15:15:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:15:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-prov-irc
15:15:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:15:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:15:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:15:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
15:15:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:15:23 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2012
15:26:10 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.12.13
15:45:30 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
15:51:47 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:54:41 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
15:55:10 <pgroth> trackbot, start telcon
15:55:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:55:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:55:14 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:15 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:55:15 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2012
15:55:17 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:55:17 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:26 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.12.13
15:55:35 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:40 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier
15:55:48 <pgroth> Regrets: Graham Klyne, Luc Moreau
15:57:07 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:35 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:57:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:57:54 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:57:54 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:58:11 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:01 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:59:06 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:59:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:59:10 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:59:10 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:59:15 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:59:17 <Paolo> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:17 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:59:39 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
16:00:12 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:00:13 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:00:36 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaaa
16:00:36 <Zakim> +??P8
16:00:43 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me
16:00:43 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
16:00:43 <jun> jun has joined #prov
16:01:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:01:36 <ivan> zakim, code?
16:01:36 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
16:01:44 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:01:44 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:01:53 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:02:07 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
16:02:11 <Zakim> +ivan
16:02:38 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
16:02:44 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb
16:02:44 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
16:03:29 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
16:03:44 <Zakim> +??P37
16:03:49 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
16:03:56 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-12-06
16:04:02 <Zakim> + +329331aadd
16:04:02 <pgroth> Minutes of Dec. 06, 2012
16:04:08 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
16:04:08 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
16:04:09 <tlebo> +1
16:04:16 <ivan> +!
16:04:17 <dgarijo> I wasn't there, +0
16:04:18 <TomDN> +1
16:04:19 <ivan> +1
16:04:23 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me
16:04:23 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:04:25 <Paolo> 0 (not present)
16:04:28 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:04:30 <smiles> +1
16:04:32 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:04:37 <hook> 0 (not present)
16:04:41 <jcheney> 0 (not present; I seem to be listed as both present & absent)
16:04:43 <Curt> 0 (not present)
16:04:48 <SamCoppens> +1
16:05:01 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of Dec. 06, 2012 Telcon
16:05:03 <SamCoppens> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:05:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:05:34 <Paolo> pgroth: tlebo still working on his action
16:05:54 <Paolo> pgroth: we can close all issues around questionnaire
16:06:09 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:06:18 <pgroth> q?
16:06:18 <Paolo> pgroth: stephan not on the call, we are closing the issues, we assume the questionnaires are done
16:07:07 <Paolo> pgroth: action 151 done. will elaborate. action-153 also done
16:07:11 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:07:16 <Zakim> +??P49
16:07:35 <Paolo> pgroth: still open actions 154, 155
16:07:47 <Paolo> jcheney: working on it, please leave it open
16:07:59 <Paolo> Paolo: er, wil get to that, thanks for the reminder
16:08:18 <Paolo> pgroth: action 156 to be discussed in the XML section of the agenda
16:08:59 <tlebo> :-)
16:09:01 <pgroth> Topic: Congrats CR
16:09:36 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/12/12/a-major-release-of-prov/
16:09:51 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Call_For_Implementations
16:09:54 <Paolo> pgroth: we went to CR, this implies a major release of the whole set of docs. now is the time to advertise these. may use blog and web page for this
16:10:22 <Paolo> pgroth: encourage people to comment, implement, use
16:10:39 <Paolo> Paolo: I will send to DataONE as I have done in the past
16:10:58 <Paolo> q+
16:11:05 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:11:45 <Paolo> Paolo: will send to DBWorld as well
16:11:45 <jun> I can send to pub-lif list
16:12:16 <jun> s/pub-lif/hcls/
16:12:33 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
16:12:33 <Paolo> ivan: will post to sem-web list
16:12:42 <hook> there is also the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)'s semantic web mailing list and the preservation & stewardship mailing list
16:12:54 <hook> sure
16:13:24 <Zakim> +??P54
16:13:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts
16:13:48 <tlebo> ok.
16:13:53 <zednik> ok
16:13:56 <dgarijo> ok
16:14:01 <Paolo> pgroth: editors to update the drafts back to "editor's draft" status
16:14:20 <dgarijo> ok
16:14:28 <pgroth> q?
16:14:29 <Paolo> pgroth: please dgarijo check the link to DC
16:14:47 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:14:55 <Paolo> pgroth: we've got nice PROV logos
16:14:55 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
16:15:53 <Paolo> pgroth: please fill in implementation survey, so we know how we are going to meet our exit criteria
16:15:58 <dgarijo> **linked fix in the page**
16:16:07 <dgarijo> s/fix/fixed
16:16:26 <dgarijo> I will fill in a survey
16:16:28 <Paolo> pgroth: in particular if an impl.  builds upon (?) or connect with another impl
16:16:29 <jun> q+ what's the deadline?
16:16:39 <pgroth> ack jun
16:17:01 <Zakim> +??P56
16:17:04 <Dong> Southampton will submit reports soon (by the end of 2012), 9 applications in total
16:17:13 <GK> zakim, ??p56 is me
16:17:13 <Zakim> +GK; got it
16:17:20 <jun> ok, thanks!
16:17:20 <dgarijo> so, internal deadline: First week of January. Got it
16:17:21 <Paolo> pgroth: official deadline end of January, but internally fist week of Jan. would be ideal, so we know where our gaps are
16:17:29 <pgroth> q?
16:17:53 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ Reminder
16:18:28 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:18:29 <Paolo> pgroth: a number of issues on the list by GK
16:18:34 <GK> I just joined the call.  Will trtyto field any questions.
16:18:50 <pgroth> i think i will do it
16:18:57 <Paolo> GK: (very hard to hear)
16:18:57 <ivan> graham, we do not understand you
16:19:00 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:19:25 <GK> OK.  VOIP problems again.
16:19:31 <Paolo> pgroth: (reporting for GK)
16:20:07 <Paolo> pgroth: major proposal ew need comments on: we introduced a description of content negotiation -- in spec. provenance services
16:20:16 <Paolo> pgroth: this is new to the doc
16:20:52 <Paolo> pgroth: also updated def. of prov services description, specifically on whether our use of RDF for service description is appropriate
16:21:25 <Paolo> pgroth: also support for SPARQL query endpoints that can answer questions about provenance
16:21:39 <Paolo> pgroth: does that reuire a new link type? (?)
16:22:07 <Paolo> pgroth: also provenance pingback -- forward pointers to provenance
16:22:08 <pgroth> q?
16:22:19 <GK> It's not using *provenance* from somewhere else…. it's generating provenance somewhere else...
16:22:20 <Paolo> s/reuire/require
16:22:38 <GK> … i.e. using the resource, and being able to provide priovenance back to the resource spublisher
16:22:58 <GK> Im thinkl you giot it.
16:23:23 <Paolo> pgroth: please all look a these issues and contribute to the discussion on the list
16:23:38 <Paolo> pgroth: hopefully all sorted by 2nd week in Jan
16:23:41 <GK> I also need to follow up some responses from LDP particpants
16:23:50 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Dictionary
16:23:52 <TomDN> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html
16:24:25 <TomDN> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/PROV-Dictionary_discussion.txt
16:24:53 <Paolo> TomDN: need to open the txt file above to follow the discussion...
16:25:28 <Paolo> TomDN: problems with the constraints and notation the editors did not like
16:25:39 <Paolo> TomDN: txt file includes new proposed notation
16:26:28 <Paolo> TomDN: problem is that all membership must be in one relation. This won't work for long lists
16:27:14 <Paolo> TomDN: propose the hadMember notation to align with Collections. multiple such statements are allowed
16:27:44 <ivan> q+
16:27:56 <pgroth> ack ivan
16:28:12 <tlebo> It's been a while since this group's made a design decision. Do we still remember how to do this ;-)
16:28:19 <Paolo> TomDN: the proposed change is local to the dictionary doc
16:28:23 <pgroth> q?
16:28:26 <smiles> q+
16:28:31 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:29:08 <tlebo> KeyValue pairs can be Entities.
16:29:09 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:29:18 <Paolo> smiles: is that really true that this has no effect in prov-n?  now the second parameter is no longer an entity
16:29:38 <pgroth> q+
16:29:41 <Paolo> TomDN: yes but that's one of the extensions for dictionary
16:29:57 <pgroth> ack
16:30:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:30:30 <GK> Hmmm.. if entities can be key-value pairs, then maybe can align with LDP containers proposal more?
16:30:39 <Paolo> pgroth: if there are no issues with this, it's ok to go ahead with the changes, but give the group an opportunity to review them
16:31:04 <tlebo> +1 on issue 1
16:31:14 <Luc> just stepping in, without having heard the discussion: it may be problematic to have hadMember(c,{k,e})  {k,e} is not an entity, but e is
16:31:22 <Paolo> TomDN: issue 2 is on completeness of dictionaries
16:31:32 <GK> cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#linked-data-platform-container
16:32:16 <Paolo> TomDN: old notation (with the 'true" flag) is problematic -- see the comment in txt file, section 2
16:33:07 <Paolo> TomDN: proposed / alt 1: add complete attribute to dictionary itself
16:33:11 <MacTed> GK - is there a conflict between LDP containers and what we're discussing (i.e., would what's here break LDP containers)?  note that PROV is general case, and LDP is a specific case, so they needn't be in perfect sync; e.g., LDP may be more restrictive
16:33:16 <GK> I'm worried that this might fall foul of RDF monotonicity
16:34:24 <Paolo> TomDN: proposed alt 2: start from EmptyDictionary, then insert
16:34:38 <Paolo> TomDN: the result must be complete
16:34:39 <GK> @MacTed - not seeing any breakage, just trying to make sure we're aware and making sure things can be used together.  I guess my thinking is that (if it makes sense) use LDP structure as base and focus PROV effort on container-based provenance
16:34:43 <Paolo> q+
16:34:54 <MacTed> GK - I'm not understanding your concern.  "RDF monotonicity" meaning?
16:35:09 <tlebo> I'm not sure you'd "be sure" that it's complete in ALTERNATIVE 2... since other derivations could have inserted elements.
16:35:25 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:35:25 <GK> @macted - meaning that it should not be possible to invalidfate anyinference by adding a new RDF statement
16:35:43 <MacTed> GK - "Linked Data Platform" is not parallel to nor core of "Linked Data" nor "RDF".  interpretation based on naming is unfortunate.
16:36:36 <tlebo> +1 to "I'm telling you that I think it's closed" as opposed to relying on walking through a derivation to see.
16:36:38 <Paolo> Paolo: does alt 2 really entail completeness?
16:36:41 <GK> i.e. whenever   a |= b   then a \/ x |= b for any x, where a, b and x are RDF graphs.
16:37:01 <pgroth> q?
16:37:37 <Paolo> pgroth: can we leave both of these in the draft and have people discuss/select?
16:37:54 <Paolo> TomDN: sec. 3 is on constraints
16:37:58 <GK> @macted - agreed, but if it makes sense to re-use it seems that would be a Good Thing.
16:38:24 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
16:39:25 <Zakim> +Luc
16:40:30 <pgroth> q?
16:40:39 <Paolo> TomDN: seeking help with the very last constraint
16:41:32 <Paolo> jcheney: conclusion of the rule can be fixed and formalized (each member of d1 is also a member of d2 and vice versa)
16:41:50 <Paolo> jcheney: this requires a more expressive logic than what we currently use
16:42:00 <Paolo> q+
16:42:08 <pgroth> ack Paolo
16:42:25 <MacTed> GK - I think LDP is too much moving target, and also too much "subset" to be considered for this re-use.
16:43:57 <Paolo> Paolo: last constraint effectively *defines* that provenance of dictionaries is complete
16:44:42 <Paolo> pgroth: next steps: you could solicit a discussion on these issues, and then go for a proper review
16:45:10 <Paolo> pgroth: or: we do a draft first, then "discuss by review"
16:45:12 <GK> @macted I more than partly agree.   OTOH, don't want to completely ignore what seems to be a significant effort.  I was specifically asked to consider LDP views for PROV-AQ stuff (which I know isn't the same thing, but the principle seems applicabl;e).
16:45:52 <Paolo> TomDN: agree on option 1
16:46:03 <Paolo> pgroth: so please start a discussion and then we will appoint reviewers
16:46:54 <Paolo> TomDN: nothing about prov-xml in the doc. are the prov-xml people planning to implement dictionaries? if so they would be best placed to add this part
16:47:05 <tlebo> seems like it's not stable enough to fill out the PROV-XML examples.
16:47:17 <Paolo> pgroth: best to first agree on these issues, add XML examples later
16:47:25 <TomDN> :)
16:47:27 <tlebo> +1 great stuff, @TomDN
16:47:28 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-xml
16:47:35 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:47:35 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:47:45 <TomDN> @tlebo, tnx!
16:47:48 <Paolo> pgroth: status update?
16:48:06 <Paolo> zednik: FPWD with good feedback from the group
16:48:23 <Paolo> zednik: still processing the feedback
16:48:54 <Paolo> zednik: need to differentiate the two XML serial. that we have (one native, one for prov-o)
16:49:16 <Paolo> zednik: will add naming conventions to the editor's draft. should be ready very soon
16:49:21 <smiles> Could someone raise an issue for the primer, so I can be clear what is required?
16:49:40 <pgroth> q?
16:49:54 <Paolo> pgroth: any feedback from xml people?
16:50:13 <hook> we also got feedback from Stian on namespaces http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvXMLNamespaces
16:50:16 <Paolo> zednik: early to tell
16:50:29 <Paolo> pgroth: comments?
16:50:29 <pgroth> q?
16:50:38 <smiles> q+
16:51:04 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:51:40 <pgroth> prov:Entity
16:51:42 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:51:47 <pgroth> <prov:entity
16:52:01 <Paolo> pgroth: people who looked at the XMl in the primer under Turtle, thought it was for the RDF. that was confusing
16:52:09 <zednik> q+
16:52:10 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:52:15 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:52:18 <Paolo> pgroth: need to clarify
16:53:04 <zednik> q-
16:53:42 <MacTed> putting an inline comment in the example(s) might be worthwhile...
16:54:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:54:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:54:19 <Paolo> smiles: problem is there are many examples, it would be messy
16:55:09 <Paolo> MacTed: there is a risk we are creating confusion, can't expect others to be clear about the distinction amongst the XML versions
16:55:09 <tlebo> @smiles, perhaps replace "XML Example (hide all)" with "PROV-XML Example (hide all)"+= link to prov-xml in every title to an example.
16:55:29 <Paolo> pgroth: it's just a matter of clarifying that prov-xml is not prov-o xml
16:55:53 <zednik> q+
16:55:56 <Paolo> pgroth: only have one type of XML serial visible
16:56:13 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:56:13 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:56:13 <tlebo> -.5 to @pgroth 's "show only one"
16:56:13 <smiles> @tlebo Could do, certainly, but I'm not clear if it completely solves the problem
16:56:14 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:56:37 <tlebo> @smiles every bit throughout helps.
16:56:43 <Paolo> zednik: technically it can be easy to add the message to convey the distinction without too much manual effort
16:56:51 <pgroth> that's fair enough
16:56:53 <Curt> Would it be worth adding a sentence in the OVERVIEW saying PROV-XML is not an RDF/XML version of PROV-O (in addition to adding to primer)
16:57:00 <Paolo> zednik: we should present rather than hide the distinction
16:57:16 <Luc> q+
16:57:25 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:57:30 <MacTed> +1 present distinction, don't hid it.  confusion won't only come in *here* -- what happens when PROV-XML is encountered in the wild, and taken for RDF/XML?
16:57:53 <smiles> q+
16:57:54 <tlebo> +1 to seeing the entire document. That's why PROV-O's examples have full TTL in every one.
16:58:05 <Paolo> Luc: XML examples contain just entities, if we added the context, would it be clear enough indication that it's native XML
16:58:09 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:58:20 <tlebo> (and adding the <xml> bit at the very top)
16:58:23 <Paolo> Luc: i.e., by adding the root elements to the examples
16:58:32 <zednik> +1 to show entire <prov:document> in xml examples
16:58:51 <pgroth> Topic: Namespace
16:59:11 <Luc> @smiles: instead of say XML example, can we say PROV-XML example?
16:59:11 <Paolo> pgroth: status update on XML namespace:?
16:59:36 <tlebo> yup, I"m fine with it.
17:00:27 <tlebo> ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to the @xmlns: issue...
17:00:30 <Paolo> pgroth: on merging multiple docs into one ns in XML:?
17:00:42 <Paolo> zednik: need to look at what stian is proposing
17:01:19 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
17:01:46 <Paolo> pgroth: need a glossary off the landing page
17:02:04 <pgroth> q+
17:02:06 <pgroth> q?
17:02:09 <MacTed> +1 "say PROV-XML example"
17:02:10 <pgroth> ack pgroth
17:02:23 <tlebo> bye!
17:02:25 <SamCoppens> bye!
17:02:27 <dgarijo> bye
17:02:29 <Zakim> -tlebo
17:02:30 <Zakim> -TomDN
17:02:31 <Zakim> -jun
17:02:32 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
17:02:32 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:02:34 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
17:02:34 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
17:02:35 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:02:35 <Zakim> -dgarijo
17:02:36 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
17:02:36 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:02:36 <Zakim> -??P37
17:02:36 <Dong> bye all
17:02:38 <Zakim> -??P54
17:02:40 <GK> Bye
17:02:40 <Zakim> -Luc
17:02:43 <Zakim> -pgroth
17:02:45 <zednik> bye
17:02:47 <Zakim> -GK
17:02:53 <GK> GK has left #prov
17:03:00 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:03:04 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-prov-minutes.html pgroth
17:03:10 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:03:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:03:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, MacTed, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +44.131.467.aaaa, dgarijo, jun, ivan, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, +1.818.731.aacc, +329331aadd, TomDN,
17:03:13 <Zakim> ... jcheney, SamCoppens, GK, Satya_Sahoo, Luc
17:03:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:03:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items