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This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Chatlog 2012-09-27

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.

14:46:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:46:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-prov-irc
14:46:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:46:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:46:06 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:46:06 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:46:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:46:08 <trackbot> Date: 27 September 2012
14:46:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:28 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.27
14:47:34 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:50:22 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:52:42 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:52:57 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:52:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:53:05 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:53:05 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:55:17 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:59:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:13 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:59:28 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:59:28 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:59:40 <Luc> Hi, we don't have a scribe
14:59:57 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb
15:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:08 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software
15:00:08 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:00:10 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:00:15 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:15 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:17 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:17 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:00:19 <Zakim> +??P20
15:00:38 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:00:45 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
15:00:47 <Luc> @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? 
15:00:51 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc
15:00:59 <stain> zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me
15:00:59 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:01:00 <Zakim> +??P30
15:01:07 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:07 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:01:13 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:01:15 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P30 is me
15:01:15 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:01:17 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
15:01:21 <Luc> @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe? 
15:01:23 <gk1> gk1 has joined #prov
15:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:38 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:38 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:39 <khalidBelhajjame> @Luc I can try, but I have a bad connection
15:01:41 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:43 <lebot> lebot has joined #prov
15:01:51 <khalidBelhajjame> I can try though
15:01:53 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:53 <Zakim> + +329331aaee
15:01:55 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaff
15:01:56 <jun> zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me
15:01:56 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]'
15:01:59 <stain> I can fill in for 30 minutes
15:02:01 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
15:02:01 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
15:02:04 <Luc> Scribe: khalidBelhajjame 
15:02:07 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:02:07 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:02:07 <Paolo> luc apologies, my keyboard is acting up
15:02:08 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:02:08 <jcheney> zakim, aaff is me
15:02:09 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:02:09 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:02:11 <Paolo> can barely type
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aagg
15:02:32 <tlebo> zakim, I am aagg
15:02:32 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:02:46 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:03:00 <Luc> Topic: admin
<Luc>Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were accepted.
15:03:03 <Luc> proposed: to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon 
15:03:07 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: approve the minutes of last week
15:03:09 <jcheney> 0 (absent)
15:03:16 <smiles> 0
15:03:17 <TomDN> +1
15:03:20 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-20
15:03:21 <khalidBelhajjame> 0 (absent)
15:03:24 <stain> 0 (absent)
15:03:36 <Paolo> 0 (absent)
15:03:38 <jun> +1
15:03:43 <tlebo> +1
15:03:51 <hook> 0 (absent)
15:04:00 <Luc> accepted:  minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon  
15:04:08 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: minutes approved
15:04:22 <pgroth> :-)
15:04:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action assigned to Paulo
15:04:27 <pgroth> every week 
15:04:32 <pgroth> now it's a running joke
15:04:33 <Zakim> +??P1
15:04:37 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:04:41 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: action on Paul to produce an overview slide
15:04:44 <pgroth> it's just to make me feel guilty every week
15:04:48 <GK> zakim, ??p1 is me
15:04:48 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:04:49 <Zakim> +??P21
15:04:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we can leave it for another week
15:04:57 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:05:15 <Luc> Topic: Timetable to CR  
<Luc>Summary: WG members are invited to check the timetable at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec. The plan is to vote on release of Candidate Recommendation  on November 1st, which requires all issues to be tackled and exit criteria to CR to be defined.  Timely response to email would be very appreciated.
15:05:25 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: timetable to candidate recommendation 
15:05:48 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec
15:05:53 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we are in the phase where we need to tackle external feeback
15:05:57 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:06:15 <Luc> End LC review for prov-dm/prov-o/prov-n: 2012-9-18 
15:06:16 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the link contains the document submitted to have the extention for th eWG
15:06:37 <Luc> End LC review for prov-constraints: 2012-10-10
15:06:51 <Luc> CR Publication: 2012-11-15
15:06:54 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: the lc review for prov-dm was the 18th of September
15:07:09 <Luc> Vote for CR: 2012-11-01
15:07:11 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we want to publish candidate recomendation of the 15th of November
15:07:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we should have a vote around the 1st of Novemer
15:07:45 <khalidBelhajjame> luc: the issues needs to be addressed by then
15:07:53 <ivan> q+
15:07:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: that is not a lot of time
15:08:19 <Luc> q?
15:08:47 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we also have a clear plan what the exit criteria are
15:09:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... how do we judge that we have the correct implementation, how do we judge it, etc.
15:09:09 <pgroth> +q
15:09:26 <Luc> ack iv
15:10:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:10:25 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we are still expecting feedback from other WGs, we didnt get any feedback and the deadline for feedback is over, can we still process late feedback?
15:10:51 <khalidBelhajjame> ivan: we can say sorry it is too late
15:11:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... with the RDF WG we have issues, I would hope that ? will send feedback on teh constrainst document by next week
15:11:50 <GK> q+ to ask: do we have any knowledge of areas where RDF group might have feedback for us
15:12:08 <khalidBelhajjame> ... which WGs did we ask?
15:12:40 <Luc> q?
15:13:14 <Luc> ... and we did it too for IETF mime type and we got feedback
15:14:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov
15:14:43 <pgroth> q+ to say what we asked
15:14:51 <GK> q-
15:14:55 <khalidBelhajjme> khalidBelhajjme has joined #prov
15:15:22 <Luc> q?
15:15:23 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:15:32 <pgroth> ack
15:16:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we asked about the construct of mention and about RDF types
15:16:19 <GK> @pgroth thanks
15:16:32 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:16:32 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say what we asked
15:16:52 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: keep in mind that we have 4 weeks to complete the document
15:17:03 <Luc> q?
15:17:11 <khalidBelhajjame> .. no more question on the time table?
15:17:17 <khalidBelhajjame> @luc, yes
15:17:21 <khalidBelhajjame> yes
15:17:28 <Luc> topic: PROV-O issues  
<Luc> Summary: Outstanding issues in the tracker were reviewed. They are either complete or require minor work to be completed by the end of the week. The only outstanding issue was related to some received public comment, and is being processed according to the agreed process. The chair congratulated the prov-o team for resolving the backlog of issues.
15:17:43 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item, review of the outstanding issues in the tracker
15:17:53 <Zakim> +Luc.a
15:18:00 <khalidBelhajjame> ... we need to close some of those actions
15:18:13 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: Stian, you sent an email on issue 491
15:18:23 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
15:18:27 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: we wanted to discuss that with Tim
15:19:00 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: I suggested a definition 
15:19:27 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: the definitions of the properties reuse the definition of the classes
15:19:34 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I would like to keep them consistent
15:20:02 <khalidBelhajjame> ... if they are confusing, then I will need to revise the generation algorithm to let you know which annotations we should use
15:20:21 <khalidBelhajjame> stain: my argument is that we shouldnt use them
15:20:49 <khalidBelhajjame> ... between agent and agent inference, it becomes confusing untangling the properties
15:21:13 <Luc> q?
15:21:35 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we can leave the definitions there for consistency and add a link 
15:21:54 <khalidBelhajjame> ... instead of redefining everything
15:22:19 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: we can discuss that offline
15:22:37 <Luc> can we try to converge quickly?
15:22:41 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will respond to that by email
15:22:57 <Luc> good!
15:23:00 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: can we try to converge quickly to close the issue by tomorrow?
15:23:36 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: for issue 479, Stian tried to make changes, but I think we still need more changes becase Trig syntax is still there
15:23:53 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I have not been able to respond to your email
15:24:24 <Luc> timing?
15:24:26 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: I will revisit the changes
15:24:38 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: that will be done by this week?
15:24:47 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: yes
15:25:04 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 349 is now closed 
15:25:10 <khalidBelhajjame> stian: yes
15:25:22 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will double check
15:25:23 <Luc> q+
15:25:47 <pgroth> good point
15:25:57 <tlebo> q+
15:25:58 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: are we keeping track of the changes we are aking the document to use them when publishing the next version
15:26:18 <Luc> ack L
15:26:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: for example in prov-dm i put in the appendix the changes made
15:26:24 <pgroth> ack tlebo 
15:26:48 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I added a section that reflect the changes, but we need to check that it was updated
15:27:02 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: it would be a good policy that any change is reflected in that section
15:27:15 <tlebo> The section for changes: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724
15:28:07 <khalidBelhajjame> satya: for issue 349 we need also to change the identifiers used in the examples
15:28:22 <Luc> q?
15:28:24 <stain> ^^ stian
15:28:51 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 446, Daniele?
15:29:04 <khalidBelhajjame> ... will send an email to Daniele
15:29:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
15:29:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... provo has only one open issue, 
15:30:06 <Luc> what about http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3?
15:30:14 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: I will address the issue given the email sent by Graham
15:30:14 <pgroth> @luc was getting there
15:30:33 <khalidBelhajjame> tlebo: issue 476 is an externa comment
15:30:44 <khalidBelhajjame> ... what is the processing for it given that it is resolved
15:31:00 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:31:32 <stain> ACTION stain: Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o
15:31:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2012-10-04].
15:31:47 <smiles> @tlebo OK, I have checked issue 445 is resolved and will close it now
15:32:12 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: there are a couple of issues regarding the ontologies
15:32:41 <GK> (As an aside, when trying to review the proposed responses, it would have been really helpful to me to have a link back to the *original* email to the prov-comments list)
15:32:47 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: issue 552, which need the resolution of the issue on influence
15:33:08 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:33:08 <pgroth> thanks stain
15:33:14 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: all the responses are on the wiki
15:33:27 <Luc> q?
15:33:46 <pgroth> it has the original email
15:33:59 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: information about who send the original comment is missing
15:34:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/463
15:34:55 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: you need to go to the tracker
15:35:11 <pgroth> +q
15:35:40 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM issues  
<Luc>Summary: It was resolved that responses to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 can be sent to reviewers. Some further 20 issues have been tackled, and the group is invited to review responses by Wednesday  October 03.  The group discussed which section of the prov-dm document are normative. Some guidance to editors was provided: Section 5 would be the only section to be normative, provided some minor editorial issues are addressed. Finally, we began discussing ISSUE-519 and ISSUE-523 which identify problems in UML diagrams regarding inheritance associated with Influence. We ran out of time, and were unable to reach consensus: a detailed solution needs to be drafted, and reviewed by the working group.
15:35:54 <Luc> ack pg
15:36:07 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: we obtain the email from Robert, and then issued the issue.Given that his comments were extensive, we proke them into several issues
15:36:39 <khalidBelhajjame> GK: there is no simple way to get to the oriinal email
15:36:47 <Luc> q?
15:36:57 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments regarding prov-o?
15:37:13 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29
15:37:15 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next topic, prov-dm issues
15:37:28 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: during this week I sent proposed responses to 4 issues
15:37:32 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508
15:37:41 <ivan> issue-492?
15:37:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-492 -- typo in example -- pending review
15:37:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/492
15:37:45 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: we had supportive feedback during the week
15:37:48 <ivan> issue-500?
15:37:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-500 -- Data Model Section 2.1.1, hierarchies -- open
15:37:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/500
15:37:52 <Luc> ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508
15:37:54 <ivan> issue-505?
15:37:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-505 -- Data Model Section 3 -- open
15:37:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505
15:37:55 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the deadline was yesterday 
15:37:59 <ivan> issue-508?
15:37:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-508 -- Data Model Table 5 -- pending review
15:37:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508
15:38:08 <Luc>  accepted: The suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support
15:38:14 <khalidBelhajjame> ... the responses are accepted by the group
15:38:16 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:38:41 <Zakim> +??P2
15:38:48 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P2 is me
15:38:48 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:39:02 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Draft.29
15:39:19 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I sent few emails and drafted responses to 20 issues
15:39:23 <stainPhone> stainPhone has joined #prov
15:39:40 <khalidBelhajjame> ... I will ask the group to comment on them, the deadline is wednesday next week
15:39:42 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0263.html
15:40:01 <khalidBelhajjame> ... there was one negative comment fro PAolo regarding some attributes that we debated at lenth
15:40:06 <khalidBelhajjame> ... length
15:41:03 <khalidBelhajjame> Paolo: I am happy with the resolution at the end
15:41:13 <Luc> q?
15:41:18 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: any comments?
15:41:25 <pgroth> are we talking about influence next?
15:41:38 <pgroth> q+
15:41:42 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: I will send an email asking to give feedback
15:41:46 <Luc> q?
15:41:52 <khalidBelhajjame> ... and you will have until next wednesday night
15:42:02 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:42:09 <khalidBelhajjame> pgroth: are we goining to talk about influence?
15:42:16 <pgroth> ok great
15:42:22 <Luc> q?
15:42:23 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: they are not ready for feedback
15:42:36 <khalidBelhajjame> Luc: next item of prov-dm
15:42:39 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0271.html
15:43:39 <pgroth> +q to say yes
15:43:50 <Luc> q?
15:43:51 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:45:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:45:12 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say yes
15:45:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm
15:45:51 <jcheney> happy either way, but just thought it should be discussed
15:46:05 <Luc> @jcheney: agreed james
15:46:24 <jcheney> as long as any repeated definitions are *identical*
15:46:34 <pgroth> +q you use MAY
15:46:38 <pgroth> +q
15:46:43 <Luc> @jcheney: they are, they are included automatically from a single file
15:46:57 <Luc> section 2 defines the core
15:47:11 <Luc> q?
15:48:05 <jcheney> If core vs. non-core is a key property then I think that's a good enough reason.
15:48:26 <TomDN> I have to go, bye
15:48:33 <Zakim> -TomDN
15:48:59 <Luc> q?
15:50:13 <ivan> q+
15:50:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth 
15:50:18 <ivan> ack pgroth 
15:50:48 <pgroth> ack ivan 
15:51:12 <dgarijo> Ivan: it bothers me that there are 2 places where an entity is defined
15:51:23 <Luc> table 5 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-dm-types-and-relations still shows what is core
15:51:31 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
15:51:34 <GK> Did I mishear Paul?   I thought he was saying the same as Ivan 
15:51:38 <dgarijo> ... if one has more info than the other, then it is an editorial problem
15:51:42 <GK> (in thrust)
15:52:06 <Luc> q?
15:52:07 <dgarijo> Luc: the overview is not normative
15:52:24 <dgarijo> Ivan: did I misunderstand Paul?
15:52:29 <jcheney> I think it would be good to ensure that the MAY is reflected in sec. 5 too.
15:52:49 <Luc> @jcheney: +1
15:52:55 <dgarijo> pgroth: if we say that section 2 is informative, then we have to make sure that no command words appear there.
15:52:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:53:10 <Luc> yes, james had already indentified a similar problem in section 6
15:53:23 <pgroth> ok
15:53:25 <dgarijo> Ivan: that is even more true if both sections are normative
15:53:33 <khalidBelhajjame_> khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov
15:53:39 <dgarijo> ... there should not be discrepancy
15:53:45 <GK> I spotted one MAY in section 2.
15:53:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> @dgarijo thanks, I can take over 
15:53:53 <dgarijo> ... between both of them. That should be checked
15:53:58 <dgarijo> @khalid ok!
15:54:19 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: to come to a conclusion, as pgroth we need to come back to the document 
15:54:22 <ivan> q+
15:54:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and do soe editorial clean up
15:54:34 <GK> .. that was sect 2.1.3 - I didn't see any others.
15:54:34 <Luc> q?
15:54:37 <pgroth> but section 5 would be the only normative one
15:54:41 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... are we of the view that section 2 is not normative?
15:54:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: I would think so
15:55:12 <jcheney> q+ to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5
15:55:13 <GK> OK, I'm happy with this too. (i.e. sect 2 informative)
15:55:39 <stainPhone> +1 for (making) sec 2 informative
15:55:40 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: it is fine to have only section 5 as the normative one
15:55:55 <pgroth> they are 
15:55:57 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:56:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: the use of may in that section is not always an ITF may but is an english one
15:56:30 <GK> I think ReSpec picks up capitalized MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc and applies different styling.
15:56:54 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is fine, but I want to make sure that the use of those terms are checked in the definitions
15:56:58 <GK> So the thing to do is use capitalization consistently when editing source.
15:57:00 <Luc> proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:57:00 <khalidBelhajjame_> luc: i did that
15:57:11 <pgroth> james is on the queue
15:57:15 <Luc> q?
15:57:17 <Luc> ack iva
15:57:40 <ivan> ack jcheney 
15:57:40 <Zakim> jcheney, you wanted to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5
15:58:11 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: are we happy with the proposal?
15:58:38 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am looking at section 7 to work out if there is something normative in that section
15:59:03 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I agree that section 2 is inforative, but we need to check the rest
15:59:05 <pgroth> the goal is to make Section 5 the only normative one
15:59:08 <Luc> proposed: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:59:29 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I will make edits and will ask people for review
15:59:30 <GK> +1
15:59:36 <Luc> accepted: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:59:56 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29
16:00:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: issue of inheritance with influence
16:01:24 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... thinking about this issue, I think that it is not mandatory for generation, usage, ... sub-relations of influence 
16:01:44 <jcheney> luc, you seem to be cutting in and out
16:02:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... I formulated a response here, and I would like a feedback on this
16:02:21 <Luc> q?
16:02:23 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... before implementing it
16:02:37 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: any comments?
16:02:41 <pgroth> q+
16:02:58 <khalidBelhajjame_> GK: I am not sure what inheritance means here
16:03:16 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... what is being described is sub-property relation
16:03:16 <pgroth> yes
16:03:26 <pgroth> this is what I asked online
16:03:30 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: but that will have ipact on how the ontology is defined
16:03:43 <satya> It will in prov-o by owl2 rdf semantics
16:04:06 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: in the ontology you will have the class influence and its subclasses, and the same for sub-properties
16:04:27 <Luc> q?
16:04:34 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... but in the XML schema, that is not the case
16:04:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: I am worring about the ramifications on other form of relations
16:05:35 <satya> sorry, I have to leave
16:05:38 <satya> bye
16:05:43 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: I was not planning to do changes based on this
16:05:43 <jun> Sorry, I have to go now ... bye
16:05:48 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:05:49 <Zakim> -jun
16:06:02 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the prov constraints states what we mean
16:06:10 <pgroth> yeah but I'm reading prov-dm
16:06:10 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference
16:06:27 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: as stated in inference 15
16:06:53 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... it can be done through inheritance, but it doesnt have to be done that way
16:07:12 <stainPhone> I guess the reviewer might wonder if you can have wasInfluencedBy while none of the prov subproperies (so to speak) could apply.
16:07:15 <khalidBelhajjame_> pgroth: is the problem stems from the use of the UML diagram?
16:07:16 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:07:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: no
16:07:31 <Luc> q?
16:07:44 <khalidBelhajjame_> ivan: this is something taht we need to follow on
16:07:49 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: is Tim still on the call?
16:08:17 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... have you got a view on whether influence should be represented as a superclasss in the UML diagram
16:08:25 <khalidBelhajjame_> tlebo: I am inclined towards to
16:08:57 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: the problem with inheritance, is that the attributes are inherited, which pose problem, like influencer and influencee
16:09:02 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:09:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:09:03 <Luc> q?
16:09:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: UML is closer to object oriented programming style
16:10:10 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... which is not desirable in our context
16:10:32 <Luc> q?
16:10:33 <stainPhone> For instance wasInfluencedBy(agent, activity) 
16:10:38 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:10:50 <khalidBelhajjame_> Luc: we have to revisit this issue
16:10:59 <khalidBelhajjame_> ... and come back with a concrete proposal
16:11:02 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:11:04 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:11:05 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:11:05 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:11:07 <Zakim> -??P20
16:11:10 <Zakim> -stain
16:11:12 <khalidBelhajjame_> #luc thanks
16:11:14 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:11:18 <khalidBelhajjame_> @luc, thanks
16:11:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:11:31 <Zakim> -??P21
16:11:35 <Zakim> -pgroth
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000411