Chatlog 2013-01-10

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.

15:52:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:52:36 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:52:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:52:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:52:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:52:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:52:41 <trackbot> Date: 10 January 2013
15:52:42 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:52:42 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:57 <pgroth> Agenda:
15:53:07 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:22 <pgroth> rrsagent, make log publics
15:53:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:38 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Khalid Belhajjame, Jun Zhao, Paolo Missier, zednik, hook
15:59:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:59:45 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
15:59:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:55 <pgroth> can someone scribe?
16:01:46 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:02:00 <pgroth> weka
16:02:19 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb
16:02:21 <pgroth> mallet
16:02:47 <jcheney> zakim, aabb is me
16:02:47 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:03:06 <pgroth> scribe: jcheney
16:03:08 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P33
16:03:18 <jcheney> topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed. 
16:03:49 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:04:43 <Zakim> + +329331aacc
16:04:48 <jcheney> pgroth: WF4Ever meeting so lots of people away
16:04:52 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me
16:04:52 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
16:04:52 <pgroth>
16:05:00 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
16:05:03 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:05:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:05:05 <jcheney> pgroth: any objections to minutes?
16:05:34 <pgroth>
16:05:44 <jcheney> ... minutes from last week
16:05:59 <pgroth> accepted: January 3, 2012 minutes
16:06:10 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:06:10 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:06:11 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:06:24 <jcheney> ... open action items:
16:06:43 <Luc> close action-154
16:06:43 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-154 Review the test cases.
16:06:47 <jcheney> ... closing some that were closed last week
16:06:47 <Luc> close action-155
16:06:47 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-155 Review the test cases.
16:07:03 <jcheney> ..stefan working on xml namespace
16:07:14 <jcheney> ... paul to send note on implementations, will do today/tomorrow
16:07:28 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations
<pgroth> Summary: The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email. 
16:07:28 <jcheney> ...stephan working on xml namespace
16:07:46 <jcheney> ... was hoping for update from stephan (who gets the emails)
16:07:59 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:08:05 <jcheney> ... would like to see how to make a report from survey results
16:08:12 <Luc> 10 implementations, 5 vocab extensions
16:08:15 <Zakim> +??P7
16:08:44 <jcheney> ... Now have 9 impls, 5 vocabulary extensions
16:08:53 <jcheney> ... Would like to know what these are
16:09:09 <pgroth> action: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires
16:09:09 <trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
16:09:22 <pgroth> action: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires
16:09:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
16:09:41 <pgroth>
16:10:04 <jcheney> ivan: can see all the responses
16:10:23 <jcheney> pgroth: who has done what?  why can't anyone else see it?
16:10:31 <Luc>,,,,,,,,,
16:10:40 <Luc> these are the responders
16:10:45 <Luc>
16:11:01 <jcheney> ivan: <listing some of the responses>
16:11:56 <Luc> that's my 10 :-)
16:11:59 <pgroth>
16:12:30 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:12:30 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:13:17 <jcheney> ivan: should be visible to members of "this group" but not sure which group it is.
16:13:30 <jcheney> ... vocabulary extensions: 5 for prov-o, none for others
16:13:43 <Luc>,,,,,
16:13:48 <Luc>
16:13:54 <jcheney> q+
16:14:14 <jcheney> ivan: what would extension mean for prov-n?
16:14:40 <Luc> you could write an xml schema that extends prov-xml schema (but this is not recommendation track)
16:14:40 <jcheney> pgroth: no results for vocabulary usage
16:14:43 <pgroth> ack jcheney
16:14:49 <jcheney>
16:15:51 <jcheney> jcheney: the questionnaires are in the "Test Group".  Can we move them to our group?
16:15:53 <pgroth> action: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group
16:15:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
16:16:07 <jcheney> ivan: this may be a mistake... will ask sysadmins if it can be fixed
16:16:14 <pgroth> q+
16:16:17 <pgroth> q?
16:16:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:16:30 <jcheney> ivan: do you want to see the feature coverage?
16:17:11 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to see feature coverage & interoperability in implementation report
16:17:21 <pgroth>
16:17:21 <pgroth> [4:06pm]
16:18:21 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy
16:18:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney
16:18:23 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy?
16:18:33 <Zakim> jcheney, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (4%), ??P33 (55%), Ivan (48%)
16:18:44 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33
16:18:44 <Zakim> ??P33 should now be muted
16:19:16 <jcheney> @ivan: could you make a screenshot of results and people can look at it off-line?
16:19:22 <Luc> q+
16:20:11 <jcheney> luc: we have 4 impls that write Entity and 5 that read / write Entity
16:20:11 <pgroth> yeah that's correct
16:20:56 <jcheney> ivan: then averages are meaningful: 4.56 is good
16:21:38 <jcheney> pgroth: for entity, agent we're fine
16:22:09 <jcheney> luc: 6 say no support for invalidation, 1 r/o, 2 r/2.  can we assume one reads what the other has written?
16:22:30 <jcheney> pgroth: would be good to see the actual people, so we can check this
16:23:15 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to make this public/group readable, and see where there are gaps
16:23:19 <pgroth> ack luc
16:23:20 <pgroth> q?
16:23:26 <jcheney> ivan: sounds reasonable
16:23:36 <Luc> q+
16:24:07 <jcheney> luc: just after averages table there are details, but only for two responses - why?
16:24:19 <Dong> that's what I see as well
16:24:56 <jcheney> ivan: can see all 9 rows
16:25:04 <jcheney> ... with all responses
16:25:20 <jcheney> pgroth: we need to see what ivan sees asap
16:25:30 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:26:00 <jcheney> pgroth: wanted to ask dong what we expect back on constraints
16:26:05 <Luc> q?
16:26:22 <jcheney> ... should they email prov-public-comments or fill out a form or what?
16:26:38 <pgroth> q?
16:26:47 <pgroth> no dong
16:26:48 <Luc> dong?
16:26:56 <jcheney> zakim, unmute ??P33
16:26:56 <Zakim> ??P33 should no longer be muted
16:27:06 <jcheney> zakim, ??P33 is Dong
16:27:06 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
16:27:37 <jcheney> Dong: Decided to use questionnaire and not email, haven't removed email yet, will do soon
16:27:59 <jcheney> ... put link in call for implementations
16:28:08 <pgroth> it's not on the main page
16:28:42 <jcheney> pgroth: will update main page after changes made
16:28:45 <pgroth> i will do that
16:28:48 <jcheney> Dong: need to update front page
16:28:59 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33
16:28:59 <Zakim> sorry, jcheney, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P33
16:29:04 <jcheney> zakim, mute Dong
16:29:04 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted
16:29:13 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Dictionary
<pgroth> Summary: Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul
16:29:19 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
16:29:19 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
16:29:47 <jcheney> TomDN: prov-dict pushed just before call; everything done except prov-xml
16:29:58 <jcheney> ... can be reviewed starting tomorrow
16:30:08 <jcheney> ... incorporates results of discussion on mailing list
16:30:25 <jcheney> ... can be considered for fpwd after review
16:30:28 <TomDN>
16:30:39 <jcheney> pgroth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review
16:30:46 <pgroth> q?
16:31:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
<pgroth> Summary: Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
16:31:06 <Luc> q+
16:31:12 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
16:31:12 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
16:31:20 <jcheney> Luc: can we confirm reviewers for prov-dictionary?
16:31:55 <jcheney> pgroth: paolo, stian, james(?), luc, pgroth
16:31:57 <Luc> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul
16:32:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:32:08 <Luc> ack luc
16:32:19 <pgroth>
16:32:49 <jcheney> pgroth: reviewable version is available, questions for review in issue 613
16:32:58 <jcheney> ... would like feedback on pingback
16:33:10 <pgroth> Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
16:33:14 <pgroth> q?
16:33:14 <jcheney> ... "last call" before prov-aq released as ready for implementation
16:33:52 <pgroth> q?
16:33:59 <jcheney> ... deadline for review is thursday next week
16:34:19 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o encoding constraints
<pgroth> Summary: The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response. 
16:34:26 <pgroth>
16:34:46 <jcheney> pgroth: comments from two implementors working with prov-o and constraints
16:35:08 <jcheney> ... looking for constraints implementable in OWL to be part of prov-o
16:35:40 <jcheney> ... this was discussed and resolved not to do this earlier, but this could be an implementation technique
16:35:46 <Luc> q+
16:35:50 <jcheney> ... how to address?
16:36:22 <jcheney> Luc: no consensus for derivation to be transitive; we voted against this and it is not a constraint in the document.
16:37:01 <pgroth> ack luc
16:37:15 <jcheney> luc: should review & approve responses, but would be good to tell them this specific point
16:37:34 <ivan> q+
16:37:37 <Luc> action: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive
16:37:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-01-17].
16:37:41 <pgroth> ack Ivan
16:38:01 <jcheney> ivan: what is wrong with putting expressible constraints in separate document?
16:38:33 <jcheney> ... don't see a case for editing prov-o core document
16:39:06 <jcheney> pgroth: fine if people (in or out of wg) want to encode constraints, but not necessarily part of wg delierables
16:39:14 <jcheney> s/delierables/deliverables/
16:39:27 <jcheney> ivan: if wg members do this, we can at least publish it somewhere
16:39:28 <pgroth> q?
16:39:42 <Luc> q+
16:39:47 <pgroth> ack luc
16:40:07 <jcheney> Luc: need to respond to reviewers, along lines Paul gave
16:40:16 <jcheney> ... open questions whether some/all constraints implementable and how
16:40:52 <jcheney> ... wg decided to view this as an implementation issue, we can offer to gather experiences with this/axioms suggested by implementors
16:41:27 <jcheney> pgroth: sounds fine, but it seems to come up - should we say this in prov-o or constraints saying this?
16:42:11 <pgroth> q?
16:42:17 <jcheney> Luc: seems reasonable. not sure where. james?
16:43:58 <pgroth> q?
16:44:16 <jcheney> jcheney: could put disclaimer/explanation in constraints, maybe signpost elsewhere
16:44:39 <jcheney> pgroth: could say something in overview, prov-o also
16:45:10 <pgroth> action: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints
16:45:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].
16:45:28 <pgroth> topic: Test cases response
<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on 
16:45:36 <pgroth>
16:46:34 <jcheney> pgroth: james responded to questions about constraints; this seems fine as response to that part if wg can endorse
16:46:44 <jcheney> ... also asked about prov-constraints test cases
16:46:54 <jcheney> ... should they be part of spec?
16:47:07 <pgroth>  We
16:47:07 <pgroth> would like to see test suites for the other operational parts of PROV,
16:47:07 <pgroth> in particular for testing inferences separate from validation.
16:47:26 <jcheney> ... in particular, in a normative place.
16:47:39 <jcheney> ... and would like further test cases for other documents
16:47:43 <pgroth> q?
16:47:45 <jcheney> ... how should we respond
16:47:54 <jcheney> ivan: why do they want it in normative spec?
16:48:11 <jcheney> pgroth: if normative, then better interoperability (they say)
16:48:42 <jcheney> ivan: that's a matter of opinion.  otoh, if list of test cases become normative, cannot extend them later, or would have normative  & non-normative tests
16:49:00 <jcheney> ... if test suite is non-normative, then we have capability to add new tests even when docs published
16:49:14 <jcheney> ... had this in rdfa wg
16:49:23 <Dong> q+
16:49:46 <jcheney> ... discrepancies between implementations arose, which were addressed through additional tests
16:49:52 <Dong> Zakim, unmute me
16:49:52 <Zakim> Dong should no longer be muted
16:49:52 <pgroth> q?
16:50:26 <jcheney> Dong: if we move test cases into normative, are we saying that an impl that passes all test cases are compliant?  We would have two definitions
16:50:34 <jcheney> ... test cases and original spec
16:50:44 <jcheney> ... cannot be sure that test cases cover all constraints.
16:50:59 <jcheney> ... would provide false sense of ciompliance
16:51:00 <pgroth> q?
16:51:03 <pgroth> ack Dong
16:51:06 <Dong> Zakim, mute me
16:51:06 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted
16:51:06 <Luc> q+
16:51:08 <jcheney> s/ciompliance/compliance
16:51:33 <jcheney> Luc: other issue is that we don't have formal mappings / equivalence between the serializations
16:51:39 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:51:50 <jcheney> ... it could be that some test cases would work in prov-n and not rdf or vice versa.
16:52:07 <jcheney> ... not in favor of normative test cases
16:52:40 <jcheney> ... do we need other test cases for other specs?
16:52:49 <jcheney> (previous line is pgroth)
16:52:57 <jcheney> pgroth: do we need other test cases for other specs?
16:52:59 <pgroth> q?
16:53:04 <Luc> q+
16:53:23 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:54:08 <jcheney> Luc: the test suite contains typical examples expressed in prov-n, prov-o.  what else could we do beyond having weird examples to exercise syntax?
16:54:17 <jcheney> ... more interesting to have useful provenance examples
16:54:49 <jcheney> pgroth: test cases provide example repository, can be used to test compliance with other specs
16:54:55 <pgroth> q?
16:55:03 <Luc> this was a suggestion from the SW coordination group that we have a set of useful provenance examples
16:55:22 <Luc> q+
16:55:28 <jcheney> pgroth: we seem to have outline of response
16:55:49 <jcheney> Luc: important to try to provide responses promptly because they are trying to implement and may be waiting before submitting reports
16:56:10 <Luc> i have updated page
16:56:13 <Luc> q+
16:56:36 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:56:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Luc will do response to Kerry, Paul will respond to general question need one for test cases and their comments on constraints
16:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: created page for responses
16:58:04 <jcheney> ... suggest we assign people to address these
16:58:53 <jcheney> pgroth: prov-o (611) essentially same as 612 about encoding constraints in owl, paul will do these
16:59:22 <jcheney> ... jcheney will do 611 (constraints)
17:00:06 <Dong> ok
17:00:09 <jcheney> ... 611 (normative test cases) - Dong
17:00:32 <jcheney> ... can we do this by monday?
17:01:20 <jcheney> Luc: who will do test cases for other specifications?
17:01:24 <jcheney> pgroth: will do that
17:01:39 <jcheney> pgroth: goal do send for approval by wg on monday
17:01:46 <jcheney> pgroth: goal to send for approval by wg on monday
17:01:52 <jcheney> ... so we can send back on tuesday
17:01:54 <pgroth> q?
17:02:42 <jcheney> pgroth: seems uncontroversial so hopefully we can approve over mailing list
17:02:47 <jcheney> ... or at least try
17:02:59 <Dong> Monday is fine for my part
17:03:16 <pgroth> q?
17:03:30 <SamCoppens> Bye
17:03:34 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:03:34 <Zakim> - +44.238.059.aaaa
17:03:34 <Zakim> -??P7
17:03:36 <Zakim> -TomDN
17:03:43 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
17:03:46 <Dong> bye everyone
17:03:47 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:03:49 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:03:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
17:03:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:04:03 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
17:04:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:04:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong
17:04:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:04:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in :
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [1]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [2]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [3]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [4]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [5]
17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
17:04:13 <Zakim> -Dong
17:04:14 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:04:14 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong