The minutes were approved
Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs.
The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed.
The group was asked to volunteer for tasks defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.
There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.
14:53:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc ←
14:53:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:53:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
14:53:29 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
14:53:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:30 <trackbot> Date: 14 March 2013
14:53:33 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
14:53:34 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
14:53:49 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14
14:53:57 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:05 <pgroth> Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes
(Scribe set to Stian Soiland-Reyes)
14:54:09 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, Satya Sahoo
14:54:16 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
14:58:48 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
14:58:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:59:14 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Paul Groth: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
14:59:15 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it ←
15:00:47 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
15:00:59 <GK> zakim, ??p14 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p14 is me ←
15:00:59 <Zakim> +GK; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aaaa ←
15:01:05 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me
James Cheney: zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:01:05 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it ←
15:01:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:01:35 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Luc Moreau: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it ←
15:02:29 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
15:02:35 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P21 is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P21 is me ←
15:02:35 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
15:02:42 <pgroth> @stain you ready?
Paul Groth: @stain you ready? ←
15:03:23 <stain> I'm joining
I'm joining ←
15:03:31 <pgroth> great
Paul Groth: great ←
15:03:36 <stain> sorry
sorry ←
15:03:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:03:44 <stain> zakim, +IPcaller is me
zakim, +IPcaller is me ←
15:03:44 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller' ←
15:03:48 <stain> zakim, IPcaller is me
zakim, IPcaller is me ←
15:03:48 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
15:03:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:04:07 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, +[IPcaller] is me ←
15:04:07 <Zakim> sorry, KhalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, KhalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' ←
15:04:30 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
15:04:30 <Zakim> +KhalidBelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +KhalidBelhajjame; got it ←
15:05:07 <Luc> time change only affecting europeans
Luc Moreau: time change only affecting europeans ←
15:05:14 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: Provenance WG http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14
stain has changed the topic to: Provenance WG http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14 ←
15:05:17 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
Summary: The minutes were approved
<pgroth> Summary: The minutes were approved
15:05:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07 ←
15:05:38 <stain> pgroth: Votes on minutes, please
Paul Groth: Votes on minutes, please ←
15:05:45 <stain> 0 (not present)
0 (not present) ←
15:05:47 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
15:05:48 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
15:05:54 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:05:54 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
15:06:26 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:06:27 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon
RESOLVED: Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon ←
15:06:42 <Luc> :-)
Luc Moreau: :-) ←
15:06:42 <Dong> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Trung Huynh: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
15:06:42 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it ←
15:06:51 <stain> pgroth: Hoping http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/122 will be done eventually by end of WG ..
Paul Groth: Hoping http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/122 will be done eventually by end of WG .. ←
15:06:56 <pgroth> Topic: Documents are published
Summary: Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs.
<pgroth> Summary: Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs.
15:07:05 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/12/call-for-review-prov-family-of-documents-published-as-proposed-recommendations/
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/12/call-for-review-prov-family-of-documents-published-as-proposed-recommendations/ ←
15:07:12 <Luc> 4!
Luc Moreau: 4! ←
15:07:19 <stain> pgroth: Congratulations everyone, here is Ivan's blogpost.
Paul Groth: Congratulations everyone, here is Ivan's blogpost. ←
15:07:23 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
15:07:29 <stain> pgroth: not that much of a hazzle, got it published in the end
Paul Groth: not that much of a hazzle, got it published in the end ←
15:07:47 <stain> pgroth: one thing we did in the rush (13 documents) was to not do our standards of writing blog posts and PR as for other releases
Paul Groth: one thing we did in the rush (13 documents) was to not do our standards of writing blog posts and PR as for other releases ←
15:08:01 <stain> pgroth: and so I wanted to see if people would be willing to write a blog post and/or send emails to particular mailing lists
Paul Groth: and so I wanted to see if people would be willing to write a blog post and/or send emails to particular mailing lists ←
15:08:09 <stain> pgroth: announcing specially the working drafts
Paul Groth: announcing specially the working drafts ←
15:08:20 <stain> pgroth: we still have 9 Working Drafts we would like to have reviewed
Paul Groth: we still have 9 Working Drafts we would like to have reviewed ←
15:08:30 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:08:32 <stain> pgroth: can I get some volunteers to write blog posts or email lists?
Paul Groth: can I get some volunteers to write blog posts or email lists? ←
15:08:47 <stain> q+ to write PAQ blog post
q+ to write PAQ blog post ←
15:08:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:08:48 <KhalidBelhajjame> I can send mails to mailing lists: DataOne, DbWorld, and others
Khalid Belhajjame: I can send mails to mailing lists: DataOne, DbWorld, and others ←
15:08:52 <GK> I guess I could send email to the LDP group as king for review of prov-aq
Graham Klyne: I guess I could send email to the LDP group as king for review of prov-aq ←
15:08:52 <dgarijo> I write a blog post, similar to Ivan's: http://linkingresearch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-prov-family-of-specifications-is-released/
Daniel Garijo: I write a blog post, similar to Ivan's: http://linkingresearch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-prov-family-of-specifications-is-released/ ←
15:08:58 <dgarijo> *wrote
Daniel Garijo: *wrote ←
15:09:24 <stain> pgroth: Khalid, yeah, great, could you do that
Paul Groth: Khalid, yeah, great, could you do that ←
15:09:32 <stain> stain: volunteers to do a blog post about PAQ
Stian Soiland-Reyes: volunteers to do a blog post about PAQ ←
15:09:42 <stain> pgroth: and GK if you could write the LDP group
Paul Groth: and GK if you could write the LDP group ←
15:09:51 <dgarijo> ok
Daniel Garijo: ok ←
15:09:53 <stain> pgroth: Dani, I will write an overview blog post; perhaps you could write something about the DC Note?
Paul Groth: Dani, I will write an overview blog post; perhaps you could write something about the DC Note? ←
15:10:06 <stain> pgroth: and did you/Kai notify the DC people abou tthe draft?
Paul Groth: and did you/Kai notify the DC people abou tthe draft? ←
15:10:22 <stain> dgarijo: yes, it was announced on the web page (?) ; but not sure if was announced on public list, will ping him abou tthat
Daniel Garijo: yes, it was announced on the web page (?) ; but not sure if was announced on public list, will ping him abou tthat ←
15:10:27 <stain> pgroth: that's everything
Paul Groth: that's everything ←
15:10:44 <stain> pgroth: will send emails to group..
Paul Groth: will send emails to group.. ←
15:11:02 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results ←
15:11:12 <stain> pgroth: with the proposed REC, we need to give ?C refs to vote for our documents. They have to vote that it goes to recommendations
Paul Groth: with the proposed REC, we need to give ?C refs to vote for our documents. They have to vote that it goes to recommendations ←
15:11:19 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList ←
15:11:28 <stain> pgroth: we would like you to contact your AC representative to vote for the recommendation
Paul Groth: we would like you to contact your AC representative to vote for the recommendation ←
15:11:32 <stain> pgroth: here you can find your representative
Paul Groth: here you can find your representative ←
15:11:44 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:11:47 <stain> pgroth: we need as many votes as possible can to push to REC
Paul Groth: we need as many votes as possible can to push to REC ←
15:11:47 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
15:11:47 <Zakim> stain, you wanted to write PAQ blog post
Zakim IRC Bot: stain, you wanted to write PAQ blog post ←
15:12:08 <stain> I'll ask the Manchester one
I'll ask the Manchester one ←
15:12:11 <jcheney> i've mentioned it to henry
James Cheney: i've mentioned it to henry ←
15:12:15 <Luc> i did it for soton
Luc Moreau: i did it for soton ←
15:12:25 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:12:36 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
Summary: The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed.
<pgroth> Summary: The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed.
15:12:48 <stain> pgroth: What we want to do is to resolve some of the core issues
Paul Groth: What we want to do is to resolve some of the core issues ←
15:13:02 <stain> pgroth: sent around a reminder to look at these issues
Paul Groth: sent around a reminder to look at these issues ←
15:13:07 <stain> pgroth: GK to add some context?
Paul Groth: GK to add some context? ←
15:13:24 <stain> GK: It makes sense to talk about the individual issues.. added a couple of small thigns to the agenda
Graham Klyne: It makes sense to talk about the individual issues.. added a couple of small thigns to the agenda ←
15:13:41 <stain> GK: do we want to confirm that the issues that I propose to close without further discussion are OK?
Graham Klyne: do we want to confirm that the issues that I propose to close without further discussion are OK? ←
15:13:48 <stain> GK: in the order you proposed, or different order?
Graham Klyne: in the order you proposed, or different order? ←
15:14:03 <stain> pgroth: does not matter order, but want to talk about the core issues (which could take time) - the pending ones we can go through fast
Paul Groth: does not matter order, but want to talk about the core issues (which could take time) - the pending ones we can go through fast ←
15:14:11 <stain> GK: it might make sense to do the PENDING ones first...
Graham Klyne: it might make sense to do the PENDING ones first... ←
15:14:15 <stain> pgroth: no, at the end
Paul Groth: no, at the end ←
15:14:36 <stain> pgroth: first issue is ISSUE-618 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/618
Paul Groth: first issue is ISSUE-618 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/618 ←
15:14:40 <stain> Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ?
Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ? ←
15:15:23 <stain> GK: since we've put the revised pingback proposal in the document (which was published), which to my mind looks more like a provenance discovery mechanism, .. the question was put to the mailing list eariler ; do we want to include or exclude this
Graham Klyne: since we've put the revised pingback proposal in the document (which was published), which to my mind looks more like a provenance discovery mechanism, .. the question was put to the mailing list eariler ; do we want to include or exclude this ←
15:15:43 <stain> GK: Luc commented to exclude it.. there was statements of inclusion support from at least 3 people - with me that is 4
Graham Klyne: Luc commented to exclude it.. there was statements of inclusion support from at least 3 people - with me that is 4 ←
15:16:00 <stain> GK: as I see it, there is a good reason to include it in that there is reasonable, if not overwhelming support to keep it in place
Graham Klyne: as I see it, there is a good reason to include it in that there is reasonable, if not overwhelming support to keep it in place ←
15:16:22 <stain> GK: there was no co??? reason to exclude it, it was brought within the general scope of the document
Graham Klyne: there was no co??? reason to exclude it, it was brought within the general scope of the document ←
15:16:31 <stain> GK: but many did not like the name "Forward provenance" - we do need a better name
Graham Klyne: but many did not like the name "Forward provenance" - we do need a better name ←
15:16:36 <Luc> what about provenance?
Luc Moreau: what about provenance? ←
15:16:40 <stain> GK: one possibility - was "downstream provenance"
Graham Klyne: one possibility - was "downstream provenance" ←
15:17:02 <Zakim> + +329331aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aabb ←
15:17:03 <stain> GK: Two issues: i) Does anyone have any reason not to include it? ii) Alternative names - here throwing in "Downstream provenance"
Graham Klyne: Two issues: i) Does anyone have any reason not to include it? ii) Alternative names - here throwing in "Downstream provenance" ←
15:17:06 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:17:11 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:17:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
15:17:20 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aabb is me
Sam Coppens: zakim, +329331aabb is me ←
15:17:20 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←
15:17:28 <stain> Luc: I still maintain the view expressed in the email
Luc Moreau: I still maintain the view expressed in the email ←
15:17:43 <stain> Luc: feel that the requirements as (??) should be, never really been agreed by the WG
Luc Moreau: feel that the requirements as (??) should be, never really been agreed by the WG ←
15:17:54 <stain> Luc: as for the rest of the document it was guided by the scenario
Luc Moreau: as for the rest of the document it was guided by the scenario ←
15:18:08 <stain> Luc: it seems to be that what is proposed is (?) solution; (?) there was another one.. there could be others
Luc Moreau: it seems to be that what is proposed is (?) solution; (?) there was another one.. there could be others ←
15:18:19 <stain> Luc: but nowhere can I (?) them, we did not agree what are the rquirements
Luc Moreau: but nowhere can I (?) them, we did not agree what are the rquirements ←
15:18:20 <GK> q+ to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design
Graham Klyne: q+ to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design ←
15:18:23 <stain> Luc: so that is an issue with it
Luc Moreau: so that is an issue with it ←
15:18:36 <stain> Luc: But if the group decides to include it, we should discuss the name
Luc Moreau: But if the group decides to include it, we should discuss the name ←
15:19:03 <Luc> agreed by the Working Group!!!!
Luc Moreau: agreed by the Working Group!!!! ←
15:19:03 <stain> GK: Disagree with the characterisation of not having requirements; in the wiki what Tim initialyl proposed was a requirement that was guiding the design
Graham Klyne: Disagree with the characterisation of not having requirements; in the wiki what Tim initialyl proposed was a requirement that was guiding the design ←
15:19:18 <stain> GK: would have to dig to find the URI.. This was mentioned in my email response to Luc
Graham Klyne: would have to dig to find the URI.. This was mentioned in my email response to Luc ←
15:19:38 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Provenance_ping-backs
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Provenance_ping-backs ←
15:19:51 <Luc> is there a group resolution endording this document?
Luc Moreau: is there a group resolution endording this document? ←
15:20:22 <stain> GK: there are 3 scenarios in this wiki page; while we did not go into the same level of detailed analysis; I don't think this is fair to say it was not proposed without requirements
Graham Klyne: there are 3 scenarios in this wiki page; while we did not go into the same level of detailed analysis; I don't think this is fair to say it was not proposed without requirements ←
15:20:27 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:20:33 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
15:20:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design ←
15:20:46 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me
Sam Coppens: zakim, mute me ←
15:20:46 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: SamCoppens should now be muted ←
15:20:58 <stain> Luc: there was no set of requirements which was agreed by the WG - there is no resolution deciding this
Luc Moreau: there was no set of requirements which was agreed by the WG - there is no resolution deciding this ←
15:21:00 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
15:21:11 <Luc> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
15:21:22 <stain> GK: these were up for discussion, but nobody disagreed with them ; but agree there was no formal resolution
Graham Klyne: these were up for discussion, but nobody disagreed with them ; but agree there was no formal resolution ←
15:21:27 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
15:21:38 <stain> GK: from what Ivan said I did not believe a formal resolution as needed
Graham Klyne: from what Ivan said I did not believe a formal resolution as needed ←
15:21:47 <stain> pgroth: I think we did agree to try it out when we talked about it at last F2F
Paul Groth: I think we did agree to try it out when we talked about it at last F2F ←
15:21:58 <stain> pgroth: I can try to dig that up and confirm.
Paul Groth: I can try to dig that up and confirm. ←
15:22:13 <stain> pgroth: what I actually asked on the mailing list was what is the role (?)
Paul Groth: what I actually asked on the mailing list was what is the role (?) ←
15:22:20 <GK> My recollection concurs with Paul - we did agree to look at pingback
Graham Klyne: My recollection concurs with Paul - we did agree to look at pingback ←
15:22:28 <stain> pgroth: agree in a sense with Luc; the.. (?)
Paul Groth: agree in a sense with Luc; the.. (?) ←
15:22:56 <stain> pgroth: whether the requirement ...(?) design requirements. Tim had a go at it, and proposed a solution, then Stian proposed a solution. I did not.
Paul Groth: whether the requirement ...(?) design requirements. Tim had a go at it, and proposed a solution, then Stian proposed a solution. I did not. ←
15:23:16 <stain> pgroth: If we say that this is a note.. but if this was a recommendation; then I would agree we shoudl not do this; too experimental.
Paul Groth: If we say that this is a note.. but if this was a recommendation; then I would agree we shoudl not do this; too experimental. ←
15:23:25 <stain> pgroth: and we have not look ed at it as long as the other thrings. But this is a note.
Paul Groth: and we have not look ed at it as long as the other thrings. But this is a note. ←
15:23:40 <stain> pgroth: in other cases, like PROV Links, or other things we thought were useful, but preliminary, we just publish them as NOTE
Paul Groth: in other cases, like PROV Links, or other things we thought were useful, but preliminary, we just publish them as NOTE ←
15:23:48 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
15:23:51 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:23:53 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:23:53 <stain> pgroth: It would come under the status of a note
Paul Groth: It would come under the status of a note ←
15:24:13 <GK> Agree. Nothing more to add.
Graham Klyne: Agree. Nothing more to add. ←
15:24:51 <stain> pgroth: I could propose one solution, is that we are currently in a WD phase; and this is included now in Stian's proposal. And so we would like to particularly get review on the pingback.
Paul Groth: I could propose one solution, is that we are currently in a WD phase; and this is included now in Stian's proposal. And so we would like to particularly get review on the pingback. ←
15:24:54 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:25:00 <Luc> i don't think there is time
Luc Moreau: i don't think there is time ←
15:25:01 <stain> pgroth: and based on that decide to remove or keep
Paul Groth: and based on that decide to remove or keep ←
15:25:11 <stain> pgroth: but there's a review period now
Paul Groth: but there's a review period now ←
15:25:25 <stain> Luc: do you mean internally or externally?
Luc Moreau: do you mean internally or externally? ←
15:25:36 <stain> pgroth: right now we are in a phase were we have released a WD for external feedback
Paul Groth: right now we are in a phase were we have released a WD for external feedback ←
15:25:37 <GK> (That is: go forward with it as is, and pull it if there are significant problems i review)
Graham Klyne: (That is: go forward with it as is, and pull it if there are significant problems i review) ←
15:25:43 <stain> pgroth: and we are in a phase doing internal reviewing
Paul Groth: and we are in a phase doing internal reviewing ←
15:26:00 <stain> pgroth: and so if we get comments from external reviews.. or if internal reviews show issues..
Paul Groth: and so if we get comments from external reviews.. or if internal reviews show issues.. ←
15:26:01 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:26:03 <GK> I plan to ask LDP to review: I could draw their attention to this area.
Graham Klyne: I plan to ask LDP to review: I could draw their attention to this area. ←
15:26:03 <stain> q+
q+ ←
15:26:14 <stain> Luc: that (?) is already there..
Luc Moreau: that (?) is already there.. ←
15:26:22 <stain> Luc: we are in that situation.. it's time to make a decission
Luc Moreau: we are in that situation.. it's time to make a decission ←
15:26:31 <stain> GK: are there others than yourself that said it was not fine
Graham Klyne: are there others than yourself that said it was not fine ←
15:26:40 <stain> Luc: No.. and I am not going to vote on this
Luc Moreau: No.. and I am not going to vote on this ←
15:26:58 <stain> pgroth: so you don't want to re-review ?
Paul Groth: so you don't want to re-review ? ←
15:27:11 <stain> Luc: when I sent my email this week; I had just read the text for the first time
Luc Moreau: when I sent my email this week; I had just read the text for the first time ←
15:27:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:27:28 <stain> Luc: perhaps we can have an informal vote on if there are other objections
Luc Moreau: perhaps we can have an informal vote on if there are other objections ←
15:27:37 <stain> Luc: then it could be a resolved matter
Luc Moreau: then it could be a resolved matter ←
15:28:04 <pgroth> straw poll: include ping back in the paq
Paul Groth: straw poll: include ping back in the paq ←
15:28:19 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.661.382.aacc ←
15:28:21 <stain> Luc: +1 is to keep, and -1 if you want to remove
Luc Moreau: +1 is to keep, and -1 if you want to remove ←
15:28:25 <stain> +1
+1 ←
15:28:25 <jcheney> +0 (haven't reviewed but don't object)
James Cheney: +0 (haven't reviewed but don't object) ←
15:28:26 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:28:29 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:28:31 <dgarijo> +0
Daniel Garijo: +0 ←
15:28:33 <KhalidBelhajjame> +0
Khalid Belhajjame: +0 ←
15:28:36 <zednik> +0
Stephan Zednik: +0 ←
15:28:40 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
15:28:47 <SamCoppens> +0
Sam Coppens: +0 ←
15:28:50 <CraigTrim> +0
Craig Trim: +0 ←
15:29:01 <jcheney> It seems to me that a note is an appropriate place for a preliminary design, as long as it's clearly marked as such
James Cheney: It seems to me that a note is an appropriate place for a preliminary design, as long as it's clearly marked as such ←
15:29:01 <stain> I would call that luke warm calling for more review..
I would call that luke warm calling for more review.. ←
15:29:17 <CraigTrim> Zakim, aacc is me
Craig Trim: Zakim, aacc is me ←
15:29:18 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +CraigTrim; got it ←
15:29:18 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:29:26 <stain> q-
q- ←
15:29:40 <stain> Luc: would like to hear pgroth's view as an PAQ editor
Luc Moreau: would like to hear pgroth's view as an PAQ editor ←
15:29:49 <stain> pgroth: my view is that I kind of like it; but needs more review
Paul Groth: my view is that I kind of like it; but needs more review ←
15:30:01 <stain> pgroth: because it's the newest thing in the PAQ it needs another round of review
Paul Groth: because it's the newest thing in the PAQ it needs another round of review ←
15:30:10 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
15:30:12 <stain> pgroth: if there is (?) I would want it out because of time
Paul Groth: if there is errors I would want it out because of time ←
15:30:30 <Luc> s/(?)/errors
15:30:39 <GK> I'm with Paul's view here - if problems are exposed pull it.
Graham Klyne: I'm with Paul's view here - if problems are exposed pull it. ←
15:30:43 <stain> pgroth: if that is the concensus.. GK are you OK to proceed like that?
Paul Groth: if that is the concensus.. GK are you OK to proceed like that? ←
15:30:53 <stain> GK: ok, that is entirely reasonable. If there are problems we don't have time to rework it.
Graham Klyne: ok, that is entirely reasonable. If there are problems we don't have time to rework it. ←
15:31:24 <stain> pgroth: and we just released the WD, so encourage people to re-read it properly. Also contacting the LDP group etc
Paul Groth: and we just released the WD, so encourage people to re-read it properly. Also contacting the LDP group etc ←
15:31:31 <stain> GK: not technical reworks.
Graham Klyne: not technical reworks. ←
15:31:41 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:31:44 <stain> pgroth: and then the renaming issue.. we should be able to deal with it without changing technical bits
Paul Groth: and then the renaming issue.. we should be able to deal with it without changing technical bits ←
15:32:12 <stain> Luc: if we keep it in, I am of the view that we shoudl not qualify (?) prospective... don't think it is suitable. It is provenance.
Luc Moreau: if we keep it in, I am of the view that we shoudl not qualify (?) prospective... don't think it is suitable. It is provenance. ←
15:32:20 <stain> Luc: no kind of qualification of the provenance
Luc Moreau: no kind of qualification of the provenance ←
15:32:55 <stain> pgroth: OK, suggest to leave the renaming issue out
Paul Groth: OK, suggest to leave the renaming issue out ←
15:32:56 <GK> q+ to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.
Graham Klyne: q+ to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation. ←
15:33:02 <Luc> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
15:33:04 <stain> pgroth: some concerns about the name
Paul Groth: some concerns about the name ←
15:33:15 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
15:33:15 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation. ←
15:33:35 <stain> GK: technically it's fine to not commit to upstream or downstream.. but would be useful with motivation for what the mechanism is there for. Just editorial.
Graham Klyne: technically it's fine to not commit to upstream or downstream.. but would be useful with motivation for what the mechanism is there for. Just editorial. ←
15:33:46 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:33:48 <stain> q+
q+ ←
15:33:57 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
15:35:37 <stain> stain: thinks that there should be an editorial motivation on the most typical usecase of notifying-upstream-pingback; but not technically limit one way or another ; I should be free to pingback some provenance about how King Richard III was found under a parking lot
Stian Soiland-Reyes: thinks that there should be an editorial motivation on the most typical usecase of notifying-upstream-pingback; but not technically limit one way or another ; I should be free to pingback some provenance about how King Richard III was found under a parking lot ←
15:36:04 <pgroth> proposed: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback
PROPOSED: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback ←
15:36:15 <GK> OK
Graham Klyne: OK ←
15:36:24 <pgroth> accepted: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback
RESOLVED: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback ←
15:36:49 <stain> pgroth: should we recommend RDF for provenance? http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428
Paul Groth: should we recommend RDF for provenance? http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428 ←
15:37:05 <stain> GK: the mechanisms that are presented in indepdendent from provenance format (as requested)
Graham Klyne: the mechanisms that are presented in indepdendent from provenance format (as requested) ←
15:37:21 <stain> GK: there is still a weak recommendation that PROV-O in a "standardized RDF format" is suggested, but not required for the mechanism
Graham Klyne: there is still a weak recommendation that PROV-O in a "standardized RDF format" is suggested, but not required for the mechanism ←
15:37:31 <stain> GK: Luc had a comment abou tthat.. if we want to change it I would be fine
Graham Klyne: Luc had a comment abou tthat.. if we want to change it I would be fine ←
15:37:49 <stain> GK: but many of the feedback we have got is to use PROV-O and RDF, and perhaps nudging people in that direction
Graham Klyne: but many of the feedback we have got is to use PROV-O and RDF, and perhaps nudging people in that direction ←
15:38:00 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:38:02 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:38:09 <stain> (I've had people asking me today about PROV-JSON via PROV-AQ)
(I've had people asking me today about PROV-JSON via PROV-AQ) ←
15:38:33 <GK> Curent text: "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation."
Graham Klyne: Curent text: "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation." ←
15:38:34 <stain> Luc: lots of REST services out there just XML and JSON. It would be fine if they could export provenance. It would be good to help them indivdiually.. (?)
Luc Moreau: lots of REST services out there just XML and JSON. It would be fine if they could export provenance. It would be good to help them indivdiually.. (?) ←
15:38:43 <stain> Luc: that I would think they want to export provenance in the same formats
Luc Moreau: that I would think they want to export provenance in the same formats ←
15:38:51 <stain> Luc: so my view is to not promote RDF in this case
Luc Moreau: so my view is to not promote RDF in this case ←
15:38:57 <stain> Luc: just recommend the use of PROV serializations
Luc Moreau: just recommend the use of PROV serializations ←
15:39:23 <stain> Luc: we have already media types for PROV-N, there's PROV-XML (media type?), and then RDF
Luc Moreau: we have already media types for PROV-N, there's PROV-XML (media type?), and then RDF ←
15:39:33 <GK> I'm OK with this change if that's the group's view.
Graham Klyne: I'm OK with this change if that's the group's view. ←
15:39:34 <stain> pgroth: also in favour of that personally. Just say "Use PROV" should be good enough
Paul Groth: also in favour of that personally. Just say "Use PROV" should be good enough ←
15:39:46 <stain> pgroth: PROV-O will rpobably win the day anyway.. I don't think PAQ needs it
Paul Groth: PROV-O will rpobably win the day anyway.. I don't think PAQ needs it ←
15:39:48 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:39:48 <stain> q+
q+ ←
15:39:51 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
15:39:55 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
15:40:28 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:41:00 <stain> stain: was initially pushing for the "Should be RDF" bit so that there would be some kind of promise or recommendation of what kind of serialization you would find; but is buying into Luc's argument to just go for any PROV serialization
Stian Soiland-Reyes: was initially pushing for the "Should be RDF" bit so that there would be some kind of promise or recommendation of what kind of serialization you would find; but is buying into Luc's argument to just go for any PROV serialization ←
15:41:07 <GK> Suggest "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "
Graham Klyne: Suggest "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " ←
15:41:19 <pgroth> proposed: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "
PROPOSED: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " ←
15:41:29 <Luc> it's good, thanks
Luc Moreau: it's good, thanks ←
15:41:30 <stain> +1 (RECOMMENDED)
+1 (RECOMMENDED) ←
15:41:36 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:41:38 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
15:41:45 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:41:49 <stain> pgroth: any objections?
Paul Groth: any objections? ←
15:41:52 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
15:41:54 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
15:41:54 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:42:03 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:42:13 <pgroth> accepted: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "
RESOLVED: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. " ←
15:42:59 <stain> is this 425?
is this 425? ←
15:43:19 <Luc> issue-425?
15:43:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-425 -- Why does the service description need to be rdf? -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-425 -- Why does the service description need to be rdf? -- pending review ←
15:43:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425 ←
15:43:24 <stain> thnx
thnx ←
15:43:34 <stain> trackbot is clever :)
trackbot is clever :) ←
15:43:34 <trackbot> Sorry, stain, I don't understand 'trackbot is clever :)'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, stain, I don't understand 'trackbot is clever :)'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help. ←
15:43:53 <stain> GK: one comment has been that Why does Service Description have to be RDF in
Graham Klyne: one comment has been that Why does Service Description have to be RDF in ←
15:44:06 <stain> GK: and the other by Stian, was to mention JSON-LD as an explicit format
Graham Klyne: and the other by Stian, was to mention JSON-LD as an explicit format ←
15:44:49 <stain> GK: My response ; Similar to the provenance format.. the mechanism would work with any service description format; but the only one we are actually describing is one based on RDF. There is more bias towards RDF in this case. but does not precelude the use of alternative formats
Graham Klyne: My response ; Similar to the provenance format.. the mechanism would work with any service description format; but the only one we are actually describing is one based on RDF. There is more bias towards RDF in this case. but does not precelude the use of alternative formats ←
15:45:17 <stain> GK: the main reason here was that the RDF one was the easiest one to expecify. The format we use use the RDF linked data properties (?) - allow us to have multiple serve descriptions in the same document.
Graham Klyne: the main reason here was that the RDF one was the easiest one to expecify. The format we use use the RDF linked data properties (?) - allow us to have multiple serve descriptions in the same document. ←
15:45:36 <stain> GK: would think it was too late to define anything else.. but what we have is a service description based on RDF.. but left open in the document to use other formats.
Graham Klyne: would think it was too late to define anything else.. but what we have is a service description based on RDF.. but left open in the document to use other formats. ←
15:45:55 <stain> GK: as a final comment.. the idea to use other formats came out strongly from LDP group as well (Linked Data Platform)
Graham Klyne: as a final comment.. the idea to use other formats came out strongly from LDP group as well (Linked Data Platform) ←
15:46:11 <stain> using content-negotiation to get different service description is common in world of XML web serices
using content-negotiation to get different service description is common in world of XML web serices ←
15:46:20 <stain> GK: and so remain compatible; but taking it further in our use of RDF
Graham Klyne: and so remain compatible; but taking it further in our use of RDF ←
15:46:46 <stain> pgroth: to summarize - we allow any service description format using conneg ; we give one example of how it is described in RDF
Paul Groth: to summarize - we allow any service description format using conneg ; we give one example of how it is described in RDF ←
15:46:52 <stain> GK: ok, but stronger than example
Graham Klyne: ok, but stronger than example ←
15:46:54 <stain> pgroth: ONE way
Paul Groth: ONE way ←
15:47:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:47:04 <stain> GK: not mandatory, but only one we specify
Graham Klyne: not mandatory, but only one we specify ←
15:47:15 <stain> q+
q+ ←
15:47:20 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
15:47:53 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
15:48:23 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:48:29 <GK> q+ to say have sympathy with describing other formats, but problem is where do we stop?
Graham Klyne: q+ to say have sympathy with describing other formats, but problem is where do we stop? ←
15:49:03 <stain> stain: Still think that Luc's argument from before also applies here; my JSON-LD proposal was a way to give a simple JSON format that just happens to also be valid JSON-LD (and therefore correspond to our RDF format)
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Still think that Luc's argument from before also applies here; my JSON-LD proposal was a way to give a simple JSON format that just happens to also be valid JSON-LD (and therefore correspond to our RDF format) ←
15:49:27 <stain> pgroth: (???) leaving the door open forservice descriptions; specially in terms of REST. There is no common way to do REST service descriptions
Paul Groth: (???) leaving the door open forservice descriptions; specially in terms of REST. There is no common way to do REST service descriptions ←
15:49:35 <stain> pgroth: we can give one easy way to do it. But we don't mandate it.
Paul Groth: we can give one easy way to do it. But we don't mandate it. ←
15:49:40 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
15:49:54 <stain> Luc: If I was to write it, I would do it the way you said, Paul
Luc Moreau: If I was to write it, I would do it the way you said, Paul ←
15:50:04 <GK> q-
Graham Klyne: q- ←
15:50:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:50:11 <stain> Luc: I noticed how a service description language format... (?) We identified this is the information we expect to find.
Luc Moreau: I noticed how a service description language format... (?) We identified this is the information we expect to find. ←
15:50:17 <stain> Luc: and for illustration, here's an example using RDF
Luc Moreau: and for illustration, here's an example using RDF ←
15:50:28 <stain> Luc: using content-negotiation to find the representation
Luc Moreau: using content-negotiation to find the representation ←
15:50:29 <GK> Paul's formulation sounded good. Would be happy to work on that.
Graham Klyne: Paul's formulation sounded good. Would be happy to work on that. ←
15:50:49 <stain> pgroth: think my formulation is not too far from what's there.. I can fine-tune it
Paul Groth: think my formulation is not too far from what's there.. I can fine-tune it ←
15:50:50 <Luc> agreed, it's minor fine tuning
Luc Moreau: agreed, it's minor fine tuning ←
15:51:19 <stain> GK: happy with that. The way it came over in pgroth's expla=nation was good. So that they can use whatever works in their environment
Graham Klyne: happy with that. The way it came over in pgroth's expla=nation was good. So that they can use whatever works in their environment ←
15:51:32 <stain> (sorry I did not get to scribe most of what pgroth said before!)
(sorry I did not get to scribe most of what pgroth said before!) ←
15:52:04 <pgroth> proposed: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq
PROPOSED: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq ←
15:52:17 <stain> pgroth: any objections?
Paul Groth: any objections? ←
15:52:22 <pgroth> accepted: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq
RESOLVED: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq ←
15:52:37 <stain> should we make that action?
should we make that action? ←
15:52:52 <stain> pgroth: now to go through list of pendingreview
Paul Groth: now to go through list of pendingreview ←
15:52:58 <GK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Mar/0090.html
Graham Klyne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Mar/0090.html ←
15:53:00 <pgroth> action: pgroth to update service description editorial
ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial ←
15:53:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - Update service description editorial [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-165 - Update service description editorial [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-21]. ←
15:53:16 <pgroth> zakim, mute luc
Paul Groth: zakim, mute luc ←
15:53:16 <Zakim> Luc should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Luc should now be muted ←
15:53:21 <stain> GK: running through the document of MUST and MAY.. done in last editing/review
Graham Klyne: running through the document of MUST and MAY.. done in last editing/review ←
15:53:30 <stain> GK: Oh, right!
Graham Klyne: Oh, right! ←
15:53:43 <stain> GK: we just figured out what to do with 425 in this meeting
Graham Klyne: we just figured out what to do with 425 in this meeting ←
15:53:56 <Luc> issue-300?
15:53:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-300 -- Quote vs Quotation (Involvement versus Activity) -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-300 -- Quote vs Quotation (Involvement versus Activity) -- closed ←
15:53:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/300
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/300 ←
15:54:00 <stain> GK: ISSUE-600 PROV-pingback was an old issue to add pingback, now toclose
Graham Klyne: ISSUE-600 PROV-pingback was an old issue to add pingback, now toclose ←
15:54:05 <Luc> \issue-609?
Luc Moreau: \ISSUE-609? ←
15:54:06 <pgroth> iisue-600
Paul Groth: iisue-600 ←
15:54:14 <Luc> issue-609?
15:54:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-609 -- Specify how to locate a SPARQL endpoint for querying provenance -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-609 -- Specify how to locate a SPARQL endpoint for querying provenance -- pending review ←
15:54:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609 ←
15:54:15 <stain> GK: ISSUE-609 is how to locate a SPARQL endpoint.. now covered by Service Description
Graham Klyne: ISSUE-609 is how to locate a SPARQL endpoint.. now covered by Service Description ←
15:54:20 <Luc> issue-622?
15:54:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-622 -- Should PROV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-622 -- Should PROV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? -- pending review ←
15:54:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622 ←
15:54:30 <stain> GK: ISSUE-622 about JSON-LD.. I think we just agreed how to address that
Graham Klyne: ISSUE-622 about JSON-LD.. I think we just agreed how to address that ←
15:54:36 <Luc> issue-624?
15:54:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-624 -- Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-624 -- Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? -- pending review ←
15:54:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624 ←
15:54:47 <stain> GK: The ISSUE-624 - about specifying service URI or template.. this was going back to an earlier discussion
Graham Klyne: The ISSUE-624 - about specifying service URI or template.. this was going back to an earlier discussion ←
15:55:00 <stain> GK: where we are we always get the direct access URI by means of a template in service description
Graham Klyne: where we are we always get the direct access URI by means of a template in service description ←
15:55:08 <Luc> issue-628?
15:55:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-628 -- Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-628 -- Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent -- pending review ←
15:55:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/628
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/628 ←
15:55:28 <stain> GK: and ISSUE-628 there was an issue raised by others about inconsistency aobut anchor specification in HTML vs HTTP
Graham Klyne: and ISSUE-628 there was an issue raised by others about inconsistency aobut anchor specification in HTML vs HTTP ←
15:55:46 <stain> GK: there is an inconsistency.. which we discussed earlier.. but one which is of small importance only arrising in edge cases
Graham Klyne: there is an inconsistency.. which we discussed earlier.. but one which is of small importance only arrising in edge cases ←
15:55:57 <stain> GK: the document specifies how to use these things in a way that avoids the inconsistencies
Graham Klyne: the document specifies how to use these things in a way that avoids the inconsistencies ←
15:56:01 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:56:07 <stain> GK: that means we invent less new mechanisms
Graham Klyne: that means we invent less new mechanisms ←
15:56:24 <stain> GK: so that is the list of issues that is now PENDINGREVIEW and I propose to CLOSE - given no objections
Graham Klyne: so that is the list of issues that is now PENDINGREVIEW and I propose to CLOSE - given no objections ←
15:56:28 <pgroth> Zakim, unmute luc
Paul Groth: Zakim, unmute luc ←
15:56:28 <Zakim> Luc should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Luc should no longer be muted ←
15:56:31 <Luc> zakim, unmute me
Luc Moreau: zakim, unmute me ←
15:56:31 <Zakim> Luc was not muted, Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: Luc was not muted, Luc ←
15:57:07 <stain> Luc: to me, I was not asking for a redesign.. just meant a note in the text; there is a difference between what the two approaches (?) could do.
Luc Moreau: to me, I was not asking for a redesign.. just meant a note in the text; there is a difference between what the two approaches (?) could do. ←
15:57:17 <stain> GK: ok, that is a good point. I'll make a note to myself to do that
Graham Klyne: ok, that is a good point. I'll make a note to myself to do that ←
15:57:39 <pgroth> action: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http
ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http ←
15:57:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [on Graham Klyne - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-166 - Add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [on Graham Klyne - due 2013-03-21]. ←
15:57:42 <stain> +1
+1 ←
15:57:45 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:57:47 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
15:58:11 <pgroth> accepted: close the pending review issues listed in the minutes
RESOLVED: close the pending review issues listed in the minutes ←
15:58:36 <stain> pgroth: on response to James Anderson.. running out of time
Paul Groth: on response to James Anderson.. running out of time ←
15:58:41 <pgroth> Topic: timetable check
Summary: The group was asked to volunteer for tasks defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.
<pgroth> Summary: The group was asked to volunteer for tasks defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.
15:58:42 <stain> pgroth: important topic..
Paul Groth: important topic.. ←
15:58:49 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication ←
15:58:58 <stain> pgroth: we have essentially trying to close shop some time end of April
Paul Groth: we have essentially trying to close shop some time end of April ←
15:59:06 <stain> pgroth: we need to stage all documents by 2013-04-23
Paul Groth: we need to stage all documents by 2013-04-23 ←
15:59:21 <stain> pgroth: asking all editors to put their final proposals for timeline (when things are to be done)
Paul Groth: asking all editors to put their final proposals for timeline (when things are to be done) ←
15:59:27 <stain> pgroth: I think all editors have done that
Paul Groth: I think all editors have done that ←
15:59:32 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:59:33 <stain> pgroth: are any of the editors concerned about the time?
Paul Groth: are any of the editors concerned about the time? ←
15:59:57 <SamCoppens> zakim, unmute me
Sam Coppens: zakim, unmute me ←
15:59:57 <Zakim> SamCoppens should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: SamCoppens should no longer be muted ←
16:00:00 <stain> pgroth: have a couple of other tasks on that page to be done
Paul Groth: have a couple of other tasks on that page to be done ←
16:00:13 <stain> pgroth: namespace pages
Paul Groth: namespace pages ←
16:00:25 <stain> pgroth: updating the FAQ
Paul Groth: updating the FAQ ←
16:00:30 <stain> pgroth: making the PROV page on the wiki better
Paul Groth: making the PROV page on the wiki better ←
16:00:41 <stain> pgroth: need volunteers for those other tasks
Paul Groth: need volunteers for those other tasks ←
16:00:51 <stain> pgroth: I would do the namespace task
Paul Groth: I would do the namespace task ←
16:00:56 <stain> pgroth: Provenance of Documents
Paul Groth: Provenance of Documents ←
16:01:09 <stain> pgroth: Luc said he would do that.. Tim would look at PROV-O's prov
Paul Groth: Luc said he would do that.. Tim would look at PROV-O's prov ←
16:01:16 <stain> pgroth: but editors should write their own PROV
Paul Groth: but editors should write their own PROV ←
16:01:51 <stain> stain: should not each of the formats use their own format for their PROV..?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: should not each of the formats use their own format for their PROV..? ←
16:02:00 <stain> pgroth: to use content-negotiation between formats
Paul Groth: to use content-negotiation between formats ←
16:02:02 <GK> (and a .htaccess to handle the content negotiation?)
Graham Klyne: (and a .htaccess to handle the content negotiation?) ←
16:02:03 <stain> pgroth: but need templates?
Paul Groth: but need templates? ←
16:02:16 <stain> pgroth: running out of time.. could people volunteer for the rest of this?
Paul Groth: running out of time.. could people volunteer for the rest of this? ←
16:02:20 <stain> q+
q+ ←
16:02:51 <stain> pgroth: yes, deadline would be bout 2013-04-23.. or really 2013-04-30
Paul Groth: yes, deadline would be bout 2013-04-23.. or really 2013-04-30 ←
16:02:51 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:03:14 <stain> (personally that's too short for me to help, given easter etc)
(personally that's too short for me to help, given easter etc) ←
16:03:19 <GK> (Difficult for me to commit to more than prov-aq on that timescale)
Graham Klyne: (Difficult for me to commit to more than prov-aq on that timescale) ←
16:03:21 <pgroth> Topic: GLD last call
Summary: There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.
<pgroth> Summary: There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.
16:03:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20121023/
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20121023/ ←
16:03:32 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:03:41 <stain> pgroth: Government Linked Data Group has published their last call for their ontology.. and it uses PROV. It would be good for some of us to review it before last call
Paul Groth: Government Linked Data Group has published their last call for their ontology.. and it uses PROV. It would be good for some of us to review it before last call ←
16:03:48 <stain> Luc: we've already reviewed...?
Luc Moreau: we've already reviewed...? ←
16:03:55 <stain> Luc: was published in october
Luc Moreau: was published in october ←
16:04:09 <stain> Luc: Jun and I drafter a response from the WG. The document has not changed.
Luc Moreau: Jun and I drafter a response from the WG. The document has not changed. ←
16:04:29 <stain> pgroth: so you asked them to change it, but they have not?
Paul Groth: so you asked them to change it, but they have not? ←
16:04:33 <Dong> @Paul, can you give brief descriptions for "Other Tasks" on the wiki page, so I can see what I can help? Thanks.
Trung Huynh: @Paul, can you give brief descriptions for "Other Tasks" on the wiki page, so I can see what I can help? Thanks. ←
16:04:44 <stain> Luc: right, that is still the bversion in October. It was only announced on..(?)
Luc Moreau: right, that is still the bversion in October. It was only announced on..(?) ←
16:04:52 <stain> pgroth: but I was reading this email..
Paul Groth: but I was reading this email.. ←
16:05:10 <stain> Luc: perhaps we should talk to Ivan. About derivation.. was assuming (?) with activities
Luc Moreau: perhaps we should talk to Ivan. About derivation.. was assuming (?) with activities ←
16:05:13 <KhalidBelhajjame> Teher is a more recent version that dates of March the 14th: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html
Khalid Belhajjame: Teher is a more recent version that dates of March the 14th: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html ←
16:05:20 <stain> Luc: there was another one
Luc Moreau: there was another one ←
16:05:23 <stain> Luc: not sure what they are doing
Luc Moreau: not sure what they are doing ←
16:05:34 <pgroth> action: luc and paul to talk about gld
ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld ←
16:05:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - And paul to talk about gld [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-03-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-167 - And paul to talk about gld [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-03-21]. ←
16:06:12 <stain> pgroth: for everyine to think about how we can promote draft and the proposed recommendations
Paul Groth: for everyine to think about how we can promote draft and the proposed recommendations ←
16:06:20 <stain> pgroth: DO get your AC ref to vote
Paul Groth: DO get your AC ref to vote ←
16:06:22 <dgarijo> bbye
Daniel Garijo: bbye ←
16:06:23 <KhalidBelhajjame> thanks, bye
Khalid Belhajjame: thanks, bye ←
16:06:25 <Luc> bye
Luc Moreau: bye ←
16:06:28 <Zakim> -KhalidBelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -KhalidBelhajjame ←
16:06:29 <SamCoppens> Bye
Sam Coppens: Bye ←
16:06:30 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
16:06:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
16:06:32 <zednik> bye
Stephan Zednik: bye ←
16:06:32 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
16:06:32 <Zakim> -??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P7 ←
16:06:34 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
Zakim IRC Bot: -CraigTrim ←
16:06:34 <jcheney> bye
James Cheney: bye ←
16:06:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
16:06:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
16:06:37 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens ←
16:06:39 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
16:06:41 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
16:06:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:06:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, GK, +44.131.467.aaaa, jcheney, Luc, dgarijo, stain, KhalidBelhajjame, Dong, SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, GK, +44.131.467.aaaa, jcheney, Luc, dgarijo, stain, KhalidBelhajjame, Dong, SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim ←
16:06:44 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
16:06:44 <Zakim> -pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←
16:06:48 <GK> Bye
Graham Klyne: Bye ←
16:06:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:06:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:06:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-actions.rdf : ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial [1]
ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial [1] ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-53-00
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-53-00 ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [2]
ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [2] ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-57-39
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-57-39 ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld [3]
ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld [3] ←
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T16-05-34
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T16-05-34 ←
16:06:50 <Dong> bye
Trung Huynh: bye ←
16:06:54 <Zakim> -GK
Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←
Formatted by CommonScribe