<trackbot> Date: 03 January 2013

<Luc> Scribe: dgarijo

<GK> Luc, Zakim's mutterings about conference ended may be because I dialled in briefly a few minutes ago, to test a new VoIP client.

<scribe> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03

Luc: Happy new year. Best wishes

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-12-13

Luc: vote for the minutes of last telecon

<Luc> proposed: approved last telecon's minutes

+1

<Curt> +1

<smiles> +1

<jcheney> +1

<stain> 0

<hook> +1

<Luc> resolved: last telecon's minutes

<GK> +1

Luc: actions. Tim had one. Another on Luc (not done)
... James do you want to add anything?

jcheney: no

Luc: Dong will respond to your feedback
... action on stephan to review the proposal of xml namespaces

WG implementations

Luc: will tackle that next week (stephan is not on the call)
... Paul went through the survey system and circulated the results.
... 6 implementations, 2 extensions.
... we're still far from where we thought we would be

<pgroth> me

<smiles> I still hope to do so

Luc: we have to make a call for filling the survey

I have already filled 1 extension and 1 implenentation.

<Paolo> quite a way away from constraints impl.

pgroth: 1 constraints and 1 implementation.

smiles: impl report and vocabulary usage

<Paolo> several half-baked implementations but would need additional resources to pull them off

<khalidBelhajjame> I have filled in one extension report, and Stian will submit one implementation report

paolo: several threads ongoing

<stain> I sent one implementation and one vocab-extension earlier today

paolo: the main one is related to the constraints implementation

<stain> another vocab-extension coming hopefully next week

paolo: I'll see if resources come along. Then I'll submit the report

<stain> dgarijo: have we submitted our corpus?

<khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, yes

<Curt> I will work with Stephan to submit a vocab usage for us

paolo: submitted a paper for the prov corpus.

<khalidBelhajjame> I mean not to as a report

Luc: it can be a proof of concept. It doesn't have to use the whole prov.

@Stian, yes, we did.

<pgroth> @paolo that's fine

paolo: if it doesn't have to be complete, then I'll be happy to fill the survey

<stain> @dgarijo - should that not be a "Vocabulary usage" submission then..?

@Khalid: did Raul submit roevo?

<khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, but that is covered by the tavernaprov and wing-plugin, which have already been submitted!

@Stian: Ah, I haven't filled an entry for the corpus. We do have submitted to the prov-bench.

<GK> @paolo, I think that's useful information to record.

<GK> (i.e. about constructs that need datalog extensions)

<stain> @dgarijo I think we should submit the corpus to the survey as well

Luc: if yur system tells us that a set of constraints have failed then it is ok.

paolo: ok. I'll work to realign the parser to the current version in the toolbox.

@stian: it makes sense.

khalid: I have submitted wfprov and Stian has submitted tavernaprov plugin.

jcheney: Looking to wraping datalog into a java program (similar to what paolo is working on).

+q

Luc: hook?

Hook: we got approval to work on an extension of Prov (meeting next week regarding that)
... 1 year effort
... processing and data analysis -> prov-o. We have an initial extension of the ontology.

Luc: Will you have something to submit by the end of Jan?

Hook: yes
... but it's an effort that will take more than a year

GK: No plan to do an implementation at the moment

Curt: Will work with Stephan and submit something

zednik: Will submit something together with Curt

Stain: I'll register a new voc extension next week.

MacTed: I don't think I'll submit something.

pgroth: I can't take the questionnaires to display all the result. Do we have all these emails anywhere?

stephan?

zednik: I do have the e mails.
... I'll look into it, but I do have the emails

pgroth: concerned about the interchange

zednik: we are getting some responses.

Luc: stephan, it will be useful to know what the actual coverage is. Some features may not be supported yet.

<Dong> @Paul: My Provenance Service consumes provenance deposited by Luc's validator

Luc: maybe we need to know whether we need to put more effor in those concepts.

zednik: I will look into it

<jun> <@luc, we will try to encourage prov-bench submitters to also submit the questionnaire.>

pgroth: we need other people to submit to the survey

<pgroth> @Dong - it has to be from different institutions

<Luc> action pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports

<Luc> ACTION: pgroth to send reminder about implementation reports [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Send reminder about implementation reports [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-10].

jun: we have coordinated several submissions for the wf4Ever project

Luc: are you still planning to work on the ocnstraints?

Jun: pressed with a project review. Will try

Prov-Dictionary

<Dong> @Paul, I understand. Anyone can post provenance documents to my service if they use our PROV-JSON format :)

<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about getting report results and interchange and to

Luc: is the doc ready for review?

pgroth: we should recruit reviewers for today

<Paolo> I would like to review it

pgroth: any volunteers?

<Dong> @Paul: and Luc has the translation service for all the official representations to PROV-JSON

<stain> +1

<jcheney> I'll have a look, not much time

<GK> I already did a brief review over the holiday.

<stain> all the historic authors..

<Luc> prov dictionary reviewers: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc

<pgroth> +1

Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Paul.

<pgroth> no

<Luc> prov dictionary reviewers: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, Paul

Luc: very good. Are we in a position to discuss hadMember?

<zednik> +q

Luc: I didn't follow all the discussion, but I got the feeling that there was some kind of consensus

stephan: currently hadMember doesn't support attributes.

Luc: there seems to be an aproval among the members of the call. The ternary relation sounds good.

PROV-AQ

<pgroth> we can hear you!

<pgroth> :-)

GK: no change since the last teleconf
... the main progress is about the discussion of the provenance service access. In particular sparql

<GK> My latest proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0002.html

my latest proposal ^^

<GK> Main points (re http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609):

<GK> - propose to use single link relation type for provenance service via template and SPARQL endpoint

<GK> - stick with RDF for service description (there's some uncertainty about this among some LDPers)

<GK> - expand service description to allow either or both service option

<GK> - service description with URI template unchecked (but see below)

<GK> - SPARQL service description per http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/ (i.e. nothing new here)

scribe: small changes to the existing document, which keeps us in line with the events happening in other places.I'm waiting for Tim's response.
... the question is about prov provenance service term. Does it apply to all service options?

<pgroth> I liked the solution is with multi-typing

scribe: when Tim comes I'll update the document.

<GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425

<GK> [[

<GK> While use of RDF for service descriptions is a recommended option, this specification does not preclude the use of non-RDF formats that a service may choose to offer, and which can be selected using HTTP content negotiation.

<GK> ]]

<GK> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#provenance-service-description

2 other issues raised at the previous telecon: 1) Service description format.

scribe: ^^
... I think this is sufficient for now.

<GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428

<GK> Broadly, my position is to make no further change. The use of other formats than RDF is not precluded, but RDF is the most developed option, and apparently has most interest. As such, it provides a reasonable basis for interoperability.

scribe: The other issue is related to the format of provenance.
... discussion about interoperability vs flexibility
... rdf seems to be the most developed option

Luc: regarding the last point, I didn't understand.

GK: myme types are allowed.

Luc: this group is defining 2 mymetypes for provenance, so they should be allowed.

GK: facing interoperability, what should we recommend implementers to give the maximum of interoperability?

Luc: my view is that we should not do that.

pgroth: several options for tackling the issue. One way is that we don't say anything. Another one is to provide a default.

<Luc> translators can help

pgroth: this is kind of the discussion we are having

Luc: thanks pgroth
... what is the timetable?

GK: affected by fb during christmas
... it also depends on Tim's availability.

pgroth: it would be better to get it out on thursday
... we want to have something for the Jan deadline.

<Dong> I think it'll be difficult to force implementations to support a particular representation, even a single default one. Can the supported representation included in the service description?

GK: just made the proposals, but I don't think there will be big changes.

Luc: I'm keen to make sure to make this doc ready when we make the recommendations out. It would be good if we had it ready for next week

<pgroth> yep happy to do it

GK: pgroth will take the lead of the doc next week.

Luc: that's the last time it will be released before the final release.

GK: I think we're pretty good.

Luc: the document no longer emphasizes query. Is it still reasonable to have the term "query" in the the title

GK: the query will gain relevance after the latest changes+

Luc: if we drop query then we have to change the short name. We have to keep that in mind.

pgroth: I would prefer to change it, but maybe that should be a question for the reviewers.

<Dong> +1

Luc: sounds good

<smiles> I can review this

Luc: who will review the document?

<pgroth> @graham, let me know when I should take the editing token

<GK> @paul, sure

<Dong> I can as well

<Luc> prov-aq reviewers: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong

<stain> +1

<Luc> prov-aq reviewers: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong, Stian

smiles: are we reviewing now or from thursday next week.

Luc: next week.

tty next week

good bye

<khalidBelhajjame> bye

<zednik> bye

<Dong> thanks, bye all

<GK> Bye. +10mins :)

<Luc> 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)

Found Scribe: dgarijo
Inferring ScribeNick: dgarijo
Default Present: Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, dgarijo, MacTed, smiles, GK, jcheney, +1.818.731.aaaa, stain, Paolo, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller]
Present: Luc Curt_Tilmes pgroth dgarijo MacTed smiles GK jcheney +1.818.731.aaaa stain Paolo khalidBelhajjame [IPcaller]
Regrets: Ivan Herman
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.03
Found Date: 03 Jan 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/03-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: pgroth