Chatlog 2012-07-12

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:25:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:25:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-irc
14:25:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:25:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:25:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:25:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:25:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:25:29 <trackbot> Date: 12 July 2012
14:25:29 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:25:29 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 35 minutes
14:25:46 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.12
14:25:54 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:26:00 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
14:26:05 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
14:26:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc
14:26:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot
14:26:22 <Luc> Regrets: Simon Miles, Tom DeNies, DanielG
14:42:49 <Luc> Scribe: James Cheney
14:43:46 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:48:46 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:48:52 <Zakim> +??P5
14:49:06 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P5 is me
14:49:06 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:52:43 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aaaa
14:54:01 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov
14:55:41 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
14:56:17 <Zakim> +Luc
14:56:25 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
14:56:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc
14:56:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see jcheney, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, sandro, trackbot
14:56:28 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
14:56:40 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:57:34 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
14:57:43 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:57:58 <jcheney> zakim, +44.131.467.aabb is probably me
14:57:58 <Zakim> +jcheney?; got it
14:58:10 <Zakim> +??P12
14:58:22 <Paolo> zakim, ??P12 is me
14:58:22 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:59:43 <pgroth> do we have a scribe?
14:59:54 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
14:59:59 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:06 <jcheney> I volunteered...
15:00:13 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:00:35 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
15:00:47 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc
15:00:53 <tlebo> zakim, I am aacc
15:00:53 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:00:56 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
15:01:03 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:01:17 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:02:01 <CraigTrim> I am aaaa
15:02:04 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
15:02:06 <CraigTrim> zakim, I am aaaa
15:02:06 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it
15:02:23 <Zakim> +sandro
15:02:25 <jcheney> scribe: jcheney
15:02:29 <Zakim> +Luc.a
15:02:31 <jcheney> Topic: Admin
<luc> Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were circulated just before the call, so their approval was deferred to next week.
15:02:48 <Zakim> +??P17
15:03:04 <GK> zakim, ??p17
15:03:04 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p17', GK
15:03:10 <jcheney> Minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-05
15:03:15 <GK> zakim ??p17 is me
15:03:16 <Dong> zakim, I am p17
15:03:16 <Zakim> sorry, Dong, I do not see a party named 'p17'
15:03:21 <jcheney> Luc: Suggest postponing approval until next week
15:03:28 <jcheney> Paul: Fine
15:03:32 <Zakim> +??P18
#15:03:36 <jcheney> Subtopic: Actions
15:03:58 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:03:59 <Dong> zakim, ??p18 is me
15:03:59 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
15:04:13 <jcheney> Paulo has not done 98,97
15:04:26 <pgroth> i continue to be a bad person
15:04:30 <jcheney> Curt: will do action Zakim Zakim 101 after LC releases
15:04:48 <jcheney> pgroth: will do action pgroth 102 later
15:04:58 <jcheney> Curt: will do action 101 after LC releases
15:05:09 <jcheney> Topic: Release of documents
<luc>Summary: After checking that all expected reviews were in, Luc thanked all the reviewers for their thorough work.  Out of these reviews, four technical issues were outstanding.
<luc>Subtopic: Relation prov-o - prov-dm
<luc>Summary: Graham suggested that our documents should explain the relationship between PROV-DM, PROV-O, and PROV-N. In the PROV-O document, Tim has inserted links to prov-dm concepts. In the PROV-DM document, Luc has created a table listing concepts and their manifestation in prov-o and prov-n.  The group supported the approaches and suggested editorial improvements. In particular, it is not appropriate to talk about "mapping".  
15:05:25 <jcheney> Luc: Many reviews in.  Are any outstanding?
15:05:48 <jcheney> Luc: No?  Thanks to all reviewers.
15:05:58 <pgroth> +1 to all the reviewers
15:06:09 <jcheney> Luc: A number of technical issues raised, most resolved now.  They are:
15:06:50 <jcheney> Luc: Mapping between prov-o and prov-dm
15:06:59 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- current agenda  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.12
15:06:59 <jcheney> ... raised by Graham
15:07:11 <jcheney> ... Tim noted that there are hyperlinks showing the mapping
15:07:22 <jcheney> ... Luc suggested a table suggesting the mapping
15:07:23 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#prov-dm-to-prov-o-and-prov-n
15:07:54 <jcheney> ... table is at end of document 
15:08:01 <Zakim> +??P19
15:08:02 <jcheney> ... Graham, comments?
15:08:19 <sandro> (if you follow the URL, then press enter in the URL bar, you should get the table.  at least I do in firefox)
15:08:28 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:08:29 <Zakim> +??P20
15:08:35 <jcheney> GK: Table seems to do the job, modulo editorial (post LC) issues
15:08:52 <satya> Are these cross-references between documents or mappings?
15:09:03 <jcheney> ... regarding Tim's comments, the hyperlinks cannot be dereferenced on paper
15:09:17 <jcheney> ... not clear that they're links unless reading on screen
15:09:21 <tlebo> @GK, I've rephrased it to "alternate     as in <a>prov-dm</a>"
15:09:22 <stephenc> stephenc has joined #prov
15:09:34 <jcheney> ... table does it better because it shows where single DM concept maps to multiple terms in PROV-O
15:09:41 <tlebo> +1
15:09:45 <tlebo> +q
15:10:04 <jcheney> tlebo: Rephrased links to DM within cross-sections in irc above
15:10:06 <Luc> q?
15:10:10 <Luc> ack tl
15:10:26 <jcheney> ... Is rephrasing more natural?
15:10:40 <tlebo> as in http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#wasEndedBy
15:10:47 <jcheney> GK: Need to look, but don't thikn it's a blocker.
15:10:48 <pgroth> so it's editorial
15:10:53 <tlebo> sure, it's not a blocker.
15:11:05 <jcheney> Luc: Can always refine this post LC 
15:11:07 <Luc> q?
15:11:21 <jcheney> Luc: Is this addressed?
15:11:30 <jcheney> GK: Yes
15:11:30 <satya> Agree - but I think this table should be called cross-references rather than mappings
15:11:38 <Luc> q?
15:11:46 <satya> q+
15:12:09 <tlebo> +1 to rename "mapping"
15:12:15 <jcheney> satya: This is helpful, but should call it a cross-reference table to avoid connotations of "mapping"
15:12:16 <satya> q-
15:12:21 <tlebo> "alternates" :-)
15:12:33 <pgroth> it's titled "Mappings to PROV-O and PROV-N"
15:12:34 <GK> @satya - I tend to agree - "cross reference" is more neutral
15:12:39 <jcheney> Luc: Satya, can you review and come back with comments?
15:12:41 <tlebo> bad naming "Table 8 ◊: PROV-DM Mapping to PROV-O and PROV-N"
15:12:42 <Luc> ack sat
15:12:43 <jcheney> satya: Yes
15:13:03 <jcheney> Next issue: Security section, raised by Graham
15:13:21 <jcheney> subtopic: Security section, raised by Graham
<luc>Summary: Graham suggested consolidating all security considerations in a single section of prov-dm, and refer to it from other documents. There was some push back from some participants, who felt that security considerations were not in scope of a conceptual model/ontology.   After discussion, it was decided that no change would be introduced, and security considerations would be kept in prov-n (as part of the mime type application) and prov-aq.
15:13:23 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:13:40 <jcheney> GK: There are security considerations in multiple places, should be brought together
15:13:55 <jcheney> ... so they're easy to find and review
15:13:58 <Zakim> +??P22
15:14:10 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P22 is me
15:14:10 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:14:32 <tlebo> -1 in Rec, +1 as Note.
15:14:34 <jcheney> ... prov-dm seems to be the appropriate place, with cross-references
15:14:46 <jcheney> Luc: Should this be done before LC?
15:15:01 <jcheney> GK: Beneficial for it to be in LC, collecting what we already have.
15:15:45 <jcheney> Luc: Security is mentioned in PROV-AQ, but some of it is irrelevant to DM.  Do we need more?
15:16:02 <jcheney> GK: No, but it should be there in the document to attract feedback on security
15:16:03 <Luc> q?
15:16:33 <jcheney> tlebo: Surprised this is coming up just before LC, with no discussion over past year
15:16:40 <pgroth> +q 
15:16:45 <jcheney> GK: Should have raised sooner, but did not see big picture
15:17:04 <jcheney> ... also W3C has different culture about security
15:17:10 <jcheney> ... but for provenance it is more important
15:17:12 <Luc> q?
15:17:17 <tlebo> q+ to say this is more like a best practices document and should be Note. Notes suits the maturity of the material that reflects our level of work on the topic.
15:17:32 <jcheney> pgroth: reasonable to make a section in PROV-DM intro that addresses security
15:17:40 <Luc> @pgroth not in intro, but as section at end of document
15:17:41 <Curt> Does the security section really change the specification, or is it more editorial/discussion?  If so, could that be added even after LC?
15:18:06 <jcheney> ... Graham is saying we should put it in core document to ensure it is seen/raises issue
15:18:15 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:18:29 <jcheney> Luc: Answering Curt: put it in before LC so we get feedback.
15:18:47 <GK> @curt it can be changed later, but my point is that by having it in last call reviewers will be prompted to think/comment about this.
15:18:53 <jcheney> tlebo: Better suited as best practice rather than part of spec
15:19:13 <zednik> +1 to security in best practices
15:19:16 <jcheney> ... but if there is existing narrative that can be added in that is ok too
15:19:45 <jcheney> Luc: RDF concepts doesn't discuss security
15:19:52 <jcheney> ... why needed in DM?
15:19:58 <jcheney> GK: Need may be too strong 
15:20:00 <jcheney> q+
15:20:05 <tlebo> q-
15:20:17 <jcheney> ... but because of specific role that provenance plays in establishign trust, worth drawing attention to security considerations
15:20:23 <Luc> q?
15:20:36 <tlebo> @GK, but we're not IETF, we're W3C.
15:20:38 <jcheney> ... was looking at elements of IETF process where every spec must mention security
15:20:51 <jcheney> ... because many problems can arise
15:21:12 <jcheney> ... not part of w3c culture but should be more so in future
15:21:13 <Paolo> but, what are these security considerations? I think I miss the point
15:21:14 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaee
15:21:21 <tlebo> "good thing to think about" suggestions Note.
15:21:27 <Paolo> wrt DM I mean
15:21:30 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me
15:21:30 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:21:31 <tlebo> s/suggestions/suggests/
15:21:34 <stain> sorry I am late
15:22:16 <Luc> See http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (section 6) subsection security considerations
15:22:29 <jcheney> jcheney: qustion: is it normative or informative?
15:22:43 <jcheney> ... observation: provenance isn't magic fairy dust, we should make this clear
15:22:57 <jcheney> Luc: informative probably ok, Graham?
15:23:18 <jcheney> GK: informative probably OK
15:23:31 <jcheney> ... if others feel this is unnecessary, will back off, but wanted to raise it
15:24:01 <jcheney> Luc: How about if we take security considerations from prov-n and prov-aq and transplant to prov-dm.
15:24:11 <pgroth> fine with me
15:24:13 <jcheney> GK: Works for me.
15:24:22 <zednik> q+
15:24:23 <tlebo> tyep it out?
15:24:27 <jcheney> Luc: Any objection/discussion?
15:24:32 <Luc> q?
15:24:40 <Luc> ack jch
15:24:41 <jcheney> ack jc 
15:24:43 <Paolo> q+
15:24:48 <pgroth> ack zednik 
15:25:06 <jcheney> zednik: We aren't developing communication protocol, so security feels out of scope
15:25:10 <jcheney> ... like SKOS
15:25:11 <Luc> q?
15:25:29 <jcheney> ... security should not block or even necessarily be part of a note
15:25:47 <GK> @stephan  security considerations apply to data as well as protocol - hence they appear in media type registrations
15:25:56 <Luc> q?
15:26:02 <jcheney> Luc: plese read sectionlinked on IRC
15:26:03 <zednik> q-
15:26:19 <Luc> ack pao
15:26:26 <tlebo> Security considerations is there to suit IETF, that's the only reason it is there.
15:26:30 <jcheney> Paolo: Reading section, still unclear what is going on.  Agree with stephan that security seems out of scope
15:26:59 <jcheney> ... Can be part of Prov-AQ, but seems like a disclaimer: don't necessarily trust data expressed in this vocabulary.
15:27:10 <jcheney> ... Seems like this goes without saying.
15:27:19 <Luc> q?
15:27:20 <hook> q+
15:27:32 <jcheney> ... Didn't see it earlier, don't see what it says
15:28:03 <jcheney> hook: Security considerations seem domain specific
15:28:24 <jcheney> ... not always needed but within earth science, security is a consideration
15:28:36 <stain> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-mediaReg has a very similar section
15:28:42 <Luc> q?
15:28:45 <jcheney> ... agree with stephan that it is domain specific and not part of vocabulary
15:28:46 <Luc> ack hook
15:29:16 <jcheney> sandro: Sympathetic to claim of being patronizing - have wanted to say something that tries to be useful
15:29:21 <pgroth> q+ 
15:29:21 <zednik> q+
15:29:27 <jcheney> ... Could say less, or that considerations are domain specific or out of scope
15:29:27 <Paolo> sorry maybe it's just me not being familiar with the W3C / IETF  culture but I find this is out of our scope
15:29:28 <stain> but I think that is mainly part of the IETF registration. 
15:29:51 <tlebo> security in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type and ONLY in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (to suit IETF)
15:30:02 <Luc> q?
15:30:10 <Luc> ack pg
15:30:14 <jcheney> Luc: We should have it for media type registration no matter what
15:30:35 <Paolo> if it's a req, then so be it, but...  can we remove phrasing like "inferences of potential medical treatments would likely require different trust than inferences for trip planning."
15:30:36 <stain> I would also propose to leave it in the PROV-N registration as it is. 
15:30:51 <stain> hehehe, yes
15:30:56 <jcheney> pgroth: Need to leave it in PROV-N, could draw attention to it in email announcements.
15:31:02 <stain> Paolo: that's stolen right from the Turtle spec!
15:31:03 <jcheney> ... with pointer to where it is
15:31:19 <jcheney> sandro: could say this is a building block for security, not claim that it is secure itself
15:31:20 <Luc> q?
15:31:31 <Luc> ack zed
15:31:44 <pgroth> @stephan that's not right
15:31:48 <pgroth> that's in prov-aq
15:31:52 <jcheney> zednik: Need to look at media type section, but talking about security we can just leverage existing security specifications
15:31:55 <pgroth> were not talking about it here
15:32:03 <jcheney> ... why can't we use common mechanisms
15:32:08 <Paolo> @Stian that's no justification, right? copy and paste bad paragraphs doesn't make them better :-)
15:32:17 <Luc> q?
15:32:34 <jcheney> Luc: already says that; just says "use common methods/common sense"
15:32:35 <pgroth> arg
15:32:36 <GK> It is.
15:32:39 <GK> in PAQ
15:32:45 <pgroth> it's in PAQ and PROV-N now
15:32:52 <stain> Paolo: so we can refine it - removing other things like IRI overlap concerns sounds like "This is not an issue in PROV-N" - but really PROV-N has almost all the same issues as Turtle
15:32:54 <jcheney> zednik: Then seems sensible to put it in PAQ which deals with transmission
15:32:57 <Luc> q?
15:33:34 <jcheney> Luc: Asked for feedback on this section last week.
15:33:49 <jcheney> ... Looks like there is not a consensus to move this to prov-dm
15:33:53 <jcheney> ... any objections?
15:33:56 <pgroth> yes
15:33:59 <tlebo> +1, stays where it is.
15:33:59 <jcheney> ... (to keeping as is)
15:34:09 <Paolo> I am not opposing moving it BTW -- but I now realize I have comments on the content, which I will raise
15:34:19 <jcheney> GK: Given lack of support, not pushing for it
15:34:35 <Luc> q?
15:34:49 <jcheney> Luc: Can add something later; this is informative anyway
15:34:56 <jcheney> Subtopic: Collection membership
<Luc>Summary: In his review of prov-o, Luc identified a mismatch between a binary hadMember relation in prov-o, and a n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-dm (with identifier, attribute, and complete flag). While attempting to define an n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-o, Tim made it a kind of influence (so as to be able to use the qualified pattern).  However, in prov-dm, membership is not an Influence.  After discussion, and as suggested by some reviewers, the WG decided to have a binary hadMember relation in both prov-dm and prov-o. Both prov-o and prov-dm also have a notion of Empty Collection.  It was suggested that the n-ary version should be kept in the dictionary note.  
15:34:58 <pgroth> charset?
15:35:23 <jcheney> Luc: At f2f3 decided to move dictionaries to note, keeping collection and membership.
15:35:33 <jcheney> ... interpreted this as keep "membership" as it was
15:36:08 <GK> @paul - re charset - I now have a recommendation from Ned Freed to always require charset=utf-8 parameter - forwarded to list.
15:36:13 <jcheney> ... to align with PROV-O, this would require making membership qualified and supporting n-ary membership
15:36:32 <jcheney> ... Tim updated ontology to fit (Membership subtype of Influence)
15:37:00 <jcheney> ... But at f2f3 it was not agreed that membership is a derivation or influence
15:37:04 <tlebo> POI\: the prov-o terms involved: EmptyCollection, CompleteCollection, IncompleteCollection, qualifiedMembership + Membership 
15:37:12 <jcheney> ... Several solutions were explored (see agenda)
15:37:24 <jcheney> ... Only workable option at this point seems to be binary membership
15:37:33 <jcheney> ... as suggested by some reviewers
15:37:52 <Luc> q?
15:38:03 <jcheney> tlebo: related terms are as above
15:38:03 <pgroth> q+
15:38:07 <jcheney> ... what should we do with them?
15:38:32 <Luc> q?
15:38:34 <jcheney> Luc: proposal would be Collection, EmptyCollection, and hadMember relating collections to entities
15:38:46 <stain> one collection to one entity
15:38:56 <jcheney> pgroth: This doesn't mean that we can't have something more complex when we move to dictionary, if desired
15:39:01 <tlebo> so, we have ONLY: Collection, hadMember, and EmptyCollection (and nothing else)
15:39:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:39:13 <jcheney> ... Interpreted f2f3 resolution as "we want a simple collection/membership"
15:39:17 <tlebo> +1 #pgroth that was my impression - keep it simple, no qualification
15:39:26 <jcheney> tlebo: That seems fine.
15:39:33 <tlebo> @luc, easier to remove than to add.
15:39:35 <Paolo> q+
15:39:39 <jcheney> Luc: Any opposition?
15:39:44 <pgroth> ack Paolo 
15:39:45 <Luc> ack pao
15:40:28 <Luc> q?
15:40:28 <jcheney> Paolo: Not opposition, but set notation can be syntactic sugar for binary membership.  We should avoid tight coupling between prov-n and prov-o
15:40:36 <stain> @Paolo, right, without the attributes/id of the membership we don't need the entity sets in PROV-O (as there is no qualification)
15:40:42 <tlebo> @paolo, not sure I follow, if it influences how prov-o should look, please let me know.
15:40:49 <jcheney> q+
15:41:37 <Luc> accepted:  we have ONLY: Collection, binary hadMember, and EmptyCollection 
15:41:45 <Paolo> @tlebo: no it doesn't it's all fine -- I just  thought hadMember(c, {...}) is acceptable syntax that is compatible with the binary nature of hadMember
15:41:47 <Luc> ack jc
15:42:02 <Paolo> not bih deal
15:42:02 <jcheney> subtopic: character set optional parameter
<luc> Summary:  The group approved Graham's suggestion about the charset parameter in the prov-n mime type application. In accordance to RFC 6657, the charset parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.
15:42:16 <jcheney> GK: Commented on media type registration in prov-n
15:42:36 <jcheney> ... overtaken by events, due to new rfc changing rules on text media type registrations
15:42:52 <jcheney> ... rules changing to deprecate US ASCII being default, and avoid default charsets
15:43:11 <stain> latest response from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg06676.html  says
15:43:14 <stain> Then my suggestion would be to make the charset parameter mandatory, with the only legal value being utf-8. The alternative would be to omit
15:43:17 <stain> it and specify utf-8 as the default, but as I said, that's not likely
15:43:20 <stain> to interoperate well.
15:43:25 <jcheney> ... asked IETF and response is (Ned Freed) for PROV-N, safest thing to do is always require a charset parameter set to UTF-8
15:43:34 <jcheney> ... least likey to cause compatibility problems
15:43:36 <sandro> GK, what's the RFC?
15:43:45 <sandro> (interesting news, makes sense)
15:43:47 <Luc> charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8. 
15:43:47 <stain> @sandro: RFC 6657 - see that mail archive link
15:43:59 <jcheney> Luc: Are we OK that this text will be adopted?
15:44:01 <stain> +1
15:44:07 <jcheney> GK: Yes
15:44:09 <Luc> ACCEPTED: charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8. 
15:44:24 <Luc> q?
15:44:31 <jcheney> Luc: This concludes technical issues.  Any others?
<luc>Subtopic: Vote
<luc>Summary: The participants unanimously voted for the release of PROV-DM, PROV-O, PROV-N as last call working drafts, and of PROV-PRIMER as working draft. The chairs congratulated the Working Group for this significant milestone.
15:44:42 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
15:44:51 <jcheney> ... Proceed to votes.
15:45:09 <jcheney> sandro: For LC, please add name of organization after vote (one vote per organization)
15:45:12 <pgroth> and can chairs vote?
15:45:20 <Luc> q?
15:45:26 <sandro> (yes, chairs can vote)
15:45:37 <jcheney> Luc: Do people have objections to the four proposals on agenda?
15:45:46 <stain> @khalidBelhajjame are you going to vote or me?
15:45:51 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft
15:45:58 <satya> +1, IE
15:46:02 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)
15:46:02 <pgroth> +1 VU University Amsterdam
15:46:04 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
15:46:06 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)
15:46:10 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
15:46:10 <Dong> +1, University of Southampton
15:46:10 <Paolo> +1
15:46:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:46:12 <Curt> +1 (NASA)
15:46:13 <hook> +1 (IE)
15:46:14 <Luc> +1 (university of Southampton)
15:46:23 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle Uni)
15:46:26 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)
15:46:29 <pgroth> southampton twice!
15:46:31 <stain>   DUPLICATE ORG -  +1 (University of Manchester)
15:46:31 <pgroth> :-)
15:46:38 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, I think you can also vote, I don't think we have one vote per instituion, or is it the case?
15:46:53 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft
15:47:01 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft
15:47:05 <satya> +1, IE
15:47:07 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)
15:47:09 <Curt> +1 (NASA)
15:47:10 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)
15:47:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:47:11 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
15:47:12 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:47:13 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)
15:47:13 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton
15:47:14 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)
15:47:15 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
15:47:16 <hook> +1 (IE)
15:47:19 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)
15:47:32 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle Uni)
15:47:46 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft
15:47:55 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft
15:47:58 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:47:58 <satya> +1, IE
15:48:02 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)
15:48:03 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)
15:48:04 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)
15:48:04 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)
15:48:06 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester) 
15:48:07 <Curt> +1 (NASA)
15:48:07 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
15:48:08 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton
15:48:08 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
15:48:09 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)
15:48:18 <hook> +1 (IE)
15:48:22 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle University)
15:48:29 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft
15:48:53 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft
15:49:00 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton
15:49:03 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
15:49:04 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)
15:49:04 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)
15:49:05 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:49:05 <Curt> +1 (NASA)
15:49:06 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester) 
15:49:06 <satya> +1, IE
15:49:07 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)
15:49:07 <stephenc> +1 (legislation.gov.uk)
15:49:09 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)
15:49:11 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
15:49:11 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)
15:49:12 <hook> +1 (IE)
15:49:19 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle University)
15:49:30 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft
15:49:42 <Paolo> clap clap clap
15:49:44 <sandro> +1 round of applause  :-)
15:49:44 <pgroth> congrats everyone
15:49:55 <jcheney> Topic: Publication date
<Luc>Summary:  It was agreed that documents would be published on July 24 (post meeting note: date was agreed with Webmaster) and the end of last call review would be the 18th of September.
15:50:13 <jcheney> Luc: Simon is ready, PROV-DM mostly ready.  PROV-O?
15:50:15 <pgroth> +q
15:50:30 <jcheney> tlebo: Producing valid HTML and most links confirmed.  A few hours work.
15:50:35 <Luc> q?
15:50:49 <jcheney> Luc: Cannot publish next week, but can request for pub following week.
15:51:15 <jcheney> pgroth: If we make request this week, good because next week we should work on blog/announcement for LC
15:51:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:51:32 <pgroth> yes
15:51:43 <jcheney> Luc: Publication Tuesday July 24, make request today?
15:51:49 <Luc> accepted: publication date is July 24
15:52:22 <jcheney> sandro: confirms this is not a transition request.  Only formal step is need to post to chairs@w3c.org
15:52:32 <jcheney> Luc: On day of publication?
15:52:40 <jcheney> sandro: right after is probably best so that links wokr
15:52:44 <jcheney> sandro: right after is probably best so that links work
15:53:11 <jcheney> Luc: Review period, hoped at f2f3 to release by end of july and review period ending mid-september.  
15:53:17 <Luc> 2012-09-12??? 
15:53:32 <jcheney> ... Suggest september 12?
15:53:32 <Luc> q?
15:53:35 <pgroth> q+
15:54:09 <jcheney> pgroth: Think this will cause pushback.  What about the 18th?  Let people have 3 weeks in not-August
15:54:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:54:23 <jcheney> sandro: 18th is reasonable too
15:54:29 <Luc> accepted: end of review 2012-09-18 
15:54:44 <pgroth> q+
15:55:12 <jcheney> pgroth: Looking for volunteers to write intro blog posts on last call, particularly updates
15:55:20 <Luc> +1 on prov-dm
15:55:28 <jcheney> ... Will write overview post but would be helpful especally for prov-o
15:55:31 <Luc> +1 on prov-n
15:55:41 <tlebo> @pgroth I'll add it to our agenda for Monday.
15:55:49 <khalidBelhajjame> @pgroth, when do you need that? 
15:55:57 <pgroth> by the publication date
15:56:01 <pgroth> july 24
15:56:05 <khalidBelhajjame> @pgroth, thanks 
15:56:16 <Luc> q?
15:56:21 <Luc> ack pg
15:56:36 <pgroth> no
15:56:47 <jcheney> pgroth: would like by 24th so that blogs & twitter can happen at same time
15:56:53 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments
15:56:54 <jcheney> Topic: Managing public comments
<luc>Summary: the group reviewed and made minor changes to the process for managing public comments. Paul will handle incoming comments, as per process, till end of July. A timetable is being set up, and volunteers are invited to sign up for this task.
15:57:13 <tlebo> I like process ;-)
15:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: Paul wrote tracking policy with input from Tim
15:57:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Have already seen that some comments start discussion, which overwhelms commenter with different responses
15:58:10 <jcheney> ... Luc or nominated member to raise an issue on appropriate product, list issue on tracking public comments page, acknowledge issue to reviewer
15:58:30 <jcheney> ... Start talking about it on wg mailing list, telecon etc.
15:58:35 <Luc> @sandro: is there a timeliness requirement for response?
15:58:48 <jcheney> ... If questions raised for reviewer, contact them and ultimately respond to commenter
15:58:56 <GK> q+ to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)
15:59:03 <Luc> @pgroth: can we nominate a member directly ;-)
15:59:05 <jcheney> ... Only concern - is this too heavy on one person?
15:59:13 <pgroth> agree on the url
15:59:18 <pgroth> i'll update the wiki
15:59:34 <jcheney> GK: when acknowledging receipt, include link to issue page 
15:59:38 <sandro> @luc nothing formal except we need the responses done before the next transition.
15:59:38 <Luc> q?
15:59:41 <Luc> ack gk
15:59:41 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)
15:59:42 <pgroth> ack gk
15:59:53 <jcheney> Luc: sandro, is there a timeliness requirement
16:00:07 <jcheney> sandro: We are supposed to be, but only requirement is have to be done by next transition
16:00:23 <Luc> q?
16:00:23 <GK> Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?
16:00:30 <jcheney> Luc: Polite to acknowledge, but don't have to conclude too quickly?
16:00:33 <tlebo> q+ to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.
16:00:41 <jcheney> sandro: Would be polite to indicate if it takes more than a month
16:00:47 <Luc> q?
16:00:50 <Luc> ack tl
16:00:50 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.
16:01:17 <jcheney> tlebo: List responds back to us thanking us for comments.  Should we avoid responding to the comments list?
16:01:25 <GK> q+ to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?
16:01:26 <jcheney> sandro: OK to ignore response and move on.
16:01:42 <jcheney> Luc: Put issue number in response so that issue raiser will be indexed properly
16:01:42 <pgroth> q+ getting the tracker to follow the comments
16:01:51 <pgroth> q+
16:01:54 <sandro> (that is, okay to delete the email autoresponse from the list)
16:02:02 <GK> ack gk
16:02:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?
16:02:09 <jcheney> Luc: At some point need to go back and ask if issue addressed.
16:02:34 <jcheney> GK: Process used to require confirmation that raiser believes it's been addressed
16:02:58 <jcheney> sandro: Confirms that we need to record whether responder was satisfied
16:03:13 <pgroth> added
16:03:13 <jcheney> ... f yes, green box on final report
16:03:21 <jcheney> ... if no, need to discuss on transition document
16:03:34 <jcheney> ... need to track this.
16:03:38 <jcheney> Luc: Add this to process?
16:03:41 <Luc> q?
16:03:42 <jcheney> pgroth: Already done
16:04:02 <jcheney> pgroth: Does tracker track public-prov-comments?
16:04:06 <jcheney> sandro: no, not sure if it can
16:04:24 <Luc> q?
16:04:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:04:40 <GK> (would subscribing the main mailing list to public comments achieve this?)
16:04:59 <jcheney> Luc: can we nominate a non-chair member?
16:05:22 <tlebo> -1 to anyone
16:05:24 <jcheney> pgroth: It could be anyone in the group, subsequent discussion led by someone specific.
16:05:26 <GK> How about a rota of (say) pairs of people
16:05:34 <tlebo> too likely to fall on the floor (someone else will do it syndrome)
16:05:37 <Luc> q?
16:05:44 <jcheney> pgroth: Happy to do it until august,then we need someone else since I'm on vacation
16:05:57 <Luc> q?
16:06:01 <pgroth> is anyone here in august?
16:06:08 <GK> (I don't yet know my availability)
16:06:12 <Paolo> off most of August, sorry
16:06:26 <tlebo> @pgroth can we list the person responsible and their timeframes on the wiki?
16:06:37 <pgroth> sounds good tim
16:06:43 <Zakim> -stain
16:06:46 <tlebo> that gives us 2 weeks to find an Auguster.
16:06:49 <pgroth> will do
16:06:55 <jcheney> Luc: suggest wiki page with availability
16:06:59 <GK> (Would be happy to be one of (say) two people who look out)
16:07:02 <Luc> q?
16:07:06 <pgroth> I have to go catch a train
16:07:28 <pgroth> congrats everyone
16:07:31 <Zakim> +stain
16:07:33 <pgroth> really good result
16:07:38 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments - new section
16:07:41 <tlebo> bye bye
16:07:49 <pgroth> +10 to the editors
16:07:51 <tlebo> off for a beverage! yeah LC!
16:07:52 <jcheney> Luc: will handle rest of agenda next week; adjourned
16:07:53 <Paolo> byes
16:07:53 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
16:07:54 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:07:54 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:07:56 <Zakim> -sandro
16:07:57 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:07:58 <Zakim> -stain
16:07:58 <Zakim> -Dong
16:07:59 <Zakim> -??P19
16:08:00 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:08:01 <GK> Bye
16:08:02 <Zakim> -Luc
16:08:03 <Dong> bye
16:08:04 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:08:06 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
16:08:08 <Zakim> -??P20
16:08:13 <Dong> Dong has left #prov
#16:08:28 <Zakim> -Luc.a
16:08:58 <jcheney> rrsagent, set log public
16:09:05 <jcheney> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:09:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html jcheney
16:09:09 <GK> GK has left #prov
16:09:17 <jcheney> trackbot, end telcon
16:09:17 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:09:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, jcheney?, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aacc, tlebo, +1.818.731.aadd, CraigTrim, sandro, Dong,
16:09:21 <Zakim> ... khalidBelhajjame, stain
16:09:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:09:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:09:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:09:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000552