Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. F2F2 minutes are being circulated for review. Prov-o team has released a version of the ontology for review: so ACTION-55 can be closed.
PROV-DM Simplification: Reviewer feedback
7 reviewers provided feedback on the prov-dm restructuring (see links in the agenda). The working group endorsed the restructuring into 3 separate documents (prov-dm, prov-dm-constraints and prov-asn), and it was agreed that they should become the new Editors' working draft, replacing the previous version. Valuable feedback was provided in the reviews and should now be raised as issues against the documents.
PROV-O Ontology: Reviewer feedback
Six reviewers provided feedback on the prov-o owl ontology. There was a consensus that good progress had been made, and that prov-dm could be mapped to prov-o. In his review of the ontology, Luc indicated that PROV-O allows for the formulation of descriptions that cannot be mapped to PROV-DM. A discussion followed, about the nature of the alignment between PROV-O and PROV-DM, but no consensus was reached about this. We were running out of time, and few participants were still on the call when we agreed on guidelines for the prov-o team. For the avoidance of doubt, the team is invited to look at the issues that were raised, while at the same time, initiating the documentation of the ontology.
15:43:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-irc ←
15:43:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:43:34 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:43:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
15:43:34 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes ←
15:43:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:43:35 <trackbot> Date: 23 February 2012
15:43:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
15:43:49 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23
15:43:59 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:44:05 <Luc> Scribe: stain
(Scribe set to Stian Soiland-Reyes)
15:44:20 <Luc> hi Stian, thanks for volunteering!
Luc Moreau: hi Stian, thanks for volunteering! ←
15:44:27 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
15:54:29 <Luc> @macted, any feedback on prov-dm proposed restructuring. Can you share some feedback?
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Luc Moreau: @macted, any feedback on prov-dm proposed restructuring. Can you share some feedback? ←
15:58:19 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
15:58:26 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←
15:58:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:59:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←
15:59:12 <pgroth> hi sandro are you on today?
Paul Groth: hi sandro are you on today? ←
15:59:42 <stain> Zakim, who is noisy?
Zakim, who is noisy? ←
15:59:46 <Zakim> +Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc ←
15:59:53 <Luc> hi stian, it's all set up, are you ready?
Luc Moreau: hi stian, it's all set up, are you ready? ←
15:59:55 <stain> yes
yes ←
16:00:00 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Curt_Tilmes (40%), [IPcaller.a] (18%), [IPcaller] (42%), Luc (66%)
Zakim IRC Bot: stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Curt_Tilmes (40%), [IPcaller.a] (18%), [IPcaller] (42%), Luc (66%) ←
16:00:02 <Luc> great, thanks for volunteering
Luc Moreau: great, thanks for volunteering ←
16:00:04 <stain> not sure if zakim recognized me, but that's not important
not sure if zakim recognized me, but that's not important ←
16:00:16 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
16:00:28 <Luc> topic: admin
Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. F2F2 minutes are being circulated for review. Prov-o team has released a version of the ontology for review: so ACTION-55 can be closed.
<LUc> Summary: Minutes of last week's teleconference were approved. F2F2 minutes are being circulated for review. Prov-o team has released a version of the ontology for review: so ACTION-55 can be closed.
16:00:43 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.723.aaaa ←
16:00:48 <Luc> paul, should we get f2f2 minutes approved today?
Luc Moreau: paul, should we get f2f2 minutes approved today? ←
16:01:08 <Paolo> for SIP users: can we connect to zakim@voip.w3.org?? I can't
Paolo Missier: for SIP users: can you connect to zakim@voip.w3.org?? I can't ←
16:01:14 <Paolo> s/we/you
16:01:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aa] ←
16:01:54 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me ←
16:01:55 <stain> Luc: Call now starting.
Luc Moreau: Call now starting. ←
16:02:07 <stain> Luc: Review PROV-DM and PROV-O
Luc Moreau: Review PROV-DM and PROV-O ←
16:02:22 <stain> Luc: release of documents.. if time, we'll look at proposal for binary relations for 5th working draft (of DM?)
Luc Moreau: release of documents.. if time, we'll look at proposal for binary relations for 5th working draft (of DM?) ←
16:02:24 <Luc> PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16
PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16 ←
16:02:26 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:02:31 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:02:34 <stain> +1
+1 ←
16:02:40 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:02:41 <ericstephan> +1
Eric Stephan: +1 ←
16:02:43 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
16:02:50 <GK> ABSTAIN - NOT SEEN THEM YET
Graham Klyne: ABSTAIN - NOT SEEN THEM YET ←
16:02:51 <stephenc> +1
Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←
16:02:52 <Zakim> + +1.509.967.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.509.967.aabb ←
16:02:59 <pgroth> +q to comment on f2f minutes
Paul Groth: +q to comment on f2f minutes ←
16:03:09 <pgroth> q+ to comment on f2f minutes
Paul Groth: q+ to comment on f2f minutes ←
16:03:18 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16
RESOLVED: the minutes of Feb 16 2012 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-02-16 ←
16:03:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:03:54 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
16:03:57 <stain> Paul: Just finished the minutes - but we can't do approval now as people have not read it yet
Paul Groth: Just finished the minutes - but we can't do approval now as people have not read it yet ←
16:04:00 <jun> zakim, ??p27 is me
Jun Zhao: zakim, ??p27 is me ←
16:04:10 <stain> ... the minutes of the F2F2
... the minutes of the F2F2 ←
16:04:12 <Zakim> +??P25
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25 ←
16:04:16 <stain> ... apologies for delay
... apologies for delay ←
16:04:26 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
16:04:35 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:04:47 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:04:54 <stain> Luc: Action-55 was reopened to complete OWL file - this seems now done and can be closed. We'll review it.
Luc Moreau: ACTION-55 was reopened to complete OWL file - this seems now done and can be closed. We'll review it. ←
16:05:13 <stain> Luc: Action on Paul to propose proposal,
Luc Moreau: Action on Paul to propose proposal, ←
16:05:13 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
16:05:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aa] ←
16:05:23 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←
16:05:27 <stain> Paul: Talked about it last week, and to talk about it in two weeks time (ie. next week?)
Paul Groth: Talked about it last week, and to talk about it in two weeks time (ie. next week?) ←
16:05:29 <Zakim> +jun; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jun; got it ←
16:05:37 <stain> is that 2 weeks from today or last week?
is that 2 weeks from today or last week? ←
16:05:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:05:56 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to comment on f2f minutes and to comment on f2f minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to comment on f2f minutes and to comment on f2f minutes ←
16:06:10 <stain> Luc: ACTION-61 to update prov-sem
Luc Moreau: ACTION-61 to update prov-sem ←
16:06:37 <stain> JamesC: Travelling next week, so will have it done before then, not yet done
James Cheney: Travelling next week, so will have it done before then, not yet done ←
16:06:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:06:41 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me ←
16:06:44 <GK> @paul I should be in a position to be a little responsive on PAQ issues next week
Graham Klyne: @paul I should be in a position to be a little responsive on PAQ issues next week ←
16:06:48 <stain> ^^.. action on Paul was ACTION-57
^^.. action on Paul was ACTION-57 ←
16:06:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaaa] ←
16:07:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaaaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaaaa] ←
16:07:02 <stain> Luc: ACTION-63 Structure of HTML file for PROV-O document - postponed
Luc Moreau: ACTION-63 Structure of HTML file for PROV-O document - postponed ←
16:07:09 <Luc> TOPIC: PROV-DM Simplification: Reviewer feedback
Summary: 7 reviewers provided feedback on the prov-dm restructuring (see links in the agenda). The working group endorsed the restructuring into 3 separate documents (prov-dm, prov-dm-constraints and prov-asn), and it was agreed that they should become the new Editors' working draft, replacing the previous version. Valuable feedback was provided in the reviews and should now be raised as issues against the documents.
<luc>Summary: 7 reviewers provided feedback on the prov-dm restructuring (see links in the agenda). The working group endorsed the restructuring into 3 separate documents (prov-dm, prov-dm-constraints and prov-asn), and it was agreed that they should become the new Editors' working draft, replacing the previous version. Valuable feedback was provided in the reviews and should now be raised as issues against the documents.
16:07:40 <stain> Luc: Feedback on PROV-DM simplification. Last week we released 3 separate documents, one called PROV-DM, one PROV-DM constraints, and one PROV-ASN
Luc Moreau: Feedback on PROV-DM simplification. Last week we released 3 separate documents, one called PROV-DM, one PROV-DM constraints, and one PROV-ASN ←
16:07:47 <stain> Luc: We lined up reviewers and invited for review of docs
Luc Moreau: We lined up reviewers and invited for review of docs ←
16:07:55 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:07:57 <stain> Luc: to identify/decide a number of issues that are in the agenda
Luc Moreau: to identify/decide a number of issues that are in the agenda ←
16:08:00 <GK> In agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0415.html - but I reviewed the wrong document; I've just posted a brief update
Graham Klyne: In agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0415.html - but I reviewed the wrong document; I've just posted a brief update ←
16:08:08 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-DM_Simplification:_Reviewer_feedback
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23#PROV-DM_Simplification:_Reviewer_feedback ←
16:08:23 <stain> Luc: Try to reach consensus - if possible - links to emails sent by reviewers
Luc Moreau: Try to reach consensus - if possible - links to emails sent by reviewers ←
16:08:30 <stain> Luc: perhaps a quick summary from each of them?
Luc Moreau: perhaps a quick summary from each of them? ←
16:08:41 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:08:41 <stain> Luc: about if restructuring of docs are addressing points
Luc Moreau: about if restructuring of docs are addressing points ←
16:08:53 <stain> Luc: Tim first
Luc Moreau: Tim first ←
16:09:10 <stain> Tim: Feel that new draft has dramatically adressed the concerns.
Timothy Lebo: Feel that new draft has dramatically adressed the concerns. ←
16:09:17 <stain> Tim: Sent email this morning with detailed comments
Timothy Lebo: Sent email this morning with detailed comments ←
16:09:27 <stain> Luc: Missed link to that email
Luc Moreau: Missed link to that email ←
16:09:29 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0416.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0416.html ←
16:09:45 <pgroth> i'll edit the agenda
Paul Groth: i'll edit the agenda ←
16:09:46 <stain> Eric?
Eric? ←
16:10:01 <stain> Eric: Document was over-all, great job of meeting simplification objective
Eric Stephan: Document was over-all, great job of meeting simplification objective ←
16:10:05 <stain> Daniel?
Daniel? ←
16:10:13 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
16:10:22 <stain> DanielG: Have not finished whole document, made it to the middle.. made some notes that I was planning to send
Daniel Garijo: Have not finished whole document, made it to the middle.. made some notes that I was planning to send ←
16:10:35 <stain> DanielG: Try to take my W3C hat off, and try to identify what is confusing to me
Daniel Garijo: Try to take my W3C hat off, and try to identify what is confusing to me ←
16:10:41 <stain> DanielG: Will send small details in separate emails
Daniel Garijo: Will send small details in separate emails ←
16:10:49 <Zakim> +SamCoppens
Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens ←
16:10:50 <stain> Luc: What about meeting simplification objectives from F2F?
Luc Moreau: What about meeting simplification objectives from F2F? ←
16:11:14 <stain> DanielG: Think that it more or less has accomplished this, but not gone through the whole doc. Much clearer now.
Daniel Garijo: Think that it more or less has accomplished this, but not gone through the whole doc. Much clearer now. ←
16:11:29 <stain> Luc: MacTed? Might not be on call yet
Luc Moreau: MacTed? Might not be on call yet ←
16:11:29 <pgroth> MacTed?
Paul Groth: MacTed? ←
16:11:46 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P13 is probably me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P13 is probably me ←
16:11:46 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
16:11:54 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:12:08 <stain> Curt: First part easier to read, many things still confuse me. Second and Third, mechanics work well.
Curt Tilmes: First part easier to read, many things still confuse me. Second and Third, mechanics work well. ←
16:12:11 <stain> (??)
(??) ←
16:12:24 <stain> Sam: Find the overall structure very clear, nice separation of concerns
Sam Coppens: Find the overall structure very clear, nice separation of concerns ←
16:12:27 <stain> conserns
conserns ←
16:12:44 <stain> Sam: All 3 well written. Sent list of some remarks. (to whome?)
Sam Coppens: All 3 well written. Sent list of some remarks. (to whome?) ←
16:12:53 <stain> Sam: has also reviewed part 2 and 3, which I'll send
Sam Coppens: has also reviewed part 2 and 3, which I'll send ←
16:12:55 <tlebo> (back onto IRC, @luc, my email with comments is http://www.w3.org/mid/995BD58C-DB94-4052-BE85-BE9A271695C0@rpi.edu )
Timothy Lebo: (back onto IRC, @luc, my email with comments is http://www.w3.org/mid/995BD58C-DB94-4052-BE85-BE9A271695C0@rpi.edu ) ←
16:13:02 <pgroth> sam I don't see your email
Paul Groth: sam I don't see your email ←
16:13:05 <stain> Sam: Can recognize this person to become editor of draft
Sam Coppens: Can recognize this person to become editor of draft ←
16:13:25 <Paolo> Q?
Paolo Missier: Q? ←
16:13:26 <SamCoppens> Excuse me, I have sent it to Luc
Sam Coppens: Excuse me, I have sent it to Luc ←
16:13:27 <stain> Jun: First time I read this document - did not read previous version, and so have no comparison
Jun Zhao: First time I read this document - did not read previous version, and so have no comparison ←
16:13:31 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
16:13:32 <stain> SamCoppens: sorry :
Sam Coppens: sorry : ←
16:13:40 <stain> @
@ ←
16:13:58 <stain> Jun: To summarise, don't think the simplify document.. (?)
Jun Zhao: To summarise, don't think the simplify document.. (?) ←
16:13:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aa] ←
16:14:14 <stain> Jun: Not ready for editorial draft at the moment
Jun Zhao: Not ready for editorial draft at the moment ←
16:14:22 <stain> Jun: 1) Lack of context and explanation
Jun Zhao: 1) Lack of context and explanation ←
16:14:34 <stain> ... Reading it for the first time it was difficult to follow
... Reading it for the first time it was difficult to follow ←
16:14:35 <SamCoppens> My remark was for Paul
Sam Coppens: My remark was for Paul ←
16:14:42 <tlebo> glad we're getting @jun's fresh eyes :-)
Timothy Lebo: glad we're getting @jun's fresh eyes :-) ←
16:14:54 <stain> ... Second paul I want to say is, I did not make a clean/clear explanation about.. provenance.
... Second paul I want to say is, I did not make a clean/clear explanation about.. provenance. ←
16:15:01 <stain> ... I'm just referring to minutes of F2F meeting
... I'm just referring to minutes of F2F meeting ←
16:15:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:15:11 <stain> ... not exchanged in current draft (?)
... not exchanged in current draft (?) ←
16:15:19 <stain> ... Does not help me explain how this reach the new goal.
... Does not help me explain how this reach the new goal. ←
16:15:41 <stain> ... Luc might tell me how this structure, part1/part2/part3, how it is reflected in part 1
... Luc might tell me how this structure, part1/part2/part3, how it is reflected in part 1 ←
16:15:45 <pgroth> jun which document did you read?
Paul Groth: jun which document did you read? ←
16:15:45 <stain> (??)
(??) ←
16:15:58 <stain> (I'm very confused)
(I'm very confused) ←
16:16:06 <Zakim> +Yolanda
Zakim IRC Bot: +Yolanda ←
16:16:22 <stain> Luc: Many things not consistent -f or instance figure not consistent with section with overview
Luc Moreau: Many things not consistent -f or instance figure not consistent with section with overview ←
16:16:26 <stain> ^^ Jun:
^^ Jun: ←
16:16:38 <stain> Jun: Mixed terminology, elements/edges/properties/classes
Jun Zhao: Mixed terminology, elements/edges/properties/classes ←
16:16:54 <stain> Jun: I don't mind which terminology we use, as long as it's used precisely, but that is not the case in this document
Jun Zhao: I don't mind which terminology we use, as long as it's used precisely, but that is not the case in this document ←
16:17:01 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:17:10 <stain> Jun: There's lots of references to other sections not existing anymore, terminology that might become obsolete.. too
Jun Zhao: There's lots of references to other sections not existing anymore, terminology that might become obsolete.. too ←
16:17:18 <stain> ... too early to raise comments on those now?
... too early to raise comments on those now? ←
16:17:24 <stain> ... Perhaps focus on something different?
... Perhaps focus on something different? ←
16:17:34 <stain> ... Interested in Luc's feedback
... Interested in Luc's feedback ←
16:17:43 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/ ←
16:17:51 <stain> Luc: Have responded to your email. We'll ask the reviewers what they have addressed.
Luc Moreau: Have responded to your email. We'll ask the reviewers what they have addressed. ←
16:18:00 <stain> Luc: ^^ is the second working draft
Luc Moreau: ^^ is the second working draft ←
16:18:22 <stain> Luc: what we are standing is wether the document as it stands can be used as an editors draft
Luc Moreau: what we are standing is wether the document as it stands can be used as an editors draft ←
16:18:26 <stain> (is that a different document?)
(is that a different document?) ←
16:18:38 <pgroth> point of clarification
Paul Groth: point of clarification ←
16:18:40 <stain> Luc: If you believe that we should not do this, then what are the blocking issues form your point
Luc Moreau: If you believe that we should not do this, then what are the blocking issues form your point ←
16:19:00 <stain> Jun: Not quite covered in my email - how this new structure corresponds to the scruffy and precise notation
Jun Zhao: Not quite covered in my email - how this new structure corresponds to the scruffy and precise notation ←
16:19:07 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:19:16 <stain> Luc: I think these are terms we've used informally, not used specifically
Luc Moreau: I think these are terms we've used informally, not used specifically ←
16:19:21 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:19:22 <Curt> scruffy = you forgot to read part II
Curt Tilmes: scruffy = you forgot to read part II ←
16:19:29 <GK> (I agree that "scruffy" and "precise" are informal)
Graham Klyne: (I agree that "scruffy" and "precise" are informal) ←
16:19:30 <stain> Luc: We have defined a vocabulary, those using the vocabulary will make scruffy provenance
Luc Moreau: We have defined a vocabulary, those using the vocabulary will make scruffy provenance ←
16:19:34 <pgroth> +1 curt
Paul Groth: +1 curt ←
16:19:47 <stain> Luc: If you follow the constraints of part 2, then it is a more refined provenance, more precise about what it is asserting.
Luc Moreau: If you follow the constraints of part 2, then it is a more refined provenance, more precise about what it is asserting. ←
16:20:01 <stain> Jun: So you are saying that this new working draft is related to an even longer document..?
Jun Zhao: So you are saying that this new working draft is related to an even longer document..? ←
16:20:02 <Paolo> @Jun: yes!
Paolo Missier: @Jun: yes! ←
16:20:18 <stain> Luc: Yes, all those 3 documents were 1 big document
Luc Moreau: Yes, all those 3 documents were 1 big document ←
16:20:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:20:28 <stain> Luc: We've tried to also simplify the presentation
Luc Moreau: We've tried to also simplify the presentation ←
16:20:36 <stain> Paolo?
Paolo? ←
16:20:47 <stain> Paolo: Trying to locate an email I sent to Jun..
Paolo Missier: Trying to locate an email I sent to Jun.. ←
16:20:50 <Luc> @Curt, I like this!
Luc Moreau: @Curt, I like this! ←
16:21:04 <stain> Paolo: Main point is that according to the process/goals we put in place at F2F
Paolo Missier: Main point is that according to the process/goals we put in place at F2F ←
16:21:05 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:21:09 <stain> Paolo: simplify what was there
Paolo Missier: simplify what was there ←
16:21:10 <Luc> ack paolo
Luc Moreau: ack paolo ←
16:21:28 <stain> ... question is, what that achived to an extent that we can discard the previous version
... question is, what that achived to an extent that we can discard the previous version ←
16:21:32 <stain> ... and use this as a new baseline
... and use this as a new baseline ←
16:21:36 <stain> ... that is the question.
... that is the question. ←
16:21:58 <stain> ... So Jun, I would ask you to look at the current baseline with that perspective - which is different than coming from blank
... So Jun, I would ask you to look at the current baseline with that perspective - which is different than coming from blank ←
16:22:15 <stain> ... we're aware that that's what you promised.. so question is, is this a sufficiently good baseline
... we're aware that that's what you promised.. so question is, is this a sufficiently good baseline ←
16:22:24 <stain> ... but then you need to know what the old massive document was
... but then you need to know what the old massive document was ←
16:22:53 <stain> ... in my email, this scruffy vs proper is a placeholder to say is there something we can isolate as essential (part 1) and the rest in part 2.
... in my email, this scruffy vs proper is a placeholder to say is there something we can isolate as essential (part 1) and the rest in part 2. ←
16:23:05 <stain> ... this split should give a simplification - not labelling everything as scruffy or proper
... this split should give a simplification - not labelling everything as scruffy or proper ←
16:23:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:23:20 <stain> ... just a way to encode a progression from simplest possible to be useful, to more sophisticated use
... just a way to encode a progression from simplest possible to be useful, to more sophisticated use ←
16:23:30 <stain> ... That is the email I think I sent 30 minutes ago
... That is the email I think I sent 30 minutes ago ←
16:23:53 <stain> Jun: I think you managed to convince me, I must apologize. Where we started is this massive long document.
Jun Zhao: I think you managed to convince me, I must apologize. Where we started is this massive long document. ←
16:24:11 <stain> Jun: so this is an encouraging first step. And I hope my comments can be used for consideration further in the editorial process
Jun Zhao: so this is an encouraging first step. And I hope my comments can be used for consideration further in the editorial process ←
16:24:20 <stain> Jun: So YES, it could be a baseline for further work
Jun Zhao: So YES, it could be a baseline for further work ←
16:24:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:24:36 <stain> Paolo: Some things pointed out not taken into account - like what is this about. That is coming.
Paolo Missier: Some things pointed out not taken into account - like what is this about. That is coming. ←
16:24:47 <stain> pgroth: about process..
Paul Groth: about process.. ←
16:25:10 <stain> pgroth: we've had pretty sophisticated reviews, need to figure out how to distill these to editorial issues, and 'real' issues on concepts
Paul Groth: we've had pretty sophisticated reviews, need to figure out how to distill these to editorial issues, and 'real' issues on concepts ←
16:25:16 <stain> GK?
GK? ←
16:25:20 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:25:23 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
16:25:28 <GK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0448.html
Graham Klyne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0448.html ←
16:25:29 <stain> GK: spent all morning reviewing the wrong document
Graham Klyne: spent all morning reviewing the wrong document ←
16:25:35 <stain> GK: posted a brief update ^^
Graham Klyne: posted a brief update ^^ ←
16:25:47 <stain> GK: first comment: New document is definetly moving in right direction
Graham Klyne: first comment: New document is definetly moving in right direction ←
16:25:55 <stain> GK: some comments from my review this morning still apply
Graham Klyne: some comments from my review this morning still apply ←
16:26:06 <stain> GK: but many have been addressed, so I think this is something we can build on
Graham Klyne: but many have been addressed, so I think this is something we can build on ←
16:26:15 <stain> GK: rest of the issues are technical issues
Graham Klyne: rest of the issues are technical issues ←
16:26:22 <stain> GK: which we'll discuss as we get on with it
Graham Klyne: which we'll discuss as we get on with it ←
16:26:36 <stain> Luc: Sorry you spent so much time reviewing WD3 - the wrong document
Luc Moreau: Sorry you spent so much time reviewing WD3 - the wrong document ←
16:26:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:26:49 <stain> Luc: for the working draft it would be good to get a number of resolutions approved
Luc Moreau: for the working draft it would be good to get a number of resolutions approved ←
16:26:58 <stain> Luc: have anyone else reviewed the documents and want to provide feedback?
Luc Moreau: have anyone else reviewed the documents and want to provide feedback? ←
16:27:24 <stain> (Stian: I've had a quick look at part 1, which looks good, but no review)
(Stian: I've had a quick look at part 1, which looks good, but no review) ←
16:27:40 <stain> Luc: Want a clear statement from working group that we want the document split into 3
Luc Moreau: Want a clear statement from working group that we want the document split into 3 ←
16:27:52 <stain> Luc: we need to do this to get a transition request to get the new documents approved
Luc Moreau: we need to do this to get a transition request to get the new documents approved ←
16:27:54 <GK> Just to clarify: I think there are both editorial and technical issues to address in DM
Graham Klyne: Just to clarify: I think there are both editorial and technical issues to address in DM ←
16:28:01 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:28:02 <stain> Luc: need to work with sandro and ivan to make a strong case for W3C
Luc Moreau: need to work with sandro and ivan to make a strong case for W3C ←
16:28:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:28:11 <stain> Luc: to have that resolution agreed..
Luc Moreau: to have that resolution agreed.. ←
16:28:15 <stain> pgroth: is that really the case?
Paul Groth: is that really the case? ←
16:28:18 <Curt> Is this 3 documents or 3 parts of 1 document?
Curt Tilmes: Is this 3 documents or 3 parts of 1 document? ←
16:28:25 <GK> q+ to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document? ←
16:28:32 <stain> pgroth: Sandro?
Paul Groth: Sandro? ←
16:28:45 <stain> sandro: not a strong case.. if the WG resolves that it's the right thing to do, we can make it happen
Sandro Hawke: not a strong case.. if the WG resolves that it's the right thing to do, we can make it happen ←
16:28:51 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation. ←
16:28:59 <stain> sandro: question is what happens with the older one.. should these have the same URLs?
Sandro Hawke: question is what happens with the older one.. should these have the same URLs? ←
16:29:14 <jun> @curt and gk, that's what confused me:) and now i understood their relationship
Jun Zhao: @curt and gk, that's what confused me:) and now i understood their relationship ←
16:29:14 <stain> Luc: Propose to keep same name for PROV-DM
Luc Moreau: Propose to keep same name for PROV-DM ←
16:29:18 <stain> sandro: yes, that solves that issue
Sandro Hawke: yes, that solves that issue ←
16:29:25 <stain> Luc: propose two new names.
Luc Moreau: propose two new names. ←
16:29:34 <stain> sandro: just consider them as new working drafts
Sandro Hawke: just consider them as new working drafts ←
16:29:46 <stain> Luc: but procedurally we need to make sure it's the same deliverable, for recommendations, etc
Luc Moreau: but procedurally we need to make sure it's the same deliverable, for recommendations, etc ←
16:29:48 <Curt> 3 URLs = 3 html documents
Curt Tilmes: 3 URLs = 3 html documents ←
16:29:50 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaaaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaaaa] ←
16:29:53 <stain> sandro: yes, same deliverable in 3 documents
Sandro Hawke: yes, same deliverable in 3 documents ←
16:30:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:30:04 <stain> Luc: if we are happy with this proposal, can you express your support?
Luc Moreau: if we are happy with this proposal, can you express your support? ←
16:30:08 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:30:09 <stain> Paul?
Paul? ←
16:30:15 <stain> (?)
(?) ←
16:30:17 <Zakim> +[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI] ←
16:30:21 <stain> GK: Do we need to split it into 3 documents?
Graham Klyne: Do we need to split it into 3 documents? ←
16:30:22 <Zakim> -Yolanda
Zakim IRC Bot: -Yolanda ←
16:30:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:30:43 <stain> GK: Division of material in part 1, part 2 in particular, (part 3 is useful), do we then need 3 separate documents? OR structure it within a single document?
Graham Klyne: Division of material in part 1, part 2 in particular, (part 3 is useful), do we then need 3 separate documents? OR structure it within a single document? ←
16:30:45 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:30:51 <stain> Luc: my recommendation as editor is 3 documents
Luc Moreau: my recommendation as editor is 3 documents ←
16:30:56 <pgroth> +1 to 3 documents
Paul Groth: +1 to 3 documents ←
16:30:58 <stain> Luc: which gives the entry points to DM much lighter
Luc Moreau: which gives the entry points to DM much lighter ←
16:31:07 <stain> Luc: many are not interested in constraints, just want a description
Luc Moreau: many are not interested in constraints, just want a description ←
16:31:11 <stain> Luc: a long document is daunthing
Luc Moreau: a long document is daunthing ←
16:31:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:31:24 <stain> Luc: external feedback from Tom Baker and IVan both suggest splitting deliverable in separate documents
Luc Moreau: external feedback from Tom Baker and IVan both suggest splitting deliverable in separate documents ←
16:31:26 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
16:31:26 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document?
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask: can we have part1, part2, part3 in the same document? ←
16:31:27 <stain> q+
q+ ←
16:31:30 <Curt> +1 make 3 separate documents, include introduction/scope in each describing there relationship clearly
Curt Tilmes: +1 make 3 separate documents, include introduction/scope in each describing their relationship clearly ←
16:31:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:31:32 <jcheney> afk, supportive of splitting (for now at least)
James Cheney: afk, supportive of splitting (for now at least) ←
16:31:35 <Luc> ack pgro
Luc Moreau: ack pgro ←
16:31:38 <Paolo> +1 for spliitng
Paolo Missier: +1 for spliitng ←
16:31:43 <stain> pgroth: also think we should have 3 docs
Paul Groth: also think we should have 3 docs ←
16:31:45 <Curt> s/there/their
16:31:46 <stain> hang on
hang on ←
16:31:49 <Luc> ack st
Luc Moreau: ack st ←
16:32:20 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:32:26 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller.aaa] is me ←
16:32:26 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:32:30 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
16:32:38 <stain> stain: could it not just be 3 html pages on one document (same base URI)?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: could it not just be 3 html pages on one document (same base URI)? ←
16:32:46 <stain> stain: some recommendations do that
Stian Soiland-Reyes: some recommendations do that ←
16:32:57 <Luc> PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
PROPOSED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation. ←
16:33:08 <GK> @paul +1 (easiest way in w3c process; editor's discretion)
Graham Klyne: @paul +1 (easiest way in w3c process; editor's discretion) ←
16:33:15 <stain> stain: if it is to be 3 separate documents, then they should be valuable on its own, say referring to PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS alone. Don't have a view if that 's the case or not
Stian Soiland-Reyes: if it is to be 3 separate documents, then they should be valuable on its own, say referring to PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS alone. Don't have a view if that 's the case or not ←
16:33:27 <stain> Luc: we can come back to working group if needed
Luc Moreau: we can come back to working group if needed ←
16:33:28 <pgroth> good with me
Paul Groth: good with me ←
16:33:31 <stain> Luc: Express your support
Luc Moreau: Express your support ←
16:33:33 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:33:33 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:33:33 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
16:33:34 <stain> +1
+1 ←
16:33:35 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
16:33:35 <stain> (or not)
(or not) ←
16:33:36 <ericstephan> +1
Eric Stephan: +1 ←
16:33:36 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
16:33:36 <SamCoppens> +1+1
Sam Coppens: +1+1 ←
16:33:37 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:33:39 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:33:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:33:43 <zednik_> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
16:33:52 <jun> +1
16:34:05 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation.
RESOLVED: The Working Group supports the restructuring of the PROV-DM deliverable into three separate documents, currently named PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN to facilitate its presentation. ←
16:34:35 <stain> Luc: Second point is to agree or not if the document as it stands can become editorial draft
Luc Moreau: Second point is to agree or not if the document as it stands can become editorial draft ←
16:34:49 <Luc> PROPOSED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft.
PROPOSED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft. ←
16:34:51 <stain> Luc: that does not mean we have to release them as editors draft.. but they are the current editors draft according to w3c terminology
Luc Moreau: that does not mean we have to release them as editors draft.. but they are the current editors draft according to w3c terminology ←
16:34:59 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
16:35:00 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
16:35:01 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
16:35:01 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
16:35:02 <jun> +1
16:35:02 <ericstephan> +1
Eric Stephan: +1 ←
16:35:05 <zednik_> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
16:35:05 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:35:05 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
16:35:06 <stain> 0 - not read
0 - not read ←
16:35:06 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:35:06 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:35:14 <satya> 0 - not read it yet
Satya Sahoo: 0 - not read it yet ←
16:35:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft.
RESOLVED: the three current documents PROV-DM, PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS, and PROV-ASN should become the new Editor's draft. ←
16:35:33 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:35:34 <GK> (I haven't read the others, but I'm happy for them to be editor's drafts for now)
Graham Klyne: (I haven't read the others, but I'm happy for them to be editor's drafts for now) ←
16:35:42 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:35:43 <stain> Luc: Last question, do we have the agreement we have reached, from F2F?
Luc Moreau: Last question, do we have the agreement we have reached, from F2F? ←
16:35:45 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:35:46 <stain> Luc: can we resolve it?
Luc Moreau: can we resolve it? ←
16:36:02 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
16:36:08 <stain> pgroth: suggest there are still editorial adddress to address first
Paul Groth: suggest there are still editorial adddress to address first ←
16:36:09 <GK> q+ to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD
Graham Klyne: q+ to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD ←
16:36:18 <stain> pgroth: before we can say we have achived the goal
Paul Groth: before we can say we have achived the goal ←
16:36:26 <tlebo> +q to say that I think WD4 handles "conceptual versus technical" but not "scruffy versus proper"
Timothy Lebo: +q to say that I think WD4 handles "conceptual versus technical" but not "scruffy versus proper" ←
16:36:28 <stain> pgroth: as GK pointed out, we can discuss that once it's public
Paul Groth: as GK pointed out, we can discuss that once it's public ←
16:36:39 <stain> GK: resolution that matters is when we release it (?)
Graham Klyne: resolution that matters is when we release it (?) ←
16:36:40 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
16:36:40 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say I think the resolution that matters is when we agree to release a new PWD ←
16:37:09 <stain> Tim: As Jun gave her feedback, I realised that clarity is conceptual vs. technical. That transition path that we promised, that Ivan passes to distinguish .. (?)
Timothy Lebo: As Jun gave her feedback, I realised that clarity is conceptual vs. technical. That transition path that we promised, that Ivan passes to distinguish .. (?) ←
16:37:16 <stain> Tim: others agree with that?
Timothy Lebo: others agree with that? ←
16:37:27 <stain> Luc: good point, time to talk about process
Luc Moreau: good point, time to talk about process ←
16:37:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:37:38 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
16:37:40 <stain> Luc: as we agree they will become editors working drafts, we can raise issues in the tracker
Luc Moreau: as we agree they will become editors working drafts, we can raise issues in the tracker ←
16:37:46 <GK> @tim do you mean what we've been calling "scruffy/precise" transition?
Graham Klyne: @tim do you mean what we've been calling "scruffy/precise" transition? ←
16:37:48 <stain> Luc: and a point like that, Tim, can be raised as an issue
Luc Moreau: and a point like that, Tim, can be raised as an issue ←
16:37:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:37:55 <stain> Luc: and then debate -> resolve it
Luc Moreau: and then debate -> resolve it ←
16:38:05 <GK> ... if so, then I assume we'll work on that
Graham Klyne: ... if so, then I assume we'll work on that ←
16:38:05 <Luc> decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed
Luc Moreau: decide whether ISSUE-145, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-215, ISSUE-225 and ISSUE-234 (all relating to identifiers) can be closed ←
16:38:12 <tlebo> @gk ??
Timothy Lebo: @gk ?? ←
16:38:17 <stain> Luc: another point addressed from review - can issues relating to identifiers be closed?
Luc Moreau: another point addressed from review - can issues relating to identifiers be closed? ←
16:38:33 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:38:35 <stain> Luc: perhaps do that offline due to time constraints. I propose to close it, and those who raise it will answer
Luc Moreau: perhaps do that offline due to time constraints. I propose to close it, and those who raise it will answer ←
16:38:46 <GK> @tim When you talked about conceptual vs technical, I meant.
Graham Klyne: @tim When you talked about conceptual vs technical, I meant. ←
16:38:47 <stain> pgroth: set a time limit in the email
Paul Groth: set a time limit in the email ←
16:38:56 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
16:38:57 <stain> pgroth: for responses
Paul Groth: for responses ←
16:39:09 <Luc> Topic: PROV-O Ontology: Reviewer feedback
Summary: Six reviewers provided feedback on the prov-o owl ontology. There was a consensus that good progress had been made, and that prov-dm could be mapped to prov-o. In his review of the ontology, Luc indicated that PROV-O allows for the formulation of descriptions that cannot be mapped to PROV-DM. A discussion followed, about the nature of the alignment between PROV-O and PROV-DM, but no consensus was reached about this. We were running out of time, and few participants were still on the call when we agreed on guidelines for the prov-o team. For the avoidance of doubt, the team is invited to look at the issues that were raised, while at the same time, initiating the documentation of the ontology.
<luc>Summary: Six reviewers provided feedback on the prov-o owl ontology. There was a consensus that good progress had been made, and that prov-dm could be mapped to prov-o. In his review of the ontology, Luc indicated that PROV-O allows for the formulation of descriptions that cannot be mapped to PROV-DM. A discussion followed, about the nature of the alignment between PROV-O and PROV-DM, but no consensus was reached about this. We were running out of time, and few participants were still on the call when we agreed on guidelines for the prov-o team. For the avoidance of doubt, the team is invited to look at the issues that were raised, while at the same time, initiating the documentation of the ontology.
16:39:15 <stain> Luc: completes PROV-DM
Luc Moreau: completes PROV-DM ←
16:39:20 <tlebo> @GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper.
Timothy Lebo: @GK, I think WD4 addresses conceptual versus technical, but DOES NOT handle scruffy versus proper. ←
16:39:27 <stain> Luc: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo?
Luc Moreau: feedback - skip myself for now.. Paolo? ←
16:39:39 <pgroth> @tlebo - i would disagree
Paul Groth: @tlebo - i would disagree ←
16:39:47 <stain> Luc: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF
Luc Moreau: number of issues.. good alignment, simplified.. compliant, if it was leading to natural RDF ←
16:39:59 <Zakim> -[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←
16:39:59 <stain> Paolo: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction
Paolo Missier: first 2-3 points.. short summary: right direction ←
16:40:08 <pgroth> @tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II
Paul Groth: @tlebo as curt said scruffy means you didn't read part II ←
16:40:16 <stain> ... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed
... started looking at it on Monday. Many things I would have pointed out has already been addressed ←
16:40:22 <stain> ... others in my email might have been addressed already
... others in my email might have been addressed already ←
16:40:34 <stain> ... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?)
... alignment with hierarchy, devil is in the details (?) ←
16:40:44 <stain> ... not seen any reply to my comment yet.
... not seen any reply to my comment yet. ←
16:40:44 <tlebo> (oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!)
Timothy Lebo: (oh goodness, perhaps I missed the second two parts!) ←
16:40:52 <stain> ... good alignment
... good alignment ←
16:40:55 <tlebo> @all, sorry...
Timothy Lebo: @all, sorry... ←
16:40:57 <stain> Eric?
Eric? ←
16:41:10 <stain> tlebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :)
Timothy Lebo: but that's a vlid point that it's easy to miss the other parts :) ←
16:41:16 <stain> ericstephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment?
Eric Stephan: missed deadline.. still time to comment? ←
16:41:24 <stain> Luc: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :)
Luc Moreau: all comments useful.. but lots of traffic to catch up :) ←
16:41:29 <stain> Luc: now moving target.. wait a few days?
Luc Moreau: now moving target.. wait a few days? ←
16:41:34 <stain> stephenc?
stephenc? ←
16:41:53 <stain> stephenc: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping
Stephen Cresswell: Looked in Protege, looking at ProvRDF mapping ←
16:41:55 <stain> stephenc: which makes sense
Stephen Cresswell: which makes sense ←
16:42:12 <stain> stephenc: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense
Stephen Cresswell: structure of classes, hierarchy of classes and properties make sense ←
16:42:31 <stain> stephenc: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply
Stephen Cresswell: adressing question of naturalness.. I was interested in if you can say simple things simply ←
16:42:42 <pgroth> yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
16:42:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:42:48 <stain> stephenc: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements
Stephen Cresswell: like are we specifically allowed to use binary relationships without the Involvements ←
16:42:51 <stain> (yes)
(yes) ←
16:42:52 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:42:56 <Paolo> @stian: s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-)
Paolo Missier: @stian: s/devil is in the details/details are in my mail :-) ←
16:43:02 <stain> stephenc: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things
Stephen Cresswell: to use it in OPMV style, use the simple relations for simple things ←
16:43:02 <tlebo> @stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own.
Timothy Lebo: @stephenc, yes, the binary relations can be used on their own. ←
16:43:22 <stain> stephenc: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc.
Stephen Cresswell: lots of stuff with characeristics of properties, transitivity, symmetry, etc. ←
16:43:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.aaa] ←
16:43:37 <stain> stephenc: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?)
Stephen Cresswell: would be nice to see lots of the properties tied to gether by property definitions (?) ←
16:43:44 <stain> q+
q+ ←
16:44:04 <Luc> ack st
Luc Moreau: ack st ←
16:44:22 <tlebo> @stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them?
Timothy Lebo: @stephenc, the binary properties are defined, what suggested that you couldn't just use them? ←
16:44:23 <stain> stian: what did you mean?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: what did you mean? ←
16:44:35 <stain> stephenc: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement
Stephen Cresswell: for instance used property can be thought of as used qualified involvement ←
16:44:44 <stain> stephenc: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property
Stephen Cresswell: if you could use properties from the qualified involvement to infer the used property ←
16:44:54 <stain> stephenc: and then what informed by, used and qualified
Stephen Cresswell: and then what informed by, used and qualified ←
16:44:55 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:44:57 <satya> @Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules
Satya Sahoo: @Stephenc: good point, we need to model them as rules ←
16:45:25 <satya> @Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology)
Satya Sahoo: @Stian: +1 (separate from owl ontology) ←
16:45:27 <khalidbelhajjame> @Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it?
Khalid Belhajjame: @Stephane, I think inference will the model more complex, woudn't it? ←
16:45:36 <stain> Stian: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules
Stian Soiland-Reyes: We have kept various things like that out to keep it in OWL-RL, but those kind of inference rules could certainly be tacked on as additional OWL file or rules ←
16:45:51 <stain> stephenc: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties
Stephen Cresswell: at one point I noticed that the way that the properties are defined, you can use the same proeprties ←
16:46:01 <pgroth> aren't property chains in owl-rl?
Paul Groth: aren't property chains in owl-rl? ←
16:46:04 <stain> stephenc: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult
Stephen Cresswell: like the qualified.. that makes that more difficult ←
16:46:20 <stain> q?
q? ←
16:46:26 <khalidbelhajjame> My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties
Khalid Belhajjame: My hope is that at a later stage when both direct binary properties and the classes of involvement are stable, we can have a light prov-o with only the binary properties ←
16:46:30 <stain> Luc: (?) did you go through OWL?
Luc Moreau: (?) did you go through OWL? ←
16:46:44 <stain> ?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything
?: The ProvRDF mapping file was useful, loaded OWL in protege, but did not have time to check out everything ←
16:46:49 <tlebo> stephenc: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create.
Stephen Cresswell: "inverted" prov:qualified property will make property chains less direct to create. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
16:46:51 <stain> ^^Curt
^^Curt ←
16:47:09 <stain> simonM: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer
Simon Miles: Feedback.. before ProvRDF mapping, my feedback was what I know how to use it for the primer ←
16:47:34 <stain> simonM: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all
Simon Miles: My comments are small, it seems to make sense, what are ranges of some properties like had Location, and why they are part of model at all ←
16:47:38 <stain> seemed separated from ontology
seemed separated from ontology ←
16:47:47 <stain> Paul?
Paul? ←
16:47:55 <stain> pgroth: going in right direction
Paul Groth: going in right direction ←
16:48:11 <stain> ... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records
... of being consistent, and given constructs for all DM records ←
16:48:40 <stain> ... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation
... still some issues that are being, need to be addressed. In particular conversations around how we distinguish what is part of the serialisation ←
16:48:48 <sandro> zakim, mute ??P9
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute ??P9 ←
16:48:48 <Zakim> ??P9 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ??P9 should now be muted ←
16:48:54 <stain> ... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM
... like we can do it in OWL-RL.. DM.. what is in serialisation.. what is the model of the DM ←
16:48:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:48:59 <stain> ... but a good step in right direction
... but a good step in right direction ←
16:49:03 <stain> ... in reflecting DM
... in reflecting DM ←
16:49:21 <stain> Luc: any other comments before I give my feedback?
Luc Moreau: any other comments before I give my feedback? ←
16:49:35 <stain> Luc: pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!)
Luc Moreau: pgroth to chair if discussion starts (!) ←
16:49:46 <stain> Luc: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM
Luc Moreau: Key question was if the ontology is aligned with DM ←
16:49:52 <tlebo> q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul - anyone else's that I should look for?
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask I'm going to hunt down reviews from: luc, paolo, stephenc, curt, and paul - anyone else's that I should look for? ←
16:49:59 <stain> Luc: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association
Luc Moreau: did not go through all the relations, but focused on activities, entities, derivation, usage, association ←
16:50:02 <stain> generation
generation ←
16:50:08 <pgroth> @tlebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23
Paul Groth: @tlebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.02.23 ←
16:50:10 <stain> Luc: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly
Luc Moreau: I see as core of model - if that is solved properly ←
16:50:11 <pgroth> in the agenda
Paul Groth: in the agenda ←
16:50:28 <stain> Luc: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping
Luc Moreau: my intuition at this stage is that what we can express in DM can be encoded in the ontology, as explaine by ProvRDF mapping ←
16:50:30 <tlebo> @pgroth, thanks.
Timothy Lebo: @pgroth, thanks. ←
16:50:31 <stain> Luc: I've implemented part of it
Luc Moreau: I've implemented part of it ←
16:50:33 <stain> Luc: working fine
Luc Moreau: working fine ←
16:50:48 <stain> Luc: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM
Luc Moreau: issues that are raised, number of things you can express in ontology that are not in DM ←
16:51:09 <stain> Luc: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent
Luc Moreau: paolo mentioned something, like time information that can be attached to instances in RDF where there is no DM equivalent ←
16:51:24 <stain> Luc: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice
Luc Moreau: another is that PROVO provides a structure for the concepts of DM, that's nice ←
16:51:38 <stain> Luc: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc
Luc Moreau: properties such as qualified, involved, and some classes, prov:Involvement etc ←
16:51:54 <stain> Luc: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent
Luc Moreau: but it means you can use these classes and properties - all part of the structure - and no DM equivalent ←
16:52:00 <stain> Luc: what are we trying to achieve?
Luc Moreau: what are we trying to achieve? ←
16:52:04 <stain> Luc: interoperability concern
Luc Moreau: interoperability concern ←
16:52:22 <stain> Luc: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies
Luc Moreau: if we think about that, then we need to express what is in RDF to map it to other technologies ←
16:52:31 <stain> Luc: they may not have all the same notions
Luc Moreau: they may not have all the same notions ←
16:52:39 <stain> Luc: if it is not part of data model
Luc Moreau: if it is not part of data model ←
16:52:40 <stain> q+
q+ ←
16:52:52 <stain> Luc: every mapping to a technology would include nice features
Luc Moreau: every mapping to a technology would include nice features ←
16:53:03 <stain> Luc: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks
Luc Moreau: if you do an XML mapping then you could also do interesting XML encoding tricks ←
16:53:09 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
16:53:12 <stain> Luc: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes
Luc Moreau: I've seen an object-oriented style mapping with abstract classes ←
16:53:15 <stain> Luc: which would make sense there
Luc Moreau: which would make sense there ←
16:53:24 <stain> Luc: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core
Luc Moreau: what we need to do is to distinguish core of DM, and what is not core ←
16:53:30 <stain> Luc: what are the nice features.. mapping specific
Luc Moreau: what are the nice features.. mapping specific ←
16:53:36 <stain> Luc: at the moment, the ontology has both
Luc Moreau: at the moment, the ontology has both ←
16:53:38 <stain> Luc: mixed together
Luc Moreau: mixed together ←
16:53:57 <stain> Luc: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL
Luc Moreau: suggested earlier on how we could address these by separating PROV-DM specific notions from the nice features from OWL ←
16:54:00 <stain> Luc: and let users decide
Luc Moreau: and let users decide ←
16:54:00 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:54:05 <GK> Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO
Graham Klyne: Surely, the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal, IMO ←
16:54:11 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
16:55:19 <stain> Stian: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split
Stian Soiland-Reyes: open world assumption, etc - not sure if it would be possible to split ←
16:55:35 <stain> Luc: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity
Luc Moreau: you can send that an entity qualified usage of another entity ←
16:55:40 <stain> Luc: that is allowed by ontology now
Luc Moreau: that is allowed by ontology now ←
16:55:43 <stain> Luc: which is not part of DM
Luc Moreau: which is not part of DM ←
16:55:47 <GK> q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal
Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal ←
16:55:50 <stain> (OK, that's a fair point)
(OK, that's a fair point) ←
16:55:55 <satya> @GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different)
Satya Sahoo: @GK, Stian: +1 (all languages have additional features and adding constraints for error checking is different) ←
16:56:02 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
16:56:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to suggest the primary point of interop is to be able to map the valid DM features ; making errors impossible is a different goal ←
16:56:18 <stain> GK: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies
Graham Klyne: Two issues.. primary interoperability goal is to exchange between technologies ←
16:56:22 <tlebo> q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement ←
16:56:24 <stain> GK: Not sure if comments here prevent that
Graham Klyne: Not sure if comments here prevent that ←
16:56:45 <stain> GK: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another
Graham Klyne: ANother goal - not invalid - but how can you limit the things you can express so that everything in one technology can be mapped to another ←
16:57:08 <stain> GK: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability
Graham Klyne: for instance if one can limit what the RDF permitted/conformant with OWL, then fine.. but might get too hung up in this when it's not really fundamental for interoperability ←
16:57:08 <pgroth> q+ to make a proposal
Paul Groth: q+ to make a proposal ←
16:57:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:57:16 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask for summary of the sudden RL requirement ←
16:57:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Tim, yes Luc sent an email
Khalid Belhajjame: @Tim, yes Luc sent an email ←
16:57:35 <stain> (yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities)
(yes - OWL is not meant to be used for restrictions - but possibilities) ←
16:57:38 <dgarijo> i think Ivan proposed it
Daniel Garijo: i think Ivan proposed it ←
16:57:44 <stain> tlebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed?
Timothy Lebo: when was OWL-RL really agreed? ←
16:57:57 <stain> pgroth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable
Paul Groth: Ivan mentioned that OWL-RL thought that this was encouragable ←
16:58:04 <stain> pgroth: to increase adoption
Paul Groth: to increase adoption ←
16:58:11 <stain> pgroth: and there was some census.. and now it's there
Paul Groth: and there was some census.. and now it's there ←
16:58:33 <stain> pgroth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that
Paul Groth: we all along said that the ontology , should be 'lightweight' - we didn't define that earlier, at F2F it came out that use of OWL-RL would be that ←
16:58:37 <GK> AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems
Graham Klyne: AIUI, OWL-RL is a subset that is easily implemented in query systems ←
16:58:48 <stain> tlebo: will not raise my concerns here
Timothy Lebo: will not raise my concerns here ←
16:59:18 <stain> pgroth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3?
Paul Groth: Luc - so are you saying that.. the current ontology does not give good alignment with WD3? ←
16:59:23 <stain> pgroth: a valid consern, but that's my question
Paul Groth: a valid consern, but that's my question ←
16:59:27 <pgroth> q0
Paul Groth: q0 ←
16:59:28 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
16:59:32 <jcheney> Luc: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means?
Luc Moreau: Can you be precise about what "not aligned" means? [ Scribe Assist by James Cheney ] ←
16:59:39 <stain> Luc: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O
Luc Moreau: I believe anything in DM can be encoded in PROV-O ←
16:59:41 <tlebo> Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied.
Timothy Lebo: Luc's concerns can be addressed with non-RL OWL constructs. We're getting our hands tied. ←
16:59:42 <sandro> tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email.
Sandro Hawke: tlebo, I think Ivan and/or I would be happy to talk about the RL issue in email. ←
16:59:55 <stain> Luc: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity
Luc Moreau: ontology allows many other things to expressed.. like my entity-with-qualified-usage-using-another-entity ←
16:59:58 <stain> Luc: that's too much to me
Luc Moreau: that's too much to me ←
17:00:07 <stain> Luc: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible
Luc Moreau: allowing things to be expressed that should not be expressible ←
17:00:10 <stain> Luc: too permittive
Luc Moreau: too permittive ←
17:00:19 <tlebo> @luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow.
Timothy Lebo: @luc, "permissive" is fixed with axioms that RL doens't allow. ←
17:00:25 <stain> @tlebo +1
@tlebo +1 ←
17:00:38 <satya> @tim +1
Satya Sahoo: @tim +1 ←
17:00:40 <stain> Luc: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns
Luc Moreau: like the patterns.. but try to separate what is really DM compatible vs what is nice patterns ←
17:00:53 <stain> pgroth: what does that mean in terms of process
Paul Groth: what does that mean in terms of process ←
17:01:03 <dgarijo> @tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified..
Daniel Garijo: @tim: we could adress the problem by subtyping qualified.. ←
17:01:08 <stain> Luc: notion of time is crucial to data model
Luc Moreau: notion of time is crucial to data model ←
17:01:24 <stain> Luc: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events
Luc Moreau: the reason why we've associated time to specific concepts if because we think there's the notion of event.. and a kind of temporal mapping with events ←
17:01:39 <stain> Luc: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time
Luc Moreau: notions such as assocation, responsibility.. where we did not include time ←
17:01:45 <stain> Luc: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene
Luc Moreau: nobody came up with a temporal mapping that made sene ←
17:02:02 <stain> Luc: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints?
Luc Moreau: but if ontology allows time to be associated with almost anything, what does it mean to temporal constraints? ←
17:02:08 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:02:17 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
17:02:18 <stain> (my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"]
(my take: about the same as if there was random attributes like ex:started="yesterday"] ←
17:02:20 <khalidbelhajjame> @prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it.
Khalid Belhajjame: @prov-o team, luc in his email already suggested one solution that looks fine to me, I didn't have an issue with it. ←
17:02:29 <stain> Luc: but that needs to be addressed
Luc Moreau: but that needs to be addressed ←
17:02:30 <pgroth> q-
Paul Groth: q- ←
17:02:31 <GK> q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL
Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest that some constraints could be expressed informally (in text) if inconvenient (for whatever reason) to express in OWL ←
17:02:31 <stain> Satya?
Satya? ←
17:02:34 <GK> q-
Graham Klyne: q- ←
17:02:36 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
17:02:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:02:47 <stain> Satya: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants?
Satya Sahoo: To clarify.. adding time to every construct, how does it prvent it from validating according to DM constriants? ←
17:02:50 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:02:53 <stain> sorry I can't scribe
sorry I can't scribe ←
17:02:55 <stain> lost battery
lost battery ←
17:02:58 <stain> NEW SCRIBE please
NEW SCRIBE please ←
17:03:05 <GK> Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document?
Graham Klyne: Paul's question: does this prevent us going forward with this document? ←
17:03:06 <dgarijo> I'll scribe
Daniel Garijo: I'll scribe ←
17:03:24 <dgarijo> luc: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that
Luc Moreau: we need to reflect that in the data model. Nobody has done that [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:03:40 <dgarijo> ... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned.
Daniel Garijo: ... I'm not saying that DM is complete, but it is not aligned. ←
17:03:49 <dgarijo> satya: we have similar issues with location
Satya Sahoo: we have similar issues with location [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:03:58 <dgarijo> ... the domain is everything
Daniel Garijo: ... the domain is everything ←
17:04:05 <tlebo> OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said.
Timothy Lebo: OWL is not about preventing people from asserting silly things, it's about adding more useful things based on what was said. ←
17:04:05 <zednik_> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
17:04:19 <pgroth> ack zednik_
Paul Groth: ack zednik_ ←
17:04:20 <GK> I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL. TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND
Graham Klyne: I don't think DM should be changed to match constraints expressible in OWL. TAILS WAGGING DOGS COME TO MIND ←
17:04:37 <GK> @stephan +1
Graham Klyne: @stephan +1 ←
17:04:44 <dgarijo> zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements
Stephan Zednik: don't understand why do we have a restriction on silly statements [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:05:03 <dgarijo> ... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern
Daniel Garijo: ... if someone wants to make it, ok, but it's not our concern ←
17:05:08 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
17:05:49 <khalidbelhajjame> Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel
Khalid Belhajjame: Yes, this issue has already been raised by Daniel ←
17:06:00 <stain> Zakim, ??P24 is me
Zakim, ??P24 is me ←
17:06:01 <Zakim> +stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←
17:06:03 <stain> Zakim, mute me
Zakim, mute me ←
17:06:03 <Zakim> stain should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: stain should now be muted ←
17:06:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use
Paul Groth: need to identify which parts of prov-o are more expressive than DM and add a text explaining how not to use [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:06:27 <satya> @pgroth: is that part of the best practices?
Satya Sahoo: @pgroth: is that part of the best practices? ←
17:06:30 <GK> @pgroth +1
Graham Klyne: @pgroth +1 ←
17:06:31 <dgarijo> I think it makes sense
Daniel Garijo: I think it makes sense ←
17:06:42 <dgarijo> @pgroth: +1
Daniel Garijo: @pgroth: +1 ←
17:06:45 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:06:59 <stain> @dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline
@dgarijo I happy if you can continue scribing as I'm back on old-style landline ←
17:07:00 <tlebo> q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say that a collection of concrete examples could guide this development. ←
17:07:01 <dgarijo> luc: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team
Luc Moreau: what is the concrete proposal for the prov-o team [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:07:10 <dgarijo> @stain: no prob
Daniel Garijo: @stain: no prob ←
17:08:14 <dgarijo> ...?
Daniel Garijo: ...? ←
17:08:16 <tlebo> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
17:08:20 <pgroth> Proposed: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints
PROPOSED: current owl file reflects wd3, the prov-o team should mark where the prov-o allows more expressiveness than the dm and should come up with proposals to see if it's possible or doable to address these constraints ←
17:08:20 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
17:08:26 <dgarijo> :)
Daniel Garijo: :) ←
17:08:28 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
17:09:00 <dgarijo> jcheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have?
James Cheney: I don't get the problem: what is the property of prov-o that it shouldn't have? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:09:04 <GK> @paul That's two parts. I fully support 1st part; 2nd part I half support.
Graham Klyne: @paul That's two parts. I fully support 1st part; 2nd part I half support. ←
17:09:10 <Curt> If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc.
Curt Tilmes: If someone writes bad prov-o, it would prevent interoperability with other prov formats/languages/etc. ←
17:09:22 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-relation
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-dm-20120202/#record-relation ←
17:09:24 <Curt> I think that's ok ;-) GIGO
Curt Tilmes: I think that's ok ;-) GIGO ←
17:09:29 <stain> @Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O
@Curt: so perhaps the question is - how can you detect bad PROV-O ←
17:09:40 <stain> @Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints
@Curt: ie. a set of rules or OWL-Full constraints ←
17:09:42 <dgarijo> luc: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda)
Luc Moreau: I wrote an email (it's on the agenda) [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:09:45 <satya> @Curt, Stian: rules
Satya Sahoo: @Curt, Stian: rules ←
17:09:59 <dgarijo> ... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance
Daniel Garijo: ... usage can be used between 2 entities, for instance ←
17:10:19 <jun> @curt, or examples?
Jun Zhao: @curt, or examples? ←
17:10:50 <dgarijo> luc: the solution is go to the email and discuss it.
Luc Moreau: the solution is go to the email and discuss it. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:11:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document
Paul Groth: other solution would be to write: DON'T DO THAT in the scpec document [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:11:24 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
17:11:27 <jun> rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale?
Jun Zhao: rules and constraints would require an implementation of validator. and would it scale? ←
17:11:29 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
17:11:32 <zednik_> we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage
Stephan Zednik: we can use restrictions that put us out of OWL-RL, or annotations in the ontology to guide usage ←
17:11:36 <pgroth> q+ Luc
Paul Groth: q+ Luc ←
17:11:41 <stain> { ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity }
{ ?x prov:qualified ?usage . ?usage a prov:Usage; prov:entity ?y } =? { ?x a prov:Activity; prov:used ?y . ?y a prov:Entity } ←
17:11:43 <dgarijo> jcheney: missinterpreting what Luc said.
James Cheney: missinterpreting what Luc said. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:12:01 <GK> @jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator
Graham Klyne: @jun it wouldn't be mandatory to actually *use* rules and validator ←
17:12:10 <stain> exactly
exactly ←
17:12:25 <stain> people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL
people are even allowed to use the OWL ontology without knowing much about OWL ←
17:12:27 <dgarijo> luc: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM
Luc Moreau: we have to be precise in the alignement. We should be able to express DM in prov-o, but also prov-o should not be more expressive than DM [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:12:30 <stain> use it as an RDFS vocabulary
use it as an RDFS vocabulary ←
17:12:43 <tlebo> @jcheney, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ?
Timothy Lebo: @jcheney, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/262 ? ←
17:12:55 <jun> @gk, ack. gotcha
17:13:14 <dgarijo> jcheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl
James Cheney: 1)people have been pointing that fixes to your problem would break owl-rl [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:13:24 <Curt> A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o
Curt Tilmes: A 'prov validator' could go beyond the simple expression of prov-o ←
17:13:29 <satya> 1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over)
Satya Sahoo: 1. There will always be issue translating from OWL to XML or other languages (not everything can be "carried" over) ←
17:13:50 <dgarijo> ... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it?
Daniel Garijo: ... 2) If we don't know what the alignement prop is then how are we going to align it? ←
17:13:59 <Luc> That' s how I suggested we can address the issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0414.html
Luc Moreau: That' s how I suggested we can address the issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Feb/0414.html ←
17:13:59 <pgroth> q
Paul Groth: q ←
17:14:00 <satya> 2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile
Satya Sahoo: 2. Adding error checking rules will (I think) be out of RL profile ←
17:14:02 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:14:04 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
17:14:05 <GK> I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information
Graham Klyne: I think anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information ←
17:14:15 <dgarijo> luc: I don't have a formal ..?..
Luc Moreau: I don't have a formal ..?.. [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:14:42 <dgarijo> ... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM
Daniel Garijo: ... an entity having a qualified usage of an entitity is not the intention of DM ←
17:14:54 <dgarijo> ... I made a suggestion on the email
Daniel Garijo: ... I made a suggestion on the email ←
17:14:55 <satya> 3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF)
Satya Sahoo: 3. Adding inference rules (as Stephenc suggested) will be definitely require rules (most probably in RIF) ←
17:15:28 <dgarijo> ... I am concerned about the interoperability issues
Daniel Garijo: ... I am concerned about the interoperability issues ←
17:15:33 <Paolo> have to go now, apologies
Paolo Missier: have to go now, apologies ←
17:15:40 <GK> My definition of interoperability above: anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information
Graham Klyne: My definition of interoperability above: anything that is satisfiable in the formal semantics should be round-trippable without loss of information ←
17:15:47 <dgarijo> ... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition
Daniel Garijo: ... maybe I've a stronger interpretation than others. Maybe we need that definition ←
17:16:10 <stain> @GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things
@GK but I agree with Luc in the sense that the OWL should guide you towards interoperability, and not lure you directly into non-translatable things ←
17:16:13 <dgarijo> pgroth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff
Paul Groth: the ontology reflects wd3, but it has more stuff [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:16:17 <stephenc> @satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL
Stephen Cresswell: @satya I was only suggesting using owl:propertyChainAxiom, which is in OWL-RL ←
17:16:33 <dgarijo> ... that shouldn't be a blocker
Daniel Garijo: ... that shouldn't be a blocker ←
17:16:39 <GK> @stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability
Graham Klyne: @stian: agree, but don't want to get hung up on this in the name of faux-interoperability ←
17:16:42 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaa] ←
17:16:57 <dgarijo> ... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is
Daniel Garijo: ... how do we move forward? I'd like the ontology as is ←
17:17:08 <jcheney> @GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means).
James Cheney: @GK: there are two different interpretations: DM -> Owl -> DM (which I think "works" now) and OWL -> DM -> OWL (which I don't think "works" but I'm not sure it is what Luc means). ←
17:17:10 <dgarijo> ... but we could raise issues
Daniel Garijo: ... but we could raise issues ←
17:17:12 <stain> @GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard.
@GK: agreed. Restrictions can be tacked on.. and getting EVERYTHING restricted so it's not possible to express something that does not map to DM would be very hard. ←
17:17:14 <dgarijo> luc: agrees
Luc Moreau: agrees [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:17:28 <Zakim> -??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P0 ←
17:17:32 <dgarijo> luc: what Tim thinks about this?
Luc Moreau: what Tim thinks about this? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:17:40 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
Zakim IRC Bot: -SamCoppens ←
17:17:49 <stain> jcheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough
James Cheney: no, but that would not work unless DM had a complete 'any RDF'-node everywhere - which perhaps was the idea with the 'attribs' - but it is not enough ←
17:17:50 <dgarijo> tlebo: james just said what I wanted to say
Timothy Lebo: james just said what I wanted to say [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:18:11 <GK> @jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable?
Graham Klyne: @jcheney if formal semantics reflects/drives DM constraints, then surely any OWL that is satusfiable in formal semantics *is* riound-trippable? ←
17:18:15 <dgarijo> ---a lot of typiing noise!!--
Daniel Garijo: ---a lot of typiing noise!!-- ←
17:18:41 <jcheney> @GK: not sure yet...
James Cheney: @GK: not sure yet... ←
17:18:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:18:42 <dgarijo> luc: there have been some recent changes
Luc Moreau: there have been some recent changes [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:18:47 <dgarijo> @GK: thanks!
Daniel Garijo: @GK: thanks! ←
17:19:12 <stain> the ontology has always allowed even :entity1 prov:used :entity2 as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL)
the ontology has always allowed even :entity1 prov:used :entity2 as :Entity and :Agent was not stated as disjoint (that's out of RL) ←
17:19:14 <dgarijo> tlebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model
Timothy Lebo: removing all the subprops of qualified was a move to simplify the model [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:19:24 <stain> eh// entity and activity
eh// entity and activity ←
17:19:31 <dgarijo> @stian: you are actually right..
Daniel Garijo: @stian: you are actually right.. ←
17:19:53 <dgarijo> tlebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements
Timothy Lebo: a lot of different kinds of requirements [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:20:08 <dgarijo> ... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns
Daniel Garijo: ... we still don't have a corpus of examples that address these concerns ←
17:20:39 <dgarijo> ... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository
Daniel Garijo: ... the way of not forgetting about this issues is to have examples in our repository ←
17:20:46 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:20:51 <dgarijo> luc: it is a very good idea
Luc Moreau: it is a very good idea [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:20:55 <satya> @tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements)
Satya Sahoo: @tlebo: +1 (saves prov-o from trying to satisfy moving requirements) ←
17:20:56 <GK> Test cases are good.
Graham Klyne: Test cases are good. ←
17:21:11 <dgarijo> pgroth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is
Paul Groth: I don't understand what the conclusion here is [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:21:31 <dgarijo> ... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going
Daniel Garijo: ... right now it is raised as an issue, but I don't know where are we going ←
17:21:53 <dgarijo> luc: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback
Luc Moreau: I invite prov-o team to review the feedback [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:21:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:22:10 <dgarijo> ... it will be good to see what the response is
Daniel Garijo: ... it will be good to see what the response is ←
17:22:26 <GK> Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean? What really matters is can we proceed with this?
Graham Klyne: Question is "decide whether the ontology offers a good alignment with prov-dm wd3" - but what does this mean? What really matters is can we proceed with this? ←
17:22:31 <dgarijo> ... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec
Daniel Garijo: ... and analyze whter it can be modeled or just warn in the html spec ←
17:22:32 <stain> @Luc
@Luc ←
17:22:33 <stain> +1
+1 ←
17:22:49 <dgarijo> pgroth: what's next for that team?
Paul Groth: what's next for that team? [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:22:51 <tlebo> (just blacked out for a minute)
Timothy Lebo: (just blacked out for a minute) ←
17:23:12 <dgarijo> ... can they start working on the doc?
Daniel Garijo: ... can they start working on the doc? ←
17:23:25 <dgarijo> ... solve all the issues of the ontology first?
Daniel Garijo: ... solve all the issues of the ontology first? ←
17:23:39 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:23:40 <dgarijo> +q
Daniel Garijo: +q ←
17:23:42 <stain> q+
q+ ←
17:23:47 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:24:09 <khalidbelhajjame> I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation
Khalid Belhajjame: I would prefer the option of focusing on fixing the lain issues of the ontology before trying to revise the HTML documentation ←
17:24:18 <stain> Zakim, unmute me
Zakim, unmute me ←
17:24:18 <Zakim> stain should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: stain should no longer be muted ←
17:24:24 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
Paul Groth: ack dgarijo ←
17:24:26 <pgroth> ack stain
Paul Groth: ack stain ←
17:24:54 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:24:59 <stain> Zakim, mute me
Zakim, mute me ←
17:24:59 <Zakim> stain should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: stain should now be muted ←
17:25:07 <Luc> what do other reviewers think?
Luc Moreau: what do other reviewers think? ←
17:25:11 <dgarijo> stain: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues
Stian Soiland-Reyes: agrees with daniel. Document what it's obvious, and not document the parts with issues [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:25:15 <tlebo> the HTML needs to stop being postponed.
Timothy Lebo: the HTML needs to stop being postponed. ←
17:25:17 <GK> @paul +1
Graham Klyne: @paul +1 ←
17:25:19 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:25:40 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:25:50 <dgarijo> pgroth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point
Paul Groth: wouldn't want to get hung up on this point [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:26:20 <jun> as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel
Jun Zhao: as long as the parts with issues are kind of self-contained, I agree with paul and daniel ←
17:26:24 <dgarijo> ... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not
Daniel Garijo: ... we shoud decide on whether the issue can be addressed reasonably or not ←
17:27:03 <dgarijo> ... issues 64, 262..?
Daniel Garijo: ... issues 64, 262..? ←
17:27:07 <dgarijo> ah ok
Daniel Garijo: ah ok ←
17:27:27 <Luc> 253, 262, 263
Luc Moreau: 253, 262, 263 ←
17:27:30 <GK> Alternative definition of interop: any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information. I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN.
Graham Klyne: Alternative definition of interop: any RDF that corresponds to a valid DM expression can be round-tripped without loss of information. I think that covers RDD-ASN-RDF and ASN-RDF-ASN. ←
17:27:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:27:48 <pgroth> proposed: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back
PROPOSED: prov-o team look at the ISSUE-253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back ←
17:27:57 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
17:27:59 <stain> +1
+1 ←
17:28:07 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
17:28:07 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
17:28:10 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
17:28:11 <ericstephan> +1
Eric Stephan: +1 ←
17:28:11 <zednik_> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
17:28:12 <Luc> @GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression?
Luc Moreau: @GK, yes, but can we determine, in rdf, what is a valid translated dm expression? ←
17:28:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:28:24 <tlebo> bye bye!
Timothy Lebo: bye bye! ←
<Luc> ACCEPTED: prov-o team look at the issue 253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back
RESOLVED: prov-o team look at the ISSUE-253, 262, 263, etc and see if it can be addressed but this should not hold the group back ←
17:28:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: bye
Paul Groth: bye [ Scribe Assist by Daniel Garijo ] ←
17:28:29 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a] ←
17:28:30 <stain> bye!
bye! ←
17:28:30 <ericstephan> see ya!
Eric Stephan: see ya! ←
17:28:30 <Zakim> - +1.315.723.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.315.723.aaaa ←
17:28:31 <khalidbelhajjame> bye
Khalid Belhajjame: bye ←
17:28:32 <Zakim> -??P25
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P25 ←
17:28:33 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←
17:28:33 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
17:28:34 <Zakim> -stain
Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←
17:28:37 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:28:38 <GK> @luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL
Graham Klyne: @luc: I think so, but maybe not using OWL ←
17:28:39 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←
17:28:45 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aaaa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aaaa] ←
17:28:46 <pgroth> are you doing the minutes luc?
Paul Groth: are you doing the minutes luc? ←
17:28:47 <Zakim> - +1.509.967.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.509.967.aabb ←
17:28:49 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
17:28:52 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.aa]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.aa] ←
17:28:53 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
17:28:53 <GK> Bye.
Graham Klyne: Bye. ←
17:28:57 <Luc> It would be good if it could be mechanical!
Luc Moreau: It would be good if it could be mechanical! ←
17:28:58 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
17:29:07 <pgroth> Zakim, make logs public
Paul Groth: Zakim, make logs public ←
17:29:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'make logs public', pgroth ←
17:29:14 <GK> @luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not
Graham Klyne: @luc: it would be good, but not a disaster if not ←
17:29:57 <Zakim> -??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P9 ←
17:30:05 <pgroth> rrsagent, make records public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make records public ←
17:30:18 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
17:30:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
17:30:25 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
17:30:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:30:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo, Yolanda,
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], Luc, +1.315.723.aaaa, khalidbelhajjame, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, jun, Sandro, SamCoppens, dgarijo, Yolanda, ←
17:30:28 <Zakim> ... [ISI], stain
Zakim IRC Bot: ... [ISI], stain ←
17:30:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:30:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:30:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:30:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe