Provenance Working Group Teleconference Minutes, 27 September 2012

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes ←

Luc Moreau: @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? ←

15:03:03 <Luc> proposed: to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon

PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon ←

15:03:07 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: approve the minutes of last week

Luc Moreau: approve the minutes of last week ←

15:03:09 <jcheney> 0 (absent)

James Cheney: 0 (absent) ←

15:03:16 <smiles> 0

Simon Miles: 0 ←

15:03:17 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1 ←

15:03:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-20

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-20 ←

15:03:21 <khalidBelhajjame> 0 (absent)

0 (absent) ←

15:03:24 <stain> 0 (absent)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: 0 (absent) ←

15:03:36 <Paolo> 0 (absent)

Paolo Missier: 0 (absent) ←

15:03:38 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:03:43 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:03:51 <hook> 0 (absent)

Hook Hua: 0 (absent) ←

15:04:00 <Luc> accepted:  minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon

RESOLVED: minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon ←

15:04:08 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: minutes approved

Luc Moreau: minutes approved ←

15:04:22 <pgroth> :-)

Paul Groth: :-) ←

15:04:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action assigned to Paulo

Luc Moreau: action assigned to Paulo ←

15:04:27 <pgroth> every week

Paul Groth: every week ←

15:04:32 <pgroth> now it's a running joke

Paul Groth: now it's a running joke ←

15:04:33 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←

15:04:41 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action on Paul to produce an overview slide

Luc Moreau: action on Paul to produce an overview slide ←

15:04:44 <pgroth> it's just to make me feel guilty every week

Paul Groth: it's just to make me feel guilty every week ←

15:04:48 <GK> zakim, ??p1 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p1 is me ←

15:04:48 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it ←

15:04:49 <Zakim> +??P21

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←

15:04:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we can leave it for another week

Luc Moreau: we can leave it for another week ←

15:05:15 <Luc> Topic: Timetable to CR

2. Timetable to CR

Summary: WG members are invited to check the timetable at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec. The plan is to vote on release of Candidate Recommendation on November 1st, which requires all issues to be tackled and exit criteria to CR to be defined. Timely response to email would be very appreciated.

<Luc>Summary: WG members are invited to check the timetable at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec. The plan is to vote on release of Candidate Recommendation  on November 1st, which requires all issues to be tackled and exit criteria to CR to be defined.  Timely response to email would be very appreciated.

15:05:25 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: timetable to candidate recommendation

Luc Moreau: timetable to candidate recommendation ←

15:05:48 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec ←

15:05:53 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we are in the phase where we need to tackle external feeback

Luc Moreau: we are in the phase where we need to tackle external feeback ←

15:05:57 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←

15:06:15 <Luc> End LC review for prov-dm/prov-o/prov-n: 2012-9-18

Luc Moreau: End LC review for prov-dm/prov-o/prov-n: 2012-9-18 ←

15:06:16 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the link contains the document submitted to have the extention for th eWG

Luc Moreau: the link contains the document submitted to have the extention for th eWG ←

15:06:37 <Luc> End LC review for prov-constraints: 2012-10-10

Luc Moreau: End LC review for prov-constraints: 2012-10-10 ←

15:06:51 <Luc> CR Publication: 2012-11-15

Luc Moreau: CR Publication: 2012-11-15 ←

15:06:54 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the lc review for prov-dm was the 18th of September

Luc Moreau: the lc review for prov-dm was the 18th of September ←

15:07:09 <Luc> Vote for CR: 2012-11-01

Luc Moreau: Vote for CR: 2012-11-01 ←

15:07:11 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we want to publish candidate recomendation of the 15th of November

Luc Moreau: we want to publish candidate recomendation of the 15th of November ←

15:07:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we should have a vote around the 1st of Novemer

Luc Moreau: we should have a vote around the 1st of Novemer ←

15:07:45 <khalidBelhajjame> luc: the issues needs to be addressed by then

Luc Moreau: the issues needs to be addressed by then ←

15:07:53 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:07:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: that is not a lot of time

Luc Moreau: that is not a lot of time ←

15:08:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:08:47 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we also have a clear plan what the exit criteria are

Ivan Herman: we also have a clear plan what the exit criteria are ←

15:09:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... how do we judge that we have the correct implementation, how do we judge it, etc.

... how do we judge that we have the correct implementation, how do we judge it, etc. ←

15:09:09 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:09:26 <Luc> ack iv

Luc Moreau: ack iv ←

15:10:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:10:25 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we are still expecting feedback from other WGs, we didnt get any feedback and the deadline for feedback is over, can we still process late feedback?

Paul Groth: we are still expecting feedback from other WGs, we didnt get any feedback and the deadline for feedback is over, can we still process late feedback? ←

15:10:51 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we can say sorry it is too late

Ivan Herman: we can say sorry it is too late ←

15:11:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... with the RDF WG we have issues, I would hope that ? will send feedback on teh constrainst document by next week

... with the RDF WG we have issues, I would hope that ? will send feedback on teh constrainst document by next week ←

15:11:50 <GK> q+ to ask: do we have any knowledge of areas where RDF group might have feedback for us

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask: do we have any knowledge of areas where RDF group might have feedback for us ←

15:12:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... which WGs did we ask?

... which WGs did we ask? ←

15:12:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:13:14 <Luc> ... and we did it too for IETF mime type and we got feedback

Luc Moreau: ... and we did it too for IETF mime type and we got feedback ←

15:14:43 <pgroth> q+ to say what we asked

Paul Groth: q+ to say what we asked ←

15:14:51 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q- ←

15:15:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:15:32 <pgroth> ack

Paul Groth: ack ←

15:16:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we asked about the construct of mention and about RDF types

Paul Groth: we asked about the construct of mention and about RDF types ←

15:16:19 <GK> @pgroth thanks

Graham Klyne: @pgroth thanks ←

15:16:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:16:32 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say what we asked

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say what we asked ←

15:16:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: keep in mind that we have 4 weeks to complete the document

Luc Moreau: keep in mind that we have 4 weeks to complete the document ←

15:17:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:17:11 <khalidBelhajjame> .. no more question on the time table?

.. no more question on the time table? ←

15:17:17 <khalidBelhajjame> @luc, yes

@luc, yes ←

15:17:21 <khalidBelhajjame> yes

yes ←

15:17:28 <Luc> topic: PROV-O issues

3. PROV-O issues

Summary: Outstanding issues in the tracker were reviewed. They are either complete or require minor work to be completed by the end of the week. The only outstanding issue was related to some received public comment, and is being processed according to the agreed process. The chair congratulated the prov-o team for resolving the backlog of issues.

<Luc> Summary: Outstanding issues in the tracker were reviewed. They are either complete or require minor work to be completed by the end of the week. The only outstanding issue was related to some received public comment, and is being processed according to the agreed process. The chair congratulated the prov-o team for resolving the backlog of issues.

15:17:43 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item, review of the outstanding issues in the tracker

Luc Moreau: next item, review of the outstanding issues in the tracker ←

15:17:53 <Zakim> +Luc.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc.a ←

15:18:00 <khalidBelhajjame> ... we need to close some of those actions

... we need to close some of those actions ←

15:18:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: Stian, you sent an email on issue 491

Paul Groth: Stian, you sent an email on ISSUE-491 ←

15:18:27 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: we wanted to discuss that with Tim

Stian Soiland-Reyes: we wanted to discuss that with Tim ←

15:19:00 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: I suggested a definition

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I suggested a definition ←

15:19:27 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: the definitions of the properties reuse the definition of the classes

Timothy Lebo: the definitions of the properties reuse the definition of the classes ←

15:19:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I would like to keep them consistent

... I would like to keep them consistent ←

15:20:02 <khalidBelhajjame> ... if they are confusing, then I will need to revise the generation algorithm to let you know which annotations we should use

... if they are confusing, then I will need to revise the generation algorithm to let you know which annotations we should use ←

15:20:21 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: my argument is that we shouldnt use them

Stian Soiland-Reyes: my argument is that we shouldnt use them ←

15:20:49 <khalidBelhajjame> ... between agent and agent inference, it becomes confusing untangling the properties

... between agent and agent inference, it becomes confusing untangling the properties ←

15:21:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:21:35 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we can leave the definitions there for consistency and add a link

Paul Groth: we can leave the definitions there for consistency and add a link ←

15:21:54 <khalidBelhajjame> ... instead of redefining everything

... instead of redefining everything ←

15:22:19 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: we can discuss that offline

Timothy Lebo: we can discuss that offline ←

15:22:37 <Luc> can we try to converge quickly?

Luc Moreau: can we try to converge quickly? ←

15:22:41 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will respond to that by email

... I will respond to that by email ←

15:22:57 <Luc> good!

Luc Moreau: good! ←

15:23:00 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: can we try to converge quickly to close the issue by tomorrow?

Paul Groth: can we try to converge quickly to close the issue by tomorrow? ←

15:23:36 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: for issue 479, Stian tried to make changes, but I think we still need more changes becase Trig syntax is still there

Paul Groth: for ISSUE-479, Stian tried to make changes, but I think we still need more changes becase Trig syntax is still there ←

15:23:53 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I have not been able to respond to your email

Satya Sahoo: I have not been able to respond to your email ←

15:24:24 <Luc> timing?

Luc Moreau: timing? ←

15:24:26 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I will revisit the changes

Satya Sahoo: I will revisit the changes ←

15:24:38 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: that will be done by this week?

Paul Groth: that will be done by this week? ←

15:24:47 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: yes

Satya Sahoo: yes ←

15:25:04 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 349 is now closed

Paul Groth: ISSUE-349 is now closed ←

15:25:10 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: yes

Stian Soiland-Reyes: yes ←

15:25:22 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will double check

... I will double check ←

15:25:23 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:25:47 <pgroth> good point

Paul Groth: good point ←

15:25:57 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+ ←

15:25:58 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: are we keeping track of the changes we are aking the document to use them when publishing the next version

Luc Moreau: are we keeping track of the changes we are aking the document to use them when publishing the next version ←

15:26:18 <Luc> ack L

Luc Moreau: ack L ←

15:26:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: for example in prov-dm i put in the appendix the changes made

Luc Moreau: for example in prov-dm i put in the appendix the changes made ←

15:26:24 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←

15:26:48 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I added a section that reflect the changes, but we need to check that it was updated

Timothy Lebo: I added a section that reflect the changes, but we need to check that it was updated ←

15:27:02 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: it would be a good policy that any change is reflected in that section

Luc Moreau: it would be a good policy that any change is reflected in that section ←

15:27:15 <tlebo> The section for changes: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724

Timothy Lebo: The section for changes: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724 ←

15:28:07 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: for issue 349 we need also to change the identifiers used in the examples

Satya Sahoo: for ISSUE-349 we need also to change the identifiers used in the examples ←

15:28:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:28:24 <stain> ^^ stian

Stian Soiland-Reyes: ^^ stian ←

15:28:51 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 446, Daniele?

Paul Groth: ISSUE-446, Daniele? ←

15:29:04 <khalidBelhajjame> ... will send an email to Daniele

... will send an email to Daniele ←

15:29:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10 ←

15:29:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... provo has only one open issue,

... provo has only one open issue, ←

15:30:06 <Luc> what about http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3?

Luc Moreau: what about http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3? ←

15:30:14 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I will address the issue given the email sent by Graham

Timothy Lebo: I will address the issue given the email sent by Graham ←

15:30:14 <pgroth> @luc was getting there

Paul Groth: @luc was getting there ←

15:30:33 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: issue 476 is an externa comment

Timothy Lebo: ISSUE-476 is an externa comment ←

15:30:44 <khalidBelhajjame> ... what is the processing for it given that it is resolved

... what is the processing for it given that it is resolved ←

15:31:00 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments ←

15:31:32 <stain> ACTION stain: Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o

Stian Soiland-Reyes: ACTION stain: Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o ←

15:31:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2012-10-04].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-118 - Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2012-10-04]. ←

15:31:47 <smiles> @tlebo OK, I have checked issue 445 is resolved and will close it now

Simon Miles: @tlebo OK, I have checked ISSUE-445 is resolved and will close it now ←

15:32:12 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: there are a couple of issues regarding the ontologies

Luc Moreau: there are a couple of issues regarding the ontologies ←

15:32:41 <GK> (As an aside, when trying to review the proposed responses, it would have been really helpful to me to have a link back to the *original* email to the prov-comments list)

Graham Klyne: (As an aside, when trying to review the proposed responses, it would have been really helpful to me to have a link back to the *original* email to the prov-comments list) ←

15:32:47 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 552, which need the resolution of the issue on influence

Paul Groth: ISSUE-552, which need the resolution of the issue on influence ←

15:33:08 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments ←

15:33:08 <pgroth> thanks stain

Paul Groth: thanks stain ←

15:33:14 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: all the responses are on the wiki

Luc Moreau: all the responses are on the wiki ←

15:33:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:33:46 <pgroth> it has the original email

Paul Groth: it has the original email ←

15:33:59 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: information about who send the original comment is missing

Graham Klyne: information about who send the original comment is missing ←

15:34:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/463

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/463 ←

15:34:55 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: you need to go to the tracker

Luc Moreau: you need to go to the tracker ←

15:35:11 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:35:40 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM issues

4. PROV-DM issues

Summary: It was resolved that responses to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 can be sent to reviewers. Some further 20 issues have been tackled, and the group is invited to review responses by Wednesday October 03. The group discussed which section of the prov-dm document are normative. Some guidance to editors was provided: Section 5 would be the only section to be normative, provided some minor editorial issues are addressed. Finally, we began discussing ISSUE-519 and ISSUE-523 which identify problems in UML diagrams regarding inheritance associated with Influence. We ran out of time, and were unable to reach consensus: a detailed solution needs to be drafted, and reviewed by the working group.

<Luc>Summary: It was resolved that responses to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 can be sent to reviewers. Some further 20 issues have been tackled, and the group is invited to review responses by Wednesday  October 03.  The group discussed which section of the prov-dm document are normative. Some guidance to editors was provided: Section 5 would be the only section to be normative, provided some minor editorial issues are addressed. Finally, we began discussing ISSUE-519 and ISSUE-523 which identify problems in UML diagrams regarding inheritance associated with Influence. We ran out of time, and were unable to reach consensus: a detailed solution needs to be drafted, and reviewed by the working group.

15:35:54 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:36:07 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we obtain the email from Robert, and then issued the issue.Given that his comments were extensive, we proke them into several issues

Paul Groth: we obtain the email from Robert, and then issued the issue.Given that his comments were extensive, we proke them into several issues ←

15:36:39 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: there is no simple way to get to the oriinal email

Graham Klyne: there is no simple way to get to the oriinal email ←

15:36:47 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:36:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments regarding prov-o?

Luc Moreau: any comments regarding prov-o? ←

15:37:13 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29 ←

15:37:15 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next topic, prov-dm issues

Luc Moreau: next topic, prov-dm issues ←

15:37:28 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: during this week I sent proposed responses to 4 issues

Luc Moreau: during this week I sent proposed responses to 4 issues ←

15:37:32 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 ←

15:37:41 <ivan> issue-492?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-492? ←

15:37:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-492 -- typo in example -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-492 -- typo in example -- pending review ←

15:37:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/492

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/492 ←

15:37:45 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we had supportive feedback during the week

Luc Moreau: we had supportive feedback during the week ←

15:37:48 <ivan> issue-500?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-500? ←

15:37:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-500 -- Data Model Section 2.1.1, hierarchies -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-500 -- Data Model Section 2.1.1, hierarchies -- open ←

15:37:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/500

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/500 ←

15:37:52 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 ←

15:37:54 <ivan> issue-505?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-505? ←

15:37:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-505 -- Data Model Section 3 -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-505 -- Data Model Section 3 -- open ←

15:37:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505 ←

15:37:55 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the deadline was yesterday

... the deadline was yesterday ←

15:37:59 <ivan> issue-508?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-508? ←

15:37:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-508 -- Data Model Table 5 -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-508 -- Data Model Table 5 -- pending review ←

15:37:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508 ←

15:38:08 <Luc>  accepted: The suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support

Luc Moreau: accepted: The suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support ←

15:38:14 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the responses are accepted by the group

... the responses are accepted by the group ←

15:38:41 <Zakim> +??P2

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←

15:38:48 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P2 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P2 is me ←

15:38:48 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←

15:39:02 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Draft.29

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Draft.29 ←

15:39:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I sent few emails and drafted responses to 20 issues

Luc Moreau: I sent few emails and drafted responses to 20 issues ←

15:39:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will ask the group to comment on them, the deadline is wednesday next week

... I will ask the group to comment on them, the deadline is wednesday next week ←

15:39:42 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0263.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0263.html ←

15:40:01 <khalidBelhajjame> ... there was one negative comment fro PAolo regarding some attributes that we debated at lenth

... there was one negative comment fro PAolo regarding some attributes that we debated at lenth ←

15:40:06 <khalidBelhajjame> ... length

... length ←

15:41:03 <khalidBelhajjame> Paolo: I am happy with the resolution at the end

Paolo Missier: I am happy with the resolution at the end ←

15:41:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:41:18 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments?

Luc Moreau: any comments? ←

15:41:25 <pgroth> are we talking about influence next?

Paul Groth: are we talking about influence next? ←

15:41:38 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:41:42 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I will send an email asking to give feedback

Luc Moreau: I will send an email asking to give feedback ←

15:41:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:41:52 <khalidBelhajjame> ... and you will have until next wednesday night

... and you will have until next wednesday night ←

15:42:02 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:42:09 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: are we goining to talk about influence?

Paul Groth: are we goining to talk about influence? ←

15:42:16 <pgroth> ok great

Paul Groth: ok great ←

15:42:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: they are not ready for feedback

Luc Moreau: they are not ready for feedback ←

15:42:36 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item of prov-dm

Luc Moreau: next item of prov-dm ←

15:42:39 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0271.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0271.html ←

15:43:39 <pgroth> +q to say yes

Paul Groth: +q to say yes ←

15:43:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:45:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:45:12 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say yes

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say yes ←

15:45:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm ←

15:45:51 <jcheney> happy either way, but just thought it should be discussed

James Cheney: happy either way, but just thought it should be discussed ←

15:46:05 <Luc> @jcheney: agreed james

Luc Moreau: @jcheney: agreed james ←

15:46:24 <jcheney> as long as any repeated definitions are *identical*

James Cheney: as long as any repeated definitions are *identical* ←

15:46:34 <pgroth> +q you use MAY

Paul Groth: +q you use MAY ←

15:46:38 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:46:43 <Luc> @jcheney: they are, they are included automatically from a single file

Luc Moreau: @jcheney: they are, they are included automatically from a single file ←

15:46:57 <Luc> section 2 defines the core

Luc Moreau: section 2 defines the core ←

15:47:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:48:05 <jcheney> If core vs. non-core is a key property then I think that's a good enough reason.

James Cheney: If core vs. non-core is a key property then I think that's a good enough reason. ←

15:48:26 <TomDN> I have to go, bye

Tom De Nies: I have to go, bye ←

15:48:33 <Zakim> -TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN ←

15:48:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:50:13 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:50:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:50:18 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←

15:50:48 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan ←

15:51:12 <dgarijo> Ivan: it bothers me that there are 2 places where an entity is defined

Ivan Herman: it bothers me that there are 2 places where an entity is defined [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

15:51:23 <Luc> table 5 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-dm-types-and-relations still shows what is core

Luc Moreau: table 5 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-dm-types-and-relations still shows what is core ←

15:51:31 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame ←

15:51:34 <GK> Did I mishear Paul?   I thought he was saying the same as Ivan

Graham Klyne: Did I mishear Paul? I thought he was saying the same as Ivan ←

15:51:38 <dgarijo> ... if one has more info than the other, then it is an editorial problem

Daniel Garijo: ... if one has more info than the other, then it is an editorial problem ←

15:51:42 <GK> (in thrust)

Graham Klyne: (in thrust) ←

15:52:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:52:07 <dgarijo> Luc: the overview is not normative

Luc Moreau: the overview is not normative [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

15:52:24 <dgarijo> Ivan: did I misunderstand Paul?

Ivan Herman: did I misunderstand Paul? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

15:52:29 <jcheney> I think it would be good to ensure that the MAY is reflected in sec. 5 too.

James Cheney: I think it would be good to ensure that the MAY is reflected in sec. 5 too. ←

15:52:49 <Luc> @jcheney: +1

Luc Moreau: @jcheney: +1 ←

15:52:55 <dgarijo> pgroth: if we say that section 2 is informative, then we have to make sure that no command words appear there.

Paul Groth: if we say that section 2 is informative, then we have to make sure that no command words appear there. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

15:52:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←

15:53:10 <Luc> yes, james had already indentified a similar problem in section 6

Luc Moreau: yes, james had already indentified a similar problem in section 6 ←

15:53:23 <pgroth> ok

Paul Groth: ok ←

15:53:25 <dgarijo> Ivan: that is even more true if both sections are normative

Ivan Herman: that is even more true if both sections are normative [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←

15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... there should not be discrepancy

Daniel Garijo: ... there should not be discrepancy ←

15:53:45 <GK> I spotted one MAY in section 2.

Graham Klyne: I spotted one MAY in section 2. ←

15:53:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> @dgarijo thanks, I can take over

@dgarijo thanks, I can take over ←

15:53:53 <dgarijo> ... between both of them. That should be checked

Daniel Garijo: ... between both of them. That should be checked ←

15:53:58 <dgarijo> @khalid ok!

Daniel Garijo: @khalid ok! ←

15:54:19 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: to come to a conclusion, as pgroth we need to come back to the document

Luc Moreau: to come to a conclusion, as pgroth we need to come back to the document ←

15:54:22 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:54:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and do soe editorial clean up

... and do soe editorial clean up ←

15:54:34 <GK> .. that was sect 2.1.3 - I didn't see any others.

Graham Klyne: .. that was sect 2.1.3 - I didn't see any others. ←

15:54:34 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:54:37 <pgroth> but section 5 would be the only normative one

Paul Groth: but section 5 would be the only normative one ←

15:54:41 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... are we of the view that section 2 is not normative?

... are we of the view that section 2 is not normative? ←

15:54:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: I would think so

Ivan Herman: I would think so ←

15:55:12 <jcheney> q+ to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5

James Cheney: q+ to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5 ←

15:55:13 <GK> OK, I'm happy with this too. (i.e. sect 2 informative)

Graham Klyne: OK, I'm happy with this too. (i.e. sect 2 informative) ←

15:55:39 <stainPhone> +1 for (making) sec 2 informative

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 for (making) sec 2 informative ←

15:55:40 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: it is fine to have only section 5 as the normative one

Paul Groth: it is fine to have only section 5 as the normative one ←

15:55:55 <pgroth> they are

Paul Groth: they are ←

15:55:57 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm

PROPOSED: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm ←

15:56:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: the use of may in that section is not always an ITF may but is an english one

Ivan Herman: the use of may in that section is not always an ITF may but is an english one ←

15:56:30 <GK> I think ReSpec picks up capitalized MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc and applies different styling.

Graham Klyne: I think ReSpec picks up capitalized MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc and applies different styling. ←

15:56:54 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is fine, but I want to make sure that the use of those terms are checked in the definitions

... which is fine, but I want to make sure that the use of those terms are checked in the definitions ←

15:56:58 <GK> So the thing to do is use capitalization consistently when editing source.

Graham Klyne: So the thing to do is use capitalization consistently when editing source. ←

15:57:00 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm

PROPOSED: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm ←

15:57:00 <khalidBelhajjame_> luc: i did that

Luc Moreau: i did that ←

15:57:11 <pgroth> james is on the queue

Paul Groth: james is on the queue ←

15:57:15 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:57:17 <Luc> ack iva

Luc Moreau: ack iva ←

15:57:40 <ivan> ack jcheney

Ivan Herman: ack jcheney ←

15:57:40 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, you wanted to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5 ←

15:58:11 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: are we happy with the proposal?

Luc Moreau: are we happy with the proposal? ←

15:58:38 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am looking at section 7 to work out if there is something normative in that section

Graham Klyne: I am looking at section 7 to work out if there is something normative in that section ←

15:59:03 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I agree that section 2 is inforative, but we need to check the rest

... I agree that section 2 is inforative, but we need to check the rest ←

15:59:05 <pgroth> the goal is to make Section 5 the only normative one

Paul Groth: the goal is to make Section 5 the only normative one ←

15:59:08 <Luc> proposed: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm

PROPOSED: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm ←

15:59:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I will make edits and will ask people for review

Luc Moreau: I will make edits and will ask people for review ←

15:59:30 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

15:59:36 <Luc> accepted: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm

RESOLVED: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm ←

15:59:56 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29

Luc Moreau: ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29">http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29 ←

16:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: issue of inheritance with influence

Luc Moreau: issue of inheritance with influence ←

16:01:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... thinking about this issue, I think that it is not mandatory for generation, usage, ... sub-relations of influence

... thinking about this issue, I think that it is not mandatory for generation, usage, ... sub-relations of influence ←

16:01:44 <jcheney> luc, you seem to be cutting in and out

James Cheney: luc, you seem to be cutting in and out ←

16:02:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I formulated a response here, and I would like a feedback on this

... I formulated a response here, and I would like a feedback on this ←

16:02:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:02:23 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... before implementing it

... before implementing it ←

16:02:37 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: any comments?

Luc Moreau: any comments? ←

16:02:41 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:02:58 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am not sure what inheritance means here

Graham Klyne: I am not sure what inheritance means here ←

16:03:16 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... what is being described is sub-property relation

... what is being described is sub-property relation ←

16:03:16 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes ←

16:03:26 <pgroth> this is what I asked online

Paul Groth: this is what I asked online ←

16:03:30 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: but that will have ipact on how the ontology is defined

Ivan Herman: but that will have ipact on how the ontology is defined ←

16:03:43 <satya> It will in prov-o by owl2 rdf semantics

Satya Sahoo: It will in prov-o by owl2 rdf semantics ←

16:04:06 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: in the ontology you will have the class influence and its subclasses, and the same for sub-properties

Luc Moreau: in the ontology you will have the class influence and its subclasses, and the same for sub-properties ←

16:04:27 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:04:34 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... but in the XML schema, that is not the case

... but in the XML schema, that is not the case ←

16:04:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: I am worring about the ramifications on other form of relations

Paul Groth: I am worring about the ramifications on other form of relations ←

16:05:35 <satya> sorry, I have to leave

Satya Sahoo: sorry, I have to leave ←

16:05:38 <satya> bye

Satya Sahoo: bye ←

16:05:43 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I was not planning to do changes based on this

Luc Moreau: I was not planning to do changes based on this ←

16:05:43 <jun> Sorry, I have to go now ... bye

Jun Zhao: Sorry, I have to go now ... bye ←

16:05:48 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←

16:05:49 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←

16:06:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the prov constraints states what we mean

Luc Moreau: the prov constraints states what we mean ←

16:06:10 <pgroth> yeah but I'm reading prov-dm

Paul Groth: yeah but I'm reading prov-dm ←

16:06:10 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference ←

16:06:27 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: as stated in inference 15

Luc Moreau: as stated in inference 15 ←

16:06:53 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... it can be done through inheritance, but it doesnt have to be done that way

... it can be done through inheritance, but it doesnt have to be done that way ←

16:07:12 <stainPhone> I guess the reviewer might wonder if you can have wasInfluencedBy while none of the prov subproperies (so to speak) could apply.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I guess the reviewer might wonder if you can have wasInfluencedBy while none of the prov subproperies (so to speak) could apply. ←

16:07:15 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: is the problem stems from the use of the UML diagram?

Paul Groth: is the problem stems from the use of the UML diagram? ←

16:07:16 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←

16:07:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: no

Luc Moreau: no ←

16:07:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:07:44 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: this is something taht we need to follow on

Ivan Herman: this is something taht we need to follow on ←

16:07:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: is Tim still on the call?

Luc Moreau: is Tim still on the call? ←

16:08:17 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... have you got a view on whether influence should be represented as a superclasss in the UML diagram

... have you got a view on whether influence should be represented as a superclasss in the UML diagram ←

16:08:25 <khalidBelhajjame_> tlebo: I am inclined towards to

Timothy Lebo: I am inclined towards to ←

16:08:57 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the problem with inheritance, is that the attributes are inherited, which pose problem, like influencer and influencee

Luc Moreau: the problem with inheritance, is that the attributes are inherited, which pose problem, like influencer and influencee ←

16:09:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←

16:09:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←

16:09:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:09:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: UML is closer to object oriented programming style

Luc Moreau: UML is closer to object oriented programming style ←

16:10:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is not desirable in our context

... which is not desirable in our context ←

16:10:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:10:33 <stainPhone> For instance wasInfluencedBy(agent, activity)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: For instance wasInfluencedBy(agent, activity) ←

16:10:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

16:10:50 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: we have to revisit this issue

Luc Moreau: we have to revisit this issue ←

16:10:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and come back with a concrete proposal

... and come back with a concrete proposal ←

16:11:02 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←

16:11:04 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←

16:11:05 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←

16:11:05 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←

16:11:07 <Zakim> -??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P20 ←

16:11:10 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←

16:11:12 <khalidBelhajjame_> #luc thanks

#luc thanks ←

16:11:14 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←

16:11:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> @luc, thanks

@luc, thanks ←

16:11:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a] ←

16:11:31 <Zakim> -??P21

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P21 ←

16:11:35 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←

Formatted by CommonScribe

This revision (#4) generated 2012-09-28 11:03:48 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None