See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 September 2012
<pgroth> Scribe: Tom De Nies
yes
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-13
pgroth: approval of last week's minutes
<pgroth> Minutes of the September 13, 2012 Telecon
+1
<Dong> +1
<jun> +1
<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the September 13, 2012 Telecon
pgroth: we need scribes, please
sign up in advance
... We are close to the end of the charter, but our extension
request was approved
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter
pgroth: initially, we wanted it
up to April/May, but we got an extension to september
2013
... However, we're still aiming to deliver everything according
to the schedule agreed at F2F3
<pgroth> +q
pgroth: We will make an updated timeline some time next week
pgroth: Last week, we had an action to make an FAQ on PROV
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV
pgroth: Among others, the use of
dc:hasPart for sub-activities is in there
... the WG is invited to populate this FAQ
<pgroth> +q
pgroth: This is at the Semantic Web activity wiki, which means that we can keep updating this, even after the WG is finished
pgroth: There were a couple of issues that we didn't resolve last week, perhaps Stephan can go over them
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/493
pgroth: Where are we in issue 493?
zednik: Right now the schema
reflects the DM completely
... We didn't want to move away from the DM, so we haven't made
any changes in the schema
... We use RDF types, to respresent type information, as it is
the most natural/intuitive way
... We are still discussing.
pgroth: So each serialization can have its own type. Do we all agree to this?
zednik: Not sure, the telecon on monday was too small to tell if everyone agrees
Luc: We don't want to be too
restrictive for these types
... to avoid overconstraining things.
... In the ontology, we use RDF types, which is fine for the
RDF mapping, but I'm not sure what we should use in XML
... It would be up to the translator to determine this.
pgroth: Seems like a good idea, except that it would be problematic to convert PROV-XML to RDF, if the types don't agree
<Luc> in xml, we have prov:type and not xsd:type
<Luc> in xml, we have prov:type and not xsi:type
zednik: We don't have a complex
type for agents that are also entities
... e.g. "this is an entity with type agent"
pgroth: So the resolution would
be to leave things as they are: loose like in the DM.
... and leave typing up to the implementer
Luc: elaborates on "in xml, we
have prov:type and not xsi:type"
... which is an xml attribute
zednik: so you can only have
one?
... That is not the case in the DM or ontology
<pgroth> proposed: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should define their own type system
<pgroth> proposed: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should adopt their own type representation
Luc: it would be better to say "should adopt their own type representation"
+1
<MacTed> +1
<zednik> +1
<Dong> +1
<tlebo> +1
<pgroth> accepted: leave prov-dm to allow for loose types and each serialisation should adopt their own type representation
pgroth: that resolves issue 493
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/551
issue 551?
zednik: Curt made some changes to the schema that resolved this
<Luc> I think it was a good solution to introduce this documentElement
zednik: It basically flattened out the schema
<zednik> div: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/b88f0f02344f
zednik: so you don't have a separate section for the relations
pgroth: Were there any objections?
zednik: no
Luc: There was some refactoring of the schema that took place. All the attributes were placed in a single group "commonattributes"
zednik: We havent been able to talk about it in the group, so we should probably raise an issue about it
<pgroth> +q
sorry i missed that last
pgroth: I think we did have a
resolution about how close you have to get to the DM in a
serialization
... If we favour something that's "natural" for RDF, we should
do the same for XML
zednik: Since you can have
attributes on almost anything, we grouped it as such
... I think it's doable to revert, although it unsimplifies the
schema.
<Luc> it's already done http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/7c238aba1d07
Luc: the group commonattributes has been removed from the schema
pgroth: So how far are we away from a draft document?
zednik: So how ready/stable is
the schema?
... Well, Curt and I have been going through the issues. Most
are resolved now, so it is pretty stable.
<Luc> there is still the type of identifiers to address
Zednik: So we are getting close to being able to start on the draft of the Note
pgroth: OK, we'll check back next week
Luc: Will there be a call on monday?
zednik: Curt can't make it, but I can, and will send out an email to ask if it's possible.
<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
pgroth: We need to clarify who is
responsible for response to public comments.
... My tendency would be to have me or Luc do it.
... Any other suggestions?
tlebo: It would be best if we work at the response on the weekly telecons, and then consistently have the chairs formulate the response to the commenter
<christine> +1
pgroth: Any objections to this?
<tlebo> note: "formulate" -> "provide", naturally, the group would be formulating the response in our usual way.
pgroth: So it's agreed. Paul will handle the responses
Luc: There were no objections to
the resolutions to the following issues:
... (Lists the issues)
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
<pgroth> accepted: the suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-532, ISSUE-525, ISSUE-507, ISSUE-504, ISSUE-503, ISSUE-447 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support
Luc: I'm happy to take feedback
on the proposed responses now, but I will also follow the usual
protocol, and ask for feedback on the mailinglist
... If there's no objections by next Tuesday, those will be our
responses.
tnx
<dgarijo> thanks for the links, I'll have a look at the responses.
Luc: We have addressed about 10 of the 35 issues about the DM. I'm planning to draft responses next week
pgroth: Last week, on Monday, we
tried to clean up some issues in PROV-O, and defined some
actions
... We will walk through them here
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491
<Luc> stian?
pgroth: Stian was going to handle ACTION-107, I will follow up on this with him
<tlebo> the trig example.
issue 479?
<dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
<MacTed> issue-479?
<trackbot> ISSUE-479 -- cite TriG for examples -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
scribe: Satya was going to take ACTION-108. No changes have been made yet, will follow up.
(tnx macted, forgot the hyphen)
pgroth: Next one is ACTION-109 on issue-349
Jun: I took over David's
actions
... and ACTION-109 is done.
issue-349?
<trackbot> ISSUE-349 -- examples for each term in cross-reference section -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/349
pgroth: There were two more actions for this issue: ACTION-110 and ACTION-111 for Satya and Stian
<dgarijo> we reviewed the examples to check that they were updated with the latest DM
tlebo: I've seen no changes to
the examples yet.
... also. ACTION-112 was on the same issue
<pgroth> daniel?
pgroth: last one was on Daniel, ACTION-113 about issue 446
<dgarijo> I have lost connection
issue-446?
<trackbot> ISSUE-446 -- prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446
<tlebo> daniels' action 113 is "prov:involvee not documented in PROV-O"
<dgarijo> I have restarted the discussions
<dgarijo> with Kai, Simon and Michael
<dgarijo> we plan to address his comments next week
pgroth: Tim, do you need help on closing any other issues?
tlebo: Yes, could use help with issue 461
issue-461?
<trackbot> ISSUE-461 -- provo cross reference inadequate in printed form -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461
scribe: Would be nice if someone could take over this one.
pgroth: Someone needs to talk to Graham to identify what he needs
jun: I can do that
<dgarijo> +q
pgroth: It would be good to know all the remaining issues on PROV-O
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
tlebo: 349 is closed
... Not sure about 446, 479 and 491
daniel: What happened with the issues about the figures?
tlebo: There's no formal issue,
but it is being looked into
... now waiting on review of the changes made in the draft
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
pgroth: 552 was an external comment about subclasses
<Luc> issue-552?
<trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
pgroth: Is this a DM issue or PROV-O issue?
<Luc> issue-523?
<trackbot> ISSUE-523 -- Data Model Section 5.3.5 -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/523
<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html
tlebo: seems like a problem with the interpretation of the DM, so it is a PROV-O issue
<christine> Thank you Paul, Luc and everyone. Apologies, I have to leave to chair a call starting on the hour.
Luc: I think there's a general
problem about inheritance that we may want to revisit in the
DM
... , illustrated by issue 523, about influence
... In the constraints, we say that IF wasDerivedFrom(b,a) THEN
wasInfluencedBy(b,a)
... So we may want to opt for inheritance, which is what PROV-O
does
... and it works well for most ontologies I think. However, I
am not sure if we'd also want it in PROV-XML
... Would be nice to have feedback here.
<tlebo> +1 to what luc said
pgroth: Would that only apply to influence? or all of the DM?
Luc: I'm focusing on influence, currently
<tlebo> does "influence" == "relation" ?
pgroth: My only issue with that
is: whether or not we would change the UML in correspondence
with that
... It may not be normative, but developers do use it for their
implementations
<jun> [have to go now. will catch up on the minutes]
Luc: any subtype of influence can
be used in any position of influence.
... Perhaps "interface" would be better than inheritance
... to indicate that all subtypes are all "influence"
<Luc> issue-552?
<trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
pgroth: For now, this issue should be considered together with issue-523
Luc: There's another issue in the
DM, dealing with inheritance
... So we should tackle these as a set.
... Stephan, working with the XML schema, have you considered
extension of types?
zednik: It has come up, but we haven't looked into it. It should be done after the schema is stabilized.
<dgarijo> Sure
pgroth: Given the time, we will save the topic on notes for next week.
ok, tnx!
bye
<pgroth> rrsagnet, set log public
<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/Thursday/Tuesday/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: TomDN Found Scribe: Tom De Nies Default Present: pgroth, Luc, TomDN, MacTed, jun, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aaaa, tlebo, christine, dgarijo Present: pgroth Luc TomDN MacTed jun [IPcaller] +1.315.330.aaaa tlebo christine dgarijo Regrets: James_Cheney Curt_Tilmes Ivan_Herman Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.20 Found Date: 20 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-prov-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]