Provenance Working Group Teleconference -- 28 Jun 2012

<trackbot> Date: 28 June 2012

<pgroth> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 28 June 2012

<pgroth> Scribe: Daniel Garijo

Admin

yes

Luc: I wanted to get DM out of the way this weekend, but let's discuss that online

pgroth: actions
... resolution around collections (Done) Ivan took a look around rdf datatypes . Paul still has to do his action.
... Daniel has talked about a note about dc
... myme types
... reviews for paolo
... (to be done)
... started exit criteria. Will give an update
... notion of compliance with w3c. This needs to be smmarized.
... still haven't made the ***? available on the prov page
... I will marked as done the issues that have been done after the call

s /marked/mark

F2F3

pgroth: recap on the meeting for those who weren't there. It was a good meeting. Had resolutions on most of open issues
... I encourage to loook at the different resolutions. We need a new timetable. We are essentially a month behind our previous timetable. We'll ask for an extension.
... there is now an implementation team
... in order to produce a report in interoperable implementations
... we'll try to summarize this for next week

Reminders

pgroth: for the PAQ we are keen on getting all the issues and request for features
... we have met the deadline, but let's make it the middle of next week for issues and future requests

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations

pgroth: I want to highlight 2 new wikipages: 1) prov implementations page: page to keep track of the implementations.
... by implementations we mean extensions and applications.
... if you are developing something, please add the link there

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/OutreachInformation

pgroth: 2) ourtreach Info page. All the blog post and tutorials that have been done. If you have done anything then this will be a good place to document it.
... feel free to add anything

s /ourtreach/outreach

pgroth: the slides will be there also.
... finally, f2f4 will be collocated with ISWC
... we will be adding a poll

Updates

pgroth: updates
... DC and DM. Will skip on prov o

<pgroth> dgarijo: talked to kai yesterday

<khalidBelhajjame> dgarijo: agreed with Kai to resolve the issues identified in the reviews

<pgroth> thanks khalidBelhajjame

<khalidBelhajjame> ... produces something by July

<khalidBelhajjame> ... we will ask for reviews again once a note is ready for that

<khalidBelhajjame> dgarijo: we wanted to have the note early to have time to address the reviews that we anticipate

@khalid thanks for scribing, I will continue.

Luc: update on DM.
... working on the resolutions made on the f2f
... now they are on the agenda
... dictionary : we remove dictionary, which will be moved to a note.
... along with most of its relations
... collections/membership will be kept
... discussion on tracedTo
... led to a resolution (unexpected) where it is replaced by influenced. (Not transitive)
... component 3 is being renamed including influence as well.
... had discussions about which datatypes & version of RDF to follow.
... adopted some of the text in OWL 2
... problem with xsd schema changing
... we will have to be conformant to version 1.1 of RDF
... Ivan was happy with that.
... people could review that
... hadLocation was debated as well.

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-mention

Luc: discussion on contextualization (continued in the mailing list). Resolved to rename contextualization. Also the notion of mentions (a bundle mentions an entity).
... this will be marked as at risk, so we will be able to drop it if there are problems when implementing this.

Contextualization

Luc: we had this resolution, to rename contextualization. Marked as risk
... long debate
... seems to be coming to some resolution
... do people have comments/questions?
... in particular the proposal to rename it to mention

<jcheney> think we need to hear from graham, who's not here

<jcheney> i'm happy with renaming to mention & marking at risk

Luc: in the mailing list Graham seems to be ok with renaming it and marking it as risk

<satya> I am also fine with including it (but not overloading specialization) and marking it as risk

Luc: we need to indicate explicitly the features at risk and be specific about why it is at risk. It remains to be done. I don't know how it should be written, so it would be good to have some input.
... we need to explain to the readers what to look at and what the issue is.

pgroth: my feeling is that having a long description would confuse the reader. By doing that you bias the user

MacTed: not sure how "mention" can replace "context"

Reviewers

pgroth: We agreed at the f2f that DM would try to address all the issues by ????
... PROV-O : Tim said that the ontology would be ready for tomorrow
... we will start 1 week review perios

period

scribe: and the we will go for LC
... the goal would be to get all reviews for next friday
... questions about the timetable?
... who will be willing to review DM?

Luc: are we reviewing the changes?

<khalidBelhajjame> I will review the changes in the DM

Luc: paul: review of the changes, but if you want to review the entire doc, it would be ok
... it would be good if Khalid and Daniel review the changes

<jcheney> I will try to review DM, needed to update constraints anyway.

I'll review them

paul: anyone else?

<pgroth> reviewers: james, khalidBelhajjame, daniel

paul: as a reminder, this is the document for LC. So please read it.

Luc: I am concerned by the lack of reviewers
... we will have a vote in 2 weeks
... there is no point if there are no reviewers.

<khalidBelhajjame> Many people are not on the telecon, so it may be a good idea to send an email to the mailing list

Luc: graham has been critical with some constructs I'd like his feedback. Satya and MacTed as well.

Satya: I was not formally volunteer, but I plan to read the doc

pgroth: if you could look at the things you weren't agreeing on.

Satya: Yes

paul: if someone doesn't read the document and votes against it will be considered a foul vote.

luc: we'll send a reminder to the list

pgroth: any more reviewers?
... PROV-O ontology
... stable and aligned to DM
... difficult to fix the narrative since DM is being changed, but we'll release the ontology. Narrative will come later
... questions?

I think it makes a lot of sense.

<satya> @Paul, we agreed to this in the call on Monday

<Luc> +1

pgroth: reviewers for prov-o?

<Luc> +q

pgroth: Paul, Luc,

<jcheney> will ead, may not be able to fully review

<jcheney> will read, may not be able to fully review

Luc: same comment as before. We need reviewers

<pgroth> reviewers: Paul, Luc

<Luc> ack

Luc: Will send an email

<satya> a suggestion - it will be helpful if the persons who have signed up for applications/implementation review PROV-O specifically

pgroth: it is very important to get feedback

<MacTed> I cannot guaranteed full review of all docs, but best effort will be made.

<MacTed> please provide URIs for each and every doc for which reviews are requested. there are far too many to keep track of.

<MacTed> if there's an intended "these depend on those" track, then prioritized list will be helpful.

Luc: there are more docs. ProvN (under review).
... still not any feedback received

<jcheney> I read the last version before f2f3. No objections. Will read revised version more carefully.

Luc: please send the feedback. I'll send an email as a reminder

<Luc> @jcheney, thanks, could you just email this for the record. There was an issue for feedback.

Macted: It will be very helpful if you could provide URIs for each doc+ prioritization and dependency order.

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

<jcheney> has all the links but there is some cruft.

pgroth: I will send an email with the specific URIs

<khalidBelhajjame> :-)

<satya> :)

<khalidBelhajjame> bye

<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

- DRAFT -

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

28 Jun 2012

Attendees

Contents