IRC log of prov on 2012-09-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:43:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:43:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:43:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:43:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:43:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:43:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:43:08 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:43:08 [trackbot]
Date: 06 September 2012
14:43:10 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:43:11 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
14:43:22 [Luc]
14:44:01 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:44:06 [Luc]
chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:14 [Luc]
Regrets: James Cheney
14:51:48 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:53:05 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
14:54:37 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
14:55:14 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:55:20 [Zakim]
14:55:51 [smiles]
zakim, ??P11 is me
14:55:53 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
14:57:11 [Luc]
scribe: simon miles
14:58:12 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aaaa
14:58:17 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:58:26 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:58:28 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
14:58:41 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
14:58:42 [Zakim]
14:58:47 [Zakim]
14:58:49 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
14:58:49 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:59:22 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
14:59:23 [Zakim]
14:59:33 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the call?
14:59:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see smiles, Luc, pgroth, Curt_Tilmes, Luc.a
15:00:39 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:48 [Zakim]
+ +329331aabb
15:00:53 [Luc]
topic: admin
15:00:59 [TomDN]
zakim, +329 is me
15:00:59 [Zakim]
+TomDN; got it
15:01:10 [TomDN]
zakim, mute me
15:01:10 [Zakim]
TomDN should now be muted
15:01:19 [Zakim]
15:01:22 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:01:38 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
15:01:39 [Zakim]
15:01:45 [smiles]
Luc: outlines agenda
15:01:50 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, ??P16 is me
15:01:50 [Zakim]
+khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:01:59 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:02:00 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:02:01 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is loud?
15:02:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, pgroth.
15:02:04 [TomDN]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:02:04 [Luc]
proposed: to approve Minutes of the Aug 9, 2012 Telecon
15:02:12 [Zakim]
15:02:15 [Zakim]
TomDN, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (28%), khalidBelhajjame (19%)
15:02:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.818.731.aacc
15:02:20 [Luc]
15:02:24 [TomDN]
15:02:24 [Curt]
15:02:32 [SamCoppens]
15:02:35 [satya]
15:02:36 [khalidBelhajjame]
15:02:41 [TomDN]
zakim, samcoppens is with tomdn
15:02:41 [Zakim]
+samcoppens; got it
15:02:44 [hook]
15:02:45 [smiles]
15:02:47 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:02:47 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:02:48 [Zakim]
15:02:48 [stainPhone]
stainPhone has joined #prov
15:02:49 [Paolo]
0 (not attended)
15:03:00 [Luc]
accepted: Minutes of the Aug 9, 2012 Telecon
15:03:07 [stainPhone]
15:03:10 [Zakim]
15:03:27 [smiles]
Luc: open actions for Paulo and Paul
15:03:35 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:03:48 [Zakim]
15:03:51 [GK]
zakim, ??p13 is me
15:03:51 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:03:51 [smiles]
Paul: Not yet done overview slide for Wiki
15:03:57 [Zakim]
15:04:02 [Luc]
Topic: F2F4
15:04:02 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:04:02 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:04:04 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:04 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:04:32 [smiles]
Luc: Idea to co-locate F2F4 with ISWC
15:04:38 [Luc]
November 9 - 10, 2012
15:04:44 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aadd
15:05:04 [smiles]
... available before ISWC workshops/tutorials, 9-10
15:05:17 [Luc]
15:05:20 [smiles]
... any blocking reasons against?
15:05:26 [stainPhone]
Zakim, +44.789.470.aadd is me
15:05:26 [Zakim]
+stainPhone; got it
15:05:47 [pgroth]
15:05:50 [Luc]
15:05:53 [Luc]
ack pg
15:05:53 [smiles]
Luc: Vote or just accept those dates?
15:06:06 [Zakim]
15:06:09 [smiles]
Paul: Don't think we need a vote, but need sign-up page
15:06:16 [pgroth]
15:06:43 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: F2F4 will take place in Boston, on November 9 - 10, 2012
15:06:55 [Zakim]
15:06:56 [Zakim]
15:07:00 [smiles]
Luc: details available later, but hosted at MIT
15:07:04 [TomDN]
Zakim, mute me
15:07:04 [Zakim]
TomDN should now be muted
15:07:07 [Zakim]
15:07:11 [smiles]
Ivan: at Computer Science
15:07:14 [Luc]
15:07:15 [TomDN]
Zakim, samcoppens is with tomdn
15:07:15 [Zakim]
+samcoppens; got it
15:07:16 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:07:17 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P25 is me
15:07:17 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:07:24 [smiles]
Luc: questions about F2F4?
15:07:27 [pgroth]
action: paul to set-up web page f2f4
15:07:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-104 - Set-up web page f2f4 [on Paul Groth - due 2012-09-13].
15:07:29 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
15:07:33 [Luc]
topic: prov-constraints
15:07:40 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is noisy?
15:07:47 [Zakim]
15:07:50 [Zakim]
pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (54%)
15:07:57 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
15:07:57 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:07:58 [smiles]
Luc: At last telecon, we looked at remaining technical issues on the document
15:08:00 [GK]
(I assume MIT is easily accessible from the ISWC and/or downtown location?)
15:08:02 [Zakim]
15:08:09 [jun]
zakim, ??p27 is me
15:08:09 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
15:08:23 [Luc]
15:08:24 [stainPhone]
@gk yes, metro from downtown
15:08:25 [smiles]
... work was done over August
15:08:44 [Luc]
15:08:46 [smiles]
... distributed link above for feedback (seems good so far)
15:08:53 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is noisy?
15:09:05 [Zakim]
pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (73%), Paolo (89%)
15:09:12 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute Paolo
15:09:12 [Zakim]
Paolo should now be muted
15:09:28 [Paolo]
sorry -- new VOIP client
15:09:37 [smiles]
... before formal vote, is there any comment on the document?
15:09:38 [Luc]
15:09:47 [ivan]
15:09:52 [Luc]
15:10:18 [smiles]
Ivan: one thread of discussion on terminology alignment of "top-level bundles". What is current status?
15:10:53 [smiles]
Luc: Top-level bundle introduced in PROV-N, not part of PROV-DM
15:11:02 [stainPhone]
15:11:09 [smiles]
... it is the structure of the complete document you would write in PROV-N
15:11:09 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:11:27 [smiles]
... "top-level bundle" was not adequate term, because it is not a bundle
15:11:50 [smiles]
... James suggested talking about a "PROV document" instead, and this is adopted in PROV Constraints
15:12:10 [smiles]
... PROV documents can contain PROV statements or bundles
15:12:30 [smiles]
... In context of PROV-N, will propose that will align terminology to also use PROV document
15:12:30 [Luc]
ack ivan
15:12:55 [smiles]
stian: Thank you to the editor for addressing the issues I raised
15:13:10 [smiles]
Luc: Also thank you and other reviewers for quality of reviews
15:13:12 [Luc]
15:13:14 [Luc]
ack st
15:13:30 [Luc]
PROPOSED: publish PROV-Constraints as Last Call Working Draft
15:13:41 [smiles]
15:13:42 [MacTed]
15:13:44 [stainPhone]
15:13:46 [ivan]
15:13:49 [khalidBelhajjame]
+1 (University of Manchester)
15:13:51 [TomDN]
+1 (IBBT)
15:13:53 [Curt]
+1 (NASA)
15:13:55 [Paolo]
+1 Newcastle University
15:13:57 [zednik]
+1 (RPI)
15:13:57 [pgroth]
+1 (VU University Amsterdam)
15:13:57 [SamCoppens]
+1 (IBBT)
15:13:58 [satya]
+1, Invited expert (CWRU)
15:13:58 [smiles]
(invited expert, King's College London)
15:13:59 [GK]
+1 Oxford U
15:14:03 [hook]
+1 (IE)
15:14:07 [MacTed]
(OpenLink Software)
15:14:08 [dgarijo]
+1 (UPM)
15:14:12 [Luc]
+1 (University of Southampton)
15:14:25 [stainPhone]
(univ of Manchester as well)
15:14:33 [jun]
15:14:41 [Luc]
Accepted: to publish PROV-Constraints as Last Call Working Draft
15:14:51 [pgroth]
15:15:24 [smiles]
Luc: When are we going to release the document? And what is the review period?
15:15:27 [pgroth]
15:15:46 [pgroth]
15:15:57 [smiles]
... Editors do not intend to make any changes, can prepare for release next Tuesday pending webmaster approval
15:16:05 [smiles]
... Release date 11 September
15:16:27 [smiles]
... Propose review period closes 10 October
15:17:05 [ivan]
+10000 to Paul
15:17:09 [smiles]
Paul: Have to also consider some blog post to go with document, it is heavy duty and needs context to interpret
15:17:22 [smiles]
... Who will write the post?
15:17:59 [smiles]
Luc: Paolo, would you have bandwidth to draft blog entry?
15:18:00 [Paolo]
zakim, unmute me
15:18:00 [Zakim]
Paolo should no longer be muted
15:18:02 [ivan]
15:18:10 [pgroth]
15:18:39 [pgroth]
i can then polish
15:18:46 [smiles]
Paolo: Can try to first draft something tomorrow
15:18:53 [Luc]
15:18:53 [smiles]
Luc: I could then work on it on Monday
15:19:06 [smiles]
Paul: That's fine and can also run by me
15:19:08 [Luc]
ack pgro
15:19:09 [ivan]
15:19:54 [Luc]
15:19:56 [pgroth]
nice one everyone
15:20:00 [ivan]
15:20:02 [smiles]
Luc: Any other comments on constraints?
15:20:30 [smiles]
Ivan: Reminder that we should finalise the timetable tomorrow
15:20:51 [Luc]
ack iv
15:21:17 [smiles]
Ivan: should become synchronised with other documents
15:21:21 [Luc]
topic: Implementing constraints with SW technologies
15:21:58 [smiles]
Paul: We have noticed that there is discussion around implementing constraints using SW tech
15:22:08 [smiles]
... great, but not part of the WG's responsibility
15:22:50 [smiles]
... should be done by individuals if interested, but implementation should not be done in WG time, cannot respond to all questions
15:22:56 [ivan]
15:23:00 [smiles]
... encouraged but outside WG
15:23:37 [zednik]
15:23:45 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:23:46 [GK]
I agree with Paul here, but I also note that we'll need interoperable implementations for REC track progress?
15:23:58 [smiles]
Ivan: Agreed that deliverables need to be delivered, but if work is done WG might decide to publish in W3C Notes and could be valuable
15:24:15 [khalidBelhajjame]
@Paul, agreed. With Jun and Stian, we decided to specify the constraints (that are speciable within OWL), outside the context of the working group
15:24:35 [Luc]
15:24:39 [smiles]
Luc: Yes, are very keen for implementation of constraints using SW tech, but concerned about using WG bandwidth and mission creep
15:24:49 [zednik]
15:24:59 [Paolo]
15:25:01 [smiles]
zednik: Added constraints implementation section to implementation questionanire
15:25:07 [ivan]
ack zednik
15:25:27 [smiles]
.. not intended to be saying we will be creating these implementation, but part of implementation report
15:26:33 [pgroth]
15:26:33 [smiles]
Paolo: Agree not done on WG time, but cannot claim have reference implementation without compliance validator
15:26:39 [Luc]
15:26:42 [satya]
15:26:42 [Luc]
ack pao
15:26:56 [Luc]
ack pg
15:27:13 [pgroth]
mute paolo
15:27:18 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute pa
15:27:18 [Zakim]
Paolo should now be muted
15:27:51 [smiles]
Paul: Implement both specs, and if don't have implementations then spec can't be approved as recommendation
15:27:51 [stainPhone]
@paolo, yes, our (khalid/jun) intent is to do what can practically be done in owl
15:27:55 [Luc]
15:27:57 [Paolo]
agree -- and that's why Khalid's qualification worried me
15:28:28 [ivan]
15:28:33 [stainPhone]
As owl is not a constraint language
15:28:34 [ivan]
ack satya
15:28:37 [smiles]
satya: When talking about implementations/validators, are we talking about conforming to PROV-O or to constraints?
15:28:39 [GK]
Hmmm... I thought we needed (interoperable) implementations of each feature rather than a "reference implementation"
15:28:41 [khalidBelhajjame]
Just to clarify, within OWL, we will not aim to implement all constraints but only the one that are easy to express within OWL
15:28:56 [stainPhone]
@gk +1
15:29:00 [smiles]
Luc: We are talking about conforming to constraints, validity is not in scope of WG
15:29:04 [jun]
@paolo, my understanding that exploring OWL for the implementation is our first step, to see what can be implemented in OWL and what can't
15:29:16 [Luc]
15:29:33 [Luc]
ack ivan
15:29:50 [smiles]
Ivan: What we in general need is not a reference implementation of everything, but interoperable implementation for each feature
15:30:22 [Paolo]
@ khalidBelhajjame, jun I am doing the same in the deductive programming space, but there are unknown -- hence the difficulty to committing to a deliverable
15:30:27 [smiles]
... but more general point, what do we really mean by the implementation of the particular document or the whole PROV enivronment?
15:30:46 [smiles]
... no fixed rules, but need to show world this is not just a paper exercise and can be put into practice
15:31:05 [smiles]
... not clear what this means for constraints document in relation to other documents
15:31:13 [Luc]
15:31:16 [Luc]
15:31:25 [smiles]
... will need to be clear when we present to the management
15:31:57 [smiles]
Luc: Not discussed yet, and may be an item of discussion of implementation report skeleton
15:32:15 [stainMobile]
stainMobile has joined #prov
15:32:15 [smiles]
... WG will have to identify features to implement in constraints document (e.g. type checking)
15:32:35 [smiles]
... Question is then how we demonstrate whether this is implemented properly
15:32:45 [smiles]
... In my own implementation, am using test cases
15:32:53 [Luc]
15:33:07 [smiles]
Ivan: For me, test cases is very much what I would like to see
15:33:15 [smiles]
Luc: Discussion of test cases are in scope of WG
15:33:16 [Luc]
15:33:58 [smiles]
Luc: We want to come up with an agreement that we will not spend WG time defining constraints in SW technologies
15:34:00 [pgroth]
@stefan can I get edit access to the implementation questionnaire?
15:34:00 [Luc]
PROPOSED: The Working Group will not formalize constraints with Semantic Web technologies, but implementations of constraints by group members are welcomed
15:34:03 [GK]
(Test cases are a good way to illustrate the consequences of specified features.)
15:34:30 [Luc]
15:34:38 [GK]
15:34:39 [Zakim]
15:34:46 [jun]
15:34:49 [satya]
seems reasonable
15:34:49 [dgarijo]
15:34:52 [smiles]
15:34:52 [satya]
15:34:52 [TomDN]
15:34:55 [ivan]
15:34:58 [SamCoppens]
15:34:58 [khalidBelhajjame]
15:34:59 [hook]
15:34:59 [Curt]
15:34:59 [MacTed]
15:35:13 [Paolo]
15:35:22 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: The Working Group will not formalize constraints with Semantic Web technologies, but implementations of constraints by group members are welcomed
15:35:49 [Luc]
topic: Public Comments
15:36:09 [Luc]
15:36:49 [smiles]
Paul: We had a number of public comments, one needs cutting up, some we've started discussing
15:37:19 [smiles]
... All can be handled, but maybe we should readvertise to get more comments
15:37:30 [Luc]
should we take the opportunity to ask for feedback as we release prov-constraints?
15:37:51 [Luc]
15:38:01 [smiles]
Luc: comments?
15:38:04 [pgroth]
in particular on advertising?
15:38:34 [pgroth]
15:38:36 [smiles]
Luc: Now we've released constraints document, we can take the opportunity to go back to groups and individuals to get feedback on that
15:38:52 [Luc]
15:38:59 [smiles]
... then editors need to go through comments one by one and address
15:39:00 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:39:16 [smiles]
... Ivan, you said RDF group would give us feedback but not received yet
15:39:41 [smiles]
Ivan: Will prompt again, have discussion paper but not yet dealt with
15:39:51 [Luc]
15:39:51 [pgroth]
talking to guus is difficult
15:40:18 [smiles]
Luc: Once constraints document out, easy to get back to them
15:40:27 [pgroth]
15:40:29 [Luc]
15:40:37 [pgroth]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:40:40 [Luc]
topic: Implementation Report Skeleton
15:40:48 [Zakim]
pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (30%)
15:40:57 [smiles]
Luc: Now time to think about structure of this report
15:41:15 [smiles]
... identifying kinds of feedback expected from implementors
15:41:31 [stainMobile]
stainMobile has joined #prov
15:41:56 [smiles]
zednik: Have gone through and updated skeleton, Paolo will update actual questionairres
15:42:11 [smiles]
15:42:11 [Luc]
15:42:47 [smiles]
Paul: Currently based on SKOS, If we decide we need to test cases that might change this
15:42:51 [Luc]
15:43:21 [smiles]
Luc: Have you received feedback on questionnaire?
15:43:31 [smiles]
zednik: Not yet, but good opportunity to now re-ask
15:43:51 [Dong]
@Paul: I can help with the implementation report as well
15:43:57 [smiles]
Luc: Will make clear in minutes summary, please send an email again with link to questionnaire
15:44:09 [Luc]
15:44:44 [Luc]
action on Paul to draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires
15:44:44 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
15:44:49 [pgroth]
15:44:55 [Luc]
action on pgroth to draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires
15:44:55 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
15:45:07 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
15:45:08 [pgroth]
action: pgroth draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires
15:45:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-105 - Draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires [on Paul Groth - due 2012-09-13].
15:45:28 [Luc]
15:45:40 [smiles]
Paul: Ivan, have Google questionnaire, does it need to be a W3C poll?
15:45:40 [Luc]
ack pgr
15:46:01 [smiles]
Ivan: Questionnaire is just for activity of group, not deliverable?
15:46:28 [smiles]
Paul: Yes. Easy to collect by web poll
15:46:49 [pgroth]
15:46:51 [smiles]
... Will copy part of result of poll into implementation report
15:46:55 [Luc]
15:47:03 [smiles]
Ivan: Yes, that's OK. How you collected data is your business
15:47:13 [pgroth]
15:47:30 [stainMobile]
stainMobile has joined #prov
15:47:58 [smiles]
Ivan: RDFa had many tests, running on site outside of W3C, but results collected into static page on W3C as implementation report
15:48:06 [pgroth]
15:48:13 [Luc]
15:48:26 [Luc]
15:48:40 [Luc]
15:49:03 [smiles]
Luc: Some emails sent, issues raised, what is the progess?
15:49:30 [smiles]
zednik: Split up DM terms and encoded in XML schema, published and raised issues
15:49:42 [smiles]
... Reza has been working on implementation at Oracle
15:50:38 [smiles]
... also interested in constraints, and had a side discussion on this, decided not to pursue as part of WG but instead side-activity at Oracle or NASA for implementation report
15:51:00 [smiles]
... looked into Schematron and XSD inadequate for expressing constraints
15:51:16 [hook]
Schematrons have been used by ISO working groups for constraints checks
15:51:23 [smiles]
... For schema, implemented almost all terms and should not be too many issues raised
15:51:27 [Curt]
15:51:28 [Luc]
15:51:53 [Luc]
ack cur
15:52:06 [Luc]
@curt +1
15:52:09 [smiles]
Curt: Most of the issues are minor inconsistencies, and inclined to take from DM and make XML match, even copying non-normative language
15:52:40 [Luc]
15:52:42 [hook]
We also tried to sync the XML examples with the PROV-DM examples.
15:52:45 [smiles]
Luc: Schema was still a bit behind DM, and issues raised are good
15:53:14 [smiles]
hook: We also tried to make XML examples match one-to-one those in DM document
15:53:31 [pgroth]
+q to ask about prove xml html
15:53:33 [Luc]
15:53:39 [smiles]
... this forces us to make sure DM is in sync with XSD (and PROV-O)
15:54:03 [smiles]
Paul: Is editors draft of document on XML up to date, can be looked at? Or just XSD?
15:54:09 [pgroth]
15:54:13 [Curt]
agreed -- not ready
15:54:15 [smiles]
zednik: XSD up to date, not the document
15:54:15 [Luc]
ack pg
15:54:16 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to ask about prove xml html
15:54:48 [smiles]
Luc: When can say have version 1 of XML schema?
15:54:57 [Curt]
I'll address the issues I've raised by this weekend
15:55:02 [smiles]
zednik: Need to ensure no open issues, but pretty close
15:55:20 [smiles]
... aim for Tuesday/Wednesday next week
15:55:25 [Luc]
action stephan to produce version 1 of xml schema
15:55:25 [trackbot]
Sorry, ambiguous username (more than one match) - stephan
15:55:25 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. estephan, szednik)
15:55:36 [Luc]
action zednik to produce version 1 of xml schema
15:55:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-106 - Produce version 1 of xml schema [on Stephan Zednik - due 2012-09-13].
15:56:10 [smiles]
Luc: Can come back to at next week's telecon
15:56:51 [smiles]
... PROV-O spent long time looking at tools to convert their schema into HTML document
15:57:19 [pgroth]
15:58:01 [smiles]
Paul: On the editors draft, there is an XSD/HTML document, who created?
15:58:12 [smiles]
Luc: I created
15:58:18 [Luc]
15:58:57 [Curt]
15:58:57 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:59:01 [smiles]
Paul: We said that for the XML, we wouldnt worry about the verbiage around the schema, right? Just need schema
15:59:25 [smiles]
Luc: Want to minimise work, but need something readable. Can extract lots of text from DM document
15:59:53 [pgroth]
16:00:00 [smiles]
Luc: Paul and I will identify editor(s) for this document
16:00:00 [Luc]
16:00:23 [Zakim]
16:00:27 [Luc]
ack cur
16:00:40 [smiles]
Curt: Considered adding links to anchors in XSD HTML document to link to DM, rather than copy
16:00:54 [Luc]
16:01:13 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
16:01:28 [smiles]
Luc: XML schema editors, are there specific issues you want to discuss?
16:01:32 [Zakim]
16:01:35 [zednik_]
zednik_ has joined #prov
16:01:37 [zednik_]
sorry, disconnected
16:01:59 [Zakim]
16:02:00 [Luc]
16:02:41 [smiles]
zednik: Issue on representing prov:type
16:03:16 [smiles]
... Type of prov:type is defined as a value (effectively a literal)
16:03:26 [smiles]
... Consequence is that 42 is a prov:type, etc.
16:03:33 [smiles]
... Is that what we want?
16:03:58 [Luc]
16:04:06 [Curt]
stephan: could discuss prov:Agent vs. prov:Person too? (or is that resolved?)
16:04:11 [smiles]
... In XSD would be xsd:anySimpleType, not constraints
16:04:22 [pgroth]
16:04:24 [zednik_]
16:05:17 [smiles]
Paul: QName would improve interop, but are there examples where you don't want than (Java package names?)
16:05:41 [smiles]
Luc: DM contains examples of types that are just strings
16:06:00 [stainMobile]
stainMobile has joined #prov
16:06:07 [zednik_]
@curt raise as an issue
16:06:28 [smiles]
Luc: Will not resolve issue now, but is important as has potential impact on DM, so suggest continue over email and will revisit
16:06:37 [TomDN]
16:06:39 [ivan]
bye everyone
16:06:39 [jun]
16:06:40 [Dong]
Thanks, bye
16:06:41 [Zakim]
16:06:42 [SamCoppens]
16:06:42 [Zakim]
16:06:42 [pgroth]
congrats - another last call
16:06:43 [Zakim]
16:06:43 [Zakim]
16:06:44 [pgroth]
16:06:45 [Zakim]
16:06:46 [Zakim]
16:06:46 [zednik_]
16:06:46 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has left #prov
16:06:46 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:06:48 [Zakim]
16:06:49 [Zakim]
16:06:49 [Zakim]
16:06:51 [Zakim]
16:06:51 [Zakim]
16:06:53 [Zakim]
16:06:56 [Luc]
rrsagent, set log public
16:06:59 [Zakim]
- +1.818.731.aacc
16:07:01 [Zakim]
16:07:02 [Luc]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:07:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Luc
16:07:06 [Luc]
trackbot, end telcon
16:07:06 [trackbot]
Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to for help
16:09:51 [MacTed]
trackbot, end meeting
16:09:51 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:09:51 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been smiles, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, +329331aabb, TomDN, khalidBelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aacc, samcoppens, Ivan, GK, MacTed,
16:09:55 [Zakim]
... stainPhone, Paolo, dgarijo, jun
16:09:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:09:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:10:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:10:00 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
16:10:00 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: paul to set-up web page f2f4 [1]
16:10:00 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:10:00 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pgroth draft implementation report skeleton based on Stephan's questionnaires [2]
16:10:00 [RRSAgent]
recorded in