Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed.
The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email.
Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul
Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response.
The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
15:52:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc ←
15:52:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:52:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:52:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes ←
15:52:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:52:41 <trackbot> Date: 10 January 2013
15:52:42 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:52:42 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes ←
15:52:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.10
15:53:07 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:22 <pgroth> rrsagent, make log publics
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make log publics ←
15:53:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
15:53:38 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Khalid Belhajjame, Jun Zhao, Paolo Missier, zednik, hook
15:59:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
15:59:45 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.238.059.aaaa ←
15:59:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:59:55 <pgroth> can someone scribe?
Paul Groth: can someone scribe? ←
16:02:00 <pgroth> weka
Paul Groth: weka ←
16:02:19 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aabb ←
16:02:21 <pgroth> mallet
Paul Groth: mallet ←
16:02:47 <jcheney> zakim, aabb is me
James Cheney: zakim, aabb is me ←
16:02:47 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it ←
16:03:06 <pgroth> scribe: jcheney
(Scribe set to James Cheney)
16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P33
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P33 ←
16:03:18 <jcheney> topic: Admin
Summary: Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed.
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed.
16:04:43 <Zakim> + +329331aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aacc ←
16:04:48 <jcheney> pgroth: WF4Ever meeting so lots of people away
Paul Groth: WF4Ever meeting so lots of people away ←
16:04:52 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, +32 is me ←
16:04:52 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN; got it ←
16:04:52 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10 ←
16:05:03 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
Tom De Nies: Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN ←
16:05:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←
16:05:05 <jcheney> pgroth: any objections to minutes?
Paul Groth: any objections to minutes? ←
16:05:34 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-03
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-03 ←
16:05:44 <jcheney> ... minutes from last week
... minutes from last week ←
16:05:59 <pgroth> accepted: January 3, 2012 minutes
RESOLVED: January 3, 2012 minutes ←
16:06:10 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
16:06:10 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
16:06:11 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
16:06:24 <jcheney> ... open action items:
... open action items: ←
16:06:43 <Luc> close action-154
Luc Moreau: close ACTION-154 ←
16:06:43 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-154 Review the test cases.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-154 Review the test cases. ←
16:06:47 <jcheney> ... closing some that were closed last week
... closing some that were closed last week ←
16:06:47 <Luc> close action-155
Luc Moreau: close ACTION-155 ←
16:06:47 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-155 Review the test cases.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-155 Review the test cases. ←
16:07:03 <jcheney> ..stefan working on xml namespace
..stefan working on xml namespace ←
16:07:14 <jcheney> ... paul to send note on implementations, will do today/tomorrow
... paul to send note on implementations, will do today/tomorrow ←
16:07:28 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
Summary: The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email.
<pgroth> Summary: The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email.
16:07:28 <jcheney> ...stephan working on xml namespace
...stephan working on xml namespace ←
16:07:46 <jcheney> ... was hoping for update from stephan (who gets the emails)
... was hoping for update from stephan (who gets the emails) ←
16:08:05 <jcheney> ... would like to see how to make a report from survey results
... would like to see how to make a report from survey results ←
16:08:12 <Luc> 10 implementations, 5 vocab extensions
Luc Moreau: 10 implementations, 5 vocab extensions ←
16:08:15 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
16:08:44 <jcheney> ... Now have 9 impls, 5 vocabulary extensions
... Now have 9 impls, 5 vocabulary extensions ←
16:08:53 <jcheney> ... Would like to know what these are
... Would like to know what these are ←
16:09:09 <pgroth> action: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires
ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires ←
16:09:09 <trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>. ←
16:09:22 <pgroth> action: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires
ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires ←
16:09:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-158 - Send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17]. ←
16:09:41 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results ←
16:10:04 <jcheney> ivan: can see all the responses
Ivan Herman: can see all the responses ←
16:10:23 <jcheney> pgroth: who has done what? why can't anyone else see it?
Paul Groth: who has done what? why can't anyone else see it? ←
16:10:31 <Luc> moj@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, dtm@ecs.soton.ac.uk, tdh@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dong.huynh@soton.ac.uk, donght@soton.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, amir.keshavarz@gmail.com, caron.clement@gmail.com,
Luc Moreau: moj@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, dtm@ecs.soton.ac.uk, tdh@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dong.huynh@soton.ac.uk, donght@soton.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, amir.keshavarz@gmail.com, caron.clement@gmail.com, ←
16:10:40 <Luc> these are the responders
Luc Moreau: these are the responders ←
16:10:45 <Luc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/email-list
Luc Moreau: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/email-list ←
16:11:01 <jcheney> ivan: <listing some of the responses>
Ivan Herman: <listing some of the responses> ←
16:11:56 <Luc> that's my 10 :-)
Luc Moreau: that's my 10 :-) ←
16:11:59 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/results
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/results ←
16:12:30 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←
16:12:30 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
16:13:17 <jcheney> ivan: should be visible to members of "this group" but not sure which group it is.
Ivan Herman: should be visible to members of "this group" but not sure which group it is. ←
16:13:30 <jcheney> ... vocabulary extensions: 5 for prov-o, none for others
... vocabulary extensions: 5 for prov-o, none for others ←
16:13:43 <Luc> irene.celino@gmail.com, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, rpalma@man.poznan.pl,
Luc Moreau: irene.celino@gmail.com, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, rpalma@man.poznan.pl, ←
16:13:48 <Luc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/email-list
Luc Moreau: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/email-list ←
16:13:54 <jcheney> q+
q+ ←
16:14:14 <jcheney> ivan: what would extension mean for prov-n?
Ivan Herman: what would extension mean for prov-n? ←
16:14:40 <Luc> you could write an xml schema that extends prov-xml schema (but this is not recommendation track)
Luc Moreau: you could write an xml schema that extends prov-xml schema (but this is not recommendation track) ←
16:14:40 <jcheney> pgroth: no results for vocabulary usage
Paul Groth: no results for vocabulary usage ←
16:14:43 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:14:49 <jcheney> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/closed
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/closed ←
16:15:51 <jcheney> jcheney: the questionnaires are in the "Test Group". Can we move them to our group?
James Cheney: the questionnaires are in the "Test Group". Can we move them to our group? ←
16:15:53 <pgroth> action: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group
ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group ←
16:15:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-159 - Send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17]. ←
16:16:07 <jcheney> ivan: this may be a mistake... will ask sysadmins if it can be fixed
Ivan Herman: this may be a mistake... will ask sysadmins if it can be fixed ←
16:16:14 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:16:17 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:16:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:16:30 <jcheney> ivan: do you want to see the feature coverage?
Ivan Herman: do you want to see the feature coverage? ←
16:17:11 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to see feature coverage & interoperability in implementation report
Paul Groth: would like to see feature coverage & interoperability in implementation report ←
16:17:21 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results ←
16:17:21 <pgroth> [4:06pm]
Paul Groth: [4:06pm] ←
16:18:21 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy
zakim, who is noisy ←
16:18:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney ←
16:18:23 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy?
zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:18:33 <Zakim> jcheney, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (4%), ??P33 (55%), Ivan (48%)
Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (4%), ??P33 (55%), Ivan (48%) ←
16:18:44 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33
zakim, mute ??P33 ←
16:18:44 <Zakim> ??P33 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ??P33 should now be muted ←
16:19:16 <jcheney> @ivan: could you make a screenshot of results and people can look at it off-line?
@ivan: could you make a screenshot of results and people can look at it off-line? ←
16:19:22 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:20:11 <jcheney> luc: we have 4 impls that write Entity and 5 that read / write Entity
Luc Moreau: we have 4 impls that write Entity and 5 that read / write Entity ←
16:20:11 <pgroth> yeah that's correct
Paul Groth: yeah that's correct ←
16:20:56 <jcheney> ivan: then averages are meaningful: 4.56 is good
Ivan Herman: then averages are meaningful: 4.56 is good ←
16:21:38 <jcheney> pgroth: for entity, agent we're fine
Paul Groth: for entity, agent we're fine ←
16:22:09 <jcheney> luc: 6 say no support for invalidation, 1 r/o, 2 r/2. can we assume one reads what the other has written?
Luc Moreau: 6 say no support for invalidation, 1 r/o, 2 r/2. can we assume one reads what the other has written? ←
16:22:30 <jcheney> pgroth: would be good to see the actual people, so we can check this
Paul Groth: would be good to see the actual people, so we can check this ←
16:23:15 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to make this public/group readable, and see where there are gaps
Paul Groth: would like to make this public/group readable, and see where there are gaps ←
16:23:19 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
16:23:20 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:23:26 <jcheney> ivan: sounds reasonable
Ivan Herman: sounds reasonable ←
16:23:36 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:24:07 <jcheney> luc: just after averages table there are details, but only for two responses - why?
Luc Moreau: just after averages table there are details, but only for two responses - why? ←
16:24:19 <Dong> that's what I see as well
Trung Huynh: that's what I see as well ←
16:24:56 <jcheney> ivan: can see all 9 rows
Ivan Herman: can see all 9 rows ←
16:25:04 <jcheney> ... with all responses
... with all responses ←
16:25:20 <jcheney> pgroth: we need to see what ivan sees asap
Paul Groth: we need to see what ivan sees asap ←
16:25:30 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:26:00 <jcheney> pgroth: wanted to ask dong what we expect back on constraints
Paul Groth: wanted to ask dong what we expect back on constraints ←
16:26:05 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:26:22 <jcheney> ... should they email prov-public-comments or fill out a form or what?
... should they email prov-public-comments or fill out a form or what? ←
16:26:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:26:47 <pgroth> no dong
Paul Groth: no dong ←
16:26:48 <Luc> dong?
Luc Moreau: dong? ←
16:26:56 <jcheney> zakim, unmute ??P33
zakim, unmute ??P33 ←
16:26:56 <Zakim> ??P33 should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ??P33 should no longer be muted ←
16:27:06 <jcheney> zakim, ??P33 is Dong
zakim, ??P33 is Dong ←
16:27:06 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it ←
16:27:37 <jcheney> Dong: Decided to use questionnaire and not email, haven't removed email yet, will do soon
Trung Huynh: Decided to use questionnaire and not email, haven't removed email yet, will do soon ←
16:27:59 <jcheney> ... put link in call for implementations
... put link in call for implementations ←
16:28:08 <pgroth> it's not on the main page
Paul Groth: it's not on the main page ←
16:28:42 <jcheney> pgroth: will update main page after changes made
Paul Groth: will update main page after changes made ←
16:28:45 <pgroth> i will do that
Paul Groth: i will do that ←
16:28:48 <jcheney> Dong: need to update front page
Trung Huynh: need to update front page ←
16:28:59 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33
zakim, mute ??P33 ←
16:28:59 <Zakim> sorry, jcheney, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P33
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, jcheney, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P33 ←
16:29:04 <jcheney> zakim, mute Dong
zakim, mute Dong ←
16:29:04 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Dong should now be muted ←
16:29:13 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Dictionary
Summary: Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul
<pgroth> Summary: Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul
16:29:19 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:29:19 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted ←
16:29:47 <jcheney> TomDN: prov-dict pushed just before call; everything done except prov-xml
Tom De Nies: prov-dict pushed just before call; everything done except prov-xml ←
16:29:58 <jcheney> ... can be reviewed starting tomorrow
... can be reviewed starting tomorrow ←
16:30:08 <jcheney> ... incorporates results of discussion on mailing list
... incorporates results of discussion on mailing list ←
16:30:25 <jcheney> ... can be considered for fpwd after review
... can be considered for fpwd after review ←
16:30:28 <TomDN> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html
Tom De Nies: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html ←
16:30:39 <jcheney> pgroth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review
Paul Groth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review ←
16:30:46 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:31:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
Summary: Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
<pgroth> Summary: Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
16:31:06 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:31:12 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←
16:31:12 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
16:31:20 <jcheney> Luc: can we confirm reviewers for prov-dictionary?
Luc Moreau: can we confirm reviewers for prov-dictionary? ←
16:31:55 <jcheney> pgroth: paolo, stian, james(?), luc, pgroth
Paul Groth: paolo, stian, james(?), luc, pgroth ←
16:31:57 <Luc> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul
Luc Moreau: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul ←
16:32:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:32:08 <Luc> ack luc
Luc Moreau: ack luc ←
16:32:19 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0032.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0032.html ←
16:32:49 <jcheney> pgroth: reviewable version is available, questions for review in issue 613
Paul Groth: reviewable version is available, questions for review in ISSUE-613 ←
16:32:58 <jcheney> ... would like feedback on pingback
... would like feedback on pingback ←
16:33:10 <pgroth> Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
Paul Groth: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian ←
16:33:14 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:33:14 <jcheney> ... "last call" before prov-aq released as ready for implementation
... "last call" before prov-aq released as ready for implementation ←
16:33:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:33:59 <jcheney> ... deadline for review is thursday next week
... deadline for review is thursday next week ←
16:34:19 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o encoding constraints
Summary: The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response.
<pgroth> Summary: The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response.
16:34:26 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612 ←
16:34:46 <jcheney> pgroth: comments from two implementors working with prov-o and constraints
Paul Groth: comments from two implementors working with prov-o and constraints ←
16:35:08 <jcheney> ... looking for constraints implementable in OWL to be part of prov-o
... looking for constraints implementable in OWL to be part of prov-o ←
16:35:40 <jcheney> ... this was discussed and resolved not to do this earlier, but this could be an implementation technique
... this was discussed and resolved not to do this earlier, but this could be an implementation technique ←
16:35:46 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:35:50 <jcheney> ... how to address?
... how to address? ←
16:36:22 <jcheney> Luc: no consensus for derivation to be transitive; we voted against this and it is not a constraint in the document.
Luc Moreau: no consensus for derivation to be transitive; we voted against this and it is not a constraint in the document. ←
16:37:01 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
16:37:15 <jcheney> luc: should review & approve responses, but would be good to tell them this specific point
Luc Moreau: should review & approve responses, but would be good to tell them this specific point ←
16:37:34 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:37:37 <Luc> action: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive
ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive ←
16:37:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-01-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-160 - Write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-01-17]. ←
16:37:41 <pgroth> ack Ivan
Paul Groth: ack Ivan ←
16:38:01 <jcheney> ivan: what is wrong with putting expressible constraints in separate document?
Ivan Herman: what is wrong with putting expressible constraints in separate document? ←
16:38:33 <jcheney> ... don't see a case for editing prov-o core document
... don't see a case for editing prov-o core document ←
16:39:06 <jcheney> pgroth: fine if people (in or out of wg) want to encode constraints, but not necessarily part of wg delierables
Paul Groth: fine if people (in or out of wg) want to encode constraints, but not necessarily part of wg deliverables ←
16:39:14 <jcheney> s/delierables/deliverables/
16:39:27 <jcheney> ivan: if wg members do this, we can at least publish it somewhere
Ivan Herman: if wg members do this, we can at least publish it somewhere ←
16:39:28 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:39:42 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:39:47 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
16:40:07 <jcheney> Luc: need to respond to reviewers, along lines Paul gave
Luc Moreau: need to respond to reviewers, along lines Paul gave ←
16:40:16 <jcheney> ... open questions whether some/all constraints implementable and how
... open questions whether some/all constraints implementable and how ←
16:40:52 <jcheney> ... wg decided to view this as an implementation issue, we can offer to gather experiences with this/axioms suggested by implementors
... wg decided to view this as an implementation issue, we can offer to gather experiences with this/axioms suggested by implementors ←
16:41:27 <jcheney> pgroth: sounds fine, but it seems to come up - should we say this in prov-o or constraints saying this?
Paul Groth: sounds fine, but it seems to come up - should we say this in prov-o or constraints saying this? ←
16:42:11 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:42:17 <jcheney> Luc: seems reasonable. not sure where. james?
Luc Moreau: seems reasonable. not sure where. james? ←
16:43:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:44:16 <jcheney> jcheney: could put disclaimer/explanation in constraints, maybe signpost elsewhere
James Cheney: could put disclaimer/explanation in constraints, maybe signpost elsewhere ←
16:44:39 <jcheney> pgroth: could say something in overview, prov-o also
Paul Groth: could say something in overview, prov-o also ←
16:45:10 <pgroth> action: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints
ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints ←
16:45:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-161 - Draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17]. ←
16:45:28 <pgroth> topic: Test cases response
Summary: The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
16:45:36 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/611
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/611 ←
16:46:34 <jcheney> pgroth: james responded to questions about constraints; this seems fine as response to that part if wg can endorse
Paul Groth: james responded to questions about constraints; this seems fine as response to that part if wg can endorse ←
16:46:44 <jcheney> ... also asked about prov-constraints test cases
... also asked about prov-constraints test cases ←
16:46:54 <jcheney> ... should they be part of spec?
... should they be part of spec? ←
16:47:07 <pgroth> We
Paul Groth: We ←
16:47:07 <pgroth> would like to see test suites for the other operational parts of PROV,
Paul Groth: would like to see test suites for the other operational parts of PROV, ←
16:47:07 <pgroth> in particular for testing inferences separate from validation.
Paul Groth: in particular for testing inferences separate from validation. ←
16:47:26 <jcheney> ... in particular, in a normative place.
... in particular, in a normative place. ←
16:47:39 <jcheney> ... and would like further test cases for other documents
... and would like further test cases for other documents ←
16:47:43 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:47:45 <jcheney> ... how should we respond
... how should we respond ←
16:47:54 <jcheney> ivan: why do they want it in normative spec?
Ivan Herman: why do they want it in normative spec? ←
16:48:11 <jcheney> pgroth: if normative, then better interoperability (they say)
Paul Groth: if normative, then better interoperability (they say) ←
16:48:42 <jcheney> ivan: that's a matter of opinion. otoh, if list of test cases become normative, cannot extend them later, or would have normative & non-normative tests
Ivan Herman: that's a matter of opinion. otoh, if list of test cases become normative, cannot extend them later, or would have normative & non-normative tests ←
16:49:00 <jcheney> ... if test suite is non-normative, then we have capability to add new tests even when docs published
... if test suite is non-normative, then we have capability to add new tests even when docs published ←
16:49:14 <jcheney> ... had this in rdfa wg
... had this in rdfa wg ←
16:49:23 <Dong> q+
Trung Huynh: q+ ←
16:49:46 <jcheney> ... discrepancies between implementations arose, which were addressed through additional tests
... discrepancies between implementations arose, which were addressed through additional tests ←
16:49:52 <Dong> Zakim, unmute me
Trung Huynh: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:49:52 <Zakim> Dong should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Dong should no longer be muted ←
16:49:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:50:26 <jcheney> Dong: if we move test cases into normative, are we saying that an impl that passes all test cases are compliant? We would have two definitions
Trung Huynh: if we move test cases into normative, are we saying that an impl that passes all test cases are compliant? We would have two definitions ←
16:50:34 <jcheney> ... test cases and original spec
... test cases and original spec ←
16:50:44 <jcheney> ... cannot be sure that test cases cover all constraints.
... cannot be sure that test cases cover all constraints. ←
16:50:59 <jcheney> ... would provide false sense of ciompliance
... would provide false sense of compliance ←
16:51:00 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:51:03 <pgroth> ack Dong
Paul Groth: ack Dong ←
16:51:06 <Dong> Zakim, mute me
Trung Huynh: Zakim, mute me ←
16:51:06 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Dong should now be muted ←
16:51:06 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:51:08 <jcheney> s/ciompliance/compliance
16:51:33 <jcheney> Luc: other issue is that we don't have formal mappings / equivalence between the serializations
Luc Moreau: other issue is that we don't have formal mappings / equivalence between the serializations ←
16:51:39 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:51:50 <jcheney> ... it could be that some test cases would work in prov-n and not rdf or vice versa.
... it could be that some test cases would work in prov-n and not rdf or vice versa. ←
16:52:07 <jcheney> ... not in favor of normative test cases
... not in favor of normative test cases ←
16:52:40 <jcheney> ... do we need other test cases for other specs?
... do we need other test cases for other specs? ←
16:52:49 <jcheney> (previous line is pgroth)
(previous line is pgroth) ←
16:52:57 <jcheney> pgroth: do we need other test cases for other specs?
Paul Groth: do we need other test cases for other specs? ←
16:52:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:53:04 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:53:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:54:08 <jcheney> Luc: the test suite contains typical examples expressed in prov-n, prov-o. what else could we do beyond having weird examples to exercise syntax?
Luc Moreau: the test suite contains typical examples expressed in prov-n, prov-o. what else could we do beyond having weird examples to exercise syntax? ←
16:54:17 <jcheney> ... more interesting to have useful provenance examples
... more interesting to have useful provenance examples ←
16:54:49 <jcheney> pgroth: test cases provide example repository, can be used to test compliance with other specs
Paul Groth: test cases provide example repository, can be used to test compliance with other specs ←
16:54:55 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:55:03 <Luc> this was a suggestion from the SW coordination group that we have a set of useful provenance examples
Luc Moreau: this was a suggestion from the SW coordination group that we have a set of useful provenance examples ←
16:55:22 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:55:28 <jcheney> pgroth: we seem to have outline of response
Paul Groth: we seem to have outline of response ←
16:55:49 <jcheney> Luc: important to try to provide responses promptly because they are trying to implement and may be waiting before submitting reports
Luc Moreau: important to try to provide responses promptly because they are trying to implement and may be waiting before submitting reports ←
16:56:10 <Luc> i have updated page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
Luc Moreau: i have updated page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR ←
16:56:13 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:56:36 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:56:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Luc will do response to Kerry, Paul will respond to general question need one for test cases and their comments on constraints
Paul Groth: Luc will do response to Kerry, Paul will respond to general question need one for test cases and their comments on constraints ←
16:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: created page for responses
Luc Moreau: created page for responses ←
16:58:04 <jcheney> ... suggest we assign people to address these
... suggest we assign people to address these ←
16:58:53 <jcheney> pgroth: prov-o (611) essentially same as 612 about encoding constraints in owl, paul will do these
Paul Groth: prov-o (611) essentially same as 612 about encoding constraints in owl, paul will do these ←
16:59:22 <jcheney> ... jcheney will do 611 (constraints)
... jcheney will do 611 (constraints) ←
17:00:06 <Dong> ok
Trung Huynh: ok ←
17:00:09 <jcheney> ... 611 (normative test cases) - Dong
... 611 (normative test cases) - Dong ←
17:00:32 <jcheney> ... can we do this by monday?
... can we do this by monday? ←
17:01:20 <jcheney> Luc: who will do test cases for other specifications?
Luc Moreau: who will do test cases for other specifications? ←
17:01:24 <jcheney> pgroth: will do that
Paul Groth: will do that ←
17:01:39 <jcheney> pgroth: goal do send for approval by wg on monday
Paul Groth: goal do send for approval by wg on monday ←
17:01:46 <jcheney> pgroth: goal to send for approval by wg on monday
Paul Groth: goal to send for approval by wg on monday ←
17:01:52 <jcheney> ... so we can send back on tuesday
... so we can send back on tuesday ←
17:01:54 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:02:42 <jcheney> pgroth: seems uncontroversial so hopefully we can approve over mailing list
Paul Groth: seems uncontroversial so hopefully we can approve over mailing list ←
17:02:47 <jcheney> ... or at least try
... or at least try ←
17:02:59 <Dong> Monday is fine for my part
Trung Huynh: Monday is fine for my part ←
17:03:16 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:03:30 <SamCoppens> Bye
Sam Coppens: Bye ←
17:03:34 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
17:03:34 <Zakim> - +44.238.059.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.238.059.aaaa ←
17:03:34 <Zakim> -??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P7 ←
17:03:36 <Zakim> -TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN ←
17:03:46 <Dong> bye everyone
Trung Huynh: bye everyone ←
17:03:47 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
17:03:49 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:03:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
17:03:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
17:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
17:04:03 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
17:04:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:04:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong ←
17:04:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:04:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-actions.rdf : ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [1]
ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [1] ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-09
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-09 ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [2]
ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [2] ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-22
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-22 ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [3]
ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [3] ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-15-53
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-15-53 ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [4]
ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [4] ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-37-37
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-37-37 ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [5]
ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [5] ←
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-45-10
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-45-10 ←
17:04:13 <Zakim> -Dong
Zakim IRC Bot: -Dong ←
17:04:14 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
17:04:14 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2013-01-11 09:36:43 UTC by 'pgroth', comments: 'got rid of irc errors and added summaries'