From Provenance WG Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:57:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:57:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-irc 15:57:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:57:10 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov 15:57:12 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:57:12 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started 15:57:13 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:57:13 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2013 15:57:14 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 15:57:14 <Zakim> ok, Luc, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started 15:57:16 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes 15:57:27 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.17 15:57:31 <pgroth> pgroth has left #prov 15:57:38 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau 15:57:44 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 15:58:44 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov 15:58:54 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov 15:59:00 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa 15:59:07 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov 15:59:13 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me 15:59:14 <Zakim> +Luc; got it 15:59:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:59:26 <Zakim> +??P6 15:59:33 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P6 is me 15:59:34 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it 15:59:35 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:59:35 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it 15:59:46 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov 15:59:54 <dgarijo> Luc, if nobody volunteers, I can be the scribe 16:00:30 <Luc> it's very kind daniel, first, let's see if we can find somebody else, 16:00:39 <Luc> zakim, who is here? 16:00:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, pgroth, dgarijo 16:00:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see zednik, Paolo, dgarijo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Curt, Luc, TallTed, ivan, trackbot, stain 16:00:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:00:54 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:00:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:00:56 <Zakim> +Ivan 16:01:00 <Paolo> HI I have done it quite recently but can do it again 16:01:02 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy? 16:01:02 <Paolo> if needed 16:01:03 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb 16:01:12 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ivan (2%) 16:01:14 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov 16:01:20 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ - Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.17 16:01:20 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone? 16:01:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, Luc, pgroth, dgarijo, [IPcaller], Ivan, +1.315.330.aabb 16:01:26 <tlebo> zakim, I am aabb 16:01:26 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it 16:01:47 <Luc> scribe: tlebo 16:01:59 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov 16:02:05 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy? 16:02:16 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ivan (56%) 16:02:26 <tlebo> (I think this IRC client has dropped me before, so I might need to hand off to someone mid-stream) 16:02:33 <pgroth> ivan has the loudest keyboard ever 16:02:37 <ivan> zakim, mute me 16:02:37 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 16:02:42 <ivan> :-( 16:02:48 <tlebo> :-) 16:03:04 <khalidBelhajjame> khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov 16:03:19 <Zakim> +??P41 16:03:22 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov 16:03:24 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10 16:03:27 <dgarijo> 0 (I wasn't there) 16:03:28 <tlebo> proposed: approve minutes 16:03:29 <pgroth> Topic: Admin 16:03:40 <Luc> proposed: to approve last week's minutes 16:03:41 <ivan> +1 16:03:42 <tlebo> 0 (was not here) 16:03:48 <Curt> 0 (not present) 16:03:48 <Paolo> 0 (missed it) 16:03:49 <dgarijo> 0 16:03:52 <smiles> +1 16:03:56 <Dong> +1 16:03:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 16:04:11 <Luc> resolved: last week's minutes 16:04:34 <tlebo> luc: action on Tim for cross referencing. 16:04:43 <Zakim> +??P22 16:04:46 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo 16:04:48 <GK> GK has joined #prov 16:04:55 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:05:05 <satya> satya has joined #prov 16:05:05 <tlebo> tim: I'll look at the cross reference. 16:05:06 <Zakim> +[OpenLink] 16:05:06 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aacc 16:05:12 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me 16:05:12 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it 16:05:15 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me 16:05:15 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted 16:05:17 <tlebo> luc: action on himself... 16:05:26 <tlebo> luc: action on Stephan for namespaces. 16:05:40 <tlebo> zednik: have looked at identifiers 16:06:05 <tlebo> pgroth: I've done all actions on me. 16:06:22 <Zakim> +??P13 16:06:42 <Luc> topic: Implementations <LUC>Summary: Paul reviewed all implementation surveys submitted so far. While the numbers look healthy, it was noted that 7 implementation reports were submitted by Southampton. Many implementers are known to have implemented PROV but have not submitted yet. Group members are strongly reminded to submit their reports. The discussion focused on interoperability pairs. It is important to identify which application one exports provenance to or one imports provenance from. Some generic services such as the provenance validator are hopefully good candidates for interoperability with other applications. Simon and Tom agreed to test their implementations against the validator. 16:06:55 <tlebo> luc: paul went through surveys recently. 16:07:01 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0073.html 16:07:02 <dgarijo> I've added all the remaining implementations that I had added in the wiki. Some of them today 16:07:09 <tlebo> pgroth: announced it via email 16:07:27 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov 16:07:32 <tlebo> ... reports from 9 organizations 16:07:58 <tlebo> ... southampton has 7 implementations. 16:08:01 <Zakim> +Ruben 16:08:13 <TomDN> Zakim, +Ruben is me 16:08:13 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not recognize a party named '+Ruben' 16:08:14 <tlebo> ... provo is good track; all constructs supported by 2 sep implementations. 16:08:21 <TomDN> Zakim, Ruben is me 16:08:21 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it 16:08:25 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov 16:08:33 <tlebo> ... provo needs a pair of implmeentations to exchange. 16:08:39 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN 16:08:39 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it 16:08:44 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me 16:08:44 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted 16:08:47 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov 16:08:55 <tlebo> ... it's easy to hit that min by having SH and Kings to exchange prov. 16:08:58 <GK_> Zakim, ??p13 is me 16:08:58 <Zakim> +GK_; got it 16:09:11 <tlebo> ... for prov-n it is less satisfying. only 2 orgs: SH and weblab. 16:09:22 <tlebo> ... tom and sam have prov-n implementations. 16:09:32 <tlebo> ... but do weblab actually support it? 16:09:42 <tlebo> ... they say openRDF sesame as the library (implies prov-o) 16:09:50 <Paolo> I am going to add implementation with prov-n support 16:09:52 <Luc> q+ 16:09:55 <tlebo> ... need to rely on tom/sam implementation 16:09:55 <Paolo> (applications) 16:10:13 <tlebo> ... constraints: luc's implementation, but we need one more impl. 16:10:31 <pgroth> it's a good thing! 16:10:44 <tlebo> luc: # implementations on southampton, some on different languages. 16:10:46 <GK> GK has joined #prov 16:11:00 <tlebo> ... we can demonstrate language independence if not org independence. 16:11:15 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me 16:11:15 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted 16:11:18 <tlebo> ... TomDN implementing? isn't he using the provtoolbox? 16:11:46 <Paolo> q+ 16:11:50 <tlebo> TomDN: not really using the toolbox. 16:12:09 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:12:15 <pgroth> ace paolo 16:12:18 <pgroth> ack paolo 16:12:27 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me 16:12:27 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted 16:12:31 <Luc> q+ 16:12:35 <tlebo> Paolo: Tom's note, if I produce prov-n w/o provtoolbox then it counts as a new implementation. 16:12:44 <pgroth> ack luc 16:13:02 <tlebo> luc: ideally, we want full independence. 16:13:13 <tlebo> ... but we made the case that prov-n is aimed at human consumption. 16:13:19 <tlebo> ... so no need for interoperability. 16:13:46 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me 16:13:46 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted 16:13:49 <tlebo> pgroth: for prov-n, does TomDN consume prov info as prov-n? 16:13:50 <Luc> prov-dm contains examples of prov-dm, consumable by prov toolbox. So it's a pair! 16:14:01 <Luc> prov-dm contains examples of PROV-N, consumable by prov toolbox. So it's a pair! 16:14:19 <tlebo> TomDN: I read it == I evaluate. It generates it == write. 16:14:23 <GK> A precedent we might look at is the "human" syntax(es) for OWL - what do they do? 16:14:39 <Luc> @TomDN, can you validate your prov-n with my validator? 16:15:12 <tlebo> TomDN: I can produce a file from my tool as prov-n. 16:15:18 <Luc> @TomDN, can you paste your prov-n into http://openprovenance.org/prov/validator.html 16:15:25 <tlebo> pgroth: we want to give TomDN's prov-n to luc's validator. 16:15:33 <tlebo> ... then we have a pair. 16:15:41 <Luc> or http://openprovenance.org/prov/translator.html 16:16:00 <tlebo> pgroth: tom doens't use all of the constructs. 16:16:05 <tlebo> TomDN: no. 16:16:11 <tlebo> pgroth: extend to use other constructs? 16:16:14 <tlebo> TomDN: not easy. 16:16:27 <Luc> q+ 16:16:32 <pgroth> ack Luc 16:16:47 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me 16:16:47 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted 16:16:58 <tlebo> Luc: prov-dm doc is an example of prov-n generation. so all statements can be validated by toolbox. 16:17:02 <tlebo> .. thus an interop pair 16:17:27 <tlebo> pgroth: we need to add it to the quesionnaire 16:17:33 <TomDN> (I will provide some rationale on my questionaire answers to explain the read/write answers 16:17:48 <tlebo> pgroth: we should do it as the WG 16:17:49 <GK> q+ to suggest looking in to how http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/ was handled 16:18:01 <Zakim> -GK_ 16:18:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa] 16:18:07 <GK> Losrt my client 16:18:08 <tlebo> pgroth: we seem to have coverage on prov-n (with these steps) 16:18:23 <GK> Sorry lost connection 16:18:23 <Luc> q? 16:18:37 <Zakim> +??P13 16:18:46 <pgroth> q+ to say we need a pair for prov-o 16:18:46 <GK> zakim, ??p13 is me 16:18:47 <Zakim> +GK; got it 16:18:51 <tlebo> Luc: please submit the implementation reports. 16:18:58 <stain> Zakim, ??P13 is me 16:18:58 <Zakim> I already had ??P13 as GK, stain 16:19:08 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa] 16:19:19 <tlebo> GK: prov-n and interop -- find out what OWL WG did with their functional syntax. 16:19:22 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV 16:19:25 <tlebo> ... it's similar role. 16:19:28 <Luc> q? 16:19:32 <ivan> unmute ivan 16:19:34 <Luc> ack gk 16:19:34 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest looking in to how http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/ was handled 16:19:39 <ivan> zakim, unmute me 16:19:39 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted 16:20:15 <pgroth> i think we have a solution now for prov-n 16:20:15 <tlebo> ivan: i don't remember how function syntax was handled. it was just a specification language - not a cand rec requiement to parse it. 16:20:16 <Luc> q? 16:20:38 <tlebo> ... for OWL systems, they needed to exchange RDF/XML. the ONLY one. 16:20:39 <GK> That was my guess - I think PROV-N might be presented similarly? 16:20:45 <pgroth> Tom's implementation + validator and prov-dm docs + validator 16:20:45 <Luc> q? 16:20:48 <Luc> ack pg 16:20:48 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we need a pair for prov-o 16:21:03 <tlebo> pgroth: provo coverage is fine, we need some pairs. 16:21:09 <Zakim> +??P44 16:21:15 <tlebo> ... could simon and luc make that pair? 16:21:48 <tlebo> Luc: the service is available online. anyone can paste them in to validator or translator. 16:21:52 <tlebo> ... they can just report it. 16:21:56 <smiles> Luc - Can you give the URL again? 16:22:07 <stain> Zakim: ??P44 is me 16:22:11 <stain> Zakim, ??P44 is me 16:22:11 <Zakim> +stain; got it 16:22:11 <tlebo> pgroth: a pair isn't one directional? 16:22:22 <stain> Zakim, ??P44 is also khalidBelhajjame 16:22:22 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P44 is also khalidBelhajjame', stain 16:22:25 <tlebo> pgroth: simon, dump out provo and validate it? 16:22:34 <tlebo> smiles: yes, if it takes turtle 16:22:36 <ivan> zakim, mute me 16:22:36 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 16:22:50 <Luc> http://openprovenance.org/prov/validator.html 16:23:01 <tlebo> Luc: anybody can do that. 16:23:04 <Luc> q? 16:23:04 <pgroth> constraints 16:23:04 <GK> I think producer -> consumer (one way) is OK - it shoews two developers read spec and had some common understanding 16:23:11 <pgroth> q+ 16:23:30 <tlebo> pgroth: constraints. luc did them, pgroth is slowing working them. 16:23:41 <tlebo> ... obviously good to have more than 2 16:23:47 <tlebo> ... or even if other parts of implementations. 16:23:59 <tlebo> ... 47 unit tests away from full coverage. 16:24:16 <tlebo> ... shoiuld be able to do it. 16:24:21 <tlebo> +1 :-) 16:24:35 <tlebo> luc: Paolo was working on partial constriants 16:24:44 <Luc> Regrets: jcheney 16:24:53 <TomDN> Does your implementation need to be completely finished by Jan. 31st? 16:24:57 <tlebo> Paolo: jun and I havent' worked on it. 16:25:07 <pgroth> @TomDN it's about the report really 16:25:17 <tlebo> Luc: when? by end of month? 16:25:20 <tlebo> Paolo: not by then. 16:25:26 <pgroth> +q to ask about stardog 16:25:29 <Luc> q? 16:25:31 <TomDN> @pgroth, thanks, that's what i thought 16:25:55 <tlebo> pgroth: we knwo there are implementations out there than what is reported. 16:26:04 <tlebo> ... we should all sign up to report implementations. 16:26:22 <tlebo> ... e.g. stardog is doing it. 16:26:27 <tlebo> ... approach individually. 16:26:50 <Luc> q? 16:26:52 <Luc> ack pg 16:26:52 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask about stardog 16:26:54 <tlebo> (I tried to poke the LInkedTV via twitter yesterday -- it's not coming out till Feb) 16:27:01 <pgroth> but there's also dbpedia, and qudt, etc 16:27:04 <Luc> topic: Response to public comments <luc>Summary: the drafted response were approved. Reviewers will be contacted by Paul with the Group responses. Outstanding issues will be tackled in the coming week. 16:27:08 <tlebo> zakim, who is making noise? 16:27:09 <pgroth> simon can you mute 16:27:12 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR 16:27:18 <Zakim> tlebo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (83%), ??P41 (28%) 16:27:30 <pgroth> zakim, mute ??P41 16:27:30 <Zakim> ??P41 should now be muted 16:27:30 <GK> (There's also the possibility of submitting "third party" reports for public implemenbtations) 16:27:43 <Luc> q? 16:27:47 <pgroth> @GK i didn't no that 16:27:52 <pgroth> s/no/know 16:28:00 <Luc> q? 16:28:09 <Luc> Proposed: the group endorses the responses to issues 611 and 612 16:28:14 <TomDN> +1 16:28:17 <ivan> +1 16:28:18 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 16:28:18 <tlebo> +1 16:28:19 <satya> +1 16:28:21 <zednik> +1 16:28:23 <stain> +1 16:28:26 <Dong> +q 16:28:26 <TallTed> +1 16:28:27 <GK> @paul - I don't *know* that, but I can't see any reason why now 16:28:34 <SamCoppens> +1 16:28:36 <Luc> q? 16:28:36 <dgarijo> +0 (I haven't reviewed them yet) 16:28:38 <hook> +1 16:28:39 <smiles> +1 (noting that I sent a suggestion just before this call) 16:28:41 <GK> +0 16:28:50 <Paolo> 0 haven't reviewed in detail 16:28:53 <Luc> Resolved: the group endorses the responses to issues 611 and 612 16:28:54 <Curt> +0 (haven't reviewed) 16:29:04 <stain> @TallTed what happened to McTed over New Year? :) 16:29:13 <tlebo> luc: who to respond to reviewers? 16:29:15 <Dong> q- 16:29:15 <pgroth> sure 16:29:17 <Luc> q? 16:29:21 <tlebo> Luc: : is it paul? 16:29:25 <tlebo> pgroth: I can do that. 16:29:33 <tlebo> ... we had a question about derivation. 16:29:57 <tlebo> ... wasQUotedFrom, not derivation. 16:30:08 <dgarijo> I think it was about the name of wasQuotedFrom. 16:30:12 <tlebo> (I think it's the same mix-up that "Tim vs. Stian+Daniel" had. 16:30:13 <stain> it was about the directionality - as I originally complained about it 16:30:23 <stain> he suggested hadQuoteFrom 16:30:27 <dgarijo> yep 16:30:35 <Luc> q? 16:30:57 <pgroth> action: pgroth to respond to public comments 16:30:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Respond to public comments [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-24]. 16:30:58 <Dong> @Luc and Tim: I've just remember that some PROV-O examples might need to be revised in ISSUE-611 16:31:02 <tlebo> luc: wasquotedFrom, can't recall. 16:31:17 <TomDN> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2013Jan/0006.html 16:31:27 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:31:29 <stain> I think we need another WG discussion on email about it 16:31:57 <TallTed> stain - just unifying my nick across a few spaces (Twitter, a couple of IRC nets, etc.) ... 16:32:03 <stain> if the term was confusing in the primer.. then it's confusing all over 16:32:04 <tlebo> q+ to note that we couldn't converge last time on the naming. 16:32:15 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aacc 16:32:44 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd 16:32:56 <tlebo> ECHO 16:32:57 <pgroth> echo madness 16:33:02 <stain> zakim, who is noisy? 16:33:06 <pgroth> simon 16:33:07 <Luc> q? 16:33:13 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tlebo (31%) 16:33:14 <pgroth> ack tlebo 16:33:16 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to note that we couldn't converge last time on the naming. 16:33:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:34:00 <smiles> @tlebo - Do you have a link to that email conversation? 16:34:01 <Luc> q? 16:34:10 <stain> but this email was from Chuck Norris - which sounds like a native speaker 16:34:11 <Luc> q? 16:34:15 <tlebo> smiles: I can dig up the ISSUE. 16:34:17 <stain> MORRIS 16:34:19 <stain> hihi 16:34:26 <smiles> OK 16:34:26 <dgarijo> @stian:lol 16:34:56 <Zakim> +??P32 16:35:15 <Luc> q? 16:35:17 <Paolo> zakim, ??P32 is me 16:35:17 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it 16:35:25 <Luc> topic: prov-dictionary <luc>Summary: As the editor's draft was just released, it was agreed that reviewers have till Wednesday to complete their review. 16:35:27 <tlebo> tlebo: I'll dig through them. thanks for the reminder 16:35:44 <TomDN> no 16:35:54 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me 16:35:54 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted 16:36:03 <tlebo> smiles: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/352 is the wasQuotedFrom naming discussion 16:36:13 <Paolo> deadline is 23rd, right? 16:36:31 <pgroth> fine with me 16:36:35 <tlebo> Luc: reviewers should give feedback by next wed. 16:36:41 <pgroth> paul 16:36:49 <smiles> @tlebo Thanks! 16:36:59 <TomDN> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul, 16:37:02 <Luc> q? 16:37:11 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me 16:37:11 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted 16:37:12 <Luc> topic: prov-aq <luc>Summary: All reviewers have submitted their report. The editors will produced a revised version for the next teleconference (or the following one) and vote for release will then take place. 16:37:38 <Luc> q? 16:37:41 <tlebo> GK: I've seen 4 reviews in 16:37:57 <tlebo> pgroth: tim, simon, luc, dong, stian 16:38:18 <tlebo> h! 16:38:22 <pgroth> your back 16:38:46 <tlebo> pgroth: all have reviewed. 16:38:54 <pgroth> shall i go 16:39:08 <pgroth> q+ 16:39:11 <tlebo> GK: through 1.5 sets of comments. 16:39:15 <tlebo> ... most are editorial. 16:39:25 <tlebo> ... hoping to pick out those that are more than editorial. 16:39:42 <pgroth> that's not the main issue 16:39:45 <tlebo> ... issue on REST interface vs. simple convention for URI to retrieve prov. 16:40:04 <tlebo> pgroth: everyone but stian said doc can go LC 16:40:10 <stain> q+ 16:40:17 <tlebo> ... stian has 8-9 blocking issues. 16:40:39 <Luc> q+ 16:40:44 <Luc> ack pg 16:40:46 <tlebo> ... we should concentrate on blocking issues from stian. 16:40:46 <GK> Ah, I hadn't yet looked at those blocking issues from Stian 16:41:07 <tlebo> stain: my issues: it was heavy. 16:41:16 <Luc> q? 16:41:20 <Luc> ack sta 16:41:24 <tlebo> ... as a draft, fine. but not as final technical. 16:41:25 <stain> @GK sorry about that.. 16:41:27 <Luc> ack luc 16:41:40 <tlebo> Luc: i'm fine wiht doc released as next WD. 16:41:58 <tlebo> ... I felt that feedback required changes, and so not last call. 16:42:02 <pgroth> q+ 16:42:04 <tlebo> ... we don't have notion of last call in Note. 16:42:09 <tlebo> ... we're abusing that name. 16:42:20 <Luc> q? 16:42:21 <tlebo> ... as next draft, fine. 16:42:44 <tlebo> pgroth: we should distinguish between release and not wanting to do any more to it. 16:43:08 <tlebo> ... address all comments, release a WD at a minimum. OR when we go PRec with other docs. 16:43:17 <tlebo> ... but can we get another iteration? 16:43:17 <Luc> q? 16:43:19 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:43:22 <tlebo> ... before PR 16:43:25 <GK> @paul +1 review/revise as much as possible 16:43:32 <Luc> q? 16:43:32 <tlebo> ... we need two more itnerations on PAQ 16:43:55 <tlebo> Luc: we should be pragmatic about Notes and making it too perfect. 16:44:00 <GK> If the issues are substantive, I don't think they should be "offline" 16:44:09 <Luc> q? 16:44:30 <pgroth> @gk i was talking about scheduling 16:44:44 <GK> @paul Ah, OK. 16:44:46 <tlebo> Luc: do we vote? or do work and editors cycle? 16:44:57 <tlebo> pgroth: next week or following for WD. 16:45:01 <Luc> ack pg 16:45:11 <TomDN> (can be synced with dictionary then) 16:45:18 <tlebo> ... take off "final" terminology" 16:45:28 <Luc> q? 16:45:45 <tlebo> topic: prov-xml <luc>Summary: Stephan updated the group on recent changes made by editors. He is going to summarise these by email, on the tracker. We then discussed the namespace convention to adopted. The ideal is to align with the conventions we have adapted for the ontology, while still being compatible with the xml approach. Stephan was tasked to come up with a proposal for next teleconference. 16:46:02 <GK> Next week is likely busy for me. I'll try to complete my pass through the reviews today. 16:46:25 <tlebo> luc: namespace, schema management, etc. 16:46:44 <tlebo> zednik: some feedback on original note. extended types was confusing with prov:type. 16:46:52 <tlebo> ... made native XML type for those. 16:47:30 <tlebo> ... identifiers: work natively for XML 16:47:33 <tlebo> ... id and idref 16:47:40 <tlebo> id uses xsi:id 16:47:54 <tlebo> ... base type of idRef -- xml tooling is familiar. 16:48:12 <tlebo> .. cannot start with numbers, other constraints. 16:48:24 <tlebo> ... it's native but doesn't work with our examples or URIs. 16:48:33 <tlebo> ... alternative: anyURI or QNames 16:48:34 <pgroth> @gk see where you can get and see what needs to be debated 16:48:44 <tlebo> ... not sure which would be better. 16:48:50 <tlebo> ... also xlinks and xpointers. 16:49:06 <GK> @paul - that's my plan - I'm making notes as I go. I'll email you a copy when done. 16:49:13 <pgroth> @gk awesome 16:49:16 <ivan> q+ 16:49:23 <tlebo> ... xpointers and xlinks might let us verify references existing. 16:49:28 <ivan> ack ivan 16:49:32 <tlebo> ... the group needs to read up on xlinks/xpointers. 16:49:35 <Luc> ack iv 16:49:46 <tlebo> ivan: how widely is xlink implemented? 16:50:03 <tlebo> ... do tools really do it? xlink is an unlucky standard. 16:50:10 <Luc> q? 16:50:23 <hook> q+ 16:50:32 <tlebo> ... might not be worth adopting, could be more harm than good. 16:50:48 <tlebo> hook: xlinks ISO community uses them to reference external XML traces. 16:50:59 <tlebo> ... in bundles, can reference across bundles. 16:51:09 <tlebo> ... but good point on how much it's used. 16:51:15 <Luc> q? 16:51:22 <Luc> ack ho 16:51:31 <tlebo> ... we still need to look into xlinks. 16:51:50 <tlebo> Luc: have your changes surfaced to the WG? 16:52:00 <tlebo> ... some may want to get insight into your changes. 16:52:20 <tlebo> ... (are you using issue tracker?) 16:52:30 <Luc> q? 16:52:54 <tlebo> zednik: announced, but did not tag into ISSUE. 16:53:12 <Luc> q? 16:53:37 <tlebo> zednik: last modeling was valid. 16:53:55 <tlebo> Luc: namespace management issue 16:54:08 <tlebo> ... the namespace HTML is waiting on it. 16:54:30 <tlebo> zednik: seems like we're misusing xml namesapces. 16:54:49 <tlebo> ... the extension should have a different namespace. 16:54:58 <tlebo> ... including dictionary in new namespace 16:55:24 <tlebo> ... stian proposed an organization, but not ideal. 16:55:37 <tlebo> ... the xml schema should have different namespaces. 16:55:58 <TomDN> (didn't we vote on this a few months ago?) 16:56:03 <Luc> q? 16:56:03 <pgroth> q+ 16:56:18 <Luc> ack pg 16:56:37 <tlebo> pgroth: prov dictionary etc being in different docs doesn't mean it's not in the same thing. 16:56:54 <tlebo> ... (they are in same group, it's just broken up to aid understanding). 16:56:58 <Luc> zakim. who is noisy? 16:57:07 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy? 16:57:14 <tlebo> pgroth: from practice, developers do not like separate namespaces. 16:57:17 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (90%) 16:57:30 <hook> hook has joined #prov 16:57:30 <tlebo> ... PROV namespace will included in RDFa automatically. 16:57:44 <ivan> s/RDFa/RDFa 1.1/ 16:57:57 <tlebo> Luc: is nice to have one ns 16:58:24 <tlebo> Luc: a prov-xml dictionary namespace? 16:58:37 <TomDN> then we need a prov-links namespace as well 16:58:55 <GK> IMO, if any of the XML namespaces are different from the corresponding RDF, then they should *all* be different 16:59:10 <stain> q+ 16:59:13 <GK> .. including the "core" namespace 16:59:31 <Curt> just do 2, core, and core + all extensions 16:59:51 <Luc> q? 16:59:52 <stain> exactly.. we do a single schema with only core, and one with core-everything 16:59:53 <tlebo> q+ to ask zednik where the motivation for different namespaces comes from 16:59:59 <Luc> ack st 17:00:25 <tlebo> stain: oen for core prov xml, one that is prov-everything xml schema. If you don't like either of those, then you're on your own. 17:00:26 <zednik> q+ 17:00:43 <Luc> ack tl 17:00:43 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask zednik where the motivation for different namespaces comes from 17:01:57 <Luc> q+ 17:02:27 <Curt> I'm ok with one schema with everything 17:02:46 <pgroth> q+ prov-xml is a note 17:02:57 <pgroth> i like that 17:02:57 <tlebo> q- 17:03:02 <zednik> q- 17:04:01 <tlebo> Luc: : single schema file with all terms that use one namespace, THEN half-way house of a single schema for just the core Rec terms. 17:04:03 <pgroth> q+ to say that it is a single namespace 17:04:20 <Luc> ack luc 17:04:33 <stain> I think this is mainly an artifact of XML Schema being very strict of linking schemas and namespaces - this is not a big deal in other ways to express XML schemas like Relax NG 17:05:03 <pgroth> ack pgroth 17:05:03 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that it is a single namespace 17:05:25 <tlebo> pgroth: everyone should be able to paste the namespace to a browser and get all serializations documented. 17:05:34 <khalidBelhajjame> bye 17:05:34 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo 17:05:36 <Zakim> -tlebo 17:05:36 <Zakim> -Paolo 17:05:37 <Zakim> -??P22 17:05:37 <Zakim> -TomDN 17:05:37 <GK> Bye 17:05:37 <SamCoppens> bye 17:05:38 <dgarijo> bbye 17:05:39 <Zakim> -stain 17:05:40 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 17:05:41 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes 17:05:43 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd 17:05:44 <Zakim> -pgroth 17:05:45 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov 17:05:46 <Zakim> -dgarijo 17:05:46 <Zakim> -Ivan 17:05:46 <tlebo> Luc: I am done scribing? 17:05:47 <ivan> ivan has left #prov 17:05:48 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 17:05:50 <Zakim> -??P41 17:05:53 <Zakim> -TallTed 17:05:54 <Zakim> -GK 17:06:20 <GK> GK has left #prov 17:06:31 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 17:06:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-minutes.html Luc 17:06:35 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 17:06:35 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 17:06:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, Luc, dgarijo, pgroth, [IPcaller], Ivan, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aacc, TallTed, TomDN, SamCoppens, GK_, 17:06:36 <Zakim> ... GK, stain, +1.818.731.aadd, Paolo 17:06:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:06:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:06:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 17:06:44 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-actions.rdf : 17:06:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to respond to public comments  17:06:44 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-prov-irc#T16-30-57 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000527