From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
11:45:42 <GK> GK has joined #prov 15:41:26 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:47:02 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:47:09 <pgroth> trackbot, start telcon 15:47:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:47:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 15:47:13 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:47:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Face-to-Face 15:47:14 <trackbot> Date: 23 June 2012 15:47:27 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:47:27 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, pgroth 15:47:29 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov 15:47:37 <pgroth> Zakim, this with be PROV 15:47:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this with be PROV', pgroth 15:47:45 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:47:45 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 15:47:53 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 15:48:25 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule 15:48:39 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here 15:48:39 <Zakim> pgroth, you need to end that query with '?' 15:48:42 <pgroth> Zakim, who is here? 15:48:42 <Zakim> apparently SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended, pgroth 15:48:43 <Zakim> On IRC I see Luc, pgroth, dgarijo, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, sandro, trackbot, stain 15:49:06 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:49:06 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 15:49:08 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 15:49:20 <pgroth> Guest: Hook Hua 15:52:28 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started 15:52:35 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa 15:52:53 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 15:52:55 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:53:55 <Zakim> +??P1 15:53:57 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:54:13 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P1 is me 15:54:13 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:54:26 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov 15:55:23 <dgarijo> are the minutes from yesterday available somewhere? I'd like to know what happened with contextualization :) 15:57:25 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-06-22 15:57:36 <dgarijo> thanks! 15:57:46 <reza_bfar> reza_bfar has joined #prov 15:58:12 <zednik_> zednik_ has joined #prov 15:59:38 <Luc> Topic: Remaining Notes (prov-dc, prov-xml, prov-json, prov-bestpractice, prov-sem) <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the additional notes that were either not specified in the charter or had not received significant attention. 16:00:42 <tlebo> Luc: We want to identify remaining work. 16:00:50 <tlebo> ... so we can write credible charter extension. 16:01:26 <tlebo> q+ 16:01:34 <Luc> ack pau 16:02:06 <pgroth> +q to respond 16:03:10 <tlebo> q- 16:03:12 <pgroth> 1- 16:03:14 <pgroth> q- 16:04:27 <Luc> q? 16:04:27 <pgroth> other notes? 16:04:38 <tlebo> Tim: RPI is looking to submit a member submission for PML 3.0 16:05:03 <tlebo> Luc: The charter decided that mappings would not be done by the WG, but the individual organizations. <pgroth> subtopic: prov-dc <pgroth> Summary: Discussed the progress on the mapping of dublin core to PROV. Comments from a release have been obtained and the team working on it was aiming to finish a first draft in note form by the end of the month. Daniel agreed to work with others to finalize a timetable of work. The working group resolved to publish a note on this mapping. 16:06:04 <tlebo> Daniel: concerned that he has been the only one working on the prov-dc. Not enough feedback. 16:06:34 <tlebo> Luc: moved everything to W3C infrastructure? 16:06:36 <tlebo> Daniel: yes. 16:06:38 <pgroth> @tlebo you could use the irc names :-) 16:06:43 <pgroth> use tab 16:07:16 <tlebo> luc: schedule? 16:07:32 <tlebo> dgarijo: mappings by end of month, with bnodes. 16:07:58 <tlebo> dgarijo: second stage of the mapping, removing the extra data - can't get to this. 16:08:15 <tlebo> dgarijo: by end of month can get the document that they promised. 16:08:24 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:08:45 <Luc> q? 16:08:53 <tlebo> dgarijo: many members will be away. 16:09:05 <tlebo> luc: how important is the second part? can it be self-contained? 16:09:22 <tlebo> dgarijo: the most important part is the direct mappings (we have concensus). 16:09:47 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov 16:10:02 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov 16:10:13 <pgroth> q+ 16:10:17 <tlebo> luc: I'm trying to identify the reachable goals. 16:10:25 <tlebo> ... end of july need charter extension. 16:10:38 <tlebo> ... need to know what to put into the extension request. What to promise? 16:11:00 <Luc> q? 16:11:01 <tlebo> dgarijo: will go discuss on Wed meeting with DC folks. 16:11:25 <tlebo> pgroth: dc doc direct mappings are straight forward. No reason not to have direct mapping document. 16:11:41 <tlebo> ... does not need to be delivered like Rec documents. 16:11:56 <tlebo> ... reasonable to have direct mappings as a minimum. 16:12:19 <tlebo> ... yes DC doc as Note, we're done and its small. 16:12:35 <pgroth> q- 16:12:39 <tlebo> ... no reason for @dgarijo to go nuts. 16:13:08 <tlebo> luc: the WG will produce a Note deliverable mapping DC and PROV. 16:13:30 <Luc> proposed: the WG to produce a note DC to PROV mapping 16:13:41 <dgarijo> +1 16:13:45 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 16:13:45 <tlebo> +1 16:13:53 <jcheney> +1 16:13:54 <Curt> +1 16:13:54 <dcorsar> +1 16:14:03 <zednik_> +1 16:14:05 <reza_bfar> +1 16:14:14 <Luc> accepted: the WG to produce a note DC to PROV mapping 16:15:00 <tlebo> action: dgarijo to discuss note and make timetable and type of work with DC folks, when will it be done for final internal review? 16:15:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Discuss note and make timetable and type of work with DC folks, when will it be done for final internal review? [on Daniel Garijo - due 2012-06-30]. 16:15:16 <Luc> q? 16:15:31 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 16:15:31 <tlebo> topic prov-xml 16:15:33 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 16:15:43 <tlebo> subtopic: prov-xml <pgroth> Summary: There is draft schema produced for XML schema but there have not been many people looking at it. Curt, Hook, Stephan and David offered to take a look at the xml schema. The group agreed that it would be good to have the schema as long as no significant narrative needed to be produced around it. The working group resolved to produce a Note for prov-xml with minimal narrative. 16:16:05 <tlebo> luc: not much work on prov-xml. draft xml schema created and udpated by @luc 16:16:21 <tlebo> ... seems that since we're about LC for DM, prov-xml can start up. 16:16:38 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov 16:16:51 <tlebo> zednik_: the stakeholders were interested in XML. 16:17:09 <pgroth> q+ 16:17:11 <tlebo> luc: would be nice to have a few people to look over the schema. 16:18:37 <tlebo> curt, hook, stephan, david offered to help. 16:18:58 <tlebo> hook: patterns on ISO lineage spec that we can borrow. 16:19:22 <pgroth> q+ 16:19:24 <pgroth> q+ 16:19:26 <pgroth> q+ 16:19:36 <Luc> q? 16:19:51 <tlebo> pgroth: more importantly, how much text does prov-xml want to write? 16:20:10 <tlebo> ... as in prov-o, narrative around the constructs. 16:20:25 <tlebo> ... there hasn't been effort around the narrative on prov-xml. 16:20:36 <hook> q+ 16:20:45 <Curt> Using PROV-XML will require the user to read PROV-DM 16:20:45 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:20:47 <tlebo> ... can we make sure that we have no major narrative. 16:20:50 <Luc> ack hook 16:21:02 <tlebo> hook: mirror prov-o in that mirrors DM? 16:21:17 <tlebo> prov-o's "no constraints" in prov-xml? 16:21:32 <tlebo> pgroth: nobody explaining the prov-xml schema. 16:21:52 <tlebo> ... we should avoid that level of effort b/c we dont' have it. 16:22:00 <tlebo> ... what _exactly_ are we committing to. 16:22:05 <reza_bfar> Is there an extension to Protege that generates XML from OWL? 16:22:09 <reza_bfar> Can we just use a code generator? 16:22:19 <reza_bfar> to go from Prov-O to Prov-XML? 16:22:24 <Luc> accepted: the WG to produce a note for prov-xml with minimal narrative 16:22:32 <Curt> a hand generated PROV-XML will be more friendly to use... 16:22:33 <tlebo> luc: not accepted! 16:22:36 <zednik_> Do we have UML that we can generate XML from? 16:22:37 <Luc> proposed: the WG to produce a note for prov-xml with minimal narrative 16:22:46 <Curt> +1 16:22:47 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 16:22:48 <jcheney> +1 16:22:49 <dcorsar> +1 16:22:50 <zednik_> +1 16:22:50 <dgarijo> +1 16:22:51 <tlebo> +1 16:22:53 <reza_bfar> +1 16:22:59 <Dong> +1 16:23:07 <CraigTrim> +1 16:23:18 <Luc> accepted: the WG to produce a note for prov-xml with minimal narrative 16:23:29 <tlebo> repeat: curt, hook, stephan, david offered to help. 16:23:34 <tlebo> subtopic: prov-json <pgroth> Summary: Southampton has produced a json version of prov. However, there has not been working group effort put on it. The group noted that there were other ways such (json-LD) to produce json for RDF. The group agreed that given the time constraints, a prov-json Note would not be produced. Southampton was encouraged to send their version in as a member submisssion. 16:23:46 <tlebo> luc: charter did not mention json 16:24:11 <Luc> q? 16:24:14 <tlebo> ... Dong has been doing json at SH. There has been interest in prov-json. 16:24:16 <pgroth> q+ 16:24:26 <reza_bfar> q+ 16:24:29 <tlebo> pgroth: NO! 16:24:34 <Luc> ack pg 16:24:39 <Curt> q+ 16:25:00 <tlebo> ... it is important for uptake, but we have a lot of bandwidth issues on Rec docs already. 16:25:04 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 16:25:08 <tlebo> ... (feature creep) 16:25:15 <tlebo> ... use a member submission. 16:25:27 <tlebo> reza_bfar: xml and json, code generation from prov-o? 16:25:36 <jcheney> community group? see http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/ 16:25:48 <Curt> q- 16:25:51 <tlebo> ... a lot of work to keep in sync between all of the encodings. 16:26:14 <tlebo> ... "Brazil" extension mapped OWL to XML. 16:26:26 <Curt> OWL-> XML is hard, XML -> JSON is easy 16:26:32 <pgroth> q+ 16:26:35 <Dong> q+q+ 16:26:38 <Dong> q+ 16:26:51 <tlebo> zednik_: rdf to json (rdf-json) 16:26:52 <Luc> ack rez 16:27:17 <tlebo> pgroth: as jcheney says, with json, there is "json-LD" which is json encodings of rdf. 16:27:38 <Luc> q? 16:27:40 <Luc> ack pg 16:27:44 <tlebo> ... we don't know enough to fix it. 16:27:46 <Luc> ack q 16:27:52 <Luc> q? 16:27:55 <Luc> ack do 16:28:07 <tlebo> dong: tried json-ld mapping, result was undesireable. 16:28:17 <tlebo> ... didn't serve purposes. 16:28:18 <Luc> q? 16:28:26 <tlebo> ... big hassle. 16:28:33 <pgroth> q+ to propose member submission from southampton 16:29:01 <Luc> q? 16:29:05 <jcheney> q+ 16:29:25 <tlebo> pgroth: propose that SH does member submission. 16:29:26 <Luc> ack pg 16:29:26 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to propose member submission from southampton 16:29:34 <Luc> ack jc 16:29:50 <tlebo> @jcheney not that json-LD, but also a process for community groups to develop things like this. 16:30:01 <tlebo> ... if a large group that wants it, then let them do it. 16:30:10 <Luc> proposed: the WG will not produce a prov-json note 16:30:17 <tlebo> +1 16:30:22 <TomDN> +1 16:30:22 <reza_bfar> +1 16:30:22 <Curt> +1 16:30:22 <jcheney> +1 16:30:22 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 16:30:23 <CraigTrim> +1 16:30:25 <zednik_> +1 16:30:28 <dcorsar> +1 16:30:31 <dgarijo> +1 16:30:31 <Dong> +1 16:30:39 <Luc> accepted: the WG will not produce a prov-json note 16:30:58 <tlebo> subtopic: prov-best practice <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the requirements for best practice from the charter. It was noted that best practice usually comes from experience and are iterative documents. The group agreed that they would not include a specific best practice document in the charter extension request. 16:31:30 <tlebo> ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/bestpractices/BestPractices.html ? ) 16:31:37 <tlebo> pgroth: reads from charter 16:32:32 <tlebo> q+ 16:32:52 <jcheney> q+ to ask whether this is an appropriate home for collections 16:33:05 <zednik_> q+ 16:33:18 <tlebo> q- 16:33:21 <pgroth> q+ 16:33:36 <tlebo> tlebo: best practices can help answer public question 16:33:49 <Luc> ack jc 16:33:49 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to ask whether this is an appropriate home for collections 16:33:50 <tlebo> jcheney: can Collections go to best practices? 16:34:06 <tlebo> zednik_: best practices come from lots of experience. finding out what works. 16:34:19 <tlebo> ... picking a best practice from the beginning is odd. 16:34:31 <tlebo> ... it is a development iteration. 16:34:39 <Luc> ack ze 16:34:40 <tlebo> ... we need experience from the real world. 16:34:43 <Curt> rename to PROV-EXAMPLES or PROV-COOKBOOK 16:34:53 <reza_bfar> Agree with Stephan. Could this be a document that we do post recommendation? I (and other implementers) could help 16:35:05 <tlebo> pgroth: suggest not doing a best practice document. we have DC and Collections. 16:35:11 <tlebo> ... we have examples in the primer. 16:35:45 <tlebo> ... best way to do it is to mint Notes out of thin air as we go along. But let's not commit to it. 16:35:55 <tlebo> zednik_: best practices are iterative, needs time to evolve. 16:36:07 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aaaa 16:37:52 <dgarijo> (I've lost all sound) 16:38:06 <Luc> hi daniel, we have to redial, we were running out of credit 16:38:32 <dgarijo> ah ok, sorry, I didn't hear the last part because had to attend a phone call. 16:38:49 <Luc> back in 10 sec 16:39:09 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aabb 16:39:31 <Luc> q? 16:39:34 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:39:46 <tlebo> luc: seemed that best practice is not something that we should commit to doing. Because of iteration and development. 16:39:57 <tlebo> ... if we do it, we'll do it later. Not part of the extension request. 16:40:02 <Luc> proposed: the WG will not include a best practice deliverable in the charter extension request 16:40:09 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 16:40:10 <reza_bfar> +1 16:40:11 <Dong> +1 16:40:11 <Curt> +1 16:40:12 <TomDN> +1 16:40:12 <tlebo> +1 16:40:12 <dcorsar> +1 16:40:13 <zednik_> +1 16:40:13 <jcheney> +1 16:40:32 <dgarijo> +1 16:40:37 <Luc> accepted: the WG will not include a best practice deliverable in the charter extension request 16:41:18 <tlebo> subtopic: prov-dictionary <pgroth> Summary: Given that the group agreed that prov-dictionary would be separated into a Note from an earlier discussion. The group made a resolution to produce such a Note. Additionally there was some discussion about mimetypes. Paul was actioned to seek advice on mimetypes from the w3c. 16:41:28 <pgroth> we agreed it was a note 16:41:28 <tlebo> luc: where do Dictionaries go? 16:41:32 <Luc> q? 16:41:35 <pgroth> q+ 16:41:50 <tlebo> pgroth: the resolution said into a Note 16:42:34 <tlebo> luc: note by itself? 16:42:42 <tlebo> pgroth: by itself, there's enough content. 16:43:03 <tlebo> curt: needs to be its own primer. 16:43:26 <tlebo> luc: goes into charter extension? 16:43:51 <tlebo> ... a lot of work went into dictionaries. 16:43:57 <tlebo> q+ 16:44:01 <Curt> It has 2 purposes: 1) define prov for collections 2) should how to build extensions on top of PROV-DM in general 16:44:13 <Curt> s/should/show/ 16:44:23 <tlebo> pgroth: its' something that we agreed on doing. 16:44:32 <Luc> ack pg 16:44:38 <tlebo> ... we need to be careful about looking like were adding to the charter. 16:44:43 <tlebo> q- 16:44:51 <zednik_> q+ 16:44:55 <tlebo> luc: "Collection" was already in the charter. 16:45:15 <tlebo> q+ 16:45:45 <zednik_> q- 16:45:54 <Luc> ack tl 16:46:08 <jcheney> q+ 16:46:15 <tlebo> q- 16:46:37 <tlebo> tlebo: it was almost Rec, would be drastic to drop it from a request for extension 16:47:00 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov-20101214/#Proposed_Charter_for_a_Provenance_Interchange_Working_Group 16:47:07 <Luc> ack jch 16:47:23 <tlebo> jcheney: cites from charter, which corresponds to our Collections decision. 16:47:30 <tlebo> ... Dictionary fits as "best practice" 16:47:38 <Luc> q? 16:47:46 <tlebo> q+ 16:48:14 <dgarijo> I can barely hear khalid. 16:48:46 <Luc> q? 16:49:11 <tlebo> q- 16:49:28 <Luc> proposed: the WG will produce a prov-dictionary note as a form of "best practice" 16:49:38 <TomDN> +1 16:49:39 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 16:49:39 <jcheney> +1 16:49:40 <tlebo> tlebo: 1) stian has expressed (but with short term committment concerns) 2) the mateiral is "done" already, just needs rearranging. 16:49:42 <Curt> +1 16:49:44 <CraigTrim> +1 16:49:47 <dgarijo> +1 16:49:47 <dcorsar> +1 16:49:50 <tlebo> +1 16:49:54 <zednik_> +1 16:49:56 <Dong> +1 16:49:59 <reza_bfar> +1 16:50:10 <tlebo> *stian has expressed _interest_ 16:50:14 <Luc> accepted: the WG will produce a prov-dictionary note as a form of "best practice" 16:50:20 <Luc> q? 16:50:20 <khalidBelhajjame> +q 16:50:30 <Luc> ack kh 16:50:49 <tlebo> khalidBelhajjame: timescales for Notes? 16:50:56 <tlebo> Luc: it's up to us to decide. 16:51:06 <Luc> q? 16:51:18 <tlebo> q+ to ask if there is any public review process for Notes (to make them better?) 16:51:38 <Luc> ack tl 16:51:38 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask if there is any public review process for Notes (to make them better?) 16:52:03 <tlebo> q- 16:52:19 <Luc> q? 16:52:24 <tlebo> luc: Primer has been doing through public review, so we have the spectrum of review. 16:52:36 <Luc> q? 16:53:04 <tlebo> luc: these are the deliverables that WG will be working on. 16:53:13 <hook> q+ 16:53:25 <tlebo> hook: mimetypes? 16:53:51 <tlebo> ... consistency on mimetype mechanisms to make it sync wiht prov-o and prov-xml 16:54:05 <tlebo> ... looking at atom, rss, rdf all in application 16:54:17 <tlebo> ... parameters define encoding scheme 16:54:22 <tlebo> rdf+xml 16:54:42 <tlebo> why isnt prov something like application/prov+rdf, application/prov+xml 16:54:52 <Luc> q? 16:55:02 <tlebo> ... why deviate? 16:55:12 <TomDN> seems fair to me 16:55:39 <TomDN> text is for prov notation, no? 16:55:40 <tlebo> q+ to oppose any new mimetype for prov-o, we already have ~12 :-) "it's just a vocabulary" 16:55:49 <GK> Please don't go down the route of creating a new MIME type for PROV in RDF. 16:56:02 <tlebo> +1 @GK 16:56:10 <TomDN> what zednik said 16:56:17 <Luc> ack hook 16:56:24 <tlebo> does DC have a mimetype? changing a vocab doens't deserve a mimetype. 16:56:25 <GK> RDF is a perfectly good MIME type, and PROV in RDF may be combined with other information that is not PROV. 16:56:46 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 16:57:05 <Luc> q? 16:57:08 <Luc> ack tl 16:57:08 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to oppose any new mimetype for prov-o, we already have ~12 :-) "it's just a vocabulary" 16:57:09 <tlebo> q- 16:57:29 <pgroth> graham are you on mute 16:57:42 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime 16:57:46 <GK> I'm noty on the phone. I'm not really here 16:57:52 <tlebo> it doesn't seem like changing a vocabulary deserves a new mimetype. 16:58:04 <Luc> q? 16:58:26 <tlebo> it seems that only prov-n deserves a new mimetype. it's about syntax. 16:58:30 <Luc> q? 16:58:42 <GK> (Looking at link) 16:59:24 <Luc> q? 16:59:33 <GK> There's nothing in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime that siuggests provenance in RDF should not be served as application/rdf+xml. 16:59:53 <pgroth> action: paul to seek advice on the mimetype for documents from w3c 16:59:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Seek advice on the mimetype for documents from w3c [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30]. 17:00:16 <Luc> q? 17:00:30 <tlebo> @GK, mimetypes shouldn't be used to delineate the vocabulary used within a serialization, should they? 17:00:45 <tlebo> subtopic: prov-constraints <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the need for the constraints document and its role. James asked for an endorsement of the current approach and help in reading it. The group endorsed the current approach and emphasized the need for it as a basis for building validators. Reza and Tom agreed to help. 17:00:46 <GK> (It's Saturday and I'm at home ... I just happen to have the IRC channel running so I can periodicaly peek at what's happening. But if I got on the phone, domestic unrest might ensue :) ) 17:01:10 <Luc> q? 17:01:17 <pgroth> proposed: The current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services. 17:01:19 <tlebo> pgroth: we should endorse what has been happening and its important. 17:02:23 <tlebo> jcheney: looking at charter: conceptual model, formal model (with optional semantics). 17:02:24 <GK> @tlebo broadly, I agree. I think I've seen an even more compelling argument, but I can't bring it to mind. Unlike XML, where the document *syntax* depends on the XML scheme used, RDF is a single uniform syntax. MIME types aren't really up to conveying semantics. 17:02:32 <GK> ^^ RDF/XML 17:02:36 <pgroth> q+ to say that this is fundamental 17:02:41 <Curt> q+ 17:02:45 <tlebo> ... why do we need a prov-constraints? It's not in the charter, and we're facing timeline. 17:02:51 <tlebo> ... we need to be clear on the rationale 17:02:54 <TomDN> +q 17:03:09 <Luc> ack pg 17:03:09 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that this is fundamental 17:03:18 <Paulo> q+ 17:03:29 <tlebo> pgroth: key for me: constraints distinguishes scruffy and proper. 17:03:39 <tlebo> ... scruffy shouldn't kill proper provenance. 17:03:46 <tlebo> ... how do we realize the difference? 17:04:01 <tlebo> ... prov-constraints is our definition of proper 17:04:21 <zednik_> q+ 17:04:30 <tlebo> jcheney: we've discovered half way though that we have something that wasn't in the charter. 17:04:37 <GK> (Constraints is part of DM, which *is* mentioned in the charter - we decided to split it out to make the document more approachable.) 17:04:42 <tlebo> ... can at least do scruffy prov. 17:04:42 <Luc> q+ 17:04:48 <tlebo> ... prov-constraints could be a note. 17:04:48 <Luc> q? 17:04:55 <pgroth> +1 to GK 17:05:15 <tlebo> ... wants to have the discussion and be clear on why we're taking this on and it wasn't in the charter. 17:05:29 <tlebo> curt: the rational for the document is the feedback. 17:05:35 <tlebo> ... responding to community. 17:06:05 <tlebo> luc: prov-constraints split for editorial reasons. 17:06:14 <tlebo> ... but it's really a single document 17:06:19 <Luc> q? 17:06:25 <Luc> ack cu 17:06:41 <tlebo> TomDN: it's even easier: we're making a standard. Logical step that computes the compliance with it. 17:06:55 <jcheney> @GK Deliverable 1 says D1. PIL Conceptual Model (W3C Recommendation). This document consists of a natural language description and a graphical illustration of concepts involved in PIL. Such a document will help broaden the appeal and uptake of provenance beyond the community of technical experts. 17:06:59 <tlebo> ... it's good, compact, quick read, structured well. going from PROV to Normal and validating. 17:07:07 <Luc> ack tom 17:07:09 <jcheney> @GK Nothing about constraints or validity 17:07:10 <tlebo> ... stress that and structure. 17:07:25 <tlebo> Paulo: 1) what is relationship between prov-o, prov-constriants, prov-sem? 17:07:45 <tlebo> luc: prov-o is a OWL encoding of DM. 17:07:53 <tlebo> .. DM does not contain constraints. 17:08:07 <Luc> q? 17:08:43 <tlebo> Paulo: we are missing 20 years of effort. 17:09:00 <tlebo> ... we are mixing approaches that others have had to deal with. 17:09:09 <tlebo> ... planning community: robot planning. 17:09:16 <tlebo> ... situation calculus. 17:09:23 <tlebo> ... event calculus 17:09:27 <Luc> q? 17:09:28 <tlebo> ... fluid calculus 17:09:53 <reza_bfar> IMHO, may be this can be alleviated by stating that these are not all the possible constraints, but constraints that are required for minimal validity 17:10:09 <tlebo> ... my problem is implications of definitions . 17:10:25 <tlebo> luc: this needs to be raised in the formal ISSUE process. 17:10:26 <TomDN> @Paulo: note that the definitions in the editors draft of the constraints are not up to date 17:10:44 <Luc> action paulo to raise an issue regarding definitions of dm and their implication on constraint document 17:10:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Raise an issue regarding definitions of dm and their implication on constraint document [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2012-06-30]. 17:10:47 <TomDN> (alternate, specialization, entity, are not the same as in the DM yet) 17:10:54 <Luc> ack paulo 17:10:56 <GK> @jcheney but as I understand it, "constraints" were always part of the conceptual model. 17:10:56 <reza_bfar> FWIW, the constraints document, as is, which I reviewed last night, is very useful for implementers. 17:11:27 <tlebo> Paulo: to simplify the nature of the problems, constraints says "exists" all the time, "exists" means exists now. Tomorrow it may be invalid. 17:11:40 <reza_bfar> I'd say without the constraints document, the implementers may be either confused or just go in too many different directions and create interoperability issues. 17:12:07 <Luc> action paulo to raise issue about the notion of 'exist' in prov-constraints 17:12:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Raise issue about the notion of 'exist' in prov-constraints [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2012-06-30]. 17:12:10 <jcheney> @GK OK, and that is how it was interpreted, but (devil's advocate) I'm just saying that reading the charter, we could drop or delay it if we want. 17:12:25 <Luc> q? 17:12:51 <tlebo> zednik_: discussing a validator, validing scruffy PROV. very important for the community. 17:13:00 <tlebo> ... the constraints doc is what leads to a validator. 17:13:03 <tlebo> ... where do they start? 17:13:04 <reza_bfar> +1 to zednik_ 17:13:08 <pgroth> +1 17:13:10 <Luc> ack zed 17:13:11 <tlebo> ... critical for making a validator. 17:13:11 <Dong> +1 to zednik_ 17:13:29 <Luc> q? 17:13:32 <Luc> ack luc 17:13:35 <GK> @jcheney ack. 17:13:47 <tlebo> luc: many have said that they wouldn' tknow what a validator would be without the constraints doc. 17:13:48 <pgroth> proposed: The current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services. 17:13:53 <Paulo> q+ 17:13:56 <TomDN> +1 17:14:02 <pgroth> ack Paulo 17:14:25 <tlebo> paulo: wants a regression validator. 17:14:39 <tlebo> ... yest. we're talking about time. 17:14:49 <tlebo> ... many possible things that can be executed. 17:14:59 <tlebo> ... the technical term is regression validation. 17:15:02 <jcheney> q+ 17:15:21 <Luc> ack jch 17:15:23 <tlebo> jcheney: one thing to say it's important, another to know that we're in a position to do it. 17:15:47 <tlebo> ... coming up wiht something that fleshes out the consistency/validation that's suggested in document is feasible but will take work. 17:16:09 <tlebo> ... obvioulsy will be asking for help from those that say they want it. 17:16:31 <tlebo> ... don't see a feasible plan to do it in the 6 months that we have. 17:16:32 <reza_bfar> +1 to jcheney 17:16:44 <tlebo> ... how to pin it down? 17:16:58 <reza_bfar> The issue, IMHO, is the scope of validation. Having consistency, well-formed, provable validation is a completely different thing than having practical minimal validation. 17:16:59 <pgroth> q+ 17:17:03 <tlebo> ... nothing in DM that says an Actiivty has a computational content. Need a notion of that, but we don't have it. 17:17:11 <tlebo> ... no way to standardize it. 17:17:19 <Luc> ? 17:17:24 <Luc> q? 17:17:26 <Paulo> q+ 17:17:26 <Curt> +1 reza 17:17:27 <Luc> ack pg 17:17:41 <reza_bfar> The same problem exists when people write OWL reasoners... 17:17:46 <tlebo> pgroth: the naive people that read the constraints doc, from implementation angle say "that's super useful for us". 17:17:53 <tlebo> ... "we can make a valdiator from that" 17:17:59 <tlebo> ... what more needs to be done? 17:18:10 <tlebo> ... does @jcheney see that there's more work? 17:18:18 <tlebo> jcheney: what is there is a sketch of how to do it. 17:18:30 <tlebo> ... there are a bunch of rules with the same form that we need to spell out. 17:18:39 <tlebo> ... how to expand optional attributes 17:18:45 <tlebo> ... avoiding the special cases. 17:18:54 <reza_bfar> +q 17:19:00 <tlebo> ... waiiing for clear idea on how that will work from rest of docs. 17:19:19 <tlebo> ... if an algorithm, here is how you run it. 17:19:23 <tlebo> ... check computability. 17:19:38 <tlebo> ... slash until it's computable 17:19:50 <tlebo> Paulo: I'm the trouble maker. 17:20:02 <tlebo> ... I'm very pragmatic. 17:20:10 <tlebo> ... the problem of validating a document. 17:20:15 <reza_bfar> This sounds like a QA effort on the constraints doc that's only achievable via trying to implement a minimal validator based on these constraints. How much time do we have for this? If we have some time, then I can do the QA effort as a part of actually writing a validator... 17:20:24 <tlebo> ... the theories have been discussed in W3C already. 17:20:46 <tlebo> ... OWL-S spent 2 years, and they failed. 17:20:59 <tlebo> ... we are dealing with the same things with semantic web services. 17:21:07 <tlebo> ... we have a very naive approach to validation. 17:21:17 <tlebo> ... the theory behind it is not simple. 17:21:22 <Luc> q? 17:21:26 <tlebo> ... do not want to get tangled in process. 17:21:27 <Luc> ack pau 17:21:43 <GK> Methinks it's not the group's job to implement a validator, but if someone outside the group were to do so that would support the spec's progress along the REC track 17:21:53 <tlebo> ... concerned about formal specification. 17:22:01 <tlebo> (I'm hearing contradictions) 17:22:04 <pgroth> @gk agree 17:22:17 <Luc> ack rez 17:22:20 <tlebo> reza_bfar: you need constraints on import/export. 17:22:27 <tlebo> ... I need to know its valid. 17:22:38 <tlebo> ... from a practical standpoint. 17:22:40 <pgroth> +q to say we vote 17:22:59 <tlebo> ... what jcheney needs is QA'ing the document. 17:23:15 <tlebo> ... willing to help jcheney QA it (as a user) 17:23:20 <TomDN> +q 17:23:30 <tlebo> luc: part of the implementations process. 17:24:16 <Luc> q? 17:24:24 <tlebo> reza_bfar: freezing of doc? 17:24:34 <tlebo> pgroth: with LC, WG is done 17:24:58 <tlebo> ... then WG must respond to all criticisms to fix them. 17:25:18 <Luc> q? 17:25:22 <tlebo> ... even after Cand Rec, proposed changes can affect it. 17:25:35 <tlebo> ... prov-constraints will LC after DM and PROV-O 17:25:51 <tlebo> reza_bfar: I'll take it offline to help jcheney 17:26:06 <Luc> q? 17:26:07 <tlebo> jcheney: paolo has been looking at it, too. 17:26:37 <tlebo> jcheney: I've need to hear that people think it' a good idea. If it's a good idea, I need more feedback. 17:27:50 <Luc> ack to 17:27:58 <Luc> ack pg 17:27:58 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we vote 17:28:14 <tlebo> TomDN: I'll help. Not much left, it needs to wait to fix the frozen versions of DM to get consitent. 17:28:34 <Luc> q? 17:28:43 <pgroth> proposed: the current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services. 17:28:48 <Curt> +1 17:28:48 <Dong> +1 17:28:49 <reza_bfar> +1 17:28:50 <jcheney> +1 17:28:51 <dcorsar> +1 17:28:51 <TomDN> +1 17:28:54 <tlebo> +1 17:28:54 <khalidBelhajjame> I+1 17:29:11 <dgarijo> +1 17:29:20 <pgroth> accepted: the current approach to the constraints document is a good pattern and should be taken forward. The constraints document is important for providing a foundation for the development of validation services. 17:29:54 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aabb 17:30:09 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 17:46:24 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 17:46:56 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 17:47:08 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aacc 17:47:16 <Luc> scribe: dong 17:47:29 <Luc> topic: Call for implementations & exit criteria <pgroth> Summary: Luc described the need for exit criteria and went over a draft of a proposed set of exit criteria made by the chairs. The draft was inspired by SKOS. The group discussed various kinds of exit criteria including the need for multiple implementations, a matrix of features, as well as validators. Paul was tasked to run the proposed exit criteria by the W3C. The notion of compliance to PROV and how that relates to exit criteria was discussed. Paul was tasked with checking that relationship with the W3C. The group was surveyed to see who was producing implementations of PROV. There were several. Paul, Dong, Reza and Stefan agreed to help with preparing the implementation report. 17:47:40 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria 17:48:53 <Dong> Luc: We'll need to have exit criteria for the WG to demonstrate the recommendations are implementable 17:50:04 <zednik> q+ 17:50:23 <reza_bfar> Can you please clarify "have been demonstrated"? 17:50:26 <Dong> Luc: Looked at SKOS for examples 17:50:46 <pgroth> +q 17:50:49 <Dong> Luc: 2 independent implementations needed 17:51:05 <Dong> ... for each feature 17:51:55 <Dong> ... implementations can produce or consume a "feature" 17:52:24 <Dong> Luc: There'll be vocabularies extending PROV 17:52:43 <Dong> ... these are examples of PROV adoption 17:52:52 <reza_bfar> +q 17:53:34 <Dong> Luc: An implementation report will be needed 17:53:44 <Dong> ... with matrixes of implemented features 17:54:20 <pgroth> here is an example of an implementation report from skos: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html 17:54:54 <tlebo> q+ to ask if "implementation" is API, application, or either? 17:55:00 <TomDN> +q 17:55:19 <Dong> Luc: we'll need to track issues raised against CR and respond to all of them 17:56:17 <Dong> Luc: care must be taken when defining exit criteria 17:56:52 <Luc> q? 17:56:58 <khalidBelhajjame> +q 17:57:37 <tlebo> +1 to rename "use" to something like "support" 17:57:59 <Dong> zednik: for each feature, "support" is better than "use" 17:58:55 <Dong> pgroth: if there is only one implemetation uses a particular feature 17:59:06 <Dong> ... should it be in the rec 17:59:35 <pgroth> SPARQL implementation report: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/implementations 17:59:42 <Dong> luc: 1. implementability of a features 17:59:56 <Luc> ack ze 17:59:59 <Dong> Luc: 2. interoperability of features 17:59:59 <pgroth> sorry this one: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/impl-report-ql 18:00:18 <Dong> pgroth: links to other impl. reports 18:00:48 <Dong> pgroth: prefers the SKOS's report 18:01:11 <Luc> q? 18:01:14 <Luc> ack pg 18:01:19 <Dong> pgroth: in SKOS, a lots of constructs were not supported by impl. 18:01:41 <Dong> reza_bfar: Does impl need to be public? 18:02:04 <Dong> pgroth: just need to list the impl. 18:02:14 <Luc> q? 18:02:18 <Luc> ack re 18:02:21 <reza_bfar> -q 18:02:34 <Dong> ... with responses to questionaires 18:02:38 <tlebo> q- 18:02:49 <tlebo> (yes, APIs and applications are "implementations") 18:03:07 <Dong> TomDN: should we include the notion of interchangability between encodings 18:03:32 <Luc> q? 18:03:32 <pgroth> q+ to suggest a new phrase 18:03:32 <Dong> zednik: this has been addressed in Luc's point 2 18:03:35 <Luc> ack tom 18:04:03 <zednik> q+ 18:04:08 <Luc> ack kh 18:04:41 <Luc> q+ 18:04:53 <Dong> khalidBelhajjame: concerned about point 2, the interchangability of a feature 18:04:59 <Luc> q? 18:05:12 <pgroth> suggested change = At least two implementations have been demonstrated to interchange provenance that is they consume provenance features generated by other implementations. 18:05:19 <Dong> pgroth: propose update to no. 2 18:05:48 <Luc> q? 18:05:53 <Luc> ack pg 18:05:53 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to suggest a new phrase 18:05:55 <tlebo> we lost "for all features" in there! 18:06:29 <Dong> khalidBelhajjame: it's hard to show 2 impls interchange provenance for every feature 18:06:33 <Luc> q? 18:06:34 <tlebo> I feel like we should be writing a \sigma equation :-) 18:07:04 <Luc> q? 18:07:08 <Luc> ack zed 18:07:15 <Dong> zednik: should not add encoding conversions to the criteria 18:07:27 <reza_bfar> +q 18:08:03 <Dong> Luc: A validator, if implemented, should be able to consume every feature 18:08:31 <tlebo> luc: validators, visualizers, and converters tend to cover them all 18:08:33 <Dong> Luc: Visualisations and converters for PROV do as well 18:09:15 <Dong> Luc: PROV-XML will not in REC 18:09:32 <Dong> ... no obligation to demonstrate the exit criteria for it 18:09:48 <Luc> q? 18:09:52 <Luc> ack 18:10:01 <Luc> ack luc 18:10:11 <Luc> q? 18:10:18 <Dong> reza_bfar: Can we defined a impl to support at least 4 major PROV concepts? 18:10:22 <pgroth> q+ to respond 18:10:38 <Luc> ack re 18:10:38 <Dong> reza_bfar: how about 3 out of 4? 18:10:39 <khalidBelhajjame> +q 18:11:12 <reza_bfar> q- 18:11:18 <Curt> a library just wants to attach attribution and nothing else 18:11:21 <Dong> pgroth: there might be validation systems that look only at derivations, for ex. 18:11:41 <Luc> q? 18:11:45 <Luc> ack p 18:11:45 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond 18:11:53 <Dong> ... so it's possible there are systems do not support all the core features 18:12:02 <Luc> ack kh 18:12:10 <Luc> q? 18:12:19 <hook> q+ 18:12:20 <Luc> q? 18:12:24 <Dong> khalidBelhajjame: in some cases, activities are not needed for ex. 18:13:22 <pgroth> q+ 18:13:34 <Luc> ack hoo 18:13:34 <Dong> hook: in RDF impl. report, there is a good mixture of impl. 18:13:37 <TomDN> +1 hook 18:13:51 <Luc> q? 18:14:08 <Dong> hook: can be sure there are real applications that use PROV, rather than just API implementions. 18:14:10 <Luc> ack pg 18:14:12 <Luc> q? 18:14:18 <Dong> pgroth: agreed with hook 18:14:18 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 18:14:44 <Dong> pgroth: but there a leading time before uptake of the rec 18:15:14 <Dong> ... we'll need to push for implementations 18:15:40 <hook> reference for RDFCore Working Group Implementation Report http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance.html 18:15:43 <pgroth> straw poll? 18:15:50 <Dong> Luc: we don't need to agree on the exit criteria today 18:16:10 <Dong> ... but how do the WG feel about the current criteria? 18:16:19 <Luc> straw poll: should the WG adopt these CR exit criteria ? 18:16:23 <reza_bfar> +1 18:16:30 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 18:16:34 <Curt> +1 18:16:35 <dgarijo> +1 18:16:37 <CraigTrim> +1 18:16:38 <TomDN> +1 (good basis) 18:16:38 <dcorsar> +1 18:16:48 <pgroth> +q 18:16:49 <Dong> +1 18:16:50 <zednik> +1 18:16:51 <jcheney> +1 18:17:09 <tlebo> +.9 18:18:04 <Luc> q? 18:18:08 <Dong> tlebo: the basis for exit criteria is good, but phrasing needs improvement 18:18:28 <Luc> q? 18:19:02 <tlebo> Zakim, you should wonder where .1 is! 18:19:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'you should wonder where .1 is!', tlebo 18:19:14 <Dong> pgroth: should check the criteria with W3C 18:19:20 <zednik> q+ 18:19:36 <Dong> Luc: The list of features need to be there 18:19:36 <satya> satya has joined #prov 18:19:55 <Luc> ack pg 18:19:58 <Paulo> q+ 18:20:02 <pgroth> action: paul to run exit criteria pass the w3c team 18:20:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Run exit criteria pass the w3c team [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30]. 18:20:03 <Dong> Luc: What are the features the WG have in mind? 18:20:19 <tlebo> q+ 18:20:23 <tlebo> q- 18:20:35 <Luc> ack zed 18:20:36 <zednik> q- 18:20:37 <tlebo> q+ to show an example "passing" tables. 18:20:51 <Dong> @zednik could you repeat what you said here 18:21:14 <Dong> Paulo: Do we have any use case for PROV? 18:21:15 <Curt> we have frequently referred back to them 18:21:19 <Luc> q? 18:21:20 <Dong> Luc: No 18:21:32 <Luc> ack paulo 18:21:32 <Dong> ... it's not part of the charter 18:21:34 <zednik> zednik: we should include a description of how we intend to structure our implementation report when taking the criteria to the W3 18:22:03 <tlebo> q- 18:22:03 <Luc> q? 18:22:04 <Dong> tlebo: it's useful to have an example report against the criteria 18:22:12 <khalidBelhajjame> +q 18:22:16 <pgroth> q+ 18:22:29 <jcheney> q+ 18:22:36 <Dong> khalidBelhajjame: is that every term a feature? 18:22:39 <pgroth> does someone have a us phone, so we can call the pizza guy? 18:22:51 <Luc> q? 18:22:58 <zednik> @pgroth, I do 18:23:23 <Dong> khalidBelhajjame: suggest to list all the relations as features 18:23:25 <pgroth> list in dm terms all relations as features 18:23:38 <Luc> ack khal 18:23:43 <TomDN> So every relation that's described in PROV-N, essentially? 18:23:59 <Luc> q? 18:24:05 <Luc> ack pg 18:24:17 <Dong> pgroth: suggests to follow the section headings in Prov-dm 18:24:25 <Luc> q? 18:24:28 <Dong> ... use them as features 18:24:41 <Luc> q+ 18:25:35 <Dong> jcheney: are we expected to have 2 implementations of optional features, like prov-constraint 18:26:05 <reza_bfar> q+ 18:26:06 <Luc> q? 18:26:16 <jcheney> q- 18:27:11 <Luc> ack jch 18:27:19 <Dong> pgroth: we could have generic criteria or specific ones for each document 18:28:50 <Dong> jcheney: needs clarification on the "at risk" features 18:29:38 <Dong> Luc: contextualisation should be a feature 18:29:56 <Dong> ... but if feedback is not good, we can drop it 18:30:25 <Dong> ... interchangeability does not apply to contraints 18:30:38 <Luc> q? 18:30:40 <Luc> ack luc 18:30:46 <Dong> ... so 2 implementations are sufficient 18:31:07 <Luc> q? 18:32:10 <Dong> reza_bfar: is there forward influence on what PROV compliance means? 18:32:54 <Dong> pgroth: the way we list features can be used to make statements about compliance 18:33:20 <Luc> q? 18:33:20 <Curt> compliance = all the "MUST"s in the spec 18:33:25 <Luc> ack rez 18:33:40 <Luc> q? 18:33:44 <Dong> reza_bfar: is there a link between the features being discussed now with a definition of compliance later? 18:33:57 <Dong> pgroth: will check this 18:33:59 <pgroth> action: paul to ask about the notion of compliance to the w3c and its connection to the implementation report 18:34:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Ask about the notion of compliance to the w3c and its connection to the implementation report [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30]. 18:34:28 <Dong> Luc: who plans to do impl. of PROV? 18:35:03 <Dong> Luc: producing the impl. report is a significant effort 18:35:16 <Dong> ... which is important for PROV to be a REC 18:35:33 <Dong> ... who could help with this effort? 18:35:49 <Dong> pgroth: we will implement PROV 18:36:03 <Dong> ... generate PROV assertions 18:36:12 <Dong> ... shell script tracking 18:37:41 <Dong> TomDN: we will have applications producing provenance 18:37:53 <pgroth> +q 18:38:02 <pgroth> q- 18:38:05 <Dong> ... there will be ones consuming provenance as well 18:38:27 <pgroth> +q to ask about pizza 18:38:37 <TomDN> (remove 's' :) one of each will be sufficient this summer) 18:39:04 <Dong> CraigTrim: there are plans to use PROV-O, but cannot disclose yet 18:39:37 <Dong> Luc: proof of concept prototypes will also be good 18:39:44 <tlebo> Four from me: 1) abstracting csv2rdf4lod's PML 2.0 to PROV 2) native PROV generation in DataFAQs data quality evaluation framework 3) PML 3.0 ontology 4) PROV vis to OmniGraffle 18:39:52 <Dong> tlebo: see above 18:40:06 <Luc> q? 18:40:07 <Dong> tlebo: thanks, tlebo :) 18:40:38 <jcheney> pepperoni 18:40:42 <reza_bfar> +1 18:40:51 <reza_bfar> +1 to Pepperoni 18:40:52 <tlebo> subtopic fooding 18:41:28 <Dong> Dong: Southampton will have 2-3 applications producing provenance using a python library that fully supports PROV-DM 18:42:03 <Luc> q? 18:42:06 <Dong> ... and a Provenance Web Service (i.e. provenance repository) is also in the pipeline 18:42:08 <Luc> ack pg 18:42:08 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about pizza 18:42:50 <Dong> Paulo: coordinate with RPI to develop PROV extension to PML3 18:42:57 <satya> We are also developing a query dashboard for proteomics data using PROV-O based ontology for molecular systems biology (SemPoD) 18:43:44 <Luc> thanks satya 18:43:52 <satya> SemPoD initial prototype: http://ncsserver.case.edu:3001/homes 18:43:55 <Dong> hook: will likely to migrate the OPM-based earth sci sys. to PROV 18:44:35 <dgarijo> @satya: the link doesn't work for me :( 18:44:38 <Dong> Curt: definitely generating PROV, likely visualisation + browsing 18:45:08 <TomDN> +q to ask later what the timeframe is? august? september? october? ... 18:45:09 <satya> Sorry, maybe a univ. firewall issue (I will post more permanent link soon) 18:45:59 <Dong> dcorsar: applications generating + consuming PROV-O 18:46:20 <satya> q+ 18:46:54 <Dong> khalidBelhajjame: exporting PROV, workflow and PROV (Taverna), validating PROV-N 18:47:22 <Paulo> q+ 18:47:26 <satya> Another application is in clinical medicine - integration of provenance-driven querying of patient information using PROV-O based ontology (PhysioMIMI: http://physiomimi.case.edu/physiomimi/index.php/Main_Page) 18:47:29 <Dong> Luc: ProvToolkit 18:47:54 <Dong> satya: What is the timeline for impl.? 18:47:59 <hook> migration of Earth Science extension of OPM-O to PROV-O. needs to be simple to be practical, simple Jena rules + classification, visualization, faceted navigation of provenance 18:48:09 <Dong> Luc: we'll look at the timetable later today 18:48:23 <Dong> ... but hope the impl. will start from Sep/Oct 18:48:33 <TomDN> ack tom 18:48:33 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask later what the timeframe is? august? september? october? ... 18:48:34 <Dong> ... and results soon, hopefully 18:49:54 <Dong> satya: what are the criteria for working impl.? 18:50:04 <Luc> q? 18:50:07 <TomDN> +q to say that if the implementation deadline is indeed in the fall, I might have bandwidth for a validator as well 18:50:13 <Dong> Luc: Questionaires for implementor to fill 18:50:13 <satya> q- 18:50:26 <reza_bfar> +q 18:50:50 <Dong> dgarijo: exporting PROV, mydata? 18:52:05 <Luc> ack pau 18:52:05 <dgarijo> @Dong: export provenance traces from scientific workflows, and several projects from UPM have expressed interest in the model, but I can't say how we will be using it right now. 18:52:16 <Dong> Paulo: could people contribute to a wiki telling about what they will be doing? 18:52:16 <Luc> ack tom 18:52:16 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to say that if the implementation deadline is indeed in the fall, I might have bandwidth for a validator as well 18:52:21 <Dong> Luc: Agreed 18:52:41 <Luc> q? 18:52:44 <Luc> ack rez 18:53:53 <Dong> Luc: Can any one help with the impl. report? 18:53:55 <pgroth> q+ 18:54:08 <Dong> zednik: I will help 18:54:13 <Luc> q? 18:54:18 <Dong> q+ 18:54:20 <reza_bfar> What are the list of things to do? 18:54:26 <reza_bfar> I'm not clear... example actions/tasks? 18:54:33 <Dong> pgroth: I'll participate, keep track of the tracker 18:54:44 <pgroth> q- 18:55:29 <reza_bfar> I volunteer to help Stephan 18:55:43 <Dong> Luc: in response to reza_bfar, we need to finalise the criteria, produce list of features, produce the questionaire, collection impl. data, write the impl. report 18:56:03 <Dong> ... we need to make sure that things get implemented in the group 18:56:38 <Dong> Luc: someone needs to read all the feedbacks and track them in the tracker 18:56:55 <Dong> pgroth: some activities are not part of the impl. report though 18:57:08 <Luc> q? 18:57:13 <reza_bfar> I'm not familiar with the W3C tools, etc. (tracker?, etc.), but I can help with listing features, producing tables, etc... 18:57:22 <Luc> ack dong 18:57:53 <Dong> Dong: will help with data collection and the impl. report 18:58:03 <Luc> q? 18:58:47 <Dong> Luc: so Paul, Dong, reza_bfar, Stefan will help with the impl. report 18:58:56 <Luc> q? 18:59:18 <Dong> Luc: will put a call the the WG as well 18:59:25 <Luc> topic timetable for all work 19:00:12 <Dong> pgroth: suggest to discuss on PROV-AQ, PROV-SEM first 19:00:35 <Dong> Luc: What remains before last call? 19:00:48 <Luc> topic: prov-aq <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the current state of prov-aq. Paul asked for any new technical issues to be raised. Two issues were briefly discussed around the need to allow for SOAP and the possibility of having the service described using a service description language (e.g. wadl). The group agreed to submit all feature requests on the prov-aq before June 30. 19:00:49 <reza_bfar> Is it permissible to discuss a technical topic that was not brought up (with Prov-QA) prior to F2F3? If not, no big deal. 19:01:00 <reza_bfar> Kind of a question actually... 19:01:02 <Dong> pgroth: There a a number of outstanding issues on PROV-AQ 19:01:11 <reza_bfar> +q 19:01:24 <Dong> pgroth: first, all the issues need to be resolved 19:01:43 <Luc> q? 19:01:46 <Dong> ... need to finalise the features as well 19:02:10 <Dong> ... the current issues can be resolved 19:02:29 <Dong> ... before the end of summer, PROV-AQ can go to last call 19:02:35 <Luc> q? 19:03:16 <Dong> reza_bfar: can the protocol and service can be decoupled? 19:04:09 <Luc> q? 19:04:11 <pgroth> issue: can the protocol be decoupled from the service definition in prov-aq 19:04:11 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-433 - Can the protocol be decoupled from the service definition in prov-aq ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/433/edit . 19:04:18 <Luc> q? 19:04:22 <Luc> ack rez 19:05:01 <hook> +q zednik_ 19:05:11 <Dong> reza_bfar: prov-aq seems to refer to REST 19:05:21 <Dong> ... but there are users of SOAP 19:05:26 <Luc> q? 19:05:31 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 19:06:08 <Luc> q? 19:06:16 <Dong> pgroth: we'll try to decouple completely the protocol and the content 19:06:50 <Dong> Luc: could people have a look at the document and make suggestions? 19:06:54 <Luc> q? 19:07:28 <hook> q+ 19:07:38 <Dong> reza_bfar: a recommendation for REST-SOAP mapping could also be useful 19:07:47 <Dong> pgroth: we'll look into this issue 19:08:23 <Luc> q/ 19:08:26 <Luc> q? 19:08:29 <Luc> ack ze 19:08:31 <zednik> q- 19:09:11 <Dong> hook: should there be a formal service description for prov. service? 19:09:17 <Luc> q? 19:09:19 <Luc> ack ho 19:09:34 <zednik> WADL: http://www.w3.org/Submission/wadl/ 19:09:54 <Dong> hook: a machine-readable service desc. will be useful 19:10:05 <Luc> q? 19:10:20 <Dong> Luc: concerned about the available resources 19:10:30 <pgroth> issue: look at wadl or some other description language for the service - is it possible? do we have time? paq 19:10:31 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-434 - Look at wadl or some other description language for the service - is it possible? do we have time? paq ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/434/edit . 19:11:02 <hook> q+ 19:11:30 <Dong> hook: is AQ is part of impl. plan? 19:11:57 <Luc> q? 19:12:05 <Luc> ack hook 19:12:23 <Dong> ... there are existing tools that do AQ, generate WADL 19:12:59 <Dong> pgroth: we don't have a good impl. of the protocol yet 19:13:21 <Dong> ... although it is simple, before going to LC, we need at least 1 implementation 19:13:29 <Dong> ... to make sure it works 19:14:09 <Luc> q? 19:14:15 <Dong> Luc: suggests make PAQ as a feature, not as a rec criteria, but as a way of getting feedback from implementators 19:14:21 <Dong> pgroth: OK 19:14:55 <Dong> pgroth: if anyone has more issues with PAQ, pls raise them now 19:15:13 <Dong> pgroth: Any other extra feature for PAQ? 19:16:10 <Luc> q? 19:16:19 <hook> s/existing tools that do AQ, generate WADL/existing REST frameworks to implement AQ with, that also auto-generates WADL for PROV-AQ/ 19:16:32 <tlebo> q+ 19:16:40 <Luc> ack tl 19:18:00 <pgroth> q+ 19:18:11 <reza_bfar> Question: are you trying to "stream" provenance records between multiple points? 19:18:14 <Dong> tlebo: suggests we need a mechanism to post back provenance to the source 19:18:43 <Luc> ack pg 19:19:09 <Luc> looks like PAQ is becoming PAQR (R for record ...) 19:19:55 <Luc> q+ 19:20:21 <Dong> tlebo: can downstream client file copies back 19:21:00 <reza_bfar> Don't want to interrupt the conversation, but can someone type in a use-case here? I'm confused 19:21:15 <Luc> q? 19:21:17 <Luc> ack luc 19:21:24 <Dong> Luc: asks tlebo whether he wants an interface to store any provenance, or a mechanism to tell about the existence of provenance 19:21:25 <Curt> q+ 19:21:38 <Curt> q- 19:22:32 <Dong> tlebo: use-case desc.: data.gov's data (CSV) -> RPI (linked data) -> Oxford 19:22:38 <Curt> If a scientist d/ls data from a data center, then writes a paper about that data, he cites it from his side, but it would be nice to also tell the data center that he used their data 19:22:49 <Dong> ... but data.gov not aware of this 19:23:02 <TomDN> ack pizzaguy ? 19:23:14 <Dong> ... there is no forward linking that allows this to happen 19:23:52 <hook> @tlebo, sounds like you are describing a PROV repository and/or LOD? "prov-pedia"? 19:24:00 <Dong> Curt: suggests providing a way to tell the data center that we're using your data 19:24:14 <Dong> ... it is currently done manually 19:24:25 <Dong> ... agreed this is a good idea 19:26:07 <Dong> Luc: due to resource constraint, storing provenance by a prov service was not on the plan 19:26:26 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, who"s on the phone 19:26:26 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who"s on the phone', khalidBelhajjame 19:26:53 <Curt> zakim, who is here? 19:26:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see dgarijo, +1.805.893.aacc, Satya_Sahoo 19:26:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see satya, tlebo, jcheney, Dong, TomDN, Paulo, khalidBelhajjame, GK_, dcorsar, hook, reza_bfar, CraigTrim, Curt, Luc, pgroth, dgarijo, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, sandro, 19:26:54 <Zakim> ... trackbot, stain 19:27:40 <Dong> reza_bfar: is "track-back" optional or not? 19:27:56 <Dong> tlebo: it's optional 19:28:36 <Luc> q? 19:29:54 <Dong> tlebo: is is not recording prov., it's a notification (a la ping back) 19:30:11 <reza_bfar> just an idea is you could have optional parameters in the POST that identify track-back. That's also ACID and Atomic. 19:31:08 <reza_bfar> In fact, I THINK for REST at least, that was one of the intents of POST. That the parameters that get sent to the server and what come back are packed in a single thing... 19:31:44 <Dong> Luc: will we have a good PAQ doc before extension request 19:32:09 <Dong> pgroth: sees no significant challenge 19:32:30 <Dong> ... we can spend something discussing the features being proposed 19:32:31 <Luc> q? 19:32:42 <Dong> s/something/some time 19:33:21 <reza_bfar> Paul\Tim - thanks for the explanation... 19:33:36 <Dong> ... to see whether it is feasible to implement those 19:34:48 <Luc> proposed: all features requests for PAQ to be submitted as issue before June 30th 19:35:05 <Luc> accepted: all features requests for PAQ to be submitted as issue before June 30th 19:35:08 <Luc> q? 19:35:28 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aacc 19:35:36 <Dong> we break for lunch 19:35:42 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 20:02:15 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aadd 20:02:19 <Luc> q? 20:02:21 <pgroth> we are back 20:03:06 <dgarijo> It's getting late here in Spain, so I will leave now. Good bye! 20:03:37 <Zakim> -dgarijo 20:03:42 <pgroth> thanks daniel 20:07:38 <pgroth> Topic: prov-sem <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the role of the semantics document, how it should be prioritized and who would contribute. It was clear that James would be the primary driver of the document and the group did not have much other expertise in the area. There was consensus that document was good to have but that because of the issue of group bandwidth that it should be put on a lower priority. 20:07:38 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 20:07:50 <reza_bfar> Paul: we want to talk about the status of the semantics document 20:08:28 <reza_bfar> jcheney: document itself was reconciled with the third working draft back in March or April and very little has been done since then. 20:08:32 <pgroth> @reza if you use tab you get the names of people 20:08:43 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5 20:08:49 <Dong> Scribe: reza_bfar 20:09:41 <reza_bfar> jcheney: If we talk about bundles talking about SPARQL data sets, then there may be number of issues that force refactoring 20:10:56 <reza_bfar> jcheney: would like to see what the group thinks needs to be published before making the final push to finishing 20:10:57 <pgroth> q? 20:11:07 <Luc> q+ 20:11:11 <pgroth> ack lu 20:11:24 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsWD5#Semantics_of_Bundles_and_Contextualization 20:11:52 <reza_bfar> luc: I haven't had the chance to look at Contextualization, but I see Semantics as important in the sense that in DM we've been intentionally loose with the definitions (English definitions as indicated in the charter) 20:12:53 <reza_bfar> luc: I don't know what the message will be with the document. It could be many other possible semantic interpretation for DM. Is the message that this is the one and only one or is it that this is one of the possible interpretations? 20:13:29 <reza_bfar> jcheney: From the beginning the goal was to provide a rational as opposed to something that is the only way to think about things 20:14:09 <reza_bfar> jcheney: one alternative is that if there is overlap with things that are in the constraints, we could move what's there in the semantics as an appendix to constraints. 20:14:13 <pgroth> q? 20:14:43 <reza_bfar> jcheney: it would be good to have it somewhere close to the part of the recommendations that it is most relevant to. 20:15:02 <reza_bfar> jcheney: We want people who would implement to pay close attention to it. 20:15:27 <reza_bfar> luc: Should this be informative, not normative? 20:15:35 <pgroth> q? 20:15:35 <reza_bfar> pgroth: you have to be very careful about that. 20:16:17 <reza_bfar> pgroth: scheduling forces: do we dump it, do we commit to it, or do we leave it for later? 20:16:42 <reza_bfar> jcheney: Contextualization will be straight-forward to integrate, but need help. 20:17:08 <Paulo> q+ 20:17:29 <reza_bfar> pgroth: I think it can wait till after the last call specially given that we have given overwhelming support for the constraints document and this is all a bit much for one person to do. 20:17:47 <reza_bfar> jcheney: There are not hundreds of developers emailing us and asking us about semantics 20:18:27 <reza_bfar> jcheney: Correction - contextualization will not be easy to integrate... 20:18:34 <pgroth> ack Paulo 20:19:10 <Curt> we've defined precedence of specs with DM on top 20:19:39 <reza_bfar> luc: Within the context of the recommendation, these are the technical features that must be complied with to be comliant with the standard. We can't suddenly make it normative. This is decided by the charter. 20:20:07 <reza_bfar> paulo: can we move to make something that is eventually normative? 20:20:35 <reza_bfar> pgroth: We can make a number what are called Notes. These are referrencable documents for the community at large. 20:21:01 <reza_bfar> pgroth: You produce notes as a way to inform the commuinty about the WG thoughts as opposed to making things a standard. 20:21:28 <reza_bfar> paulo: I'm more favorable to semantics that lead to 1 interpretation than those that can lead to multiple interpretations 20:21:53 <pgroth> q? 20:22:27 <reza_bfar> pgroth: At the last F2F, there was a huge discussion about the difficulties in rectifying proper provenance versus scruffy provenance 20:23:20 <pgroth> q? 20:23:42 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 20:23:53 <reza_bfar> pgroth: No resolution. Plan to move forward is we still want to do this, but not the highest priority thing. 20:24:29 <reza_bfar> jcheney: if we really want to make this happen, we want additional resources than just James working on this or get a time extension. 20:24:30 <tlebo> q+ 20:25:11 <pgroth> ack tlebo 20:25:45 <reza_bfar> tlebo: I can't read the semantics document because I have no background in it and I don't understand it. But knowing that it is there gives our efforts some credibility. I also know that I've seen this kind of response when discussing Prov-O. 20:25:57 <reza_bfar> Seems to appease folks when they know those semantics exist. 20:26:20 <TomDN> +q 20:26:22 <reza_bfar> tlebo: Seems to appease folks when they know those semantics exist. For me, it's important to have that box checked. 20:26:28 <tlebo> q- 20:26:29 <pgroth> q? 20:26:34 <pgroth> ack TomDN 20:26:52 <reza_bfar> TomDN: I have the same issue as tlebo. Do we have people who can review this document? 20:27:35 <reza_bfar> jcheney: You don't want to stick something like this out there without proper review. 20:27:59 <Paulo> q+ 20:28:06 <reza_bfar> jcheney: For some sense, that is an argument for having it to be part of the process so that external folks with the right background can do the proper level of review. 20:28:37 <pgroth> ack Paulo 20:28:42 <reza_bfar> jcheney: Are there people within or outside of the group that can do the type of review needed? 20:29:13 <reza_bfar> jcheney: I will send out the presentations shared at the second F2F and send it out to the team. 20:29:33 <reza_bfar> Paulo: I see some mismatches between the terms used in the semantics document and Prov-DM 20:29:56 <reza_bfar> jcheney: are there specific problems you see? Can you send me those? 20:30:29 <reza_bfar> pgroth: when we get to the last call on Prov-DM, James - would you be willing to update the document? 20:30:57 <reza_bfar> jcheney: I don't think anything will prop up in the semantics that will make us want to change DM. 20:31:23 <reza_bfar> pgroth: It seems more reasonable to investigate and discuss any potential mismatches off-line 20:32:08 <reza_bfar> Paulo: I still need to understand some definitions when I read the DM and Constraints document 20:32:12 <pgroth> q? 20:32:49 <reza_bfar> jcheney: if there are gaps where the semantics document is required for understanding DM or Constraints document, then issues should be raised against DM and constraints documents instead of making semantics document required. 20:33:37 <reza_bfar> luc: Ultimately, the problem is that there are dependencies between the documents and some are out-of-sync 20:34:20 <reza_bfar> pgroth: the usual mechanism is that when you review a document that pops out at you, then you either email the mailing list or you raise an issue 20:34:43 <TomDN> +q 20:35:02 <reza_bfar> pgroth: Another way is that we have a mechanism to take feedback from the outside world. We synchronize things before releasing to the outside world. 20:35:19 <pgroth> ack TomDN 20:35:42 <reza_bfar> TomDN: I don't think Paulo you need to worry about synchronization of documents. If you see a problem with a document, just raise an issue. 20:35:46 <Dong> +1 20:35:47 <pgroth> q? 20:36:10 <reza_bfar> pgroth: James wants to know who can contribute to the semantics 20:36:22 <reza_bfar> luc: I will do my best to contribute. 20:36:55 <Paulo> I will also do my best to help with the semantics 20:37:16 <reza_bfar> jcheney: it would be much easier if we had people with formal backgrounds to review at least. 20:38:26 <pgroth> q? 20:38:29 <reza_bfar> pgroth: Is anyone interested in semantics 20:39:07 <reza_bfar> jcheney: I guess the conclusion is that if it slides, it slides. 20:39:40 <reza_bfar> jcheney: I'll do what i can. 20:40:22 <reza_bfar> pgroth: I think that's a reasonable conclusion. The response is that it's a good idea and people like it, but we're running out of bandwidth 20:40:35 <reza_bfar> luc: for the record, Jan had some comments. 20:40:44 <reza_bfar> jan (sp?) 20:41:07 <reza_bfar> pgroth: next up - time-table and planning 20:41:08 <TomDN> (he was very positive) 20:41:25 <pgroth> Topic: timetable <pgroth> Summary: The group reviewed the timetable from F2F2. The group agreed to request an extension to extend the group to end March 2013. The group agreed to vote on last call July 12 fro prov-dm and prov-o. The aim would be to get the documents out by Aug 1 with a 6 week review period. Oct 15 would be for CR and then publication before the Christmas break as PR. 20:41:48 <reza_bfar> pgroth: we should focus on last-call time-tables 20:42:04 <Luc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dFVCWm9aREZFemNOYjlGQjdPRkdFZXc#gid=0 20:42:49 <reza_bfar> pgroth - The draft for internal review of Prov-DM was 2 weeks late. 20:43:40 <reza_bfar> pgroth: question is given that we have either addressed or resolved all technical results, how long will it take to produce another draft for review? 20:44:29 <reza_bfar> luc: 3 key changes to make - 1. Dictionaries out. 2. Get contextualization sorted out 3. Clean up Influence\traced-to. For DM, I should be able to finish before end of next week 20:44:46 <reza_bfar> Luc: It would be good to have some people review the docs. 20:45:20 <reza_bfar> Luc: For Prov-N, I'm working on the hypothesis that Paolo can't help here so it would take a few days after that or maybe Paolo can help and it could happen at the same time. 20:45:38 <reza_bfar> pgroth: July 5th? next call, but the one after that? 20:46:34 <reza_bfar> luc: 6/29 for Prov-DM and 7/4 for Prov-N 20:47:39 <reza_bfar> pgroth: creating an updated spreadsheet as a copy 20:49:52 <reza_bfar> tlebo: don't we agree that Contextualization is at risk? 20:50:01 <reza_bfar> pgroth: we agree on that, bu it would be better to rename and get it in. 20:50:29 <reza_bfar> luc: We could have contextualization as a topic for teleconference on Thursday 20:50:50 <reza_bfar> tlebo: Then, in addition to the ontology, I can do the narrative for bundle. 20:52:42 <reza_bfar> pgroth: can we vote on 7/12 to release as last call? 20:53:25 <reza_bfar> tlebo: I will have narrative done by 7/6 20:53:34 <pgroth> q? 20:53:36 <Curt> q+ 20:53:40 <pgroth> ack Curt 20:54:42 <reza_bfar> pgroth: Reviewers on DM have already reviewed DM and identified the defects so ideally, you don't have to do a full regression of the entire document 20:57:06 <reza_bfar> pgroth: given that, I would suggest that we move everything back a month 20:57:22 <reza_bfar> pgroth: we releae mid-July. 20:58:32 <reza_bfar> luc: we have to release by the end of July 20:59:27 <reza_bfar> luc: To simplify, let's assume the docs are out Aug 1st. That means that mid-sept we're at the end of review period. 21:00:44 <reza_bfar> pgroth: from Ivan - 2 months for the PR to REC transition is fine. 21:01:34 <reza_bfar> luc: my view is that may be we can get it out last week of July, but let's be safe and go for Aug 1st. 21:02:16 <reza_bfar> luc: This means that Oct 15th would be the publication of the CR. 21:02:39 <reza_bfar> luc: we need to check with Ivan to make sure this is reasonable. 21:03:07 <reza_bfar> luc: public review is 4 weeks after publication of CR so that would be Nov 15th. 21:05:02 <reza_bfar> +q 21:05:13 <reza_bfar> luc: does this work with your time-table Curt? 21:06:13 <pgroth> reza_bfar: the amount of time seems fine 21:07:04 <reza_bfar> pgroth: after the last call announcement, we'll have a call for implementation, because we said we want it that. We don't necessarily have to have that if we can prove we have enough for exit criteria. 21:08:30 <reza_bfar> pgroth: According to Ivan - 2 months for the PR to REC transition is fine. Minimal voting period is 6 weeks. 21:08:52 <reza_bfar> pgroth: ... if the voting includes a major holiday, then you add 2 weeks. 21:09:42 <reza_bfar> luc: I think this is the best guess we can make now. 21:09:56 <reza_bfar> luc: The best place we could save time, is CR. 21:10:33 <reza_bfar> s/luc/pgroth 21:10:43 <reza_bfar> +q 21:11:24 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar 21:12:02 <reza_bfar> pgroth: I don't want implementation, development, etc. to go too far into 2013 21:12:50 <tlebo> q+ to ask what is happening between dec 15 PR publish and end of Feb? 21:13:26 <reza_bfar> pgroth: we would be safe to go 2 years since typical charter goes for 2 years and we shot for 18 months to begin with. 21:13:39 <reza_bfar> luc: so, let's make it end of March and that will be exactly 2 years 21:14:43 <tlebo> q- 21:14:55 <reza_bfar> pgroth: Let's talk about constraints. 21:16:00 <reza_bfar> jcheney: this entire conversation has reinforced that I want to stay away from recommendation as possible. I think it's feasible to have something for people by August. what makes me nervous is that there are some large gaps with unlike the other documents 21:16:11 <reza_bfar> jcheney: I could write something that I'm happy with. 21:16:42 <reza_bfar> jcheney: I think there is a pretty substantial risk that it will take longer if there is not consensus or if there are technical issues. 21:17:27 <reza_bfar> jcheney: It will also help me once the other documents are finalized 21:19:24 <reza_bfar> luc: Are we going for 6 weeks or 4 weeks? 21:19:35 <reza_bfar> curt: In sync is better 21:20:23 <reza_bfar> luc: that would mean last call review for constraints is 15th of Sept. 21:20:59 <reza_bfar> pgroth: we need to decide what is the implementation of constraints? 21:21:42 <reza_bfar> pgroth: I would try to shorten the last call for review cycle. 21:21:52 <reza_bfar> jcheney: we better let people know this is coming. 21:22:59 <reza_bfar> jcheney: if we think this is important, but there is a descent chance that we won't have a great product, then it's better to make it a note and not a recommendation. 21:23:14 <reza_bfar> jcheney: that's a likely out-come anyways 21:25:12 <reza_bfar> luc: what we can do (to be on the safe side) is to delay things by 2 weeks. 21:25:35 <reza_bfar> pgroth: black-out period is week of 16th of July 21:26:29 <reza_bfar> pgroth: Dec 14th to Jan 2nd no publication 21:27:46 <reza_bfar> break 21:41:29 <pgroth> beginning again 21:41:37 <pgroth> Topic: Timetable for Notes <pgroth> Summary: The group agreed that all Notes would be released for Last Call by Nov 1. The group agreed that an implementation report would be set-up by the end of September. 21:41:50 <pgroth> q? 21:42:40 <reza_bfar> @pgroth: am I still the scribe? 21:42:56 <Luc> scribe: zednik 21:43:03 <pgroth> proposed: for all notes 1 Nov last call release Jan 15 final release 21:43:04 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 21:43:13 <TomDN> +1 21:43:26 <zednik> +1 21:43:38 <Dong> +1 21:43:50 <Curt> +1 21:43:59 <zednik> luc: caveat on prov-sem note, is best effort 21:44:12 <satya> +1 21:44:24 <pgroth> accepted: for all notes 1 Nov last call release Jan 15 final release 21:44:24 <tlebo> +1 21:44:27 <reza_bfar> +1 21:45:08 <pgroth> q? 21:46:44 <pgroth> q? 21:46:57 <zednik> luc: implementation TF members happy with questionnaire, CR exit criteria, implementation report plan settled by end of Sept. 21:47:26 <zednik> luc: ^ above was a question 21:47:41 <pgroth> accepted: end of september for set-up of the implementation report (e.g. questionnaire, exit criteria, plan) 21:48:01 <pgroth> Topic: Timetable next f2f <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the possibility of holding the next F2F meeting at the W3C's joint meeting in Lyon. A possibility of doing it at ISWC 2012 in boston was discussed. The group agreed to seek collocation with ISWC. 21:49:09 <pgroth> q+ 21:49:12 <pgroth> q- 21:49:13 <pgroth> q? 21:49:28 <zednik> pgroth: W3C encourage another F2F 29 Oct. - 2 Nov in Leon, France 21:49:46 <reza_bfar> q+ 21:49:47 <TomDN> (probably only relevant to me, but those are exactly the dates of ACM Multimedia in Japan) 21:49:51 <jcheney> q+ 21:50:04 <pgroth> ack reza_bfar 21:50:06 <pgroth> ack jcheney 21:50:44 <pgroth> q? 21:54:19 <pgroth> q? 21:54:23 <Luc> q+ 21:55:39 <zednik> pgroth: co-locating our next F2F meeting with ISWC in Boston (ISWC Nov 11 - 15) is a possibility 21:56:19 <hook> http://iswc2012.semanticweb.org 21:57:03 <pgroth> proposed: seek to colocate next f2f with iswc 2012 in boston 21:57:12 <TomDN> +1 21:57:13 <Curt> +1 21:57:14 <satya> +1 21:57:16 <CraigTrim> +1 21:57:16 <jcheney> +1 (prefer to avoid 14th though) 21:57:17 <zednik> +1 21:57:19 <tlebo> +1 21:57:21 <Dong> +1 21:57:21 <reza_bfar> +1 21:57:38 <pgroth> accepted: seek to colocate next f2f with iswc 2012 in boston 21:58:02 <GK_> I'm getting a bit concerned at what I'm reading about expanding the scope of PROV-AQ (WADL, PAQR) about 12:15 your time. I think it's too late to consider adding significant new material. 21:58:41 <pgroth> topic: Messaging <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed getting the word out about the last call and encouraging implementations. Curt agreed to engage the earth systems community. Paul agreed to make a page to track implementations of PROV as well as make overview slides available on the main wiki. 21:58:56 <Curt> @gk -- there are issues to *consider* them 21:59:08 <GK_> Also, the discussion of track-back - we don't have a spec yet. 21:59:10 <zednik> pgroth: opportunity when sending out last calls to engage community 21:59:21 <zednik> pgroth: ... having the right messaging is important 21:59:40 <Curt> @gk track-back also -- the issue is to consider it 22:00:02 <GK> @curt I'm not aware of any issue to consider WADL - I thought I checked the issue list fairly recently 22:00:11 <zednik> pgroth: ... blog posts have been very helpful to the community 22:00:16 <hook> q+ 22:00:23 <TomDN> @GK the issues were raised today 22:00:25 <reza_bfar> q+ 22:00:29 <GK> ... and I thought we'd decided to defer track-back. 22:00:30 <pgroth> ack luc 22:00:34 <zednik> pgroth: asking for new/fresh messaging ideas 22:00:59 <Curt> @gk wadl is issue 434 22:01:15 <Zakim> - +1.805.893.aadd 22:02:12 <zednik> hook: domain specific communities can be used to evangelize use of prov (e.g. ESIP Fed, NASA ESDSWG) 22:02:22 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 22:02:23 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has ended 22:02:23 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.805.893.aaaa, dgarijo, +1.805.893.aabb, +1.805.893.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aadd 22:02:45 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)12:00PM has now started 22:02:50 <pgroth> zakim, this will be prov 22:02:50 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)12:00PM already started 22:02:53 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 22:03:01 <Zakim> + +1.805.893.aaaa 22:03:10 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 22:04:11 <Curt> even have a "PROV tutorial" there 22:04:37 <pgroth> action: curt to engage esdwg community 22:04:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Engage esdwg community [on Curt Tilmes - due 2012-06-30]. 22:06:04 <zednik> reza_bfar: is the messaging focused on provenance users or implementors? 22:06:52 <zednik> pgroth: messaging primarily aimed right now for potential implementors 22:07:06 <hook> q+ 22:07:09 <zednik> pgroth: also, we should be careful to not make the documents sounds too complicated 22:07:20 <pgroth> ack hook 22:07:50 <zednik> hook: should there be a coordinated effort to track domain-specific prov extensions? 22:09:14 <pgroth> action: pgroth to make available a overview slide on prov on the main page 22:09:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Make available a overview slide on prov on the main page [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30]. 22:09:32 <zednik> pgroth: implementation report should track community vocabularies that extend prov 22:10:13 <zednik> luc: we should maintain a messaging page to coordinate 22:10:16 <Dong> I guess we need manual ping back from the WG 22:10:28 <pgroth> action: make a uses of prov wiki page 22:10:28 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - make 22:10:40 <pgroth> action pgroth: make a uses of prov wiki page 22:10:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Make a uses of prov wiki page [on Paul Groth - due 2012-06-30]. 22:11:26 <hook> @pgroth, how would overview slides be different from a subset of PROV tutorial slides at ISWC2012? should there be a consolidated list of known W3C PROV tutorial resources? 22:11:31 <pgroth> q? 22:13:19 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 22:13:22 <pgroth> trackbot end telcon 22:13:42 <pgroth> rrsagent make logs public 22:14:03 <pgroth> rrsagent, set logs public 22:14:31 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 22:14:31 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 22:14:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Satya_Sahoo, +1.805.893.aaaa 22:14:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 22:14:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot 22:14:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> I see 10 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-prov-actions.rdf : 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ivan to look at resolution on usage of a specific version of rdf datatypes. is it ok? what are the ramifications?  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-prov-irc#T22-58-55 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ivan to check when we should do internationalization and how for PROV-N  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T00-12-01 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: dgarijo to discuss note and make timetable and type of work with DC folks, when will it be done for final internal review?  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T16-15-00 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: paul to seek advice on the mimetype for documents from w3c  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T16-59-53 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: paul to run exit criteria pass the w3c team  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T18-20-02 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: paul to ask about the notion of compliance to the w3c and its connection to the implementation report  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T18-33-59 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: curt to engage esdwg community  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T22-04-37 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to make available a overview slide on prov on the main page  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T22-09-14 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: make a uses of prov wiki page  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T22-10-28 22:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to make a uses of prov wiki page  22:14:40 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/23-prov-irc#T22-10-40 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00001403