13:47:04 <GK> Luc: this session will be about implementation report

Luc Moreau: this session will be about implementation report [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←

13:47:13 <GK> Thinks we'd like to do:

Graham Klyne: Thinks we'd like to do: ←

13:47:23 <GK> 1. update on where we are

Graham Klyne: 1. update on where we are ←

13:47:35 <GK> (Paul notices we're 15 minutes early)

Graham Klyne: (Paul notices we're 15 minutes early) ←

13:48:26 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←

13:48:39 <GK> OK… we'll restart in  15 minutes… maybe we'll have a speakerphone

Graham Klyne: OK… we'll restart in 15 minutes… maybe we'll have a speakerphone ←

13:48:41 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the phone? ←

13:48:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see smiles, Curt_Tilmes ←

13:48:55 <GK> (Curt's experimenting with a mobile phone connected to Zakim)

Graham Klyne: (Curt's experimenting with a mobile phone connected to Zakim) ←

13:48:57 <smiles> yes

Simon Miles: yes ←

13:49:02 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←

13:49:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see smiles, Curt_Tilmes ←

13:49:14 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←

13:49:16 <GK> I hear you!

Graham Klyne: I hear you! ←

13:49:42 <Dong> ??P2 is me

Trung Huynh: ??P2 is me ←

13:49:54 <Dong> zakim, ??P2 is me

Trung Huynh: zakim, ??P2 is me ←

13:49:54 <Zakim> +Dong; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it ←

13:51:40 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←

13:53:29 <Luc> scribe: GK

(Scribe set to Graham Klyne)

13:53:37 <Luc> chair: Luc

13:56:39 <Zakim> + +1.617.715.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.715.aaaa ←

13:56:53 <ivan> zakim, this is f2f

Ivan Herman: zakim, this is f2f ←

13:56:53 <Zakim> ivan, this was already SW_(F2F)8:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, this was already SW_(F2F)8:00AM ←

13:56:54 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←

13:56:55 <Zakim> ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM ←

13:56:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa ←

13:56:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain ←

13:58:30 <GK> Restarting...

Restarting... ←

13:58:38 <GK> Session about implementation report

Session about implementation report ←

13:58:43 <GK> Would like to:

Would like to: ←

13:58:49 <GK> 1. update from Paul

1. update from Paul ←

13:59:42 <GK> concerned about getting to end of implementation phase, then finding features are not implemented

concerned about getting to end of implementation phase, then finding features are not implemented ←

14:00:00 <GK> would like to have advance indication of what people will implemented

would like to have advance indication of what people will implemented ←

14:00:38 <GK> 2. review what we'll do for constraints;  in particular what we do for constraints

2. review what we'll do for constraints; in particular what we do for constraints ←

14:00:43 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations

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

14:01:16 <GK> Paul: talking about "gathering implementation evidence"

Paul Groth: talking about "gathering implementation evidence" ←

14:01:36 <GK> 3 parts (see page at link above)

3 parts (see page at link above) ←

14:01:57 <GK> Overall happy with framework as described

Overall happy with framework as described ←

14:02:16 <GK> Ivan: what are the arrows on table 2?

Ivan Herman: what are the arrows on table 2? ←

14:02:59 <GK> Paul: link to implementation blue arrows consumes, green arrows produces term

Paul Groth: link to implementation blue arrows consumes, green arrows produces term ←

14:03:05 <GK> s/Paul?Dong/

s/Paul?Dong/ (warning: replacement failed) ←

14:03:35 <Luc> action: Dong to describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document

ACTION: Dong to describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document ←

14:03:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-138 - Describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-138 - Describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17]. ←

14:03:38 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:03:49 <GK> Paul: more questions?

Paul Groth: more questions? ←

14:04:45 <GK> Ivan: minor thing… use usual W3C editorial style - do we intend to publish as note?  (Looks like it might be one)  Clarify that implementation report does not need to be published as TR.

Ivan Herman: minor thing… use usual W3C editorial style - do we intend to publish as note? (Looks like it might be one) Clarify that implementation report does not need to be published as TR. ←

14:05:20 <Dong> ok, I'll change it to a note

Trung Huynh: ok, I'll change it to a note ←

14:05:24 <Luc> action: pgroth to change the respec style for implementation report

ACTION: pgroth to change the respec style for implementation report ←

14:05:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-139 - Change the respec style for implementation report [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-139 - Change the respec style for implementation report [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17]. ←

14:05:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:05:44 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html

Paul Groth: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html ←

14:06:11 <GK> Paul: prov constraints process document… idea to outlines process for testing constraints

Paul Groth: prov constraints process document… idea to outlines process for testing constraints ←

14:06:25 <GK> format for test case files (sect 2.1)

format for test case files (sect 2.1) ←

14:06:56 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

14:07:07 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

14:07:14 <GK> identifier… constraint identifiers are embodied in the test case identifier

identifier… constraint identifiers are embodied in the test case identifier ←

14:07:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

14:07:41 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q- ←

14:07:43 <GK> Luc: some of the constraints will be renumbered following removal of mentionOf

Luc Moreau: some of the constraints will be renumbered following removal of mentionOf ←

14:07:49 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←

14:07:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller] ←

14:07:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain ←

14:08:00 <pgroth> action: dong check constraints are matching to the updated document

ACTION: dong check constraints are matching to the updated document ←

14:08:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-140 - Check constraints are matching to the updated document [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-140 - Check constraints are matching to the updated document [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17]. ←

14:08:30 <GK> GK: are constraint numbers fragile for this?

Graham Klyne: are constraint numbers fragile for this? ←

14:08:59 <GK> Paul: wanted automated reporting of test case coverage.

Paul Groth: wanted automated reporting of test case coverage. ←

14:09:07 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:09:12 <GK> Ivan: change respec style for this document too

Ivan Herman: change respec style for this document too ←

14:09:35 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

14:10:09 <GK> Paul: hasn't really been reviewed as yet.  Need some early review.

Paul Groth: hasn't really been reviewed as yet. Need some early review. ←

14:10:13 <ivan> zakim, aaaa has SamCoppens TomDN laurent hook Curt pgroth Luc jcheney ivan GK lebot CraigTrim

Ivan Herman: zakim, aaaa has SamCoppens TomDN laurent hook Curt pgroth Luc jcheney ivan GK lebot CraigTrim ←

14:10:13 <Zakim> +SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim; got it ←

14:10:26 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←

14:10:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller] ←

14:10:27 <Zakim> +1.617.715.aaaa has SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim

Zakim IRC Bot: +1.617.715.aaaa has SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim ←

14:10:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain ←

14:10:54 <GK> Luc: would like to identify reviewers; preferebly developers; mostly not on call.

Luc Moreau: would like to identify reviewers; preferebly developers; mostly not on call. ←

14:11:06 <Dong> The sound on the phone line is broken, I have to rely on the scribe :(

Trung Huynh: The sound on the phone line is broken, I have to rely on the scribe :( ←

14:11:08 <hook> this one in respec.js? :   var respecConfig = { specStatus: "ED",  // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.).

Hook Hua: this one in respec.js? : var respecConfig = { specStatus: "ED", // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.). ←

14:11:37 <GK> jcheney: happy to look at this; biggest problem is managing data as number of test cases grows

James Cheney: happy to look at this; biggest problem is managing data as number of test cases grows ←

14:12:10 <zednik> zakim [IPcaller] is zednik

Stephan Zednik: zakim [IPcaller] is zednik ←

14:12:20 <GK> Luc: need to be clear if test case is expected to succeed; currently in table, but should be in name for automated testing?

Luc Moreau: need to be clear if test case is expected to succeed; currently in table, but should be in name for automated testing? ←

14:12:30 <GK> Paul: I'm happy with that.

Paul Groth: I'm happy with that. ←

14:13:09 <ivan> �hook: 'unofficial' or 'base' could be used

Ivan Herman: �hook: 'unofficial' or 'base' could be used ←

14:13:22 <GK> Dong: prefer using identifer to directory for different outcomes (pass/fail/etc.)

Trung Huynh: prefer using identifer to directory for different outcomes (pass/fail/etc.) ←

14:13:24 <ivan> (per http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html)

Ivan Herman: (per http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html) ←

14:14:05 <Luc> action: Dong to update naming convention to include success/failure of test

ACTION: Dong to update naming convention to include success/failure of test ←

14:14:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-141 - Update naming convention to include success/failure of test [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-141 - Update naming convention to include success/failure of test [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17]. ←

14:14:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

14:14:09 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q- ←

14:14:28 <GK> Paul: last thing - questionnaire

Paul Groth: last thing - questionnaire ←

14:15:09 <GK> … idea was to ask implementers to fill out - whatthey support, and also other implementations with which they interoperate

… idea was to ask implementers to fill out - whatthey support, and also other implementations with which they interoperate ←

14:15:21 <GK> zednik: questionnaire is complete, has been reviewed

Stephan Zednik: questionnaire is complete, has been reviewed ←

14:15:35 <GK> … want another round, get some more implementers to fill it out

… want another round, get some more implementers to fill it out ←

14:15:42 <pgroth> @stephan can you add a link http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations#Gathering_Implementation_Evidenence

Paul Groth: @stephan can you add a link http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations#Gathering_Implementation_Evidenence ←

14:15:47 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

14:15:57 <GK> … discussion on mailing list about external vocabs using/extending prov

… discussion on mailing list about external vocabs using/extending prov ←

14:16:10 <GK> … ask these groups to fill out questionnair

… ask these groups to fill out questionnair ←

14:16:13 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

14:16:16 <Luc> ack iv

Luc Moreau: ack iv ←

14:16:48 <GK> Ivan: if I am an implementer, do I see what's in the Google doc?

Ivan Herman: if I am an implementer, do I see what's in the Google doc? ←

14:16:58 <GK> zednik: will add link to actial questionnaire

Stephan Zednik: will add link to actial questionnaire ←

14:17:06 <pgroth> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?pli=1&formkey=dGM4cXZYMk0xaFBDT2VyRV92YkY5WkE6MQ

Paul Groth: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?pli=1&formkey=dGM4cXZYMk0xaFBDT2VyRV92YkY5WkE6MQ ←

14:17:23 <GK> This is what implementers will see

This is what implementers will see ←

14:18:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

14:18:09 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

14:18:15 <Dong> I think we'll need a (wiki) page to explain the whole process of reporting an implementation (with links to all the relevant documents), which will be sent with the call for reports

Trung Huynh: I think we'll need a (wiki) page to explain the whole process of reporting an implementation (with links to all the relevant documents), which will be sent with the call for reports ←

14:18:55 <Dong> Perhaps, the questionnaire can have include a link to the explanation as well

Trung Huynh: Perhaps, the questionnaire can have include a link to the explanation as well ←

14:19:25 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

14:19:31 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles ←

14:19:40 <GK> zednik: The first page collects information that controls information displayed on subsequent pages

Stephan Zednik: The first page collects information that controls information displayed on subsequent pages ←

14:19:42 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

14:20:14 <GK> Smiles: are tools like prov-python, ?, a framework of an application

Simon Miles: are tools like prov-python, ?, a framework of an application ←

14:20:16 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←

14:20:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see smiles, Dong, +1.617.715.aaaa, [IPcaller] ←

14:20:17 <Zakim> +1.617.715.aaaa has SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim

Zakim IRC Bot: +1.617.715.aaaa has SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim ←

14:20:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zednik, jcheney, pgroth, ivan, laurent, TomDN, GK, smiles, CraigTrim, SamCoppens, Curt, hook, Luc, lebot, Dong, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, stain ←

14:20:17 <Dong> Prov python is a framework

Trung Huynh: Prov python is a framework ←

14:20:47 <GK> zednik: they go down same path, so could combine these as single item.

Stephan Zednik: they go down same path, so could combine these as single item. ←

14:20:54 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q- ←

14:21:28 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is stain

Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is stain ←

14:21:28 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←

14:22:12 <GK> Paul: we have four divisions… is the distinction between libraries, services, applications clear?

Paul Groth: we have four divisions… is the distinction between libraries, services, applications clear? ←

14:22:24 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+ ←

14:22:46 <GK> zednik: distinction is not large - maybe not needed?

Stephan Zednik: distinction is not large - maybe not needed? ←

14:23:05 <smiles> I think some people might unnecessarily worry about the distinction if there are multiple options

Simon Miles: I think some people might unnecessarily worry about the distinction if there are multiple options ←

14:23:13 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

14:23:18 <GK> … also no sections for pure publishers of provenance.  Or is that a service?

… also no sections for pure publishers of provenance. Or is that a service? ←

14:23:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:23:41 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

14:24:09 <GK> Hook: implementation type is single-choice, but some implementations may be more than one of these.

Hook Hua: implementation type is single-choice, but some implementations may be more than one of these. ←

14:24:19 <Luc> ack ho

Luc Moreau: ack ho ←

14:24:44 <GK> zednik: currently have to fill form multiple times; may want to change the questionnaire to clarify this.

Stephan Zednik: currently have to fill form multiple times; may want to change the questionnaire to clarify this. ←

14:25:01 <GK> … don't lnow if they can be handled in a single pass

… don't lnow if they can be handled in a single pass ←

14:25:14 <GK> Luc: MentionOf shoukd be removed from the questionnaire

Luc Moreau: MentionOf shoukd be removed from the questionnaire ←

14:25:22 <Luc> ack lu

Luc Moreau: ack lu ←

14:25:46 <GK> Paul: poiple would like to be able click on the questionnaire and see all the questions before filling out.

Paul Groth: poiple would like to be able click on the questionnaire and see all the questions before filling out. ←

14:26:39 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:26:40 <GK> … maybe have several different questionnaires for each kind of implementation.  Click on link, see all questions, without having to branch within the form.

… maybe have several different questionnaires for each kind of implementation. Click on link, see all questions, without having to branch within the form. ←

14:26:47 <lebot> +1 to it's a barrier to "continue" in the survey.

Timothy Lebo: +1 to it's a barrier to "continue" in the survey. ←

14:26:47 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

14:26:50 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+ ←

14:26:50 <GK> zednik: I think that's reasonable

Stephan Zednik: I think that's reasonable ←

14:27:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:27:39 <GK> q+ to ask if common questions across all questionnaiure tyopes can be auto-filled

q+ to ask if common questions across all questionnaiure tyopes can be auto-filled ←

14:27:49 <Luc> action: zednik to create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention)

ACTION: zednik to create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention) ←

14:27:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-142 - Create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-142 - Create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17]. ←

14:27:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:28:04 <Luc> ack ho

Luc Moreau: ack ho ←

14:28:19 <lebot> q?

Timothy Lebo: q? ←

14:28:26 <GK> hook: clarofy what is meant by publisher(?) in this context

Hook Hua: clarofy what is meant by publisher(?) in this context ←

14:28:33 <lebot> I added PROV-O to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations#Publishers

Timothy Lebo: I added PROV-O to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations#Publishers ←

14:28:50 <GK> paul: anyone who creates provenance that appears somewhere on the web.  (Following SKOS?)

Paul Groth: anyone who creates provenance that appears somewhere on the web. (Following SKOS?) ←

14:29:02 <lebot> q+ to ask if prov-o's prov-o is in "Publishers" like Curt

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask if prov-o's prov-o is in "Publishers" like Curt ←

14:29:14 <GK> ack gk

ack gk ←

14:29:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if common questions across all questionnaiure tyopes can be auto-filled

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if common questions across all questionnaiure tyopes can be auto-filled ←

14:29:22 <Dong> q+ to ask about translating answers to the questionnaire to the exit criteria

Trung Huynh: q+ to ask about translating answers to the questionnaire to the exit criteria ←

14:29:54 <GK> zednik: don't know how it can be done

Stephan Zednik: don't know how it can be done ←

14:29:59 <Luc> ack lebo

Luc Moreau: ack lebo ←

14:29:59 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to ask if prov-o's prov-o is in "Publishers" like Curt

Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to ask if prov-o's prov-o is in "Publishers" like Curt ←

14:30:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:30:53 <GK> Tim: Does the provenance in PROV-O the document count as publishing

Timothy Lebo: Does the provenance in PROV-O the document count as publishing ←

14:30:58 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

14:31:45 <GK> Ivan: possible add provenance statement in ReSpec … that would be an implementation, also every published spec

Ivan Herman: possible add provenance statement in ReSpec … that would be an implementation, also every published spec ←

14:31:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:32:24 <GK> Dong: mapping answers from  questionnaire to CR exit criteria

Trung Huynh: mapping answers from questionnaire to CR exit criteria ←

14:32:44 <pgroth> q_

Paul Groth: q_ ←

14:32:46 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

14:32:51 <Luc> ack don

Luc Moreau: ack don ←

14:32:51 <Zakim> Dong, you wanted to ask about translating answers to the questionnaire to the exit criteria

Zakim IRC Bot: Dong, you wanted to ask about translating answers to the questionnaire to the exit criteria ←

14:32:58 <GK> … need two implementations each feature.  Can they be vocabs, or apps that consume/produce ?

… need two implementations each feature. Can they be vocabs, or apps that consume/produce ? ←

14:33:42 <GK> Paul: we need *pairs* of impl; vocabs count toward coverage, but not really qualifying as a member of a pair

Paul Groth: we need *pairs* of impl; vocabs count toward coverage, but not really qualifying as a member of a pair ←

14:33:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:34:01 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

14:34:29 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

14:34:52 <GK> Paul: we need applications that generate/consume every construct in each serialization

Paul Groth: we need applications that generate/consume every construct in each serialization ←

14:35:05 <GK> q+

q+ ←

14:35:37 <GK> q+ to say that I think consime/produce pairs for vocab terms - ensures devs agree about how the modelling works

q+ to say that I think consime/produce pairs for vocab terms - ensures devs agree about how the modelling works ←

14:36:26 <GK> Luc: hear something that bothers me - constraints don't need prodcue/conbsume pairs

Luc Moreau: hear something that bothers me - constraints don't need prodcue/conbsume pairs ←

14:36:32 <Luc> ack lu

Luc Moreau: ack lu ←

14:37:13 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk ←

14:37:13 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think consime/produce pairs for vocab terms - ensures devs agree about how the modelling works

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I think consime/produce pairs for vocab terms - ensures devs agree about how the modelling works ←

14:37:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:37:39 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

14:38:20 <GK> Paul: my biggst concern.  We need to get constraint test cases in order and ready to go.  Wouldlike these available before/as we go to CR, before facing the the dragon\\\\\'director

Paul Groth: my biggst concern. We need to get constraint test cases in order and ready to go. Wouldlike these available before/as we go to CR, before facing the the dragon\\\\\'director ←

14:38:31 <Luc> ack iv

Luc Moreau: ack iv ←

14:40:05 <GK> Ivan: Director may ask:  Why did we not use W3C facilities make the forms; data belongs to Google.  Answer may be that form has branching structure ()but we just got rid of that).  But data ownership may be a concern.

Ivan Herman: Director may ask: Why did we not use W3C facilities make the forms; data belongs to Google. Answer may be that form has branching structure ()but we just got rid of that). But data ownership may be a concern. ←

14:40:32 <GK> q+ to ask if it's enough to take a data dump and put it on W3C site

q+ to ask if it's enough to take a data dump and put it on W3C site ←

14:40:46 <GK> Ivan: some companies may have concerns about giving data to another company

Ivan Herman: some companies may have concerns about giving data to another company ←

14:40:57 <GK> q-

q- ←

14:41:20 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

14:41:47 <lebot> q?

Timothy Lebo: q? ←

14:41:59 <GK> Ivan: Once data ois stored by Google, it will stay there, can't be removed.  But companies (and comany lawyers) will say "no way".

Ivan Herman: Once data ois stored by Google, it will stay there, can't be removed. But companies (and comany lawyers) will say "no way". ←

14:42:09 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze ←

14:42:11 <lebot> but, won't google crawl the w3c-native results that we publish at w3.org?

Timothy Lebo: but, won't google crawl the w3c-native results that we publish at w3.org? ←

14:42:50 <GK> q+ can we have alternative of submitting a spreadsheet based on supplied template?

q+ can we have alternative of submitting a spreadsheet based on supplied template? ←

14:43:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:43:22 <pgroth> q+ to ask craig

Paul Groth: q+ to ask craig ←

14:43:23 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+ ←

14:43:30 <GK> Ivan: Lawyers job is to be paranoid

Ivan Herman: Lawyers job is to be paranoid ←

14:43:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

14:43:51 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask craig

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to ask craig ←

14:43:52 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←

14:44:08 <Paolo> zakim, ??P4 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P4 is me ←

14:44:08 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it ←

14:44:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:44:28 <GK> Paul: suggest consider using WBS.  If it's easy, that's preferable, if it's hard we can argue the toss.

Paul Groth: suggest consider using WBS. If it's easy, that's preferable, if it's hard we can argue the toss. ←

14:44:54 <zednik> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Stephan Zednik: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←

14:44:54 <Zakim> sorry, zednik, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, zednik, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' ←

14:45:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:45:52 <GK> Paul: I can help with WBS

Paul Groth: I can help with WBS ←

14:45:55 <Luc> action: zednik to look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire

ACTION: zednik to look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire ←

14:45:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-143 - Look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-143 - Look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17]. ←

14:46:11 <GK> zednik: I'll look.  Questionnaire just got simpler.

Stephan Zednik: I'll look. Questionnaire just got simpler. ←

14:46:15 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:46:33 <GK> Hook: concern may be w.r.t. public release of intellectual property.

Hook Hua: concern may be w.r.t. public release of intellectual property. ←

14:46:38 <jcheney> q+ to say what do sparql/xquery wgs do

James Cheney: q+ to say what do sparql/xquery wgs do ←

14:46:42 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:46:46 <Luc> ack hoo

Luc Moreau: ack hoo ←

14:47:05 <GK> q+ to ask if there should be an option for confidential submission

q+ to ask if there should be an option for confidential submission ←

14:47:27 <Curt> @gk -- results go into public implementation report

Curt Tilmes: @gk -- results go into public implementation report ←

14:47:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:48:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:48:12 <GK> q-

q- ←

14:48:32 <Luc> ack jc

Luc Moreau: ack jc ←

14:48:32 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say what do sparql/xquery wgs do

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to say what do sparql/xquery wgs do ←

14:48:36 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:48:50 <GK> Luc: moving on...

Luc Moreau: moving on... ←

14:49:06 <GK> Luc: want to get a feel for which features people will implement

Luc Moreau: want to get a feel for which features people will implement ←

14:49:26 <GK> … have produced a Google doc to gather information (!)

… have produced a Google doc to gather information (!) ←

14:49:34 <Luc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dEU1RHVFNnBvQTNrdzV1S3ZJd0ZjdFE

Luc Moreau: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dEU1RHVFNnBvQTNrdzV1S3ZJd0ZjdFE ←

14:51:25 <GK> Form isn't editable yet...

Form isn't editable yet... ←

14:51:34 <GK> … it should be now

… it should be now ←

14:52:38 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

14:52:45 <lebot> POI - tracedTo is now wasInfluencedBy

Timothy Lebo: POI - tracedTo is now wasInfluencedBy ←

14:56:50 <Curt> @zednik -- take a look at the GCIS line in the spreadsheet -- edit as needed

Curt Tilmes: @zednik -- take a look at the GCIS line in the spreadsheet -- edit as needed ←

14:57:20 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

14:58:16 <GK> (people are filling in the document)

(people are filling in the document) ←

14:58:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

14:58:34 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

14:58:51 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

14:59:07 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes ←

14:59:24 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:01:48 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik ←

15:02:01 <Luc> action: Dong to remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization"

ACTION: Dong to remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization" ←

15:02:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization" [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-144 - Remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization" [on Trung Dong Huynh - due 2012-11-17]. ←

15:02:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:03:39 <Dong> q+ to ask about the eligibility for PROV-JSON only implementations

Trung Huynh: q+ to ask about the eligibility for PROV-JSON only implementations ←

15:07:07 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:07:52 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:08:04 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:08:16 <Luc> ack dong

Luc Moreau: ack dong ←

15:08:16 <Zakim> Dong, you wanted to ask about the eligibility for PROV-JSON only implementations

Zakim IRC Bot: Dong, you wanted to ask about the eligibility for PROV-JSON only implementations ←

15:08:37 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:08:45 <GK> General discussion as people look at spreadsheet...

General discussion as people look at spreadsheet... ←

15:08:50 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:08:50 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←

15:09:18 <GK> (question from phone): do we have to support one of the specific formats to be included in the report?

(question from phone): do we have to support one of the specific formats to be included in the report? ←

15:09:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:09:53 <GK> Paul: no, we can include "other" than core serializations as evidence of use or/support for prov

Paul Groth: no, we can include "other" than core serializations as evidence of use or/support for prov ←

15:10:13 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:10:37 <Dong> How about NASA?

Trung Huynh: How about NASA? ←

15:10:39 <Luc> ack iv

Luc Moreau: ack iv ←

15:10:57 <GK> Ivan: implemenations listed so far are essentially from academic sources - not so many commercial implementations.

Ivan Herman: implemenations listed so far are essentially from academic sources - not so many commercial implementations. ←

15:11:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:11:15 <GK> Paul: we have some

Paul Groth: we have some ←

15:11:28 <GK> q+

q+ ←

15:12:25 <Dong> A few implementations from commercial company are currently listed here http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations

Trung Huynh: A few implementations from commercial company are currently listed here http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations ←

15:12:30 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:13:10 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk ←

15:13:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:14:32 <GK> GK: would distinguish implementation for live service from for-academic-paper production

Graham Klyne: would distinguish implementation for live service from for-academic-paper production ←

15:14:35 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:14:52 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:15:12 <GK> Ivan: this might be a useful topic for the questionnaire: is their an intention to support the provenance application beyond a current research project?

Ivan Herman: this might be a useful topic for the questionnaire: is their an intention to support the provenance application beyond a current research project? ←

15:15:33 <GK> Paul: this could be hard to formulate appropriately.

Paul Groth: this could be hard to formulate appropriately. ←

15:15:39 <Curt> even the grad students developing a prototype always hope that their product will spin off and live on in the long term

Curt Tilmes: even the grad students developing a prototype always hope that their product will spin off and live on in the long term ←

15:15:50 <GK> q+

q+ ←

15:15:53 <GK> q-

q- ←

15:16:43 <GK> For demonstrating interoperable implementability, intended future deployment isn;t necessarily an issue, IMO

For demonstrating interoperable implementability, intended future deployment isn;t necessarily an issue, IMO ←

15:16:56 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:16:56 <pgroth> Q+

Paul Groth: Q+ ←

15:16:58 <GK> Paolo: how public is the list of intended implementations?

Paolo Missier: how public is the list of intended implementations? ←

15:17:02 <GK> Ivan: ity's public

Ivan Herman: it's public ←

15:17:20 <ivan> s/ity's/it's/

15:17:22 <pgroth> the thing that is public is this: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations

Paul Groth: the thing that is public is this: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations ←

15:17:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:17:48 <GK> Luc: we are not collecting commitments here and now - this is for WG planning, not public.

Luc Moreau: we are not collecting commitments here and now - this is for WG planning, not public. ←

15:17:49 <ivan> ack Paolo

Ivan Herman: ack Paolo ←

15:17:51 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao ←

15:17:53 <Dong> It's useful to include such information (e.g. future support, live service, etc.) in the report, but what is the impact it has on the exit criteria, I'm wondering

Trung Huynh: It's useful to include such information (e.g. future support, live service, etc.) in the report, but what is the impact it has on the exit criteria, I'm wondering ←

15:17:56 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:18:00 <GK> Luc: see link above.

Luc Moreau: see link above. ←

15:18:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:18:31 <pgroth> q+ to say I don't think it should be included

Paul Groth: q+ to say I don't think it should be included ←

15:18:40 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze ←

15:18:55 <GK> zednik: we have a structure for the implementation report; are we happy putting this distinction between research/commercial in the report -m don't want to ask things that don';t go in the report

Stephan Zednik: we have a structure for the implementation report; are we happy putting this distinction between research/commercial in the report -m don't want to ask things that don';t go in the report ←

15:18:56 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:18:57 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say I don't think it should be included

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say I don't think it should be included ←

15:19:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:19:01 <GK> Paul: agree, shouldn't ask

Paul Groth: agree, shouldn't ask ←

15:19:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:19:21 <pgroth> @ivan we can battle :-)

Paul Groth: @ivan we can battle :-) ←

15:19:27 <GK> Luc: next sub-topic

Luc Moreau: next sub-topic ←

15:19:41 <GK> Constraints

Constraints ←

15:19:41 <pgroth> Topic: Constraints Implementation

<pgroth> Summary: Checked who of the group would be implementing constraints. Paul said that he would, Paolo said that he might and Graham said he would check with Jun. It was agreed to include a question about whether constraints were used within an implementation that is not a validator. It was agreed to focus on specific "unit" style tests instead of the broad examples because of the difficulty in identifying all the constraints an example may exercise.

15:19:42 <ivan> pgroth: it is an information we should have if the question comes

15:19:59 <TomDN> +q

15:20:08 <pgroth> raises hand

15:20:08 <jcheney> will try but may not have time

15:20:25 <GK> Luc: Would be good to knwo who is planning to implement any of the constraints features.  "show of hands" to IRC please

15:21:06 <Luc> q?

15:21:11 <Luc> ack to

15:21:13 <GK> Luc: thius could be intent to produce valid provenance, or to consume/assume/check it

15:21:14 <Paolo> I am planning to pursue the Datalog-based implementation which I started this year, although the extent to which that is possible using that particular framework still needs to be clarified

15:21:38 <lebot> implementing constraints: perhaps.

15:21:40 <Luc> q?

15:21:50 <GK> Paul: will implement, don;t know if will pass all tests, due to levels of inference needed.

15:21:50 <Luc> ack pg

15:21:57 <Luc> ack

15:22:15 <pgroth> q?

15:22:16 <pgroth> ack shows

15:22:17 <Luc> q?

15:22:23 <zednik> q+

15:22:35 <Luc> ack ze

15:23:05 <Luc> q?

15:23:06 <pgroth> good question

15:23:18 <GK> zednik: is there a distinction between validator or building a producer of valid prov?  JHad assumed implementation must be a validator.  True or false?

15:23:32 <GK> (Luc checks exit criteria)

15:23:33 <pgroth> so it must be a validator

15:23:38 <pgroth> or something similiar

15:23:39 <Luc> For each of the test cases defined by the working group, at least two independent implementations pass the tests and claim to conform to the document.

15:23:44 <pgroth> q+

15:24:17 <Luc> ack pg

15:25:02 <Luc> q?

15:25:03 <GK> q+ to say that an important part of the constraints spec is that devs can understand it well enough to produce only valid prov

15:25:14 <Luc> ack gk

15:25:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that an important part of the constraints spec is that devs can understand it well enough to produce only valid prov

15:25:51 <zednik> q+ does a implementation of the constraints require consumption + check vs. constraints

15:27:12 <zednik> @GK audio is breaking up while you are talking

15:27:40 <Luc> ack ze

15:28:34 <pgroth> q+ to say we implement some constraints

15:28:43 <Luc> q?

15:28:44 <jcheney> q+ to say there are guidelines we don't / can't easily check

15:28:51 <Luc> ac pg

15:28:58 <Luc> ack pg

15:28:58 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we implement some constraints

15:29:01 <GK> I was saying that I think the interop report depends on good will - useful evidence may not necessarily be specific to exit criteria, or help to show uo spec defficiencies.  So additional evidence that isn;t explicitly covered by the exit criteria may stil, be useful.

15:29:29 <Luc> q?

15:29:38 <TomDN> +q

15:29:43 <GK> ^^s/or help/but still help/

15:29:47 <TomDN> -q

15:30:00 <TomDN> +1 for what Paul just said

15:30:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth

15:30:11 <TomDN> (the "one line" thing)

15:30:11 <Luc> ack jch

15:30:11 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to say there are guidelines we don't / can't easily check

15:30:42 <Luc> q?

15:30:53 <GK> Paul: we need to show we have two validators, but also some indication that there is prov being produced that satisfies the constraints

15:31:24 <GK> jcheney: there is useful information we can collect that it may not be sensible to try and formalize

15:31:44 <TomDN> How about: "For the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?"

15:32:22 <jcheney> i will try but can't promis anything (maybe work with Paolo)

15:32:55 <jcheney> Reza also said he thought orcal would implement (but caveat about oracle)

15:32:56 <pgroth> action: zednik add a question to ask about use of constraints by applications (e.g. "or the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?")

15:32:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Add a question to ask about use of constraints by applications (e.g. "or the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?") [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-11-17].

15:33:03 <jcheney> s/orcal/oracle/

15:33:39 <Luc> q?

15:35:50 <pgroth> q+

15:35:51 <GK> GK: expect to see implementations, producing and consuming, coming from the Wf4ever project.  Also Jun is looking at further work to build and evaluate provenance data from other sources.  Details not yet c,ear (to me), but expect something from this corner

15:36:10 <Luc> ack pg

15:36:27 <GK> Luc: how do we build the test cases?  (?)

15:36:39 <GK> Paul: I'd rather focus on implementation

15:37:25 <GK> Luc: I'll volunteer (Dong?) and myself to convert validator tests to a general test suite.

15:37:45 <Dong> Yes

15:38:13 <lebot> how does this differ from http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples ?

15:38:18 <Luc> action: GK to talk to Jun about implementation of constraints and specifically test cases

15:38:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-146 - Talk to Jun about implementation of constraints and specifically test cases [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-11-17].

15:38:20 <pgroth> q+

15:39:11 <Luc> q+

15:39:16 <Curt> You're also looking for examples both of success and failure

15:39:26 <pgroth> ack pgroth

15:40:20 <pgroth> q+

15:40:24 <Luc> ack luc

15:40:30 <GK> q+ to ask if implementers of validators if they can report which constraints are validated by their systems, as a way to get a view of coverage

15:40:33 <Curt> separate "unit" tests from "integration" tests

15:40:53 <Luc> it's about to review

15:40:54 <Curt> some are focused on success/failure of a few particular tests

15:41:03 <jcheney> q+ to advocate small test cases

15:41:05 <Curt> some are more comprehensive

15:41:12 <Luc> ack pg

15:42:01 <Luc> ack gk

15:42:01 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if implementers of validators if they can report which constraints are validated by their systems, as a way to get a view of coverage

15:42:58 <Luc> that's what I produced

15:43:03 <Curt> edge cases

15:43:11 <Luc> q+

15:43:15 <pgroth> q+

15:43:32 <GK> jcheney: small constraint-focused tests are probably more useful than big multi-constraint provenance data

15:43:49 <zednik> @GK, yes, the constraint branch of the survey allows the user to specify constraint coverage

15:44:32 <Luc> q?

15:44:50 <jcheney> q-

15:44:58 <GK> @zednik I was thinking about having the *validators* report the constraint tests invoked by test data presented

15:45:34 <zednik> @GK that would be a nice feature of a validator

15:45:59 <Luc> q?

15:46:01 <Luc> ack pg

15:46:04 <jcheney> @ivan agree we need realistic examples too (for scalability etc.) not just corner cases

15:46:04 <Dong> @zednik, I think we're not going to ask people to fill the constraint questionnaire, but submit the results of the tests as per 1.2 in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/testcases/constraints/process.html

15:46:38 <Curt> use simple identifiers, and put a structured comment with a list of constraints exercised at the top of each test case, use a script to pull those comments into a matrix to embed in the report

15:46:39 <Luc> q?

15:46:40 <zednik> @Dong, but does submitting the results of tests give us an idea of supported coverage?

15:46:40 <GK> Luc: useful to have tests marked with constraints they aer supposed to exercise, separately from examples that are additional data that can be used for testing/discussion

15:46:42 <Luc> ack luc

15:47:42 <Dong> @zednik, that's why we need to catalogue the test cases against specific constraints

15:48:14 <GK> Luc: what do we need to prepare for the CR teleconference?

15:48:23 <Luc> q?

15:49:33 <GK> Luc: propose to bootstrap the process with a few examples, then ask for volunteers to bulk out

15:51:20 <GK> … concern that as test case author and developer, test cases fro not properly independent

15:52:17 <GK> Ivan: would be concerned if you were the *only* implementer, but if other implementers do similar, and than merge test cases, then there's a reasonable level of cross-checking that takes place.

15:52:22 <Luc> q?

15:52:27 <Paolo> nothing substantial

15:52:39 <jcheney> q+

15:52:46 <CraigTrim> q+

15:52:55 <Paolo> my focus is to explore the boundaries of what can be supported using a particular implementation model

15:53:44 <GK> @paul: even if you just use Luc's test cases, that's effectively an independent review of those tests

15:53:50 <Luc> ack jch

15:53:50 <Paolo> (very hard to follow James BTW)

15:53:58 <Paolo> yes

15:54:02 <Paolo> thanks

15:54:31 <Paolo> I was planning to start from Luc's test suite

15:54:37 <Paolo> I would be happy to use that

15:54:39 <Luc> q?

15:54:43 <Luc> ack cr

15:55:38 <Luc> q?

15:55:38 <GK> q+

15:56:12 <pgroth> ack GK

15:56:52 <Luc> q?

15:56:54 <Curt> That would help with example development too...

15:56:54 <Paolo> I will prob skip the next session but this was useful thanks

15:57:29 <GK> Session ends.  Resume at 11:15, to discuss Primer

15:57:38 <Zakim> -Paolo

15:57:43 <Dong> bye all

15:58:33 <zednik> signing off for the day, bye all

15:58:49 <Zakim> -stain

16:04:13 <Zakim> -Dong

16:17:20 <pgroth> Topic: Primer

<pgroth> Summary: The group agreed to release the Primer as a working draft synchronised with the candidate recommendations. Simon agreed to do a final editor's check. Luc agreed to produce a small javascript file to ensure that prov documents are consistently cited by editors.

16:17:35 <pgroth> Scribe: CraigTrim

16:18:08 <CraigTrim> pg: Primer - in particular the status and what we want to do about

16:18:32 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html

16:18:33 <CraigTrim> smiles: big changes in draft; primarily to clarify/fix problems, but more extensive work on samples

16:18:49 <pgroth> craig use tab :-)

16:18:53 <pgroth> so pgroth

16:19:01 <pgroth> or smiles

16:20:21 <ivan> (there is a funny empty arrowhead on the figure right before section 3.6)

16:20:56 <CraigTrim> smiles: simon made various corrections suggested by Ivan - what prov-n means for arguments,

16:21:09 <ivan> (missing arrowhead on the figure right before 3.9, pointing at ex:compile)

16:21:36 <CraigTrim> smiles: also at some point want to include something on collection - this would be useful in primer (show relationship between web page and image on web page)

16:21:49 <CraigTrim> smiles: this will be moved to next working draft, but not on this one

16:22:36 <CraigTrim> smiles: two issues raised on primer; implements and informedBy - this might go into the appendix and one issue (now resolved) but need stephan to close, about delegation

16:22:52 <pgroth> q?

16:22:54 <pgroth> q?

16:22:55 <Luc> q+

16:23:01 <pgroth> ack Luc

16:24:15 <CraigTrim> pgroth: prov-dm should be normative

16:24:40 <pgroth> q?

16:25:07 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Is this ready for the CR doc as is?

16:25:09 <CraigTrim> smiles: yes

16:25:11 <pgroth> q?

16:25:32 <CraigTrim> pgroth: let's vote on releasing as working draft now - as we did yesterday for CR

16:25:36 <CraigTrim> pgroth: add editor's check

16:25:40 <Luc> q+

16:25:53 <ivan> q+

16:25:56 <pgroth> action: smiles editor's check on the primer

16:25:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-147 - Editor's check on the primer [on Simon Miles - due 2012-11-17].

16:25:58 <ivan> ack Luc

16:26:20 <CraigTrim> Luc: as part of this editorial action, bibliography needs updating because it doesn't have right editors from some specs

16:26:28 <CraigTrim> Luc: do we need to use short URIs?

16:26:36 <ivan> q-

16:26:37 <CraigTrim> ivan: yes - it's more consistent

16:26:59 <pgroth> q?

16:27:05 <CraigTrim> Luc: I will produce a javascript file that has bibliographic entries - and we can share this across

16:27:28 <Luc> action: Luc to produce js file with biblio entries for prov documents

16:27:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-148 - Produce js file with biblio entries for prov documents [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-17].

16:27:34 <CraigTrim> smiles: do we want an ack. on public comments by robert prior to deployment?

16:27:40 <CraigTrim> pgroth: not necessarily if we have sent out a reply

16:27:52 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in particular if we've tried to address his comments somewhere

16:27:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: this is also a note

16:28:09 <CraigTrim> smiles: can I set a deadline for which the WG can say they are happy with the responses?

16:28:21 <CraigTrim> pgroth: WG will say that it's fine ...

16:28:37 <CraigTrim> smiles: will send a reminder

16:29:01 <pgroth> q?

16:29:33 <pgroth> proposed: release primer as working draft synchronized with CR given that all editorial actions are complete

16:29:40 <ivan> +1

16:29:41 <TomDN> +1

16:29:42 <Curt> +1

16:29:44 <jcheney> +1

16:29:45 <lebot> +1

16:29:46 <SamCoppens> +1

16:29:47 <hook> +1

16:29:50 <smiles> +1

16:29:54 <CraigTrim> +1

16:30:06 <pgroth> accepted: release primer as working draft synchronized with CR given that all editorial actions are complete

16:30:34 <Zakim> -smiles

16:30:50 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DC

<pgroth> Summary: Discussed the prov-dc mapping. Ivan was unsure that we were viewing the correct version. Paul agreed to check this with Daniel. Simon and Craig agreed to review the document. The group confirmed that note's should use the prov namespace.

16:31:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: this is important mapping

16:31:03 <Zakim> +??P0

16:31:12 <smiles> zakim, ??P0

16:31:12 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P0', smiles

16:31:15 <CraigTrim> pgroth: who has worked on this mapping?  anyone?

16:31:15 <smiles> zakim, ??P0 is me

16:31:15 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

16:32:05 <CraigTrim> pgroth: update - luc & I have read through it the other day - we think all content is there but the doc needs quite a bit of review and sculpting in terms of the text

16:32:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: lot of informal language ... there needs to be a check that lang is more like a spec - more precision

16:32:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: are all mappings in fact correct?

16:32:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: think most of them are, but need to check them through

16:32:53 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so would like another round of review - a second round prior to working draft

16:33:10 <CraigTrim> Luc: we want to check if mapping to prov is correct - we had identified a couple of issues

16:33:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: then someone to help with some of the english

16:33:33 <CraigTrim> pgroth: comments we had include ns for dc-prov not correctly entered, needs to be cleared that it's the prov ns

16:33:44 <CraigTrim> pgroth: there is graph inside doc not compat with our doc style

16:34:14 <CraigTrim> pgroth: some naming is different - "publication activity" - activity is appended to the end of definitions

16:34:22 <CraigTrim> pgroth: and again emphasizing informal use of lang

16:34:27 <pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/6b795ed2e6c9/dc-note/Overview.html

16:34:33 <CraigTrim> I can help

16:34:36 <smiles> I can review and help edit for style (I should have before)

16:34:40 <Curt> I'll review the language/expression, but I'm not a DC expert..

16:34:40 <lebot> +1

16:35:19 <CraigTrim> ivan: are we sure this URL is the latest version?

16:35:41 <CraigTrim> ivan: I had similar comments, and had replies that things were changed - so let's make sure we have the right draft

16:36:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: will email and ask authors for most current version

16:36:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I want this as working draft for candidate rec in time - and the version above not ready

16:36:38 <CraigTrim> ivan: in mercurial there's a later version

16:36:58 <ivan> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/ef08de088793/dc-note/Overview.html

16:37:07 <CraigTrim> ivan: this URL comes from mercurial

16:37:58 <pgroth> action: pgroth check for the current version of dublin core mapping + then send email to tim and craig for review

16:37:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Check for the current version of dublin core mapping + then send email to tim and craig for review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].

16:38:18 <Curt> Daniel changed the one on HG on Oct. 28

16:39:23 <pgroth> accepted: short name for prov-dc is prov-dc and the namespace should be prov:

16:40:58 <pgroth> q?

16:41:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: on agenda - next thing is time tabling but I think in this primer (dc space) we should talk about FAQ

16:41:29 <pgroth> Topic: FAQ

<pgroth> Summary: Paul discussed the important role that the FAQ seems to be playing as an outlet for best practice and intuition. He asked for volunteers to update the FAQ. The following members agreed to produce an FAQ entry. Simon - influence/involved, Tom - something, Curt - one, Tim - FOAF and PROV, Hook ISO linage and PROV, Paul - scruffy and proper.

16:41:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ

16:42:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: lot of responses gave to external reviewers that were quite informal

16:43:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: lot of intuition about the design of prov, in addition to modeling (how do you use constructs, best ways, etc)

16:43:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: people want hints - best practices - about where to use constructs

16:43:07 <CraigTrim> pgroth: and design decisions that underly the entire spec (scruffy vs proper).

16:43:26 <CraigTrim> pgroth: let's populate this FAQ with this info and it could evolve into best practices or another document ...

16:43:38 <CraigTrim> pgroth: need contributions to updating/editing the FAQ with info - this is an easy task

16:43:42 <pgroth> q?

16:43:47 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we want to sign up people for this task

16:43:52 <smiles> q+

16:44:12 <CraigTrim> smiles: what is relation between FAQ and primer?

16:44:25 <CraigTrim> smiles: we originally had a third section in primer for FAQ but was then removed

16:44:32 <CraigTrim> smiles: is this a good section for it to me, or should it remain elsewhere?

16:44:47 <CraigTrim> pgroth: idea is that FAQ can be updated after primer.  The primer will eventually become static

16:44:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so making FAQ separate is a good idea

16:45:12 <pgroth> ack smiles

16:45:42 <CraigTrim> ivan: just to clarify - semantic web wiki - there will be a separate page for prov, as there is today for RDF

16:45:47 <CraigTrim> pgroth: already there

16:46:05 <CraigTrim> ivan: link this page in from home

16:46:23 <CraigTrim> ivan: it's a more generic space that will remain a wiki for this community to update FAQ etc

16:46:39 <CraigTrim> ivan: when WG closes, WG wiki will become read only - so community work can still happen on semantic web wiki

16:46:59 <CraigTrim> pgroth: any volunteers - just one FAQ entry?

16:47:10 <lebot> q?

16:47:18 <smiles> I can write one for the influenced/involved difference

16:47:23 <TomDN> I'll do at least 1 entry :)

16:47:38 <TomDN> (How do I refer to other PROV bundles?) ;)

16:47:44 <Curt> I'll do at least 1..

16:47:47 <lebot> +1 for why we didn't use FOAF

16:48:34 <Curt> Hook will write one about ISO lineage vs. PROV

16:49:36 <pgroth> accepted: Tim, Curt, Hook, Tom, Simon, Paul volunteer to create faq wiki entries

16:49:52 <ivan> (b.t.w., when we go to CR, I will also ask for a prov 'button' like the ones n http://www.w3.org/2007/10/sw-logos.html)

16:50:28 <pgroth> Topic: Messaging on document reading

<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the problem of readers looking at the wrong specification first (e.g. starting with constraints not the primer) and thus being given a false impression. The group agreed that the overview was important from this perspective. It was agreed to add to the abstract of each document the following sentence: "The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents." The group also revised in-situ the boilerplate about how to read documents. It was noted that we should be talking about the "PROV Family of Documents" not the "PROV family of specifications"

16:50:36 <Luc> @ivan, do you mean an official prov logo?

16:51:04 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we have this issue where people read the constraints document first - before primer, before ontologies ... and they get scared

16:51:13 <TomDN> Isn't that why we'll have PROV-OVERVIEW?

16:51:29 <CraigTrim> pgroth: people go into wrong document - gives false impression

16:51:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: prov constriants for people writing validators ...

16:51:46 <CraigTrim> pgroth: how do we get people to go to the right document?

16:52:03 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we have the purpose of each document in the header of each document

16:52:11 <pgroth> q?

16:52:22 <Curt> Link to the YouTube intro talk

16:52:24 <CraigTrim> q+

16:52:49 <smiles> "This is not the document to read first." :)

16:52:57 <pgroth> color coding - for type of user

16:52:59 <lebot> +1 @GK, easy to glaze over the top of every W3C doc b/c it's boilerplate.

16:53:02 <ivan> q+

16:53:06 <pgroth> ack CraigTrim

16:53:09 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/

16:53:09 <pgroth> ack ivan

16:53:16 <CraigTrim> ivan: this URL has overview for OWL

16:53:18 <CraigTrim> ivan: OWL has similar issue

16:53:44 <CraigTrim> ivan: toward end of document there is table with color coding to give 1 sentence on what various docs are for

16:53:59 <CraigTrim> ivan: having something like this will be important

16:54:15 <CraigTrim> ivan: does not have to be identical or as complicate to URL above, but use as guidance

16:54:24 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is starting point in terms of references

16:54:45 <CraigTrim> pgroth: has already taken this action

16:54:45 <pgroth> Q?

16:55:10 <CraigTrim> q+

16:55:17 <Luc> q+

16:55:20 <pgroth> ack CraigTrim

16:55:24 <pgroth> ac Luc

16:55:26 <pgroth> ack Luc

16:55:33 <ivan> Another example: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/

16:55:42 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we could have boilerplate, color coding, overview/table

16:55:46 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim: not mutually exclusive

16:55:56 <pgroth> q?

16:55:58 <CraigTrim> ivan: this URL above - similar approach, but also different than OWL

16:56:03 <CraigTrim> ivan: semi primer -

16:56:15 <pgroth> q?

16:56:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: what changes should we make in our existing docs?

16:56:20 <CraigTrim> ivan: nothing ...

16:56:27 <CraigTrim> Luc: do we need to edit current specs?

16:56:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: you can leave boilerplate that is good guidance (assuming it's read)

16:56:46 <CraigTrim> pgroth: but additionally - what would we add - if any?

16:57:06 <CraigTrim> pgroth: key is to add overview doc - and we can also add additional sentence/feature in each doc

16:57:33 <pgroth> "The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents."

16:57:34 <CraigTrim> ivan: for SPARQL and OWL ... they have at beginning boilerplate that lists docs

16:57:47 <CraigTrim> ivan: in there they also list the reference to overview

16:57:50 <pgroth> q?

16:58:00 <GK> q+

16:58:05 <GK> q-

16:58:06 <CraigTrim> ivan: SPARQL had 11 docs, most were rec.   Prov only has 4 rec, so somewhat simpler

16:58:06 <pgroth> ack gk

16:58:18 <Luc> q?

16:58:18 <CraigTrim> GK: SPARQL doc are all hyperlinked, but we don't have this in the primer

16:58:26 <CraigTrim> GK: hyperlinks will make nav simpler

16:59:18 <CraigTrim> pgroth: in primer there is boilerplate for prov family specs ...

16:59:44 <CraigTrim> smiles: are boilerplates centrally managed, or up to each editor to manage?

17:00:00 <CraigTrim> Luc: maybe we should make this a common javascript addition?

17:00:09 <GK> It's also a bug in PROV-AQ (no hyperlinks in the "family of specifications)

17:00:40 <CraigTrim> ivan: this editorial check should be done by hand - javascript may just take more time and have to debug etc

17:00:45 <jcheney> q+

17:01:05 <pgroth> ack jcheney

17:01:14 <CraigTrim> jcheney: suggest we make one clean copy we are all happy then copy+paste

17:01:27 <smiles> +1 to jcheney's suggestion

17:02:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: first there is question - we need to update status to be correct and it must be consistent

17:02:47 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/

17:02:54 <CraigTrim> Luc: we have two sections in above URL

17:03:08 <CraigTrim> Luc: (1) that documents and (2) that talks about how to read ... specs

17:03:25 <CraigTrim> Luc: list must be updated ...

17:04:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: how do we order?  maintain existing order?  or adjust ... ?

17:04:19 <CraigTrim> ivan: starts with dm

17:04:26 <CraigTrim> Luc: should start with recs

17:04:31 <pgroth> q?

17:04:43 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I think primer should be order of operations vs the recs

17:04:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I would have notations first - primer, then maybe dm, then notations, constraints and then the notes

17:05:12 <pgroth> q?

17:05:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: that is how to read the family ...

17:05:56 <TomDN> +q

17:06:00 <CraigTrim> ivan: my instinct is similar to Paul's ... we want reader to start with primer or better yet overview then primer (assuming overview exists)

17:06:20 <CraigTrim> ivan: "specifications are ... " - but neither primer nor overview are specs

17:06:34 <CraigTrim> ivan: make it clear in each of those whether this is note or rec

17:06:42 <pgroth> ack TomDN

17:06:55 <CraigTrim> TomDN: I agree with Paul re: order - this is least confusing

17:07:13 <hook> q+

17:07:13 <CraigTrim> TomDN: but if you want to make sure recommendations stand out - do color coding, or specifically mention - or something like that

17:07:19 <TomDN> -q

17:08:19 <pgroth> q+

17:08:22 <pgroth> ack hook

17:08:28 <CraigTrim> hook: sounds like there are more facets to each description now

17:08:36 <CraigTrim> hook: so maybe table format shows each doc name and intention, then color code rows

17:08:41 <CraigTrim> ivan: that should go in overview

17:08:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: but perhaps not in each rec

17:08:52 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/#Documentation_Roadmap

17:08:54 <Curt> q+

17:09:07 <CraigTrim> ivan: in overview this is good entry point

17:09:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth

17:09:21 <pgroth> ack Curt

17:09:22 <CraigTrim> Curt: in one of the presentations there is a diagram of one of the relatoinships - and that would really help on overview

17:09:31 <CraigTrim> ivan: I will review overview

17:09:41 <pgroth> "The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents."

17:10:00 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we should add something like this to every abstract in every spec

17:10:07 <CraigTrim> +1

17:10:08 <Curt> +1

17:10:42 <ivan> +1

17:11:24 <Curt> With the link to PROV-OVERVIEW in the sentence

17:11:29 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/

17:11:31 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so do we refer to overall as ... ?  "prov" .. ?

17:11:35 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/sw-logos.html

17:12:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: "prov family"

17:12:41 <pgroth> approved add sentence "The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents."

17:12:49 <pgroth> q?

17:13:04 <CraigTrim> Luc: is this something that can be used to say "this is prov compliant"

17:13:44 <pgroth> accepted: add sentence "The PROV Document Overview describes the overall state of PROV, and should be read before other PROV documents." in the last sentence of the abstract of each specification

17:14:08 <pgroth> q?

17:14:26 <CraigTrim> Luc: will commit changes for review

17:15:06 <pgroth> action: pgroth remind simon what he's supposed to do

17:15:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Remind simon what he's supposed to do [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].

17:15:31 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html

17:15:52 <Curt> That sentence should link to the PROV-OVERVIEW document.

17:16:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: "prov family of specifications" ... but some of these aren't specs - is that ok?  or "prov family of documents"

17:16:49 <CraigTrim> pgroth: so this latter phrase should be used everywhere

17:16:52 <CraigTrim> ivan: only in status section

17:17:12 <CraigTrim> ivan: how committed are we for notes will be published later?

17:17:22 <CraigTrim> Luc: we have to be cautious

17:17:51 <CraigTrim> ivan: I think dc ... for first public draft - we can trust it will be there - so ok to add to list

17:17:58 <CraigTrim> ivan: pending is dictionary ... ?

17:18:09 <CraigTrim> pgroth: only want to put things there that are first public working draft

17:18:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: we hope dc will be there in time

17:18:29 <CraigTrim> ivan: pending dictionary, semantics ...

17:18:40 <CraigTrim> Luc: will see if I can get mention ready in time for CR

17:18:46 <pgroth> q?

17:19:00 <TomDN> PROV-LINKING !

17:19:01 <CraigTrim> pgroth: can we use another ... the name prov-mention is ... can we use something else?

17:19:21 <pgroth> q?

17:20:11 <CraigTrim> pgroth: remaining is time-tabling and out reach - planning out reach

17:20:36 <CraigTrim> Luc: have Ivan explain what's coming up ...

17:20:37 <pgroth> Topic: Planning

<pgroth> Summary: Ivan went over the steps going to Candidate Rec and then to Proposed Rec.

17:20:45 <CraigTrim> ivan: CR then PR ... these are the foremost steps

17:20:59 <CraigTrim> ivan: this requires approval formally from director that everything is kosher and can be published

17:21:30 <CraigTrim> ivan: prior to physically publishing doc ... we have to have call (2 chairs, Ivan and editors optional)

17:21:37 <CraigTrim> ivan: and also on W3C side 2 or 3 ppl

17:21:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: a tranistion call to defend our case that we did everything necessary

17:22:08 <CraigTrim> ivan: we answered all comments and record of that .... a clean plan ... we have covered all outstanding issues etc

17:22:12 <pgroth> q+ to ask about call for implementations?

17:22:13 <CraigTrim> ivan: proves we are done - this must be well documented and presented

17:22:22 <CraigTrim> Luc: is there an actual presentation?

17:22:33 <CraigTrim> ivan: we have telco - on telco there is agenda - various points

17:22:46 <CraigTrim> ivan: we list various links - in those links (eg to impl plan)

17:22:52 <CraigTrim> ivan: so there is a pattern for that

17:23:06 <CraigTrim> ivan: we have to find right time of about an hour .. 5 people ...

17:23:17 <CraigTrim> ivan: means that timing this can be a challenge - so must prep

17:23:34 <CraigTrim> ivan: to get to transition call there must be a call for all other working group chairs - tell them we declare ourselves ready

17:23:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: tell them that we are going to impl and other working groups can object

17:24:15 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is the declaration of intent call ... and between this call and the transition call - there must be 5 biz days

17:24:24 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is how we calculate back our own timing

17:24:42 <CraigTrim> this means if we say we want to publish on a given day in nov - then we have to come back ... a week or 2 weeks to be on safe side

17:24:48 <CraigTrim> ivan: to account for all readiness on our side

17:25:01 <CraigTrim> ivan: we have to try to get  date - then set date with webmaster that date of pub is OK

17:25:26 <CraigTrim> ivan: when we call out to other WG - here it is - the document should not change after that point

17:25:30 <CraigTrim> ivan: that is point of readiness for docs

17:25:41 <CraigTrim> ivan: only change is if we don't make it to proposed date, then things will change

17:25:48 <CraigTrim> pgroth: question about call for impl ...

17:25:53 <CraigTrim> ivan: this is official named CR

17:26:12 <CraigTrim> ivan: you send out email to chairs - we intend to do CR - once the transition call happens and publication has happened

17:26:21 <CraigTrim> ivan: then all members are told and it appears on home page

17:26:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth

17:26:25 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about call for implementations?

17:26:30 <CraigTrim> ivan: and we are looking for implementations

17:26:45 <CraigTrim> ivan: that will be W3C-side announcement of this

17:27:18 <CraigTrim> ivan: looking ahead for proposed rec - mechanism is set - proposed rec we will have same transition call to prove there has been an impl

17:27:38 <CraigTrim> ivan: it is a similar mechanism - but at the end of PR, the team officially votes and members can agree yes or no to publish

17:27:41 <pgroth> q?

17:27:45 <CraigTrim> ivan: and we simply need enough votes

17:28:23 <CraigTrim> pgroth: what kinds of changes we can do between CR and PR?

17:28:38 <CraigTrim> ivan: minimal

17:28:42 <CraigTrim> ivan: editorial can be done between PR and rec - even though this is stricter

17:28:57 <CraigTrim> ivan: but beyond that guiding principle is that any change which would affect impl means we have to go back to last call

17:29:09 <CraigTrim> ivan: if we make a change that invalidates a validation process - we need that last call round again

17:29:18 <CraigTrim> ivan: editorial change is ok

17:30:35 <CraigTrim> ivan: changes are a case by case basis - but basically, are impls changed?  this is guiding principle

17:30:47 <jcheney> q+

17:30:53 <pgroth> ack jcheney

17:31:13 <CraigTrim> jcheney: for example in constraints doc where I think what I've written in clear - so putting more detail is OK

17:31:26 <CraigTrim> ivan: yes - clarification is always ok - it helps implementation

17:32:09 <CraigTrim> ivan: let's set a date for the CR pub

17:35:31 <CraigTrim> jcheney: suggest that doc list be consistent in ordering

17:35:39 <CraigTrim> jcheney: eg read prov-n before constraints

17:36:02 <CraigTrim> ivan: re-ordering is a good idea

17:40:40 <pgroth> start back at 1:30

18:34:16 <pgroth> Topic: Outreach & Planning

<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed how to encourage implementations. Paul agreed to write a section in the call for implementations that gives guidance to implementors defining why they should implement but also what they should return in the survey and why this is beneficial for them. Craig agreed to writing a motivating paragraph around use cases. The group agreed to the following schedule: Announcement of intention to go to CR, Nov. 27, 2012; Request for CR Publication Dec 4, 2012; Publication of CR of recs along with notes for prov-dc, prov-primer, prov-xml, prov-overview: Dec 11, 2012;  End of CR period Feb. 1, 2013. As per the discussion on the day before the group agreed to put mentionOf in a separate note and also approved public responses for the primer.

18:34:45 <smiles> yes

18:35:01 <hook> pgroth: wrt to outreach, couple of things. need easier way/entry point for external implementors to know what we want them to do.

18:35:23 <hook> ... would be good to have text on guidance, why it is important, what they get in return.

18:36:13 <hook> pgroth: I'll give it a go. could add separate section for request for implementations.

18:36:20 <pgroth> action: pgroth to add a section on implementing prov and why and how

18:36:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-151 - Add a section on implementing prov and why and how [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-17].

18:36:51 <CraigTrim> q+

18:36:57 <hook> pgroth: anything we can do to encourage more implementations of PROV. Any ideas?

18:37:31 <hook> CraigTrim: business to have use cases. want to target the enterprise. To help them in their line of business.

18:38:04 <hook> ... there are people in healthcare, auditing and compliance, risk management, military context for following rules of engagement

18:38:18 <hook> ... legal and police work, logistical supply chains.

18:38:33 <pgroth> q?

18:38:35 <ivan> q+

18:38:39 <hook> ... I can take this up. a paragraph of directed text of how it can help in this context.

18:38:40 <ivan> ack CraigTrim

18:38:48 <hook> pgroth: would also help to have a template.

18:39:41 <hook> ivan: would also be great if use case also has 1-2 sentences of why provenance is important and how the model we have is useful this way.

18:39:49 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements

18:39:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Cases#Original_Use_Cases_Proposed

18:40:22 <pgroth> action: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance

18:40:22 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find CraigTrim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

18:41:00 <pgroth> action: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance

18:41:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find CraigTrim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

18:41:14 <lebot> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users?login

18:41:19 <pgroth> action: Craig Trim to write a paragraph mot�ivating needs for provenance

18:41:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-152 - Trim to write a paragraph mot�ivating needs for provenance [on Craig Trim - due 2012-11-17].

18:41:28 <hook> GK: what time frame are we looking at for this outreach material?

18:42:11 <hook> pgroth: ASAP, but we don't really have a deadline except for end of WG. But it would be useful to get this out to the implementors. To encourage adoption.

18:42:19 <hook> ... we are not at point where specs are stable.

18:42:43 <hook> CraigTrim: has blog post with 1500 hit. on abridged prov primer.

18:42:59 <hook> ivan: would it be possible to make a copy of that?

18:43:04 <lebot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/OutreachInformation

18:43:20 <hook> ... could give completed blog text to chairs.

18:43:28 <pgroth> q?

18:43:32 <pgroth> ack ivan

18:43:59 <hook> pgroth: we had a question on is there a simple implementation that we could do?

18:44:59 <hook> ivan: Christine would like to have a webpage where I can fill out provenance form and it would produce PROV RDF and/or Turtle output.

18:45:12 <hook> lebot: like the FOAF generator.

18:45:14 <lebot> http://www.ldodds.com/foaf/foaf-a-matic

18:45:32 <Curt> q+

18:45:55 <pgroth> ack Curt

18:46:02 <hook> ivan: from my own experience, going back band forth to find the right terms. would be useful for this example.

18:46:47 <hook> Curt: we had information modeling people working with scientists. would be useful to tie it all together.

18:46:56 <lebot> q+

18:47:19 <hook> ivan: for my use case, it's only me. but would still be a useful service.

18:47:46 <pgroth> ack lebot

18:47:51 <hook> lebot: could write web page with even 3 buttons to incrementally generate trace.

18:48:02 <Curt> q+

18:48:06 <pgroth> ack Curt

18:48:35 <hook> Curt: we are working with Peter Fox and Marshall (Ma?), if lebot has ideas to help drive that, it would be useful.

18:49:04 <hook> Luc: what can we advertise on implementation?

18:49:50 <hook> ivan: some WGs do not really make good use of it. anything that is relevant is ok.

18:50:09 <pgroth> q?

18:50:12 <hook> pgroth: we can also do a blog post. i.e. a link to the tutorial material.

18:50:54 <hook> ivan: regarding timelines, what is a reasonable time that we an expect all of the documents to be ready?

18:52:17 <hook> Luc: my intent would be aiming for this week. complete the changes by 2012-11-21.

18:52:28 <hook> jcheney: 2-weeks would probably be doable.

18:52:47 <hook> ivan: we should take whatever is realistic.

18:53:37 <hook> lebot: 2-weeks is during Thanksgiving holiday for US folks.

18:54:21 <hook> pgroth: I have Overview document as well.

18:54:50 <hook> ivan: Nov 27th is Tussday. a good day to have the documents publication ready.

18:55:41 <hook> pgroth: Overview currently does not exists. we also have DC, so have to check when Daniel is back. And XML is also new. Do these have more leeway?

18:56:48 <hook> ivan: for the time being, only counting CRs. the documents will be ready by Nov 27th. pgroth and Luc to send out email to the chairs on the Monday. this means the transition call sometime Dec 4th. which means publication date to be set on Dec 6th.

18:57:19 <hook> ivan: what we have to do then in 1-2 weeks to have a feeling of where we are, and contact Ralph and Thomas.

18:57:37 <hook> ... the other possibility is to put the publication date on 11th (Tuesday).

18:57:51 <hook> pgroth: we should try to start getting the informal meeting already.

18:58:20 <hook> ivan: are we ready? the meeting should be on the 5th. it needs 5-working days in advance.

18:58:38 <hook> pgroth: need to start now since busy schedules for pgroth and Luc.

18:58:51 <hook> ivan: we need to find time between 5th and 10th.

18:59:02 <hook> pgroth: publication date on 11th is fine.

18:59:22 <hook> Luc: Tim, is it possible to have documents complete before Thanksgiving holiday?

18:59:49 <hook> lebot: will try to get things done sooner than later. have 3-4 day window before Thanksgiving. will work on DM and PROV-O.

19:00:04 <hook> lebot: could push to get it done by the 20th.

19:00:42 <hook> ivan: we should not push for tight restrictions. let's be realistic. Let's aim for the 11th, so as soon as the mail goes out to the chairs, we can contact Thomas and Ralph.

19:00:59 <hook> pgroth: we need to schedule it now.

19:01:23 <hook> ivan: we can write email. or simplest thing is setup a Doodle for that week.

19:02:06 <hook> ivan: publication date is Tuesday 11th. setup Doodle for those 4 days prior.

19:02:59 <hook> pgroth: with publication date and CR on 11th, what about Notes?

19:03:28 <hook> pgroth: should we aim for Dec 4th for publication request for Notes?

19:03:41 <hook> Luc: do we need to have group resolution that we go for publication?

19:04:30 <hook> ivan: the DC exists, needs beautifying. for first public draft is ok as is. have no problem voting for it now.

19:04:42 <hook> pgroth: we an do that on upcoming telecon or email.

19:05:22 <pgroth> accepted: proposed publication date of cr dec 11

19:06:05 <pgroth> accepted: request for publication of prov-dc, prov-primer, prov-overview dec 4 with pub date dec 11

19:06:17 <hook> ivan: CR publication request goes out Nov 27th. pgroth to setup Doodle on Dec 5-10.

19:06:42 <pgroth> accepted: announce cr on Nov 27

19:06:52 <hook> Luc: I will produce a bibliographic file. should include URIs of all the documents.

19:06:57 <lebot> 20121211 is a good pile of digits

19:07:21 <hook> ivan: will see with the web master if he is ok with the dates as well.

19:07:43 <hook> pgroth: we are fine with dates.

19:08:22 <hook> Luc: from yesterday, "mentions" will be a Note.

19:08:47 <hook> ivan: for CR we have one more date to finalize. will be part of CR call.

19:09:33 <hook> Luc: there are no Constraints. will look at all of the implementations and compile the implementation report. then go through same exercise for PR.

19:11:05 <hook> ivan: will go through same exercise for PR, but people can work on it sooner. but consider Christmas holiday break. the period after CR could be shortened if we plan ahead. could shoot for Friday, Feb 1st

19:11:25 <pgroth> accepted: Feb 1, 2013 end of CR

19:11:41 <pgroth> q?

19:12:00 <hook> Luc: what happens when we are there, and a feature X does not have two implementation.

19:12:10 <hook> ivan: that means that feature is useless and we remove it.

19:13:06 <hook> pgroth: we have a bigger issue with Constraints. bigger task to implement.

19:13:34 <hook> ... already have Provtoolbox, can throw provenance at it and visualize. then that's two implementations.

19:13:44 <hook> Luc: consumer has to be generic.

19:14:10 <hook> ivan: don't have to be overly generic. it's the intention that counts.

19:14:37 <hook> ... it forces us to think through all of the implementation issues.

19:15:25 <hook> Luc: we need a resolution for DC for first public draft. we don't have it.

19:16:16 <hook> pgroth: we said we will need first acceptance of public draft in telecon...Nov 29th. or can do by email.

19:16:34 <hook> ivan: I will be on travel on Nov 29th.

19:17:35 <hook> pgroth: we need to accept the "mentions" as a Note.

19:18:11 <hook> ... (1) voting for documents and (2) we would create a Note for mentionOf.

19:18:14 <Curt> and what should you call the mention note?

19:18:39 <pgroth> accepted: mentionOf will be put in a separate note as per action-135

19:19:55 <hook> pgroth: smiles, you sent mail to working group list for public comments responses.

19:20:18 <hook> smiles: was sending reminder for repsonses.

19:20:46 <hook> Luc: I thought it was for the eternal reviewers and not for the working group.

19:20:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV_Primer_.28Draft.29

19:20:55 <hook> smiles: as you like.

19:21:26 <smiles> @lebot :)

19:23:08 <lebot> are we proposing to accept those responses?

19:23:10 <pgroth> proposed: the responses to public comments for primer ISSUE-561 ISSUE-562, ISSUE-563, ISSUE-564  are working group responses

19:23:13 <lebot> +1

19:23:14 <ivan> +1

19:23:14 <jcheney> +1

19:23:19 <Curt> +1

19:23:19 <SamCoppens> +1

19:23:21 <CraigTrim> +1

19:23:23 <GK> +1

19:23:25 <hook> +1

19:24:14 <pgroth> accepted: the responses to public comments for primer ISSUE-561 ISSUE-562, ISSUE-563, ISSUE-564  are working group responses

19:24:27 <hook> pgroth: smiles, you can make those changes.

19:24:35 <hook> smiles: changes made. so we are done.

19:25:18 <hook> Luc: looking at responses to public comment, an I invite the editors to check that everything is fine in terms of responses.

19:25:51 <hook> ... ISSUE-592. made resolution yesterday but need response.

19:26:04 <hook> lebot: will update and send out request for group response.

19:26:44 <smiles> Bye, talk to you soon!

19:26:45 <hook> pgroth: wrapping up, earlier than planned. thank you everyone.

19:27:06 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

19:27:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

19:27:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth

19:27:21 <Zakim> -smiles

19:27:24 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

19:27:24 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

19:27:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been smiles, Curt_Tilmes, Dong, SamCoppens, TomDN, laurent, hook, Curt, pgroth, Luc, jcheney, ivan, GK, lebot, CraigTrim, stain, Paolo

19:27:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

19:27:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot

19:27:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-actions.rdf :

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dong to describe blue and green arrows in implementation report document [1]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-03-35

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to change the respec style for implementation report [2]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-05-24

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: dong check constraints are matching to the updated document [3]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-08-00

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dong to update naming convention to include success/failure of test [4]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-14-05

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to create 3/4 questionnaires instead of a single branching one (+ remove mention) [5]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-27-49

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik to look at wbs for the implementation questionnaire [6]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T14-45-55

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Dong to remove reference of prov-json in implementation report, and allow entry for "other serialization" [7]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T15-02-01

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zednik add a question to ask about use of constraints by applications (e.g. "or the features that you implement, do you support the PROV-CONSTRAINTS?") [8]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T15-32-56

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: GK to talk to Jun about implementation of constraints and specifically test cases [9]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T15-38-18

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: smiles editor's check on the primer [10]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T16-25-56

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to produce js file with biblio entries for prov documents [11]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T16-27-28

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth check for the current version of dublin core mapping + then send email to tim and craig for review [12]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T16-37-58

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth remind simon what he's supposed to do [13]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T17-15-06

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to add a section on implementing prov and why and how [14]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-36-20

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance [15]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-40-22

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: CraigTrim to write a paragraph motivating needs for provenance [16]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-41-00

19:27:33 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Craig Trim to write a paragraph mot�ivating needs for provenance [17]

19:27:33 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/10-prov-irc#T18-41-19