Chatlog 2013-03-21

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:51:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-prov-irc
14:51:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:52:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:52:01 <trackbot> Date: 21 March 2013
14:52:06 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:06 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:37 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21
14:52:52 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:53:04 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:53:12 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:22 <Luc> Regrets: Dong Huynh, Graham Klyne, Curt Tilmes, Paolo Missier, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame
14:55:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:55:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:55:23 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:55:23 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:59:03 <CraigTrim> CraigTrim has joined #PROV
14:59:41 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:59:41 <Zakim> +CraigTrim
15:00:12 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:00:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim
15:00:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot
15:00:30 <Luc> can I have a scribe pls
15:00:42 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21
15:01:13 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:13 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:15 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:26 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:01:26 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:01:49 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
15:01:49 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
15:02:15 <hook> hook has joined #prov
15:02:20 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
15:02:50 <Luc> zakim, who is noisy?
15:03:01 <Zakim> Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +44.238.059.aaaa (14%), Ivan (4%)
15:03:07 <Luc> scribe, scribe, scribe ....
15:03:08 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb
15:03:33 <Luc> zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:34 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose CraigTrim
15:03:44 <Zakim> +Ruben
15:03:46 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:03:51 <TomDN> Zakim. Ruben is me
15:04:00 <TomDN> Zakim, Ruben is me
15:04:00 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it
15:04:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:09 <jun> zakim, +IPcaller is me
15:04:10 <Zakim> sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'
15:04:18 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:04:18 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:04:19 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:04:20 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:04:46 <Luc> scribe: CraigTrim
15:05:16 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-14
15:05:20 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:05:20 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:05:25 <CraigTrim> Luc: go through remaining issues in today's documents, but start by approving minutes of last week's conference
15:05:25 <Luc> PROPOSED: ACCEPT last week's minutes
15:05:29 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:05:33 <TomDN> +1
15:05:35 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:05:35 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:05:36 <TallTed> Zakim, muteme
15:05:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'muteme', TallTed
15:05:37 <CraigTrim> +1
15:06:01 <Luc> RESOLVED: last week's minutes
15:06:07 <TomDN> (sam is underway from another meeting, but he approves as well)
15:07:23 <Luc> topic:Documents are published
<luc>Summary: Please remind your AcRep to endorse PROV recommendations. Generally, there are presentations on PROV happening (this week by Paolo, Khalid, James, Stian), please blog about them, and add any material in the outreach page of our wiki. 
15:07:52 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I put out a blog post to semantic web list
15:07:53 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/21/prov-a-framework-for-provenance-interchange/
15:08:10 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we have about 5 votes on the AC reps list
15:08:37 <TomDN> yes
15:08:39 <CraigTrim> Luc: Inviting participants here to contact their AC reps
15:08:54 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:08:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted)
15:08:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot
15:09:58 <Luc> topic: Publication date for RECs
<luc>Summary: Ivan will informally reserve April 30 as the publication date for all our documents. Luc to updated provbib.js.
15:10:09 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
15:10:09 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
15:10:14 <pgroth> gone
15:10:17 <pgroth> or is it me?
15:10:28 <pgroth> it's me
15:11:27 <CraigTrim> Luc: Will be away for 2 weeks during period while we prepare documents, so need to do this next week, so need confirmation of dates
15:11:34 <Luc> q?
15:11:46 <Luc> topic: prov-aq
<luc>Summary: editors are finalizing the document. No outstanding issue to discuss. Paul to update the timetable for prov-aq.
15:12:18 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Nothing to discuss - we know what to do in terms of addressing issues
15:12:38 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I think we know the edits we need to make from last week
15:12:49 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication
15:13:21 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:13:24 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:13:24 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:13:31 <CraigTrim> Luc: Could you update schedule on Wikipage?
15:13:34 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Yes, will update
15:13:40 <Luc> topic: prov-xml
<luc>Summary: Hook reported back on his investigation about issue 648.  It was suggested that editors should make a proposal by Monday, to be endorsed by the group, in time for finalizing the document by next Thursday.
15:13:52 <SamCoppens> zakim, I am with TomDN
15:13:52 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:17:05 <Luc> q?
15:17:11 <CraigTrim> hook: for avoiding JAXB element issue - we were thinking that this may be a JAXB dependent only type of issue - it really does raise the issue that JAXB does this due to ambiguity in marshalling and unmarshalling.  That ambiguity is in minOccurs=0 and nullable types.  The fact that those two can not occur together.  How do you represent with element is missing vs element is nullable.  How do we distinguish between those cases?
15:17:24 <CraigTrim> hook: One of the questions that this does raise is how dependent do we want to be on JAXB?
15:17:42 <pgroth> q+
15:17:58 <CraigTrim> hook: JAXB is probably one of the more mature XML binding tools out there - used quite a lot by industry (Web Services, JEE Frameworks) ... there is probably an ideal case where we want to be independent of implementations
15:18:02 <CraigTrim> hook: but we can't ignore JAXB
15:18:10 <Luc> ack pg
15:18:25 <CraigTrim> pgroth: What is the suggestion?  And what are the ramifications?
15:18:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: reason for PROV-XML was to make it easy for people who work with XML to adopt PROV ... otherwise we would have just used RDF/XML, but that's not nice for XML developers
15:19:16 <CraigTrim> hook: JAXB has a customization capability so we could customize binding
15:19:40 <CraigTrim> hook: this would allow us to instruct JAXB to not generate JAXB element; however this creates ambiguity in round trip marshalling
15:20:22 <CraigTrim> hook: customization is purely JAXB - we provide a customization XML file
15:20:37 <CraigTrim> hook: We won't need to touch the PROV-XML schema at all
15:20:50 <CraigTrim> hook: alternative is to move xs:any out
15:21:06 <CraigTrim> hook: that could be a good compromise - since it would not require ambiguity or customization of binding
15:21:18 <CraigTrim> hook: but difficult to get cutomization to work properly
15:22:04 <CraigTrim> Luc: given your timetable indicates a draft for review on the 28th (next week), I think it would be nice to have a resolution before you release the new draft so that we review a (near) final version of the PROV-XML documents
15:22:23 <CraigTrim> Luc: would it be possible for the editors to have a proposal on Monday and a decision by Tuesday?
15:22:26 <CraigTrim> hook: yes, sounds reasonable
15:22:29 <CraigTrim> pgroth: yes, agreed
15:22:59 <CraigTrim> pgroth: PROV-XML is a series of trade offs
15:23:01 <Luc> q?
15:23:19 <CraigTrim> hook: one particular trade off is it acceptable to have a lossy round-trip marshalling in exchange for ease of use?
15:23:27 <CraigTrim> hook: we need to consider this
15:23:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: what is it that you would lose?
15:23:43 <CraigTrim> Luc: could you give an example?
15:24:06 <CraigTrim> hook: If you have an element that is in two states (declared - but value nil) and (not declared)
15:24:20 <CraigTrim> hook: when we unmarshall out into data structured, one of those two states will collapse into a more generic state
15:24:34 <CraigTrim> hook: when we marshall back we can't tell which of the original states
15:24:50 <CraigTrim> hook: this is rationale of why JAXB element is inserted into here to capture these two states properly
15:25:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: what element in the schema can be null?
15:25:28 <CraigTrim> Luc: it's none of the PROV constructs, right?
15:25:43 <CraigTrim> hook: right - nowhere in PROV-XML XSDs to we declare nullable type = true
15:25:56 <CraigTrim> hook: so we should verify the occurence of the nullable
15:26:18 <Luc> q?
15:26:21 <CraigTrim> hook: we will verify this before Monday and reach a conclusion
15:26:41 <CraigTrim> Luc: Outcome is by Monday we will receive a proposal on what the editors recommend on this
15:26:44 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me
15:26:44 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted
15:26:46 <Luc> topic: prov-dictionary
<luc>Summary:  Tom and Sam have drafted proposals for the outstanding issue. They will email them to the group for feedback. If by Tuesday noon GMT, no objection has been raised, they will be considered as approved. This will allow them to finalize the document by Thursday next week.
15:26:59 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21#PROV-DICTIONARY
15:27:53 <CraigTrim> TomDN: we may want to defer voting due to low attendance
15:28:31 <CraigTrim> Luc: documents are being released next week, so good to have resolutions ahead of that
15:28:51 <CraigTrim> Luc: I would recommend an email to put your proposals forward and if no negative response by Tuesday assume endorsed
15:28:52 <pgroth> q+
15:29:12 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Yes, just to clarify - that means Tom puts out what he thinks it correct on each item and ask for objections
15:29:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:29:23 <pgroth> q+
15:29:27 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:29:48 <CraigTrim> TomDN: I will put the email out - most issues are editorials and TODOs - the two biggest ones are examples of data collection
15:29:58 <CraigTrim> TomDN: there is slight change in XML requested about IDs and attributes
15:30:16 <CraigTrim> TomDN: only one issue that we don't have a proposal for - that is the first one on agenda - 638 - was raised by James
15:30:31 <CraigTrim> TomDN: this is something that we don't know how to solve conclusively
15:30:38 <pgroth> q+
15:30:47 <CraigTrim> TomDN: so I will send an email out asking for suggestions on how to fix
15:30:57 <CraigTrim> Luc: James could make a suggestion
15:31:04 <Luc> q?
15:31:10 <Luc> ack pg
15:31:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: if anyone has any issues we could talk about that briefly
15:31:49 <pgroth> james should probably make a suggestion
15:32:30 <CraigTrim> Luc: whenever there is an equality sign between two sets of key value pairs it denotes equality over those esets?
15:32:34 <CraigTrim> TomDN: yes
15:32:58 <CraigTrim> TomDN: the issue is that the notation deviates from constraints of data model so we need suitable resolution for that
15:33:09 <CraigTrim> TomDN: will send out email and ask for more suggestions
15:33:14 <Luc> q?
15:33:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: regarding issue 650 - I believe Stephan is updating XML schema
15:33:38 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/650
15:34:07 <CraigTrim> Luc: that would make xml schema aligned with the prov notation and ontology
15:34:27 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647
15:34:43 <CraigTrim> Luc: second comment is regarding issue 647; would it be the case that ... the key value pair becomes an entity
15:34:55 <CraigTrim> TomDN: no - I don't think that would be the case
15:35:10 <CraigTrim> TomDN: we are talking about making propery prov pair value (which used to be prov value) just a sub property of prov entity
15:35:26 <CraigTrim> TomDN: just to say arguments of prov value have to be an entity as well
15:36:47 <CraigTrim> TomDN: prov key value pair is described .. only thing we change is ...
15:36:53 <CraigTrim> Luc: what is the domain of prov entity?
15:37:19 <CraigTrim> TomDN: one of the implications is that key/value pair is an entity influence
15:37:36 <CraigTrim> TomDN: that could be an objection - we weren't sure what the implications would be
15:38:04 <CraigTrim> TomDN: implications for domain might be wider
15:38:26 <CraigTrim> TomDN: could you formulate that objection in an email response to the issue?
15:38:41 <CraigTrim> Luc: if you could raise it as a question to the team
15:39:00 <Luc> q?
15:39:08 <CraigTrim> Luc: any other discussions on dictionary?
15:39:25 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #prov
15:39:28 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me
15:39:28 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted
15:39:28 <Luc> topic: internal reviews
<luc>Summary: We had few participants, and therefore were able to line up very few reviewers for documents.  (Reviewers were added to the agenda). We will seek more reviewers next week, as documents get released. We note that we are seeking reviewers from the DC community for PROV-DC, and it would be nice to find external reviewers for PROV-XML.
15:39:49 <CraigTrim> Luc: I would like to line up reviewers for documents that are supposed to be released next week
15:40:22 <pgroth> q+
15:40:29 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:40:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted), [IPcaller]
15:40:31 <Zakim> TomDN has SamCoppens
15:40:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see TallTed, zednik, SamCoppens, jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot
15:41:31 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we asked dublin core for review (dc committee group)
15:41:59 <Luc> q?
15:42:05 <Luc> ack pg
15:42:18 <pgroth> q+ for primer
15:42:21 <CraigTrim> Luc: any one here willing to review the primer?
15:42:33 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I volunteer for dc and primer
15:42:48 <Luc> q?
15:42:51 <Luc> ack pg
15:42:51 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to discuss primer
15:42:54 <CraigTrim> Luc: anyone else for dictionary (Simon)
15:42:59 <CraigTrim> Luc: last one is PROV-XML
15:43:08 <Luc> q?
15:43:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: I will look at this one - anyone else?
15:43:15 <pgroth> q+
15:43:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we need a fresh pair of eyes to look at this
15:44:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: can you ask James if you know someone willing to look at it?
15:44:16 <TomDN> I volunteer for PROV-Links
15:44:16 <pgroth> action: paul to ask james about xml
15:44:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Ask james about xml [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-28].
15:44:43 <Luc> q?
15:44:50 <CraigTrim> you can put me down for the primer as well
15:44:51 <Luc> ack pg
15:44:58 <pgroth> q+
15:45:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I had comments on overview from Tim and Graham - if anyone else has other comments please reach out
15:45:39 <CraigTrim> I will look at overview
15:45:41 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:46:22 <Luc> topic: GLD Review Last Call for the Organization Ontology (ORG)
<luc>Summary: We briefly reviewed the response of GLD to our review of the ORG ontology.  Jun was going to check a few points, and draft a response.
15:46:45 <CraigTrim> Luc: is it possible to put link to response
15:47:04 <jun> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html
15:47:22 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html
15:47:49 <CraigTrim> jun: so I sent email before call - but I think response looks reasonable
15:47:59 <CraigTrim> Luc: there were 3 points
15:48:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: derivation, constraints, invalidation
15:48:32 <CraigTrim> Luc: first point: they adopted a property chain
15:48:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: which is fine
15:48:48 <CraigTrim> Luc: not entirely clear - does this property chain - where does it show?  in the ontology?
15:49:15 <CraigTrim> jun: claimed implementation in Ontology
15:49:33 <CraigTrim> Luc: only comment was on that specific point,but haven't had time dig into fine detail
15:50:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: 2nd point - they refer to constraints document
15:50:47 <CraigTrim> 3rd point - invalidation - up to users to decide
15:50:54 <CraigTrim> Luc: they made no changes there
15:51:20 <CraigTrim> Luc: was this editorial changes, or more (which would imply going through last call again)
15:51:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: was a last call working draft
15:51:44 <stain> Sorry I cut in here - I can't be in the meeting (I've instead presented PROV with great reception) - I've started work on a blog post about PAQ - with code sample at https://github.com/stain/paq
15:51:47 <CraigTrim> Luc: changes implemented is currently in editorial draft
15:52:04 <stain> for reference: http://www.slideshare.net/soilandreyes/20130321-what-can-provenance-do-for-me
15:52:11 <Luc> q?
15:52:13 <pgroth> @stian - cool!
15:52:40 <Luc> q?
15:53:12 <pgroth> q+ - we need to get this stuff out there
15:53:22 <Luc> q?
15:53:23 <pgroth> q+
15:54:00 <Luc> q?
15:54:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth
15:54:25 <ivan> yes
15:54:32 <ivan> dst in europe is on the 30th
15:54:35 <TomDN> bye
15:54:39 <SamCoppens> bye
15:54:40 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:54:40 <stain> bye
15:54:42 <Zakim> -TomDN
15:54:43 <Zakim> -pgroth
15:54:44 <Zakim> -jun
15:54:44 <Zakim> -CraigTrim
15:54:46 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:54:47 <Zakim> - +44.238.059.aaaa
15:54:53 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has left #prov
15:54:57 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000258