML that we can generate XML from?
16:22:37 [Luc]
proposed: the WG to produce a note for prov-xml with minimal narrative
16:22:46 [Curt]
16:22:47 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:22:48 [jcheney]
16:22:49 [dcorsar]
16:22:50 [zednik_]
16:22:50 [dgarijo]
16:22:51 [tlebo]
16:22:53 [reza_bfar]
16:22:59 [Dong]
16:23:07 [CraigTrim]
16:23:18 [Luc]
accepted: the WG to produce a note for prov-xml with minimal narrative
16:23:29 [tlebo]
repeat: curt, hook, stephan, david offered to help.
16:23:34 [tlebo]
subtopic: prov-json
16:23:46 [tlebo]
luc: charter did not mention json
16:24:11 [Luc]
16:24:14 [tlebo]
... Dong has been doing json at SH. There has been interest in prov-json.
16:24:16 [pgroth]
16:24:26 [reza_bfar]
16:24:29 [tlebo]
pgroth: NO!
16:24:34 [Luc]
ack pg
16:24:39 [Curt]
16:25:00 [tlebo]
... it is important for uptake, but we have a lot of bandwidth issues on Rec docs already.
16:25:04 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
16:25:08 [tlebo]
... (feature creep)
16:25:15 [tlebo]
... use a member submission.
16:25:27 [tlebo]
reza_bfar: xml and json, code generation from prov-o?
16:25:36 [jcheney]
community group? see
16:25:48 [Curt]
16:25:51 [tlebo]
... a lot of work to keep in sync between all of the encodings.
16:26:14 [tlebo]
... "Brazil" extension mapped OWL to XML.
16:26:26 [Curt]
OWL-> XML is hard, XML -> JSON is easy
16:26:32 [pgroth]
16:26:35 [Dong]
16:26:38 [Dong]
16:26:51 [tlebo]
zednik_: rdf to json (rdf-json)
16:26:52 [Luc]
ack rez
16:27:17 [tlebo]
pgroth: as jcheney says, with json, there is "json-LD" which is json encodings of rdf.
16:27:38 [Luc]
16:27:40 [Luc]
ack pg
16:27:44 [tlebo]
... we don't know enough to fix it.
16:27:46 [Luc]
ack q
16:27:52 [Luc]
16:27:55 [Luc]
ack do
16:28:07 [tlebo]
dong: tried json-ld mapping, result was undesireable.
16:28:17 [tlebo]
... didn't serve purposes.
16:28:18 [Luc]
16:28:26 [tlebo]
... big hassle.
16:28:33 [pgroth]
q+ to propose member submission from southampton
16:29:01 [Luc]
16:29:05 [jcheney]
16:29:25 [tlebo]
pgroth: propose that SH does member submission.
16:29:26 [Luc]
ack pg
16:29:26 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to propose member submission from southampton
16:29:34 [Luc]
ack jc
16:29:50 [tlebo]
@jcheney not that json-LD, but also a process for community groups to develop things like this.
16:30:01 [tlebo]
... if a large group that wants it, then let them do it.
16:30:10 [Luc]
proposed: the WG will not produce a prov-json note
16:30:17 [tlebo]
16:30:22 [TomDN]
16:30:22 [reza_bfar]
16:30:22 [Curt]
16:30:22 [jcheney]
16:30:22 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:30:23 [CraigTrim]
16:30:25 [zednik_]
16:30:28 [dcorsar]
16:30:31 [dgarijo]
16:30:31 [Dong]
16:30:39 [Luc]
accepted: the WG will not produce a prov-json note
16:30:58 [tlebo]
subtopic: prov-best practice
16:31:30 [tlebo]
( ? )
16:31:37 [tlebo]
pgroth: reads from charter
16:32:32 [tlebo]
16:32:52 [jcheney]
q+ to ask whether this is an appropriate home for collections
16:33:05 [zednik_]
16:33:18 [tlebo]
16:33:21 [pgroth]
16:33:36 [tlebo]
tlebo: best practices can help answer public question
16:33:49 [Luc]
ack jc
16:33:49 [Zakim]
jcheney, you wanted to ask whether this is an appropriate home for collections
16:33:50 [tlebo]
jcheney: can Collections go to best practices?
16:34:06 [tlebo]
zednik_: best practices come from lots of experience. finding out what works.
16:34:19 [tlebo]
... picking a best practice from the beginning is odd.
16:34:31 [tlebo]
... it is a development iteration.
16:34:39 [Luc]
ack ze
16:34:40 [tlebo]
... we need experience from the real world.
16:34:43 [Curt]
16:34:53 [reza_bfar]
Agree with Stephan. Could this be a document that we do post recommendation? I (and other implementers) could help
16:35:05 [tlebo]
pgroth: suggest not doing a best practice document. we have DC and Collections.
16:35:11 [tlebo]
... we have examples in the primer.
16:35:45 [tlebo]
... best way to do it is to mint Notes out of thin air as we go along. But let's not commit to it.
16:35:55 [tlebo]
zednik_: best practices are iterative, needs time to evolve.
16:36:07 [Zakim]
- +1.805.893.aaaa
16:37:52 [dgarijo]
(I've lost all sound)
16:38:06 [Luc]
hi daniel, we have to redial, we were running out of credit
16:38:32 [dgarijo]
ah ok, sorry, I didn't hear the last part because had to attend a phone call.
16:38:49 [Luc]
back in 10 sec
16:39:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.805.893.aabb
16:39:31 [Luc]
16:39:34 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:39:46 [tlebo]
luc: seemed that best practice is not something that we should commit to doing. Because of iteration and development.
16:39:57 [tlebo]
... if we do it, we'll do it later. Not part of the extension request.
16:40:02 [Luc]
proposed: the WG will not include a best practice deliverable in the charter extension request
16:40:09 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:40:10 [reza_bfar]
16:40:11 [Dong]
16:40:11 [Curt]
16:40:12 [TomDN]
16:40:12 [tlebo]
16:40:12 [dcorsar]
16:40:13 [zednik_]
16:40:13 [jcheney]
16:40:32 [dgarijo]
16:40:37 [Luc]
accepted: the WG will not include a best practice deliverable in the charter extension request
16:41:18 [tlebo]
subtopic: prov-collections
16:41:28 [pgroth]
we agreed it was a note
16:41:28 [tlebo]
luc: where do Dictionaries go?
16:41:32 [Luc]
16:41:35 [pgroth]
16:41:50 [tlebo]
pgroth: the resolution said into a Note
16:42:34 [tlebo]
luc: note by itself?
16:42:42 [tlebo]
pgroth: by itself, there's enough content.
16:43:03 [tlebo]
curt: needs to be its own primer.
16:43:26 [tlebo]
luc: goes into charter extension?
16:43:51 [tlebo]
... a lot of work went into dictionaries.
16:43:57 [tlebo]
16:44:01 [Curt]
It has 2 purposes: 1) define prov for collections 2) should how to build extensions on top of PROV-DM in general
16:44:13 [Curt]
16:44:23 [tlebo]
pgroth: its' something that we agreed on doing.
16:44:32 [Luc]
ack pg
16:44:38 [tlebo]
... we need to be careful about looking like were adding to the charter.
16:44:43 [tlebo]
16:44:51 [zednik_]
16:44:55 [tlebo]
luc: "Collection" was already in the charter.
16:45:15 [tlebo]
16:45:45 [zednik_]
16:45:54 [Luc]
ack tl
16:46:08 [jcheney]
16:46:15 [tlebo]
16:46:37 [tlebo]
tlebo: it was almost Rec, would be drastic to drop it from a request for extension
16:47:00 [jcheney]
16:47:07 [Luc]
ack jch
16:47:23 [tlebo]
jcheney: cites from charter, which corresponds to our Collections decision.
16:47:30 [tlebo]
... Dictionary fits as "best practice"
16:47:38 [Luc]
16:47:46 [tlebo]
16:48:14 [dgarijo]
I can barely hear khalid.
16:48:46 [Luc]
16:49:11 [tlebo]
16:49:28 [Luc]
proposed: the WG will produce a prov-dictionary note as a form of "best practice"
16:49:38 [TomDN]
16:49:39 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:49:39 [jcheney]
16:49:40 [tlebo]
tlebo: 1) stian has expressed (but with short term committment concerns) 2) the mateiral is "done" already, just needs rearranging.
16:49:42 [Curt]
16:49:44 [CraigTrim]
16:49:47 [dgarijo]
16:49:47 [dcorsar]
16:49:50 [tlebo]
16:49:54 [zednik_]
16:49:56 [Dong]
16:49:59 [reza_bfar]
16:50:10 [tlebo]
*stian has expressed _interest_
16:50:14 [Luc]
accepted: the WG will produce a prov-dictionary note as a form of "best practice"
16:50:20 [Luc]
16:50:20 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:50:30 [Luc]
ack kh
16:50:49 [tlebo]
khalidBelhajjame: timescales for Notes?
16:50:56 [tlebo]
Luc: it's up to us to decide.
16:51:06 [Luc]
16:51:18 [tlebo]
q+ to ask if there is any public review process for Notes (to make them better?)
16:51:38 [Luc]
ack tl
16:51:38 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask if there is any public review process for Notes (to make them better?)
16:52:03 [tlebo]
16:52:19 [Luc]
16:52:24 [tlebo]
luc: Primer has been doing through public review, so we have the spectrum of review.
16:52:36 [Luc]
16:53:04 [tlebo]
luc: these are the deliverables that WG will be working on.
16:53:13 [hook]
16:53:25 [tlebo]
hook: mimetypes?
16:53:51 [tlebo]
... consistency on mimetype mechanisms to make it sync wiht prov-o and prov-xml
16:54:05 [tlebo]
... looking at atom, rss, rdf all in application
16:54:17 [tlebo]
... parameters define encoding scheme
16:54:22 [tlebo]
16:54:42 [tlebo]
why isnt prov something like application/prov+rdf, application/prov+xml
16:54:52 [Luc]
16:55:02 [tlebo]
... why deviate?
16:55:12 [TomDN]
seems fair to me
16:55:39 [TomDN]
text is for prov notation, no?
16:55:40 [tlebo]
q+ to oppose any new mimetype for prov-o, we already have ~12 :-) "it's just a vocabulary"
16:55:49 [GK]
Please don't go down the route of creating a new MIME type for PROV in RDF.
16:56:02 [tlebo]
+1 @GK
16:56:10 [TomDN]
what zednik said
16:56:17 [Luc]
ack hook
16:56:24 [tlebo]
does DC have a mimetype? changing a vocab doens't deserve a mimetype.
16:56:25 [GK]
RDF is a perfectly good MIME type, and PROV in RDF may be combined with other information that is not PROV.
16:56:46 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
16:57:05 [Luc]
16:57:08 [Luc]
ack tl
16:57:08 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to oppose any new mimetype for prov-o, we already have ~12 :-) "it's just a vocabulary"
16:57:09 [tlebo]
16:57:29 [pgroth]
graham are you on mute
16:57:42 [pgroth]
16:57:46 [GK]
I'm noty on the phone. I'm not really here
16:57:52 [tlebo]
it doesn't seem like changing a vocabulary deserves a new mimetype.
16:58:04 [Luc]
16:58:26 [tlebo]
it seems that only prov-n deserves a new mimetype. it's about syntax.
16:58:30 [Luc]
16:58:42 [GK]
(Looking at link)
16:59:24 [Luc]
16:59:33 [GK]
There's nothing in that siuggests provenance in RDF should not be served as application/rdf+xml.
16:59:53 [pgroth]
action: paul to seek advice on the mimetype for documents from w3c
16:59:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-96 - Seek advice on the mimetype for documents from w3c [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30].
17:00:16 [Luc]
17:00:30 [tlebo]
@GK, mimetypes shouldn't be used to delineate the vocabulary used within a serialization, should they?
17:00:45 [tlebo]
subtopic: prov-constriants
17:00:46 [GK]
(It's Saturday and I'm at home ... I just happen to have the IRC channel running so I can periodicaly peek at what's happening. But if I got on the phone, domestic unrest might ensue :) )
17:01:10 [Luc]
17:01:17 [pgroth]
proposed: The current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services.
17:01:19 [tlebo]
pgroth: we should endorse what has been happening and its important.
17:02:23 [tlebo]
jcheney: looking at charter: conceptual model, formal model (with optional semantics).
17:02:24 [GK]
@tlebo broadly, I agree. I think I've seen an even more compelling argument, but I can't bring it to mind. Unlike XML, where the document *syntax* depends on the XML scheme used, RDF is a single uniform syntax. MIME types aren't really up to conveying semantics.
17:02:32 [GK]
17:02:36 [pgroth]
q+ to say that this is fundamental
17:02:41 [Curt]
17:02:45 [tlebo]
... why do we need a prov-constraints? It's not in the charter, and we're facing timeline.
17:02:51 [tlebo]
... we need to be clear on the rationale
17:02:54 [TomDN]
17:03:09 [Luc]
ack pg
17:03:09 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to say that this is fundamental
17:03:18 [Paulo]
17:03:29 [tlebo]
pgroth: key for me: constraints distinguishes scruffy and proper.
17:03:39 [tlebo]
... scruffy shouldn't kill proper provenance.
17:03:46 [tlebo]
... how do we realize the difference?
17:04:01 [tlebo]
... prov-constraints is our definition of proper
17:04:21 [zednik_]
17:04:30 [tlebo]
jcheney: we've discovered half way though that we have something that wasn't in the charter.
17:04:37 [GK]
(Constraints is part of DM, which *is* mentioned in the charter - we decided to split it out to make the document more approachable.)
17:04:42 [tlebo]
... can at least do scruffy prov.
17:04:42 [Luc]
17:04:48 [tlebo]
... prov-constraints could be a note.
17:04:48 [Luc]
17:04:55 [pgroth]
+1 to GK
17:05:15 [tlebo]
... wants to have the discussion and be clear on why we're taking this on and it wasn't in the charter.
17:05:29 [tlebo]
curt: the rational for the document is the feedback.
17:05:35 [tlebo]
... responding to community.
17:06:05 [tlebo]
luc: prov-constraints split for editorial reasons.
17:06:14 [tlebo]
... but it's really a single document
17:06:19 [Luc]
17:06:25 [Luc]
ack cu
17:06:41 [tlebo]
TomDN: it's even easier: we're making a standard. Logical step that computes the compliance with it.
17:06:55 [jcheney]
@GK Deliverable 1 says D1. PIL Conceptual Model (W3C Recommendation). This document consists of a natural language description and a graphical illustration of concepts involved in PIL. Such a document will help broaden the appeal and uptake of provenance beyond the community of technical experts.
17:06:59 [tlebo]
... it's good, compact, quick read, structured well. going from PROV to Normal and validating.
17:07:07 [Luc]
ack tom
17:07:09 [jcheney]
@GK Nothing about constraints or validity
17:07:10 [tlebo]
... stress that and structure.
17:07:25 [tlebo]
Paulo: 1) what is relationship between prov-o, prov-constriants, prov-sem?
17:07:45 [tlebo]
luc: prov-o is a OWL encoding of DM.
17:07:53 [tlebo]
.. DM does not contain constraints.
17:08:07 [Luc]
17:08:43 [tlebo]
Paulo: we are missing 20 years of effort.
17:09:00 [tlebo]
... we are mixing approaches that others have had to deal with.
17:09:09 [tlebo]
... planning community: robot planning.
17:09:16 [tlebo]
... situation calculus.
17:09:23 [tlebo]
... event calculus
17:09:27 [Luc]
17:09:28 [tlebo]
... fluid calculus
17:09:53 [reza_bfar]
IMHO, may be this can be alleviated by stating that these are not all the possible constraints, but constraints that are required for minimal validity
17:10:09 [tlebo]
... my problem is implications of definitions .
17:10:25 [tlebo]
luc: this needs to be raised in the formal ISSUE process.
17:10:26 [TomDN]
@Paulo: note that the definitions in the editors draft of the constraints are not up to date
17:10:44 [Luc]
action paulo to raise an issue regarding definitions of dm and their implication on constraint document
17:10:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-97 - Raise an issue regarding definitions of dm and their implication on constraint document [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2012-06-30].
17:10:47 [TomDN]
(alternate, specialization, entity, are not the same as in the DM yet)
17:10:54 [Luc]
ack paulo
17:10:56 [GK]
@jcheney but as I understand it, "constraints" were always part of the conceptual model.
17:10:56 [reza_bfar]
FWIW, the constraints document, as is, which I reviewed last night, is very useful for implementers.
17:11:27 [tlebo]
Paulo: to simplify the nature of the problems, constraints says "exists" all the time, "exists" means exists now. Tomorrow it may be invalid.
17:11:40 [reza_bfar]
I'd say without the constraints document, the implementers may be either confused or just go in too many different directions and create interoperability issues.
17:12:07 [Luc]
action paulo to raise issue about the notion of 'exist' in prov-constraints
17:12:07 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-98 - Raise issue about the notion of 'exist' in prov-constraints [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2012-06-30].
17:12:10 [jcheney]
@GK OK, and that is how it was interpreted, but (devil's advocate) I'm just saying that reading the charter, we could drop or delay it if we want.
17:12:25 [Luc]
17:12:51 [tlebo]
zednik_: discussing a validator, validing scruffy PROV. very important for the community.
17:13:00 [tlebo]
... the constraints doc is what leads to a validator.
17:13:03 [tlebo]
... where do they start?
17:13:04 [reza_bfar]
+1 to zednik_
17:13:08 [pgroth]
17:13:10 [Luc]
ack zed
17:13:11 [tlebo]
... critical for making a validator.
17:13:11 [Dong]
+1 to zednik_
17:13:29 [Luc]
17:13:32 [Luc]
ack luc
17:13:35 [GK]
@jcheney ack.
17:13:47 [tlebo]
luc: many have said that they wouldn' tknow what a validator would be without the constraints doc.
17:13:48 [pgroth]
proposed: The current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services.
17:13:53 [Paulo]
17:13:56 [TomDN]
17:14:02 [pgroth]
ack Paulo
17:14:25 [tlebo]
paulo: wants a regression validator.
17:14:39 [tlebo]
... yest. we're talking about time.
17:14:49 [tlebo]
... many possible things that can be executed.
17:14:59 [tlebo]
... the technical term is regression validation.
17:15:02 [jcheney]
17:15:21 [Luc]
ack jch
17:15:23 [tlebo]
jcheney: one thing to say it's important, another to know that we're in a position to do it.
17:15:47 [tlebo]
... coming up wiht something that fleshes out the consistency/validation that's suggested in document is feasible but will take work.
17:16:09 [tlebo]
... obvioulsy will be asking for help from those that say they want it.
17:16:31 [tlebo]
... don't see a feasible plan to do it in the 6 months that we have.
17:16:32 [reza_bfar]
+1 to jcheney
17:16:44 [tlebo]
... how to pin it down?
17:16:58 [reza_bfar]
The issue, IMHO, is the scope of validation. Having consistency, well-formed, provable validation is a completely different thing than having practical minimal validation.
17:16:59 [pgroth]
17:17:03 [tlebo]
... nothing in DM that says an Actiivty has a computational content. Need a notion of that, but we don't have it.
17:17:11 [tlebo]
... no way to standardize it.
17:17:19 [Luc]
17:17:24 [Luc]
17:17:26 [Paulo]
17:17:26 [Curt]
+1 reza
17:17:27 [Luc]
ack pg
17:17:41 [reza_bfar]
The same problem exists when people write OWL reasoners...
17:17:46 [tlebo]
pgroth: the naive people that read the constraints doc, from implementation angle say "that's super useful for us".
17:17:53 [tlebo]
... "we can make a valdiator from that"
17:17:59 [tlebo]
... what more needs to be done?
17:18:10 [tlebo]
... does @jcheney see that there's more work?
17:18:18 [tlebo]
jcheney: what is there is a sketch of how to do it.
17:18:30 [tlebo]
... there are a bunch of rules with the same form that we need to spell out.
17:18:39 [tlebo]
... how to expand optional attributes
17:18:45 [tlebo]
... avoiding the special cases.
17:18:54 [reza_bfar]
17:19:00 [tlebo]
... waiiing for clear idea on how that will work from rest of docs.
17:19:19 [tlebo]
... if an algorithm, here is how you run it.
17:19:23 [tlebo]
... check computability.
17:19:38 [tlebo]
... slash until it's computable
17:19:50 [tlebo]
Paulo: I'm the trouble maker.
17:20:02 [tlebo]
... I'm very pragmatic.
17:20:10 [tlebo]
... the problem of validating a document.
17:20:15 [reza_bfar]
This sounds like a QA effort on the constraints doc that's only achievable via trying to implement a minimal validator based on these constraints. How much time do we have for this? If we have some time, then I can do the QA effort as a part of actually writing a validator...
17:20:24 [tlebo]
... the theories have been discussed in W3C already.
17:20:46 [tlebo]
... OWL-S spent 2 years, and they failed.
17:20:59 [tlebo]
... we are dealing with the same things with semantic web services.
17:21:07 [tlebo]
... we have a very naive approach to validation.
17:21:17 [tlebo]
... the theory behind it is not simple.
17:21:22 [Luc]
17:21:26 [tlebo]
... do not want to get tangled in process.
17:21:27 [Luc]
ack pau
17:21:43 [GK]
Methinks it's not the group's job to implement a validator, but if someone outside the group were to do so that would support the spec's progress along the REC track
17:21:53 [tlebo]
... concerned about formal specification.
17:22:01 [tlebo]
(I'm hearing contradictions)
17:22:04 [pgroth]
@gk agree
17:22:17 [Luc]
ack rez
17:22:20 [tlebo]
reza_bfar: you need constraints on import/export.
17:22:27 [tlebo]
... I need to know its valid.
17:22:38 [tlebo]
... from a practical standpoint.
17:22:40 [pgroth]
+q to say we vote
17:22:59 [tlebo]
... what jcheney needs is QA'ing the document.
17:23:15 [tlebo]
... willing to help jcheney QA it (as a user)
17:23:20 [TomDN]
17:23:30 [tlebo]
luc: part of the implementations process.
17:24:16 [Luc]
17:24:24 [tlebo]
reza_bfar: freezing of doc?
17:24:34 [tlebo]
pgroth: with LC, WG is done
17:24:58 [tlebo]
... then WG must respond to all criticisms to fix them.
17:25:18 [Luc]
17:25:22 [tlebo]
... even after Cand Rec, proposed changes can affect it.
17:25:35 [tlebo]
... prov-constraints will LC after DM and PROV-O
17:25:51 [tlebo]
reza_bfar: I'll take it offline to help jcheney
17:26:06 [Luc]
17:26:07 [tlebo]
jcheney: paolo has been looking at it, too.
17:26:37 [tlebo]
jcheney: I've need to hear that people think it' a good idea. If it's a good idea, I need more feedback.
17:27:50 [Luc]
ack to
17:27:58 [Luc]
ack pg
17:27:58 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to say we vote
17:28:14 [tlebo]
TomDN: I'll help. Not much left, it needs to wait to fix the frozen versions of DM to get consitent.
17:28:34 [Luc]
17:28:43 [pgroth]
proposed: the current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services.
17:28:48 [Curt]
17:28:48 [Dong]
17:28:49 [reza_bfar]
17:28:50 [jcheney]
17:28:51 [dcorsar]
17:28:51 [TomDN]
17:28:54 [tlebo]
17:28:54 [khalidBelhajjame]
17:29:11 [dgarijo]
17:29:20 [pgroth]
accepted: the current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services.
17:29:54 [Zakim]
- +1.805.893.aabb
17:30:09 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
17:46:24 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
17:46:56 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
17:47:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.805.893.aacc
17:47:16 [Luc]
scribe: dong
17:47:29 [Luc]
topic: Session 5: call for implementations & exit criteria
17:47:40 [Luc]
17:48:53 [Dong]
Luc: We'll need to have exit criteria for the WG to demonstrate the recommendations are implementable
17:50:04 [zednik]
17:50:23 [reza_bfar]
Can you please clarify "have been demonstrated"?
17:50:26 [Dong]
Luc: Looked at COTS(?) for examples
17:50:46 [pgroth]
17:50:49 [Dong]
Luc: 2 independent implementations needed
17:51:05 [Dong]
... for each feature
17:51:55 [Dong]
... implementations can produce or consume a "feature"
17:52:24 [Dong]
Luc: There'll be vocabularies extending PROV
17:52:43 [Dong]
... these are examples of PROV adoption
17:52:52 [reza_bfar]
17:53:34 [Dong]
Luc: An implementation report will be needed
17:53:44 [Dong]
... with matrixes of implemented features
17:54:20 [pgroth]
here is an example of an implementation report from skos:
17:54:54 [tlebo]
q+ to ask if "implementation" is API, application, or either?
17:55:00 [TomDN]
17:55:19 [Dong]
Luc: we'll need to track issues raised against CR and respond to all of them
17:56:17 [Dong]
Luc: care must be taken when defining exit criteria
17:56:52 [Luc]
17:56:58 [khalidBelhajjame]
17:57:37 [tlebo]
+1 to rename "use" to something like "support"
17:57:59 [Dong]
zednik: for each feature, "support" is better than "use"
17:58:55 [Dong]
pgroth: if there is only one implemetation uses a particular feature
17:59:06 [Dong]
... should it be in the rec
17:59:35 [pgroth]
SPARQL implementation report:
17:59:42 [Dong]
luc: 1. implementability of a features
17:59:56 [Luc]
ack ze
17:59:59 [Dong]
Luc: 2. interoperability of features
17:59:59 [pgroth]
sorry this one:
18:00:18 [Dong]
pgroth: links to other impl. reports
18:00:48 [Dong]
pgroth: prefers the SKOS's report
18:01:11 [Luc]
18:01:14 [Luc]
ack pg
18:01:19 [Dong]
pgroth: in SKOS, a lots of constructs were not supported by impl.
18:01:41 [Dong]
reza_bfar: Does impl need to be public?
18:02:04 [Dong]
pgroth: just need to list the impl.
18:02:14 [Luc]
18:02:18 [Luc]
ack re
18:02:21 [reza_bfar]
18:02:34 [Dong]
... with responses to questionaires
18:02:38 [tlebo]
18:02:49 [tlebo]
(yes, APIs and applications are "implementations")
18:03:07 [Dong]
TomDN: should we include the notion of interchangability between encodings
18:03:32 [Luc]
18:03:32 [pgroth]
q+ to suggest a new phrase
18:03:32 [Dong]
zednik: this has been addressed in Luc's point 2
18:03:35 [Luc]
ack tom
18:04:03 [zednik]
18:04:08 [Luc]
ack kh
18:04:41 [Luc]
18:04:53 [Dong]
khalidBelhajjame: concerned about point 2, the interchangability of a feature
18:04:59 [Luc]
18:05:12 [pgroth]
suggested change = At least two implementations have been demonstrated to interchange provenance that is they consume provenance features generated by other implementations.
18:05:19 [Dong]
pgroth: propose update to no. 2
18:05:48 [Luc]
18:05:53 [Luc]
ack pg
18:05:53 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to suggest a new phrase
18:05:55 [tlebo]
we lost "for all features" in there!
18:06:29 [Dong]
khalidBelhajjame: it's hard to show 2 impls interchange provenance for every feature
18:06:33 [Luc]
18:06:34 [tlebo]
I feel like we should be writing a \sigma equation :-)
18:07:04 [Luc]
18:07:08 [Luc]
ack zed
18:07:15 [Dong]
zednik: should not add encoding conversions to the criteria
18:07:27 [reza_bfar]
18:08:03 [Dong]
Luc: A validator, if implemented, should be able to consume every feature
18:08:31 [tlebo]
luc: validators, visualizers, and converters tend to cover them all
18:08:33 [Dong]
Luc: Visualisations and converters for PROV do as well
18:09:15 [Dong]
Luc: PROV-XML will not in REC
18:09:32 [Dong]
... no obligation to demonstrate the exit criteria for it
18:09:48 [Luc]
18:09:52 [Luc]
18:10:01 [Luc]
ack luc
18:10:11 [Luc]
18:10:18 [Dong]
reza_bfar: Can we defined a impl to support at least 4 major PROV concepts?
18:10:22 [pgroth]
q+ to respond
18:10:38 [Luc]
ack re
18:10:38 [Dong]
reza_bfar: how about 3 out of 4?
18:10:39 [khalidBelhajjame]
18:11:12 [reza_bfar]
18:11:18 [Curt]
a library just wants to attach attribution and nothing else
18:11:21 [Dong]
pgroth: there might be validation systems that look only at derivations, for ex.
18:11:41 [Luc]
18:11:45 [Luc]
ack p
18:11:45 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to respond
18:11:53 [Dong]
... so it's possible there are systems do not support all the core features
18:12:02 [Luc]
ack kh
18:12:10 [Luc]
18:12:19 [hook]
18:12:20 [Luc]
18:12:24 [Dong]
khalidBelhajjame: in some cases, activities are not needed for ex.
18:13:22 [pgroth]
18:13:34 [Luc]
ack hoo
18:13:34 [Dong]
hook: in RDF impl. report, there is a good mixture of impl.
18:13:37 [TomDN]
+1 hook
18:13:51 [Luc]
18:14:08 [Dong]
hook: can be sure there are real applications that use PROV, rather than just API implementions.
18:14:10 [Luc]
ack pg
18:14:12 [Luc]
18:14:18 [Dong]
pgroth: agreed with hook
18:14:18 [Zakim]
18:14:44 [Dong]
pgroth: but there a leading time before uptake of the rec
18:15:14 [Dong]
... we'll need to push for implementations
18:15:40 [hook]
reference for RDFCore Working Group Implementation Report
18:15:43 [pgroth]
straw poll?
18:15:50 [Dong]
Luc: we don't need to agree on the exit criteria today
18:16:10 [Dong]
... but how do the WG feel about the current criteria?
18:16:19 [Luc]
straw poll: should the WG adopt these CR exit criteria ?
18:16:23 [reza_bfar]
18:16:30 [khalidBelhajjame]
18:16:34 [Curt]
18:16:35 [dgarijo]
18:16:37 [CraigTrim]
18:16:38 [TomDN]
+1 (good basis)
18:16:38 [dcorsar]
18:16:48 [pgroth]
18:16:49 [Dong]
18:16:50 [zednik]
18:16:51 [jcheney]
18:17:09 [tlebo]
18:18:04 [Luc]
18:18:08 [Dong]
tlebo: the basis for exit criteria is good, but phrasing needs improvement
18:18:28 [Luc]
18:19:02 [tlebo]
Zakim, you should wonder where .1 is!
18:19:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you should wonder where .1 is!', tlebo
18:19:14 [Dong]
pgroth: should check the criteria with W3C
18:19:20 [zednik]
18:19:36 [Dong]
Luc: The list of features need to be there
18:19:36 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
18:19:55 [Luc]
ack pg
18:19:58 [Paulo]
18:20:02 [pgroth]
action: paul to run exit criteria pass the w3c team
18:20:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-99 - Run exit criteria pass the w3c team [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30].
18:20:03 [Dong]
Luc: What are the features the WG have in mind?
18:20:19 [tlebo]
18:20:23 [tlebo]
18:20:35 [Luc]
ack zed
18:20:36 [zednik]
18:20:37 [tlebo]
q+ to show an example "passing" tables.
18:20:51 [Dong]
zednik: could you repeat what you said here
18:21:14 [Dong]
Paulo: Do we have any use case for PROV?
18:21:15 [Curt]
we have frequently referred back to them
18:21:19 [Luc]
18:21:20 [Dong]
Luc: No
18:21:32 [Luc]
ack paulo
18:21:32 [Dong]
... it's not part of the charter
18:21:34 [zednik]
zednik: we should include a description of how we intend to structure our implementation report when taking the criteria to the W3
18:22:03 [tlebo]
18:22:03 [Luc]
18:22:04 [Dong]
tlebo: it's useful to have an example report against the criteria
18:22:12 [khalidBelhajjame]
18:22:16 [pgroth]
18:22:29 [jcheney]
18:22:36 [Dong]
khalidBelhajjame: is that every term a feature?
18:22:39 [pgroth]
does someone have a us phone, so we can call the pizza guy?
18:22:51 [Luc]
18:22:58 [zednik]
@pgroth, I do
18:23:23 [Dong]
khalidBelhajjame: suggest to list all the relations as features
18:23:25 [pgroth]
list in dm terms all relations as features
18:23:38 [Luc]
ack khal
18:23:43 [TomDN]
So every relation that's described in PROV-N, essentially?
18:23:59 [Luc]
18:24:05 [Luc]
ack pg
18:24:17 [Dong]
pgroth: suggests to follow the section headings in Prov-dm
18:24:25 [Luc]
18:24:28 [Dong]
... use them as features
18:24:41 [Luc]
18:25:35 [Dong]
jcheney: are we expected to have 2 implementations of optional features, like prov-constraint
18:26:05 [reza_bfar]
18:26:06 [Luc]
18:26:16 [jcheney]
18:27:11 [Luc]
ack jch
18:27:19 [Dong]
pgroth: we could have generic criteria or specific ones for each document
18:28:50 [Dong]
jcheney: needs clarification on the "at risk" features
18:29:38 [Dong]
Luc: contextualisation should be a feature
18:29:56 [Dong]
... but if feedback is not good, we can drop it
18:30:25 [Dong]
... interchangeability does not apply to contraints
18:30:38 [Luc]
18:30:40 [Luc]
ack luc
18:30:46 [Dong]
... so 2 implementations are sufficient
18:31:07 [Luc]
18:32:10 [Dong]
reza_bfar: is there forward influence on what PROV compliance means?
18:32:54 [Dong]
pgroth: the way we list features can be used to make statements about compliance
18:33:20 [Luc]
18:33:20 [Curt]
compliance = all the "MUST"s in the spec
18:33:25 [Luc]
ack rez
18:33:40 [Luc]
18:33:44 [Dong]
reza_bfar: is there a link between the features being discussed now with a definition of compliance later?
18:33:57 [Dong]
pgroth: will check this
18:33:59 [pgroth]
action: paul to ask about the notion of compliance to the w3c and its connection to the implementation report
18:34:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-100 - Ask about the notion of compliance to the w3c and its connection to the implementation report [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30].
18:34:28 [Dong]
Luc: who plans to do impl. of PROV?
18:35:03 [Dong]
Luc: producing the impl. report is a significant effort
18:35:16 [Dong]
... which is important for PROV to be a REC
18:35:33 [Dong]
... who could help with this effort?
18:35:49 [Dong]
pgroth: we will implement PROV
18:36:03 [Dong]
... generate PROV assertions
18:36:12 [Dong]
... shell script tracking
18:37:41 [Dong]
TomDN: we will have applications producing provenance
18:37:53 [pgroth]
18:38:02 [pgroth]
18:38:05 [Dong]
... there will be ones consuming provenance as well
18:38:27 [pgroth]
+q to ask about pizza
18:38:37 [TomDN]
(remove 's' :) one of each will be sufficient this summer)
18:39:04 [Dong]
CraigTrim: there are plans to use PROV-O, but cannot disclose yet
18:39:37 [Dong]
Luc: proof of concept prototypes will also be good
18:39:44 [tlebo]
Four from me: 1) abstracting csv2rdf4lod's PML 2.0 to PROV 2) native PROV generation in DataFAQs data quality evaluation framework 3) PML 3.0 ontology 4) PROV vis to OmniGraffle
18:39:52 [Dong]
tlebo: see above
18:40:06 [Luc]
18:40:07 [Dong]
tlebo: thanks, tlebo :)
18:40:38 [jcheney]
18:40:42 [reza_bfar]
18:40:51 [reza_bfar]
+1 to Pepperoni
18:40:52 [tlebo]
subtopic: fooding
18:41:28 [Dong]
Dong: Southampton will have 2-3 applications producing provenance using a python library that fully supports PROV-DM
18:42:03 [Luc]
18:42:06 [Dong]
... and a Provenance Web Service (i.e. provenance repository) is also in the pipeline
18:42:08 [Luc]
ack pg
18:42:08 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to ask about pizza
18:42:50 [Dong]
Paulo: coordinate with RPI to develop PROV extension to PML3
18:42:57 [satya]
We are also developing a query dashboard for proteomics data using PROV-O based ontology for molecular systems biology (SemPoD)
18:43:44 [Luc]
thanks satya
18:43:52 [satya]
SemPoD initial prototype:
18:43:55 [Dong]
hook: will likely to migrate the OPM-based earth sci sys. to PROV
18:44:35 [dgarijo]
@satya: the link doesn't work for me :(
18:44:38 [Dong]
Curt: definitely generating PROV, likely visualisation + browsing
18:45:08 [TomDN]
+q to ask later what the timeframe is? august? september? october? ...
18:45:09 [satya]
Sorry, maybe a univ. firewall issue (I will post more permanent link soon)
18:45:59 [Dong]
dcorsar: applications generating + consuming PROV-O
18:46:20 [satya]
18:46:54 [Dong]
khalidBelhajjame: exporting PROV, workflow and PROV (Taverna), validating PROV-N
18:47:22 [Paulo]
18:47:26 [satya]
Another application is in clinical medicine - integration of provenance-driven querying of patient information using PROV-O based ontology (PhysioMIMI:
18:47:29 [Dong]
Luc: ProvToolkit
18:47:54 [Dong]
satya: What is the timeline for impl.?
18:47:59 [hook]
migration of Earth Science extension of OPM-O to PROV-O. needs to be simple to be practical, simple Jena rules + classification, visualization, faceted navigation of provenance
18:48:09 [Dong]
Luc: we'll look at the timetable later today
18:48:23 [Dong]
... but hope the impl. will start from Sep/Oct
18:48:33 [TomDN]
ack tom
18:48:33 [Zakim]
TomDN, you wanted to ask later what the timeframe is? august? september? october? ...
18:48:34 [Dong]
... and results soon, hopefully
18:49:54 [Dong]
satya: what are the criteria for working impl.?
18:50:04 [Luc]
18:50:07 [TomDN]
+q to say that if the implementation deadline is indeed in the fall, I might have bandwidth for a validator as well
18:50:13 [Dong]
Luc: Questionaires for implementor to fill
18:50:13 [satya]
18:50:26 [reza_bfar]
18:50:50 [Dong]
dgarijo: exporting PROV, mydata?
18:52:05 [Luc]
ack pau
18:52:05 [dgarijo]
@Dong: export provenance traces from scientific workflows, and several projects from UPM have expressed interest in the model, but I can't say how we will be using it right now.
18:52:16 [Dong]
Paulo: could people contribute to a wiki telling about what they will be doing?
18:52:16 [Luc]
ack tom
18:52:16 [Zakim]
TomDN, you wanted to say that if the implementation deadline is indeed in the fall, I might have bandwidth for a validator as well
18:52:21 [Dong]
Luc: Agreed
18:52:41 [Luc]
18:52:44 [Luc]
ack rez
18:53:53 [Dong]
Luc: Can any one help with the impl. report?
18:53:55 [pgroth]
18:54:08 [Dong]
zednik: I will help
18:54:13 [Luc]
18:54:18 [Dong]
18:54:20 [reza_bfar]
What are the list of things to do?
18:54:26 [reza_bfar]
I'm not clear... example actions/tasks?
18:54:33 [Dong]
pgroth: I'll participate, keep track of the tracker
18:54:44 [pgroth]
18:55:29 [reza_bfar]
I volunteer to help Stephan
18:55:43 [Dong]
Luc: in response to reza_bfar, we need to finalise the criteria, produce list of features, produce the questionaire, collection impl. data, write the impl. report
18:56:03 [Dong]
... we need to make sure that things get implemented in the group
18:56:38 [Dong]
Luc: someone needs to read all the feedbacks and track them in the tracker
18:56:55 [Dong]
pgroth: some activities are not part of the impl. report though
18:57:08 [Luc]
18:57:13 [reza_bfar]
I'm not familiar with the W3C tools, etc. (tracker?, etc.), but I can help with listing features, producing tables, etc...
18:57:22 [Luc]
ack dong
18:57:53 [Dong]
Dong: will help with data collection and the impl. report
18:58:03 [Luc]
18:58:47 [Dong]
Luc: so Paul, Dong, reza_bfar, Stefan will help with the impl. report
18:58:56 [Luc]
18:59:18 [Dong]
Luc: will put a call the the WG as well
18:59:25 [Luc]
topic: Session 6: timetable for all work
19:00:12 [Dong]
pgroth: suggest to discuss on PROV-AQ, PROV-SEM first
19:00:35 [Dong]
Luc: What remains before last call?
19:00:48 [Luc]
topic: Session 7: prov-aq / prov-sem
19:00:49 [reza_bfar]
Is it permissible to discuss a technical topic that was not brought up (with Prov-QA) prior to F2F3? If not, no big deal.
19:01:00 [reza_bfar]
Kind of a question actually...
19:01:02 [Dong]
pgroth: There a a number of outstanding issues on PROV-AQ
19:01:11 [reza_bfar]
19:01:24 [Dong]
pgroth: first, all the issues need to be resolved
19:01:43 [Luc]
19:01:46 [Dong]
... need to finalise the features as well
19:02:10 [Dong]
... the current issues can be resolved
19:02:29 [Dong]
... before the end of summer, PROV-AQ can go to last call
19:02:35 [Luc]
19:03:16 [Dong]
reza_bfar: can the protocol and service can be decoupled?
19:04:09 [Luc]
19:04:11 [pgroth]
issue: can the protocol be decoupled from the service definition in prov-aq
19:04:11 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-433 - Can the protocol be decoupled from the service definition in prov-aq ; please complete additional details at .
19:04:18 [Luc]
19:04:22 [Luc]
ack rez
19:05:01 [hook]
+q zednik_
19:05:11 [Dong]
reza_bfar: prov-aq seems to refer to REST
19:05:21 [Dong]
... but there are users of SOAP
19:05:26 [Luc]
19:05:31 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
19:06:08 [Luc]
19:06:16 [Dong]
pgroth: we'll try to decouple completely the protocol and the content
19:06:50 [Dong]
Luc: could people have a look at the document and make suggestions?
19:06:54 [Luc]
19:07:28 [hook]
19:07:38 [Dong]
reza_bfar: a recommendation for REST-SOAP mapping could also be useful
19:07:47 [Dong]
pgroth: we'll look into this issue
19:08:23 [Luc]
19:08:26 [Luc]
19:08:29 [Luc]
ack ze
19:08:31 [zednik]
19:09:11 [Dong]
hook: should there be a formal service description for prov. service?
19:09:17 [Luc]
19:09:19 [Luc]
ack ho
19:09:34 [zednik]
19:09:54 [Dong]
hook: a machine-readable service desc. will be useful
19:10:05 [Luc]
19:10:20 [Dong]
Luc: concerned about the available resources
19:10:30 [pgroth]
issue: look at wadl or some other description language for the service - is it possible? do we have time? paq
19:10:31 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-434 - Look at wadl or some other description language for the service - is it possible? do we have time? paq ; please complete additional details at .
19:11:02 [hook]
19:11:30 [Dong]
hook: is AQ is part of impl. plan?
19:11:57 [Luc]
19:12:05 [Luc]
ack hook
19:12:23 [Dong]
... there are existing tools that do AQ, generate WADL
19:12:59 [Dong]
pgroth: we don't have a good impl. of the protocol yet
19:13:21 [Dong]
... although it is simple, before going to LC, we need at least 1 implementation
19:13:29 [Dong]
... to make sure it works
19:14:09 [Luc]
19:14:15 [Dong]
Luc: suggests make PAQ as a feature, not as a rec criteria, but as a way of getting feedback from implementators
19:14:21 [Dong]
pgroth: OK
19:14:55 [Dong]
pgroth: if anyone has more issues with PAQ, pls raise them now
19:15:13 [Dong]
pgroth: Any other extra feature for PAQ?
19:16:10 [Luc]
19:16:19 [hook]
s/existing tools that do AQ, generate WADL/existing REST frameworks to implement AQ with, that also auto-generates WADL for PROV-AQ/
19:16:32 [tlebo]
19:16:40 [Luc]
ack tl
19:18:00 [pgroth]
19:18:11 [reza_bfar]
Question: are you trying to "stream" provenance records between multiple points?
19:18:14 [Dong]
tlebo: suggests we need a mechanism to post back provenance to the source
19:18:43 [Luc]
ack pg
19:19:09 [Luc]
looks like PAQ is becoming PAQR (R for record ...)
19:19:55 [Luc]
19:20:21 [Dong]
tlebo: can downstream client file copies back
19:21:00 [reza_bfar]
Don't want to interrupt the conversation, but can someone type in a use-case here? I'm confused
19:21:15 [Luc]
19:21:17 [Luc]
ack luc
19:21:24 [Dong]
Luc: asks tlebo whether he wants an interface to store any provenance, or a mechanism to tell about the existence of provenance
19:21:25 [Curt]
19:21:38 [Curt]
19:22:32 [Dong]
tlebo: use-case desc.:'s data (CSV) -> RPI (linked data) -> Oxford
19:22:38 [Curt]
If a scientist d/ls data from a data center, then writes a paper about that data, he cites it from his side, but it would be nice to also tell the data center that he used their data
19:22:49 [Dong]
... but not aware of this
19:23:02 [TomDN]
ack pizzaguy ?
19:23:14 [Dong]
... there is no forward linking that allows this to happen
19:23:52 [hook]
@tlebo, sounds like you are describing a PROV repository and/or LOD? "prov-pedia"?
19:24:00 [Dong]
Curt: suggests providing a way to tell the data center that we're using your data
19:24:14 [Dong]
... it is currently done manually
19:24:25 [Dong]
... agreed this is a good idea
19:26:07 [Dong]
Luc: due to resource constraint, storing provenance by a prov service was not on the plan
19:26:26 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, who"s on the phone
19:26:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who"s on the phone', khalidBelhajjame
19:26:53 [Curt]
zakim, who is here?
19:26:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see dgarijo, +1.805.893.aacc, Satya_Sahoo
19:26:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see satya, tlebo, jcheney, Dong, TomDN, Paulo, khalidBelhajjame, GK_, dcorsar, hook, reza_bfar, CraigTrim, Curt, Luc, pgroth, dgarijo, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, sandro,
19:26:54 [Zakim]
... trackbot, stain
19:27:40 [Dong]
reza_bfar: is "track-back" optional or not?
19:27:56 [Dong]
tlebo: it's optional
19:28:36 [Luc]
19:29:54 [Dong]
tlebo: is is not recording prov., it's a notification (a la ping back)
19:30:11 [reza_bfar]
just an idea is you could have optional parameters in the POST that identify track-back. That's also ACID and Atomic.
19:31:08 [reza_bfar]
In fact, I THINK for REST at least, that was one of the intents of POST. That the parameters that get sent to the server and what come back are packed in a single thing...
19:31:44 [Dong]
Luc: will we have a good PAQ doc before extension request
19:32:09 [Dong]
pgroth: sees no significant challenge
19:32:30 [Dong]
... we can spend something discussing the features being proposed
19:32:31 [Luc]
19:32:42 [Dong]
s/something/some time
19:33:21 [reza_bfar]
Paul\Tim - thanks for the explanation...
19:33:36 [Dong]
... to see whether it is feasible to implement those
19:34:48 [Luc]
proposed: all features requests for PAQ to be submitted as issue before June 30th
19:35:05 [Luc]
accepted: all features requests for PAQ to be submitted as issue before June 30th
19:35:08 [Luc]
19:35:28 [Zakim]
- +1.805.893.aacc
19:35:36 [Dong]
we break for lunch
19:35:42 [Zakim]
20:02:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.805.893.aadd
20:02:19 [Luc]
20:02:21 [pgroth]
we are back
20:03:06 [dgarijo]
It's getting late here in Spain, so I will leave now. Good bye!
20:03:37 [Zakim]
20:03:42 [pgroth]
thanks daniel
20:07:38 [pgroth]
Topic: Semantics document
20:07:38 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
20:07:50 [reza_bfar]
Paul: we want to talk about the status of the semantics document
20:08:28 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: document itself was reconciled with the third working draft back in March or April and very little has been done since then.
20:08:32 [pgroth]
@reza if you use tab you get the names of people
20:08:43 [jcheney]
20:08:49 [Dong]
Scribe: reza_bfar
20:09:41 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: If we talk about bundles talking about SPARQL data sets, then there may be number of issues that force refactoring
20:10:56 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: would like to see what the group thinks needs to be published before making the final push to finishing
20:10:57 [pgroth]
20:11:07 [Luc]
20:11:11 [pgroth]
ack lu
20:11:24 [jcheney]
20:11:52 [reza_bfar]
luc: I haven't had the chance to look at Contextualization, but I see Semantics as important in the sense that in DM we've been intentionally loose with the definitions (English definitions as indicated in the charter)
20:12:53 [reza_bfar]
luc: I don't know what the message will be with the document. It could be many other possible semantic interpretation for DM. Is the message that this is the one and only one or is it that this is one of the possible interpretations?
20:13:29 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: From the beginning the goal was to provide a rational as opposed to something that is the only way to think about things
20:14:09 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: one alternative is that if there is overlap with things that are in the constraints, we could move what's there in the semantics as an appendix to constraints.
20:14:13 [pgroth]
20:14:43 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: it would be good to have it somewhere close to the part of the recommendations that it is most relevant to.
20:15:02 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: We want people who would implement to pay close attention to it.
20:15:27 [reza_bfar]
luc: Should this be informative, not normative?
20:15:35 [pgroth]
20:15:35 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: you have to be very careful about that.
20:16:17 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: scheduling forces: do we dump it, do we commit to it, or do we leave it for later?
20:16:42 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: Contextualization will be straight-forward to integrate, but need help.
20:17:08 [Paulo]
20:17:29 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: I think it can wait till after the last call specially given that we have given overwhelming support for the constraints document and this is all a bit much for one person to do.
20:17:47 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: There are not hundreds of developers emailing us and asking us about semantics
20:18:27 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: Correction - contextualization will not be easy to integrate...
20:18:34 [pgroth]
ack Paulo
20:19:10 [Curt]
we've defined precedence of specs with DM on top
20:19:39 [reza_bfar]
luc: Within the context of the recommendation, these are the technical features that must be complied with to be comliant with the standard. We can't suddenly make it normative. This is decided by the charter.
20:20:07 [reza_bfar]
paulo: can we move to make something that is eventually normative?
20:20:35 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: We can make a number what are called Notes. These are referrencable documents for the community at large.
20:21:01 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: You produce notes as a way to inform the commuinty about the WG thoughts as opposed to making things a standard.
20:21:28 [reza_bfar]
paulo: I'm more favorable to semantics that lead to 1 interpretation than those that can lead to multiple interpretations
20:21:53 [pgroth]
20:22:27 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: At the last F2F, there was a huge discussion about the difficulties in rectifying proper provenance versus scruffy provenance
20:23:20 [pgroth]
20:23:42 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
20:23:53 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: No resolution. Plan to move forward is we still want to do this, but not the highest priority thing.
20:24:29 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: if we really want to make this happen, we want additional resources than just James working on this or get a time extension.
20:24:30 [tlebo]
20:25:11 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
20:25:45 [reza_bfar]
tlebo: I can't read the semantics document because I have no background in it and I don't understand it. But knowing that it is there gives our efforts some credibility. I also know that I've seen this kind of response when discussing Prov-O.
20:25:57 [reza_bfar]
Seems to appease folks when they know those semantics exist.
20:26:20 [TomDN]
20:26:22 [reza_bfar]
tlebo: Seems to appease folks when they know those semantics exist. For me, it's important to have that box checked.
20:26:28 [tlebo]
20:26:29 [pgroth]
20:26:34 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
20:26:52 [reza_bfar]
TomDN: I have the same issue as tlebo. Do we have people who can review this document?
20:27:35 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: You don't want to stick something like this out there without proper review.
20:27:59 [Paulo]
20:28:06 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: For some sense, that is an argument for having it to be part of the process so that external folks with the right background can do the proper level of review.
20:28:37 [pgroth]
ack Paulo
20:28:42 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: Are there people within or outside of the group that can do the type of review needed?
20:29:13 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: I will send out the presentations shared at the second F2F and send it out to the team.
20:29:33 [reza_bfar]
Paulo: I see some mismatches between the terms used in the semantics document and Prov-DM
20:29:56 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: are there specific problems you see? Can you send me those?
20:30:29 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: when we get to the last call on Prov-DM, James - would you be willing to update the document?
20:30:57 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: I don't think anything will prop up in the semantics that will make us want to change DM.
20:31:23 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: It seems more reasonable to investigate and discuss any potential mismatches off-line
20:32:08 [reza_bfar]
Paulo: I still need to understand some definitions when I read the DM and Constraints document
20:32:12 [pgroth]
20:32:49 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: if there are gaps where the semantics document is required for understanding DM or Constraints document, then issues should be raised against DM and constraints documents instead of making semantics document required.
20:33:37 [reza_bfar]
luc: Ultimately, the problem is that there are dependencies between the documents and some are out-of-sync
20:34:20 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: the usual mechanism is that when you review a document that pops out at you, then you either email the mailing list or you raise an issue
20:34:43 [TomDN]
20:35:02 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: Another way is that we have a mechanism to take feedback from the outside world. We synchronize things before releasing to the outside world.
20:35:19 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
20:35:42 [reza_bfar]
TomDN: I don't think Paulo you need to worry about synchronization of documents. If you see a problem with a document, just raise an issue.
20:35:46 [Dong]
20:35:47 [pgroth]
20:36:10 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: James wants to know who can contribute to the semantics
20:36:22 [reza_bfar]
luc: I will do my best to contribute.
20:36:55 [Paulo]
I will also do my best to help with the semantics
20:37:16 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: it would be much easier if we had people with formal backgrounds to review at least.
20:38:26 [pgroth]
20:38:29 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: Is anyone interested in semantics
20:39:07 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: I guess the conclusion is that if it slides, it slides.
20:39:40 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: I'll do what i can.
20:40:22 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: I think that's a reasonable conclusion. The response is that it's a good idea and people like it, but we're running out of bandwidth
20:40:35 [reza_bfar]
luc: for the record, Jan had some comments.
20:40:44 [reza_bfar]
jan (sp?)
20:41:07 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: next up - time-table and planning
20:41:08 [TomDN]
(he was very positive)
20:41:25 [pgroth]
Topic: timetable
20:41:48 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: we should focus on last-call time-tables
20:42:04 [Luc]
20:42:49 [reza_bfar]
pgroth - The draft for internal review of Prov-DM was 2 weeks late.
20:43:40 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: question is given that we have either addressed or resolved all technical results, how long will it take to produce another draft for review?
20:44:29 [reza_bfar]
luc: 3 key changes to make - 1. Dictionaries out. 2. Get contextualization sorted out 3. Clean up Influence\traced-to. For DM, I should be able to finish before end of next week
20:44:46 [reza_bfar]
Luc: It would be good to have some people review the docs.
20:45:20 [reza_bfar]
Luc: For Prov-N, I'm working on the hypothesis that Paolo can't help here so it would take a few days after that or maybe Paolo can help and it could happen at the same time.
20:45:38 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: July 5th? next call, but the one after that?
20:46:34 [reza_bfar]
luc: 6/29 for Prov-DM and 7/4 for Prov-N
20:47:39 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: creating an updated spreadsheet as a copy
20:49:52 [reza_bfar]
tblebo: don't we agree that Contextualization is at risk?
20:50:01 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: we agree on that, bu it would be better to rename and get it in.
20:50:29 [reza_bfar]
luc: We could have contextualization as a topic for teleconference on Thursday
20:50:50 [reza_bfar]
tlebo: Then, in addition to the ontology, I can do the narrative for bundle.
20:52:42 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: can we vote on 7/12 to release as last call?
20:53:25 [reza_bfar]
tlebo: I will have narrative done by 7/6
20:53:34 [pgroth]
20:53:36 [Curt]
20:53:40 [pgroth]
ack Curt
20:54:42 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: Reviewers on DM have already reviewed DM and identified the defects so ideally, you don't have to do a full regression of the entire document
20:57:06 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: given that, I would suggest that we move everything back a month
20:57:22 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: we releae mid-July.
20:58:32 [reza_bfar]
luc: we have to release by the end of July
20:59:27 [reza_bfar]
luc: To simplify, let's assume the docs are out Aug 1st. That means that mid-sept we're at the end of review period.
21:00:44 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: from Ivan - 2 months for the PR to REC transition is fine.
21:01:34 [reza_bfar]
luc: my view is that may be we can get it out last week of July, but let's be safe and go for Aug 1st.
21:02:16 [reza_bfar]
luc: This means that Oct 15th would be the publication of the CR.
21:02:39 [reza_bfar]
luc: we need to check with Ivan to make sure this is reasonable.
21:03:07 [reza_bfar]
luc: public review is 4 weeks after publication of CR so that would be Nov 15th.
21:05:02 [reza_bfar]
21:05:13 [reza_bfar]
luc: does this work with your time-table Curt?
21:06:13 [pgroth]
reza_bfar: the amount of time seems fine
21:07:04 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: after the last call announcement, we'll have a call for implementation, because we said we want it that. We don't necessarily have to have that if we can prove we have enough for exit criteria.
21:08:30 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: According to Ivan - 2 months for the PR to REC transition is fine. Minimal voting period is 6 weeks.
21:08:52 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: ... if the voting includes a major holiday, then you add 2 weeks.
21:09:42 [reza_bfar]
luc: I think this is the best guess we can make now.
21:09:56 [reza_bfar]
luc: The best place we could save time, is CR.
21:10:33 [reza_bfar]
21:10:43 [reza_bfar]
21:11:24 [pgroth]
ack reza_bfar
21:12:02 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: I don't want implementation, development, etc. to go too far into 2013
21:12:50 [tlebo]
q+ to ask what is happening between dec 15 PR publish and end of Feb?
21:13:26 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: we would be safe to go 2 years since typical charter goes for 2 years and we shot for 18 months to begin with.
21:13:39 [reza_bfar]
luc: so, let's make it end of March and that will be exactly 2 years
21:14:43 [tlebo]
21:14:55 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: Let's talk about constraints.
21:16:00 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: this entire conversation has reinforced that I want to stay away from recommendation as possible. I think it's feasible to have something for people by August. what makes me nervous is that there are some large gaps with unlike the other documents
21:16:11 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: I could write something that I'm happy with.
21:16:42 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: I think there is a pretty substantial risk that it will take longer if there is not consensus or if there are technical issues.
21:17:27 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: It will also help me once the other documents are finalized
21:19:24 [reza_bfar]
luc: Are we going for 6 weeks or 4 weeks?
21:19:35 [reza_bfar]
curt: In sync is better
21:20:23 [reza_bfar]
luc: that would mean last call review for constraints is 15th of Sept.
21:20:59 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: we need to decide what is the implementation of constraints?
21:21:42 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: I would try to shorten the last call for review cycle.
21:21:52 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: we better let people know this is coming.
21:22:59 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: if we think this is important, but there is a descent chance that we won't have a great product, then it's better to make it a note and not a recommendation.
21:23:14 [reza_bfar]
jcheney: that's a likely out-come anyways
21:25:12 [reza_bfar]
luc: what we can do (to be on the safe side) is to delay things by 2 weeks.
21:25:35 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: black-out period is week of 16th of July
21:26:29 [reza_bfar]
pgroth: Dec 14th to Jan 2nd no publication
21:27:46 [reza_bfar]
21:41:29 [pgroth]
beginning again
21:41:37 [pgroth]
Topic: Timetable for Notes
21:41:50 [pgroth]
21:42:40 [reza_bfar]
@pgroth: am I still the scribe?
21:42:56 [Luc]
scribe: zednik
21:43:03 [pgroth]
proposed: for all notes 1 Nov last call release Jan 15 final release
21:43:04 [Zakim]
21:43:13 [TomDN]
21:43:26 [zednik]
21:43:38 [Dong]
21:43:50 [Curt]
21:43:59 [zednik]
luc: caveat on prov-sem note, is best effort
21:44:12 [satya]
21:44:24 [pgroth]
accepted: for all notes 1 Nov last call release Jan 15 final release
21:44:24 [tlebo]
21:44:27 [reza_bfar]
21:45:08 [pgroth]
21:46:44 [pgroth]
21:46:57 [zednik]
luc: implementation TF members happy with questionnaire, CR exit criteria, implementation report plan settled by end of Sept.
21:47:26 [zednik]
luc: ^ above was a question
21:47:41 [pgroth]
accepted: end of september for set-up of the implementation report (e.g. questionnaire, exit criteria, plan)
21:48:01 [pgroth]
Topic: timetable next f2f
21:49:09 [pgroth]
21:49:12 [pgroth]
21:49:13 [pgroth]
21:49:28 [zednik]
pgroth: W3C encourage another F2F 29 Oct. - 2 Nov in Leon, France
21:49:46 [reza_bfar]
21:49:47 [TomDN]
(probably only relevant to me, but those are exactly the dates of ACM Multimedia in Japan)
21:49:51 [jcheney]
21:50:04 [pgroth]
ack reza_bfar
21:50:06 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
21:50:44 [pgroth]
21:54:19 [pgroth]
21:54:23 [Luc]
21:55:39 [zednik]
pgroth: co-locating our next F2F meeting with ISWC in Boston (ISWC Nov 11 - 15) is a possibility
21:56:19 [hook]
21:57:03 [pgroth]
proposed: seek to colocate next f2f with iswc 2012 in boston
21:57:12 [TomDN]
21:57:13 [Curt]
21:57:14 [satya]
21:57:16 [CraigTrim]
21:57:16 [jcheney]
+1 (prefer to avoid 14th though)
21:57:17 [zednik]
21:57:19 [tlebo]
21:57:21 [Dong]
21:57:21 [reza_bfar]
21:57:38 [pgroth]
accepted: seek to colocate next f2f with iswc 2012 in boston
21:58:02 [GK_]
I'm getting a bit concerned at what I'm reading about expanding the scope of PROV-AQ (WADL, PAQR) about 12:15 your time. I think it's too late to consider adding significant new material.
21:58:41 [pgroth]
topic: messaging
21:58:56 [Curt]
@gk -- there are issues to *consider* them
21:59:08 [GK_]
Also, the discussion of track-back - we don't have a spec yet.
21:59:10 [zednik]
pgroth: opportunity when sending out last calls to engage community
21:59:21 [zednik]
pgroth: ... having the right messaging is important
21:59:40 [Curt]
@gk track-back also -- the issue is to consider it
22:00:02 [GK]
@curt I'm not aware of any issue to consider WADL - I thought I checked the issue list fairly recently
22:00:11 [zednik]
pgroth: ... blog posts have been very helpful to the community
22:00:16 [hook]
22:00:23 [TomDN]
@GK the issues were raised today
22:00:25 [reza_bfar]
22:00:29 [GK]
... and I thought we'd decided to defer track-back.
22:00:30 [pgroth]
ack luc
22:00:34 [zednik]
pgroth: asking for new/fresh messaging ideas
22:00:59 [Curt]
@gk wadl is issue 434
22:01:15 [Zakim]
- +1.805.893.aadd
22:02:12 [zednik]
hook: domain specific communities can be used to evangelize use of prov (e.g. ESIP Fed, NASA ESDSWG)
22:02:22 [Zakim]
22:02:23 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended
22:02:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo, +1.805.893.aabb, +1.805.893.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aadd
22:02:45 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started
22:02:50 [pgroth]
zakim, this will be prov
22:02:50 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM already started
22:02:53 [Zakim]
22:03:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.805.893.aaaa
22:03:10 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
22:04:11 [Curt]
even have a "PROV tutorial" there
22:04:37 [pgroth]
action: curt to engage esdwg community
22:04:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-101 - Engage esdwg community [on Curt Tilmes - due 2012-06-30].
22:06:04 [zednik]
reza_bfar: is the messaging focused on provenance users or implementors?
22:06:52 [zednik]
pgroth: messaging primarily aimed right now for potential implementors
22:07:06 [hook]
22:07:09 [zednik]
pgroth: also, we should be careful to not make the documents sounds too complicated
22:07:20 [pgroth]
ack hook
22:07:50 [zednik]
hook: should there be a coordinated effort to track domain-specific prov extensions?
22:09:14 [pgroth]
action: pgroth to make available a overview slide on prov on the main page
22:09:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-102 - Make available a overview slide on prov on the main page [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30].
22:09:32 [zednik]
pgroth: implementation report should track community vocabularies that extend prov
22:10:13 [zednik]
luc: we should maintain a messaging page to coordinate
22:10:16 [Dong]
I guess we need manual ping back from the WG
22:10:28 [pgroth]
action: make a uses of prov wiki page
22:10:28 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - make
22:10:40 [pgroth]
action pgroth: make a uses of prov wiki page
22:10:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-103 - Make a uses of prov wiki page [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30].
22:11:26 [hook]
@pgroth, how would overview slides be different from a subset of PROV tutorial slides at ISWC2012? should there be a consolidated list of known W3C PROV tutorial resources?
22:11:31 [pgroth]
22:13:19 [Zakim]
22:13:22 [pgroth]
trackbot end telcon
22:13:42 [pgroth]
rrsagent make logs public
22:14:03 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set logs public
22:14:31 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
22:14:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
22:14:31 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aaaa
22:14:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:14:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
22:14:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
I see 10 open action items saved in :
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ivan to look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications? [1]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N [2]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: dgarijo to discuss note and make timetable and type of work with DC folks, when will it be done for final internal review? [3]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: paul to seek advice on the mimetype for documents from w3c [4]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: paul to run exit criteria pass the w3c team [5]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: paul to ask about the notion of compliance to the w3c and its connection to the implementation report [6]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: curt to engage esdwg community [7]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pgroth to make available a overview slide on prov on the main page [8]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: make a uses of prov wiki page [9]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pgroth to make a uses of prov wiki page [10]
22:14:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in