From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:56:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:56:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-irc 14:56:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:56:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 14:56:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 14:56:36 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:56:36 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2012 14:56:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:56:43 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV 14:56:43 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 14:56:55 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.03 14:57:02 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth 14:57:08 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo Missier 14:57:14 <pgroth> Regrets: Tom De Nies 14:57:21 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public 14:57:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:57:40 <Zakim> + +1.818.415.aaaa 14:57:51 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov 14:57:59 <ivan> zakim, code? 14:57:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:email@example.com), ivan 14:58:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:58:15 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 14:58:26 <Zakim> +ivan 14:58:49 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 14:59:03 <Zakim> +??P11 14:59:40 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov 14:59:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P11 is me 14:59:44 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 14:59:46 <Zakim> +??P56 15:00:01 <Luc> zakim, +??P56 is me 15:00:01 <Zakim> sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+??P56' 15:00:06 <Luc> zakim, ??P56 is me 15:00:06 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 15:00:09 <pgroth> Topic: Admin <pgroth> Summary: Minutes of the Sept 27, 2012 telco were approved. Paul showed a set of overview slides for the WG. Group agreed that long standing actions from Paulo should be closed with a comment. 15:00:13 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 15:00:13 <CraigTrim> zakim, +1.818.415.aaaa is me 15:00:14 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it 15:00:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 15:00:51 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-27 15:00:58 <pgroth> Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon 15:01:01 <ivan> +1 15:01:08 <CraigTrim> +1 15:01:14 <Paolo> +1 15:01:16 <Dong> +1 15:01:21 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:21 <Zakim> +tlebo 15:01:24 <Zakim> +Luc 15:01:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see CraigTrim, [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, tlebo, Luc.a 15:01:27 <Zakim> +??P2 15:01:35 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov 15:01:35 <christine> christine has joined #prov 15:01:47 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 27, 2012 Telecon 15:02:03 <Dong> zakim, ??P2 is me 15:02:22 <Paolo> pgroth: what to do about long-lasting open actions 15:02:29 <Zakim> +Dong; got it 15:02:43 <Zakim> +stain 15:02:46 <Zakim> +jcheney 15:03:01 <Paolo> ivan: it's ok to time out on them and close them, noting that no reply was received 15:03:45 <pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/dedddeedd578/presentations/wg-overview/overview/index.html 15:03:53 <hook> hook has joined #prov 15:04:20 <Paolo> pgroth: finally completed his action, see link above 15:04:54 <Paolo> action 118 (?) also taken care of 15:04:54 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 118. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>. 15:05:27 <Paolo> action-113 done (issue 446) 15:05:37 <Paolo> action-116 still ongoing 15:05:45 <pgroth> q? 15:06:08 <pgroth> - Topic PROV Exit Criteria 15:06:21 <Paolo> TOPIC: PROV Exit Criteria <pgroth> Summary: Paul went over the existing exit criteria. He went through a proposal from the chairs on extending the exit criteria in particular for the constraints. The group agreed that there are three types of implementations: usage of prov in a dataset, vocabularies that extend prov, software that generates/consumes PROV. The group agreed with the principle that for prov-constraints we would produce test cases that were tied to only the constraints but these test cases would also exercise the inferences. Furthermore, the group recommended looking at more automatic mechanisms for gathering results of test cases for constraints. Additionally, the exit criteria should be specific about which documents are tested. Paul was actioned to take this input and present a revised version of the exit criteria by the next telcon. Dong, Luc, Daniel all agreed to contribute to the development of test cases for prov-contstraints. Paolo agreed to help check test cases for correctness. 15:06:39 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria 15:06:57 <Paolo> pgroth: exit criteria were discussed at the latest F2F meeting 15:07:27 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/reports/prov-implementations.html 15:07:47 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aabb 15:07:48 <Paolo> exit criteria are here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria 15:08:38 <pgroth> q? 15:08:42 <ivan> q+ 15:08:47 <Paolo> pgroth: these criteria apply to the DM and ontology 15:08:47 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:09:07 <Paolo> ivan: what is an "implementation" in this context 15:09:08 <hook> hook has joined #prov 15:09:22 <Zakim> -Luc 15:09:37 <Paolo> pgroth: using PROV in a dataset, e.g. markung up a web page 15:09:51 <Paolo> pgroth: a vocabulayr for ontologies that extend prov 15:10:14 <Paolo> pgroth: SW that generates and consumes PROV models 15:10:47 <Paolo> ivan: fine, suggest adding this phrasing to the wiki page containing the exit criteria 15:10:59 <stainN7> stainN7 has joined #prov 15:11:11 <Dong> @Paul: Sure 15:11:17 <pgroth> q? 15:11:17 <Paolo> ivan: also, when implementations are collected, tag them according to the category where they belong 15:11:29 <Paolo> pgroth: are people happy with those 3 categories? 15:11:33 <pgroth> q? 15:12:27 <Paolo> pgroth: these work for DM and O primarily. What would the criteria look like for CONSTRAINTS? 15:13:05 <Paolo> pgroth: need to demonstrate interoperability. 15:14:07 <Paolo> pgroth: proposed criteria: multiple implementations, and show that they support each of the constraints defined in the doc. This is done through a catalog of reference test cases that the implementation must be able to pass 15:14:28 <jcheney> q+ 15:14:36 <pgroth> ack jcheney 15:14:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:14:49 <Paolo> pgroth: the implementation must correctly evaluate the test case against the constraints it is meant to exercise 15:15:01 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 15:15:01 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 15:15:47 <stain> stainNexus7 has joined #prov 15:15:48 <Paolo> jcheney: clarification: the criteria include the constraints but exclude the inferences 15:16:07 <Paolo> pgroth: yes, but you probably need to do inferences as well as part of the implementation 15:16:11 <stain> Who would build those test cases? The wg? 15:16:46 <ivan> q+ 15:16:52 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:16:57 <Paolo> jcheney: are the test cases based on 'validity' which requires inferencing? or is inferencing one possible way to do the implementation 15:17:21 <jcheney> so perhaps the test cases should try to *exercise* the inferences 15:17:44 <Luc> +q 15:17:48 <Paolo> ivan: the constr doc contains inference rules, not just constraints. So are there inferences that will not be tested by the test cases? 15:18:54 <Paolo> jcheney: inferences are a mechanism to define validity, however in the doc we specify that other mechanisms to check validity are fine as well 15:19:31 <Paolo> ivan: that's fine then 15:20:14 <Paolo> Luc: to confirm what jcheney wrote above -- but the test case won't check that inferences have been applied 15:20:41 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:21:02 <hook> q+ 15:22:10 <Paolo> hook: interoperability should show that producers and consumers of provenance actually can use the spec to exchange prov 15:22:12 <Zakim> +??P28 15:22:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P28 is me 15:22:21 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:22:30 <Paolo> hook: the current interpretation of interop does not address that 15:23:04 <Paolo> pgroth: true for CONSTR, however prov DM and prov O do require demonstration of interop according to the exit criteria 15:23:05 <Luc> q+ 15:23:27 <pgroth> ack hook 15:24:12 <Paolo> Luc: are we try to gain evidence for each prov-* individually, or collectively as a whole? 15:24:32 <Paolo> Luc: for example, what does it mean for DM to interop "on its own"? 15:25:06 <Paolo> pgroth: for DM, you do have to go through prov-N or prov-O. the impl. should specify which encoding it supports 15:25:14 <Paolo> pgroth: incl. XML 15:25:19 <Zakim> +??P1 15:25:25 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:27:03 <Paolo> ivan: do we really need an implementation for prov-n which is meant for human consumption? it's not meant to be a machine-exchangeable format 15:27:28 <Paolo> Luc: indeed machine processing initially not the primary goal 15:27:47 <Dong> @Luc, when you mentioned evidence, did you mean that we need to gather proofs beyond submitted answers to the implementation questionnaire? 15:28:16 <ivan> q+ 15:28:20 <Paolo> pgroth: this is good feedback to produce the next version of the exit criteria. we need to be more specific 15:28:22 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:28:23 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria 15:28:33 <Luc> @dong, submitted answers is what I think we have agreed 15:28:53 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aabb 15:28:58 <Dong> @luc, thanks, that's good. 15:29:02 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc 15:29:25 <Luc> was the functional syntax document a rec? 15:29:27 <Paolo> ivan: the EC for OWL2 is relevant because it's got an analog in a functional syntax, which is not even mentioned in the EC 15:29:39 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc 15:29:54 <Paolo> ivan: because the functional syntax can be mapped to one of the serializations 15:30:23 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/ 15:31:04 <Paolo> ivan: the doc above is analogous to prov-n in our case 15:31:43 <Luc> +q 15:31:47 <Paolo> ivan: so the EC should really apply to prov-o and prov-constr 15:31:58 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:32:01 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd 15:32:26 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd 15:32:26 <Paolo> Luc: should different implementations come from different institutions? 15:32:56 <Paolo> ivan: if EC call for two impl, then yes they should come from different institutions 15:33:13 <pgroth> q? 15:33:16 <Luc> q+ 15:33:19 <Paolo> pgroth: plan to vote on EC next week 15:33:44 <pgroth> action: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week 15:33:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Revise exit criteria for next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-11]. 15:34:54 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:34:56 <Paolo> ivan: EC should be fully completed by the time we leave CR, not when we enter CR 15:35:22 <dgarijo> and how do we add an application to the implementation catalog? 15:35:29 <Paolo> pgroth: need volunteers to build test cases for the constraints 15:35:47 <Luc> we can already collect all examples from our specs 15:35:55 <dgarijo> me 15:36:05 <dgarijo> I think Jun was interested as well 15:36:29 <Luc> dong? 15:36:40 <Dong> Sorry, I missed it 15:36:41 <Paolo> Paolo: I can help but can't commit time at this point 15:36:44 <dgarijo> I don't see her here, so I'll contact her to see if she's interested. 15:37:11 <pgroth> me 15:37:17 <Luc> me with Dong 15:37:25 <Dong> Yes 15:37:32 <Luc> q+ 15:37:39 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:37:42 <tlebo> after I see a test case or two, I'll reconsider adding some. 15:38:20 <ivan> q+ 15:38:22 <Paolo> Luc: once they are defined, they should be validated "by expert hand" 15:38:24 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:39:08 <Dong> @Paul, I've understood that it's a part of the work I'm involved in preparing the implementation report 15:39:10 <Paolo> ivan: need a dynamics in place to manage the responses. What is the reporting mechanism? 15:39:21 <Paolo> pgroth: we basically believe them 15:39:25 <Curt> believe and document their assertion 15:39:29 <Luc> q+ 15:39:57 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:40:04 <Paolo> ivan: this means that responses will be managed manually, which may be problematic to scale 15:40:44 <Paolo> Luc: have 100-200 tests at the moment, we should have a simple mechanism with an ID per test... 15:41:17 <Paolo> ivan: a basic mechanism should be defined, we must specify how implementors are expected to report back 15:41:27 <pgroth> q? 15:41:42 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM Issues <pgroth> Summary: A set of issues were agreed to have been resolved. See the resolution. 15:43:23 <Zakim> -stain 15:43:49 <Paolo> pgroth: going through the list.... 15:44:14 <Zakim> + +1.818.393.aaee 15:44:48 <Paolo> pgroth: 520 left till next time as there was discussion 15:45:40 <Paolo> pgroth: (isolating the issues that received feedback and discussion) 15:47:32 <pgroth> ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515, 15:47:46 <pgroth> q? 15:47:52 <Paolo> pgroth: the issues above have reached resolution 15:48:21 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved 15:48:45 <ivan> +1 15:48:48 <tlebo> +1 15:48:50 <dgarijo> +1 15:48:57 <jcheney> +1 15:49:03 <Dong> +1 15:49:03 <Paolo> +1 15:49:10 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-531, ISSUE-528, ISSUE-517, ISSUE-501, ISSUE-516, ISSUE-514, ISSUE-513, ISSUE-511, ISSUE-510, ISSUE-512, ISSUE-497, ISSUE-515 are confirmed to be resolved 15:50:16 <pgroth> Topic: UML and Naming <pgroth> Summary: The group discussed the upper/lowercase naming of property names and the inconsistency between UML diagrams and the syntaxes. This is an issue with the use of UML. To resolve, this issue the group agreed that a modified version of the starting points diagram from prov-o should be used in the primer to avoid confusion 15:50:39 <ivan> issue-509? 15:50:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-509 -- Data Model Figure 5 -- open 15:50:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/509 15:50:43 <Paolo> pgroth: see issue-509 15:50:55 <Zakim> +??P4 15:51:09 <Luc> q+ 15:51:15 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:52:04 <Paolo> Luc: earlier versions of the docs show capitalized classes, and relationships not capitalized. that led to inconsistencies 15:52:06 <Paolo> Luc 15:52:32 <Paolo> Luc: we addressed by cap "class level" elements and nocap for "instance level" elements 15:52:56 <Paolo> Luc: diff. notations use different styles. in prov-n nothing is cap 15:53:18 <Paolo> Luc: so we will be inconsistent anyway whatever change we make 15:54:35 <Paolo> Luc: in prov-o class derivations are cap, for instance. There is no solution that works for all of them 15:54:43 <pgroth> q? 15:54:45 <ivan> q+ 15:54:47 <Paolo> Luc: we tried to make prov-dm consistent with itself 15:55:06 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:55:25 <Paolo> ivan: as the one reopening the issue: looking at the primer on its own. because of its role, felt that consistency was important 15:56:00 <Paolo> ivan: the primer has dual syntax for examples. in prov-n there is no cap, while turtle is also consistent with prov-o 15:56:43 <Paolo> ivan: but fig. after sec 2 uses an inconsistent cap mode, and that is not explained. so proposed to make it consistent with prov-o 15:56:50 <Luc> q+ 15:56:56 <pgroth> ack Luc 15:57:09 <Paolo> ivan: so just asking to make the figure consistent with one syntax in the text. 15:57:18 <Paolo> Luc: the figure uses the prov-dm convention 15:57:41 <Paolo> Luc: it's a class diagram, not an instance. 15:58:04 <pgroth> q+ 15:58:15 <ivan> q+ 15:59:07 <pgroth> ack ivan 15:59:21 <Paolo> ivan: the figures in the primer may differ from those in the DM. because it's the primer, readers won't appreciate the alignment with prov, 15:59:40 <Paolo> ivan: rather they will be confused by the change in cap style 16:00:03 <dgarijo> +1 to what paul suggested. 16:00:19 <Paolo> pgroth: we should be using the diagram in prov-o instead, it's not UML but it's "classes and properties" and may work better here 16:00:32 <Paolo> ivan: happy with that 16:00:38 <dgarijo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/diagrams/starting-points.svg 16:01:14 <pgroth> q? 16:01:17 <pgroth> ack pgroth 16:01:31 <tlebo> sounds good 16:01:48 <pgroth> accepted: use a modified version of the prov-o starting points figure in the primer 16:04:32 <pgroth> q? 16:05:18 <tlebo> bye! Thanks, Paul. 16:05:21 <Zakim> -tlebo 16:05:24 <Zakim> -dgarijo 16:05:25 <Zakim> -jcheney 16:05:27 <Zakim> -ivan 16:05:28 <Zakim> -Luc 16:05:29 <Dong> thanks, bye all 16:05:30 <Zakim> -Dong 16:05:33 <khalidBelhajjame> bye 16:05:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:05:34 <Zakim> -Paolo 16:05:40 <Zakim> - +1.818.393.aaee 16:05:41 <Zakim> -??P1 16:05:43 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 16:05:49 <Zakim> -??P4 16:06:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public 16:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request, pgroth 16:06:09 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes 16:06:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-minutes.html pgroth 16:06:13 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon 16:06:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:06:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], ivan, Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, CraigTrim, tlebo, Dong, stain, jcheney, +1.818.393.aabb, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aacc, 16:06:17 <Zakim> ... +1.818.731.aadd, +1.818.393.aaee 16:06:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:06:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:06:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:06:24 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-actions.rdf : 16:06:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to revise exit criteria for next week  16:06:28 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-prov-irc#T15-33-44 16:25:36 <Zakim> -CraigTrim 16:25:37 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended # CHATSYNC DOES NOT APPLY -- COPIED BY HAND