F2F Meeting, Stata Center

Minutes of 09 November 2012

Seen
Curt Tilmes, Graham Klyne, Hook Hua, Ivan Herman, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Laurent Lefort (MIT531), Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Timothy Lebo, Tom De Nies
Guests
Laurent Lefort (MIT531)
Chair
Luc Moreau
Scribe
Curt Tilmes, Timothy Lebo, James Cheney, Tom De Nies
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco link
  2. ISSUE-461 is editorial, the group agrees that this is ok to go ahead with CR and may look to address in the period of PR link
  3. To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name link
  4. mentionOf is removed from PROV rec track documents link
  5. prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed link
  6. PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596 link
Topics
  1. Admin

    Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.

  2. Where we are at

    Paul summarized where we are. We now need to focus on the final steps to get to Candidate Recommendation and Focus on Implementation.

  3. Candidate Recommendation for prov-dm

    It was decided that 'mention' would be left for later. We focused on the remaining outstanding issues. ISSUE-482 can be closed after adding an example of bundle/document to the FAQ. ISSUE-569 can also be closed. So, it was agreed that the document is ready for CR publication, once the ISSUE-475 on mention is solved, and after a final editor's pass.

  4. prov-n

    The remaining outstanding issue (589) regarding scope of prefixes in prov-n was closed, following a check of changes made by Luc. The document is ready to go after a final editor's pass.

  5. PROV-O

    We reviewed outstanding issues for the PROV-O document/ontology. ISSUE-552 was closed (no response was received from the reviewer, but the changes made followed his suggestions). To address ISSUE-592, it was suggested that Tim should add a comments suggesting to use more specific relations, instead of wasInfluencedBy. The issue was then reassigned to the primer. It was agreed that ISSUE-461 was purely editorial (regarding the readability of the printed document). The editor may look to address it, as we go to Proposed Recommendation. ISSUE-593 will be addressed by adding an example of hadActivity to the document. ISSUE-479 is addressed by confirming that all examples are informative. A statement of normative/informative material is to be added to prov-o. It was agreed that ISSUE-566 was fully addressed and could be closed. It was agreed that ISSUE-491 could also be closed, after suitable change of wording (use with instead of use by).

  6. PROV-Constraints

    A sentence highlighting the goal of the spec should be added to the abstract "This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents". Text around equivalence should be revisited and normative SHOULD is to be removed. It was agreed that all outstanding issues can be closed. The document is ready to go after an editor's final pass.

  7. Mention

    The chair explained that it would be better to enter CR with a "clean slate", and ideally, we wouldn't want to have a feature-at-risk in the specifications. In particular, the notion of mention was at risk, not so much because it might be difficult to implement, but because the group had difficulty reaching consensus. Given this, the chair informally polled the group about the concept of Mention. Graham and Simon were against it, Tim, Tom, Hook, Curt were in favour of it. Arguments against it include lack of semantics, lack of clarity, potential redundancy with specialization. Arguments in favor include weak semantics (offering flexibility) and crucial functionality in environment where a consumer of provenance has to make reference to provenance produced by someone else. Ivan explained the notion of formal objection at W3C. He asked whether the "no-camp" would formally object to the inclusion of mention in the CR spec. Graham indicated he would. In response, Tim said he would consider a formal objection about dropping the construct. We broke for lunch, agreeing to discuss the issue over lunch.

  8. mention of and CR

    After lunch discussion, Graham thought that the problem may be fixable with a change of descriptive text. It was agreed that Graham would take an hour to draft a revised description. During this time, we would cover another topic.

  9. PROV-XML

    The prov-xml document was reviewed during the week. Reviewers summarized their feedback. It was agreed that the document was a good first public working draft, and should be released synchronously with the CR specifications. A few suggestions were made to the editors: explain the design rationale for the schema, and mark, in the document, issues under consideration. We then discuss the order of the elements representing prov-dm attributes in the xml schema. For xpath and xquery queries, it was suggested that order was probably not a concern. The participants were unclear whether order affected Object-Relational Mapping (ORM). It was agreed that there was no need to make a decision now, but instead, the FPWD should explicitly seek feedback from reviewers. The issue of subtyping was also discussed: it was suggested that subtypes such as Person, Organization, Revision, etc should have an explicit element, instead of relying on prov:type. It was noted that substitution groups, if required, may become problematic. The editors will investigate a solution for this. Finally, the issue of identifiers was discussed. The questions is whether identifiers should be xsd:QName (as currently) or a more liberal form (qualified names as in prov-n). It was agreed that the issue should be flagged in the document, and feedback sought from outside the group.

  10. prov-dictionary

    The document has been dormant since F2F3, when the dictionary material was "downgraded" to note status. It was unknown whether Stian would lead the effort. Paolo has little bandwidth before Xmas. Sam and Tom volunteered to help, and were going to draft a timetable for the next teleconference.

  11. prov-sem

    James summarized the recent work he did on the semantics. Typesetting of the document was discussed. It was agreed that James should proceed ahead, with the most convenient tool for the task, and that we would tackle the conversion into W3C note format afterwards. The objective is to produce a revised version of the document circa Xmas.

  12. Mention (Resolution)

    the discussion on mention was resumed when Graham rejoined the group. Graham proposed an explanatory change. The group reviewed the text, and discussed some aspects of the proposal. No consensus was emerging immediately, and we didn't want to leave the meeting with a pseudo-agreement on editorial change that would unravel after a week. So, it was decided that we would proceed with a vote on keeping the text as is. If there is opposition, then it means that consensus cannot be reached, and (following a policy agreed at F2F2), the concept should be dropped from Rec-track documents. There was opposition to keep the document as is, but the members were supportive (or not opposing) having a note on mention.

  13. Vote for CR

    It was approved that prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed.

  14. PROV-AQ

    The document has been essentially dormant since last release, but last week, Graham started to process issues. He summarized the work he had done since. The issue of derenferencing bundle identifiers was discussed, with a view to decide whether it belongs to this document or not. It was noted that dereferencing a bundle identifier is not different than dereferencing an entity identifier. It was also noted that other working groups are addressing this issue. So, while the issue is not entirely out-of-scope, it was felt that a lightweight approach should be adopted by the editors.

<luc>Chair: pgroth
13:24:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc

13:24:27 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public

Ivan Herman: rrsagent, set log public

13:24:41 <ivan> zakim, code?

Ivan Herman: zakim, code?

13:24:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

13:31:30 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

(Scribe set to Curt Tilmes)

<luc>Guest: Laurent Lefort, MIT531
13:31:35 <pgroth> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.

<Luc>Summary: Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.
13:31:37 <ivan> Meeting: F2F Meeting, Stata Center
13:31:44 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01

13:32:04 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01

13:32:08 <tlebo> =1

Timothy Lebo: =1

13:32:11 <Curt> 0 (not present)

0 (not present)

13:32:12 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

13:32:16 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1

13:32:24 <ivan> (was not present)

Ivan Herman: (was not present)

13:32:30 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

13:32:39 <tlebo> (that actually works, since I was the first vote...)

Timothy Lebo: (that actually works, since I was the first vote...)

13:32:51 <pgroth> approved minutes of the  01 November 2012 telco

Paul Groth: approved minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco

13:33:14 <pgroth> Topic: Where we are at

2. Where we are at

Summary: Paul summarized where we are. We now need to focus on the final steps to get to Candidate Recommendation and Focus on Implementation.

<Luc>Summary: Paul summarized where we are. We now need to focus on the final steps to get to Candidate Recommendation and Focus on Implementation.
13:33:26 <Luc> accepted: minutes of the  01 November 2012 telco

RESOLVED: minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco

13:33:26 <Curt> pgroth: we are in great shape!

Paul Groth: we are in great shape!

13:33:40 <Curt> pgroth: will discuss documents on rec. track

Paul Groth: will discuss documents on rec. track

13:33:51 <Curt> pgroth: most issues closed or will be momentarily

Paul Groth: most issues closed or will be momentarily

13:34:10 <Curt> pgroth: need to follow w3c process and do due diligence

Paul Groth: need to follow w3c process and do due diligence

13:34:17 <Curt> pgroth: document everything clearly

Paul Groth: document everything clearly

13:34:36 <Curt> pgroth: CR period will focus on implementations

Paul Groth: CR period will focus on implementations

13:34:51 <Curt> pgroth: both finding other folks to implement as well as working on implementations ourselves

Paul Groth: both finding other folks to implement as well as working on implementations ourselves

13:35:01 <Curt> pgroth: we must show that we implement these specs

Paul Groth: we must show that we implement these specs

13:35:07 <Curt> pgroth: need coverage of all the features

Paul Groth: need coverage of all the features

13:35:44 <Curt> pgroth: reach out to people, engage others, push notes out, FAQ, etc. for outreach to implementers

Paul Groth: reach out to people, engage others, push notes out, FAQ, etc. for outreach to implementers

13:36:17 <Curt> pgroth: it has been a long hard slog to get here, need to keep up momentum and let people know what we've done

Paul Groth: it has been a long hard slog to get here, need to keep up momentum and let people know what we've done

13:37:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:37:00 <Curt> Luc: we've done amazing work since the last meeting there has been serious progress, now we need to finish

Luc Moreau: we've done amazing work since the last meeting there has been serious progress, now we need to finish

13:37:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:37:09 <Curt> Luc: need to promote the work that has been done

Luc Moreau: need to promote the work that has been done

13:37:31 <Curt> GK: getting specs out is the start, we now hope the wider community will pick things up

Graham Klyne: getting specs out is the start, we now hope the wider community will pick things up

13:37:43 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

13:37:43 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:37:48 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

13:38:22 <Paolo> sorry to be a pest: I think the phone mic goes to sleep even with short pauses so now it's all very on/off -- hard to follow. only continuous voices come across clean

Paolo Missier: sorry to be a pest: I think the phone mic goes to sleep even with short pauses so now it's all very on/off -- hard to follow. only continuous voices come across clean

13:38:49 <Curt> hook: this is a time to focus on implementations -- two serializations (PROV-O, PROV-XML) are each distinct encodings, distinct implementations

Hook Hua: this is a time to focus on implementations -- two serializations (PROV-O, PROV-XML) are each distinct encodings, distinct implementations

13:38:57 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:39:00 <Curt> hook: current definition is loose

Hook Hua: current definition is loose

13:40:02 <Curt> pgroth: in terms of implementation, we are looking for usage.  A markup of a web site is an implementation

Paul Groth: in terms of implementation, we are looking for usage. A markup of a web site is an implementation

13:40:17 <Curt> pgroth: we are also looking for things that generate, consume, validate constraints, etc.

Paul Groth: we are also looking for things that generate, consume, validate constraints, etc.

13:40:36 <Curt> pgroth: we will see people use PROV as the basis for other work

Paul Groth: we will see people use PROV as the basis for other work

13:41:03 <Curt> pgroth: our exit criteria count data marked up, vocab. extensions, applications each as implementations

Paul Groth: our exit criteria count data marked up, vocab. extensions, applications each as implementations

13:41:09 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F4Schedule F2F agenda

Ivan Herman: ivan has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F4Schedule F2F agenda

13:41:29 <Curt> GK: do extensions help us with CR exit criteria?

Graham Klyne: do extensions help us with CR exit criteria?

13:41:52 <Curt> pgroth: yes!  similar to SKOS, we want to verify that people are using the work.  That includes markup and extensions

Paul Groth: yes! similar to SKOS, we want to verify that people are using the work. That includes markup and extensions

13:42:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:42:56 <Curt> Luc: obviously, we are looking for applications to generate and consume provenance -- those really demonstrate interoperability

Luc Moreau: obviously, we are looking for applications to generate and consume provenance -- those really demonstrate interoperability

13:42:58 <pgroth> fyi : http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

Paul Groth: fyi : http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

13:43:04 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:44:02 <pgroth> Topic: Candidate Recommendation for prov-dm

3. Candidate Recommendation for prov-dm

Summary: It was decided that 'mention' would be left for later. We focused on the remaining outstanding issues. ISSUE-482 can be closed after adding an example of bundle/document to the FAQ. ISSUE-569 can also be closed. So, it was agreed that the document is ready for CR publication, once the ISSUE-475 on mention is solved, and after a final editor's pass.

<Luc>Summary: It was decided that 'mention' would be left for later. We focused on the remaining outstanding issues.   ISSUE-482 can be closed after adding an example of bundle/document to the FAQ. ISSUE-569 can also be closed. So, it was agreed that the document is ready for CR publication, once the ISSUE-475 on mention is solved, and after a final editor's pass.
13:44:21 <Curt> pgroth: status outstanding issues

Paul Groth: status outstanding issues

13:44:42 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/2

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/2

13:45:12 <ivan> issue-482?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-482?

13:45:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-482 -- [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-482 -- [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context -- pending review

13:45:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482

13:45:54 <Curt> pgroth: haven't received acknowledgement from externtal reviewer satra

Paul Groth: haven't received acknowledgement from externtal reviewer satra

13:46:02 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html

13:46:09 <Curt> Luc: He has acked.

Luc Moreau: He has acked.

13:46:16 <GK> Re my unease - the exit criteriaare OK, and I think it's OK that vocab extensions are considered implementations, bur it's not clear how *extensions* serve to demonstrate the primary goal of demonstrated interop of documented features of PROV.  But as I said, I think that will resolve itself when we look at the details of implementations

Graham Klyne: Re my unease - the exit criteriaare OK, and I think it's OK that vocab extensions are considered implementations, bur it's not clear how *extensions* serve to demonstrate the primary goal of demonstrated interop of documented features of PROV. But as I said, I think that will resolve itself when we look at the details of implementations

13:47:17 <zednik> Luc is breaking up over the audio

Stephan Zednik: Luc is breaking up over the audio

13:47:19 <Curt> Luc: there was a suggestion we should consider adding an example of bundles to FAQ

Luc Moreau: there was a suggestion we should consider adding an example of bundles to FAQ

13:47:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

13:48:04 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here?

13:48:04 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, ivan

13:48:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain

13:48:18 <GK> q+ to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes

Graham Klyne: q+ to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes

13:48:19 <ivan> zakim, this is F2F

Ivan Herman: zakim, this is F2F

13:48:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM

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

13:48:32 <pgroth> ack gk

Paul Groth: ack gk

13:48:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes

13:48:40 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here?

13:48:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa

13:48:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain

13:48:43 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

13:48:52 <Curt> GK: the last example dealt with previous situations without nested identifiers

Graham Klyne: the last example dealt with previous situations without nested identifiers

13:49:29 <Curt> pgroth: we clarified the way it worked, he wanted examples of using prefixes properly and how not to use them

Paul Groth: we clarified the way it worked, he wanted examples of using prefixes properly and how not to use them

13:50:03 <Curt> pgroth: need an action to add examples to FAQ

Paul Groth: need an action to add examples to FAQ

13:50:21 <Curt> Luc: I will do it (the example from his message?)

Luc Moreau: I will do it (the example from his message?)

13:50:25 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html

13:50:40 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

13:50:44 <GK> ^^ not "without nested identifiers" but "without nested prefixes" - it's important to distinguish between these.

Graham Klyne: ^^ not "without nested identifiers" but "without nested prefixes" - it's important to distinguish between these.

13:51:07 <Curt> Luc: the example he gave is valid, we need to explain why it is valid and add an example that is invalid

Luc Moreau: the example he gave is valid, we need to explain why it is valid and add an example that is invalid

13:51:28 <pgroth> action Luc - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity

Paul Groth: action Luc - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity

13:51:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-122 - - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

13:51:30 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

13:51:34 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

13:51:45 <GK> q+ to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle

13:52:07 <Curt> jcheney: agreed -- that's what we need to do.

James Cheney: agreed -- that's what we need to do.

13:52:14 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

13:52:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle

13:52:23 <Curt> Luc: we can close the issue now, with the coming action

Luc Moreau: we can close the issue now, with the coming action

13:52:56 <Curt> GK: you can have a bundle with an identifier, and use the identifier inside the bundle, to give provenance of the bundle itself.  Is that ok?

Graham Klyne: you can have a bundle with an identifier, and use the identifier inside the bundle, to give provenance of the bundle itself. Is that ok?

13:53:12 <Curt> pgroth: that's a separate issue

Paul Groth: that's a separate issue

13:53:23 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

13:53:29 <Curt> pgroth: that wouldn't change the spec

Paul Groth: that wouldn't change the spec

13:53:42 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

13:53:42 <Curt> GK: I thought you (paul) thought that would be invalid

Graham Klyne: I thought you (paul) thought that would be invalid

13:53:49 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

13:53:50 <Curt> pgroth: delay considering that until later

Paul Groth: delay considering that until later

13:54:00 <Curt> Luc: that is perfectly valid, and has an example in the DM

Luc Moreau: that is perfectly valid, and has an example in the DM

13:54:00 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik

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

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here?

13:54:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa

13:54:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain

13:54:18 <Curt> zednik: the FAQ could attempt to address that

Stephan Zednik: the FAQ could attempt to address that

13:54:18 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

13:54:36 <Curt> pgroth: issue-569

Paul Groth: ISSUE-569

13:54:38 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is Paolo

Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is Paolo

13:54:38 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

13:54:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:54:48 <ivan> zakim, ??P0 is zednik

Ivan Herman: zakim, ??P0 is zednik

13:54:48 <Zakim> +zednik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik; got it

13:54:48 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

13:54:52 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

13:55:19 <Curt> Luc: pending review waiting for james' response, came back to simon yesterday.  he is happy with the suggestion, can close now

Luc Moreau: pending review waiting for james' response, came back to simon yesterday. he is happy with the suggestion, can close now

13:55:37 <Curt> pgroth: issue-475, mention

Paul Groth: ISSUE-475, mention

13:55:45 <ivan> zakim, aaaa has laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain

Ivan Herman: zakim, aaaa has laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain

13:55:45 <Zakim> +laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain; got it

13:56:25 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

13:56:29 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

13:56:46 <Curt> pgroth: let's consider that (mention) at the end of this section so we can discuss it

Paul Groth: let's consider that (mention) at the end of this session so we can discuss it

13:57:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:57:24 <Curt> s/section/session/
13:57:29 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

13:57:51 <Curt> pgroth: editor review DM a final time for cleanliness/etc.

Paul Groth: editor review DM a final time for cleanliness/etc.

13:58:05 <Curt> Luc: how should we acknowledge reviewers?

Luc Moreau: how should we acknowledge reviewers?

13:58:25 <Curt> ivan: they will get listed as well as listing the working group

Ivan Herman: they will get listed as well as listing the working group

13:58:27 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q-

13:58:52 <Curt> ivan: put the same list of reviewers in each document

Ivan Herman: put the same list of reviewers in each document

13:59:00 <pgroth> action: Luc editor check

ACTION: Luc editor check

13:59:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-123 - Editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

13:59:30 <Curt> ivan: everything that needs to be changed has been changed?

Ivan Herman: everything that needs to be changed has been changed?

13:59:46 <Curt> Luc: yes, except for final review, it is ready to go

Luc Moreau: yes, except for final review, it is ready to go

14:01:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

14:01:51 <smiles> I'm trying to call in to the W3C bridge with code 7768 as said on the Wiki, but get "This pass code is not valid". Is there another code for today?

Simon Miles: I'm trying to call in to the W3C bridge with code 7768 as said on the Wiki, but get "This pass code is not valid". Is there another code for today?

14:02:05 <ivan> zakim, code?

Ivan Herman: zakim, code?

14:02:05 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

14:02:39 <GK> @smiles - that often happens to me … but usually works if I try again (i.e. re-enter the passcode).

Graham Klyne: @smiles - that often happens to me … but usually works if I try again (i.e. re-enter the passcode).

14:02:41 <pgroth> we have now addressed all open issues (except mention) for prov-dm

Paul Groth: we have now addressed all open issues (except mention) for prov-dm

14:02:57 <pgroth> Topic: prov-n

4. prov-n

Summary: The remaining outstanding issue (589) regarding scope of prefixes in prov-n was closed, following a check of changes made by Luc. The document is ready to go after a final editor's pass.

<luc>Summary: The remaining outstanding issue (589) regarding scope of prefixes in prov-n was closed, following a check of changes made by Luc.  The document is ready to go after a final editor's pass.
14:03:06 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/11

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/11

14:03:30 <smiles> * yes, I've tried a few times. not sure what the problem is, but will keep trying!

Simon Miles: * yes, I've tried a few times. not sure what the problem is, but will keep trying!

14:03:41 <Curt> Luc: last week, we agreed we would change scoping of prefixes, haven't received any feedback

Luc Moreau: last week, we agreed we would change scoping of prefixes, haven't received any feedback

14:04:22 <Curt> Luc: would be nice to have a few more examples

Luc Moreau: would be nice to have a few more examples

14:05:18 <pgroth> action: Luc prov-n editor check

ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check

14:05:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Prov-n editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-124 - Prov-n editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

14:05:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

14:06:36 <pgroth> smiles are you on

Paul Groth: smiles are you on

14:06:37 <pgroth> ?

Paul Groth: ?

14:06:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:06:52 <smiles> yes, but the sound keeps cutting in and out

Simon Miles: yes, but the sound keeps cutting in and out

14:06:55 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is smiles

Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is smiles

14:06:55 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it

14:07:20 <Curt> Luc: there is a typo in the current text

Luc Moreau: there is a typo in the current text

14:07:31 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:07:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

14:07:54 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

14:07:59 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is khalidBelhajjame

Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is khalidBelhajjame

14:07:59 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it

14:08:05 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

14:08:10 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller]is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller]is me

14:08:10 <Zakim> I don't understand '[IPcaller]is me', khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '[IPcaller]is me', khalidBelhajjame

14:08:16 <Curt> Luc: all documents cross-reference each other, which URL should we use

Luc Moreau: all documents cross-reference each other, which URL should we use

14:08:22 <Curt> ivan: the dated URL

Ivan Herman: the dated URL

14:08:23 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller] is me

14:08:23 <Zakim> sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'

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

14:08:38 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, +[IPcaller] is me

14:08:38 <Zakim> sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'

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

14:09:10 <Curt> ivan: it is a real pain, but they must always reference by the dated URI

Ivan Herman: it is a real pain, but they must always reference by the dated URI

14:09:51 <Curt> ivan: a global search/replace should take care of it.

Ivan Herman: a global search/replace should take care of it.

14:10:52 <pgroth> action: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given)

ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given)

14:10:52 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find tlebo,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find tlebo,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

14:10:54 <Curt> Luc: we can't refer to those until we get the publication date

Luc Moreau: we can't refer to those until we get the publication date

14:11:05 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:11:22 <Curt> Luc: is there a way to define the reference prefix up front and reuse it?

Luc Moreau: is there a way to define the reference prefix up front and reuse it?

14:11:40 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:11:47 <Curt> ivan: (redacted)

Ivan Herman: (redacted)

14:12:06 <pgroth> w?

Paul Groth: w?

14:12:07 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:12:19 <pgroth> note, we are happy with prov-n

Paul Groth: note, we are happy with prov-n

14:12:34 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O

5. PROV-O

Summary: We reviewed outstanding issues for the PROV-O document/ontology. ISSUE-552 was closed (no response was received from the reviewer, but the changes made followed his suggestions). To address ISSUE-592, it was suggested that Tim should add a comments suggesting to use more specific relations, instead of wasInfluencedBy. The issue was then reassigned to the primer. It was agreed that ISSUE-461 was purely editorial (regarding the readability of the printed document). The editor may look to address it, as we go to Proposed Recommendation. ISSUE-593 will be addressed by adding an example of hadActivity to the document. ISSUE-479 is addressed by confirming that all examples are informative. A statement of normative/informative material is to be added to prov-o. It was agreed that ISSUE-566 was fully addressed and could be closed. It was agreed that ISSUE-491 could also be closed, after suitable change of wording (use with instead of use by).

<luc>Summary: We reviewed outstanding issues for the PROV-O document/ontology. ISSUE-552 was closed (no response was received from the reviewer, but the changes made followed his suggestions).   To address ISSUE-592, it was suggested that Tim should add a comments suggesting to use more specific relations, instead of wasInfluencedBy.  The issue was then reassigned to the primer.  It was agreed that ISSUE-461 was purely editorial (regarding the readability of the printed document). The editor may look to address it, as we go to Proposed Recommendation. ISSUE-593 will be addressed by adding an example of hadActivity to the document.  ISSUE-479 is addressed by confirming that all examples are informative. A statement of normative/informative material is to be added to prov-o. It was agreed that ISSUE-566 was fully addressed and could be closed.  It was agreed that ISSUE-491 could also be closed, after suitable change of wording (use with instead of use by).
14:12:53 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3

14:12:58 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552

14:13:15 <Curt> tlebo: issue-552, subclass, we did what they recommended

Timothy Lebo: ISSUE-552, subclass, we did what they recommended

14:13:27 <Curt> tlebo: haven't heard back

Timothy Lebo: haven't heard back

14:13:47 <Curt> tlebo: we asked for a response on tuesday

Timothy Lebo: we asked for a response on tuesday

14:14:01 <Curt> ivan: ok to close, we did what they suggested

Ivan Herman: ok to close, we did what they suggested

14:14:45 <pgroth> action: tlebo to add email link to the response page

ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page

14:14:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Add email link to the response page [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-125 - Add email link to the response page [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

14:14:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:15:23 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/592

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/592

14:15:51 <Curt> tlebo: he says terms are confusing, but his concern isn't clear

Timothy Lebo: he says terms are confusing, but his concern isn't clear

14:17:03 <Curt> tlebo: he expressed a concern, tim suggested an alternative approach, he hasn't responded to that

Timothy Lebo: he expressed a concern, tim suggested an alternative approach, he hasn't responded to that

14:18:28 <tlebo> q+ to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty

14:18:29 <Curt> ?: wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy can get confused, there may be a better way to describe/depict their relationship

Laurent Lefort: wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy can get confused, there may be a better way to describe/depict their relationship

14:18:37 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

14:19:10 <ivan> s/?:/laurent:/
14:19:14 <Curt> tlebo: in the HTML is isn't as obvious which is the superproperty?

Timothy Lebo: in the HTML is isn't as obvious which is the superproperty?

14:19:27 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:19:30 <Curt> laurent: yes, is isn't totally obvious in the HTML description of the ontology

Laurent Lefort: yes, is isn't totally obvious in the HTML description of the ontology

14:19:35 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

14:19:35 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty

14:20:31 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

14:20:47 <Curt> Luc: we changed the superclass description in the DM since Ralph reviewed, it might be more clear now

Luc Moreau: we changed the superclass description in the DM since Ralph reviewed, it might be more clear now

14:21:09 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:21:11 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

14:21:14 <ivan> ack jcheney

Ivan Herman: ack jcheney

14:21:15 <Curt> Luc: Could revise the HTML description to clarify further

Luc Moreau: Could revise the HTML description to clarify further

14:21:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:22:06 <Curt> jcheney: agreed, it says what we want it to say, but we might want to make it clear right up front which is the superproperty for querying and that you ought to use the more specific terms if possible

James Cheney: agreed, it says what we want it to say, but we might want to make it clear right up front which is the superproperty for querying and that you ought to use the more specific terms if possible

14:22:08 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

14:22:11 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

14:22:34 <Curt> ivan: might want to add the clarifying diagram

Ivan Herman: might want to add the clarifying diagram

14:23:15 <Curt> pgroth: the document is already large, we are talking about ways to better guide how people should use the standard, but not affecting the standard itself

Paul Groth: the document is already large, we are talking about ways to better guide how people should use the standard, but not affecting the standard itself

14:23:32 <Curt> pgroth: that sort of material, patterns, etc. should be in the FAQ

Paul Groth: that sort of material, patterns, etc. should be in the FAQ

14:23:59 <Curt> ivan: we need to make sure those clarifications aren't lost, maybe include in the primer?  where would people want to find that sort of material

Ivan Herman: we need to make sure those clarifications aren't lost, maybe include in the primer? where would people want to find that sort of material

14:24:07 <Curt> pgroth: I'm happy to have that added to the primer

Paul Groth: I'm happy to have that added to the primer

14:24:08 <GK> q+ to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication

Graham Klyne: q+ to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication

14:24:35 <Curt> pgroth: that type of material -- I haven't seen that specific image or writeup

Paul Groth: that type of material -- I haven't seen that specific image or writeup

14:25:11 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:25:14 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

14:25:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication

14:25:26 <Curt> Luc: tlebo should forward Laurent's material to the list to consider for adding to the primer

Luc Moreau: tlebo should forward Laurent's material to the list to consider for adding to the primer

14:25:54 <Curt> GK: the primer is fixed on publication, maybe link it to somewhere more dynamic

Graham Klyne: the primer is fixed on publication, maybe link it to somewhere more dynamic

14:26:03 <Curt> pgroth: I like the FAQ for this type of stuff

Paul Groth: I like the FAQ for this type of stuff

14:26:34 <Curt> ivan: For usage patterns, I agree with GK, they will change/evolve, but the diagram from Laurent is more fixed

Ivan Herman: For usage patterns, I agree with GK, they will change/evolve, but the diagram from Laurent is more fixed

14:26:50 <Curt> GK: agreed, the diagram is different

Graham Klyne: agreed, the diagram is different

14:28:16 <pgroth> action: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document

ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document

14:28:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Add a comment to use more specific things through document [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-126 - Add a comment to use more specific things through document [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

14:29:08 <Curt> tlebo: reassigned issue 592 to the primer

Timothy Lebo: reassigned ISSUE-592 to the primer

14:29:21 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:29:33 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:29:48 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10

14:29:55 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461

14:31:38 <Curt> GK: difficult to follow cross-references when the document is printed

Graham Klyne: difficult to follow cross-references when the document is printed

14:32:04 <Curt> Luc: in the DM, we numbered everything and refer by number instead of just the static link

Luc Moreau: in the DM, we numbered everything and refer by number instead of just the static link

14:32:12 <Curt> Luc: it was difficult to put in all those

Luc Moreau: it was difficult to put in all those

14:32:28 <Curt> tlebo: :-)

Timothy Lebo: :-)

14:32:50 <Curt> ivan: now is the time to make those sorts of changes

Ivan Herman: now is the time to make those sorts of changes

14:33:33 <Curt> tlebo: to address that, we would have a number for everything, and a table with all the numbers to index the terms

Timothy Lebo: to address that, we would have a number for everything, and a table with all the numbers to index the terms

14:33:48 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:33:48 <Curt> tlebo: it may be difficult to do all that and not break anything

Timothy Lebo: it may be difficult to do all that and not break anything

14:33:58 <Curt> tlebo: it is a purely editorial issue

Timothy Lebo: it is a purely editorial issue

14:34:38 <Curt> tlebo: if we can get through CR without that, then address it prior to next phase

Timothy Lebo: if we can get through CR without that, then address it prior to next phase

14:34:51 <Curt> GK: this may be just too much work to implement

Graham Klyne: this may be just too much work to implement

14:36:13 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-461 is editorial, the group agrees that this is ok to go ahead with CR and may look to address in the period of PR

RESOLVED: ISSUE-461 is editorial, the group agrees that this is ok to go ahead with CR and may look to address in the period of PR

14:36:23 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/593

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/593

14:36:59 <Curt> tlebo: need to change TTL example to exercise hadActivity

Timothy Lebo: need to change TTL example to exercise hadActivity

14:37:16 <Curt> tlebo: examples are considered editorial?

Timothy Lebo: examples are considered editorial?

14:37:25 <Curt> ivan: yes, it is, but can it be done for CR?

Ivan Herman: yes, it is, but can it be done for CR?

14:37:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:38:29 <pgroth> action: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o

ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o

14:38:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Add hadActivity example to prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-127 - Add hadActivity example to prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

14:38:48 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479

14:39:08 <Curt> pgroth: we removed all TrIG?

Paul Groth: we removed all TrIG?

14:39:16 <Curt> tlebo: there are a few remaining for 'mention'

Timothy Lebo: there are a few remaining for 'mention'

14:40:14 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:40:22 <Curt> tlebo: reduced amount of TriG, and cited/described use of TriG

Timothy Lebo: reduced amount of TriG, and cited/described use of TriG

14:40:43 <Curt> ivan: clarify that all examples are informative

Ivan Herman: clarify that all examples are informative

14:40:53 <Curt> ivan: must add that to the document

Ivan Herman: must add that to the document

14:41:06 <Curt> ivan: then you can use TriG in examples and note that

Ivan Herman: then you can use TriG in examples and note that

14:41:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:41:40 <Curt> ivan: there may be a document from RDF group about TriG, and we could reference that later as an editorial change

Ivan Herman: there may be a document from RDF group about TriG, and we could reference that later as an editorial change

14:41:56 <Curt> ivan: TriG reference must be informative, not normative

Ivan Herman: TriG reference must be informative, not normative

14:42:09 <Curt> ivan: it can reference it as a work in progress

Ivan Herman: it can reference it as a work in progress

14:42:35 <GK> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle -

Graham Klyne: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle -

14:43:11 <tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o

Timothy Lebo: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o

14:43:40 <TomDN> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#Bundle

Tom De Nies: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#Bundle

14:44:43 <Curt> pgroth: closing the issue, tim will clarify that examples are informative

Paul Groth: closing the issue, tim will clarify that examples are informative

14:44:48 <pgroth> action: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o

ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o

14:44:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-128 - Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

14:45:30 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/566

Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/566

14:45:38 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:46:04 <Curt> tlebo: fully addressed, waiting for daniel to respond

Timothy Lebo: fully addressed, waiting for daniel to respond

14:46:24 <Curt> tlebo: closing issue-566

Timothy Lebo: closing ISSUE-566

14:46:42 <ivan> issue-491?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-491?

14:46:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-491 -- [external] feedback on prov:agent explanation. -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-491 -- [external] feedback on prov:agent explanation. -- pending review

14:46:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491

14:48:03 <Curt> tlebo: made some changes, Patrice likes it even less

Timothy Lebo: made some changes, Patrice likes it even less

14:48:22 <Curt> tlebo: doesn't like colloquial use of some terms and phrases

Timothy Lebo: doesn't like colloquial use of some terms and phrases

14:48:44 <Curt> tlebo: wants things expressed in logic terms

Timothy Lebo: wants things expressed in logic terms

14:49:11 <Curt> pgroth: his phrasing would rewrite the document in a rule based form

Paul Groth: his phrasing would rewrite the document in a rule based form

14:49:33 <lebot> hello?

Timothy Lebo: hello?

14:49:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:50:52 <GK> q+ to suggest s/used by/used with/

Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest s/used by/used with/

14:50:57 <Curt> ivan (and others): the proposed language is very convoluted for people to read, we shouldn't do it

ivan (and others): the proposed language is very convoluted for people to read, we shouldn't do it

14:51:01 <jcheney> sorry about the noise

James Cheney: sorry about the noise

14:51:27 <Curt> ivan: some of the wording could be better

Ivan Herman: some of the wording could be better

14:51:28 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK

14:51:28 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest s/used by/used with/

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to suggest s/used by/used with/

14:51:35 <Curt> GK: change "used by" to "used with"

Graham Klyne: change "used by" to "used with"

14:51:45 <Curt> ivan: yes, that may be a simple way to address some concerns

Ivan Herman: yes, that may be a simple way to address some concerns

14:52:10 <Curt> pgroth: are these in many places?

Paul Groth: are these in many places?

14:52:29 <Curt> tlebo: I removed some of the objectionable language

Timothy Lebo: I removed some of the objectionable language

14:52:38 <Curt> ivan: why was he even more upset?

Ivan Herman: why was he even more upset?

14:53:51 <Curt> tlebo: we were reusing prov:AgentInfluence, but we change our usage of that, with a better definition

Timothy Lebo: we were reusing prov:AgentInfluence, but we change our usage of that, with a better definition

14:54:08 <Curt> tlebo: we've addressed some of the expressed concerns

Timothy Lebo: we've addressed some of the expressed concerns

14:55:18 <Curt> tlebo: I think we've addressed it all

Timothy Lebo: I think we've addressed it all

14:55:47 <Curt> pgroth: we don't want to use the proposed phrasing, I think this has been adequately addressed

Paul Groth: we don't want to use the proposed phrasing, I think this has been adequately addressed

14:55:58 <Curt> tlebo: closing issue 491

Timothy Lebo: closing ISSUE-491

14:57:39 <Curt> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/116

https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/116

14:58:56 <Curt> Luc: Tim will address action 116 post-CR release, determine if it is doable

Luc Moreau: Tim will address ACTION-116 post-CR release, determine if it is doable

14:59:50 <Curt> pgroth: Tim will do an editor check of PROV-O

Paul Groth: Tim will do an editor check of PROV-O

14:59:59 <pgroth> action: tlebo editor check prov-o

ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o

14:59:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Editor check prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-129 - Editor check prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].

15:00:10 <pgroth> very happy with prov-o

Paul Groth: very happy with prov-o

15:00:20 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12

15:00:21 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Constraints

6. PROV-Constraints

Summary: A sentence highlighting the goal of the spec should be added to the abstract "This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents". Text around equivalence should be revisited and normative SHOULD is to be removed. It was agreed that all outstanding issues can be closed. The document is ready to go after an editor's final pass.

<luc>Summary:  A sentence highlighting the goal of the spec should be added to the abstract "This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents". Text around equivalence should be revisited and normative SHOULD is to be removed. It was agreed that all outstanding issues can be closed.  The document is ready to go after an editor's final pass.
15:01:08 <Curt> pgroth: All issues have been addressed, sent back to reviewer

Paul Groth: All issues have been addressed, sent back to reviewer

15:01:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:01:25 <Curt> jcheney: he has had a week to consider our responses

James Cheney: he has had a week to consider our responses

15:01:36 <Curt> ivan: were any of the resolutions controversial?

Ivan Herman: were any of the resolutions controversial?

15:02:03 <Curt> jcheney: there were a few common themes, some were simply typo/rewording

James Cheney: there were a few common themes, some were simply typo/rewording

15:03:48 <pgroth> close ISSUE-587

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-587

15:03:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-587 Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-587 Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics closed

15:04:19 <Curt> group (we like tracker!)

group (we like tracker!)

15:04:37 <pgroth> close ISSUE-586

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-586

15:04:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-586 The description of 'toplevel bundle' as 'set of statements not appearing in a named bundle' is unclear closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-586 The description of 'toplevel bundle' as 'set of statements not appearing in a named bundle' is unclear closed

15:04:52 <pgroth> close ISSUE-582

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-582

15:04:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-582 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.' closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-582 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.' closed

15:05:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:07:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:07:07 <Curt> jcheney: some of the suggestions might be more appropriately addressed in the semantics document

James Cheney: some of the suggestions might be more appropriately addressed in the semantics document

15:07:24 <Curt> jcheney: they didn't fit the nature of the the constraints goals

James Cheney: they didn't fit the nature of the the constraints goals

15:07:39 <Curt> ivan: maybe we didn't clarify the goals of the document?

Ivan Herman: maybe we didn't clarify the goals of the document?

15:08:08 <Curt> jcheney: I tried to elaborate purpose of document, that somewhat addresses that concern

James Cheney: I tried to elaborate purpose of document, that somewhat addresses that concern

15:08:43 <Curt> pgroth: current description of constraints document

Paul Groth: current description of constraints document

15:09:09 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:09:35 <TomDN> I think this sentence addresses a lot of his concerns as well: "Further discussion of the semantics of PROV statements, which justifies the definitions, inferences and constraints, and relates the procedural specification approach taken here to a declarative specification, can be found in the formal semantics [PROV-SEM]. "

Tom De Nies: I think this sentence addresses a lot of his concerns as well: "Further discussion of the semantics of PROV statements, which justifies the definitions, inferences and constraints, and relates the procedural specification approach taken here to a declarative specification, can be found in the formal semantics [PROV-SEM]. "

15:09:49 <Curt> Luc: message in document is fairly clear what we intend for the document

Luc Moreau: message in document is fairly clear what we intend for the document

15:10:19 <Curt> ivan: that description sounds ok, need to be clear that this is a precise way to check validity of PROV

Ivan Herman: that description sounds ok, need to be clear that this is a precise way to check validity of PROV

15:10:42 <Curt> ivan: Antoine may be looking for semantics -- that isn't the goal of this document

Ivan Herman: Antoine may be looking for semantics -- that isn't the goal of this document

15:10:54 <Curt> jcheney: that is how I have addressed the issues

James Cheney: that is how I have addressed the issues

15:11:30 <Curt> pgroth: add 1 sentence to description on constraints document -- this defines a precise way to validate provenance

Paul Groth: add 1 sentence to description on constraints document -- this defines a precise way to validate provenance

15:12:44 <pgroth> This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents.

Paul Groth: This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents.

15:13:07 <Curt> jcheney: will add that sentence

James Cheney: will add that sentence

15:14:38 <Curt> pgroth: I read all the issue responses and thought they were good -- so did luc

Paul Groth: I read all the issue responses and thought they were good -- so did luc

15:16:18 <Curt> jcheney: issue-585, described why things are worded the way they are

James Cheney: ISSUE-585, described why things are worded the way they are

15:16:20 <pgroth> close ISSUE-585

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-585

15:16:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-585 Suggestion to avoid discussing how to 'apply' constraints; clarify what it means to 'satisfy' constraints closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-585 Suggestion to avoid discussing how to 'apply' constraints; clarify what it means to 'satisfy' constraints closed

15:17:20 <Curt> issue 576, the term merging was replaced with unification that is more accurate

ISSUE-576, the term merging was replaced with unification that is more accurate

15:17:37 <pgroth> close ISSUE-584

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-584

15:17:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-584 The nonstandard/procedurally defined 'merging' operation on terms closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-584 The nonstandard/procedurally defined 'merging' operation on terms closed

15:17:57 <Curt> ^576^584

^576^584

15:18:49 <Curt> jcheney: issue 583, rewrote wording of equivalent instances

James Cheney: ISSUE-583, rewrote wording of equivalent instances

15:18:50 <pgroth> close ISSUE-583

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-583

15:18:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-583 Questions concerning what it means for applications to treat equivalent instances 'in the same way', particularly in bundles. closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-583 Questions concerning what it means for applications to treat equivalent instances 'in the same way', particularly in bundles. closed

15:22:28 <Curt> jcheney: issue 581 wording around normalization/equivalence

James Cheney: ISSUE-581 wording around normalization/equivalence

15:23:37 <Curt> GK: equivalence is really observed behavior -- given the same situation, you should get the same provenance

Graham Klyne: equivalence is really observed behavior -- given the same situation, you should get the same provenance

15:24:00 <Curt> jcheney: I'll reword some of this and circulate for comment

James Cheney: I'll reword some of this and circulate for comment

15:24:32 <pgroth> action: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD

ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD

15:24:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-130 - Add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].

15:24:33 <GK> ^^ Not "equivalence", but "treat in tghe same way" is what is observed/able behavious.

Graham Klyne: ^^ Not "equivalence", but "treat in tghe same way" is what is observed/able behavious.

15:25:44 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:26:04 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:27:22 <Curt> issue 581, we agree we are not specifying the algorithm, will clarify,

ISSUE-581, we agree we are not specifying the algorithm, will clarify,

15:27:27 <pgroth> close ISSUE-581

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-581

15:27:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-581 Suggestion to avoid wording that 'almost requires' using normalization to implement constraints closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-581 Suggestion to avoid wording that 'almost requires' using normalization to implement constraints closed

15:28:42 <Curt> jcheney: issue 580, definitions for expanding compact language not needed; response -- yes, we do need to define how those things work

James Cheney: ISSUE-580, definitions for expanding compact language not needed; response -- yes, we do need to define how those things work

15:29:24 <pgroth> close ISSUE-580

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-580

15:29:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-580 Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-580 Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly closed

15:31:09 <TomDN> issue-578?

Tom De Nies: ISSUE-578?

15:31:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-578 -- Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-578 -- Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics -- pending review

15:31:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/578

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/578

15:31:39 <Curt> jcheney: issue 578, we defined equivalence only on valid documents, not arbitrary documents

James Cheney: ISSUE-578, we defined equivalence only on valid documents, not arbitrary documents

15:33:37 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:33:54 <Curt> jcheney: we need to consider equivalence for other scenarios beyond validity

James Cheney: we need to consider equivalence for other scenarios beyond validity

15:33:57 <pgroth> close ISSUE-578

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-578

15:33:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-578 Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-578 Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics closed

15:34:21 <Curt> ivan: for the purpose of this document, our description is sufficient

Ivan Herman: for the purpose of this document, our description is sufficient

15:35:02 <Curt> jcheney: yes, once we clarify the purpose of our document, the concern becomes somewhat moot

James Cheney: yes, once we clarify the purpose of our document, the concern becomes somewhat moot

15:35:39 <TomDN> issue-577?

Tom De Nies: ISSUE-577?

15:35:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-577 -- Terminology: valid vs. consistent -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-577 -- Terminology: valid vs. consistent -- pending review

15:35:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/577

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/577

15:36:19 <Curt> issue 577, we use the word "valid" where logic uses "consistent",

ISSUE-577, we use the word "valid" where logic uses "consistent",

15:36:28 <Curt> ivan: this document isn't meant for logicians

Ivan Herman: this document isn't meant for logicians

15:36:32 <pgroth> close ISSUE-577

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-577

15:36:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-577 Terminology: valid vs. consistent closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-577 Terminology: valid vs. consistent closed

15:36:40 <Curt> jcheney: we are using the words appropriate for our purpose

James Cheney: we are using the words appropriate for our purpose

15:36:46 <pgroth> close ISSUE-576

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-576

15:36:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-576 logical definition and comments on prov-constratins closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-576 logical definition and comments on prov-constratins closed

15:37:59 <Curt> issue 556, translating constraints to prov-o out of scope

ISSUE-556, translating constraints to prov-o out of scope

15:38:13 <Curt> pgroth: that is a concern of implementers

Paul Groth: that is a concern of implementers

15:38:54 <pgroth> close ISSUE-556

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-556

15:38:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-556 public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-556 public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same closed

15:40:04 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments

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

15:40:53 <pgroth> action: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints

ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints

15:40:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Editorial check on prov-constraints [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-131 - Editorial check on prov-constraints [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].

15:42:00 <pgroth> action: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page

ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page

15:42:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Add response email to responses to public comments page [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-132 - Add response email to responses to public comments page [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].

15:42:58 <pgroth> we are happy with constraints

Paul Groth: we are happy with constraints

15:43:19 <pgroth> 15 minute break

Paul Groth: 15 minute break

15:43:22 <pgroth> start at 11

Paul Groth: start at 11

15:43:23 <lebot> i added a comment to https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/125 can I close it?

Timothy Lebo: i added a comment to https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/125 can I close it?

15:43:27 <Zakim> -smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles

15:43:46 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame

15:59:26 <pgroth> Topic: Mention

(No events recorded for 15 minutes)

7. Mention

Summary: The chair explained that it would be better to enter CR with a "clean slate", and ideally, we wouldn't want to have a feature-at-risk in the specifications. In particular, the notion of mention was at risk, not so much because it might be difficult to implement, but because the group had difficulty reaching consensus. Given this, the chair informally polled the group about the concept of Mention. Graham and Simon were against it, Tim, Tom, Hook, Curt were in favour of it. Arguments against it include lack of semantics, lack of clarity, potential redundancy with specialization. Arguments in favor include weak semantics (offering flexibility) and crucial functionality in environment where a consumer of provenance has to make reference to provenance produced by someone else. Ivan explained the notion of formal objection at W3C. He asked whether the "no-camp" would formally object to the inclusion of mention in the CR spec. Graham indicated he would. In response, Tim said he would consider a formal objection about dropping the construct. We broke for lunch, agreeing to discuss the issue over lunch.

<Luc>Summary: The chair explained that it would be better to enter CR with a "clean slate", and ideally, we wouldn't want to have a feature-at-risk in the specifications. In particular, the notion of mention was at risk, not so much because it might be difficult to implement, but because the group had difficulty reaching consensus. Given this, the chair informally polled the group about the concept of Mention. Graham and Simon were against it, Tim, Tom, Hook, Curt were in favour of it. Arguments against it include lack of semantics, lack of clarity, potential redundancy with specialization. Arguments in favor include weak semantics (offering flexibility) and crucial functionality in environment where a consumer of provenance has to make reference to provenance produced by someone else. Ivan explained the notion of formal objection at W3C. He asked whether the "no-camp" would formally object to the inclusion of mention in the CR spec.  Graham indicated he would. In response, Tim said he would consider a formal objection about dropping the construct. We broke for lunch, agreeing to discuss the issue over lunch.
15:59:32 <pgroth> Scribe: lebot

(Scribe set to Timothy Lebo)

15:59:46 <Zakim> +??P11

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11

15:59:51 <pgroth> starting again

Paul Groth: starting again

16:00:17 <smiles> zakim, ??P11 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??P11 is me

16:00:17 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it

16:00:39 <ivan> zakim, mute smiles

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute smiles

16:00:39 <Zakim> smiles should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: smiles should now be muted

16:01:22 <lebot> paul: we came to a simple definition of mention, from many before it.

Paul Groth: we came to a simple definition of mention, from many before it.

16:01:38 <lebot> … connects Entity in one bundle to an Entity in another bundle. It's a kind of specialization

… connects Entity in one bundle to an Entity in another bundle. It's a kind of specialization

16:02:20 <lebot> … Luc's response to Graham's public comment

… Luc's response to Graham's public comment

16:02:33 <lebot> … "at risk" is not appropriate for mention.

… "at risk" is not appropriate for mention.

16:02:49 <lebot> … having "at risk" in CR - does not look good.

… having "at risk" in CR - does not look good.

16:03:01 <lebot> … need to settle it now. Make it lean.

… need to settle it now. Make it lean.

16:03:46 <lebot> ivan: at CR, "at risk" is one that the WG thinks it has an issue implementing. But mention is not an implementation issue, it's a design issue.

Ivan Herman: at CR, "at risk" is one that the WG thinks it has an issue implementing. But mention is not an implementation issue, it's a design issue.

16:03:55 <lebot> … if design, then it is an abuse of "at risk"

… if design, then it is an abuse of "at risk"

16:04:22 <lebot> pgroth: the chairs do not want to abuse "at risk".

Paul Groth: the chairs do not want to abuse "at risk".

16:04:28 <lebot> … thus, include or exclude now.

… thus, include or exclude now.

16:05:08 <Luc> @lebot: can you use pgroth as handle?

Luc Moreau: @lebot: can you use pgroth as handle?

16:05:14 <lebot> … we've spent a LOT of time on mention. we need to go from that work.

… we've spent a LOT of time on mention. we need to go from that work.

16:05:43 <lebot> pgroth: lets hear case against as it stands.

Paul Groth: lets hear case against as it stands.

16:05:50 <lebot> … does anybody want it in?

… does anybody want it in?

16:05:54 <lebot> … who wants it out?

… who wants it out?

16:06:03 <lebot> … we'll decide in or now today.

… we'll decide in or now today.

16:06:41 <lebot> GK: debate has been going on for long time.

Graham Klyne: debate has been going on for long time.

16:06:53 <lebot> … we can't conflate previous things with what it is now.

… we can't conflate previous things with what it is now.

16:07:10 <lebot> … feel there is an attempt to introduce something which cannot be specified in RDF.

… feel there is an attempt to introduce something which cannot be specified in RDF.

16:07:22 <lebot> … BUT the public objection is NOT ^^^

… BUT the public objection is NOT ^^^

16:07:33 <lebot> … basically, I don't know what it is trying to say.

… basically, I don't know what it is trying to say.

16:07:40 <lebot> … what does it mean?

… what does it mean?

16:07:46 <lebot> … what is new beyond what we already have?

… what is new beyond what we already have?

16:07:50 <TomDN> (original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Aug/0001.html )

Tom De Nies: (original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Aug/0001.html )

16:08:03 <lebot> … my claim is that it does not add anything.

… my claim is that it does not add anything.

16:08:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:08:12 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:08:15 <lebot> pgroth: who wants, will use mention?

Paul Groth: who wants, will use mention?

16:08:15 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

16:08:37 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P5 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P5 is me

16:08:37 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it

16:08:43 <lebot> jcheney: at last F2F we discussed this.

James Cheney: at last F2F we discussed this.

16:09:03 <lebot> … strong motivation in ontology to relate MentionOf relation two two entities.

… strong motivation in ontology to relate MentionOf relation two two entities.

16:09:10 <lebot> (asInBundle)

(asInBundle)

16:09:26 <lebot> … the idea is to translate mention of DM into two triples in RDF.

… the idea is to translate mention of DM into two triples in RDF.

16:09:38 <lebot> … how to convert when round tripping DM PROVO DM?

… how to convert when round tripping DM PROVO DM?

16:09:53 <lebot> … what if two mention triples?

… what if two mention triples?

16:10:08 <lebot> … you'll get confusion when coming back to DM.

… you'll get confusion when coming back to DM.

16:10:27 <lebot> (The "limitation" is that you an only be asInBundle to one bundle)

(The "limitation" is that you an only be asInBundle to one bundle)

16:10:34 <lebot> … seems like a misalignment in the serializations.

… seems like a misalignment in the serializations.

16:10:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:10:43 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:10:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#unique-mention

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#unique-mention

16:10:45 <lebot> … could be viewed as doing different things in PROVO and DM.

… could be viewed as doing different things in PROVO and DM.

16:10:48 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:11:02 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:11:03 <lebot> q+

q+

16:11:27 <lebot> luc: we introduced the constraint the mention must be unique - so you can't have the confusion that jcheney suggests.

Luc Moreau: we introduced the constraint the mention must be unique - so you can't have the confusion that jcheney suggests.

16:12:05 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

16:12:29 <lebot> lebot: I'm happy with it.

Timothy Lebo: I'm happy with it.

16:13:37 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:13:39 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:13:51 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan

16:14:42 <Luc> specialization is not reflexive, so they must be different URIs

Luc Moreau: specialization is not reflexive, so they must be different URIs

16:14:47 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

16:14:53 <pgroth> ack Curt

Paul Groth: ack Curt

16:15:04 <TomDN> q+

Tom De Nies: q+

16:15:04 <lebot> lebot: when we're trying to interconnect descriptions of entities in others' bundles, it's a natural thing to do.

Timothy Lebo: when we're trying to interconnect descriptions of entities in others' bundles, it's a natural thing to do.

16:15:11 <lebot> ivan: do you use the same URI?

Ivan Herman: do you use the same URI?

16:15:23 <lebot> lebot: you can do either, depending on what you want to do.

Timothy Lebo: you can do either, depending on what you want to do.

16:15:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:15:50 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

16:15:54 <lebot> Curt: mention is the only capability to reference into the bundle. You'll run into problems if you don't have it.

Curt Tilmes: mention is the only capability to reference into the bundle. You'll run into problems if you don't have it.

16:16:02 <lebot> TomDN: i support using mention of.

Tom De Nies: i support using mention of.

16:16:33 <lebot> … a lab with multiple documents and multiple people. You just want to mention it, not repeat the provenance.

… a lab with multiple documents and multiple people. You just want to mention it, not repeat the provenance.

16:17:07 <lebot> … it's interesting to provide your own view on the entity that you're using.

… it's interesting to provide your own view on the entity that you're using.

16:17:27 <lebot> pgroth: we have specialization and alternate of.

Paul Groth: we have specialization and alternate of.

16:17:56 <Luc> In view of implementation phase, can we see who will make use of the mention construct in their implementation?

Luc Moreau: In view of implementation phase, can we see who will make use of the mention construct in their implementation?

16:17:57 <lebot> … the key aspect of mention of is that you name the entity and the bundle in which the entity is described. The Bundle IS the specialization.

… the key aspect of mention of is that you name the entity and the bundle in which the entity is described. The Bundle IS the specialization.

16:18:25 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:18:30 <lebot> … without mention, you can still link the entities, but you lose the ability to mention the bundle.

… without mention, you can still link the entities, but you lose the ability to mention the bundle.

16:18:37 <lebot> +1

+1

16:18:41 <lebot> +1

+1

16:18:46 <lebot> +1

+1

16:18:59 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

16:19:10 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

16:19:11 <lebot> Luc: who will implement it?

Luc Moreau: who will implement it?

16:19:20 <lebot> TomDN: we will.

Tom De Nies: we will.

16:19:35 <lebot> hook: mentionOf, but used unique identifiers to link across. didn't use mentionof

Hook Hua: mentionOf, but used unique identifiers to link across. didn't use mentionof

16:20:01 <lebot> … trying to link bundles. it was easier to not use mentionOf.

… trying to link bundles. it was easier to not use mentionOf.

16:20:22 <lebot> q+ to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple

q+ to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple

16:20:35 <lebot> hook: KISS philosophy.

Hook Hua: KISS philosophy.

16:20:40 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

16:20:40 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple

Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple

16:21:35 <lebot> lebot: mentionOf's power comes in when you don't have control over the entire system.

Timothy Lebo: mentionOf's power comes in when you don't have control over the entire system.

16:21:46 <Curt> +1 lebot

Curt Tilmes: +1 lebot

16:21:52 <lebot> hook: we should force people to use mentionOf to increase interoperability.

Hook Hua: we should force people to use mentionOf to increase interoperability.

16:22:08 <lebot> pgroth: we can't force people to use it (and shouldn't)

Paul Groth: we can't force people to use it (and shouldn't)

16:22:13 <lebot> … we should offer it for people to use.

… we should offer it for people to use.

16:22:13 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:22:35 <lebot> hook: sounds like it doesn't hurt to leave it in, helps to connect.

Hook Hua: sounds like it doesn't hurt to leave it in, helps to connect.

16:22:36 <lebot> +1 hood

+1 hook

16:22:36 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:22:41 <lebot> +1 hook

+1 hook

16:22:47 <lebot> s/hood/hook/
16:22:48 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

16:23:21 <lebot> Luc: [not?] concerned with comments that Graham raises.

Luc Moreau: [not?] concerned with comments that Graham raises.

16:23:28 <lebot> … but the doubt is if it is really useful or not.

… but the doubt is if it is really useful or not.

16:23:40 <lebot> … believe in stitching histories.

… believe in stitching histories.

16:23:55 <lebot> … we need a construct for it.

… we need a construct for it.

16:24:06 <lebot> … BUT concerned if it is a subtype of specialization.

… BUT concerned if it is a subtype of specialization.

16:24:17 <lebot> … working to develop the use cases.

… working to develop the use cases.

16:24:36 <lebot> … as a sub property of specialization, the lifetimes are maintained.

… as a sub property of specialization, the lifetimes are maintained.

16:24:47 <lebot> … in the use case, the timeline constraint may not apply.

… in the use case, the timeline constraint may not apply.

16:25:13 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

16:25:24 <lebot> GK: not sure if it breaks specilization

Graham Klyne: not sure if it breaks specilization

16:25:28 <lebot> (+1 to GK)

(+1 to GK)

16:26:02 <lebot> luc: unsure about making it a type of specialization.

Luc Moreau: unsure about making it a type of specialization.

16:26:07 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:26:23 <lebot> … we're stuck with keeping mentionOf as specialization (and not alternate)

… we're stuck with keeping mentionOf as specialization (and not alternate)

16:26:42 <lebot> … if it's specialization, does it break?

… if it's specialization, does it break?

16:27:14 <lebot> (-1 that it's broken as specialization. It's inherently specialization)

(-1 that it's broken as specialization. It's inherently specialization)

16:27:24 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

16:27:30 <lebot> TomDN: how does it break as specialization?

Tom De Nies: how does it break as specialization?

16:27:41 <lebot> … did we want the validity over different bundles?

… did we want the validity over different bundles?

16:27:49 <lebot> … at what point do we make a new entity?

… at what point do we make a new entity?

16:27:53 <lebot> (+1 Tom)

(+1 Tom)

16:28:01 <Paolo> I missed all of Tom's comment -- low voice

Paolo Missier: I missed all of Tom's comment -- low voice

16:28:30 <lebot> ace paolo

ack paolo

16:28:35 <lebot> s/ace/ack/
16:28:47 <Paolo> ok thanks

Paolo Missier: ok thanks

16:28:47 <lebot> pgroth: the question: do we have validity over different bundles

Paul Groth: the question: do we have validity over different bundles

16:28:58 <lebot> TomDN: luc's problem goes away once the entity is in a different instance.

Tom De Nies: luc's problem goes away once the entity is in a different instance.

16:29:18 <lebot> … entity in a different instance, valid, same instance different bundle = invalid

… entity in a different instance, valid, same instance different bundle = invalid

16:29:33 <lebot> Luc: <example with e1 e2 and bundles>

Luc Moreau: <example with e1 e2 and bundles>

16:29:50 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

16:29:59 <lebot> … generation and invaliation of both entities, specialization applies and must have a lifetime.

… generation and invaliation of both entities, specialization applies and must have a lifetime.

16:30:23 <lebot> TomDN: impossible to make valid if repeating the mention?

Tom De Nies: impossible to make valid if repeating the mention?

16:30:26 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:30:34 <lebot> pgroth: it done'st make it invalid, but …. (?)

Paul Groth: it done'st make it invalid, but …. (?)

16:31:00 <lebot> jcheney: inférences on uniqueness are flagged as at risk.

James Cheney: inférences on uniqueness are flagged as at risk.

16:31:14 <lebot> … if something is at risk, we can decided to remove it w/o going to LC

… if something is at risk, we can decided to remove it w/o going to LC

16:31:49 <lebot> @luc, you're abusing mention of for the wrong use cases. (it appears)

@luc, you're abusing mention of for the wrong use cases. (it appears)

16:32:08 <lebot> jcheney: is it possible to take out parts of the at risk?

James Cheney: is it possible to take out parts of the at risk?

16:32:37 <lebot> ivan: mention is a design feature, defined [as specialization]. it is a design element.

Ivan Herman: mention is a design feature, defined [as specialization]. it is a design element.

16:32:43 <lebot> … it is all or nothing.

… it is all or nothing.

16:33:04 <lebot> jcheney: we can remove it all. If we change it, then it's a design change.

James Cheney: we can remove it all. If we change it, then it's a design change.

16:33:15 <lebot> q?

q?

16:33:34 <lebot> GK: can't you drop parts of the definition and not others, providing that the others are not changed?

Graham Klyne: can't you drop parts of the definition and not others, providing that the others are not changed?

16:33:42 <lebot> q?

q?

16:33:56 <lebot> ivan: feature at risk, feature defined. Remove or keep it.

Ivan Herman: feature at risk, feature defined. Remove or keep it.

16:34:07 <lebot> … splitting hairs is sticky.

… splitting hairs is sticky.

16:34:09 <pgroth> ack Curt

Paul Groth: ack Curt

16:34:25 <lebot> Curt: I don't follow the issue. It DOES fit into specialization.

Curt Tilmes: I don't follow the issue. It DOES fit into specialization.

16:34:47 <lebot> … as a primary producer, I wont' use mention of, but for anyone that wants to augment my Entiteis, they need mentionOf to do it.

… as a primary producer, I wont' use mention of, but for anyone that wants to augment my Entiteis, they need mentionOf to do it.

16:34:49 <Luc> @tlebo, can you clarify why i am abusing it?

Luc Moreau: @tlebo, can you clarify why i am abusing it?

16:35:10 <lebot> … the third party needs it.

… the third party needs it.

16:35:35 <lebot> @luc, I'm not clear on what you're trying to do, but it doesn't sound like mentionOf

@luc, I'm not clear on what you're trying to do, but it doesn't sound like mentionOf

16:35:44 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:35:54 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

16:36:07 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:36:16 <lebot> Curt: when yoiu do your own provenance, you ond't need it, but metnionOf lets you "reach into" someone else's bundle.

Curt Tilmes: when yoiu do your own provenance, you ond't need it, but metnionOf lets you "reach into" someone else's bundle.

16:36:22 <lebot> jcheney: second order provenance and linking.

James Cheney: second order provenance and linking.

16:36:30 <lebot> … but it's also true for other things.

… but it's also true for other things.

16:36:39 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:36:44 <lebot> … are we solving a specific problem and not the more general?

… are we solving a specific problem and not the more general?

16:37:08 <lebot> … it's clear that there is a need, but is it justified?

… it's clear that there is a need, but is it justified?

16:37:16 <Curt> entity is pretty much our most general thing to refer to

Curt Tilmes: entity is pretty much our most general thing to refer to

16:37:19 <lebot> … I am still uncomfortable with mentionOf

… I am still uncomfortable with mentionOf

16:37:40 <lebot> … if it was lightweight with no inferences, then fine. But we might get into trouble later.

… if it was lightweight with no inferences, then fine. But we might get into trouble later.

16:38:12 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

16:38:14 <lebot> … as things are, it doesn't seem like we should kill it, but people might trip over it later.

… as things are, it doesn't seem like we should kill it, but people might trip over it later.

16:38:32 <lebot> hook: the linking of bundles should be in the model, we should not rely on a serialization

Hook Hua: the linking of bundles should be in the model, we should not rely on a serialization

16:38:38 <lebot> @hook how are they different?

@hook how are they different?

16:38:41 <lebot> q+

q+

16:38:48 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth

16:38:48 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

16:39:09 <lebot> pgroth: there are existing ways to annotate. Refer to things an annotate them.

Paul Groth: there are existing ways to annotate. Refer to things an annotate them.

16:39:20 <lebot> … open annotation

… open annotation

16:39:25 <lebot> … some let you point to named graphs.

… some let you point to named graphs.

16:39:30 <lebot> …. well out side of our scope.

…. well out side of our scope.

16:39:46 <lebot> … but those things are not for provenance.

… but those things are not for provenance.

16:40:18 <smiles> So mentionOf is just a way to reference a part of a document without reference to the serialisation format? Is mentionOf really to do with provenance apart from being arbitrarily restricted to PROV?

Simon Miles: So mentionOf is just a way to reference a part of a document without reference to the serialisation format? Is mentionOf really to do with provenance apart from being arbitrarily restricted to PROV?

16:40:20 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

16:40:22 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

16:40:23 <lebot> … open annotation is not a standard, but is in w3c

… open annotation is not a standard, but is in w3c

16:40:32 <pgroth> q+ TomDN

Paul Groth: q+ TomDN

16:41:22 <lebot> hook: having it formally in DM would uniformly manifest implementations in different encodigns. we're not relying on serializations to do the linking.

Hook Hua: having it formally in DM would uniformly manifest implementations in different encodigns. we're not relying on serializations to do the linking.

16:41:40 <lebot> pgroth: right now, you can use RDF linking.

Paul Groth: right now, you can use RDF linking.

16:42:28 <lebot> TomDN: should we drop it and put it into a note?

Tom De Nies: should we drop it and put it into a note?

16:42:39 <lebot> … here is how to link" in FAQ...

… here is how to link" in FAQ...

16:42:48 <lebot> … we can change as we see fit.

… we can change as we see fit.

16:43:02 <lebot> GK: in IETF, "experimental track", mention of is in this.

Graham Klyne: in IETF, "experimental track", mention of is in this.

16:43:09 <lebot> … best we can do is to put FAQ

… best we can do is to put FAQ

16:43:16 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:43:20 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

16:43:27 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

16:43:31 <lebot> ivan: it is a nice idea.

Ivan Herman: it is a nice idea.

16:43:43 <lebot> … we have notes, we'd just be adding one more.

… we have notes, we'd just be adding one more.

16:44:01 <lebot> pgroth: if that's what we want to do, it'd go AQ

Paul Groth: if that's what we want to do, it'd go AQ

16:44:22 <lebot> … we can't start a new note

… we can't start a new note

16:44:44 <lebot> ivan: agree with graham that AQ is to locate provenance of a given resoruce.

Ivan Herman: agree with graham that AQ is to locate provenance of a given resoruce.

16:44:53 <lebot> … that's different than mentionOf

… that's different than mentionOf

16:44:57 <lebot> … it doesn't fit

… it doesn't fit

16:45:04 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

16:45:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:45:14 <lebot> hook: how many use cases involve mentionOf?

Hook Hua: how many use cases involve mentionOf?

16:45:29 <lebot> … for what we do, it would be useful.

… for what we do, it would be useful.

16:45:40 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo

16:45:49 <lebot> Curt: the key is not provenance expression/represtionation, ti's for analysis.

Curt Tilmes: the key is not provenance expression/represtionation, ti's for analysis.

16:46:05 <lebot> GK: how important is interoperability at the analysis/

Graham Klyne: how important is interoperability at the analysis/

16:46:06 <lebot> ?

?

16:46:11 <lebot> hook: it is very important.

Hook Hua: it is very important.

16:46:20 <lebot> … each bundle is handled by different institutions, gov entities.

… each bundle is handled by different institutions, gov entities.

16:46:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

16:46:30 <lebot> … interop is key here.

… interop is key here.

16:46:34 <pgroth> who just joined/

Paul Groth: who just joined/

16:46:34 <pgroth> ?

Paul Groth: ?

16:46:43 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

16:46:47 <pgroth> ack Curt

Paul Groth: ack Curt

16:47:10 <lebot> Curt: we have a lot of cases where data is processed, then next org processes. each uses their own bundles.

Curt Tilmes: we have a lot of cases where data is processed, then next org processes. each uses their own bundles.

16:47:21 <lebot> … each needs a way to reference across those bundles.

… each needs a way to reference across those bundles.

16:47:37 <lebot> … seems that mentionOf provides a capability that will be needed at some point.

… seems that mentionOf provides a capability that will be needed at some point.

16:47:39 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:48:04 <lebot> Luc: jcheney, you'd be more comfortable to get rid of the inference?

Luc Moreau: jcheney, you'd be more comfortable to get rid of the inference?

16:48:52 <lebot> jcheney: uniqueness constraint makes to align with provo round tripping.

James Cheney: uniqueness constraint makes to align with provo round tripping.

16:49:00 <lebot> … it's not clear that it buys you much.

… it's not clear that it buys you much.

16:49:29 <lebot> … you could just state the specialization.

… you could just state the specialization.

16:49:52 <lebot> (I think the 'you don't get anything" assumes that you "have it all" and does not consider the practicality of the problem)

(I think the 'you don't get anything" assumes that you "have it all" and does not consider the practicality of the problem)

16:50:25 <lebot> jcheney: not hearing strong objections, but nobody is giving specific uses for it (?)

James Cheney: not hearing strong objections, but nobody is giving specific uses for it (?)

16:50:51 <Paolo> +1 for unlinking MentionOf from Specialization (if I understand James correcty)

Paolo Missier: +1 for unlinking MentionOf from Specialization (if I understand James correcty)

16:50:54 <lebot> jcheney: not worth rolling all of it back

James Cheney: not worth rolling all of it back

16:51:30 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:51:35 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:52:26 <lebot> Luc: we didn't want to make it a top-level, that's where we started.

Luc Moreau: we didn't want to make it a top-level, that's where we started.

16:52:34 <lebot> jcheney: not worth blowing the whole thing up over.

James Cheney: not worth blowing the whole thing up over.

16:52:42 <Luc> is there opposition to remove it?

Luc Moreau: is there opposition to remove it?

16:52:45 <SamCoppens> q+

Sam Coppens: q+

16:52:51 <lebot> pgroth: straw poll on mentionOf

Paul Groth: straw poll on mentionOf

16:53:02 <lebot> (this will decide who I sit with at lunch, btw)

(this will decide who I sit with at lunch, btw)

16:53:29 <lebot> SamCoppens: selective removal okay?

Sam Coppens: selective removal okay?

16:53:37 <lebot> pgroth: no, since it changes the spec too much.

Paul Groth: no, since it changes the spec too much.

16:54:19 <pgroth> straw poll: who objects to keeping mentionOf?

Paul Groth: straw poll: who objects to keeping mentionOf?

16:54:24 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

16:54:27 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

16:54:40 <jcheney> 0

James Cheney: 0

16:54:42 <Paolo> 0

Paolo Missier: 0

16:54:44 <ivan> 0

Ivan Herman: 0

16:55:00 <khalidBelhajjame> 0

Khalid Belhajjame: 0

16:55:16 <pgroth> straw poll: who objects to removing mentionOf?

Paul Groth: straw poll: who objects to removing mentionOf?

16:55:38 <jcheney> 0

James Cheney: 0

16:55:41 <GK> 0

Graham Klyne: 0

16:55:42 <khalidBelhajjame> 0

Khalid Belhajjame: 0

16:55:42 <lebot> :-(

:-(

16:55:53 <TomDN> 0

Tom De Nies: 0

16:55:59 <zednik> 0

Stephan Zednik: 0

16:56:01 <SamCoppens> 0

Sam Coppens: 0

16:56:02 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1

16:56:12 <Paolo> 0

Paolo Missier: 0

16:58:05 <lebot> GK: I would formally object in its current form.

Graham Klyne: I would formally object in its current form.

16:58:29 <smiles> I would not formally object. I was indicating that I think it is better not to be in the spec in the straw poll.

Simon Miles: I would not formally object. I was indicating that I think it is better not to be in the spec in the straw poll.

16:58:44 <lebot> Curt: I think it's valuable, but I won't formally object.

Curt Tilmes: I think it's valuable, but I won't formally object.

16:59:28 <GK> Longer response, in  IRC for lack of time:

Graham Klyne: Longer response, in IRC for lack of time:

16:59:28 <GK> - yes, there are valid use cases, strong motivation

Graham Klyne: - yes, there are valid use cases, strong motivation

16:59:28 <GK> - I don't recognise them in the mentionOf as described (my complaint) in a way that can't be done without mentionOf

Graham Klyne: - I don't recognise them in the mentionOf as described (my complaint) in a way that can't be done without mentionOf

16:59:28 <GK> - some of those use-cases don't map to present-day RDF semantics - I worry about this, as we'd end up building on sand if we try to impose these semantics

Graham Klyne: - some of those use-cases don't map to present-day RDF semantics - I worry about this, as we'd end up building on sand if we try to impose these semantics

16:59:29 <GK> - not defining it now doesn't mean it can't be defined later

Graham Klyne: - not defining it now doesn't mean it can't be defined later

16:59:32 <lebot> q+

q+

16:59:49 <Paolo> may be back later

Paolo Missier: may be back later

16:59:53 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

16:59:56 <pgroth> ack SamCoppens

Paul Groth: ack SamCoppens

17:00:04 <khalidBelhajjame> I may be back later

Khalid Belhajjame: I may be back later

17:00:06 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

17:00:12 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame

17:01:32 <lebot> tlebo: If GK's formal objection is the thing to scare away this construct, then I'd be willing to bring RPI's formal objection to dropping it.

Timothy Lebo: If GK's formal objection is the thing to scare away this construct, then I'd be willing to bring RPI's formal objection to dropping it.

17:01:53 <lebot> … but this is weighted by the fact that I'm exhausted with supporting this construct.

… but this is weighted by the fact that I'm exhausted with supporting this construct.

17:02:53 <lebot> ivan: formal objection is a HUGE thing.

Ivan Herman: formal objection is a HUGE thing.

17:03:52 <pgroth> start again in one hour

Paul Groth: start again in one hour

17:03:55 <smiles> OK thanks

Simon Miles: OK thanks

17:04:04 <Zakim> -smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles

17:09:05 <Zakim> - +1.617.715.aaaa

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.617.715.aaaa

17:11:12 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

17:11:13 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended

17:11:13 <Zakim> Attendees were Paolo, zednik, laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain, smiles, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Paolo, zednik, laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain, smiles, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller]

18:00:31 <ivan> zakim, code?

(No events recorded for 49 minutes)

Ivan Herman: zakim, code?

18:00:31 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan

18:01:06 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has now started

18:01:13 <Zakim> +MIT531

Zakim IRC Bot: +MIT531

18:02:08 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

18:02:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

18:02:24 <smiles> zakim, ??P3 is me

Simon Miles: zakim, ??P3 is me

18:02:24 <Zakim> +smiles; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it

18:06:06 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call?

18:06:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]

18:06:26 <pgroth> Topic: mention of and CR

8. mention of and CR

Summary: After lunch discussion, Graham thought that the problem may be fixable with a change of descriptive text. It was agreed that Graham would take an hour to draft a revised description. During this time, we would cover another topic.

<Luc>Summary: After lunch discussion, Graham thought that the problem may be fixable with a change of descriptive text.  It was agreed that Graham would take an hour to draft a revised description. During this time, we would cover another topic.
18:07:18 <smiles> My objecytion was not formal

Simon Miles: My objecytion was not formal

18:07:53 <pgroth> scribe: James Cheney

(Scribe set to James Cheney)

18:07:54 <jcheney> pgroth: 30 minutes on mention

Paul Groth: 30 minutes on mention

18:08:04 <jcheney> ... have formal objections changed?

... have formal objections changed?

18:08:05 <ivan> scribenick: jcheney
18:08:19 <jcheney> GK: after lunch discusion with tlebo

Graham Klyne: after lunch discusion with tlebo

18:08:37 <jcheney> ... thinks problem may be fixable with changes to descriptive text, but not sure yet

... thinks problem may be fixable with changes to descriptive text, but not sure yet

18:08:51 <jcheney> ivan: can we do it now?

Ivan Herman: can we do it now?

18:08:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:09:00 <jcheney> gk: maybe not enough time

Graham Klyne: maybe not enough time

18:09:07 <jcheney> ... can we proceed on assumption it will be fine?

... can we proceed on assumption it will be fine?

18:09:14 <jcheney> luc: wants certainty

Luc Moreau: wants certainty

18:09:36 <jcheney> luc: can we take an hour and do it now?

Luc Moreau: can we take an hour and do it now?

18:09:43 <jcheney> GK: will look at it offline now.

Graham Klyne: will look at it offline now.

18:10:42 <jcheney> Topic: PROV-XML

9. PROV-XML

Summary: The prov-xml document was reviewed during the week. Reviewers summarized their feedback. It was agreed that the document was a good first public working draft, and should be released synchronously with the CR specifications. A few suggestions were made to the editors: explain the design rationale for the schema, and mark, in the document, issues under consideration. We then discuss the order of the elements representing prov-dm attributes in the xml schema. For xpath and xquery queries, it was suggested that order was probably not a concern. The participants were unclear whether order affected Object-Relational Mapping (ORM). It was agreed that there was no need to make a decision now, but instead, the FPWD should explicitly seek feedback from reviewers. The issue of subtyping was also discussed: it was suggested that subtypes such as Person, Organization, Revision, etc should have an explicit element, instead of relying on prov:type. It was noted that substitution groups, if required, may become problematic. The editors will investigate a solution for this. Finally, the issue of identifiers was discussed. The questions is whether identifiers should be xsd:QName (as currently) or a more liberal form (qualified names as in prov-n). It was agreed that the issue should be flagged in the document, and feedback sought from outside the group.

18:11:31 <jcheney> pgroth: Graham will look at document for ~1hr, we move on to prov-xml, goal is to come back to CR vote today

Paul Groth: Graham will look at document for ~1hr, we move on to prov-xml, goal is to come back to CR vote today

18:11:40 <jcheney> [luc is chair]

[luc is chair]

<luc>Chair: Luc
<luc>Summary:  The prov-xml document was reviewed during the week. Reviewers summarized their feedback.  It was agreed that the document was a good first public working draft, and should be released synchronously with the CR specifications.  A few suggestions were made to the editors: explain the design rationale for the schema, and mark, in the document, issues under consideration.  We then discuss the order of the elements representing prov-dm attributes in the xml schema. For xpath and xquery queries, it was suggested that order was probably not a concern.  The participants were unclear whether order affected Object-Relational Mapping (ORM). It was agreed that there was no need to make a decision now, but instead, the FPWD should explicitly seek feedback from reviewers.    The issue of subtyping was also discussed: it was suggested that subtypes such as Person, Organization, Revision, etc should have an explicit element, instead of relying on prov:type.  It was noted that substitution groups, if required, may become problematic. The editors will investigate a solution for this. Finally, the issue of identifiers was discussed. The questions is whether identifiers should be xsd:QName (as currently) or a more liberal form (qualified names as in prov-n). It was agreed that the issue should be flagged in the document, and feedback sought from outside the group.
18:12:04 <jcheney> Luc: prov-xml was reviewed over past week (James, Paul, Luc)

Luc Moreau: prov-xml was reviewed over past week (James, Paul, Luc)

18:12:20 <jcheney> would like to decide on release as fpwd

would like to decide on release as fpwd

18:12:31 <jcheney> ... would like to decide on release as fpwd

... would like to decide on release as fpwd

18:12:45 <jcheney> zednik: document mostly content complete, adding bundles today

Stephan Zednik: document mostly content complete, adding bundles today

18:12:56 <jcheney> ... should be finished in ~5min

... should be finished in ~5min

18:13:13 <jcheney> ... reviews identified typos & rephrasing, had some questions about design/descriptions

... reviews identified typos & rephrasing, had some questions about design/descriptions

18:13:26 <jcheney> ... discussion topic list to respond & discuss feedback

... discussion topic list to respond & discuss feedback

18:13:31 <jcheney> ... most feedback has been incorporated

... most feedback has been incorporated

18:13:40 <jcheney> ... all 3 said it was ok to proced to fpwd

... all 3 said it was ok to proced to fpwd

18:13:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:13:52 <jcheney> ... currently addressing more complex identifier issues

... currently addressing more complex identifier issues

18:14:05 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

18:14:09 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:14:35 <jcheney> curt: also thinks things are OK

Curt Tilmes: also thinks things are OK

18:14:45 <jcheney> smiles: wanted to point out comment that might have been missed

Simon Miles: wanted to point out comment that might have been missed

18:15:12 <jcheney> ... delegation element in prov-xml: schema description is different from actual schema

... delegation element in prov-xml: schema description is different from actual schema

18:15:23 <jcheney> ... but also agree document is ready for release

... but also agree document is ready for release

18:15:24 <ivan> ack sm

Ivan Herman: ack sm

18:15:24 <ivan> �

Ivan Herman: �

18:15:34 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:15:41 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth

18:15:41 <jcheney> zednik: will double check

Stephan Zednik: will double check

18:16:00 <jcheney> pgroth: do we vote next or have content discussion?

Paul Groth: do we vote next or have content discussion?

18:16:12 <jcheney> Luc: discuss reviews and any tecnical issues first, then vote

Luc Moreau: discuss reviews and any tecnical issues first, then vote

18:16:26 <smiles> @zednik: the issue was that the activity was an option of actedOnBehalfOf in the schema, compulsory in the schema fragment in the HTML

Simon Miles: @zednik: the issue was that the activity was an option of actedOnBehalfOf in the schema, compulsory in the schema fragment in the HTML

18:16:30 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

18:16:33 <jcheney> pgroth: thinks its OK for FPWD, would like to discuss technical issues

Paul Groth: thinks its OK for FPWD, would like to discuss technical issues

18:16:39 <jcheney> curt: would like to discuss 572

Curt Tilmes: would like to discuss 572

18:16:45 <TomDN> issue-572?

Tom De Nies: ISSUE-572?

18:16:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised

18:16:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572

18:16:56 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q-

18:17:55 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:17:58 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

18:18:44 <jcheney> jcheney: mostly happy, can discuss offline

James Cheney: mostly happy, can discuss offline

18:18:47 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:19:01 <jcheney> pgroth: also wanted to suggest signposting/context, is this intended before fpwd?

Paul Groth: also wanted to suggest signposting/context, is this intended before fpwd?

18:19:35 <jcheney> ... meaning expanation of the style of schema being used (salami slice pattern, etc)

... meaning expanation of the style of schema being used (salami slice pattern, etc)

18:19:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:20:05 <jcheney> ivan: sounds good, helpful to reader

Ivan Herman: sounds good, helpful to reader

18:20:44 <jcheney> zednik: prov-xml group is discussing adding a design section, explain salami slice pattern, not sure if it will go in before fpwd

Stephan Zednik: prov-xml group is discussing adding a design section, explain salami slice pattern, not sure if it will go in before fpwd

18:20:44 <pgroth> i wouldn't want it to delay fpwd

Paul Groth: i wouldn't want it to delay fpwd

18:20:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:20:51 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze

18:21:13 <jcheney> Luc: confirm happy with document release, flagged some technical issues

Luc Moreau: confirm happy with document release, flagged some technical issues

18:21:34 <jcheney> ... need to catch up on mailing list traffic, but OK with flagging as outstanding issues in text as notes

... need to catch up on mailing list traffic, but OK with flagging as outstanding issues in text as notes

18:21:43 <jcheney> ... to avoid giving impression that it is a final design

... to avoid giving impression that it is a final design

18:22:02 <jcheney> ... design section sounds useful

... design section sounds useful

18:22:22 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:22:24 <jcheney> ... timetable to release: need not be ASAP, but would be good to sync with CR

... timetable to release: need not be ASAP, but would be good to sync with CR

18:22:34 <jcheney> ... to give time to write section

... to give time to write section

18:22:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:22:51 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

18:22:53 <TomDN> +1 for synchronous release

Tom De Nies: +1 for synchronous release

18:22:53 <jcheney> pgroth: would like it to be released synchronously with CR/primer, etc.

Paul Groth: would like it to be released synchronously with CR/primer, etc.

18:23:05 <jcheney> ... have gotten burned before by piecemeal release

... have gotten burned before by piecemeal release

18:23:08 <Paolo> zakim, ??P5 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P5 is me

18:23:08 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it

18:23:10 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:23:18 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

18:23:19 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:23:22 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth

18:23:26 <jcheney> ... prov is the family, would like releasing as such

... prov is the family, would like releasing as such

18:23:43 <jcheney> ... no rush to get xml out, but there are minor things we can do to improve accessibility

... no rush to get xml out, but there are minor things we can do to improve accessibility

18:24:00 <jcheney> ivan: we clearly don't have enough documents to publish, so let's add one

Ivan Herman: we clearly don't have enough documents to publish, so let's add one

18:24:14 <jcheney> ... owl WG had relatively short overview document published with rest

... owl WG had relatively short overview document published with rest

18:24:28 <jcheney> ... otherwise family of documents becomes messy

... otherwise family of documents becomes messy

18:24:46 <jcheney> Luc: not committed to it in charter extension, avoid overcommitment

Luc Moreau: not committed to it in charter extension, avoid overcommitment

18:24:56 <jcheney> ivan: together with CR release?

Ivan Herman: together with CR release?

18:25:07 <jcheney> Luc: not enough time

Luc Moreau: not enough time

18:25:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:25:12 <Curt> copy the intro from the DM

Curt Tilmes: copy the intro from the DM

18:25:24 <pgroth> action: pgroth to draft a first one page overview

ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview

18:25:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Draft a first one page overview [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-133 - Draft a first one page overview [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].

18:25:24 <Luc> ack ivan

Luc Moreau: ack ivan

18:25:37 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:25:58 <jcheney> pgroth: will try to draft 1 page, group will look at it. as curt says, this is already done in most documents

Paul Groth: will try to draft 1 page, group will look at it. as curt says, this is already done in most documents

18:26:22 <jcheney> luc: can reuse presentation tutorial materials.

Luc Moreau: can reuse presentation tutorial materials.

18:26:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:26:54 <jcheney> Luc: informal poll to gauge positions on fpwd

Luc Moreau: informal poll to gauge positions on fpwd

18:27:09 <jcheney> ... is ther opposition to prov-xml fpwd release?

... is ther opposition to prov-xml fpwd release?

18:27:16 <Paolo> no objection

Paolo Missier: no objection

18:27:21 <jcheney> [crickets chirping]

[crickets chirping]

18:27:22 <smiles> no objection

Simon Miles: no objection

18:27:28 <jcheney> sorry

sorry

18:27:51 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:27:54 <jcheney> Luc: what do we want to finalize before fpwd?

Luc Moreau: what do we want to finalize before fpwd?

18:28:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:28:30 <jcheney> pgroth: want 1 para about design + "warning, this is a fpwd, subject to change"

Paul Groth: want 1 para about design + "warning, this is a fpwd, subject to change"

18:28:31 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:28:53 <jcheney> Luc: any other input?

Luc Moreau: any other input?

18:29:05 <jcheney> ... can we confirm prov-xml as short name?

... can we confirm prov-xml as short name?

18:30:04 <Luc> proposed: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name

PROPOSED: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name

18:30:09 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1

18:30:10 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:30:12 <pgroth> +1

Paul Groth: +1

18:30:14 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

18:30:15 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

18:30:16 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

18:30:18 <jcheney> +1 UoE

+1 UoE

18:30:20 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

18:30:52 <Luc> accepted: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name

RESOLVED: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name

18:31:18 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes

Ivan Herman: rrsagent, draft minutes

18:31:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html ivan

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html ivan

18:31:34 <jcheney> Luc: now have time to discuss technical issues

Luc Moreau: now have time to discuss technical issues

18:31:40 <TomDN> issue-572?

Tom De Nies: ISSUE-572?

18:31:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised

18:31:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572

18:31:41 <ivan> issue-572?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-572?

18:31:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised

18:31:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572

18:32:23 <jcheney> Curt: Mapping from PROV-N to PROV-DM into xml schema decided to keep same order of sub-elements as in prov-dm

Curt Tilmes: Mapping from PROV-N to PROV-DM into xml schema decided to keep same order of sub-elements as in prov-dm

18:32:42 <jcheney> ... Current rationale: atributes are ids

... Current rationale: atributes are ids

18:32:51 <jcheney> ... ordering of content is static matching prov-n

... ordering of content is static matching prov-n

18:33:00 <jcheney> ... except for optional attributes which are unordered

... except for optional attributes which are unordered

18:33:16 <pgroth> wonder why there's no issue about sub typing?

Paul Groth: wonder why there's no issue about sub typing?

18:33:20 <jcheney> ... could relax ordering, or require ordering of attributes

... could relax ordering, or require ordering of attributes

18:33:22 <jcheney> q+

q+

18:33:52 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:34:22 <jcheney> ... Concern that ordering makes it easier for processing, but harder for generation

... Concern that ordering makes it easier for processing, but harder for generation

18:34:25 <jcheney> ... unlike prov-n

... unlike prov-n

18:35:17 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:35:30 <Luc> ack jcheney

Luc Moreau: ack jcheney

18:37:08 <jcheney> q-

q-

18:37:09 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

18:37:22 <jcheney> jcheney: happy with wat it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize

James Cheney: happy with wat it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize

18:37:29 <jcheney> jcheney: happy with way it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize

James Cheney: happy with way it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize

18:37:48 <jcheney> luc: had idea to require prov attributes to appear first, then non-prov

Luc Moreau: had idea to require prov attributes to appear first, then non-prov

18:38:02 <jcheney> ... use xsd:any for all the rest

... use xsd:any for all the rest

18:38:44 <jcheney> ... should make it easier to convert between xml and other PL embeddings

... should make it easier to convert between xml and other PL embeddings

18:39:04 <jcheney> ... with xml, thinking about serializations but also queries

... with xml, thinking about serializations but also queries

18:39:20 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

18:39:22 <jcheney> ... does order have impact?

... does order have impact?

18:40:34 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

18:40:56 <Luc> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc

18:41:47 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:41:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:41:59 <jcheney> jcheney: probably XQuery with unordered xpath axes is enough, so order probably not a big issue for queries

James Cheney: probably XQuery with unordered xpath axes is enough, so order probably not a big issue for queries

18:42:20 <jcheney> pgroth: not sure of issue

Paul Groth: not sure of issue

18:42:57 <jcheney> luc: orm will want to be able to find prov:type

Luc Moreau: orm will want to be able to find prov:type

18:43:07 <jcheney> ... so mapping will be challenging

... so mapping will be challenging

18:43:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:43:46 <pgroth> q+ to say we should test

Paul Groth: q+ to say we should test

18:44:06 <jcheney> jcheney: we don't need to solve this now necessarily

James Cheney: we don't need to solve this now necessarily

18:44:15 <jcheney> ivan: can ask for feedback

Ivan Herman: can ask for feedback

18:44:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:44:32 <jcheney> pgroth: automated generation tools are a use case, we should flag this for asking for feedback

Paul Groth: automated generation tools are a use case, we should flag this for asking for feedback

18:44:37 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:44:37 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we should test

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say we should test

18:45:16 <jcheney> luc: issue remains open, but will be signposted

Luc Moreau: issue remains open, but will be signposted

18:45:20 <pgroth> q+ to ask for about sub typing

Paul Groth: q+ to ask for about sub typing

18:45:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:45:49 <jcheney> pgroth: wants to discuss subtyping

Paul Groth: wants to discuss subtyping

18:45:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:45:51 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask for about sub typing

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to ask for about sub typing

18:46:09 <jcheney> ... if you look at prov-xml, many subtypes are defined through use of prov:type

... if you look at prov-xml, many subtypes are defined through use of prov:type

18:46:20 <jcheney> ... in prov-o, a revision has a corresponding relation

... in prov-o, a revision has a corresponding relation

18:46:34 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

18:46:36 <jcheney> ... why can't xml / xsd do something similar

... why can't xml / xsd do something similar

18:47:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:47:10 <jcheney> curt: also would like to do this

Curt Tilmes: also would like to do this

18:47:15 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze

18:47:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:47:34 <jcheney> zednik: followed prov-n initially, but can explore and add in after fpwd.  note in each section to explain this

Stephan Zednik: followed prov-n initially, but can explore and add in after fpwd. note in each section to explain this

18:47:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:47:44 <jcheney> pgroth: raise issue?

Paul Groth: raise issue?

18:48:11 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:48:18 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:48:22 <jcheney> zednik: did look at subtyping early, but mainly entity and agent and it didn't seem to gain a lot since these subtypes don't have additional elements/attributes

Stephan Zednik: did look at subtyping early, but mainly entity and agent and it didn't seem to gain a lot since these subtypes don't have additional elements/attributes

18:48:33 <jcheney> ... but relations may have a benefit

... but relations may have a benefit

18:48:36 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:48:39 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:49:05 <jcheney> pgroth: in xml, you see agent but not person etc.

Paul Groth: in xml, you see agent but not person etc.

18:49:18 <jcheney> ... writing xpath query to ask for people is easier if the element name is prov:person

... writing xpath query to ask for people is easier if the element name is prov:person

18:49:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:49:52 <jcheney> zednik: would have to specialize complex type and add new toplevel element referencing it

Stephan Zednik: would have to specialize complex type and add new toplevel element referencing it

18:50:17 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

18:50:18 <jcheney> ... this should work, but hasn't been tried yet.  may work for entity and agent subtypes too.

... this should work, but hasn't been tried yet. may work for entity and agent subtypes too.

18:50:59 <jcheney> Luc: will have to add subtype and new elements.  don't we want to allow use of person, etc. wherever an agent is allowed?

Luc Moreau: will have to add subtype and new elements. don't we want to allow use of person, etc. wherever an agent is allowed?

18:51:11 <Curt> q-

Curt Tilmes: q-

18:51:30 <jcheney> ... but then haven't you fixed all the subclasses of entity/agent, forbidding extensions?

... but then haven't you fixed all the subclasses of entity/agent, forbidding extensions?

18:51:33 <Luc> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc

18:51:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:52:16 <jcheney> zednik: not familiar with extended types in xml, but should allow specialization / subtypes without using substitution groups

Stephan Zednik: not familiar with extended types in xml, but should allow specialization / subtypes without using substitution groups

18:52:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:52:40 <jcheney> Luc: something to keep in mind when looking at revised design.

Luc Moreau: something to keep in mind when looking at revised design.

18:52:43 <pgroth> did someone raise the issue?

Paul Groth: did someone raise the issue?

18:53:01 <jcheney> zednik: suggest we mark the terms that use prov:type for subtyping as something that might change

Stephan Zednik: suggest we mark the terms that use prov:type for subtyping as something that might change

18:53:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:53:35 <pgroth> issue: prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document

ISSUE: prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document

18:53:35 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-595 - Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/595/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-595 - Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/595/edit .

18:53:43 <jcheney> pgroth: whoa!

Paul Groth: whoa!

18:54:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:54:18 <jcheney> luc: next issue, identifiers/qnames

Luc Moreau: next issue, identifiers/qnames

18:54:33 <Luc> entity(ex:0001)

Luc Moreau: entity(ex:0001)

18:54:46 <jcheney> ... can write entities like this

... can write entities like this

18:55:05 <jcheney> ivan: this is why rdfa does not use qnames

Ivan Herman: this is why rdfa does not use qnames

18:55:23 <jcheney> luc: grammar accepts qualified names but xml schema requires qnames

Luc Moreau: grammar accepts qualified names but xml schema requires qnames

18:55:32 <jcheney> ivan: [shrug] life sucks

Ivan Herman: [shrug] life sucks

18:55:39 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

18:56:08 <jcheney> luc: can define new type of strings that match this

Luc Moreau: can define new type of strings that match this

18:56:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:56:48 <jcheney> ... in prov toolbox, using in non validating mode so these recognize as qualified names but painful

... in prov toolbox, using in non validating mode so these recognize as qualified names but painful

18:56:49 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:57:09 <jcheney> zednik: should try to determine what is best for xml to use as identifier

Stephan Zednik: should try to determine what is best for xml to use as identifier

18:57:23 <jcheney> ... identifying scheme for prov-n makes sense in rdf, may not make sense in xml

... identifying scheme for prov-n makes sense in rdf, may not make sense in xml

18:57:32 <Curt> q+

Curt Tilmes: q+

18:57:35 <jcheney> ... defining our own string subtype may not be best either

... defining our own string subtype may not be best either

18:57:38 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:57:43 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

18:57:43 <Luc> ack ze

Luc Moreau: ack ze

18:58:07 <jcheney> pgroth: agrees with stefan's approach.  made prov-n open-ended for human consumtion

Paul Groth: agrees with stefan's approach. made prov-n open-ended for human consumtion

18:58:16 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

18:58:33 <jcheney> ... with xml, need to be more restrictive to remain compatble for tools, even if it constraints what you can use as ids

... with xml, need to be more restrictive to remain compatble for tools, even if it constraints what you can use as ids

18:58:49 <jcheney> tlebo: rdf/xml has same problem,

Timothy Lebo: rdf/xml has same problem,

18:58:51 <Luc> my concern is that people will generate xml that does not validate

Luc Moreau: my concern is that people will generate xml that does not validate

18:58:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:58:57 <jcheney> pgroth: design for tooling

Paul Groth: design for tooling

18:59:20 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

18:59:28 <Luc> ack Cu

Luc Moreau: ack Cu

18:59:31 <jcheney> ivan: it is a choice to allow more liberal strings, but will not work well with tools

Ivan Herman: it is a choice to allow more liberal strings, but will not work well with tools

18:59:46 <lebot> +1 pgroth  and zednik on letting prov-xml constrain, c.f. prov-o's "type" must be a Resource and not Literals, as prov-n permits.

Timothy Lebo: +1 pgroth and zednik on letting prov-xml constrain, c.f. prov-o's "type" must be a Resource and not Literals, as prov-n permits.

18:59:58 <jcheney> pgroth: does qname resolve to uri?  main serializations will be xml, rdf/turtle

Paul Groth: does qname resolve to uri? main serializations will be xml, rdf/turtle

19:00:33 <jcheney> ... we don't have to define in documents, but should say somewhere what subset of ids are interoperable across main formats.

... we don't have to define in documents, but should say somewhere what subset of ids are interoperable across main formats.

19:00:38 <jcheney> ... "don't do this"

... "don't do this"

19:00:39 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:00:47 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro

19:00:50 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

19:01:07 <jcheney> luc: concerned people will generate xml serializations that don't validate because of ids

Luc Moreau: concerned people will generate xml serializations that don't validate because of ids

19:01:34 <jcheney> luc: qnames are very restrictvie

Luc Moreau: qnames are very restrictvie

19:01:41 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:01:54 <jcheney> curt: seems ok to say "if you want to interoperate, do this"

Curt Tilmes: seems ok to say "if you want to interoperate, do this"

19:02:00 <jcheney> hook: no xlinking

Hook Hua: no xlinking

19:02:20 <jcheney> pgroth: shouldn't define our own ids.  do people use something other than qnames?

Paul Groth: shouldn't define our own ids. do people use something other than qnames?

19:02:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:02:33 <jcheney> q+

q+

19:03:04 <jcheney> laurent: people used to use urn, now uri/url

Laurent Lefort: people used to use urn, now uri/url

19:03:08 <zednik> +1 pgroth for determining what is best for ids from xml community, and use that

Stephan Zednik: +1 pgroth for determining what is best for ids from xml community, and use that

19:03:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:03:31 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

19:04:01 <jcheney> ivan: there are organizations whose internal identification of items is similar, rdfa discussion began because news organization wanted to use similar names

Ivan Herman: there are organizations whose internal identification of items is similar, rdfa discussion began because news organization wanted to use similar names

19:04:08 <jcheney> ... rdfa avoided use of qnames

... rdfa avoided use of qnames

19:04:23 <jcheney> pgroth: also allowed in prov-o, prov-n

Paul Groth: also allowed in prov-o, prov-n

19:05:02 <jcheney> ivan: defining new id type worse because many xml tools assume id attribute is of a specific form (?)

Ivan Herman: defining new id type worse because many xml tools assume id attribute is of a specific form (?)

19:05:09 <jcheney> Luc: we use prov;id, not toplevel id

Luc Moreau: we use prov;id, not toplevel id

19:05:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:05:23 <jcheney> ivan: some tools recognize/exploit atributes declared

Ivan Herman: some tools recognize/exploit attributes declared

19:05:46 <ivan> s/atributes/attributes/
19:06:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:06:17 <jcheney> jcheney: will ask ht

James Cheney: will ask ht

19:06:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:06:56 <Curt> q+ This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too

Curt Tilmes: q+ This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too

19:07:04 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch

19:07:06 <Curt> This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too

Curt Tilmes: This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too

19:07:30 <jcheney> luc: prov-dm uses qualified names as shortcut for uri

Luc Moreau: prov-dm uses qualified names as shortcut for uri

19:07:36 <jcheney> ... can reconstruct full uri

... can reconstruct full uri

19:07:41 <jcheney> ... not done in xml by default

... not done in xml by default

19:07:52 <Paolo> I will have to go soon -- are you planning to discuss  prov-dictionary next?

Paolo Missier: I will have to go soon -- are you planning to discuss prov-dictionary next?

19:07:54 <jcheney> ...we need to state the convention

...we need to state the convention

19:07:56 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:07:59 <Luc> ack Luc

Luc Moreau: ack Luc

19:08:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:08:53 <pgroth> @paolo yes

Paul Groth: @paolo yes

19:09:01 <jcheney> luc: plan: flag issue, have james ask henry thompson

Luc Moreau: plan: flag issue, have james ask henry thompson

19:09:16 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

19:09:29 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed

19:09:39 <jcheney> zednik: wanted to add that we could put forth question + possible direction such as xsd:anyURI

Stephan Zednik: wanted to add that we could put forth question + possible direction such as xsd:anyURI

19:10:07 <jcheney> luc: may lose some benefit of xml?

Luc Moreau: may lose some benefit of xml?

19:10:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:10:21 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

19:10:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

19:10:32 <jcheney> luc: congratulations to prov-xml team

Luc Moreau: congratulations to prov-xml team

19:10:42 <Luc> topic: prov-dictionary

10. prov-dictionary

Summary: The document has been dormant since F2F3, when the dictionary material was "downgraded" to note status. It was unknown whether Stian would lead the effort. Paolo has little bandwidth before Xmas. Sam and Tom volunteered to help, and were going to draft a timetable for the next teleconference.

<luc>Summary: The document has been dormant since F2F3, when the dictionary material was "downgraded" to note status. It was unknown whether Stian would lead the effort. Paolo has little bandwidth before Xmas. Sam and Tom volunteered to help, and were going to draft a timetable for the next teleconference.
19:11:34 <jcheney> luc: renamed collections to dictionaries, then decided to remove from dm leaving lean collections

Luc Moreau: renamed collections to dictionaries, then decided to remove from dm leaving lean collections

19:11:59 <jcheney> ... decided to create note for dictionaries, starting with all text from older verisons of prov-dm/prov-o

... decided to create note for dictionaries, starting with all text from older verisons of prov-dm/prov-o

19:12:06 <jcheney> ... but some work is needed.  who will work on it?

... but some work is needed. who will work on it?

19:12:41 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:12:47 <jcheney> ... comments?

... comments?

19:12:58 <TomDN> +q

Tom De Nies: +q

19:13:13 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

19:13:14 <Paolo> +q

Paolo Missier: +q

19:13:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

19:13:23 <jcheney> TomDN: what is timetable?

Tom De Nies: what is timetable?

19:13:26 <jcheney> luc: to be detemined

Luc Moreau: to be detemined

19:13:34 <jcheney> TomDN: synchronous release?

Tom De Nies: synchronous release?

19:13:41 <jcheney> Luc: no, later than cr release

Luc Moreau: no, later than cr release

19:13:47 <jcheney> ... but before end of wg

... but before end of wg

19:13:48 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

19:14:00 <jcheney> .... including time for iterations

.... including time for iterations

19:14:00 <Luc> ack tom

Luc Moreau: ack tom

19:14:29 <jcheney> Paolo: discussed earlier, and when we decided on note, ownership was assigned to stian with paolo agreeing to help

Paolo Missier: discussed earlier, and when we decided on note, ownership was assigned to stian with paolo agreeing to help

19:14:38 <jcheney> ... but was involved in other documents so did not have time

... but was involved in other documents so did not have time

19:14:43 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao

19:14:57 <jcheney> ... talked with stian and discussed timetable but this hasn't been realized

... talked with stian and discussed timetable but this hasn't been realized

19:15:29 <jcheney> ... plan to ask stian if interested, volunteer to help, otherwise try to pick up

... plan to ask stian if interested, volunteer to help, otherwise try to pick up

19:15:43 <jcheney> ... would still like to see it happen

... would still like to see it happen

19:16:00 <jcheney> ... should be able to start spending time on it after holidays

... should be able to start spending time on it after holidays

19:16:08 <jcheney> Luc: can you really do it?

Luc Moreau: can you really do it?

19:16:18 <jcheney> ... in terms of bandwidth

... in terms of bandwidth

19:16:30 <jcheney> Paolo: will have more in January, not before

Paolo Missier: will have more in January, not before

19:16:32 <lebot> @Paolo , we all have more bandwidth later. Until we don't ;-)

Timothy Lebo: @Paolo , we all have more bandwidth later. Until we don't ;-)

19:16:39 <jcheney> ... can make time for it

... can make time for it

19:16:57 <jcheney> ... don't think we're too far

... don't think we're too far

19:16:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:17:02 <SamCoppens> Tom and I would volunteer to help with the note

Sam Coppens: Tom and I would volunteer to help with the note

19:17:09 <lebot> good point, it was carried to Last Call drafts :-/

Timothy Lebo: good point, it was carried to Last Call drafts :-/

19:17:17 <lebot> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

19:17:17 <jcheney> ... material in note is not starting from scratch

... material in note is not starting from scratch

19:17:32 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

19:17:58 <jcheney> pgroth: timetable would like to see fpwd or new release on notes before holidays for all documents

Paul Groth: timetable would like to see fpwd or new release on notes before holidays for all documents

19:18:09 <lebot> +1 to a FPWD for collections before xmas

Timothy Lebo: +1 to a FPWD for collections before xmas

19:18:10 <jcheney> ... there on most things already (prov-aq, prov-dc)

... there on most things already (prov-aq, prov-dc)

19:18:36 <jcheney> ... collections needs editorial work beyone existing content

... collections needs editorial work beyone existing content

19:18:38 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:19:19 <jcheney> Luc: at f2f3 took out of rec track document, no activity since then

Luc Moreau: at f2f3 took out of rec track document, no activity since then

19:19:54 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

19:19:58 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

19:20:06 <jcheney> ... if someone volunteers to work on it before holidays, great, if not, we may not have time to finish it by march

... if someone volunteers to work on it before holidays, great, if not, we may not have time to finish it by march

19:20:21 <jcheney> tlebo: reinforcing paolo's comments: content is from pre-last call

Timothy Lebo: reinforcing paolo's comments: content is from pre-last call

19:20:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:20:30 <jcheney> ... can support with prov-o parts

... can support with prov-o parts

19:20:33 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

19:21:08 <jcheney> paolo: will struggle between now and end of year but can try to make time

Paolo Missier: will struggle between now and end of year but can try to make time

19:21:21 <jcheney> ... spike in teaching activity now

... spike in teaching activity now

19:21:25 <pgroth> @paolo that's why we need something else

Paul Groth: @paolo that's why we need somebody else

19:21:33 <jcheney> ... unlikely to find more than 1-2 days

... unlikely to find more than 1-2 days

19:21:34 <pgroth> s/something/somebody
19:21:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:21:52 <Luc> ack paol

Luc Moreau: ack paol

19:21:56 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

19:22:06 <jcheney> ... was assigned to stian, so begin by checking whether he still plans to do this

... was assigned to stian, so begin by checking whether he still plans to do this

19:22:25 <jcheney> sam: tom and i will definitely help, could take lead if needed

Sam Coppens: tom and i will definitely help, could take lead if needed

19:22:36 <Paolo> excellent I would definitely help out

Paolo Missier: excellent I would definitely help out

19:22:40 <jcheney> luc: sounds good!

Luc Moreau: sounds good!

19:23:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:23:14 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

19:23:16 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth

19:23:52 <jcheney> pgroth: stian may be busy, so extra help would be good; stian is a core implementor in taverna, & working with open annotation

Paul Groth: stian may be busy, so extra help would be good; stian is a core implementor in taverna, & working with open annotation

19:24:01 <jcheney> ... implementations more important

... implementations more important

19:24:04 <pgroth> ls

Paul Groth: ls

19:24:29 <lebot> +1 drink each to @SamCoppens and @TomDN this evening ;-)

Timothy Lebo: +1 drink each to @SamCoppens and @TomDN this evening ;-)

19:25:03 <jcheney> luc: NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away

Luc Moreau: NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away

19:25:20 <jcheney> (oops that was me) NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away

(oops that was me) NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away

19:25:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:25:25 <lebot> @Paolo can we wrap our arms around the raw materials?

Timothy Lebo: @Paolo can we wrap our arms around the raw materials?

19:25:44 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:26:28 <Luc> action: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference

ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference

19:26:28 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find SamCoppens. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find SamCoppens. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

19:26:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:26:59 <jcheney> @tlebo http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dictionary.html

@tlebo http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dictionary.html

19:27:09 <Paolo> cool, have to go bye everyone

Paolo Missier: cool, have to go bye everyone

19:27:33 <jcheney> luc: completed prov-xml, prov-dictionary

Luc Moreau: completed prov-xml, prov-dictionary

19:27:36 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo

19:27:51 <jcheney> ... allocate 30-minutes to prov-sem?

... allocate 30-minutes to prov-sem?

19:28:08 <Luc> scribe: TomDN

(Scribe set to Tom De Nies)

19:28:13 <Luc> topic: prov-sem

11. prov-sem

Summary: James summarized the recent work he did on the semantics. Typesetting of the document was discussed. It was agreed that James should proceed ahead, with the most convenient tool for the task, and that we would tackle the conversion into W3C note format afterwards. The objective is to produce a revised version of the document circa Xmas.

<Luc>Summary: James summarized the recent work he did on the semantics. Typesetting of the document was discussed. It was agreed that James should proceed ahead, with the most convenient tool for the task, and that we would tackle the conversion into W3C note format afterwards.  The objective is to produce a revised version of the document circa Xmas.
19:28:14 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC

19:28:14 <pgroth> action: TomDN  draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference

ACTION: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference

19:28:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-134 -  draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [on Tom De Nies - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-134 - draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [on Tom De Nies - due 2012-11-16].

19:28:36 <TomDN> jcheney: Update on PROV-SEM.

James Cheney: Update on PROV-SEM.

19:29:00 <lebot> @SamCoppens http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl

Timothy Lebo: @SamCoppens http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl

19:29:16 <TomDN> ... Most of what's here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC is aligned with the LC docs

... Most of what's here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC is aligned with the LC docs

19:30:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:30:25 <TomDN> ... With the CONSTRAINTS, we only enable people to track the constraints. But with SEM we could formalize all that more cleanly and acceptable for logics people

... With the CONSTRAINTS, we only enable people to track the constraints. But with SEM we could formalize all that more cleanly and acceptable for logics people

19:31:15 <TomDN> ... It's kinda hard to write that stuff down in HTML, instead of in for example LaTeX

... It's kinda hard to write that stuff down in HTML, instead of in for example LaTeX

19:31:49 <TomDN> ... There's an old Latex->HTML tool, but it's not conforming to the recent standards

... There's an old Latex->HTML tool, but it's not conforming to the recent standards

19:32:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:32:15 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

19:32:34 <TomDN> ... If I could write it as Latex, producing this note would be easier

... If I could write it as Latex, producing this note would be easier

19:33:54 <TomDN> Luc: What's your sense of timetable?

Luc Moreau: What's your sense of timetable?

19:34:10 <TomDN> ... And are there people who could help you?

... And are there people who could help you?

19:34:19 <TomDN> jcheney: Help would be good.

James Cheney: Help would be good.

19:34:49 <TomDN> ... Now is a good time for me to do it.

... Now is a good time for me to do it.

19:35:23 <TomDN> ... But time that I wanted to spend on this has gone to the constraints.

... But time that I wanted to spend on this has gone to the constraints.

19:36:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:36:55 <TomDN> ... I could definitely use people that can do the math markup

... I could definitely use people that can do the math markup

19:37:36 <TomDN> pgroth: Go ahead an focus on the content, and we can see if we can find people to make it look nice

Paul Groth: Go ahead an focus on the content, and we can see if we can find people to make it look nice

19:37:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:38:35 <TomDN> ivan: it could be on the wiki after the WG closes. Then it has a URI and is read-only

Ivan Herman: it could be on the wiki after the WG closes. Then it has a URI and is read-only

19:38:52 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

19:39:05 <TomDN> jcheney: But is that OK for a formal Note?

James Cheney: But is that OK for a formal Note?

19:39:08 <TomDN> ivan: no.

Ivan Herman: no.

19:39:41 <zednik> http://gva.noekeon.org/blahtexml/

Stephan Zednik: http://gva.noekeon.org/blahtexml/

19:39:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:40:13 <TomDN> q+

q+

19:40:15 <lebot> @zednik what a great name for a tool.

Timothy Lebo: @zednik what a great name for a tool.

19:40:44 <TomDN> Luc: Isn't there a tool at W3C to turn a wikipage into a note?

Luc Moreau: Isn't there a tool at W3C to turn a wikipage into a note?

19:41:05 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:41:16 <TomDN> ivan: Sandro had some python tools, but I don't know whether that would work. You'd have to ask Sandro.

Ivan Herman: Sandro had some python tools, but I don't know whether that would work. You'd have to ask Sandro.

19:41:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:41:33 <Luc> ack tom

Luc Moreau: ack tom

19:41:52 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

19:42:24 <TomDN> TomDN: I think the content is most important, to address comments about the semantics. let's focus on that first

Tom De Nies: I think the content is most important, to address comments about the semantics. let's focus on that first

19:42:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:43:30 <TomDN> jcheney: I think a lot of people thought it'd be nice to have this, so it's definitely worth doing. The feedback was useful, but not the main reason to produce the Note

James Cheney: I think a lot of people thought it'd be nice to have this, so it's definitely worth doing. The feedback was useful, but not the main reason to produce the Note

19:44:23 <TomDN> pgroth: Conclusion: James keeps working on this in the way that's easiest for him, and then someone looks at the presentation stuff later.

Paul Groth: Conclusion: James keeps working on this in the way that's easiest for him, and then someone looks at the presentation stuff later.

19:44:29 <TomDN> Luc: Timetable?

Luc Moreau: Timetable?

19:45:05 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

19:45:10 <TomDN> jcheney: I need about a week (continuous) work on this.

James Cheney: I need about a week (continuous) work on this.

19:45:16 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:45:23 <TomDN> ... The week of the holidays seems reasonable for a first draft

... The week of the holidays seems reasonable for a first draft

19:46:12 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC#Inferences

James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC#Inferences

19:46:41 <TomDN> jcheney: If you look at the end of the document, you'll see that I've already converted most stuff into the subset of LateX that Wiki supports.

James Cheney: If you look at the end of the document, you'll see that I've already converted most stuff into the subset of LateX that Wiki supports.

19:47:28 <pgroth> 30 prov logic parsers

Paul Groth: 30 prov logic parsers

19:47:39 <pgroth> all independent implementations

Paul Groth: all independent implementations

19:47:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

19:48:32 <pgroth> we are happy

Paul Groth: we are happy

19:48:38 <TomDN> everyone\: We are all happy

everyone\: We are all happy

19:49:18 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call?

19:49:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]

19:49:23 <TomDN> pgroth: Is there anyone on the phone that has comments on anything on the agenda?

Paul Groth: Is there anyone on the phone that has comments on anything on the agenda?

19:51:37 <TomDN> Topic: Mention (Resolution)

12. Mention (Resolution)

Summary: the discussion on mention was resumed when Graham rejoined the group. Graham proposed an explanatory change. The group reviewed the text, and discussed some aspects of the proposal. No consensus was emerging immediately, and we didn't want to leave the meeting with a pseudo-agreement on editorial change that would unravel after a week. So, it was decided that we would proceed with a vote on keeping the text as is. If there is opposition, then it means that consensus cannot be reached, and (following a policy agreed at F2F2), the concept should be dropped from Rec-track documents. There was opposition to keep the document as is, but the members were supportive (or not opposing) having a note on mention.

<luc>Summary: the discussion on mention was resumed when Graham rejoined the group.  Graham proposed an explanatory change.  The group reviewed the text, and discussed some aspects of the proposal.  No consensus was emerging immediately, and we didn't want to leave the meeting with a pseudo-agreement on editorial change that would unravel after a week.  So, it was decided that we would proceed with a vote on keeping the text as is. If there is opposition, then it means that consensus cannot be reached, and (following a policy agreed at F2F2), the concept should be dropped from Rec-track documents. There was opposition to keep the document as is, but the members were supportive (or not opposing) having a note on mention.
19:52:16 <TomDN> Luc: Graham has thought about Mention.

Luc Moreau: Graham has thought about Mention.

19:52:33 <TomDN> GK: I think I have an explanation of it that I'm OK with.

Graham Klyne: I think I have an explanation of it that I'm OK with.

19:52:56 <TomDN> ... I hope it aligns with what is meant in the document.

... I hope it aligns with what is meant in the document.

19:53:33 <TomDN> Luc: So you're not proposing a change of design, but a textual change?

Luc Moreau: So you're not proposing a change of design, but a textual change?

19:53:45 <TomDN> GK: Yes, it's an explanatory change.

Graham Klyne: Yes, it's an explanatory change.

19:55:39 <TomDN> (Taking a break until 3:15 )

(Taking a break until 3:15 )

19:55:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

19:56:02 <smiles> OK, talk then

Simon Miles: OK, talk then

19:59:05 <laurent> @jcheney Instructions to export wiki pages to HTML used for SSN http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Publishing_Incubator_Group_Documents#Export_into_HTML_from_MediaWiki

Laurent Lefort: @jcheney Instructions to export wiki pages to HTML used for SSN http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Publishing_Incubator_Group_Documents#Export_into_HTML_from_MediaWiki

20:15:41 <TomDN> (and we're back ! )

(No events recorded for 16 minutes)

(and we're back ! )

20:15:58 <TomDN> Zakim, who is on the call?

Zakim, who is on the call?

20:15:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, smiles

20:16:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

20:16:47 <TomDN> pgroth: Graham to propose editorial changes

Paul Groth: Graham to propose editorial changes

20:16:56 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne

Graham Klyne: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne

20:17:01 <TomDN> (who just joined? )

(who just joined? )

20:17:27 <TomDN> GK: Please see the link for the text regarding my suggestions

Graham Klyne: Please see the link for the text regarding my suggestions

20:17:39 <jcheney> can someone resend link

James Cheney: can someone resend link

20:17:50 <TomDN> ... This is based on the description of Mention in PROV-DM

... This is based on the description of Mention in PROV-DM

20:17:54 <SamCoppens> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne

Sam Coppens: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne

20:17:59 <jcheney> @Sam thanks!

James Cheney: @Sam thanks!

20:19:51 <TomDN> GK: I think this way, the examples could be done without TRiG

Graham Klyne: I think this way, the examples could be done without TRiG

20:20:18 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:20:24 <pgroth> ace Luc

Paul Groth: ace Luc

20:20:31 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

20:21:01 <TomDN> Luc: In your first 2 sentences, you talk about the same entity using the same name, but with different descriptions in different bundles

Luc Moreau: In your first 2 sentences, you talk about the same entity using the same name, but with different descriptions in different bundles

20:21:15 <TomDN> ... However, we can't have the same name

... However, we can't have the same name

20:21:57 <TomDN> ... Why do you have to indicate that they have the same name? Why not just the same entities with different descriptions?

... Why do you have to indicate that they have the same name? Why not just the same entities with different descriptions?

20:22:18 <TomDN> GK: Valid point, I was just working from a specific use case

Graham Klyne: Valid point, I was just working from a specific use case

20:22:38 <TomDN> ... It may not be necessary in the eventual descriptive text

... It may not be necessary in the eventual descriptive text

20:22:48 <TomDN> Luc: are you introducing a new inference?

Luc Moreau: are you introducing a new inference?

20:22:54 <TomDN> GK: I don't think so.

Graham Klyne: I don't think so.

20:23:09 <lebot> I pause on "the descriptions may be based on observations of different specializations "

Timothy Lebo: I pause on "the descriptions may be based on observations of different specializations "

20:23:46 <TomDN> GK: To be clear, these are my thoughts on the matter, not something that should go directly into the description

Graham Klyne: To be clear, these are my thoughts on the matter, not something that should go directly into the description

20:24:18 <lebot> it seems to impose a specialization of an entity every time someone attempts to fix an aspect of the entity.

Timothy Lebo: it seems to impose a specialization of an entity every time someone attempts to fix an aspect of the entity.

20:24:58 <TomDN> luc: Is "An application may have access to additional out of band information " there to explain the difference with /just/ a specialization?

Luc Moreau: Is "An application may have access to additional out of band information " there to explain the difference with /just/ a specialization?

20:25:02 <TomDN> GK: yes

Graham Klyne: yes

20:25:51 <lebot> I pause on "about the specialization of e1 that is described in bundle b" since a specialization is not asserted - e1 is itself!

Timothy Lebo: I pause on "about the specialization of e1 that is described in bundle b" since a specialization is not asserted - e1 is itself!

20:26:20 <TomDN> Luc: Example: ratings. If I rate something that lasts an hour fast, someone else might rate it differently

Luc Moreau: Example: ratings. If I rate something that lasts an hour fast, someone else might rate it differently

20:26:22 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:26:22 <lebot> I very much like "The mentionOf construct provides a way to introduce a new entity that is the basis for observations in a specified bundle"

Timothy Lebo: I very much like "The mentionOf construct provides a way to introduce a new entity that is the basis for observations in a specified bundle"

20:26:30 <TomDN> GK: I think we're talking about the same thing

Graham Klyne: I think we're talking about the same thing

20:27:06 <TomDN> Luc: Do you want to add these inferences to the document?

Luc Moreau: Do you want to add these inferences to the document?

20:27:19 <TomDN> GK: No, they are to help capture the essence of the text

Graham Klyne: No, they are to help capture the essence of the text

20:27:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:27:55 <TomDN> Luc: Does this mean that you are now happy with mention? (If we do these edits in the text)

Luc Moreau: Does this mean that you are now happy with mention? (If we do these edits in the text)

20:28:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:28:19 <TomDN> GK: I'd say yes, if my interpretation is what's meant in the document

Graham Klyne: I'd say yes, if my interpretation is what's meant in the document

20:28:44 <TomDN> Luc: Attempting to assess the changes to be made

Luc Moreau: Attempting to assess the changes to be made

20:28:50 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-mention

Paul Groth: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-mention

20:28:51 <lebot> I think the term "mentionedIn" is too broad from what we currently have: "asInBundle"

Timothy Lebo: I think the term "mentionedIn" is too broad from what we currently have: "asInBundle"

20:29:39 <jcheney> "introduce a new entity that is the basis" -> "relate an entity in the current instance to another one that is the basis..." ??

James Cheney: "introduce a new entity that is the basis" -> "relate an entity in the current instance to another one that is the basis..." ??

20:29:49 <TomDN> GK: I had trouble with "Some applications may want to interpret this entity e1 with respect to the descriptions found in the bundle b it occurs in."

Graham Klyne: I had trouble with "Some applications may want to interpret this entity e1 with respect to the descriptions found in the bundle b it occurs in."

20:30:15 <TomDN> Luc: Yes, it looks liek we actually mean "The description of the entity in bundle b"

Luc Moreau: Yes, it looks like we actually mean "The description of the entity in bundle b"

20:30:21 <TomDN> s/liek/like
20:30:44 <TomDN> GK: also, "additional aspects"

Graham Klyne: also, "additional aspects"

20:31:34 <TomDN> tlebo: but "aspects" is central in the definitions of alternate and specialization

Timothy Lebo: but "aspects" is central in the definitions of alternate and specialization

20:31:40 <lebot> Central to mention: "The primary author did not see fit to specialize, but the secondary consumer/author *does* see fit to specialize the entity".

Timothy Lebo: Central to mention: "The primary author did not see fit to specialize, but the secondary consumer/author *does* see fit to specialize the entity".

20:31:59 <TomDN> Luc: We didn't want a formal definition of aspect

Luc Moreau: We didn't want a formal definition of aspect

20:32:53 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

20:33:11 <TomDN> tlebo: the term "additional aspect" just refers to the specifying of the bundle. After that you can add whatever you want

Timothy Lebo: the term "additional aspect" just refers to the specifying of the bundle. After that you can add whatever you want

20:33:35 <TomDN> GK: My problem is that it's focusing on the mention as the aspect

Graham Klyne: My problem is that it's focusing on the mention as the aspect

20:33:49 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

20:34:12 <TomDN> Luc: I want to know exactly which edits we want to make

Luc Moreau: I want to know exactly which edits we want to make

20:34:38 <TomDN> GK: I was treating this as trying to capture the same information as in the document

Graham Klyne: I was treating this as trying to capture the same information as in the document

20:34:42 <TomDN> ... as a replacement

... as a replacement

20:35:06 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles

20:35:13 <TomDN> smiles: I personally find the original text clearer than Graham's

Simon Miles: I personally find the original text clearer than Graham's

20:35:35 <TomDN> ... To me, it doesn't seem to be about provenance, and not useful.

... To me, it doesn't seem to be about provenance, and not useful.

20:35:49 <TomDN> ... I wouldn't formally object, but I wouldn't use it

... I wouldn't formally object, but I wouldn't use it

20:36:12 <TomDN> ... everything else in the document describes things in the past. But this doesn't.

... everything else in the document describes things in the past. But this doesn't.

20:36:22 <TomDN> ... So it's not really provenance

... So it's not really provenance

20:36:48 <TomDN> +q

+q

20:36:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

20:37:30 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

20:38:17 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:38:24 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:38:29 <TomDN> ... I don't see a problem with it being at risk. But since we want it in or out now, I would vote for out

... I don't see a problem with it being at risk. But since we want it in or out now, I would vote for out

20:38:36 <Curt> It allows us to tie additional information to provenance information

Curt Tilmes: It allows us to tie additional information to provenance information

20:39:00 <TomDN> TomDN: But alternate and specialization technically don't describe things in the past, so why block mention for that reason?

Tom De Nies: But alternate and specialization technically don't describe things in the past, so why block mention for that reason?

20:39:27 <TomDN> smiles: because they do describe "this thing was alternate of this thing" in the past

Simon Miles: because they do describe "this thing was alternate of this thing" in the past

20:39:51 <TomDN> TomDN: I think mention does that as well, just with a different name...

Tom De Nies: I think mention does that as well, just with a different name...

20:40:30 <TomDN> pgroth: What I'm worried about is leaving here with a pseudo-agreement to have an editorial change, and then later someone objects to it

Paul Groth: What I'm worried about is leaving here with a pseudo-agreement to have an editorial change, and then later someone objects to it

20:40:36 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:41:09 <TomDN> ... What Graham wrote seems like a different concept than what we have

... What Graham wrote seems like a different concept than what we have

20:41:27 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

20:41:44 <TomDN> ... We need an answer from the WG to the question: "Is this construct worth delaying everything else?"

... We need an answer from the WG to the question: "Is this construct worth delaying everything else?"

20:42:24 <TomDN> Luc: I think it's different from what's in the document, but essentially, you didn't change the bullets, or did you?

Luc Moreau: I think it's different from what's in the document, but essentially, you didn't change the bullets, or did you?

20:42:39 <TomDN> GK: I reordered them

Graham Klyne: I reordered them

20:42:49 <TomDN> ... I said generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);

... I said generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);

20:43:09 <TomDN> ... whereas you said: generalEntity: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.

... whereas you said: generalEntity: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.

20:43:27 <TomDN> ... and: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);

... and: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);

20:43:39 <TomDN> ... instead of: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of an entity that is a specialization of (supra);

... instead of: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of an entity that is a specialization of (supra);

20:44:39 <TomDN> GK: I couldn't understand the original description, but mine is what I made from it after discussion

Graham Klyne: I couldn't understand the original description, but mine is what I made from it after discussion

20:45:08 <TomDN> Luc: what about incompatibility with RDF semantics?

Luc Moreau: what about incompatibility with RDF semantics?

20:45:27 <TomDN> GK: that was part of the basis of my concern, but not the essence

Graham Klyne: that was part of the basis of my concern, but not the essence

20:45:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

20:46:38 <TomDN> GK: I'm checking whether I can make lighter changes with the same effect

Graham Klyne: I'm checking whether I can make lighter changes with the same effect

20:46:58 <lebot> prov-o's definition: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of prov:specializationOf whose subject presents as an aspect a particular prov:Bundle in which its more general Entity was described (prov:asInBundle is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned)."

Timothy Lebo: prov-o's definition: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of prov:specializationOf whose subject presents as an aspect a particular prov:Bundle in which its more general Entity was described (prov:asInBundle is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned)."

20:47:15 <lebot> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

20:47:27 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

20:47:56 <TomDN> tlebo: When we were comparing the bullets, I was thinking it would make sense to keep the current DM definition for bundle and specific entity, but use Graham's general entity

Timothy Lebo: When we were comparing the bullets, I was thinking it would make sense to keep the current DM definition for bundle and specific entity, but use Graham's general entity

20:48:28 <lebot> generalEntity\:an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);

Timothy Lebo: generalEntity\:an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);

20:48:40 <TomDN> ... If we get rid of this word "mentioned", then we can avoid some confusion

... If we get rid of this word "mentioned", then we can avoid some confusion

20:48:41 <lebot> generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.

Timothy Lebo: generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.

20:48:42 <lebot> bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.

Timothy Lebo: bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.

20:49:27 <lebot> ^^ wipe that :-)

Timothy Lebo: ^^ wipe that :-)

20:49:46 <lebot> specificEntity\: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);

Timothy Lebo: specificEntity\: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);

20:49:55 <lebot> generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);

Timothy Lebo: generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);

20:50:01 <lebot> bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.

Timothy Lebo: bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.

20:50:09 <TomDN> Luc: I'm concerned that we're not progressing

Luc Moreau: I'm concerned that we're not progressing

20:51:27 <TomDN> ivan: I think the only way to move forward is to drop it from the spec

Ivan Herman: I think the only way to move forward is to drop it from the spec

20:51:33 <SamCoppens> q+

Sam Coppens: q+

20:51:37 <TomDN> ... It's harsh, but realistic

... It's harsh, but realistic

20:51:49 <pgroth> ack SamCoppens

Paul Groth: ack SamCoppens

20:52:14 <TomDN> SamCoppens: This seems to be about interpretation. Can't we just leave the description as such, but explain using Graham's example?

Sam Coppens: This seems to be about interpretation. Can't we just leave the description as such, but explain using Graham's example?

20:52:28 <TomDN> ivan: We are at the last minute

Ivan Herman: We are at the last minute

20:52:30 <lebot> q+ to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.

20:52:57 <TomDN> pgroth: We're not even arguing about a little bit of text. This is a substantial change

Paul Groth: We're not even arguing about a little bit of text. This is a substantial change

20:53:17 <TomDN> ... The goal of the DM was to have an intuitive, easy to understand model.

... The goal of the DM was to have an intuitive, easy to understand model.

20:53:30 <lebot> wasInfluencedBy is confusing with wasInformed

Timothy Lebo: wasInfluencedBy is confusing with wasInformed

20:53:31 <pgroth> ack lebot

Paul Groth: ack lebot

20:53:31 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.

Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.

20:53:32 <TomDN> ... Now, we agree on the structure, but not on the definition it seems

... Now, we agree on the structure, but not on the definition it seems

20:53:48 <TomDN> tlebo: isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.

Timothy Lebo: isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.

20:54:19 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

20:55:26 <TomDN> pgroth: But the commenter from earlier today wasn't a WG member, that had the chance to discuss with us for a long time

Paul Groth: But the commenter from earlier today wasn't a WG member, that had the chance to discuss with us for a long time

20:56:05 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:56:06 <TomDN> ... If it's not clear for Graham, how can we expect outsiders to get it?

... If it's not clear for Graham, how can we expect outsiders to get it?

20:57:01 <ivan> ack luc

Ivan Herman: ack luc

20:57:32 <TomDN> Luc: yesterday, it seemed to me like there was no support for the construct. But this morning it seemed there was.

Luc Moreau: yesterday, it seemed to me like there was no support for the construct. But this morning it seemed there was.

20:57:43 <TomDN> ... But now we have to move to CR.

... But now we have to move to CR.

20:58:25 <TomDN> GK: I will back down from making a formal objection, after discussing it today

Graham Klyne: I will back down from making a formal objection, after discussing it today

20:59:23 <TomDN> Luc: Still, at previous meetings, we agreed that if there's no consensus, we would drop it.

Luc Moreau: Still, at previous meetings, we agreed that if there's no consensus, we would drop it.

20:59:38 <TomDN> ... I say we just vote

... I say we just vote

21:01:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

21:01:16 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

21:01:21 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles

21:01:41 <TomDN> smiles: I wanted to ask: what is the negative consequence of it being removed?

Simon Miles: I wanted to ask: what is the negative consequence of it being removed?

21:01:48 <TomDN> pgroth: You can't use it

Paul Groth: You can't use it

21:02:01 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

21:02:02 <TomDN> ... we lose some interoperability

... we lose some interoperability

21:02:29 <Curt> we have a 6pm res

Curt Tilmes: we have a 6pm res

21:02:34 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles

21:02:47 <TomDN> jcheney: It might be good to state the pros and cons

James Cheney: It might be good to state the pros and cons

21:02:51 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

21:02:53 <TomDN> ... pro: clear use case

... pro: clear use case

21:03:08 <TomDN> ... con: it's been controversial

... con: it's been controversial

21:03:10 <TomDN> +q

+q

21:03:46 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

21:03:57 <TomDN> ... pro of removing: covering our euphimisms

... pro of removing: covering our euphimisms

21:05:03 <pgroth> ack TomDN

Paul Groth: ack TomDN

21:06:15 <smiles> A note has the advantage that if a better way is found later, the DM would still stand complete without the note

Simon Miles: A note has the advantage that if a better way is found later, the DM would still stand complete without the note

21:06:22 <TomDN> tomDN: still in favor of creating a note. seems like the same amount of time, but without delaying CR

Tom De Nies: still in favor of creating a note. seems like the same amount of time, but without delaying CR

21:06:36 <TomDN> hook: Could we do something less strong than that?

Hook Hua: Could we do something less strong than that?

21:06:45 <TomDN> Luc: like a wiki

Luc Moreau: like a wiki

21:06:47 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

21:07:05 <TomDN> ivan: You could take what's there, and put it into an informative appendix

Ivan Herman: You could take what's there, and put it into an informative appendix

21:07:10 <TomDN> ... as a guideline.

... as a guideline.

21:07:13 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

21:07:21 <TomDN> ... But it wouldn't be in the standard ontology

... But it wouldn't be in the standard ontology

21:07:39 <Curt> similarly, we would have to leave it out of the XML schema

Curt Tilmes: similarly, we would have to leave it out of the XML schema

21:08:08 <TomDN> pgroth: My worry with that is that it's confusing.

Paul Groth: My worry with that is that it's confusing.

21:08:17 <TomDN> ... CR speaks with a clear voice

... CR speaks with a clear voice

21:08:26 <TomDN> ... An informative appendix does not

... An informative appendix does not

21:08:54 <TomDN> Hook: So do we provide ambiguous guidance or no guidance at all?

Hook Hua: So do we provide ambiguous guidance or no guidance at all?

21:09:11 <TomDN> pgroth: Either crystal clear or not at all

Paul Groth: Either crystal clear or not at all

21:09:54 <TomDN> ivan: Any member can do a member submission, but that's really the weakest form

Ivan Herman: Any member can do a member submission, but that's really the weakest form

21:10:39 <pgroth> proposed: Keep mentionOf as part of PROV as is and not at risk

PROPOSED: Keep mentionOf as part of PROV as is and not at risk

21:10:45 <smiles> -1

Simon Miles: -1

21:10:46 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

21:10:57 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

21:10:59 <jcheney> 0

James Cheney: 0

21:11:08 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1

21:11:10 <GK> -1

Graham Klyne: -1

21:11:16 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI)

21:11:20 <TomDN> +1

+1

21:11:39 <SamCoppens> 0

Sam Coppens: 0

21:12:29 <pgroth> resolved: mentionOf is removed from PROV rec track documents

RESOLVED: mentionOf is removed from PROV rec track documents

21:14:48 <TomDN> +q

+q

21:14:59 <ivan> ack pgroth

Ivan Herman: ack pgroth

21:15:08 <Curt> as a note, what would be the effect on the OWL or XSD schema?

Curt Tilmes: as a note, what would be the effect on the OWL or XSD schema?

21:15:39 <TomDN> -q

-q

21:15:49 <smiles> @pgroth yes, exactly

Simon Miles: @pgroth yes, exactly

21:17:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:17:51 <TomDN> Luc: Simon, Graham, would you object to mention as is in a note?

Luc Moreau: Simon, Graham, would you object to mention as is in a note?

21:18:02 <TomDN> Graham: no, I'd go -0 or support it

Graham Klyne: no, I'd go -0 or support it

21:18:09 <TomDN> smiles: no, probably 0

Simon Miles: no, probably 0

21:18:27 <TomDN> ivan: so timetable for this hypothetical note?

Ivan Herman: so timetable for this hypothetical note?

21:18:51 <TomDN> pgroth: not together with CR. It's a "new"note.

Paul Groth: not together with CR. It's a "new"note.

21:19:15 <TomDN> ... Who would do this?

... Who would do this?

21:19:34 <TomDN> Luc: As editors. we should take out the text from the recs, and put it into a document

Luc Moreau: As editors. we should take out the text from the recs, and put it into a document

21:19:43 <TomDN> ... I'll take on this

... I'll take on this

21:19:50 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+

21:20:10 <pgroth> action: luc create a mention of document

ACTION: luc create a mention of document

21:20:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Create a mention of document [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-135 - Create a mention of document [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

21:20:37 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook

21:21:11 <TomDN> Hook: This will be a new note for the DM, but how far deep would the note go regarding the other documents?

Hook Hua: This will be a new note for the DM, but how far deep would the note go regarding the other documents?

21:21:14 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

21:21:20 <TomDN> Luc: A single, comprehensive document

Luc Moreau: A single, comprehensive document

21:21:56 <TomDN> ivan: What about the 2 extra terms in owl. Which namespace would that be?

Ivan Herman: What about the 2 extra terms in owl. Which namespace would that be?

21:22:00 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

21:22:02 <lebot> @hook, the "put it all together" approach is what we agreed to do for dictionary

Timothy Lebo: @hook, the "put it all together" approach is what we agreed to do for dictionary

21:22:04 <TomDN> Luc: same for XML

Luc Moreau: same question for for XML

21:22:16 <TomDN> s/same/same question for
21:22:23 <lebot> didn't we agree that the dictionary term URIs were "reserved" in our namespace?

Timothy Lebo: didn't we agree that the dictionary term URIs were "reserved" in our namespace?

21:22:57 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

21:22:58 <TomDN> pgroth: same solution as with the other notes

Paul Groth: same solution as with the other notes

21:23:53 <TomDN> ivan: has to be made clear that these are not standard properties

Ivan Herman: has to be made clear that these are not standard properties

21:24:39 <TomDN> pgroth: We have prov-aq.owl, prov-dc.owl, etc.

Paul Groth: We have prov-aq.owl, prov-dc.owl, etc.

21:25:12 <hook> @lebot, thanks for clarifying.

Hook Hua: @lebot, thanks for clarifying.

21:25:13 <TomDN> ... Eventually, we'll create a "super" owl file including everything, with clear commenting what is standard and what not

... Eventually, we'll create a "super" owl file including everything, with clear commenting what is standard and what not

21:25:46 <TomDN> ivan: So it'll all be in the same namespace. And I am happy with that

Ivan Herman: So it'll all be in the same namespace. And I am happy with that

21:27:17 <TomDN> Topic: Vote for CR

13. Vote for CR

Summary: It was approved that prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed.

<Luc>Summary: It was approved that prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed.
21:27:25 <jcheney> should we formally close 475??

James Cheney: should we formally close 475??

21:29:28 <pgroth> close ISSUE-475

Paul Groth: close ISSUE-475

21:29:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-475 Request to drop "mention" and related elements closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-475 Request to drop "mention" and related elements closed

21:30:33 <pgroth> action: Luc to update public response on mention

ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention

21:30:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Update public response on mention [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-136 - Update public response on mention [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].

21:30:42 <pgroth> proposed: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed

PROPOSED: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed

21:30:44 <jcheney> what is the record for number of issues?

James Cheney: what is the record for number of issues?

21:30:49 <TomDN> +1

+1

21:30:52 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

21:30:55 <Curt> +1

Curt Tilmes: +1

21:30:58 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

21:30:58 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

21:30:59 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

21:30:59 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1

21:30:59 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

21:31:02 <lebot> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

21:31:04 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI)

21:31:26 <pgroth> +1 (VUA)

Paul Groth: +1 (VUA)

21:31:30 <Luc> +1 (Southampton)

Luc Moreau: +1 (Southampton)

21:31:44 <pgroth> accepted: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed

RESOLVED: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed

21:31:47 <smiles> Sorry, got to go now. Talk to you tomorrow

Simon Miles: Sorry, got to go now. Talk to you tomorrow

21:32:17 <Zakim> -smiles

Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles

21:33:56 <Curt> zakim, who is here

Curt Tilmes: zakim, who is here

21:33:56 <Zakim> Curt, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: Curt, you need to end that query with '?'

21:34:02 <Curt> zakim, who is here?

Curt Tilmes: zakim, who is here?

21:34:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, [IPcaller]

21:34:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, hook, MacTed, lebot, laurent, TomDN, SamCoppens, ivan, Luc, pgroth, RRSAgent, Zakim, zednik, trackbot, stain

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, hook, MacTed, lebot, laurent, TomDN, SamCoppens, ivan, Luc, pgroth, RRSAgent, Zakim, zednik, trackbot, stain

21:34:37 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

21:39:51 <TomDN> Topic: PROV-AQ

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

14. PROV-AQ

Summary: The document has been essentially dormant since last release, but last week, Graham started to process issues. He summarized the work he had done since. The issue of derenferencing bundle identifiers was discussed, with a view to decide whether it belongs to this document or not. It was noted that dereferencing a bundle identifier is not different than dereferencing an entity identifier. It was also noted that other working groups are addressing this issue. So, while the issue is not entirely out-of-scope, it was felt that a lightweight approach should be adopted by the editors.

<Luc>Summary:  The document has been essentially dormant since last release, but last week, Graham started to process issues.  He summarized the work he had done since.  The issue of derenferencing bundle identifiers was discussed, with a view to decide whether it belongs to this document or not. It was noted that dereferencing a bundle identifier is not different than dereferencing an entity identifier.   It was also noted that other working groups are addressing this issue. So, while the issue is not entirely out-of-scope, it was felt that a lightweight approach should be adopted by the editors.
21:40:06 <GK> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/12cd1aaa575a/paq/prov-aq.html

Graham Klyne: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/12cd1aaa575a/paq/prov-aq.html

21:40:11 <TomDN> Luc: It would be good to hear from the editors and set a time for a next release

Luc Moreau: It would be good to hear from the editors and set a time for a next release

21:40:23 <TomDN> GK: Until about a week ago there was no progress.

Graham Klyne: Until about a week ago there was no progress.

21:40:38 <TomDN> ... In the last week I started going through the issue list

... In the last week I started going through the issue list

21:40:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

21:40:46 <TomDN> ... 25 are pending review

... 25 are pending review

21:44:02 <TomDN> GK: There were 2 issues I'd like some feedback on

Graham Klyne: There were 2 issues I'd like some feedback on

21:44:17 <TomDN> ... One is link relations or full URIs

... One is link relations or full URIs

21:45:25 <TomDN> tlebo: If there's something I can edit in the document, I could settle my raised issues

Timothy Lebo: If there's something I can edit in the document, I could settle my raised issues

21:45:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:45:33 <TomDN> GK: Just let me know what the changes are

Graham Klyne: Just let me know what the changes are

21:47:05 <TomDN> ivan: rel="provenance" is something that isn't defined by HTML yet

Ivan Herman: rel="provenance" is something that isn't defined by HTML yet

21:47:19 <TomDN> ... if you use full URIs, you don't have that problem

... if you use full URIs, you don't have that problem

21:47:31 <TomDN> pgroth: can you use those in the header of an HTTP request?

Paul Groth: can you use those in the header of an HTTP request?

21:47:37 <TomDN> ivan: not sure

Ivan Herman: not sure

21:47:42 <TomDN> GK: I think it might work

Graham Klyne: I think it might work

21:47:52 <TomDN> ivan: Another option is RDFa

Ivan Herman: Another option is RDFa

21:48:01 <TomDN> ... prov:provenance

... prov:provenance

21:48:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:48:32 <Luc> ack iv

Luc Moreau: ack iv

21:48:51 <TomDN> ivan: Might be good to talk to the Linked Data Profile WG

Ivan Herman: Might be good to talk to the Linked Data Profile WG

21:49:17 <lebot> q+ to say I think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say I think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.

21:50:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:51:26 <TomDN> ... I am not familiar with all the details of their spec, but it makes sense to try and comply with their method

... I am not familiar with all the details of their spec, but it makes sense to try and comply with their method

21:51:39 <TomDN> ... Making it clear that we arent talking about a REC

... Making it clear that we arent talking about a REC

21:52:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

21:52:23 <TomDN> tlebo:  think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.

Timothy Lebo: think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.

21:52:42 <TomDN> GK: So we basically agree to push ahead with URIs

Graham Klyne: So we basically agree to push ahead with URIs

21:52:48 <Luc> ack tleb

Luc Moreau: ack tleb

21:52:51 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

21:53:52 <TomDN> GK: Paul raised an issue about introducing roles of consumer and publisher

Graham Klyne: Paul raised an issue about introducing roles of consumer and publisher

21:54:13 <TomDN> ... I've taken that on board in the discovery section, so you may want to review.

... I've taken that on board in the discovery section, so you may want to review.

21:54:33 <TomDN> pgroth: Locating provenance information section?

Paul Groth: Locating provenance information section?

21:54:36 <TomDN> GK: yes

Graham Klyne: yes

21:55:08 <TomDN> GK: We are also dropping the reference to POWDER

Graham Klyne: We are also dropping the reference to POWDER

21:55:47 <TomDN> pgroth: Do we still want best practice in this document?

Paul Groth: Do we still want best practice in this document?

21:56:49 <TomDN> ivan: This also might be interesting to discuss with the LDP WG

Ivan Herman: This also might be interesting to discuss with the LDP WG

21:58:05 <TomDN> Luc: Do want a discussion on bundle identifiers? And how we access their content?

Luc Moreau: Do want a discussion on bundle identifiers? And how we access their content?

21:59:16 <TomDN> ... When are we aiming for the next release?

... When are we aiming for the next release?

21:59:30 <TomDN> GK: last time I checked, by the end of this month

Graham Klyne: last time I checked, by the end of this month

22:00:00 <TomDN> .. at least with the outstanding issues resolved and ready for another round of review

.. at least with the outstanding issues resolved and ready for another round of review

22:00:12 <TomDN> Luc: So the end of the year would be feasible?

Luc Moreau: So the end of the year would be feasible?

22:00:29 <TomDN> ... And do we synchronize with the family of specs?

... And do we synchronize with the family of specs?

22:00:35 <TomDN> ivan: Absolutely

Ivan Herman: Absolutely

22:01:39 <TomDN> pgroth: I would like an implementation of AQ

Paul Groth: I would like an implementation of AQ

22:01:51 <TomDN> ... using the example corpus of provenance

... using the example corpus of provenance

22:02:05 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:02:08 <TomDN> ... Also, the document should be cleaner

... Also, the document should be cleaner

22:02:33 <TomDN> ... (e.g. best practices inside the document)

... (e.g. best practices inside the document)

22:02:49 <TomDN> ... smaller would also be good

... smaller would also be good

22:03:48 <TomDN> pgroth: We should aim for a release cycle by the end of the year

Paul Groth: We should aim for a release cycle by the end of the year

22:04:36 <TomDN> Luc: As we did with the DM, we can release an internal draft for review of specific people

Luc Moreau: As we did with the DM, we can release an internal draft for review of specific people

22:04:44 <TomDN> GK: I'll give it a shot

Graham Klyne: I'll give it a shot

22:04:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:05:15 <TomDN> GK: Question for the group: What do we do with the issues that have been there for a long time?

Graham Klyne: Question for the group: What do we do with the issues that have been there for a long time?

22:05:55 <TomDN> Luc: We should send out reminders

Luc Moreau: We should send out reminders

22:06:08 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5

22:06:37 <TomDN> pgroth: I'll set a date for all the pending reviews

Paul Groth: I'll set a date for all the pending reviews

22:06:43 <TomDN> GK: sounds good

Graham Klyne: sounds good

22:07:14 <Luc> action: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review

ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review

22:07:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-137 - Organize closure of issues closed pending review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-137 - Organize closure of issues closed pending review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].

22:07:58 <TomDN> Luc: We're trying to close the ones created before summer, specifically

Luc Moreau: We're trying to close the ones created before summer, specifically

22:09:07 <TomDN> Luc: Anything specific (technical) that you'd like to discuss now?

Luc Moreau: Anything specific (technical) that you'd like to discuss now?

22:09:15 <TomDN> GK: Not really

Graham Klyne: Not really

22:09:40 <TomDN> pgroth: I just need to respond to your responses

Paul Groth: I just need to respond to your responses

22:09:46 <lebot> q+ to ask, "aren't I 75% of the pending reviews?"

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask, "aren't I 75% of the pending reviews?"

22:10:35 <lebot> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

22:11:27 <TomDN> Luc: Do we want to say something about dereferencing bundle identifiers to obtain the content of a bundle?

Luc Moreau: Do we want to say something about dereferencing bundle identifiers to obtain the content of a bundle?

22:11:48 <TomDN> ... Currently, we don't have a mechanism for that

... Currently, we don't have a mechanism for that

22:13:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:13:07 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

22:13:31 <TomDN> ivan: Intuitively, I'd say you GET a set of provenance statements

Ivan Herman: Intuitively, I'd say you GET a set of provenance statements

22:14:15 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

22:14:18 <TomDN> ... in some serialization

... in some serialization

22:14:34 <TomDN> ... depending on content negotation

... depending on content negotation

22:14:41 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:14:43 <TomDN> ... (RDF or XML)

... (RDF or XML)

22:14:46 <lebot> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

22:14:50 <lebot> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

22:14:55 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

22:15:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

22:15:24 <Curt> and PROV-JSON!

Curt Tilmes: and PROV-JSON!

22:15:40 <TomDN> jcheney: Naïvely, it seems that PROV-N and PROV-XML define what a PROV document is, and that has a name/identifier

James Cheney: Naïvely, it seems that PROV-N and PROV-XML define what a PROV document is, and that has a name/identifier

22:16:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:16:21 <TomDN> ... Are we saying that the URIs of the bundles in that document should be dereferencable?

... Are we saying that the URIs of the bundles in that document should be dereferencable?

22:16:24 <Luc> ack jc

Luc Moreau: ack jc

22:16:32 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

22:16:35 <ivan> ack jcheney

Ivan Herman: ack jcheney

22:17:14 <Luc> ack leb

Luc Moreau: ack leb

22:17:43 <TomDN> lebot: I propose an alternative HTTP response: at least one triple would come back, saying that the type is prov:bundle

Timothy Lebo: I propose an alternative HTTP response: at least one triple would come back, saying that the type is prov:bundle

22:17:44 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

22:18:00 <TomDN> @lebot: (is that about right, Tim?)

@lebot: (is that about right, Tim?)

22:18:07 <pgroth> that's actually how we do it the paq

Paul Groth: that's actually how we do it the paq

22:19:05 <TomDN> Luc: What if the bundle name is not a URL, so you can't dereference it

Luc Moreau: What if the bundle name is not a URL, so you can't dereference it

22:19:27 <TomDN> ... We may have UUIDs...

... We may have UUIDs...

22:19:53 <lebot> I think s/UUID/hash(graph)/ helps phrase the discussion better.

Timothy Lebo: I think s/hash(graph)/hash(graph)/ helps phrase the discussion better.

22:20:10 <TomDN> s/UUID/hash(graph)
22:20:25 <lebot> @TomDN No, @luc means UUID.

Timothy Lebo: @TomDN No, @luc means UUID.

22:20:36 <lebot> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

22:20:37 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:20:42 <Luc> ack lu

Luc Moreau: ack lu

22:20:49 <TomDN> Zakim, never minds that last s/

Zakim, never minds that last s/

22:20:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'never minds that last s/', TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'never minds that last s/', TomDN

22:21:16 <lebot> VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with void:dataDump and dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL ]

Timothy Lebo: VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with void:dataDump and dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL ]

22:21:25 <GK> q+ to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where possible

Graham Klyne: q+ to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where possible

22:21:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:22:06 <Luc> ack ivan

Luc Moreau: ack ivan

22:22:09 <TomDN> ivan: Coming back to James's question. If we're talking about an ID, do we mean a document or a bundle?

Ivan Herman: Coming back to James's question. If we're talking about an ID, do we mean a document or a bundle?

22:23:10 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:23:17 <TomDN> ... The file containing the bundles is conceptually different from the bundles

... The file containing the bundles is conceptually different from the bundles

22:24:16 <TomDN> ... I'd like to get the bundle in 1 place

... I'd like to get the bundle in 1 place

22:24:34 <lebot> VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with ?bundle void:dataDump <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> and ?bundle dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> ] .

Timothy Lebo: VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with ?bundle void:dataDump <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> and ?bundle dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> ] .

22:25:28 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:25:39 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

22:25:47 <TomDN> pgroth: another way to put it is:How do you retrieve the description of an entity?

Paul Groth: another way to put it is:How do you retrieve the description of an entity?

22:25:52 <lebot> solve the problem for Entity, you've solved the problem for Bundle.

Timothy Lebo: solve the problem for Entity, you've solved the problem for Bundle.

22:26:14 <TomDN> ... It might be out of scope, but we have to look into that

... It might be out of scope, but we have to look into that

22:26:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:26:36 <TomDN> ... "Given the identifier of an entity, how do we get the provenance for that? "

... "Given the identifier of an entity, how do we get the provenance for that? "

22:27:15 <lebot> This sounds more difficult and less finished than "mention"...

Timothy Lebo: This sounds more difficult and less finished than "mention"...

22:27:33 <TomDN> ivan: My advice is to sit down with other WGs that specialize in that

Ivan Herman: My advice is to sit down with other WGs that specialize in that

22:27:35 <lebot> (but, not a CR...)

Timothy Lebo: (but, not a CR...)

22:28:20 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

22:28:26 <TomDN> GK: there are many things we /could/ specify. But we should focus on the simple stuff first

Graham Klyne: there are many things we /could/ specify. But we should focus on the simple stuff first

22:29:04 <TomDN> GK: So we start to sketch our own thoughts on the matter, and then go to other WGs

Graham Klyne: So we start to sketch our own thoughts on the matter, and then go to other WGs

22:29:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

22:29:09 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk

22:29:09 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where

22:29:12 <Zakim> ... possible

Zakim IRC Bot: ... possible

22:29:30 <TomDN> pgroth: To me, we should go and look what LDP does

Paul Groth: To me, we should go and look what LDP does

22:29:53 <TomDN> ... Because, in a linked data context, all that stuff is already defined

... Because, in a linked data context, all that stuff is already defined

22:30:10 <TomDN> ... Do we want interoperability in this space?

... Do we want interoperability in this space?

22:30:32 <TomDN> ... The linked data community is trying to tackle that, we don't have the manpower for it

... The linked data community is trying to tackle that, we don't have the manpower for it

22:31:02 <TomDN> ... I want to focus on "Is the way we do it, the best, simplest, correct way to do it?"

... I want to focus on "Is the way we do it, the best, simplest, correct way to do it?"

22:31:46 <TomDN> Luc: conclusion: this issue is out of scope?

Luc Moreau: conclusion: this issue is out of scope?

22:32:06 <TomDN> GK: We should just be careful about which route we go down on

Graham Klyne: We should just be careful about which route we go down on

22:32:41 <TomDN> Luc: So the editors will come up with a lightweight approach

Luc Moreau: So the editors will come up with a lightweight approach

22:33:56 <TomDN> pgroth: I think the best practice should be separate

Paul Groth: I think the best practice should be separate

22:34:31 <TomDN> ... That way the document becomes nice and small, and very clear

... That way the document becomes nice and small, and very clear

22:34:36 <TomDN> ... and easy to implement

... and easy to implement

22:34:49 <TomDN> ... and then all the bundle/SPARQL stuff separate

... and then all the bundle/SPARQL stuff separate

22:35:20 <Luc> proposed: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596

PROPOSED: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596

22:35:48 <Luc> accepted: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596

RESOLVED: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596

22:36:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

22:36:34 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended

22:36:34 <Zakim> Attendees were MIT531, [IPcaller], smiles, Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were MIT531, [IPcaller], smiles, Paolo

22:37:19 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

22:37:28 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

22:37:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html pgroth

22:37:45 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

22:37:45 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

22:37:45 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is

22:37:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

22:37:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html trackbot

22:37:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-actions.rdf :

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-actions.rdf :

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc editor check [1]

ACTION: Luc editor check [1]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T13-59-00

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T13-59-00

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check [2]

ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check [2]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-05-18

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-05-18

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given) [3]

ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given) [3]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-10-52

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-10-52

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page [4]

ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page [4]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-14-45

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-14-45

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document [5]

ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document [5]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-28-16

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-28-16

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o [6]

ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o [6]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-38-29

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-38-29

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [7]

ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [7]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-44-48

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-44-48

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o [8]

ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o [8]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-59-59

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-59-59

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [9]

ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [9]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-24-32

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-24-32

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints [10]

ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints [10]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-40-53

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-40-53

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page [11]

ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page [11]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-42-00

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-42-00

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview [12]

ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview [12]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T18-25-24

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T18-25-24

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [13]

ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [13]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-26-28

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-26-28

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: TomDN  draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [14]

ACTION: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [14]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-28-14-1

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-28-14-1

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc create a mention of document [15]

ACTION: luc create a mention of document [15]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-20-10

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-20-10

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention [16]

ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention [16]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-30-33

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-30-33

22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review [17]

ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review [17]

22:37:54 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T22-07-14

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T22-07-14



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#5) generated 2012-11-20 23:16:21 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None