15:13:40 <jcheney> GK: There are security considerations in multiple places, should be brought together

Graham Klyne: There are security considerations in multiple places, should be brought together ←

15:13:55 <jcheney> ... so they're easy to find and review

... so they're easy to find and review ←

15:13:58 <Zakim> +??P22

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22 ←

15:14:10 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P22 is me

Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P22 is me ←

15:14:10 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it ←

15:14:32 <tlebo> -1 in Rec, +1 as Note.

Timothy Lebo: -1 in Rec, +1 as Note. ←

15:14:34 <jcheney> ... prov-dm seems to be the appropriate place, with cross-references

... prov-dm seems to be the appropriate place, with cross-references ←

15:14:46 <jcheney> Luc: Should this be done before LC?

Luc Moreau: Should this be done before LC? ←

15:15:01 <jcheney> GK: Beneficial for it to be in LC, collecting what we already have.

Graham Klyne: Beneficial for it to be in LC, collecting what we already have. ←

15:15:45 <jcheney> Luc: Security is mentioned in PROV-AQ, but some of it is irrelevant to DM.  Do we need more?

Luc Moreau: Security is mentioned in PROV-AQ, but some of it is irrelevant to DM. Do we need more? ←

15:16:02 <jcheney> GK: No, but it should be there in the document to attract feedback on security

Graham Klyne: No, but it should be there in the document to attract feedback on security ←

15:16:03 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:16:33 <jcheney> tlebo: Surprised this is coming up just before LC, with no discussion over past year

Timothy Lebo: Surprised this is coming up just before LC, with no discussion over past year ←

15:16:40 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:16:45 <jcheney> GK: Should have raised sooner, but did not see big picture

Graham Klyne: Should have raised sooner, but did not see big picture ←

15:17:04 <jcheney> ... also W3C has different culture about security

... also W3C has different culture about security ←

15:17:10 <jcheney> ... but for provenance it is more important

... but for provenance it is more important ←

15:17:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:17:17 <tlebo> q+ to say this is more like a best practices document and should be Note. Notes suits the maturity of the material that reflects our level of work on the topic.

Timothy Lebo: q+ to say this is more like a best practices document and should be Note. Notes suits the maturity of the material that reflects our level of work on the topic. ←

15:17:32 <jcheney> pgroth: reasonable to make a section in PROV-DM intro that addresses security

Paul Groth: reasonable to make a section in PROV-DM intro that addresses security ←

15:17:40 <Luc> @pgroth not in intro, but as section at end of document

Luc Moreau: @pgroth not in intro, but as section at end of document ←

15:17:41 <Curt> Does the security section really change the specification, or is it more editorial/discussion?  If so, could that be added even after LC?

Curt Tilmes: Does the security section really change the specification, or is it more editorial/discussion? If so, could that be added even after LC? ←

15:18:06 <jcheney> ... Graham is saying we should put it in core document to ensure it is seen/raises issue

... Graham is saying we should put it in core document to ensure it is seen/raises issue ←

15:18:15 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:18:29 <jcheney> Luc: Answering Curt: put it in before LC so we get feedback.

Luc Moreau: Answering Curt: put it in before LC so we get feedback. ←

15:18:47 <GK> @curt it can be changed later, but my point is that by having it in last call reviewers will be prompted to think/comment about this.

Graham Klyne: @curt it can be changed later, but my point is that by having it in last call reviewers will be prompted to think/comment about this. ←

15:18:53 <jcheney> tlebo: Better suited as best practice rather than part of spec

Timothy Lebo: Better suited as best practice rather than part of spec ←

15:19:13 <zednik> +1 to security in best practices

Stephan Zednik: +1 to security in best practices ←

15:19:16 <jcheney> ... but if there is existing narrative that can be added in that is ok too

... but if there is existing narrative that can be added in that is ok too ←

15:19:45 <jcheney> Luc: RDF concepts doesn't discuss security

Luc Moreau: RDF concepts doesn't discuss security ←

15:19:52 <jcheney> ... why needed in DM?

... why needed in DM? ←

15:19:58 <jcheney> GK: Need may be too strong

Graham Klyne: Need may be too strong ←

15:20:00 <jcheney> q+

q+ ←

15:20:05 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q- ←

15:20:17 <jcheney> ... but because of specific role that provenance plays in establishign trust, worth drawing attention to security considerations

... but because of specific role that provenance plays in establishign trust, worth drawing attention to security considerations ←

15:20:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:20:36 <tlebo> @GK, but we're not IETF, we're W3C.

Timothy Lebo: @GK, but we're not IETF, we're W3C. ←

15:20:38 <jcheney> ... was looking at elements of IETF process where every spec must mention security

... was looking at elements of IETF process where every spec must mention security ←

15:20:51 <jcheney> ... because many problems can arise

... because many problems can arise ←

15:21:12 <jcheney> ... not part of w3c culture but should be more so in future

... not part of w3c culture but should be more so in future ←

15:21:13 <Paolo> but, what are these security considerations? I think I miss the point

Paolo Missier: but, what are these security considerations? I think I miss the point ←

15:21:14 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.789.470.aaee ←

15:21:21 <tlebo> "good thing to think about" suggestions Note.

Timothy Lebo: "good thing to think about" suggests Note. ←

15:21:27 <Paolo> wrt DM I mean

Paolo Missier: wrt DM I mean ←

15:21:30 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Zakim, +44.789.470.aaee is me ←

15:21:30 <Zakim> +stain; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +stain; got it ←

15:21:31 <tlebo> s/suggestions/suggests/

15:21:34 <stain> sorry I am late

Stian Soiland-Reyes: sorry I am late ←

15:22:16 <Luc> See http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (section 6) subsection security considerations

Luc Moreau: See http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (section 6) subsection security considerations ←

15:22:29 <jcheney> jcheney: qustion: is it normative or informative?

James Cheney: qustion: is it normative or informative? ←

15:22:43 <jcheney> ... observation: provenance isn't magic fairy dust, we should make this clear

... observation: provenance isn't magic fairy dust, we should make this clear ←

15:22:57 <jcheney> Luc: informative probably ok, Graham?

Luc Moreau: informative probably ok, Graham? ←

15:23:18 <jcheney> GK: informative probably OK

Graham Klyne: informative probably OK ←

15:23:31 <jcheney> ... if others feel this is unnecessary, will back off, but wanted to raise it

... if others feel this is unnecessary, will back off, but wanted to raise it ←

15:24:01 <jcheney> Luc: How about if we take security considerations from prov-n and prov-aq and transplant to prov-dm.

Luc Moreau: How about if we take security considerations from prov-n and prov-aq and transplant to prov-dm. ←

15:24:11 <pgroth> fine with me

Paul Groth: fine with me ←

15:24:13 <jcheney> GK: Works for me.

Graham Klyne: Works for me. ←

15:24:22 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:24:23 <tlebo> tyep it out?

Timothy Lebo: tyep it out? ←

15:24:27 <jcheney> Luc: Any objection/discussion?

Luc Moreau: Any objection/discussion? ←

15:24:32 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:24:40 <Luc> ack jch

Luc Moreau: ack jch ←

15:24:41 <jcheney> ack jc

ack jc ←

15:24:43 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:24:48 <pgroth> ack zednik

Paul Groth: ack zednik ←

15:25:06 <jcheney> zednik: We aren't developing communication protocol, so security feels out of scope

Stephan Zednik: We aren't developing communication protocol, so security feels out of scope ←

15:25:10 <jcheney> ... like SKOS

... like SKOS ←

15:25:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:25:29 <jcheney> ... security should not block or even necessarily be part of a note

... security should not block or even necessarily be part of a note ←

15:25:47 <GK> @stephan  security considerations apply to data as well as protocol - hence they appear in media type registrations

Graham Klyne: @stephan security considerations apply to data as well as protocol - hence they appear in media type registrations ←

15:25:56 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:26:02 <jcheney> Luc: plese read sectionlinked on IRC

Luc Moreau: plese read sectionlinked on IRC ←

15:26:03 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q- ←

15:26:19 <Luc> ack pao

Luc Moreau: ack pao ←

15:26:26 <tlebo> Security considerations is there to suit IETF, that's the only reason it is there.

Timothy Lebo: Security considerations is there to suit IETF, that's the only reason it is there. ←

15:26:30 <jcheney> Paolo: Reading section, still unclear what is going on.  Agree with stephan that security seems out of scope

Paolo Missier: Reading section, still unclear what is going on. Agree with stephan that security seems out of scope ←

15:26:59 <jcheney> ... Can be part of Prov-AQ, but seems like a disclaimer: don't necessarily trust data expressed in this vocabulary.

... Can be part of Prov-AQ, but seems like a disclaimer: don't necessarily trust data expressed in this vocabulary. ←

15:27:10 <jcheney> ... Seems like this goes without saying.

... Seems like this goes without saying. ←

15:27:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:27:20 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+ ←

15:27:32 <jcheney> ... Didn't see it earlier, don't see what it says

... Didn't see it earlier, don't see what it says ←

15:28:03 <jcheney> hook: Security considerations seem domain specific

Hook Hua: Security considerations seem domain specific ←

15:28:24 <jcheney> ... not always needed but within earth science, security is a consideration

... not always needed but within earth science, security is a consideration ←

15:28:36 <stain> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-mediaReg has a very similar section

Stian Soiland-Reyes: http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-mediaReg has a very similar section ←

15:28:42 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:28:45 <jcheney> ... agree with stephan that it is domain specific and not part of vocabulary

... agree with stephan that it is domain specific and not part of vocabulary ←

15:28:46 <Luc> ack hook

Luc Moreau: ack hook ←

15:29:16 <jcheney> sandro: Sympathetic to claim of being patronizing - have wanted to say something that tries to be useful

Sandro Hawke: Sympathetic to claim of being patronizing - have wanted to say something that tries to be useful ←

15:29:21 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:29:21 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:29:27 <jcheney> ... Could say less, or that considerations are domain specific or out of scope

... Could say less, or that considerations are domain specific or out of scope ←

15:29:27 <Paolo> sorry maybe it's just me not being familiar with the W3C / IETF  culture but I find this is out of our scope

Paolo Missier: sorry maybe it's just me not being familiar with the W3C / IETF culture but I find this is out of our scope ←

15:29:28 <stain> but I think that is mainly part of the IETF registration.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: but I think that is mainly part of the IETF registration. ←

15:29:51 <tlebo> security in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type and ONLY in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (to suit IETF)

Timothy Lebo: security in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type and ONLY in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-n.html#media-type (to suit IETF) ←

15:30:02 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:30:10 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:30:14 <jcheney> Luc: We should have it for media type registration no matter what

Luc Moreau: We should have it for media type registration no matter what ←

15:30:35 <Paolo> if it's a req, then so be it, but...  can we remove phrasing like "inferences of potential medical treatments would likely require different trust than inferences for trip planning."

Paolo Missier: if it's a req, then so be it, but... can we remove phrasing like "inferences of potential medical treatments would likely require different trust than inferences for trip planning." ←

15:30:36 <stain> I would also propose to leave it in the PROV-N registration as it is.

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I would also propose to leave it in the PROV-N registration as it is. ←

15:30:51 <stain> hehehe, yes

Stian Soiland-Reyes: hehehe, yes ←

15:30:56 <jcheney> pgroth: Need to leave it in PROV-N, could draw attention to it in email announcements.

Paul Groth: Need to leave it in PROV-N, could draw attention to it in email announcements. ←

15:31:02 <stain> Paolo: that's stolen right from the Turtle spec!

Paolo Missier: that's stolen right from the Turtle spec! [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←

15:31:03 <jcheney> ... with pointer to where it is

... with pointer to where it is ←

15:31:19 <jcheney> sandro: could say this is a building block for security, not claim that it is secure itself

Sandro Hawke: could say this is a building block for security, not claim that it is secure itself ←

15:31:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:31:31 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed ←

15:31:44 <pgroth> @stephan that's not right

Paul Groth: @stephan that's not right ←

15:31:48 <pgroth> that's in prov-aq

Paul Groth: that's in prov-aq ←

15:31:52 <jcheney> zednik: Need to look at media type section, but talking about security we can just leverage existing security specifications

Stephan Zednik: Need to look at media type section, but talking about security we can just leverage existing security specifications ←

15:31:55 <pgroth> were not talking about it here

Paul Groth: were not talking about it here ←

15:32:03 <jcheney> ... why can't we use common mechanisms

... why can't we use common mechanisms ←

15:32:08 <Paolo> @Stian that's no justification, right? copy and paste bad paragraphs doesn't make them better :-)

Paolo Missier: @Stian that's no justification, right? copy and paste bad paragraphs doesn't make them better :-) ←

15:32:17 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:32:34 <jcheney> Luc: already says that; just says "use common methods/common sense"

Luc Moreau: already says that; just says "use common methods/common sense" ←

15:32:35 <pgroth> arg

Paul Groth: arg ←

15:32:36 <GK> It is.

Graham Klyne: It is. ←

15:32:39 <GK> in PAQ

Graham Klyne: in PAQ ←

15:32:45 <pgroth> it's in PAQ and PROV-N now

Paul Groth: it's in PAQ and PROV-N now ←

15:32:52 <stain> Paolo: so we can refine it - removing other things like IRI overlap concerns sounds like "This is not an issue in PROV-N" - but really PROV-N has almost all the same issues as Turtle

Paolo Missier: so we can refine it - removing other things like IRI overlap concerns sounds like "This is not an issue in PROV-N" - but really PROV-N has almost all the same issues as Turtle [ Scribe Assist by Stian Soiland-Reyes ] ←

15:32:54 <jcheney> zednik: Then seems sensible to put it in PAQ which deals with transmission

Stephan Zednik: Then seems sensible to put it in PAQ which deals with transmission ←

15:32:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:33:34 <jcheney> Luc: Asked for feedback on this section last week.

Luc Moreau: Asked for feedback on this section last week. ←

15:33:49 <jcheney> ... Looks like there is not a consensus to move this to prov-dm

... Looks like there is not a consensus to move this to prov-dm ←

15:33:53 <jcheney> ... any objections?

... any objections? ←

15:33:56 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes ←

15:33:59 <tlebo> +1, stays where it is.

Timothy Lebo: +1, stays where it is. ←

15:33:59 <jcheney> ... (to keeping as is)

... (to keeping as is) ←

15:34:09 <Paolo> I am not opposing moving it BTW -- but I now realize I have comments on the content, which I will raise

Paolo Missier: I am not opposing moving it BTW -- but I now realize I have comments on the content, which I will raise ←

15:34:19 <jcheney> GK: Given lack of support, not pushing for it

Graham Klyne: Given lack of support, not pushing for it ←

15:34:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:34:49 <jcheney> Luc: Can add something later; this is informative anyway

Luc Moreau: Can add something later; this is informative anyway ←

15:34:56 <jcheney> Subtopic: Collection membership

<Luc>Summary: In his review of prov-o, Luc identified a mismatch between a binary hadMember relation in prov-o, and a n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-dm (with identifier, attribute, and complete flag). While attempting to define an n-ary hadMembers relation in prov-o, Tim made it a kind of influence (so as to be able to use the qualified pattern).  However, in prov-dm, membership is not an Influence.  After discussion, and as suggested by some reviewers, the WG decided to have a binary hadMember relation in both prov-dm and prov-o. Both prov-o and prov-dm also have a notion of Empty Collection.  It was suggested that the n-ary version should be kept in the dictionary note.

15:34:58 <pgroth> charset?

15:35:23 <jcheney> Luc: At f2f3 decided to move dictionaries to note, keeping collection and membership.

15:35:33 <jcheney> ... interpreted this as keep "membership" as it was

15:36:08 <GK> @paul - re charset - I now have a recommendation from Ned Freed to always require charset=utf-8 parameter - forwarded to list.

15:36:13 <jcheney> ... to align with PROV-O, this would require making membership qualified and supporting n-ary membership

15:36:32 <jcheney> ... Tim updated ontology to fit (Membership subtype of Influence)

15:37:00 <jcheney> ... But at f2f3 it was not agreed that membership is a derivation or influence

15:37:04 <tlebo> POI\: the prov-o terms involved: EmptyCollection, CompleteCollection, IncompleteCollection, qualifiedMembership + Membership

15:37:12 <jcheney> ... Several solutions were explored (see agenda)

15:37:24 <jcheney> ... Only workable option at this point seems to be binary membership

15:37:33 <jcheney> ... as suggested by some reviewers

15:37:52 <Luc> q?

15:38:03 <jcheney> tlebo: related terms are as above

15:38:03 <pgroth> q+

15:38:07 <jcheney> ... what should we do with them?

15:38:32 <Luc> q?

15:38:34 <jcheney> Luc: proposal would be Collection, EmptyCollection, and hadMember relating collections to entities

15:38:46 <stain> one collection to one entity

15:38:56 <jcheney> pgroth: This doesn't mean that we can't have something more complex when we move to dictionary, if desired

15:39:01 <tlebo> so, we have ONLY: Collection, hadMember, and EmptyCollection (and nothing else)

15:39:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth

15:39:13 <jcheney> ... Interpreted f2f3 resolution as "we want a simple collection/membership"

15:39:17 <tlebo> +1 #pgroth that was my impression - keep it simple, no qualification

15:39:26 <jcheney> tlebo: That seems fine.

15:39:33 <tlebo> @luc, easier to remove than to add.

15:39:35 <Paolo> q+

15:39:39 <jcheney> Luc: Any opposition?

15:39:44 <pgroth> ack Paolo

15:39:45 <Luc> ack pao

15:40:28 <Luc> q?

15:40:28 <jcheney> Paolo: Not opposition, but set notation can be syntactic sugar for binary membership.  We should avoid tight coupling between prov-n and prov-o

15:40:36 <stain> @Paolo, right, without the attributes/id of the membership we don't need the entity sets in PROV-O (as there is no qualification)

15:40:42 <tlebo> @paolo, not sure I follow, if it influences how prov-o should look, please let me know.

15:40:49 <jcheney> q+

15:41:37 <Luc> accepted:  we have ONLY: Collection, binary hadMember, and EmptyCollection

15:41:45 <Paolo> @tlebo: no it doesn't it's all fine -- I just  thought hadMember(c, {...}) is acceptable syntax that is compatible with the binary nature of hadMember

15:41:47 <Luc> ack jc

15:42:02 <Paolo> not bih deal

15:42:02 <jcheney> subtopic: character set optional parameter

<luc> Summary:  The group approved Graham's suggestion about the charset parameter in the prov-n mime type application. In accordance to RFC 6657, the charset parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

15:42:16 <jcheney> GK: Commented on media type registration in prov-n

15:42:36 <jcheney> ... overtaken by events, due to new rfc changing rules on text media type registrations

15:42:52 <jcheney> ... rules changing to deprecate US ASCII being default, and avoid default charsets

15:43:11 <stain> latest response from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg06676.html  says

15:43:14 <stain> Then my suggestion would be to make the charset parameter mandatory, with the only legal value being utf-8. The alternative would be to omit

15:43:17 <stain> it and specify utf-8 as the default, but as I said, that's not likely

15:43:20 <stain> to interoperate well.

15:43:25 <jcheney> ... asked IETF and response is (Ned Freed) for PROV-N, safest thing to do is always require a charset parameter set to UTF-8

15:43:34 <jcheney> ... least likey to cause compatibility problems

15:43:36 <sandro> GK, what's the RFC?

15:43:45 <sandro> (interesting news, makes sense)

15:43:47 <Luc> charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

15:43:47 <stain> @sandro: RFC 6657 - see that mail archive link

15:43:59 <jcheney> Luc: Are we OK that this text will be adopted?

15:44:01 <stain> +1

15:44:07 <jcheney> GK: Yes

15:44:09 <Luc> ACCEPTED: charset — this parameter is mandatory. The value of charset is always UTF-8.

15:44:24 <Luc> q?

15:44:31 <jcheney> Luc: This concludes technical issues.  Any others?

<luc>Subtopic: Vote

<luc>Summary: The participants unanimously voted for the release of PROV-DM, PROV-O, PROV-N as last call working drafts, and of PROV-PRIMER as working draft. The chairs congratulated the Working Group for this significant milestone.

15:44:42 <Zakim> -CraigTrim

15:44:51 <jcheney> ... Proceed to votes.

15:45:09 <jcheney> sandro: For LC, please add name of organization after vote (one vote per organization)

15:45:12 <pgroth> and can chairs vote?

15:45:20 <Luc> q?

15:45:26 <sandro> (yes, chairs can vote)

15:45:37 <jcheney> Luc: Do people have objections to the four proposals on agenda?

15:45:46 <stain> @khalidBelhajjame are you going to vote or me?

15:45:51 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft

15:45:58 <satya> +1, IE

15:46:02 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:46:02 <pgroth> +1 VU University Amsterdam

15:46:04 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

15:46:06 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

15:46:10 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

15:46:10 <Dong> +1, University of Southampton

15:46:10 <Paolo> +1

15:46:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:46:12 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

15:46:13 <hook> +1 (IE)

15:46:14 <Luc> +1 (university of Southampton)

15:46:23 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle Uni)

15:46:26 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:46:29 <pgroth> southampton twice!

15:46:31 <stain>   DUPLICATE ORG -  +1 (University of Manchester)

15:46:31 <pgroth> :-)

15:46:38 <khalidBelhajjame> @Stian, I think you can also vote, I don't think we have one vote per instituion, or is it the case?

15:46:53 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-DM as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:01 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:05 <satya> +1, IE

15:47:07 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

15:47:09 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

15:47:10 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

15:47:11 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:47:11 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

15:47:12 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:47:13 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:47:13 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton

15:47:14 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:47:15 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

15:47:16 <hook> +1 (IE)

15:47:19 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)

15:47:32 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle Uni)

15:47:46 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-O as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:55 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft

15:47:58 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:47:58 <satya> +1, IE

15:48:02 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)

15:48:03 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

15:48:04 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

15:48:04 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:48:06 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:48:07 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

15:48:07 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

15:48:08 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton

15:48:08 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

15:48:09 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:48:18 <hook> +1 (IE)

15:48:22 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle University)

15:48:29 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-N as Last Call Working Draft

15:48:53 <Luc> PROPOSED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft

15:49:00 <Dong> +1, Univerisity of Southampton

15:49:03 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

15:49:04 <GK> +1 (Oxford U)

15:49:04 <jcheney> +1 (University of Edinburgh)

15:49:05 <khalidBelhajjame> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:49:05 <Curt> +1 (NASA)

15:49:06 <stain> +1 (University of Manchester)

15:49:06 <satya> +1, IE

15:49:07 <pgroth> +1 (VU University Amsterdam)

15:49:07 <stephenc> +1 (legislation.gov.uk)

15:49:09 <dcorsar> +1 (University of Aberdeen)

15:49:11 <zednik> +1 (RPI)

15:49:11 <Luc> +1 (University of Southampton)

15:49:12 <hook> +1 (IE)

15:49:19 <Paolo> +1 (Newcastle University)

15:49:30 <Luc> ACCEPTED: publish PROV-Primer as Working Draft

15:49:42 <Paolo> clap clap clap

15:49:44 <sandro> +1 round of applause  :-)

15:49:44 <pgroth> congrats everyone

15:49:55 <jcheney> Topic: Publication date

<Luc>Summary:  It was agreed that documents would be published on July 24 (post meeting note: date was agreed with Webmaster) and the end of last call review would be the 18th of September.

15:50:13 <jcheney> Luc: Simon is ready, PROV-DM mostly ready.  PROV-O?

15:50:15 <pgroth> +q

15:50:30 <jcheney> tlebo: Producing valid HTML and most links confirmed.  A few hours work.

15:50:35 <Luc> q?

15:50:49 <jcheney> Luc: Cannot publish next week, but can request for pub following week.

15:51:15 <jcheney> pgroth: If we make request this week, good because next week we should work on blog/announcement for LC

15:51:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth

15:51:32 <pgroth> yes

15:51:43 <jcheney> Luc: Publication Tuesday July 24, make request today?

15:51:49 <Luc> accepted: publication date is July 24

15:52:22 <jcheney> sandro: confirms this is not a transition request.  Only formal step is need to post to chairs@w3c.org

15:52:32 <jcheney> Luc: On day of publication?

15:52:40 <jcheney> sandro: right after is probably best so that links wokr

15:52:44 <jcheney> sandro: right after is probably best so that links work

15:53:11 <jcheney> Luc: Review period, hoped at f2f3 to release by end of july and review period ending mid-september.

15:53:17 <Luc> 2012-09-12???

15:53:32 <jcheney> ... Suggest september 12?

15:53:32 <Luc> q?

15:53:35 <pgroth> q+

15:54:09 <jcheney> pgroth: Think this will cause pushback.  What about the 18th?  Let people have 3 weeks in not-August

15:54:12 <pgroth> ack pgroth

15:54:23 <jcheney> sandro: 18th is reasonable too

15:54:29 <Luc> accepted: end of review 2012-09-18

15:54:44 <pgroth> q+

15:55:12 <jcheney> pgroth: Looking for volunteers to write intro blog posts on last call, particularly updates

15:55:20 <Luc> +1 on prov-dm

15:55:28 <jcheney> ... Will write overview post but would be helpful especally for prov-o

15:55:31 <Luc> +1 on prov-n

15:55:41 <tlebo> @pgroth I'll add it to our agenda for Monday.

15:55:49 <khalidBelhajjame> @pgroth, when do you need that?

15:55:57 <pgroth> by the publication date

15:56:01 <pgroth> july 24

15:56:05 <khalidBelhajjame> @pgroth, thanks

15:56:16 <Luc> q?

15:56:21 <Luc> ack pg

15:56:36 <pgroth> no

15:56:47 <jcheney> pgroth: would like by 24th so that blogs & twitter can happen at same time

15:56:53 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments

15:56:54 <jcheney> Topic: Managing public comments

<luc>Summary: the group reviewed and made minor changes to the process for managing public comments. Paul will handle incoming comments, as per process, till end of July. A timetable is being set up, and volunteers are invited to sign up for this task.

15:57:13 <tlebo> I like process ;-)

15:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: Paul wrote tracking policy with input from Tim

15:57:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Have already seen that some comments start discussion, which overwhelms commenter with different responses

15:58:10 <jcheney> ... Luc or nominated member to raise an issue on appropriate product, list issue on tracking public comments page, acknowledge issue to reviewer

15:58:30 <jcheney> ... Start talking about it on wg mailing list, telecon etc.

15:58:35 <Luc> @sandro: is there a timeliness requirement for response?

15:58:48 <jcheney> ... If questions raised for reviewer, contact them and ultimately respond to commenter

15:58:56 <GK> q+ to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)

15:59:03 <Luc> @pgroth: can we nominate a member directly ;-)

15:59:05 <jcheney> ... Only concern - is this too heavy on one person?

15:59:13 <pgroth> agree on the url

15:59:18 <pgroth> i'll update the wiki

15:59:34 <jcheney> GK: when acknowledging receipt, include link to issue page

15:59:38 <sandro> @luc nothing formal except we need the responses done before the next transition.

15:59:38 <Luc> q?

15:59:41 <Luc> ack gk

15:59:41 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say rather than just the issue number, provide full link to issue page (maybe that's what is meant)

15:59:42 <pgroth> ack gk

15:59:53 <jcheney> Luc: sandro, is there a timeliness requirement

16:00:07 <jcheney> sandro: We are supposed to be, but only requirement is have to be done by next transition

16:00:23 <Luc> q?

16:00:23 <GK> Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

16:00:30 <jcheney> Luc: Polite to acknowledge, but don't have to conclude too quickly?

16:00:33 <tlebo> q+ to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.

16:00:41 <jcheney> sandro: Would be polite to indicate if it takes more than a month

16:00:47 <Luc> q?

16:00:50 <Luc> ack tl

16:00:50 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask sandro about public-prov-comment@w3.org 's responses to WG members posting to it.

16:01:17 <jcheney> tlebo: List responds back to us thanking us for comments.  Should we avoid responding to the comments list?

16:01:25 <GK> q+ to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

16:01:26 <jcheney> sandro: OK to ignore response and move on.

16:01:42 <jcheney> Luc: Put issue number in response so that issue raiser will be indexed properly

16:01:42 <pgroth> q+ getting the tracker to follow the comments

16:01:51 <pgroth> q+

16:01:54 <sandro> (that is, okay to delete the email autoresponse from the list)

16:02:02 <GK> ack gk

16:02:02 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask Isn't there a thing of asking the requester if their isssue has been addressed?

16:02:09 <jcheney> Luc: At some point need to go back and ask if issue addressed.

16:02:34 <jcheney> GK: Process used to require confirmation that raiser believes it's been addressed

16:02:58 <jcheney> sandro: Confirms that we need to record whether responder was satisfied

16:03:13 <pgroth> added

16:03:13 <jcheney> ... f yes, green box on final report

16:03:21 <jcheney> ... if no, need to discuss on transition document

16:03:34 <jcheney> ... need to track this.

16:03:38 <jcheney> Luc: Add this to process?

16:03:41 <Luc> q?

16:03:42 <jcheney> pgroth: Already done

16:04:02 <jcheney> pgroth: Does tracker track public-prov-comments?

16:04:06 <jcheney> sandro: no, not sure if it can

16:04:24 <Luc> q?

16:04:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth

16:04:40 <GK> (would subscribing the main mailing list to public comments achieve this?)

16:04:59 <jcheney> Luc: can we nominate a non-chair member?

16:05:22 <tlebo> -1 to anyone

16:05:24 <jcheney> pgroth: It could be anyone in the group, subsequent discussion led by someone specific.

16:05:26 <GK> How about a rota of (say) pairs of people

16:05:34 <tlebo> too likely to fall on the floor (someone else will do it syndrome)

16:05:37 <Luc> q?

16:05:44 <jcheney> pgroth: Happy to do it until august,then we need someone else since I'm on vacation

16:05:57 <Luc> q?

16:06:01 <pgroth> is anyone here in august?

16:06:08 <GK> (I don't yet know my availability)

16:06:12 <Paolo> off most of August, sorry

16:06:26 <tlebo> @pgroth can we list the person responsible and their timeframes on the wiki?

16:06:37 <pgroth> sounds good tim

16:06:43 <Zakim> -stain

16:06:46 <tlebo> that gives us 2 weeks to find an Auguster.

16:06:49 <pgroth> will do

16:06:55 <jcheney> Luc: suggest wiki page with availability

16:06:59 <GK> (Would be happy to be one of (say) two people who look out)

16:07:02 <Luc> q?

16:07:06 <pgroth> I have to go catch a train

16:07:28 <pgroth> congrats everyone

16:07:31 <Zakim> +stain

16:07:33 <pgroth> really good result

16:07:38 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments - new section

16:07:41 <tlebo> bye bye

16:07:49 <pgroth> +10 to the editors

16:07:51 <tlebo> off for a beverage! yeah LC!

16:07:52 <jcheney> Luc: will handle rest of agenda next week; adjourned

16:07:53 <Paolo> byes

16:07:53 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

16:07:54 <Zakim> -pgroth

16:07:54 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

16:07:56 <Zakim> -sandro

16:07:57 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

16:07:58 <Zakim> -stain

16:07:58 <Zakim> -Dong

16:07:59 <Zakim> -??P19

16:08:00 <Zakim> -Paolo

16:08:01 <GK> Bye

16:08:02 <Zakim> -Luc

16:08:03 <Dong> bye

16:08:04 <Zakim> -tlebo

16:08:06 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aadd

16:08:08 <Zakim> -??P20

16:08:58 <jcheney> rrsagent, set log public

16:09:05 <jcheney> rrsagent, draft minutes

16:09:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html jcheney

16:09:17 <jcheney> trackbot, end telcon

16:09:17 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

16:09:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.661.382.aaaa, Luc, Satya_Sahoo, jcheney?, Paolo, Curt_Tilmes, +1.518.276.aacc, tlebo, +1.818.731.aadd, CraigTrim, sandro, Dong,

16:09:21 <Zakim> ... khalidBelhajjame, stain

16:09:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:09:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/12-prov-minutes.html trackbot

16:09:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

16:09:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items