edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 04 October 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.03
Seen
Craig Trim, Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Hook Hua, Ivan Herman, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies, Trung Huynh
Regrets
Tom De Nies
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
Paolo Missier
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon link
  2. ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved link
  3. use a modified version of the prov-o starting points figure in the primer link
Topics
  1. Admin

    Minutes of the Sept 27, 2012 telco were approved. Paul showed a set of overview slides for the WG. Group agreed that long standing actions from Paulo should be closed with a comment.

  2. PROV Exit Criteria

    Paul went over the existing exit criteria. He went through a proposal from the chairs on extending the exit criteria in particular for the constraints. The group agreed that there are three types of implementations: usage of prov in a dataset, vocabularies that extend prov, software that generates/consumes PROV. The group agreed with the principle that for prov-constraints we would produce test cases that were tied to only the constraints but these test cases would also exercise the inferences. Furthermore, the group recommended looking at more automatic mechanisms for gathering results of test cases for constraints. Additionally, the exit criteria should be specific about which documents are tested. Paul was actioned to take this input and present a revised version of the exit criteria by the next telcon. Dong, Luc, Daniel all agreed to contribute to the development of test cases for prov-contstraints. Paolo agreed to help check test cases for correctness.

  3. PROV-DM Issues

    A set of issues were agreed to have been resolved. See the resolution.

  4. UML and Naming

    The group discussed the upper/lowercase naming of property names and the inconsistency between UML diagrams and the syntaxes. This is an issue with the use of UML. To resolve, this issue the group agreed that a modified version of the starting points diagram from prov-o should be used in the primer to avoid confusion

14:56:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-irc

14:56:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:56:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

14:56:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:56:36 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2012
14:56:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

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

14:56:43 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

14:56:43 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes

14:56:55 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.03
14:57:02 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:57:08 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier

(Scribe set to Paolo Missier)

14:57:14 <pgroth> Regrets: Tom De Nies
14:57:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

14:57:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

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

14:57:40 <Zakim> + +1.818.415.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.415.aaaa

14:57:59 <ivan> zakim, code?

Ivan Herman: zakim, code?

14:57:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

14:58:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

14:58:26 <Zakim> +ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +ivan

14:59:03 <Zakim> +??P11

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11

14:59:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P11 is me

zakim, ??P11 is me

14:59:44 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

14:59:46 <Zakim> +??P56

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P56

15:00:01 <Luc> zakim, +??P56 is me

Luc Moreau: zakim, +??P56 is me

15:00:01 <Zakim> sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+??P56'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+??P56'

15:00:06 <Luc> zakim, ??P56 is me

Luc Moreau: zakim, ??P56 is me

15:00:06 <Zakim> +Luc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it

15:00:09 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: Minutes of the Sept 27, 2012 telco were approved. Paul showed a set of overview slides for the WG. Group agreed that long standing actions from Paulo should be closed with a comment.

<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of the Sept 27, 2012 telco were approved. Paul showed a set of overview slides for the WG. Group agreed that long standing actions from Paulo should be closed with a comment.
15:00:13 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes

15:00:13 <CraigTrim> zakim, +1.818.415.aaaa is me

Craig Trim: zakim, +1.818.415.aaaa is me

15:00:14 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +CraigTrim; got it

15:00:51 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-27

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-27

15:00:58 <pgroth> Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon

Paul Groth: Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon

15:01:01 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:01:08 <CraigTrim> +1

Craig Trim: +1

15:01:14 <Paolo> +1

+1

15:01:16 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

15:01:21 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?

Timothy Lebo: zakim, who is on the phone?

15:01:21 <Zakim> +tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo

15:01:24 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc

15:01:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see CraigTrim, [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc.a

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see CraigTrim, [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc.a

15:01:27 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2

15:01:47 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon

RESOLVED: Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon

15:02:03 <Dong> zakim, ??P2 is me

Trung Huynh: zakim, ??P2 is me

15:02:22 <Paolo> pgroth: what to do about long-lasting open actions

Paul Groth: what to do about long-lasting open actions

15:02:29 <Zakim> +Dong; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it

15:02:43 <Zakim> +stain

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain

15:02:46 <Zakim> +jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney

15:03:01 <Paolo> ivan: it's ok to time out on them and close them, noting that no reply was received

Ivan Herman: it's ok to time out on them and close them, noting that no reply was received

15:03:45 <pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/dedddeedd578/presentations/wg-overview/overview/index.html

Paul Groth: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/dedddeedd578/presentations/wg-overview/overview/index.html

15:04:20 <Paolo> pgroth: finally completed his action, see link above

Paul Groth: finally completed his action, see link above

15:04:54 <Paolo> action 118 (?) also taken care of

ACTION-118 (?) also taken care of

15:04:54 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 118. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find 118. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

15:05:27 <Paolo> action-113 done (issue 446)

ACTION-113 done (ISSUE-446)

15:05:37 <Paolo> action-116 still ongoing

ACTION-116 still ongoing

15:05:45 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:06:08 <pgroth> - Topic PROV Exit Criteria

Paul Groth: - Topic PROV Exit Criteria

15:06:21 <Paolo> TOPIC: PROV Exit Criteria

2. PROV Exit Criteria

Summary: Paul went over the existing exit criteria. He went through a proposal from the chairs on extending the exit criteria in particular for the constraints. The group agreed that there are three types of implementations: usage of prov in a dataset, vocabularies that extend prov, software that generates/consumes PROV. The group agreed with the principle that for prov-constraints we would produce test cases that were tied to only the constraints but these test cases would also exercise the inferences. Furthermore, the group recommended looking at more automatic mechanisms for gathering results of test cases for constraints. Additionally, the exit criteria should be specific about which documents are tested. Paul was actioned to take this input and present a revised version of the exit criteria by the next telcon. Dong, Luc, Daniel all agreed to contribute to the development of test cases for prov-contstraints. Paolo agreed to help check test cases for correctness.

<pgroth> Summary: Paul went over the existing exit criteria. He went through a proposal from the chairs on extending the exit criteria in particular for the constraints. The group agreed that there are three types of implementations: usage of prov in a dataset, vocabularies that extend prov, software that generates/consumes PROV. The group agreed with the principle that for prov-constraints we would produce test cases that were tied to only the constraints but these test cases would also exercise the inferences. Furthermore, the group recommended looking at more automatic mechanisms for gathering results of test cases for constraints. Additionally, the exit criteria should be specific about which documents are tested. Paul was actioned to take this input and present a revised version of the exit criteria by the next telcon. Dong, Luc, Daniel all agreed to contribute to the development of test cases for prov-contstraints. Paolo agreed to help check test cases for correctness.
15:06:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

15:06:57 <Paolo> pgroth: exit criteria were discussed at the latest F2F meeting

Paul Groth: exit criteria were discussed at the latest F2F meeting

15:07:27 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html

Paul Groth: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html

15:07:47 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.393.aabb

15:07:48 <Paolo> exit criteria are here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

exit criteria are here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

15:08:38 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:08:42 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:08:47 <Paolo> pgroth: these criteria apply to the DM and ontology

Paul Groth: these criteria apply to the DM and ontology

15:08:47 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:09:07 <Paolo> ivan: what is an "implementation" in this context

Ivan Herman: what is an "implementation" in this context

15:09:22 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

15:09:37 <Paolo> pgroth: using PROV in a dataset, e.g. markung up a web page

Paul Groth: using PROV in a dataset, e.g. markung up a web page

15:09:51 <Paolo> pgroth: a vocabulayr for ontologies that extend prov

Paul Groth: a vocabulayr for ontologies that extend prov

15:10:14 <Paolo> pgroth: SW that generates and consumes PROV models

Paul Groth: SW that generates and consumes PROV models

15:10:47 <Paolo> ivan: fine, suggest adding this phrasing to the wiki page containing the exit criteria

Ivan Herman: fine, suggest adding this phrasing to the wiki page containing the exit criteria

15:11:11 <Dong> @Paul: Sure

Trung Huynh: @Paul: Sure

15:11:17 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:11:17 <Paolo> ivan: also, when implementations are collected, tag them according to the category where they belong

Ivan Herman: also, when implementations are collected, tag them according to the category where they belong

15:11:29 <Paolo> pgroth: are people happy with those 3 categories?

Paul Groth: are people happy with those 3 categories?

15:11:33 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:12:27 <Paolo> pgroth: these work for DM and O primarily. What would the criteria look like for CONSTRAINTS?

Paul Groth: these work for DM and O primarily. What would the criteria look like for CONSTRAINTS?

15:13:05 <Paolo> pgroth: need to demonstrate interoperability.

Paul Groth: need to demonstrate interoperability.

15:14:07 <Paolo> pgroth: proposed criteria: multiple implementations, and show that they support each of the constraints defined in the doc. This is done through a catalog of reference test cases that the implementation must be able to pass

Paul Groth: proposed criteria: multiple implementations, and show that they support each of the constraints defined in the doc. This is done through a catalog of reference test cases that the implementation must be able to pass

15:14:28 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

15:14:36 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

15:14:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a]

15:14:49 <Paolo> pgroth: the implementation must correctly evaluate the test case against the constraints it is meant to exercise

Paul Groth: the implementation must correctly evaluate the test case against the constraints it is meant to exercise

15:15:01 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me

Luc Moreau: zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me

15:15:01 <Zakim> +Luc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it

15:15:47 <stain> stainNexus7 has joined #prov

Stian Soiland-Reyes: stainNexus7 has joined #prov

15:15:48 <Paolo> jcheney: clarification: the criteria include the constraints but exclude the inferences

James Cheney: clarification: the criteria include the constraints but exclude the inferences

15:16:07 <Paolo> pgroth: yes, but you probably need to do inferences as well as part of the implementation

Paul Groth: yes, but you probably need to do inferences as well as part of the implementation

15:16:11 <stain> Who would build those test cases? The wg?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Who would build those test cases? The wg?

15:16:46 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:16:52 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:16:57 <Paolo> jcheney: are the test cases based on 'validity' which requires inferencing? or is inferencing one possible way to do the implementation

James Cheney: are the test cases based on 'validity' which requires inferencing? or is inferencing one possible way to do the implementation

15:17:21 <jcheney> so perhaps the test cases should try to *exercise* the inferences

James Cheney: so perhaps the test cases should try to *exercise* the inferences

15:17:44 <Luc> +q

Luc Moreau: +q

15:17:48 <Paolo> ivan: the constr doc contains inference rules, not just constraints. So are there inferences that will not be tested by the test cases?

Ivan Herman: the constr doc contains inference rules, not just constraints. So are there inferences that will not be tested by the test cases?

15:18:54 <Paolo> jcheney: inferences are a mechanism to define validity, however in the doc we specify that other mechanisms to check validity are fine as well

James Cheney: inferences are a mechanism to define validity, however in the doc we specify that other mechanisms to check validity are fine as well

15:19:31 <Paolo> ivan: that's fine then

Ivan Herman: that's fine then

15:20:14 <Paolo> Luc: to confirm what jcheney wrote above -- but the test case won't check that inferences have been applied

Luc Moreau: to confirm what jcheney wrote above -- but the test case won't check that inferences have been applied

15:20:41 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:21:02 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

15:22:10 <Paolo> hook: interoperability should show that producers and consumers of provenance actually can use the spec to exchange prov

Hook Hua: interoperability should show that producers and consumers of provenance actually can use the spec to exchange prov

15:22:12 <Zakim> +??P28

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P28

15:22:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P28 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P28 is me

15:22:21 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

15:22:30 <Paolo> hook: the current interpretation of interop does not address that

Hook Hua: the current interpretation of interop does not address that

15:23:04 <Paolo> pgroth: true for CONSTR, however prov DM and prov O do require demonstration of interop according to the exit criteria

Paul Groth: true for CONSTR, however prov DM and prov O do require demonstration of interop according to the exit criteria

15:23:05 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:23:27 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

15:24:12 <Paolo> Luc: are we try to gain evidence for each prov-* individually, or collectively as a whole?

Luc Moreau: are we try to gain evidence for each prov-* individually, or collectively as a whole?

15:24:32 <Paolo> Luc: for example, what does it mean for DM to interop "on its own"?

Luc Moreau: for example, what does it mean for DM to interop "on its own"?

15:25:06 <Paolo> pgroth: for DM, you do have to go through prov-N or prov-O. the impl. should specify which encoding it supports

Paul Groth: for DM, you do have to go through prov-N or prov-O. the impl. should specify which encoding it supports

15:25:14 <Paolo> pgroth: incl. XML

Paul Groth: incl. XML

15:25:19 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

15:25:25 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:27:03 <Paolo> ivan: do we really need an implementation for prov-n which is meant for human consumption?  it's not meant to be a machine-exchangeable format

Ivan Herman: do we really need an implementation for prov-n which is meant for human consumption? it's not meant to be a machine-exchangeable format

15:27:28 <Paolo> Luc: indeed machine processing initially not the primary goal

Luc Moreau: indeed machine processing initially not the primary goal

15:27:47 <Dong> @Luc, when you mentioned evidence, did you mean that we need to gather proofs beyond submitted answers to the implementation questionnaire?

Trung Huynh: @Luc, when you mentioned evidence, did you mean that we need to gather proofs beyond submitted answers to the implementation questionnaire?

15:28:16 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:28:20 <Paolo> pgroth: this is good feedback to produce the next version of the exit criteria. we need to be more specific

Paul Groth: this is good feedback to produce the next version of the exit criteria. we need to be more specific

15:28:22 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:28:23 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria

Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria

15:28:33 <Luc> @dong, submitted answers is what I think we have agreed

Luc Moreau: @dong, submitted answers is what I think we have agreed

15:28:53 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.393.aabb

15:28:58 <Dong> @luc, thanks, that's good.

Trung Huynh: @luc, thanks, that's good.

15:29:02 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aacc

15:29:25 <Luc> was the functional syntax document a rec?

Luc Moreau: was the functional syntax document a rec?

15:29:27 <Paolo> ivan: the EC for OWL2 is relevant because it's got an analog in a functional syntax, which is not even mentioned in the EC

Ivan Herman: the EC for OWL2 is relevant because it's got an analog in a functional syntax, which is not even mentioned in the EC

15:29:39 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aacc

15:29:54 <Paolo> ivan: because the functional syntax can be mapped to one of the serializations

Ivan Herman: because the functional syntax can be mapped to one of the serializations

15:30:23 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/

Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/

15:31:04 <Paolo> ivan: the doc above is analogous to prov-n in our case

Ivan Herman: the doc above is analogous to prov-n in our case

15:31:43 <Luc> +q

Luc Moreau: +q

15:31:47 <Paolo> ivan: so the EC should really apply to prov-o and prov-constr

Ivan Herman: so the EC should really apply to prov-o and prov-constr

15:31:58 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:32:01 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aadd

15:32:26 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aadd

15:32:26 <Paolo> Luc: should different implementations come from different institutions?

Luc Moreau: should different implementations come from different institutions?

15:32:56 <Paolo> ivan: if EC call for two impl, then yes they should come from different institutions

Ivan Herman: if EC call for two impl, then yes they should come from different institutions

15:33:13 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:33:16 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:33:19 <Paolo> pgroth: plan to vote on EC next week

Paul Groth: plan to vote on EC next week

15:33:44 <pgroth> action: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week

ACTION: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week

15:33:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Revise exit criteria for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-119 - Revise exit criteria for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-11].

15:34:54 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:34:56 <Paolo> ivan: EC should be fully completed by the time we leave CR, not when we enter CR

Ivan Herman: EC should be fully completed by the time we leave CR, not when we enter CR

15:35:22 <dgarijo> and how do we add an application to the implementation catalog?

Daniel Garijo: and how do we add an application to the implementation catalog?

15:35:29 <Paolo> pgroth: need volunteers to build test cases for the constraints

Paul Groth: need volunteers to build test cases for the constraints

15:35:47 <Luc> we can already collect all examples from our specs

Luc Moreau: we can already collect all examples from our specs

15:35:55 <dgarijo> me

Daniel Garijo: me

15:36:05 <dgarijo> I think Jun was interested as well

Daniel Garijo: I think Jun was interested as well

15:36:29 <Luc> dong?

Luc Moreau: dong?

15:36:40 <Dong> Sorry, I missed it

Trung Huynh: Sorry, I missed it

15:36:41 <Paolo> Paolo: I can help but can't commit time at this point

Paolo Missier: I can help but can't commit time at this point

15:36:44 <dgarijo> I don't see her here, so I'll contact her to see if she's interested.

Daniel Garijo: I don't see her here, so I'll contact her to see if she's interested.

15:37:11 <pgroth> me

Paul Groth: me

15:37:17 <Luc> me with Dong

Luc Moreau: me with Dong

15:37:25 <Dong> Yes

Trung Huynh: Yes

15:37:32 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:37:39 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:37:42 <tlebo> after I see a test case or two, I'll reconsider adding some.

Timothy Lebo: after I see a test case or two, I'll reconsider adding some.

15:38:20 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:38:22 <Paolo> Luc: once they are defined, they should be validated "by expert hand"

Luc Moreau: once they are defined, they should be validated "by expert hand"

15:38:24 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:39:08 <Dong> @Paul, I've understood that it's a part of the work I'm involved in preparing the implementation report

Trung Huynh: @Paul, I've understood that it's a part of the work I'm involved in preparing the implementation report

15:39:10 <Paolo> ivan: need a dynamics in place to manage the responses. What is the reporting mechanism?

Ivan Herman: need a dynamics in place to manage the responses. What is the reporting mechanism?

15:39:21 <Paolo> pgroth: we basically believe them

Paul Groth: we basically believe them

15:39:25 <Curt> believe and document their assertion

Curt Tilmes: believe and document their assertion

15:39:29 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:39:57 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:40:04 <Paolo> ivan: this means that responses will be managed manually, which may be problematic to scale

Ivan Herman: this means that responses will be managed manually, which may be problematic to scale

15:40:44 <Paolo> Luc: have 100-200 tests at the moment, we should have a simple mechanism with an ID per test...

Luc Moreau: have 100-200 tests at the moment, we should have a simple mechanism with an ID per test...

15:41:17 <Paolo> ivan: a basic mechanism should be defined, we must specify how implementors are expected to report back

Ivan Herman: a basic mechanism should be defined, we must specify how implementors are expected to report back

15:41:27 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:41:42 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Issues

3. PROV-DM Issues

Summary: A set of issues were agreed to have been resolved. See the resolution.

<pgroth> Summary: A set of issues were agreed to have been resolved. See the resolution.
15:43:23 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain

15:43:49 <Paolo> pgroth: going through the list....

Paul Groth: going through the list....

15:44:14 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.393.aaee

15:44:48 <Paolo> pgroth: 520 left till next time as there was discussion

Paul Groth: 520 left till next time as there was discussion

15:45:40 <Paolo> pgroth: (isolating the issues that received feedback and discussion)

Paul Groth: (isolating the issues that received feedback and discussion)

15:47:32 <pgroth> ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515,

Paul Groth: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515,

15:47:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:47:52 <Paolo> pgroth: the issues above have reached resolution

Paul Groth: the issues above have reached resolution

15:48:21 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved

PROPOSED: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved

15:48:45 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:48:48 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

15:48:50 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1

15:48:57 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:49:03 <Dong> +1

Trung Huynh: +1

15:49:03 <Paolo> +1

+1

15:49:10 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved

RESOLVED: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved

15:50:16 <pgroth> Topic: UML and Naming

4. UML and Naming

Summary: The group discussed the upper/lowercase naming of property names and the inconsistency between UML diagrams and the syntaxes. This is an issue with the use of UML. To resolve, this issue the group agreed that a modified version of the starting points diagram from prov-o should be used in the primer to avoid confusion

<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the upper/lowercase naming of property names and the inconsistency between UML diagrams and the syntaxes. This is an issue with the use of UML. To resolve, this issue the group agreed that a modified version of the starting points diagram from prov-o should be used in the primer to avoid confusion
15:50:39 <ivan> issue-509?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-509?

15:50:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-509 -- Data Model Figure 5 -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-509 -- Data Model Figure 5 -- open

15:50:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/509

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/509

15:50:43 <Paolo> pgroth: see issue-509

Paul Groth: see ISSUE-509

15:50:55 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

15:51:09 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:51:15 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:52:04 <Paolo> Luc: earlier versions of the docs show capitalized classes, and relationships not capitalized. that led to inconsistencies

Luc Moreau: earlier versions of the docs show capitalized classes, and relationships not capitalized. that led to inconsistencies

15:52:06 <Paolo> Luc

Luc

15:52:32 <Paolo> Luc: we addressed by cap "class level" elements and nocap for "instance level" elements

Luc Moreau: we addressed by cap "class level" elements and nocap for "instance level" elements

15:52:56 <Paolo> Luc: diff. notations use different styles. in prov-n nothing is cap

Luc Moreau: diff. notations use different styles. in prov-n nothing is cap

15:53:18 <Paolo> Luc: so we will be inconsistent anyway whatever change we make

Luc Moreau: so we will be inconsistent anyway whatever change we make

15:54:35 <Paolo> Luc: in prov-o class derivations are cap, for instance. There is no solution that works for all of them

Luc Moreau: in prov-o class derivations are cap, for instance. There is no solution that works for all of them

15:54:43 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:54:45 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:54:47 <Paolo> Luc: we tried to make prov-dm consistent with itself

Luc Moreau: we tried to make prov-dm consistent with itself

15:55:06 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:55:25 <Paolo> ivan: as the one reopening the issue: looking at the primer on its own. because of its role, felt that consistency was important

Ivan Herman: as the one reopening the issue: looking at the primer on its own. because of its role, felt that consistency was important

15:56:00 <Paolo> ivan: the primer has dual syntax for examples. in prov-n there is no cap, while turtle is also consistent with prov-o

Ivan Herman: the primer has dual syntax for examples. in prov-n there is no cap, while turtle is also consistent with prov-o

15:56:43 <Paolo> ivan: but fig. after sec 2 uses an inconsistent cap mode, and that is not explained. so proposed to make it consistent with prov-o

Ivan Herman: but fig. after sec 2 uses an inconsistent cap mode, and that is not explained. so proposed to make it consistent with prov-o

15:56:50 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

15:56:56 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

15:57:09 <Paolo> ivan: so just asking to make the figure consistent with one syntax in the text.

Ivan Herman: so just asking to make the figure consistent with one syntax in the text.

15:57:18 <Paolo> Luc: the figure uses the prov-dm convention

Luc Moreau: the figure uses the prov-dm convention

15:57:41 <Paolo> Luc: it's a class diagram, not an instance.

Luc Moreau: it's a class diagram, not an instance.

15:58:04 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:58:15 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:59:07 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

15:59:21 <Paolo> ivan: the figures in the primer may differ from those in the DM. because it's the primer, readers won't appreciate the alignment with prov,

Ivan Herman: the figures in the primer may differ from those in the DM. because it's the primer, readers won't appreciate the alignment with prov,

15:59:40 <Paolo> ivan: rather they will be confused by the change in cap style

Ivan Herman: rather they will be confused by the change in cap style

16:00:03 <dgarijo> +1 to what paul suggested.

Daniel Garijo: +1 to what paul suggested.

16:00:19 <Paolo> pgroth: we should be using the diagram in prov-o instead, it's not UML but it's "classes and properties" and may work better here

Paul Groth: we should be using the diagram in prov-o instead, it's not UML but it's "classes and properties" and may work better here

16:00:32 <Paolo> ivan: happy with that

Ivan Herman: happy with that

16:00:38 <dgarijo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/diagrams/starting-points.svg

Daniel Garijo: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/diagrams/starting-points.svg

16:01:14 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:01:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:01:31 <tlebo> sounds good

Timothy Lebo: sounds good

16:01:48 <pgroth> accepted: use a modified version of the prov-o starting points figure in the primer

RESOLVED: use a modified version of the prov-o starting points figure in the primer

16:04:32 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:05:18 <tlebo> bye! Thanks, Paul.

Timothy Lebo: bye! Thanks, Paul.

16:05:21 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo

16:05:24 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

16:05:25 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

16:05:27 <Zakim> -ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -ivan

16:05:28 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc

16:05:29 <Dong> thanks, bye all

Trung Huynh: thanks, bye all

16:05:30 <Zakim> -Dong

Zakim IRC Bot: -Dong

16:05:33 <khalidBelhajjame> bye

Khalid Belhajjame: bye

16:05:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

16:05:34 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo

16:05:40 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.393.aaee

16:05:41 <Zakim> -??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1

16:05:43 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes

16:05:49 <Zakim> -??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P4

16:06:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

16:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request, pgroth

16:06:09 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

16:06:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-minutes.html pgroth

16:06:13 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

16:06:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

16:06:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, CraigTrim, tlebo, Dong, stain, jcheney, +1.818.393.aabb, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aacc,

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, CraigTrim, tlebo, Dong, stain, jcheney, +1.818.393.aabb, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aacc,

16:06:17 <Zakim> ... +1.818.731.aadd, +1.818.393.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.818.731.aadd, +1.818.393.aaee

16:06:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:06:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:06:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

16:06:24 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-actions.rdf :

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-actions.rdf :

16:06:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week [1]

ACTION: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week [1]

16:06:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-irc#T15-33-44

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-irc#T15-33-44

16:25:36 <Zakim> -CraigTrim

(No events recorded for 19 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -CraigTrim

16:25:37 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

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



Formatted by CommonScribe