14:51:56 RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:51:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-prov-irc 14:51:58 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:51:58 Zakim has joined #prov 14:52:00 Zakim, this will be PROV 14:52:00 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:01 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:52:01 Date: 21 March 2013 14:52:06 Zakim, this will be PROV 14:52:06 ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:37 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21 14:52:52 pgroth has joined #prov 14:53:04 Chair: Luc Moreau 14:53:12 rrsagent, make logs public 14:54:22 Regrets: Dong Huynh, Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame 14:55:07 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:55:14 +[IPcaller] 14:55:23 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:55:23 +pgroth; got it 14:59:03 CraigTrim has joined #PROV 14:59:41 + +44.238.059.aaaa 14:59:41 +CraigTrim 15:00:12 zakim, who is here? 15:00:12 On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim 15:00:13 On IRC I see CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot 15:00:30 can I have a scribe pls 15:00:42 TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21 15:01:13 zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:01:13 ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:01:15 +Ivan 15:01:26 zakim, mute me 15:01:26 Ivan should now be muted 15:01:49 zakim, unmute me 15:01:49 Ivan should no longer be muted 15:02:15 hook has joined #prov 15:02:20 TomDN has joined #prov 15:02:50 zakim, who is noisy? 15:03:01 Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +44.238.059.aaaa (14%), Ivan (4%) 15:03:07 scribe, scribe, scribe .... 15:03:08 + +1.818.731.aabb 15:03:33 zakim, pick a scribe 15:03:34 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose CraigTrim 15:03:44 +Ruben 15:03:46 jun has joined #prov 15:03:51 Zakim. Ruben is me 15:04:00 Zakim, Ruben is me 15:04:00 +TomDN; got it 15:04:02 +[IPcaller] 15:04:09 zakim, +IPcaller is me 15:04:10 sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller' 15:04:18 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:04:18 +jun; got it 15:04:19 Zakim, mute me 15:04:20 TomDN should now be muted 15:04:46 scribe: CraigTrim 15:05:16 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-14 15:05:20 zakim, mute me 15:05:20 Ivan should now be muted 15:05:25 Luc: go through remaining issues in today's documents, but start by approving minutes of last week's conference 15:05:25 PROPOSED: ACCEPT last week's minutes 15:05:29 +OpenLink_Software 15:05:33 +1 15:05:35 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:05:35 +TallTed; got it 15:05:36 Zakim, muteme 15:05:36 I don't understand 'muteme', TallTed 15:05:37 +1 15:06:01 RESOLVED: last week's minutes 15:06:07 (sam is underway from another meeting, but he approves as well) 15:07:23 topic:Documents are published 15:07:52 pgroth: I put out a blog post to semantic web list 15:07:53 http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/21/prov-a-framework-for-provenance-interchange/ 15:08:10 pgroth: we have about 5 votes on the AC reps list 15:08:37 yes 15:08:39 Luc: Inviting participants here to contact their AC reps 15:08:54 zakim, who is here? 15:08:54 On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted) 15:08:56 On IRC I see jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot 15:09:58 topic: Publication date for RECs 15:10:09 zakim, unmute me 15:10:09 Ivan should no longer be muted 15:10:14 gone 15:10:17 or is it me? 15:10:28 it's me 15:11:27 Luc: Will be away for 2 weeks during period while we prepare documents, so need to do this next week, so need confirmation of dates 15:11:34 q? 15:11:46 topic: prov-aq 15:12:18 pgroth: Nothing to discuss - we know what to do in terms of addressing issues 15:12:38 pgroth: I think we know the edits we need to make from last week 15:12:49 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication 15:13:21 SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:13:24 zakim, mute me 15:13:24 Ivan should now be muted 15:13:31 Luc: Could you update schedule on Wikipage? 15:13:34 pgroth: Yes, will update 15:13:40 topic: prov-xml 15:13:52 zakim, I am with TomDN 15:13:52 +SamCoppens; got it 15:17:05 q? 15:17:11 hook: for avoiding JAXB element issue - we were thinking that this may be a JAXB dependent only type of issue - it really does raise the issue that JAXB does this due to ambiguity in marshalling and unmarshalling. That ambiguity is in minOccurs=0 and nullable types. The fact that those two can not occur together. How do you represent with element is missing vs element is nullable. How do we distinguish between those cases? 15:17:24 hook: One of the questions that this does raise is how dependent do we want to be on JAXB? 15:17:42 q+ 15:17:58 hook: JAXB is probably one of the more mature XML binding tools out there - used quite a lot by industry (Web Services, JEE Frameworks) ... there is probably an ideal case where we want to be independent of implementations 15:18:02 hook: but we can't ignore JAXB 15:18:10 ack pg 15:18:25 pgroth: What is the suggestion? And what are the ramifications? 15:18:55 pgroth: reason for PROV-XML was to make it easy for people who work with XML to adopt PROV ... otherwise we would have just used RDF/XML, but that's not nice for XML developers 15:19:16 hook: JAXB has a customization capability so we could customize binding 15:19:40 hook: this would allow us to instruct JAXB to not generate JAXB element; however this creates ambiguity in round trip marshalling 15:20:22 hook: customization is purely JAXB - we provide a customization XML file 15:20:37 hook: We won't need to touch the PROV-XML schema at all 15:20:50 hook: alternative is to move xs:any out 15:21:06 hook: that could be a good compromise - since it would not require ambiguity or customization of binding 15:21:18 hook: but difficult to get cutomization to work properly 15:22:04 Luc: given your timetable indicates a draft for review on the 28th (next week), I think it would be nice to have a resolution before you release the new draft so that we review a (near) final version of the PROV-XML documents 15:22:23 Luc: would it be possible for the editors to have a proposal on Monday and a decision by Tuesday? 15:22:26 hook: yes, sounds reasonable 15:22:29 pgroth: yes, agreed 15:22:59 pgroth: PROV-XML is a series of trade offs 15:23:01 q? 15:23:19 hook: one particular trade off is it acceptable to have a lossy round-trip marshalling in exchange for ease of use? 15:23:27 hook: we need to consider this 15:23:35 Luc: what is it that you would lose? 15:23:43 Luc: could you give an example? 15:24:06 hook: If you have an element that is in two states (declared - but value nil) and (not declared) 15:24:20 hook: when we unmarshall out into data structured, one of those two states will collapse into a more generic state 15:24:34 hook: when we marshall back we can't tell which of the original states 15:24:50 hook: this is rationale of why JAXB element is inserted into here to capture these two states properly 15:25:16 Luc: what element in the schema can be null? 15:25:28 Luc: it's none of the PROV constructs, right? 15:25:43 hook: right - nowhere in PROV-XML XSDs to we declare nullable type = true 15:25:56 hook: so we should verify the occurence of the nullable 15:26:18 q? 15:26:21 hook: we will verify this before Monday and reach a conclusion 15:26:41 Luc: Outcome is by Monday we will receive a proposal on what the editors recommend on this 15:26:44 Zakim, unmute me 15:26:44 TomDN should no longer be muted 15:26:46 topic: prov-dictionary 15:26:59 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21#PROV-DICTIONARY 15:27:53 TomDN: we may want to defer voting due to low attendance 15:28:31 Luc: documents are being released next week, so good to have resolutions ahead of that 15:28:51 Luc: I would recommend an email to put your proposals forward and if no negative response by Tuesday assume endorsed 15:28:52 q+ 15:29:12 pgroth: Yes, just to clarify - that means Tom puts out what he thinks it correct on each item and ask for objections 15:29:22 +[IPcaller] 15:29:23 q+ 15:29:27 zednik has joined #prov 15:29:48 TomDN: I will put the email out - most issues are editorials and TODOs - the two biggest ones are examples of data collection 15:29:58 TomDN: there is slight change in XML requested about IDs and attributes 15:30:16 TomDN: only one issue that we don't have a proposal for - that is the first one on agenda - 638 - was raised by James 15:30:31 TomDN: this is something that we don't know how to solve conclusively 15:30:38 q+ 15:30:47 TomDN: so I will send an email out asking for suggestions on how to fix 15:30:57 Luc: James could make a suggestion 15:31:04 q? 15:31:10 ack pg 15:31:28 pgroth: if anyone has any issues we could talk about that briefly 15:31:49 james should probably make a suggestion 15:32:30 Luc: whenever there is an equality sign between two sets of key value pairs it denotes equality over those esets? 15:32:34 TomDN: yes 15:32:58 TomDN: the issue is that the notation deviates from constraints of data model so we need suitable resolution for that 15:33:09 TomDN: will send out email and ask for more suggestions 15:33:14 q? 15:33:35 Luc: regarding issue 650 - I believe Stephan is updating XML schema 15:33:38 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/650 15:34:07 Luc: that would make xml schema aligned with the prov notation and ontology 15:34:27 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647 15:34:43 Luc: second comment is regarding issue 647; would it be the case that ... the key value pair becomes an entity 15:34:55 TomDN: no - I don't think that would be the case 15:35:10 TomDN: we are talking about making propery prov pair value (which used to be prov value) just a sub property of prov entity 15:35:26 TomDN: just to say arguments of prov value have to be an entity as well 15:36:47 TomDN: prov key value pair is described .. only thing we change is ... 15:36:53 Luc: what is the domain of prov entity? 15:37:19 TomDN: one of the implications is that key/value pair is an entity influence 15:37:36 TomDN: that could be an objection - we weren't sure what the implications would be 15:38:04 TomDN: implications for domain might be wider 15:38:26 TomDN: could you formulate that objection in an email response to the issue? 15:38:41 Luc: if you could raise it as a question to the team 15:39:00 q? 15:39:08 Luc: any other discussions on dictionary? 15:39:25 TallTed has joined #prov 15:39:28 Zakim, mute me 15:39:28 TomDN should now be muted 15:39:28 topic: internal reviews 15:39:49 Luc: I would like to line up reviewers for documents that are supposed to be released next week 15:40:22 q+ 15:40:29 zakim, who is here? 15:40:29 On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted), [IPcaller] 15:40:31 TomDN has SamCoppens 15:40:31 On IRC I see TallTed, zednik, SamCoppens, jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot 15:41:31 pgroth: we asked dublin core for review (dc committee group) 15:41:59 q? 15:42:05 ack pg 15:42:18 q+ for primer 15:42:21 Luc: any one here willing to review the primer? 15:42:33 pgroth: I volunteer for dc and primer 15:42:48 q? 15:42:51 ack pg 15:42:51 pgroth, you wanted to discuss primer 15:42:54 Luc: anyone else for dictionary (Simon) 15:42:59 Luc: last one is PROV-XML 15:43:08 q? 15:43:12 Luc: I will look at this one - anyone else? 15:43:15 q+ 15:43:56 pgroth: we need a fresh pair of eyes to look at this 15:44:12 Luc: can you ask James if you know someone willing to look at it? 15:44:16 I volunteer for PROV-Links 15:44:16 action: paul to ask james about xml 15:44:16 Created ACTION-168 - Ask james about xml [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-28]. 15:44:43 q? 15:44:50 you can put me down for the primer as well 15:44:51 ack pg 15:44:58 q+ 15:45:30 pgroth: I had comments on overview from Tim and Graham - if anyone else has other comments please reach out 15:45:39 I will look at overview 15:45:41 ack pgroth 15:46:22 topic: GLD Review Last Call for the Organization Ontology (ORG) 15:46:45 Luc: is it possible to put link to response 15:47:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html 15:47:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html 15:47:49 jun: so I sent email before call - but I think response looks reasonable 15:47:59 Luc: there were 3 points 15:48:13 Luc: derivation, constraints, invalidation 15:48:32 Luc: first point: they adopted a property chain 15:48:35 Luc: which is fine 15:48:48 Luc: not entirely clear - does this property chain - where does it show? in the ontology? 15:49:15 jun: claimed implementation in Ontology 15:49:33 Luc: only comment was on that specific point,but haven't had time dig into fine detail 15:50:13 Luc: 2nd point - they refer to constraints document 15:50:47 3rd point - invalidation - up to users to decide 15:50:54 Luc: they made no changes there 15:51:20 Luc: was this editorial changes, or more (which would imply going through last call again) 15:51:39 pgroth: was a last call working draft 15:51:44 Sorry I cut in here - I can't be in the meeting (I've instead presented PROV with great reception) - I've started work on a blog post about PAQ - with code sample at https://github.com/stain/paq 15:51:47 Luc: changes implemented is currently in editorial draft 15:52:04 for reference: http://www.slideshare.net/soilandreyes/20130321-what-can-provenance-do-for-me 15:52:11 q? 15:52:13 @stian - cool! 15:52:40 q? 15:53:12 q+ - we need to get this stuff out there 15:53:22 q? 15:53:23 q+ 15:54:00 q? 15:54:00 ack pgroth 15:54:25 yes 15:54:32 dst in europe is on the 30th 15:54:35 bye 15:54:39 bye 15:54:40 -Ivan 15:54:40 bye 15:54:42 -TomDN 15:54:43 -pgroth 15:54:44 -jun 15:54:44 -CraigTrim 15:54:46 -TallTed 15:54:47 - +44.238.059.aaaa 15:54:53 SamCoppens has left #prov 15:54:57 - +1.818.731.aabb 16:10:04 -[IPcaller] 16:10:06 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended 16:10:06 Attendees were pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan, +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN, jun, TallTed, SamCoppens, [IPcaller] 18:19:17 Zakim has left #prov