IRC log of prov on 2013-04-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:56:06 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:56:08 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:56:10 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:56:10 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:56:11 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:56:11 [trackbot]
Date: 11 April 2013
14:56:12 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:18 [Luc]
14:56:28 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
14:56:56 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:57:15 [Luc]
Regrets: Ivan Herman, Tom De Nies, Sam Coppens
14:57:26 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:57:32 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:57:33 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:57:39 [Zakim]
14:57:40 [Luc]
Topic: Admin
14:57:48 [Zakim]
14:57:50 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
14:57:50 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:58:30 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
14:59:09 [Zakim]
14:59:37 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
14:59:37 [Zakim]
14:59:45 [stain]
Zakim, ??P9 is stain
14:59:45 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
14:59:56 [stain]
Zakim, ??P9 is also khalid
14:59:57 [Zakim]
14:59:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P9 is also khalid', stain
15:00:07 [smiles]
??P13 is smiles
15:00:14 [smiles]
zakim, ??P13 is smiles
15:00:15 [Zakim]
+smiles; got it
15:01:35 [stain]
Zakim, stain is with khalid
15:01:35 [Zakim]
sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named 'khalid'
15:02:06 [Luc]
hi, scribe is required please
15:02:09 [stain]
Zakim, stain is with Khalid Belhajjame
15:02:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'stain is with Khalid Belhajjame', stain
15:02:13 [Zakim]
15:02:20 [smiles]
I can scribe today
15:02:24 [Luc]
thanks simon
15:02:27 [Luc]
scribe: smiles
15:02:33 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:02:43 [hook]
hook has joined #prov
15:03:01 [Zakim]
15:03:08 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P112 is me
15:03:08 [Zakim]
sorry, dgarijo, I do not recognize a party named '??P112'
15:03:13 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
15:03:13 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:03:23 [Luc]
Proposed: to approve the minutes of last week's teleconference
15:03:33 [dgarijo]
15:03:34 [Luc]
15:03:44 [stain]
15:03:46 [jcheney]
15:03:48 [smiles]
15:03:53 [hook]
15:04:09 [Luc]
RESOLVED: the minutes of last week's teleconference
15:04:19 [Luc]
topic: PR Voting
15:04:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.818.731.aaaa
15:04:42 [smiles]
Luc: For the last month, AC reps asked to express support or not on PROV specs
15:04:49 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:04:59 [smiles]
... concluded on 9th, and all the votes are positive except an abstention
15:05:21 [Zakim]
15:05:26 [smiles]
... one voter made a few suggestions, but were not suitable or beyond the scope for the current stage of the process
15:05:34 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:05:38 [Luc]
15:05:44 [smiles]
... We will very shortly make the request to transfer to Recommendation
15:05:55 [Zakim]
15:05:56 [Luc]
topic: all publications
15:06:04 [Luc]
15:06:08 [Dong]
Dong has joined #prov
15:06:30 [smiles]
Luc: Have created a page on the Wiki, for editors to update when ready staged for publication
15:06:42 [Luc]
topic: REC are staged
15:06:53 [Zakim]
- +1.818.731.aaaa
15:07:26 [Luc]
15:07:27 [khalidBelhajjame]
khalidBelhajjame has joined #prov
15:07:27 [smiles]
Luc: The four Recommendations are staged, and we ask you to have a final look at one or more of them by the end of this week
15:07:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.818.731.aabb
15:07:44 [Luc]
15:07:44 [jcheney]
will look at prov-constraints
15:07:50 [smiles]
I will check prov-dm
15:07:59 [pgroth]
15:08:05 [Zakim]
15:08:06 [Dong]
I will look PROV-N
15:08:17 [khalidBelhajjame]
I will look at PROV-N
15:08:24 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:08:29 [stain]
more like a sanity check
15:08:30 [pgroth]
spelling errors
15:08:36 [smiles]
Luc: Not asking for review, just typos, layout etc.
15:08:47 [stain]
15:08:58 [smiles]
Luc: Anyone for PROV-O?
15:08:58 [satya]
I can also review
15:09:23 [smiles]
15:09:24 [Luc]
15:09:35 [smiles]
Luc: Questions on the process at this stage?
15:10:01 [Luc]
ack stain
15:10:06 [smiles]
stain: To read properly, some stylesheet problems, so use Firefox
15:10:09 [Luc]
topic: prov-aq
15:10:39 [smiles]
Luc: Any blocking issues? Changes implemented? Can close tracker issues?
15:10:50 [Luc]
15:11:13 [Luc]
zakim, who is here?
15:11:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, CraigTrim, stain, smiles, jcheney, Luc, dgarijo, Satya_Sahoo, ??P28, +1.818.731.aabb, [IPcaller]
15:11:16 [Zakim]
On IRC I see khalidBelhajjame, Dong, zednik, satya, hook, dgarijo, jcheney, smiles, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, GK-ALT, stain, trackbot
15:11:31 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:11:34 [smiles]
pgroth: No blocking issues, people generally happy with approach
15:11:58 [pgroth]
15:12:00 [stain]
I've read through GK's response to my PROV-AQ review, but not sent a proper reply acknowledging that it's OK (as the response was also quite long!). However the PROV-AQ document is now fine from my part.
15:12:02 [smiles]
pgroth: Don't know if all issues closed
15:12:34 [smiles]
pgroth: I will do the staging, so will make sure issues are checked
15:12:43 [GK]
Sorry I'm late - just getting audio set up… I haven't revisited the issues yet
15:12:55 [smiles]
Luc: Not a problem if not all issues addressed, but should have a record and close them
15:13:18 [Zakim]
15:13:25 [GK]
zakim, ??p18 is me
15:13:25 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:13:27 [smiles]
pgroth: I think we're ready to vote on PROV-AQ now
15:14:04 [stain]
Zakim, stain is with khalidBelhajjame
15:14:04 [Zakim]
sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named 'khalidBelhajjame'
15:14:51 [smiles]
GK: Have not been back to check tracker issues, but believe all addressed; responded to all reviews received
15:15:16 [smiles]
... A couple did not lead to a change in the document; if the reviewers are OK, then we can vote
15:15:25 [pgroth]
that's a yes
15:15:56 [smiles]
Luc: As a reviewer, there is a point on which we will not agree, but that does not mean it is blocking
15:17:47 [pgroth]
15:18:32 [Luc]
ack pg
15:18:51 [TallTed]
TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- -- agenda
15:18:58 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:19:04 [smiles]
pgroth: External reviewer commenting on constrained resource, was based on misunderstanding that PROV-AQ was the fundamental document
15:19:10 [Luc]
PROPOSED: to publish prov-aq as a Working Group note.
15:19:17 [smiles]
15:19:18 [stain]
15:19:22 [satya]
15:19:25 [zednik]
15:19:26 [khalidBelhajjame]
+1 (University of Manchester)
15:19:29 [Dong]
15:19:31 [jcheney]
15:19:32 [dgarijo]
15:19:34 [hook]
15:19:34 [GK]
+1 (I would say that wouldn't I :) )
15:19:37 [pgroth]
15:19:42 [Luc]
15:19:59 [Luc]
RESOLVED: to publish prov-aq as a Working Group note.
15:20:13 [Luc]
15:20:16 [smiles]
Luc: Congratulations to the editors
15:20:28 [GK]
@Paul - I should hand over to you in the next week.
15:20:51 [smiles]
Luc: Editors, remember the timetable: everything ready by 23 April when request will be made; I will make sanity check on 22nd
15:20:52 [pgroth]
@GK cool, I'll stage and can close issues if need be
15:20:55 [pgroth]
15:20:56 [Luc]
15:20:58 [GK]
Ack. Thanks
15:21:08 [Luc]
topic: prov-primer
15:21:20 [Zakim]
15:21:24 [smiles]
Luc: We voted to publish primer last week
15:22:11 [pgroth]
super echo
15:22:46 [Luc]
15:23:07 [Zakim]
15:23:18 [smiles]
Luc: Addressed all suggestions made by reviewers to PROV-Links, responded to reviewers
15:23:27 [smiles]
... Are the reviewers happy to proceed to vote?
15:23:28 [Luc]
15:23:30 [Dong]
Zakim, ??P49 is me
15:23:30 [Zakim]
+Dong; got it
15:23:35 [smiles]
As a reviewer, I am happy
15:23:45 [khalidBelhajjame]
yes I am happy
15:23:45 [GK]
FWIW, on PROV-AQ, all issues but 2 are marked "pending review", which means I think they are addressed. n The other two issues are not on the document itself, but require updates to the accompanying ontology document and link relation registrations.HTML
15:23:52 [GK]
15:24:01 [Luc]
PROPOSED: to publish prov-links as a Working Group note
15:24:05 [khalidBelhajjame]
15:24:06 [smiles]
15:24:08 [GK]
15:24:11 [Dong]
15:24:12 [jcheney]
15:24:13 [stain]
15:24:22 [satya]
15:24:24 [hook]
15:24:26 [satya]
15:24:27 [dgarijo]
15:24:38 [zednik]
15:24:48 [Luc]
15:24:58 [Luc]
RESOLVED: to publish prov-links as a Working Group note
15:25:19 [Zakim]
15:25:20 [Luc]
topic: prov-implementations
15:25:37 [smiles]
Luc: Agreed no further review of this document
15:25:41 [Zakim]
15:25:59 [smiles]
pgroth: Yes, the document is complete and ready for a vote
15:26:02 [smiles]
Dong: I staged it
15:26:14 [Luc]
PROPOSED: to publish prov-implementations as a Working Group note
15:26:19 [dgarijo]
15:26:19 [Dong]
Sorry, got disconnected
15:26:20 [smiles]
15:26:21 [pgroth]
15:26:21 [satya]
15:26:23 [jcheney]
15:26:23 [GK]
15:26:23 [zednik]
15:26:24 [stain]
15:26:28 [hook]
15:26:30 [Luc]
15:26:35 [khalidBelhajjame]
15:26:56 [stain]
15:26:57 [Luc]
RESOLVED: to publish prov-implementations as a Working Group note
15:27:17 [smiles]
Luc: Congratulations to editors, with 66 implementations
15:27:22 [Luc]
15:27:31 [Luc]
Topic: prov-dc
15:28:03 [smiles]
dgarijo: With a new review, we have two blocking issues
15:28:25 [stain]
15:28:31 [smiles]
... will have to look at detail of rationale and discuss offline with Stian
15:28:40 [smiles]
Luc: Need to converge as soon as we can
15:29:15 [pgroth]
stian have isVersionOf and references
15:29:33 [smiles]
stain: Main issue was about isVersionOf, said to be equivalent to wasRevisionOf, but in use is more like superproperty of wasRevisionOf
15:30:32 [smiles]
dgarijo: We decided to make equivalent because could not find any contradicting example
15:31:03 [pgroth]
15:31:16 [smiles]
... If have an example, can change back to as suggested
15:31:49 [Luc]
15:32:21 [Luc]
ack st
15:32:46 [smiles]
pgroth: Can somebody express the proposal?
15:32:52 [dgarijo]
the proposal is prov wasRevisionOf is a SUB property of is VersionOf
15:32:53 [khalidBelhajjame]
proposal of Stian is: wasRevisionOf is a subproperty of isVersionOf
15:33:06 [dgarijo]
which is the way we had it before.
15:33:08 [smiles]
stain: wasRevisionOf is subproperty of isVersionOf
15:33:14 [pgroth]
can we use the namespace?
15:33:16 [pgroth]
in the proposal
15:33:52 [Luc]
15:33:58 [smiles]
stain: Will look for examples, and decide on whether they exist
15:34:00 [Luc]
ack pg
15:34:16 [dgarijo]
I did not find tem, unfortunately.
15:34:20 [dgarijo]
15:34:35 [smiles]
Luc: Stian suggested making references subproperty of influences
15:34:55 [smiles]
dgarijo: replaces rather than references
15:35:24 [Luc]
15:35:32 [Luc]
Influence ◊ is the capacity of an entity, activity, or agent to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of another by means of usage, start, end, generation, invalidation, communication, derivation, attribution, association, or delegation.
15:35:49 [Luc]
It is recommended to adopt these more specific relations when writing provenance descriptions. It is anticipated that the Influence relation may be useful to express queries over provenance information.
15:36:05 [smiles]
Luc: Previously discussed another relation subproperty of wasInfluencedBy, but the way we defined influence is based on specific relations and recommend we adopt those specific relations
15:36:09 [stain]
q+ that dct:references is such a more specific relation
15:36:21 [smiles]
... Would seem strange to go against our recommendations in PROV-DC
15:36:30 [Luc]
15:36:35 [stain]
15:36:43 [Luc]
ack l
15:36:47 [smiles]
... If replaces is not a derivation, we should say it is not modelled in PROV
15:37:15 [smiles]
stain: My view is that replaces is an influence but may not be a derivation
15:37:19 [stain]
15:37:39 [Luc]
15:37:48 [pgroth]
15:37:57 [Luc]
ack st
15:38:39 [Luc]
15:38:41 [smiles]
pgroth: Our recommendation says that you use specific relations in provenance descriptions, not in defining new relations, so maybe does not go against
15:39:07 [Luc]
15:39:11 [Luc]
15:39:14 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:39:14 [smiles]
... However, it does then suggest people should, when creating mappings, create subproperties of influences
15:39:39 [pgroth]
it's none
15:39:55 [smiles]
Luc: Influence definition lists specific relation it could be, so which one is replaces?
15:39:58 [pgroth]
15:40:12 [dgarijo]
15:40:40 [smiles]
pgroth: It is clear that replaces is not a subproperty of any of those specific relations
15:40:56 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:41:03 [Luc]
ack pg
15:41:08 [Zakim]
15:41:09 [pgroth]
fair enough then
15:41:11 [pgroth]
15:41:32 [pgroth]
we're talking about references
15:41:43 [pgroth]
no it's the other way around
15:41:48 [pgroth]
we are only talking references
15:42:27 [Luc]
15:42:50 [Zakim]
15:43:15 [GK]
(As a general principle, I think specs should choose weaker ontological commitment when there is any dispute or uncertainty)
15:43:32 [pgroth]
q+ but this would be really wierd
15:43:41 [pgroth]
15:43:47 [smiles]
Luc: Should not shoehorn things into PROV if there is no consensus
15:43:54 [stain]
this would be a weakening of wasDerivedBy if any kind of existence and mention means a derivation
15:44:31 [Luc]
ack dg
15:44:58 [smiles]
dgarijo: If we agree with references is subproperty of wasDerivedFrom then there is consensus
15:45:15 [smiles]
pgroth: Would be weird not to have a mapping of references in PROV-DC
15:45:26 [smiles]
stain: I disagree but willing to not block on it
15:45:35 [dgarijo]
dct:references is a subproperty of wasDerivedFrom. Thus it is already a wasInfluencedBy.
15:45:45 [smiles]
pgroth: I am fine with that
15:45:46 [zednik]
15:46:20 [smiles]
Luc: Not in a position to vote this week, as other issue still to be resolved
15:46:34 [GK]
("A related resource that is referenced, cited, or otherwise pointed to by the described resource."
15:46:37 [smiles]
dgarijo: Already implemented changes by Tom and Paul
15:46:48 [zednik]
15:47:00 [smiles]
... response not yet acknowledged
15:47:01 [GK]
(This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model ( As of December 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention with a formal range declaration. Ibid.)
15:47:18 [Luc]
15:47:29 [pgroth]
15:47:30 [Luc]
ack pg
15:47:43 [Luc]
topic: prov-dictionary
15:48:04 [GK]
(non-literal value
15:48:04 [GK]
A value which is a physical, digital or conceptual entity.)
15:48:19 [smiles]
Luc: Tom suggested to vote next week
15:48:34 [smiles]
... and leave technical dicsussion on the document to next week too
15:48:40 [Luc]
topic: prov-sem
15:49:02 [dgarijo]
@GK: Then you agree ordon't agree with isVersionOf being a superproperty of WasRevisionOf?
15:49:23 [smiles]
jcheney: Reviews are in, no blocking issues, people happy with closing tracked issues
15:49:42 [smiles]
... Most of changes implemented, but with a couple of questions, need errata paragraph from Luc
15:50:18 [GK]
@Dgarijo: Er, I'm not sure about that.
15:50:24 [khalidBelhajjame]
I am happy with the document
15:50:24 [smiles]
Luc: Ready for a vote?
15:50:27 [khalidBelhajjame]
15:50:30 [smiles]
I am happy with the document too
15:50:39 [satya]
15:50:48 [smiles]
Luc: I was also happy
15:51:10 [Luc]
PROPOSED: to publish prov-sem as a Working Group note
15:51:16 [khalidBelhajjame]
15:51:17 [stain]
15:51:17 [smiles]
15:51:19 [satya]
15:51:19 [Dong]
15:51:22 [GK]
@dgarijo (I was just digging out DC material about dct references.)
15:51:23 [zednik]
15:51:23 [Luc]
15:51:25 [hook]
15:51:27 [hook]
15:51:31 [dgarijo]
15:51:32 [jcheney]
15:51:43 [Luc]
RESOLVED: to publish prov-sem as a Working Group note
15:51:44 [pgroth]
15:51:45 [GK]
(Haven't had time to review, but expect it's fine)
15:52:05 [smiles]
Luc: Congratulations to James
15:52:07 [pgroth]
@jcheney - really good job
15:52:37 [smiles]
jcheney: Can check everyone that should be in acknowledgement and contributor lists is there?
15:52:39 [Luc]
topic: prov-xml
15:53:04 [dgarijo]
@GK: Ok! My main problem is that both DC and PROV don't characterize thw features of a "revision". Since I didn't find examples of use that could contradict one being subclass of another, I just put it as an equivalent class
15:53:18 [smiles]
zednik: Two reviews in, none are blocking but lots of small changes that will be made by Tuesday
15:53:26 [dgarijo]
I mean, equivalent property.
15:53:34 [smiles]
... a couple of larger issues may take a little longer, but straightfowards
15:53:49 [pgroth]
15:54:16 [Luc]
15:54:26 [pgroth]
15:54:26 [smiles]
jcheney: Henry from Edinburgh said he would look at PROV-XML but has not been able to yet, may not in time for us
15:54:42 [Luc]
15:54:47 [smiles]
Luc: Vote next week after changes
15:55:09 [smiles]
pgroth: Want to discuss inclusion of XSD in the appendix
15:55:14 [Luc]
ack pg
15:55:19 [pgroth]
15:55:22 [smiles]
zednik: Will add an issue to the tracker
15:55:33 [Luc]
topic: prov-overview
15:55:46 [smiles]
Luc: Now ready for review
15:56:06 [smiles]
pgroth: Some people looked at it, and made minor changes
15:56:26 [Luc]
15:56:36 [smiles]
Luc: Volunteers to read PROV-Overview?
15:56:50 [jcheney]
15:56:53 [dgarijo]
I can review it
15:57:02 [GK]
@dgarijo ah, I see. If it's not clear what they mean, I'd personally probably avoid creating the ontological commitment. The concern is that if they turn out to be incompatible, you can end up with unsatisfiable (or not satisfiable in any expected sense of their meaning) expressions. OTOH, with ontological under commitment, then you may have ambiguity but that can be fixed later by adding more constraining statement later.
15:57:19 [smiles]
Luc: James and Daniel will review PROV-Overview
15:57:37 [Luc]
15:57:47 [Luc]
topic: provenance of documents
15:57:48 [smiles]
Luc: Please let us know of blocking issues ahead of call, so that Paul can address before we vote
15:57:58 [Luc]
15:58:11 [Luc]
15:58:32 [smiles]
Luc: Created provenance of prov documents above
15:58:58 [smiles]
... Would like various editors check for their own documents that dates, authors, etc are correct
15:59:31 [dgarijo]
@GK: By looking just at the definitions I would say that we should have it as Stian proposed (which is the way we had it originally). But the lack of counter examples made me have it the way it's now. That is why I have to review Stian's examples b_)
15:59:34 [smiles]
Luc: May also want to check attributed correctly for other documents
15:59:38 [Luc]
15:59:53 [stain]
so you want emails for corrections?
15:59:55 [Luc]
topic: Closing issues in tracker
15:59:59 [pgroth]
bad noise
16:00:13 [pgroth]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:00:24 [Zakim]
pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (31%), stain (5%)
16:00:32 [stain]
sorry. Old phone!
16:01:05 [smiles]
pgroth: Dereferencing namespace issue: we already do so, but Tim will update
16:01:34 [Luc]
16:01:53 [stain]
serioously, now my mobile is off!
16:01:54 [smiles]
Luc: Best practice cookbook issues, are they still relevant?
16:02:01 [stain]
zakim, mute stain
16:02:01 [Zakim]
stain should now be muted
16:02:18 [dgarijo]
where is the best practice cookbook document? I think we removed it
16:02:36 [smiles]
pgroth: Need to ask Tim, as these are all things not to go in ontology but separate explanations
16:02:50 [dgarijo]
16:02:51 [Luc]
action tlebo to look into issues he raised
16:02:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-171 - Look into issues he raised [on Timothy Lebo - due 2013-04-18].
16:02:58 [smiles]
pgroth: Should either put in FAQ or close them
16:03:04 [GK]
@paul re ISSUE-222, did you consider a data: URI?
16:03:12 [Luc]
16:03:15 [stain]
dgarijo: not maintained :(
16:03:22 [dgarijo]
16:03:44 [smiles]
dgarijo: The issues relate to document (above) started but not continued, so do not apply any more
16:03:59 [Luc]
16:04:05 [Luc]
ack dga
16:04:08 [khalidBelhajjame]
16:04:08 [Zakim]
16:04:09 [Dong]
bye all
16:04:09 [stain]
16:04:10 [Zakim]
16:04:11 [dgarijo]
16:04:11 [Zakim]
16:04:15 [GK]
16:04:17 [Zakim]
16:04:18 [Zakim]
- +1.818.731.aabb
16:04:19 [Zakim]
16:04:20 [Zakim]
16:04:23 [Zakim]
16:04:24 [Zakim]
16:05:13 [Zakim]
16:06:05 [Zakim]
16:06:11 [GK]
GK has left #prov
16:09:49 [Zakim]
16:09:49 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:09:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were CraigTrim, pgroth, stain, jcheney, smiles, Luc, dgarijo, +1.818.731.aaaa, Satya_Sahoo, +1.818.731.aabb, [IPcaller], GK, Dong
18:19:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #prov