Meeting Record

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

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

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot ←

Zakim IRC Bot: Luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +44.238.059.aaaa (14%), Ivan (4%) ←

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose CraigTrim ←

Luc Moreau: go through remaining issues in today's documents, but start by approving minutes of last week's conference ←

Tom De Nies: (sam is underway from another meeting, but he approves as well) ←

15:07:52 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I put out a blog post to semantic web list

Paul Groth: I put out a blog post to semantic web list ←

15:07:53 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/21/prov-a-framework-for-provenance-interchange/

Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/21/prov-a-framework-for-provenance-interchange/ ←

15:08:10 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we have about 5 votes on the AC reps list

Paul Groth: we have about 5 votes on the AC reps list ←

15:08:37 <TomDN> yes

Tom De Nies: yes ←

15:08:39 <CraigTrim> Luc: Inviting participants here to contact their AC reps

Luc Moreau: Inviting participants here to contact their AC reps ←

15:08:54 <Luc> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←

15:08:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted) ←

15:08:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, TallTed, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot ←

15:09:58 <Luc> topic: Publication date for RECs

2. Publication date for RECs

Summary: Ivan will informally reserve April 30 as the publication date for all our documents. Luc to updated provbib.js.

<luc>Summary: Ivan will informally reserve April 30 as the publication date for all our documents. Luc to updated provbib.js.

15:10:09 <ivan> zakim, unmute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←

15:10:09 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←

15:10:14 <pgroth> gone

Paul Groth: gone ←

15:10:17 <pgroth> or is it me?

Paul Groth: or is it me? ←

15:10:28 <pgroth> it's me

Paul Groth: it's me ←

15:11:27 <CraigTrim> Luc: Will be away for 2 weeks during period while we prepare documents, so need to do this next week, so need confirmation of dates

Luc Moreau: Will be away for 2 weeks during period while we prepare documents, so need to do this next week, so need confirmation of dates ←

15:11:34 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:11:46 <Luc> topic: prov-aq

3. prov-aq

Summary: editors are finalizing the document. No outstanding issue to discuss. Paul to update the timetable for prov-aq.

<luc>Summary: editors are finalizing the document. No outstanding issue to discuss. Paul to update the timetable for prov-aq.

15:12:18 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Nothing to discuss - we know what to do in terms of addressing issues

Paul Groth: Nothing to discuss - we know what to do in terms of addressing issues ←

15:12:38 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I think we know the edits we need to make from last week

Paul Groth: I think we know the edits we need to make from last week ←

15:12:49 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication

Tom De Nies: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkplanTillFinalPublication ←

15:13:24 <ivan> zakim, mute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←

15:13:24 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←

15:13:31 <CraigTrim> Luc: Could you update schedule on Wikipage?

Luc Moreau: Could you update schedule on Wikipage? ←

15:13:34 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Yes, will update

Paul Groth: Yes, will update ←

15:13:40 <Luc> topic: prov-xml

4. prov-xml

Summary: Hook reported back on his investigation about issue 648. It was suggested that editors should make a proposal by Monday, to be endorsed by the group, in time for finalizing the document by next Thursday.

<luc>Summary: Hook reported back on his investigation about issue 648.  It was suggested that editors should make a proposal by Monday, to be endorsed by the group, in time for finalizing the document by next Thursday.

15:13:52 <SamCoppens> zakim, I am with TomDN

Sam Coppens: zakim, I am with TomDN ←

15:13:52 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SamCoppens; got it ←

15:17:05 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:17:11 <CraigTrim> hook: for avoiding JAXB element issue - we were thinking that this may be a JAXB dependent only type of issue - it really does raise the issue that JAXB does this due to ambiguity in marshalling and unmarshalling.  That ambiguity is in minOccurs=0 and nullable types.  The fact that those two can not occur together.  How do you represent with element is missing vs element is nullable.  How do we distinguish between those cases?

Hook Hua: for avoiding JAXB element issue - we were thinking that this may be a JAXB dependent only type of issue - it really does raise the issue that JAXB does this due to ambiguity in marshalling and unmarshalling. That ambiguity is in minOccurs=0 and nullable types. The fact that those two can not occur together. How do you represent with element is missing vs element is nullable. How do we distinguish between those cases? ←

15:17:24 <CraigTrim> hook: One of the questions that this does raise is how dependent do we want to be on JAXB?

Hook Hua: One of the questions that this does raise is how dependent do we want to be on JAXB? ←

15:17:42 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:17:58 <CraigTrim> hook: JAXB is probably one of the more mature XML binding tools out there - used quite a lot by industry (Web Services, JEE Frameworks) ... there is probably an ideal case where we want to be independent of implementations

Hook Hua: JAXB is probably one of the more mature XML binding tools out there - used quite a lot by industry (Web Services, JEE Frameworks) ... there is probably an ideal case where we want to be independent of implementations ←

15:18:02 <CraigTrim> hook: but we can't ignore JAXB

Hook Hua: but we can't ignore JAXB ←

15:18:10 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:18:25 <CraigTrim> pgroth: What is the suggestion?  And what are the ramifications?

Paul Groth: What is the suggestion? And what are the ramifications? ←

15:18:55 <CraigTrim> pgroth: reason for PROV-XML was to make it easy for people who work with XML to adopt PROV ... otherwise we would have just used RDF/XML, but that's not nice for XML developers

Paul Groth: reason for PROV-XML was to make it easy for people who work with XML to adopt PROV ... otherwise we would have just used RDF/XML, but that's not nice for XML developers ←

15:19:16 <CraigTrim> hook: JAXB has a customization capability so we could customize binding

Hook Hua: JAXB has a customization capability so we could customize binding ←

15:19:40 <CraigTrim> hook: this would allow us to instruct JAXB to not generate JAXB element; however this creates ambiguity in round trip marshalling

Hook Hua: this would allow us to instruct JAXB to not generate JAXB element; however this creates ambiguity in round trip marshalling ←

15:20:22 <CraigTrim> hook: customization is purely JAXB - we provide a customization XML file

Hook Hua: customization is purely JAXB - we provide a customization XML file ←

15:20:37 <CraigTrim> hook: We won't need to touch the PROV-XML schema at all

Hook Hua: We won't need to touch the PROV-XML schema at all ←

15:20:50 <CraigTrim> hook: alternative is to move xs:any out

Hook Hua: alternative is to move xs:any out ←

15:21:06 <CraigTrim> hook: that could be a good compromise - since it would not require ambiguity or customization of binding

Hook Hua: that could be a good compromise - since it would not require ambiguity or customization of binding ←

15:21:18 <CraigTrim> hook: but difficult to get cutomization to work properly

Hook Hua: but difficult to get cutomization to work properly ←

15:22:04 <CraigTrim> Luc: given your timetable indicates a draft for review on the 28th (next week), I think it would be nice to have a resolution before you release the new draft so that we review a (near) final version of the PROV-XML documents

Luc Moreau: given your timetable indicates a draft for review on the 28th (next week), I think it would be nice to have a resolution before you release the new draft so that we review a (near) final version of the PROV-XML documents ←

15:22:23 <CraigTrim> Luc: would it be possible for the editors to have a proposal on Monday and a decision by Tuesday?

Luc Moreau: would it be possible for the editors to have a proposal on Monday and a decision by Tuesday? ←

15:22:26 <CraigTrim> hook: yes, sounds reasonable

Hook Hua: yes, sounds reasonable ←

15:22:29 <CraigTrim> pgroth: yes, agreed

Paul Groth: yes, agreed ←

15:22:59 <CraigTrim> pgroth: PROV-XML is a series of trade offs

Paul Groth: PROV-XML is a series of trade offs ←

15:23:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:23:19 <CraigTrim> hook: one particular trade off is it acceptable to have a lossy round-trip marshalling in exchange for ease of use?

Hook Hua: one particular trade off is it acceptable to have a lossy round-trip marshalling in exchange for ease of use? ←

15:23:27 <CraigTrim> hook: we need to consider this

Hook Hua: we need to consider this ←

15:23:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: what is it that you would lose?

Luc Moreau: what is it that you would lose? ←

15:23:43 <CraigTrim> Luc: could you give an example?

Luc Moreau: could you give an example? ←

15:24:06 <CraigTrim> hook: If you have an element that is in two states (declared - but value nil) and (not declared)

Hook Hua: If you have an element that is in two states (declared - but value nil) and (not declared) ←

15:24:20 <CraigTrim> hook: when we unmarshall out into data structured, one of those two states will collapse into a more generic state

Hook Hua: when we unmarshall out into data structured, one of those two states will collapse into a more generic state ←

15:24:34 <CraigTrim> hook: when we marshall back we can't tell which of the original states

Hook Hua: when we marshall back we can't tell which of the original states ←

15:24:50 <CraigTrim> hook: this is rationale of why JAXB element is inserted into here to capture these two states properly

Hook Hua: this is rationale of why JAXB element is inserted into here to capture these two states properly ←

15:25:16 <CraigTrim> Luc: what element in the schema can be null?

Luc Moreau: what element in the schema can be null? ←

15:25:28 <CraigTrim> Luc: it's none of the PROV constructs, right?

Luc Moreau: it's none of the PROV constructs, right? ←

15:25:43 <CraigTrim> hook: right - nowhere in PROV-XML XSDs to we declare nullable type = true

Hook Hua: right - nowhere in PROV-XML XSDs to we declare nullable type = true ←

15:25:56 <CraigTrim> hook: so we should verify the occurence of the nullable

Hook Hua: so we should verify the occurence of the nullable ←

15:26:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:26:21 <CraigTrim> hook: we will verify this before Monday and reach a conclusion

Hook Hua: we will verify this before Monday and reach a conclusion ←

15:26:41 <CraigTrim> Luc: Outcome is by Monday we will receive a proposal on what the editors recommend on this

Luc Moreau: Outcome is by Monday we will receive a proposal on what the editors recommend on this ←

15:26:44 <TomDN> Zakim, unmute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, unmute me ←

15:26:44 <Zakim> TomDN should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should no longer be muted ←

15:26:46 <Luc> topic: prov-dictionary

5. prov-dictionary

Summary: Tom and Sam have drafted proposals for the outstanding issue. They will email them to the group for feedback. If by Tuesday noon GMT, no objection has been raised, they will be considered as approved. This will allow them to finalize the document by Thursday next week.

<luc>Summary:  Tom and Sam have drafted proposals for the outstanding issue. They will email them to the group for feedback. If by Tuesday noon GMT, no objection has been raised, they will be considered as approved. This will allow them to finalize the document by Thursday next week.

15:26:59 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21#PROV-DICTIONARY

Tom De Nies: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.21#PROV-DICTIONARY ←

15:27:53 <CraigTrim> TomDN: we may want to defer voting due to low attendance

Tom De Nies: we may want to defer voting due to low attendance ←

15:28:31 <CraigTrim> Luc: documents are being released next week, so good to have resolutions ahead of that

Luc Moreau: documents are being released next week, so good to have resolutions ahead of that ←

15:28:51 <CraigTrim> Luc: I would recommend an email to put your proposals forward and if no negative response by Tuesday assume endorsed

Luc Moreau: I would recommend an email to put your proposals forward and if no negative response by Tuesday assume endorsed ←

15:28:52 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:29:12 <CraigTrim> pgroth: Yes, just to clarify - that means Tom puts out what he thinks it correct on each item and ask for objections

Paul Groth: Yes, just to clarify - that means Tom puts out what he thinks it correct on each item and ask for objections ←

15:29:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

15:29:23 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:29:48 <CraigTrim> TomDN: I will put the email out - most issues are editorials and TODOs - the two biggest ones are examples of data collection

Tom De Nies: I will put the email out - most issues are editorials and TODOs - the two biggest ones are examples of data collection ←

15:29:58 <CraigTrim> TomDN: there is slight change in XML requested about IDs and attributes

Tom De Nies: there is slight change in XML requested about IDs and attributes ←

15:30:16 <CraigTrim> TomDN: only one issue that we don't have a proposal for - that is the first one on agenda - 638 - was raised by James

Tom De Nies: only one issue that we don't have a proposal for - that is the first one on agenda - 638 - was raised by James ←

15:30:31 <CraigTrim> TomDN: this is something that we don't know how to solve conclusively

Tom De Nies: this is something that we don't know how to solve conclusively ←

15:30:38 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:30:47 <CraigTrim> TomDN: so I will send an email out asking for suggestions on how to fix

Tom De Nies: so I will send an email out asking for suggestions on how to fix ←

15:30:57 <CraigTrim> Luc: James could make a suggestion

Luc Moreau: James could make a suggestion ←

15:31:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:31:10 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:31:28 <CraigTrim> pgroth: if anyone has any issues we could talk about that briefly

Paul Groth: if anyone has any issues we could talk about that briefly ←

15:31:49 <pgroth> james should probably make a suggestion

Paul Groth: james should probably make a suggestion ←

15:32:30 <CraigTrim> Luc: whenever there is an equality sign between two sets of key value pairs it denotes equality over those esets?

Luc Moreau: whenever there is an equality sign between two sets of key value pairs it denotes equality over those esets? ←

15:32:34 <CraigTrim> TomDN: yes

Tom De Nies: yes ←

15:32:58 <CraigTrim> TomDN: the issue is that the notation deviates from constraints of data model so we need suitable resolution for that

Tom De Nies: the issue is that the notation deviates from constraints of data model so we need suitable resolution for that ←

15:33:09 <CraigTrim> TomDN: will send out email and ask for more suggestions

Tom De Nies: will send out email and ask for more suggestions ←

15:33:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:33:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: regarding issue 650 - I believe Stephan is updating XML schema

Luc Moreau: regarding ISSUE-650 - I believe Stephan is updating XML schema ←

15:33:38 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/650

Tom De Nies: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/650 ←

15:34:07 <CraigTrim> Luc: that would make xml schema aligned with the prov notation and ontology

Luc Moreau: that would make xml schema aligned with the prov notation and ontology ←

15:34:27 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647

Tom De Nies: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/647 ←

15:34:43 <CraigTrim> Luc: second comment is regarding issue 647; would it be the case that ... the key value pair becomes an entity

Luc Moreau: second comment is regarding ISSUE-647; would it be the case that ... the key value pair becomes an entity ←

15:34:55 <CraigTrim> TomDN: no - I don't think that would be the case

Tom De Nies: no - I don't think that would be the case ←

15:35:10 <CraigTrim> TomDN: we are talking about making propery prov pair value (which used to be prov value) just a sub property of prov entity

Tom De Nies: we are talking about making propery prov pair value (which used to be prov value) just a sub property of prov entity ←

15:35:26 <CraigTrim> TomDN: just to say arguments of prov value have to be an entity as well

Tom De Nies: just to say arguments of prov value have to be an entity as well ←

15:36:47 <CraigTrim> TomDN: prov key value pair is described .. only thing we change is ...

Tom De Nies: prov key value pair is described .. only thing we change is ... ←

15:36:53 <CraigTrim> Luc: what is the domain of prov entity?

Luc Moreau: what is the domain of prov entity? ←

15:37:19 <CraigTrim> TomDN: one of the implications is that key/value pair is an entity influence

Tom De Nies: one of the implications is that key/value pair is an entity influence ←

15:37:36 <CraigTrim> TomDN: that could be an objection - we weren't sure what the implications would be

Tom De Nies: that could be an objection - we weren't sure what the implications would be ←

15:38:04 <CraigTrim> TomDN: implications for domain might be wider

Tom De Nies: implications for domain might be wider ←

15:38:26 <CraigTrim> TomDN: could you formulate that objection in an email response to the issue?

Tom De Nies: could you formulate that objection in an email response to the issue? ←

15:38:41 <CraigTrim> Luc: if you could raise it as a question to the team

Luc Moreau: if you could raise it as a question to the team ←

15:39:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:39:08 <CraigTrim> Luc: any other discussions on dictionary?

Luc Moreau: any other discussions on dictionary? ←

15:39:28 <TomDN> Zakim, mute me

Tom De Nies: Zakim, mute me ←

15:39:28 <Zakim> TomDN should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN should now be muted ←

15:39:28 <Luc> topic: internal reviews

6. internal reviews

Summary: We had few participants, and therefore were able to line up very few reviewers for documents. (Reviewers were added to the agenda). We will seek more reviewers next week, as documents get released. We note that we are seeking reviewers from the DC community for PROV-DC, and it would be nice to find external reviewers for PROV-XML.

<luc>Summary: We had few participants, and therefore were able to line up very few reviewers for documents.  (Reviewers were added to the agenda). We will seek more reviewers next week, as documents get released. We note that we are seeking reviewers from the DC community for PROV-DC, and it would be nice to find external reviewers for PROV-XML.

15:39:49 <CraigTrim> Luc: I would like to line up reviewers for documents that are supposed to be released next week

Luc Moreau: I would like to line up reviewers for documents that are supposed to be released next week ←

15:40:22 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:40:29 <Luc> zakim, who is here?

Luc Moreau: zakim, who is here? ←

15:40:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted), [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa, CraigTrim, Ivan (muted), +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN (muted), jun, TallTed (muted), [IPcaller] ←

15:40:31 <Zakim> TomDN has SamCoppens

Zakim IRC Bot: TomDN has SamCoppens ←

15:40:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see TallTed, zednik, SamCoppens, jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TallTed, zednik, SamCoppens, jun, TomDN, hook, CraigTrim, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, ivan, GK1, stain, trackbot ←

15:41:31 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we asked dublin core for review (dc committee group)

Paul Groth: we asked dublin core for review (dc committee group) ←

15:41:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:05 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:42:18 <pgroth> q+ for primer

Paul Groth: q+ for primer ←

15:42:21 <CraigTrim> Luc: any one here willing to review the primer?

Luc Moreau: any one here willing to review the primer? ←

15:42:33 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I volunteer for dc and primer

Paul Groth: I volunteer for dc and primer ←

15:42:48 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:42:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:42:51 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to discuss primer

Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to discuss primer ←

15:42:54 <CraigTrim> Luc: anyone else for dictionary (Simon)

Luc Moreau: anyone else for dictionary (Simon) ←

15:42:59 <CraigTrim> Luc: last one is PROV-XML

Luc Moreau: last one is PROV-XML ←

15:43:08 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:43:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: I will look at this one - anyone else?

Luc Moreau: I will look at this one - anyone else? ←

15:43:15 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:43:56 <CraigTrim> pgroth: we need a fresh pair of eyes to look at this

Paul Groth: we need a fresh pair of eyes to look at this ←

15:44:12 <CraigTrim> Luc: can you ask James if you know someone willing to look at it?

Luc Moreau: can you ask James if you know someone willing to look at it? ←

15:44:16 <TomDN> I volunteer for PROV-Links

Tom De Nies: I volunteer for PROV-Links ←

15:44:16 <pgroth> action: paul to ask james about xml

ACTION: paul to ask james about xml ←

15:44:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Ask james about xml [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-28].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-168 - Ask james about xml [on Paul Groth - due 2013-03-28]. ←

15:44:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:44:50 <CraigTrim> you can put me down for the primer as well

you can put me down for the primer as well ←

15:44:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

15:44:58 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:45:30 <CraigTrim> pgroth: I had comments on overview from Tim and Graham - if anyone else has other comments please reach out

Paul Groth: I had comments on overview from Tim and Graham - if anyone else has other comments please reach out ←

15:45:39 <CraigTrim> I will look at overview

I will look at overview ←

15:45:41 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:46:22 <Luc> topic: GLD Review Last Call for the Organization Ontology (ORG)

7. GLD Review Last Call for the Organization Ontology (ORG)

Summary: We briefly reviewed the response of GLD to our review of the ORG ontology. Jun was going to check a few points, and draft a response.

<luc>Summary: We briefly reviewed the response of GLD to our review of the ORG ontology.  Jun was going to check a few points, and draft a response.

15:46:45 <CraigTrim> Luc: is it possible to put link to response

Luc Moreau: is it possible to put link to response ←

15:47:04 <jun> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html

Jun Zhao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html ←

15:47:22 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html

Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html ←

15:47:49 <CraigTrim> jun: so I sent email before call - but I think response looks reasonable

Jun Zhao: so I sent email before call - but I think response looks reasonable ←

15:47:59 <CraigTrim> Luc: there were 3 points

Luc Moreau: there were 3 points ←

15:48:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: derivation, constraints, invalidation

Luc Moreau: derivation, constraints, invalidation ←

15:48:32 <CraigTrim> Luc: first point: they adopted a property chain

Luc Moreau: first point: they adopted a property chain ←

15:48:35 <CraigTrim> Luc: which is fine

Luc Moreau: which is fine ←

15:48:48 <CraigTrim> Luc: not entirely clear - does this property chain - where does it show?  in the ontology?

Luc Moreau: not entirely clear - does this property chain - where does it show? in the ontology? ←

15:49:15 <CraigTrim> jun: claimed implementation in Ontology

Jun Zhao: claimed implementation in Ontology ←

15:49:33 <CraigTrim> Luc: only comment was on that specific point,but haven't had time dig into fine detail

Luc Moreau: only comment was on that specific point,but haven't had time dig into fine detail ←

15:50:13 <CraigTrim> Luc: 2nd point - they refer to constraints document

Luc Moreau: 2nd point - they refer to constraints document ←

15:50:47 <CraigTrim> 3rd point - invalidation - up to users to decide

3rd point - invalidation - up to users to decide ←

15:50:54 <CraigTrim> Luc: they made no changes there

Luc Moreau: they made no changes there ←

15:51:20 <CraigTrim> Luc: was this editorial changes, or more (which would imply going through last call again)

Luc Moreau: was this editorial changes, or more (which would imply going through last call again) ←

15:51:39 <CraigTrim> pgroth: was a last call working draft

Paul Groth: was a last call working draft ←

15:51:44 <stain> Sorry I cut in here - I can't be in the meeting (I've instead presented PROV with great reception) - I've started work on a blog post about PAQ - with code sample at https://github.com/stain/paq

Stian Soiland-Reyes: Sorry I cut in here - I can't be in the meeting (I've instead presented PROV with great reception) - I've started work on a blog post about PAQ - with code sample at https://github.com/stain/paq ←

15:51:47 <CraigTrim> Luc: changes implemented is currently in editorial draft

Luc Moreau: changes implemented is currently in editorial draft ←

15:52:04 <stain> for reference: http://www.slideshare.net/soilandreyes/20130321-what-can-provenance-do-for-me

Stian Soiland-Reyes: for reference: http://www.slideshare.net/soilandreyes/20130321-what-can-provenance-do-for-me ←

15:52:11 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:52:13 <pgroth> @stian - cool!

Paul Groth: @stian - cool! ←

15:52:40 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:53:12 <pgroth> q+ - we need to get this stuff out there

Paul Groth: q+ - we need to get this stuff out there ←

15:53:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:53:23 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

15:54:00 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

15:54:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←

15:54:25 <ivan> yes

Ivan Herman: yes ←

15:54:32 <ivan> dst in europe is on the 30th

Ivan Herman: dst in europe is on the 30th ←

15:54:35 <TomDN> bye

Tom De Nies: bye ←

15:54:39 <SamCoppens> bye

Sam Coppens: bye ←

15:54:40 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←

15:54:40 <stain> bye

Stian Soiland-Reyes: bye ←

15:54:42 <Zakim> -TomDN

Zakim IRC Bot: -TomDN ←

15:54:43 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←

15:54:44 <Zakim> -jun

Zakim IRC Bot: -jun ←

15:54:44 <Zakim> -CraigTrim

Zakim IRC Bot: -CraigTrim ←

15:54:46 <Zakim> -TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←

15:54:47 <Zakim> - +44.238.059.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +44.238.059.aaaa ←

15:54:57 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.818.731.aabb ←

Formatted by CommonScribe

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 21 March 2013

1. Documents are published

2. Publication date for RECs

3. prov-aq

4. prov-xml

5. prov-dictionary

6. internal reviews

7. GLD Review Last Call for the Organization Ontology (ORG)