Provenance Working Group Teleconference -- 11 Oct 2012

<trackbot> Date: 11 October 2012

admin

<Luc> hi I am looking for a scribe, thanks

<Luc> dong?

<Luc> @dong, can you scribe?

<Luc> scribe: satya

<Luc> proposed: to approve oct 04, 2012 minutes

<ivan> +1

<smiles> 0

<Curt> +1

<hook> +1

<Dong> @luc: sorry, just dialed in

<jcheney> +1

<Dong> +1

<Luc> accepted: oct 04, 2012 minutes

Luc: Open Actions

<ivan> issue-446?

<trackbot> ISSUE-446 -- prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446

Luc: Action on Daniel regarding Issue 446
... Daniel not on call
... Action on Tim still open

<Luc> @stian?

Luc: Action on Stian still open
... Action on Paul to revise Exit criteria - completed

CR Exit Criteria

Luc: Next topic: PROV Exit Criteria

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

Paul: New set of exit criteria proposed based on comments during last call
... Exit criteria for PROV-O and PROV-N are same

<Luc> 'provenance feature' ? is same as 'feature'?

Paul: Reviewing the exit criteria points
... Notes at the end of the page describes the type of implementations
... Features for models in the implementation are concepts in PROV-O and constraints in PROV-Constraints
... Evidence to illustrate that the conceptual model was useful for the implementation

Ivan: Clarify that two implementations should be independent (not from same department etc.)

Luc: Developing two toolboxes - would they qualify to be independent?

<pgroth> +Q

Ivan: Depends on the relation between the toolbox and the implementation

Paul: Downloaded the toolbox from Luc at VU Amsterdam - modified by student, does this qualify?

<Luc> it is your student who decide which feature to use, and not the toolbox!

Ivan: Depends on the type of modifications
... The W3C directors need to be convinced regarding independence of the implementations

<hook> +q

Luc: Confusing to use different terms - use "feature" consistently

Paul: Agree

Luc: Relevant to distinguish between types of implementations

Paul: Already cover that in the questionaire

<hook> http://semanticweb.org/wiki/RDFReactor

<pgroth> that's definitely an implemenatiaon

Hook: Leveraged a tool to auto-generate provenance trace(?) - clarify if it is an implementation or data mining app?

Paul: It should qualify as an implementation

<Luc> is there a requirement to make the code available?

<pgroth> no

<Luc> ok

<pgroth> the only thing is that you write a report

Hook: The implementation ensures that the traces are PROV-O compliant

<pgroth> +q

Stephan: Add a point to questionaire to describe the tool used in the implementation

Luc: Agree

Paul: Do we have question in questionaire to explicitly describe use of PROV?

Luc: What is evidence of the conceptual model being helpful

Paul: Self-reported description in the implementation documentation

Luc: What is the next step?

Paul: Up for discussion till next telcon
... Dong will have example documentation for submission process of implementations

Luc: What documentation needs to be created?

Ivan: Current documentation/wiki by Paul is fine

<hook> regarding decoupling models being helpful: the ISO community also takes this approach of decoupling models from encodings. has been quite useful, particularly for ISO 19115:2003 Geographic information -- Metadata http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26020

Luc: Cataloging of test cases

<Dong> The draft test process here: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html

Paul: Dong has set of test cases available on web site - implementation will output text file, which will be evaluated (pass/fail)

<pgroth> thanks Dong!

Luc: Is this approach used only for constraints?

Paul: Yes, for other features we will use Stephan's questionnaire

<pgroth> other than me and you

<pgroth> ?

Luc: Feedback from implementors of constraints?

<jcheney> not sure i'll have time, paolo is interested

<jcheney> reza had mentioned at f2f3 that oracle is interested; his recent email seems to back this up

Luc: Concerned that WG may not have enough implementations

<pgroth> +q

Jun: Has implemented some of the constraints - uses SPARQL queries to create collection of test cases for identifying violations of constraints

<pgroth> yes

<pgroth> good point

<jun> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html

Jun: Not sure about some of the points in Table 2 of constraint testing process

<CraigTrim> CraigTrim: zakim, I am aabb

<Luc> shouldn't identifiers be uris?

Paul: Agree, some of the points need to be reviewed

<Dong> Thanks Paul

<Dong> The 2nd column is meant to list the constraints each test case cover

Luc: Need to clarify the naming issue (?)

<pgroth> @jun excited that you are doing the constraints

Paul: Do not intend to implement all the constraints

<Dong> BTW, building a complete test suite takes significant effort, I'd like to invite anyone who has constructed test cases for constraints to share them with the group

Paul: Hence, need more implementors

Jun: Implementation is in context of the Workflow4Ever project

<pgroth> ack

<pgroth> sorry

Luc: Review the document and provide feedback

prov-dm issues

Luc: Next item: PROV-DM issues

<Luc> ISSUE-530, ISSUE-520, ISSUE-522, ISSUE-509, ISSUE-526, ISSUE-502

Luc: all feedback have been incorporated, confirm that the group is happy with the following issues:

<ivan> ISSUE-530?

<trackbot> ISSUE-530 -- Data Model Section 5.7.2 (Table 6) -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/530

<ivan> Issue-520?

<trackbot> ISSUE-520 -- Data Model Section 5.3.1 -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/520

<ivan> ISSUE-522?

<trackbot> ISSUE-522 -- Data Model Section 5.3.4 -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/522

<ivan> ISSue-509?

<trackbot> ISSUE-509 -- Data Model Figure 5 -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/509

<ivan> Issue-526?

<trackbot> ISSUE-526 -- Data Model Section 5.5.2 -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/526

<ivan> issue-502?

<trackbot> ISSUE-502 -- Data Model Section 2.1.2 -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/502

Luc: Confirm there is agreement on this issues

Simon: Yes

<Luc> proposed: ISSUE-530, ISSUE-520, ISSUE-522, ISSUE-509, ISSUE-526, ISSUE-502 are confirmed to be resolved

<jcheney> +1

<smiles> +1

<ivan> +1

<Dong> +1

<zednik> +1

<jun> +1

<MacTed> +1

<Luc> accepted: ISSUE-530, ISSUE-520, ISSUE-522, ISSUE-509, ISSUE-526, ISSUE-502 are confirmed to be resolved

<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0051.html

Luc: Next item: Normative sections in PROV-DM

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/998d228b4a8e/model/prov-dm.html

Luc: Introduced a new section on compliance in the document and identifies normative sections
... Should Appendix A be normative?

Ivan: This should be normative

Paul: Should namespace be normative?

Luc: It is

<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about namespace

<pgroth> 5.74

<pgroth> got it

James: Not sure if the table is enough to ensure that users are following it

Ivan: The documents (PROV-O) have the details

<Dong> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#cross-references-to-prov-o-and-prov-n

James: What instructions are present for implementors?

Ivan: No users will implement the mappings

James: Ok, was just wondering if there are additional requirements for implementation

Ivan: No

Luc: Table is relevant for mapping from one serialization to another

Ivan: Yes (should not be present in the exit criteria)

<jcheney> OK, so I'm happy with "this table is the starting point", as long as it's clear that it's not (meant to be) a complete spec of the mapping

<jcheney> Perhaps PROV-XML should have such a table too if it doesn't already

Paul: Having this section as normative helps the users

<Luc> proposed: to accept the split normative/informative in the current editor's draft of prov-dm

<ivan> +1 to James

<ivan> +1

<jcheney> +1

<Curt> +1

<Dong> +1

<pgroth> +1

<CraigTrim> +1

<MacTed> +1

<zednik> +1

<Luc> accepted: the split normative/informative in the current editor's draft of prov-dm

Ivan/Luc: Have a mapping table in PROV-XML

<ivan> great satya

<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Oct/0050.html

Paul: Updates on the DC and XML in the mailing list

<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0109.html

<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0113.html

<pgroth> @Curt/hook/stephan - can you send a brief update on the list on the status of xml?

<Luc> ISSUE-519 and ISSUE-523 (Influence Inheritance)

Luc: Next item: Original issues raised by Robert
... Discussing the raised issue, added an extra table for the relations (influencer and influencee)

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/9fb92e012cec/model/prov-dm.html

<pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b276b292cd9d/model/prov-dm.html#component3

Luc: Early feedback can be incorporated before next review

<Luc> wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1) implies wasInfluencedBy(e2,e1)

<pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/b276b292cd9d/model/prov-dm.html#mapping-relations-to-influence-table

Ivan: This is basically a subPropertyOf correspondence between the properties

Luc: Yes
... Feedback on the proposal

Ivan: Is this an editorial change for clarification

Luc: Yes

prov-xml

Luc: Next item: PROV-XML

<pgroth> next week

Stephan: Discussed feedback from implementations (e.g. Luc) and updated schema
... Created tools to build automated html pages from concepts descriptions (?)
... Updates based on feedback progressing smoothly

<ivan> thanks to all, bye

<jun> bye

<Dong> thanks, bye

<jcheney> bye

- DRAFT -

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

11 Oct 2012

Attendees

Contents

admin

CR Exit Criteria

prov-dm issues

prov-xml

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output