See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 February 2013
<pgroth> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 07 February 2013
<pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies
<pgroth> tom are you to scribe?
<pgroth> you ready to scribe?
yes, hold on, trying to dial in
<pgroth> ok
ok: )
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-31
pgroth: approval of last week's minutes
<dgarijo> +1
+1
<khalidBelhajjame> +1
<Curt> +1
<hook> +1
<ivan> 1
<TallTed> +0
<CraigTrim> +1
<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of Jan. 31, 2013
pgroth: open actions: Luc needs
to FAQ and I responded to Clark & Parsia
... This closes all outstanding comments on the CR.
... Next week Luc and I can't make it, so we will cancel next
week's telecon
pgroth: We want to converge on
some outstanding issues
... First issue. Which identifiers do we use in PROV-XML?
... editors are for the use of qnames
zednik: Qnames seem to have the
least issues.
... so best remaining option
<hook> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers
pgroth: comments?
hook: Before we vote, could we list the disadvantages of qnames?
<tlebo> If you're excluding SADI!
<tlebo> ?!
hook: for example, full URIs are not valid values of xs:QName
tlebo: This design is currently excluding SADI?
hook: you must use a namespace
tlebo: So is prefix an XML
element?
... ignoring the existing XML ways to do this and defining our
own
zednik: We didn't go down that path. We use the standard XML constructs
<pgroth> Proposed: Adopt qnames for identifiers in PROV-XML
<ivan> +1
<SamCoppens> +1
<TallTed> +1
<zednik> +1
<khalidBelhajjame> +1
<Curt> +1
<hook> +1
<jcheney> +1
+0 (havent read all options)
<dgarijo> +0 (I haven't been following the discussions)
<satya> 0, I have not read it
<pgroth> Accepted: Adopt qnames for identifiers in PROV-XML
<Curt> I summarized the attribute ordering issue here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_ElementOrdering
pgroth: Next issue is ordering of attributes to support "nice" JAXB
zednik: I think there is
consensus now.
... Initially, the group didn't want to change the schema and
work via JAXB mapping/etc. But those options seemed too
complex, so Curt and I worked on adding ordering
yesterday
... So it's reasonable to proceed with ordered attributes
Curt: I think it's cleaner and more elegant
<pgroth> Proposed: use order attributes in prov-xml
Curt: If we can change our schema to work with such a widely used tool, it's worth doing
+1
<ivan> +1
<SamCoppens> +1
<zednik> +1
<Curt> +1
<hook> +1
<jcheney> +1
<TallTed> +1
<dgarijo> +1
<pgroth> resolved: use order attributes in prov-xml
pgroth: Last issue was still
under discussion
... How are the xsd files organized and is it appropriate for
the use of legacy xml?
zednik: Stian put together a nice
page with all options
... We've reorganized the schemas to include the core
schema
... Everything seems to be working. There's still some
discussion between Luc and Stian on the mailinglist.
Luc: I don't think there is consensus. Still have question.
<zednik> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvXMLNamespaces#Substitution_groups_and_abstract_elements
Luc: There are schema's out there
describing provenance, and we want to be able to include these
in PROV-XML
... The proposed solution with the substitution group seems to
require changes to legacy schema's.
... and this is undesirable.
zednik: The substitution groups
are meant to include elements that are in the provenance
namespace.
... for everything else we still have xs:any
... so you can use elements that don't use the prov:
namespace
Luc: Ok, thank you for the
clarification.
... So, as we were talking about JAXB, does this also work with
JAXB?
zednik: yes, the current version works with JAXB.
<pgroth> cool
Luc: So dictionary and mention work as well?
zednik: yes.
Luc: Why do we need a sequence of choice and abstract elements in the document element?
zednik: I think the latest schema
might fix that
... will doublecheck.
pgroth: So are you ok with the current solution, Luc?
Luc: Yes, it seems it's ok now.
pgroth: Seems the issue is
resolved now then.
... To wrap-up, is there anything outstanding now?
zednik: just fixing up the text.
pgroth: Once the text is updated, we can go to internal review.
Luc: We need to make sure to get the PROV-XML reviews back in time for the PR pulication then
pgroth: Dong and I have been working on the report
<pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html
pgroth: Dong did an impressive
amount of work.
... The report is almost done. Some small stuff remaining to
do.
... We'd like to send out the report for review on Monday, and
set up the timetable for publication and going to the next
stage.
Ivan: Maybe we can get the votes
in by email by the end of next week
... since there is no telecon next week
Luc: It may be good to try and speed up the process. But we need to allow them to respond/revise.
<dgarijo> there is a vocabulary named Jun Zhao :O
Luc: after the review.
<Luc> + section 7
Ivan: It looks good. We still
need something that says: we met the exit criteria and this is
why.
... We have a lot of implementations, 54, which is very
impressive.
<pgroth> everybody keep your enthusiasm up :-)
pgroth: Once we say we want to go to PR, do we need the big long email again?
ivan: yes, just like we did with
CR.
... I can help.
<Luc> is it time to think of a publication date, to finalize our documents?
ivan: Am I correct that there is not that much editing left to be done?
pgroth: Just PROV-Constraints
jcheney: will do that tomorrow
ivan: excellent.
Luc: If we are going to vote by
email, and the outcome it positive, we want to be ready for PR
as soon as possible. So we need the URLs with the publication
date.
... So I suggest that Ivan starts the process to get the date
agreed.
ivan: either March 7th or 12th
pgroth: I think we should aim for the 12th
ivan: yes, that seems without risk.
Luc: so the url's?
ivan: I think it's safe that the editors start preparing the documents for 2013.03.12 as date
<Luc> can we check all notes will be ready then?
pgroth: For health and safety reasons of half the chairs, we should ask the webmaster for the date :)
ivan: will do
... Do note: what we send out for PR is the final document. So
be sure to spellcheck etc. and be 100% sure
+q to ask if this also goes for the final notes
<tlebo> so, when are the PR drafts finalized?
<Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask if this also goes for the final notes
TomDN: Can we still touch the notes after we send out the PRs?
<dgarijo> ok!
<Luc> do we have time to review those that still need review?
pgroth: yes, but we'd like the final version of the notes on the 12th
<pgroth> ACTION: paul to remind note editors about March 12 deadline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/07-prov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-164 - Remind note editors about March 12 deadline [on Paul Groth - due 2013-02-14].
pgroth: We will send out a note via email about this
Zakim. mute me
ivan: So april 23rd will probably be the final final final final date for the notes as well.
<dgarijo> +q
Luc: I want to make sure that we
have the time to get all notes ready by March 12th
... Some still need review
... for example PROV-XML, maybe PROV-AQ, PROV-DC, ...
ivan: There's no last call for notes, so the 12th is a WD publication, so April 23rd is the final date
Luc: but some reviewers blocked the release of PROV-AQ
<dgarijo> -q
Luc: and we need a vote for the
synchronized release of the notes
... So we need an appropriate amount of time.
... Will we have enough time?
<satya> sorry, I have to leave
pgroth: We have 4 weeks to
complete reviews
... PROV-XML looks almost done, PROV-DC we will hear about
next, and PROV-AQ will probably be done in time.
<dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/AnswersToProvDCReviewers
dgarijo: update on PROV-DC. Been
working on response to reviews and edits in the document
... Raised new issues for the remaining things to do.
... Main issues are summarized on wikipage
... about dct:isVersionOf, we have enough material to discuss
with dct people.
pgroth: Would like review now or after issues are resolved?
dgarijo: Would like time to finish the issues. But if someone wants to have a look, be my guest. People can also answer in comment to the wikipage
<pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dc-note/dc-note.html
<tlebo> when is the dead deadline for the implementation report?
pgroth: OK thanks. We still have time for extra implementations. So submit!
+q to ask about implementations on Notes
TomDN: Where can we put implementations of notes?
<Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask about implementations on Notes
pgroth: On the implementation wiki page
<dgarijo> bbye
<Dong> bye
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: TomDN Found Scribe: Tom De Nies Default Present: pgroth, Ivan, dgarijo, Curt_Tilmes, TomDN, +1.818.749.aaaa, TallTed, tlebo, +1.818.731.aabb, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, +44.238.055.aacc, SamCoppens, Dong, CraigTrim Present: pgroth Ivan dgarijo Curt_Tilmes TomDN +1.818.749.aaaa TallTed tlebo +1.818.731.aabb [IPcaller] jcheney Satya_Sahoo +44.238.055.aacc SamCoppens Dong CraigTrim Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.06 Found Date: 07 Feb 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/02/07-prov-minutes.html People with action items: paul[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]