We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message.
The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time.
we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group.
the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email.
the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted.
Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document. He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed. On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section. Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification. It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents. It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week.
A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes. This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback.
14:43:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-irc ←
14:44:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:44:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
14:44:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
14:44:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:44:04 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2012
14:44:04 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
14:44:04 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes ←
14:44:15 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.10
14:44:23 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:34 <Luc> Scribe: dgarijo
(Scribe set to Daniel Garijo)
14:44:40 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public ←
14:44:49 <Luc> Regrets: Curt Tilmes
14:44:58 <Luc> Topic: Admin
14:51:05 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
14:51:26 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:51:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
14:51:47 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:51:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
14:51:50 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
14:51:51 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
14:52:16 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
14:52:30 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the call?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:52:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:00:08 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:00:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:00:23 <lebot> Zakim, I am no one
Timothy Lebo: Zakim, I am no one ←
15:00:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I am no one', lebot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'I am no one', lebot ←
15:00:31 <Luc> ;-)
Luc Moreau: ;-) ←
15:00:31 <lebot> zakim, who is on the phone?
Timothy Lebo: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:00:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:01:05 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:01:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:01:14 <dgarijo> scribe:dgarijo
15:02:14 <MacTed> Zakim who, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim who, who's here? ←
15:02:19 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
15:02:27 <Luc> @sandro, zakim does not seem to know we are on the phone. Suggestion?
Luc Moreau: @sandro, zakim does not seem to know we are on the phone. Suggestion? ←
15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:02:31 <dgarijo> Zakim is silent today...
Zakim is silent today... ←
15:02:38 <MacTed> Zakim, code?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, code? ←
15:02:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, jcheney, jun, stephenc, zednik, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, smiles, lebot, MacTed, Paolo, GK, GK_, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TomDN, jcheney, jun, stephenc, zednik, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, smiles, lebot, MacTed, Paolo, GK, GK_, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, Luc, trackbot, stain, sandro ←
15:02:45 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed ←
15:03:38 <dgarijo> Luc: admin Issues, release of documents: PAQ, proposals, organization about connections and bundles
Luc Moreau: admin Issues, release of documents: PAQ, proposals, organization about connections and bundles ←
15:03:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-03 ←
15:03:54 <Luc> proposed: to accept last week's minutes
PROPOSED: to accept last week's minutes ←
15:03:57 <dgarijo> +1
+1 ←
15:03:58 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:04:02 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:04:03 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:04:11 <khalidbelhajjame> +0 (wasn't present)
Khalid Belhajjame: +0 (wasn't present) ←
15:04:14 <lebot> "Presentation on editorial changes to e PAQ" ?
Timothy Lebo: "Presentation on editorial changes to e PAQ" ? ←
15:04:22 <jun> +1
15:04:29 <Paolo> where are the minutes?
Paolo Missier: where are the minutes? ←
15:04:40 <GK> e PAQ I think means "the PAQ"
Graham Klyne: e PAQ I think means "the PAQ" ←
15:04:49 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:04:56 <Luc> Accepted: last week's minutes
RESOLVED: last week's minutes ←
15:04:57 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:05:03 <lebot> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
15:05:06 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:05:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:05:34 <dgarijo> Luc: review of actions
Luc Moreau: review of actions ←
15:05:44 <dgarijo> ... 2 on Satya to announce the documents.
... 2 on Satya to announce the documents. ←
15:05:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I believe it is done
Luc Moreau: I believe it is done ←
15:06:05 <dgarijo> Paul: yes it is complete
Paul Groth: yes it is complete ←
15:06:05 <sandro> zakim, this is prov
Sandro Hawke: zakim, this is prov ←
15:06:05 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM ←
15:06:36 <pgroth> yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
15:06:36 <pgroth> he did it
Paul Groth: he did it ←
15:06:37 <dgarijo> Luc: action on Sandro, will do that next week. Another one on Paolo (Data One), done
Luc Moreau: action on Sandro, will do that next week. Another one on Paolo (Data One), done ←
15:06:54 <jun> yes, we got it!
15:07:05 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
15:07:10 <dgarijo> Luc: just a reminder for scribes
Luc Moreau: just a reminder for scribes ←
15:07:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:07:25 <dgarijo> Paul: comment on annoucements.
Paul Groth: comment on annoucements. ←
15:07:30 <pgroth> public-prov-wg
Paul Groth: public-prov-wg ←
15:07:39 <pgroth> public-prov-comments
Paul Groth: public-prov-comments ←
15:07:49 <jcheney> lots of echos
James Cheney: lots of echos ←
15:07:53 <dgarijo> ... We used public prov-wg as the mailing list, but it should be public-prov-comments.
... We used public prov-wg as the mailing list, but it should be public-prov-comments. ←
15:08:42 <dgarijo> sandro: I'll see if I can set up something to fix that.
Sandro Hawke: I'll see if I can set up something to fix that. ←
15:08:48 <GK> PAQ has public-prov-comments (though not included in this call)
Graham Klyne: PAQ has public-prov-comments (though not included in this call) ←
15:09:16 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:09:25 <Luc> topic: release of document
Summary: We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message.
<Luc>Summary: We reviewed the dissemination activities undertaken following last week's release. Stephan confirmed that survey stakeholders were sent the announcement message.
15:09:28 <dgarijo> Luc: release of documents.
Luc Moreau: release of documents. ←
15:09:34 <dgarijo> ... how dissemination is going?
... how dissemination is going? ←
15:09:45 <dgarijo> ... stephan Zednick did something, I believe.
... stephan Zednick did something, I believe. ←
15:10:03 <dgarijo> stephanZ: I send an email to the stake holders that had filled the survey
Stephan Zednik: I send an email to the stake holders that had filled the survey ←
15:10:06 <dgarijo> Luc: thanks
Luc Moreau: thanks ←
15:10:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:10:17 <Luc> Topic: PAQ
Summary: The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time.
<Luc>Summary: The group approved the release of the PAQ document as a working draft. Paul will raise issues against the document in a week's time.
15:10:44 <dgarijo> pgroth: I got a few responses with people reviewing / trying to implement
Paul Groth: I got a few responses with people reviewing / trying to implement ←
15:10:51 <dgarijo> ... 3 responses
... 3 responses ←
15:10:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I had 1 response too.
Luc Moreau: I had 1 response too. ←
15:11:03 <dgarijo> Luc: PAQ
Luc Moreau: PAQ ←
15:11:09 <GK_> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html
Graham Klyne: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html ←
15:11:10 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html [edit]
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/working/prov-aq.html [edit] ←
15:11:20 <Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft
PROPOSED: to release PAQ as a working draft ←
15:11:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:11:38 <dgarijo> ... release this version of the document as a working draft. Any comments/feedback?
... release this version of the document as a working draft. Any comments/feedback? ←
15:11:46 <Luc> Proposal: to release PAQ as a working draft
PROPOSED: to release PAQ as a working draft ←
15:11:54 <smiles> +!
Simon Miles: +! ←
15:11:55 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:11:55 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:11:56 <lebot> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
15:11:59 <dgarijo> +1
+1 ←
15:12:00 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:12:01 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
15:12:02 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
15:12:03 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:12:08 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:12:12 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
15:12:14 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:12:21 <Luc> Accepted: to release PAQ as a working draft
RESOLVED: to release PAQ as a working draft ←
15:12:44 <Luc> Topic: all documents
Summary: we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group.
<Luc>Summary: we are aiming to complete the next iteration by the end of May, with a release for internal review scheduled for June 1st. The editors indicated what they were working on, and for prov-o, prov-dm, prov-n, prov-primer, believe that they are on schedule for a June 1st release. The prov-constraints editors seek further feedback from the reviewers and the group.
15:12:45 <dgarijo> Luc: editors have now de green light to proceed and contact the web master
Luc Moreau: editors have now de green light to proceed and contact the web master ←
15:12:59 <pgroth> @gk I'm on vacation next week so won't do anything then
Paul Groth: @gk I'm on vacation next week so won't do anything then ←
15:13:05 <dgarijo> ... on f2f2 we agreed on a time table
... on f2f2 we agreed on a time table ←
15:13:27 <dgarijo> ... we have plans to release new version of the docs for internal review for Jun 1st
... we have plans to release new version of the docs for internal review for June 1st ←
15:13:52 <dgarijo> ... we (Paul and I) would like to know the plans form various editors in order to achieve this.
... we (Paul and I) would like to know the plans form various editors in order to achieve this. ←
15:13:53 <jun> s/Jun/June/
15:13:55 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft6
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDMWorkingDraft6 ←
15:14:06 <dgarijo> @Jun thanks.
@Jun thanks. ←
15:14:45 <dgarijo> Luc: we are going through the issues in the DM, will be dealing with bundles (hopefully today)
Luc Moreau: we are going through the issues in the DM, will be dealing with bundles (hopefully today) ←
15:15:36 <dgarijo> ... in terms of prov-n we are finilizing the syntax of identifiers + outstanding issues. We think we will achieve the deadline. What do other editors plan to do?
... in terms of prov-n we are finilizing the syntax of identifiers + outstanding issues. We think we will achieve the deadline. What do other editors plan to do? ←
15:15:46 <GK> @paul - I'm unclear about details of the publication procedure - I can have a go at the export and pubrules checking, but if I get stuck I guess it's not crucial if we don;'t make it until after next week?
Graham Klyne: @paul - I'm unclear about details of the publication procedure - I can have a go at the export and pubrules checking, but if I get stuck I guess it's not crucial if we don;'t make it until after next week? ←
15:16:33 <lebot> q+ to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for clarity (with more narrative on terms).
Timothy Lebo: q+ to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for clarity (with more narrative on terms). ←
15:16:54 <dgarijo> jamesC: The constraints haven't been reviewd yet. I hope to hear from Tim and Graham (not necessarily right now)
James Cheney: The constraints haven't been reviewed yet. I hope to hear from Tim and Graham (not necessarily right now) ←
15:17:09 <dgarijo> s/reviewd/reviewed
15:17:09 <lebot> q+ again to james - he's ready for another review?
Timothy Lebo: q+ again to james - he's ready for another review? ←
15:17:39 <dgarijo> ... I reorganized the doc.
... I reorganized the doc. ←
15:17:52 <sandro> +Testing
Sandro Hawke: +Testing ←
15:18:00 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:18:00 <dgarijo> Luc: we have not received feedback from the other 2 reviewers.
Luc Moreau: we have not received feedback from the other 2 reviewers. ←
15:18:46 <dgarijo> tlebo: I was waiting from James to say whether the doc war ready to be reviewed.
Timothy Lebo: I was waiting from James to say whether the doc war ready to be reviewed. ←
15:19:23 <dgarijo> jamesC: I'd like to know if previous issues have been fixed.
James Cheney: I'd like to know if previous issues have been fixed. ←
15:19:32 <Luc> Action on tlebot to review latest prov-constraints
Luc Moreau: Action on tlebot to review latest prov-constraints ←
15:19:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - on ←
15:19:39 <dgarijo> Luc: action on tim to review the doc
Luc Moreau: action on tim to review the doc ←
15:19:58 <Luc> Action tlebot to review latest prov-constraints
Luc Moreau: Action tlebot to review latest prov-constraints ←
15:19:58 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - tlebot
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - tlebot ←
15:20:01 <dgarijo> graham: I'll have a look too
Graham Klyne: I'll have a look too ←
15:20:20 <Luc> Action GK to review latest prov-constraints
Luc Moreau: Action GK to review latest prov-constraints ←
15:20:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-05-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-89 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Graham Klyne - due 2012-05-17]. ←
15:20:24 <dgarijo> ... my previous comments might have been overtaken by reorganization
... my previous comments might have been overtaken by reorganization ←
15:20:33 <lebot> @luc, sorry, I slipped to @lebot today...
Timothy Lebo: @luc, sorry, I slipped to @lebot today... ←
15:20:46 <lebot> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
15:20:47 <Luc> Action lebot to review latest prov-constraints
Luc Moreau: Action lebot to review latest prov-constraints ←
15:20:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-05-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-90 - Review latest prov-constraints [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-05-17]. ←
15:21:10 <dgarijo> Luc: prov-o document
Luc Moreau: prov-o document ←
15:21:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:21:43 <dgarijo> lebot: The plan for the next 3 weeks is to create examples for every term and clean the issues
Timothy Lebo: The plan for the next 3 weeks is to create examples for every term and clean the issues ←
15:21:48 <Luc> ack leb
Luc Moreau: ack leb ←
15:21:48 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for
Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to acknowledge 1 June is okay. On the plate: completing issues in tracker, refining the examples for each term, "catching up" to DM-*, and overall editing for ←
15:21:52 <Zakim> ... clarity (with more narrative on terms).
Zakim IRC Bot: ... clarity (with more narrative on terms). ←
15:22:14 <dgarijo> smiles: alternative formats for the examples (prov-o and prov-n, xml)
Simon Miles: alternative formats for the examples (prov-o and prov-n, xml) ←
15:22:41 <dgarijo> ... (this is for the primer) Ask Stian and Paolo to see if ????
... (this is for the primer) Ask Stian and Paolo to see if ???? ←
15:22:47 <Paolo> ok fine
Paolo Missier: ok fine ←
15:23:16 <dgarijo> Luc: Graham and Paul, can you synchronize for the next release of the PAQ?
Luc Moreau: Graham and Paul, can you synchronize for the next release of the PAQ? ←
15:23:41 <smiles> @dgarijo We will ask Paolo and Stian to check the primer hasn't become out of date with respect to the DM and ontology respectively
Simon Miles: @dgarijo We will ask Paolo and Stian to check the primer hasn't become out of date with respect to the DM and ontology respectively ←
15:23:52 <dgarijo> Paul: there are some issues about reorganization, I'll come back in a week
Paul Groth: there are some issues about reorganization, I'll come back in a week ←
15:24:00 <dgarijo> @smiles, thanks
@smiles, thanks ←
15:24:33 <dgarijo> Luc: have we got plans for releasing best practice documents?
Luc Moreau: have we got plans for releasing best practice documents? ←
15:24:48 <dgarijo> ... DC best practices.
... DC best practices. ←
15:25:17 <dgarijo> Paul: I'll ask offline.
Paul Groth: I'll ask offline. ←
15:26:06 <dgarijo> Dgarijo: I'll tell Kai about the deadline.
Daniel Garijo: I'll tell Kai about the deadline. ←
15:26:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:26:14 <Luc> ack again
Luc Moreau: ack again ←
15:26:14 <Zakim> again, you wanted to james - he's ready for another review?
Zakim IRC Bot: again, you wanted to james - he's ready for another review? ←
15:26:22 <Luc> topic: WasQuotedFrom
Summary: the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email.
<Luc>Summary: the proposal to rename WasQuotedFrom to WasAQuoteFrom was not endorsed. The group is invited to continue discussion by email.
15:26:32 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0109.html
Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0109.html ←
15:26:38 <Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom
PROPOSED: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom ←
15:26:52 <dgarijo> Luc: change wasQuotedFrom->wasAQuoteFrom?
Luc Moreau: change wasQuotedFrom->wasAQuoteFrom? ←
15:27:03 <stainPhone> I'm struggling with Zakim passcode
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I'm struggling with Zakim passcode ←
15:27:11 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:27:17 <dgarijo> any comments?
any comments? ←
15:27:22 <Luc> Proposal: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom
PROPOSED: rename WasQuotedFrom into WasAQuoteFrom ←
15:27:27 <dgarijo> +1
+1 ←
15:27:27 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
15:27:28 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
15:27:29 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:27:32 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:27:33 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:27:34 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
15:27:34 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:27:39 <jun> -1
15:27:43 <lebot> -1
Timothy Lebo: -1 ←
15:27:47 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:27:49 <GK> 0
Graham Klyne: 0 ←
15:27:51 <zednik> 0
Stephan Zednik: 0 ←
15:27:53 <jun> I never had trouble with this property name. so -1 from me
Jun Zhao: I never had trouble with this property name. so -1 from me ←
15:28:01 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
15:28:03 <lebot> if it was a quote, what is it now?
Timothy Lebo: if it was a quote, what is it now? ←
15:28:08 <stainPhone> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:28:42 <stainPhone> Now it really is a quote, not a "quoted"
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Now it really is a quote, not a "quoted" ←
15:28:46 <pgroth> he has a point
Paul Groth: he has a point ←
15:29:09 <dgarijo> Jun: it was clear for me before
Jun Zhao: it was clear for me before ←
15:29:18 <dgarijo> ... not convinced by the new name
... not convinced by the new name ←
15:29:26 <dgarijo> +q
+q ←
15:29:34 <stainPhone> Domain of wasQ should be a quote, right?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Domain of wasQ should be a quote, right? ←
15:29:42 <zednik> quote can be noun or verb, quoted is clear verb
Stephan Zednik: quote can be noun or verb, quoted is clear verb ←
15:29:52 <lebot> danielG: it's not clear, which is quoted, and which is quoted from? (it flips)
Daniel Garijo: it's not clear, which is quoted, and which is quoted from? (it flips) [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
15:29:58 <stainPhone> Q+
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Q+ ←
15:30:12 <Luc> ack dga
Luc Moreau: ack dga ←
15:30:19 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
15:30:20 <lebot> danielG: DM def is clear, but from just the name it is confusing
Daniel Garijo: DM def is clear, but from just the name it is confusing [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
15:30:52 <jun> How is that different from wasDerivedFrom?
Jun Zhao: How is that different from wasDerivedFrom? ←
15:31:00 <dgarijo> stian: I got the same feeling as Daniel. And probelms with the direction too.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I got the same feeling as Daniel. And probelms with the direction too. ←
15:31:00 <Luc> ack st
Luc Moreau: ack st ←
15:31:12 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
15:31:25 <lebot> @jun, the other nice aspect of wasQuotedFrom was its parallel to wasDerivedFrom.
Timothy Lebo: @jun, the other nice aspect of wasQuotedFrom was its parallel to wasDerivedFrom. ←
15:31:34 <dgarijo> paul: given that there is no consensus, this has to be talked more on the mailing list.
Paul Groth: given that there is no consensus, this has to be talked more on the mailing list. ←
15:31:37 <lebot> +1 to taking it back to email (sorry that I missed it)
Timothy Lebo: +1 to taking it back to email (sorry that I missed it) ←
15:31:38 <khalidbelhajjame> Given Tim comment, then isAQuoteFrom may be a better candidate
Khalid Belhajjame: Given Tim comment, then isAQuoteFrom may be a better candidate ←
15:31:58 <jun> @lebot, yes. applying the pattern for names is also important for an ontology
Jun Zhao: @lebot, yes. applying the pattern for names is also important for an ontology ←
15:31:58 <stainPhone> I agree with Daniel, it is important that lhs of wasQ is a quote, not what was quoted or something that contains a quote
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I agree with Daniel, it is important that lhs of wasQ is a quote, not what was quoted or something that contains a quote ←
15:32:12 <dgarijo> Luc: agreed, the discussion should come back to the mailing list.
Luc Moreau: agreed, the discussion should come back to the mailing list. ←
15:32:13 <MacTed> "is" forces to "was" because of previous decisions to use past tense for all predicates
Ted Thibodeau: "is" forces to "was" because of previous decisions to use past tense for all predicates ←
15:32:18 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:32:25 <lebot> yes, @khalid, isAQuoteFrom would work (but violate our "past tense")
Timothy Lebo: yes, @khalid, isAQuoteFrom would work (but violate our "past tense") ←
15:32:31 <Luc> topic: WasStartedByActivity
Summary: the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted.
<Luc>Summary: the proposal to drop WasStartedByActivity and to extend wasStartedBy with an optional starter activity was adopted.
15:32:43 <jun> @MacTed, provenance is meant to record history, imo
Jun Zhao: @MacTed, provenance is meant to record history, imo ←
15:32:44 <dgarijo> @lebot: isAquoteFrom workf for me too...
@lebot: isAquoteFrom works for me too... ←
15:32:55 <dgarijo> s/workf/works
15:33:15 <lebot> @dgarijo, yes, but how to deal with the tense inconsistency?
Timothy Lebo: @dgarijo, yes, but how to deal with the tense inconsistency? ←
15:33:16 <satya> as Tim said, isAQuoteFrom is not "past" tense?
Satya Sahoo: as Tim said, isAQuoteFrom is not "past" tense? ←
15:33:36 <Luc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html
Luc Moreau: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html ←
15:33:36 <pgroth> (also "a" in a predicate name is just wierd)
Paul Groth: (also "a" in a predicate name is just wierd) ←
15:33:45 <stainPhone> Jun, could you make a "clear" example of the old wasQuotedFrom ?
Stian Soiland-Reyes: Jun, could you make a "clear" example of the old wasQuotedFrom ? ←
15:33:47 <dgarijo> @lebot: I know, but I prefer the concept to be clear.
@lebot: I know, but I prefer the concept to be clear. ←
15:34:06 <khalidbelhajjame> @MacTed, @Jun, @Satya, maybe this example shows that past tense is not suitable for everything
Khalid Belhajjame: @MacTed, @Jun, @Satya, maybe this example shows that past tense is not suitable for everything ←
15:34:11 <Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly
PROPOSED: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly ←
15:34:17 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:34:24 <dgarijo> +q
+q ←
15:35:10 <jun> @all, I think we should take the discussion onto the mailing list. Afraid we are cluttering the chat
Jun Zhao: @all, I think we should take the discussion onto the mailing list. Afraid we are cluttering the chat ←
15:35:12 <lebot> danielG: concern is for prov-o and [] wasEstablsihedBy (?). Could do it in a single statement, must now use a qualified relationship to express it.
Daniel Garijo: concern is for prov-o and [] wasEstablsihedBy (?). Could do it in a single statement, must now use a qualified relationship to express it. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ] ←
15:35:17 <Luc> ack dga
Luc Moreau: ack dga ←
15:35:34 <stainPhone> I still think it is clearer than yet another relationship
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I still think it is clearer than yet another relationship ←
15:35:40 <lebot> @macted, that's were we started months ago (to expand the range)
Timothy Lebo: @macted, that's where we started months ago (to expand the range) ←
15:35:45 <lebot> s/were/where/
15:35:50 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
15:36:30 <dgarijo> lebot: expanding the range og wasStartedBy was where we were several months ago
Timothy Lebo: expanding the range og wasStartedBy was where we were several months ago ←
15:36:32 <stainPhone> We already had this issue for activity start time only
Stian Soiland-Reyes: We already had this issue for activity start time only ←
15:37:06 <dgarijo> lebot: I'm in favour of this proposal precisely because of the indirection
Timothy Lebo: I'm in favour of this proposal precisely because of the indirection ←
15:37:31 <dgarijo> stephanZ: do we have a wasTriggerebBy relationship
Stephan Zednik: do we have a wasTriggerebBy relationship ←
15:37:34 <dgarijo> Luc: no
Luc Moreau: no ←
15:37:52 <satya> @Zednick - we had it in an earlier version (wasTriggeredBy)
Satya Sahoo: @Zednick - we had it in an earlier version (wasTriggeredBy) ←
15:38:06 <Luc> ack zedn
Luc Moreau: ack zedn ←
15:38:17 <dgarijo> ... the start of an activity has a trigger which is an entity and we are allowing the activity to be there as well
... the start of an activity has a trigger which is an entity and we are allowing the activity to be there as well ←
15:38:17 <jun> @Zednick, I thought the current wasStartedByActivity is close to wasTriggeredBy of OPM
Jun Zhao: @Zednick, I thought the current wasStartedByActivity is close to wasTriggeredBy of OPM ←
15:38:27 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:38:31 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
15:38:36 <Luc> PROPOSAL: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly
PROPOSED: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly ←
15:38:43 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
15:38:44 <lebot> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
15:38:46 <stainPhone> +1
Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←
15:38:49 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:38:51 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
15:38:55 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
15:38:56 <GK> 0
Graham Klyne: 0 ←
15:38:56 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
15:38:58 <dgarijo> +0 (If everyone is ok I won't vote against it)
+0 (If everyone is ok I won't vote against it) ←
15:39:01 <satya> 0
Satya Sahoo: 0 ←
15:39:05 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 for dropping wasActivity, +0 for revising wasStartBy
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 for dropping wasActivity, +0 for revising wasStartBy ←
15:39:07 <jun> 0
15:39:08 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
15:39:20 <Luc> Accepted: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly
RESOLVED: drop wasStartedByActivity and revise wasStartedBy as per https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/working-copy/wd6-wasStartedBy.html; revise wasEndedBy similarly ←
15:39:36 <Luc> Topic: Collections
Summary: Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document. He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed. On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section. Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification. It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents. It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week.
<luc>Summary: Paul expressed his concern about the length of the collections section in the prov-o document. He suggested moving this section out of the prov-o document into a new, separate document, focusing on collections. The scope of such a potential new document was discussed. On the one hand, it could be pulling collection-related material from all the prov-o, prov-n, prov-constraints, and prov-dm documents to demonstrate how to apply PROV to a new application/domain. On the other hand, it could be lighter weight, combining some primer-style introduction with the prov-o collection section. Paul also brought up Graham's suggestion of restructuring prov-dm (not prov-o) into two separate documents, core vs extension. It was noted that this organization was originally adopted in prov-dm, but was abandoned because it lacked justification. It was also noted that editors are concerned by the amount of time involved in any form of restructuring, and that the group cannot afford multiple of those changes without affecting the release schedule. The group agreed that it needs concrete proposals to make decisions. Paolo and Graham volunteered to produce table of contents of potential documents. It is anticipated that the group will make a decision on this reorganization next week.
15:39:40 <dgarijo> Luc:collections
Luc Moreau: collections ←
15:40:27 <dgarijo> pgroth: worried about the length of the section on collections.
Paul Groth: worried about the length of the section on collections. ←
15:40:39 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0051.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0051.html ←
15:40:48 <dgarijo> ... I made a proposal last week that we should separate collections from PROV-O
... I made a proposal last week that we should separate collections from PROV-O ←
15:41:15 <dgarijo> ... pull collections from prov-DM and prov-o and just put them in a separate document
... pull collections from prov-DM and prov-o and just put them in a separate document ←
15:41:19 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0099.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012May/0099.html ←
15:41:47 <dgarijo> ... Graham proposed to have a greater separation in the document. Breaking the model into core and extensions
... Graham proposed to have a greater separation in the document. Breaking the model into core and extensions ←
15:42:47 <dgarijo> ... we already started with core and extensions, but in the end we put it all together. We would need to decide about this (break/not break )
... we already started with core and extensions, but in the end we put it all together. We would need to decide about this (break/not break ) ←
15:43:04 <dgarijo> ... do we break just the collection or the rest of the concepts too?
... do we break just the collection or the rest of the concepts too? ←
15:43:34 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:43:38 <dgarijo> ... any comments on this?
... any comments on this? ←
15:44:09 <pgroth> there's a lot of echo
Paul Groth: there's a lot of echo ←
15:44:18 <pgroth> Zakim, who is making noise?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who is making noise? ←
15:44:29 <Zakim> pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P17 (100%), ??P45 (19%), ??P50 (40%)
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P17 (100%), ??P45 (19%), ??P50 (40%) ←
15:44:46 <pgroth> Zakim, mute ??P50
Paul Groth: Zakim, mute ??P50 ←
15:44:46 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P50
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P50 ←
15:45:12 <dgarijo> lebot: the dictionaries section stands out as an outlier. The proposal made by Paul would allow us to focus on the principal aspects of prov-o. I would be very happy to get rid of the dictionaries section
Timothy Lebo: the dictionaries section stands out as an outlier. The proposal made by Paul would allow us to focus on the principal aspects of prov-o. I would be very happy to get rid of the dictionaries section ←
15:45:46 <dgarijo> Luc: do you want to separate the namespace as well.
Luc Moreau: do you want to separate the namespace as well. ←
15:46:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:46:44 <pgroth> q+ to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion
Paul Groth: q+ to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion ←
15:46:54 <dgarijo> lebot: Prov-o is aimed to be expanded and specialized. It would make sense to have another namespace as well
Timothy Lebo: Prov-o is aimed to be expanded and specialized. It would make sense to have another namespace as well ←
15:47:04 <Luc> ack pgr
Luc Moreau: ack pgr ←
15:47:04 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say that namespacing issues should be separated from this discussion ←
15:47:08 <smiles> I agree with everything Tim said
Simon Miles: I agree with everything Tim said ←
15:47:25 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:47:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: namespace discussion should be separated from the discussion of the documents. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Paul Groth: namespace discussion should be separated from the discussion of the documents. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. ←
15:47:35 <Paolo> q?
Paolo Missier: q? ←
15:47:37 <lebot> +1 pgroth, namespace is separate; it can be decided after the "split" to collections document.
Timothy Lebo: +1 pgroth, namespace is separate; it can be decided after the "split" to collections document. ←
15:47:58 <TomDN> q+ to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?
Tom De Nies: q+ to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2? ←
15:48:01 <Paolo> I have already expressed my support for this proposal
Paolo Missier: I have already expressed my support for this proposal ←
15:48:01 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:48:24 <Luc> ack TomDN
Luc Moreau: ack TomDN ←
15:48:24 <Zakim> TomDN, you wanted to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2?
Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN, you wanted to ask which other concepts would be reorganized if we were to go for option 2? ←
15:48:32 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
15:48:37 <pgroth> @TomDN I have no idea
Paul Groth: @TomDN I have no idea ←
15:48:39 <dgarijo> tom: wondering if we were to go for the second option, which other terms would be removed for the core?
Tom De Nies: wondering if we were to go for the second option, which other terms would be removed for the core? ←
15:48:42 <lebot> @tomdn, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ?
Timothy Lebo: @tomdn, http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#description-expanded-terms ? ←
15:48:44 <pgroth> it would be a huge debate
Paul Groth: it would be a huge debate ←
15:49:00 <stainPhone> I have to go, but I would vote for extension doc. We can then see if wasQuoteOf belong there as well.
Stian Soiland-Reyes: I have to go, but I would vote for extension doc. We can then see if wasQuoteOf belong there as well. ←
15:49:04 <lebot> most of those are specializations (e.g. Person sub Agent)
Timothy Lebo: most of those are specializations (e.g. Person sub Agent) ←
15:49:05 <GK> My criteria for deciding core vs extension is fairly clear (to me). The "core" is a structural pattern that applies to most if not all of the provenance terms, and is fairly light on specific knowledge. The extension parts layer more detailed specific knowledge over the basic structure, without adding new structure. (Roughly, this means that any new classes and properties can be defined as subclasses and subproperties of the structural core, or additional attrib
Graham Klyne: My criteria for deciding core vs extension is fairly clear (to me). The "core" is a structural pattern that applies to most if not all of the provenance terms, and is fairly light on specific knowledge. The extension parts layer more detailed specific knowledge over the basic structure, without adding new structure. (Roughly, this means that any new classes and properties can be defined as subclasses and subproperties of the structural core, or additional attrib ←
15:49:21 <dgarijo> Graham: almost everything but the current starting points.
Graham Klyne: almost everything but the current starting points. ←
15:50:26 <dgarijo> ... some of the discussion of the terms is difficult for non provenance experts to pick up.
... some of the discussion of the terms is difficult for non provenance experts to pick up. ←
15:50:36 <dgarijo> ... the basic structural properties are very clear
... the basic structural properties are very clear ←
15:50:52 <dgarijo> ... the issue of core vs extensions came previously
... the issue of core vs extensions came previously ←
15:51:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:51:37 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
15:52:31 <dgarijo> Paolo: about the structure of collections: if we separate collections, would them all be in the same monolithic thing?
Paolo Missier: about the structure of collections: if we separate collections, would them all be in the same monolithic thing? ←
15:52:38 <dgarijo> ... (dm+ontology+examples)
... (dm+ontology+examples) ←
15:52:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:52:46 <dgarijo> ... or separated documents.
... or separated documents. ←
15:52:48 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
15:53:21 <dgarijo> pgroth: editorially, it's a lot of work.
Paul Groth: editorially, it's a lot of work. ←
15:53:53 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
15:53:53 <lebot> -1 to major redo for each "section" - yipes!
Timothy Lebo: -1 to major redo for each "section" - yipes! ←
15:53:59 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
15:54:08 <dgarijo> ... I'm afraid that even with a major redo we won't address graham's omments
... I'm afraid that even with a major redo we won't address graham's omments ←
15:54:09 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
15:55:07 <dgarijo> luc: this notion of starting points doesn't necessarily map to all technologies. What is in starting points is really the binary relationships.
Luc Moreau: this notion of starting points doesn't necessarily map to all technologies. What is in starting points is really the binary relationships. ←
15:55:19 <dgarijo> ... in other technologies, this is not the case.
... in other technologies, this is not the case. ←
15:55:51 <dgarijo> .... I see this as a challenge
.... I see this as a challenge ←
15:56:05 <dgarijo> ... how do we move on?
... how do we move on? ←
15:56:09 <TomDN_> @GK: I think it's a good idea, but it's a slippery slope if we don't clearly define what the "core" is. Like Paul said, it could lead to a huge discussion.
Tom De Nies: @GK: I think it's a good idea, but it's a slippery slope if we don't clearly define what the "core" is. Like Paul said, it could lead to a huge discussion. ←
15:56:17 <dgarijo> paul: some consensus aboyt separating collections
Paul Groth: some consensus aboyt separating collections ←
15:56:34 <MacTed> I see a LOT of potential reward from the described re-org. but it would undeniably be a huge effort.
Ted Thibodeau: I see a LOT of potential reward from the described re-org. but it would undeniably be a huge effort. ←
15:56:44 <lebot> @tomdn, the prov-o team has some experience is determining which constructs are in which partition.
Timothy Lebo: @tomdn, the prov-o team has some experience is determining which constructs are in which partition. ←
15:56:49 <dgarijo> ... what do the group the think about the core proposal?
... what do the group the think about the core proposal? ←
15:56:52 <GK> @TomDN - did you seem the text I pasted above?
Graham Klyne: @TomDN - did you seem the text I pasted above? ←
15:56:59 <lebot> @tomdn, the owl file has annotations for those partitions.
Timothy Lebo: @tomdn, the owl file has annotations for those partitions. ←
15:57:26 <smiles> +q
Simon Miles: +q ←
15:57:27 <dgarijo> ... by next telecon it would be great to have concrete proposals so we can vote
... by next telecon it would be great to have concrete proposals so we can vote ←
15:57:41 <Luc> ack smi
Luc Moreau: ack smi ←
15:57:44 <GK> It's basically the three core concepts, plus the top-level properties that connect them in various ways.
Graham Klyne: It's basically the three core concepts, plus the top-level properties that connect them in various ways. ←
15:57:55 <TomDN_> (sorry, IRC keeps timing out)
Tom De Nies: (sorry, IRC keeps timing out) ←
15:58:13 <TomDN_> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
15:58:21 <dgarijo> ... I don't really get the problem. I can understand the collections out, but I'll wait for the proposal
... I don't really get the problem. I can understand the collections out, but I'll wait for the proposal ←
15:58:23 <Luc> ack tom
Luc Moreau: ack tom ←
15:58:46 <dgarijo> tom: maybe we should do this execrise with collections and then we get an idea of seeing how much work is that
Tom De Nies: maybe we should do this execrise with collections and then we get an idea of seeing how much work is that ←
15:58:48 <pgroth> this is a major major piece of work
Paul Groth: this is a major major piece of work ←
15:59:17 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm not in favour of these experiments because it is a lot of editing
Luc Moreau: I'm not in favour of these experiments because it is a lot of editing ←
15:59:28 <dgarijo> ... I don't want to do that iteratively
... I don't want to do that iteratively ←
15:59:32 <GK> q+ to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O
Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O ←
15:59:40 <Paolo> Collections are pervasive (except the primer) -- change impacts everything
Paolo Missier: Collections are pervasive (except the primer) -- change impacts everything ←
15:59:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
15:59:45 <dgarijo> Tom: agreed, specially in this stage of the process.
Tom De Nies: agreed, specially in this stage of the process. ←
15:59:46 <khalidbelhajjame> Instead of removing parts of the document, which I am reluctant to, I would prefer restructering
Khalid Belhajjame: Instead of removing parts of the document, which I am reluctant to, I would prefer restructering ←
15:59:51 <lebot> @luc, we need to find some way to relax the weight that Collections puts on all of the documents.
Timothy Lebo: @luc, we need to find some way to relax the weight that Collections puts on all of the documents. ←
16:00:06 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:00:06 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:00:29 <lebot> @gk, could you paraphrase waht you just said?
Timothy Lebo: @gk, could you paraphrase waht you just said? ←
16:00:46 <pgroth> he said he only wants to only adjust the dm document
Paul Groth: he said he only wants to only adjust the dm document ←
16:00:55 <dgarijo> Luc: you propose not to touch the ontology but to change the DM
Luc Moreau: you propose not to touch the ontology but to change the DM ←
16:01:13 <dgarijo> GK: yes
Graham Klyne: yes ←
16:01:31 <Paolo> q+ to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model
Paolo Missier: q+ to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model ←
16:01:41 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
16:01:41 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I don't propose splitting the PROV-O ←
16:01:43 <dgarijo> Luc: so you are not seeing the DM document as a reference document.
Luc Moreau: so you are not seeing the DM document as a reference document. ←
16:02:06 <pgroth> q+ to say this was already decided at F2F
Paul Groth: q+ to say this was already decided at F2F ←
16:02:09 <dgarijo> GK: I think it has a central role in the family of specification. It should be an introduction + reference for the structure.
Graham Klyne: I think it has a central role in the family of specification. It should be an introduction + reference for the structure. ←
16:02:25 <dgarijo> jamesC: are we going to commit to this change now?
James Cheney: are we going to commit to this change now? ←
16:02:38 <Luc> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
16:03:12 <dgarijo> ... I would be inclined to say: first create a document with all the collections and not delete the stuff from the current documents
... I would be inclined to say: first create a document with all the collections and not delete the stuff from the current documents ←
16:03:17 <MacTed> I'm sorry to say, but it's important to -- past decisions aren't always correct. revisions happen. just because something was decided at F2F doesn't mean it will stick throughout.
Ted Thibodeau: I'm sorry to say, but it's important to -- past decisions aren't always correct. revisions happen. just because something was decided at F2F doesn't mean it will stick throughout. ←
16:03:41 <dgarijo> Luc: we will come with proposals next week for restructure the docs.
Luc Moreau: we will come with proposals next week for restructure the docs. ←
16:03:48 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:04:05 <satya> sorry have to leave
Satya Sahoo: sorry have to leave ←
16:04:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Size should not be seen as an issue, if people want to read a short document, they can read the primer
Khalid Belhajjame: Size should not be seen as an issue, if people want to read a short document, they can read the primer ←
16:04:42 <dgarijo> Paolo: there was a discussion on the face to face on whether the ontology should be an entry point or not.
Paolo Missier: there was a discussion on the face to face on whether the ontology should be an entry point or not. ←
16:04:49 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:04:55 <Luc> ack paol
Luc Moreau: ack paol ←
16:04:55 <Zakim> Paolo, you wanted to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model
Zakim IRC Bot: Paolo, you wanted to say that I wouldn't want readers to be forced into the ontology in order to understand a provenance model ←
16:05:00 <dgarijo> ... the ontology is an encoding, not the reference for an entry point
... the ontology is an encoding, not the reference for an entry point ←
16:05:11 <dgarijo> ... it is ONE of the possible encodings
... it is ONE of the possible encodings ←
16:05:53 <TomDN> readers can of course always skip the section on collections and still understand the rest of the DM :)
Tom De Nies: readers can of course always skip the section on collections and still understand the rest of the DM :) ←
16:06:04 <dgarijo> paul: summary: primer is good. Provo would be improved if we removed collections. Prov DM should be reorganized (proposals the next week)
Paul Groth: summary: primer is good. Provo would be improved if we removed collections. Prov DM should be reorganized (proposals the next week) ←
16:06:27 <dgarijo> luc: what is the next step. Is it to create concrete proposals ?
Luc Moreau: what is the next step. Is it to create concrete proposals ? ←
16:06:30 <dgarijo> paul: yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
16:06:55 <dgarijo> ... this is all about organization, not editorial per se. We need to keep the text that was written
... this is all about organization, not editorial per se. We need to keep the text that was written ←
16:07:14 <dgarijo> luc: who would write which proposal?
Luc Moreau: who would write which proposal? ←
16:07:17 <GK> q+
Graham Klyne: q+ ←
16:07:22 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:07:22 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say this was already decided at F2F
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say this was already decided at F2F ←
16:07:26 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
16:07:43 <dgarijo> graham: I guess this forces me to create one with core + extension of dm
Graham Klyne: I guess this forces me to create one with core + extension of dm ←
16:07:48 <dgarijo> luc: please use wiki
Luc Moreau: please use wiki ←
16:07:51 <dgarijo> GK: sure
Graham Klyne: sure ←
16:08:03 <dgarijo> luc: volunteers for a collection document?
Luc Moreau: volunteers for a collection document? ←
16:08:50 <dgarijo> .... we may have several proposals on the table: (TIM) We use this as a mechanism to show how the model can be extended.
.... we may have several proposals on the table: (TIM) We use this as a mechanism to show how the model can be extended. ←
16:09:09 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
16:09:09 <dgarijo> ... another which is lightweight is to separate collections in another document.
... another which is lightweight is to separate collections in another document. ←
16:09:32 <dgarijo> Paolo: I really had the first in mind. I can write an outline
Paolo Missier: I really had the first in mind. I can write an outline ←
16:10:23 <pgroth> so paolo will do it
Paul Groth: so paolo will do it ←
16:10:28 <pgroth> :-)
Paul Groth: :-) ←
16:10:28 <lebot> Like Paolo, I had the first in mind too. Take Collections from everything into a new document.
Timothy Lebo: Like Paolo, I had the first in mind too. Take Collections from everything into a new document. ←
16:10:40 <lebot> I'll help Paolo :-0
Timothy Lebo: I'll help Paolo :-0 ←
16:10:58 <TomDN> if any of the proposals need help, id be happy to help as well
Tom De Nies: if any of the proposals need help, id be happy to help as well ←
16:11:00 <Luc> topic: bundle
Summary: A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes. This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback.
<Luc>Summary: A draft text has been produced in response to issues raised about accounts and notes. This text will be incorporated in the editor's draft soon. The working group is invited to provide feedback.
16:11:02 <Paolo> great Tim, much appreciated
Paolo Missier: great Tim, much appreciated ←
16:11:08 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html
Luc Moreau: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html ←
16:11:25 <pgroth> @TomDN maybe you want to discuss with GK
Paul Groth: @TomDN maybe you want to discuss with GK ←
16:11:28 <dgarijo> Luc: in the last iteration we didn't work on accounts.
Luc Moreau: in the last iteration we didn't work on accounts. ←
16:11:33 <TomDN> sure
Tom De Nies: sure ←
16:11:37 <dgarijo> ... Tim and GK had comments on accounts
... Tim and GK had comments on accounts ←
16:12:09 <dgarijo> ... if you follow that document you'll see an outline of what would go into DM for expressing provenance of provenance
... if you follow that document you'll see an outline of what would go into DM for expressing provenance of provenance ←
16:12:24 <GK> I thought we had discussed keeping the term "Account", but just to denote a bundle of proveance statement?
Graham Klyne: I thought we had discussed keeping the term "Account", but just to denote a bundle of proveance statement? ←
16:12:33 <dgarijo> ... relation hadProvenanceIn inspired by PAQ
... relation hadProvenanceIn inspired by PAQ ←
16:13:15 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:13:20 <dgarijo> ... I invite you to have a look at the document and start discussion on the mailing list
... I invite you to have a look at the document and start discussion on the mailing list ←
16:13:22 <pgroth> yes
Paul Groth: yes ←
16:13:23 <Paolo> ack
Paolo Missier: ack ←
16:13:35 <lebot> bye!
Timothy Lebo: bye! ←
16:13:38 <dgarijo> Luc: good bye
Luc Moreau: good bye ←
16:13:44 <khalidbelhajjame> bye
Khalid Belhajjame: bye ←
16:13:47 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, set log public ←
16:13:51 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes
Luc Moreau: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
16:13:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html Luc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html Luc ←
16:14:02 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
16:14:04 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
16:14:05 <Luc> hi daniel, I will take care of the minutes, thanks!
Luc Moreau: hi daniel, I will take care of the minutes, thanks! ←
16:14:10 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon
Luc Moreau: trackbot, end telcon ←
16:14:10 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←
16:14:17 <TomDN> bye, @GK: i'll contact you via email
Tom De Nies: bye, @GK: i'll contact you via email ←
16:14:28 <dgarijo> @Luc, Ok, good bye!
@Luc, Ok, good bye! ←
16:35:56 <MacTed> trackbot, end call
(No events recorded for 21 minutes)
Ted Thibodeau: trackbot, end call ←
16:35:56 <trackbot> Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←
16:36:03 <MacTed> trackbot, end meeting
Ted Thibodeau: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:36:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:36:03 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
16:36:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:36:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:36:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:36:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe