IRC log of prov on 2012-11-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:24:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
13:24:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:24:27 [ivan]
rrsagent, set log public
13:24:41 [ivan]
zakim, code?
13:24:42 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
13:28:47 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
13:31:30 [pgroth]
Scribe: Curt Tilmes
13:31:35 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
13:31:37 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
13:31:37 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
13:31:37 [ivan]
Meeting: F2F Meeting, Stata Center
13:31:44 [pgroth]
13:31:44 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
13:32:03 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
13:32:04 [pgroth]
13:32:08 [tlebo]
13:32:11 [Curt]
0 (not present)
13:32:12 [tlebo]
13:32:16 [hook]
13:32:24 [ivan]
(was not present)
13:32:30 [jcheney]
13:32:39 [tlebo]
(that actually works, since I was the first vote...)
13:32:40 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
13:32:51 [pgroth]
approved minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco
13:33:14 [pgroth]
Topic: Where we are at
13:33:26 [Luc]
approved: minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco
13:33:26 [Curt]
pgroth: we are in great shape!
13:33:40 [Curt]
pgroth: will discuss documents on rec. track
13:33:51 [Curt]
pgroth: most issues closed or will be momentarily
13:34:10 [Curt]
pgroth: need to follow w3c process and do due diligence
13:34:17 [Curt]
pgroth: document everything clearly
13:34:36 [Curt]
pgroth: CR period will focus on implementations
13:34:51 [Curt]
pgroth: both finding other folks to implement as well as working on implementations ourselves
13:35:01 [Curt]
pgroth: we must show that we implement these specs
13:35:07 [Curt]
pgroth: need coverage of all the features
13:35:44 [Curt]
pgroth: reach out to people, engage others, push notes out, FAQ, etc. for outreach to implementers
13:36:17 [Curt]
pgroth: it has been a long hard slog to get here, need to keep up momentum and let people know what we've done
13:37:00 [pgroth]
13:37:00 [Curt]
Luc: we've done amazing work since the last meeting there has been serious progress, now we need to finish
13:37:03 [pgroth]
13:37:09 [Curt]
Luc: need to promote the work that has been done
13:37:31 [Curt]
GK: getting specs out is the start, we now hope the wider community will pick things up
13:37:43 [hook]
13:37:43 [pgroth]
13:37:48 [pgroth]
ack hook
13:38:22 [Paolo]
sorry to be a pest: I think the phone mic goes to sleep even with short pauses so now it's all very on/off -- hard to follow. only continuous voices come across clean
13:38:49 [Curt]
hook: this is a time to focus on implementations -- two serializations (PROV-O, PROV-XML) are each distinct encodings, distinct implementations
13:38:57 [pgroth]
13:39:00 [Curt]
hook: current definition is loose
13:40:02 [Curt]
pgroth: in terms of implementation, we are looking for usage. A markup of a web site is an implementation
13:40:17 [Curt]
pgroth: we are also looking for things that generate, consume, validate constraints, etc.
13:40:36 [Curt]
pgroth: we will see people use PROV as the basis for other work
13:41:03 [Curt]
pgroth: our exit criteria count data marked up, vocab. extensions, applications each as implementations
13:41:09 [ivan]
ivan has changed the topic to: F2F agenda
13:41:29 [Curt]
GK: do extensions help us with CR exit criteria?
13:41:52 [Curt]
pgroth: yes! similar to SKOS, we want to verify that people are using the work. That includes markup and extensions
13:42:28 [pgroth]
13:42:56 [Curt]
Luc: obviously, we are looking for applications to generate and consume provenance -- those really demonstrate interoperability
13:42:58 [pgroth]
fyi :
13:43:04 [pgroth]
13:44:02 [pgroth]
Topic: Candidate Recommendation for prov-dm
13:44:21 [Curt]
pgroth: status outstanding issues
13:44:42 [Luc]
13:45:12 [ivan]
13:45:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-482 -- [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context -- pending review
13:45:12 [trackbot]
13:45:54 [Curt]
pgroth: haven't received acknowledgement from externtal reviewer satra
13:46:02 [Luc]
13:46:09 [Curt]
Luc: He has acked.
13:46:16 [GK]
Re my unease - the exit criteriaare OK, and I think it's OK that vocab extensions are considered implementations, bur it's not clear how *extensions* serve to demonstrate the primary goal of demonstrated interop of documented features of PROV. But as I said, I think that will resolve itself when we look at the details of implementations
13:47:17 [zednik]
Luc is breaking up over the audio
13:47:19 [Curt]
Luc: there was a suggestion we should consider adding an example of bundles to FAQ
13:47:54 [Luc]
13:48:04 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
13:48:04 [Zakim]
SW_(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, ivan
13:48:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain
13:48:12 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
13:48:18 [GK]
q+ to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes
13:48:19 [ivan]
zakim, this is F2F
13:48:19 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM
13:48:32 [pgroth]
ack gk
13:48:33 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes
13:48:40 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
13:48:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa
13:48:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain
13:48:43 [pgroth]
13:48:52 [Curt]
GK: the last example dealt with previous situations without nested identifiers
13:49:29 [Curt]
pgroth: we clarified the way it worked, he wanted examples of using prefixes properly and how not to use them
13:50:03 [Curt]
pgroth: need an action to add examples to FAQ
13:50:21 [Curt]
Luc: I will do it (the example from his message?)
13:50:25 [Luc]
13:50:40 [jcheney]
13:50:44 [GK]
^^ not "without nested identifiers" but "without nested prefixes" - it's important to distinguish between these.
13:50:48 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
13:51:07 [Curt]
Luc: the example he gave is valid, we need to explain why it is valid and add an example that is invalid
13:51:28 [pgroth]
action Luc - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity
13:51:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-122 - - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
13:51:30 [jcheney]
13:51:34 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
13:51:45 [GK]
q+ to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle
13:52:07 [Curt]
jcheney: agreed -- that's what we need to do.
13:52:14 [pgroth]
ack GK
13:52:14 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle
13:52:23 [Curt]
Luc: we can close the issue now, with the coming action
13:52:56 [Curt]
GK: you can have a bundle with an identifier, and use the identifier inside the bundle, to give provenance of the bundle itself. Is that ok?
13:53:12 [Curt]
pgroth: that's a separate issue
13:53:23 [Luc]
13:53:29 [Curt]
pgroth: that wouldn't change the spec
13:53:37 [laurent]
laurent has joined #prov
13:53:42 [zednik]
13:53:42 [Curt]
GK: I thought you (paul) thought that would be invalid
13:53:49 [pgroth]
ack Luc
13:53:50 [Curt]
pgroth: delay considering that until later
13:54:00 [Curt]
Luc: that is perfectly valid, and has an example in the DM
13:54:00 [pgroth]
ack zednik
13:54:13 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
13:54:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa
13:54:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain
13:54:18 [Curt]
zednik: the FAQ could attempt to address that
13:54:18 [zednik]
13:54:36 [Curt]
pgroth: issue-569
13:54:38 [ivan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Paolo
13:54:38 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
13:54:44 [pgroth]
13:54:48 [ivan]
zakim, ??P0 is zednik
13:54:48 [Zakim]
+zednik; got it
13:54:48 [Luc]
13:54:52 [pgroth]
ack Luc
13:55:19 [Curt]
Luc: pending review waiting for james' response, came back to simon yesterday. he is happy with the suggestion, can close now
13:55:37 [Curt]
pgroth: issue-475, mention
13:55:45 [ivan]
zakim, aaaa has laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain
13:55:45 [Zakim]
+laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain; got it
13:56:25 [Luc]
13:56:29 [pgroth]
ack Luc
13:56:46 [Curt]
pgroth: let's consider that (mention) at the end of this section so we can discuss it
13:57:06 [pgroth]
13:57:24 [Curt]
13:57:29 [Luc]
13:57:51 [Curt]
pgroth: editor review DM a final time for cleanliness/etc.
13:58:05 [Curt]
Luc: how should we acknowledge reviewers?
13:58:25 [Curt]
ivan: they will get listed as well as listing the working group
13:58:27 [Luc]
13:58:31 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
13:58:52 [Curt]
ivan: put the same list of reviewers in each document
13:59:00 [pgroth]
action: Luc editor check
13:59:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-123 - Editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
13:59:30 [Curt]
ivan: everything that needs to be changed has been changed?
13:59:46 [Curt]
Luc: yes, except for final review, it is ready to go
14:01:43 [Luc]
14:01:51 [smiles]
I'm trying to call in to the W3C bridge with code 7768 as said on the Wiki, but get "This pass code is not valid". Is there another code for today?
14:02:05 [ivan]
zakim, code?
14:02:05 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
14:02:39 [GK]
@smiles - that often happens to me … but usually works if I try again (i.e. re-enter the passcode).
14:02:41 [pgroth]
we have now addressed all open issues (except mention) for prov-dm
14:02:57 [pgroth]
Topic: prov-n
14:03:06 [Luc]
14:03:30 [smiles]
* yes, I've tried a few times. not sure what the problem is, but will keep trying!
14:03:41 [Curt]
Luc: last week, we agreed we would change scoping of prefixes, haven't received any feedback
14:04:22 [Curt]
Luc: would be nice to have a few more examples
14:05:18 [pgroth]
action: Luc prov-n editor check
14:05:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-124 - Prov-n editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
14:05:50 [Zakim]
14:06:36 [pgroth]
smiles are you on
14:06:37 [pgroth]
14:06:50 [pgroth]
14:06:52 [smiles]
yes, but the sound keeps cutting in and out
14:06:55 [ivan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is smiles
14:06:55 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
14:06:59 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
14:07:20 [Curt]
Luc: there is a typo in the current text
14:07:31 [pgroth]
14:07:39 [Zakim]
14:07:54 [Luc]
14:07:59 [ivan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is khalidBelhajjame
14:07:59 [Zakim]
+khalidBelhajjame; got it
14:08:05 [pgroth]
ack Luc
14:08:10 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller]is me
14:08:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[IPcaller]is me', khalidBelhajjame
14:08:16 [Curt]
Luc: all documents cross-reference each other, which URL should we use
14:08:22 [Curt]
ivan: the dated URL
14:08:23 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:08:23 [Zakim]
sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
14:08:38 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
14:08:38 [Zakim]
sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
14:09:10 [Curt]
ivan: it is a real pain, but they must always reference by the dated URI
14:09:51 [Curt]
ivan: a global search/replace should take care of it.
14:10:52 [pgroth]
action: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given)
14:10:52 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find tlebo,. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
14:10:54 [Curt]
Luc: we can't refer to those until we get the publication date
14:11:05 [pgroth]
14:11:22 [Curt]
Luc: is there a way to define the reference prefix up front and reuse it?
14:11:40 [pgroth]
14:11:47 [Curt]
ivan: (redacted)
14:12:06 [pgroth]
14:12:07 [pgroth]
14:12:19 [pgroth]
note: we are happy with prov-n
14:12:34 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-O
14:12:53 [pgroth]
14:12:58 [tlebo]
14:13:15 [Curt]
tlebo: issue-552, subclass, we did what they recommended
14:13:27 [Curt]
tlebo: haven't heard back
14:13:47 [Curt]
tlebo: we asked for a response on tuesday
14:14:01 [Curt]
ivan: ok to close, we did what they suggested
14:14:45 [pgroth]
action: tlebo to add email link to the response page
14:14:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-125 - Add email link to the response page [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
14:14:53 [pgroth]
14:15:23 [tlebo]
14:15:51 [Curt]
tlebo: he says terms are confusing, but his concern isn't clear
14:17:03 [Curt]
tlebo: he expressed a concern, tim suggested an alternative approach, he hasn't responded to that
14:18:28 [tlebo]
q+ to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty
14:18:29 [Curt]
?: wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy can get confused, there may be a better way to describe/depict their relationship
14:18:37 [tlebo]
14:19:10 [ivan]
14:19:14 [Curt]
tlebo: in the HTML is isn't as obvious which is the superproperty?
14:19:27 [pgroth]
14:19:30 [Curt]
laurent: yes, is isn't totally obvious in the HTML description of the ontology
14:19:35 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
14:19:35 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty
14:20:31 [jcheney]
14:20:47 [Curt]
Luc: we changed the superclass description in the DM since Ralph reviewed, it might be more clear now
14:21:09 [ivan]
14:21:11 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
14:21:14 [ivan]
ack jcheney
14:21:15 [Curt]
Luc: Could revise the HTML description to clarify further
14:21:58 [pgroth]
14:22:06 [Curt]
jcheney: agreed, it says what we want it to say, but we might want to make it clear right up front which is the superproperty for querying and that you ought to use the more specific terms if possible
14:22:08 [jcheney]
14:22:11 [pgroth]
ack ivan
14:22:34 [Curt]
ivan: might want to add the clarifying diagram
14:23:15 [Curt]
pgroth: the document is already large, we are talking about ways to better guide how people should use the standard, but not affecting the standard itself
14:23:32 [Curt]
pgroth: that sort of material, patterns, etc. should be in the FAQ
14:23:59 [Curt]
ivan: we need to make sure those clarifications aren't lost, maybe include in the primer? where would people want to find that sort of material
14:24:07 [Curt]
pgroth: I'm happy to have that added to the primer
14:24:08 [GK]
q+ to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication
14:24:35 [Curt]
pgroth: that type of material -- I haven't seen that specific image or writeup
14:25:11 [pgroth]
14:25:14 [pgroth]
ack GK
14:25:14 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication
14:25:26 [Curt]
Luc: tlebo should forward Laurent's material to the list to consider for adding to the primer
14:25:54 [Curt]
GK: the primer is fixed on publication, maybe link it to somewhere more dynamic
14:26:03 [Curt]
pgroth: I like the FAQ for this type of stuff
14:26:34 [Curt]
ivan: For usage patterns, I agree with GK, they will change/evolve, but the diagram from Laurent is more fixed
14:26:50 [Curt]
GK: agreed, the diagram is different
14:28:16 [pgroth]
action: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document
14:28:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-126 - Add a comment to use more specific things through document [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
14:29:08 [Curt]
tlebo: reassigned issue 592 to the primer
14:29:21 [pgroth]
14:29:33 [pgroth]
14:29:48 [pgroth]
14:29:55 [tlebo]
14:31:38 [Curt]
GK: difficult to follow cross-references when the document is printed
14:32:04 [Curt]
Luc: in the DM, we numbered everything and refer by number instead of just the static link
14:32:12 [Curt]
Luc: it was difficult to put in all those
14:32:28 [Curt]
tlebo: :-)
14:32:50 [Curt]
ivan: now is the time to make those sorts of changes
14:33:33 [Curt]
tlebo: to address that, we would have a number for everything, and a table with all the numbers to index the terms
14:33:48 [pgroth]
14:33:48 [Curt]
tlebo: it may be difficult to do all that and not break anything
14:33:58 [Curt]
tlebo: it is a purely editorial issue
14:34:38 [Curt]
tlebo: if we can get through CR without that, then address it prior to next phase
14:34:51 [Curt]
GK: this may be just too much work to implement
14:36:13 [pgroth]
accepted: ISSUE-461 is editorial, the group agrees that this is ok to go ahead with CR and may look to address in the period of PR
14:36:23 [tlebo]
14:36:59 [Curt]
tlebo: need to change TTL example to exercise hadActivity
14:37:16 [Curt]
tlebo: examples are considered editorial?
14:37:25 [Curt]
ivan: yes, it is, but can it be done for CR?
14:37:30 [pgroth]
14:38:29 [pgroth]
action: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o
14:38:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-127 - Add hadActivity example to prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
14:38:48 [tlebo]
14:39:08 [Curt]
pgroth: we removed all TrIG?
14:39:16 [Curt]
tlebo: there are a few remaining for 'mention'
14:40:14 [pgroth]
14:40:22 [Curt]
tlebo: reduced amount of TriG, and cited/described use of TriG
14:40:43 [Curt]
ivan: clarify that all examples are informative
14:40:53 [Curt]
ivan: must add that to the document
14:41:06 [Curt]
ivan: then you can use TriG in examples and note that
14:41:24 [pgroth]
14:41:40 [Curt]
ivan: there may be a document from RDF group about TriG, and we could reference that later as an editorial change
14:41:56 [Curt]
ivan: TriG reference must be informative, not normative
14:42:09 [Curt]
ivan: it can reference it as a work in progress
14:42:35 [GK] -
14:43:11 [tlebo]
14:43:40 [TomDN]
14:44:43 [Curt]
pgroth: closing the issue, tim will clarify that examples are informative
14:44:48 [pgroth]
action: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o
14:44:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-128 - Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
14:45:30 [tlebo]
14:45:38 [pgroth]
14:46:04 [Curt]
tlebo: fully addressed, waiting for daniel to respond
14:46:24 [Curt]
tlebo: closing issue-566
14:46:42 [ivan]
14:46:42 [trackbot]
ISSUE-491 -- [external] feedback on prov:agent explanation. -- pending review
14:46:42 [trackbot]
14:48:03 [Curt]
tlebo: made some changes, Patrice likes it even less
14:48:22 [Curt]
tlebo: doesn't like colloquial use of some terms and phrases
14:48:44 [Curt]
tlebo: wants things expressed in logic terms
14:49:11 [Curt]
pgroth: his phrasing would rewrite the document in a rule based form
14:49:20 [lebot]
lebot has joined #prov
14:49:33 [lebot]
14:49:44 [pgroth]
14:50:52 [GK]
q+ to suggest s/used by/used with/
14:50:57 [Curt]
ivan (and others): the proposed language is very convoluted for people to read, we shouldn't do it
14:51:01 [jcheney]
sorry about the noise
14:51:27 [Curt]
ivan: some of the wording could be better
14:51:28 [pgroth]
ack GK
14:51:28 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to suggest s/used by/used with/
14:51:35 [Curt]
GK: change "used by" to "used with"
14:51:45 [Curt]
ivan: yes, that may be a simple way to address some concerns
14:52:10 [Curt]
pgroth: are these in many places?
14:52:29 [Curt]
tlebo: I removed some of the objectionable language
14:52:38 [Curt]
ivan: why was he even more upset?
14:53:51 [Curt]
tlebo: we were reusing prov:AgentInfluence, but we change our usage of that, with a better definition
14:54:08 [Curt]
tlebo: we've addressed some of the expressed concerns
14:55:18 [Curt]
tlebo: I think we've addressed it all
14:55:47 [Curt]
pgroth: we don't want to use the proposed phrasing, I think this has been adequately addressed
14:55:58 [Curt]
tlebo: closing issue 491
14:57:39 [Curt]
14:58:56 [Curt]
Luc: Tim will address action 116 post-CR release, determine if it is doable
14:59:50 [Curt]
pgroth: Tim will do an editor check of PROV-O
14:59:59 [pgroth]
action: tlebo editor check prov-o
14:59:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-129 - Editor check prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
15:00:10 [pgroth]
very happy with prov-o
15:00:20 [jcheney]
15:00:21 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-Constraints
15:01:08 [Curt]
pgroth: All issues have been addressed, sent back to reviewer
15:01:24 [pgroth]
15:01:25 [Curt]
jcheney: he has had a week to consider our responses
15:01:36 [Curt]
ivan: were any of the resolutions controversial?
15:02:03 [Curt]
jcheney: there were a few common themes, some were simply typo/rewording
15:03:48 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-587
15:03:48 [trackbot]
ISSUE-587 Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics closed
15:04:19 [Curt]
group: (we like tracker!)
15:04:37 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-586
15:04:37 [trackbot]
ISSUE-586 The description of 'toplevel bundle' as 'set of statements not appearing in a named bundle' is unclear closed
15:04:52 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-582
15:04:52 [trackbot]
ISSUE-582 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.' closed
15:05:56 [pgroth]
15:07:03 [pgroth]
15:07:07 [Curt]
jcheney: some of the suggestions might be more appropriately addressed in the semantics document
15:07:24 [Curt]
jcheney: they didn't fit the nature of the the constraints goals
15:07:39 [Curt]
ivan: maybe we didn't clarify the goals of the document?
15:08:08 [Curt]
jcheney: I tried to elaborate purpose of document, that somewhat addresses that concern
15:08:43 [Curt]
pgroth: current description of constraints document
15:09:09 [pgroth]
15:09:35 [TomDN]
I think this sentence addresses a lot of his concerns as well: "Further discussion of the semantics of PROV statements, which justifies the definitions, inferences and constraints, and relates the procedural specification approach taken here to a declarative specification, can be found in the formal semantics [PROV-SEM]. "
15:09:49 [Curt]
Luc: message in document is fairly clear what we intend for the document
15:10:19 [Curt]
ivan: that description sounds ok, need to be clear that this is a precise way to check validity of PROV
15:10:42 [Curt]
ivan: Antoine may be looking for semantics -- that isn't the goal of this document
15:10:54 [Curt]
jcheney: that is how I have addressed the issues
15:11:30 [Curt]
pgroth: add 1 sentence to description on constraints document -- this defines a precise way to validate provenance
15:12:44 [pgroth]
This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents.
15:13:07 [Curt]
jcheney: will add that sentence
15:14:38 [Curt]
pgroth: I read all the issue responses and thought they were good -- so did luc
15:16:18 [Curt]
jcheney: issue-585, described why things are worded the way they are
15:16:20 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-585
15:16:20 [trackbot]
ISSUE-585 Suggestion to avoid discussing how to 'apply' constraints; clarify what it means to 'satisfy' constraints closed
15:17:20 [Curt]
issue 576, the term merging was replaced with unification that is more accurate
15:17:37 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-584
15:17:37 [trackbot]
ISSUE-584 The nonstandard/procedurally defined 'merging' operation on terms closed
15:17:57 [Curt]
15:18:18 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #prov
15:18:49 [Curt]
jcheney: issue 583, rewrote wording of equivalent instances
15:18:50 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-583
15:18:50 [trackbot]
ISSUE-583 Questions concerning what it means for applications to treat equivalent instances 'in the same way', particularly in bundles. closed
15:22:28 [Curt]
jcheney: issue 581 wording around normalization/equivalence
15:23:37 [Curt]
GK: equivalence is really observed behavior -- given the same situation, you should get the same provenance
15:24:00 [Curt]
jcheney: I'll reword some of this and circulate for comment
15:24:32 [pgroth]
action: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD
15:24:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-130 - Add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].
15:24:33 [GK]
^^ Not "equivalence", but "treat in tghe same way" is what is observed/able behavious.
15:25:44 [pgroth]
15:26:04 [pgroth]
15:27:22 [Curt]
issue 581, we agree we are not specifying the algorithm, will clarify,
15:27:27 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-581
15:27:27 [trackbot]
ISSUE-581 Suggestion to avoid wording that 'almost requires' using normalization to implement constraints closed
15:28:42 [Curt]
jcheney: issue 580, definitions for expanding compact language not needed; response -- yes, we do need to define how those things work
15:29:24 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-580
15:29:24 [trackbot]
ISSUE-580 Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly closed
15:31:09 [TomDN]
15:31:09 [trackbot]
ISSUE-578 -- Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics -- pending review
15:31:09 [trackbot]
15:31:39 [Curt]
jcheney: issue 578, we defined equivalence only on valid documents, not arbitrary documents
15:33:37 [pgroth]
15:33:54 [Curt]
jcheney: we need to consider equivalence for other scenarios beyond validity
15:33:57 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-578
15:33:57 [trackbot]
ISSUE-578 Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics closed
15:34:21 [Curt]
ivan: for the purpose of this document, our description is sufficient
15:35:02 [Curt]
jcheney: yes, once we clarify the purpose of our document, the concern becomes somewhat moot
15:35:39 [TomDN]
15:35:39 [trackbot]
ISSUE-577 -- Terminology: valid vs. consistent -- pending review
15:35:39 [trackbot]
15:36:19 [Curt]
issue 577, we use the word "valid" where logic uses "consistent",
15:36:28 [Curt]
ivan: this document isn't meant for logicians
15:36:32 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-577
15:36:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-577 Terminology: valid vs. consistent closed
15:36:40 [Curt]
jcheney: we are using the words appropriate for our purpose
15:36:46 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-576
15:36:46 [trackbot]
ISSUE-576 logical definition and comments on prov-constratins closed
15:37:59 [Curt]
issue 556, translating constraints to prov-o out of scope
15:38:13 [Curt]
pgroth: that is a concern of implementers
15:38:54 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-556
15:38:54 [trackbot]
ISSUE-556 public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same closed
15:40:04 [pgroth]
15:40:53 [pgroth]
action: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints
15:40:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-131 - Editorial check on prov-constraints [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].
15:42:00 [pgroth]
action: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page
15:42:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-132 - Add response email to responses to public comments page [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].
15:42:58 [pgroth]
we are happy with constraints
15:43:19 [pgroth]
15 minute break
15:43:22 [pgroth]
start at 11
15:43:23 [lebot]
i added a comment to can I close it?
15:43:27 [Zakim]
15:43:46 [Zakim]
15:58:47 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
15:59:26 [pgroth]
Topic: Mention
15:59:32 [pgroth]
Scribe: Tim Lebo
15:59:46 [Zakim]
15:59:51 [pgroth]
starting again
16:00:17 [smiles]
zakim, ??P11 is me
16:00:17 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
16:00:39 [ivan]
zakim, mute smiles
16:00:39 [Zakim]
smiles should now be muted
16:01:22 [lebot]
paul: we came to a simple definition of mention, from many before it.
16:01:38 [lebot]
… connects Entity in one bundle to an Entity in another bundle. It's a kind of specialization
16:02:20 [lebot]
… Luc's response to Graham's public comment
16:02:33 [lebot]
… "at risk" is not appropriate for mention.
16:02:49 [lebot]
… having "at risk" in CR - does not look good.
16:03:01 [lebot]
… need to settle it now. Make it lean.
16:03:46 [lebot]
ivan: at CR, "at risk" is one that the WG thinks it has an issue implementing. But mention is not an implementation issue, it's a design issue.
16:03:55 [lebot]
… if design, then it is an abuse of "at risk"
16:04:22 [lebot]
pau: the chairs do not want to abuse "at risk".
16:04:28 [lebot]
… thus, include or exclude now.
16:05:08 [Luc]
@lebot: can you use pgroth as handle?
16:05:14 [lebot]
… we've spent a LOT of time on mention. we need to go from that work.
16:05:43 [lebot]
pgroth: lets hear case against as it stands.
16:05:50 [lebot]
… does anybody want it in?
16:05:54 [lebot]
… who wants it out?
16:06:03 [lebot]
… we'll decide in or now today.
16:06:41 [lebot]
GK: debate has been going on for long time.
16:06:53 [lebot]
… we can't conflate previous things with what it is now.
16:07:10 [lebot]
… feel there is an attempt to introduce something which cannot be specified in RDF.
16:07:22 [lebot]
… BUT the public objection is NOT ^^^
16:07:33 [lebot]
… basically, I don't know what it is trying to say.
16:07:40 [lebot]
… what does it mean?
16:07:46 [lebot]
… what is new beyond what we already have?
16:07:50 [TomDN]
(original email: )
16:08:03 [lebot]
… my claim is that it does not add anything.
16:08:06 [pgroth]
16:08:12 [jcheney]
16:08:15 [lebot]
pgroth: who wants, will use mention?
16:08:15 [Zakim]
16:08:37 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, ??P5 is me
16:08:37 [Zakim]
+khalidBelhajjame; got it
16:08:43 [lebot]
jcheney: at last F2F we discussed this.
16:09:03 [lebot]
… strong motivation in ontology to relate MentionOf relation two two entities.
16:09:10 [lebot]
16:09:26 [lebot]
… the idea is to translate mention of DM into two triples in RDF.
16:09:38 [lebot]
… how to convert when round tripping DM PROVO DM?
16:09:53 [lebot]
… what if two mention triples?
16:10:08 [lebot]
… you'll get confusion when coming back to DM.
16:10:09 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #prov
16:10:27 [lebot]
(The "limitation" is that you an only be asInBundle to one bundle)
16:10:34 [lebot]
… seems like a misalignment in the serializations.
16:10:41 [pgroth]
16:10:43 [Luc]
16:10:44 [Luc]
16:10:45 [lebot]
… could be viewed as doing different things in PROVO and DM.
16:10:48 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:11:02 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:11:03 [lebot]
16:11:27 [lebot]
luc: we introduced the constraint the mention must be unique - so you can't have the confusion that jcheney suggests.
16:12:05 [pgroth]
ack lebot
16:12:29 [lebot]
lebot: I'm happy with it.
16:13:37 [pgroth]
16:13:39 [ivan]
16:13:51 [pgroth]
ack ivan
16:14:42 [Luc]
specialization is not reflexive, so they must be different URIs
16:14:47 [Curt]
16:14:53 [pgroth]
ack Curt
16:15:04 [TomDN]
16:15:04 [lebot]
lebot: when we're trying to interconnect descriptions of entities in others' bundles, it's a natural thing to do.
16:15:11 [lebot]
ivan: do you use the same URI?
16:15:23 [lebot]
lebot: you can do either, depending on what you want to do.
16:15:46 [pgroth]
16:15:50 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
16:15:54 [lebot]
Curt: mention is the only capability to reference into the bundle. You'll run into problems if you don't have it.
16:16:02 [lebot]
TomDN: i support using mention of.
16:16:33 [lebot]
… a lab with multiple documents and multiple people. You just want to mention it, not repeat the provenance.
16:17:07 [lebot]
… it's interesting to provide your own view on the entity that you're using.
16:17:27 [lebot]
pgroth: we have specialization and alternate of.
16:17:56 [Luc]
In view of implementation phase, can we see who will make use of the mention construct in their implementation?
16:17:57 [lebot]
… the key aspect of mention of is that you name the entity and the bundle in which the entity is described. The Bundle IS the specialization.
16:18:25 [pgroth]
16:18:30 [lebot]
… without mention, you can still link the entities, but you lose the ability to mention the bundle.
16:18:37 [lebot]
16:18:41 [lebot]
16:18:46 [lebot]
16:18:59 [hook]
16:19:10 [pgroth]
ack hook
16:19:11 [lebot]
Luc: who will implement it?
16:19:20 [lebot]
TomDN: we will.
16:19:35 [lebot]
hook: mentionOf, but used unique identifiers to link across. didn't use mentionof
16:20:01 [lebot]
… trying to link bundles. it was easier to not use mentionOf.
16:20:22 [lebot]
q+ to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple
16:20:35 [lebot]
hook: KISS philosophy.
16:20:40 [pgroth]
ack lebot
16:20:40 [Zakim]
lebot, you wanted to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple
16:21:35 [lebot]
lebot: mentionOf's power comes in when you don't have control over the entire system.
16:21:46 [Curt]
+1 lebot
16:21:52 [lebot]
hook: we should force people to use mentionOf to increase interoperability.
16:22:08 [lebot]
pgroth: we can't force people to use it (and shouldn't)
16:22:13 [lebot]
… we should offer it for people to use.
16:22:13 [pgroth]
16:22:35 [lebot]
hook: sounds like it doesn't hurt to leave it in, helps to connect.
16:22:36 [lebot]
+1 hood
16:22:36 [Luc]
16:22:41 [lebot]
+1 hook
16:22:47 [lebot]
16:22:48 [pgroth]
ack luc
16:23:21 [lebot]
Luc: [not?] concerned with comments that Graham raises.
16:23:28 [lebot]
… but the doubt is if it is really useful or not.
16:23:40 [lebot]
… believe in stitching histories.
16:23:55 [lebot]
… we need a construct for it.
16:24:06 [lebot]
… BUT concerned if it is a subtype of specialization.
16:24:17 [lebot]
… working to develop the use cases.
16:24:36 [lebot]
… as a sub property of specialization, the lifetimes are maintained.
16:24:47 [lebot]
… in the use case, the timeline constraint may not apply.
16:25:13 [TomDN]
16:25:24 [lebot]
GK: not sure if it breaks specilization
16:25:28 [lebot]
(+1 to GK)
16:26:02 [lebot]
luc: unsure about making it a type of specialization.
16:26:07 [jcheney]
16:26:23 [lebot]
… we're stuck with keeping mentionOf as specialization (and not alternate)
16:26:42 [lebot]
… if it's specialization, does it break?
16:27:14 [lebot]
(-1 that it's broken as specialization. It's inherently specialization)
16:27:24 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
16:27:30 [lebot]
TomDN: how does it break as specialization?
16:27:41 [lebot]
… did we want the validity over different bundles?
16:27:49 [lebot]
… at what point do we make a new entity?
16:27:53 [lebot]
(+1 Tom)
16:28:01 [Paolo]
I missed all of Tom's comment -- low voice
16:28:30 [lebot]
ace paolo
16:28:35 [lebot]
16:28:47 [Paolo]
ok thanks
16:28:47 [lebot]
pgroth: the question: do we have validity over different bundles
16:28:58 [lebot]
TomDN: luc's problem goes away once the entity is in a different instance.
16:29:18 [lebot]
… entity in a different instance, valid, same instance different bundle = invalid
16:29:33 [lebot]
Luc: <example with e1 e2 and bundles>
16:29:50 [Curt]
16:29:59 [lebot]
… generation and invaliation of both entities, specialization applies and must have a lifetime.
16:30:23 [lebot]
TomDN: impossible to make valid if repeating the mention?
16:30:26 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:30:34 [lebot]
pgroth: it done'st make it invalid, but …. (?)
16:31:00 [lebot]
jcheney: inférences on uniqueness are flagged as at risk.
16:31:14 [lebot]
… if something is at risk, we can decided to remove it w/o going to LC
16:31:49 [lebot]
@luc, you're abusing mention of for the wrong use cases. (it appears)
16:32:08 [lebot]
jcheney: is it possible to take out parts of the at risk?
16:32:37 [lebot]
ivan: mention is a design feature, defined [as specialization]. it is a design element.
16:32:43 [lebot]
… it is all or nothing.
16:33:04 [lebot]
jcheney: we can remove it all. If we change it, then it's a design change.
16:33:15 [lebot]
16:33:34 [lebot]
GK: can't you drop parts of the definition and not others, providing that the others are not changed?
16:33:42 [lebot]
16:33:56 [lebot]
ivan: feature at risk, feature defined. Remove or keep it.
16:34:07 [lebot]
… splitting hairs is sticky.
16:34:09 [pgroth]
ack Curt
16:34:25 [lebot]
Curt: I don't follow the issue. It DOES fit into specialization.
16:34:47 [lebot]
… as a primary producer, I wont' use mention of, but for anyone that wants to augment my Entiteis, they need mentionOf to do it.
16:34:49 [Luc]
@tlebo, can you clarify why i am abusing it?
16:35:10 [lebot]
… the third party needs it.
16:35:35 [lebot]
@luc, I'm not clear on what you're trying to do, but it doesn't sound like mentionOf
16:35:44 [jcheney]
16:35:54 [hook]
16:36:07 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:36:16 [lebot]
Curt: when yoiu do your own provenance, you ond't need it, but metnionOf lets you "reach into" someone else's bundle.
16:36:22 [lebot]
jcheney: second order provenance and linking.
16:36:30 [lebot]
… but it's also true for other things.
16:36:39 [pgroth]
16:36:44 [lebot]
… are we solving a specific problem and not the more general?
16:37:08 [lebot]
… it's clear that there is a need, but is it justified?
16:37:16 [Curt]
entity is pretty much our most general thing to refer to
16:37:19 [lebot]
… I am still uncomfortable with mentionOf
16:37:40 [lebot]
… if it was lightweight with no inferences, then fine. But we might get into trouble later.
16:38:12 [pgroth]
ack hook
16:38:14 [lebot]
… as things are, it doesn't seem like we should kill it, but people might trip over it later.
16:38:32 [lebot]
hook: the linking of bundles should be in the model, we should not rely on a serialization
16:38:38 [lebot]
@hook how are they different?
16:38:41 [lebot]
16:38:48 [ivan]
ack pgroth
16:38:48 [TomDN]
16:39:09 [lebot]
pgroth: there are existing ways to annotate. Refer to things an annotate them.
16:39:20 [lebot]
… open annotation
16:39:25 [lebot]
… some let you point to named graphs.
16:39:30 [lebot]
…. well out side of our scope.
16:39:46 [lebot]
… but those things are not for provenance.
16:40:18 [smiles]
So mentionOf is just a way to reference a part of a document without reference to the serialisation format? Is mentionOf really to do with provenance apart from being arbitrarily restricted to PROV?
16:40:20 [pgroth]
ack lebot
16:40:22 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
16:40:23 [lebot]
… open annotation is not a standard, but is in w3c
16:40:32 [pgroth]
q+ TomDN
16:41:22 [lebot]
hook: having it formally in DM would uniformly manifest implementations in different encodigns. we're not relying on serializations to do the linking.
16:41:40 [lebot]
pgroth: right now, you can use RDF linking.
16:42:28 [lebot]
TomDN: should we drop it and put it into a note?
16:42:39 [lebot]
… here is how to link" in FAQ...
16:42:48 [lebot]
… we can change as we see fit.
16:43:02 [lebot]
GK: in IETF, "experimental track", mention of is in this.
16:43:09 [lebot]
… best we can do is to put FAQ
16:43:16 [pgroth]
16:43:20 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
16:43:27 [hook]
16:43:31 [lebot]
ivan: it is a nice idea.
16:43:43 [lebot]
… we have notes, we'd just be adding one more.
16:44:01 [lebot]
pgroth: if that's what we want to do, it'd go AQ
16:44:22 [lebot]
… we can't start a new note
16:44:44 [lebot]
ivan: agree with graham that AQ is to locate provenance of a given resoruce.
16:44:53 [lebot]
… that's different than mentionOf
16:44:57 [lebot]
… it doesn't fit
16:45:04 [pgroth]
ack hook
16:45:08 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:45:14 [lebot]
hook: how many use cases involve mentionOf?
16:45:29 [lebot]
… for what we do, it would be useful.
16:45:40 [Zakim]
16:45:49 [lebot]
Curt: the key is not provenance expression/represtionation, ti's for analysis.
16:46:05 [lebot]
GK: how important is interoperability at the analysis/
16:46:06 [lebot]
16:46:11 [lebot]
hook: it is very important.
16:46:20 [lebot]
… each bundle is handled by different institutions, gov entities.
16:46:23 [Zakim]
16:46:30 [lebot]
… interop is key here.
16:46:34 [pgroth]
who just joined/
16:46:34 [pgroth]
16:46:43 [Curt]
16:46:47 [pgroth]
ack Curt
16:47:10 [lebot]
Curt: we have a lot of cases where data is processed, then next org processes. each uses their own bundles.
16:47:21 [lebot]
… each needs a way to reference across those bundles.
16:47:37 [lebot]
… seems that mentionOf provides a capability that will be needed at some point.
16:47:39 [pgroth]
16:48:04 [lebot]
Luc: jcheney, you'd be more comfortable to get rid of the inference?
16:48:52 [lebot]
jcheney: uniqueness constraint makes to align with provo round tripping.
16:49:00 [lebot]
… it's not clear that it buys you much.
16:49:29 [lebot]
… you could just state the specialization.
16:49:52 [lebot]
(I think the 'you don't get anything" assumes that you "have it all" and does not consider the practicality of the problem)
16:50:25 [lebot]
jcheney: not hearing strong objections, but nobody is giving specific uses for it (?)
16:50:51 [Paolo]
+1 for unlinking MentionOf from Specialization (if I understand James correcty)
16:50:54 [lebot]
jcheney: not worth rolling all of it back
16:51:30 [Luc]
16:51:35 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:52:26 [lebot]
Luc: we didn't want to make it a top-level, that's where we started.
16:52:34 [lebot]
jcheney: not worth blowing the whole thing up over.
16:52:42 [Luc]
is there opposition to remove it?
16:52:45 [SamCoppens]
16:52:51 [lebot]
pgroth: straw poll on mentionOf
16:53:02 [lebot]
(this will decide who I sit with at lunch, btw)
16:53:29 [lebot]
SamCoppens: selective removal okay?
16:53:37 [lebot]
pgroth: no, since it changes the spec too much.
16:54:19 [pgroth]
straw poll: who objects to keeping mentionOf?
16:54:24 [GK]
16:54:27 [smiles]
16:54:40 [jcheney]
16:54:42 [Paolo]
16:54:44 [ivan]
16:55:00 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:55:16 [pgroth]
straw poll: who objects to removing mentionOf?
16:55:38 [jcheney]
16:55:41 [GK]
16:55:42 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:55:42 [lebot]
16:55:53 [TomDN]
16:55:59 [zednik]
16:56:01 [SamCoppens]
16:56:02 [hook]
16:56:12 [Paolo]
16:58:05 [lebot]
GK: I would formally object in its current form.
16:58:29 [smiles]
I would not formally object. I was indicating that I think it is better not to be in the spec in the straw poll.
16:58:44 [lebot]
Curt: I think it's valuable, but I won't formally object.
16:59:28 [GK]
Longer response, in IRC for lack of time:
16:59:28 [GK]
- yes, there are valid use cases, strong motivation
16:59:28 [GK]
- I don't recognise them in the mentionOf as described (my complaint) in a way that can't be done without mentionOf
16:59:28 [GK]
- some of those use-cases don't map to present-day RDF semantics - I worry about this, as we'd end up building on sand if we try to impose these semantics
16:59:29 [GK]
- not defining it now doesn't mean it can't be defined later
16:59:32 [lebot]
16:59:49 [Paolo]
may be back later
16:59:53 [Zakim]
16:59:56 [pgroth]
ack SamCoppens
17:00:04 [khalidBelhajjame]
I may be back later
17:00:06 [pgroth]
ack lebot
17:00:12 [Zakim]
17:01:32 [lebot]
tlebo: If GK's formal objection is the thing to scare away this construct, then I'd be willing to bring RPI's formal objection to dropping it.
17:01:53 [lebot]
… but this is weighted by the fact that I'm exhausted with supporting this construct.
17:02:53 [lebot]
ivan: formal objection is a HUGE thing.
17:03:52 [pgroth]
start again in one hour
17:03:55 [smiles]
OK thanks
17:04:04 [Zakim]
17:09:05 [Zakim]
- +1.617.715.aaaa
17:11:12 [Zakim]
17:11:13 [Zakim]
SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended
17:11:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were Paolo, zednik, laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain, smiles, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller]
17:38:43 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
17:44:16 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
17:57:06 [ivan]
ivan has joined #prov
17:59:52 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
18:00:21 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
18:00:31 [ivan]
zakim, code?
18:00:31 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
18:01:06 [Zakim]
SW_(F2F)8:00AM has now started
18:01:13 [Zakim]
18:01:25 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
18:02:08 [Zakim]
18:02:13 [Zakim]
18:02:24 [smiles]
zakim, ??P3 is me
18:02:24 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
18:02:40 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
18:06:06 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:06:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]
18:06:26 [pgroth]
Topic: mention of and CR
18:07:18 [smiles]
My objecytion was not formal
18:07:44 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
18:07:49 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
18:07:53 [pgroth]
scribe: James Cheney
18:07:54 [jcheney]
pgroth: 30 minutes on mention
18:08:04 [jcheney]
... have formal objections changed?
18:08:05 [ivan]
scribenick: jcheney
18:08:19 [jcheney]
GK: after lunch discusion with tlebo
18:08:37 [jcheney]
... thinks problem may be fixable with changes to descriptive text, but not sure yet
18:08:51 [jcheney]
ivan: can we do it now?
18:08:59 [pgroth]
18:09:00 [jcheney]
gk: maybe not enough time
18:09:07 [jcheney]
... can we proceed on assumption it will be fine?
18:09:14 [jcheney]
luc: wants certainty
18:09:36 [jcheney]
luc: can we take an hour and do it now?
18:09:43 [jcheney]
GK: will look at it offline now.
18:10:42 [jcheney]
18:11:31 [jcheney]
pgroth: Graham will look at document for ~1hr, we move on to prov-xml, goal is to come back to CR vote today
18:11:40 [jcheney]
[luc is chair]
18:12:04 [jcheney]
Luc: prov-xml was reviewed over past week (James, Paul, Luc)
18:12:20 [jcheney]
would like to decide on release as fpwd
18:12:31 [jcheney]
... would like to decide on release as fpwd
18:12:33 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
18:12:45 [jcheney]
zednik: document mostly content complete, adding bundles today
18:12:56 [jcheney]
... should be finished in ~5min
18:13:13 [jcheney]
... reviews identified typos & rephrasing, had some questions about design/descriptions
18:13:22 [laurent]
laurent has joined #prov
18:13:26 [jcheney]
... discussion topic list to respond & discuss feedback
18:13:31 [jcheney]
... most feedback has been incorporated
18:13:40 [jcheney]
... all 3 said it was ok to proced to fpwd
18:13:51 [Luc]
18:13:52 [jcheney]
... currently addressing more complex identifier issues
18:13:54 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
18:14:05 [smiles]
18:14:09 [pgroth]
18:14:35 [jcheney]
curt: also thinks things are OK
18:14:45 [jcheney]
smiles: wanted to point out comment that might have been missed
18:15:12 [jcheney]
... delegation element in prov-xml: schema description is different from actual schema
18:15:23 [jcheney]
... but also agree document is ready for release
18:15:24 [ivan]
ack sm
18:15:24 [ivan]
18:15:34 [Luc]
18:15:41 [ivan]
ack pgroth
18:15:41 [jcheney]
zednik: will double check
18:16:00 [jcheney]
pgroth: do we vote next or have content discussion?
18:16:12 [jcheney]
Luc: discuss reviews and any tecnical issues first, then vote
18:16:26 [smiles]
@zednik: the issue was that the activity was an option of actedOnBehalfOf in the schema, compulsory in the schema fragment in the HTML
18:16:30 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
18:16:33 [jcheney]
pgroth: thinks its OK for FPWD, would like to discuss technical issues
18:16:39 [jcheney]
curt: would like to discuss 572
18:16:45 [TomDN]
18:16:45 [trackbot]
ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised
18:16:45 [trackbot]
18:16:56 [Luc]
18:17:55 [pgroth]
18:17:58 [zednik]
18:18:44 [jcheney]
jcheney: mostly happy, can discuss offline
18:18:47 [Luc]
ack pg
18:19:01 [jcheney]
pgroth: also wanted to suggest signposting/context, is this intended before fpwd?
18:19:35 [jcheney]
... meaning expanation of the style of schema being used (salami slice pattern, etc)
18:19:51 [Luc]
18:20:05 [jcheney]
ivan: sounds good, helpful to reader
18:20:44 [jcheney]
zednik: prov-xml group is discussing adding a design section, explain salami slice pattern, not sure if it will go in before fpwd
18:20:44 [pgroth]
i wouldn't want it to delay fpwd
18:20:46 [Luc]
18:20:51 [Luc]
ack ze
18:21:13 [jcheney]
Luc: conform happy with document release, flagged some technical issues
18:21:34 [jcheney]
... need to catch up on mailing list traffic, but OK with flagging as outstanding issues in text as notes
18:21:43 [jcheney]
... to avoid giving impression that it is a final design
18:21:48 [lebot]
lebot has joined #prov
18:22:02 [jcheney]
... design section sounds useful
18:22:05 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
18:22:22 [pgroth]
18:22:24 [jcheney]
... timetable to release: need not be ASAP, but would be good to sync with CR
18:22:34 [jcheney]
... to give time to write section
18:22:35 [Luc]
18:22:51 [Zakim]
18:22:53 [TomDN]
+1 for synchronous release
18:22:53 [jcheney]
pgroth: would like it to be released synchronously with CR/primer, etc.
18:23:05 [jcheney]
... have gotten burned before by piecemeal release
18:23:08 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P5 is me
18:23:08 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
18:23:10 [Luc]
18:23:18 [ivan]
18:23:19 [Luc]
ack pg
18:23:22 [ivan]
ack pgroth
18:23:26 [jcheney]
... prov is the family, would like releasing as such
18:23:37 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #prov
18:23:43 [jcheney]
... no rush to get xml out, but there are minor things we can do to improve accessibility
18:24:00 [jcheney]
ivan: we clearly don't have enough documents to publish, so let's add one
18:24:14 [jcheney]
... owl WG had relatively short overview document published with rest
18:24:28 [jcheney]
... otherwise family of documents becomes messy
18:24:46 [jcheney]
Luc: not committed to it in charter extension, avoid overcommitment
18:24:56 [jcheney]
ivan: together with CR release?
18:25:07 [jcheney]
Luc: not enough time
18:25:12 [Luc]
18:25:12 [Curt]
copy the intro from the DM
18:25:24 [pgroth]
action: pgroth to draft a first one page overview
18:25:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-133 - Draft a first one page overview [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].
18:25:24 [Luc]
ack ivan
18:25:37 [Luc]
18:25:58 [jcheney]
pgroth: will try to draft 1 page, group will look at it. as curt says, this is already done in most documents
18:26:22 [jcheney]
luc: can reuse presentation tutorial materials.
18:26:28 [Luc]
18:26:54 [jcheney]
Luc: informal poll to gauge positions on fpwd
18:27:09 [jcheney]
... is ther opposition to prov-xml fpwd release?
18:27:16 [Paolo]
no objection
18:27:21 [jcheney]
[crickets chirping]
18:27:22 [smiles]
no objection
18:27:28 [jcheney]
18:27:51 [pgroth]
18:27:54 [jcheney]
Luc: what do we want to finalize before fpwd?
18:28:29 [Luc]
18:28:30 [jcheney]
pgroth: want 1 para about design + "warning, this is a fpwd, subject to change"
18:28:31 [Luc]
ack pg
18:28:53 [jcheney]
Luc: any other input?
18:29:05 [jcheney]
... can we confirm prov-xml as short name?
18:30:04 [Luc]
proposed: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name
18:30:09 [TomDN]
18:30:10 [ivan]
18:30:12 [pgroth]
18:30:14 [smiles]
18:30:15 [Curt]
18:30:16 [SamCoppens]
18:30:18 [jcheney]
+1 UoE
18:30:20 [lebot]
18:30:52 [Luc]
accepted: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name
18:31:18 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:31:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
18:31:34 [jcheney]
Luc: now have time to discuss technical issues
18:31:40 [TomDN]
18:31:40 [trackbot]
ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised
18:31:40 [trackbot]
18:31:41 [ivan]
18:31:41 [trackbot]
ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised
18:31:41 [trackbot]
18:32:23 [jcheney]
Curt: Mapping from PROV-N to PROV-DM into xml schema decided to keep same order of sub-elements as in prov-dm
18:32:42 [jcheney]
... Current rationale: atributes are ids
18:32:51 [jcheney]
... ordering of content is static matching prov-n
18:33:00 [jcheney]
... except for optional attributes which are unordered
18:33:16 [pgroth]
wonder why there's no issue about sub typing?
18:33:20 [jcheney]
... could relax ordering, or require ordering of attributes
18:33:22 [jcheney]
18:33:52 [Luc]
18:34:22 [jcheney]
... Concern that ordering makes it easier for processing, but harder for generation
18:34:25 [jcheney]
... unlike prov-n
18:35:17 [Luc]
18:35:30 [Luc]
ack jcheney
18:37:08 [jcheney]
18:37:09 [Luc]
ack jch
18:37:22 [jcheney]
jcheney: happy with wat it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize
18:37:29 [jcheney]
jcheney: happy with way it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize
18:37:48 [jcheney]
luc: had idea to require prov attributes to appear first, then non-prov
18:38:02 [jcheney]
... use xsd:any for all the rest
18:38:44 [jcheney]
... should make it easier to convert between xml and other PL embeddings
18:39:04 [jcheney]
... with xml, thinking about serializations but also queries
18:39:20 [zednik]
18:39:22 [jcheney]
... does order have impact?
18:40:34 [zednik]
18:40:56 [Luc]
ack luc
18:41:47 [Luc]
18:41:59 [pgroth]
18:41:59 [jcheney]
jcheney: probably XQuery with unordered xpath axes is enough, so order probably not a big issue for queries
18:42:20 [jcheney]
pgroth: not sure of issue
18:42:57 [jcheney]
luc: orm will want to be able to find prov:type
18:43:07 [jcheney]
... so mapping will be challenging
18:43:28 [Luc]
18:43:46 [pgroth]
q+ to say we should test
18:44:06 [jcheney]
jcheney: we don't need to solve this now necessarily
18:44:15 [jcheney]
ivan: can ask for feedback
18:44:24 [Luc]
18:44:32 [jcheney]
pgroth: automated generation tools are a use case, we should flag this for asking for feedback
18:44:37 [Luc]
ack pg
18:44:37 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to say we should test
18:45:16 [jcheney]
luc: issue remains open, but will be signposted
18:45:20 [pgroth]
q+ to ask for about sub typing
18:45:21 [Luc]
18:45:49 [jcheney]
pgroth: wants to discuss subtyping
18:45:51 [Luc]
ack pg
18:45:51 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to ask for about sub typing
18:46:09 [jcheney]
... if you look at prov-xml, many subtypes are defined through use of prov:type
18:46:20 [jcheney]
... in prov-o, a revision has a corresponding relation
18:46:34 [zednik]
18:46:36 [jcheney]
... why can't xml / xsd do something similar
18:47:03 [Luc]
18:47:10 [jcheney]
curt: also would like to do this
18:47:15 [Luc]
ack ze
18:47:33 [Luc]
18:47:34 [jcheney]
zednik: followed prov-n initially, but can explore and add in after fpwd. note in each section to explain this
18:47:43 [Luc]
18:47:44 [jcheney]
pgroth: raise issue?
18:48:11 [pgroth]
18:48:18 [Luc]
18:48:22 [jcheney]
zednik: did look at subtyping early, but mainly entity and agent and it didn't seem to gain a lot since these subtypes don't have additional elements/attributes
18:48:33 [jcheney]
... but relations may have a benefit
18:48:36 [Luc]
18:48:39 [Luc]
ack pg
18:49:05 [jcheney]
pgroth: in xml, you see agent but not person etc.
18:49:18 [jcheney]
... writing xpath query to ask for people is easier if the element name is prov:person
18:49:35 [Luc]
18:49:52 [jcheney]
zednik: would have to specialize complex type and add new toplevel element referencing it
18:50:17 [Curt]
18:50:18 [jcheney]
... this should work, but hasn't been tried yet. may work for entity and agent subtypes too.
18:50:59 [jcheney]
Luc: will have to add subtype and new elements. don't we want to allow use of person, etc. wherever an agent is allowed?
18:51:11 [Curt]
18:51:30 [jcheney]
... but then haven't you fixed all the subclasses of entity/agent, forbidding extensions?
18:51:33 [Luc]
ack luc
18:51:35 [Luc]
18:52:16 [jcheney]
zednik: not familiar with extended types in xml, but should allow specialization / subtypes without using substitution groups
18:52:40 [Luc]
18:52:40 [jcheney]
Luc: something to keep in mind when looking at revised design.
18:52:43 [pgroth]
did someone raise the issue?
18:53:01 [jcheney]
zednik: suggest we mark the terms that use prov:type for subtyping as something that might change
18:53:26 [Luc]
18:53:35 [pgroth]
issue: prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document
18:53:35 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-595 - Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document ; please complete additional details at .
18:53:43 [jcheney]
pgroth: whoa!
18:54:08 [Luc]
18:54:18 [jcheney]
luc: next issue, identifiers/qnames
18:54:33 [Luc]
18:54:46 [jcheney]
... can write entities like this
18:55:05 [jcheney]
ivan: this is why rdfa does not use qnames
18:55:23 [jcheney]
luc: grammar accepts qualified names but xml schema requires qnames
18:55:32 [jcheney]
ivan: [shrug] life sucks
18:55:39 [zednik]
18:56:08 [jcheney]
luc: can define new type of strings that match this
18:56:46 [Luc]
18:56:48 [jcheney]
... in prov toolbox, using in non validating mode so these recognize as qualified names but painful
18:56:49 [pgroth]
18:57:09 [jcheney]
zednik: should try to determine what is best for xml to use as identifier
18:57:23 [jcheney]
... identifying scheme for prov-n makes sense in rdf, may not make sense in xml
18:57:32 [Curt]
18:57:35 [jcheney]
... defining our own string subtype may not be best either
18:57:38 [Luc]
18:57:43 [zednik]
18:57:43 [Luc]
ack ze
18:58:07 [jcheney]
pgroth: agrees with stefan's approach. made prov-n open-ended for human consumtion
18:58:16 [Luc]
ack pg
18:58:33 [jcheney]
... with xml, need to be more restrictive to remain compatble for tools, even if it constraints what you can use as ids
18:58:49 [jcheney]
tlebo: rdf/xml has same problem,
18:58:51 [Luc]
my concern is that people will generate xml that does not validate
18:58:54 [Luc]
18:58:57 [jcheney]
pgroth: design for tooling
18:59:20 [pgroth]
18:59:28 [Luc]
ack Cu
18:59:31 [jcheney]
ivan: it is a choice to allow more liberal strings, but will not work well with tools
18:59:31 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
18:59:46 [lebot]
+1 pgroth and zednik on letting prov-xml constrain, c.f. prov-o's "type" must be a Resource and not Literals, as prov-n permits.
18:59:58 [jcheney]
pgroth: does qname resolve to uri? main serializations will be xml, rdf/turtle
19:00:33 [jcheney]
... we don't have to define in documents, but should say somewhere what subset of ids are interoperable across main formats.
19:00:38 [jcheney]
... "don't do this"
19:00:39 [Luc]
19:00:47 [Luc]
ack pgro
19:00:50 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
19:01:07 [jcheney]
luc: concerned people will generate xml serializations that don't validate because of ids
19:01:34 [jcheney]
luc: qnames are very restrictvie
19:01:41 [Luc]
19:01:54 [jcheney]
curt: seems ok to say "if you want to interoperate, do this"
19:02:00 [jcheney]
hook: no xlinking
19:02:20 [jcheney]
pgroth: shouldn't define our own ids. do people use something other than qnames?
19:02:23 [Luc]
19:02:33 [jcheney]
19:03:04 [jcheney]
laurent: people used to use urn, now uri/url
19:03:08 [zednik]
+1 pgroth for determining what is best for ids from xml community, and use that
19:03:21 [Luc]
19:03:31 [Luc]
19:04:01 [jcheney]
ivan: there are organizations whose internal identification of items is similar, rdfa discussion began because news organization wanted to use similar names
19:04:08 [jcheney]
... rdfa avoided use of qnames
19:04:23 [jcheney]
pgroth: also allowed in prov-o, prov-n
19:05:02 [jcheney]
ivan: defining new id type worse because many xml tools assume id attribute is of a specific form (?)
19:05:09 [jcheney]
Luc: we use prov;id, not toplevel id
19:05:19 [Luc]
19:05:23 [jcheney]
ivan: some tools recognize/exploit atributes declared
19:05:46 [ivan]
19:06:16 [Luc]
19:06:17 [jcheney]
jcheney: will ask ht
19:06:53 [Luc]
19:06:56 [Curt]
q+ This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too
19:07:04 [Luc]
ack jch
19:07:06 [Curt]
This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too
19:07:30 [jcheney]
luc: prov-dm uses qualified names as shortcut for uri
19:07:36 [jcheney]
... can reconstruct full uri
19:07:41 [jcheney]
... not done in xml by default
19:07:52 [Paolo]
I will have to go soon -- are you planning to discuss prov-dictionary next?
19:07:54 [jcheney]
...we need to state the convention
19:07:56 [Luc]
19:07:59 [Luc]
ack Luc
19:08:22 [Luc]
19:08:53 [pgroth]
@paolo yes
19:09:01 [jcheney]
luc: plan: flag issue, have james ask henry thompson
19:09:16 [zednik]
19:09:29 [Luc]
ack zed
19:09:39 [jcheney]
zednik: wanted to add that we could put forth question + possible direction such as xsd:anyURI
19:10:07 [jcheney]
luc: may lose some benefit of xml?
19:10:16 [Luc]
19:10:21 [pgroth]
19:10:24 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
19:10:32 [jcheney]
luc: congratulations to prov-xml team
19:10:42 [Luc]
topic: prov-dictionary
19:11:34 [jcheney]
luc: renamed collections to dictionaries, then decided to remove from dm leaving lean collections
19:11:59 [jcheney]
... decided to create note for dictionaries, starting with all text from older verisons of prov-dm/prov-o
19:12:06 [jcheney]
... but some work is needed. who will work on it?
19:12:41 [Luc]
19:12:47 [jcheney]
... comments?
19:12:58 [TomDN]
19:13:13 [pgroth]
19:13:14 [Paolo]
19:13:18 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
19:13:23 [jcheney]
TomDN: what is timetable?
19:13:26 [jcheney]
luc: to be detemined
19:13:34 [jcheney]
TomDN: synchronous release?
19:13:41 [jcheney]
Luc: no, later than cr release
19:13:47 [jcheney]
... but before end of wg
19:13:48 [pgroth]
19:14:00 [jcheney]
.... including time for iterations
19:14:00 [Luc]
ack tom
19:14:29 [jcheney]
Paolo: discussed earlier, and when we decided on note, ownership was assigned to stian with paolo agreeing to help
19:14:38 [jcheney]
... but was involved in other documents so did not have time
19:14:43 [Luc]
ack pao
19:14:57 [jcheney]
... talked with stian and discussed timetable but this hasn't been realized
19:15:29 [jcheney]
... plan to ask stian if interested, volunteer to help, otherwise try to pick up
19:15:43 [jcheney]
... would still like to see it happen
19:16:00 [jcheney]
... should be able to start spending time on it after holidays
19:16:08 [jcheney]
Luc: can you really do it?
19:16:18 [jcheney]
... in terms of bandwidth
19:16:30 [jcheney]
Paolo: will have more in January, not before
19:16:32 [lebot]
@Paolo , we all have more bandwidth later. Until we don't ;-)
19:16:39 [jcheney]
... can make time for it
19:16:57 [jcheney]
... don't think we're too far
19:16:57 [Luc]
19:17:02 [SamCoppens]
Tom and I would volunteer to help with the note
19:17:09 [lebot]
good point, it was carried to Last Call drafts :-/
19:17:17 [lebot]
19:17:17 [jcheney]
... material in note is not starting from scratch
19:17:32 [Luc]
ack pg
19:17:58 [jcheney]
pgroth: timetable would like to see fpwd or new release on notes before holidays for all documents
19:18:09 [lebot]
+1 to a FPWD for collections before xmas
19:18:10 [jcheney]
... there on most things already (prov-aq, prov-dc)
19:18:36 [jcheney]
... collections needs editorial work beyone existing content
19:18:38 [Luc]
19:19:19 [jcheney]
Luc: at f2f3 took out of rec track document, no activity since then
19:19:54 [Paolo]
19:19:58 [pgroth]
ack lebot
19:20:06 [jcheney]
... if someone volunteers to work on it before holidays, great, if not, we may not have time to finish it by march
19:20:21 [jcheney]
tlebo: reinforcing paolo's comments: content is from pre-last call
19:20:25 [Luc]
19:20:30 [jcheney]
... can support with prov-o parts
19:20:33 [lebot]
19:21:08 [jcheney]
paolo: will struggle between now and end of year but can try to make time
19:21:21 [jcheney]
... spike in teaching activity now
19:21:25 [pgroth]
@paolo that's why we need something else
19:21:33 [jcheney]
... unlikely to find more than 1-2 days
19:21:34 [pgroth]
19:21:46 [Luc]
19:21:52 [Luc]
ack paol
19:21:56 [pgroth]
19:22:06 [jcheney]
... was assigned to stian, so begin by checking whether he still plans to do this
19:22:25 [jcheney]
sam: tom and i will definitely help, could take lead if needed
19:22:36 [Paolo]
excellent I would definitely help out
19:22:40 [jcheney]
luc: sounds good!
19:23:11 [Luc]
19:23:14 [Luc]
ack pg
19:23:16 [ivan]
ack pgroth
19:23:52 [jcheney]
pgroth: stian may be busy, so extra help would be good; stian is a core implementor in taverna, & working with open annotation
19:24:01 [jcheney]
... implementations more important
19:24:04 [pgroth]
19:24:29 [lebot]
+1 drink each to @SamCoppens and @TomDN this evening ;-)
19:25:03 [jcheney]
luc: NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away
19:25:20 [jcheney]
(oops that was me) NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away
19:25:24 [Luc]
19:25:25 [lebot]
@Paolo can we wrap our arms around the raw materials?
19:25:44 [Luc]
19:26:28 [Luc]
action: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference
19:26:28 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find SamCoppens. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
19:26:57 [Luc]
19:26:59 [jcheney]
19:27:09 [Paolo]
cool, have to go bye everyone
19:27:33 [jcheney]
luc: completed prov-xml, prov-dictionary
19:27:36 [Zakim]
19:27:51 [jcheney]
... allocate 30-minutes to prov-sem?
19:28:08 [Luc]
scribe: TomDN
19:28:13 [Luc]
topic: prov-sem
19:28:14 [jcheney]
19:28:14 [pgroth]
action: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference
19:28:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-134 - draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [on Tom De Nies - due 2012-11-16].
19:28:36 [TomDN]
jcheney: Update on PROV-SEM.
19:29:00 [lebot]
19:29:16 [TomDN]
... Most of what's here: is aligned with the LC docs
19:30:19 [Luc]
19:30:25 [TomDN]
... With the CONSTRAINTS, we only enable people to track the constraints. But with SEM we could formalize all that more cleanly and acceptable for logics people
19:31:15 [TomDN]
... It's kinda hard to write that stuff down in HTML, instead of in for example LaTeX
19:31:49 [TomDN]
... There's an old Latex->HTML tool, but it's not conforming to the recent standards
19:32:03 [Luc]
19:32:15 [pgroth]
19:32:34 [TomDN]
... If I could write it as Latex, producing this note would be easier
19:33:54 [TomDN]
Luc: What's your sense of timetable?
19:34:10 [TomDN]
... And are there people who could help you?
19:34:19 [TomDN]
jcheney: Help would be good.
19:34:49 [TomDN]
... Now is a good time for me to do it.
19:35:23 [TomDN]
... But time that I wanted to spend on this has gone to the constraints.
19:36:46 [Luc]
19:36:55 [TomDN]
... I could definitely use people that can do the math markup
19:37:36 [TomDN]
pgroth: Go ahead an focus on the content, and we can see if we can find people to make it look nice
19:37:51 [Luc]
19:38:35 [TomDN]
ivan: it could be on the wiki after the WG closes. Then it has a URI and is read-only
19:38:52 [Luc]
ack pg
19:39:05 [TomDN]
jcheney: But is that OK for a formal Note?
19:39:08 [TomDN]
ivan: no.
19:39:41 [zednik]
19:39:46 [Luc]
19:40:13 [TomDN]
19:40:15 [lebot]
@zednik what a great name for a tool.
19:40:44 [TomDN]
Luc: Isn't there a tool at W3C to turn a wikipage into a note?
19:41:05 [Luc]
19:41:16 [TomDN]
ivan: Sandro had some python tools, but I don't know whether that would work. You'd have to ask Sandro.
19:41:24 [Luc]
19:41:33 [Luc]
ack tom
19:41:52 [pgroth]
19:42:24 [TomDN]
TomDN: I think the content is most important, to address comments about the semantics. let's focus on that first
19:42:50 [Luc]
19:43:30 [TomDN]
jcheney: I think a lot of people thought it'd be nice to have this, so it's definitely worth doing. The feedback was useful, but not the main reason to produce the Note
19:44:23 [TomDN]
pgroth: Conclusion: James keeps working on this in the way that's easiest for him, and then someone looks at the presentation stuff later.
19:44:29 [TomDN]
Luc: Timetable?
19:45:05 [Luc]
ack pg
19:45:10 [TomDN]
jcheney: I need about a week (continuous) work on this.
19:45:16 [Luc]
19:45:23 [TomDN]
... The week of the holidays seems reasonable for a first draft
19:46:12 [jcheney]
19:46:41 [TomDN]
jcheney: If you look at the end of the document, you'll see that I've already converted most stuff into the subset of LateX that Wiki supports.
19:47:28 [pgroth]
30 prov logic parsers
19:47:39 [pgroth]
all independent implementations
19:47:50 [Luc]
19:48:32 [pgroth]
we are happy
19:48:38 [TomDN]
everyone: We are all happy
19:49:18 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the call?
19:49:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]
19:49:23 [TomDN]
pgroth: Is there anyone on the phone that has comments on anything on the agenda?
19:51:18 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
19:51:37 [TomDN]
Topic: Mention
19:52:16 [TomDN]
Luc: Graham has thought about Mention.
19:52:33 [TomDN]
GK: I think I have an explanation of it that I'm OK with.
19:52:56 [TomDN]
... I hope it aligns with what is meant in the document.
19:53:33 [TomDN]
Luc: So you're not proposing a change of design, but a textual change?
19:53:45 [TomDN]
GK: Yes, it's an explanatory change.
19:54:36 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
19:55:39 [TomDN]
(Taking a break until 3:15 )
19:55:55 [Zakim]
19:56:02 [smiles]
OK, talk then
19:59:05 [laurent]
@jcheney Instructions to export wiki pages to HTML used for SSN
20:08:02 [GK]
GK has left #prov
20:15:41 [TomDN]
(and we're back ! )
20:15:58 [TomDN]
Zakim, who is on the call?
20:15:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT531, smiles
20:16:45 [Zakim]
20:16:47 [TomDN]
pgroth: Graham to propose editorial changes
20:16:53 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
20:16:56 [GK]
20:17:01 [TomDN]
(who just joined? )
20:17:13 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
20:17:19 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
20:17:27 [TomDN]
GK: Please see the link for the text regarding my suggestions
20:17:39 [jcheney]
can someone resend link
20:17:50 [TomDN]
... This is based on the description of Mention in PROV-DM
20:17:54 [SamCoppens]
20:17:59 [jcheney]
@Sam thanks!
20:19:51 [TomDN]
GK: I think this way, the examples could be done without TRiG
20:20:18 [Luc]
20:20:24 [pgroth]
ace Luc
20:20:31 [pgroth]
ack Luc
20:21:01 [TomDN]
Luc: In your first 2 sentences, you talk about the same entity using the same name, but with different descriptions in different bundles
20:21:15 [TomDN]
... However, we can't have the same name
20:21:57 [TomDN]
... Why do you have to indicate that they have the same name? Why not just the same entities with different descriptions?
20:22:18 [TomDN]
GK: Valid point, I was just working from a specific use case
20:22:38 [TomDN]
... It may not be necessary in the eventual descriptive text
20:22:48 [TomDN]
Luc: are you introducing a new inference?
20:22:54 [TomDN]
GK: I don't think so.
20:23:09 [lebot]
I pause on "the descriptions may be based on observations of different specializations "
20:23:46 [TomDN]
GK: To be clear, these are my thoughts on the matter, not something that should go directly into the description
20:24:18 [lebot]
it seems to impose a specialization of an entity every time someone attempts to fix an aspect of the entity.
20:24:58 [TomDN]
luc: Is "An application may have access to additional out of band information " there to explain the difference with /just/ a specialization?
20:25:02 [TomDN]
GK: yes
20:25:51 [lebot]
I pause on "about the specialization of e1 that is described in bundle b" since a specialization is not asserted - e1 is itself!
20:26:20 [TomDN]
Luc: Example: ratings. If I rate something that lasts an hour fast, someone else might rate it differently
20:26:22 [pgroth]
20:26:22 [lebot]
I very much like "The mentionOf construct provides a way to introduce a new entity that is the basis for observations in a specified bundle"
20:26:30 [TomDN]
GK: I think we're talking about the same thing
20:27:06 [TomDN]
Luc: Do you want to add these inferences to the document?
20:27:19 [TomDN]
GK: No, they are to help capture the essence of the text
20:27:52 [pgroth]
20:27:55 [TomDN]
Luc: Does this mean that you are now happy with mention? (If we do these edits in the text)
20:28:18 [pgroth]
20:28:19 [TomDN]
GK: I'd say yes, if my interpretation is what's meant in the document
20:28:44 [TomDN]
Luc: Attempting to assess the changes to be made
20:28:50 [pgroth]
20:28:51 [lebot]
I think the term "mentionedIn" is too broad from what we currently have: "asInBundle"
20:29:39 [jcheney]
"introduce a new entity that is the basis" -> "relate an entity in the current instance to another one that is the basis..." ??
20:29:49 [TomDN]
GK: I had trouble with "Some applications may want to interpret this entity e1 with respect to the descriptions found in the bundle b it occurs in."
20:30:15 [TomDN]
Luc: Yes, it looks liek we actually mean "The description of the entity in bundle b"
20:30:21 [TomDN]
20:30:44 [TomDN]
GK: also, "additional aspects"
20:31:34 [TomDN]
tlebo: but "aspects" is central in the definitions of alternate and specialization
20:31:40 [lebot]
Central to mention: "The primary author did not see fit to specialize, but the secondary consumer/author *does* see fit to specialize the entity".
20:31:59 [TomDN]
Luc: We didn't want a formal definition of aspect
20:32:53 [pgroth]
20:33:11 [TomDN]
tlebo: the term "additional aspect" just refers to the specifying of the bundle. After that you can add whatever you want
20:33:35 [TomDN]
GK: My problem is that it's focusing on the mention as the aspect
20:33:49 [smiles]
20:34:12 [TomDN]
Luc: I want to know exactly which edits we want to make
20:34:38 [TomDN]
GK: I was treating this as trying to capture the same information as in the document
20:34:42 [TomDN]
... as a replacement
20:35:06 [pgroth]
ack smiles
20:35:13 [TomDN]
smiles: I personally find the original text clearer than Graham's
20:35:35 [TomDN]
... To me, it doesn't seem to be about provenance, and not useful.
20:35:49 [TomDN]
... I wouldn't formally object, but I wouldn't use it
20:36:12 [TomDN]
... everything else in the document describes things in the past. But this doesn't.
20:36:22 [TomDN]
... So it's not really provenance
20:36:48 [TomDN]
20:36:59 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
20:37:30 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
20:38:17 [pgroth]
20:38:24 [pgroth]
20:38:29 [TomDN]
... I don't see a problem with it being at risk. But since we want it in or out now, I would vote for out
20:38:36 [Curt]
It allows us to tie additional information to provenance information
20:39:00 [TomDN]
TomDN: But alternate and specialization technically don't describe things in the past, so why block mention for that reason?
20:39:27 [TomDN]
smiles: because they do describe "this thing was alternate of this thing" in the past
20:39:51 [TomDN]
TomDN: I think mention does that as well, just with a different name...
20:40:30 [TomDN]
pgroth: What I'm worried about is leaving here with a pseudo-agreement to have an editorial change, and then later someone objects to it
20:40:36 [Luc]
20:41:09 [TomDN]
... What Graham wrote seems like a different concept than what we have
20:41:27 [pgroth]
ack Luc
20:41:44 [TomDN]
... We need an answer from the WG to the question: "Is this construct worth delaying everything else?"
20:42:24 [TomDN]
Luc: I think it's different from what's in the document, but essentially, you didn't change the bullets, or did you?
20:42:39 [TomDN]
GK: I reordered them
20:42:49 [TomDN]
... I said generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);
20:43:09 [TomDN]
... whereas you said: generalEntity: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.
20:43:27 [TomDN]
... and: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);
20:43:39 [TomDN]
... instead of: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of an entity that is a specialization of (supra);
20:44:39 [TomDN]
GK: I couldn't understand the original description, but mine is what I made from it after discussion
20:45:08 [TomDN]
Luc: what about incompatibility with RDF semantics?
20:45:27 [TomDN]
GK: that was part of the basis of my concern, but not the essence
20:45:56 [pgroth]
20:46:38 [TomDN]
GK: I'm checking whether I can make lighter changes with the same effect
20:46:58 [lebot]
prov-o's definition: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of prov:specializationOf whose subject presents as an aspect a particular prov:Bundle in which its more general Entity was described (prov:asInBundle is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned)."
20:47:15 [lebot]
20:47:27 [pgroth]
ack lebot
20:47:56 [TomDN]
tlebo: When we were comparing the bullets, I was thinking it would make sense to keep the current DM definition for bundle and specific entity, but use Graham's general entity
20:48:28 [lebot]
generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);
20:48:40 [TomDN]
... If we get rid of this word "mentioned", then we can avoid some confusion
20:48:41 [lebot]
generalEntity: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.
20:48:42 [lebot]
bundle: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.
20:49:27 [lebot]
^^ wipe that :-)
20:49:46 [lebot]
specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);
20:49:55 [lebot]
generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);
20:50:01 [lebot]
bundle: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.
20:50:09 [TomDN]
Luc: I'm concerned that we're not progressing
20:51:27 [TomDN]
ivan: I think the only way to move forward is to drop it from the spec
20:51:33 [SamCoppens]
20:51:37 [TomDN]
... It's harsh, but realistic
20:51:49 [pgroth]
ack SamCoppens
20:52:14 [TomDN]
SamCoppens: This seems to be about interpretation. Can't we just leave the description as such, but explain using Graham's example?
20:52:28 [TomDN]
ivan: We are at the last minute
20:52:30 [lebot]
q+ to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.
20:52:57 [TomDN]
pgroth: We're not even arguing about a little bit of text. This is a substantial change
20:53:17 [TomDN]
... The goal of the DM was to have an intuitive, easy to understand model.
20:53:30 [lebot]
wasInfluencedBy is confusing with wasInformed
20:53:31 [pgroth]
ack lebot
20:53:31 [Zakim]
lebot, you wanted to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.
20:53:32 [TomDN]
... Now, we agree on the structure, but not on the definition it seems
20:53:48 [TomDN]
tlebo: isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.
20:54:19 [lebot]
20:55:26 [TomDN]
pgroth: But the commenter from earlier today wasn't a WG member, that had the chance to discuss with us for a long time
20:56:05 [Luc]
20:56:06 [TomDN]
... If it's not clear for Graham, how can we expect outsiders to get it?
20:57:01 [ivan]
ack luc
20:57:32 [TomDN]
Luc: yesterday, it seemed to me like there was no support for the construct. But this morning it seemed there was.
20:57:43 [TomDN]
... But now we have to move to CR.
20:58:25 [TomDN]
GK: I will back down from making a formal objection, after discussing it today
20:59:23 [TomDN]
Luc: Still, at previous meetings, we agreed that if there's no consensus, we would drop it.
20:59:38 [TomDN]
... I say we just vote
21:01:03 [pgroth]
21:01:16 [smiles]
21:01:21 [pgroth]
ack smiles
21:01:41 [TomDN]
smiles: I wanted to ask: what is the negative consequence of it being removed?
21:01:48 [TomDN]
pgroth: You can't use it
21:02:01 [jcheney]
21:02:02 [TomDN]
... we lose some interoperability
21:02:29 [Curt]
we have a 6pm res
21:02:34 [pgroth]
ack smiles
21:02:47 [TomDN]
jcheney: It might be good to state the pros and cons
21:02:51 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
21:02:53 [TomDN]
... pro: clear use case
21:03:08 [TomDN]
... con: it's been controversial
21:03:10 [TomDN]
21:03:46 [hook]
21:03:57 [TomDN]
... pro of removing: covering our euphimisms
21:05:03 [pgroth]
ack TomDN
21:06:15 [smiles]
A note has the advantage that if a better way is found later, the DM would still stand complete without the note
21:06:22 [TomDN]
tomDN: still in favor of creating a note. seems like the same amount of time, but without delaying CR
21:06:36 [TomDN]
hook: Could we do something less strong than that?
21:06:45 [TomDN]
Luc: like a wiki
21:06:47 [pgroth]
ack hook
21:07:05 [TomDN]
ivan: You could take what's there, and put it into an informative appendix
21:07:10 [TomDN]
... as a guideline.
21:07:13 [pgroth]
21:07:21 [TomDN]
... But it wouldn't be in the standard ontology
21:07:39 [Curt]
similarly, we would have to leave it out of the XML schema
21:08:08 [TomDN]
pgroth: My worry with that is that it's confusing.
21:08:17 [TomDN]
... CR speaks with a clear voice
21:08:26 [TomDN]
... An informative appendix does not
21:08:54 [TomDN]
Hook: So do we provide ambiguous guidance or no guidance at all?
21:09:11 [TomDN]
pgroth: Either crystal clear or not at all
21:09:54 [TomDN]
ivan: Any member can do a member submission, but that's really the weakest form
21:10:39 [pgroth]
propose: Keep mentionOf as part of PROV as is and not at risk
21:10:45 [smiles]
21:10:46 [lebot]
21:10:57 [Curt]
21:10:59 [jcheney]
21:11:08 [hook]
21:11:10 [GK]
21:11:16 [zednik]
+1 (RPI)
21:11:20 [TomDN]
21:11:39 [SamCoppens]
21:12:29 [pgroth]
resolved: mentionOf is removed from PROV rec track documents
21:14:48 [TomDN]
21:14:59 [ivan]
ack pgroth
21:15:08 [Curt]
as a note, what would be the effect on the OWL or XSD schema?
21:15:39 [TomDN]
21:15:49 [smiles]
@pgroth yes, exactly
21:17:09 [Luc]
21:17:51 [TomDN]
Luc: Simon, Graham, would you object to mention as is in a note?
21:18:02 [TomDN]
Graham: no, I'd go -0 or support it
21:18:09 [TomDN]
smiles: no, probably 0
21:18:27 [TomDN]
ivan: so timetable for this hypothetical note?
21:18:51 [TomDN]
pgroth: not together with CR. It's a "new"note.
21:19:15 [TomDN]
... Who would do this?
21:19:34 [TomDN]
Luc: As editors. we should take out the text from the recs, and put it into a document
21:19:43 [TomDN]
... I'll take on this
21:19:50 [hook]
21:20:10 [pgroth]
action: luc create a mention of document
21:20:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-135 - Create a mention of document [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
21:20:37 [pgroth]
ack hook
21:21:11 [TomDN]
Hook: This will be a new note for the DM, but how far deep would the note go regarding the other documents?
21:21:14 [ivan]
21:21:20 [TomDN]
Luc: A single, comprehensive document
21:21:56 [TomDN]
ivan: What about the 2 extra terms in owl. Which namespace would that be?
21:22:00 [jcheney]
21:22:02 [lebot]
@hook, the "put it all together" approach is what we agreed to do for dictionary
21:22:04 [TomDN]
Luc: same for XML
21:22:16 [TomDN]
s/same/same question for
21:22:23 [lebot]
didn't we agree that the dictionary term URIs were "reserved" in our namespace?
21:22:57 [jcheney]
21:22:58 [TomDN]
pgroth: same solution as with the other notes
21:23:53 [TomDN]
ivan: has to be made clear that these are not standard properties
21:24:39 [TomDN]
pgroth: We have prov-aq.owl, prov-dc.owl, etc.
21:25:12 [hook]
@lebot, thanks for clarifying.
21:25:13 [TomDN]
... Eventually, we'll create a "super" owl file including everything, with clear commenting what is standard and what not
21:25:46 [TomDN]
ivan: So it'll all be in the same namespace. And I am happy with that
21:25:56 [GK]
GK has left #prov
21:27:17 [TomDN]
Topic: Vote for CR
21:27:25 [jcheney]
should we formally close 475??
21:27:55 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
21:29:28 [pgroth]
close ISSUE-475
21:29:28 [trackbot]
ISSUE-475 Request to drop "mention" and related elements closed
21:30:33 [pgroth]
action: Luc to update public response on mention
21:30:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-136 - Update public response on mention [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
21:30:42 [pgroth]
proposed: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed
21:30:44 [jcheney]
what is the record for number of issues?
21:30:49 [TomDN]
21:30:52 [ivan]
21:30:55 [Curt]
21:30:58 [smiles]
21:30:58 [jcheney]
21:30:59 [GK]
21:30:59 [hook]
21:30:59 [SamCoppens]
21:31:02 [lebot]
21:31:04 [zednik]
+1 (RPI)
21:31:26 [pgroth]
+1 (VUA)
21:31:30 [Luc]
+1 (Southampton)
21:31:44 [pgroth]
accepted: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed
21:31:47 [smiles]
Sorry, got to go now. Talk to you tomorrow
21:32:17 [Zakim]
21:32:25 [GK]
GK has left #prov
21:33:56 [Curt]
zakim, who is here
21:33:56 [Zakim]
Curt, you need to end that query with '?'
21:34:02 [Curt]
zakim, who is here?
21:34:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT531, [IPcaller]
21:34:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, hook, MacTed, lebot, laurent, TomDN, SamCoppens, ivan, Luc, pgroth, RRSAgent, Zakim, zednik, trackbot, stain
21:34:37 [Zakim]
21:39:51 [TomDN]
Topic: PROV-AQ
21:40:03 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
21:40:06 [GK]
21:40:11 [TomDN]
Luc: It would be good to hear from the editors and set a time for a next release
21:40:23 [TomDN]
GK: Until about a week ago there was no progress.
21:40:38 [TomDN]
... In the last week I started going through the issue list
21:40:39 [Zakim]
21:40:46 [TomDN]
... 25 are pending review
21:44:02 [TomDN]
GK: There were 2 issues I'd like some feedback on
21:44:17 [TomDN]
... One is link relations or full URIs
21:45:25 [TomDN]
tlebo: If there's something I can edit in the document, I could settle my raised issues
21:45:31 [Luc]
21:45:33 [TomDN]
GK: Just let me know what the changes are
21:47:05 [TomDN]
ivan: rel="provenance" is something that isn't defined by HTML yet
21:47:19 [TomDN]
... if you use full URIs, you don't have that problem
21:47:31 [TomDN]
pgroth: can you use those in the header of an HTTP request?
21:47:37 [TomDN]
ivan: not sure
21:47:42 [TomDN]
GK: I think it might work
21:47:52 [TomDN]
ivan: Another option is RDFa
21:48:01 [TomDN]
... prov:provenance
21:48:08 [Luc]
21:48:32 [Luc]
ack iv
21:48:51 [TomDN]
ivan: Might be good to talk to the Linked Data Profile WG
21:49:17 [lebot]
q+ to say I think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.
21:50:35 [Luc]
21:51:26 [TomDN]
... I am not familiar with all the details of their spec, but it makes sense to try and comply with their method
21:51:39 [TomDN]
... Making it clear that we arent talking about a REC
21:52:00 [Luc]
21:52:23 [TomDN]
tlebo: think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.
21:52:42 [TomDN]
GK: So we basically agree to push ahead with URIs
21:52:48 [Luc]
ack tleb
21:52:51 [lebot]
21:53:52 [TomDN]
GK: Paul raised an issue about introducing roles of consumer and publisher
21:54:13 [TomDN]
... I've taken that on board in the discovery section, so you may want to review.
21:54:33 [TomDN]
pgroth: Locating provenance information section?
21:54:36 [TomDN]
GK: yes
21:55:08 [TomDN]
GK: We are also dropping the reference to POWDER
21:55:47 [TomDN]
pgroth: Do we still want best practice in this document?
21:56:49 [TomDN]
ivan: This also might be interesting to discuss with the LDP WG
21:58:05 [TomDN]
Luc: Do want a discussion on bundle identifiers? And how we access their content?
21:59:16 [TomDN]
... When are we aiming for the next release?
21:59:30 [TomDN]
GK: last time I checked, by the end of this month
22:00:00 [TomDN]
.. at least with the outstanding issues resolved and ready for another round of review
22:00:12 [TomDN]
Luc: So the end of the year would be feasible?
22:00:29 [TomDN]
... And do we synchronize with the family of specs?
22:00:35 [TomDN]
ivan: Absolutely
22:01:39 [TomDN]
pgroth: I would like an implementation of AQ
22:01:51 [TomDN]
... using the example corpus of provenance
22:02:05 [Luc]
22:02:08 [TomDN]
... Also, the document should be cleaner
22:02:33 [TomDN]
... (e.g. best practices inside the document)
22:02:49 [TomDN]
... smaller would also be good
22:03:48 [TomDN]
pgroth: We should aim for a release cycle by the end of the year
22:04:36 [TomDN]
Luc: As we did with the DM, we can release an internal draft for review of specific people
22:04:44 [TomDN]
GK: I'll give it a shot
22:04:53 [Luc]
22:05:15 [TomDN]
GK: Question for the group: What do we do with the issues that have been there for a long time?
22:05:55 [TomDN]
Luc: We should send out reminders
22:06:08 [TomDN]
22:06:37 [TomDN]
pgroth: I'll set a date for all the pending reviews
22:06:43 [TomDN]
GK: sounds good
22:07:14 [Luc]
action: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review
22:07:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-137 - Organize closure of issues closed pending review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].
22:07:58 [TomDN]
Luc: We're trying to close the ones created before summer, specifically
22:09:07 [TomDN]
Luc: Anything specific (technical) that you'd like to discuss now?
22:09:15 [TomDN]
GK: Not really
22:09:40 [TomDN]
pgroth: I just need to respond to your responses
22:09:46 [lebot]
q+ to ask, "aren't I 75% of the pending reviews?"
22:10:35 [lebot]
22:11:27 [TomDN]
Luc: Do we want to say something about dereferencing bundle identifiers to obtain the content of a bundle?
22:11:48 [TomDN]
... Currently, we don't have a mechanism for that
22:13:03 [Luc]
22:13:07 [pgroth]
22:13:31 [TomDN]
ivan: Intuitively, I'd say you GET a set of provenance statements
22:14:15 [jcheney]
22:14:18 [TomDN]
... in some serialization
22:14:34 [TomDN]
... depending on content negotation
22:14:41 [Luc]
22:14:43 [TomDN]
... (RDF or XML)
22:14:46 [lebot]
22:14:50 [lebot]
22:14:55 [Luc]
ack pg
22:15:01 [Luc]
22:15:24 [Curt]
22:15:40 [TomDN]
jcheney: Naïvely, it seems that PROV-N and PROV-XML define what a PROV document is, and that has a name/identifier
22:16:21 [Luc]
22:16:21 [TomDN]
... Are we saying that the URIs of the bundles in that document should be dereferencable?
22:16:24 [Luc]
ack jc
22:16:32 [ivan]
22:16:35 [ivan]
ack jcheney
22:17:14 [Luc]
ack leb
22:17:43 [TomDN]
lebot: I propose an alternative HTTP response: at least one triple would come back, saying that the type is prov:bundle
22:17:44 [pgroth]
22:18:00 [TomDN]
@lebot: (is that about right, Tim?)
22:18:07 [pgroth]
that's actually how we do it the paq
22:19:05 [TomDN]
Luc: What if the bundle name is not a URL, so you can't dereference it
22:19:27 [TomDN]
... We may have UUIDs...
22:19:53 [lebot]
I think s/UUID/hash(graph)/ helps phrase the discussion better.
22:20:10 [TomDN]
22:20:25 [lebot]
@TomDN No, @luc means UUID.
22:20:36 [lebot]
22:20:37 [Luc]
22:20:42 [Luc]
ack lu
22:20:49 [TomDN]
Zakim, never minds that last s/
22:20:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'never minds that last s/', TomDN
22:21:16 [lebot]
VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with void:dataDump and dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL ]
22:21:25 [GK]
q+ to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where possible
22:21:59 [Luc]
22:22:06 [Luc]
ack ivan
22:22:09 [TomDN]
ivan: Coming back to James's question. If we're talking about an ID, do we mean a document or a bundle?
22:23:10 [Luc]
22:23:17 [TomDN]
... The file containing the bundles is conceptually different from the bundles
22:24:16 [TomDN]
... I'd like to get the bundle in 1 place
22:24:34 [lebot]
VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with ?bundle void:dataDump <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> and ?bundle dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> ] .
22:25:28 [Luc]
22:25:39 [Luc]
ack pg
22:25:47 [TomDN]
pgroth: another way to put it is:How do you retrieve the description of an entity?
22:25:52 [lebot]
solve the problem for Entity, you've solved the problem for Bundle.
22:26:14 [TomDN]
... It might be out of scope, but we have to look into that
22:26:32 [Luc]
22:26:36 [TomDN]
... "Given the identifier of an entity, how do we get the provenance for that? "
22:27:15 [lebot]
This sounds more difficult and less finished than "mention"...
22:27:33 [TomDN]
ivan: My advice is to sit down with other WGs that specialize in that
22:27:35 [lebot]
(but, not a CR...)
22:28:20 [pgroth]
22:28:26 [TomDN]
GK: there are many things we /could/ specify. But we should focus on the simple stuff first
22:29:04 [TomDN]
GK: So we start to sketch our own thoughts on the matter, and then go to other WGs
22:29:04 [Luc]
22:29:09 [Luc]
ack gk
22:29:09 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where
22:29:12 [Zakim]
... possible
22:29:30 [TomDN]
pgroth: To me, we should go and look what LDP does
22:29:53 [TomDN]
... Because, in a linked data context, all that stuff is already defined
22:30:10 [TomDN]
... Do we want interoperability in this space?
22:30:32 [TomDN]
... The linked data community is trying to tackle that, we don't have the manpower for it
22:31:02 [TomDN]
... I want to focus on "Is the way we do it, the best, simplest, correct way to do it?"
22:31:46 [TomDN]
Luc: conclusion: this issue is out of scope?
22:32:06 [TomDN]
GK: We should just be careful about which route we go down on
22:32:41 [TomDN]
Luc: So the editors will come up with a lightweight approach
22:33:56 [TomDN]
pgroth: I think the best practice should be separate
22:34:31 [TomDN]
... That way the document becomes nice and small, and very clear
22:34:36 [TomDN]
... and easy to implement
22:34:49 [TomDN]
... and then all the bundle/SPARQL stuff separate
22:35:20 [Luc]
proposed: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596
22:35:48 [Luc]
accepted: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596
22:36:25 [Zakim]
22:36:33 [Zakim]
22:36:34 [Zakim]
SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended
22:36:34 [Zakim]
Attendees were MIT531, [IPcaller], smiles, Paolo
22:37:19 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
22:37:28 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
22:37:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
22:37:45 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
22:37:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
22:37:45 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
22:37:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:37:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
22:37:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
I see 17 open action items saved in :
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Luc editor check [1]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check [2]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given) [3]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page [4]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document [5]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o [6]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [7]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o [8]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [9]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints [10]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page [11]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview [12]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [13]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [14]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: luc create a mention of document [15]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention [16]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review [17]
22:37:54 [RRSAgent]
recorded in