<trackbot> Date: 19 April 2012

<pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes

<pgroth> hi curt

<pgroth> it's all set-up

got it

Admin

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.19

+1

<TomDN> +1

<satya> +1

<Paolo> +1

<jcheney> +1

<smiles> Isn't that link just the agenda?

<tlebo> +1

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-04-12

<pgroth> Approved: Minutes of the April 12 2012 Telecon

<TomDN> Note: Sam is held up in an overlapping meeting atm. He will join us shortly

pgroth: action 70, review of 84,262,263,268

luc: completed

pgroth: action 73

stephen: can be closed

pgroth: action 74,76,77 use cases for collections have been provided
... scribes, need them

PAQ Reviews

pgroth: how is review coming?

curt: in progress

pgroth: olaf in progress

<tlebo> \me looking forward to reviewing it when he finds time.

TomDN: Sam will submit PAQ review tomorrow

tlebo: will review soon

luc: will review soon, finishing off other documents first

pgroth: after week-end for PAQ reviews should be ok

<jcheney> NB: the minutes say: "Curt, Olaf, Sam, Tim and Luc agreed to review it, mostly by around April 20"

Release of Documents

<tlebo> [ a prov:Entity; prov:value "mostly by around April 20. "; prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-04-12> ] .

pgroth: several changes need to be done/have been discussed

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/diff.html

pgroth: invalidation/collection vs. dictionary

luc: worked on DM, changes circulated
... paolo/james may talk about other documents
... all changes recommended by reviewers have been addressed
... accounts/annotations not covered in this release
... a draft for invalidation has been proposed
... assuming PROV-O team can include invalidation, should all be ready
... there was a suggestion to rename collection to dictionary
... may want to incorporate that change now

jcheney: prov-constraints changes

<jcheney> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-constraints-revised.html

jcheney: starting from last reviewed version

<jcheney> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-constraints.html

jcheney: two major criticisms from tim/graham/james -- organization and lack of clarity of purpose

<Luc> ^^^ not the right url

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm-constraints.html

jcheney: first part easier to address. reorganized what was there to group similar things together
... sections on inferences, and different types of constraints
... haven't invented a complete story fitting this document into the overall context
... added notes about some things that still need explanation
... graham/james asked the overall purpose for this document
... taken the view that this document adds additional information to a provenance description
... wants guidance from group
... if we release, should emphasize that this is a working draft
... still internalizing some aspects of the document

<Paolo> PROV-N: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html

paolo: prov-n changes incorporated - sections rearranged for clarification of scope, organization

<scribe> ... new section 1, 2 explain scope/context

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: simon suggested discuss arguments of each expression clearly, new version clarifies that for each example
... includes different meanings for optional arguments
... tim suggested hyperlink nodes to yacc description, still need to add some yacc/html stuff

<pgroth> +q

<tlebo> latest draft to release: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e35dff3bbd37/ontology/spwd/2012-04-18-vote-for-public-release/prov-o.html#Start

tlebo: prov-o

<tlebo> reworked expanded terms section reworked collections section added infrastructure and stubs for examples in cross reference sections.

tlebo: 3 biggest changes: rework terms section, collections section
... thanks stain/khalid
... crossreference, added stubs for examples

<tlebo> last round of comments being managed at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-o_draft_review_2_April_2012

tlebo: issues being addressed/closed there ^^

<dgarijo> thanks Tim for including everything so fast.

simon: primer

<smiles> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html

simon: addressed all reviews
... added images to illustrate examples
... many other minor things

<tlebo> += "thanks to daniel for help on reworked expaned terms section"

simon: up to date with regard to prov-dm prov-n
... explaining things in a more intuitive way

pgroth: proposals to vote on

luc: simon brought up how we use prov and prov-dm
... should use prov instead of prov-dm in some places
... looked at constraints, that apply to prov model
... should call prov-constraints instead of prov-dm-constraints

<pgroth> Proposal 1: Following internal and external feedback, the first deliverable (referred to as "D1. PIL Conceptual Model" in the charter) is reorganized into three separate documents. The three documents are now known by their respective short names: prov-dm, prov-constraints, prov-n. These documents are intended to become W3C Recommendations.

<MacTed> +1

+1

<tlebo> +1

<TomDN> +1

<smiles> +1

<Paolo> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<stephenc> +1

<jcheney> +1

<sandro> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<satya> +1

<pgroth> Approved - Proposal 1 Following internal and external feedback, the first deliverable (referred to as "D1. PIL Conceptual Model" in the charter) is reorganized into three separate documents. The three documents are now known by their respective short names: prov-dm, prov-constraints, prov-n. These documents are intended to become W3C Recommendations.

<pgroth> Proposal 2: Release the current version of prov-dm document as fourth public working draft

<tlebo> +1

<Paolo> +1

<smiles> +1

<satya> +1

+1

<sandro> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<MacTed> +1

<jcheney> +1

<TomDN> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<pgroth> Approved - Proposal 2: Release the current version of prov-dm document as fourth public working draft

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<pgroth> Proposal 3: Release the current version of prov-constraints document as first public working draft

<MacTed> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

+1

<sandro> +1

<TomDN> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<tlebo> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<Paolo> +1

<jcheney> +1

<satya> +1

<pgroth> Approved - Proposal 3: Release the current version of prov-constraints document as first public working draft

<pgroth> Proposal 4: Release the current version of prov-n document as first public working draft

<smiles> +1

<MacTed> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<tlebo> +1

+1

<TomDN> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<Paolo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<sandro> +1

<satya> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<jcheney> +1

<pgroth> Approved - Proposal 4: Release the current version of prov-n document as first public working draft

<pgroth> Proposal 5: Release the current version of prov-o document as second public working draft

<satya> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

+1

<smiles> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<TomDN> +1

<sandro> +1

<tlebo> +1

<MacTed> +1

<Paolo> +1

<jcheney> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<pgroth> Approved - Proposal 5: Release the current version of prov-o document as second public working draft

<pgroth> Proposal 6: Release the current version of prov-primer document as second public working draft

<dgarijo> +1

<satya> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<jcheney> +1

<smiles> +1

+1

<TomDN> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Paolo> +1

<sandro> +1

<MacTed> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<pgroth> Approved - Proposal 6: Release the current version of prov-primer document as second public working draft

luc: collection/dictionary question?

pgroth: after invalidation

<Luc> i will coordinate

Collection and Dictionary

pgroth: consensus on mailing list that collections as modeled are really dictionaries. Should we rename to that?
... should that be done for this release?
... a simple renaming
... editors have issues with that?

paolo: discussed on the list,
... may be some follow on discussion about different types of collections, but no issues with renaming as an editor

<pgroth> Proposal rename prov:Collection into prov:Dictionary

<tlebo> :D

<pgroth> rename prov:Collection into prov:Dictionary for this synchronous release

<pgroth> Proposal rename prov:Collection into prov:Dictionary for this synchronous release

<smiles> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<Paolo> +1

+1

<tlebo> +1

<dgarijo> +0

<sandro> +1

<jcheney> +1

<zednik> +1

<MacTed> +0

<TomDN> +0

<satya> 0

<SamCoppens> +0

pgroth: for people who voted 0, why? objections?

<dgarijo> Because I haven't been able to follow all the discussions around collections. I don't have objections

<Luc> no, we would not

<TomDN> for me: I'm not up to date on the discussion, but have no objections

satya: do we have a collection construct?

<SamCoppens> No objections, but not up to date with latest discussion, hence 0

pgroth: perhaps add back in after release

satya: still discussion needs to happen, won't hold up release

pgroth: yes, discussion will continue, question is simply to rename for this release

<MacTed> I think too much discussion remains to make action worthwhile... but I'm not going to block either way

<pgroth> Accepted rename prov:Collection into prov:Dictionary for this synchronous release

Invalidation/Destruction

pgroth: some discussion around invalidation/destruction, would be nice to have for symmetry

<Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-invalidation.html

pgroth: not too much disagreement around it
... incorporate into DM?

luc: we took into account the feedback from macted, graham, and other discussion, folded into the document^^
... a few people commented they like it

<pgroth> Proposal 7: Incorporate the invalidation/destruction in prov-dm for immediate release

<smiles> +1

+1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<tlebo> +1

<TomDN> +1

<MacTed> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<jcheney> +1

<stephenc> +1

<sandro> +1

<satya> +1

<Paolo> +1

<zednik> +1

<pgroth> acccepted: Proposal 7: Incorporate the invalidation/destruction in prov-dm for immediate release

pgroth: that covers this synchronous release. any other issues about that release?

smiles: the documents refer to each other with correct references?

<Luc> yes, it's part of the release process

<tlebo> prov-o's references need to be updated too. That's just part of publication, right?

pgroth: luc to coordinate release, can you check that?

luc: yes
... we need to agree on the actual release date.
... two approvals to pass, get short names for new documents, then publication requests for all new documents
... need 4 working days of notice, what is a reasonable date?
... can only publish on tuesday or thursday
... perhaps tuesday May 1?

<pgroth> is that a holiday sandro?

<smiles> yes, possible, I think

luc: all editors would need to be ready by next Tuesday or Wednesday

<tlebo> That is very tight for me.

jcheney: how much work to get from where we are with constraints to fit required style?

luc: the version was html 5 compliant mostly, not sure if you have preserved that
... most things get taken care of to create the compliant files
... look at models subdir in mercurial to see it

jcheney: will luc/paolo do that publication work or james?

<Paolo> I can help but I have not done it before

luc: if there aren't many HTML problems, luc could do it in a couple hours, would be nice to get some help with that

sandro: all editors should try to make compliant html and check links

pgroth: try end of next week, then go for May 3?
... would make the request for the names

luc: yes, transition request today, will copy all editors
... time to make the document compliant with rules after making publication request

<smiles> yes

<Luc> +1

<Paolo> ok

pgroth: Editors -- May 3 release ok?

tlebo: what needs to be done by May 3

pgroth: make the compliant document available

luc: that should be done by April 30 to start process and checks

tlebo: 4/30 sounds reasonable

<tlebo> and the WG! :D

pgroth: 4/30 for editors to be ready, 5/3 for actual release

Discussion on OWL RL

pgroth: current ontology compliant with RL, but has difficulties modeling all constructs of the DM
... RL is operationalize 'lightweight ontology' requirement
... editors and PROV-O people have a hard time with the RL constraint
... would be nice to relax that requirement and allow certain other non-RL constructs to be used
... Is that ok? How do we make sure we remain 'lightweight'?

<silence>

<dgarijo> I think that the RL++ proposed by Tim made sense.

tlebo: we generally agreed to relax RL slightly, and enumerate the violations
... clearly point out the constructs that aren't recognized by RL
... RL reasoners can still omit those constructs
... RL is the baseline for lightweight characteristics, but allow a few violations

pgroth: which constructs will you need? unions on domain/range?

tlebo: yes, there are now two unions on domain/range, and that addresses design issues, a nice option to include those
... if there are other things we want to use, each kind of construct will be considered individually
... unions alone are helpful

<dgarijo> hadRole and hadActivity are the ones with unions

pgroth: not very controversial.

luc; isn't this already in the release we've approved?

pgroth: yes, but this is a real change in the direction of PROV-O. Want support from the group on that.

<pgroth> proposal: the ontology will be based on OWL-RL and any deviations from that profile will be documented in the ontology documentation

<tlebo> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<satya> +1

<jcheney> +1

+1

<Paolo> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<TomDN> +1

<smiles> +1 (to the limited extent of my knowledge)

<stephenc> +1

<sandro> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

zednik: do we have guidelines on which deviations will be permitted?

tlebo: unions in domains/ranges ok for now, other changes need to be considered

zednik: what about existential dependents (?)?

luc: RL will work ok even with non-RL compliant constructs

tlebo: yes, it will skip over them

<tlebo> the simplicity of RL is that it's based on a set of rules application.

pgroth: try to stick with RL as a baseline

<tlebo> @zednik, go a head and raise the ISSUE so we can consider it.

pgroth: make an argument for each other non-RL thing to use

<pgroth> accepted: proposal: the ontology will be based on OWL-RL and any deviations from that profile will be documented in the ontology documentation

<SamCoppens> Thanks, Bye

<zednik> @tlebo, raise the issue on guidelines or on existential dependence?

<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Curt
Found Scribe: Curt Tilmes
Default Present: Curt_Tilmes, Sandro, MacTed, +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, Satya_Sahoo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Luc, TomDN, jcheney, dgarijo, SamCoppens
Present: Curt_Tilmes Sandro MacTed +1.315.723.aaaa tlebo Satya_Sahoo [ISI] khalidbelhajjame Luc TomDN jcheney dgarijo SamCoppens

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Jun, Zhao)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Graham, Jun

Regrets: Graham Jun
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.19
Found Date: 19 Apr 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/19-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: