15:11:15 <Curt> Luc: Thanks to reviewers -- it is not a straightforward document

Luc Moreau: Thanks to reviewers -- it is not a straightforward document ←

15:11:28 <jcheney> We can do a lot to make it easier to understand - it was not straightforward to write either :)

James Cheney: We can do a lot to make it easier to understand - it was not straightforward to write either :) ←

15:11:33 <jcheney> (at least my parts)

James Cheney: (at least my parts) ←

15:11:43 <Curt> tlebo: Comments on latest draft about naming inconsistency between prov-n and prov-o

Timothy Lebo: Comments on latest draft about naming inconsistency between prov-n and prov-o ←

15:11:49 <stain> @pgroth is that SPIN you mentioned? Matt Gamble suggested to use that to me for this purpose just 10 minutes ago ;)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @pgroth is that SPIN you mentioned? Matt Gamble suggested to use that to me for this purpose just 10 minutes ago ;) ←

15:12:01 <pgroth> @stain check out the github

Paul Groth: @stain check out the github ←

15:12:02 <Curt> tlebo: prov-n allowed to type the relation, prov-o uses a class

Timothy Lebo: prov-n allowed to type the relation, prov-o uses a class ←

15:12:18 <pgroth> @stain it's working well

Paul Groth: @stain it's working well ←

15:12:38 <Curt> tlebo: proposal to rename class prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource

Timothy Lebo: proposal to rename class prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource ←

15:12:52 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+ ←

15:13:02 <Curt> tlebo: Rename will fix inconsistency

Timothy Lebo: Rename will fix inconsistency ←

15:13:09 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed ←

15:13:42 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q- ←

15:13:45 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:13:54 <Curt> zednik: There might be some confusion, need to clarify that primary source isn't an entity, it is a relationship between entities

Stephan Zednik: There might be some confusion, need to clarify that primary source isn't an entity, it is a relationship between entities ←

15:14:00 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:14:11 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:14:17 <Curt> pgroth: This isn't really a constraint, just an issue for validation / validator

Paul Groth: This isn't really a constraint, just an issue for validation / validator ←

15:14:43 <pgroth> ok good

Paul Groth: ok good ←

15:14:45 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:14:47 <Luc> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc ←

15:14:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:14:50 <Curt> Luc: a derivation can't be an entity by definition

Luc Moreau: a derivation can't be an entity by definition ←

15:15:01 <Luc> Proposal: Rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource, prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource

PROPOSED: Rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource, prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource ←

15:15:09 <tlebo> I'm glad that prov-c clarifies the confusion on Entity vs. PrimarySource (and Quotation and Revision)

Timothy Lebo: I'm glad that prov-c clarifies the confusion on Entity vs. PrimarySource (and Quotation and Revision) ←

15:15:10 <stain> @pgroth so https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin - looks good

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @pgroth so https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin - looks good ←

15:15:11 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1 ←

15:15:14 <Curt> +1

+1 ←

15:15:17 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1 ←

15:15:17 <stain> +1

Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 ←

15:15:18 <TomDN> +1

Tom De Nies: +1 ←

15:15:19 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1 ←

15:15:22 <hook> +1

Hook Hua: +1 ←

15:15:24 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1 ←

15:15:27 <jun> +1

Jun Zhao: +1 ←

15:15:27 <Paolo> +1

Paolo Missier: +1 ←

15:15:36 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1 ←

15:15:45 <Luc> Accepted: Rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource, prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource

RESOLVED: Rename prov:Source to prov:PrimarySource, prov:qualifiedSource to prov:qualifiedPrimarySource ←

15:16:20 <pgroth> yes

Paul Groth: yes ←

15:16:38 <Curt> Luc: Is such a rename part of the technical content of the spec?

Luc Moreau: Is such a rename part of the technical content of the spec? ←

15:16:49 <stain> sounds like an issue.. imagine <body> changing name to <content> after last call of HTML

Stian Soiland-Reyes: sounds like an issue.. imagine <body> changing name to <content> after last call of HTML ←

15:17:01 <Curt> sandro: Would anyone happy with the spec become unhappy because of this change?   This trivial change is probably ok.

Sandro Hawke: Would anyone happy with the spec become unhappy because of this change? This trivial change is probably ok. ←

15:17:08 <stain> (or more like <blockquote> to <quote> !)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: (or more like <blockquote> to <quote> !) ←

15:17:19 <Curt> sandro: Might want to take a closer look

Sandro Hawke: Might want to take a closer look ←

15:17:36 <stain> we can pay a third party to complain about it ;)

Stian Soiland-Reyes: we can pay a third party to complain about it ;) ←

15:17:53 <pgroth> +q

Paul Groth: +q ←

15:17:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:18:14 <Curt> Luc: It might introduce a large delay to re-do the last call, how should we handle this?

Luc Moreau: It might introduce a large delay to re-do the last call, how should we handle this? ←

15:18:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:18:39 <Curt> sandro: I would think this is minor enough not to need a new last call, but we might need to look at it

Sandro Hawke: I would think this is minor enough not to need a new last call, but we might need to look at it ←

15:18:51 <stain> @Sandro +1, don't do a new LC because of this!

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @Sandro +1, don't do a new LC because of this! ←

15:19:00 <Curt> pgroth: We are proposing this change to respond to comments

Paul Groth: We are proposing this change to respond to comments ←

15:19:02 <tlebo> +1 @pgroth, we are responding to their comments.

Timothy Lebo: +1 @pgroth, we are responding to their comments. ←

15:19:28 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:19:55 <Curt> sandro: The issue is conformance, test cases, etc. You are allowed to make editorial changes and fix bugs, but not change design decisions.

Sandro Hawke: The issue is conformance, test cases, etc. You are allowed to make editorial changes and fix bugs, but not change design decisions. ←

15:19:55 <Luc> it is a bug fix, aligning names

Luc Moreau: it is a bug fix, aligning names ←

15:20:14 <tlebo> this is very bug-like.

Timothy Lebo: this is very bug-like. ←

15:20:45 <Curt> Luc: We are just trying to fix the bug -- an inconsistency between the documents.

Luc Moreau: We are just trying to fix the bug -- an inconsistency between the documents. ←

15:20:59 <Curt> sandro: It seems crazy to delay things by 4 weeks for such a minor thing.

Sandro Hawke: It seems crazy to delay things by 4 weeks for such a minor thing. ←

15:21:09 <Curt> sandro: This seems like a reasonable exception

Sandro Hawke: This seems like a reasonable exception ←

15:21:27 <Curt> Luc: editors should implement this change and note it as a bug fix

Luc Moreau: editors should implement this change and note it as a bug fix ←

15:21:38 <Curt> Luc: We should keep good records about the approach

Luc Moreau: We should keep good records about the approach ←

15:21:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:21:45 <Curt> Luc: Ok, Tim?

Luc Moreau: Ok, Tim? ←

15:21:45 <tlebo> PROV-O latest draft has http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724

Timothy Lebo: PROV-O latest draft has http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#changes-since-wd-prov-o-20120724 ←

15:21:46 <Curt> tlebo: yes

Timothy Lebo: yes ←

15:21:50 <Luc> topic: Working Draft XML

<luc>Summary: Stephan outlined a proposed way of working for the prov-xml schema.  Working from an initial schema draft, examples from prov-dm and prov-o will be encoded according to this schema, reviewed, and suggested changes debated. The plan is to finalize a schema by September. Please sign up to this task, if interested.

15:22:44 <Paolo> horrible home networking problems, can't hear a thing -- going to check out

15:22:46 <Curt> zednik: Per email, there is an XML schema from Luc.  Starting by reviewing that

15:22:50 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Jul/0362.html

15:23:17 <Curt> zednik: Reviewing terms, creating examples similar to prov-o, mapping things to XML

15:23:39 <Curt> zednik: providing feedback on XML schema's ability to support the examples

15:23:59 <Luc> q?

15:24:03 <Curt> zednik: A google spreadsheet is organizing activities and we will provide feedback on the terms

15:24:10 <Curt> Luc: Are the terms assigned yet?

15:24:22 <Curt> zednik: Not all are assigned yet, will get them assigned by the end of this week

15:25:04 <Curt> zednik: Anyone that wants access to the spreadsheet, select "Request Access" and I'll grant it

15:25:08 <Curt> Luc: Timeline?

15:25:28 <Curt> zednik: Need to consult group, haven't nailed down complete schedule yet, but some examples are underway

15:26:18 <Curt> Luc: We agreed on a deadline to have the notes ready for last call review internally by ~mid-November

15:26:21 <Luc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An15kLxkaMA3dEtpbTNlNEQ4eGJqQUtKVXFVekFxR1E#gid=0

15:27:03 <Curt> Luc: To do that, by a month earlier, we need to have a completed schema, agree on it by September

15:27:09 <Curt> Luc: Need examples by end of August

15:27:31 <Curt> zednik: Try to get examples produced by mid-august so we can discuss and revise if needed

15:27:55 <Curt> Luc: Paul/Luc will be on holiday second half of august

15:28:10 <Curt> sandro: Someone else can chair if neither co-chair is available

15:28:41 <Luc> q?

15:28:51 <Curt> Luc: In the next week or two we should agree on the time line.  While paul/luc are away, the regular telecon could be used to discuss the XML and examples

15:28:57 <Luc> topic: Preparing the Call for Implementation

15:29:12 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvImplementations

<luc>Summary: Reminder: there is a page listing implementations of PROV; please upload information about any implementation you know of.   We discussed what features to implement as part of the CR exit criteria. Paul suggested that section headings could be a good starting point.  Stephan indicated that it was the approach he was proposing to follow for prov-xml. The SKOS exit criteria were also regarded as a good approach for vocabularies. It was noted that prov-constraints would probably required different kind of features, and a test suite could potentially be constructed.

15:29:29 <pgroth> or know about

15:29:49 <Curt> Luc: Inviting members of the group to add implementations you are aware of to that wiki page

15:30:27 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

15:30:34 <Curt> Luc: paul and I are drafting the charter extension request -- need that page as evidence of uptake of the spec

15:31:28 <Curt> Luc: We need to identify a set of features that must be implemented by two implementations

15:31:58 <Curt> Luc: We need to start thinking about the exit criteria now, so we are ready when we want to move to candidate rec.

15:32:08 <Luc> q?

15:32:16 <Curt> Luc: How should we address this?

15:32:25 <zednik> q+

15:32:35 <Luc> ack zedn

15:33:11 <pgroth> +q

15:33:14 <Curt> zednik: To clarify -- we need to identify a set of features that must be implmemented.  Is that of all features, or some minimal set?

15:33:44 <Curt> Luc: We will look at each feature and want to list which implementations 'support' that feature.

15:33:54 <sandro> (But it could be different implementations for each feature)

15:34:00 <Curt> Luc: We want to get at least two implementations for each feature

15:34:16 <Curt> Luc: We also want to get a pair, including a producer and a consumer for each feature

15:34:18 <stain> but what is a 'feature'?  How granular?

15:34:31 <Luc> q?

15:34:43 <Luc> ack pg

15:35:19 <Luc> q?

15:35:20 <zednik> q+

15:35:24 <Curt> pgroth: We should enumerate features based on section -- we should put up a wiki page to gather the list

15:35:34 <Luc> ack ze

15:35:53 <Curt> zednik: We had the same issue of enumerating features for the XML review -- that list may be incomplete, but may be useful for this

15:36:06 <Curt> zednik: Others are invited to review that list and see if any are missing

15:36:30 <Curt> Luc: That is a reasonable approach -- we should also list features that are document specific

15:36:50 <Curt> Luc: Each CR will have its own list of features (many of course will be the same)

15:36:54 <pgroth> sure

15:36:58 <pgroth> the rules

15:37:09 <Luc> q?

15:37:16 <pgroth> q+

15:37:18 <Curt> Luc: For constraints, e.g. each constraint will become a listed feature

15:37:32 <Curt> pgroth: Agreed, that was just a for starting point

15:38:24 <Luc> q?

15:38:29 <Luc> ack pgr

15:38:32 <Curt> pgroth: We need to support the full vocabulary.

15:38:49 <pgroth> use the exit criteria page?

15:38:55 <pgroth> ok

15:38:56 <Curt> Luc: Paul, will you create the starting point page and we'll discuss on email in the coming weeks?

15:39:04 <jcheney> The RDF semantics is a recommendation - what were its exit criteria?

15:39:06 <Luc> q?

15:39:15 <zednik> q+

15:39:26 <sandro> jcheney, all of RDF was done together, not separately.

15:39:51 <sandro> q+

15:39:58 <Curt> zednik: I've started a form in google docs for a questionairre on the implementation/support/etc.

15:40:21 <Luc> ack zedn

15:40:23 <Curt> zednik: I'll share the form and request feedback by today or tomorrow

15:41:03 <pgroth> that's fine for constraints

15:41:07 <Curt> sandro: Other groups have done this with executable test cases, each test case is a feature, machine readable results were used to determine coverage

15:41:13 <zednik> q+

15:41:16 <pgroth> maybe

15:41:18 <sandro> q-

15:41:19 <Luc> ack san

15:41:21 <zednik> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementation.html

15:41:35 <Curt> zednik: SKOS is the model we are trying to follow

15:41:50 <Luc> q?

15:41:53 <sandro> thanks

15:41:57 <dgarijo> I think this approach is cool!

15:42:39 <Curt> Luc: Constraints may be handled differently -- we might want graphs that violate or are compliant with the spec

15:42:44 <Luc> q?

15:42:49 <Luc> ack zed

15:42:51 <zednik> q-

15:42:54 <Luc> q?

15:44:47 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public

15:44:51 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes

15:44:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/26-prov-minutes.html Luc