Provenance Working Group Teleconference

14 Jun 2012

See also: IRC log


luc moreau
paolo missier


<trackbot> Date: 14 June 2012

<pgroth> @Luc that should do it

<Luc> thanks

<Luc> did you receive my email to the mailing list, with copy of agenda

<pgroth> yes just got it

<Luc> scribe: paolo missier


<MacTed> (nothing's made public, if the draft isn't produced first)

<Luc> @craigTrim, do you want to introduce yourselve at the end of the admin topic?

<CraigTrim> Sure

<Luc> proposed: to accept Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Telecon

<Curt> +1

<satya> +1

<tlebo> +1

<smiles> +1

<TomDN> +1

<CraigTrim> +1

<dgarijo> +0 (I attended partially)

+1 but not sure I have seen the minutes

<Luc> resolved: Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Telecon

action on Luc: issue of collection membership completeness

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

Paolo and Luc consider this action complete

<scribe> new member CraigTrim

Craig IBM very interested in provenance -- have been disseminating current results on WG within IBM

Craig still catching up, main role is to disseminate results within IBM

CRaig will be at the F2F


<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F3Schedule

pgroth F2F will include an update on status -- then focus on last call

pgroth what remains to be done going into last call, what is the outreach strategy

pgroth discussion on notes as well as additional "outreach" notes (work with schema.org for example)

pgroth also discussion on implementations

(can't open the program page at w3c...0

<pgroth> if you have other topics please let us know

<dgarijo> @Paolo: I think the whole wiki is down

<pgroth> wiki is very shaky


@daniel back on now

<dgarijo> I can scribe

<tlebo> I'll scribe

<tlebo> go ahead, Dani

<dgarijo> ok

<dgarijo> Paolo: One action on Luc about completeness (done)

<dgarijo> ... discussion in the list, Paolo made edits in DM

<dgarijo> ... there can be some inconsistencies sometimes

<dgarijo> ... another issue, about membership, has already been addressed

<dgarijo> ... I joined prov-o call on monday

<dgarijo> ... and the changes were well received

<dgarijo> Luc: any questions?

Luc contextualization still an issue: Tim?

tlebo converged on contextualization being a case of specialization

tlebo DM has converged to that def

tlebo next step prov-o will capture that in the ontology

tlebo GK still has concerns about violating /breaking RDF semantics -- GK invited to discuss

tlebo is contextualization at risk? concerns that it's going too far, its capabilities don't warrant the extra level of explanation for that construct

Luc: setting an action on Graham to elaborate on his concern and provide an example
... useful to see how the construct is expressed in RDF. when is this happening?

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Bundle_contextualization

tlebo: early next week

<pgroth> +q

Luc: should contextualization be in the doc, or marked as "at risk"? propose to address this after the review, and make this a question to reviewers

<dgarijo> yes, I think it is reasonable

tlebo: agree

<khalidbelhajjame> I agree

pgroth: need not be a question to reviewers -- it will be addressed if it does come up during review

<pgroth> +q

Luc: Graham has raised an issue on contextualization so he will have an opportunity to respond to that

<khalidbelhajjame> I guess here we are talking about internal reviewing. A more important opinion w.r.t. contextualization is that of external reviewers

tlebo: state of prov-o

<pgroth> @khalidbelhajjame it's important that the group is good with it

tlebo: focus on resolving dependencies on DM
... ... on getting DM settled. DM is becoming the blocker on prov-o. once dm is through, it will be easier to release prov-o

smiles: primer is ready to review

<dgarijo> @Tim: Thanks for putting all toghether in the doc, Tim.

Luc: no progress on Constraints, will meet at IPAW to agree on how to proceed (Luc, James, Paolo)

<pgroth> +q

Schedule for internal release and review

organizing documents reviews

<dgarijo> yes

Luc: DM; released today, all outstanding issues addressed AFA editors are concerned

<TomDN> yes :)

<dgarijo> I'll review it for next week.

<khalidbelhajjame> yes, I will review it

Luc: can reviewers confirm availability

<khalidbelhajjame> I will review the dm in the weekend

<dgarijo> next wednesday?

<TomDN> I'm planning to review it this weekend

<TomDN> (in the air)

Luc: propose DM review deadline by Wed June 20th

<TomDN> sounds good to me

<pgroth> +q

pgroth: additional informal reviews welcome by F2F or sooner

Luc: prov-n also released today. reviewers please confirm?

<TomDN> +q

TomDN: Sam on hols but still planning to do the review

Luc: propose PROV-N review deadline by Thu June 21st
... PROV-O?

<dgarijo> @Luc: Khalid is not on the phone. He has told me to say that he will possibly review PROV-N as well

<TomDN> same here for Sam. (not available right now, but will still review the document, probable after f2f3)

tlebo: propose PROV-O ready for review July 13th

Luc: what are the outstanding issues?

<pgroth> +q

tlebo: contextualization, collections, working through examples, additional narrative for a variety of terms, existing narrative needs editing, harmonizing

pgroth: key issue for last call is tech features are frozen. List of issues here are only contextualization and collections. the latter have not changed very much
... so what are the remaining /tech/ issues?

tlebo: contextualization and final review of collections

<pgroth> he's on vacation

pgroth: main issue with Last Call is tech issues, editing can happen afterwards
... can review ontology to help separate out tech vs editorial

tlebo: technically, close to being done -- provo html needs more work. so if all that matters is technical completeness, it can be done faster

<pgroth> +q

Luc: sandro and Ivan confirm that it is about technical content, i.e. frozen ontology is enough. then we get a chance to clarify and explain things better

tlebo: ontology can be finalized by mid next week, and whatever falls out of it into html (examples of terms etc.)
... to be released on June 14th

pgroth: process calls for >= 3 wks of last call feedback.

Luc: Sam, pgroth, Luc to review prov-o

pgroth: confirms

<CraigTrim> sure

Craig added to list of reviewers

Luc: constraints doc: not sure when it will be ready. Will report back to group at F2F with an estimate

<pgroth> +q

pgroth: the constraints doc "falls out" of the DM -- is it on rec track?

Luc: it is on Rec track
... we can pull it out and possibly make it a note

pgroth: concerned about timing -- lagging considerably behind and it's a complicated doc

Luc: yes, but it has been simplified. Also, no need to release all docs at the same time
... primer doc

smiles: ready for review

Luc: reviewers?

<TomDN> I'll review it

<pgroth> volunteer

<pgroth> +q to ask craig

<stephenc> OK, I volunteer

<CraigTrim> I've already been reviewing it, so go ahead and me in too

<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask craig

smiles: familiarity with prov-n desirable... (Paolo)

<CraigTrim> agreed - it's been a good doc so far back to IBM

<Luc> prov-primer reviewers: paolo, paul, stephenc, craig, luc

Luc: update to prov-aq to be addressed later
... questions for reviewers: can the doc be released as a /regular/ WD? if not, what are the blocking issues
... can the doc be pub as last call WD? see link to LC def by W3C
... in particular, reviewers who have raised issues, can they be closed?
... proposal wasREvisionOf -> wasRevisedFrom: no consensus, so can reviewers look at that
... also in DM: "primitive data types" that are in RDF. However RDF is changing, so which version are we referring to? RDF 1.1 WD data types are different
... worked with Ivan to make us robust wrt changes in RDF 1.1 -- should we list all data types as 1.1? reviewers should look into this

<tlebo> paolo: what if someone says "no"?

<pgroth> +q

<tlebo> pgroth: we look at the issues and get to a resolution.

<tlebo> ... if no resolution, then we can vote.

pgroth: many options available -- if it is clear there is no resolution, we can vote.

<pgroth> +q

pgroth: is there a LC for notes (primer)?

Luc: LC question does not apply to primer
... decision can be deferred, to allow for further changes to the primer

pgroth: state of PAQ: next WD ready by next Tue
... after F2F we'll look at PAQ in detail again

<TomDN> +q

Luc: call arrangements for next week?

pgroth: call should be cancelled next week

Luc: call cancelled

<dgarijo> byee

<TomDN> (I'll also be driving from San Francisco to SB on monday, by the way)

<pgroth> trackbot, end telecon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/06/14 15:57:40 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Succeeded: s/stephen/Sam/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Paolo
Found Scribe: paolo missier

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: CraigTrim Curt Curt_Tilmes Jun Luc MacTed OpenLink_Software P1 P18 P2 P3 P32 P4 P9 Paolo TomDN aabb aacc aadd dgarijo joined jun_ khalidbelhajjame pgroth proposed prov sandro satya smiles stain stephenc tlebo trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Found Date: 14 Jun 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/14-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]