IRC log of prov on 2012-12-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:15:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:15:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:15:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:15:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
15:15:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:15:22 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
15:15:23 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:15:23 [trackbot]
Date: 13 December 2012
15:26:10 [MacTed]
MacTed has changed the topic to: PROV WG - - current agenda
15:45:30 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
15:51:47 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:54:41 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
15:55:10 [pgroth]
trackbot, start telcon
15:55:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:55:14 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:55:14 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:15 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:55:15 [trackbot]
Date: 13 December 2012
15:55:17 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
15:55:17 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:26 [pgroth]
15:55:35 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
15:55:40 [pgroth]
Scribe: Paolo Missier
15:55:48 [pgroth]
Regrets: Graham Klyne, Luc Moreau
15:57:07 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:35 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:57:44 [Zakim]
15:57:54 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:57:54 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
15:58:11 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:58:52 [Zakim]
15:59:01 [Zakim]
15:59:06 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:59:08 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:59:10 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:59:10 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:59:15 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
15:59:17 [Paolo]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:17 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:59:39 [Zakim]
16:00:12 [TomDN]
TomDN has joined #prov
16:00:13 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
16:00:36 [Zakim]
+ +44.131.467.aaaa
16:00:36 [Zakim]
16:00:43 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P8 is me
16:00:43 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
16:00:43 [jun]
jun has joined #prov
16:01:31 [Zakim]
16:01:36 [ivan]
zakim, code?
16:01:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ivan
16:01:44 [jun]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:01:44 [Zakim]
+jun; got it
16:01:53 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
16:02:07 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
16:02:11 [Zakim]
16:02:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aabb
16:02:44 [tlebo]
zakim, I am aabb
16:02:44 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
16:03:29 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
16:03:44 [Zakim]
16:03:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.818.731.aacc
16:03:56 [pgroth]
16:04:02 [Zakim]
+ +329331aadd
16:04:02 [pgroth]
Minutes of Dec. 06, 2012
16:04:08 [TomDN]
Zakim, +32 is me
16:04:08 [Zakim]
+TomDN; got it
16:04:09 [tlebo]
16:04:16 [ivan]
16:04:17 [dgarijo]
I wasn't there, +0
16:04:18 [TomDN]
16:04:19 [ivan]
16:04:23 [jcheney]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:04:23 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
16:04:25 [Paolo]
0 (not present)
16:04:28 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
16:04:30 [smiles]
16:04:32 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:04:37 [hook]
0 (not present)
16:04:41 [jcheney]
0 (not present; I seem to be listed as both present & absent)
16:04:43 [Curt]
0 (not present)
16:04:48 [SamCoppens]
16:05:01 [pgroth]
accepted: Minutes of Dec. 06, 2012 Telcon
16:05:03 [SamCoppens]
Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN
16:05:03 [Zakim]
+SamCoppens; got it
16:05:34 [Paolo]
pgroth: tlebo still working on his action
16:05:54 [Paolo]
pgroth: we can close all issues around questionnaire
16:06:09 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
16:06:18 [pgroth]
16:06:18 [Paolo]
pgroth: stephan not on the call, we are closing the issues, we assume the questionnaires are done
16:07:07 [Paolo]
pgroth: action 151 done. will elaborate. action-153 also done
16:07:11 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
16:07:16 [Zakim]
16:07:35 [Paolo]
pgroth: still open actions 154, 155
16:07:47 [Paolo]
jcheney: working on it, please leave it open
16:07:59 [Paolo]
Paolo: er, wil get to that, thanks for the reminder
16:08:18 [Paolo]
pgroth: action 156 to be discussed in the XML section of the agenda
16:08:59 [tlebo]
16:09:01 [pgroth]
Topic: Congrats CR
16:09:36 [pgroth]
16:09:51 [pgroth]
16:09:54 [Paolo]
pgroth: we went to CR, this implies a major release of the whole set of docs. now is the time to advertise these. may use blog and web page for this
16:10:22 [Paolo]
pgroth: encourage people to comment, implement, use
16:10:39 [Paolo]
Paolo: I will send to DataONE as I have done in the past
16:10:58 [Paolo]
16:11:05 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
16:11:45 [Paolo]
Paolo: will send to DBWorld as well
16:11:45 [jun]
I can send to pub-lif list
16:12:16 [jun]
16:12:33 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
16:12:33 [Paolo]
ivan: will post to sem-web list
16:12:42 [hook]
there is also the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)'s semantic web mailing list and the preservation & stewardship mailing list
16:12:54 [hook]
16:13:24 [Zakim]
16:13:28 [pgroth]
16:13:48 [tlebo]
16:13:53 [zednik]
16:13:56 [dgarijo]
16:14:01 [Paolo]
pgroth: editors to update the drafts back to "editor's draft" status
16:14:20 [dgarijo]
16:14:28 [pgroth]
16:14:29 [Paolo]
pgroth: please dgarijo check the link to DC
16:14:47 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
16:14:55 [Paolo]
pgroth: we've got nice PROV logos
16:14:55 [pgroth]
Topic: WG Implementations
16:15:53 [Paolo]
pgroth: please fill in implementation survey, so we know how we are going to meet our exit criteria
16:15:58 [dgarijo]
**linked fix in the page**
16:16:07 [dgarijo]
16:16:26 [dgarijo]
I will fill in a survey
16:16:28 [Paolo]
pgroth: in particular if an impl. builds upon (?) or connect with another impl
16:16:29 [jun]
q+ what's the deadline?
16:16:39 [pgroth]
ack jun
16:17:01 [Zakim]
16:17:04 [Dong]
Southampton will submit reports soon (by the end of 2012), 9 applications in total
16:17:13 [GK]
zakim, ??p56 is me
16:17:13 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
16:17:20 [jun]
ok, thanks!
16:17:20 [dgarijo]
so, internal deadline: First week of January. Got it
16:17:21 [Paolo]
pgroth: official deadline end of January, but internally fist week of Jan. would be ideal, so we know where our gaps are
16:17:29 [pgroth]
16:17:53 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-AQ Reminder
16:18:28 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:18:29 [Paolo]
pgroth: a number of issues on the list by GK
16:18:34 [GK]
I just joined the call. Will trtyto field any questions.
16:18:50 [pgroth]
i think i will do it
16:18:57 [Paolo]
GK: (very hard to hear)
16:18:57 [ivan]
graham, we do not understand you
16:19:00 [Zakim]
16:19:25 [GK]
OK. VOIP problems again.
16:19:31 [Paolo]
pgroth: (reporting for GK)
16:20:07 [Paolo]
pgroth: major proposal ew need comments on: we introduced a description of content negotiation -- in spec. provenance services
16:20:16 [Paolo]
pgroth: this is new to the doc
16:20:52 [Paolo]
pgroth: also updated def. of prov services description, specifically on whether our use of RDF for service description is appropriate
16:21:25 [Paolo]
pgroth: also support for SPARQL query endpoints that can answer questions about provenance
16:21:39 [Paolo]
pgroth: does that reuire a new link type? (?)
16:22:07 [Paolo]
pgroth: also provenance pingback -- forward pointers to provenance
16:22:08 [pgroth]
16:22:19 [GK]
It's not using *provenance* from somewhere else…. it's generating provenance somewhere else...
16:22:20 [Paolo]
16:22:38 [GK]
… i.e. using the resource, and being able to provide priovenance back to the resource spublisher
16:22:58 [GK]
Im thinkl you giot it.
16:23:23 [Paolo]
pgroth: please all look a these issues and contribute to the discussion on the list
16:23:38 [Paolo]
pgroth: hopefully all sorted by 2nd week in Jan
16:23:41 [GK]
I also need to follow up some responses from LDP particpants
16:23:50 [pgroth]
Topic: PROV-Dictionary
16:23:52 [TomDN]
16:24:25 [TomDN]
16:24:53 [Paolo]
TomDN: need to open the txt file above to follow the discussion...
16:25:28 [Paolo]
TomDN: problems with the constraints and notation the editors did not like
16:25:39 [Paolo]
TomDN: txt file includes new proposed notation
16:26:28 [Paolo]
TomDN: problem is that all membership must be in one relation. This won't work for long lists
16:27:14 [Paolo]
TomDN: propose the hadMember notation to align with Collections. multiple such statements are allowed
16:27:44 [ivan]
16:27:56 [pgroth]
ack ivan
16:28:12 [tlebo]
It's been a while since this group's made a design decision. Do we still remember how to do this ;-)
16:28:19 [Paolo]
TomDN: the proposed change is local to the dictionary doc
16:28:23 [pgroth]
16:28:26 [smiles]
16:28:31 [pgroth]
ack smiles
16:29:08 [tlebo]
KeyValue pairs can be Entities.
16:29:09 [Zakim]
16:29:18 [Paolo]
smiles: is that really true that this has no effect in prov-n? now the second parameter is no longer an entity
16:29:38 [pgroth]
16:29:41 [Paolo]
TomDN: yes but that's one of the extensions for dictionary
16:29:57 [pgroth]
16:30:00 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
16:30:30 [GK]
Hmmm.. if entities can be key-value pairs, then maybe can align with LDP containers proposal more?
16:30:39 [Paolo]
pgroth: if there are no issues with this, it's ok to go ahead with the changes, but give the group an opportunity to review them
16:31:04 [tlebo]
+1 on issue 1
16:31:14 [Luc]
just stepping in, without having heard the discussion: it may be problematic to have hadMember(c,{k,e}) {k,e} is not an entity, but e is
16:31:22 [Paolo]
TomDN: issue 2 is on completeness of dictionaries
16:31:32 [GK]
16:32:16 [Paolo]
TomDN: old notation (with the 'true" flag) is problematic -- see the comment in txt file, section 2
16:33:07 [Paolo]
TomDN: proposed / alt 1: add complete attribute to dictionary itself
16:33:11 [MacTed]
GK - is there a conflict between LDP containers and what we're discussing (i.e., would what's here break LDP containers)? note that PROV is general case, and LDP is a specific case, so they needn't be in perfect sync; e.g., LDP may be more restrictive
16:33:16 [GK]
I'm worried that this might fall foul of RDF monotonicity
16:34:24 [Paolo]
TomDN: proposed alt 2: start from EmptyDictionary, then insert
16:34:38 [Paolo]
TomDN: the result must be complete
16:34:39 [GK]
@MacTed - not seeing any breakage, just trying to make sure we're aware and making sure things can be used together. I guess my thinking is that (if it makes sense) use LDP structure as base and focus PROV effort on container-based provenance
16:34:43 [Paolo]
16:34:54 [MacTed]
GK - I'm not understanding your concern. "RDF monotonicity" meaning?
16:35:09 [tlebo]
I'm not sure you'd "be sure" that it's complete in ALTERNATIVE 2... since other derivations could have inserted elements.
16:35:25 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
16:35:25 [GK]
@macted - meaning that it should not be possible to invalidfate anyinference by adding a new RDF statement
16:35:43 [MacTed]
GK - "Linked Data Platform" is not parallel to nor core of "Linked Data" nor "RDF". interpretation based on naming is unfortunate.
16:36:36 [tlebo]
+1 to "I'm telling you that I think it's closed" as opposed to relying on walking through a derivation to see.
16:36:38 [Paolo]
Paolo: does alt 2 really entail completeness?
16:36:41 [GK]
i.e. whenever a |= b then a \/ x |= b for any x, where a, b and x are RDF graphs.
16:37:01 [pgroth]
16:37:37 [Paolo]
pgroth: can we leave both of these in the draft and have people discuss/select?
16:37:54 [Paolo]
TomDN: sec. 3 is on constraints
16:37:58 [GK]
@macted - agreed, but if it makes sense to re-use it seems that would be a Good Thing.
16:38:24 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
16:39:25 [Zakim]
16:40:30 [pgroth]
16:40:39 [Paolo]
TomDN: seeking help with the very last constraint
16:41:32 [Paolo]
jcheney: conclusion of the rule can be fixed and formalized (each member of d1 is also a member of d2 and vice versa)
16:41:50 [Paolo]
jcheney: this requires a more expressive logic than what we currently use
16:42:00 [Paolo]
16:42:08 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
16:42:25 [MacTed]
GK - I think LDP is too much moving target, and also too much "subset" to be considered for this re-use.
16:43:57 [Paolo]
Paolo: last constraint effectively *defines* that provenance of dictionaries is complete
16:44:42 [Paolo]
pgroth: next steps: you could solicit a discussion on these issues, and then go for a proper review
16:45:10 [Paolo]
pgroth: or: we do a draft first, then "discuss by review"
16:45:12 [GK]
@macted I more than partly agree. OTOH, don't want to completely ignore what seems to be a significant effort. I was specifically asked to consider LDP views for PROV-AQ stuff (which I know isn't the same thing, but the principle seems applicabl;e).
16:45:52 [Paolo]
TomDN: agree on option 1
16:46:03 [Paolo]
pgroth: so please start a discussion and then we will appoint reviewers
16:46:54 [Paolo]
TomDN: nothing about prov-xml in the doc. are the prov-xml people planning to implement dictionaries? if so they would be best placed to add this part
16:47:05 [tlebo]
seems like it's not stable enough to fill out the PROV-XML examples.
16:47:17 [Paolo]
pgroth: best to first agree on these issues, add XML examples later
16:47:25 [TomDN]
16:47:27 [tlebo]
+1 great stuff, @TomDN
16:47:28 [pgroth]
Topic: Prov-xml
16:47:35 [TomDN]
Zakim, mute me
16:47:35 [Zakim]
TomDN should now be muted
16:47:45 [TomDN]
@tlebo, tnx!
16:47:48 [Paolo]
pgroth: status update?
16:48:06 [Paolo]
zednik: FPWD with good feedback from the group
16:48:23 [Paolo]
zednik: still processing the feedback
16:48:54 [Paolo]
zednik: need to differentiate the two XML serial. that we have (one native, one for prov-o)
16:49:16 [Paolo]
zednik: will add naming conventions to the editor's draft. should be ready very soon
16:49:21 [smiles]
Could someone raise an issue for the primer, so I can be clear what is required?
16:49:40 [pgroth]
16:49:54 [Paolo]
pgroth: any feedback from xml people?
16:50:13 [hook]
we also got feedback from Stian on namespaces
16:50:16 [Paolo]
zednik: early to tell
16:50:29 [Paolo]
pgroth: comments?
16:50:29 [pgroth]
16:50:38 [smiles]
16:51:04 [pgroth]
ack smiles
16:51:40 [pgroth]
16:51:42 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
16:51:47 [pgroth]
16:52:01 [Paolo]
pgroth: people who looked at the XMl in the primer under Turtle, thought it was for the RDF. that was confusing
16:52:09 [zednik]
16:52:10 [Zakim]
16:52:15 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
16:52:18 [Paolo]
pgroth: need to clarify
16:53:04 [zednik]
16:53:42 [MacTed]
putting an inline comment in the example(s) might be worthwhile...
16:54:02 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:54:02 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:54:19 [Paolo]
smiles: problem is there are many examples, it would be messy
16:55:09 [Paolo]
MacTed: there is a risk we are creating confusion, can't expect others to be clear about the distinction amongst the XML versions
16:55:09 [tlebo]
@smiles, perhaps replace "XML Example (hide all)" with "PROV-XML Example (hide all)"+= link to prov-xml in every title to an example.
16:55:29 [Paolo]
pgroth: it's just a matter of clarifying that prov-xml is not prov-o xml
16:55:53 [zednik]
16:55:56 [Paolo]
pgroth: only have one type of XML serial visible
16:56:13 [pgroth]
ack zednik
16:56:13 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:56:13 [tlebo]
-.5 to @pgroth 's "show only one"
16:56:13 [smiles]
@tlebo Could do, certainly, but I'm not clear if it completely solves the problem
16:56:14 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:56:37 [tlebo]
@smiles every bit throughout helps.
16:56:43 [Paolo]
zednik: technically it can be easy to add the message to convey the distinction without too much manual effort
16:56:51 [pgroth]
that's fair enough
16:56:53 [Curt]
Would it be worth adding a sentence in the OVERVIEW saying PROV-XML is not an RDF/XML version of PROV-O (in addition to adding to primer)
16:57:00 [Paolo]
zednik: we should present rather than hide the distinction
16:57:16 [Luc]
16:57:25 [pgroth]
ack Luc
16:57:30 [MacTed]
+1 present distinction, don't hid it. confusion won't only come in *here* -- what happens when PROV-XML is encountered in the wild, and taken for RDF/XML?
16:57:53 [smiles]
16:57:54 [tlebo]
+1 to seeing the entire document. That's why PROV-O's examples have full TTL in every one.
16:58:05 [Paolo]
Luc: XML examples contain just entities, if we added the context, would it be clear enough indication that it's native XML
16:58:09 [pgroth]
ack smiles
16:58:20 [tlebo]
(and adding the <xml> bit at the very top)
16:58:23 [Paolo]
Luc: i.e., by adding the root elements to the examples
16:58:32 [zednik]
+1 to show entire <prov:document> in xml examples
16:58:51 [pgroth]
Topic: Namespace
16:59:11 [Luc]
@smiles: instead of say XML example, can we say PROV-XML example?
16:59:11 [Paolo]
pgroth: status update on XML namespace:?
16:59:36 [tlebo]
yup, I"m fine with it.
17:00:27 [tlebo]
ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to the @xmlns: issue...
17:00:30 [Paolo]
pgroth: on merging multiple docs into one ns in XML:?
17:00:42 [Paolo]
zednik: need to look at what stian is proposing
17:01:19 [pgroth]
17:01:46 [Paolo]
pgroth: need a glossary off the landing page
17:02:04 [pgroth]
17:02:06 [pgroth]
17:02:09 [MacTed]
+1 "say PROV-XML example"
17:02:10 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
17:02:23 [tlebo]
17:02:25 [SamCoppens]
17:02:27 [dgarijo]
17:02:29 [Zakim]
17:02:30 [Zakim]
17:02:31 [Zakim]
17:02:32 [Zakim]
17:02:32 [Zakim]
17:02:34 [Zakim]
17:02:34 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has left #prov
17:02:35 [Zakim]
17:02:35 [Zakim]
17:02:36 [Zakim]
- +1.818.731.aacc
17:02:36 [Zakim]
17:02:36 [Zakim]
17:02:36 [Dong]
bye all
17:02:38 [Zakim]
17:02:40 [GK]
17:02:40 [Zakim]
17:02:43 [Zakim]
17:02:45 [zednik]
17:02:47 [Zakim]
17:02:53 [GK]
GK has left #prov
17:03:00 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
17:03:04 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
17:03:10 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
17:03:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:03:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, MacTed, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +44.131.467.aaaa, dgarijo, jun, ivan, +1.315.330.aabb, tlebo, +1.818.731.aacc, +329331aadd, TomDN,
17:03:13 [Zakim]
... jcheney, SamCoppens, GK, Satya_Sahoo, Luc
17:03:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:03:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:03:19 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items