IRC log of prov on 2012-11-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:56:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:56:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
15:56:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:56:34 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM already started
15:56:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:56:36 [trackbot]
Date: 29 November 2012
15:56:51 [pgroth]
15:56:53 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:57:04 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:57:13 [pgroth]
Scribe: Curt Tilmes
15:57:18 [pgroth]
Regrets: Paolo Missier, Hua Hook
15:57:30 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:58:22 [Zakim]
15:58:31 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:59:42 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:59:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], Curt_Tilmes
15:59:53 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:53 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
16:00:07 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:00:10 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aaaa
16:00:18 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:00:20 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:00:25 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
16:00:25 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
16:00:38 [Zakim]
16:00:49 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:00:55 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:00:57 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:00:57 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:00:58 [smiles]
zakim, ??P13 is me
16:00:58 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
16:01:07 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:01:14 [pgroth]
16:01:20 [pgroth]
Minutes of Nov. 22, 2012
16:01:28 [Curt]
0 (not present)
16:01:36 [smiles]
16:01:38 [MacTed]
MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG -- -- current agenda
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aabb
16:02:19 [pgroth]
Accepted: Minutes of Nov. 22, 2012 telcon
16:02:41 [Curt]
pgroth: open action items
16:02:46 [Zakim]
16:02:50 [Zakim]
16:03:03 [GK]
zakim, ??P19 is me
16:03:03 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
16:03:32 [pgroth]
Topic: Congratulations
16:03:33 [Curt]
pgroth: action 153 should be complete -- will double check
16:03:35 [Luc]
16:03:47 [Curt]
pgroth: request for transition to CR sent out
16:04:40 [pgroth]
Topic: Actions
16:05:01 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:05:04 [Luc]
it's for december
16:05:04 [Zakim]
16:05:07 [Curt]
tlebo: 116 -- haven't done yet, will soon
16:05:14 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
16:05:14 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
16:05:29 [pgroth]
close Action-128
16:05:30 [trackbot]
ACTION-128 Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o closed
16:05:33 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
16:05:38 [Zakim]
16:05:45 [pgroth]
close action-129
16:05:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-129 Editor check prov-o closed
16:05:47 [TomDN]
Zakim, TomDN is with SamCoppens
16:05:47 [Zakim]
+TomDN; got it
16:05:50 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
16:05:56 [Curt]
pgroth: action 122 still open, complete by next week
16:06:03 [Zakim]
16:06:06 [pgroth]
close action-133
16:06:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-133 Draft a first one page overview closed
16:07:00 [Curt]
SamCoppens: action 134, timetable for prov-dictionary has been proposed
16:07:17 [Luc]
16:07:40 [Luc]
we said we would do an "internal" release
16:07:41 [pgroth]
16:07:45 [pgroth]
ace Luc
16:07:51 [Luc]
16:07:56 [Curt]
pgroth: after dec 14, there is a moratorium until after xmas -- then we can release prov-dict FPWD
16:08:13 [pgroth]
close action-134
16:08:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-134 draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference closed
16:08:16 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:08:22 [pgroth]
close action-135
16:08:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-135 Create a mention of document closed
16:08:24 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:08:24 [Luc]
@Sam, did you see the current draft for dictionary
16:08:31 [CraigTrim]
CraigTrim has joined #PROV
16:08:45 [Zakim]
16:08:46 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:08:47 [TomDN]
yes, we did, thanks Luc
16:08:52 [Curt]
pgroth: 3 actions on stephan on questionnaire will discuss later
16:08:59 [Luc]
@Tom, great!
16:09:01 [TomDN]
Good place to start :)
16:09:14 [pgroth]
16:09:25 [pgroth]
Topic: Congratulations
16:09:32 [pgroth]
16:09:58 [Luc]
@Tom, you may want to move this document into a separate directory in hg
16:10:16 [TomDN]
@Luc: ok, will do
16:10:20 [Luc]
PROV WG is in good company, HTML5 went CR at same time as us
16:10:27 [pgroth]
16:11:03 [pgroth]
16:11:15 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-Overview
16:11:22 [pgroth]
16:11:38 [Curt]
pgroth: special thanks to editors of standards and Jun for org ont feedback
16:11:49 [GK]
Jun say's she's received offline ack of org ontology feedback
16:12:13 [Curt]
pgroth: small PROV-Overview for intro to PROV
16:12:17 [SamCoppens]
zakim, mute me
16:12:17 [Zakim]
SamCoppens should now be muted
16:12:34 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
16:12:43 [Curt]
pgroth: feedback from khalid, paolo, one other, minor changes, concerns about picture, all approved going to FPWD
16:12:44 [pgroth]
16:12:47 [smiles]
I read it through and seemed good
16:13:10 [dgarijo]
@curt: the other was me
16:13:15 [pgroth]
proposed: release of PROV-Overview as a FPWD
16:13:20 [tlebo]
16:13:21 [dgarijo]
16:13:22 [smiles]
16:13:24 [Curt]
16:13:25 [zednik]
16:13:28 [Dong]
16:13:28 [TomDN]
16:13:30 [jun]
16:13:30 [jcheney]
16:13:32 [SamCoppens]
16:13:34 [GK]
16:13:41 [satya]
16:13:52 [pgroth]
accepted: release of PROV-Overview as a FPWD
16:14:11 [Curt]
pgroth: will add recommended changes next week
16:14:16 [Luc]
16:14:26 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:14:49 [Curt]
pgroth: timetable to release discussed last week
16:14:53 [Luc]
Luc summarized the timetable to CR publication. CR documents must be ready by noon GMT on November 26th, for final check by chairs and Ivan. Announcement on Nov 27th. CR transition teleconference on Dec 6, and planned publication on Dec 11th. Notes to be ready for staging on Dec 5th. Vote for release of notes on Nov 29th. Questionnaires must be ready by Dec 11th.
16:16:56 [Curt]
Luc: many documents being released, we would like to go by the 4th noon
16:17:16 [pgroth]
16:17:20 [dgarijo]
very clear
16:17:20 [GK]
Plan fopr PROV-AQ?
16:17:25 [smiles]
16:17:57 [GK]
16:18:01 [Curt]
pgroth: postponing PROV-AQ for now for review
16:18:01 [pgroth]
16:18:09 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-Links
16:18:24 [pgroth]
16:18:57 [Curt]
Luc: extracted text from mention from PROV-DM, N, CONSTRAINTS, O, XML and added the intro, editted into a note
16:19:00 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:19:08 [Curt]
Luc: paolo reviewed and recommended release
16:19:18 [smiles]
I skimmed it, and it looked fine to me
16:19:25 [jcheney]
q+ to ask a pedantic question
16:19:25 [GK]
q+ to say I've reviewed links docs, have some issues with a couple of points but not fatal
16:19:26 [Curt]
Luc: Curt pointed out a typo, recommended releasse
16:19:36 [pgroth]
ack GK
16:19:36 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to say I've reviewed links docs, have some issues with a couple of points but not fatal
16:19:56 [Zakim]
16:20:13 [jun]
zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:20:13 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
16:20:15 [Zakim]
16:20:17 [Curt]
GK: have read the document, I have significant comments I will write up, but ok to release as a draft
16:20:30 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
16:20:30 [Zakim]
jcheney, you wanted to ask a pedantic question
16:20:31 [Curt]
GK: will write up and send after this call
16:20:56 [Curt]
jcheney: as a note, it should only have informative references
16:21:04 [smiles]
16:21:11 [pgroth]
ack smiles
16:21:11 [Curt]
Luc: right, will fix
16:21:38 [pgroth]
16:21:49 [pgroth]
proposed: Release of PROV-Links as a FPWD
16:21:58 [smiles]
16:21:59 [dgarijo]
16:21:59 [Curt]
16:22:03 [tlebo]
16:22:03 [stain]
16:22:10 [zednik]
16:22:10 [GK]
16:22:10 [Dong]
16:22:14 [satya]
16:22:18 [TomDN]
16:22:20 [jcheney]
16:22:33 [pgroth]
accepted: release of PROV-Links as a FPWD
16:22:42 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-DC
16:22:46 [stain]
quick Q: would the XML bit work as an extension to PROV-XML when it is using the same namespace?
16:22:56 [pgroth]
16:22:59 [SamCoppens1]
SamCoppens1 has joined #prov
16:23:00 [Curt]
dgarijo: reviews from craig, luc, simon
16:23:12 [Curt]
dgarijo: haven't discussed with kai (?) yet
16:23:46 [Curt]
dgarijo: will contact him and discuss and ready by next tuesday
16:23:59 [Zakim]
16:24:02 [SamCoppens1]
+1 fro release of PROV-links (just got disconnected when voting)
16:24:09 [GK]
@stian hopefully the PROV-XML spec will have extension points that can be "colonized" by the links/mention elements. Haven't actually looked, though.
16:24:11 [khalidBelhajjame]
zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
16:24:11 [Zakim]
+khalidBelhajjame; got it
16:24:37 [pgroth]
16:24:38 [Curt]
pgroth: are the changes blockers to FPWD?
16:24:42 [Luc]
16:24:58 [dgarijo]
YES, I'll do that today
16:25:03 [dgarijo]
thanks, Simon
16:25:04 [Curt]
dgarijo: no, some references need to fix, actual content no blockers
16:25:08 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:25:33 [GK]
@smiles … you can include Luc's references quite easily - I've done that for PROV-AQ; it's quite easy
16:25:59 [dgarijo]
16:26:07 [Curt]
Luc: the example for figure 2 was valid, not invalid as document indicated -- must be fixed to clarify constraints
16:26:50 [Curt]
dgarijo: correct, I need to fix that, will work on that before week-end
16:27:28 [Curt]
pgroth: add a box noting some sections are still under discussion prior to draft
16:27:33 [pgroth]
16:27:35 [pgroth]
ack dgarijo
16:27:45 [Curt]
pgroth: but should fix the constraint now
16:27:51 [pgroth]
proposed: Release of PROV-DC as a FPWD
16:27:57 [smiles]
16:27:58 [dgarijo]
16:27:58 [TomDN]
16:27:59 [tlebo]
16:27:59 [satya]
16:27:59 [jcheney]
16:28:00 [SamCoppens1]
16:28:01 [zednik]
16:28:01 [stain]
16:28:06 [Curt]
16:28:21 [pgroth]
accepted: Release of PROV-DC as a FPWD
16:28:37 [Curt]
pgroth: all notes should be ready before next tuesday
16:28:46 [pgroth]
Topic: Implementation Questionnaire
16:29:04 [zednik]
16:29:06 [stain]
Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:29:06 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
16:29:06 [Curt]
zednik: looked at WBS to host survey
16:29:49 [pgroth]
16:29:49 [Luc]
16:29:51 [Curt]
zednik: have implemented implementation questionnaire -- need feedback
16:29:53 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:30:15 [Curt]
Luc: can 1 individual submit multiple implementation reports
16:30:48 [Curt]
zednik: you can do it by logging in with multiple email addresses, otherwise it retrieves your old report
16:30:53 [Curt]
(that's a kludge)
16:31:12 [stain]
perhaps you can do the + trick for making additional email addresses.. for instance:,,
16:31:45 [Curt]
pgroth: some questions are awkward to ask with WBS
16:32:53 [pgroth]
16:32:55 [Curt]
pgroth: should we pursue with WBS given the issues?
16:33:00 [Luc]
the good think is that we see all questions that are being asked
16:33:06 [Luc]
the good thing is that we see all questions that are being asked
16:33:23 [Luc]
16:34:11 [Curt]
Luc: I understand the issues, they're awkward, but acceptable -- what do you recommend?
16:34:26 [Luc]
16:34:33 [Curt]
pgroth: I think WBS is a bit better than google docs, can return and continue editting
16:34:57 [Curt]
pgroth: most respondents will already have a W3C account, tallying is nice, on W3C site is good
16:34:58 [tlebo]
returning to the survey is +100. It's reassuring for a tentative implementer.
16:35:34 [Curt]
pgroth: a little annoying with multiple implementations, (e.g. vocabulary + application), but those
16:35:48 [Curt]
pgroth: are already separate questionnaires
16:35:58 [stain]
Feature Coverage" should have some more details about using the +++ ratings for different feature level. Add "Indicate covered features by selecting one of the following in the dropdown lists"
16:36:01 [Curt]
pgroth: could easily work around the multiple email issue
16:36:40 [Curt]
zednik: very nice to be able to come back to it, email in responses works too, a lot of advantages, some awkwardness in questions, but we can cope with it
16:36:56 [Curt]
zednik: reporting is nice, haven't seen in detail yet
16:37:11 [pgroth]
16:37:14 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:37:25 [stain]
oh hang on, I can fix it myself. Done!
16:37:46 [tlebo]
@stian ;-)
16:37:47 [zednik]
text version of the questionnaire:
16:37:50 [Curt]
pgroth: it may be easier in putting together the implementation report -- can refer to these results
16:37:52 [pgroth]
16:38:00 [Luc]
Stephan and Paul, thanks for doing this!
16:38:09 [pgroth]
Topic: Constraints Test cases
16:38:31 [pgroth]
16:38:31 [Dong]
16:39:27 [Curt]
Dong: lots of test cases, examples from documents, a table in the doc describes coverage by test cases
16:39:46 [Curt]
Dong: can do gap analysis to figure out which we still need
16:40:09 [Luc]
@zednik, is it possible to change the URL and have them point to the date urls for the CR documents? also, can we have links for everything?
16:40:12 [Curt]
Dong: I've done categorization, but could use help with that
16:40:31 [Curt]
pgroth: several comments online about doc organization
16:40:56 [Luc]
@Dong, same comment as for Stephan, we need to use urls to CR documents
16:40:58 [Curt]
Dong: Haven't revised doc yet, plan is to restructure doc for implementors
16:41:11 [Curt]
Dong: will do that very soon
16:41:26 [Luc]
16:41:29 [stain]
16:41:32 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:41:56 [Curt]
Luc: table for coverage, is it complete?
16:42:12 [Curt]
Dong: we cover all constraints, but some only pass, not fail yet
16:42:13 [zednik]
@Luc, is your question concerning the links in the Feature Coverage question? If so, yes. I will need to determine the best link anchor for the Person, Organization, etc.
16:42:50 [pgroth]
ack stain
16:43:23 [Curt]
stain: it says the implementation can use the representation to test the constraint -- would be good to know which representation was used for each case
16:44:09 [Curt]
Dong: good idea -- would be good to have representations equivalent, but in some cases that may not be perfect. That is doable, we'll add that to the cases and extract into the repot
16:44:12 [Luc]
16:44:25 [Curt]
pgroth: have we decided on the test case naming convention?
16:45:04 [Curt]
Dong: arbitrary name + pass/fail + constraint number
16:45:34 [Curt]
pgroth: other two tables from PROV-O examples / test cases, those don't have constraint numbers
16:45:58 [Curt]
Dong: yes, they are complex and cover multiple constraints, they aren't unit tests, but they should still pass the validator
16:46:14 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:47:11 [Curt]
Luc: the links to the documents should point to the dated URLs to the other docs (questionnaire document too)
16:48:04 [Curt]
Dong: will do for release
16:48:14 [Curt]
Luc: we want them prior to the telecon
16:48:17 [Curt]
Dong: will do
16:48:24 [pgroth]
Topic: Other Documents
16:49:02 [Curt]
smiles: working on other docs, will update primer this week-end
16:49:04 [pgroth]
16:49:11 [Zakim]
16:49:31 [Curt]
pgroth: XML status? voted to release as FPWD already, all staged and ready to go?
16:49:39 [zednik]
discconnected from audio, calling back in
16:50:02 [Zakim]
16:50:06 [zednik]
16:50:24 [Curt]
Curt: I think the changes were all made and everything is staged
16:50:38 [Curt]
zednik: it is staged now, the CR links don't resolve
16:51:11 [Luc]
16:51:12 [pgroth]
16:51:21 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:51:38 [Curt]
Luc: Curt raised a question about how to handle XML namespace
16:52:06 [Curt]
16:52:17 [Dong]
Sorry, I have to go.
16:52:24 [pgroth]
16:52:25 [pgroth]
16:52:26 [pgroth]
16:52:30 [Curt]
pgroth: we merge the various namespaces together for PROV-O, can we do something similar for PROV-XML?
16:52:30 [Dong]
Bye all.
16:52:47 [Zakim]
16:53:16 [Curt]
Luc: If you look at the ontology, we have mentionOf defined in a separate document, but it still uses the prov: namespace
16:54:06 [pgroth]
16:54:36 [stain] uses <xs:any namespace="##other"/> -- so here you can't extend this using the same namespace
16:54:41 [stain]
you would have to use <xs:any /> instead
16:54:43 [Curt]
Luc: a separate ontology defines mention, but the subject/object are prov entities, is that ok? I don't think we can do that with XML.
16:55:07 [Curt]
pgroth: with PROV-O, you can load both files into your reasoner
16:55:37 [stain]
16:55:48 [pgroth]
ack stain
16:55:50 [Curt]
Luc: will this work with XML?
16:56:17 [Curt]
stain: I don't think that will work with XML
16:56:42 [pgroth]
16:56:56 [Curt]
16:57:04 [pgroth]
ack Curt
16:57:34 [pgroth]
16:57:36 [Luc]
16:57:39 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:57:48 [Curt]
Curt: could manually maintain separate complete XSDs, one with just core, one with core+extensions
16:58:40 [Curt]
Luc: this can affect overall extensibility approach
16:58:50 [stain]
@Curt two schema versions could be tricky - if I import a schema which is using the 'core' schema, then I can't (easily!) use the 'extended' schema.
16:59:09 [Curt]
Luc: I don't think we can use the same approach to extend XML we use for OWL
17:00:21 [pgroth]
17:00:27 [Curt]
pgroth: XML is a note, so we could just put all the notes extensions together
17:00:34 [Curt]
pgroth: it isn't a specification
17:01:13 [Curt]
Luc: that may give more weight to dictionaries, mention, etc. than we intend to have
17:01:37 [GK]
"Can't do it with XML schema" sounds wrong to me. I'm not expert on XML, but I don't see what breaks if one has multiple schema documents that define different aspects of an XML structure, creating some elements in a common namespace. The main thing that I see is that the core schema MUST have suitable extension points.
17:01:42 [Luc]
yes you can import
17:01:48 [Curt]
pgroth: Can we check to see if we can technically handle it by combining them?
17:01:58 [zednik]
17:02:17 [pgroth]
17:02:25 [Curt]
zednik: dictionary/mention will have notes, could we use separate namespaces for them?
17:02:46 [Curt]
pgroth: wouldn't be consistent with other docs, want to use just one namespace
17:02:56 [satya]
* sorry have to leave now
17:03:01 [satya]
17:03:10 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [tlebo]
q+ to ask if xml terms overlap with prov-o terms.
17:03:22 [Curt]
I'd like to experiment a bit before making a decision
17:03:28 [stain]
I can try to experiment as well
17:03:46 [Curt]
Luc: add a note in the document that the namespace may change
17:03:47 [tlebo]
I still need to play with it, too.
17:03:51 [TomDN]
gotta go, bye
17:04:23 [tlebo]
17:04:25 [stain]
but there is a reason why XML community has moved away from XSD and over to lightweight, less strict formats like RelaxNG
17:04:31 [Curt]
Luc: there may not be a technical solution, we want the schema to validate
17:04:34 [zednik]
17:04:56 [pgroth]
all of them
17:05:02 [Curt]
there is no overlap
17:05:27 [Curt]
but if you use mentionof and validate against core without links, it should fail
17:05:56 [Luc]
xml does not work with uri, per se
17:06:28 [stain] shows lots of overlap and non-overlap, for instance <prov:wasGeneratedBy> (overlaps with prov:wasGeneratedBy) and <prov:time> (not overlapping with prov:atTime)
17:07:19 [tlebo]
17:07:35 [Curt]
Address in next revision past FPWD
17:08:02 [Luc]
I also would like to check that this is implementable
17:08:07 [GK]
I would assume we can have multiple schemas defining terms in a common namespace, and do some background checking with XML experts.
17:08:17 [Curt]
It's just a note, and its just FPWD, people know it might change
17:08:31 [tlebo]
+1 curt
17:08:54 [stain]
I'm going now, but I'll check. Have we got an ISSUE for this (common email thread) ?
17:08:54 [dgarijo]
17:08:55 [tlebo]
bye bye!
17:08:57 [Zakim]
17:08:58 [SamCoppens1]
17:09:01 [Zakim]
17:09:02 [Curt]
I'll make an issue
17:09:03 [Zakim]
17:09:05 [Zakim]
- +1.315.330.aabb
17:09:06 [Zakim]
17:09:07 [Zakim]
17:09:09 [Zakim]
17:09:10 [Zakim]
17:09:10 [Zakim]
17:09:12 [Zakim]
17:09:12 [Zakim]
17:09:13 [pgroth]
curt, i'll sort out the minutes
17:09:13 [Zakim]
17:09:21 [Zakim]
17:09:23 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:09:27 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:09:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:09:32 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
17:09:32 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:09:32 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Luc, MacTed, smiles, [IPcaller], +1.315.330.aabb, SamCoppens, GK, dgarijo, TomDN, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, jun,
17:09:35 [Zakim]
... khalidBelhajjame, stain
17:09:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:09:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:09:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:09:41 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items