Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2012-09-20
From Provenance WG Wiki
See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:50:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:50:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-irc 14:50:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:50:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:50:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:50:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:50:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:50:31 <trackbot> Date: 20 September 2012 14:50:33 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:50:33 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 14:50:51 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.20 14:50:58 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 14:51:10 <pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies 14:51:20 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 14:51:46 <pgroth> Regrets: James Cheney, Curt Tilmes, Ivan Herman 14:53:57 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 14:54:57 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:55:04 <Zakim> +??P9 14:55:12 <pgroth> Zakim, ??P9 is me 14:55:12 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 14:55:13 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov 14:58:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:58:26 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:58:26 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 14:58:35 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call? 14:58:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc 14:59:10 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P11 15:00:00 <christine> christine has joined #prov 15:00:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:00:22 <jun> jun has joined #prov 15:00:23 <TomDN> zakim, ipcaller is me 15:00:23 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it 15:00:55 <TomDN> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P11, TomDN 15:01:06 <pgroth> Zakim, who is loud? 15:01:06 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth. 15:01:11 <pgroth> Zakim, who is noisy? 15:01:21 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TomDN (65%) 15:01:23 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:01:24 <Zakim> +??P25 15:01:30 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:01:30 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:01:32 <jun> zakim, ??P25 is me 15:01:32 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:01:32 <Zakim> +jun; got it 15:01:34 <TomDN> yes 15:01:34 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:01:50 <pgroth> Topic: Admin 15:02:37 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-13 15:02:46 <TomDN> pgroth: approval of last week's minutes 15:02:48 <pgroth> Minutes of the September 13, 2012 Telecon 15:02:58 <TomDN> +1 15:03:03 <Dong> +1 15:03:08 <jun> +1 15:03:37 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 13, 2012 Telecon 15:03:52 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:04:31 <pgroth> Topic: Charter Extension <pgroth> Summary: The group was notified that the charter for the group was extended to September 2013, however, the goal is to stay on the schedule outlined at the last face-to-face meeting. 15:04:39 <TomDN> pgroth: we need scribes, please sign up in advance 15:04:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:05:03 <TomDN> pgroth: We are close to the end of the charter, but our extension request was approved 15:05:14 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter 15:05:19 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaaa 15:05:29 <TomDN> ... initially, we wanted it up to April/May, but we got an extension to september 2013 15:05:57 <TomDN> ... However, we're still aiming to deliver everything according to the schedule agreed at F2F3 15:06:18 <pgroth> +q 15:06:19 <TomDN> ... We will make an updated timeline some time next week 15:06:21 <pgroth> q- 15:06:23 <pgroth> q? 15:06:37 <pgroth> Topic: FAQ <pgroth> Summary: An FAQ for PROV was created on the Semantic Web Activity wiki. The group was encouraged to add any information or faq entries there. 15:07:03 <TomDN> pgroth: Last week, we had an action to make an FAQ on PROV 15:07:12 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV 15:07:19 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV 15:07:24 <TomDN> ... Among others, the use of dc:hasPart for sub-activities is in there 15:07:55 <TomDN> ... the WG is invited to populate this FAQ 15:07:58 <pgroth> +q 15:08:00 <pgroth> q? 15:08:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:08:12 <pgroth> q? 15:08:45 <pgroth> q? 15:08:49 <TomDN> pgroth: This is at the Semantic Web activity wiki, which means that we can keep updating this, even after the WG is finished 15:08:55 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-XML <pgroth> Summary: An update on prov-xml was given. Curt had resolved several issues. ISSUE-493 was resolved - the group agreed that serializations are free to adopt their own type representation. The prov-xml team is getting close to be able to begin on creating the note associated with prov-xml. An update will be given next week. 15:09:38 <TomDN> pgroth: There were a couple of issues that we didn't resolve last week, perhaps Stephan can go over them 15:10:00 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/493 15:10:23 <TomDN> pgroth: Where are we in issue 493? 15:10:41 <TomDN> zednik: Right now the schema reflects the DM completely 15:11:04 <TomDN> ... We didn't want to move away from the DM, so we haven't made any changes in the schema 15:11:51 <TomDN> ... We use RDF types, to respresent type information, as it is the most natural/intuitive way 15:12:13 <TomDN> ... We are still discussing. 15:12:30 <Luc> q+ 15:12:34 <TomDN> pgroth: So each serialization can have its own type. Do we all agree to this? 15:12:55 <TomDN> zednik: Not sure, the telecon on monday was too small to tell if everyone agrees 15:13:13 <TomDN> Luc: We don't want to be too restrictive for these types 15:13:23 <TomDN> ... to avoid overconstraining things. 15:14:08 <TomDN> ... In the ontology, we use RDF types, which is fine for the RDF mapping, but I'm not sure what we should use in XML 15:14:10 <pgroth> q? 15:14:12 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:14:18 <TomDN> ... It would be up to the translator to determine this. 15:15:06 <TomDN> pgroth: Seems like a good idea, except that it would be problematic to convert PROV-XML to RDF, if the types don't agree 15:15:16 <Luc> in xml, we have prov:type and not xsd:type 15:15:26 <Luc> in xml, we have prov:type and not xsi:type 15:15:41 <TomDN> zednik: We don't have a complex type for agents that are also entities 15:15:55 <TomDN> ... e.g. "this is an entity with type agent" 15:16:23 <TomDN> pgroth: So the resolution would be to leave things as they are: loose like in the DM. 15:16:36 <TomDN> ... and leave typing up to the implementer 15:17:21 <TomDN> Luc: elaborates on "in xml, we have prov:type and not xsi:type" 15:17:30 <TomDN> ... which is an xml attribute 15:17:46 <TomDN> zednik: so you can only have one? 15:18:02 <TomDN> ... That is not the case in the DM or ontology 15:18:26 <pgroth> proposed: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should define their own type system 15:18:29 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:18:37 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:18:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P11, TomDN, MacTed (muted), jun, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aaaa 15:18:40 <Luc> q+ 15:18:45 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa 15:18:45 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 15:18:58 <christine> zakim, ??P11 is me 15:18:58 <Zakim> +christine; got it 15:19:06 <pgroth> proposed: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should adopt their own type representation 15:19:14 <TomDN> Luc: it would be better to say "should adopt their own type representation" 15:19:17 <TomDN> +1 15:19:19 <MacTed> +1 15:19:21 <Luc> q- 15:19:21 <zednik> +1 15:19:24 <Dong> +1 15:19:30 <tlebo> +1 15:19:49 <pgroth> accepted: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should adopt their own type representation 15:20:04 <TomDN> pgroth: that resolves issue 493 15:20:09 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/551 15:20:11 <TomDN> issue 551? 15:20:44 <TomDN> zednik: Curt made some changes to the schema that resolved this 15:20:52 <Luc> I think it was a good solution to introduce this documentElement 15:21:26 <TomDN> ... It basically flattened out the schema 15:21:31 <zednik> div - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/b88f0f02344f 15:21:57 <TomDN> ... so you don't have a separate section for the relations 15:22:03 <Luc> q+ 15:22:07 <TomDN> pgroth: Were there any objections? 15:22:11 <TomDN> zednik: no 15:22:14 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:23:14 <TomDN> Luc: There was some refactoring of the schema that took place. All the attributes were placed in a single group "commonattributes" 15:23:47 <TomDN> zednik: We havent been able to talk about it in the group, so we should probably raise an issue about it 15:24:30 <pgroth> +q 15:24:33 <TomDN> sorry i missed that last 15:25:13 <TomDN> pgroth: I think we did have a resolution about how close you have to get to the DM in a serialization 15:25:48 <pgroth> ack pgroth 15:26:01 <TomDN> ... If we favour something that's "natural" for RDF, we should do the same for XML 15:26:36 <TomDN> zednik: Since you can have attributes on almost anything, we grouped it as such 15:27:01 <TomDN> ... I think it's doable to revert, although it unsimplifies the schema. 15:27:01 <Luc> it's already done http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/7c238aba1d07 15:27:10 <Luc> q+ 15:28:09 <TomDN> Luc: the group commonattributes has been removed from the schema 15:28:10 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:28:13 <Luc> q- 15:28:39 <TomDN> pgroth: So how far are we away from a draft document? 15:28:51 <TomDN> zednik: So how ready/stable is the schema? 15:29:33 <TomDN> ... Well, Curt and I have been going through the issues. Most are resolved now, so it is pretty stable. 15:29:41 <Luc> there is still the type of identifiers to address 15:30:18 <TomDN> Zednik: So we are getting close to being able to start on the draft of the Note 15:30:30 <Luc> q+ 15:30:34 <TomDN> pgroth: OK, we'll check back next week 15:30:37 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:30:44 <TomDN> Luc: Will there be a call on monday? 15:31:06 <TomDN> zednik: Curt can't make it, but I can, and will send out an email to ask if it's possible. 15:31:09 <Luc> q- 15:31:13 <pgroth> Topic: Resolving Public Issues <pgroth> Summary: The group agreed that the chairs would be responsible for responding to public comments. Luc went through some additional issues that he had proposed resolutions for. The same pattern as last time would be followed, where the group had several days to review the responses and object if they didn't agree with the resoultions. The group also made a formal vote resolving previously resolved public issues. 15:31:20 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:31:31 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments 15:31:52 <Zakim> +??P12 15:31:56 <TomDN> pgroth: We need to clarify who is responsible for response to public comments. 15:32:08 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P12 is me 15:32:08 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:32:12 <pgroth> q? 15:32:19 <TomDN> ... My tendency would be to have me or Luc do it. 15:32:22 <tlebo> q+ 15:32:26 <TomDN> ... Any other suggestions? 15:33:10 <TomDN> tlebo: It would be best if we work at the response on the weekly telecons, and then consistently have the chairs formulate the response to the commenter 15:33:23 <christine> +1 15:33:33 <TomDN> pgroth: Any objections to this? 15:33:52 <tlebo> note - "formulate" -> "provide", naturally, the group would be formulating the response in our usual way. 15:33:59 <TomDN> pgroth: So it's agreed. Paul will handle the responses 15:34:50 <TomDN> Luc: There were no objections to the resolutions to the following issues: 15:35:33 <TomDN> ... (Lists the issues) 15:36:04 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments 15:36:24 <pgroth> accepted: the suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-532, ISSUE-525, ISSUE-507, ISSUE-504, ISSUE-503, ISSUE-447 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support 15:38:00 <pgroth> q? 15:38:05 <pgroth> ack tlebo 15:38:11 <tlebo> q- 15:38:12 <TomDN> Luc: I'm happy to take feedback on the proposed responses now, but I will also follow the usual protocol, and ask for feedback on the mailinglist 15:38:35 <pgroth> q? 15:38:36 <TomDN> ... If there's no objections by next Thursday, those will be our responses. 15:38:49 <pgroth> s/Thursday/Tuesday 15:38:55 <TomDN> tnx 15:38:56 <pgroth> q? 15:39:18 <dgarijo> thanks for the links, I'll have a look at the responses. 15:40:11 <TomDN> Luc: We have addressed about 10 of the 35 issues about the DM. I'm planning to draft responses next week 15:40:56 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o issues <pgroth> Summary: PROV-O Issues with open actions were gone through. Stian and Satya were not on the call so Paul agreed to follow-up with them on their open issues. Jun agreed to talk to Graham about how to resolve issue 461 about the printable layout of the PROV-o document. The group discussed two issues to do with subclassing (issues 523 and 552) particularly with Influence. It was decided that the PROV-O issue 552 was subsumed by 523. This is a complicated issue and 523 should be resolved before moving on to 552. 15:41:32 <TomDN> pgroth: Last week, on Monday, we tried to clean up some issues in PROV-O, and defined some actions 15:41:45 <TomDN> ... We will walk through them here 15:41:54 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491 15:42:13 <Luc> stian? 15:42:25 <TomDN> ... Stian was going to handle ACTION-107, I will follow up on this with him 15:42:46 <tlebo> the trig example. 15:42:48 <TomDN> issue 479? 15:42:53 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479 15:43:25 <MacTed> issue-479? 15:43:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-479 -- cite TriG for examples -- open 15:43:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479 15:44:04 <TomDN> ... Satya was going to take ACTION-108. No changes have been made yet, will follow up. 15:44:18 <TomDN> (tnx macted, forgot the hyphen) 15:44:59 <TomDN> pgroth: Next one is ACTION-109 on issue-349 15:45:23 <TomDN> Jun: I took over David's actions 15:45:31 <TomDN> ... and ACTION-109 is done. 15:45:54 <TomDN> issue-349? 15:45:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-349 -- examples for each term in cross-reference section -- open 15:45:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349 15:46:30 <TomDN> pgroth: There were two more actions for this issue: ACTION-110 and ACTION-111 for Satya and Stian 15:46:30 <dgarijo> we reviewed the examples to check that they were updated with the latest DM 15:46:49 <TomDN> tlebo: I've seen no changes to the examples yet. 15:47:12 <TomDN> ... also. ACTION-112 was on the same issue 15:47:34 <pgroth> daniel? 15:47:35 <TomDN> pgroth: last one was on Daniel, ACTION-113 about issue 446 15:47:40 <dgarijo> I have lost connection 15:47:43 <TomDN> issue-446? 15:47:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-446 -- prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O -- open 15:47:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446 15:47:44 <tlebo> daniels' action 113 is "prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O" 15:47:50 <dgarijo> I have restarted the discussions 15:47:57 <dgarijo> with Kai, Simon and Michael 15:48:09 <dgarijo> we plan to address his comments next week 15:48:16 <Zakim> -dgarijo 15:48:34 <Zakim> +??P12 15:48:45 <TomDN> pgroth: Tim, do you need help on closing any other issues? 15:49:15 <TomDN> tlebo: Yes, could use help with issue 461 15:49:20 <TomDN> issue-461? 15:49:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-461 -- provo cross reference inadequate in printed form -- raised 15:49:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461 15:49:43 <TomDN> ... Would be nice if someone could take over this one. 15:50:15 <TomDN> pgroth: Someone needs to talk to Graham to identify what he needs 15:50:22 <TomDN> jun: I can do that 15:50:55 <dgarijo> +q 15:51:19 <TomDN> pgroth: It would be good to know all the remaining issues on PROV-O 15:51:39 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10 15:52:18 <TomDN> tlebo: 349 is closed 15:52:40 <TomDN> ... Not sure about 446, 479 and 491 15:53:29 <TomDN> dgarijo: What happened with the issues about the figures? 15:54:04 <TomDN> tlebo: There's no formal issue, but it is being looked into 15:54:21 <pgroth> ack dgarijo 15:54:22 <TomDN> ... now waiting on review of the changes made in the draft 15:54:40 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552 15:54:58 <TomDN> pgroth: 552 was an external comment about subclasses 15:55:12 <Luc> issue-552? 15:55:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised 15:55:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552 15:55:12 <TomDN> ... Is this a DM issue or PROV-O issue? 15:55:27 <Luc> issue-523? 15:55:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-523 -- Data Model Section 5.3.5 -- open 15:55:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/523 15:56:01 <Luc> q+ 15:56:09 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html 15:56:25 <TomDN> tlebo: seems like a problem with the interpretation of the DM, so it is a PROV-O issue 15:56:27 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:56:37 <christine> Thank you Paul, Luc and everyone. Apologies, I have to leave to chair a call starting on the hour. 15:56:46 <Zakim> -christine 15:56:54 <TomDN> Luc: I think there's a general problem about inheritance that we may want to revisit in the DM 15:57:18 <TomDN> ... , illustrated by issue 523, about influence 15:58:37 <TomDN> ... In the constraints, we say that IF wasDerivedFrom(b,a) THEN wasInfluencedBy(b,a) 15:59:02 <TomDN> ... So we may want to opt for inheritance, which is what PROV-O does 15:59:12 <pgroth> q+ 15:59:28 <TomDN> ... and it works well for most ontologies I think. However, I am not sure if we'd also want it in PROV-XML 15:59:50 <TomDN> ... Would be nice to have feedback here. 15:59:52 <tlebo> +1 to what luc said 16:00:07 <TomDN> pgroth: Would that only apply to influence? or all of the DM? 16:00:20 <TomDN> Luc: I'm focusing on influence, currently 16:00:47 <tlebo> does "influence" == "relation" ? 16:01:13 <TomDN> pgroth: My only issue with that is: whether or not we would change the UML in correspondence with that 16:01:36 <TomDN> ... It may not be normative, but developers do use it for their implementations 16:01:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:01:50 <jun> [have to go now. will catch up on the minutes] 16:02:07 <Zakim> -jun 16:02:09 <TomDN> Luc: any subtype of influence can be used in any position of influence. 16:02:39 <TomDN> ... Perhaps "interface" would be better than inheritance 16:03:07 <TomDN> ... to indicate that all subtypes are all "influence" 16:04:11 <Luc> issue-552? 16:04:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised 16:04:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552 16:04:41 <TomDN> pgroth: For now, this issue should be considered together with issue-523 16:05:04 <TomDN> Luc: There's another issue in the DM, dealing with inheritance 16:05:21 <TomDN> ... So we should tackle these as a set. 16:05:51 <TomDN> Luc: Stephan, working with the XML schema, have you considered extension of types? 16:06:16 <pgroth> q? 16:06:22 <TomDN> zednik: It has come up, but we haven't looked into it. It should be done after the schema is stabilized. 16:06:58 <dgarijo> Sure 16:07:02 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:07:07 <TomDN> pgroth: Given the time, we will save the topic on notes for next week. 16:07:11 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:07:12 <Zakim> -pgroth 16:07:13 <Zakim> -Luc 16:07:14 <TomDN> ok, tnx! 16:07:15 <Zakim> -??P12 16:07:16 <TomDN> bye 16:07:25 <Zakim> -TomDN 16:07:32 <pgroth> rrsagnet, set log public 16:07:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 16:07:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:07:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-minutes.html pgroth 16:08:04 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:08:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 16:08:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:08:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended 16:08:05 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, Luc, TomDN, MacTed, jun, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aaaa, tlebo, christine, dgarijo 16:08:05 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 16:08:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:08:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:08:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:08:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000315