edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 24 November 2011

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.24
Seen
Bjorn Bringert, Christine Runnegar, Daniel Garijo, David Corsar, Graham Klyne, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Satish Sampath, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Trung Huynh (University of Southampton), Unknown DongHuynh
Guests
Trung Huynh (University of Southampton), Bjorn Bringert, Satish Sampath
Regrets
Christine Runnegar
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Stian Soiland-Reyes
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Accepted Minutes of Nov 17 telecon link
  2. keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document link
  3. release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes link
Topics
  1. Admin

    Luc proposed that we continue telcons through Christmas period except the 2011-12-29 - Paul Groth will send email to confirm. If too many are on holiday we might skip the call on 2011-12-22 as well. Still need more scribes.

  2. PROV-O

    PROV-O document is almost ready for first public working draft (FPWD) release. We agreed to move Section 4 (examples of ontology extensions) out to a new document called "Best Practices". The annex with current/outdated issues should be commented out from the FPWD. Assuming these changes, the working group voted for releasing the PROV-O document and the Best Practices document as FPWD.

  3. PROV-AQ

    Almost ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) - Graham asked Paul Groth to step in if needed.

  4. PROV-DM

    PROV-DM document updated to reflect the recently voted on proposals. Derivation still not settled. Yolanda's agent proposal being worked on. Current document is not quite ready for general review by the working group as Luc and Paolo, but feel free to have a look. PROV-DM document should be ready for internal review next week, aiming for second public working draft the week after.

  5. PROV-JSON

    Dong Huynh from Southampton presented their work on making a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM. (See http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/ ). The working group showed interest in working in a similar official PROV-JSON approach, volunteering was Stian, Khalid, Graham and possibly James; however it was agreed to not focus on PROV-JSON until a later stage. Chairs will look at the schedule..

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

15:54:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc

15:54:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

15:54:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

15:54:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

15:54:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:54:24 <trackbot> Date: 24 November 2011
15:54:27 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

15:54:27 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes

15:54:33 <stain> @pgroth I can scribe

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @pgroth I can scribe

15:54:43 <pgroth> thanks stain!

Paul Groth: thanks stain!

15:54:58 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.24
15:55:05 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:12 <pgroth> Scribe: stain

(Scribe set to Stian Soiland-Reyes)

15:55:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

15:55:33 <pgroth> Regrets: Christine Runnegar
15:55:44 <stain> will you do the magic things for bumping to the next agendum

will you do the magic things for bumping to the next agendum

15:56:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

15:56:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:56:17 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Paul Groth: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

15:56:17 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it

15:56:28 <pgroth> i actually don't know how to do it

Paul Groth: i actually don't know how to do it

15:56:37 <stain> ok, I'll do it

ok, I'll do it

15:56:48 <pgroth> I'll do the topics

Paul Groth: I'll do the topics

15:57:12 <stain> that's what I meant :)

that's what I meant :)

15:59:25 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

15:59:31 <Zakim> +stain

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain

16:00:12 <stain> can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break?

can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break?

16:00:24 <pgroth> ok

Paul Groth: ok

16:00:26 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes

16:01:24 <Zakim> +??P10

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10

16:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

16:01:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me

16:01:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

16:01:50 <jcheney> zakim, ??P10 is me

James Cheney: zakim, ??P10 is me

16:01:50 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it

16:01:53 <Zakim> +??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9

16:02:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

16:02:14 <dgarijo> well it looks like many people are on holiday today :)

Daniel Garijo: well it looks like many people are on holiday today :)

16:02:39 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller] is me

16:02:39 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it

16:03:08 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

16:03:20 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: Luc proposed that we continue telcons through Christmas period except the 2011-12-29 - Paul Groth will send email to confirm. If too many are on holiday we might skip the call on 2011-12-22 as well. Still need more scribes.

<stain> summary: Luc proposed that we continue telcons through Christmas period except the 2011-12-29 - Paul Groth will send email to confirm. If too many are on holiday we might skip the call on 2011-12-22 as well. Still need more scribes.
16:03:25 <GK> zakim, ??P14 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??P14 is me

16:03:25 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

16:03:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-17

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-17

16:03:34 <stain> short meeting today

short meeting today

16:03:34 <pgroth> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the Nov. 17 telecon

PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the Nov. 17 telecon

16:03:37 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

16:03:39 <stain> +1

+1

16:03:40 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

16:03:47 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

16:04:02 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

16:04:19 <pgroth> RESOLVED: Accepted Minutes of Nov 17 telecon

RESOLVED: Accepted Minutes of Nov 17 telecon

16:04:23 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

16:04:55 <stain> ACTION-43 - Pgroth organising now - just waiting for actual confirmation before sending out email - hopefully by end of tomorrow

ACTION-43 - Pgroth organising now - just waiting for actual confirmation before sending out email - hopefully by end of tomorrow

16:05:06 <stain> ACTION-44 on Graham - we can come back to this when we talk about PAQ

ACTION-44 on Graham - we can come back to this when we talk about PAQ

16:05:12 <GK> Oops, that fell of my Radar

Graham Klyne: Oops, that fell of my Radar

16:05:30 <stain> Stian asked about what we do over Christmas break

Stian asked about what we do over Christmas break

16:06:04 <stain> Luc: Propose to have last call just before Christmas, Thurs 22 - not call 29th - resume on 5th of Jan

Luc Moreau: Propose to have last call just before Christmas, Thurs 22 - not call 29th - resume on 5th of Jan

16:06:09 <GK> (I'll be on holiday on 22 Dec)

Graham Klyne: (I'll be on holiday on 22 Dec)

16:06:13 <stain> (me too)

(me too)

16:06:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

16:06:34 <stain> pgroth: sounds reasonable - but if too many o vacation 22nd we'll cancel

Paul Groth: sounds reasonable - but if too many o vacation 22nd we'll cancel

16:06:36 <dgarijo> I'll be on holidays, but I think I can make it

Daniel Garijo: I'll be on holidays, but I think I can make it

16:06:49 <stain> ACTION Pgroth: Send email about holiday break

ACTION Pgroth: Send email about holiday break

16:06:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Send email about holiday break [on Paul Groth - due 2011-12-01].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-45 - Send email about holiday break [on Paul Groth - due 2011-12-01].

16:06:58 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O

2. PROV-O

Summary: PROV-O document is almost ready for first public working draft (FPWD) release. We agreed to move Section 4 (examples of ontology extensions) out to a new document called "Best Practices". The annex with current/outdated issues should be commented out from the FPWD. Assuming these changes, the working group voted for releasing the PROV-O document and the Best Practices document as FPWD.

<stain> Summary: PROV-O document is almost ready for first public working draft (FPWD) release. We agreed to move Section 4 (examples of ontology extensions) out to a new document called "Best Practices". The annex with current/outdated issues should be commented out from the FPWD. Assuming these changes, the working group voted for releasing the PROV-O document and the Best Practices document as FPWD.
16:07:20 <stain> (I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once)

(I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once)

16:07:28 <stain> dgarijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up

Daniel Garijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up

16:07:35 <stain> dgarijo: updated document - almost ready for release

Daniel Garijo: updated document - almost ready for release

16:07:50 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

16:07:58 <dgarijo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

Daniel Garijo: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

16:08:07 <stain> I'll timestamp it

I'll timestamp it

16:08:31 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

16:08:38 <stain> pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?

Paul Groth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?

16:09:02 <Zakim> +Bjorn_Bringert

Zakim IRC Bot: +Bjorn_Bringert

16:09:02 <Zakim> +Satish_Sampath

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satish_Sampath

16:09:05 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:09:08 <stain> dgarijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document

Daniel Garijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document

16:09:30 <pgroth> zednik

Paul Groth: zednik

16:09:31 <pgroth> ?

Paul Groth: ?

16:09:32 <stain> q?

q?

16:10:06 <Zakim> +??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27

16:10:14 <satya> @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O?

Satya Sahoo: @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O?

16:10:16 <stain> Luc: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document

Luc Moreau: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document

16:10:27 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon

Khalid Belhajjame: Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon

16:10:51 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

16:10:51 <stain> Luc: what is happening with section 4, 5

Luc Moreau: what is happening with section 4, 5

16:11:15 <stain> satya: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long

Satya Sahoo: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long

16:11:27 <stain> satya: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML

Satya Sahoo: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML

16:11:29 <dgarijo> when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry.

Daniel Garijo: when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry.

16:11:33 <stain> Monday

Monday

16:11:51 <stain> satya: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O

Satya Sahoo: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O

16:12:05 <stain> satya: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability

Satya Sahoo: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability

16:12:16 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:12:18 <stain> satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O

Satya Sahoo: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O

16:12:38 <stain> (Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints )

(Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints )

16:13:05 <stain> Luc: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent

Luc Moreau: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent

16:13:43 <khalidbelhajjame> Can then Section 4 be released as a note?

Khalid Belhajjame: Can then Section 4 be released as a note?

16:13:53 <stain> Luc: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally

Luc Moreau: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally

16:13:58 <GK> q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence

Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence

16:14:16 <stain> Luc: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally

Luc Moreau: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally

16:14:35 <stain> Luc: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view

Luc Moreau: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view

16:14:49 <stain> Luc: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed

Luc Moreau: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed

16:15:00 <stain> Luc: what is the message of all those issues?

Luc Moreau: what is the message of all those issues?

16:15:16 <stain> Luc: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document

Luc Moreau: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document

16:15:22 <stain> q?

q?

16:15:30 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

16:15:57 <stain> Satya: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated.

Satya Sahoo: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated.

16:16:15 <stain> satya: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time

Satya Sahoo: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time

16:17:00 <stain> satya: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate

Satya Sahoo: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate

16:17:04 <dgarijo> what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there.

Daniel Garijo: what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there.

16:17:25 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

16:17:25 <stain> satya: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative

Satya Sahoo: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative

16:17:36 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik

16:17:48 <jcheney> I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document

James Cheney: I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document

16:18:04 <stain> GK: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism.

Graham Klyne: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism.

16:18:12 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:18:14 <stain> GK: so it *is* supported by charter

Graham Klyne: so it *is* supported by charter

16:18:15 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

16:18:15 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence

16:18:20 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:18:26 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:18:34 <stain> Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative

Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative

16:18:58 <stain> Luc: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts

Luc Moreau: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts

16:19:21 <stain> (but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?)

(but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?)

16:19:35 <dgarijo> @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc.

Daniel Garijo: @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc.

16:19:58 <stain> Luc: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems.

Luc Moreau: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems.

16:20:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:20:05 <stain> q+

q+

16:20:50 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

16:20:57 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

16:21:06 <stain> stain: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning?

16:21:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:21:10 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:21:11 <stain> Luc: yes, that's what I meant

Luc Moreau: yes, that's what I meant

16:21:20 <GK> q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well

16:21:40 <stain> satya: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them?

Satya Sahoo: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them?

16:21:49 <stain> satya: in particular if it prevents interoperability

Satya Sahoo: in particular if it prevents interoperability

16:22:14 <stain> Luc: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace

Luc Moreau: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace

16:22:32 <stain> pgroth: I think we need to separate questions

Paul Groth: I think we need to separate questions

16:22:53 <stain> pgroth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability..

Paul Groth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability..

16:22:56 <stain> pgroth: q2 is where this belongs

Paul Groth: q2 is where this belongs

16:23:03 <GK> @paul - good intervention!

Graham Klyne: @paul - good intervention!

16:23:13 <stain> pgroth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices

Paul Groth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices

16:23:26 <stain> pgroth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question.

Paul Groth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question.

16:23:48 <stain> pgroth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note

Paul Groth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note

16:23:59 <stain> pgroth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long

Paul Groth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long

16:24:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:24:16 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q-

16:24:17 <stain> pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD

Paul Groth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD

16:24:23 <satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q-

16:24:24 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya

16:24:25 <Luc> +1 to Paul's comment

Luc Moreau: +1 to Paul's comment

16:24:29 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:24:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:24:35 <stain> +1 to make a Best Practice document

+1 to make a Best Practice document

16:25:04 <stain> Luc: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document

Luc Moreau: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document

16:25:14 <stain> q+

q+

16:25:51 <Luc> what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples?

Luc Moreau: what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples?

16:25:53 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain

16:25:58 <GK> @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material?

Graham Klyne: @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material?

16:26:04 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

16:26:05 <stain> stain: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD?

16:26:13 <dgarijo> +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right?

Daniel Garijo: +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right?

16:26:15 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya

16:27:00 <stain> satya: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that.  If such a user comes to see what is the use for me

Satya Sahoo: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that. If such a user comes to see what is the use for me

16:27:07 <GK> ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM

Graham Klyne: ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM

16:27:14 <stain> satya: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised

Satya Sahoo: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised

16:27:42 <stain> satya: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4

Satya Sahoo: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4

16:27:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:27:53 <stain> satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document

Satya Sahoo: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document

16:27:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:28:54 <GK> q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table.  Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative?

Graham Klyne: q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative?

16:29:04 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM

Khalid Belhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM

16:29:10 <satya> @GK +1

Satya Sahoo: @GK +1

16:29:14 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples

Khalid Belhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples

16:29:20 <dgarijo> +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice?

Daniel Garijo: +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice?

16:29:33 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only

Khalid Belhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only

16:29:36 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:29:41 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame

16:30:06 <stain> GK: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that.

Graham Klyne: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that.

16:30:15 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:30:21 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

16:30:21 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table.  Meanwhile, just signal the current as

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as

16:30:22 <stain> GK: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative

Graham Klyne: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative

16:30:24 <Zakim> ... non-normative?

Zakim IRC Bot: ... non-normative?

16:30:25 <stain> +1

+1

16:30:34 <stain> pgroth: issue is that it is a lot of material

Paul Groth: issue is that it is a lot of material

16:30:45 <stain> pgroth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression

Paul Groth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression

16:30:52 <stain> pgroth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs

Paul Groth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs

16:31:13 <stain> pgroth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but..

Paul Groth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but..

16:31:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:31:39 <stain> GK: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document?

Graham Klyne: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document?

16:31:52 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:31:56 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:31:57 <stain> pgroth: would prefer just to move it out for now

Paul Groth: would prefer just to move it out for now

16:32:16 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down

Khalid Belhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down

16:32:20 <Luc> what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document?

Luc Moreau: what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document?

16:32:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative

Khalid Belhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative

16:32:43 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:32:46 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame

16:32:46 <GK> (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?)

Graham Klyne: (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?)

16:32:53 <stain> Luc: OK, can do that :)

Luc Moreau: OK, can do that :)

16:32:59 <stain> just copy and delete

just copy and delete

16:33:11 <dgarijo> @stian:+1

Daniel Garijo: @stian:+1

16:33:12 <Luc> @stain, yes, plus a small intro

Luc Moreau: @stain, yes, plus a small intro

16:33:18 <Zakim> +??P29

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29

16:33:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:33:31 <stain> pgroth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice   b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it

Paul Groth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it

16:33:31 <Paolo> zakim, ??P29 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P29 is me

16:33:31 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

16:33:48 <pgroth> option a

Paul Groth: option a

16:34:07 <stain> +1

+1

16:34:15 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

16:34:17 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

16:34:31 <stain> option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice

option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice

16:34:40 <stain> option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there

option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there

16:34:40 <GK> (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5

Graham Klyne: (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5

16:34:47 <dgarijo> +1 to b.

Daniel Garijo: +1 to b.

16:34:51 <stain> +1 to b

+1 to b

16:34:51 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: @GK :-)

16:34:59 <satya> +1 to b

Satya Sahoo: +1 to b

16:35:09 <smiles> +1 to b

Simon Miles: +1 to b

16:35:12 <dcorsar> +1 to b

David Corsar: +1 to b

16:35:16 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 to b

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 to b

16:35:24 <stain> I can take the action

I can take the action

16:35:30 <jcheney> Happy with either.

James Cheney: Happy with either.

16:35:32 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

16:35:45 <Luc> proposal: release both documents at the same time as fpwd

PROPOSED: release both documents at the same time as fpwd

16:35:57 <stain> ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document

ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document

16:35:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01].

16:36:11 <stain> satya: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document

Satya Sahoo: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document

16:36:31 <stain> pgroth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications

Paul Groth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications

16:36:39 <stain> satya: yes, and with link to examples in best practice

Satya Sahoo: yes, and with link to examples in best practice

16:36:44 <stain> Luc: sounds reasonable

Luc Moreau: sounds reasonable

16:36:54 <khalidbelhajjame> :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: :-)

<stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/bestpractices/BestPractices.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/bestpractices/BestPractices.html

16:36:54 <stain> RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :)

RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :)

16:37:23 <pgroth> Resolved: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document

RESOLVED: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document

16:37:37 <GK> I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain

Graham Klyne: I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain

16:37:42 <stain> right

right

16:37:46 <stain> but that is the same

but that is the same

16:38:11 <stain> pgroth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad

Paul Groth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad

16:38:14 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints

16:38:15 <GK> @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.

Graham Klyne: @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.

16:38:19 <stain> ;)

;)

16:38:26 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:38:29 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya

16:38:52 <stain> satya: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document?

Satya Sahoo: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document?

16:39:06 <stain> I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict

I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict

16:39:17 <khalidbelhajjame> We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-)

16:39:31 <satya> @Khalid :)

Satya Sahoo: @Khalid :)

16:39:32 <stain> pgroth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O

Paul Groth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O

16:39:42 <stain> pgroth: but we commented it out from the FPWD

Paul Groth: but we commented it out from the FPWD

16:40:02 <stain> satya: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document

Satya Sahoo: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document

16:40:08 <stain> pgroth: does that resolve it?

Paul Groth: does that resolve it?

16:40:13 <stain> Luc: Believe so

Luc Moreau: Believe so

16:40:23 <stain> (issues are public anyway, remember!)

(issues are public anyway, remember!)

16:40:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:40:40 <stain> pgroth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right?

Paul Groth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right?

16:40:59 <stain> Luc: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD   [ at the same time ]

Luc Moreau: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD [ at the same time ]

16:41:03 <dgarijo> +1 to that

Daniel Garijo: +1 to that

16:41:09 <stain> sorry

sorry

16:41:14 <stain> the Best PRactice document

the Best PRactice document

16:41:19 <stain> (which does not yet exist! ;) )

(which does not yet exist! ;) )

16:41:21 <GK> q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?

Graham Klyne: q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?

16:41:29 <khalidbelhajjame> Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document?

Khalid Belhajjame: Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document?

16:41:30 <stain> GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial!

GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial!

16:41:56 <stain> it will only be section 4 for now

it will only be section 4 for now

16:42:16 <stain> pgroth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week

Paul Groth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week

16:42:21 <jcheney> I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now.

James Cheney: I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now.

16:42:29 <stain> can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial  ?

can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial ?

16:42:52 <stain> Luc: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O

Luc Moreau: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O

16:43:11 <pgroth> Proposed: release PROV-O as first public wor�king draft with above mentioned changes

PROPOSED: release PROV-O as first public wor�king draft with above mentioned changes

16:43:19 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

16:43:20 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

16:43:20 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

16:43:20 <stain> +1 (witout the �]� thing)

+1 (witout the �]� thing)

16:43:20 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

16:43:22 <pgroth> +1

Paul Groth: +1

16:43:23 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

16:43:23 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1

16:43:23 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

16:43:54 <stain> (we're all waiting for Luc!)

(we're all waiting for Luc!)

16:44:23 <pgroth> Accepted:  release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes

RESOLVED: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes

16:44:24 <stain> Luc: supportive - but don't vote as a chair

Luc Moreau: supportive - but don't vote as a chair

16:44:36 <stain> pgroth: but I've been voting as a chair !!

Paul Groth: but I've been voting as a chair !!

16:44:38 <satya> @Paul :)

Satya Sahoo: @Paul :)

16:44:41 <stain> congrats everyone!

congrats everyone!

16:44:45 <khalidbelhajjame> Hurray

Khalid Belhajjame: Hurray

16:44:52 <stain> pgroth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along

Paul Groth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along

16:44:56 <Luc> congrats to the prov-o team!

Luc Moreau: congrats to the prov-o team!

16:45:04 <dgarijo> :)

Daniel Garijo: :)

16:45:05 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ

3. PROV-AQ

Summary: Almost ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) - Graham asked Paul Groth to step in if needed.

<stain> Summary: Almost ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) - Graham asked Paul Groth to step in if needed.
16:45:51 <stain> GK: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else

Graham Klyne: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else

16:46:22 <stain> GK: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball?

Graham Klyne: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball?

16:46:25 <stain> pgroth: happy to do the test

Paul Groth: happy to do the test

16:46:29 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html

16:47:08 <stain> GK: might not be available in the near future

Graham Klyne: might not be available in the near future

16:47:17 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:47:19 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

16:47:19 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?

16:47:20 <stain> pgroth: getting close to FPWD

Paul Groth: getting close to FPWD

16:47:32 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM

4. PROV-DM

Summary: PROV-DM document updated to reflect the recently voted on proposals. Derivation still not settled. Yolanda's agent proposal being worked on. Current document is not quite ready for general review by the working group as Luc and Paolo, but feel free to have a look. PROV-DM document should be ready for internal review next week, aiming for second public working draft the week after.

<stain> Summary: PROV-DM document updated to reflect the recently voted on proposals. Derivation still not settled. Yolanda's agent proposal being worked on. Current document is not quite ready for general review by the working group as Luc and Paolo, but feel free to have a look. PROV-DM document should be ready for internal review next week, aiming for second public working draft the week after.
16:47:39 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version

Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version

16:47:49 <pgroth> lots of echo

Paul Groth: lots of echo

16:47:57 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html

16:48:17 <stain> Luc: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented

Luc Moreau: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented

16:48:25 <stain> Luc: some questions on derivations

Luc Moreau: some questions on derivations

16:48:37 <stain> Luc: being edited as we speak

Luc Moreau: being edited as we speak

16:48:48 <stain> Luc: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well

Luc Moreau: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well

16:49:03 <stain> Luc: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo

Luc Moreau: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo

16:49:09 <stain> Luc: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review

Luc Moreau: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review

16:49:24 <stain> Luc: don't file issues on the actual current document yet

Luc Moreau: don't file issues on the actual current document yet

16:49:31 <stain> Luc: hoping to have feedback soon

Luc Moreau: hoping to have feedback soon

16:49:40 <stain> Luc: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation

Luc Moreau: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation

16:49:52 <stain> Luc: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible

Luc Moreau: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible

16:50:01 <stain> (You mean before christmas?)

(You mean before christmas?)

16:50:14 <Luc> @stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time

Luc Moreau: @stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time

16:50:20 <stain> Paolo: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment

Paolo Missier: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment

16:50:27 <stain> Paolo: most changes would be simplifying

Paolo Missier: most changes would be simplifying

16:50:35 <stain> Paolo: and not throw everyting up in the air again

Paolo Missier: and not throw everyting up in the air again

16:50:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:50:54 <stain> @Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 ..

@Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 ..

16:51:13 <stain> Paolo: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility

Paolo Missier: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility

16:51:16 <dgarijo> @Stian: you mean Activity, right?

Daniel Garijo: @Stian: you mean Activity, right?

16:51:21 <Luc> @stain, what is this? PE -> account?

Luc Moreau: @stain, what is this? PE -> account?

16:51:21 <stain> yes, sorry

yes, sorry

16:51:25 <stain> Activity

Activity

16:51:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:51:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:51:52 <stain> so when do we get the internal review?

so when do we get the internal review?

16:51:57 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-JSON

5. PROV-JSON

Summary: Dong Huynh from Southampton presented their work on making a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM. (See http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/ ). The working group showed interest in working in a similar official PROV-JSON approach, volunteering was Stian, Khalid, Graham and possibly James; however it was agreed to not focus on PROV-JSON until a later stage. Chairs will look at the schedule..

<stain> Summary: Dong Huynh from Southampton presented their work on making a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM. (See http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/ ). The working group showed interest in working in a similar official PROV-JSON approach, volunteering was Stian, Khalid, Graham and possibly James; however it was agreed to not focus on PROV-JSON until a later stage. Chairs will look at the schedule..
16:52:01 <stain> if second WD is in 2 weeks

if second WD is in 2 weeks

16:52:07 <Luc> @stain, hopefully, next week

Luc Moreau: @stain, hopefully, next week

16:52:26 <stain> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/

16:52:49 <stain> pgroth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed?

Paul Groth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed?

16:53:08 <stain> pgroth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM

Paul Groth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM

16:53:19 <stain> pgroth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed

Paul Groth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed

16:53:29 <stain> pgroth: given time.. let us hear about it

Paul Groth: given time.. let us hear about it

<stain> Guest: Trung Dong (DongHuynh) Huynh, University of Southampton
<stain> Guest: Bjorn (Bjorn_Bringert) Bringert
<stain> Guest: Satish (Satish_Sampath) Sampath
16:53:50 <stain> DongHuynh: observing WG development

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: observing WG development

16:53:55 <stain> DongHuynh: first time in meeting

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: first time in meeting

16:54:09 <stain> DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications

16:54:21 <stain> DongHuynh: to have a common format

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: to have a common format

16:54:29 <stain> DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs.

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs.

16:54:48 <stain> DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications

16:54:54 <stain> DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM

16:54:55 <Zakim> -Bjorn_Bringert

Zakim IRC Bot: -Bjorn_Bringert

16:54:55 <Zakim> -Satish_Sampath

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satish_Sampath

16:55:11 <stain> DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation.

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation.

16:55:31 <stain> DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types

16:55:54 <stain> DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when  not needed.

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when not needed.

16:56:05 <stain> DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?]

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?]

16:56:11 <Luc> design rationale http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction

Luc Moreau: design rationale http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction

16:56:29 <stain> examples

examples

16:56:37 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json

16:57:07 <stain> DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository

16:57:22 <stain> DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default

16:57:45 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json

16:57:47 <stain> DongHuynh: second example exands

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: second example exands

16:58:23 <stain> DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information

16:58:30 <stain> (line 35 is not valid JSON btw)

(line 35 is not valid JSON btw)

16:58:48 <stain> DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level

16:58:53 <stain> DongHuynh: at next level is the entity

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: at next level is the entity

16:58:58 <stain> DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs

16:59:14 <Luc> @stain, yes, looks like a typo

Luc Moreau: @stain, yes, looks like a typo

16:59:19 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:59:23 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:59:24 <stain> DongHuynh: questions?

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: questions?

16:59:31 <stain> GK: (skipping the queue!)

Graham Klyne: (skipping the queue!)

16:59:37 <stain> GK: JSON-LD?

Graham Klyne: JSON-LD?

16:59:52 <stain> GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga

Graham Klyne: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga

16:59:55 <stain> glance

glance

17:00:08 <stain> http://json-ld.org/

http://json-ld.org/

17:00:24 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame

17:00:24 <stain> DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues

17:00:34 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent..

Khalid Belhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent..

17:00:50 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?)

Khalid Belhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?)

17:01:00 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: JSON schema?

Khalid Belhajjame: JSON schema?

17:01:09 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to say how it can be serialised

Khalid Belhajjame: to say how it can be serialised

17:01:10 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:01:23 <stain> DongHuynh: could not hear very well..

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: could not hear very well..

17:01:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON

Khalid Belhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON

17:01:53 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ?

Khalid Belhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ?

17:02:01 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching

Khalid Belhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching

17:02:10 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON

Khalid Belhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON

17:02:27 <stain> DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability

17:02:37 <stain> DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON

17:02:47 <stain> DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity

17:02:51 <stain> DongHuynh: working on this

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: working on this

17:03:16 <pgroth> http://json-schema.org/

Paul Groth: http://json-schema.org/

17:03:23 <stain> DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure

17:03:34 <stain> DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics

17:03:45 <stain> DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema

17:03:53 <stain> DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML

17:04:04 <stain> DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema

17:04:11 <stain> DongHuynh: is it really used

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: is it really used

17:04:31 <stain> DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example

17:04:39 <khalidbelhajjame> Thanks Dong

Khalid Belhajjame: Thanks Dong

17:04:42 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:04:44 <stain> DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process

Scribe problem: the name 'DongHuynh' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Trung Huynh Trung Huynh . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process

17:04:59 <stain> pgroth: we are running out of time now

Paul Groth: we are running out of time now

17:05:03 <stain> pgroth: very interesting work

Paul Groth: very interesting work

17:05:14 <stain> pgroth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed

Paul Groth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed

17:05:14 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

17:05:30 <stain> Luc: Is it possible to  have a sense here now?

Luc Moreau: Is it possible to have a sense here now?

17:05:42 <stain> Luc: who would be interested in working on this spec?

Luc Moreau: who would be interested in working on this spec?

17:05:54 <stain> +1

+1

17:05:55 <jcheney> +0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?)

James Cheney: +0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?)

17:06:00 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate)

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate)

17:06:18 <stain> Luc: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG

Luc Moreau: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG

17:06:25 <GK> It depends on timing, and principles.  I'd want us to see DM very stable first.

Graham Klyne: It depends on timing, and principles. I'd want us to see DM very stable first.

17:06:34 <stain> @GK +1

@GK +1

17:06:46 <stain> @GK perhaps this is a spring project

@GK perhaps this is a spring project

17:06:57 <GK> Yes, maybe in spring.

Graham Klyne: Yes, maybe in spring.

17:06:59 <jcheney> @GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync

James Cheney: @GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync

17:07:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:07:05 <stain> I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment

I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment

17:07:06 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

17:07:16 <jcheney> same with PROV-XML

James Cheney: same with PROV-XML

17:07:16 <GK> @jcheney +1

Graham Klyne: @jcheney +1

17:07:20 <stain> @jcheney +1

@jcheney +1

17:07:34 <stain> pgroth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this

Paul Groth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this

17:07:37 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo

17:07:37 <stain> thanks everybody!

thanks everybody!

17:07:38 <jcheney> bye

James Cheney: bye

17:07:41 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame

17:07:42 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

17:07:42 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

17:07:44 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

17:07:48 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

17:07:50 <dgarijo> happy thanksgiving

Daniel Garijo: happy thanksgiving

17:07:50 <Zakim> -??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P27

17:07:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

17:07:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth

17:08:01 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

17:08:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

17:08:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo

17:08:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

17:08:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot

17:08:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

17:08:03 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf :

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf :

17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]

ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]

17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49

17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2]

ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2]

17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57



Formatted by CommonScribe