16:18:29 <Paolo> pgroth: a number of issues on the list by GK

Paul Groth: a number of issues on the list by GK ←

16:18:34 <GK> I just joined the call.  Will trtyto field any questions.

Graham Klyne: I just joined the call. Will trtyto field any questions. ←

16:18:50 <pgroth> i think i will do it

Paul Groth: i think i will do it ←

16:18:57 <Paolo> GK: (very hard to hear)

Graham Klyne: (very hard to hear) ←

16:18:57 <ivan> graham, we do not understand you

Ivan Herman: graham, we do not understand you ←

16:19:00 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←

16:19:25 <GK> OK.  VOIP problems again.

Graham Klyne: OK. VOIP problems again. ←

16:19:31 <Paolo> pgroth: (reporting for GK)

Paul Groth: (reporting for GK) ←

16:20:07 <Paolo> pgroth: major proposal ew need comments on: we introduced a description of content negotiation -- in spec. provenance services

Paul Groth: major proposal ew need comments on: we introduced a description of content negotiation -- in spec. provenance services ←

16:20:16 <Paolo> pgroth: this is new to the doc

Paul Groth: this is new to the doc ←

16:20:52 <Paolo> pgroth: also updated def. of prov services description, specifically on whether our use of RDF for service description is appropriate

Paul Groth: also updated def. of prov services description, specifically on whether our use of RDF for service description is appropriate ←

16:21:25 <Paolo> pgroth: also support for SPARQL query endpoints that can answer questions about provenance

Paul Groth: also support for SPARQL query endpoints that can answer questions about provenance ←

16:21:39 <Paolo> pgroth: does that reuire a new link type? (?)

Paul Groth: does that require a new link type? (?) ←

16:22:07 <Paolo> pgroth: also provenance pingback -- forward pointers to provenance

Paul Groth: also provenance pingback -- forward pointers to provenance ←

16:22:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:22:19 <GK> It's not using *provenance* from somewhere else…. it's generating provenance somewhere else...

Graham Klyne: It's not using *provenance* from somewhere else…. it's generating provenance somewhere else... ←

16:22:20 <Paolo> s/reuire/require

16:22:38 <GK> … i.e. using the resource, and being able to provide priovenance back to the resource spublisher

Graham Klyne: … i.e. using the resource, and being able to provide priovenance back to the resource spublisher ←

16:22:58 <GK> Im thinkl you giot it.

Graham Klyne: Im thinkl you giot it. ←

16:23:23 <Paolo> pgroth: please all look a these issues and contribute to the discussion on the list

Paul Groth: please all look a these issues and contribute to the discussion on the list ←

16:23:38 <Paolo> pgroth: hopefully all sorted by 2nd week in Jan

Paul Groth: hopefully all sorted by 2nd week in Jan ←

16:23:41 <GK> I also need to follow up some responses from LDP particpants

Graham Klyne: I also need to follow up some responses from LDP particpants ←

16:23:50 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Dictionary

<pgroth> Tom  and Sam presented a draft of the prov-dictionary note. They went through some issues and changes that they wanted to discuss with the group. The conclusion was to circulate these with the group before an internal review.

Paul Groth: Tom and Sam presented a draft of the prov-dictionary note. They went through some issues and changes that they wanted to discuss with the group. The conclusion was to circulate these with the group before an internal review. ←

16:23:52 <TomDN> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html

Tom De Nies: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html ←

16:24:25 <TomDN> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/PROV-Dictionary_discussion.txt

Tom De Nies: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/PROV-Dictionary_discussion.txt ←

16:24:53 <Paolo> TomDN: need to open the txt file above to follow the discussion...

Tom De Nies: need to open the txt file above to follow the discussion... ←

16:25:28 <Paolo> TomDN: problems with the constraints and notation the editors did not like

Tom De Nies: problems with the constraints and notation the editors did not like ←

16:25:39 <Paolo> TomDN: txt file includes new proposed notation

Tom De Nies: txt file includes new proposed notation ←

16:26:28 <Paolo> TomDN: problem is that all membership must be in one relation. This won't work for long lists

Tom De Nies: problem is that all membership must be in one relation. This won't work for long lists ←

16:27:14 <Paolo> TomDN: propose the hadMember notation to align with Collections. multiple such statements are allowed

Tom De Nies: propose the hadMember notation to align with Collections. multiple such statements are allowed ←

16:27:44 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

16:27:56 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan ←

16:28:12 <tlebo> It's been a while since this group's made a design decision. Do we still remember how to do this ;-)

Timothy Lebo: It's been a while since this group's made a design decision. Do we still remember how to do this ;-) ←

16:28:19 <Paolo> TomDN: the proposed change is local to the dictionary doc

Tom De Nies: the proposed change is local to the dictionary doc ←

16:28:23 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:28:26 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

16:28:31 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles ←

16:29:08 <tlebo> KeyValue pairs can be Entities.

Timothy Lebo: KeyValue pairs can be Entities. ←

16:29:09 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←

16:29:18 <Paolo> smiles: is that really true that this has no effect in prov-n?  now the second parameter is no longer an entity

Simon Miles: is that really true that this has no effect in prov-n? now the second parameter is no longer an entity ←

16:29:38 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:29:41 <Paolo> TomDN: yes but that's one of the extensions for dictionary

Tom De Nies: yes but that's one of the extensions for dictionary ←

16:29:57 <pgroth> ack

Paul Groth: ack ←

16:30:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

16:30:30 <GK> Hmmm.. if entities can be key-value pairs, then maybe can align with LDP containers proposal more?

Graham Klyne: Hmmm.. if entities can be key-value pairs, then maybe can align with LDP containers proposal more? ←

16:30:39 <Paolo> pgroth: if there are no issues with this, it's ok to go ahead with the changes, but give the group an opportunity to review them

Paul Groth: if there are no issues with this, it's ok to go ahead with the changes, but give the group an opportunity to review them ←

16:31:04 <tlebo> +1 on issue 1

Timothy Lebo: +1 on ISSUE-1 ←

16:31:14 <Luc> just stepping in, without having heard the discussion: it may be problematic to have hadMember(c,{k,e})  {k,e} is not an entity, but e is

Luc Moreau: just stepping in, without having heard the discussion: it may be problematic to have hadMember(c,{k,e}) {k,e} is not an entity, but e is ←

16:31:22 <Paolo> TomDN: issue 2 is on completeness of dictionaries

Tom De Nies: ISSUE-2 is on completeness of dictionaries ←

16:31:32 <GK> cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#linked-data-platform-container

Graham Klyne: cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#linked-data-platform-container ←

16:32:16 <Paolo> TomDN: old notation (with the 'true" flag) is problematic -- see the comment in txt file, section 2

Tom De Nies: old notation (with the 'true" flag) is problematic -- see the comment in txt file, section 2 ←

16:33:07 <Paolo> TomDN: proposed / alt 1: add complete attribute to dictionary itself

Tom De Nies: proposed / alt 1: add complete attribute to dictionary itself ←

16:33:11 <MacTed> GK - is there a conflict between LDP containers and what we're discussing (i.e., would what's here break LDP containers)?  note that PROV is general case, and LDP is a specific case, so they needn't be in perfect sync; e.g., LDP may be more restrictive

Ted Thibodeau: GK - is there a conflict between LDP containers and what we're discussing (i.e., would what's here break LDP containers)? note that PROV is general case, and LDP is a specific case, so they needn't be in perfect sync; e.g., LDP may be more restrictive ←

16:33:16 <GK> I'm worried that this might fall foul of RDF monotonicity

Graham Klyne: I'm worried that this might fall foul of RDF monotonicity ←

16:34:24 <Paolo> TomDN: proposed alt 2: start from EmptyDictionary, then insert

Tom De Nies: proposed alt 2: start from EmptyDictionary, then insert ←

16:34:38 <Paolo> TomDN: the result must be complete

Tom De Nies: the result must be complete ←

16:34:39 <GK> @MacTed - not seeing any breakage, just trying to make sure we're aware and making sure things can be used together.  I guess my thinking is that (if it makes sense) use LDP structure as base and focus PROV effort on container-based provenance

Graham Klyne: @MacTed - not seeing any breakage, just trying to make sure we're aware and making sure things can be used together. I guess my thinking is that (if it makes sense) use LDP structure as base and focus PROV effort on container-based provenance ←

16:34:43 <Paolo> q+

q+ ←

16:34:54 <MacTed> GK - I'm not understanding your concern.  "RDF monotonicity" meaning?

Ted Thibodeau: GK - I'm not understanding your concern. "RDF monotonicity" meaning? ←

16:35:09 <tlebo> I'm not sure you'd "be sure" that it's complete in ALTERNATIVE 2... since other derivations could have inserted elements.

Timothy Lebo: I'm not sure you'd "be sure" that it's complete in ALTERNATIVE 2... since other derivations could have inserted elements. ←

16:35:25 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

16:35:25 <GK> @macted - meaning that it should not be possible to invalidfate anyinference by adding a new RDF statement

Graham Klyne: @macted - meaning that it should not be possible to invalidfate anyinference by adding a new RDF statement ←

16:35:43 <MacTed> GK - "Linked Data Platform" is not parallel to nor core of "Linked Data" nor "RDF".  interpretation based on naming is unfortunate.

Ted Thibodeau: GK - "Linked Data Platform" is not parallel to nor core of "Linked Data" nor "RDF". interpretation based on naming is unfortunate. ←

16:36:36 <tlebo> +1 to "I'm telling you that I think it's closed" as opposed to relying on walking through a derivation to see.

Timothy Lebo: +1 to "I'm telling you that I think it's closed" as opposed to relying on walking through a derivation to see. ←

16:36:38 <Paolo> Paolo: does alt 2 really entail completeness?

Paolo Missier: does alt 2 really entail completeness? ←

16:36:41 <GK> i.e. whenever   a |= b   then a \/ x |= b for any x, where a, b and x are RDF graphs.

Graham Klyne: i.e. whenever a |= b then a \/ x |= b for any x, where a, b and x are RDF graphs. ←

16:37:01 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:37:37 <Paolo> pgroth: can we leave both of these in the draft and have people discuss/select?

Paul Groth: can we leave both of these in the draft and have people discuss/select? ←

16:37:54 <Paolo> TomDN: sec. 3 is on constraints

Tom De Nies: sec. 3 is on constraints ←

16:37:58 <GK> @macted - agreed, but if it makes sense to re-use it seems that would be a Good Thing.

Graham Klyne: @macted - agreed, but if it makes sense to re-use it seems that would be a Good Thing. ←

16:39:25 <Zakim> +Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc ←

16:40:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:40:39 <Paolo> TomDN: seeking help with the very last constraint

Tom De Nies: seeking help with the very last constraint ←

16:41:32 <Paolo> jcheney: conclusion of the rule can be fixed and formalized (each member of d1 is also a member of d2 and vice versa)

James Cheney: conclusion of the rule can be fixed and formalized (each member of d1 is also a member of d2 and vice versa) ←

16:41:50 <Paolo> jcheney: this requires a more expressive logic than what we currently use

James Cheney: this requires a more expressive logic than what we currently use ←

16:42:00 <Paolo> q+

q+ ←

16:42:08 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

16:42:25 <MacTed> GK - I think LDP is too much moving target, and also too much "subset" to be considered for this re-use.

Ted Thibodeau: GK - I think LDP is too much moving target, and also too much "subset" to be considered for this re-use. ←

16:43:57 <Paolo> Paolo: last constraint effectively *defines* that provenance of dictionaries is complete

Paolo Missier: last constraint effectively *defines* that provenance of dictionaries is complete ←

16:44:42 <Paolo> pgroth: next steps: you could solicit a discussion on these issues, and then go for a proper review

Paul Groth: next steps: you could solicit a discussion on these issues, and then go for a proper review ←

16:45:10 <Paolo> pgroth: or: we do a draft first, then "discuss by review"

Paul Groth: or: we do a draft first, then "discuss by review" ←

16:45:12 <GK> @macted I more than partly agree.   OTOH, don't want to completely ignore what seems to be a significant effort.  I was specifically asked to consider LDP views for PROV-AQ stuff (which I know isn't the same thing, but the principle seems applicabl;e).

Graham Klyne: @macted I more than partly agree. OTOH, don't want to completely ignore what seems to be a significant effort. I was specifically asked to consider LDP views for PROV-AQ stuff (which I know isn't the same thing, but the principle seems applicabl;e). ←

16:45:52 <Paolo> TomDN: agree on option 1

Tom De Nies: agree on option 1 ←

16:46:03 <Paolo> pgroth: so please start a discussion and then we will appoint reviewers

Paul Groth: so please start a discussion and then we will appoint reviewers ←

16:46:54 <Paolo> TomDN: nothing about prov-xml in the doc. are the prov-xml people planning to implement dictionaries? if so they would be best placed to add this part

Tom De Nies: nothing about prov-xml in the doc. are the prov-xml people planning to implement dictionaries? if so they would be best placed to add this part ←

16:47:05 <tlebo> seems like it's not stable enough to fill out the PROV-XML examples.

Timothy Lebo: seems like it's not stable enough to fill out the PROV-XML examples. ←

16:47:17 <Paolo> pgroth: best to first agree on these issues, add XML examples later

Paul Groth: best to first agree on these issues, add XML examples later ←

16:47:25 <TomDN> :)

Tom De Nies: :) ←

16:47:27 <tlebo> +1 great stuff, @TomDN

Timothy Lebo: +1 great stuff, @TomDN ←

16:47:28 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-xml

<pgroth> Summary: Stephan gave an update. We discussed the problem of upper case and lower case names causing some confusion about the relationship between PROV-XML and RDF/XML. One idea was to ensure that the document level elements were shown within examples.

16:47:35 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

16:47:35 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

16:47:45 <TomDN> @tlebo, tnx!

16:47:48 <Paolo> pgroth: status update?

16:48:06 <Paolo> zednik: FPWD with good feedback from the group

16:48:23 <Paolo> zednik: still processing the feedback

16:48:54 <Paolo> zednik: need to differentiate the two XML serial. that we have (one native, one for prov-o)

16:49:16 <Paolo> zednik: will add naming conventions to the editor's draft. should be ready very soon

16:49:21 <smiles> Could someone raise an issue for the primer, so I can be clear what is required?

16:49:40 <pgroth> q?

16:49:54 <Paolo> pgroth: any feedback from xml people?

16:50:13 <hook> we also got feedback from Stian on namespaces http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvXMLNamespaces

16:50:16 <Paolo> zednik: early to tell

16:50:29 <Paolo> pgroth: comments?

16:50:29 <pgroth> q?

16:50:38 <smiles> q+

16:51:04 <pgroth> ack smiles

16:51:40 <pgroth> -- prov:Entity

16:51:47 <pgroth> <prov:entity

16:52:01 <Paolo> pgroth: people who looked at the XMl in the primer under Turtle, thought it was for the RDF. that was confusing

16:52:09 <zednik> q+

16:52:10 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

16:52:18 <Paolo> pgroth: need to clarify

16:53:04 <zednik> q-

16:53:42 <MacTed> putting an inline comment in the example(s) might be worthwhile...

16:54:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

16:54:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

16:54:19 <Paolo> smiles: problem is there are many examples, it would be messy

16:55:09 <Paolo> MacTed: there is a risk we are creating confusion, can't expect others to be clear about the distinction amongst the XML versions

16:55:09 <tlebo> @smiles, perhaps replace "XML Example (hide all)" with "PROV-XML Example (hide all)"+= link to prov-xml in every title to an example.

16:55:29 <Paolo> pgroth: it's just a matter of clarifying that prov-xml is not prov-o xml

16:55:53 <zednik> q+

16:55:56 <Paolo> pgroth: only have one type of XML serial visible

16:56:13 <pgroth> ack zednik

16:56:13 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

16:56:13 <tlebo> -.5 to @pgroth 's "show only one"

16:56:13 <smiles> @tlebo Could do, certainly, but I'm not clear if it completely solves the problem

16:56:14 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

16:56:37 <tlebo> @smiles every bit throughout helps.

16:56:43 <Paolo> zednik: technically it can be easy to add the message to convey the distinction without too much manual effort

16:56:51 <pgroth> that's fair enough

16:56:53 <Curt> Would it be worth adding a sentence in the OVERVIEW saying PROV-XML is not an RDF/XML version of PROV-O (in addition to adding to primer)

16:57:00 <Paolo> zednik: we should present rather than hide the distinction

16:57:16 <Luc> q+

16:57:25 <pgroth> ack Luc

16:57:30 <MacTed> +1 present distinction, don't hid it.  confusion won't only come in *here* -- what happens when PROV-XML is encountered in the wild, and taken for RDF/XML?

16:57:53 <smiles> q+

16:57:54 <tlebo> +1 to seeing the entire document. That's why PROV-O's examples have full TTL in every one.

16:58:05 <Paolo> Luc: XML examples contain just entities, if we added the context, would it be clear enough indication that it's native XML

16:58:09 <pgroth> ack smiles

16:58:20 <tlebo> (and adding the <xml> bit at the very top)

16:58:23 <Paolo> Luc: i.e., by adding the root elements to the examples

16:58:32 <zednik> +1 to show entire <prov:document> in xml examples

16:58:51 <pgroth> Topic: Namespace

<pgroth> Summary: Brief updates on creating consolidated documents (XML, RDF, HTML) for hosting at the prov namespace.

16:59:11 <Luc> @smiles: instead of say XML example, can we say PROV-XML example?

16:59:11 <Paolo> pgroth: status update on XML namespace:?

16:59:36 <tlebo> yup, I"m fine with it.

17:00:27 <tlebo> ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to the @xmlns: issue...

17:00:30 <Paolo> pgroth: on merging multiple docs into one ns in XML:?

17:00:42 <Paolo> zednik: need to look at what stian is proposing

17:01:19 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#

17:01:46 <Paolo> pgroth: need a glossary off the landing page

17:02:04 <pgroth> q+

17:02:06 <pgroth> q?

17:02:09 <MacTed> +1 "say PROV-XML example"

17:02:10 <pgroth> ack pgroth

17:02:23 <tlebo> bye!

17:02:25 <SamCoppens> bye!

17:02:27 <dgarijo> bye

17:02:29 <Zakim> -tlebo

17:02:30 <Zakim> -TomDN

17:02:31 <Zakim> -jun

17:02:32 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

17:02:32 <Zakim> -MacTed

17:02:34 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

17:02:35 <Zakim> -jcheney

17:02:35 <Zakim> -dgarijo

17:02:36 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc

17:02:36 <Zakim> -Paolo

17:02:36 <Zakim> -??P37

17:02:36 <Dong> bye all

17:02:38 <Zakim> -??P54

17:02:40 <GK> Bye

17:02:40 <Zakim> -Luc

17:02:43 <Zakim> -pgroth

17:02:45 <zednik> bye

17:02:47 <Zakim> -GK

17:03:00 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

17:03:04 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

17:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-prov-minutes.html pgroth

17:03:10 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

17:03:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

17:03:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, MacTed, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +44.131.467.aaaa, dgarijo, jun, ivan, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, +1.818.731.aacc, +329331aadd, TomDN,

17:03:13 <Zakim> ... jcheney, SamCoppens, GK, Satya_Sahoo, Luc

17:03:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

17:03:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/13-prov-minutes.html trackbot

17:03:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

17:03:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items