Provenance Working Group Teleconference

04 Apr 2013


See also: IRC log


pgroth, [IPcaller], christine, GK, dgarijo, smiles, stain, Luc_, khalidBelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aabb, ivan, TallTed, TomDN, SamCoppens, jcheney
Paul Groth


<trackbot> Date: 04 April 2013

<pgroth> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 04 April 2013

<pgroth> can anyone scribe?

<pgroth> scribe: christine

<stain> args!


<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-03-28

<pgroth> Minutes of March 28, 2013 Telcon

<dgarijo> +1

Vote on minutes of last week

<khalidBelhajjame> +1

<GK> +1

<smiles> +1

<stain> +1

<Paolo> +1

<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of March 28, 2013 Telcon

Review of Open Action Items

Update to editorial (for Paul)

<scribe> Closed - Graham took care of this

Blog post action items are also closed

AC Rep Reminder

<pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/provpf/results

Results of current voting see link above

16 votes so far

Quite good. It would be good to have more votes.

Still waiting for some replies. We may get up to 19 votes by next week.

Paul: Please make sure your AC Reps vote.

<pgroth> 1?

Blog Posts

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/29/dublin-core-to-prov-mapping/

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/04/03/successful-prov-tutorial-at-edbt/

Paul: 2 blog posts in the last week - see links above

<dgarijo> yes

<stain> yes

Thanks to Daniel and Stain for two additional blog posts

<dgarijo> no problem :)

They will be posted in the next week


Paul: review of outstanding items

<pgroth> james?

Paul: is PROV-SEM ready to be sent out for review?

<jcheney> just tried calling in will try again

<jcheney> sorry

Moving to another item


Paul: Not ready - edits not finished - more time needed - hopefully can sent out by Monday of next week


Update from Stephen

zednik: is ready for review but is missing the FAQ entry

but the note content is ready for review

Paul: is the schema finalised?

Stephen: yes but FAQ may introduce a modification to the new schema but not a change to the schema - so my intention that it is finalised

Paul: review by what date?

Stephen: staged last night - not sure

Paul: original reviews by 4 and changes by 15
... if reviewed by 11 can you incorporate changes by 15

Stephen: hope so - small changes ok - but 11th and 15th should work

Paul: reviewer?

<Luc_> +1

<pgroth> +1

<TomDN> +1

Paul: any responses from our last publication of it?

? from Luc

Paul: will try to get someone from Oracle to take a look

and would be good for Henry to review


<SamCoppens> My review is following tonight

Graham: we have reviews in now from Stain and Luc - not one from Sam yet - had a cursory look at the review - not aware of any blocker there

<SamCoppens> but no blocking issues from my side

Graham: plan to review in detail in the coming week and finalise the document by this time next week - and then aim to hand over to Paul to finish up as will be out of circulation in 2 weeks time

Paul: Stain and Luc, could we vote to be a final note?

Luc: we want to publish the note - some comments are more serious than Graham said - related to ping back - would like to see some responses to my comments

Sam: read the document today - will send review tonight - no blocking issues

<GK> I'll need to look in more detail at Luc;s comments, and the others - I'll respond when I do so.

Stain: no blocking issues but some of my issues are more serious

Paul: then let's wait for next week for the vote

to ensure issues are addressed before vote

James: need reviewers for PROV-SEM


<jcheney> draft almost done: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/semantics/releases/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/Overview.html

<GK> I'd like to review PROV-SEM, but cannot be sure I'll have time in the coming week.

James: vote on everything next week?

Paul: yes (if not today)

James: better if reviewers can look now rather than waiting for it to be completely done

<khalidBelhajjame> I ll review it

Paul: reviewers

<smiles> I can review it

Tom: a colleague (logic/maths background) and Tom will review

<Paolo> when is it due again?

<GK> I'd like to review PROV-SEM, but cannot be sure I'll have time in the coming week

Paul: review due by next Thursday

<Paolo> would love to but on leave, sorry...

<satya> I will try to complete

James: goal to have something complete - anything controversial will have to be left out

Luc: What change has been regarding this issue [?]

James: to get semantics general enough to not constrain the formal constraints - less of the connection to the inituitve model but necessary
... takes a while to figure out the right way to do that

<pgroth> reviewers - Tom, Khalid, (tom's colleague), simon, satya,

<Luc_> +1 will attempt a quick review


Simon: received some reviews - only outstanding is from Craig
... don't see any blocking issues - will make the changes by next week - timeframe is okay

<khalidBelhajjame> It read well, no comment really

Paul: agree, only a need for some minor changes
... vote now

<pgroth> proposed: release prov-primer as a final note

<ivan> +1

<khalidBelhajjame> +1

<GK> +1

<jcheney> +1

<zednik> +1

<satya> +1

<TomDN> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<hook> +1

<stain> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<Paolo> +1

<Luc_> +1

<pgroth> accepted: release prov-primer as a final note

<smiles> Great, thanks :)


Paul: congrats Simon and Yolanda

- received a couple of reviews - no blocking issues

- missing a review by Stain

Stain: almost finished - some changes re mapping but should be able to be done in the week

Paul: given that, do not want to vote now
... Tom's review was very long. What was the main issue?

- issue with how we declare the classes - specialising the ontology and also a lot of editorial issues with intro and also with naming spaces - no criticism of the mapppings - so i think no blocking issues

Paul: Stain, which mapping to change?

Stain: the is version

- analysed defns and realised they are equivalent - version and revisions {/}

- not necessarily a directional element - don't want to go into the detail now

Paul: only one?

- yes

Paul: debate the issue online and delay the vote to next week


<Luc_> +1

Craig: review from Luc and Simon, thanks, no blocking issues, have enough time, give an update next week, do not forsee problems

<Luc_> +q

Luc: in my review, indicated I have implemented PROV-Dictionary, but it turns out it was not working - it took a while to find problem - extensibility production and the new productions conflict
... problem will also occur in PROV-LINKS
... fix in both

Craig: suggest holding off on voting until the document is in a more final state

Craig = Tom

Luc: agree useful to have time to discuss issues further


<zednik> I have to leave now

Luc: 4 reviews received - thank you - have not had time to read them in detail - but you seem to be happy with the document - some small changes

<smiles> No blocking issues from me

<TomDN> none from me either

<GK> No blockers that I recall

<khalidBelhajjame> No bloking issues from me either

PROV Implementations

Paul: held it open a little longer - nothing to change in the text - just to rerun scripts to update the tables (essentially) - no need to review

<ivan> +1

<Luc_> +1

Paul: one or two people who said they want to register another implementation
... there is still time

Provenance of Docs

<Luc_> +q

Paul: status?

<Luc_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e1fa26593295/provenance/test/prov-family.svg

<Luc_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e1fa26593295/provenance/test/prov-family.ttl

<Luc_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/e1fa26593295/provenance/test/prov-family.provn

Luc: tried to recreate the history of all our documents assuming the specs were out

<ivan> wow

<GK> Third link returns "error: provenance/test/prov-family.provn@e1fa26593295: not found in manifest" for me

Luc: covering all versions of the reports we publish - will ask all editors to check when finalised - also should add authorship - do we have URIs for everybody?

Paul: Ivan, can we use URLs for the name in the tracker to represent people?

<Paolo> @Luc: provn version, I get: error: provenance/test/prov-family.provn@e1fa26593295: not found in manifest

<GK> How many of us have ORCID IDs?

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/

Ivan: hmm, it can be used ... but ... often people put a page about themselves on the wiki ... can you give me an example URL to look at in tracker?
... not ideal

<TallTed> WebID! :-)

<stain> you would have hoped for W3C to provide an ontology or dataset of every member!

Paul: wiki user pages?

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Ctrim

<Luc_> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Lmoreau

Ivan: not sure those are public
... what I was suggesting - if they are all complete that is fine
... they will be frozen

<stain> in foaf they might or might not be seen to represent accounts rather than people..

Paul: use wiki ones - so if you want your proper info recorded update your wiki page

Luc: fine with that

<stain> it might be easiest to identify people like [ a prov:Person, foaf:homepage <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Lmorea> ]

<stain> foaf:homepage is inverse functional, thus identifying (but not being) the person

[?] useful to add the link from the RDF files ...

<pgroth> s/RDF/RDF

Paul: can we do content negotation on SVG?

Ivan: not exactly - not a serialisation

Luc: when the file is more or less finalised - post a blog explaining provenance - could put the SVG file there

<stain> you COULD define a prov-diagram that is a formal language that says how to describe prov-dm as a diagram - and then the SVG could still be a representation of the provenance

<TallTed> possibly better pages than wiki -- e.g., https://www.w3.org/users/42501

Ivan: could point to as wekk

<stain> TallTed: except they are seeecret :(

<pgroth> secret

<TomDN> I get Sorry, Insufficient Access Privileges

<GK> No, browser is asking for login

<Luc_> up to editors

Simon: re provenance for primer - what is the preference?

Luc: editors can decide to use the same provenance, don't have to

Paul: thanks everyone, good work, keep it up

<dgarijo> @Simon: we did already a file for prov-o. You can base yours in that one, if you want

Ivan: votes ends on Tuesday - well send an official transition request to publish - expect to get green light by email - try to take care of this next week

<dgarijo> bbye

<Luc_> bye

<GK> Bye

<stain> bye

<SamCoppens> Bye!

<pgroth> rackbot, end telcon

<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/04/04 15:51:26 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Stephen/zednik/
Succeeded: s/Craig/TomDN/
Succeeded: s/TomDN/Craig/
Succeeded: s/SVG/RDF/
Found Scribe: christine
Inferring ScribeNick: christine
Default Present: pgroth, [IPcaller], christine, GK, dgarijo, smiles, stain, Luc_, khalidBelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aabb, ivan, TallTed, TomDN, SamCoppens, jcheney
Present: pgroth [IPcaller] christine GK dgarijo smiles stain Luc_ khalidBelhajjame Satya_Sahoo +1.818.731.aabb ivan TallTed TomDN SamCoppens jcheney
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.04.04
Found Date: 04 Apr 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/04-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]