Chatlog 2012-07-26

From Provenance WG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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
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:
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:
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>
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>
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>
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 - 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
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>
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>
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>
<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>
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>
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 Luc