This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Chatlog 2012-09-06

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.

14:43:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:43:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-prov-irc
14:43:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:43:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:43:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:43:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:43:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:43:08 <trackbot> Date: 06 September 2012
14:43:10 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:43:11 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
14:43:22 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.06
14:44:01 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:44:06 <Luc> chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:14 <Luc> Regrets: James Cheney, Timothy Lebo
14:51:48 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:53:05 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:54:37 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:55:14 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:55:20 <Zakim> +??P11
14:55:51 <smiles> zakim, ??P11 is me
14:55:53 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
14:57:11 <Luc> scribe: simon miles
14:58:12 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:58:17 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:58:26 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:58:28 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:58:41 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
14:58:42 <Zakim> +??P4
14:58:47 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:58:49 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P4 is me
14:58:49 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:59:22 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
14:59:23 <Zakim> +Luc.a
14:59:33 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
14:59:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see smiles, Luc, pgroth, Curt_Tilmes, Luc.a
15:00:39 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:48 <Zakim> + +329331aabb
15:00:53 <Luc> topic: admin
15:00:59 <TomDN> zakim, +329 is me
15:00:59 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
15:01:10 <TomDN> zakim, mute me
15:01:10 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:01:19 <Zakim> +??P7
15:01:22 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:01:38 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:01:39 <Zakim> +??P16
15:01:45 <smiles> Luc: outlines agenda
15:01:50 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P16 is me
15:01:50 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:01:59 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:02:00 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:02:01 <pgroth> Zakim, who is loud?
15:02:01 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
15:02:04 <TomDN> zakim, who is noisy?
15:02:04 <Luc> proposed: to approve Minutes of the Aug 9, 2012 Telecon 
15:02:12 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:02:15 <Zakim> TomDN, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (28%), khalidBelhajjame (19%)
15:02:19 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc
15:02:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-08-09
15:02:24 <TomDN> +1
15:02:24 <Curt> +1
15:02:32 <SamCoppens> +1
15:02:35 <satya> +1
15:02:36 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
15:02:41 <TomDN> zakim, samcoppens is with tomdn
15:02:41 <Zakim> +samcoppens; got it
15:02:44 <hook> +1
15:02:45 <smiles> +1
15:02:47 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:02:47 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:02:48 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:02:48 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:02:49 <Paolo> 0 (not attended)
15:03:00 <Luc> accepted: Minutes of the Aug 9, 2012 Telecon 
15:03:07 <stainPhone> 0
15:03:10 <Zakim> +??P13
15:03:27 <smiles> Luc: open actions for Paulo and Paul
15:03:35 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:03:48 <Zakim> +??P3
15:03:51 <GK> zakim, ??p13 is me
15:03:51 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:03:51 <smiles> Paul: Not yet done overview slide for Wiki
15:03:57 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:04:02 <Luc> Topic: F2F4
<Luc>Summary: The group agreed to co-locate the fourth face to face meeting with ISWC'12, in Boston. F2F4 will take place on November 9-10, MIT CS department, details to follow.
15:04:02 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:04:02 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:04:04 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:04:04 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:04:32 <smiles> Luc: Idea to co-locate F2F4 with ISWC
15:04:38 <Luc> November 9 - 10, 2012
15:04:44 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aadd
15:05:04 <smiles> ... available before ISWC workshops/tutorials, 9-10
15:05:17 <Luc> q?
15:05:20 <smiles> ... any blocking reasons against?
15:05:26 <stainPhone> Zakim, +44.789.470.aadd is me
15:05:26 <Zakim> +stainPhone; got it
15:05:47 <pgroth> +q
15:05:50 <Luc> q?
15:05:53 <Luc> ack pg
15:05:53 <smiles> Luc: Vote or just accept those dates?
15:06:06 <Zakim> -TomDN
15:06:09 <smiles> Paul: Don't think we need a vote, but need sign-up page
15:06:16 <pgroth> yes
15:06:43 <Luc> ACCEPTED: F2F4 will take place in Boston, on November 9 - 10, 2012
15:06:55 <Zakim> -??P7
15:06:56 <Zakim> +TomDN
15:07:00 <smiles> Luc: details available later, but hosted at MIT
15:07:04 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:07:04 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:07:07 <Zakim> +??P25
15:07:11 <smiles> Ivan: at Computer Science
15:07:14 <Luc> q?
15:07:15 <TomDN> Zakim, samcoppens is with tomdn
15:07:15 <Zakim> +samcoppens; got it
15:07:16 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:07:17 <Paolo> zakim, ??P25 is me
15:07:17 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
15:07:24 <smiles> Luc: questions about F2F4?
15:07:27 <pgroth> action: paul to set-up web page f2f4
15:07:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Set-up web page f2f4 [on Paul Groth - due 2012-09-13].
15:07:29 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:07:33 <Luc> topic: prov-constraints
<Luc> Summary: Since the last teleconference, the editors of the prov-constraints document have addressed the remaining technical issues. The group voted for the release of prov-constraints as a last call working draft. The end of the review period is set to October 10, 2012. Paolo will initiate the drafting of a blog.  Congratulations to the group for releasing LCWDs for all the deliverables on recommendation track. 
15:07:40 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:07:47 <Zakim> +??P7
15:07:50 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (54%)
15:07:57 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P7 is me
15:07:57 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:07:58 <smiles> Luc: At last telecon, we looked at remaining technical issues on the document
15:08:00 <GK> (I assume MIT is easily accessible from the ISWC and/or downtown location?)
15:08:02 <Zakim> +??P27
15:08:09 <jun> zakim, ??p27 is me
15:08:09 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:08:23 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Aug/0228.html
15:08:24 <stainPhone> @gk yes, metro from downtown
15:08:25 <smiles> ... work was done over August
15:08:44 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/releases/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/Overview.html
15:08:46 <smiles> ... distributed link above for feedback (seems good so far)
15:08:53 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:09:05 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (73%), Paolo (89%)
15:09:12 <MacTed> Zakim, mute Paolo
15:09:12 <Zakim> Paolo should now be muted
15:09:28 <Paolo> sorry -- new VOIP client
15:09:37 <smiles> ... before formal vote, is there any comment on the document?
15:09:38 <Luc> q?
15:09:47 <ivan> q+
15:09:52 <Luc> q?
15:10:18 <smiles> Ivan: one thread of discussion on terminology alignment of "top-level bundles". What is current status?
15:10:53 <smiles> Luc: Top-level bundle introduced in PROV-N, not part of PROV-DM
15:11:02 <stainPhone> q+
15:11:09 <smiles> ... it is the structure of the complete document you would write in PROV-N
15:11:09 <ivan> ack ivan
15:11:27 <smiles> ... "top-level bundle" was not adequate term, because it is not a bundle
15:11:50 <smiles> ... James suggested talking about a "PROV document" instead, and this is adopted in PROV Constraints
15:12:10 <smiles> ... PROV documents can contain PROV statements or bundles
15:12:30 <smiles> ... In context of PROV-N, will propose that will align terminology to also use PROV document
15:12:30 <Luc> ack ivan
15:12:55 <smiles> stian: Thank you to the editor for addressing the issues I raised
15:13:10 <smiles> Luc: Also thank you and other reviewers for quality of reviews
15:13:12 <Luc> q?
15:13:14 <Luc> ack st
15:13:30 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-Constraints as Last Call Working Draft
15:13:41 <smiles> +1
15:13:42 <MacTed> +1
15:13:44 <stainPhone> +1
15:13:46 <ivan> +1
15:13:49 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)
15:13:51 <TomDN> +1 (IBBT)
15:13:53 <Curt> +1 (NASA)
15:13:55 <Paolo> +1 Newcastle University
15:13:57 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
15:13:57 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)
15:13:57 <SamCoppens> +1 (IBBT)
15:13:58 <satya> +1, Invited expert (CWRU)
15:13:58 <smiles> (invited expert, King's College London)
15:13:59 <GK> +1 Oxford U
15:14:03 <hook> +1 (IE)
15:14:07 <MacTed> (OpenLink Software)
15:14:08 <dgarijo> +1 (UPM)
15:14:12 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)
15:14:25 <stainPhone> (univ of Manchester as well)
15:14:33 <jun> +1
15:14:41 <Luc> Accepted: to publish PROV-Constraints as Last Call Working Draft
15:14:51 <pgroth> +q
15:15:24 <smiles> Luc: When are we going to release the document? And what is the review period?
15:15:27 <pgroth> q-
15:15:46 <pgroth> q+
15:15:57 <smiles> ... Editors do not intend to make any changes, can prepare for release next Tuesday pending webmaster approval
15:16:05 <smiles> ... Release date 11 September
15:16:27 <smiles> ... Propose review period closes 10 October
15:17:05 <ivan> +10000 to Paul
15:17:09 <smiles> Paul: Have to also consider some blog post to go with document, it is heavy duty and needs context to interpret
15:17:22 <smiles> ... Who will write the post?
15:17:59 <smiles> Luc: Paolo, would you have bandwidth to draft blog entry?
15:18:00 <Paolo> zakim, unmute me
15:18:00 <Zakim> Paolo should no longer be muted
15:18:02 <ivan> q+
15:18:10 <pgroth> q+
15:18:39 <pgroth> i can then polish
15:18:46 <smiles> Paolo: Can try to first draft something tomorrow
15:18:53 <Luc> q?
15:18:53 <smiles> Luc: I could then work on it on Monday
15:19:06 <smiles> Paul: That's fine and can also run by me
15:19:08 <Luc> ack pgro
15:19:09 <ivan> q-
15:19:54 <Luc> q?
15:19:56 <pgroth> nice one everyone
15:20:00 <ivan> q+
15:20:02 <smiles> Luc: Any other comments on constraints?
15:20:30 <smiles> Ivan: Reminder that we should finalise the timetable tomorrow
15:20:51 <Luc> ack iv
15:21:17 <smiles> Ivan: should become synchronised with other documents
15:21:21 <Luc> topic: Implementing constraints with SW technologies  
<Luc> Summary: There was a discussion on how much time should be spent on designing/discussing the implementation of prov-constraints using Semantic Web technologies such as OWL. It was agreed (see resolution) that the actual implementation is not to be carried out by the Working Group, but by its participants. Of course, we welcome interoperable implementations of constraints, and several individuals have indicated their intent to work on this. The PROV-WG will focus on defining what it means to be an inter-operable implementation of constraints, and will consider defining test suites.
15:21:58 <smiles> Paul: We have noticed that there is discussion around implementing constraints using SW tech
15:22:08 <smiles> ... great, but not part of the WG's responsibility
15:22:50 <smiles> ... should be done by individuals if interested, but implementation should not be done in WG time, cannot respond to all questions
15:22:56 <ivan> q+
15:23:00 <smiles> ... encouraged but outside WG
15:23:37 <zednik> q+
15:23:45 <ivan> ack ivan 
15:23:46 <GK> I agree with Paul here, but I also note that we'll need interoperable implementations for REC track progress?
15:23:58 <smiles> Ivan: Agreed that deliverables need to be delivered, but if work is done WG might decide to publish in W3C Notes and could be valuable
15:24:15 <khalidBelhajjame> @Paul, agreed. With Jun and Stian, we decided to specify the constraints (that are speciable within OWL), outside the context of the working group
15:24:35 <Luc> q?
15:24:39 <smiles> Luc: Yes, are very keen for implementation of constraints using SW tech, but concerned about using WG bandwidth and mission creep
15:24:49 <zednik> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGM4cXZYMk0xaFBDT2VyRV92YkY5WkE6MQ
15:24:59 <Paolo> q+
15:25:01 <smiles> zednik: Added constraints implementation section to implementation questionanire
15:25:07 <ivan> ack zednik 
15:25:27 <smiles> .. not intended to be saying we will be creating these implementation, but part of implementation report
15:26:33 <pgroth> +q
15:26:33 <smiles> Paolo: Agree not done on WG time, but cannot claim have reference implementation without compliance validator
15:26:39 <Luc> q?
15:26:42 <satya> q+
15:26:42 <Luc> ack pao
15:26:56 <Luc> ack pg
15:27:13 <pgroth> mute paolo
15:27:18 <MacTed> Zakim, mute pa
15:27:18 <Zakim> Paolo should now be muted
15:27:51 <smiles> Paul: Implement both specs, and if don't have implementations then spec can't be approved as recommendation
15:27:51 <stainPhone> @paolo, yes, our (khalid/jun) intent is to do what can practically be done in owl
15:27:55 <Luc> q?
15:27:57 <Paolo> agree -- and that's why Khalid's qualification worried me
15:28:28 <ivan> q+
15:28:33 <stainPhone> As owl is not a constraint language
15:28:34 <ivan> ack satya 
15:28:37 <smiles> satya: When talking about implementations/validators, are we talking about conforming to PROV-O or to constraints?
15:28:39 <GK> Hmmm... I thought we needed (interoperable) implementations of each feature rather than a "reference implementation" 
15:28:41 <khalidBelhajjame> Just to clarify, within OWL, we will not aim to implement all constraints but only the one that are easy to express within OWL 
15:28:56 <stainPhone> @gk +1
15:29:00 <smiles> Luc: We are talking about conforming to constraints, validity is not in scope of WG
15:29:04 <jun> @paolo, my understanding that exploring OWL for the implementation is our first step, to see what can be implemented in OWL and what can't
15:29:16 <Luc> q?
15:29:33 <Luc> ack ivan
15:29:50 <smiles> Ivan: What we in general need is not a reference implementation of everything, but interoperable implementation for each feature
15:30:22 <Paolo> @ khalidBelhajjame, jun I am doing the same in the deductive programming space, but there are unknown -- hence the difficulty to committing to a deliverable
15:30:27 <smiles> ... but more general point, what do we really mean by the implementation of the particular document or the whole PROV enivronment?
15:30:46 <smiles> ... no fixed rules, but need to show world this is not just a paper exercise and can be put into practice
15:31:05 <smiles> ... not clear what this means for constraints document in relation to other documents
15:31:13 <Luc> q?
15:31:16 <Luc> q+
15:31:25 <smiles> ... will need to be clear when we present to the management
15:31:57 <smiles> Luc: Not discussed yet, and may be an item of discussion of implementation report skeleton
15:32:15 <stainMobile> stainMobile has joined #prov
15:32:15 <smiles> ... WG will have to identify features to implement in constraints document (e.g. type checking)
15:32:35 <smiles> ... Question is then how we demonstrate whether this is implemented properly
15:32:45 <smiles> ... In my own implementation, am using test cases
15:32:53 <Luc> q-
15:33:07 <smiles> Ivan: For me, test cases is very much what I would like to see
15:33:15 <smiles> Luc: Discussion of test cases are in scope of WG
15:33:16 <Luc> q?
15:33:58 <smiles> Luc: We want to come up with an agreement that we will not spend WG time defining constraints in SW technologies
15:34:00 <pgroth> @stefan can I get edit access to the implementation questionnaire?
15:34:00 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group will not formalize constraints with Semantic Web technologies, but implementations of constraints by group members are welcomed
15:34:03 <GK> (Test cases are a good way to illustrate the consequences of specified features.)
15:34:30 <Luc> q?
15:34:38 <GK> +1
15:34:39 <Zakim> -stainPhone
15:34:46 <jun> +1
15:34:49 <satya> seems reasonable
15:34:49 <dgarijo> +1
15:34:52 <smiles> +1
15:34:52 <satya> +1
15:34:52 <TomDN> +1
15:34:55 <ivan> +1
15:34:58 <SamCoppens> +1
15:34:58 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
15:34:59 <hook> +1
15:34:59 <Curt> +1
15:34:59 <MacTed> +1
15:35:13 <Paolo> +1
15:35:22 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The Working Group will not formalize constraints with Semantic Web technologies, but implementations of constraints by group members are welcomed
15:35:49 <Luc> topic: Public Comments  
<Luc>Summary: We are still hoping for further feedback on the specifications recently released. The release of prov-constraints as LCWD presents us with a good opportunity to send kind reminders to our various contacts.  Editors have now to tackle public comments and initiate discussions by email.
15:36:09 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/
15:36:49 <smiles> Paul: We had a number of public comments, one needs cutting up, some we've started discussing
15:37:19 <smiles> ... All can be handled, but maybe we should readvertise to get more comments
15:37:30 <Luc> should we take the opportunity to ask for feedback as we release prov-constraints?
15:37:51 <Luc> q?
15:38:01 <smiles> Luc: comments?
15:38:04 <pgroth> in particular on advertising?
15:38:34 <pgroth> +q
15:38:36 <smiles> Luc: Now we've released constraints document, we can take the opportunity to go back to groups and individuals to get feedback on that
15:38:52 <Luc> q?
15:38:59 <smiles> ... then editors need to go through comments one by one and address
15:39:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:39:16 <smiles> ... Ivan, you said RDF group would give us feedback but not received yet
15:39:41 <smiles> Ivan: Will prompt again, have discussion paper but not yet dealt with
15:39:51 <Luc> q?
15:39:51 <pgroth> talking to guus is difficult
15:40:18 <smiles> Luc: Once constraints document out, easy to get back to them
15:40:27 <pgroth> sure
15:40:29 <Luc> q?
15:40:37 <pgroth> zakim, who is noisy?
15:40:40 <Luc> topic: Implementation Report Skeleton  
<Luc>Summary: Stephan updated us on the form to be completed by implementers. The group is invited to send comments on the mailing list. Paul, Stephan, and Dong are going to produce a first version of the implementation report skeleton by the next teleconference.
15:40:48 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (30%)
15:40:57 <smiles> Luc: Now time to think about structure of this report
15:41:15 <smiles> ... identifying kinds of feedback expected from implementors
15:41:31 <stainMobile> stainMobile has joined #prov
15:41:56 <smiles> zednik: Have gone through and updated skeleton, Paolo will update actual questionairres
15:42:11 <smiles> s/Paolo/Paul
15:42:11 <Luc> s/Paolo/Paul
15:42:47 <smiles> Paul: Currently based on SKOS, If we decide we need to test cases that might change this
15:42:51 <Luc> q?
15:43:21 <smiles> Luc: Have you received feedback on questionnaire?
15:43:31 <smiles> zednik: Not yet, but good opportunity to now re-ask
15:43:51 <Dong> @Paul: I can help with the implementation report as well
15:43:57 <smiles> Luc: Will make clear in minutes summary, please send an email again with link to questionnaire
15:44:09 <Luc> q?
15:44:44 <Luc> action on Paul to draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires
15:44:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
15:44:49 <pgroth> +q
15:44:55 <Luc> action on pgroth to draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires
15:44:55 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
15:45:07 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:45:08 <pgroth> action: pgroth draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires
15:45:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires [on Paul Groth - due 2012-09-13].
15:45:28 <Luc> q?
15:45:40 <smiles> Paul: Ivan, have Google questionnaire, does it need to be a W3C poll?
15:45:40 <Luc> ack pgr
15:46:01 <smiles> Ivan: Questionnaire is just for activity of group, not deliverable?
15:46:28 <smiles> Paul: Yes. Easy to collect by web poll
15:46:49 <pgroth> ok
15:46:51 <smiles> ... Will copy part of result of poll into implementation report
15:46:55 <Luc> q?
15:47:03 <smiles> Ivan: Yes, that's OK. How you collected data is your business
15:47:13 <pgroth> ok
15:47:30 <stainMobile> stainMobile has joined #prov
15:47:58 <smiles> Ivan: RDFa had many tests, running on site outside of W3C, but results collected into static page on W3C as implementation report
15:48:06 <pgroth> yes
15:48:13 <Luc> q?
15:48:26 <Luc> q?
15:48:40 <Luc> Topic:PROV-XML  
<Luc>Summary: The prov-xml subgroup has been writing examples according to the draft schema and has been raising issues on the tracker.  The issues are mostly about aligning the prov-xml schema with the latest prov-dm. In line with the resolution on constraints, implementation of constraints for prov-xml is left to individual members.  Version 1 of the XML schema is planned to be released by the next teleconference.  The issue of prov:type (ISSUE-493) was briefly mentioned at the end of the call. More email discussion is required.
15:49:03 <smiles> Luc: Some emails sent, issues raised, what is the progess?
15:49:30 <smiles> zednik: Split up DM terms and encoded in XML schema, published and raised issues
15:49:42 <smiles> ... Reza has been working on implementation at Oracle
15:50:38 <smiles> ... also interested in constraints, and had a side discussion on this, decided not to pursue as part of WG but instead side-activity at Oracle or NASA for implementation report
15:51:00 <smiles> ... looked into Schematron and XSD inadequate for expressing constraints
15:51:16 <hook> Schematrons have been used by ISO working groups for constraints checks
15:51:23 <smiles> ... For schema, implemented almost all terms and should not be too many issues raised
15:51:27 <Curt> q+
15:51:28 <Luc> q?
15:51:53 <Luc> ack cur
15:52:06 <Luc> @curt +1
15:52:09 <smiles> Curt: Most of the issues are minor inconsistencies, and inclined to take from DM and make XML match, even copying non-normative language
15:52:40 <Luc> q?
15:52:42 <hook> We also tried to sync the XML examples with the PROV-DM examples.
15:52:45 <smiles> Luc: Schema was still a bit behind DM, and issues raised are good
15:53:14 <smiles> hook: We also tried to make XML examples match one-to-one those in DM document
15:53:31 <pgroth> +q to ask about prove xml html
15:53:33 <Luc> q?
15:53:39 <smiles> ... this forces us to make sure DM is  in sync with XSD (and PROV-O)
15:54:03 <smiles> Paul: Is editors draft of document on XML up to date, can be looked at? Or just XSD?
15:54:09 <pgroth> ok
15:54:13 <Curt> agreed -- not ready
15:54:15 <smiles> zednik: XSD up to date, not the document
15:54:15 <Luc> ack pg
15:54:16 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about prove xml html
15:54:48 <smiles> Luc: When can say have version 1 of XML schema?
15:54:57 <Curt> I'll address the issues I've raised by this weekend
15:55:02 <smiles> zednik: Need to ensure no open issues, but pretty close
15:55:20 <smiles> ... aim for Tuesday/Wednesday next week
15:55:25 <Luc> action stephan to produce version 1 of xml schema 
15:55:25 <trackbot> Sorry, ambiguous username (more than one match) - stephan
15:55:25 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. estephan, szednik)
15:55:36 <Luc> action zednik to produce version 1 of xml schema 
15:55:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Produce version 1 of xml schema  [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-09-13].
15:56:10 <smiles> Luc: Can come back to at next week's telecon
15:56:51 <smiles> ... PROV-O spent long time looking at tools to convert their schema into HTML document
15:57:19 <pgroth> +q
15:58:01 <smiles> Paul: On the editors draft, there is an XSD/HTML document, who created?
15:58:12 <smiles> Luc: I created
15:58:18 <Luc> q?
15:58:57 <Curt> q+
15:58:57 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:59:01 <smiles> Paul: We said that for the XML, we wouldnt worry about the verbiage around the schema, right? Just need schema
15:59:25 <smiles> Luc: Want to minimise work, but need something readable. Can extract lots of text from DM document
15:59:53 <pgroth> sure
16:00:00 <smiles> Luc: Paul and I will identify editor(s) for this document
16:00:00 <Luc> q?
16:00:23 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:00:27 <Luc> ack cur
16:00:40 <smiles> Curt: Considered adding links to anchors in XSD HTML document to link to DM, rather than copy
16:00:54 <Luc> q?
16:01:13 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:01:28 <smiles> Luc: XML schema editors, are there specific issues you want to discuss?
16:01:32 <Zakim> -??P3
16:01:35 <zednik_> zednik_ has joined #prov
16:01:37 <zednik_> sorry, disconnected
16:01:59 <Zakim> +??P6
16:02:00 <Luc> q?
16:02:41 <smiles> zednik: Issue on representing prov:type
16:03:16 <smiles> ... Type of prov:type is defined as a value (effectively a literal)
16:03:26 <smiles> ... Consequence is that 42 is a prov:type, etc.
16:03:33 <smiles> ... Is that what we want?
16:03:58 <Luc> q?
16:04:06 <Curt> zednik: could discuss prov:Agent vs. prov:Person too? (or is that resolved?)
16:04:11 <smiles> ... In XSD would be xsd:anySimpleType, not constraints
16:04:22 <pgroth> +q
16:04:24 <zednik_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/493
16:05:17 <smiles> Paul: QName would improve interop, but are there examples where you don't want than (Java package names?)
16:05:41 <smiles> Luc: DM contains examples of types that are just strings
16:06:00 <stainMobile> stainMobile has joined #prov
16:06:07 <zednik_> @curt raise as an issue
16:06:28 <smiles> Luc: Will not resolve issue now, but is important as has potential impact on DM, so suggest continue over email and will revisit
16:06:37 <TomDN> bye
16:06:39 <ivan> bye everyone
16:06:39 <jun> bye
16:06:40 <Dong> Thanks, bye
16:06:41 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:06:42 <SamCoppens> bye
16:06:42 <Zakim> -TomDN
16:06:42 <pgroth> congrats - another last call
16:06:43 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:06:43 <Zakim> -jun
16:06:44 <pgroth> bye
16:06:45 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:06:46 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:06:46 <zednik_> bye
16:06:46 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
16:06:46 <khalidBelhajjame> bye
16:06:48 <Zakim> -smiles
16:06:49 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:06:49 <Zakim> -Luc
16:06:51 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
16:06:51 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:06:53 <Zakim> -??P6
16:06:56 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 
16:06:59 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc
#16:07:01 <Zakim> -Luc.a
16:07:02 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:07:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-prov-minutes.html Luc
16:07:06 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 
16:07:06 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help