Chatlog 2013-03-14

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:53:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:53:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc
14:53:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:53:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:53:29 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:30 <trackbot> Date: 14 March 2013
14:53:33 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:53:34 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:49 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14
14:53:57 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:05 <pgroth> Scribe: Stian Soiland-Reyes
14:54:09 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, Satya Sahoo
14:54:16 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:58:08 <GK1> GK1 has joined #prov
14:58:37 <GK> GK has joined #prov
14:58:48 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:58:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:14 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:59:15 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
15:00:11 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
15:00:47 <Zakim> +??P14
15:00:48 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:00:59 <GK> zakim, ??p14 is me
15:00:59 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:01:00 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aaaa
15:01:05 <jcheney> zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:05 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:01:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:35 <Luc> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:01:55 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:02:29 <Zakim> +??P21
15:02:35 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P21 is me
15:02:35 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:02:42 <pgroth> @stain you ready?
15:03:23 <stain> I'm joining
15:03:28 <KhalidBelhajjame> KhalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:03:31 <pgroth> great
15:03:36 <stain> sorry
15:03:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:44 <stain> zakim, +IPcaller is me
15:03:44 <Zakim> sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'
15:03:48 <stain> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:03:48 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:03:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:07 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
15:04:07 <Zakim> sorry, KhalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
15:04:30 <KhalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:04:30 <Zakim> +KhalidBelhajjame; got it
15:05:07 <Luc> time change only affecting europeans
15:05:14 <stain> stain has changed the topic to: Provenance WG http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.14
15:05:17 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
<pgroth> Summary: The minutes were approved
15:05:27 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-07
15:05:38 <stain> pgroth: Votes on minutes, please
15:05:45 <stain> 0 (not present)
15:05:46 <Dong> Dong has joined #prov
15:05:47 <dgarijo> +1
15:05:48 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1
15:05:54 <jcheney> +1
15:05:54 <Zakim> +??P13
15:06:26 <GK> +1
15:06:27 <pgroth> accepted: Minutes of March 7, 2013 Telcon
15:06:42 <Luc> :-)
15:06:42 <Dong> Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:06:42 <Zakim> +Dong; got it
15:06:51 <stain> pgroth: Hoping http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/122 will be done eventually by end of WG ..
15:06:56 <pgroth> Topic: Documents are published
<pgroth> Summary: Congratulations were given to the group for publishing the proposed recommendations as well as the working drafts of all notes. A discussion was had around outreach. Stian agreed to write a blog post on the PAQ. Khalid agreed to contact DataOne and DBWorld. Graham agreed to contact the LDP working group. Daniel will contact the dublin core team about announcing to the DC lists. The group was reminded to get their AC Reps to vote for the proposed recs. 
15:07:05 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/12/call-for-review-prov-family-of-documents-published-as-proposed-recommendations/
15:07:12 <Luc> 4!
15:07:19 <stain> pgroth: Congratulations everyone, here is Ivan's blogpost.
15:07:23 <Dong> +1
15:07:29 <stain> pgroth: not that much of a hazzle, got it published in the end
15:07:47 <stain> pgroth: one thing we did in the rush (13 documents) was to not do our standards of writing blog posts and PR as for other releases
15:08:01 <stain> pgroth: and so I wanted to see if people would be willing to write a blog post and/or send emails to particular mailing lists
15:08:09 <stain> pgroth: announcing specially the working drafts
15:08:20 <stain> pgroth: we still have 9 Working Drafts we would like to have reviewed
15:08:30 <pgroth> q?
15:08:32 <stain> pgroth: can I get some volunteers to write blog posts or email lists?
15:08:47 <stain> q+ to write PAQ blog post
15:08:47 <pgroth> q?
15:08:48 <KhalidBelhajjame> I can send mails to mailing lists: DataOne, DbWorld, and others
15:08:52 <GK> I guess I could send email to the LDP group as king for review of prov-aq
15:08:52 <dgarijo> I write a blog post, similar to Ivan's: http://linkingresearch.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-prov-family-of-specifications-is-released/
15:08:58 <dgarijo> *wrote
15:09:24 <stain> pgroth: Khalid, yeah, great, could you do that
15:09:32 <stain> stain: volunteers to do a blog post about PAQ
15:09:42 <stain> pgroth: and GK if you could write the LDP group
15:09:51 <dgarijo> ok
15:09:53 <stain> pgroth: Dani, I will write an overview blog post; perhaps you could write something about the DC Note?
15:10:06 <stain> pgroth: and did you/Kai notify the DC people abou tthe draft?
15:10:22 <stain> dgarijo: yes, it was announced on the web page (?) ; but not sure if was announced on public list, will ping him abou tthat
15:10:27 <stain> pgroth: that's everything
15:10:44 <stain> pgroth: will send emails to group..
15:11:02 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results
15:11:12 <stain> pgroth: with the proposed REC, we need to give ?C refs to vote for our documents. They have to vote that it goes to recommendations
15:11:19 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList
15:11:28 <stain> pgroth: we would like you to contact your AC representative to vote for the recommendation
15:11:32 <stain> pgroth: here you can find your representative
15:11:44 <pgroth> q?
15:11:47 <stain> pgroth: we need as many votes as possible can to push to REC
15:11:47 <pgroth> ack stain
15:11:47 <Zakim> stain, you wanted to write PAQ blog post
15:12:08 <stain> I'll ask the Manchester one
15:12:11 <jcheney> i've mentioned it to henry
15:12:15 <Luc> i did it for soton
15:12:25 <pgroth> q?
15:12:36 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ
<pgroth> Summary: The group walked through core issues involving the paq as outlined in the agenda. All issues were resolved. Results were recorded as resolutions. Additionally, pending review issues were walked through. The group agreed that this could be closed. 
15:12:48 <stain> pgroth: What we want to do is to resolve some of the core issues
15:13:02 <stain> pgroth: sent around a reminder to look at these issues
15:13:07 <stain> pgroth: GK to add some context?
15:13:24 <stain> GK: It makes sense to talk about the individual issues.. added a couple of small thigns to the agenda
15:13:41 <stain> GK: do we want to confirm that the issues that I propose to close without further discussion are OK?
15:13:48 <stain> GK: in the order you proposed, or different order?
15:14:03 <stain> pgroth: does not matter order, but want to talk about the core issues (which could take time) - the pending ones we can go through fast
15:14:11 <stain> GK: it might make sense to do the PENDING ones first...
15:14:15 <stain> pgroth: no, at the end
15:14:36 <stain> pgroth: first issue is ISSUE-618 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/618
15:14:40 <stain> Should pingback be described in PROV-AQ?
15:15:23 <stain> GK: since we've put the revised pingback proposal in the document (which was published), which to my mind looks more like a provenance discovery mechanism, .. the question was put to the mailing list eariler ; do we want to include or exclude this
15:15:43 <stain> GK: Luc commented to exclude it.. there was statements of inclusion support from at least 3 people - with me that is 4
15:15:49 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:16:00 <stain> GK: as I see it, there is a good reason to include it in that there is reasonable, if not overwhelming support to keep it in place
15:16:19 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:16:22 <stain> GK: there was no co??? reason to exclude it, it was brought within the general scope of the document
15:16:31 <stain> GK: but many did not like the name "Forward provenance" - we do need a better name
15:16:36 <Luc> what about provenance?
15:16:40 <stain> GK: one possibility - was "downstream provenance"
15:17:02 <Zakim> + +329331aabb
15:17:03 <stain> GK: Two issues: i) Does anyone have any reason not to include it?  ii) Alternative names - here throwing in "Downstream provenance"
15:17:06 <pgroth> q?
15:17:11 <Luc> q+
15:17:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:17:20 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aabb is me
15:17:20 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:17:28 <stain> Luc: I still maintain the view expressed in the email
15:17:43 <stain> Luc: feel that the requirements as (??) should be, never really been agreed by the WG
15:17:54 <stain> Luc: as for the rest of the document it was guided by the scenario
15:18:08 <stain> Luc: it seems to be that what is proposed is (?) solution; (?) there was another one.. there could be others
15:18:19 <stain> Luc: but nowhere can I (?) them, we did not agree what are the rquirements
15:18:20 <GK> q+ to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design
15:18:23 <stain> Luc: so that is an issue with it
15:18:36 <stain> Luc: But if the group decides to include it, we should discuss the name
15:19:03 <Luc> agreed by the Working Group!!!!
15:19:03 <stain> GK: Disagree with the characterisation of not having requirements; in the wiki what Tim initialyl proposed was a requirement that was guiding the design
15:19:10 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:19:18 <stain> GK: would have to dig to find the URI.. This was mentioned in my email response to Luc
15:19:38 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Provenance_ping-backs
15:19:51 <Luc> is there a group resolution endording this document?
15:20:22 <stain> GK: there are 3 scenarios in this wiki page; while we did not go into the same level of detailed analysis; I don't think this is fair to say it was not proposed without requirements
15:20:27 <Luc> q+
15:20:33 <pgroth> ack GK
15:20:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree about requirement: Tim proposed one which guided the design
15:20:46 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me
15:20:46 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted
15:20:58 <stain> Luc: there was no set of requirements which was agreed by the WG - there is no resolution deciding this
15:21:00 <pgroth> q+
15:21:11 <Luc> q-
15:21:22 <stain> GK: these were up for discussion, but nobody disagreed with them ; but agree there was no formal resolution
15:21:23 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:21:27 <Zakim> +??P7
15:21:38 <stain> GK: from what Ivan said I did not believe a formal resolution as needed
15:21:47 <stain> pgroth: I think we did agree to try it out when we talked about it at last F2F
15:21:58 <stain> pgroth: I can try to dig that up and confirm.
15:22:13 <stain> pgroth: what I actually asked on the mailing list was what is the role (?)
15:22:20 <GK> My recollection concurs with Paul - we did agree to look at pingback
15:22:28 <stain> pgroth: agree in a sense with Luc; the.. (?)
15:22:56 <stain> pgroth: whether the requirement ...(?)  design requirements. Tim had a go at it, and proposed a solution, then Stian proposed a solution. I did not.
15:23:16 <stain> pgroth: If we say that this is a note.. but if this was a recommendation; then I would agree we shoudl not do this; too experimental.
15:23:25 <stain> pgroth: and we have not look ed at it as long as the other thrings. But this is a note.
15:23:40 <stain> pgroth: in other cases, like PROV Links, or other things we thought were useful, but preliminary, we just publish them as NOTE
15:23:48 <pgroth> q+
15:23:51 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:23:53 <pgroth> q?
15:23:53 <stain> pgroth: It would come under the status of a note
15:24:13 <GK> Agree. Nothing more to add.
15:24:51 <stain> pgroth: I could propose one solution, is that we are currently in a WD phase; and this is included now in Stian's proposal. And so we would like to particularly get review on the pingback.
15:24:54 <GK> +1
15:25:00 <Luc> i don't think there is time
15:25:01 <stain> pgroth: and based on that decide to remove or keep
15:25:11 <stain> pgroth: but there's a review period now
15:25:25 <stain> Luc: do you  mean internally or externally?
15:25:36 <stain> pgroth: right now we are in a phase were we have released a WD for external feedback
15:25:37 <GK> (That is: go forward with it as is, and pull it if there are significant problems i review)
15:25:43 <stain> pgroth: and we are in a phase doing internal reviewing
15:26:00 <stain> pgroth: and so if we get comments from external reviews.. or if internal reviews show issues..
15:26:01 <Luc> q+
15:26:03 <GK> I plan to ask LDP to review: I could draw their attention to this area.
15:26:03 <stain> q+
15:26:14 <stain> Luc: that (?) is already there..
15:26:22 <stain> Luc: we are in that situation.. it's time to make a decission
15:26:31 <stain> GK: are there others than yourself that said it was not fine
15:26:40 <stain> Luc: No.. and I am not going to vote on this
15:26:58 <stain> pgroth: so you don't want to re-review ?
15:27:11 <stain> Luc: when I sent my email this week; I had just read the text for the first time
15:27:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:27:28 <stain> Luc: perhaps we can have an informal vote on if there are other objections
15:27:37 <stain> Luc: then it could be a resolved matter
15:27:52 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
15:28:04 <pgroth> straw poll: include ping back in the paq
15:28:19 <Zakim> + +1.661.382.aacc
15:28:21 <stain> Luc: +1 is to keep, and -1 if you want to remove
15:28:25 <stain> +1
15:28:25 <jcheney> +0 (haven't reviewed but don't object)
15:28:26 <smiles> +1
15:28:29 <GK> +1
15:28:31 <dgarijo> +0
15:28:33 <KhalidBelhajjame> +0
15:28:36 <zednik> +0
15:28:40 <Dong> +1
15:28:47 <SamCoppens> +0
15:28:50 <CraigTrim> +0
15:29:01 <jcheney> It seems to me that a note is an appropriate place for a preliminary design, as long as it's clearly marked as such
15:29:01 <stain> I would call that luke warm calling for more review..
15:29:17 <CraigTrim> Zakim, aacc is me
15:29:18 <Zakim> +CraigTrim; got it
15:29:18 <Luc> q+
15:29:26 <stain> q-
15:29:40 <stain> Luc: would like to hear pgroth's view as an PAQ editor
15:29:49 <stain> pgroth: my view is that I kind of like it; but needs more review
15:30:01 <stain> pgroth: because it's the newest thing in the PAQ it needs another round of review
15:30:10 <Dong> +1
15:30:12 <stain> pgroth: if there is (?) I would want it out because of time
15:30:30 <Luc> s/(?)/errors
15:30:39 <GK> I'm with Paul's view here - if problems are exposed pull it.
15:30:43 <stain> pgroth: if that is the concensus.. GK are you OK to proceed like that?
15:30:53 <stain> GK: ok, that is entirely reasonable. If there are problems we don't have time to rework it.
15:31:24 <stain> pgroth: and we just released the WD, so encourage people to re-read it properly. Also contacting the LDP group etc
15:31:31 <stain> GK: not technical reworks.
15:31:41 <Luc> q+
15:31:44 <stain> pgroth: and then the renaming issue.. we should be able to deal with it without changing technical bits
15:32:12 <stain> Luc: if we keep it in, I am of the view that we shoudl not qualify (?) prospective... don't think it is suitable. It is provenance.
15:32:20 <stain> Luc: no kind of qualification of the provenance
15:32:55 <stain> pgroth: OK, suggest to leave the renaming issue out
15:32:56 <GK> q+ to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.
15:33:02 <Luc> q-
15:33:04 <stain> pgroth: some concerns about the name
15:33:15 <pgroth> ack GK
15:33:15 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I'm OK with Luc's position from a technical perspective, but would be good to have some motivation.
15:33:35 <stain> GK: technically it's fine to not commit to upstream or downstream.. but would be useful with motivation for what the mechanism is there for. Just editorial.
15:33:46 <pgroth> q?
15:33:48 <stain> q+
15:33:57 <pgroth> ack stain
15:35:37 <stain> stain: thinks that there should be an editorial motivation on the most typical usecase of notifying-upstream-pingback; but not technically limit one way or another ; I should be free to pingback some provenance about how King Richard III was found under a parking lot
15:36:04 <pgroth> proposed: to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback
15:36:15 <GK> OK
15:36:24 <pgroth> accepted:  to ask for more review of the ping back mechanism and if there are technical problems then remove, otherwise keep pingback
15:36:49 <stain> pgroth: should we recommend RDF for provenance?  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/428
15:37:05 <stain> GK: the mechanisms that are presented in indepdendent from provenance format (as requested)
15:37:21 <stain> GK: there is still a weak recommendation that PROV-O in a "standardized RDF format" is suggested, but not required for the mechanism
15:37:31 <stain> GK: Luc had a comment abou tthat.. if we want to change it I would be fine
15:37:49 <stain> GK: but many of the feedback we have got is to use PROV-O and RDF, and perhaps nudging people in that direction
15:38:00 <pgroth> q?
15:38:02 <Luc> q+
15:38:09 <stain> (I've had people asking me today about PROV-JSON via PROV-AQ)
15:38:33 <GK> Curent text: "Most mechanisms described in this note are independent of the provenance format used, and may be used to access provenance in any available format. For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV-O represented in a standardized RDF format is recommended. Where alternative formats are available, selection may be made by content negotiation."
15:38:34 <stain> Luc: lots of REST services out there just XML and JSON. It would be fine if they could export provenance. It would be good to help them indivdiually.. (?)
15:38:43 <stain> Luc: that I would think they want to export provenance in the same formats
15:38:51 <stain> Luc: so my view is to not promote RDF in this case
15:38:57 <stain> Luc: just recommend the use of PROV serializations
15:39:23 <stain> Luc: we have already media types for PROV-N, there's PROV-XML (media type?), and then RDF
15:39:33 <GK> I'm OK with this change if that's the group's view.
15:39:34 <stain> pgroth: also in favour of that personally. Just say "Use PROV" should be good enough
15:39:46 <stain> pgroth: PROV-O will rpobably win the day anyway.. I don't think PAQ needs it
15:39:48 <pgroth> q?
15:39:48 <stain> q+
15:39:51 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:39:55 <pgroth> ack stain
15:40:28 <pgroth> q?
15:41:00 <stain> stain: was initially pushing for the "Should be RDF" bit so that there would be some kind of promise or recommendation of what kind of serialization you would find; but is buying into Luc's argument to just go for any PROV serialization
15:41:07 <GK> Suggest "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "
15:41:19 <pgroth> proposed: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "
15:41:29 <Luc> it's good, thanks
15:41:30 <stain> +1  (RECOMMENDED)
15:41:36 <smiles> +1
15:41:38 <KhalidBelhajjame> +1
15:41:45 <SamCoppens> +1
15:41:49 <stain> pgroth: any objections?
15:41:52 <dgarijo> +1
15:41:54 <zednik> +1
15:41:54 <jcheney> +1
15:42:03 <GK> +1
15:42:13 <pgroth> accepted: "For interoperable provenance publication, use of PROV represented in any of its specified formats is recommended. "
15:42:59 <stain> is this 425?
15:43:19 <Luc> issue-425?
15:43:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-425 -- Why does the service description need to be rdf? -- pending review
15:43:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/425
15:43:24 <stain> thnx
15:43:34 <stain> trackbot is clever :)
15:43:34 <trackbot> Sorry, stain, I don't understand 'trackbot is clever :)'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
15:43:53 <stain> GK: one comment has been that Why does Service Description have to be RDF in
15:44:06 <stain> GK: and the other by Stian, was to mention JSON-LD as an explicit format
15:44:49 <stain> GK: My response ; Similar to the provenance format.. the mechanism would work with any service description format; but the only one we are actually describing is one based on RDF. There is more bias towards RDF in this case. but does not precelude the use of alternative formats
15:45:17 <stain> GK: the main reason here was that the RDF one was the easiest one to expecify. The format we use use the RDF linked data properties (?) - allow us to have multiple serve descriptions in the same document.
15:45:36 <stain> GK: would think it was too late to define anything else.. but what we have is a service description based on RDF.. but left open in the document to use other formats.
15:45:55 <stain> GK: as a final comment.. the idea to use other formats came out strongly from LDP group as well (Linked Data Platform)
15:46:11 <stain> using content-negotiation to get different service description is common in world of XML web serices
15:46:20 <stain> GK: and so remain compatible; but taking it further in our use of RDF
15:46:46 <stain> pgroth: to summarize - we allow any service description format using conneg ; we give one example of how it is described in RDF
15:46:52 <stain> GK: ok, but stronger than example
15:46:54 <stain> pgroth: ONE way
15:47:03 <pgroth> q?
15:47:04 <stain> GK: not mandatory, but only one we specify
15:47:15 <stain> q+
15:47:20 <pgroth> ack stain
15:47:53 <pgroth> q+
15:48:23 <Luc> q+
15:48:29 <GK> q+ to say have sympathy with describing other formats, but problem is where do we stop?
15:49:03 <stain> stain: Still think that Luc's argument from before also applies here; my JSON-LD proposal was a way to give a simple JSON format that just happens to also be valid JSON-LD (and therefore correspond to our RDF format)
15:49:27 <stain> pgroth: (???) leaving the door open forservice descriptions; specially in terms of REST. There is no common way to do REST service descriptions
15:49:35 <stain> pgroth: we can give one easy way to do it. But we don't mandate it.
15:49:40 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:49:54 <stain> Luc: If I was to write it, I would do it the way you said, Paul
15:50:04 <GK> q-
15:50:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:50:11 <stain> Luc: I noticed how a service description language format... (?)  We identified this is the information we expect to find.
15:50:17 <stain> Luc: and for illustration, here's an example using RDF
15:50:28 <stain> Luc: using content-negotiation to find the representation
15:50:29 <GK> Paul's formulation sounded good.  Would be happy to work on that.
15:50:49 <stain> pgroth: think my formulation is not too far from what's there.. I can fine-tune it
15:50:50 <Luc> agreed, it's minor fine tuning
15:51:19 <stain> GK: happy with that. The way it came over in pgroth's expla=nation was good. So that they can use whatever works in their environment
15:51:32 <stain> (sorry I did not get to scribe most of what pgroth said before!)
15:52:04 <pgroth> proposed: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq
15:52:17 <stain> pgroth: any objections?
15:52:22 <pgroth> accepted: work on refining the editorial around the description of service descriptions in the paq
15:52:37 <stain> should we make that action?
15:52:52 <stain> pgroth: now to go through list of pendingreview
15:52:58 <GK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Mar/0090.html
15:53:00 <pgroth> action: pgroth to update service description editorial
15:53:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - Update service description editorial [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-21].
15:53:16 <pgroth> zakim, mute luc
15:53:16 <Zakim> Luc should now be muted
15:53:21 <stain> GK: running through the document of MUST and MAY.. done in last editing/review
15:53:30 <stain> GK: Oh, right!
15:53:43 <stain> GK: we just figured out what to do with 425 in this meeting
15:53:56 <Luc> issue-300?
15:53:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-300 -- Quote vs Quotation (Involvement versus Activity) -- closed
15:53:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/300
15:54:00 <stain> GK: ISSUE-600 PROV-pingback was an old issue to add pingback, now toclose
15:54:05 <Luc> \issue-609?
15:54:06 <pgroth> iisue-600
15:54:14 <Luc> issue-609?
15:54:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-609 -- Specify how to locate a SPARQL endpoint for querying provenance -- pending review
15:54:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/609
15:54:15 <stain> GK: ISSUE-609 is how to locate a SPARQL endpoint.. now covered by Service Description
15:54:20 <Luc> issue-622?
15:54:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-622 -- Should PROV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? -- pending review
15:54:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/622
15:54:30 <stain> GK: ISSUE-622 about JSON-LD.. I think we just agreed how to address that
15:54:36 <Luc> issue-624?
15:54:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-624 -- Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template? -- pending review
15:54:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/624
15:54:47 <stain> GK: The ISSUE-624 - about specifying service URI or template.. this was going back to an earlier discussion
15:55:00 <stain> GK: where we are we always get the direct access URI by means of a template in service description
15:55:08 <Luc> issue-628?
15:55:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-628 -- Specification of anchor in HTML/RDF vs HTTP is inconsistent -- pending review
15:55:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/628
15:55:28 <stain> GK: and ISSUE-628 there was an issue raised by others about inconsistency aobut anchor specification in HTML vs HTTP
15:55:46 <stain> GK: there is an inconsistency.. which we discussed earlier.. but one which is of small importance only arrising in edge cases
15:55:57 <stain> GK: the document specifies how to use these things in a way that avoids the inconsistencies
15:56:01 <Luc> q+
15:56:07 <stain> GK: that means we invent less new mechanisms
15:56:24 <stain> GK: so that is the list of issues that is now PENDINGREVIEW and I propose to CLOSE - given no objections
15:56:28 <pgroth> Zakim, unmute luc
15:56:28 <Zakim> Luc should no longer be muted
15:56:31 <Luc> zakim, unmute me
15:56:31 <Zakim> Luc was not muted, Luc
15:57:07 <stain> Luc: to me, I was not asking for a redesign.. just meant a note in the text; there is a difference between what the two approaches (?) could do.
15:57:17 <stain> GK: ok, that is a good point. I'll make a note to myself to do that
15:57:39 <pgroth> action: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http
15:57:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [on Graham Klyne - due 2013-03-21].
15:57:42 <stain> +1
15:57:45 <pgroth> q?
15:57:47 <pgroth> ack luc
15:58:11 <pgroth> accepted: close the pending review issues listed in the minutes
15:58:36 <stain> pgroth: on response to James Anderson.. running out of time
15:58:41 <pgroth> Topic: timetable check
<pgroth> Summary: The group was asked to volunteer for tasks  defined on the http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication page.
15:58:42 <stain> pgroth: important topic..
15:58:49 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication
15:58:58 <stain> pgroth: we have essentially trying to close shop some time end of April
15:59:06 <stain> pgroth: we need to stage all documents by 2013-04-23
15:59:21 <stain> pgroth: asking all editors to put their final proposals for timeline (when things are to be done)
15:59:27 <stain> pgroth: I think all editors have done that
15:59:32 <pgroth> q?
15:59:33 <stain> pgroth: are any of the editors concerned about the time?
15:59:57 <SamCoppens> zakim, unmute me
15:59:57 <Zakim> SamCoppens should no longer be muted
16:00:00 <stain> pgroth: have a couple of other tasks on that page to be done
16:00:13 <stain> pgroth: namespace pages
16:00:25 <stain> pgroth: updating the FAQ
16:00:30 <stain> pgroth: making the PROV page on the wiki better
16:00:41 <stain> pgroth: need volunteers for those other tasks
16:00:51 <stain> pgroth: I would do the namespace  task
16:00:56 <stain> pgroth: Provenance of Documents
16:01:09 <stain> pgroth: Luc said he would do that.. Tim would look at PROV-O's prov
16:01:16 <stain> pgroth: but editors should write their own PROV
16:01:51 <stain> stain: should not each of the formats use their own format for their PROV..?
16:02:00 <stain> pgroth: to use content-negotiation between formats
16:02:02 <GK> (and a .htaccess to handle the content negotiation?)
16:02:03 <stain> pgroth: but need templates?
16:02:16 <stain> pgroth: running out of time.. could people volunteer for the rest of this?
16:02:20 <stain> q+
16:02:51 <stain> pgroth: yes, deadline would be bout 2013-04-23.. or really 2013-04-30
16:02:51 <pgroth> ack stain
16:03:14 <stain> (personally that's too short for me to help, given easter etc)
16:03:19 <GK> (Difficult for me to commit to more than prov-aq on that timescale)
16:03:21 <pgroth> Topic: GLD last call
<pgroth> Summary: There was a bit of confusion about the status of GLD and the working group's response. Chairs took the action to look into it.
16:03:28 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20121023/
16:03:32 <Luc> q+
16:03:41 <stain> pgroth: Government Linked Data Group has published their last call for their ontology.. and it uses PROV. It would be good for some of us to review it before last call
16:03:48 <stain> Luc: we've already reviewed...?
16:03:55 <stain> Luc: was published in october
16:04:09 <stain> Luc: Jun and I drafter a response from the WG. The document has not changed.
16:04:29 <stain> pgroth: so you asked them to change it, but they have not?
16:04:33 <Dong> @Paul, can you give brief descriptions for "Other Tasks" on the wiki page, so I can see what I can help? Thanks.
16:04:44 <stain> Luc: right, that is still the bversion in October. It was only announced on..(?)
16:04:52 <stain> pgroth: but I was reading this email..
16:05:10 <stain> Luc: perhaps we should talk to Ivan. About derivation.. was assuming (?) with activities
16:05:13 <KhalidBelhajjame> Teher is a more recent version that dates of March the 14th: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html
16:05:20 <stain> Luc: there was another one
16:05:23 <stain> Luc: not sure what they are doing
16:05:34 <pgroth> action: luc and paul to talk about gld
16:05:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - And paul to talk about gld [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-03-21].
16:06:12 <stain> pgroth: for everyine to think about how we can promote draft and the proposed recommendations
16:06:20 <stain> pgroth: DO get your AC ref to vote
16:06:22 <dgarijo> bbye
16:06:23 <KhalidBelhajjame> thanks, bye
16:06:25 <Luc> bye
16:06:28 <Zakim> -KhalidBelhajjame
16:06:29 <SamCoppens> Bye
16:06:30 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:06:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:06:32 <zednik> bye
16:06:32 <Zakim> -Luc
16:06:32 <Zakim> -??P7
16:06:34 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
16:06:34 <jcheney> bye
16:06:35 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:06:37 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:06:39 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:06:41 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:06:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, GK, +44.131.467.aaaa, jcheney, Luc, dgarijo, stain, KhalidBelhajjame, Dong, SamCoppens, [IPcaller], +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim
16:06:44 <Zakim> -stain
16:06:44 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:06:48 <GK> Bye
16:06:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:06:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-actions.rdf :
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to update service description editorial [1]
16:06:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-53-00
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gk to add a bit of text explaining the inconsistency between html/rdf and http [2]
16:06:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T15-57-39
16:06:50 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc and paul to talk about gld [3]
16:06:50 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-prov-irc#T16-05-34
16:06:50 <Dong> bye
16:06:54 <Zakim> -GK
16:06:58 <GK> GK has left #prov
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000462