Chatlog 2012-11-01

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.

14:38:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:38:59 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:39:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:39:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:39:03 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:39:03 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 21 minutes
14:39:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:39:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:39:04 <trackbot> Date: 01 November 2012
14:39:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 21 minutes
14:39:12 <Luc> Agenda:
14:39:20 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:40:01 <Luc> Regrets: Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Daniel Garijo, Curt Tilmes
14:40:16 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
14:40:26 <Luc> topic: Admin
14:56:52 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:57:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:57:14 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:20 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:39 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:42 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aaaa
15:00:48 <MacTed> MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG -- -- current agenda
15:00:49 <tlebo> zakim, I am aaaa
15:00:49 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:01:01 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:01 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:01:02 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:01:02 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:35 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, [IPcaller], MacTed (muted), tlebo
15:01:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:51 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:01:53 <tlebo> I'll scribe
15:02:00 <Luc> scribe: tlebo
15:02:27 <tlebo> luc: good afternoon.
15:02:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
15:02:35 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:02:39 <tlebo> ... trying to close issues leading to F2F
15:02:51 <Luc> Proposed: approve Minutes of the October 25, 2012 Telecon
#15:02:55 <tlebo> topic: admin issues
15:03:01 <Paolo> +1
15:03:02 <jun> +1
15:03:03 <tlebo> proposed: approve last week's minutes
15:03:06 <zednik> +1
15:03:12 <tlebo> +1
15:03:20 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb
15:03:23 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:03:24 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:41 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:03:47 <Zakim> +[]
15:03:48 <Zakim> +??P14
15:03:51 <Luc> Accepted:  Minutes of the October 25, 2012 Telecon
#15:03:59 <tlebo> accepted: minutes approved.
15:04:10 <smiles> zakim, ??P14 is me
15:04:10 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
15:04:10 <tlebo> luc: outstanding actions
15:04:31 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
15:04:38 <tlebo> tim has not done the cross referencing yet.
15:05:07 <tlebo> tim: the cross referencing is editorial
15:05:23 <tlebo> Stian's 118 can be closed
15:05:43 <tlebo> 121 - Tim's action on subclassing.
<Luc>Summary: The minutes were approved, action reviewed. Note that we do NOT have a telecon next Thursday, since F2F is Friday.
15:06:20 <Luc> topic: exit criteria
<luc>Summary: The CR exit criteria were approved. Update on the questionnaire was provided by Stephan. Outstanding minor points will be addressed shortly.
15:06:22 <tlebo> luc: note that we do NOT have a telecon next Thur., since F2F is Friday.
15:06:28 <Luc>
15:06:42 <tlebo> luc: paul sent proposal to accept criteria.
15:06:47 <tlebo> ... all responses were positive.
15:07:01 <Luc> q?
15:07:01 <tlebo> ... can we record approval? any objections?
15:07:16 <Luc> accepted:  CR Exit Criteria defined at are approved
15:07:42 <tlebo> luc: questionnaire. Is it ready to submit to W3C management team?
15:07:55 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:08:36 <tlebo> zednik: trying to fix Paul's last issue on it. Implementation consuming external construct. Will address them today and get confirmation, will send it out.
15:08:54 <tlebo> zednik: will try to finish it today.
15:09:23 <tlebo> luc: will try to have an email vote ahead of the F2F
15:09:26 <Luc> q?
15:09:43 <Luc> topic: Prov-o Issues
<luc>Summary: Outstanding issues were reviewed. Group answer to ISSUE-491 remains to be written; Luc will contact Stian about it.  ISSUE-522 is the only technical issue remaining to be addressed. Tim will draft a response and share it with the group, with a view to respond to the reviewer early next week. In response to ISSUE-522, Luc also updated the wording in prov-dm.  All outstanding issues are purely editorial and the team believes the document will be ready for the face to face meeting.
15:10:06 <Luc>
15:10:10 <Luc>
15:11:01 <tlebo> 349 can be closed
15:11:57 <tlebo> 479 can be clsoed b/c we are not using Trig.
15:12:09 <tlebo> 491 was Stian handling it.
15:12:35 <tlebo> Luc: Tim to draft response and contact reviewer.
15:13:25 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:13:27 <Zakim> +??P13
15:13:31 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
15:13:44 <GK1> zakim, ??p13 is me
15:13:44 <Zakim> +GK1; got it
15:13:53 <tlebo> Tim: I''l hunt down everthing there...
15:13:54 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:13:58 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc
15:14:16 <CraigTrim> zakim, aacc is me
15:14:17 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it
15:15:46 <Luc> Rephrasing in prov-dm:
15:15:53 <tlebo> Tim: 552 is the only big issue, and I'll start it after this call.
15:16:31 <tlebo> luc: new definitions include "relation"
15:17:37 <tlebo> luc: change of text, but not of the ontology.
15:18:09 <tlebo> tlebo: my approach will be to change the text.
15:18:41 <tlebo> luc: draft response, group approves, convey change to commenter, and have acknowledgment before F2F.
15:19:04 <Luc> q?
15:19:16 <tlebo> ... can we vote, so that the acknowledgement can be sent to the commenter on Monday.
15:19:38 <Luc>
15:20:34 <tlebo> tim: my impression was that it is just an announcement.
15:21:05 <tlebo> luc: they are using wasInfluencedBy, but the rec suggest to use a subproperty.
15:21:55 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:21:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, [IPcaller], tlebo, [IPcaller.a], [IPcaller.aa], +1.818.731.aabb, [], smiles, GK1, CraigTrim
15:22:02 <tlebo> tlebo: yes, we can look at their use and suggest to use a subproperty.
15:22:24 <Luc> topic: PROV-Constraints issues
<Luc>Summary: The responses drafted by James during the week were approved by the group. James will contact the reviewers and seek their acknowledgement. Further outstanding issues were addressed. The document will be ready for the face to face meeting.
15:22:54 <Luc>
15:23:09 <tlebo> jcheney: isssues were raised from the feedback last week.
15:23:41 <jcheney>
15:23:43 <tlebo> ... haven't heard any feedback beyond minor typos.
15:24:09 <tlebo> ... unless objection, would like to send the responses to the commenters.
15:24:19 <tlebo> ... two more issues that are leftover from last call. internal.
15:24:22 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:24:25 <jcheney>
15:24:59 <tlebo> ... made propsoed change and considers it done. Do we need to send a formal response?
15:25:15 <jcheney>
15:25:16 <tlebo> ... the comment spread from issue on DM
15:25:24 <tlebo> luc: we need to approve responses.
15:26:30 <Luc>  PROPOSED: The group endorses the responses to issue-556, issue-576, issue-582, issue-586, issue-587, issue-588, issue-584, issue-579,  issue-585, issue-583, issue-580, issue-577, issue-578, issue-581
15:28:15 <tlebo> jcheney: the constraints doc is not addressing how to implement them in OWL etc.
15:28:18 <tlebo> +1
15:28:38 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:28:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Luc, tlebo, [IPcaller.a], [IPcaller.aa], +1.818.731.aabb, [], smiles, GK1, CraigTrim
15:28:49 <GK> 0 (not reviewed or followed discussion)
15:28:58 <smiles> +1 (though I admit to not having read them all thoroughly...)
15:29:05 <khalidBelhajjame> +1
15:29:12 <zednik> +1
15:29:33 <Luc> accepted: The group endorses the responses to issue-556, issue-576, issue-582, issue-586, issue-587, issue-588, issue-584, issue-579,  issue-585, issue-583, issue-580, issue-577, issue-578, issue-581
15:29:43 <jun> +0 (haven't been able to review)
15:31:01 <tlebo> jcheney: I'll contact the commenters instead of Paul
15:31:12 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
15:31:12 <tlebo> luc: any other changes?
15:31:25 <tlebo> jcheney: all that are necessary are done.
15:31:37 <tlebo> ... some quick issues to get feedback:
15:32:01 <jcheney>
15:32:28 <tlebo> ... 559 was a side effect, do we need to make a formal response?
15:32:47 <tlebo> luc: was an internal comment.
15:32:54 <jcheney>
15:33:04 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:33:07 <tlebo> jcheney: links between identifier fields.
15:33:08 <jcheney>
15:33:28 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:33:46 <tlebo> luc: i'll do it after the call
15:34:26 <tlebo> ... in responses, can you ask them to acknowledge and whether they are satisfied?
15:34:32 <Luc> q?
15:34:42 <Luc> topic: prov-n issues
<Luc>Summary: In response to Ivan's feedback, the group discussed the scope of prefix declarations in prov-n. It was suggested that prefixes declared in a document should also be visible in bundles (unless they have been redeclared).   Ivan confirmed that this was not a design change, but a syntactic sugar change.  The group endorsed the proposal (and issue-589 was raised to that effect). Graham was also satisfied with the changes to the mime type application. It is planned to implement the new issue shortly and complete the document ahead of the meeting.
15:34:58 <Luc>
15:35:04 <tlebo> luc: only 2 issues
15:35:39 <tlebo> ... ivan was fine, but we want to confirm...
15:36:05 <tlebo> ... namespace declarations and bundles. bundles do not "inherit" prefixes.
15:36:32 <Luc> q?
15:36:32 <tlebo> q+
15:36:33 <GK> q+
15:36:55 <GK> q-
15:37:19 <Luc> ack tl
15:37:26 <tlebo> @gk probably would have stated it better...
15:38:02 <tlebo> gk: same point as Tim, you were responding to URIs of entities
15:38:11 <tlebo> luc: do we need to revise?
15:38:23 <jcheney> Currently says: "The scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a document is the document itself, excluding the bundles it may contain."
15:38:25 <tlebo> ... one benefit is that bundles are totally distinct.
15:38:52 <jcheney> This forces you to repeat prefixes in common cases, including many natural-looking examples in prov-dm
15:39:00 <Luc> q?
15:39:40 <Luc> q?
15:40:04 <Luc> q?
15:40:12 <Luc> scribe: smiles
15:40:15 <jcheney> q+
15:40:33 <tlebo_> tlebo_ has joined #prov
15:40:53 <GK> I was saying that I thought the current design is maybe sub-optimal for human use, but not fatally flawed.
15:41:04 <tlebo_> tlebo_ has joined #prov
15:41:21 <Luc> q?
15:41:23 <smiles> jcheney: Missed original change to excluding namespaces in top-level bundle; changing the scope to include the namespaces from top-level might not break anything?
15:41:54 <smiles> Luc: Would need to get advice on whether this is only an editorial change
15:42:08 <smiles> ... How strongly do you feel about this?
15:42:55 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:43:01 <smiles> jcheney: There are situations where it is useful to think of bundles as independent and copy-paste without worrying about top-level, but using namespace without repeating declaration throughout a document is common
15:43:45 <smiles> ... Natural expectation is that if you state something then embedded scopes would include that thing
15:44:05 <tlebo> FWIW, Turtle and Trig permits the prefixes to be defined once and used in any of many "bundle".
15:44:06 <smiles> Luc: Are we willing to go ahead with change even if it is not just editoral, i.e. back to LC
15:44:26 <tlebo> This is not worth going back to Last Call for.
15:44:37 <smiles> jcheney: It is something that people will anyway notice and complain about in implementation
15:44:44 <GK> Maybe ask Ivan if this would need to redo last call.  It seems a small change, albeit technical.
15:44:56 <ivan> if I may, just on IRC...
15:45:02 <ivan> this is not a design change
15:45:09 <Luc> thanks ivan
15:45:18 <ivan> this is a change in a syntactic sugar
15:45:25 <Luc> ok
15:45:35 <ivan> it would influence implementations, but that is not the issue for LC
15:45:53 <smiles> Luc: Given the above, it would be good to know the WG's preference
15:46:05 <Luc> show of hand: allow scope of prefix declarations
15:46:40 <tlebo> +1 because that's how it's done in Turtle/Trig, -1 b/c PROV-N is for examples in Recs :-)
15:46:59 <smiles> satya: Please clarify question
15:47:13 <GK> +0.5 to top-level namespaces visible in contained bundles in PROV-N (next question: can they be redefined in inner bundles?)
15:47:22 <jcheney> See namespace scope rules in
15:47:23 <hook_> hook_ has joined #prov
15:47:44 <smiles> Luc: Currently in PROV-N, when declaring prefix at top level and want to re-use in nested bundle, have to redeclare prefix in bundle
15:47:48 <jcheney> Currently, this is illegal:
15:47:53 <jcheney> document  prefix ex <>  bundle ex:b1     entity(ex:e1, ...someattr1...)     entity(ex:e1, ...someattr2...)  endBundle endDocument
15:48:05 <jcheney> because ex is not re-declared inside the bundle
15:49:02 <smiles> Luc: @GK, yes, prefixes could be redefined in inner bundles
15:49:24 <jcheney> I
15:49:42 <smiles> jcheney: Suggest just changing sentence in PROV-N from "excluding the bundles it may contain" to "including..."
15:50:07 <tlebo> reusing throughout and allowing redefinition in inner bundles would make it much more useful for humans to read and write.
15:50:13 <smiles> ... People have been writing examples that assume the proposed change without realising
15:50:14 <GK> Seems to me easier to change the text than the examples
15:50:16 <Luc> proposed: change  scope of prefix declaration so that it includes bundles
15:50:30 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #prov
15:50:36 <satya> +1 to change text
15:50:38 <smiles> +1
15:50:41 <GK> +1
15:50:46 <jcheney> +1
15:50:53 <ivan> +1
15:50:54 <jun> +1
15:50:56 <tlebo> +.5
15:51:01 <zednik> +1
15:51:10 <Luc> accepted: change  scope of prefix declaration so that it includes bundles
15:51:31 <smiles> Luc: Next issue: MIME types
15:51:44 <smiles> Luc: @GK, did you look at changes implemented?
15:52:02 <smiles> GK: No
15:52:20 <smiles> Luc: Can you prioritise issue 573?
15:52:51 <smiles> Luc: Everything else covered in PROV-N aside from two issues above
15:52:57 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM issues
<Luc>Summary: the outstanding issue in prov-dm is related to mention (issue-475). A response was circulated during the week. The proposal is to keep the feature marked at risk, and as indicated in the document, make a decision on its suitability based on implementer's feedback.  A vote is to be carried out by email (deadline next Tuesday) in time to respond to the reviewer.
15:53:17 <Luc>
15:53:37 <smiles> Luc: Two issues waiting for confirmation from reviewers on changes
15:53:48 <smiles> ... and issue 475 on mention
15:54:08 <smiles> ... every other change implemented and logged
15:54:29 <Luc>
15:54:43 <Luc> q?
15:54:52 <smiles> Luc: Regarding issue 475, did not get response on issue
15:54:52 <jcheney> q-
15:55:31 <smiles> Luc: GK suggested dropping this feature at risk
15:56:04 <smiles> Luc: Conclusion of my response is that we want feedback from implementers
15:56:17 <smiles> ... As we exit CR phase, can look at suitability
15:56:36 <Luc> q?
15:56:46 <smiles> Luc: Any feedback now?
15:56:50 <tlebo> +1 to keep it in, marked as at risk.
15:57:22 <Luc>
15:57:39 <Luc> q?
15:57:41 <smiles> Luc: Is the group satisfied with this answer, and to vote now?
15:57:55 <Luc> q?
15:58:11 <smiles> ... or vote by email?
15:58:11 <Luc> q?
15:58:26 <smiles> +1 to vote by email
15:58:27 <zednik> I like vote by email
15:58:36 <jcheney> +1 email
15:58:38 <tlebo> vote by email seems to be the resounding response. I know I could use a bit more time to work through it entirely.
15:59:18 <smiles> Luc: Will send an email with a deadline
15:59:24 <Luc> topic: prov-xml
<luc>Summary: The editors of the prov-xml document have produced a draft of the specification and are now seeking feedback. Luc and James have volunteered to review the document. Other reviewers would be appreciated. The key question is to decide whether the document is ready for release as a fpwd, synchronised with the CR release. It was discussed whether there was time to update the primer with xml examples. The prov-xml team will draft the example in full in xml and will share it with Simon.
16:00:06 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:00:17 <smiles> zednik: We have made significant changes to XML note, including table of features mapping  PROV-DM to XSD, plus examples with excerpts of schema
16:00:40 <zednik>
16:00:46 <smiles> ... Now looking for feedback on the HTML
16:01:48 <smiles> Luc: Thanks. There is an opportunity to release first WD of this doc with CRs of other specs. Will it be ready?
16:02:23 <smiles> ... Next week we would take a vote, discuss with W3C management to publish CRs, so two weeks for XML document before publishing
16:02:39 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:02:52 <smiles> zednik: Probably get ready in two weeks, but need to address WG comments, ensure there is no gaps (e.g. bundles)
16:03:12 <smiles> Luc: Would be nice to have review taking place during week
16:03:17 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb
16:03:24 <Luc> q?
16:03:32 <jcheney> sure
16:03:34 <smiles> ... Who is willing to review PROV-XML document?
16:03:45 <tlebo> one what timeframe?
16:03:46 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
16:03:47 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:04:02 <tlebo> thanks. Then no :-)
16:04:03 <smiles> Luc: Feedback in time for F2F
16:04:19 <smiles> ... Question for reviewers: Can we release this document as a FPWD
16:05:06 <smiles> Luc: Intent to include XML in primer. Feasible to include for release?
16:05:51 <smiles> smiles: For primer, if given XML fragments, then quick job to add
16:06:07 <smiles> zednik: Possibly, but need to look at examples in primer
16:06:20 <GK> @luc - the text/provenance-notation MIME registration revisions look fine to me at
16:06:24 <hook> might need to check latest fragments for bundles per recent updates
16:06:36 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
16:06:37 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:06:39 <Zakim> -smiles
16:06:45 <Zakim> -[]
16:06:47 <Zakim> -Luc
16:06:50 <GK> GK has left #prov
16:06:50 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd
16:06:51 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:06:51 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
16:07:16 <Zakim> -GK1
16:07:17 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:07:17 <Zakim> Attendees were Luc, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aaaa, tlebo, MacTed, +1.818.731.aabb, smiles, GK1, +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aadd
16:07:18 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
16:07:22 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:07:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Luc