IRC log of prov on 2011-11-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:54:20 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:54:20 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc
15:54:21 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
15:54:23 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be
15:54:23 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:54:24 [trackbot]: Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:54:24 [trackbot]: Date: 24 November 2011
15:54:27 [pgroth]: Zakim, this will be PROV
15:54:27 [Zakim]: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:54:33 [stain]: pgroth: I can scribe
15:54:43 [pgroth]: thanks stain!
15:54:58 [pgroth]: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.24
15:55:05 [pgroth]: Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:12 [pgroth]: Scribe: stain
15:55:21 [pgroth]: rrsagent, make logs public
15:55:33 [pgroth]: Regrets: Christian Runnegar
15:55:44 [stain]: will you do the magic things for bumping to the next agendum
15:56:01 [Zakim]: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:56:01 [jcheney]: jcheney has joined #prov
15:56:08 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
15:56:17 [pgroth]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:56:17 [Zakim]: +pgroth; got it
15:56:28 [pgroth]: i actually don't know how to do it
15:56:37 [stain]: ok, I'll do it
15:56:48 [pgroth]: I'll do the topics
15:57:12 [stain]: that's what I meant :)
15:58:37 [Luc]: Luc has joined #prov
15:59:25 [Zakim]: +Luc
15:59:31 [Zakim]: +stain
16:00:12 [stain]: can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break?
16:00:24 [pgroth]: ok
16:00:26 [pgroth]: yes
16:00:39 [dgarijo]: dgarijo has joined #prov
16:00:42 [khalidbelhajjame]: khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
16:01:02 [GK]: GK has joined #prov
16:01:24 [Zakim]: +??P10
16:01:30 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:01:44 [dgarijo]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:01:44 [Zakim]: +dgarijo; got it
16:01:50 [jcheney]: zakim, ??P10 is me
16:01:50 [Zakim]: +jcheney; got it
16:01:53 [Zakim]: +??P9
16:02:01 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:02:14 [dgarijo]: well it looks like many people are on holiday today :)
16:02:39 [khalidbelhajjame]: zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:02:39 [Zakim]: +khalidbelhajjame; got it
16:03:08 [Zakim]: +??P14
16:03:09 [StephenCresswell]: StephenCresswell has joined #prov
16:03:20 [pgroth]: Topic: Admin
16:03:25 [GK]: zakim, ??P14 is me
16:03:25 [Zakim]: +GK; got it
16:03:27 [pgroth]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-17
16:03:34 [stain]: short meeting today
16:03:34 [pgroth]: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 17 telecon
16:03:37 [dgarijo]: +1
16:03:39 [stain]: +1
16:03:40 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
16:03:47 [jcheney]: +1
16:03:59 [dcorsar]: dcorsar has joined #prov
16:04:02 [GK]: +1
16:04:19 [pgroth]: ACCEPTED Minutes of Nov 17 telecon
16:04:23 [pgroth]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
16:04:55 [stain]: ACTION-43 - Pgroth organising now - just waiting for actual confirmation before sending out email - hopefully by end of tomorrow
16:05:06 [stain]: ACTION-44 on Graham - we can come back to this when we talk about PAQ
16:05:12 [GK]: Oops, that fell of my Radar
16:05:30 [stain]: Stian asked about what we do over Christmas break
16:06:04 [stain]: Luc: Propose to have last call just before Christmas, Thurs 22 - not call 29th - resume on 5th of Jan
16:06:09 [GK]: (I'll be on holiday on 22 Dec)
16:06:13 [stain]: (me too)
16:06:16 [smiles]: smiles has joined #prov
16:06:19 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:06:34 [stain]: pgroth: sounds reasonable - but if too many o vacation 22nd we'll cancel
16:06:36 [dgarijo]: I'll be on holidays, but I think I can make it
16:06:49 [stain]: ACTION Pgroth: Send email about holiday break
16:06:50 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-45 - Send email about holiday break [on Paul Groth - due 2011-12-01].
16:06:58 [pgroth]: Topic: PROV-O
16:07:20 [stain]: (I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once)
16:07:28 [stain]: dgarijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up
16:07:35 [stain]: dgarijo: updated document - almost ready for release
16:07:50 [stain]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:07:58 [dgarijo]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:08:07 [stain]: I'll timestamp it
16:08:29 [dcorsar]: dcorsar has joined #prov
16:08:31 [stain]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:08:38 [stain]: pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?
16:09:02 [Zakim]: +Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath
16:09:05 [Luc]: q+
16:09:08 [stain]: dgarijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document
16:09:14 [satya]: satya has joined #prov
16:09:30 [pgroth]: zednik
16:09:31 [pgroth]: ?
16:09:32 [stain]: q?
16:10:06 [Zakim]: +??P27
16:10:14 [satya]: @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O?
16:10:16 [stain]: Luc: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document
16:10:27 [jcheney]: q+
16:10:28 [khalidbelhajjame]: Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon
16:10:51 [jcheney]: q-
16:10:51 [stain]: Luc: what is happening with section 4, 5
16:11:15 [stain]: satya: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long
16:11:27 [stain]: satya: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML
16:11:29 [dgarijo]: when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry.
16:11:33 [stain]: Monday
16:11:51 [stain]: satya: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O
16:12:05 [stain]: satya: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability
16:12:16 [jcheney]: q+
16:12:18 [stain]: satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O
16:12:38 [stain]: (Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints )
16:13:05 [stain]: Luc: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent
16:13:43 [khalidbelhajjame]: Can then Section 4 be released as a note?
16:13:53 [stain]: Luc: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally
16:13:58 [GK]: q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence
16:14:16 [stain]: Luc: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally
16:14:35 [stain]: Luc: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view
16:14:49 [stain]: Luc: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed
16:15:00 [stain]: Luc: what is the message of all those issues?
16:15:16 [stain]: Luc: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document
16:15:22 [stain]: q?
16:15:30 [pgroth]: ack luc
16:15:57 [stain]: Satya: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated.
16:16:15 [stain]: satya: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time
16:17:00 [stain]: satya: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate
16:17:04 [dgarijo]: what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there.
16:17:25 [jcheney]: q-
16:17:25 [stain]: satya: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative
16:17:36 [pgroth]: ack zednik
16:17:48 [jcheney]: I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document
16:18:04 [stain]: GK: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism.
16:18:12 [pgroth]: q?
16:18:14 [stain]: GK: so it *is* supported by charter
16:18:15 [pgroth]: ack GK
16:18:15 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence
16:18:20 [Luc]: q+
16:18:26 [pgroth]: ack Luc
16:18:34 [stain]: Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative
16:18:58 [stain]: Luc: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts
16:19:21 [stain]: (but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?)
16:19:35 [dgarijo]: @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc.
16:19:58 [stain]: Luc: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems.
16:20:03 [pgroth]: q?
16:20:05 [stain]: q+
16:20:50 [satya]: q+
16:20:57 [pgroth]: ack stain
16:21:06 [stain]: stain: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning?
16:21:08 [pgroth]: q?
16:21:10 [pgroth]: q+
16:21:11 [stain]: Luc: yes, that's what I meant
16:21:20 [GK]: q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well
16:21:40 [stain]: satya: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them?
16:21:49 [stain]: satya: in particular if it prevents interoperability
16:22:14 [stain]: Luc: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace
16:22:32 [stain]: pgroth: I think we need to separate questions
16:22:53 [stain]: pgroth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability..
16:22:56 [stain]: pgroth: q2 is where this belongs
16:23:03 [GK]: @paul - good intervention!
16:23:13 [stain]: pgroth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices
16:23:26 [stain]: pgroth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question.
16:23:48 [stain]: pgroth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note
16:23:59 [stain]: pgroth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long
16:24:16 [pgroth]: q?
16:24:16 [GK]: q-
16:24:17 [stain]: pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD
16:24:23 [satya]: q-
16:24:24 [pgroth]: ack satya
16:24:25 [Luc]: +1 to Paul's comment
16:24:29 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:24:29 [pgroth]: q?
16:24:35 [stain]: +1 to make a Best Practice document
16:25:04 [stain]: Luc: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document
16:25:14 [stain]: q+
16:25:51 [Luc]: what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples?
16:25:53 [pgroth]: ack stain
16:25:58 [GK]: @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material?
16:26:04 [satya]: q+
16:26:05 [stain]: stain: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD?
16:26:13 [dgarijo]: +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right?
16:26:15 [pgroth]: ack satya
16:27:00 [stain]: satya: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that. If such a user comes to see what is the use for me
16:27:07 [GK]: ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM
16:27:14 [stain]: satya: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised
16:27:42 [stain]: satya: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4
16:27:53 [pgroth]: q?
16:27:53 [stain]: satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document
16:27:57 [khalidbelhajjame]: +q
16:28:54 [GK]: q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative?
16:29:04 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM
16:29:10 [satya]: @GK +1
16:29:14 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples
16:29:20 [dgarijo]: +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice?
16:29:33 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only
16:29:36 [pgroth]: q?
16:29:41 [pgroth]: ack khalidbelhajjame
16:30:06 [stain]: GK: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that.
16:30:15 [pgroth]: q+
16:30:21 [pgroth]: ack GK
16:30:21 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as
16:30:22 [stain]: GK: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative
16:30:24 [Zakim]: ... non-normative?
16:30:25 [stain]: +1
16:30:34 [stain]: pgroth: issue is that it is a lot of material
16:30:45 [stain]: pgroth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression
16:30:52 [stain]: pgroth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs
16:31:13 [stain]: pgroth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but..
16:31:18 [pgroth]: q?
16:31:39 [stain]: GK: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document?
16:31:52 [khalidbelhajjame]: +q
16:31:56 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:31:57 [stain]: pgroth: would prefer just to move it out for now
16:32:16 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down
16:32:19 [Paolo]: Paolo has joined #prov
16:32:20 [Luc]: what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document?
16:32:36 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative
16:32:43 [pgroth]: q?
16:32:46 [pgroth]: ack khalidbelhajjame
16:32:46 [GK]: (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?)
16:32:53 [stain]: Luc: OK, can do that :)
16:32:59 [stain]: just copy and delete
16:33:11 [dgarijo]: @stian:+1
16:33:12 [Luc]: @stain, yes, plus a small intro
16:33:18 [Zakim]: +??P29
16:33:30 [pgroth]: q?
16:33:31 [stain]: pgroth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it
16:33:31 [Paolo]: zakim, ??P29 is me
16:33:31 [Zakim]: +Paolo; got it
16:33:48 [pgroth]: option a
16:34:07 [stain]: +1
16:34:15 [jcheney]: +1
16:34:17 [satya]: +1
16:34:31 [stain]: option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice
16:34:40 [stain]: option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there
16:34:40 [GK]: (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5
16:34:47 [dgarijo]: +1 to b.
16:34:51 [stain]: +1 to b
16:34:51 [khalidbelhajjame]: @GK :-)
16:34:59 [satya]: +1 to b
16:35:09 [smiles]: +1 to b
16:35:12 [dcorsar]: +1 to b
16:35:16 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1 to b
16:35:24 [stain]: I can take the action
16:35:30 [jcheney]: Happy with either.
16:35:32 [satya]: q+
16:35:45 [Luc]: proposal: release both documents at the same time as fpwd
16:35:57 [stain]: ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document
16:35:57 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01].
16:36:11 [stain]: satya: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document
16:36:31 [stain]: pgroth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications
16:36:39 [stain]: satya: yes, and with link to examples in best practice
16:36:44 [stain]: Luc: sounds reasonable
16:36:54 [khalidbelhajjame]: :-)
16:36:54 [stain]: RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :)
16:37:23 [pgroth]: Resolved: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document
16:37:37 [GK]: I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain
16:37:42 [stain]: right
16:37:46 [stain]: but that is the same
16:38:11 [stain]: pgroth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad
16:38:14 [stain]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints
16:38:15 [GK]: @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.
16:38:19 [stain]: ;)
16:38:26 [pgroth]: q?
16:38:29 [pgroth]: ack satya
16:38:52 [stain]: satya: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document?
16:39:06 [stain]: I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict
16:39:17 [khalidbelhajjame]: We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-)
16:39:31 [satya]: @Khalid :)
16:39:32 [stain]: pgroth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O
16:39:42 [stain]: pgroth: but we commented it out from the FPWD
16:40:02 [stain]: satya: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document
16:40:08 [stain]: pgroth: does that resolve it?
16:40:13 [stain]: Luc: Believe so
16:40:23 [stain]: (issues are public anyway, remember!)
16:40:34 [pgroth]: q?
16:40:40 [stain]: pgroth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right?
16:40:59 [stain]: Luc: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD [ at the same time ]
16:41:03 [dgarijo]: +1 to that
16:41:09 [stain]: sorry
16:41:14 [stain]: the Best PRactice document
16:41:19 [stain]: (which does not yet exist! ;) )
16:41:21 [GK]: q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?
16:41:29 [khalidbelhajjame]: Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document?
16:41:30 [stain]: GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial!
16:41:56 [stain]: it will only be section 4 for now
16:42:16 [stain]: pgroth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week
16:42:21 [jcheney]: I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now.
16:42:29 [stain]: can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial ?
16:42:52 [stain]: Luc: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O
16:43:11 [pgroth]: Proposed: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes
16:43:19 [GK]: +1
16:43:20 [smiles]: +1
16:43:20 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1
16:43:20 [stain]: +1 (witout the ] thing)
16:43:20 [dgarijo]: +1
16:43:22 [pgroth]: +1
16:43:23 [jcheney]: +1
16:43:23 [dcorsar]: +1
16:43:23 [satya]: +1
16:43:54 [stain]: (we're all waiting for Luc!)
16:44:23 [pgroth]: Accepted: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes
16:44:24 [stain]: Luc: supportive - but don't vote as a chair
16:44:36 [stain]: pgroth: but I've been voting as a chair !!
16:44:38 [satya]: @Paul :)
16:44:41 [stain]: congrats everyone!
16:44:45 [khalidbelhajjame]: Hurray
16:44:52 [stain]: pgroth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along
16:44:56 [Luc]: congrats to the prov-o team!
16:45:04 [dgarijo]: :)
16:45:05 [pgroth]: Topic: PROV-AQ
16:45:51 [stain]: GK: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else
16:46:22 [stain]: GK: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball?
16:46:25 [stain]: pgroth: happy to do the test
16:46:29 [stain]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html
16:47:08 [stain]: GK: might not be available in the near future
16:47:17 [pgroth]: q?
16:47:19 [pgroth]: ack GK
16:47:19 [Zakim]: GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?
16:47:20 [stain]: pgroth: getting close to FPWD
16:47:32 [pgroth]: Topic: PROV-DM
16:47:39 [Luc]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version
16:47:49 [pgroth]: lots of echo
16:47:57 [stain]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html
16:48:17 [stain]: Luc: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented
16:48:25 [stain]: Luc: some questions on derivations
16:48:37 [stain]: Luc: being edited as we speak
16:48:48 [stain]: Luc: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well
16:49:03 [stain]: Luc: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo
16:49:09 [stain]: Luc: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review
16:49:24 [stain]: Luc: don't file issues on the actual current document yet
16:49:31 [stain]: Luc: hoping to have feedback soon
16:49:40 [stain]: Luc: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation
16:49:52 [stain]: Luc: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible
16:50:01 [stain]: (You mean before christmas?)
16:50:14 [Luc]: @stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time
16:50:20 [stain]: Paolo: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment
16:50:27 [stain]: Paolo: most changes would be simplifying
16:50:35 [stain]: Paolo: and not throw everyting up in the air again
16:50:50 [pgroth]: q?
16:50:54 [stain]: @Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 ..
16:51:13 [stain]: Paolo: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility
16:51:16 [dgarijo]: @Stian: you mean Activity, right?
16:51:21 [Luc]: @stain, what is this? PE -> account?
16:51:21 [stain]: yes, sorry
16:51:25 [stain]: Activity
16:51:31 [pgroth]: q?
16:51:44 [pgroth]: q?
16:51:52 [stain]: so when do we get the internal review?
16:51:57 [pgroth]: Topic: PROV-JSON
16:52:01 [stain]: if second WD is in 2 weeks
16:52:07 [Luc]: @stain, hopefully, next week
16:52:26 [stain]: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/
16:52:49 [stain]: pgroth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed?
16:53:08 [stain]: pgroth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM
16:53:19 [stain]: pgroth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed
16:53:29 [stain]: pgroth: given time.. let us hear about it
16:53:50 [stain]: DongHuynh: observing WG development
16:53:55 [stain]: DongHuynh: first time in meeting
16:54:09 [stain]: DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications
16:54:21 [stain]: DongHuynh: to have a common format
16:54:29 [stain]: DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs.
16:54:48 [stain]: DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications
16:54:54 [stain]: DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM
16:54:55 [Zakim]: -Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath
16:55:11 [stain]: DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation.
16:55:31 [stain]: DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types
16:55:54 [stain]: DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when not needed.
16:56:05 [stain]: DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?]
16:56:11 [Luc]: design rationale http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction
16:56:29 [stain]: examples
16:56:37 [DongHuynh]: https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json
16:57:07 [stain]: DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository
16:57:22 [stain]: DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default
16:57:45 [DongHuynh]: https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json
16:57:47 [stain]: DongHuynh: second example exands
16:58:23 [stain]: DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information
16:58:30 [stain]: (line 35 is not valid JSON btw)
16:58:48 [stain]: DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level
16:58:53 [stain]: DongHuynh: at next level is the entity
16:58:58 [stain]: DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs
16:59:14 [Luc]: @stain, yes, looks like a typo
16:59:19 [pgroth]: q?
16:59:23 [khalidbelhajjame]: +q
16:59:24 [stain]: DongHuynh: questions?
16:59:31 [stain]: GK: (skipping the queue!)
16:59:37 [stain]: GK: JSON-LD?
16:59:52 [stain]: GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga
16:59:55 [stain]: glance
17:00:08 [stain]: http://json-ld.org/
17:00:24 [pgroth]: ack khalidbelhajjame
17:00:24 [stain]: DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues
17:00:34 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent..
17:00:50 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?)
17:01:00 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: JSON schema?
17:01:09 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: to say how it can be serialised
17:01:10 [pgroth]: q?
17:01:23 [stain]: DongHuynh: could not hear very well..
17:01:36 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON
17:01:53 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ?
17:02:01 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching
17:02:10 [stain]: khalidbelhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON
17:02:27 [stain]: DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability
17:02:37 [stain]: DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON
17:02:47 [stain]: DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity
17:02:51 [stain]: DongHuynh: working on this
17:03:16 [pgroth]: http://json-schema.org/
17:03:23 [stain]: DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure
17:03:34 [stain]: DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics
17:03:45 [stain]: DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema
17:03:53 [stain]: DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML
17:04:04 [stain]: DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema
17:04:11 [stain]: DongHuynh: is it really used
17:04:31 [stain]: DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example
17:04:39 [khalidbelhajjame]: Thanks Dong
17:04:42 [pgroth]: q?
17:04:44 [stain]: DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process
17:04:59 [stain]: pgroth: we are running out of time now
17:05:03 [stain]: pgroth: very interesting work
17:05:14 [stain]: pgroth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed
17:05:14 [Luc]: q+
17:05:30 [stain]: Luc: Is it possible to have a sense here now?
17:05:42 [stain]: Luc: who would be interested in working on this spec?
17:05:54 [stain]: +1
17:05:55 [jcheney]: +0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?)
17:06:00 [khalidbelhajjame]: +1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate)
17:06:18 [stain]: Luc: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG
17:06:25 [GK]: It depends on timing, and principles. I'd want us to see DM very stable first.
17:06:34 [stain]: @GK +1
17:06:46 [stain]: @GK perhaps this is a spring project
17:06:57 [GK]: Yes, maybe in spring.
17:06:59 [jcheney]: @GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync
17:07:00 [pgroth]: q?
17:07:05 [stain]: I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment
17:07:06 [pgroth]: ack Luc
17:07:16 [jcheney]: same with PROV-XML
17:07:16 [GK]: @jcheney +1
17:07:20 [stain]: @jcheney +1
17:07:34 [stain]: pgroth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this
17:07:37 [Zakim]: -Paolo
17:07:37 [stain]: thanks everybody!
17:07:38 [jcheney]: bye
17:07:41 [Zakim]: -khalidbelhajjame
17:07:42 [Zakim]: -dgarijo
17:07:42 [Zakim]: -jcheney
17:07:44 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller]
17:07:48 [pgroth]: rrsagent, set log public
17:07:50 [dgarijo]: happy thanksgiving
17:07:50 [Zakim]: -??P27
17:07:55 [pgroth]: rrsagent, draft minutes
17:07:55 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth
17:08:01 [pgroth]: trackbot, end telcon
17:08:01 [trackbot]: Zakim, list attendees
17:08:01 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo
17:08:02 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:08:02 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot
17:08:03 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]: I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf :
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2]
17:08:03 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57