<trackbot> Date: 19 July 2012

<pgroth> Scribe: TomDN

<stain> I'm amazed - Zakim recognized me today..

Admin

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-05

<pgroth> Minutes of the July 05, 2012 Telecon

+0 (did not attend)

<smiles> 0

<dgarijo> +0

<Paolo> +1

<jcheney> +1

<stain> +1

<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the July 05, 2012 Telecon

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-12

<pgroth> Minutes of the July 12, 2012 Telecon

<smiles> 0

<Paolo> +1

<dgarijo> 0

<jcheney> +1

<stain> +1

<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the July 12, 2012 Telecon

pgroth: Paulo and Paul still have an action

Prov-Constraints

pgroth: There has been a lot of email traffic on the constraints, and we're trying to get something out for review

jcheney: There's a clear plan to release something for review in the next day or two

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

luc: aim for release for internal review is tomorrow

jcheney: There's been some discussion on the mailing list and some off-line discussion, but most results will be incorporated in the document for review

pgroth: By when would this be reviewed?

jcheney: goal is to vote on release LC on august 2nd

luc: reviews would be due by next Friday (July 27th)

jcheney: hopefully minor things after review can be fixed by august 2nd
... Hopefully no problems that are too big arise

<Luc> could we ask GK to do it?

<smiles> I will

<stain> I will

<christine> Not sure I am suitably technically qualified to do a review.

<stain> @christine - why not give it a go - that might be a good position to review from as well?

luc: I'm a bit concerned about the timetable. We will have to discuss off-line that it's possible.

<pgroth> reviewers - simon, stain, paul for prov-constraints

pgroth: thanks to all who are working on it

Draft of Dublin Core Mappings

dgarijo: I'm working on it, will deliver it in the next days
... By beginning of next week. I'd like some people to review it then

pgroth: It would be nice to have it as a working draft (note) before august, but might not be possible

dgarijo: Should be no problem, since I am working on it alone

pgroth: We need to get it into W3C format, include a link in the working draft list, and then get people's reviews/comments on it
... Comments on this?

<pgroth> plan is to have an editor's draft early next week

Luc: Sounds good. If we get a document ready for internal release by early September, that's good.

<pgroth> a formal review process in sept

pgroth: We have a number of other working drafts

<stain> I would want to talk about Dictionary draft afterwards to figure out the who/when bit

pgroth: First: Working draft XML
... Has this team been in contact with Luc?

XML Schema

Luc: Stephan has been in touch to ask for draft XML schema. I don't know what the next step is.

pgroth: Let's talk about this next week, hopefully they will be on the call then.

<stain> feedback on what.. where is it?

Luc: Maybe also ask for feedback on the draft XML schema by then as well
... We will put it on the wiki

Dictionary

pgroth: We agreed to put dictionaries into a separate note

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

pgroth: Who's working on it, and what's the timeline?

(sorry, who is speaking?)

thanks

<tlebo> Stian is speaking

<tlebo> stain ?

stain: I volunteered to be editor on this, but nothing has really lifted off yet
... I would have time in august, and could use some people to help on this.

pgroth: Sounds good. Having something in mid September would be ideal.

<tlebo> sounds good

<Paolo> I would like to help

<stain> Right - I wondered who could volunteer..

<Luc> happy to review

<tlebo> I'm on it :-/

pgroth: any volunteers to help?

<stain> sounds good

pgroth: thanks Paolo, Luc, Tim

Timetable

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

pgroth: We need someone coordinating incoming public comments
... Please sign up through this link

<smiles> Yes

<stain> yes

<dgarijo> Me too

<smiles> OK

pgroth: It's 1 week/person. Just keeping track of emails and providing replies

<smiles> If needs be, I can do that too

I can do 6-12

(needed to check agenda)

<dgarijo> I'm all august available

<dgarijo> ok

<tlebo> (I already took Aug 20 - Aug 26)

<Luc> have got to go, bye bye

<stain> I can do 26th-

pgroth: good, that covers most of august for public comments, thanks.

Prov Namespace

pgroth: What do we do with dereferencability, especially if you have multiple nodes

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

pgroth: This documents the various approaches
... We need to settle on one.
... Solution 1: Merge all owl files into one namespace owl
... Here the idea is that each note would maintain a separate owl file.
... Solution 2.1 Use owl:import, but return only PROV-O
... This hybrid solution is a single OWL file with the content of ProvenanceOntology.owl (PROV-O) - but with the additional owl:imports for the modules. It will include provenance to the OWL of the official REC that it is derived from.
... There were some modifications to this, which lead to Solution 2.2 Use owl:import and return full merge of PROV-O and all Notes
... and lastly: Solution 3 Define all terms in a single OWL file
... Terms that are not formally part of PROV-O would be described using just annotation properties (rdfs:label, rdfs:comment), so they don't show up in Ontology processing tools, but are still present for documentary purposes when the namespace is dereferenced.
... So which do you guys think is best?

<tlebo> +1 to the one I suggested :-) http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvNamespaceManagement#Solution_2.2_Use_owl:import_and_return_full_merge_of_PROV-O_and_all_Notes

<stain> In preference: 2.2, 2.1, 2, 3, 1

pgroth: I would be inclined to do 2.2 as well, which is basically the concatenation of everything

<dgarijo> I like 2.1 better, in case you don't want to handle everything at once.

pgroth: Are there any objections to this?

<stain> you are just restating what is true - if you saved that file again from protege the merged things should disappear as they are implied by the import

<tlebo> @dgarijo but what makes provo so special?

<stain> @dgarijo, if you don't want to, then import the version IRI of PROV-O (or whatever) instead

<Dong> I prefer to see all the terms defined by the WG

<dgarijo> @stian, tim:I see.

<pgroth> for the owl file that comes back from the prov namespace - (solution 2.2. ) Use owl:import and return full merge of PROV-O and all Notes

<pgroth> proposed: for the owl file that comes back from the prov namespace - (solution 2.2. ) Use owl:import and return full merge of PROV-O and all Notes

<smiles> +0.5 (fine as far as I understand, but not my expertise)

<tlebo> @stain right to @dgarijo , just grab the owl:imports and take those that you want (ignore everything else that comes back).

<stain> +1

+1

<dgarijo> +1

<Dong> +1

<tlebo> +1

<stain> if it does not actually work we can change it, right? This is not part of a REC

pgroth: Indeed

<pgroth> accepted: for the owl file that comes back from the prov namespace - (solution 2.2. ) Use owl:import and return full merge of PROV-O and all Notes

<stain> I'm sure Tim has some tricks up his sleeve for that

pgroth: Tim, do you have anything laying around to do this?

tlebo: I'll look in my box of owl-magic tricks
... (yes, I will look into it)

<stain> here's one implementation: https://github.com/wf4ever/taverna-prov - it would not cover a big % as of today

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

pgroth: If you are thinking about implementations of PROV, this is a good time to start talking about them

<tlebo> @stain add it to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations

<Dong> @pgroth, do we have a timetable for the implementation todos?

pgroth: Please take a look at the exit criteria, and see if you can implement (some of) them
... Implementation period will be 4-6 weeks
... But we'd like to start way before that, and definitely think about the report as well

tlebo: Now that stuff is released for LC, how do we deal with change management?

pgroth: Same as always, just create a new editor's draft
... but do be careful about technical changes (since this is LC), but we can still make editorial changes.

<tlebo> e.g. http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/456 ?

<stain> @dgarijo would the PROV mapping for roevo and wfprov in wf4ever count for application page? Will we formalize those into the OWLs?

tlebo: I have a request to change the domain. Is this too much change, or not?

pgroth: I'll email sandro to make sure we don't make mistakes

jcheney: Will Tim review the constraints as well?

tlebo: Absolutely

<tlebo> bye bye

bye

<stain> bye

<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)

Succeeded: s/Paolo/Paulo/
Succeeded: s/get/vote on/
Found Scribe: TomDN
Inferring ScribeNick: TomDN
Default Present: TomDN, Luc, stain, +44.131.467.aaaa, dgarijo, +238055aabb, tlebo
Present: TomDN Luc stain +44.131.467.aaaa dgarijo +238055aabb tlebo
Regrets: Curt_Tilmes Hook_Hua Stephan_Zednik Graham_Klyne Sandro_Hawke
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.07.19
Found Date: 19 Jul 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/19-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: