15:07:43 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria ←

15:07:47 <Zakim> + +329331aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aaee ←

15:07:55 <TomDN> Zakim, +329 is me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, +329 is me ←

15:07:55 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN; got it ←

15:08:01 <Curt> pgroth: incorporated some feedback, put on list for review

Paul Groth: incorporated some feedback, put on list for review ←

15:08:05 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←

15:08:05 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←

15:08:30 <Curt> pgroth: added explicit exit criteria for PROV-DM per james, inherits from PROV-O and N

Paul Groth: added explicit exit criteria for PROV-DM per james, inherits from PROV-O and N ←

15:08:37 <Curt> pgroth: some wording updated

Paul Groth: some wording updated ←

15:08:50 <smiles> Apart from the "independent" comment Luc made by email, they looked good to me

Simon Miles: Apart from the "independent" comment Luc made by email, they looked good to me ←

15:08:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:10:07 <Curt> Luc: PROV-O - what is independent of what?  it doesn't require independence between producer/consumer

Luc Moreau: PROV-O - what is independent of what? it doesn't require independence between producer/consumer ←

15:10:56 <Curt> Luc: suggested - independence between producer and consumer

Luc Moreau: suggested - independence between producer and consumer ←

15:11:38 <Curt> Luc: similar to client/server, producer and consumer must be independent to demonstrate interoperability

Luc Moreau: similar to client/server, producer and consumer must be independent to demonstrate interoperability ←

15:11:50 <pgroth> An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a

Paul Groth: An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a ←

15:11:50 <pgroth> feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For

Paul Groth: feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For ←

15:11:50 <pgroth> each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been

Paul Groth: each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been ←

15:11:51 <pgroth> demonstrated to exist

Paul Groth: demonstrated to exist ←

15:11:58 <Luc> "An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been demonstrated to exist."

Luc Moreau: "An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been demonstrated to exist." ←

15:12:32 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:12:33 <Curt> pgroth: This is stronger -- SKOS wasn't quite this strong.  If group wants it, ok..

Paul Groth: This is stronger -- SKOS wasn't quite this strong. If group wants it, ok.. ←

15:12:41 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+ ←

15:13:15 <khalidBelhajjame> Yes, it looks stronge, but I think what Luc is suggesting is what one would exepect when talking about interoperability

Khalid Belhajjame: Yes, it looks stronge, but I think what Luc is suggesting is what one would exepect when talking about interoperability ←

15:13:20 <Curt> smiles: makes sense that they should be independent

Simon Miles: makes sense that they should be independent ←

15:13:47 <Paolo> it would be more convincing

Paolo Missier: it would be more convincing ←

15:13:51 <Curt> pgroth: worried about making it stronger than it really needs to be

Paul Groth: worried about making it stronger than it really needs to be ←

15:14:01 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+ ←

15:14:13 <pgroth> ack smiles

Paul Groth: ack smiles ←

15:14:16 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc ←

15:14:39 <Paolo> ... two pairs of independent producers and consumers...

Paolo Missier: ... two pairs of independent producers and consumers... ←

15:14:44 <Curt> Luc: are there concerns we wouldn't meet the stronger criteria?

Luc Moreau: are there concerns we wouldn't meet the stronger criteria? ←

15:14:55 <Curt> pgroth: we could for PROV-O, not sure about PROV-N

Paul Groth: we could for PROV-O, not sure about PROV-N ←

15:15:29 <Curt> Luc: an implementation includes a dataset -- we do have some PROV-N datasets, this should be workable

Luc Moreau: an implementation includes a dataset -- we do have some PROV-N datasets, this should be workable ←

15:15:39 <Curt> Luc: as long as we have two consumers of that

Luc Moreau: as long as we have two consumers of that ←

15:15:49 <Curt> pgroth: will update with the proposed new language

Paul Groth: will update with the proposed new language ←

15:15:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:16:32 <Curt> ivan: What Luc proposes is good, but Paul has the question -- "Can we make it?"

Ivan Herman: What Luc proposes is good, but Paul has the question -- "Can we make it?" ←

15:16:50 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[OpenLink] ←

15:16:56 <MacTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me ←

15:16:56 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←

15:16:58 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←

15:16:58 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←

15:17:09 <Curt> Luc: If we have two implmentations from the same organization, they may not be considered independent

Luc Moreau: If we have two implmentations from the same organization, they may not be considered independent ←

15:17:41 <Curt> pgroth: we were trying to keep the threshold attainable

Paul Groth: we were trying to keep the threshold attainable ←

15:17:58 <Curt> pgroth: but your language is better, just want to make sure we can meet it

Paul Groth: but your language is better, just want to make sure we can meet it ←

15:18:25 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:18:30 <Curt> pgroth: trying to figure out the right language, and consider the ramifications of that language on the exit criteria

Paul Groth: trying to figure out the right language, and consider the ramifications of that language on the exit criteria ←

15:19:02 <Curt> ivan: the language may be a little vague, but should be ok with it the way it is

Ivan Herman: the language may be a little vague, but should be ok with it the way it is ←

15:19:15 <Curt> Luc: want to make sure the language reflects our intent

Luc Moreau: want to make sure the language reflects our intent ←

15:19:33 <Curt> ivan: It's ok with me, it seems satisfactory

Ivan Herman: It's ok with me, it seems satisfactory ←

15:19:50 <Curt> ivan: (in my view, not official w3c position)

Ivan Herman: (in my view, not official w3c position) ←

15:20:10 <Curt> pgroth: ok, going back to original language

Paul Groth: ok, going back to original language ←

15:20:19 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria ←

15:21:10 <Curt> pgroth: we could have prov-n documents and two different implementations that could read/process them

Paul Groth: we could have prov-n documents and two different implementations that could read/process them ←

15:21:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:21:20 <pgroth> ack ivan

Paul Groth: ack ivan ←

15:21:22 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←

15:21:27 <Curt> Luc: will we have two independent consumers of prov-n?

Luc Moreau: will we have two independent consumers of prov-n? ←

15:22:25 <Paolo> sorry, what does it mean to "consume prov-n"? would this be an independently generated parser?

Paolo Missier: sorry, what does it mean to "consume prov-n"? would this be an independently generated parser? ←

15:22:30 <Curt> Luc: with my version, A producing and B consuming is one pair, B producing and A consuming is another pair, as long as A and B are independent

Luc Moreau: with my version, A producing and B consuming is one pair, B producing and A consuming is another pair, as long as A and B are independent ←

15:22:48 <Curt> pgroth: thought consumption would be easier than production

Paul Groth: thought consumption would be easier than production ←

15:23:09 <Curt> pgroth: still some concerns -- let's postpone final vote on this

Paul Groth: still some concerns -- let's postpone final vote on this ←

15:23:20 <hook> q+

Hook Hua: q+ ←

15:23:36 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

15:23:46 <pgroth> ack hook

Paul Groth: ack hook ←

15:24:06 <Curt> hook: if all features don't have independent pairs.

Hook Hua: if all features don't have independent pairs. ←

15:24:31 <Curt> pgroth: each feature must be coverened, but given implementations don't have to cover every feature

Paul Groth: each feature must be coverened, but given implementations don't have to cover every feature ←

15:24:54 <Curt> ivan: it is considered to be an implemmentation for the features it covers

Ivan Herman: it is considered to be an implementation for the features it covers ←

15:24:56 <pgroth> ack Paolo

Paul Groth: ack Paolo ←

15:25:09 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←

15:25:11 <ivan> s/implememmentation/implementation/

Ivan Herman: s/implememmentation/implementation/ (warning: replacement failed) ←

15:25:18 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P7 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P7 is me ←

15:25:18 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←

15:25:26 <Curt> Paolo: what is a consumer?  How about just a parser?

Paolo Missier: what is a consumer? How about just a parser? ←

15:25:28 <ivan> s/implemmentation/implementation/

15:25:46 <Curt> pgroth: yes, a parser would be

Paul Groth: yes, a parser would be ←

15:25:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q? ←

15:26:26 <smiles> yes

Simon Miles: yes ←

15:26:31 <Curt> pgroth: interoperability pairs could be easier than the language we have now

Paul Groth: interoperability pairs could be easier than the language we have now ←

15:26:33 <khalidBelhajjame> I think it makes more sense too

Khalid Belhajjame: I think it makes more sense too ←

15:26:55 <Curt> pgroth: I will rephrase the language and send it around for review by Tuesday next week

Paul Groth: I will rephrase the language and send it around for review by Tuesday next week ←

15:27:07 <Curt> Luc: we can have an online vote

Luc Moreau: we can have an online vote ←

15:27:24 <pgroth> action: Paul to revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week

ACTION: Paul to revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week ←

15:27:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-25].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-120 - Revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-25]. ←

15:27:49 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-DM issues

<pgroth> Summary: The responses to ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-518 were approved as working group responses.

15:28:50 <pgroth> proposed: accept ISSUE-529 ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-499 ISSUE-518 as working group responses

15:28:58 <Dong> +1

15:28:59 <ivan> +1

15:29:00 <TomDN> +1

15:29:03 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

15:29:06 <dgarijo> +1

15:29:07 <zednik> +1

15:29:08 <satya> +1

15:29:38 <Curt> Luc: 529 and 499 still have some comments

15:30:08 <smiles> +1

15:30:11 <pgroth> accepted:  accept ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-518 as working group responses

15:31:00 <Curt> Luc: there is a question from robert, a question about entity, and several comments from ivan

15:31:08 <Curt> Luc: and the one on mention, still to address

15:31:19 <Curt> Luc: will tackle most of them on monday

15:31:37 <pgroth> q?

15:31:37 <Curt> pgroth: requested acknowledgement from Robert on responses

15:31:43 <Curt> pgroth: he is traveling

15:31:52 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-N issues

<pgroth> Summary: public comment responses were accepted on all outstanding issues on PROV-N. PROV-N should now be complete.

15:32:50 <pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-541 ISSUE-542 ISSUE-543 ISSUE-545 ISSUE-537 ISSUE-535 ISSUE-534 ISSUE-536 ISSUE-538 ISSUE-533 ISSUE-546 ISSUE-540 ISSUE-539 ISSUE-544 as working group responses

15:32:55 <TomDN> +1

15:32:59 <ivan> +1

15:33:05 <Dong> +1

15:33:06 <dgarijo> +1

15:33:18 <zednik> +1

15:33:29 <smiles> +1

15:33:30 <khalidBelhajjame> +1

15:33:49 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-541 ISSUE-542 ISSUE-543 ISSUE-545 ISSUE-537 ISSUE-535 ISSUE-534 ISSUE-536 ISSUE-538 ISSUE-533 ISSUE-546 ISSUE-540 ISSUE-539 ISSUE-544 as working group responses

15:34:09 <Curt> pgroth: anything more to address with PROV-N?

15:34:16 <Curt> Luc: should all be addressed now

15:34:43 <Curt> Luc: need to align bundle language with constraints

15:34:50 <Zakim> +??P18

15:34:53 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O issues

<pgroth> Summary: The group went over two outstanding issues. There was a question about subclassing in PROV-O (ISSUE-552). The group discussed this and felt it might be a bug, however, those on the call were unsure. Tim was actioned to look at this issue. Daniel agreed to look at the second issue around the domain of the hadRole relation and its compatibility with prov-dm.

15:35:14 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

15:35:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Ivan, Luc, [IPcaller], Curt_Tilmes, CraigTrim, [IPcaller.a], Luc.a, ??P25, jun, +1.818.731.aadd, Satya_Sahoo, khalidBelhajjame, TomDN (muted), MacTed

15:35:18 <Zakim> ... (muted), dgarijo, ??P18

15:35:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see stephenc, hook, dgarijo, TomDN, Dong, khalidBelhajjame, jun, satya, zednik, CraigTrim, Curt, smiles, Paolo, pgroth, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, stain, trackbot

15:35:23 <stephenc> I just joined

15:35:34 <ivan> zakim, ??P18 is stephenc

15:35:35 <Zakim> +stephenc; got it

15:35:54 <ivan> issue-552?

15:35:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised

15:35:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552

15:35:58 <Curt> pgroth: Tim not present, need to address issues

15:36:01 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html

15:36:29 <Curt> pgroth: can someone address 552?

15:36:39 <Curt> pgroth: is this a PROV-DM or PROV-O problem?

15:36:45 <MacTed> both...

15:37:00 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

15:37:00 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

15:37:02 <Luc> q+

15:37:18 <Curt> ivan: Can it be turned into subclasses?

15:37:25 <pgroth> ack Luc

15:37:26 <Curt> ivan: does PROV-DM support that?

15:37:47 <satya> I believe that is DM

15:37:54 <Curt> Luc: Is this need from PROV-DM or PROV-O?

15:38:18 <Curt> pgroth: DM definitions repeated into PROV-O, there aren't new definitions

15:38:28 <dgarijo> I can find it in the overview: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/Overview.html#Quotation

15:38:37 <Curt> Luc: suggestion is to make quotation a type of derivation

15:38:45 <Curt> MacTed: That still equates to a subclass

15:39:09 <Curt> Luc: how is quotation expressed in PROV-O?

15:39:14 <MacTed> `The definition of Quotation includes "Quotation is a particular case of derivation.". However Quotation is not a subclass of Derivation, which is what the english would imply. A better wording, assuming I understand the current english would be: "Quotation is a kind of derivation".`

15:39:26 <Curt> pgroth: there is a property and a class prov:quotation

15:39:47 <Curt> MacTed: concern is that the english says it is a subclass, but isn't explicit where it should be

15:40:10 <Curt> MacTed: it isn't consistent whether quotation is a subclass of derivation

15:40:40 <satya> Atleast that is not in the OWL file of PROV-O

15:40:54 <Curt> MacTed: it sounds like the missing language is in PROV-O

15:41:55 <Curt> pgroth: can one of the PROV-O editors address this?

15:42:03 <Curt> Luc: should action to Tim ask if this is a bug

15:42:39 <pgroth> action: Tim check whether it is a bug  or feature the lack of subclassing for Quotation and Derivation see ISSUE 552

15:42:39 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find Tim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

15:43:04 <Curt> MacTed: This is an example -- there may be other places where similar subclassing is missing

15:43:30 <MacTed> "lack of subclassing for, e.g., Quotation and Derivation"

15:44:20 <Curt> pgroth: I'll revise the action and email Tim

15:44:40 <ivan> issue-568?

15:44:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-568 -- domain of prov:hadRole -- raised

15:44:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568

15:45:15 <Zakim> -CraigTrim

15:46:22 <Curt> Luc: domain includes influence, which would allow expression of some relationships that DM does not allow

15:46:53 <dgarijo> I'll check it out

15:47:30 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446

15:47:31 <Curt> pgroth: dgarijo has open issue

15:47:52 <Curt> dgarijo: I will check it out

15:48:04 <pgroth> q?

15:48:24 <Curt> Luc: what are the implications of changing the domain of hadrole?

15:48:41 <pgroth> q

15:48:42 <pgroth> q?

15:48:43 <Curt> Luc: for PROV-O last call, and on other documents

15:48:55 <Curt> ivan: This is a bug, not a change in fundamental design, correct?

15:49:11 <Curt> pgroth: need to confirm bug, but yes, not changing the design

15:49:27 <Curt> ivan: If it is a real bug, there isn't a problem with the last call

15:49:46 <Curt> ivan: last call asks if there questions about design, not bugs

15:49:56 <Curt> ivan: If there are design changes, then we have to look at it again

15:50:04 <Curt> ivan: not sure how this will affect other documents

15:50:46 <Curt> Luc: If we have a second last call for PROV-O, do we have to do that with the others too?

15:50:48 <Curt> ivan: no

15:50:55 <Curt> Luc: would that delay CR?

15:51:04 <Curt> ivan: we want them to go together, so yes

15:51:17 <Curt> ivan: it would incur a minimum delay of three weeks

15:51:19 <pgroth> q?

15:51:22 <pgroth> Topic: Reminder on Notes

<pgroth> Summary: The status of several notes was gone through. Work on prov-aq will begin again in november. Daniel will begin to respond to all issues on PROV-DC beginning next week. Paolo said he would check into the status of PROV-Dictionary.

15:51:24 <Curt> ivan: but we aren't there yet..

15:51:53 <Curt> pgroth: dgarijo sent email update on PROV-DC

15:52:14 <Curt> dgarijo: we still need to write formal responses for issues

15:52:36 <Curt> pgroth: PROV-AQ, graham will work on that towards Novembers

15:52:43 <Curt> ^Novembers^November

15:52:59 <pgroth> q?

15:53:10 <Curt> pgroth: other priorities, will delay PROV-AQ until November, thoughts about that?

15:53:28 <pgroth> q?

15:53:37 <Curt> pgroth: Needs a push to clean up final note, more important to work on implementations for now

15:53:49 <Curt> ivan: the note, or a draft at that point?

15:54:00 <Curt> pgroth: publish draft then, then the note later

15:54:30 <Curt> ivan: suggest publishing the note with the rest of the rec, publishing together would be better

15:55:16 <Curt> pgroth: PROV-Dictionary, make that into a note

15:55:29 <Curt> pgroth: stain working on that

15:55:34 <Paolo> q+

15:55:46 <pgroth> ack Paolo

15:56:08 <Curt> Paolo: we talked about this, we made a plan, haven't heard updates since

15:56:34 <Curt> Paolo: I will remind stain

15:56:46 <Dong> Sorry, I need to go

15:57:15 <Luc_> q+

15:57:16 <pgroth> q?

15:57:16 <Curt> pgroth: I'll discuss with Luc how to address this

15:57:21 <Curt> (I have to go)

15:57:32 <Paolo> have to run...

15:57:36 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]

15:57:41 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes

15:57:59 <khalidBelhajjame> bye

15:58:03 <Zakim> -dgarijo

15:58:04 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

15:58:04 <TomDN> bye

15:58:06 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo

15:58:07 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame

15:58:16 <Zakim> -stephenc

15:58:17 <Zakim> -??P25

15:58:23 <Zakim> -MacTed

15:58:39 <Zakim> -TomDN

15:58:45 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

15:58:47 <Zakim> -jun

15:58:49 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

15:58:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html pgroth

15:58:54 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

15:58:54 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

15:58:54 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, +1.617.324.aaaa, Ivan, +44.238.059.aabb, Luc, [IPcaller], Curt_Tilmes, +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim, +1.818.731.aadd, jun,

15:58:57 <Zakim> ... Satya_Sahoo, khalidBelhajjame, +329331aaee, TomDN, MacTed, dgarijo, stephenc

15:59:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:59:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html trackbot

15:59:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

15:59:03 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-actions.rdf :

15:59:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Paul to revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [1]

15:59:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-irc#T15-27-24

15:59:03 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Tim check whether it is a bug  or feature the lack of subclassing for Quotation and Derivation see ISSUE 552 [2]

15:59:03 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-irc#T15-42-39