See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 04 April 2013
<pgroth> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 04 April 2013
<pgroth> can anyone scribe?
<pgroth> scribe: christine
<stain> args!
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-28
<pgroth> Minutes of March 28, 2013 Telcon
<dgarijo> +1
Vote on minutes of last week
<khalidBelhajjame> +1
<GK> +1
<smiles> +1
<stain> +1
<Paolo> +1
<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of March 28, 2013 Telcon
Review of Open Action Items
Update to editorial (for Paul)
<scribe> Closed - Graham took care of this
Blog post action items are also closed
<pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results
Results of current voting see link above
16 votes so far
Quite good. It would be good to have more votes.
Still waiting for some replies. We may get up to 19 votes by next week.
Paul: Please make sure your AC Reps vote.
<pgroth> 1?
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/29/dublin-core-to-prov-mapping/
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/04/03/successful-prov-tutorial-at-edbt/
Paul: 2 blog posts in the last week - see links above
<dgarijo> yes
<stain> yes
Thanks to Daniel and Stain for two additional blog posts
<dgarijo> no problem :)
They will be posted in the next week
Paul: review of outstanding items
<pgroth> james?
Paul: is PROV-SEM ready to be sent out for review?
<jcheney> just tried calling in will try again
<jcheney> sorry
Moving to another item
Paul: Not ready - edits not finished - more time needed - hopefully can sent out by Monday of next week
Update from Stephen
zednik: is ready for review but is missing the FAQ entry
but the note content is ready for review
Paul: is the schema finalised?
Stephen: yes but FAQ may introduce a modification to the new schema but not a change to the schema - so my intention that it is finalised
Paul: review by what date?
Stephen: staged last night - not sure
Paul: original reviews by 4 and
changes by 15
... if reviewed by 11 can you incorporate changes by 15
Stephen: hope so - small changes ok - but 11th and 15th should work
Paul: reviewer?
<Luc_> +1
<pgroth> +1
<TomDN> +1
Paul: any responses from our last publication of it?
? from Luc
Paul: will try to get someone from Oracle to take a look
and would be good for Henry to review
<SamCoppens> My review is following tonight
Graham: we have reviews in now from Stain and Luc - not one from Sam yet - had a cursory look at the review - not aware of any blocker there
<SamCoppens> but no blocking issues from my side
Graham: plan to review in detail in the coming week and finalise the document by this time next week - and then aim to hand over to Paul to finish up as will be out of circulation in 2 weeks time
Paul: Stain and Luc, could we vote to be a final note?
Luc: we want to publish the note - some comments are more serious than Graham said - related to ping back - would like to see some responses to my comments
Sam: read the document today - will send review tonight - no blocking issues
<GK> I'll need to look in more detail at Luc;s comments, and the others - I'll respond when I do so.
Stain: no blocking issues but some of my issues are more serious
Paul: then let's wait for next week for the vote
to ensure issues are addressed before vote
James: need reviewers for PROV-SEM
<jcheney> draft almost done: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/Overview.html
<GK> I'd like to review PROV-SEM, but cannot be sure I'll have time in the coming week.
James: vote on everything next week?
Paul: yes (if not today)
James: better if reviewers can look now rather than waiting for it to be completely done
<khalidBelhajjame> I ll review it
Paul: reviewers
<smiles> I can review it
Tom: a colleague (logic/maths background) and Tom will review
<Paolo> when is it due again?
<GK> I'd like to review PROV-SEM, but cannot be sure I'll have time in the coming week
Paul: review due by next Thursday
<Paolo> would love to but on leave, sorry...
<satya> I will try to complete
James: goal to have something complete - anything controversial will have to be left out
Luc: What change has been regarding this issue [?]
James: to get semantics general
enough to not constrain the formal constraints - less of the
connection to the inituitve model but necessary
... takes a while to figure out the right way to do that
<pgroth> reviewers - Tom, Khalid, (tom's colleague), simon, satya,
<Luc_> +1 will attempt a quick review
Simon: received some reviews -
only outstanding is from Craig
... don't see any blocking issues - will make the changes by
next week - timeframe is okay
<khalidBelhajjame> It read well, no comment really
Paul: agree, only a need for some
minor changes
... vote now
<pgroth> proposed: release prov-primer as a final note
<ivan> +1
<khalidBelhajjame> +1
<GK> +1
<jcheney> +1
<zednik> +1
<satya> +1
<TomDN> +1
<dgarijo> +1
<hook> +1
<stain> +1
<SamCoppens> +1
<Paolo> +1
<Luc_> +1
<pgroth> accepted: release prov-primer as a final note
<smiles> Great, thanks :)
Paul: congrats Simon and Yolanda
- received a couple of reviews - no blocking issues
- missing a review by Stain
Stain: almost finished - some changes re mapping but should be able to be done in the week
Paul: given that, do not want to
vote now
... Tom's review was very long. What was the main issue?
- issue with how we declare the classes - specialising the ontology and also a lot of editorial issues with intro and also with naming spaces - no criticism of the mapppings - so i think no blocking issues
Paul: Stain, which mapping to change?
Stain: the is version
- analysed defns and realised they are equivalent - version and revisions {/}
- not necessarily a directional element - don't want to go into the detail now
Paul: only one?
- yes
Paul: debate the issue online and delay the vote to next week
<Luc_> +1
Craig: review from Luc and Simon, thanks, no blocking issues, have enough time, give an update next week, do not forsee problems
<Luc_> +q
Luc: in my review, indicated I
have implemented PROV-Dictionary, but it turns out it was not
working - it took a while to find problem - extensibility
production and the new productions conflict
... problem will also occur in PROV-LINKS
... fix in both
Craig: suggest holding off on voting until the document is in a more final state
Craig = Tom
Luc: agree useful to have time to discuss issues further
<zednik> I have to leave now
Luc: 4 reviews received - thank you - have not had time to read them in detail - but you seem to be happy with the document - some small changes
<smiles> No blocking issues from me
<TomDN> none from me either
<GK> No blockers that I recall
<khalidBelhajjame> No bloking issues from me either
Paul: held it open a little longer - nothing to change in the text - just to rerun scripts to update the tables (essentially) - no need to review
<ivan> +1
<Luc_> +1
Paul: one or two people who said
they want to register another implementation
... there is still time
<Luc_> +q
Paul: status?
<Luc_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e1fa26593295/provenance/test/prov-family.svg
<Luc_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e1fa26593295/provenance/test/prov-family.ttl
<Luc_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e1fa26593295/provenance/test/prov-family.provn
Luc: tried to recreate the history of all our documents assuming the specs were out
<ivan> wow
<GK> Third link returns "error: provenance/test/prov-family.provn@e1fa26593295: not found in manifest" for me
Luc: covering all versions of the reports we publish - will ask all editors to check when finalised - also should add authorship - do we have URIs for everybody?
Paul: Ivan, can we use URLs for the name in the tracker to represent people?
<Paolo> @Luc: provn version, I get: error: provenance/test/prov-family.provn@e1fa26593295: not found in manifest
<GK> How many of us have ORCID IDs?
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/
Ivan: hmm, it can be used ... but
... often people put a page about themselves on the wiki ...
can you give me an example URL to look at in tracker?
... not ideal
<TallTed> WebID! :-)
<stain> you would have hoped for W3C to provide an ontology or dataset of every member!
Paul: wiki user pages?
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Ctrim
<Luc_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Lmoreau
Ivan: not sure those are
public
... what I was suggesting - if they are all complete that is
fine
... they will be frozen
<stain> in foaf they might or might not be seen to represent accounts rather than people..
Paul: use wiki ones - so if you want your proper info recorded update your wiki page
Luc: fine with that
<stain> it might be easiest to identify people like [ a prov:Person, foaf:homepage <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Lmorea> ]
<stain> foaf:homepage is inverse functional, thus identifying (but not being) the person
[?] useful to add the link from the RDF files ...
<pgroth> s/RDF/RDF
Paul: can we do content negotation on SVG?
Ivan: not exactly - not a serialisation
Luc: when the file is more or less finalised - post a blog explaining provenance - could put the SVG file there
<stain> you COULD define a prov-diagram that is a formal language that says how to describe prov-dm as a diagram - and then the SVG could still be a representation of the provenance
<TallTed> possibly better pages than wiki -- e.g., https://www.w3.org/users/42501
Ivan: could point to as wekk
<stain> TallTed: except they are seeecret :(
<pgroth> secret
<TomDN> I get Sorry, Insufficient Access Privileges
<GK> No, browser is asking for login
<Luc_> up to editors
Simon: re provenance for primer - what is the preference?
Luc: editors can decide to use the same provenance, don't have to
Paul: thanks everyone, good work, keep it up
<dgarijo> @Simon: we did already a file for prov-o. You can base yours in that one, if you want
Ivan: votes ends on Tuesday - well send an official transition request to publish - expect to get green light by email - try to take care of this next week
<dgarijo> bbye
<Luc_> bye
<GK> Bye
<stain> bye
<SamCoppens> Bye!
<pgroth> rackbot, end telcon
<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) Succeeded: s/Stephen/zednik/ Succeeded: s/Craig/TomDN/ Succeeded: s/TomDN/Craig/ FAILED: s/SVG/RDF/ Succeeded: s/SVG/RDF/ Found Scribe: christine Inferring ScribeNick: christine Default Present: pgroth, [IPcaller], christine, GK, dgarijo, smiles, stain, Luc_, khalidBelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aabb, ivan, TallTed, TomDN, SamCoppens, jcheney Present: pgroth [IPcaller] christine GK dgarijo smiles stain Luc_ khalidBelhajjame Satya_Sahoo +1.818.731.aabb ivan TallTed TomDN SamCoppens jcheney Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.04.04 Found Date: 04 Apr 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/04-prov-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]
