16:26:06 <jcheney> (oops :)

16:26:40 <jcheney> Satya: Status update; updating HTML and OWL file to incorporate QualifiedInvolvement, update diagrams

16:27:06 <Luc> q?

16:27:08 <jcheney> ... Ontology call agrees that current version handles qualification information closer to prov-dm

16:27:24 <jcheney> ... Going through issues; happy to take questions or move forward to FPWD

16:27:31 <Luc> q?

16:28:00 <pgroth> i haven't

16:28:06 <smiles> me neither

16:28:09 <jcheney> Luc: Haven't had time to review yet;

16:28:10 <Paolo> I have not had a chance either I'm afraid

16:28:22 <pgroth> could we vote on it next week?

16:28:26 <pgroth> q+

16:28:32 <GK> I didn't have time to review properly ... but I don't object to its release

16:28:33 <Paolo> @paul +1

16:28:35 <Luc> q?

16:28:39 <jcheney> Luc: Possible vote next week?

16:29:07 <pgroth> q-

16:29:07 <jcheney> pgroth: We could proceed as with PAQ - one week comment/review period before possible vote

16:29:10 <Luc> q?

16:29:10 <Paolo> I would actually like to get a chance to see it in detail before it goes out

16:29:42 <jcheney> Luc: PROV-DM has changed; should we coordinate releases?

16:30:04 <pgroth> q+

16:30:09 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc, good point

16:30:27 <Paolo> @simon: this reminds me that my ASN rendering of examples in the primer need realigning with the new PROV-DM terminology

16:30:39 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

16:30:40 <GK> I think it would be good to have coordinated, aligned releases of PROV-DM and PROV-O

16:30:53 <pgroth> ack pgroth

16:31:23 <jcheney> Luc: In prov-O which version of Prov-DM is being referenced?

16:31:33 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy

16:31:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's noisy', MacTed

16:31:37 <Luc> q?

16:31:38 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?

16:31:48 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (10%), Satya_Sahoo (84%), stain (79%)

16:31:49 <jcheney> Satya: Probably somewhere in between.  Have tried to cover changes discussed on mailing list.

16:31:56 <khalidbelhajjame> Mostly aligned with the first released working draft

16:31:58 <pgroth> stain can you mute?

16:32:02 <stain> sorry

16:32:07 <GK> ... but coordinated doesn't necessarily mean simultaneous release?

16:32:29 <jcheney> Satya: As Paul said, if we keep changing prov-o to sync with prov-dm then may need to wait for prov-dm.

16:32:42 <Luc> q?

16:32:47 <Luc> ack kh

16:33:11 <jcheney> Khalid: When is next release of prov-dm?

16:33:46 <jcheney> Luc: Would like to release prov-dm soon, 2-3 weeks.  Needs review.

16:34:16 <jcheney> ... Could release FPWD of PROV-O next week and 2nd release syncd with PROV-DM

16:34:25 <pgroth> q+

16:34:29 <jcheney> Satya: Makes sense, but there will always be time lag

16:34:50 <Luc> q?

16:35:04 <Luc> ack pg

16:35:18 <Paolo> q+

16:35:35 <jcheney> pgroth: PROV-O not an exact reflection of PROV-DM FPWD.  Somewhere in between

16:36:14 <jcheney> ... This is fine but need to pick out important changes and reflect them, e.g. renaming PE -> activity

16:36:34 <Luc> q?

16:36:37 <khalidbelhajjame> Noooo, I will have to redo all the diagrams because of that change :-)

16:36:42 <jcheney> ... More complicated changes can wait; may make it look more synchronized

16:36:43 <pgroth> lol

16:37:33 <jcheney> Paolo: Linking releases good, gives strong signal, but danger of lag - snags may throw everything off track

16:37:55 <Luc> q?

16:37:56 <stain> +1

16:37:57 <jcheney> ... Would like to see well-defined PROV-DM schedule with PROV-O following

16:37:59 <Luc> ack pa

16:38:28 <jcheney> Satya: Updating prov-o to model constraints fed back into prov-dm.

16:38:41 <jcheney> Paolo: Overall effect of linking two is dangerous.

16:38:45 <Luc> q?

16:38:46 <jcheney> +q

16:38:46 <Paolo> q-

16:39:13 <Luc> ack jch

16:39:28 <jcheney> jcheney: will have to converge eventually...

16:40:16 <jcheney> Luc: Could have section in preamble of PROV-O summarizing relation to FPWD of PROV-DM

16:40:28 <MacTed> +1 preamble noting "changes already made over there mean changes will be made here.  here's a short list:..."

16:40:50 <jcheney> Satya: Would it enable us to make PROV-DM and PROV-O in lock step?

16:40:58 <jcheney> ... there will always be something to do

16:41:39 <pgroth> q+

16:41:51 <MacTed> Zakim, unmte me

16:41:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmte me', MacTed

16:41:55 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

16:41:55 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

16:41:59 <pgroth> q-

16:42:05 <khalidbelhajjame> I think that this list can be useful for purposes other than prov-o, e.g., for the primer, paq, or simply to keep tracks of the changes made between releases

16:42:12 <jcheney> Luc: This is list of changes already made in prov-dm and will be implemented in prov-o

16:42:20 <jcheney> Satya: Can do this, need to keep it updated

16:42:26 <Luc> q?

16:42:33 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

16:42:33 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

16:43:00 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

16:43:34 <jcheney> Luc: Will review and decide about moving towards FPWD

16:44:14 <jcheney> Khalid: can be useful if list is on wiki page also - changelog for prov-dm.

16:44:28 <MacTed> +1 -- this sort of list is relevant to all cross-dependent docs in parallel production...

16:44:33 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version

16:44:34 <jcheney> Luc: Yes, it would be useful and already exists

16:44:34 <Paolo> @khalid ood idea

16:44:41 <Paolo> s/ood/good

16:45:01 <Luc> q?

16:45:04 <Luc> ack khal

16:45:05 <khalidbelhajjame> thanks

16:45:25 <jcheney> TOPIC: PROV-PRIMER

<Luc>Summary: The primer team produced a first version of the document. Please review it and comment on it. We will decide next week if it can be released as a first public working draft.  For both the prov-o and prov-primer documents, we discussed the pros and cons of releasing these documents synchronously with new versions of prov-dm. We agreed not to synchronize releases, to avoid publication delays.

16:45:57 <jcheney> smiles: First version available for review; has been extended recently with PROV-ASN examples in appendix

Simon Miles: First version available for review; has been extended recently with PROV-ASN examples in appendix ←

16:46:03 <jcheney> ... Comments welcome

... Comments welcome ←

16:46:30 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:46:31 <jcheney> ... Concept illustrations focus on the apparently most stable things; more needs to be done for next version

... Concept illustrations focus on the apparently most stable things; more needs to be done for next version ←

16:46:52 <jcheney> Luc: Does this follow PROV-DM or PROV-O?  In between?

Luc Moreau: Does this follow PROV-DM or PROV-O? In between? ←

16:47:01 <smiles> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html

Simon Miles: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html ←

16:47:07 <jcheney> smiles: Following PROV-DM as of FPWD

Simon Miles: Following PROV-DM as of FPWD ←

16:47:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:47:27 <jcheney> ... Worked examples include rdf/prov-o

... Worked examples include rdf/prov-o ←

16:47:38 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

16:47:39 <jcheney> Luc: Activities or process executions?

Luc Moreau: Activities or process executions? ←

16:47:58 <jcheney> smiles: Have updated terminology to use "activity"

Simon Miles: Have updated terminology to use "activity" ←

16:48:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:48:35 <jcheney> ... ASN uses PEs, needs to be updated

... ASN uses PEs, needs to be updated ←

16:48:40 <Luc> ack pgr

Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←

16:48:49 <Paolo> q-

Paolo Missier: q- ←

16:49:10 <jcheney> pgroth: Same question about PROV-O and PROV-DM: synchronization would be good, how much work to sync with PROV-O

Paul Groth: Same question about PROV-O and PROV-DM: synchronization would be good, how much work to sync with PROV-O ←

16:49:12 <GK> @paul +1

Graham Klyne: @paul +1 ←

16:49:15 <Paolo> @simon: yes I am the one who is lagging behind PROV-dM (shame)

Paolo Missier: @simon: yes I am the one who is lagging behind PROV-dM (shame) ←

16:49:45 <jcheney> ... Good to release to public to get this on radar, people may want to start implementing.

... Good to release to public to get this on radar, people may want to start implementing. ←

16:50:09 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:50:15 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:50:17 <GK> I think the primer will help other people to review the rest of the specs

Graham Klyne: I think the primer will help other people to review the rest of the specs ←

16:50:32 <jcheney> smiles: Agree releasing soon would be good, to find out if people find it readable, have't kept up with prov-o

Simon Miles: Agree releasing soon would be good, to find out if people find it readable, have't kept up with prov-o ←

16:50:40 <Luc> ack sat

Luc Moreau: ack sat ←

16:50:55 <pgroth> q+ to respond

Paul Groth: q+ to respond ←

16:51:04 <jcheney> satya: Right now primer does not have inference rules, qualified involvement.  Planning to vote on prov-o next week.

Satya Sahoo: Right now primer does not have inference rules, qualified involvement. Planning to vote on prov-o next week. ←

16:51:13 <jcheney> ... Do you think we should delay prov-o pending changes?

... Do you think we should delay prov-o pending changes? ←

16:51:17 <GK> I think it's just fine that the primer doesn't concern itself with the inferencde rules.  It the vocab that's key.

Graham Klyne: I think it's just fine that the primer doesn't concern itself with the inferencde rules. It the vocab that's key. ←

16:51:31 <GK> @paul +1

Graham Klyne: @paul +1 ←

16:51:40 <jcheney> pgroth: Primer doesn't have to represent everything.  Ontology may not have to change, just primer

Paul Groth: Primer doesn't have to represent everything. Ontology may not have to change, just primer ←

16:52:19 <jcheney> ... Revert activity to process execution?  Review this week for possible vote next week?

... Revert activity to process execution? Review this week for possible vote next week? ←

16:52:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:52:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

16:52:27 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to respond ←

16:52:32 <Luc> ack pro

Luc Moreau: ack pro ←

16:53:27 <jcheney> Luc: Earlier hesitated to delay prov-o until primer ready.

Luc Moreau: Earlier hesitated to delay prov-o until primer ready. ←

16:53:37 <jcheney> ... Simon, suggesting that this is ready for FPWD?

... Simon, suggesting that this is ready for FPWD? ←

16:53:48 <YolandaGil> q+

Yolanda Gil: q+ ←

16:53:55 <jcheney> q+

q+ ←

16:53:59 <Luc> ack yo

Luc Moreau: ack yo ←

16:54:22 <jcheney> smiles: if there is consensus

Simon Miles: if there is consensus ←

16:54:53 <jcheney> YolandaGil: sandro, others - what should we do to relate to other W3C actvities or context?

Yolanda Gil: sandro, others - what should we do to relate to other W3C actvities or context? ←

16:54:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:55:08 <jcheney> zakim, who is speaking

zakim, who is speaking ←

16:55:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is speaking', jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is speaking', jcheney ←

16:55:13 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy?

zakim, who is noisy? ←

16:55:19 <GK> q+ to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM.  I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas.

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM. I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas. ←

16:55:25 <Zakim> jcheney, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (85%)

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (85%) ←

16:55:50 <jcheney> sandro: hard to know what people will see - important to annonce and find reviewers/colleagues in target audience

Sandro Hawke: hard to know what people will see - important to annonce and find reviewers/colleagues in target audience ←

16:56:00 <jcheney> ... semantic web people not already familiar with provenance?

... semantic web people not already familiar with provenance? ←

16:56:20 <jcheney> Luc: Got good feedback from Tom Baker on Prov-DM, was keen to see updates

Luc Moreau: Got good feedback from Tom Baker on Prov-DM, was keen to see updates ←

16:56:21 <pgroth> so are we saying an internal review

Paul Groth: so are we saying an internal review ←

16:56:25 <pgroth> without fpwd

Paul Groth: without fpwd ←

16:56:25 <Paolo> agree with the idea of a semi-internal review from a slightly less "primed" panel

Paolo Missier: agree with the idea of a semi-internal review from a slightly less "primed" panel ←

16:56:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:56:37 <jcheney> Yolanda: good suggestion - small group review

Yolanda Gil: good suggestion - small group review ←

16:56:50 <jcheney> Luc: before FPWD?

Luc Moreau: before FPWD? ←

16:56:59 <jcheney> Yolanda: Yes

Yolanda Gil: Yes ←

16:57:30 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:57:42 <jcheney> jcheney: is primer a recommendation, and do we need to worry about FPWD status

James Cheney: is primer a recommendation, and do we need to worry about FPWD status ←

16:57:52 <pgroth> we have to do FPWD and LC

Paul Groth: we have to do FPWD and LC ←

16:57:55 <jcheney> Luc:Primer will be a Note

Luc Moreau: Primer will be a Note ←

16:58:20 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q- ←

16:58:21 <jcheney> sandro: Only difference is phrase that says that it is not intended to be recommendation track

Sandro Hawke: Only difference is phrase that says that it is not intended to be recommendation track ←

16:58:24 <jcheney> q-

q- ←

16:58:32 <jcheney> (Thanks, that answers my question!)

(Thanks, that answers my question!) ←

16:58:42 <jcheney> sandro: Otherwise process is the same

Sandro Hawke: Otherwise process is the same ←

16:58:52 <pgroth> gk talk softer

Paul Groth: gk talk softer ←

16:58:53 <stain> try 10 cm away from mic

Stian Soiland-Reyes: try 10 cm away from mic ←

16:59:00 <pgroth> better

Paul Groth: better ←

16:59:03 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

16:59:14 <jcheney> gk: think primer is too useful to hold back on release.  found reading helped understand discussion issues better.

Graham Klyne: think primer is too useful to hold back on release. found reading helped understand discussion issues better. ←

16:59:29 <jcheney> ... if we can get primer out, it will help seed interest/understanding in other docs

... if we can get primer out, it will help seed interest/understanding in other docs ←

16:59:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:59:33 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk ←

16:59:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM.  I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas.

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say I found the primer very useful as is; helped me to get into issues in DM. I think early release could help get better feedback on other areas. ←

16:59:34 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:59:37 <satya> @GK, +1

Satya Sahoo: @GK, +1 ←

16:59:44 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

16:59:59 <jcheney> pgroth: is there a pseudo-way of making primer available pre FPWD?

Paul Groth: is there a pseudo-way of making primer available pre FPWD? ←

17:00:22 <jcheney> sandro: can point people to respec version, circulate as editor's draft

Sandro Hawke: can point people to respec version, circulate as editor's draft ←

17:00:50 <jcheney> smiles: editor's draft circulation sounds good

Simon Miles: editor's draft circulation sounds good ←

17:01:08 <jcheney> sandro: editor's draft has connotation of being "even more work in progress"

Sandro Hawke: editor's draft has connotation of being "even more work in progress" ←

17:01:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

17:01:32 <jcheney> Luc: likely to get feedback on all 3 - dm, o, primer

Luc Moreau: likely to get feedback on all 3 - dm, o, primer ←

17:02:10 <jcheney> Luc: Suggested names for internal reviewers; next week, decide whether to release as ED or FPWD

Luc Moreau: Suggested names for internal reviewers; next week, decide whether to release as ED or FPWD ←

17:02:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

17:02:43 <jcheney> smiles: Pass on to sympathetic reviewers who will offer constructive feedback

Simon Miles: Pass on to sympathetic reviewers who will offer constructive feedback ←

17:03:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

17:03:14 <jcheney> Luc: adjourned

Luc Moreau: adjourned ←

17:03:14 <Zakim> -??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P19 ←

17:03:16 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←

17:03:17 <Zakim> -Vinh_

Zakim IRC Bot: -Vinh_ ←

17:03:17 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←

17:03:17 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←

17:03:18 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←

17:03:19 <Zakim> -kai

Zakim IRC Bot: -kai ←

17:03:21 <Zakim> -sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←

17:03:23 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←

17:03:25 <pgroth> luc shall we talk?

Paul Groth: luc shall we talk? ←

17:03:29 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←

17:03:31 <Luc> @pgroth, yes

Luc Moreau: @pgroth, yes ←

17:03:36 <Zakim> -??P44

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P44 ←

17:03:41 <Zakim> -YolandaGil

Zakim IRC Bot: -YolandaGil ←

17:03:43 <Zakim> -SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens ←

17:03:53 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←

17:03:55 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←

17:03:59 <GK> @pgroth I'm editing the PAQ @@s as we chat...

Graham Klyne: @pgroth I'm editing the PAQ @@s as we chat... ←

17:04:01 <Zakim> -??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P27 ←

17:04:03 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←

17:04:27 <Zakim> -??P63

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P63 ←

17:04:31 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK ←

17:04:33 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←

17:04:35 <Zakim> Attendees were Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, Satya_Sahoo, pgroth, +1.518.276.aabb, stain, tlebo, MacTed, GK, Yolanda, [IPcaller], SamCoppens, sandro, Vinh_, YolandaGil, kai

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Paolo, Luc, Curt_Tilmes, Satya_Sahoo, pgroth, +1.518.276.aabb, stain, tlebo, MacTed, GK, Yolanda, [IPcaller], SamCoppens, sandro, Vinh_, YolandaGil, kai ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---