edit

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 10 January 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.10
Seen
Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Hook Hua, Ivan Herman, James Cheney, Jun Zhao, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Sam Coppens, Stephan Zednik, Tom De Nies, Trung Huynh
Regrets
Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Khalid Belhajjame, Jun Zhao, Paolo Missier, Stephan Zednik, Hook Hua
Chair
Paul Groth
Scribe
James Cheney
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. January 3, 2012 minutes link
Topics
  1. Admin

    Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed.

  2. WG Implementations

    The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email.

  3. Prov-Dictionary

    Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul

  4. PROV-AQ

    Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian

  5. Prov-o encoding constraints

    The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response.

  6. Test cases response

    The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR

15:52:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc

15:52:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

15:52:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be PROV

15:52:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes

15:52:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:52:41 <trackbot> Date: 10 January 2013
15:52:42 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV

Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV

15:52:42 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes

15:52:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.01.10
15:53:07 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:53:22 <pgroth> rrsagent, make log publics

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make log publics

15:53:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public

15:53:38 <pgroth> Regrets: Curt Tilmes, Daniel Garijo, Khalid Belhajjame, Jun Zhao, Paolo Missier, zednik, hook
15:59:36 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started

15:59:45 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.238.059.aaaa

15:59:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:59:55 <pgroth> can someone scribe?

Paul Groth: can someone scribe?

16:02:00 <pgroth> weka

Paul Groth: weka

16:02:19 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.131.467.aabb

16:02:21 <pgroth> mallet

Paul Groth: mallet

16:02:47 <jcheney> zakim, aabb is me

James Cheney: zakim, aabb is me

16:02:47 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it

16:03:06 <pgroth> scribe: jcheney

(Scribe set to James Cheney)

16:03:13 <Zakim> +??P33

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P33

16:03:18 <jcheney> topic: Admin

1. Admin

Summary: Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed.

<pgroth> Summary: Minutes of last week's telcon were accepted. Several actions were closed.
16:04:43 <Zakim> + +329331aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +329331aacc

16:04:48 <jcheney> pgroth: WF4Ever meeting so lots of people away

Paul Groth: WF4Ever meeting so lots of people away

16:04:52 <TomDN> Zakim, +32 is me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, +32 is me

16:04:52 <Zakim> +TomDN; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TomDN; got it

16:04:52 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-10

16:05:03 <TomDN> Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN

Tom De Nies: Zakim, SamCoppens is with TomDN

16:05:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it

16:05:05 <jcheney> pgroth: any objections to minutes?

Paul Groth: any objections to minutes?

16:05:34 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-03

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-01-03

16:05:44 <jcheney> ... minutes from last week

... minutes from last week

16:05:59 <pgroth> accepted: January 3, 2012 minutes

RESOLVED: January 3, 2012 minutes

16:06:10 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

16:06:10 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

16:06:11 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

16:06:24 <jcheney> ... open action items:

... open action items:

16:06:43 <Luc> close action-154

Luc Moreau: close ACTION-154

16:06:43 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-154 Review the test cases.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-154 Review the test cases.

16:06:47 <jcheney> ... closing some that were closed last week

... closing some that were closed last week

16:06:47 <Luc> close action-155

Luc Moreau: close ACTION-155

16:06:47 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-155 Review the test cases.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-155 Review the test cases.

16:07:03 <jcheney> ..stefan working on xml namespace

..stefan working on xml namespace

16:07:14 <jcheney> ... paul to send note on implementations, will do today/tomorrow

... paul to send note on implementations, will do today/tomorrow

16:07:28 <pgroth> Topic: WG Implementations

2. WG Implementations

Summary: The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email.

<pgroth> Summary: The current status of implementation reports were gone through. It was determined that the surveys are in the wrong group within WBS so that only W3C Team members (and not prov group members) can see the full results. Paul was actioned to remind Ivan to ask the W3C Systems team if they could move the surveys. Paul was actioned to go through the current results of the questionnaire and see where there are gaps. Broadly, it seems there are enough submissions in terms of usage but there are concerns about demonstrating interoperability between pairs of systems. Dong was asked to update the test case process document to refer to the WBS survey and not email.
16:07:28 <jcheney> ...stephan working on xml namespace

...stephan working on xml namespace

16:07:46 <jcheney> ... was hoping for update from stephan (who gets the emails)

... was hoping for update from stephan (who gets the emails)

16:08:05 <jcheney> ... would like to see how to make a report from survey results

... would like to see how to make a report from survey results

16:08:12 <Luc> 10 implementations, 5 vocab extensions

Luc Moreau: 10 implementations, 5 vocab extensions

16:08:15 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

16:08:44 <jcheney> ... Now have 9 impls, 5 vocabulary extensions

... Now have 9 impls, 5 vocabulary extensions

16:08:53 <jcheney> ... Would like to know what these are

... Would like to know what these are

16:09:09 <pgroth> action: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires

ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires

16:09:09 <trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.

16:09:22 <pgroth> action: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires

ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires

16:09:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-158 - Send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].

16:09:41 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results

16:10:04 <jcheney> ivan: can see all the responses

Ivan Herman: can see all the responses

16:10:23 <jcheney> pgroth: who has done what?  why can't anyone else see it?

Paul Groth: who has done what? why can't anyone else see it?

16:10:31 <Luc> moj@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, dtm@ecs.soton.ac.uk, tdh@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dong.huynh@soton.ac.uk, donght@soton.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, amir.keshavarz@gmail.com, caron.clement@gmail.com,

Luc Moreau: moj@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, dtm@ecs.soton.ac.uk, tdh@ecs.soton.ac.uk, dong.huynh@soton.ac.uk, donght@soton.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, amir.keshavarz@gmail.com, caron.clement@gmail.com,

16:10:40 <Luc> these are the responders

Luc Moreau: these are the responders

16:10:45 <Luc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/email-list

Luc Moreau: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/email-list

16:11:01 <jcheney> ivan: <listing some of the responses>

Ivan Herman: <listing some of the responses>

16:11:56 <Luc> that's my 10 :-)

Luc Moreau: that's my 10 :-)

16:11:59 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/results

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/results

16:12:30 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me

16:12:30 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted

16:13:17 <jcheney> ivan: should be visible to members of "this group" but not sure which group it is.

Ivan Herman: should be visible to members of "this group" but not sure which group it is.

16:13:30 <jcheney> ... vocabulary extensions: 5 for prov-o, none for others

... vocabulary extensions: 5 for prov-o, none for others

16:13:43 <Luc> irene.celino@gmail.com, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, rpalma@man.poznan.pl,

Luc Moreau: irene.celino@gmail.com, dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es, Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk, soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk, rpalma@man.poznan.pl,

16:13:48 <Luc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/email-list

Luc Moreau: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-vocabulary-survey/email-list

16:13:54 <jcheney> q+

q+

16:14:14 <jcheney> ivan: what would extension mean for prov-n?

Ivan Herman: what would extension mean for prov-n?

16:14:40 <Luc> you could write an xml schema that extends prov-xml schema (but this is not recommendation track)

Luc Moreau: you could write an xml schema that extends prov-xml schema (but this is not recommendation track)

16:14:40 <jcheney> pgroth: no results for vocabulary usage

Paul Groth: no results for vocabulary usage

16:14:43 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

16:14:49 <jcheney> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/closed

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/closed

16:15:51 <jcheney> jcheney: the questionnaires are in the "Test Group".  Can we move them to our group?

James Cheney: the questionnaires are in the "Test Group". Can we move them to our group?

16:15:53 <pgroth> action: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group

ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group

16:15:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-159 - Send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].

16:16:07 <jcheney> ivan: this may be a mistake... will ask sysadmins if it can be fixed

Ivan Herman: this may be a mistake... will ask sysadmins if it can be fixed

16:16:14 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:16:17 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:16:19 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

16:16:30 <jcheney> ivan: do you want to see the feature coverage?

Ivan Herman: do you want to see the feature coverage?

16:17:11 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to see feature coverage & interoperability in implementation report

Paul Groth: would like to see feature coverage & interoperability in implementation report

16:17:21 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results

Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/prov-implementation-survey/results

16:17:21 <pgroth> [4:06pm]

Paul Groth: [4:06pm]

16:18:21 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy

zakim, who is noisy

16:18:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney

16:18:23 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy?

zakim, who is noisy?

16:18:33 <Zakim> jcheney, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (4%), ??P33 (55%), Ivan (48%)

Zakim IRC Bot: jcheney, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (4%), ??P33 (55%), Ivan (48%)

16:18:44 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33

zakim, mute ??P33

16:18:44 <Zakim> ??P33 should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: ??P33 should now be muted

16:19:16 <jcheney> @ivan: could you make a screenshot of results and people can look at it off-line?

@ivan: could you make a screenshot of results and people can look at it off-line?

16:19:22 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:20:11 <jcheney> luc: we have 4 impls that write Entity and 5 that read / write Entity

Luc Moreau: we have 4 impls that write Entity and 5 that read / write Entity

16:20:11 <pgroth> yeah that's correct

Paul Groth: yeah that's correct

16:20:56 <jcheney> ivan: then averages are meaningful: 4.56 is good

Ivan Herman: then averages are meaningful: 4.56 is good

16:21:38 <jcheney> pgroth: for entity, agent we're fine

Paul Groth: for entity, agent we're fine

16:22:09 <jcheney> luc: 6 say no support for invalidation, 1 r/o, 2 r/2.  can we assume one reads what the other has written?

Luc Moreau: 6 say no support for invalidation, 1 r/o, 2 r/2. can we assume one reads what the other has written?

16:22:30 <jcheney> pgroth: would be good to see the actual people, so we can check this

Paul Groth: would be good to see the actual people, so we can check this

16:23:15 <jcheney> pgroth: would like to make this public/group readable, and see where there are gaps

Paul Groth: would like to make this public/group readable, and see where there are gaps

16:23:19 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

16:23:20 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:23:26 <jcheney> ivan: sounds reasonable

Ivan Herman: sounds reasonable

16:23:36 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:24:07 <jcheney> luc: just after averages table there are details, but only for two responses - why?

Luc Moreau: just after averages table there are details, but only for two responses - why?

16:24:19 <Dong> that's what I see as well

Trung Huynh: that's what I see as well

16:24:56 <jcheney> ivan: can see all 9 rows

Ivan Herman: can see all 9 rows

16:25:04 <jcheney> ... with all responses

... with all responses

16:25:20 <jcheney> pgroth: we need to see what ivan sees asap

Paul Groth: we need to see what ivan sees asap

16:25:30 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:26:00 <jcheney> pgroth: wanted to ask dong what we expect back on constraints

Paul Groth: wanted to ask dong what we expect back on constraints

16:26:05 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:26:22 <jcheney> ... should they email prov-public-comments or fill out a form or what?

... should they email prov-public-comments or fill out a form or what?

16:26:38 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:26:47 <pgroth> no dong

Paul Groth: no dong

16:26:48 <Luc> dong?

Luc Moreau: dong?

16:26:56 <jcheney> zakim, unmute ??P33

zakim, unmute ??P33

16:26:56 <Zakim> ??P33 should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: ??P33 should no longer be muted

16:27:06 <jcheney> zakim, ??P33 is Dong

zakim, ??P33 is Dong

16:27:06 <Zakim> +Dong; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Dong; got it

16:27:37 <jcheney> Dong: Decided to use questionnaire and not email, haven't removed email yet, will do soon

Trung Huynh: Decided to use questionnaire and not email, haven't removed email yet, will do soon

16:27:59 <jcheney> ... put link in call for implementations

... put link in call for implementations

16:28:08 <pgroth> it's not on the main page

Paul Groth: it's not on the main page

16:28:42 <jcheney> pgroth: will update main page after changes made

Paul Groth: will update main page after changes made

16:28:45 <pgroth> i will do that

Paul Groth: i will do that

16:28:48 <jcheney> Dong: need to update front page

Trung Huynh: need to update front page

16:28:59 <jcheney> zakim, mute ??P33

zakim, mute ??P33

16:28:59 <Zakim> sorry, jcheney, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P33

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, jcheney, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P33

16:29:04 <jcheney> zakim, mute Dong

zakim, mute Dong

16:29:04 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Dong should now be muted

16:29:13 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-Dictionary

3. Prov-Dictionary

Summary: Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul

<pgroth> Summary: Tom and Sam have prov-dictionary almost ready for review by the group. They will send an email tomorrow when internal review should begin. The internal reviewers for this document are: Paolo, Stian, James, Luc Paul
16:29:19 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, unmute me

16:29:19 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted

16:29:47 <jcheney> TomDN: prov-dict pushed just before call; everything done except prov-xml

Tom De Nies: prov-dict pushed just before call; everything done except prov-xml

16:29:58 <jcheney> ... can be reviewed starting tomorrow

... can be reviewed starting tomorrow

16:30:08 <jcheney> ... incorporates results of discussion on mailing list

... incorporates results of discussion on mailing list

16:30:25 <jcheney> ... can be considered for fpwd after review

... can be considered for fpwd after review

16:30:28 <TomDN> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html

Tom De Nies: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/dictionary/prov-dictionary.html

16:30:39 <jcheney> pgroth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review

Paul Groth: please send email / issue tomorrow for review

16:30:46 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:31:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-AQ

4. PROV-AQ

Summary: Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian

<pgroth> Summary: Prov-aq has been made available for internal review. Reviews are due by the Jan. 17, 2013 telcon. The internal reviewers are Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian
16:31:06 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:31:12 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me

16:31:12 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted

16:31:20 <jcheney> Luc: can we confirm reviewers for prov-dictionary?

Luc Moreau: can we confirm reviewers for prov-dictionary?

16:31:55 <jcheney> pgroth: paolo, stian, james(?), luc, pgroth

Paul Groth: paolo, stian, james(?), luc, pgroth

16:31:57 <Luc> Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul

Luc Moreau: Paolo, Stian, James (maybe), Luc, and Paul

16:32:08 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:32:08 <Luc> ack luc

Luc Moreau: ack luc

16:32:19 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0032.html

Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0032.html

16:32:49 <jcheney> pgroth: reviewable version is available, questions for review in issue 613

Paul Groth: reviewable version is available, questions for review in ISSUE-613

16:32:58 <jcheney> ... would like feedback on pingback

... would like feedback on pingback

16:33:10 <pgroth> Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian

Paul Groth: Tim, Simon, Luc, Dong and Stian

16:33:14 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:33:14 <jcheney> ... "last call" before prov-aq released as ready for implementation

... "last call" before prov-aq released as ready for implementation

16:33:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:33:59 <jcheney> ... deadline for review is thursday next week

... deadline for review is thursday next week

16:34:19 <pgroth> Topic: Prov-o encoding constraints

5. Prov-o encoding constraints

Summary: The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response.

<pgroth> Summary: The group went over ISSUE-612 on encoding constraints in OWL. Two issues were identified: 1) that Kerry though that wasDerivedFrom was transitive, which it is not. 2) Whether prov-o should include encodings of constraints. For 1) Luc agreed to formulate a response to kerry. For 2) the group agreed that that encoding owl constraints was not part of prov-o and that it was an implementation. It was also agreed that this should be signposted in the various documents. Paul agreed to formulate a response.
16:34:26 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/612

16:34:46 <jcheney> pgroth: comments from two implementors working with prov-o and constraints

Paul Groth: comments from two implementors working with prov-o and constraints

16:35:08 <jcheney> ... looking for constraints implementable in OWL to be part of prov-o

... looking for constraints implementable in OWL to be part of prov-o

16:35:40 <jcheney> ... this was discussed and resolved not to do this earlier, but this could be an implementation technique

... this was discussed and resolved not to do this earlier, but this could be an implementation technique

16:35:46 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:35:50 <jcheney> ... how to address?

... how to address?

16:36:22 <jcheney> Luc: no consensus for derivation to be transitive; we voted against this and it is not a constraint in the document.

Luc Moreau: no consensus for derivation to be transitive; we voted against this and it is not a constraint in the document.

16:37:01 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

16:37:15 <jcheney> luc: should review & approve responses, but would be good to tell them this specific point

Luc Moreau: should review & approve responses, but would be good to tell them this specific point

16:37:34 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:37:37 <Luc> action: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive

ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive

16:37:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-01-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-160 - Write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [on Luc Moreau - due 2013-01-17].

16:37:41 <pgroth> ack Ivan

Paul Groth: ack Ivan

16:38:01 <jcheney> ivan: what is wrong with putting expressible constraints in separate document?

Ivan Herman: what is wrong with putting expressible constraints in separate document?

16:38:33 <jcheney> ... don't see a case for editing prov-o core document

... don't see a case for editing prov-o core document

16:39:06 <jcheney> pgroth: fine if people (in or out of wg) want to encode constraints, but not necessarily part of wg delierables

Paul Groth: fine if people (in or out of wg) want to encode constraints, but not necessarily part of wg deliverables

16:39:14 <jcheney> s/delierables/deliverables/
16:39:27 <jcheney> ivan: if wg members do this, we can at least publish it somewhere

Ivan Herman: if wg members do this, we can at least publish it somewhere

16:39:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:39:42 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:39:47 <pgroth> ack luc

Paul Groth: ack luc

16:40:07 <jcheney> Luc: need to respond to reviewers, along lines Paul gave

Luc Moreau: need to respond to reviewers, along lines Paul gave

16:40:16 <jcheney> ... open questions whether some/all constraints implementable and how

... open questions whether some/all constraints implementable and how

16:40:52 <jcheney> ... wg decided to view this as an implementation issue, we can offer to gather experiences with this/axioms suggested by implementors

... wg decided to view this as an implementation issue, we can offer to gather experiences with this/axioms suggested by implementors

16:41:27 <jcheney> pgroth: sounds fine, but it seems to come up - should we say this in prov-o or constraints saying this?

Paul Groth: sounds fine, but it seems to come up - should we say this in prov-o or constraints saying this?

16:42:11 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:42:17 <jcheney> Luc: seems reasonable. not sure where. james?

Luc Moreau: seems reasonable. not sure where. james?

16:43:58 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:44:16 <jcheney> jcheney: could put disclaimer/explanation in constraints, maybe signpost elsewhere

James Cheney: could put disclaimer/explanation in constraints, maybe signpost elsewhere

16:44:39 <jcheney> pgroth: could say something in overview, prov-o also

Paul Groth: could say something in overview, prov-o also

16:45:10 <pgroth> action: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints

ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints

16:45:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-161 - Draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [on Paul Groth - due 2013-01-17].

16:45:28 <pgroth> topic: Test cases response

6. Test cases response

Summary: The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR

<pgroth> Summary: The group discussed issue 611 an in particular the issue with test cases. The group noted that the test cases should not be normative as these may change and be updated. In addition the group noted that if the test cases and the spec disagreed it would be hard to determine which was the tie breaker. Thus, there was consensus that the test cases were non-normative. Luc noted that the test cases can also be used as good examples of provenance and thus function as test cases for the two normative serialisations (prov-o, prov-n) . The group agreed to try to draft responses to all comments by Monday. Each part of issue 611 was divided up and assigned to a group member as documented on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR
16:45:36 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/611

Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/611

16:46:34 <jcheney> pgroth: james responded to questions about constraints; this seems fine as response to that part if wg can endorse

Paul Groth: james responded to questions about constraints; this seems fine as response to that part if wg can endorse

16:46:44 <jcheney> ... also asked about prov-constraints test cases

... also asked about prov-constraints test cases

16:46:54 <jcheney> ... should they be part of spec?

... should they be part of spec?

16:47:07 <pgroth>  We

Paul Groth: We

16:47:07 <pgroth> would like to see test suites for the other operational parts of PROV,

Paul Groth: would like to see test suites for the other operational parts of PROV,

16:47:07 <pgroth> in particular for testing inferences separate from validation.

Paul Groth: in particular for testing inferences separate from validation.

16:47:26 <jcheney> ... in particular, in a normative place.

... in particular, in a normative place.

16:47:39 <jcheney> ... and would like further test cases for other documents

... and would like further test cases for other documents

16:47:43 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:47:45 <jcheney> ... how should we respond

... how should we respond

16:47:54 <jcheney> ivan: why do they want it in normative spec?

Ivan Herman: why do they want it in normative spec?

16:48:11 <jcheney> pgroth: if normative, then better interoperability (they say)

Paul Groth: if normative, then better interoperability (they say)

16:48:42 <jcheney> ivan: that's a matter of opinion.  otoh, if list of test cases become normative, cannot extend them later, or would have normative  & non-normative tests

Ivan Herman: that's a matter of opinion. otoh, if list of test cases become normative, cannot extend them later, or would have normative & non-normative tests

16:49:00 <jcheney> ... if test suite is non-normative, then we have capability to add new tests even when docs published

... if test suite is non-normative, then we have capability to add new tests even when docs published

16:49:14 <jcheney> ... had this in rdfa wg

... had this in rdfa wg

16:49:23 <Dong> q+

Trung Huynh: q+

16:49:46 <jcheney> ... discrepancies between implementations arose, which were addressed through additional tests

... discrepancies between implementations arose, which were addressed through additional tests

16:49:52 <Dong> Zakim, unmute me

Trung Huynh: Zakim, unmute me

16:49:52 <Zakim> Dong should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Dong should no longer be muted

16:49:52 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:50:26 <jcheney> Dong: if we move test cases into normative, are we saying that an impl that passes all test cases are compliant?  We would have two definitions

Trung Huynh: if we move test cases into normative, are we saying that an impl that passes all test cases are compliant? We would have two definitions

16:50:34 <jcheney> ... test cases and original spec

... test cases and original spec

16:50:44 <jcheney> ... cannot be sure that test cases cover all constraints.

... cannot be sure that test cases cover all constraints.

16:50:59 <jcheney> ... would provide false sense of ciompliance

... would provide false sense of compliance

16:51:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:51:03 <pgroth> ack Dong

Paul Groth: ack Dong

16:51:06 <Dong> Zakim, mute me

Trung Huynh: Zakim, mute me

16:51:06 <Zakim> Dong should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Dong should now be muted

16:51:06 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:51:08 <jcheney> s/ciompliance/compliance
16:51:33 <jcheney> Luc: other issue is that we don't have formal mappings / equivalence between the serializations

Luc Moreau: other issue is that we don't have formal mappings / equivalence between the serializations

16:51:39 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:51:50 <jcheney> ... it could be that some test cases would work in prov-n and not rdf or vice versa.

... it could be that some test cases would work in prov-n and not rdf or vice versa.

16:52:07 <jcheney> ... not in favor of normative test cases

... not in favor of normative test cases

16:52:40 <jcheney> ... do we need other test cases for other specs?

... do we need other test cases for other specs?

16:52:49 <jcheney> (previous line is pgroth)

(previous line is pgroth)

16:52:57 <jcheney> pgroth: do we need other test cases for other specs?

Paul Groth: do we need other test cases for other specs?

16:52:59 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:53:04 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:53:23 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:54:08 <jcheney> Luc: the test suite contains typical examples expressed in prov-n, prov-o.  what else could we do beyond having weird examples to exercise syntax?

Luc Moreau: the test suite contains typical examples expressed in prov-n, prov-o. what else could we do beyond having weird examples to exercise syntax?

16:54:17 <jcheney> ... more interesting to have useful provenance examples

... more interesting to have useful provenance examples

16:54:49 <jcheney> pgroth: test cases provide example repository, can be used to test compliance with other specs

Paul Groth: test cases provide example repository, can be used to test compliance with other specs

16:54:55 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

16:55:03 <Luc> this was a suggestion from the SW coordination group that we have a set of useful provenance examples

Luc Moreau: this was a suggestion from the SW coordination group that we have a set of useful provenance examples

16:55:22 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:55:28 <jcheney> pgroth: we seem to have outline of response

Paul Groth: we seem to have outline of response

16:55:49 <jcheney> Luc: important to try to provide responses promptly because they are trying to implement and may be waiting before submitting reports

Luc Moreau: important to try to provide responses promptly because they are trying to implement and may be waiting before submitting reports

16:56:10 <Luc> i have updated page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR

Luc Moreau: i have updated page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR

16:56:13 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

16:56:36 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

16:56:43 <jcheney> pgroth: Luc will do response to Kerry, Paul will respond to general question need one for test cases and their comments on constraints

Paul Groth: Luc will do response to Kerry, Paul will respond to general question need one for test cases and their comments on constraints

16:57:19 <jcheney> Luc: created page for responses

Luc Moreau: created page for responses

16:58:04 <jcheney> ... suggest we assign people to address these

... suggest we assign people to address these

16:58:53 <jcheney> pgroth: prov-o (611) essentially same as 612 about encoding constraints in owl, paul will do these

Paul Groth: prov-o (611) essentially same as 612 about encoding constraints in owl, paul will do these

16:59:22 <jcheney> ... jcheney will do 611 (constraints)

... jcheney will do 611 (constraints)

17:00:06 <Dong> ok

Trung Huynh: ok

17:00:09 <jcheney> ... 611 (normative test cases) - Dong

... 611 (normative test cases) - Dong

17:00:32 <jcheney> ... can we do this by monday?

... can we do this by monday?

17:01:20 <jcheney> Luc: who will do test cases for other specifications?

Luc Moreau: who will do test cases for other specifications?

17:01:24 <jcheney> pgroth: will do that

Paul Groth: will do that

17:01:39 <jcheney> pgroth: goal do send for approval by wg on monday

Paul Groth: goal do send for approval by wg on monday

17:01:46 <jcheney> pgroth: goal to send for approval by wg on monday

Paul Groth: goal to send for approval by wg on monday

17:01:52 <jcheney> ... so we can send back on tuesday

... so we can send back on tuesday

17:01:54 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:02:42 <jcheney> pgroth: seems uncontroversial so hopefully we can approve over mailing list

Paul Groth: seems uncontroversial so hopefully we can approve over mailing list

17:02:47 <jcheney> ... or at least try

... or at least try

17:02:59 <Dong> Monday is fine for my part

Trung Huynh: Monday is fine for my part

17:03:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:03:30 <SamCoppens> Bye

Sam Coppens: Bye

17:03:34 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

17:03:34 <Zakim> - +44.238.059.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.238.059.aaaa

17:03:34 <Zakim> -??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P7

17:03:36 <Zakim> -TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN

17:03:46 <Dong> bye everyone

Trung Huynh: bye everyone

17:03:47 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney

17:03:49 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller]

17:03:55 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public

Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public

17:03:59 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes

Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes

17:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth

17:04:03 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon

Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon

17:04:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees

17:04:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong

17:04:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes

17:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot

17:04:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye

17:04:12 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-actions.rdf :

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-actions.rdf :

17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [1]

ACTION: send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [1]

17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-09

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-09

17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [2]

ACTION: pgroth send stephan an email to ask for all results of questionaires [2]

17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-22

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-09-22

17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [3]

ACTION: pgroth to send ivan an email to put the questionnaires in the right group [3]

17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-15-53

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-15-53

17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [4]

ACTION: Luc to write a response to Kerry why derivation is not transitive [4]

17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-37-37

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-37-37

17:04:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [5]

ACTION: pgroth to draft response on owl implementation of prov-constraints [5]

17:04:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-45-10

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/10-prov-irc#T16-45-10

17:04:13 <Zakim> -Dong

Zakim IRC Bot: -Dong

17:04:14 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended

17:04:14 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +44.238.059.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.131.467.aabb, jcheney, +329331aacc, TomDN, SamCoppens, Ivan, Dong



Formatted by CommonScribe