IRC log of prov on 2012-09-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:03 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:46:03 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-prov-irc
14:46:05 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
14:46:05 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #prov
14:46:06 [Luc]: Zakim, this will be PROV
14:46:06 [Zakim]: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:07 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be
14:46:08 [trackbot]: Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:46:08 [trackbot]: Date: 27 September 2012
14:46:08 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:28 [Luc]: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.27
14:47:34 [Luc]: rrsagent, make logs public
14:50:22 [pgroth]: pgroth has joined #prov
14:52:42 [Zakim]: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:49 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
14:52:57 [pgroth]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:52:57 [Zakim]: On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:53:05 [pgroth]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:53:05 [Zakim]: +pgroth; got it
14:55:17 [Paolo]: Paolo has joined #prov
14:59:04 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
14:59:13 [Zakim]: + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:59:28 [Luc]: zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:59:28 [Zakim]: +Luc; got it
14:59:40 [Luc]: Hi, we don't have a scribe
14:59:57 [Zakim]: + +1.781.273.aabb
15:00:02 [khalidBelhajjame]: khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:08 [MacTed]: Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software
15:00:08 [Zakim]: +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:00:10 [smiles]: smiles has joined #prov
15:00:15 [MacTed]: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:15 [Zakim]: +MacTed; got it
15:00:17 [MacTed]: Zakim, mute me
15:00:17 [Zakim]: MacTed should now be muted
15:00:19 [Zakim]: +??P20
15:00:38 [hook]: hook has joined #prov
15:00:45 [TomDN]: TomDN has joined #prov
15:00:47 [Luc]: @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe?
15:00:51 [Zakim]: + +44.789.470.aacc
15:00:59 [stain]: zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me
15:00:59 [Zakim]: +stain; got it
15:01:00 [Zakim]: +??P30
15:01:07 [jcheney]: jcheney has joined #prov
15:01:07 [Luc]: Chair: Luc Moreau
15:01:13 [jun]: jun has joined #prov
15:01:15 [khalidBelhajjame]: zakim, ??P30 is me
15:01:15 [Zakim]: +khalidBelhajjame; got it
15:01:17 [Zakim]: + +1.818.731.aadd
15:01:21 [Luc]: @khalidBelhajjame, hi Khalid, any chance you would be able to scribe?
15:01:23 [gk1]: gk1 has joined #prov
15:01:30 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:38 [ivan]: zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:38 [Zakim]: ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:39 [khalidBelhajjame]: @Luc I can try, but I have a bad connection
15:01:41 [Zakim]: +Ivan
15:01:43 [lebot]: lebot has joined #prov
15:01:51 [khalidBelhajjame]: I can try though
15:01:53 [tlebo]: tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:53 [Zakim]: + +329331aaee
15:01:55 [Zakim]: + +44.131.467.aaff
15:01:56 [jun]: zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me
15:01:56 [Zakim]: sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]'
15:01:59 [stain]: I can fill in for 30 minutes
15:02:01 [TomDN]: Zakim, +32 is me
15:02:01 [Zakim]: +TomDN; got it
15:02:04 [Luc]: Scribe: khalidBelhajjame
15:02:07 [TomDN]: Zakim, mute me
15:02:07 [Zakim]: TomDN should now be muted
15:02:07 [Paolo]: luc apologies, my keyboard is acting up
15:02:08 [jun]: zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
15:02:08 [jcheney]: zakim, aaff is me
15:02:09 [Zakim]: +jun; got it
15:02:09 [Zakim]: +jcheney; got it
15:02:11 [Paolo]: can barely type
15:02:26 [Zakim]: + +1.315.330.aagg
15:02:32 [tlebo]: zakim, I am aagg
15:02:32 [Zakim]: +tlebo; got it
15:02:46 [GK]: GK has joined #prov
15:03:00 [Luc]: Topic: admin
15:03:03 [Luc]: proposed: to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon
15:03:07 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: approve the minutes of last week
15:03:09 [jcheney]: 0 (absent)
15:03:16 [smiles]: 0
15:03:17 [TomDN]: +1
15:03:20 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-09-20
15:03:21 [khalidBelhajjame]: 0 (absent)
15:03:24 [stain]: 0 (absent)
15:03:36 [Paolo]: 0 (absent)
15:03:38 [jun]: +1
15:03:43 [tlebo]: +1
15:03:51 [hook]: 0 (absent)
15:04:00 [Luc]: approved: minutes of the September 20, 2012 Telecon
15:04:08 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: minutes approved
15:04:22 [pgroth]: :-)
15:04:23 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: action assigned to Paulo
15:04:27 [pgroth]: every week
15:04:32 [pgroth]: now it's a running joke
15:04:33 [Zakim]: +??P1
15:04:37 [satya]: satya has joined #prov
15:04:41 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: action on Paul to produce an overview slide
15:04:44 [pgroth]: it's just to make me feel guilty every week
15:04:48 [GK]: zakim, ??p1 is me
15:04:48 [Zakim]: +GK; got it
15:04:49 [Zakim]: +??P21
15:04:52 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: we can leave it for another week
15:04:57 [zednik]: zednik has joined #prov
15:05:15 [Luc]: Topic: Timetable to CR
15:05:25 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: timetable to candidate recommendation
15:05:48 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec
15:05:53 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: we are in the phase where we need to tackle external feeback
15:05:57 [Zakim]: +Satya_Sahoo
15:06:15 [Luc]: End LC review for prov-dm/prov-o/prov-n: 2012-9-18
15:06:16 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: the link contains the document submitted to have the extention for th eWG
15:06:37 [Luc]: End LC review for prov-constraints: 2012-10-10
15:06:51 [Luc]: CR Publication: 2012-11-15
15:06:54 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: the lc review for prov-dm was the 18th of September
15:07:09 [Luc]: Vote for CR: 2012-11-01
15:07:11 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: we want to publish candidate recomendation of the 15th of November
15:07:23 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: we should have a vote around the 1st of Novemer
15:07:45 [khalidBelhajjame]: luc: the issues needs to be addressed by then
15:07:53 [ivan]: q+
15:07:57 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: that is not a lot of time
15:08:19 [Luc]: q?
15:08:47 [khalidBelhajjame]: ivan: we also have a clear plan what the exit criteria are
15:09:08 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... how do we judge that we have the correct implementation, how do we judge it, etc.
15:09:09 [pgroth]: +q
15:09:26 [Luc]: ack iv
15:10:18 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
15:10:25 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: we are still expecting feedback from other WGs, we didnt get any feedback and the deadline for feedback is over, can we still process late feedback?
15:10:51 [khalidBelhajjame]: ivan: we can say sorry it is too late
15:11:34 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... with the RDF WG we have issues, I would hope that ? will send feedback on teh constrainst document by next week
15:11:50 [GK]: q+ to ask: do we have any knowledge of areas where RDF group might have feedback for us
15:12:08 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... which WGs did we ask?
15:12:40 [Luc]: q?
15:13:14 [Luc]: ... and we did it too for IETF mime type and we got feedback
15:14:24 [khalidBelhajjame_]: khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov
15:14:43 [pgroth]: q+ to say what we asked
15:14:51 [GK]: q-
15:14:55 [khalidBelhajjme]: khalidBelhajjme has joined #prov
15:15:22 [Luc]: q?
15:15:23 [khalidBelhajjame]: khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:15:32 [pgroth]: ack
15:16:13 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: we asked about the construct of mention and about RDF types
15:16:19 [GK]: @pgroth thanks
15:16:32 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
15:16:32 [Zakim]: pgroth, you wanted to say what we asked
15:16:52 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: keep in mind that we have 4 weeks to complete the document
15:17:03 [Luc]: q?
15:17:11 [khalidBelhajjame]: .. no more question on the time table?
15:17:17 [khalidBelhajjame]: @luc, yes
15:17:21 [khalidBelhajjame]: yes
15:17:28 [Luc]: topic: PROV-O issues
15:17:43 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: next item, review of the outstanding issues in the tracker
15:17:53 [Zakim]: +Luc.a
15:18:00 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... we need to close some of those actions
15:18:13 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: Stian, you sent an email on issue 491
15:18:23 [Dong]: Dong has joined #prov
15:18:27 [khalidBelhajjame]: stian: we wanted to discuss that with Tim
15:19:00 [khalidBelhajjame]: stain: I suggested a definition
15:19:27 [khalidBelhajjame]: tlebo: the definitions of the properties reuse the definition of the classes
15:19:34 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... I would like to keep them consistent
15:20:02 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... if they are confusing, then I will need to revise the generation algorithm to let you know which annotations we should use
15:20:21 [khalidBelhajjame]: stain: my argument is that we shouldnt use them
15:20:49 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... between agent and agent inference, it becomes confusing untangling the properties
15:21:13 [Luc]: q?
15:21:35 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: we can leave the definitions there for consistency and add a link
15:21:54 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... instead of redefining everything
15:22:19 [khalidBelhajjame]: tlebo: we can discuss that offline
15:22:37 [Luc]: can we try to converge quickly?
15:22:41 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... I will respond to that by email
15:22:57 [Luc]: good!
15:23:00 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: can we try to converge quickly to close the issue by tomorrow?
15:23:36 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: for issue 479, Stian tried to make changes, but I think we still need more changes becase Trig syntax is still there
15:23:53 [khalidBelhajjame]: satya: I have not been able to respond to your email
15:24:24 [Luc]: timing?
15:24:26 [khalidBelhajjame]: satya: I will revisit the changes
15:24:38 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: that will be done by this week?
15:24:47 [khalidBelhajjame]: satya: yes
15:25:04 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: issue 349 is now closed
15:25:10 [khalidBelhajjame]: stian: yes
15:25:22 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... I will double check
15:25:23 [Luc]: q+
15:25:47 [pgroth]: good point
15:25:57 [tlebo]: q+
15:25:58 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: are we keeping track of the changes we are aking the document to use them when publishing the next version
15:26:18 [Luc]: ack L
15:26:19 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: for example in prov-dm i put in the appendix the changes made
15:26:24 [pgroth]: ack tlebo
15:26:48 [khalidBelhajjame]: tlebo: I added a section that reflect the changes, but we need to check that it was updated
15:27:02 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: it would be a good policy that any change is reflected in that section
15:27:15 [tlebo]: The section for changes: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724
15:28:07 [khalidBelhajjame]: satya: for issue 349 we need also to change the identifiers used in the examples
15:28:22 [Luc]: q?
15:28:24 [stain]: ^^ stian
15:28:51 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: issue 446, Daniele?
15:29:04 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... will send an email to Daniele
15:29:07 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
15:29:40 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... provo has only one open issue,
15:30:06 [Luc]: what about http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3?
15:30:14 [khalidBelhajjame]: tlebo: I will address the issue given the email sent by Graham
15:30:14 [pgroth]: @luc was getting there
15:30:33 [khalidBelhajjame]: tlebo: issue 476 is an externa comment
15:30:44 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... what is the processing for it given that it is resolved
15:31:00 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:31:32 [stain]: ACTION stain: Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o
15:31:32 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-118 - Add note on example identifiers changes in prov-o [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2012-10-04].
15:31:47 [smiles]: @tlebo OK, I have checked issue 445 is resolved and will close it now
15:32:12 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: there are a couple of issues regarding the ontologies
15:32:41 [GK]: (As an aside, when trying to review the proposed responses, it would have been really helpful to me to have a link back to the *original* email to the prov-comments list)
15:32:47 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: issue 552, which need the resolution of the issue on influence
15:33:08 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
15:33:08 [pgroth]: thanks stain
15:33:14 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: all the responses are on the wiki
15:33:27 [Luc]: q?
15:33:46 [pgroth]: it has the original email
15:33:59 [khalidBelhajjame]: GK: information about who send the original comment is missing
15:34:44 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/463
15:34:55 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: you need to go to the tracker
15:35:11 [pgroth]: +q
15:35:40 [Luc]: topic: PROV-DM issues
15:35:54 [Luc]: ack pg
15:36:07 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: we obtain the email from Robert, and then issued the issue.Given that his comments were extensive, we proke them into several issues
15:36:39 [khalidBelhajjame]: GK: there is no simple way to get to the oriinal email
15:36:47 [Luc]: q?
15:36:57 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: any comments regarding prov-o?
15:37:13 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Under_Review.29
15:37:15 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: next topic, prov-dm issues
15:37:28 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: during this week I sent proposed responses to 4 issues
15:37:32 [Luc]: ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508
15:37:41 [ivan]: issue-492?
15:37:41 [trackbot]: ISSUE-492 -- typo in example -- pending review
15:37:41 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/492
15:37:45 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: we had supportive feedback during the week
15:37:48 [ivan]: issue-500?
15:37:48 [trackbot]: ISSUE-500 -- Data Model Section 2.1.1, hierarchies -- open
15:37:48 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/500
15:37:52 [Luc]: ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508
15:37:54 [ivan]: issue-505?
15:37:54 [trackbot]: ISSUE-505 -- Data Model Section 3 -- open
15:37:54 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/505
15:37:55 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... the deadline was yesterday
15:37:59 [ivan]: issue-508?
15:37:59 [trackbot]: ISSUE-508 -- Data Model Table 5 -- pending review
15:37:59 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/508
15:38:08 [Luc]: accepted: The suggested resolutions in http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments to ISSUE-492, ISSUE-500, ISSUE-505, ISSUE-508 were accepted as responses by the working group. there were no objections to the resolutions on the mailing group only support
15:38:14 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... the responses are accepted by the group
15:38:16 [dgarijo]: dgarijo has joined #prov
15:38:41 [Zakim]: +??P2
15:38:48 [dgarijo]: Zakim, ??P2 is me
15:38:48 [Zakim]: +dgarijo; got it
15:39:02 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#PROV-DM_.28Draft.29
15:39:19 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: I sent few emails and drafted responses to 20 issues
15:39:23 [stainPhone]: stainPhone has joined #prov
15:39:40 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... I will ask the group to comment on them, the deadline is wednesday next week
15:39:42 [Luc]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0263.html
15:40:01 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... there was one negative comment fro PAolo regarding some attributes that we debated at lenth
15:40:06 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... length
15:41:03 [khalidBelhajjame]: Paolo: I am happy with the resolution at the end
15:41:13 [Luc]: q?
15:41:18 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: any comments?
15:41:25 [pgroth]: are we talking about influence next?
15:41:38 [pgroth]: q+
15:41:42 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: I will send an email asking to give feedback
15:41:46 [Luc]: q?
15:41:52 [khalidBelhajjame]: ... and you will have until next wednesday night
15:42:02 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
15:42:09 [khalidBelhajjame]: pgroth: are we goining to talk about influence?
15:42:16 [pgroth]: ok great
15:42:22 [Luc]: q?
15:42:23 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: they are not ready for feedback
15:42:36 [khalidBelhajjame]: Luc: next item of prov-dm
15:42:39 [Luc]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0271.html
15:43:39 [pgroth]: +q to say yes
15:43:50 [Luc]: q?
15:43:51 [hook]: hook has joined #prov
15:45:12 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
15:45:12 [Zakim]: pgroth, you wanted to say yes
15:45:39 [pgroth]: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm
15:45:51 [jcheney]: happy either way, but just thought it should be discussed
15:46:05 [Luc]: @jcheney: agreed james
15:46:24 [jcheney]: as long as any repeated definitions are *identical*
15:46:34 [pgroth]: +q you use MAY
15:46:38 [pgroth]: +q
15:46:43 [Luc]: @jcheney: they are, they are included automatically from a single file
15:46:57 [Luc]: section 2 defines the core
15:47:11 [Luc]: q?
15:48:05 [jcheney]: If core vs. non-core is a key property then I think that's a good enough reason.
15:48:26 [TomDN]: I have to go, bye
15:48:33 [Zakim]: -TomDN
15:48:59 [Luc]: q?
15:50:13 [ivan]: q+
15:50:17 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
15:50:18 [ivan]: ack pgroth
15:50:48 [pgroth]: ack ivan
15:51:12 [dgarijo]: Ivan: it bothers me that there are 2 places where an entity is defined
15:51:23 [Luc]: table 5 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#prov-dm-types-and-relations still shows what is core
15:51:31 [Zakim]: -khalidBelhajjame
15:51:34 [GK]: Did I mishear Paul? I thought he was saying the same as Ivan
15:51:38 [dgarijo]: ... if one has more info than the other, then it is an editorial problem
15:51:42 [GK]: (in thrust)
15:52:06 [Luc]: q?
15:52:07 [dgarijo]: Luc: the overview is not normative
15:52:24 [dgarijo]: Ivan: did I misunderstand Paul?
15:52:29 [jcheney]: I think it would be good to ensure that the MAY is reflected in sec. 5 too.
15:52:49 [Luc]: @jcheney: +1
15:52:55 [dgarijo]: pgroth: if we say that section 2 is informative, then we have to make sure that no command words appear there.
15:52:57 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
15:53:10 [Luc]: yes, james had already indentified a similar problem in section 6
15:53:23 [pgroth]: ok
15:53:25 [dgarijo]: Ivan: that is even more true if both sections are normative
15:53:33 [khalidBelhajjame_]: khalidBelhajjame_ has joined #prov
15:53:39 [dgarijo]: ... there should not be discrepancy
15:53:45 [GK]: I spotted one MAY in section 2.
15:53:49 [khalidBelhajjame_]: @dgarijo thanks, I can take over
15:53:53 [dgarijo]: ... between both of them. That should be checked
15:53:58 [dgarijo]: @khalid ok!
15:54:19 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: to come to a conclusion, as pgroth we need to come back to the document
15:54:22 [ivan]: q+
15:54:29 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... and do soe editorial clean up
15:54:34 [GK]: .. that was sect 2.1.3 - I didn't see any others.
15:54:34 [Luc]: q?
15:54:37 [pgroth]: but section 5 would be the only normative one
15:54:41 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... are we of the view that section 2 is not normative?
15:54:49 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ivan: I would think so
15:55:12 [jcheney]: q+ to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5
15:55:13 [GK]: OK, I'm happy with this too. (i.e. sect 2 informative)
15:55:39 [stainPhone]: +1 for (making) sec 2 informative
15:55:40 [khalidBelhajjame_]: pgroth: it is fine to have only section 5 as the normative one
15:55:55 [pgroth]: they are
15:55:57 [Luc]: proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:56:29 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ivan: the use of may in that section is not always an ITF may but is an english one
15:56:30 [GK]: I think ReSpec picks up capitalized MAY, SHOULD, MUST etc and applies different styling.
15:56:54 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... which is fine, but I want to make sure that the use of those terms are checked in the definitions
15:56:58 [GK]: So the thing to do is use capitalization consistently when editing source.
15:57:00 [Luc]: proposed: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:57:00 [khalidBelhajjame_]: luc: i did that
15:57:11 [pgroth]: james is on the queue
15:57:15 [Luc]: q?
15:57:17 [Luc]: ack iva
15:57:40 [ivan]: ack jcheney
15:57:40 [Zakim]: jcheney, you wanted to suggest anything "normative-looking" in sec. 2 should be checked to make sure it's also in sec. 5
15:58:11 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: are we happy with the proposal?
15:58:38 [khalidBelhajjame_]: GK: I am looking at section 7 to work out if there is something normative in that section
15:59:03 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... I agree that section 2 is inforative, but we need to check the rest
15:59:05 [pgroth]: the goal is to make Section 5 the only normative one
15:59:08 [Luc]: proposed: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:59:29 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: I will make edits and will ask people for review
15:59:30 [GK]: +1
15:59:36 [Luc]: accepted: guidance for editor: section 5 would be the only normative section in prov-dm
15:59:56 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments#ISSUE-519_and_ISSUE-523_.28Influence_Inheritance.29
16:00:02 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: issue of inheritance with influence
16:01:24 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... thinking about this issue, I think that it is not mandatory for generation, usage, ... sub-relations of influence
16:01:44 [jcheney]: luc, you seem to be cutting in and out
16:02:10 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... I formulated a response here, and I would like a feedback on this
16:02:21 [Luc]: q?
16:02:23 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... before implementing it
16:02:37 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: any comments?
16:02:41 [pgroth]: q+
16:02:58 [khalidBelhajjame_]: GK: I am not sure what inheritance means here
16:03:16 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... what is being described is sub-property relation
16:03:16 [pgroth]: yes
16:03:26 [pgroth]: this is what I asked online
16:03:30 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ivan: but that will have ipact on how the ontology is defined
16:03:43 [satya]: It will in prov-o by owl2 rdf semantics
16:04:06 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: in the ontology you will have the class influence and its subclasses, and the same for sub-properties
16:04:27 [Luc]: q?
16:04:34 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... but in the XML schema, that is not the case
16:04:49 [khalidBelhajjame_]: pgroth: I am worring about the ramifications on other form of relations
16:05:35 [satya]: sorry, I have to leave
16:05:38 [satya]: bye
16:05:43 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: I was not planning to do changes based on this
16:05:43 [jun]: Sorry, I have to go now ... bye
16:05:48 [Zakim]: -Satya_Sahoo
16:05:49 [Zakim]: -jun
16:06:02 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: the prov constraints states what we mean
16:06:10 [pgroth]: yeah but I'm reading prov-dm
16:06:10 [Luc]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/#influence-inference
16:06:27 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: as stated in inference 15
16:06:53 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... it can be done through inheritance, but it doesnt have to be done that way
16:07:12 [stainPhone]: I guess the reviewer might wonder if you can have wasInfluencedBy while none of the prov subproperies (so to speak) could apply.
16:07:15 [khalidBelhajjame_]: pgroth: is the problem stems from the use of the UML diagram?
16:07:16 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller]
16:07:18 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: no
16:07:31 [Luc]: q?
16:07:44 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ivan: this is something taht we need to follow on
16:07:49 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: is Tim still on the call?
16:08:17 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... have you got a view on whether influence should be represented as a superclasss in the UML diagram
16:08:25 [khalidBelhajjame_]: tlebo: I am inclined towards to
16:08:57 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: the problem with inheritance, is that the attributes are inherited, which pose problem, like influencer and influencee
16:09:02 [MacTed]: Zakim, unmute me
16:09:02 [Zakim]: MacTed should no longer be muted
16:09:03 [Luc]: q?
16:09:59 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: UML is closer to object oriented programming style
16:10:10 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... which is not desirable in our context
16:10:32 [Luc]: q?
16:10:33 [stainPhone]: For instance wasInfluencedBy(agent, activity)
16:10:38 [pgroth]: ack pgroth
16:10:50 [khalidBelhajjame_]: Luc: we have to revisit this issue
16:10:59 [khalidBelhajjame_]: ... and come back with a concrete proposal
16:11:02 [Zakim]: -Ivan
16:11:04 [Zakim]: -tlebo
16:11:05 [Zakim]: -MacTed
16:11:05 [Zakim]: -dgarijo
16:11:07 [Zakim]: -??P20
16:11:10 [Zakim]: -stain
16:11:12 [khalidBelhajjame_]: #luc thanks
16:11:14 [Zakim]: -jcheney
16:11:18 [khalidBelhajjame_]: @luc, thanks
16:11:28 [Zakim]: -[IPcaller.a]
16:11:31 [Zakim]: -??P21
16:11:35 [Zakim]: -pgroth
16:12:41 [Zakim]: -Luc.a
16:15:26 [hook]: hook has joined #prov
16:22:17 [Zakim]: - +1.818.731.aadd
17:00:17 [Zakim]: -Luc
17:05:18 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, GK, in SW_(PROV)11:00AM
17:05:19 [Zakim]: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
17:05:19 [Zakim]: Attendees were pgroth, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.781.273.aabb, MacTed, stain, khalidBelhajjame, +1.818.731.aadd, Ivan, +329331aaee, +44.131.467.aaff, TomDN, jun, jcheney,
17:05:19 [Zakim]: ... +1.315.330.aagg, tlebo, GK, Satya_Sahoo, dgarijo
18:30:10 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #prov