14:46:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:46:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-prov-irc
14:46:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:46:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:46:06 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:46:06 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:46:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:46:08 <trackbot> Date: 27 September 2012
14:46:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:28 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.27
14:47:34 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:50:22 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:52:42 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:52:57 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:52:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:53:05 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:53:05 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:55:17 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:59:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:13 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:59:28 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:59:28 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:59:40 <Luc> Hi, we don't have a scribe
14:59:57 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb
15:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:08 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software
15:00:08 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:00:10 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:00:15 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:15 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:17 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:17 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:00:19 <Zakim> +??P20
15:00:38 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:00:45 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
15:00:47 <Luc> @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? 
15:00:51 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc
15:00:59 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me
15:00:59 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:01:00 <Zakim> +??P30
15:01:07 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:07 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:01:13 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:01:15 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P30 is me
15:01:15 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:01:17 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
15:01:21 <Luc> @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? 
15:01:23 <gk1> gk1 has joined #prov
15:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:38 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:38 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Luc I can try, but I have a bad connection
15:01:41 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:43 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov
15:01:51 <khalidBelhajjame> I can try though
15:01:53 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:53 <Zakim> + +329331aaee
15:01:55 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaff
15:01:56 <jun> zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me
15:01:56 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]'
15:01:59 <stain> I can fill in for 30 minutes
15:02:01 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
15:02:01 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
15:02:04 <Luc> Scribe: khalidBelhajjame 
15:02:07 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:02:07 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:02:07 <Paolo> luc apologies, my keyboard is acting up
15:02:08 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:02:08 <jcheney> zakim, aaff is me
15:02:09 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:02:09 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:02:11 <Paolo> can barely type
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aagg
15:02:32 <tlebo> zakim, I am aagg
15:02:32 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:02:46 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:03:00 <Luc> Topic: admin
15:03:03 <Luc> proposed: to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon 
15:03:07 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: approve the minutes of last week
15:03:09 <jcheney> 0 (absent)
15:03:16 <smiles> 0
15:03:17 <TomDN> +1
15:03:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-20
15:03:21 <khalidBelhajjame> 0 (absent)
15:03:24 <stain> 0 (absent)
15:03:36 <Paolo> 0 (absent)
15:03:38 <jun> +1
15:03:43 <tlebo> +1
15:03:51 <hook> 0 (absent)
15:04:00 <Luc> approved:  minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon  
15:04:08 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: minutes approved
15:04:22 <pgroth> :-)
15:04:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action assigned to Paulo
15:04:27 <pgroth> every week 
15:04:32 <pgroth> now it's a running joke
15:04:33 <Zakim> +??P1
15:04:37 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:04:41 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action on Paul to produce an overview slide
15:04:44 <pgroth> it's just to make me feel guilty every week
15:04:48 <GK> zakim, ??p1 is me
15:04:48 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:04:49 <Zakim> +??P21
15:04:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we can leave it for another week
15:04:57 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:05:15 <Luc> Topic: Timetable to CR  
15:05:25 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: timetable to candidate recommendation
15:05:48 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec
15:05:53 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we are in the phase where we need to tackle external feeback
15:05:57 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:06:15 <Luc> End LC review for prov-dm/prov-o/prov-n: 2012-9-18 
15:06:16 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the link contains the document submitted to have the extention for th eWG
15:06:37 <Luc> End LC review for prov-constraints: 2012-10-10
15:06:51 <Luc> CR Publication: 2012-11-15
15:06:54 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the lc review for prov-dm was the 18th of September
15:07:09 <Luc> Vote for CR: 2012-11-01
15:07:11 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we want to publish candidate recomendation of the 15th of November
15:07:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we should have a vote around the 1st of Novemer
15:07:45 <khalidBelhajjame> luc: the issues needs to be addressed by then
15:07:53 <ivan> q+
15:07:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: that is not a lot of time
15:08:19 <Luc> q?
15:08:47 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we also have a clear plan what the exit criteria are
15:09:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... how do we judge that we have the correct implementation, how do we judge it, etc.
15:09:09 <pgroth> +q
15:09:26 <Luc> ack iv
15:10:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:10:25 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we are still expecting feedback from other WGs, we didnt get any feedback and the deadline for feedback is over, can we still process late feedback?
15:10:51 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we can say sorry it is too late
15:11:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... with the RDF WG we have issues, I would hope that ? will send feedback on teh constrainst document by next week
15:11:50 <GK> q+ to ask: do we have any knowledge of areas where RDF group might have feedback for us
15:12:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... which WGs did we ask?
15:12:40 <Luc> q?
15:13:14 <Luc> ... and we did it too for IETF mime type and we got feedback
15:14:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov
15:14:43 <pgroth> q+ to say what we asked
15:14:51 <GK> q-
15:14:55 <khalidBelhajjme> khalidBelhajjme has joined #prov
15:15:22 <Luc> q?
15:15:23 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:15:32 <pgroth> ack
15:16:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we asked about the construct of mention and about RDF types
15:16:19 <GK> @pgroth thanks
15:16:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:16:32 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say what we asked
15:16:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: keep in mind that we have 4 weeks to complete the document
15:17:03 <Luc> q?
15:17:11 <khalidBelhajjame> .. no more question on the time table?
15:17:17 <khalidBelhajjame> @luc, yes
15:17:21 <khalidBelhajjame> yes
15:17:28 <Luc> topic: PROV-O issues  
15:17:43 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item, review of the outstanding issues in the tracker
15:17:53 <Zakim> +Luc.a
15:18:00 <khalidBelhajjame> ... we need to close some of those actions
15:18:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: Stian, you sent an email on issue 491
15:18:23 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
15:18:27 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: we wanted to discuss that with Tim
15:19:00 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: I suggested a definition 
15:19:27 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: the definitions of the properties reuse the definition of the classes
15:19:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I would like to keep them consistent
15:20:02 <khalidBelhajjame> ... if they are confusing, then I will need to revise the generation algorithm to let you know which annotations we should use
15:20:21 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: my argument is that we shouldnt use them
15:20:49 <khalidBelhajjame> ... between agent and agent inference, it becomes confusing untangling the properties
15:21:13 <Luc> q?
15:21:35 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we can leave the definitions there for consistency and add a link 
15:21:54 <khalidBelhajjame> ... instead of redefining everything
15:22:19 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: we can discuss that offline
15:22:37 <Luc> can we try to converge quickly?
15:22:41 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will respond to that by email
15:22:57 <Luc> good!
15:23:00 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: can we try to converge quickly to close the issue by tomorrow?
15:23:36 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: for issue 479, Stian tried to make changes, but I think we still need more changes becase Trig syntax is still there
15:23:53 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I have not been able to respond to your email
15:24:24 <Luc> timing?
15:24:26 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I will revisit the changes
15:24:38 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: that will be done by this week?
15:24:47 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: yes
15:25:04 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 349 is now closed 
15:25:10 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: yes
15:25:22 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will double check
15:25:23 <Luc> q+
15:25:47 <pgroth> good point
15:25:57 <tlebo> q+
15:25:58 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: are we keeping track of the changes we are aking the document to use them when publishing the next version
15:26:18 <Luc> ack L
15:26:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: for example in prov-dm i put in the appendix the changes made
15:26:24 <pgroth> ack tlebo 
15:26:48 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I added a section that reflect the changes, but we need to check that it was updated
15:27:02 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: it would be a good policy that any change is reflected in that section
15:27:15 <tlebo> The section for changes: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724
15:28:07 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: for issue 349 we need also to change the identifiers used in the examples
15:28:22 <Luc> q?
15:28:24 <stain> ^^ stian
15:28:51 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 446, Daniele?
15:29:04 <khalidBelhajjame> ... will send an email to Daniele
15:29:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
15:29:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... provo has only one open issue, 
15:30:06 <Luc> what about http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3?
15:30:14 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I will address the issue given the email sent by Graham
15:30:14 <pgroth> @luc was getting there
15:30:33 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: issue 476 is an externa comment
15:30:44 <khalidBelhajjame> ... what is the processing for it given that it is resolved
15:31:00 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:31:32 <stain> ACTION stain: Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o
15:31:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2012-10-04].
15:31:47 <smiles> @tlebo OK, I have checked issue 445 is resolved and will close it now
15:32:12 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: there are a couple of issues regarding the ontologies
15:32:41 <GK> (As an aside, when trying to review the proposed responses, it would have been really helpful to me to have a link back to the *original* email to the prov-comments list)
15:32:47 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 552, which need the resolution of the issue on influence
15:33:08 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:33:08 <pgroth> thanks stain
15:33:14 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: all the responses are on the wiki
15:33:27 <Luc> q?
15:33:46 <pgroth> it has the original email
15:33:59 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: information about who send the original comment is missing
15:34:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/463
15:34:55 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: you need to go to the tracker
15:35:11 <pgroth> +q
15:35:40 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM issues  
15:35:54 <Luc> ack pg
15:36:07 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we obtain the email from Robert, and then issued the issue.Given that his comments were extensive, we proke them into several issues
15:36:39 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: there is no simple way to get to the oriinal email
15:36:47 <Luc> q?
15:36:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments regarding prov-o?
15:37:13 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29
15:37:15 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next topic, prov-dm issues
15:37:28 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: during this week I sent proposed responses to 4 issues
15:37:32 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508
15:37:41 <ivan> issue-492?
15:37:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-492 -- typo in example -- pending review
15:37:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/492
15:37:45 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we had supportive feedback during the week
15:37:48 <ivan> issue-500?
15:37:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-500 -- Data Model Section 2.1.1, hierarchies -- open
15:37:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/500
15:37:52 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508
15:37:54 <ivan> issue-505?
15:37:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-505 -- Data Model Section 3 -- open
15:37:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505
15:37:55 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the deadline was yesterday 
15:37:59 <ivan> issue-508?
15:37:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-508 -- Data Model Table 5 -- pending review
15:37:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508
15:38:08 <Luc>  accepted: The suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support
15:38:14 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the responses are accepted by the group
15:38:16 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:38:41 <Zakim> +??P2
15:38:48 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P2 is me
15:38:48 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:39:02 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Draft.29
15:39:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I sent few emails and drafted responses to 20 issues
15:39:23 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:39:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will ask the group to comment on them, the deadline is wednesday next week
15:39:42 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0263.html
15:40:01 <khalidBelhajjame> ... there was one negative comment fro PAolo regarding some attributes that we debated at lenth
15:40:06 <khalidBelhajjame> ... length
15:41:03 <khalidBelhajjame> Paolo: I am happy with the resolution at the end
15:41:13 <Luc> q?
15:41:18 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments?
15:41:25 <pgroth> are we talking about influence next?
15:41:38 <pgroth> q+
15:41:42 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I will send an email asking to give feedback
15:41:46 <Luc> q?
15:41:52 <khalidBelhajjame> ... and you will have until next wednesday night
15:42:02 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:42:09 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: are we goining to talk about influence?
15:42:16 <pgroth> ok great
15:42:22 <Luc> q?
15:42:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: they are not ready for feedback
15:42:36 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item of prov-dm
15:42:39 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0271.html
15:43:39 <pgroth> +q to say yes
15:43:50 <Luc> q?
15:43:51 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:45:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:45:12 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say yes
15:45:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm
15:45:51 <jcheney> happy either way, but just thought it should be discussed
15:46:05 <Luc> @jcheney: agreed james
15:46:24 <jcheney> as long as any repeated definitions are *identical*
15:46:34 <pgroth> +q you use MAY
15:46:38 <pgroth> +q
15:46:43 <Luc> @jcheney: they are, they are included automatically from a single file
15:46:57 <Luc> section 2 defines the core
15:47:11 <Luc> q?
15:48:05 <jcheney> If core vs. non-core is a key property then I think that's a good enough reason.
15:48:26 <TomDN> I have to go, bye
15:48:33 <Zakim> -TomDN
15:48:59 <Luc> q?
15:50:13 <ivan> q+
15:50:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:50:18 <ivan> ack pgroth 
15:50:48 <pgroth> ack ivan 
15:51:12 <dgarijo> Ivan: it bothers me that there are 2 places where an entity is defined
15:51:23 <Luc> table 5 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-dm-types-and-relations still shows what is core
15:51:31 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
15:51:34 <GK> Did I mishear Paul?   I thought he was saying the same as Ivan 
15:51:38 <dgarijo> ... if one has more info than the other, then it is an editorial problem
15:51:42 <GK> (in thrust)
15:52:06 <Luc> q?
15:52:07 <dgarijo> Luc: the overview is not normative
15:52:24 <dgarijo> Ivan: did I misunderstand Paul?
15:52:29 <jcheney> I think it would be good to ensure that the MAY is reflected in sec. 5 too.
15:52:49 <Luc> @jcheney: +1
15:52:55 <dgarijo> pgroth: if we say that section 2 is informative, then we have to make sure that no command words appear there.
15:52:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:53:10 <Luc> yes, james had already indentified a similar problem in section 6
15:53:23 <pgroth> ok
15:53:25 <dgarijo> Ivan: that is even more true if both sections are normative
15:53:33 <khalidBelhajjame_> khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov
15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... there should not be discrepancy
15:53:45 <GK> I spotted one MAY in section 2.
15:53:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> @dgarijo thanks, I can take over 
15:53:53 <dgarijo> ... between both of them. That should be checked
15:53:58 <dgarijo> @khalid ok!
15:54:19 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: to come to a conclusion, as pgroth we need to come back to the document 
15:54:22 <ivan> q+
15:54:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and do soe editorial clean up
15:54:34 <GK> .. that was sect 2.1.3 - I didn't see any others.
15:54:34 <Luc> q?
15:54:37 <pgroth> but section 5 would be the only normative one
15:54:41 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... are we of the view that section 2 is not normative?
15:54:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: I would think so
15:55:12 <jcheney> q+ to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5
15:55:13 <GK> OK, I'm happy with this too. (i.e. sect 2 informative)
15:55:39 <stainPhone> +1 for (making) sec 2 informative
15:55:40 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: it is fine to have only section 5 as the normative one
15:55:55 <pgroth> they are 
15:55:57 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:56:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: the use of may in that section is not always an ITF may but is an english one
15:56:30 <GK> I think ReSpec picks up capitalized MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc and applies different styling.
15:56:54 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is fine, but I want to make sure that the use of those terms are checked in the definitions
15:56:58 <GK> So the thing to do is use capitalization consistently when editing source.
15:57:00 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:57:00 <khalidBelhajjame_> luc: i did that
15:57:11 <pgroth> james is on the queue
15:57:15 <Luc> q?
15:57:17 <Luc> ack iva
15:57:40 <ivan> ack jcheney 
15:57:40 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5
15:58:11 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: are we happy with the proposal?
15:58:38 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am looking at section 7 to work out if there is something normative in that section
15:59:03 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I agree that section 2 is inforative, but we need to check the rest
15:59:05 <pgroth> the goal is to make Section 5 the only normative one
15:59:08 <Luc> proposed: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:59:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I will make edits and will ask people for review
15:59:30 <GK> +1
15:59:36 <Luc> accepted: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:59:56 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29
16:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: issue of inheritance with influence
16:01:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... thinking about this issue, I think that it is not mandatory for generation, usage, ... sub-relations of influence 
16:01:44 <jcheney> luc, you seem to be cutting in and out
16:02:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I formulated a response here, and I would like a feedback on this
16:02:21 <Luc> q?
16:02:23 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... before implementing it
16:02:37 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: any comments?
16:02:41 <pgroth> q+
16:02:58 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am not sure what inheritance means here
16:03:16 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... what is being described is sub-property relation
16:03:16 <pgroth> yes
16:03:26 <pgroth> this is what I asked online
16:03:30 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: but that will have ipact on how the ontology is defined
16:03:43 <satya> It will in prov-o by owl2 rdf semantics
16:04:06 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: in the ontology you will have the class influence and its subclasses, and the same for sub-properties
16:04:27 <Luc> q?
16:04:34 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... but in the XML schema, that is not the case
16:04:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: I am worring about the ramifications on other form of relations
16:05:35 <satya> sorry, I have to leave
16:05:38 <satya> bye
16:05:43 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I was not planning to do changes based on this
16:05:43 <jun> Sorry, I have to go now ... bye
16:05:48 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:05:49 <Zakim> -jun
16:06:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the prov constraints states what we mean
16:06:10 <pgroth> yeah but I'm reading prov-dm
16:06:10 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference
16:06:27 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: as stated in inference 15
16:06:53 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... it can be done through inheritance, but it doesnt have to be done that way
16:07:12 <stainPhone> I guess the reviewer might wonder if you can have wasInfluencedBy while none of the prov subproperies (so to speak) could apply.
16:07:15 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: is the problem stems from the use of the UML diagram?
16:07:16 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:07:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: no
16:07:31 <Luc> q?
16:07:44 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: this is something taht we need to follow on
16:07:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: is Tim still on the call?
16:08:17 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... have you got a view on whether influence should be represented as a superclasss in the UML diagram
16:08:25 <khalidBelhajjame_> tlebo: I am inclined towards to
16:08:57 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the problem with inheritance, is that the attributes are inherited, which pose problem, like influencer and influencee
16:09:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:09:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:09:03 <Luc> q?
16:09:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: UML is closer to object oriented programming style
16:10:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is not desirable in our context
16:10:32 <Luc> q?
16:10:33 <stainPhone> For instance wasInfluencedBy(agent, activity) 
16:10:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:10:50 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: we have to revisit this issue
16:10:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and come back with a concrete proposal
16:11:02 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:11:04 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:11:05 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:11:05 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:11:07 <Zakim> -??P20
16:11:10 <Zakim> -stain
16:11:12 <khalidBelhajjame_> #luc thanks
16:11:14 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:11:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> @luc, thanks
16:11:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:11:31 <Zakim> -??P21
16:11:35 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:12:41 <Zakim> -Luc.a
16:15:26 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:22:17 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
17:00:17 <Zakim> -Luc
17:05:18 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, GK, in SW_(PROV)11:00AM
17:05:19 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:05:19 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.781.273.aabb, MacTed, stain, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aadd, Ivan, +329331aaee, +44.131.467.aaff, TomDN, jun, jcheney,
17:05:19 <Zakim> ... +1.315.330.aagg, tlebo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, dgarijo
18:30:10 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov