Last week's minutes were approved.
no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.
this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents. Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections. The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented). Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference.
Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.
The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'.
discussion on bundles to continue over email.
14:50:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-prov-irc ←
14:50:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:50:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
14:50:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
14:50:37 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:37 <trackbot> Date: 17 May 2012
14:50:37 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
14:50:37 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes ←
14:50:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.17
14:51:36 <Luc> Chair: Moreau
14:51:44 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
14:51:49 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←
14:51:49 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc ←
14:51:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
14:52:03 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies
14:52:17 <Luc> Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies, Paolo Missier
14:58:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
14:58:08 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
14:59:10 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.330.aaaa ←
14:59:13 <Zakim> -??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P16 ←
14:59:19 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa
Timothy Lebo: zakim, I am aaaa ←
14:59:19 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> +Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc ←
15:00:20 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
15:00:21 <Luc> Scribe: simon miles
(Scribe set to Simon Miles)
15:00:30 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:00:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21 ←
15:01:04 <Luc> topic: admin
Summary: Last week's minutes were approved.
<luc>Summary: Last week's minutes were approved.
15:01:31 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[OpenLink] ←
15:01:58 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me ←
15:01:59 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:02:00 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:02:06 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:02:51 <Luc> proposed: to accept minute of last week's teleconference
PROPOSED: to accept minute of last week's teleconference ←
15:03:19 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-10
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-10 ←
15:03:20 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
15:03:21 <Curt> 0 (not present)
Curt Tilmes: 0 (not present) ←
15:03:23 <smiles> +1
+1 ←
15:03:26 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:03:38 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aabb ←
15:03:54 <Luc> resolved: minutes of last week's teleconference
RESOLVED: minutes of last week's teleconference ←
15:03:54 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
15:03:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb ←
15:03:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro ←
15:04:09 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open ←
15:04:10 <smiles> Luc: Action review
Luc Moreau: Action review ←
15:04:20 <GK1> oops, sorry, still getting audio together
Graham Klyne: oops, sorry, still getting audio together ←
15:04:40 <smiles> Luc: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list
Luc Moreau: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list ←
15:04:54 <tlebo> I just sent my review
Timothy Lebo: I just sent my review ←
15:05:02 <smiles> Luc: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later
Luc Moreau: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later ←
15:05:14 <Luc> Topic: PAQ release
Summary: no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.
<luc>Summary: no progress since last week. Editors need to request a publication date from the Webmaster.
15:05:41 <smiles> Graham?
Graham? ←
15:05:41 <Zakim> +??P49
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P49 ←
15:05:44 <Luc> graham?
Luc Moreau: graham? ←
15:05:59 <GK> zakim, ??P49 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??P49 is me ←
15:06:01 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
15:06:01 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:06:03 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
15:06:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:06:11 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:06:29 <Zakim> +??P50
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P50 ←
15:06:31 <Zakim> +??P44
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P44 ←
15:06:38 <jun> zakim, ?P44 is me
15:06:40 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44' ←
15:06:49 <jun> zakim, ??P44 is me
Jun Zhao: zakim, ??P44 is me ←
15:06:51 <smiles> GK: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet
Graham Klyne: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet ←
15:07:05 <Zakim> +jun; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it ←
15:07:09 <smiles> GK: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge
Graham Klyne: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge ←
15:07:17 <smiles> Luc: Please agree release date soon
Luc Moreau: Please agree release date soon ←
15:07:22 <Luc> topic: other documents
Summary: this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents. Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections. The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented). Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference.
<Luc>Summary: there was a brief overview of progress on the various other documents. For prov-o, prov-n, prov-dm, editors are addressing issues on tracker. They are on time for internal release at the end of month.
15:07:37 <Zakim> +??P51
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P51 ←
15:07:43 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
15:07:48 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P51 is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P51 is me ←
15:07:49 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:08:02 <smiles> Luc: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues
Luc Moreau: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues ←
15:08:26 <Zakim> -??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P6 ←
15:08:32 <smiles> ... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim
... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim ←
15:08:36 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
15:08:39 <GK> Issue 88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned
Graham Klyne: ISSUE-88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned ←
15:08:44 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
15:08:57 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P3 is me ←
15:08:57 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
15:08:57 <smiles> ... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation
... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation ←
15:09:04 <smiles> ... soon ready for review
... soon ready for review ←
15:09:18 <GK> Just closed issue 88
Graham Klyne: Just closed ISSUE-88 ←
15:09:21 <smiles> ... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback?
... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback? ←
15:09:25 <smiles> jcheney: confirms
James Cheney: confirms ←
15:09:35 <Luc> @graham, thanks
Luc Moreau: @graham, thanks ←
15:09:57 <smiles> tlebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing
Timothy Lebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing ←
15:10:25 <smiles> ... added cross-references for terms within HTML document
... added cross-references for terms within HTML document ←
15:10:34 <smiles> ... latest draft linked on agenda
... latest draft linked on agenda ←
15:10:42 <smiles> ... feedback on the cross-references welcome
... feedback on the cross-references welcome ←
15:10:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:10:50 <smiles> ... on track for release June 1
... on track for release June 1 ←
15:11:13 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:11:25 <smiles> smiles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week
Simon Miles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week ←
15:11:29 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
15:11:31 <smiles> Luc: any comments on progress?
Luc Moreau: any comments on progress? ←
<luc>Summary: this topic is a continuation from last week. Graham presented his rationale for restructuring prov-dm into two documents. Tim presented the prov-o team proposal of not separating the collection section from the prov-o document, since recent changes have significantly trimmed down the space occupied by collections. The rest of the time was spent discussing Graham's proposal: Macted supported the idea of separating "essential" concepts from "extension" concepts, though this could be done in a single document. Satya noted that some concepts were more application specific, e.g. softwareAgent. Tim observed the flat list of concepts Graham suggested lacked the kind of structure that prov-dm components currently offered: it was noted that essential concepts listed by Graham more or less corresponded to two/three existing prov-dm components (1, 2, 3). Curt defended the existing structure based on components, which allowed different views of provenance to be accommodated (e.g. process-oriented/data flow oriented/ responsibility oriented). Luc noted that the structure Graham presented was exactly the one we had two iterations ago, but it was criticised and could not be defended. Luc also indicated that we could make it clear in the current structure which concepts were more primitive than others. Section 2 of the current document (starting points, Table 2 and Figure 1) is in fact listing Graham's core concepts. We run out of time to make a decision. Chairs will come up with a proposal at the next teleconference.
15:12:21 <smiles> Luc: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are
Luc Moreau: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are ←
15:12:39 <smiles> ... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document
... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document ←
15:12:54 <smiles> ... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM
... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM ←
15:13:10 <smiles> ... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring
... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring ←
15:13:21 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring ←
15:14:13 <smiles> GK: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes
Graham Klyne: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes ←
15:14:57 <smiles> ... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea
... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea ←
15:15:51 <Zakim> -??P50
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P50 ←
15:15:54 <smiles> ... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things
... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things ←
15:17:03 <smiles> ... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns
... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns ←
15:17:42 <MacTed> apropos of GK's "core" patterns... this came to my eyes today -- http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
Ted Thibodeau: apropos of GK's "core" patterns... this came to my eyes today -- http://linkedevents.org/ontology/ ←
15:17:43 <smiles> ... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability
... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability ←
15:18:15 <smiles> ... Core: entity, activity, agent
... Core: entity, activity, agent ←
15:18:45 <smiles> Luc: Your proposal is to break DM document in two?
Luc Moreau: Your proposal is to break DM document in two? ←
15:18:48 <smiles> GK: Yes
Graham Klyne: Yes ←
15:18:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:19:08 <Luc> paolo?
Luc Moreau: paolo? ←
15:19:15 <Luc> just on irc? paolo?
Luc Moreau: just on irc? paolo? ←
15:20:02 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Collections
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Collections ←
15:20:13 <smiles> tlebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo
Timothy Lebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo ←
15:20:57 <smiles> ... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document
... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document ←
15:21:03 <smiles> ... aim to simplify PROV-O
... aim to simplify PROV-O ←
15:21:06 <Paolo> sorry guys text only,
Paolo Missier: sorry guys text only, ←
15:21:10 <Paolo> and very unstable
Paolo Missier: and very unstable ←
15:21:37 <smiles> ... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing
... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing ←
15:21:40 <Paolo> thanks smiles for minuting
Paolo Missier: thanks smiles for minuting ←
15:21:44 <tlebo> I can fit http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-collections-terms into 1.25 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms takes up 4 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms takes up 1.5 screens
Timothy Lebo: I can fit http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-collections-terms into 1.25 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms takes up 4 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms takes up 1.5 screens ←
15:21:48 <Luc> @paolo, it's ok, tim filling in
Luc Moreau: @paolo, it's ok, tim filling in ←
15:22:31 <smiles> ... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections
... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections ←
15:22:35 <Paolo> yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise
Paolo Missier: yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise ←
15:22:57 <smiles> ... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document
... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document ←
15:23:16 <Paolo> we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want
Paolo Missier: we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want ←
15:23:30 <smiles> Luc: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document
Luc Moreau: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document ←
15:24:08 <smiles> ... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions
... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions ←
15:24:36 <smiles> ... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O
... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O ←
15:25:17 <smiles> ... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed?
... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed? ←
15:25:20 <smiles> tlebo: Yes
Timothy Lebo: Yes ←
15:25:28 <tlebo> (and that was the agreement of the prov-o team)
Timothy Lebo: (and that was the agreement of the prov-o team) ←
15:25:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:25:56 <smiles> Luc: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal
Luc Moreau: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal ←
15:26:04 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
15:26:55 <smiles> tlebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts
Timothy Lebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts ←
15:27:06 <smiles> ... (as in section 1 of Graham's document)
... (as in section 1 of Graham's document) ←
15:28:24 <smiles> tlebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)?
Timothy Lebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)? ←
15:28:36 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#data-model-components
Curt Tilmes: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#data-model-components ←
15:28:46 <smiles> GK: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way
Graham Klyne: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way ←
15:28:51 <Luc> ack tlebo
Luc Moreau: ack tlebo ←
15:28:52 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
15:29:30 <smiles> Luc: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document
Luc Moreau: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document ←
15:29:40 <smiles> ... but had reviews critical of this separation
... but had reviews critical of this separation ←
15:29:57 <smiles> ... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension
... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension ←
15:30:32 <smiles> ... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties
... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties ←
15:31:01 <smiles> ... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful
... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful ←
15:31:18 <smiles> ... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document
... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document ←
15:31:44 <smiles> ... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents
... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents ←
15:32:11 <smiles> ... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model
... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model ←
15:32:17 <MacTed> what is background of these outside readers? philosophers, scientists, programmers, other? experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand...
Ted Thibodeau: what is background of these outside readers? philosophers, scientists, programmers, other? experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand... ←
15:33:00 <smiles> ... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM
... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM ←
15:33:47 <smiles> ... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes
... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes ←
15:34:01 <smiles> ... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1)
... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1) ←
15:34:53 <smiles> ... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage
... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage ←
15:35:40 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:35:43 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
15:36:36 <smiles> satya: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers?
Satya Sahoo: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers? ←
15:36:44 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
15:36:48 <satya> q-
Satya Sahoo: q- ←
15:37:00 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:37:00 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
15:37:01 <smiles> Luc: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped
Luc Moreau: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped ←
15:37:44 <smiles> MacTed: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience
Ted Thibodeau: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience ←
15:37:59 <smiles> ... in favour of GK's restructuring
... in favour of GK's restructuring ←
15:38:24 <smiles> ... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements
... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements ←
15:38:51 <smiles> ... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those
... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those ←
15:39:26 <tlebo> perhaps if we organized http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring#Provenance_core_concepts by components?
Timothy Lebo: perhaps if we organized http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring#Provenance_core_concepts by components? ←
15:39:26 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:39:30 <Luc> ack mact
Luc Moreau: ack mact ←
15:39:56 <smiles> ... root primitives need to be clearly presented
... root primitives need to be clearly presented ←
15:40:25 <smiles> Luc: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented
Luc Moreau: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented ←
15:40:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:40:37 <GK> q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments
Graham Klyne: q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments ←
15:41:43 <smiles> GK: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose
Graham Klyne: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose ←
15:42:31 <smiles> ... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear
... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear ←
15:43:19 <tlebo> q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline?
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline? ←
15:43:23 <smiles> ... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are
... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are ←
15:43:34 <smiles> ... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns
... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns ←
15:43:45 <jcheney> q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
James Cheney: q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring ←
15:44:32 <smiles> ... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite
... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite ←
15:44:39 <smiles> ... of what is intended
... of what is intended ←
15:44:40 <tlebo> @jcheny, I'll yield :-)
Timothy Lebo: @jcheny, I'll yield :-) ←
15:45:14 <smiles> ... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed
... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed ←
15:45:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:45:22 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
15:45:30 <GK> q-
Graham Klyne: q- ←
15:45:46 <Luc> ack jcheney
Luc Moreau: ack jcheney ←
15:45:46 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring ←
15:45:56 <Luc> topic: constraints document
Summary: Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.
<luc>Summary: Tim and Graham reviewed/checked the latest prov-constraints document and were supportive of its new direction and structure. Editors can now continue work and address remaining issues.
15:46:08 <tlebo> go ahead, graham.
Timothy Lebo: go ahead, graham. ←
15:46:28 <jcheney> high-level impression is fine
James Cheney: high-level impression is fine ←
15:46:41 <smiles> GK: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach
Graham Klyne: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach ←
15:46:54 <smiles> ... definitions and inferences presented crisply
... definitions and inferences presented crisply ←
15:47:10 <smiles> ... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good
... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good ←
15:47:35 <smiles> tlebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content
Timothy Lebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content ←
15:47:48 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo ←
15:47:50 <smiles> ... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go
... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go ←
15:48:20 <smiles> ... minor detailed comments sent (above)
... minor detailed comments sent (above) ←
15:49:17 <smiles> jcheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail
James Cheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail ←
15:49:27 <smiles> ... good to know happy with direction
... good to know happy with direction ←
15:49:59 <GK> I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM
Graham Klyne: I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM ←
15:50:06 <tlebo> @jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-)
Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-) ←
15:50:16 <smiles> ... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email
... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email ←
15:51:16 <tlebo> @jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting.
Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting. ←
15:51:27 <smiles> ... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed
... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed ←
15:51:30 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:52:05 <Luc> Topic: Responsibility
Summary: The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'.
<luc>Summary: The group is invited to suggest "nouns" for the relation actedOnBehalfOf to replace the current term 'responsibility'.
15:52:18 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility ←
15:53:01 <smiles> tlebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed
Timothy Lebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed ←
15:53:34 <jcheney> I may have suggested "delegation" at some point
James Cheney: I may have suggested "delegation" at some point ←
15:54:03 <smiles> ... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email
... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email ←
15:54:16 <satya> is there an issue raised for responsibility?
Satya Sahoo: is there an issue raised for responsibility? ←
15:54:37 <Luc> topic: bundles
Summary: discussion on bundles to continue over email.
<luc>Summary: discussion on bundles to continue over email.
15:54:46 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html ←
15:55:03 <smiles> Luc: Circulated text addressing issues raised
Luc Moreau: Circulated text addressing issues raised ←
Formatted by CommonScribe