From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:43:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:43:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-irc 14:44:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:44:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:44:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:44:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:44:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:44:04 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2012 14:44:04 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:44:04 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes 14:44:15 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.10 14:44:23 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:44:34 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo 14:44:40 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:44:49 <Luc> Regrets: Curt Tilmes 14:44:58 <Luc> Topic: Admin 14:51:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:51:26 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 14:51:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 14:51:47 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 14:51:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 14:51:50 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended 14:51:51 <Zakim> Attendees were 14:52:16 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:52:30 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call? 14:52:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 14:53:39 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov 14:54:11 <GK> GK has joined #prov 14:54:49 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:57:14 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #prov 14:59:56 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov 15:00:03 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 15:00:08 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 15:00:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:00:23 <lebot> Zakim, I am no one 15:00:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I am no one', lebot 15:00:31 <Luc> ;-) 15:00:31 <lebot> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:00:34 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:01:00 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:01:05 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 15:01:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:01:08 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:01:14 <dgarijo> scribe:dgarijo 15:01:18 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov 15:01:53 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:01:54 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:02:06 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 15:02:14 <MacTed> Zakim who, who's here? 15:02:19 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:02:27 <Luc> @sandro, zakim does not seem to know we are on the phone. Suggestion? 15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:02:31 <dgarijo> Zakim is silent today... 15:02:38 <MacTed> Zakim, code? 15:02:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, jcheney, jun, stephenc, zednik, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, smiles, lebot, MacTed, Paolo, GK, GK_, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro 15:02:45 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:firstname.lastname@example.org), MacTed 15:03:38 <dgarijo> Luc: admin Issues, release of documents: PAQ, proposals, organization about connections and bundles 15:03:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03 15:03:54 <Luc> proposed: to accept last week's minutes 15:03:57 <dgarijo> +1 15:03:58 <smiles> +1 15:04:02 <jcheney> +1 15:04:03 <TomDN> +1 15:04:11 <khalidbelhajjame> +0 (wasn't present) 15:04:14 <lebot> "Presentation on editorial changes to e PAQ" ? 15:04:22 <jun> +1 15:04:29 <Paolo> where are the minutes? 15:04:40 <GK> e PAQ I think means "the PAQ" 15:04:47 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:04:49 <GK> +1 15:04:56 <Luc> Accepted: last week's minutes 15:04:57 <Paolo> +1 15:05:03 <lebot> +1 15:05:06 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 15:05:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:05:34 <dgarijo> Luc: review of actions 15:05:44 <dgarijo> ... 2 on Satya to announce the documents. 15:05:44 <satya> satya has joined #prov 15:05:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I believe it is done 15:05:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov 15:06:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:06:05 <dgarijo> Paul: yes it is complete 15:06:05 <sandro> zakim, this is prov 15:06:05 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM 15:06:36 <pgroth> yes 15:06:36 <pgroth> he did it 15:06:37 <dgarijo> Luc: action on Sandro, will do that next week. Another one on Paolo (Data One), done 15:06:54 <jun> yes, we got it! 15:07:05 <pgroth> +q 15:07:10 <dgarijo> Luc: just a reminder for scribes 15:07:12 <Luc> q? 15:07:25 <dgarijo> Paul: comment on annoucements. 15:07:30 <pgroth> public-prov-wg 15:07:39 <pgroth> public-prov-comments 15:07:49 <jcheney> lots of echos 15:07:53 <dgarijo> ... We used public prov-wg as the mailing list, but it should be public-prov-comments. 15:08:42 <dgarijo> sandro: I'll see if I can set up something to fix that. 15:08:48 <GK> PAQ has public-prov-comments (though not included in this call) 15:09:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:09:25 <Luc> topic: release of document <Luc>Summary: We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message. 15:09:28 <dgarijo> Luc: release of documents. 15:09:34 <dgarijo> ... how dissemination is going? 15:09:45 <dgarijo> ... stephan Zednick did something, I believe. 15:10:03 <dgarijo> stephanZ: I send an email to the stake holders that had filled the survey 15:10:06 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks 15:10:09 <Luc> q? 15:10:17 <Luc> Topic: PAQ <Luc>Summary: The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time. 15:10:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: I got a few responses with people reviewing / trying to implement 15:10:51 <dgarijo> ... 3 responses 15:10:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I had 1 response too. 15:11:03 <dgarijo> Luc: PAQ 15:11:09 <GK_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html 15:11:10 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html  15:11:20 <Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft 15:11:28 <Luc> q? 15:11:38 <dgarijo> ... release this version of the document as a working draft. Any comments/feedback? 15:11:46 <Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft 15:11:54 <smiles> +! 15:11:55 <satya> +1 15:11:55 <TomDN> +1 15:11:56 <lebot> +1 15:11:59 <dgarijo> +1 15:12:00 <jcheney> +1 15:12:01 <zednik> +1 15:12:02 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:12:03 <Paolo> +1 15:12:08 <SamCoppens> +1 15:12:12 <GK> +1 15:12:14 <smiles> +1 15:12:21 <Luc> Accepted: to release PAQ as a working draft 15:12:44 <Luc> Topic: all documents <Luc>Summary: we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group. 15:12:45 <dgarijo> Luc: editors have now de green light to proceed and contact the web master 15:12:59 <pgroth> @gk I'm on vacation next week so won't do anything then 15:13:05 <dgarijo> ... on f2f2 we agreed on a time table 15:13:27 <dgarijo> ... we have plans to release new version of the docs for internal review for Jun 1st 15:13:52 <dgarijo> ... we (Paul and I) would like to know the plans form various editors in order to achieve this. 15:13:53 <jun> s/Jun/June/ 15:13:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft6 15:14:06 <dgarijo> @Jun thanks. 15:14:45 <dgarijo> Luc: we are going through the issues in the DM, will be dealing with bundles (hopefully today) 15:15:36 <dgarijo> ... in terms of prov-n we are finilizing the syntax of identifiers + outstanding issues. We think we will achieve the deadline. What do other editors plan to do? 15:15:46 <GK> @paul - I'm unclear about details of the publication procedure - I can have a go at the export and pubrules checking, but if I get stuck I guess it's not crucial if we don;'t make it until after next week? 15:16:33 <lebot> q+ to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for clarity (with more narrative on terms). 15:16:54 <dgarijo> jamesC: The constraints haven't been reviewd yet. I hope to hear from Tim and Graham (not necessarily right now) 15:17:09 <dgarijo> s/reviewd/reviewed 15:17:09 <lebot> q+ again to james - he's ready for another review? 15:17:39 <dgarijo> ... I reorganized the doc. 15:17:42 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:17:52 <sandro> +Testing 15:18:00 <Luc> q? 15:18:00 <dgarijo> Luc: we have not received feedback from the other 2 reviewers. 15:18:46 <dgarijo> tlebo: I was waiting from James to say whether the doc war ready to be reviewed. 15:19:23 <dgarijo> jamesC: I'd like to know if previous issues have been fixed. 15:19:32 <Luc> Action on tlebot to review latest prov-constraints 15:19:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on 15:19:39 <dgarijo> Luc: action on tim to review the doc 15:19:58 <Luc> Action tlebot to review latest prov-constraints 15:19:58 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - tlebot 15:20:01 <dgarijo> graham: I'll have a look too 15:20:20 <Luc> Action GK to review latest prov-constraints 15:20:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-05-17]. 15:20:24 <dgarijo> ... my previous comments might have been overtaken by reorganization 15:20:33 <lebot> @luc, sorry, I slipped to @lebot today... 15:20:33 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov 15:20:46 <lebot> q? 15:20:47 <Luc> Action lebot to review latest prov-constraints 15:20:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-05-17]. 15:21:10 <dgarijo> Luc: prov-o document 15:21:41 <Luc> q? 15:21:43 <dgarijo> lebot: The plan for the next 3 weeks is to create examples for every term and clean the issues 15:21:48 <Luc> ack leb 15:21:48 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for 15:21:52 <Zakim> ... clarity (with more narrative on terms). 15:22:14 <dgarijo> smiles: alternative formats for the examples (prov-o and prov-n, xml) 15:22:41 <dgarijo> ... (this is for the primer) Ask Stian and Paolo to see if ???? 15:22:47 <Paolo> ok fine 15:23:16 <dgarijo> Luc: Graham and Paul, can you synchronize for the next release of the PAQ? 15:23:41 <smiles> @dgarijo We will ask Paolo and Stian to check the primer hasn't become out of date with respect to the DM and ontology respectively 15:23:52 <dgarijo> Paul: there are some issues about reorganization, I'll come back in a week 15:24:00 <dgarijo> @smiles, thanks 15:24:33 <dgarijo> Luc: have we got plans for releasing best practice documents? 15:24:48 <dgarijo> ... DC best practices. 15:25:15 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov 15:25:17 <dgarijo> Paul: I'll ask offline. 15:26:06 <dgarijo> Dgarijo: I'll tell Kai about the deadline. 15:26:09 <Luc> q? 15:26:14 <Luc> ack again 15:26:14 <Zakim> again, you wanted to james - he's ready for another review? 15:26:22 <Luc> topic: WasQuotedFrom <Luc>Summary: the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email. 15:26:32 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0109.html 15:26:38 <Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom 15:26:52 <dgarijo> Luc: change wasQuotedFrom->wasAQuoteFrom? 15:27:03 <stainPhone> I'm struggling with Zakim passcode 15:27:11 <Luc> q? 15:27:17 <dgarijo> any comments? 15:27:22 <Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom 15:27:27 <dgarijo> +1 15:27:27 <smiles> +1 15:27:28 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 15:27:29 <TomDN> +1 15:27:32 <MacTed> +1 15:27:33 <jcheney> +1 15:27:34 <satya> +1 15:27:34 <SamCoppens> +1 15:27:39 <jun> -1 15:27:43 <lebot> -1 15:27:47 <Paolo> +1 15:27:49 <GK> 0 15:27:51 <zednik> 0 15:27:53 <jun> I never had trouble with this property name. so -1 from me 15:28:01 <sandro> 0 15:28:03 <lebot> if it was a quote, what is it now? 15:28:08 <stainPhone> +1 15:28:42 <stainPhone> Now it really is a quote, not a "quoted" 15:28:46 <pgroth> he has a point 15:29:09 <dgarijo> Jun: it was clear for me before 15:29:18 <dgarijo> ... not convinced by the new name 15:29:26 <dgarijo> +q 15:29:34 <stainPhone> Domain of wasQ should be a quote, right? 15:29:42 <zednik> quote can be noun or verb, quoted is clear verb 15:29:52 <lebot> danielG: it's not clear, which is quoted, and which is quoted from? (it flips) 15:29:58 <stainPhone> Q+ 15:30:12 <Luc> ack dga 15:30:19 <pgroth> q+ 15:30:20 <lebot> danielG: DM def is clear, but from just the name it is confusing 15:30:52 <jun> How is that different from wasDerivedFrom? 15:31:00 <dgarijo> stian: I got the same feeling as Daniel. And probelms with the direction too. 15:31:00 <Luc> ack st 15:31:12 <Luc> ack pg 15:31:25 <lebot> @jun, the other nice aspect of wasQuotedFrom was its parallel to wasDerivedFrom. 15:31:34 <dgarijo> paul: given that there is no consensus, this has to be talked more on the mailing list. 15:31:37 <lebot> +1 to taking it back to email (sorry that I missed it) 15:31:38 <khalidbelhajjame> Given Tim comment, then isAQuoteFrom may be a better candidate 15:31:58 <jun> @lebot, yes. applying the pattern for names is also important for an ontology 15:31:58 <stainPhone> I agree with Daniel, it is important that lhs of wasQ is a quote, not what was quoted or something that contains a quote 15:32:12 <dgarijo> Luc: agreed, the discussion should come back to the mailing list. 15:32:13 <MacTed> "is" forces to "was" because of previous decisions to use past tense for all predicates 15:32:18 <Luc> q? 15:32:25 <lebot> yes, @khalid, isAQuoteFrom would work (but violate our "past tense") 15:32:31 <Luc> topic: WasStartedByActivity <Luc>Summary: the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted. 15:32:43 <jun> @MacTed, provenance is meant to record history, imo 15:32:44 <dgarijo> @lebot: isAquoteFrom workf for me too... 15:32:55 <dgarijo> s/workf/works 15:33:15 <lebot> @dgarijo, yes, but how to deal with the tense inconsistency? 15:33:16 <satya> as Tim said, isAQuoteFrom is not "past" tense? 15:33:36 <Luc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html 15:33:36 <pgroth> (also "a" in a predicate name is just wierd) 15:33:45 <stainPhone> Jun, could you make a "clear" example of the old wasQuotedFrom ? 15:33:47 <dgarijo> @lebot: I know, but I prefer the concept to be clear. 15:34:06 <khalidbelhajjame> @MacTed, @Jun, @Satya, maybe this example shows that past tense is not suitable for everything 15:34:11 <Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly 15:34:17 <Luc> q? 15:34:24 <dgarijo> +q 15:35:10 <jun> @all, I think we should take the discussion onto the mailing list. Afraid we are cluttering the chat 15:35:12 <lebot> danielG: concern is for prov-o and  wasEstablsihedBy (?). Could do it in a single statement, must now use a qualified relationship to express it. 15:35:17 <Luc> ack dga 15:35:34 <stainPhone> I still think it is clearer than yet another relationship 15:35:40 <lebot> @macted, that's were we started months ago (to expand the range) 15:35:45 <lebot> s/were/where/ 15:35:50 <zednik> q+ 15:36:30 <dgarijo> lebot: expanding the range og wasStartedBy was where we were several months ago 15:36:32 <stainPhone> We already had this issue for activity start time only 15:37:06 <dgarijo> lebot: I'm in favour of this proposal precisely because of the indirection 15:37:31 <dgarijo> stephanZ: do we have a wasTriggerebBy relationship 15:37:34 <dgarijo> Luc: no 15:37:52 <satya> @Zednick - we had it in an earlier version (wasTriggeredBy) 15:38:06 <Luc> ack zedn 15:38:17 <dgarijo> ... the start of an activity has a trigger which is an entity and we are allowing the activity to be there as well 15:38:17 <jun> @Zednick, I thought the current wasStartedByActivity is close to wasTriggeredBy of OPM 15:38:27 <Luc> q? 15:38:31 <zednik> q- 15:38:36 <Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly 15:38:43 <TomDN> +1 15:38:44 <lebot> +1 15:38:46 <stainPhone> +1 15:38:49 <MacTed> +1 15:38:51 <Paolo> +1 15:38:55 <jcheney> +1 15:38:56 <GK> 0 15:38:56 <SamCoppens> +1 15:38:58 <dgarijo> +0 (If everyone is ok I won't vote against it) 15:39:01 <satya> 0 15:39:05 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 for dropping wasActivity, +0 for revising wasStartBy 15:39:07 <jun> 0 15:39:08 <sandro> 0 15:39:20 <Luc> Accepted: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly 15:39:36 <Luc> Topic: Collections <luc>Summary: Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document. He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed. On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section. Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification. It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents. It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week. 15:39:40 <dgarijo> Luc:collections 15:40:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: worried about the length of the section on collections. 15:40:39 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0051.html 15:40:48 <dgarijo> ... I made a proposal last week that we should separate collections from PROV-O 15:41:15 <dgarijo> ... pull collections from prov-DM and prov-o and just put them in a separate document 15:41:19 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0099.html 15:41:47 <dgarijo> ... Graham proposed to have a greater separation in the document. Breaking the model into core and extensions 15:42:47 <dgarijo> ... we already started with core and extensions, but in the end we put it all together. We would need to decide about this (break/not break ) 15:43:04 <dgarijo> ... do we break just the collection or the rest of the concepts too? 15:43:34 <Luc> q? 15:43:38 <dgarijo> ... any comments on this? 15:44:09 <pgroth> there's a lot of echo 15:44:18 <pgroth> Zakim, who is making noise? 15:44:29 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P17 (100%), ??P45 (19%), ??P50 (40%) 15:44:46 <pgroth> Zakim, mute ??P50 15:44:46 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P50 15:45:12 <dgarijo> lebot: the dictionaries section stands out as an outlier. The proposal made by Paul would allow us to focus on the principal aspects of prov-o. I would be very happy to get rid of the dictionaries section 15:45:46 <dgarijo> Luc: do you want to separate the namespace as well. 15:46:43 <Luc> q? 15:46:44 <pgroth> q+ to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion 15:46:54 <dgarijo> lebot: Prov-o is aimed to be expanded and specialized. It would make sense to have another namespace as well 15:47:04 <Luc> ack pgr 15:47:04 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion 15:47:08 <smiles> I agree with everything Tim said 15:47:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:47:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: namespace discussion should be separated from the discussion of the documents. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. 15:47:35 <Paolo> q? 15:47:37 <lebot> +1 pgroth, namespace is separate; it can be decided after the "split" to collections document. 15:47:58 <TomDN> q+ to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2? 15:48:01 <Paolo> I have already expressed my support for this proposal 15:48:01 <Luc> q? 15:48:24 <Luc> ack TomDN 15:48:24 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2? 15:48:32 <Paolo> q+ 15:48:37 <pgroth> @TomDN I have no idea 15:48:39 <dgarijo> tom: wondering if we were to go for the second option, which other terms would be removed for the core? 15:48:42 <lebot> @tomdn, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ? 15:48:44 <pgroth> it would be a huge debate 15:49:00 <stainPhone> I have to go, but I would vote for extension doc. We can then see if wasQuoteOf belong there as well. 15:49:04 <lebot> most of those are specializations (e.g. Person sub Agent) 15:49:05 <GK> My criteria for deciding core vs extension is fairly clear (to me). The "core" is a structural pattern that applies to most if not all of the provenance terms, and is fairly light on specific knowledge. The extension parts layer more detailed specific knowledge over the basic structure, without adding new structure. (Roughly, this means that any new classes and properties can be defined as subclasses and subproperties of the structural core, or additional attrib 15:49:21 <dgarijo> Graham: almost everything but the current starting points. 15:50:26 <dgarijo> ... some of the discussion of the terms is difficult for non provenance experts to pick up. 15:50:36 <dgarijo> ... the basic structural properties are very clear 15:50:52 <dgarijo> ... the issue of core vs extensions came previously 15:51:10 <Luc> q? 15:51:37 <Luc> ack pao 15:52:31 <dgarijo> Paolo: about the structure of collections: if we separate collections, would them all be in the same monolithic thing? 15:52:38 <dgarijo> ... (dm+ontology+examples) 15:52:44 <Luc> q? 15:52:46 <dgarijo> ... or separated documents. 15:52:48 <pgroth> q+ 15:53:21 <dgarijo> pgroth: editorially, it's a lot of work. 15:53:53 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:53:53 <lebot> -1 to major redo for each "section" - yipes! 15:53:59 <Luc> q+ 15:54:08 <dgarijo> ... I'm afraid that even with a major redo we won't address graham's omments 15:54:09 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:55:07 <dgarijo> luc: this notion of starting points doesn't necessarily map to all technologies. What is in starting points is really the binary relationships. 15:55:16 <SamCoppens1> SamCoppens1 has joined #prov 15:55:19 <dgarijo> ... in other technologies, this is not the case. 15:55:48 <TomDN_> TomDN_ has joined #prov 15:55:51 <dgarijo> .... I see this as a challenge 15:56:05 <dgarijo> ... how do we move on? 15:56:09 <TomDN_> @GK: I think it's a good idea, but it's a slippery slope if we don't clearly define what the "core" is. Like Paul said, it could lead to a huge discussion. 15:56:17 <dgarijo> paul: some consensus aboyt separating collections 15:56:34 <MacTed> I see a LOT of potential reward from the described re-org. but it would undeniably be a huge effort. 15:56:44 <lebot> @tomdn, the prov-o team has some experience is determining which constructs are in which partition. 15:56:49 <dgarijo> ... what do the group the think about the core proposal? 15:56:52 <GK> @TomDN - did you seem the text I pasted above? 15:56:59 <lebot> @tomdn, the owl file has annotations for those partitions. 15:57:26 <smiles> +q 15:57:27 <dgarijo> ... by next telecon it would be great to have concrete proposals so we can vote 15:57:33 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:57:40 <TomDN_> TomDN_ has joined #prov 15:57:41 <Luc> ack smi 15:57:44 <GK> It's basically the three core concepts, plus the top-level properties that connect them in various ways. 15:57:55 <TomDN_> (sorry, IRC keeps timing out) 15:58:13 <TomDN_> +q 15:58:21 <dgarijo> ... I don't really get the problem. I can understand the collections out, but I'll wait for the proposal 15:58:23 <Luc> ack tom 15:58:46 <dgarijo> tom: maybe we should do this execrise with collections and then we get an idea of seeing how much work is that 15:58:48 <pgroth> this is a major major piece of work 15:59:17 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm not in favour of these experiments because it is a lot of editing 15:59:28 <dgarijo> ... I don't want to do that iteratively 15:59:32 <GK> q+ to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O 15:59:40 <Paolo> Collections are pervasive (except the primer) -- change impacts everything 15:59:44 <Luc> q? 15:59:45 <dgarijo> Tom: agreed, specially in this stage of the process. 15:59:46 <khalidbelhajjame> Instead of removing parts of the document, which I am reluctant to, I would prefer restructering 15:59:51 <lebot> @luc, we need to find some way to relax the weight that Collections puts on all of the documents. 16:00:06 <jcheney> q+ 16:00:06 <Paolo> q+ 16:00:29 <lebot> @gk, could you paraphrase waht you just said? 16:00:46 <pgroth> he said he only wants to only adjust the dm document 16:00:55 <dgarijo> Luc: you propose not to touch the ontology but to change the DM 16:01:13 <dgarijo> GK: yes 16:01:31 <Paolo> q+ to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model 16:01:41 <Luc> ack gk 16:01:41 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O 16:01:43 <dgarijo> Luc: so you are not seeing the DM document as a reference document. 16:02:06 <pgroth> q+ to say this was already decided at F2F 16:02:09 <dgarijo> GK: I think it has a central role in the family of specification. It should be an introduction + reference for the structure. 16:02:25 <dgarijo> jamesC: are we going to commit to this change now? 16:02:38 <Luc> ack jch 16:02:42 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 16:03:12 <dgarijo> ... I would be inclined to say: first create a document with all the collections and not delete the stuff from the current documents 16:03:17 <MacTed> I'm sorry to say, but it's important to -- past decisions aren't always correct. revisions happen. just because something was decided at F2F doesn't mean it will stick throughout. 16:03:41 <dgarijo> Luc: we will come with proposals next week for restructure the docs. 16:03:48 <Luc> q? 16:04:05 <satya> sorry have to leave 16:04:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Size should not be seen as an issue, if people want to read a short document, they can read the primer 16:04:42 <dgarijo> Paolo: there was a discussion on the face to face on whether the ontology should be an entry point or not. 16:04:49 <Luc> q? 16:04:55 <Luc> ack paol 16:04:55 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model 16:05:00 <dgarijo> ... the ontology is an encoding, not the reference for an entry point 16:05:11 <dgarijo> ... it is ONE of the possible encodings 16:05:53 <TomDN> readers can of course always skip the section on collections and still understand the rest of the DM :) 16:06:04 <dgarijo> paul: summary: primer is good. Provo would be improved if we removed collections. Prov DM should be reorganized (proposals the next week) 16:06:27 <dgarijo> luc: what is the next step. Is it to create concrete proposals ? 16:06:30 <dgarijo> paul: yes 16:06:55 <dgarijo> ... this is all about organization, not editorial per se. We need to keep the text that was written 16:07:14 <dgarijo> luc: who would write which proposal? 16:07:17 <GK> q+ 16:07:22 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:07:22 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say this was already decided at F2F 16:07:26 <Luc> ack gk 16:07:43 <dgarijo> graham: I guess this forces me to create one with core + extension of dm 16:07:48 <dgarijo> luc: please use wiki 16:07:51 <dgarijo> GK: sure 16:08:03 <dgarijo> luc: volunteers for a collection document? 16:08:50 <dgarijo> .... we may have several proposals on the table: (TIM) We use this as a mechanism to show how the model can be extended. 16:09:09 <Paolo> q+ 16:09:09 <dgarijo> ... another which is lightweight is to separate collections in another document. 16:09:32 <dgarijo> Paolo: I really had the first in mind. I can write an outline 16:10:23 <pgroth> so paolo will do it 16:10:28 <pgroth> :-) 16:10:28 <lebot> Like Paolo, I had the first in mind too. Take Collections from everything into a new document. 16:10:40 <lebot> I'll help Paolo :-0 16:10:58 <TomDN> if any of the proposals need help, id be happy to help as well 16:11:00 <Luc> topic: bundle <Luc>Summary: A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes. This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback. 16:11:02 <Paolo> great Tim, much appreciated 16:11:08 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html 16:11:25 <pgroth> @TomDN maybe you want to discuss with GK 16:11:28 <dgarijo> Luc: in the last iteration we didn't work on accounts. 16:11:33 <TomDN> sure 16:11:37 <dgarijo> ... Tim and GK had comments on accounts 16:12:09 <dgarijo> ... if you follow that document you'll see an outline of what would go into DM for expressing provenance of provenance 16:12:24 <GK> I thought we had discussed keeping the term "Account", but just to denote a bundle of proveance statement? 16:12:33 <dgarijo> ... relation hadProvenanceIn inspired by PAQ 16:13:15 <Luc> q? 16:13:20 <dgarijo> ... I invite you to have a look at the document and start discussion on the mailing list 16:13:22 <pgroth> yes 16:13:23 <Paolo> ack 16:13:35 <lebot> bye! 16:13:38 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov 16:13:38 <dgarijo> Luc: good bye 16:13:44 <khalidbelhajjame> bye 16:13:47 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 16:13:51 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:13:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html Luc 16:14:02 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended 16:14:04 <Zakim> Attendees were 16:14:05 <Luc> hi daniel, I will take care of the minutes, thanks! 16:14:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 16:14:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 16:14:17 <TomDN> bye, @GK: i'll contact you via email 16:14:28 <dgarijo> @Luc, Ok, good bye! 16:35:56 <MacTed> trackbot, end call 16:35:56 <trackbot> Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 16:36:03 <MacTed> trackbot, end meeting 16:36:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:36:03 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 16:36:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:36:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:36:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:36:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000466