<trackbot> Date: 18 October 2012

<pgroth> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 18 October 2012

<pgroth> scribe?

<pgroth> Scribe: Curt

Admin

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-10-11

<pgroth> Proposed Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Telecon

+1

<satya> +1

<smiles> +1

<ivan> +1

<hook> +1

<zednik> +1

<Paolo> 0 (not there)

<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Telecon

pgroth: review open action items
... some action holders not present -- paul will follow up with email
... scribes -- need them, please volunteer!

Reminder about the timetable

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

pgroth: reviewing timetable ^
... need to get issues closed to go to CR
... luc sending out a lot of responses, need group to try to stay on top of them

Exit Criteria

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

pgroth: incorporated some feedback, put on list for review
... added explicit exit criteria for PROV-DM per james, inherits from PROV-O and N
... some wording updated

<smiles> Apart from the "independent" comment Luc made by email, they looked good to me

Luc: PROV-O - what is independent of what? it doesn't require independence between producer/consumer
... suggested - independence between producer and consumer
... similar to client/server, producer and consumer must be independent to demonstrate interoperability

<pgroth> An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a

<pgroth> feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For

<pgroth> each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been

<pgroth> demonstrated to exist

<Luc> "An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been demonstrated to exist."

pgroth: This is stronger -- SKOS wasn't quite this strong. If group wants it, ok..

<khalidBelhajjame> Yes, it looks stronge, but I think what Luc is suggesting is what one would exepect when talking about interoperability

smiles: makes sense that they should be independent

<Paolo> it would be more convincing

pgroth: worried about making it stronger than it really needs to be

<Paolo> ... two pairs of independent producers and consumers...

Luc: are there concerns we wouldn't meet the stronger criteria?

pgroth: we could for PROV-O, not sure about PROV-N

Luc: an implementation includes a dataset -- we do have some PROV-N datasets, this should be workable
... as long as we have two consumers of that

pgroth: will update with the proposed new language

ivan: What Luc proposes is good, but Paul has the question -- "Can we make it?"

Luc: If we have two implmentations from the same organization, they may not be considered independent

pgroth: we were trying to keep the threshold attainable
... but your language is better, just want to make sure we can meet it
... trying to figure out the right language, and consider the ramifications of that language on the exit criteria

ivan: the language may be a little vague, but should be ok with it the way it is

Luc: want to make sure the language reflects our intent

ivan: It's ok with me, it seems satisfactory
... (in my view, not official w3c position)

pgroth: ok, going back to original language

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

pgroth: we could have prov-n documents and two different implementations that could read/process them

Luc: will we have two independent consumers of prov-n?

<Paolo> sorry, what does it mean to "consume prov-n"? would this be an independently generated parser?

Luc: with my version, A producing and B consuming is one pair, B producing and A consuming is another pair, as long as A and B are independent

pgroth: thought consumption would be easier than production
... still some concerns -- let's postpone final vote on this

hook: if all features don't have independent pairs.

pgroth: each feature must be coverened, but given implementations don't have to cover every feature

ivan: it is considered to be an implementation for the features it covers

<ivan> s/implememmentation/implementation/

Paolo: what is a consumer? How about just a parser?

pgroth: yes, a parser would be

<smiles> yes

pgroth: interoperability pairs could be easier than the language we have now

<khalidBelhajjame> I think it makes more sense too

pgroth: I will rephrase the language and send it around for review by Tuesday next week

Luc: we can have an online vote

<pgroth> ACTION: Paul to revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-25].

PROV-DM issues

<pgroth> proposed: accept ISSUE-529 ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-499 ISSUE-518 as working group responses

<Dong> +1

<ivan> +1

<TomDN> +1

<khalidBelhajjame> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<zednik> +1

<satya> +1

Luc: 529 and 499 still have some comments

<smiles> +1

<pgroth> accepted: accept ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-518 as working group responses

Luc: there is a question from robert, a question about entity, and several comments from ivan
... and the one on mention, still to address
... will tackle most of them on monday

pgroth: requested acknowledgement from Robert on responses
... he is traveling

PROV-N issues

<pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-541 ISSUE-542 ISSUE-543 ISSUE-545 ISSUE-537 ISSUE-535 ISSUE-534 ISSUE-536 ISSUE-538 ISSUE-533 ISSUE-546 ISSUE-540 ISSUE-539 ISSUE-544 as working group responses

<TomDN> +1

<ivan> +1

<Dong> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<zednik> +1

<smiles> +1

<khalidBelhajjame> +1

<pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-541 ISSUE-542 ISSUE-543 ISSUE-545 ISSUE-537 ISSUE-535 ISSUE-534 ISSUE-536 ISSUE-538 ISSUE-533 ISSUE-546 ISSUE-540 ISSUE-539 ISSUE-544 as working group responses

pgroth: anything more to address with PROV-N?

Luc: should all be addressed now
... need to align bundle language with constraints

PROV-O issues

<stephenc> I just joined

<ivan> issue-552?

<trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552

pgroth: Tim not present, need to address issues

<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html

pgroth: can someone address 552?
... is this a PROV-DM or PROV-O problem?

<MacTed> both...

ivan: Can it be turned into subclasses?
... does PROV-DM support that?

<satya> I believe that is DM

Luc: Is this need from PROV-DM or PROV-O?

pgroth: DM definitions repeated into PROV-O, there aren't new definitions

<dgarijo> I can find it in the overview: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/Overview.html#Quotation

Luc: suggestion is to make quotation a type of derivation

MacTed: That still equates to a subclass

Luc: how is quotation expressed in PROV-O?

<MacTed> `The definition of Quotation includes "Quotation is a particular case of derivation.". However Quotation is not a subclass of Derivation, which is what the english would imply. A better wording, assuming I understand the current english would be: "Quotation is a kind of derivation".`

pgroth: there is a property and a class prov:quotation

MacTed: concern is that the english says it is a subclass, but isn't explicit where it should be
... it isn't consistent whether quotation is a subclass of derivation

<satya> Atleast that is not in the OWL file of PROV-O

MacTed: it sounds like the missing language is in PROV-O

pgroth: can one of the PROV-O editors address this?

Luc: should action to Tim ask if this is a bug

<pgroth> ACTION: Tim check whether it is a bug or feature the lack of subclassing for Quotation and Derivation see ISSUE 552 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find Tim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

MacTed: This is an example -- there may be other places where similar subclassing is missing

<MacTed> "lack of subclassing for, e.g., Quotation and Derivation"

pgroth: I'll revise the action and email Tim

<ivan> issue-568?

<trackbot> ISSUE-568 -- domain of prov:hadRole -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568

Luc: domain includes influence, which would allow expression of some relationships that DM does not allow

<dgarijo> I'll check it out

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

pgroth: dgarijo has open issue

dgarijo: I will check it out

Luc: what are the implications of changing the domain of hadrole?

<pgroth> q

Luc: for PROV-O last call, and on other documents

ivan: This is a bug, not a change in fundamental design, correct?

pgroth: need to confirm bug, but yes, not changing the design

ivan: If it is a real bug, there isn't a problem with the last call
... last call asks if there questions about design, not bugs
... If there are design changes, then we have to look at it again
... not sure how this will affect other documents

Luc: If we have a second last call for PROV-O, do we have to do that with the others too?

ivan: no

Luc: would that delay CR?

ivan: we want them to go together, so yes
... it would incur a minimum delay of three weeks

Reminder on Notes

ivan: but we aren't there yet..

pgroth: dgarijo sent email update on PROV-DC

dgarijo: we still need to write formal responses for issues

pgroth: PROV-AQ, graham will work on that towards Novembers

^Novembers^November

pgroth: other priorities, will delay PROV-AQ until November, thoughts about that?
... Needs a push to clean up final note, more important to work on implementations for now

ivan: the note, or a draft at that point?

pgroth: publish draft then, then the note later

ivan: suggest publishing the note with the rest of the rec, publishing together would be better

pgroth: PROV-Dictionary, make that into a note
... stain working on that

Paolo: we talked about this, we made a plan, haven't heard updates since
... I will remind stain

<Dong> Sorry, I need to go

pgroth: I'll discuss with Luc how to address this

(I have to go)

<Paolo> have to run...

<khalidBelhajjame> bye

<TomDN> bye

<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

FAILED: s/implememmentation/implementation/
Succeeded: s/implemmentation/implementation/
Found Scribe: Curt
Inferring ScribeNick: Curt
Default Present: pgroth, +1.617.324.aaaa, Ivan, +44.238.059.aabb, Luc, [IPcaller], Curt_Tilmes, +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim, +1.818.731.aadd, jun, Satya_Sahoo, khalidBelhajjame, +329331aaee, TomDN, MacTed, dgarijo, stephenc
Present: pgroth +1.617.324.aaaa Ivan +44.238.059.aabb Luc [IPcaller] Curt_Tilmes +1.661.382.aacc CraigTrim +1.818.731.aadd jun Satya_Sahoo khalidBelhajjame +329331aaee TomDN MacTed dgarijo stephenc
Regrets: James Cheney
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.18
Found Date: 18 Oct 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: paul tim

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.