Minutes were approved after a correction from Stian.
We are getting more reports. For PROV-O we have now satisfied the exit criteria. For PROV-N Tom, Dong and Paolo were encouraged to get there implementations interchanging PROV-N with another implementation. All working group members were encouraged to submit reports.
Public Response on wasQuotedFrom
Simon summarised his response to ISSUE-616 about the description of wasQuotedFrom in the primer. The group approved the response.
PROV-O outstanding issue on inferences
The group discussed the issue of some inferences from prov-constraints being encoded in prov-o as an artefact of the prov-o design process. Tim agreed to do a survey of which constraints are currently proposed and to draft a response that gave a rationale behind the current design of prov-o for the encoding of inferences.
Tom went over the results of the prov-dictionary reviews and how they are addressing the issues. The group agreed to release as public working draft conditional on blocking issues being resolved or noted in the draft.
The status of PROV-XML was discussed. The group primarily had a discussion of which identifier scheme should be used. A key outcome was a set of guidance for selecting approach, namely, that PROV-XML should work well with XML tooling, allow for "scruffy provenance" and be able to link to other prov serializations. The editors agreed to revisit the current solutions at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers. The editors requested that comments on the namespace solution be sent to the email list.
15:53:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-prov-irc ←
15:53:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:53:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:53:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
15:53:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:53:11 <trackbot> Date: 24 January 2013
15:53:14 <pgroth> zakim, this will be PROV
Paul Groth: zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:53:14 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
15:53:22 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.24
15:53:30 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:37 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
(Scribe set to Curt Tilmes)
15:53:45 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
15:54:04 <pgroth> Regrets: Graham Klyne
15:57:00 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
15:57:07 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←
15:57:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:57:42 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Paul Groth: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
15:57:43 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it ←
15:58:31 <Curt> scribe: Curt
15:59:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:59:20 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aaaa ←
15:59:20 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Luc Moreau: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
15:59:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it ←
15:59:30 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me
Stian Soiland-Reyes: zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me ←
15:59:30 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
16:00:41 <Zakim> +tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo ←
16:00:49 <stain> minutes from last week, btw: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17
Stian Soiland-Reyes: minutes from last week, btw: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17 ←
16:01:23 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
16:01:29 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P8 is me ←
16:01:29 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
16:01:30 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.24
Ted Thibodeau: TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.24 ←
16:01:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
16:01:46 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
16:01:46 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
16:01:47 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:01:47 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
16:02:06 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
Summary: Minutes were approved after a correction from Stian.
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes were approved after a correction from Stian.
16:02:06 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aabb ←
16:02:13 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
16:02:17 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17 ←
16:02:21 <smiles> zakim, ??P10 is smiles
Simon Miles: zakim, ??P10 is smiles ←
16:02:21 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it ←
16:02:22 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:02:25 <Curt> +1
+1 ←
16:02:25 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:02:26 <stain> -1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: -1 ←
16:02:27 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:02:32 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:02:34 <stain> All reviewers have submitted their report. All are fine for a new working draft to be released.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: All reviewers have submitted their report. All are fine for a new working draft to be released. ←
16:02:47 <jcheney> 0 was away
James Cheney: 0 was away ←
16:02:57 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:03:16 <Luc> that was my understanding too
Luc Moreau: that was my understanding too ←
16:03:35 <Zakim> +jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney ←
16:03:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:03:55 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
16:03:55 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it ←
16:04:27 <Curt> pgroth: Will edit minutes to indicate Stain not ready to approve release
Paul Groth: Will edit minutes to indicate Stain not ready to approve release ←
16:04:50 <Curt> pgroth: will delete the line about ready to release working draft
Paul Groth: will delete the line about ready to release working draft ←
16:04:53 <stain> Stain: had not said yes/no to it being released as WD (I don't remember that being mentioned at all) but I said no for it to be last working draft.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: had not said yes/no to it being released as WD (I don't remember that being mentioned at all) but I said no for it to be last working draft. [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
16:04:56 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-17 ←
16:05:04 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
16:05:13 <Zakim> +TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN ←
16:05:17 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of Jan. 17, 2013
RESOLVED: Minutes of Jan. 17, 2013 ←
16:05:32 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←
16:05:32 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
16:05:34 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
16:06:07 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
Summary: We are getting more reports. For PROV-O we have now satisfied the exit criteria. For PROV-N Tom, Dong and Paolo were encouraged to get there implementations interchanging PROV-N with another implementation. All working group members were encouraged to submit reports.
<pgroth> Summary: We are getting more reports. For PROV-O we have now satisfied the exit criteria. For PROV-N Tom, Dong and Paolo were encouraged to get there implementations interchanging PROV-N with another implementation. All working group members were encouraged to submit reports.
16:06:33 <Curt> pgroth: went through implementation reports, quite a few more submitted
Paul Groth: went through implementation reports, quite a few more submitted ←
16:06:45 <stain> I read the chat log - we agreed that we would in a later meeting vote if PROV-AQ would go out as a WD - not as LC
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I read the chat log - we agreed that we would in a later meeting vote if PROV-AQ would go out as a WD - not as LC ←
16:06:47 <Curt> ... we're ok with prov-o, need to check with prov-n to hit requirements
... we're ok with prov-o, need to check with prov-n to hit requirements ←
16:07:03 <Luc> paolo says that his implementation can consume prov-n
Luc Moreau: paolo says that his implementation can consume prov-n ←
16:07:11 <Curt> pgroth: with constraints, Paul is still working on one, should be ready to go before next week, not sure if there will be others
Paul Groth: with constraints, Paul is still working on one, should be ready to go before next week, not sure if there will be others ←
16:07:15 <stain> what about the clarkparsia one
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what about the clarkparsia one ←
16:07:19 <Curt> pgroth: may get one more, not sure
Paul Groth: may get one more, not sure ←
16:07:20 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:07:23 <Luc> maybe we can check he can consume prov-n generated by toolbox or Dong's store
Luc Moreau: maybe we can check he can consume prov-n generated by toolbox or Dong's store ←
16:07:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:07:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:07:51 <Curt> pgroth: are other reports expected?
Paul Groth: are other reports expected? ←
16:07:58 <Curt> Stephan and I will be submitting one
Stephan and I will be submitting one ←
16:07:59 <tlebo> I owe at least one :-)
Timothy Lebo: I owe at least one :-) ←
16:07:59 <Luc> GLD Org
Luc Moreau: GLD Org ←
16:08:01 <stain> I have my vocabulary to go in
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I have my vocabulary to go in ←
16:08:03 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
16:08:16 <stain> PAV
Stian Soiland-Reyes: PAV ←
16:08:22 <Luc> +q
Luc Moreau: +q ←
16:08:29 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:08:37 <Curt> luc: paolo indicated he can consume prov-n
Luc Moreau: paolo indicated he can consume prov-n ←
16:08:55 <Curt> Luc: dong's tool exports prov-n, so we can check if those implementations can exchange prov-n
Luc Moreau: dong's tool exports prov-n, so we can check if those implementations can exchange prov-n ←
16:09:00 <TomDN> not yet
Tom De Nies: not yet ←
16:09:05 <TomDN> will do next week
Tom De Nies: will do next week ←
16:09:18 <Curt> pgroth: Tom, can your's work with prov-n?
Paul Groth: Tom, can your's work with prov-n? ←
16:09:37 <Luc> no he sent regrets
Luc Moreau: no he sent regrets ←
16:09:37 <Curt> pgroth: Try to get all reports in by next week to satisfy implementation requirements
Paul Groth: Try to get all reports in by next week to satisfy implementation requirements ←
16:09:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:10:00 <Curt> pgroth: We will follow up with Paolo and Dong to try to get a prov-n repot
Paul Groth: We will follow up with Paolo and Dong to try to get a prov-n repot ←
16:10:19 <Curt> pgroth: Keep encouraging others to submit
Paul Groth: Keep encouraging others to submit ←
16:10:22 <pgroth> Topic: Public Response on wasQuotedFrom
Summary: Simon summarised his response to ISSUE-616 about the description of wasQuotedFrom in the primer. The group approved the response.
<pgroth> Summary: Simon summarised his response to ISSUE-616 about the description of wasQuotedFrom in the primer. The group approved the response.
16:11:33 <Curt> smiles: the primer was unclear in the direction of the wasQuotedFrom, sounded incorrect to the reviewer -- will revise the language in the primer
Simon Miles: the primer was unclear in the direction of the wasQuotedFrom, sounded incorrect to the reviewer -- will revise the language in the primer ←
16:11:54 <Curt> smiles: will also include something about collections, this might help explain the concepts
Simon Miles: will also include something about collections, this might help explain the concepts ←
16:12:10 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616
Paul Groth: ISSUE-616">http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616 ←
16:12:23 <Curt> pgroth: several people expressed support for simon's proposed response already
Paul Groth: several people expressed support for simon's proposed response already ←
16:12:30 <Curt> pgroth: any objections?
Paul Groth: any objections? ←
16:12:45 <pgroth> accepted: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616 as a working group response
RESOLVED: ISSUE-616">http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-616 as a working group response ←
16:12:55 <smiles> I'm happy to send it
Simon Miles: I'm happy to send it ←
16:13:14 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O outstanding issue on inferences
Summary: The group discussed the issue of some inferences from prov-constraints being encoded in prov-o as an artefact of the prov-o design process. Tim agreed to do a survey of which constraints are currently proposed and to draft a response that gave a rationale behind the current design of prov-o for the encoding of inferences.
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the issue of some inferences from prov-constraints being encoded in prov-o as an artefact of the prov-o design process. Tim agreed to do a survey of which constraints are currently proposed and to draft a response that gave a rationale behind the current design of prov-o for the encoding of inferences.
16:13:41 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0016.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0016.html ←
16:13:47 <Curt> pgroth: we responded to clarkparsia's issues, they were mostly fine with the responses except for one:
Paul Groth: we responded to clarkparsia's issues, they were mostly fine with the responses except for one: ←
16:14:03 <tlebo> do we have a start of a response to this?
Timothy Lebo: do we have a start of a response to this? ←
16:14:08 <Curt> pgroth: They are concerned we are encoded some constraints and not others and want to understand rationale
Paul Groth: They are concerned we are encoded some constraints and not others and want to understand rationale ←
16:15:02 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:15:08 <Curt> tlebo: The critique is understandable, queried James about constraints, plan is to analyze constraints and come up with a rationale for which ones are in and which ones aren't
Timothy Lebo: The critique is understandable, queried James about constraints, plan is to analyze constraints and come up with a rationale for which ones are in and which ones aren't ←
16:15:09 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:15:21 <tlebo> +1 to survey.
Timothy Lebo: +1 to survey. ←
16:15:29 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0104.html
Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0104.html ←
16:15:31 <tlebo> where is our draft response?
Timothy Lebo: where is our draft response? ←
16:15:57 <Curt> Luc: not certain we need to change prov-o, the design had a hierarchy for influence
Luc Moreau: not certain we need to change prov-o, the design had a hierarchy for influence ←
16:16:14 <pgroth> This was our original response http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-612_.28Encoding_of_Constraints_in_OWL.29
Paul Groth: This was our original response ISSUE-612_.28Encoding_of_Constraints_in_OWL.29">http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-612_.28Encoding_of_Constraints_in_OWL.29 ←
16:16:36 <tlebo> are we updating the same response for this?
Timothy Lebo: are we updating the same response for this? ←
16:16:41 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
16:16:47 <Curt> Luc: This hierarchy happens to include one of the constraints, but it isn't really included because it is a constraint, rather it is satisfied by the expression of the hierarchy
Luc Moreau: This hierarchy happens to include one of the constraints, but it isn't really included because it is a constraint, rather it is satisfied by the expression of the hierarchy ←
16:16:51 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:17:06 <dgarijo> @tlebo: I'm not been following this thread very much, but wasn't prov-o aimed to be as simple as possible (owl-RL profile)?. If no further violations happen, we could add some..
Daniel Garijo: @tlebo: I'm not been following this thread very much, but wasn't prov-o aimed to be as simple as possible (owl-RL profile)?. If no further violations happen, we could add some.. ←
16:17:10 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:17:11 <stain> +1 @Luc -- if we are to remove all subproperty/subclass rules that might happen to be also a constraint/inference - then it would just become a very flat vocabulary and not an ontology.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 @Luc -- if we are to remove all subproperty/subclass rules that might happen to be also a constraint/inference - then it would just become a very flat vocabulary and not an ontology. ←
16:17:19 <SamCoppens> zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
Sam Coppens: zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN ←
16:17:19 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←
16:17:22 <satya> +1 @Daniel
Satya Sahoo: +1 @Daniel ←
16:17:23 <dgarijo> +1 to survey as well.
Daniel Garijo: +1 to survey as well. ←
16:17:34 <Curt> tlebo: Until we understand which are in, which are out, can't respond. If we can describe a rationale that matches the implementation, that will be fine.
Timothy Lebo: Until we understand which are in, which are out, can't respond. If we can describe a rationale that matches the implementation, that will be fine. ←
16:17:39 <stain> We could however see the most obvious ones and see if they can go in without changing the design and OWL RL level - like revision-is-alternate-inference
Stian Soiland-Reyes: We could however see the most obvious ones and see if they can go in without changing the design and OWL RL level - like revision-is-alternate-inference ←
16:18:01 <dgarijo> yep.
Daniel Garijo: yep. ←
16:18:09 <Curt> pgroth: we didn't intend to include constraints in prov-o, we will create a new issue to address this
Paul Groth: we didn't intend to include constraints in prov-o, we will create a new issue to address this ←
16:18:24 <dgarijo> +q
Daniel Garijo: +q ←
16:18:33 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:18:33 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
Paul Groth: ack dgarijo ←
16:18:38 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:18:42 <Curt> dgarijo: are we planning to deliver a version with constraints?
Daniel Garijo: are we planning to deliver a version with constraints? ←
16:18:43 <Curt> pgroth: no
Paul Groth: no ←
16:18:56 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:19:10 <dgarijo> ok.
Daniel Garijo: ok. ←
16:19:14 <Curt> Luc: Back to modifying prov-o -- that would take us back to last call: we don't want to take that step lightly
Luc Moreau: Back to modifying prov-o -- that would take us back to last call: we don't want to take that step lightly ←
16:19:24 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:19:31 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:19:31 <Curt> tlebo: we'll search hard for a rule that describes the current implementation
Timothy Lebo: we'll search hard for a rule that describes the current implementation ←
16:19:54 <dgarijo> @stian : I can't hear you very well.
Daniel Garijo: @stian : I can't hear you very well. ←
16:19:56 <Curt> stain: [mumble, mumble]
Stian Soiland-Reyes: [mumble, mumble] ←
16:20:12 <Curt> stain: opposed to adding new things to current prov-o
Stian Soiland-Reyes: opposed to adding new things to current prov-o ←
16:20:48 <Curt> pgroth: we don't intend to put constraints in prov-o, but are fine if someone else develops an ontology that does so
Paul Groth: we don't intend to put constraints in prov-o, but are fine if someone else develops an ontology that does so ←
16:20:55 <stain> sorry - I was suggesting to NOT add more to PROV-O - but make something on the side (another Note) with the OWL encodings of constraints - it could be based on the work that clarkparsia has already started if the licensing/sharing of that is OK.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: sorry - I was suggesting to NOT add more to PROV-O - but make something on the side (another Note) with the OWL encodings of constraints - it could be based on the work that clarkparsia has already started if the licensing/sharing of that is OK. ←
16:21:06 <Curt> pgroth: we will describe the rationale for why certain constraints happen to be in prov-o
Paul Groth: we will describe the rationale for why certain constraints happen to be in prov-o ←
16:21:12 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:21:22 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:21:39 <satya> +1 @paul, the original design aim of prov-o was a reference ontology, so we should be careful of adding new constructs
Satya Sahoo: +1 @paul, the original design aim of prov-o was a reference ontology, so we should be careful of adding new constructs ←
16:21:40 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:21:45 <Luc> scruffy provenance
Luc Moreau: scruffy provenance ←
16:22:01 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:22:14 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:22:26 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:22:29 <Curt> Luc: Tim -- when do you think it will be ready?
Luc Moreau: Tim -- when do you think it will be ready? ←
16:22:34 <Curt> tlebo: a couple of hours at most
Timothy Lebo: a couple of hours at most ←
16:22:35 <stain> Stian: to also add to rational "why we do NOT include some 'obvious' constraints like property functionality --- basically to support expressing 'scruffy provenance' according to PROV-DM which might not be PROV-Constraint valid
Stian Soiland-Reyes: to also add to rational "why we do NOT include some 'obvious' constraints like property functionality --- basically to support expressing 'scruffy provenance' according to PROV-DM which might not be PROV-Constraint valid [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←
16:22:53 <Curt> Luc: Would be nice to draft response by Monday and send ASAP
Luc Moreau: Would be nice to draft response by Monday and send ASAP ←
16:22:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:23:51 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:23:56 <Curt> pgroth: There could be test cases for entailments -- would be fine if someone else supplied them
Paul Groth: There could be test cases for entailments -- would be fine if someone else supplied them ←
16:23:59 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:24:23 <Curt> Luc: not sure we would express them -- we are only concerned with validity of the provenance
Luc Moreau: not sure we would express them -- we are only concerned with validity of the provenance ←
16:24:40 <Dong> I wondering what would be the extra benefits of having such test cases for the working group?
Trung Huynh: I wondering what would be the extra benefits of having such test cases for the working group? ←
16:24:47 <Curt> pgroth: If someone invented the test case, we would look at it
Paul Groth: If someone invented the test case, we would look at it ←
16:25:06 <Curt> pgroth: More test cases that conform to the spec are welcome
Paul Groth: More test cases that conform to the spec are welcome ←
16:25:19 <Luc> +1
Luc Moreau: +1 ←
16:25:26 <Dong> I'm afraid that we don't have enough bandwidth for this
Trung Huynh: I'm afraid that we don't have enough bandwidth for this ←
16:25:32 <Curt> pgroth: I'll write that up and send it out with the response on the prov-o
Paul Groth: I'll write that up and send it out with the response on the prov-o ←
16:25:33 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:25:49 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
Tom De Nies: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:25:49 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted ←
16:25:51 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Dictionary
Summary: Tom went over the results of the prov-dictionary reviews and how they are addressing the issues. The group agreed to release as public working draft conditional on blocking issues being resolved or noted in the draft.
<pgroth> Summary: Tom went over the results of the prov-dictionary reviews and how they are addressing the issues. The group agreed to release as public working draft conditional on blocking issues being resolved or noted in the draft.
16:26:25 <Curt> TomDN: Looked at all the reviews, 3 already incorporated, 1 more extensive one will go in
Tom De Nies: Looked at all the reviews, 3 already incorporated, 1 more extensive one will go in ←
16:26:38 <pgroth> Zakim, who is loud?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is loud? ←
16:26:38 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, pgroth. ←
16:26:43 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:26:57 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: stain (7%)
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: stain (7%) ←
16:27:22 <stain> but I'm on mute..
Stian Soiland-Reyes: but I'm on mute.. ←
16:28:10 <TomDN> Tom: All sections got good, extensive reviews
Tom De Nies: All sections got good, extensive reviews [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:11 <TomDN> Tom: Some remaining issues:
Tom De Nies: Some remaining issues: [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:13 <TomDN> Tom: 1. (Luc) In the notation hadDictionaryMember(d, e0, "k0"), key follows entity, whereas it precedes in derivedByInsertionFrom(d2, d1, {("k1", e3)}). Should this be made uniform? Is it worth the extra effort?
Tom De Nies: 1. (Luc) In the notation hadDictionaryMember(d, e0, "k0"), key follows entity, whereas it precedes in derivedByInsertionFrom(d2, d1, {("k1", e3)}). Should this be made uniform? Is it worth the extra effort? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:15 <TomDN> Tom: 2. (Luc) http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#extensibility states: the predicate MUST be a qualifiedName with a non-empty prefix. However, we will be using the prov namespace. How do we proceed?
Tom De Nies: 2. (Luc) http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#extensibility states: the predicate MUST be a qualifiedName with a non-empty prefix. However, we will be using the prov namespace. How do we proceed? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:17 <TomDN> Tom: 3. (Luc) PROV-O: should qualifiedInsertion and qualifiedRemoval imply qualifiedDerivation? If yes, how do we specify this? Through a sub-property? Does that break anything?
Tom De Nies: 3. (Luc) PROV-O: should qualifiedInsertion and qualifiedRemoval imply qualifiedDerivation? If yes, how do we specify this? Through a sub-property? Does that break anything? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:19 <TomDN> Tom: 4. (Paolo) PROV-O: clarify delta with REC ontology
Tom De Nies: 4. (Paolo) PROV-O: clarify delta with REC ontology [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:21 <TomDN> Tom: 5. (James) Do we need inference 7 to guarantee completeness when a dictionary is derived by insertions/removals from an empty dictionary?
Tom De Nies: 5. (James) Do we need inference 7 to guarantee completeness when a dictionary is derived by insertions/removals from an empty dictionary? [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:22 <TomDN> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html#insertion-removal-membership-inference
Tom De Nies: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html#insertion-removal-membership-inference ←
16:28:24 <TomDN> Tom: 6. Stian has lots of blocking issues, and I haven't had time to address them all.
Tom De Nies: 6. Stian has lots of blocking issues, and I haven't had time to address them all. [ Scribe Assist by Tom De Nies ] ←
16:28:25 <TomDN> Most are relatively easy to fix or have been fixed already. Most work will be to create the downloadable grammar, ontology and xml schema.
Tom De Nies: Most are relatively easy to fix or have been fixed already. Most work will be to create the downloadable grammar, ontology and xml schema. ←
16:28:27 <TomDN> Propose we vote for publication as FPWD under the condition that all Stian's blockers are addressed, and that (placeholder) links are placed in the document, where the grammar, ontology and xml schema will become available next week.
Tom De Nies: Propose we vote for publication as FPWD under the condition that all Stian's blockers are addressed, and that (placeholder) links are placed in the document, where the grammar, ontology and xml schema will become available next week. ←
16:28:28 <stain> q+ To suggest just adding note on the PROV-N namespace/extension for 1WD
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ To suggest just adding note on the PROV-N namespace/extension for 1WD ←
16:28:40 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is noisy ←
16:28:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is noisy', pgroth ←
16:28:50 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:29:02 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (4%), ??P4 (4%)
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (4%), ??P4 (4%) ←
16:29:07 <Luc> given this is fpwd, grammar/schema/ontology can be released later
Luc Moreau: given this is fpwd, grammar/schema/ontology can be released later ←
16:29:32 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:29:32 <Zakim> stain, you wanted to suggest just adding note on the PROV-N namespace/extension for 1WD
Zakim IRC Bot: stain, you wanted to suggest just adding note on the PROV-N namespace/extension for 1WD ←
16:29:58 <Curt> stain: Sorry about big list of blockers, but renaming can remain as now, other yellow boxes noting changes would be ok
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Sorry about big list of blockers, but renaming can remain as now, other yellow boxes noting changes would be ok ←
16:30:27 <Curt> pgroth: Note where discussion is still underway or big changes are to come
Paul Groth: Note where discussion is still underway or big changes are to come ←
16:30:59 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft
PROPOSED: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft ←
16:31:06 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
16:31:06 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:31:07 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:31:08 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:31:16 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:31:16 <Dong> +1
Trung Huynh: +1 ←
16:31:19 <hook_> +1
16:31:21 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
16:31:26 <TomDN> conditional :)
Tom De Nies: conditional :) ←
16:31:28 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:31:29 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:31:31 <Curt> stain: is FPWD conditional on my blockers?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: is FPWD conditional on my blockers? ←
16:32:02 <pgroth> Proposed: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft conditional on addressing or noting blocking issues in the document
PROPOSED: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft conditional on addressing or noting blocking issues in the document ←
16:32:03 <Curt> pgroth: they will be addressed or noted
Paul Groth: they will be addressed or noted ←
16:32:04 <stain> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
16:32:08 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:32:09 <Curt> +1
+1 ←
16:32:10 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
16:32:11 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:32:12 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:32:13 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
16:32:14 <hook_> +1
16:32:15 <stain> q-
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q- ←
16:32:30 <pgroth> Accepted: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft conditional on addressing or noting blocking issues in the document
RESOLVED: Release Prov-dictionary as first public working draft conditional on addressing or noting blocking issues in the document ←
16:32:38 <TomDN> and sam :)
Tom De Nies: and sam :) ←
16:32:55 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-xml
Summary: The status of PROV-XML was discussed. The group primarily had a discussion of which identifier scheme should be used. A key outcome was a set of guidance for selecting approach, namely, that PROV-XML should work well with XML tooling, allow for "scruffy provenance" and be able to link to other prov serializations. The editors agreed to revisit the current solutions at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers. The editors requested that comments on the namespace solution be sent to the email list.
<pgroth> Summary: The status of PROV-XML was discussed. The group primarily had a discussion of which identifier scheme should be used. A key outcome was a set of guidance for selecting approach, namely, that PROV-XML should work well with XML tooling, allow for "scruffy provenance" and be able to link to other prov serializations. The editors agreed to revisit the current solutions at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers. The editors requested that comments on the namespace solution be sent to the email list.
16:32:56 <TomDN> zakim, mute me
Tom De Nies: zakim, mute me ←
16:32:56 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←
16:33:41 <Curt> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers ←
16:34:19 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:34:22 <Curt> hook_: wiki document summarizes options and differences between them
Hook Hua: wiki document summarizes options and differences between them ←
16:36:03 <Luc> ID is now workable since we can have multiple assertions about a given resource in a same document (whether wihtin a same bundle or different bundles)
Luc Moreau: ID is now workable since we can have multiple assertions about a given resource in a same document (whether wihtin a same bundle or different bundles) ←
16:36:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:37:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:37:55 <zednik> I have joined, sorry for the late arrival
Stephan Zednik: I have joined, sorry for the late arrival ←
16:38:17 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:38:18 <stain> q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ ←
16:38:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:39:23 <pgroth> maybe stephan can respond
Paul Groth: maybe stephan can respond ←
16:39:28 <Curt> Luc: Why assume we need uniqueness of identifiers, we need to have multiple assertions about a given resource resource in the same document
Luc Moreau: Why assume we need uniqueness of identifiers, we need to have multiple assertions about a given resource resource in the same document ←
16:40:04 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
16:40:13 <Curt> hook_: We don't have a requirement, but the uniqueness implemented by an XML would be useful, but not a hard requirement
Hook Hua: We don't have a requirement, but the uniqueness implemented by an XML would be useful, but not a hard requirement ←
16:40:41 <Curt> Luc: if you use xs:ID, it would require uniqueness
Luc Moreau: if you use xs:ID, it would require uniqueness ←
16:40:43 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
16:41:07 <Curt> zednik: looked at how parsers expect the document to act -- they expect identifiers to be unique.
Stephan Zednik: looked at how parsers expect the document to act -- they expect identifiers to be unique. ←
16:41:22 <Curt> zednik: is this something we desire or do not?
Stephan Zednik: is this something we desire or do not? ←
16:41:42 <Curt> hook_: ID/IDREF are the normal, recommended ways to handle identifiers
Hook Hua: ID/IDREF are the normal, recommended ways to handle identifiers ←
16:42:03 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:42:19 <Curt> stain: XML identifiers are useful for the external (non provenance) world
Stian Soiland-Reyes: XML identifiers are useful for the external (non provenance) world ←
16:43:00 <Curt> stain: But for provenance, we need to express certain things
Stian Soiland-Reyes: But for provenance, we need to express certain things ←
16:43:26 <Luc> good point stian
Luc Moreau: good point stian ←
16:43:31 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:43:38 <Curt> stain: Do you want to force things to be explicitly identified in that manner? It isn't required in the other forms
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Do you want to force things to be explicitly identified in that manner? It isn't required in the other forms ←
16:43:38 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:44:09 <Curt> Luc: We can express a usage between an activity and an entity without declaring them.
Luc Moreau: We can express a usage between an activity and an entity without declaring them. ←
16:44:35 <Curt> pgroth: we could also use prov:ref?
Paul Groth: we could also use prov:ref? ←
16:44:35 <stain> also some XML libraries will parse the xml:idref as if the referenced element was actually inserted there - like a symlink
Stian Soiland-Reyes: also some XML libraries will parse the xml:idref as if the referenced element was actually inserted there - like a symlink ←
16:44:45 <hook_> q+
16:44:55 <pgroth> ack hook_
Paul Groth: ack hook_ ←
16:44:59 <Zakim> -smiles
Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles ←
16:45:16 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:45:24 <stain> @pgroth - ah, so you propose a hybrid approach where you could fall back to prov:ref to be 'loose'?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @pgroth - ah, so you propose a hybrid approach where you could fall back to prov:ref to be 'loose'? ←
16:45:25 <Curt> hook_: You may want to declare activities/entities without the constraints on ids. How can we validate the trace without a formal identification?
Hook Hua: You may want to declare activities/entities without the constraints on ids. How can we validate the trace without a formal identification? ←
16:45:33 <stain> q+ it's not the job of the XML parser to do PROV validation
Stian Soiland-Reyes: q+ it's not the job of the XML parser to do PROV validation ←
16:45:39 <stain> it's not the job of the XML parser to do PROV validation
Stian Soiland-Reyes: it's not the job of the XML parser to do PROV validation ←
16:45:57 <Curt> Luc: That is the job of PROV-CONSTRAINTS.
Luc Moreau: That is the job of PROV-CONSTRAINTS. ←
16:46:40 <Curt> Luc: With constraints, you can infer those things for validity, but we also want to allow "scruffy" provenance
Luc Moreau: With constraints, you can infer those things for validity, but we also want to allow "scruffy" provenance ←
16:47:16 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aabb ←
16:47:25 <Curt> Luc: With ID, you are making a schema for a 'normal form' of provenance, but we aren't really describing that in the other documents
Luc Moreau: With ID, you are making a schema for a 'normal form' of provenance, but we aren't really describing that in the other documents ←
16:47:30 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:47:32 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:47:42 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.818.731.aacc ←
16:48:00 <Curt> stain: You can still use IDs to identify things outside of PROV
Stian Soiland-Reyes: You can still use IDs to identify things outside of PROV ←
16:48:46 <Curt> zednik: We haven't tried something like that
Stephan Zednik: We haven't tried something like that ←
16:48:55 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:49:00 <satya> * sorry, have to leave for a meeting
Satya Sahoo: * sorry, have to leave for a meeting ←
16:49:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:49:10 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
16:49:12 <Curt> pgroth: Some good feedback of the limitations to the approaches -- could you revisit the question?
Paul Groth: Some good feedback of the limitations to the approaches -- could you revisit the question? ←
16:49:53 <Curt> Luc: There are other options, in the schema we had prov:ref with xsd:QName, we could define them as in prov-n, that would work find with XSD2
Luc Moreau: There are other options, in the schema we had prov:ref with xsd:QName, we could define them as in prov-n, that would work find with XSD2 ←
16:50:12 <Curt> Luc: Consider that other option
Luc Moreau: Consider that other option ←
16:50:43 <Luc> ---- ex:001
Luc Moreau: ---- ex:001 ←
16:50:51 <Curt> Luc: If we require an identifier to be an xsd:QName, we can't use many URIs
Luc Moreau: If we require an identifier to be an xsd:QName, we can't use many URIs ←
16:50:53 <stain> some URIs can't be qname - even if you do an xmlns for it - as a qname can't have a 0-length local name
Stian Soiland-Reyes: some URIs can't be qname - even if you do an xmlns for it - as a qname can't have a 0-length local name ←
16:51:12 <stain> like... http://example.com/
Stian Soiland-Reyes: like... http://example.com/ ←
16:51:22 <hook_> q+
16:51:28 <pgroth> ack hook_
Paul Groth: ack hook_ ←
16:52:10 <Curt> hook_: I see the need for "scruffy", the XML community uses ID/IDREF, but is there something we can use that is simple, but also allows scruffy
Hook Hua: I see the need for "scruffy", the XML community uses ID/IDREF, but is there something we can use that is simple, but also allows scruffy ←
16:52:35 <Curt> hook_: perhaps the XPointers can enable the scruffiness, pointing to non-existent items
Hook Hua: perhaps the XPointers can enable the scruffiness, pointing to non-existent items ←
16:52:49 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:52:50 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:53:03 <stain> xpointer can select on anything ("has 3 children"), xpath needs element/id
Stian Soiland-Reyes: xpointer can select on anything ("has 3 children"), xpath needs element/id ←
16:53:14 <Luc> yes
Luc Moreau: yes ←
16:53:14 <Curt> pgroth: QNames are widely used in XML community, right?
Paul Groth: QNames are widely used in XML community, right? ←
16:53:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:53:48 <Curt> pgroth: where do we want to go with this? need a decision soon
Paul Groth: where do we want to go with this? need a decision soon ←
16:54:20 <Curt> pgroth: Look at other options, come up with rationale for why you think one is the best and we can discuss on the mailing list
Paul Groth: Look at other options, come up with rationale for why you think one is the best and we can discuss on the mailing list ←
16:54:32 <Curt> pgroth: You are leaning toward ID/IDREF with XPointer?
Paul Groth: You are leaning toward ID/IDREF with XPointer? ←
16:54:34 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:54:50 <Curt> zednik: It fits best with XML community, but difficult constraints for provenance
Stephan Zednik: It fits best with XML community, but difficult constraints for provenance ←
16:54:57 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:55:02 <Curt> hook_: Need to take into account need for scruffy provenance
Hook Hua: Need to take into account need for scruffy provenance ←
16:55:09 <stain> +1 - the PROV identifiers are like the open-world semantic web identifiers - they don't identify elements in an XML document, but things and activities in the world
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 - the PROV identifiers are like the open-world semantic web identifiers - they don't identify elements in an XML document, but things and activities in the world ←
16:55:41 <Curt> Luc: If I write my provenance in XML, can I use the XPointer to refer to entities in RDF? Does this require everything to be in XML?
Luc Moreau: If I write my provenance in XML, can I use the XPointer to refer to entities in RDF? Does this require everything to be in XML? ←
16:56:13 <tlebo> Why would RDF people bother with Xlink and Xpointers?
Timothy Lebo: Why would RDF people bother with Xlink and Xpointers? ←
16:56:18 <Curt> hook_: Are there implementations of RDF that can use XLink/XPointers?
Hook Hua: Are there implementations of RDF that can use XLink/XPointers? ←
16:56:23 <zednik> +1 to tlebo
Stephan Zednik: +1 to tlebo ←
16:56:39 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 to tlebo
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 to tlebo ←
16:56:43 <zednik> +q
Stephan Zednik: +q ←
16:56:50 <Curt> pgroth: You have some feedback on identifiers, can you take another look at it and come back with a new proposal or recommendation?
Paul Groth: You have some feedback on identifiers, can you take another look at it and come back with a new proposal or recommendation? ←
16:56:53 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
16:57:23 <Curt> zednik: We can come up with some constraints to drive the search for a solution: "scruffy" must be allowed, must be compatible with PROV-O provenance
Stephan Zednik: We can come up with some constraints to drive the search for a solution: "scruffy" must be allowed, must be compatible with PROV-O provenance ←
16:57:28 <stain> --- xlink:href can target anything with an URI, not just XML elements - it's just like HTML's <a href> for XML
Stian Soiland-Reyes: --- xlink:href can target anything with an URI, not just XML elements - it's just like HTML's <a href> for XML ←
16:57:57 <Luc> prov-dm says that qualified names can be mapped to uri
Luc Moreau: prov-dm says that qualified names can be mapped to uri ←
16:58:03 <Curt> zednik: We'll capture the constraints, which will probably eliminate ID/IDREF
Stephan Zednik: We'll capture the constraints, which will probably eliminate ID/IDREF ←
16:58:31 <Curt> pgroth: Other constraint is to work well with XML tools
Paul Groth: Other constraint is to work well with XML tools ←
16:58:49 <Curt> pgroth: There might not be a solution that satisfies all of those, we need a rationale for a choice
Paul Groth: There might not be a solution that satisfies all of those, we need a rationale for a choice ←
16:58:54 <hook_> q+
16:59:01 <pgroth> ack hook_
Paul Groth: ack hook_ ←
16:59:04 <stain> @Luc - so there could be two different qnames resulting in same URI - right. So if this is to be understood by regular XML tools you would have to represent everything as full URIs
Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Luc - so there could be two different qnames resulting in same URI - right. So if this is to be understood by regular XML tools you would have to represent everything as full URIs ←
16:59:21 <Curt> hook_: Constraints may be mutually exclusive, which is the most important? scruffy?
Hook Hua: Constraints may be mutually exclusive, which is the most important? scruffy? ←
16:59:43 <Curt> pgroth: We want to enable adoption by the XML community, that should be number 1
Paul Groth: We want to enable adoption by the XML community, that should be number 1 ←
16:59:49 <Luc> @stain yes, it's possible. XML tools don't map them to uris but a prov processor would
Luc Moreau: @stain yes, it's possible. XML tools don't map them to uris but a prov processor would ←
16:59:51 <stain> I guess the question is how much PROV 'tooling' do we imagine would be purely XML based - like using XPointers to find the activity that made an entity that tihs other entity was derived from
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I guess the question is how much PROV 'tooling' do we imagine would be purely XML based - like using XPointers to find the activity that made an entity that tihs other entity was derived from ←
16:59:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:59:58 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
17:00:01 <Curt> pgroth: what do others think about that?
Paul Groth: what do others think about that? ←
17:00:03 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
17:00:25 <Curt> Luc: We didn't discuss the schema namespace reorg -- I have some questions about that
Luc Moreau: We didn't discuss the schema namespace reorg -- I have some questions about that ←
17:00:35 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
17:00:44 <Curt> pgroth: Let's discuss the namespace reorg next week
Paul Groth: Let's discuss the namespace reorg next week ←
17:00:56 <stain> perhaps we can make more example documents
Stian Soiland-Reyes: perhaps we can make more example documents ←
17:00:57 <Curt> zednik: Could also put questions on mailing list and also discuss next week
Stephan Zednik: Could also put questions on mailing list and also discuss next week ←
17:01:09 <Curt> pgroth: Enough guidance for now?
Paul Groth: Enough guidance for now? ←
17:01:11 <Curt> zednik: yes
Stephan Zednik: yes ←
17:01:24 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
17:01:30 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
17:01:32 <Curt> pgroth: Those are the two big issues: identifiers and namespace?
Paul Groth: Those are the two big issues: identifiers and namespace? ←
17:01:34 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
17:01:36 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
17:01:51 <Zakim> -TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN ←
17:01:53 <Curt> Luc: We haven't resolved the ordering issue, subtyping either
Luc Moreau: We haven't resolved the ordering issue, subtyping either ←
17:01:54 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
17:01:59 <Curt> Luc: Still several other issues
Luc Moreau: Still several other issues ←
17:02:01 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
17:02:24 <Curt> zednik: Subtyping -- we modified the schema to address that, extending elements with new elements
Stephan Zednik: Subtyping -- we modified the schema to address that, extending elements with new elements ←
17:03:04 <Luc> @zednik: can you point to this message on primary source?
Luc Moreau: @zednik: can you point to this message on primary source? ←
17:03:16 <Curt> pgroth: We want to wrap this up, resolving final issues
Paul Groth: We want to wrap this up, resolving final issues ←
17:03:20 <zednik> @Luc I will look
Stephan Zednik: @Luc I will look ←
17:03:22 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:03:28 <Luc> thank
Luc Moreau: thank ←
17:03:29 <Curt> pgroth: Remember to get in implementation reports
Paul Groth: Remember to get in implementation reports ←
17:03:32 <Zakim> -tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←
17:03:35 <dgarijo> bbye
Daniel Garijo: bbye ←
17:03:36 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
17:03:41 <Dong> thanks, bye
Trung Huynh: thanks, bye ←
17:03:42 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
17:03:42 <Zakim> -pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←
17:03:42 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
17:03:47 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
17:03:49 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:03:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
17:03:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
17:03:56 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
17:03:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:03:56 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Luc, stain, tlebo, dgarijo, TallTed, +1.818.731.aabb, smiles, jcheney, khalidBelhajjame, TomDN, Satya_Sahoo,
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Luc, stain, tlebo, dgarijo, TallTed, +1.818.731.aabb, smiles, jcheney, khalidBelhajjame, TomDN, Satya_Sahoo, ←
17:03:59 <Zakim> ... SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.818.731.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: ... SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.818.731.aacc ←
17:03:59 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←
17:03:59 <Zakim> -??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P4 ←
17:03:59 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
17:04:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:04:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:04:05 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aacc ←
17:04:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:04:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2013-01-25 12:06:28 UTC by 'pgroth', comments: 'irc errors fixed and summaries added'