16:07:20 <stain> (I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once)

(I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once) ←

16:07:28 <stain> dgarijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up

Daniel Garijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up ←

16:07:35 <stain> dgarijo: updated document - almost ready for release

Daniel Garijo: updated document - almost ready for release ←

16:07:50 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html ←

16:07:58 <dgarijo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

Daniel Garijo: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html ←

16:08:07 <stain> I'll timestamp it

I'll timestamp it ←

16:08:31 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html ←

16:08:38 <stain> pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that?

Paul Groth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that? ←

16:09:02 <Zakim> +Bjorn_Bringert

Zakim IRC Bot: +Bjorn_Bringert ←

16:09:02 <Zakim> +Satish_Sampath

Zakim IRC Bot: +Satish_Sampath ←

16:09:05 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

16:09:08 <stain> dgarijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document

Daniel Garijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document ←

16:09:30 <pgroth> zednik

Paul Groth: zednik ←

16:09:31 <pgroth> ?

Paul Groth: ? ←

16:09:32 <stain> q?

q? ←

16:10:06 <Zakim> +??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←

16:10:14 <satya> @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O?

Satya Sahoo: @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O? ←

16:10:16 <stain> Luc: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document

Luc Moreau: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document ←

16:10:27 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+ ←

16:10:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon

Khalid Belhajjame: Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon ←

16:10:51 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q- ←

16:10:51 <stain> Luc: what is happening with section 4, 5

Luc Moreau: what is happening with section 4, 5 ←

16:11:15 <stain> satya: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long

Satya Sahoo: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long ←

16:11:27 <stain> satya: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML

Satya Sahoo: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML ←

16:11:29 <dgarijo> when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry.

Daniel Garijo: when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry. ←

16:11:33 <stain> Monday

Monday ←

16:11:51 <stain> satya: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O

Satya Sahoo: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O ←

16:12:05 <stain> satya: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability

Satya Sahoo: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability ←

16:12:16 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+ ←

16:12:18 <stain> satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O

Satya Sahoo: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O ←

16:12:38 <stain> (Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints )

(Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints ) ←

16:13:05 <stain> Luc: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent

Luc Moreau: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent ←

16:13:43 <khalidbelhajjame> Can then Section 4 be released as a note?

Khalid Belhajjame: Can then Section 4 be released as a note? ←

16:13:53 <stain> Luc: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally

Luc Moreau: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally ←

16:13:58 <GK> q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence

Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence ←

16:14:16 <stain> Luc: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally

Luc Moreau: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally ←

16:14:35 <stain> Luc: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view

Luc Moreau: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view ←

16:14:49 <stain> Luc: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed

Luc Moreau: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed ←

16:15:00 <stain> Luc: what is the message of all those issues?

Luc Moreau: what is the message of all those issues? ←

16:15:16 <stain> Luc: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document

Luc Moreau: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document ←

16:15:22 <stain> q?

q? ←

16:15:30 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc ←

16:15:57 <stain> Satya: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated.

Satya Sahoo: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated. ←

16:16:15 <stain> satya: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time

Satya Sahoo: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time ←

16:17:00 <stain> satya: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate

Satya Sahoo: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate ←

16:17:04 <dgarijo> what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there.

Daniel Garijo: what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there. ←

16:17:25 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q- ←

16:17:25 <stain> satya: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative

Satya Sahoo: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative ←

16:17:36 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik ←

16:17:48 <jcheney> I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document

James Cheney: I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document ←

16:18:04 <stain> GK: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism.

Graham Klyne: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism. ←

16:18:12 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:18:14 <stain> GK: so it *is* supported by charter

Graham Klyne: so it *is* supported by charter ←

16:18:15 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

16:18:15 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence ←

16:18:20 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

16:18:26 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

16:18:34 <stain> Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative

Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative ←

16:18:58 <stain> Luc: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts

Luc Moreau: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts ←

16:19:21 <stain> (but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?)

(but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?) ←

16:19:35 <dgarijo> @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc.

Daniel Garijo: @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc. ←

16:19:58 <stain> Luc: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems.

Luc Moreau: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems. ←

16:20:03 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:20:05 <stain> q+

q+ ←

16:20:50 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:20:57 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

16:21:06 <stain> stain: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning? ←

16:21:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:21:10 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:21:11 <stain> Luc: yes, that's what I meant

Luc Moreau: yes, that's what I meant ←

16:21:20 <GK> q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well

Graham Klyne: q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well ←

16:21:40 <stain> satya: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them?

Satya Sahoo: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them? ←

16:21:49 <stain> satya: in particular if it prevents interoperability

Satya Sahoo: in particular if it prevents interoperability ←

16:22:14 <stain> Luc: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace

Luc Moreau: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace ←

16:22:32 <stain> pgroth: I think we need to separate questions

Paul Groth: I think we need to separate questions ←

16:22:53 <stain> pgroth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability..

Paul Groth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability.. ←

16:22:56 <stain> pgroth: q2 is where this belongs

Paul Groth: q2 is where this belongs ←

16:23:03 <GK> @paul - good intervention!

Graham Klyne: @paul - good intervention! ←

16:23:13 <stain> pgroth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices

Paul Groth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices ←

16:23:26 <stain> pgroth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question.

Paul Groth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question. ←

16:23:48 <stain> pgroth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note

Paul Groth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note ←

16:23:59 <stain> pgroth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long

Paul Groth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long ←

16:24:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:24:16 <GK> q-

Graham Klyne: q- ←

16:24:17 <stain> pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD

Paul Groth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD ←

16:24:23 <satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q- ←

16:24:24 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

16:24:25 <Luc> +1 to Paul's comment

Luc Moreau: +1 to Paul's comment ←

16:24:29 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

16:24:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:24:35 <stain> +1 to make a Best Practice document

+1 to make a Best Practice document ←

16:25:04 <stain> Luc: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document

Luc Moreau: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document ←

16:25:14 <stain> q+

q+ ←

16:25:51 <Luc> what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples?

Luc Moreau: what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples? ←

16:25:53 <pgroth> ack stain

Paul Groth: ack stain ←

16:25:58 <GK> @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material?

Graham Klyne: @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material? ←

16:26:04 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:26:05 <stain> stain: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD?

Stian Soiland-Reyes: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD? ←

16:26:13 <dgarijo> +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right?

Daniel Garijo: +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right? ←

16:26:15 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

16:27:00 <stain> satya: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that.  If such a user comes to see what is the use for me

Satya Sahoo: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that. If such a user comes to see what is the use for me ←

16:27:07 <GK> ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM

Graham Klyne: ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM ←

16:27:14 <stain> satya: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised

Satya Sahoo: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised ←

16:27:42 <stain> satya: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4

Satya Sahoo: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4 ←

16:27:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:27:53 <stain> satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document

Satya Sahoo: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document ←

16:27:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

16:28:54 <GK> q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table.  Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative?

Graham Klyne: q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative? ←

16:29:04 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM

Khalid Belhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM ←

16:29:10 <satya> @GK +1

Satya Sahoo: @GK +1 ←

16:29:14 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples

Khalid Belhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples ←

16:29:20 <dgarijo> +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice?

Daniel Garijo: +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice? ←

16:29:33 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only

Khalid Belhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only ←

16:29:36 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:29:41 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←

16:30:06 <stain> GK: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that.

Graham Klyne: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that. ←

16:30:15 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:30:21 <pgroth> ack GK

Paul Groth: ack GK ←

16:30:21 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table.  Meanwhile, just signal the current as

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as ←

16:30:22 <stain> GK: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative

Graham Klyne: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative ←

16:30:24 <Zakim> ... non-normative?

Zakim IRC Bot: ... non-normative? ←

16:30:25 <stain> +1

+1 ←

16:30:34 <stain> pgroth: issue is that it is a lot of material

Paul Groth: issue is that it is a lot of material ←

16:30:45 <stain> pgroth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression

Paul Groth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression ←

16:30:52 <stain> pgroth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs

Paul Groth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs ←

16:31:13 <stain> pgroth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but..

Paul Groth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but.. ←

16:31:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:31:39 <stain> GK: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document?

Graham Klyne: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document? ←

16:31:52 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

16:31:56 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

16:31:57 <stain> pgroth: would prefer just to move it out for now

Paul Groth: would prefer just to move it out for now ←

16:32:16 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down

Khalid Belhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down ←

16:32:20 <Luc> what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document?

Luc Moreau: what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document? ←

16:32:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative

Khalid Belhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative ←

16:32:43 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:32:46 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←

16:32:46 <GK> (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?)

Graham Klyne: (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?) ←

16:32:53 <stain> Luc: OK, can do that :)

Luc Moreau: OK, can do that :) ←

16:32:59 <stain> just copy and delete

just copy and delete ←

16:33:11 <dgarijo> @stian:+1

Daniel Garijo: @stian:+1 ←

16:33:12 <Luc> @stain, yes, plus a small intro

Luc Moreau: @stain, yes, plus a small intro ←

16:33:18 <Zakim> +??P29

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29 ←

16:33:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:33:31 <stain> pgroth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice   b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it

Paul Groth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it ←

16:33:31 <Paolo> zakim, ??P29 is me

Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P29 is me ←

16:33:31 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it ←

16:33:48 <pgroth> option a

Paul Groth: option a ←

16:34:07 <stain> +1

+1 ←

16:34:15 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

16:34:17 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

16:34:31 <stain> option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice

option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice ←

16:34:40 <stain> option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there

option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there ←

16:34:40 <GK> (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5

Graham Klyne: (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5 ←

16:34:47 <dgarijo> +1 to b.

Daniel Garijo: +1 to b. ←

16:34:51 <stain> +1 to b

+1 to b ←

16:34:51 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: @GK :-) ←

16:34:59 <satya> +1 to b

Satya Sahoo: +1 to b ←

16:35:09 <smiles> +1 to b

Simon Miles: +1 to b ←

16:35:12 <dcorsar> +1 to b

David Corsar: +1 to b ←

16:35:16 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 to b

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 to b ←

16:35:24 <stain> I can take the action

I can take the action ←

16:35:30 <jcheney> Happy with either.

James Cheney: Happy with either. ←

16:35:32 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:35:45 <Luc> proposal: release both documents at the same time as fpwd

PROPOSED: release both documents at the same time as fpwd ←

16:35:57 <stain> ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document

ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document ←

16:35:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01]. ←

16:36:11 <stain> satya: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document

Satya Sahoo: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document ←

16:36:31 <stain> pgroth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications

Paul Groth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications ←

16:36:39 <stain> satya: yes, and with link to examples in best practice

Satya Sahoo: yes, and with link to examples in best practice ←

16:36:44 <stain> Luc: sounds reasonable

Luc Moreau: sounds reasonable ←

16:36:54 <khalidbelhajjame> :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: :-) ←

<stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/bestpractices/BestPractices.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/bestpractices/BestPractices.html ←

16:36:54 <stain> RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :)

RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :) ←

16:37:23 <pgroth> Resolved: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document

RESOLVED: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document ←

16:37:37 <GK> I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain

Graham Klyne: I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain ←

16:37:42 <stain> right

right ←

16:37:46 <stain> but that is the same

but that is the same ←

16:38:11 <stain> pgroth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad

Paul Groth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad ←

16:38:14 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints ←

16:38:15 <GK> @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in.

Graham Klyne: @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in. ←

16:38:19 <stain> ;)

;) ←

16:38:26 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:38:29 <pgroth> ack satya

Paul Groth: ack satya ←

16:38:52 <stain> satya: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document?

Satya Sahoo: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document? ←

16:39:06 <stain> I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict

I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict ←

16:39:17 <khalidbelhajjame> We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-) ←

16:39:31 <satya> @Khalid :)

Satya Sahoo: @Khalid :) ←

16:39:32 <stain> pgroth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O

Paul Groth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O ←

16:39:42 <stain> pgroth: but we commented it out from the FPWD

Paul Groth: but we commented it out from the FPWD ←

16:40:02 <stain> satya: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document

Satya Sahoo: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document ←

16:40:08 <stain> pgroth: does that resolve it?

Paul Groth: does that resolve it? ←

16:40:13 <stain> Luc: Believe so

Luc Moreau: Believe so ←

16:40:23 <stain> (issues are public anyway, remember!)

(issues are public anyway, remember!) ←

16:40:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

16:40:40 <stain> pgroth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right?

Paul Groth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right? ←

16:40:59 <stain> Luc: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD   [ at the same time ]

Luc Moreau: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD [ at the same time ] ←

16:41:03 <dgarijo> +1 to that

Daniel Garijo: +1 to that ←

16:41:09 <stain> sorry

sorry ←

16:41:14 <stain> the Best PRactice document

the Best PRactice document ←

16:41:19 <stain> (which does not yet exist! ;) )

(which does not yet exist! ;) ) ←

16:41:21 <GK> q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?

Graham Klyne: q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet? ←

16:41:29 <khalidbelhajjame> Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document?

Khalid Belhajjame: Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document? ←

16:41:30 <stain> GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial!

GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial! ←

16:41:56 <stain> it will only be section 4 for now

it will only be section 4 for now ←

16:42:16 <stain> pgroth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week

Paul Groth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week ←

16:42:21 <jcheney> I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now.

James Cheney: I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now. ←

16:42:29 <stain> can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial  ?

can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial ? ←

16:42:52 <stain> Luc: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O

Luc Moreau: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O ←

16:43:11 <pgroth> Proposed: release PROV-O as first public wor�king draft with above mentioned changes

PROPOSED: release PROV-O as first public wor�king draft with above mentioned changes ←

16:43:19 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1 ←

16:43:20 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

16:43:20 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←

16:43:20 <stain> +1 (witout the �]� thing)

+1 (witout the �]� thing) ←

16:43:20 <dgarijo> +1

Daniel Garijo: +1 ←

16:43:22 <pgroth> +1

Paul Groth: +1 ←

16:43:23 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

16:43:23 <dcorsar> +1

David Corsar: +1 ←

16:43:23 <satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1 ←

16:43:54 <stain> (we're all waiting for Luc!)

(we're all waiting for Luc!) ←

16:44:23 <pgroth> Accepted:  release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes

RESOLVED: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes ←

16:44:24 <stain> Luc: supportive - but don't vote as a chair

Luc Moreau: supportive - but don't vote as a chair ←

16:44:36 <stain> pgroth: but I've been voting as a chair !!

Paul Groth: but I've been voting as a chair !! ←

16:44:38 <satya> @Paul :)

Satya Sahoo: @Paul :) ←

16:44:41 <stain> congrats everyone!

congrats everyone! ←

16:44:45 <khalidbelhajjame> Hurray

Khalid Belhajjame: Hurray ←

16:44:52 <stain> pgroth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along

Paul Groth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along ←

16:44:56 <Luc> congrats to the prov-o team!

Luc Moreau: congrats to the prov-o team! ←

16:45:04 <dgarijo> :)

Daniel Garijo: :) ←

16:45:05 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ

<stain> Summary: Almost ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD) - Graham asked Paul Groth to step in if needed.

16:45:51 <stain> GK: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else

16:46:22 <stain> GK: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball?

16:46:25 <stain> pgroth: happy to do the test

16:46:29 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html

16:47:08 <stain> GK: might not be available in the near future

16:47:17 <pgroth> q?

16:47:19 <pgroth> ack GK

16:47:19 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet?

16:47:20 <stain> pgroth: getting close to FPWD

16:47:32 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM

<stain> Summary: PROV-DM document updated to reflect the recently voted on proposals. Derivation still not settled. Yolanda's agent proposal being worked on. Current document is not quite ready for general review by the working group as Luc and Paolo, but feel free to have a look. PROV-DM document should be ready for internal review next week, aiming for second public working draft the week after.

16:47:39 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version

16:47:49 <pgroth> lots of echo

16:47:57 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html

16:48:17 <stain> Luc: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented

16:48:25 <stain> Luc: some questions on derivations

16:48:37 <stain> Luc: being edited as we speak

16:48:48 <stain> Luc: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well

16:49:03 <stain> Luc: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo

16:49:09 <stain> Luc: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review

16:49:24 <stain> Luc: don't file issues on the actual current document yet

16:49:31 <stain> Luc: hoping to have feedback soon

16:49:40 <stain> Luc: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation

16:49:52 <stain> Luc: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible

16:50:01 <stain> (You mean before christmas?)

16:50:14 <Luc> @stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time

16:50:20 <stain> Paolo: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment

16:50:27 <stain> Paolo: most changes would be simplifying

16:50:35 <stain> Paolo: and not throw everyting up in the air again

16:50:50 <pgroth> q?

16:50:54 <stain> @Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 ..

16:51:13 <stain> Paolo: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility

16:51:16 <dgarijo> @Stian: you mean Activity, right?

16:51:21 <Luc> @stain, what is this? PE -> account?

16:51:21 <stain> yes, sorry

16:51:25 <stain> Activity

16:51:31 <pgroth> q?

16:51:44 <pgroth> q?

16:51:52 <stain> so when do we get the internal review?

16:51:57 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-JSON

<stain> Summary: Dong Huynh from Southampton presented their work on making a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM. (See http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/ ). The working group showed interest in working in a similar official PROV-JSON approach, volunteering was Stian, Khalid, Graham and possibly James; however it was agreed to not focus on PROV-JSON until a later stage. Chairs will look at the schedule..

16:52:01 <stain> if second WD is in 2 weeks

16:52:07 <Luc> @stain, hopefully, next week

16:52:26 <stain> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/

16:52:49 <stain> pgroth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed?

16:53:08 <stain> pgroth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM

16:53:19 <stain> pgroth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed

16:53:29 <stain> pgroth: given time.. let us hear about it

<stain> Guest: Trung Dong (DongHuynh) Huynh, University of Southampton

<stain> Guest: Bjorn (Bjorn_Bringert) Bringert

<stain> Guest: Satish (Satish_Sampath) Sampath

16:53:50 <stain> DongHuynh: observing WG development

16:53:55 <stain> DongHuynh: first time in meeting

16:54:09 <stain> DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications

16:54:21 <stain> DongHuynh: to have a common format

16:54:29 <stain> DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs.

16:54:48 <stain> DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications

16:54:54 <stain> DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM

16:54:55 <Zakim> -Bjorn_Bringert

16:54:55 <Zakim> -Satish_Sampath

16:55:11 <stain> DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation.

16:55:31 <stain> DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types

16:55:54 <stain> DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when  not needed.

16:56:05 <stain> DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?]

16:56:11 <Luc> design rationale http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction

16:56:29 <stain> examples

16:56:37 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json

16:57:07 <stain> DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository

16:57:22 <stain> DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default

16:57:45 <DongHuynh> https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json

16:57:47 <stain> DongHuynh: second example exands

16:58:23 <stain> DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information

16:58:30 <stain> (line 35 is not valid JSON btw)

16:58:48 <stain> DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level

16:58:53 <stain> DongHuynh: at next level is the entity

16:58:58 <stain> DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs

16:59:14 <Luc> @stain, yes, looks like a typo

16:59:19 <pgroth> q?

16:59:23 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

16:59:24 <stain> DongHuynh: questions?

16:59:31 <stain> GK: (skipping the queue!)

16:59:37 <stain> GK: JSON-LD?

16:59:52 <stain> GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga

16:59:55 <stain> glance

17:00:08 <stain> http://json-ld.org/

17:00:24 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame

17:00:24 <stain> DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues

17:00:34 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent..

17:00:50 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?)

17:01:00 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: JSON schema?

17:01:09 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to say how it can be serialised

17:01:10 <pgroth> q?

17:01:23 <stain> DongHuynh: could not hear very well..

17:01:36 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON

17:01:53 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ?

17:02:01 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching

17:02:10 <stain> khalidbelhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON

17:02:27 <stain> DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability

17:02:37 <stain> DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON

17:02:47 <stain> DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity

17:02:51 <stain> DongHuynh: working on this

17:03:16 <pgroth> http://json-schema.org/

17:03:23 <stain> DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure

17:03:34 <stain> DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics

17:03:45 <stain> DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema

17:03:53 <stain> DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML

17:04:04 <stain> DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema

17:04:11 <stain> DongHuynh: is it really used

17:04:31 <stain> DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example

17:04:39 <khalidbelhajjame> Thanks Dong

17:04:42 <pgroth> q?

17:04:44 <stain> DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process

17:04:59 <stain> pgroth: we are running out of time now

17:05:03 <stain> pgroth: very interesting work

17:05:14 <stain> pgroth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed

17:05:14 <Luc> q+

17:05:30 <stain> Luc: Is it possible to  have a sense here now?

17:05:42 <stain> Luc: who would be interested in working on this spec?

17:05:54 <stain> +1

17:05:55 <jcheney> +0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?)

17:06:00 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate)

17:06:18 <stain> Luc: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG

17:06:25 <GK> It depends on timing, and principles.  I'd want us to see DM very stable first.

17:06:34 <stain> @GK +1

17:06:46 <stain> @GK perhaps this is a spring project

17:06:57 <GK> Yes, maybe in spring.

17:06:59 <jcheney> @GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync

17:07:00 <pgroth> q?

17:07:05 <stain> I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment

17:07:06 <pgroth> ack Luc

17:07:16 <jcheney> same with PROV-XML

17:07:16 <GK> @jcheney +1

17:07:20 <stain> @jcheney +1

17:07:34 <stain> pgroth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this

17:07:37 <Zakim> -Paolo

17:07:37 <stain> thanks everybody!

17:07:38 <jcheney> bye

17:07:41 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

17:07:42 <Zakim> -dgarijo

17:07:42 <Zakim> -jcheney

17:07:44 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

17:07:48 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

17:07:50 <dgarijo> happy thanksgiving

17:07:50 <Zakim> -??P27

17:07:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

17:07:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth

17:08:01 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

17:08:01 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

17:08:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo

17:08:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

17:08:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot

17:08:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

17:08:03 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf :

17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1]

17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49

17:08:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2]

17:08:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57