From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:46:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:46:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/26-prov-irc 14:46:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:46:12 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:46:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:46:14 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:46:15 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:46:15 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:46:15 <trackbot> Date: 26 July 2012 14:46:15 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 14:46:29 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.26 14:46:39 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 14:46:49 <Luc> Scribe: Curt Tilmes 14:46:54 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 14:47:14 <Luc> Regrets: Graham Klyne 14:50:09 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 14:50:09 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc 14:50:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain, sandro 14:54:32 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:54:40 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #prov 14:55:23 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:56:23 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:57:39 <jun> jun has joined #prov 14:58:21 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 14:59:56 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 14:59:59 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 14:59:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:00:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, smiles, jun, Paolo, Curt, CraigTrim, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain, sandro 15:00:06 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:00:14 <hook> hook has joined #prov 15:00:14 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 15:00:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:00:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see hook, tlebo, TomDN, smiles, jun, Paolo, Curt, CraigTrim, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain, sandro 15:00:37 <tlebo> zakim, I'm on the phone. 15:00:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm on the phone', tlebo 15:00:43 <Luc> @sandro, zakim does not seem to see anybody on the phone 15:01:12 <Luc> sandro, are you present? 15:01:18 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:01:26 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:02:01 <christine> christine has joined #prov 15:02:05 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 15:02:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:02:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see christine, jcheney, zednik, hook, tlebo, TomDN, smiles, jun, Paolo, Curt, CraigTrim, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, trackbot, stain, sandro 15:02:17 <Curt> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.26 15:02:39 <Curt> Scribe: Curt 15:03:03 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 15:03:13 <Luc> proposed: to approve minutes of last week's call 15:03:18 <smiles> +1 15:03:19 <TomDN> +1 15:03:21 <zednik> +1 15:03:23 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 15:03:23 <Curt> +0 (not present) 15:03:25 <Paolo> +1 15:03:28 <jun> 0 (not here) 15:03:29 <hook> +1 15:03:30 <tlebo> +1 15:03:43 <jcheney> +1 15:03:51 <Luc> accepted: to approve minutes of last week's call 15:04:05 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 15:04:11 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:04:22 <Curt> Luc: two actions on paulo, 1 on paul 15:04:24 <sandro> (previous meeting running late, sorry.) 15:04:38 <Luc> @sandro, zakim does not seem to see anybody on the phone 15:05:04 <Luc> Topic: PROV-DM/O/N LCWD <Luc> Summary:Documents were released this week and announcements forwarded to various lists. We agreed to further publicize the release on the provenance-dagstuhl, pub-lifsci, and provenance-challenge mailing lists. 15:05:05 <stain> stain has joined #prov 15:05:21 <Curt> Luc: documents were released as last call working draft 15:05:30 <Curt> Luc: several announcements have been made about them 15:05:52 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/OutreachInformation 15:05:58 <Curt> pgroth: emails have gone out, blog post about the release 15:06:25 <Curt> pgroth: may want to refer to a specific blog post depending on outreach audience and focus 15:06:46 <Curt> pgroth: Who will reach out and to where? 15:06:53 <Paolo> BTW I sent the announcement to the DataONE project "community" list 15:07:10 <jcheney> dagstuhl list(s)? 15:07:11 <Curt> pgroth: Sent to several lists, Curt posted to several, others? 15:07:22 <jun> Anyone to pub-lifsci list? 15:07:23 <jcheney> ok 15:07:35 <sandro> zakim, this is prov 15:07:35 <Zakim> sandro, this was already SW_(PROV)11:00AM 15:07:37 <Curt> Luc: Yes, James, send to dagstuhl 15:07:37 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM 15:07:41 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:07:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one 15:07:53 <Curt> Luc: Jun, yes, please send there 15:07:53 <pgroth> provenance-challenge? 15:08:01 <Curt> jun: I will 15:08:05 <pgroth> yeah 15:08:18 <Luc> topic: prov-constraints <luc>Summary: We discussed reviews of the prov-constraints document, released internally earlier this week. Simon has completed his review. Paul and Tim plan to finish theirs this week. Stian is planning to complete it within a week. Reviewers were thanked for their hard work. 15:08:36 <Curt> Luc: constraints released internally, check on reviews 15:08:43 <stain> q+ 15:08:43 <Curt> Luc: Simon has submitted a review 15:08:46 <tlebo> me, tomorrow. 15:08:48 <Luc> q? 15:08:59 <Curt> stain: I will review, but I've just started reading it 15:09:12 <pgroth> q+ 15:09:12 <Curt> stain: May not finish by friday 15:09:19 <Curt> stain: probably need another week 15:09:27 <Luc> q? 15:09:29 <Luc> ack st 15:09:33 <Luc> ack pg 15:09:44 <Curt> pgroth: I will review, probably complete by tomorrow 15:09:50 <pgroth> https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin 15:09:54 <Curt> pgroth: I will try to implement it 15:10:18 <Curt> pgroth: questions on interactions between prov-n and constraints 15:10:29 <Curt> pgroth: talk about those, or include in review? 15:10:33 <pgroth> ok 15:10:36 <Luc> q? 15:10:38 <Luc> ack gro 15:10:41 <TomDN> I'll go over it again tomorrow as well, but don't have much time left in my schedule. 15:10:41 <Luc> q? 15:10:42 <Curt> Luc: Include those in the review 15:10:52 <pgroth> it is heavy going 15:11:12 <Luc> topic: PROV-O PrimarySource <luc>Summary: The group decided that there was a bug in the naming of prov:Source in the ontology. The group resolved to name it prov:PrimarySource, in line with prov-dm. (Likewise, for prov:qualifiedSource which becomes prov:qualifiedPrimarySource.) The change will be implemented immediately. 15:11:15 <Curt> Luc: Thanks to reviewers -- it is not a straightforward document 15:11:28 <jcheney> We can do a lot to make it easier to understand - it was not straightforward to write either :) 15:11:33 <jcheney> (at least my parts) 15:11:43 <Curt> tlebo: Comments on latest draft about naming inconsistency between prov-n and prov-o 15:11:49 <stain> @pgroth is that SPIN you mentioned? Matt Gamble suggested to use that to me for this purpose just 10 minutes ago ;) 15:12:01 <pgroth> @stain check out the github 15:12:02 <Curt> tlebo: prov-n allowed to type the relation, prov-o uses a class 15:12:18 <pgroth> @stain it's working well 15:12:38 <Curt> tlebo: proposal to rename class prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource 15:12:52 <zednik> q+ 15:13:02 <Curt> tlebo: Rename will fix inconsistency 15:13:09 <Luc> ack zed 15:13:42 <zednik> q- 15:13:45 <pgroth> q+ 15:13:54 <Curt> zednik: There might be some confusion, need to clarify that primary source isn't an entity, it is a relationship between entities 15:14:00 <Luc> ack pg 15:14:11 <Luc> q+ 15:14:17 <Curt> pgroth: This isn't really a constraint, just an issue for validation / validator 15:14:43 <pgroth> ok good 15:14:45 <Luc> ack pg 15:14:47 <Luc> ack luc 15:14:49 <Luc> q? 15:14:50 <Curt> Luc: a derivation can't be an entity by definition 15:15:01 <Luc> Proposal: Rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource, prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource 15:15:09 <tlebo> I'm glad that prov-c clarifies the confusion on Entity vs. PrimarySource (and Quotation and Revision) 15:15:10 <stain> @pgroth so https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin - looks good 15:15:11 <tlebo> +1 15:15:14 <Curt> +1 15:15:17 <zednik> +1 15:15:17 <stain> +1 15:15:18 <TomDN> +1 15:15:19 <jcheney> +1 15:15:22 <hook> +1 15:15:24 <smiles> +1 15:15:27 <jun> +1 15:15:27 <Paolo> +1 15:15:36 <sandro> +1 15:15:45 <Luc> Accepted: Rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource, prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource 15:16:20 <pgroth> yes 15:16:38 <Curt> Luc: Is such a rename part of the technical content of the spec? 15:16:49 <stain> sounds like an issue.. imagine <body> changing name to <content> after last call of HTML 15:17:01 <Curt> sandro: Would anyone happy with the spec become unhappy because of this change? This trivial change is probably ok. 15:17:08 <stain> (or more like <blockquote> to <quote> !) 15:17:19 <Curt> sandro: Might want to take a closer look 15:17:36 <stain> we can pay a third party to complain about it ;) 15:17:53 <pgroth> +q 15:17:59 <Luc> q? 15:18:14 <Curt> Luc: It might introduce a large delay to re-do the last call, how should we handle this? 15:18:33 <Luc> q? 15:18:39 <Curt> sandro: I would think this is minor enough not to need a new last call, but we might need to look at it 15:18:51 <stain> @Sandro +1, don't do a new LC because of this! 15:19:00 <Curt> pgroth: We are proposing this change to respond to comments 15:19:02 <tlebo> +1 @pgroth, we are responding to their comments. 15:19:28 <Luc> ack pg 15:19:55 <Curt> sandro: The issue is conformance, test cases, etc. You are allowed to make editorial changes and fix bugs, but not change design decisions. 15:19:55 <Luc> it is a bug fix, aligning names 15:20:14 <tlebo> this is very bug-like. 15:20:45 <Curt> Luc: We are just trying to fix the bug -- an inconsistency between the documents. 15:20:59 <Curt> sandro: It seems crazy to delay things by 4 weeks for such a minor thing. 15:21:09 <Curt> sandro: This seems like a reasonable exception 15:21:27 <Curt> Luc: editors should implement this change and note it as a bug fix 15:21:38 <Curt> Luc: We should keep good records about the approach 15:21:40 <Luc> q? 15:21:45 <Curt> Luc: Ok, Tim? 15:21:45 <tlebo> PROV-O latest draft has http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724 15:21:46 <Curt> tlebo: yes 15:21:50 <Luc> topic: Working Draft XML <luc>Summary: Stephan outlined a proposed way of working for the prov-xml schema. Working from an initial schema draft, examples from prov-dm and prov-o will be encoded according to this schema, reviewed, and suggested changes debated. The plan is to finalize a schema by September. Please sign up to this task, if interested. 15:22:06 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 15:22:44 <Paolo> horrible home networking problems, can't hear a thing -- going to check out 15:22:46 <Curt> zednik: Per email, there is an XML schema from Luc. Starting by reviewing that 15:22:50 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jul/0362.html 15:23:17 <Curt> zednik: Reviewing terms, creating examples similar to prov-o, mapping things to XML 15:23:39 <Curt> zednik: providing feedback on XML schema's ability to support the examples 15:23:59 <Luc> q? 15:24:03 <Curt> zednik: A google spreadsheet is organizing activities and we will provide feedback on the terms 15:24:10 <Curt> Luc: Are the terms assigned yet? 15:24:22 <Curt> zednik: Not all are assigned yet, will get them assigned by the end of this week 15:25:04 <Curt> zednik: Anyone that wants access to the spreadsheet, select "Request Access" and I'll grant it 15:25:08 <Curt> Luc: Timeline? 15:25:28 <Curt> zednik: Need to consult group, haven't nailed down complete schedule yet, but some examples are underway 15:26:07 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:26:18 <Curt> Luc: We agreed on a deadline to have the notes ready for last call review internally by ~mid-November 15:26:21 <Luc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dEtpbTNlNEQ4eGJqQUtKVXFVekFxR1E#gid=0 15:27:03 <Curt> Luc: To do that, by a month earlier, we need to have a completed schema, agree on it by September 15:27:09 <Curt> Luc: Need examples by end of August 15:27:31 <Curt> zednik: Try to get examples produced by mid-august so we can discuss and revise if needed 15:27:55 <Curt> Luc: Paul/Luc will be on holiday second half of august 15:28:10 <Curt> sandro: Someone else can chair if neither co-chair is available 15:28:41 <Luc> q? 15:28:51 <Curt> Luc: In the next week or two we should agree on the time line. While paul/luc are away, the regular telecon could be used to discuss the XML and examples 15:28:57 <Luc> topic: Preparing the Call for Implementation 15:29:12 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations <luc>Summary: Reminder: there is a page listing implementations of PROV; please upload information about any implementation you know of. We discussed what features to implement as part of the CR exit criteria. Paul suggested that section headings could be a good starting point. Stephan indicated that it was the approach he was proposing to follow for prov-xml. The SKOS exit criteria were also regarded as a good approach for vocabularies. It was noted that prov-constraints would probably required different kind of features, and a test suite could potentially be constructed. 15:29:29 <pgroth> or know about 15:29:49 <Curt> Luc: Inviting members of the group to add implementations you are aware of to that wiki page 15:30:27 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria 15:30:34 <Curt> Luc: paul and I are drafting the charter extension request -- need that page as evidence of uptake of the spec 15:31:28 <Curt> Luc: We need to identify a set of features that must be implemented by two implementations 15:31:58 <Curt> Luc: We need to start thinking about the exit criteria now, so we are ready when we want to move to candidate rec. 15:32:08 <Luc> q? 15:32:16 <Curt> Luc: How should we address this? 15:32:25 <zednik> q+ 15:32:35 <Luc> ack zedn 15:33:11 <pgroth> +q 15:33:14 <Curt> zednik: To clarify -- we need to identify a set of features that must be implmemented. Is that of all features, or some minimal set? 15:33:44 <Curt> Luc: We will look at each feature and want to list which implementations 'support' that feature. 15:33:54 <sandro> (But it could be different implementations for each feature) 15:34:00 <Curt> Luc: We want to get at least two implementations for each feature 15:34:16 <Curt> Luc: We also want to get a pair, including a producer and a consumer for each feature 15:34:18 <stain> but what is a 'feature'? How granular? 15:34:31 <Luc> q? 15:34:43 <Luc> ack pg 15:35:19 <Luc> q? 15:35:20 <zednik> q+ 15:35:24 <Curt> pgroth: We should enumerate features based on section -- we should put up a wiki page to gather the list 15:35:34 <Luc> ack ze 15:35:53 <Curt> zednik: We had the same issue of enumerating features for the XML review -- that list may be incomplete, but may be useful for this 15:36:06 <Curt> zednik: Others are invited to review that list and see if any are missing 15:36:30 <Curt> Luc: That is a reasonable approach -- we should also list features that are document specific 15:36:50 <Curt> Luc: Each CR will have its own list of features (many of course will be the same) 15:36:54 <pgroth> sure 15:36:58 <pgroth> the rules 15:37:09 <Luc> q? 15:37:16 <pgroth> q+ 15:37:18 <Curt> Luc: For constraints, e.g. each constraint will become a listed feature 15:37:32 <Curt> pgroth: Agreed, that was just a for starting point 15:38:24 <Luc> q? 15:38:29 <Luc> ack pgr 15:38:32 <Curt> pgroth: We need to support the full vocabulary. 15:38:49 <pgroth> use the exit criteria page? 15:38:55 <pgroth> ok 15:38:56 <Curt> Luc: Paul, will you create the starting point page and we'll discuss on email in the coming weeks? 15:39:04 <jcheney> The RDF semantics is a recommendation - what were its exit criteria? 15:39:06 <Luc> q? 15:39:15 <zednik> q+ 15:39:26 <sandro> jcheney, all of RDF was done together, not separately. 15:39:51 <sandro> q+ 15:39:58 <Curt> zednik: I've started a form in google docs for a questionairre on the implementation/support/etc. 15:40:21 <Luc> ack zedn 15:40:23 <Curt> zednik: I'll share the form and request feedback by today or tomorrow 15:41:03 <pgroth> that's fine for constraints 15:41:07 <Curt> sandro: Other groups have done this with executable test cases, each test case is a feature, machine readable results were used to determine coverage 15:41:13 <zednik> q+ 15:41:16 <pgroth> maybe 15:41:18 <sandro> q- 15:41:19 <Luc> ack san 15:41:21 <zednik> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html 15:41:35 <Curt> zednik: SKOS is the model we are trying to follow 15:41:50 <Luc> q? 15:41:53 <sandro> thanks 15:41:57 <dgarijo> I think this approach is cool! 15:42:39 <Curt> Luc: Constraints may be handled differently -- we might want graphs that violate or are compliant with the spec 15:42:44 <Luc> q? 15:42:49 <Luc> ack zed 15:42:51 <zednik> q- 15:42:54 <Luc> q? 15:44:47 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 15:44:51 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 15:44:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/26-prov-minutes.html Luc # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000270