15:14:34 <pgroth> zakim, who is on the call?

Paul Groth: zakim, who is on the call? ←

15:14:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see tdenies, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, ??P9, [ISI], lebot, ??P17, bvillazo, christine, jcheney, jun, Sandro, ??P24, Satya_Sahoo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tdenies, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, ??P9, [ISI], lebot, ??P17, bvillazo, christine, jcheney, jun, Sandro, ??P24, Satya_Sahoo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth ←

15:14:40 <Zakim> tdenies has tdenies, SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: tdenies has tdenies, SamCoppens ←

15:14:43 <jcheney> Luc: Had identified reviewers.  Most reviews are in now

Luc Moreau: Had identified reviewers. Most reviews are in now ←

15:14:46 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P36 is me

Paul Groth: Zakim, ??P36 is me ←

15:14:46 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it ←

15:14:54 <jcheney> ... any pending reviews?

... any pending reviews? ←

15:15:13 <jcheney> smiles: Christine may be reviewing primer

Simon Miles: Christine may be reviewing primer ←

15:16:06 <jcheney> christine: Will review if helpful

Christine Runnegar: Will review if helpful ←

15:16:42 <jcheney> Luc: MacTed's reviews not in - seems not to be on the call

Luc Moreau: MacTed's reviews not in - seems not to be on the call ←

15:16:51 <lebot> @macted, are you planning to review provo?

Timothy Lebo: @macted, are you planning to review provo? ←

15:16:51 <jcheney> ... overall recommendations:

... overall recommendations: ←

15:17:06 <jcheney> primer, prov-o: ready to release

primer, prov-o: ready to release ←

15:17:07 <pgroth> sorry I was late... did we get reviews for the paq

Paul Groth: sorry I was late... did we get reviews for the paq ←

15:17:20 <jun> @pgroth, yes we did

Jun Zhao: @pgroth, yes we did ←

15:17:21 <pgroth> reviewers for the paq?

Paul Groth: reviewers for the paq? ←

15:17:24 <jcheney> ... prov-n: mostly yes, but some issues raised by simon to be addressed

... prov-n: mostly yes, but some issues raised by simon to be addressed ←

15:17:28 <pgroth> @jun thanks

Paul Groth: @jun thanks ←

15:17:33 <jcheney> ... prov-dm-constraints: no

... prov-dm-constraints: no ←

15:17:48 <jcheney> ... prov-dm: mixed reviews, some blocking issues

... prov-dm: mixed reviews, some blocking issues ←

15:18:08 <jcheney> ... options: A. release early

... options: A. release early ←

15:18:43 <jcheney> ... vote on 19th, benefit: external feedback

... vote on 19th, benefit: external feedback ←

15:18:55 <jcheney> ... in parallel, start work on remaining issues

... in parallel, start work on remaining issues ←

15:19:21 <jcheney> ... option B. delay release, so that we tackle issues prior to last call

... option B. delay release, so that we tackle issues prior to last call ←

15:19:34 <jcheney> ... unclear how long release will be delayed

... unclear how long release will be delayed ←

15:19:49 <jcheney> ... won't get feedback

... won't get feedback ←

15:20:58 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:21:01 <jcheney> ... want to take vote on these

... want to take vote on these ←

15:21:11 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:21:40 <Luc> ack smi

Luc Moreau: ack smi ←

15:21:52 <jcheney> q+

q+ ←

15:22:47 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:22:52 <Luc> ack jc

Luc Moreau: ack jc ←

15:23:27 <bvillazo> I agree with Simon: it would be useful to see if external feedback also agrees on the issues we already have for releasing the documents.

Daniel Garijo: I agree with Simon: it would be useful to see if external feedback also agrees on the issues we already have for releasing the documents. ←

15:23:47 <jcheney> jcheney: confirm we want to release synchronously.

James Cheney: confirm we want to release synchronously. ←

15:23:59 <jcheney> ... in what order do we decide what to drop (if anything)

... in what order do we decide what to drop (if anything) ←

15:24:07 <lebot> q+ let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've been baking this iteration for long enough.

Timothy Lebo: q+ let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've been baking this iteration for long enough. ←

15:24:21 <jcheney> Luc: plan to address concerns and release what we have after a week, not remove things by next week

Luc Moreau: plan to address concerns and release what we have after a week, not remove things by next week ←

15:24:30 <jcheney> ... any dropping will happen after the release

... any dropping will happen after the release ←

15:24:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:24:45 <lebot> q+ to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've been baking this iteration for long enough.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've been baking this iteration for long enough. ←

15:25:05 <jcheney> jcheney: then we will decide what to drop by last call release

James Cheney: then we will decide what to drop by last call release ←

15:25:30 <jcheney> pgroth: we can change until last call

Paul Groth: we can change until last call ←

15:25:54 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:25:58 <pgroth> thanks sandro

Paul Groth: thanks sandro ←

15:26:07 <jcheney> sandro: can change after last call but changes should be motivated by external review

Sandro Hawke: can change after last call but changes should be motivated by external review ←

15:26:14 <jcheney> ... any group input should happen before lc

... any group input should happen before lc ←

15:26:23 <pgroth> material change

Paul Groth: material change ←

15:26:37 <jcheney> Luc: no change?

Luc Moreau: no change? ←

15:26:59 <pgroth> it's key to get the ontology right for example

Paul Groth: it's key to get the ontology right for example ←

15:27:01 <jcheney> sandro: improving text is fine, but changes that break implementations are not, and require reverting to last call

Sandro Hawke: improving text is fine, but changes that break implementations are not, and require reverting to last call ←

15:27:06 <pgroth> before last call

Paul Groth: before last call ←

15:27:27 <jcheney> Luc: with several documents, what happens to others?

Luc Moreau: with several documents, what happens to others? ←

15:27:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:27:33 <jcheney> sandro: can be separated if we want

Sandro Hawke: can be separated if we want ←

15:27:53 <jcheney> lebot: recommend A, have been working on this for some time and external feedback needed

Timothy Lebo: recommend A, have been working on this for some time and external feedback needed ←

15:28:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:28:04 <Luc> ack lebot

Luc Moreau: ack lebot ←

15:28:04 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've

Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to say let's go for A; my "yes-ish" for DM is not a show stopper, and my constraints "No" can be addressed with some meta-discourse and section renaming. We've ←

15:28:08 <Zakim> ... been baking this iteration for long enough.

Zakim IRC Bot: ... been baking this iteration for long enough. ←

15:28:25 <jcheney> Luc: any argument in favor of option b?

Luc Moreau: any argument in favor of option b? ←

15:28:34 <Luc> proposed: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th

PROPOSED: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th ←

15:28:39 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

15:28:43 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:28:44 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:28:45 <jcheney> +1

+1 ←

15:28:45 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:28:45 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1 ←

15:28:46 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

15:28:47 <tdenies> +1

Tom De Nies: +1 ←

15:28:48 <bvillazo> +1 to A

Daniel Garijo: +1 to A ←

15:29:00 <SamCoppens> +1 for A

Sam Coppens: +1 for A ←

15:29:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:29:40 <Luc> accepted: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th

RESOLVED: Stick to the timetable, make minor changes, vote for formal release on 19th ←

15:30:02 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:31:25 <Luc> ack smiles

Luc Moreau: ack smiles ←

15:31:36 <Luc> Topic: Challenging issues

<jcheney> Summary: Remaining challenging issues were discussed.

15:32:12 <jcheney> Luc: Outstanding problems for discussion/decisions

15:32:19 <jcheney> subtopic: PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS

<jcheney> Summary: James will help edit PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS in advance of release, incorporating feedback from Graham and Tim.

15:32:57 <jcheney> ... Reviews identified consistent problems

15:33:26 <jcheney> ... jcheney to help

15:34:04 <jcheney> lebot: biggest point: organization & navigation poor

15:34:28 <jcheney> ... suggested naming/consistency and navigation improvements

15:34:52 <Luc> q?

15:34:58 <jcheney> Subtopic: PROV-N

<jcheney> Summary: PROV-N was mostly agreed to be ready to go, but would benefit from linking to allow naviagtion of the grammar.  There are tools to turn YACC grammars into HTML with appropriate hyperlinks.  Luc and Sandro will look into using existing tools.

15:35:19 <jcheney> ... request from Tim to navigate the productions

15:35:27 <jcheney> ... there is a tool that generates html from YACC

15:35:43 <jcheney> ... would like to see if anyone can write such a grammar

15:35:53 <Luc> q?

15:36:01 <jcheney> (I've used yacc, but is it that hard?)

15:36:12 <Paolo> I missed the lastpart of your sentence

15:36:17 <jcheney> ok

15:36:23 <lebot> @luc, sorry, I'm YACC-impaired :-(

15:36:35 <jcheney> I can probably write something if someone else can maintain it

15:36:57 <pgroth> +q

15:37:01 <stephenc> Interested in helping -  not sure exactly what you're asking for

15:37:16 <Paolo> antlr

15:37:52 <jcheney> YACC deals with LALR gramars, but if you just want to use it to generate html this shouldn't matter

15:38:10 <pgroth> ack pgroth

15:38:10 <jcheney> Luc: Have LL grammar, SPARQL is also LL

15:38:22 <jcheney> sandro: Eric Prud'hommeaux has tools

15:38:29 <pgroth> +10

15:38:46 <jcheney> http://www.quut.com/berlin/ht/yacc2html.html  ??

15:39:10 <Zakim> -pgroth

15:39:11 <Luc> q?

15:39:19 <jcheney> Luc: will coordinate with sandro to look into this

15:39:54 <jcheney> ... Want to ask about PROV-O status

15:40:21 <jcheney> lebot: current focus on feedback from reviews, no major issues.  RL constraint limits what can be done.

15:40:32 <jcheney> ... need to iterate and include examples in cross-reference

15:40:41 <jcheney> ... and check against ontology to stay in sync

15:40:50 <jcheney> q+

15:40:57 <jcheney> Luc: issues in tracker?

15:41:35 <jcheney> lebot: backlog, being cleared slowly

15:41:41 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, did you get the text I sent you on collections yesterday?

15:41:46 <jcheney> q-

15:41:52 <jcheney> Subtopic: PROV-DM

<jcheney> Summary: Many challenging issues remain in PROV-DM.  The discussion addressed how to make progress on them without (mostly) slipping into technical discussion of the merits of different approaches.

15:41:54 <lebot> @khalid, via email?

15:41:56 <lebot> (no)

15:42:02 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, yes

15:42:03 <jcheney> ... how to address:

15:42:20 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, I ll send it again

15:42:31 <jcheney> ... (and who to assign actions to address)

15:42:35 <lebot> @khalid, I'll fight my spam filter again.

15:42:44 <Zakim> -[ISI]

<jcheney> subsubtopic: Specialization/alternate

<jcheney> Summary: Specialization and alternate lack agreed informal definitions.  Tim nominated Jim McCusker to formulate a proposal, and James and/or Tom de Nies may also discuss.  The goal is to develop a natural language definition, agreed properties, and examples that are all consistent and that reflect the consensus.

15:43:16 <jcheney> ... specialization/alternate issue - thought there was consensus

15:43:21 <jcheney> ... debate continues

15:43:42 <bvillazo> I would also want to remember everyone aout the issues pending review (offtopic, sorry).

15:44:10 <jcheney> ... any volunteers?

15:44:11 <lebot> q+ to throw McCusker under the bus.

15:44:19 <Paolo> @daniel I just closed mine on ontology

15:44:32 <jcheney> lebot: Nominates Jim McCusker

15:44:45 <jcheney> q+

15:44:52 <bvillazo> @paolo, thanks!

15:44:57 <satya> me too

15:44:58 <jcheney> lebot: concerned parties - Graham, James?

15:45:00 <jun> me too

15:45:04 <tdenies> I have some concerns as well

15:45:06 <jcheney> ... Satya?

15:45:21 <satya> @james, concerns about specialization

15:46:20 <jcheney> lebot: will point Jim to IRC and definitions

15:46:31 <jcheney> Luc: worth having 2 people to look at it?

15:46:46 <Zakim> +??P3

15:46:49 <jcheney> jun: would like to help but on the road

15:47:08 <jcheney> ... in meetings

15:47:29 <tdenies> +q

15:47:52 <pgroth_> q?

15:47:53 <lebot> q-=

15:47:55 <lebot> q-

15:47:57 <Luc> ack leb

15:48:40 <jcheney> jcheney: what is the specialization lead expected to do?

15:49:08 <jcheney> Luc: would like to see agreement that definitions for entity, specialization, alternate are fine

15:49:20 <jcheney> ... and examples in DM documents accurate

15:49:26 <jcheney> ... and properties are supported

15:49:29 <lebot> entity, specialization, alternate definitions == okay. examples of each are also == okay. property properties (trans, reflex) == okay.

15:50:51 <jcheney> jcheney: let's make sure we're happy with the formal thing in semantics document.

15:52:33 <Luc> q?

15:52:33 <lebot> james busy next week, travel the following.

15:52:41 <Luc> ack jc

15:52:58 <jcheney> tdenies: concerns about alt/specialization

15:53:05 <jcheney> ... not sure if 2 leads would be right way to go

15:53:11 <jcheney> ... lots of chaos on discussion

15:53:25 <jcheney> ... jcheney to coordinate/formulate proposal?

15:53:32 <jcheney> s/too/to/

15:53:36 <lebot> spec/alt interested parties: jun, tom, satya, tim, james, (graham?)

15:53:38 <Luc> ack tom

15:54:04 <pgroth_> we need one definition and should then vote

15:54:08 <pgroth_> in my opinion

15:54:13 <khalidbelhajjame> Wouldn't it help speed up the process of reaching an agreement if the people that are opposed to the notion of specialization and alternate as it is in the current document participate in that effort?

15:54:51 <lebot> spec/alt interested parties: jun, tom, satya, tim, james, (graham?), jim

15:54:57 <jcheney> Luc: starting semantics seems like a good approach, but why can't we define things informally?

15:55:22 <lebot> +q to table this.

15:57:11 <Luc> q?

15:58:24 <jcheney> Luc: moving on...

15:58:51 <pgroth_> can jim and james lead

15:58:51 <lebot> q-

15:58:52 <sandro> lebot, americans put things on a table, brits take things off a table, or something like that.

15:59:03 <jcheney> ... process: Jim McCusker (via tim), James, Thomas to iterate over email

15:59:14 <lebot> american : table :-)

15:59:23 <jcheney> subsubtopic: Responsibility

<jcheney> Summary: One criticism of PROV-DM is the overloading of the term "responsibility" for both "association" and "delegation".  Also, it may be counterintuitive to say that software agents can be "responsible".  Issues should be raised to discuss and formulate a proposal.

15:59:38 <jcheney> ... Graham criticized "software agents being accoutnable"

16:00:18 <jcheney> ... overloading of "association" and "delegation" senses

16:00:40 <Luc> q?

16:00:57 <jcheney> ... how to converge to common view?

16:01:10 <pgroth_> just would say that this was in wd3 no?

16:02:07 <khalidbelhajjame> I think the latter option to rename the responsibility associated with "actedOnBehalfOn" would be a quick fix to this issue

16:02:10 <lebot> paul broke up

16:02:14 <jcheney> pgroth: <breaking connection>

16:02:30 <pgroth_> my point is that if there's not a quorom of objection

16:02:36 <pgroth_> yes

16:02:36 <jcheney> Luc: suggetions/alternatives should be raised

16:02:59 <pgroth_> formal issue needs to be raised with suggested alternatives

16:03:14 <jcheney> subsubtopic: Collections

<jcheney> Summary: The need for, and generality of, collections has been questioned in reviews.  Several WG members expressed support since there are many colections on the Web and if PROV does not provide a standard way of describing the provenance of collections then people will invent lots of different ways.  On the other hand, it is not yet clear that collections are important enough to be an integral part of PROV, since the same argument could be made about a lot of other data structures. Jun and Satya are to be assigned actions to come up with examples of limitations of the current proposal.

16:03:32 <jcheney> ... Graham questions why collections are in DM at all, and are key-value maps too restrictive

16:03:46 <smiles> q+

16:03:50 <Luc> q?

16:04:12 <jcheney> smiles: collections important because many web resources are collections

16:04:15 <jun> q+

16:04:17 <satya> q+

16:04:19 <Luc> ack sm

16:04:30 <Luc> ack jun

16:04:59 <Paolo> q+

16:05:02 <jcheney> jun: agree collections important, but concerned that model is so restrictive

16:05:02 <Curt> q+

16:05:54 <jcheney> Luc: examples?

16:05:57 <christine> apologies, I need to leave

16:06:03 <christine> ?quit

16:06:07 <Zakim> -jcheney

16:06:09 <jcheney> jun: think collections can express things but too complicated

16:06:58 <jcheney> satya: collections are important, but key-value pairs are over-specifying; issues with insertion and deletion expressions

16:07:27 <Luc> ack

16:07:33 <Luc> q?

16:07:36 <Luc> ack sat

16:07:36 <satya> q-

16:07:42 <Luc> ack pao

16:07:54 <jcheney> Paolo: collections simplified to containers of anything, minimal insertion, deletion, membership operations

16:08:29 <pgroth_> the debate should be held offline

16:08:31 <jcheney> ... sets of entities rather than key-value maps?

16:08:35 <pgroth_> but it's a clear criticism

16:08:50 <Luc> q?

16:08:52 <pgroth_> q?

16:09:05 <Luc> ack cur

16:09:15 <jcheney> Curt: Agree that collections are important, people will want to represent provenance, but that's true of a lot of other important things

16:09:28 <jcheney> ... Is this so fundamental to provenance that it needs to be in PROV-DM

16:09:56 <jcheney> ... or could it be built on top later?  Believe it is separable from the fundamental concepts of PROV-DM

16:10:03 <smiles> @Curt agreed that it is separable (but still seems particularly important)

16:10:07 <pgroth_> so curt suggests a note

16:10:11 <jcheney> ... Don't mind putting it in but could be a separate effort

16:10:18 <jun> @Paolo, I'll be happy with a set:) But I'll take this offline

16:10:27 <lebot> +1 curt, it does stand alone well. (but whether that means remove it, who knows...)

16:10:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

16:10:38 <Luc> q?

16:11:02 <pgroth_> a note would give us more time but would also not have the "weight" of a recommendation

16:11:04 <jcheney> khalid: if we don't include collections, then many people will hack it later

16:11:20 <Luc> q?

16:11:24 <Luc> ack kha

16:11:35 <jcheney> ... defining members as key-value pairs is general

16:12:03 <jcheney> Luc: technical discussion on mailing list, actions for jun and satya

16:12:16 <SamCoppens> Sorry, need to go

<jcheney> subsubtopic: Accounts

<jcheney> Summary: Work on accounts has been delayed until after the release, Tim and Luc plan to look at it after release

16:12:25 <jcheney> ... accounts: downgraded to minimal role in WD4, back burner until rest reorganized

16:12:47 <jcheney> ... Plan to work on this after synchronized release; related to annotations

16:13:01 <Luc> q?

16:13:09 <pgroth_> +q

16:13:23 <jcheney> ...volunteers?

16:13:49 <jcheney> lebot: plan to look at it, may be able to help

16:13:59 <Luc> ack pg

16:14:16 <jcheney> pgroth: should be lightweight (agreed at F2F2)

16:14:30 <jcheney> ...needed for provenance of provenance

16:14:32 <lebot> q+ to say I'd like to take more away :-)

16:14:45 <jcheney> Luc: discussion after document release

16:14:48 <lebot> q-

16:14:59 <pgroth_> great

16:15:08 <jcheney> lebot: prefer to take things away

16:15:12 <pgroth_> happy to chime is as well

16:15:25 <jcheney> Luc: need to fix date for proposal for WG

<jcheney> subsubtopic: Invalidation/destruction

<jcheney> Summary: Paul and Tim plan to discuss and develop a proposal for the invalidation/destruction event after the release

16:15:36 <jcheney> ... appetite for invaludation/destruction?

16:15:46 <pgroth_> suggest we should produce a final version

16:15:50 <pgroth_> me

16:15:52 <jcheney> ... technical issues: is someone willing to help with this

16:16:10 <lebot> I'd like to help with destruction

16:16:12 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to come up with a proposal for a vote

16:16:16 <smiles> I'm also happy to give feedback

16:16:36 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

16:16:36 <jcheney> Luc: adjourned

16:16:37 <Zakim> -lebot

16:16:37 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

16:16:38 <Zakim> -??P9

16:16:38 <Zakim> -Sandro

16:16:38 <Zakim> -??P3

16:16:40 <Zakim> -jun

16:16:40 <Zakim> -bvillazo

16:16:43 <Zakim> -tdenies

16:16:44 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

16:16:44 <pgroth_> luc do you want a call?

16:16:46 <Zakim> -Luc

16:16:54 <Zakim> -??P17

16:17:25 <jcheney> rrsagent, set log public

16:17:26 <pgroth_> rrssagent, make logs public

16:17:51 <jcheney> rrsagent, draft minutes

16:17:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-prov-minutes.html jcheney

16:18:06 <jcheney> trackbot, end telcon

16:18:06 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

16:18:06 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tdenies, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, [ISI], +1.315.330.aacc, lebot, jcheney, SamCoppens, bvillazo, jun, Sandro, Satya_Sahoo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth

16:18:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:18:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:18:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

16:18:15 <RRSAgent> I see no action items