16:04:30 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PublicationRequestMarch12

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PublicationRequestMarch12 ←

16:04:41 <dgarijo> ... the first news is that we sent a publication request for all publications

... the first news is that we sent a publication request for all publications ←

16:04:51 <ivan> no

Ivan Herman: no ←

16:04:52 <dgarijo> ... haven't heard from the webmaster yet

... haven't heard from the webmaster yet ←

16:04:56 <ivan> zakim, unmute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←

16:04:58 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←

16:05:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

16:05:02 <dgarijo> ... ivan, are you still in MIT?

... ivan, are you still in MIT? ←

16:05:04 <dgarijo> Ivan: no

Ivan Herman: no ←

16:05:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←

16:05:48 <dgarijo> Luc: we have the transition teleconference this week where we will say whether we are ok to progress.

Luc Moreau: we have the transition teleconference this week where we will say whether we are ok to progress. ←

16:06:04 <dgarijo> Ivan: remind me tomorrow about the media type stuff

Ivan Herman: remind me tomorrow about the media type stuff ←

16:06:08 <Zakim> +??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←

16:06:10 <Zakim> +??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←

16:06:12 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←

16:06:31 <Christine> Zakim, ??P19 is Christine

Christine Runnegar: Zakim, ??P19 is Christine ←

16:06:31 <Zakim> +Christine; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Christine; got it ←

16:06:34 <TomDN> Zakim, ?P20 is probably me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, ?P20 is probably me ←

16:06:34 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not understand your question

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, TomDN, I do not understand your question ←

16:06:41 <dgarijo> Luc: I looked at the tracker and no outstanding issues against prov dm, constraints, notes, prov-o html

Luc Moreau: I looked at the tracker and no outstanding issues against prov dm, constraints, notes, prov-o html ←

16:06:46 <TomDN> Zakim, ??P20 is probably me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, ??P20 is probably me ←

16:06:46 <Zakim> +TomDN?; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN?; got it ←

16:06:49 <Zakim> +??P26

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26 ←

16:07:00 <dgarijo> ... Issue 116 is an issue against prov-o

... ISSUE-116 is an issue against prov-o ←

16:07:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10

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

16:07:15 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/610

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/610 ←

16:07:36 <dgarijo> ivan: having an issue for proposed rec is not good.

Ivan Herman: having an issue for proposed rec is not good. ←

16:07:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I think it's more related to prov-aq than prov-o

Luc Moreau: I think it's more related to prov-aq than prov-o ←

16:08:51 <dgarijo> Luc: are you talking about domain specific specializations of prov-o

Luc Moreau: are you talking about domain specific specializations of prov-o ←

16:09:14 <dgarijo> GK: No, just about query profiling. I don't think it has to do with queries.

Graham Klyne: No, just about query profiling. I don't think it has to do with queries. ←

16:09:27 <dgarijo> ivan: I don't remember this having been discussed.

Ivan Herman: I don't remember this having been discussed. ←

16:09:52 <Zakim> + +329331aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aaee ←

16:10:03 <jcheney> this seems like it could be handled in a faq/best practice doc

James Cheney: this seems like it could be handled in a faq/best practice doc ←

16:10:09 <dgarijo> ... it suggests to define subsets of prov-o with different ontologies, etc. I'm not saying that I fully understand, but I don't think we've got to do that.

... it suggests to define subsets of prov-o with different ontologies, etc. I'm not saying that I fully understand, but I don't think we've got to do that. ←

16:10:14 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaee is me

Sam Coppens: zakim, +329331aaee is me ←

16:10:14 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←

16:10:15 <dgarijo> ... it's not an aq thing

... it's not an aq thing ←

16:11:02 <dgarijo> Luc: what I would've liked is a formal response from the group

Luc Moreau: what I would've liked is a formal response from the group ←

16:11:15 <dgarijo> ... because we can't go on the call with this issue

... because we can't go on the call with this issue ←

16:11:28 <satya> The primary issue of different models for "statements, named graphs, resources" does not make sense - there is no distinction between these terms

Satya Sahoo: The primary issue of different models for "statements, named graphs, resources" does not make sense - there is no distinction between these terms ←

16:11:40 <dgarijo> GK: the sense that I'm getting is the concern about interoperability of applications

Graham Klyne: the sense that I'm getting is the concern about interoperability of applications ←

16:13:11 <satya> sort of - from RDF perspective they do not entail different "ontologies"

Satya Sahoo: sort of - from RDF perspective they do not entail different "ontologies" ←

16:13:51 <ivan> it would serve your effort greatly,

Ivan Herman: it would serve your effort greatly, ←

16:13:52 <ivan> if you would add to the standard clear specifications for the

Ivan Herman: if you would add to the standard clear specifications for the ←

16:13:52 <dgarijo> Ivan: I think it's going a bit beyond that and I don't think we want to do that

Ivan Herman: I think it's going a bit beyond that and I don't think we want to do that ←

16:13:53 <ivan> ontology subset and the interpretation to be applied to the

Ivan Herman: ontology subset and the interpretation to be applied to the ←

16:13:54 <ivan> respective terms for certain known use cases for rdf stores and

Ivan Herman: respective terms for certain known use cases for rdf stores and ←

16:13:55 <ivan> sparql services.

Ivan Herman: sparql services. ←

16:14:32 <dgarijo> ... defining subsets for various use cases. We should not do that, but we should have answered.

... defining subsets for various use cases. We should not do that, but we should have answered. ←

16:15:12 <dgarijo> ... We already had a categorization of the terms in prov-o. Not along the lines they propose, but along the lines of complexity.

... We already had a categorization of the terms in prov-o. Not along the lines they propose, but along the lines of complexity. ←

16:15:27 <dgarijo> ... They are very clearly defined subparts of prov-o and others.

... They are very clearly defined subparts of prov-o and others. ←

16:15:53 <dgarijo> ... so my answer would be that we already have sort of profiles, even though we don't call them that way

... so my answer would be that we already have sort of profiles, even though we don't call them that way ←

16:16:02 <GK> @ivan, where did your quote come from?

Graham Klyne: @ivan, where did your quote come from? ←

16:16:21 <dgarijo> ... the quote comes from the original mail

... the quote comes from the original mail ←

16:16:31 <dgarijo> (issue 610)

(ISSUE-610) ←

16:16:32 <satya> @Ivan, agree - rdf stores and sparql services are not "use cases" for creating prov-o profiles

Satya Sahoo: @Ivan, agree - rdf stores and sparql services are not "use cases" for creating prov-o profiles ←

16:16:53 <dgarijo> ... we have profiles, just not the ones he proposes.

... we have profiles, just not the ones he proposes. ←

16:17:29 <dgarijo> ... sparql services are not use cases, satya is right.

... sparql services are not use cases, satya is right. ←

16:17:42 <dgarijo> ...  we should add an apology, because we overlooked this.

... we should add an apology, because we overlooked this. ←

16:18:24 <dgarijo> Luc: the challenge is that there have been a discussion on whether this should be assigned.

Luc Moreau: the challenge is that there have been a discussion on whether this should be assigned. ←

16:18:51 <dgarijo> ivan: well, in reality is kind of a DM issue. PROV-O is just a serialization.

Ivan Herman: well, in reality is kind of a DM issue. PROV-O is just a serialization. ←

16:19:12 <dgarijo> Luc: we would need someone to spend a little of time so we can respond today to the reviewer.

Luc Moreau: we would need someone to spend a little of time so we can respond today to the reviewer. ←

16:19:24 <dgarijo> ... I can't do it before several hours.

... I can't do it before several hours. ←

16:19:56 <dgarijo> ... is there a volunteer who could draft a response shortly after the end of this call?

... is there a volunteer who could draft a response shortly after the end of this call? ←

16:20:10 <dgarijo> Ivan: I have another call right after this.

Ivan Herman: I have another call right after this. ←

16:20:23 <dgarijo> Luc: simon?

Luc Moreau: simon? ←

16:20:44 <dgarijo> smiles: I have a meeting after this one, but I can try to draft something

Simon Miles: I have a meeting after this one, but I can try to draft something ←

16:20:54 <dgarijo> ---too much echo ---

---too much echo --- ←

16:20:56 <TomDN> Zakim, who is noisy

Tom De Nies: Zakim, who is noisy ←

16:20:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is noisy', TomDN ←

16:21:02 <TomDN> Zakim, who is noisy?

Tom De Nies: Zakim, who is noisy? ←

16:21:12 <Zakim> TomDN, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P26 (29%)

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P26 (29%) ←

16:21:47 <dgarijo> ivan: simon, if you look at the irc where everything is summarized.

Ivan Herman: simon, if you look at the irc where everything is summarized. ←

16:21:58 <dgarijo> smiles: I'll try to do this now.

Simon Miles: I'll try to do this now. ←

16:22:40 <dgarijo> Luc: In PROV we don't talk about profiles ---echo---

Luc Moreau: In PROV we don't talk about profiles ---echo--- ←

16:23:13 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:23:17 <dgarijo> Luc: is that ok?

Luc Moreau: is that ok? ←

16:23:23 <dgarijo> smiles: I'll gove it a go.

Simon Miles: I'll gove it a go. ←

16:23:50 <dgarijo> Luc: ivan, did you submit a response to ?aena?

Luc Moreau: ivan, did you submit a response to ?aena? ←

16:24:14 <dgarijo> Luc: it needs to be done.

Luc Moreau: it needs to be done. ←

16:24:34 <Luc> topic: Timetable to Recommendations and Notes

<luc>Summary: Ivan summarized the W3C process after publication of Proposed Recommendation. The end of the voting period for W3C membership is 9 April (4 weeks after publication of PR).  We agreed to aim for a publication of recommendations on April 30th. Therefore *ALL* documents need to be staged in their final form by April 23rd. All editors are invited to produce a schedule of work, ensuring that documents are ready for internal reviews, reviewed, and finally revised by April 23rd.

16:25:00 <dgarijo> Luc: what is going to happen after the 12th?

16:25:16 <dgarijo> ivan: the documents that are in a recommendation track are done.

16:25:35 <dgarijo> ... the documents are not under the control of the group

16:25:56 <dgarijo> ... if you guys find spelling mistakes that can be adressed.

16:26:23 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me

16:26:23 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted

16:27:00 <dgarijo> ... if we have a company that doesn't vote, then it's not right.

16:27:16 <dgarijo> ... if someone opposes then we have to go back, although it's not usual.

16:27:31 <dgarijo> ... there is a transition call, but that happens just if we have a problem

16:28:06 <dgarijo> ... we also have to finish the notes, but that is another issue.

16:28:18 <dgarijo> Luc: what is the date for recommendations?

16:28:33 <dgarijo> ivan: we had a date in the documents themselves.

16:28:49 <dgarijo> Luc: the 9th of April

16:29:52 <dgarijo> ivan: on the 9th the vote closes, on the 10th we check everything is fine, and we send the request to the editor for publication and then finding a date with the web master.

16:30:03 <dgarijo> ... the problem is that the 9th I'm in Beijing

16:30:35 <dgarijo> ... The week of the first I'm at home, so we can prepare the mail that has to be sent to the director.

16:30:48 <dgarijo> ... otherwise we have to wait until the week of the 15th

16:31:00 <dgarijo> Luc: week of the 15th I'm not available.

16:31:29 <dgarijo> ... we can send the email 9th or 10th, that is not a problem.

16:32:08 <dgarijo> ivan: the question comes back to you. The email is easy. The question is what is the realistic publication date after the 9th?

16:32:43 <dgarijo> ... i have the impression that it's going to be either the 25th or the 13th of the next month

16:33:02 <dgarijo> Luc: then it would have to be staged on th 12th.

16:33:18 <dgarijo> s/13th/30th

16:33:39 <dgarijo> ivan: we can leave it for the 30th.

16:33:56 <dgarijo> Luc: 23rd of April is when all documents must be staged

16:34:05 <GK> FWIW, I shall be away from mid-April until mid-May, with very intermittent Internet access

16:34:13 <dgarijo> ... 30th is the publication date.

16:34:42 <dgarijo> ivan: Luc, please ping me the week when I'm in Beijing so we can deal with this.

16:35:50 <Luc> q?

16:35:58 <smiles> yes

16:35:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I'd like all editors to come up with that time table to produce the final version of their documents for internal review before the final vote and "camera ready version" of the 23

16:36:00 <dgarijo> yes

16:36:27 <GK> (Works for me, as long as there aren't last-minute changes.)

16:37:10 <dgarijo> Luc: I will circulate a wikipage so you can circulate your proposed time tables

16:37:53 <dgarijo> Luc: Tom raised a number of issues in the tracker. Please start the discussion there and try to get resolution.

16:37:54 <TomDN> that's the plan!

16:37:54 <Luc> q?

16:38:04 <dgarijo> Luc: anything else?

16:38:11 <Luc> topic: End of Provenance Working Group

<luc>Summary: We then discussed the end of the Provenance Working Group. While it is recognized that the group can exist till the end of summer, once all our documents are published, there is very little left to do. Given that attendance and energy is reducing week by week, it is desirable to terminate the group activities shortly after publication of documents. Outstanding tasks to undertake include finishing the namespace, html pages, and provenance of documents (ideally, these should be complete at REC publication time), and also tidying the Wiki and FAQ.

16:38:30 <dgarijo> Luc: When do we finish the activities of PROV?

16:39:11 <Luc> q?

16:39:12 <dgarijo> ... there are a number of activities that remain to be done before finishing the wg

16:39:31 <Curt> Can we move the FAQ to a place we can still edit after the working group formally ends?

16:39:36 <dgarijo> ivan: formally speaking the charter goes by end of summer. It's our choice

16:40:16 <dgarijo> ... only one thing: the namespace documents, it would be nice if those docs where finalized.

16:40:31 <GK> (+1 final NS with published docs)

16:40:53 <dgarijo> ... the provenance metadata can be postponed. It's not a big deal. But the namespace docs should be finished.

16:41:18 <dgarijo> Luc: Paul is also keen to have that done by the end of the group.

16:41:32 <dgarijo> ... we should start to organize that from next week

16:41:52 <dgarijo> Ivan: when the group stops eventually the wikipages become read-onñy

16:42:07 <GK> I think the FAQ is likely to be an ongoing thing.  Maybe needs a new home?

16:42:08 <dgarijo> s/onñy/only

16:42:19 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV

16:42:39 <dgarijo> ivan: that link^^ continued to be a living page

16:42:53 <dgarijo> ... it should be mantained after the group is over

16:43:14 <dgarijo> ... it would be nice if the implementations were added to the core wikipage

16:43:15 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools

16:44:08 <dgarijo> ivan: in the previous link it would be good to add those tools part of the implementation. It's not related to the wg formally but it would be good if that was done at some point

16:44:59 <Luc> q?

16:45:09 <dgarijo> Luc: it seems to me that is pointless to keep the wg just for completing the provenance of docs an filling wiki pages, so I would recommend to finish the activities after we are done with the publication

16:45:10 <GK> 4-6 weeks after publication seems reasonable

16:45:20 <jcheney> q+

16:45:55 <Luc> q?

16:46:06 <dgarijo> ... the energy dedicated to the group is reduced every week, so it would be nice to end everything now.

16:46:29 <dgarijo> jcheney: is there potential for an update of the notes after CR?

16:46:51 <ivan> s/CR/PR/

16:46:59 <smiles> OK, I've written a proposed response to the PROV-O issue:

16:47:01 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-610_.28query_profiles_and_use_cases_not_normative.29

16:47:35 <dgarijo> ivan: for semantics the final publication is when we publish the rec, not the pr

16:48:09 <dgarijo> ... formally for a note the group can issue as many reviews as the user considers necessary while the group exists.

16:48:40 <dgarijo> ...but we have agreed to stop the activity shortly after publication, so this will not be the case.

16:49:12 <dgarijo> jcheney: whaving a littte bit of time would be great, but I'm not going to be pushing this forward.

16:49:32 <dgarijo> s/whaving/having

16:49:52 <dgarijo> jcheney:  ok, now i know what is the deadline.

16:50:51 <dgarijo> ivan: simon's review is more important, lets' handle that

16:50:54 <dgarijo> Luc: ok

16:51:19 <GK> q+ to ask if its worth noting that we plan to create an FAQ

16:52:25 <satya> * sorry have to leave

16:52:28 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

16:52:44 <Luc> q?

16:52:47 <dgarijo> ivan: I think the bullet point about extensions makes it more complicated. Let's just remove it.

16:52:50 <jcheney> q-

16:52:50 <dgarijo> smiles: ok

16:53:09 <Luc> ack jch

16:53:11 <Luc> q?

16:53:49 <Luc> q?

16:54:08 <dgarijo> GK: the response looks good (some comments about the third bullet, I could not log them)

16:54:24 <Luc> proposed: take http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-610_.28query_profiles_and_use_cases_not_normative.29 as the group response to issue 610

16:54:36 <GK> My comment was to include reference to the FAQ for covering best practice related matters

16:54:46 <dgarijo> @GK: thx.

16:54:52 <TomDN> +1

16:54:54 <ivan> +1

16:54:55 <SamCoppens> +1

16:54:55 <Curt> +1

16:54:57 <dgarijo> Luc, ivan: looks good to me

16:54:58 <smiles> +1 :)

16:54:59 <dgarijo> +1

16:55:03 <GK> +1

16:55:06 <hook> +1

16:55:10 <jcheney> +1

16:55:15 <Luc> Accepted: take http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-610_.28query_profiles_and_use_cases_not_normative.29 as the group response to issue 610

16:55:18 <dgarijo> Luc: I'll send the email today.

16:55:35 <Luc> Topic: PROV-AQ

<luc>Summary: As we were short of time before publication of the previous prov-aq WD, the chair was keen to give sufficient attention to this document, to ensure proper review before final publication. Graham made a few suggestions to progress. We agree to close all issues closed "pending reviews". All reviews, internal and external, will be responded to. Finally, Graham will, by email, put proposals forward, seeking group endorsement: if consensus cannot be reached by email, we will resolve them at the next teleconference.  This should allow the document to be finalized before the final review.

16:56:01 <gk1> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5

16:56:40 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm keen to not repeat the review process for final publication. There are still a lot of outstanding issues. Paul proposed next steps. GK, what do you think?

16:57:18 <dgarijo> GK: there were quite a lot of issues pending review since last year, so those are going to be closed (no objection).

16:57:28 <pgroth> i was proposing another round of review

16:58:07 <dgarijo> ... Unless there are any disagreements, we are in pretty good shape. I'm going to push the "open" issues. Also I have repsonses to the review comments.

16:58:40 <dgarijo> ... I'll try to reach agreement in the outstanding issues.

16:59:19 <pgroth> @GK1 I'm still keen on having another round review

16:59:19 <dgarijo> Luc: to make progress I'd like to support your decission of closing the issues pending review. Is the group satisfied with this?

16:59:27 <Luc> resolved: close issues marked "pending review" for prov-aq

17:00:06 <dgarijo> ... the second item, to look at the open issues and have reslutions on them. You plan to propose resolutions and vote, right?

17:00:21 <dgarijo> GK: the resolutions are there, I'll just ask the group.

17:00:26 <dgarijo> ... by mail.

17:01:17 <dgarijo> Luc: I'd suggest then that you put forward a proposal and ask if the group is supportive plus a vote (3 days). If there is no agreement then we can discuss it at the telecon

17:01:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

17:01:57 <Luc> q?

17:02:07 <Luc> ack gk

17:02:07 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if its worth noting that we plan to create an FAQ

17:02:11 <dgarijo> GK: I'd like to have this done by the end of the month

17:02:18 <GK> q-