Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.
Paul summarized where we are. We now need to focus on the final steps to get to Candidate Recommendation and Focus on Implementation.
Candidate Recommendation for prov-dm
It was decided that 'mention' would be left for later. We focused on the remaining outstanding issues. ISSUE-482 can be closed after adding an example of bundle/document to the FAQ. ISSUE-569 can also be closed. So, it was agreed that the document is ready for CR publication, once the ISSUE-475 on mention is solved, and after a final editor's pass.
The remaining outstanding issue (589) regarding scope of prefixes in prov-n was closed, following a check of changes made by Luc. The document is ready to go after a final editor's pass.
We reviewed outstanding issues for the PROV-O document/ontology. ISSUE-552 was closed (no response was received from the reviewer, but the changes made followed his suggestions). To address ISSUE-592, it was suggested that Tim should add a comments suggesting to use more specific relations, instead of wasInfluencedBy. The issue was then reassigned to the primer. It was agreed that ISSUE-461 was purely editorial (regarding the readability of the printed document). The editor may look to address it, as we go to Proposed Recommendation. ISSUE-593 will be addressed by adding an example of hadActivity to the document. ISSUE-479 is addressed by confirming that all examples are informative. A statement of normative/informative material is to be added to prov-o. It was agreed that ISSUE-566 was fully addressed and could be closed. It was agreed that ISSUE-491 could also be closed, after suitable change of wording (use with instead of use by).
A sentence highlighting the goal of the spec should be added to the abstract "This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents". Text around equivalence should be revisited and normative SHOULD is to be removed. It was agreed that all outstanding issues can be closed. The document is ready to go after an editor's final pass.
The chair explained that it would be better to enter CR with a "clean slate", and ideally, we wouldn't want to have a feature-at-risk in the specifications. In particular, the notion of mention was at risk, not so much because it might be difficult to implement, but because the group had difficulty reaching consensus. Given this, the chair informally polled the group about the concept of Mention. Graham and Simon were against it, Tim, Tom, Hook, Curt were in favour of it. Arguments against it include lack of semantics, lack of clarity, potential redundancy with specialization. Arguments in favor include weak semantics (offering flexibility) and crucial functionality in environment where a consumer of provenance has to make reference to provenance produced by someone else. Ivan explained the notion of formal objection at W3C. He asked whether the "no-camp" would formally object to the inclusion of mention in the CR spec. Graham indicated he would. In response, Tim said he would consider a formal objection about dropping the construct. We broke for lunch, agreeing to discuss the issue over lunch.
After lunch discussion, Graham thought that the problem may be fixable with a change of descriptive text. It was agreed that Graham would take an hour to draft a revised description. During this time, we would cover another topic.
The prov-xml document was reviewed during the week. Reviewers summarized their feedback. It was agreed that the document was a good first public working draft, and should be released synchronously with the CR specifications. A few suggestions were made to the editors: explain the design rationale for the schema, and mark, in the document, issues under consideration. We then discuss the order of the elements representing prov-dm attributes in the xml schema. For xpath and xquery queries, it was suggested that order was probably not a concern. The participants were unclear whether order affected Object-Relational Mapping (ORM). It was agreed that there was no need to make a decision now, but instead, the FPWD should explicitly seek feedback from reviewers. The issue of subtyping was also discussed: it was suggested that subtypes such as Person, Organization, Revision, etc should have an explicit element, instead of relying on prov:type. It was noted that substitution groups, if required, may become problematic. The editors will investigate a solution for this. Finally, the issue of identifiers was discussed. The questions is whether identifiers should be xsd:QName (as currently) or a more liberal form (qualified names as in prov-n). It was agreed that the issue should be flagged in the document, and feedback sought from outside the group.
The document has been dormant since F2F3, when the dictionary material was "downgraded" to note status. It was unknown whether Stian would lead the effort. Paolo has little bandwidth before Xmas. Sam and Tom volunteered to help, and were going to draft a timetable for the next teleconference.
James summarized the recent work he did on the semantics. Typesetting of the document was discussed. It was agreed that James should proceed ahead, with the most convenient tool for the task, and that we would tackle the conversion into W3C note format afterwards. The objective is to produce a revised version of the document circa Xmas.
the discussion on mention was resumed when Graham rejoined the group. Graham proposed an explanatory change. The group reviewed the text, and discussed some aspects of the proposal. No consensus was emerging immediately, and we didn't want to leave the meeting with a pseudo-agreement on editorial change that would unravel after a week. So, it was decided that we would proceed with a vote on keeping the text as is. If there is opposition, then it means that consensus cannot be reached, and (following a policy agreed at F2F2), the concept should be dropped from Rec-track documents. There was opposition to keep the document as is, but the members were supportive (or not opposing) having a note on mention.
It was approved that prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed.
The document has been essentially dormant since last release, but last week, Graham started to process issues. He summarized the work he had done since. The issue of derenferencing bundle identifiers was discussed, with a view to decide whether it belongs to this document or not. It was noted that dereferencing a bundle identifier is not different than dereferencing an entity identifier. It was also noted that other working groups are addressing this issue. So, while the issue is not entirely out-of-scope, it was felt that a lightweight approach should be adopted by the editors.
<luc>Chair: pgroth
13:24:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc ←
13:24:27 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
Ivan Herman: rrsagent, set log public ←
13:24:41 <ivan> zakim, code?
Ivan Herman: zakim, code? ←
13:24:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan ←
13:31:30 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
(Scribe set to Curt Tilmes)
<luc>Guest: Laurent Lefort, MIT531
13:31:35 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
Summary: Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.
<Luc>Summary: Last week's teleconference minutes were approved.
13:31:37 <ivan> Meeting: F2F Meeting, Stata Center
13:31:44 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01 ←
13:32:04 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-11-01 ←
13:32:08 <tlebo> =1
Timothy Lebo: =1 ←
13:32:11 <Curt> 0 (not present)
0 (not present) ←
13:32:12 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
13:32:16 <hook> +1
13:32:24 <ivan> (was not present)
Ivan Herman: (was not present) ←
13:32:30 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
13:32:39 <tlebo> (that actually works, since I was the first vote...)
Timothy Lebo: (that actually works, since I was the first vote...) ←
13:32:51 <pgroth> approved minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco
Paul Groth: approved minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco ←
13:33:14 <pgroth> Topic: Where we are at
Summary: Paul summarized where we are. We now need to focus on the final steps to get to Candidate Recommendation and Focus on Implementation.
<Luc>Summary: Paul summarized where we are. We now need to focus on the final steps to get to Candidate Recommendation and Focus on Implementation.
13:33:26 <Luc> accepted: minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco
RESOLVED: minutes of the 01 November 2012 telco ←
13:33:26 <Curt> pgroth: we are in great shape!
Paul Groth: we are in great shape! ←
13:33:40 <Curt> pgroth: will discuss documents on rec. track
Paul Groth: will discuss documents on rec. track ←
13:33:51 <Curt> pgroth: most issues closed or will be momentarily
Paul Groth: most issues closed or will be momentarily ←
13:34:10 <Curt> pgroth: need to follow w3c process and do due diligence
Paul Groth: need to follow w3c process and do due diligence ←
13:34:17 <Curt> pgroth: document everything clearly
Paul Groth: document everything clearly ←
13:34:36 <Curt> pgroth: CR period will focus on implementations
Paul Groth: CR period will focus on implementations ←
13:34:51 <Curt> pgroth: both finding other folks to implement as well as working on implementations ourselves
Paul Groth: both finding other folks to implement as well as working on implementations ourselves ←
13:35:01 <Curt> pgroth: we must show that we implement these specs
Paul Groth: we must show that we implement these specs ←
13:35:07 <Curt> pgroth: need coverage of all the features
Paul Groth: need coverage of all the features ←
13:35:44 <Curt> pgroth: reach out to people, engage others, push notes out, FAQ, etc. for outreach to implementers
Paul Groth: reach out to people, engage others, push notes out, FAQ, etc. for outreach to implementers ←
13:36:17 <Curt> pgroth: it has been a long hard slog to get here, need to keep up momentum and let people know what we've done
Paul Groth: it has been a long hard slog to get here, need to keep up momentum and let people know what we've done ←
13:37:00 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:37:00 <Curt> Luc: we've done amazing work since the last meeting there has been serious progress, now we need to finish
Luc Moreau: we've done amazing work since the last meeting there has been serious progress, now we need to finish ←
13:37:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:37:09 <Curt> Luc: need to promote the work that has been done
Luc Moreau: need to promote the work that has been done ←
13:37:31 <Curt> GK: getting specs out is the start, we now hope the wider community will pick things up
Graham Klyne: getting specs out is the start, we now hope the wider community will pick things up ←
13:37:43 <hook> q+
13:37:43 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:37:48 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
13:38:22 <Paolo> sorry to be a pest: I think the phone mic goes to sleep even with short pauses so now it's all very on/off -- hard to follow. only continuous voices come across clean
Paolo Missier: sorry to be a pest: I think the phone mic goes to sleep even with short pauses so now it's all very on/off -- hard to follow. only continuous voices come across clean ←
13:38:49 <Curt> hook: this is a time to focus on implementations -- two serializations (PROV-O, PROV-XML) are each distinct encodings, distinct implementations
Hook Hua: this is a time to focus on implementations -- two serializations (PROV-O, PROV-XML) are each distinct encodings, distinct implementations ←
13:38:57 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:39:00 <Curt> hook: current definition is loose
Hook Hua: current definition is loose ←
13:40:02 <Curt> pgroth: in terms of implementation, we are looking for usage. A markup of a web site is an implementation
Paul Groth: in terms of implementation, we are looking for usage. A markup of a web site is an implementation ←
13:40:17 <Curt> pgroth: we are also looking for things that generate, consume, validate constraints, etc.
Paul Groth: we are also looking for things that generate, consume, validate constraints, etc. ←
13:40:36 <Curt> pgroth: we will see people use PROV as the basis for other work
Paul Groth: we will see people use PROV as the basis for other work ←
13:41:03 <Curt> pgroth: our exit criteria count data marked up, vocab. extensions, applications each as implementations
Paul Groth: our exit criteria count data marked up, vocab. extensions, applications each as implementations ←
13:41:09 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F4Schedule F2F agenda
Ivan Herman: ivan has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F4Schedule F2F agenda ←
13:41:29 <Curt> GK: do extensions help us with CR exit criteria?
Graham Klyne: do extensions help us with CR exit criteria? ←
13:41:52 <Curt> pgroth: yes! similar to SKOS, we want to verify that people are using the work. That includes markup and extensions
Paul Groth: yes! similar to SKOS, we want to verify that people are using the work. That includes markup and extensions ←
13:42:28 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:42:56 <Curt> Luc: obviously, we are looking for applications to generate and consume provenance -- those really demonstrate interoperability
Luc Moreau: obviously, we are looking for applications to generate and consume provenance -- those really demonstrate interoperability ←
13:42:58 <pgroth> fyi : http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria
Paul Groth: fyi : http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria ←
13:43:04 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:44:02 <pgroth> Topic: Candidate Recommendation for prov-dm
Summary: It was decided that 'mention' would be left for later. We focused on the remaining outstanding issues. ISSUE-482 can be closed after adding an example of bundle/document to the FAQ. ISSUE-569 can also be closed. So, it was agreed that the document is ready for CR publication, once the ISSUE-475 on mention is solved, and after a final editor's pass.
<Luc>Summary: It was decided that 'mention' would be left for later. We focused on the remaining outstanding issues. ISSUE-482 can be closed after adding an example of bundle/document to the FAQ. ISSUE-569 can also be closed. So, it was agreed that the document is ready for CR publication, once the ISSUE-475 on mention is solved, and after a final editor's pass.
13:44:21 <Curt> pgroth: status outstanding issues
Paul Groth: status outstanding issues ←
13:44:42 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/2
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/2 ←
13:45:12 <ivan> issue-482?
13:45:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-482 -- [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-482 -- [external question] bundle IDs on insertion, context -- pending review ←
13:45:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/482 ←
13:45:54 <Curt> pgroth: haven't received acknowledgement from externtal reviewer satra
Paul Groth: haven't received acknowledgement from externtal reviewer satra ←
13:46:02 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html
Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html ←
13:46:09 <Curt> Luc: He has acked.
Luc Moreau: He has acked. ←
13:46:16 <GK> Re my unease - the exit criteriaare OK, and I think it's OK that vocab extensions are considered implementations, bur it's not clear how *extensions* serve to demonstrate the primary goal of demonstrated interop of documented features of PROV. But as I said, I think that will resolve itself when we look at the details of implementations
Graham Klyne: Re my unease - the exit criteriaare OK, and I think it's OK that vocab extensions are considered implementations, bur it's not clear how *extensions* serve to demonstrate the primary goal of demonstrated interop of documented features of PROV. But as I said, I think that will resolve itself when we look at the details of implementations ←
13:47:17 <zednik> Luc is breaking up over the audio
Stephan Zednik: Luc is breaking up over the audio ←
13:47:19 <Curt> Luc: there was a suggestion we should consider adding an example of bundles to FAQ
Luc Moreau: there was a suggestion we should consider adding an example of bundles to FAQ ←
13:47:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
13:48:04 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
13:48:04 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, ivan ←
13:48:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain ←
13:48:18 <GK> q+ to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes
Graham Klyne: q+ to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes ←
13:48:19 <ivan> zakim, this is F2F
Ivan Herman: zakim, this is F2F ←
13:48:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; that matches SW_(F2F)8:00AM ←
13:48:32 <pgroth> ack gk
Paul Groth: ack gk ←
13:48:33 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say the last example I saw was relating to the *previous* positon on namespace prefixes ←
13:48:40 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
13:48:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa ←
13:48:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain ←
13:48:43 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
13:48:52 <Curt> GK: the last example dealt with previous situations without nested identifiers
Graham Klyne: the last example dealt with previous situations without nested identifiers ←
13:49:29 <Curt> pgroth: we clarified the way it worked, he wanted examples of using prefixes properly and how not to use them
Paul Groth: we clarified the way it worked, he wanted examples of using prefixes properly and how not to use them ←
13:50:03 <Curt> pgroth: need an action to add examples to FAQ
Paul Groth: need an action to add examples to FAQ ←
13:50:21 <Curt> Luc: I will do it (the example from his message?)
Luc Moreau: I will do it (the example from his message?) ←
13:50:25 <Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html
Luc Moreau: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Oct/0019.html ←
13:50:40 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
13:50:44 <GK> ^^ not "without nested identifiers" but "without nested prefixes" - it's important to distinguish between these.
Graham Klyne: ^^ not "without nested identifiers" but "without nested prefixes" - it's important to distinguish between these. ←
13:51:07 <Curt> Luc: the example he gave is valid, we need to explain why it is valid and add an example that is invalid
Luc Moreau: the example he gave is valid, we need to explain why it is valid and add an example that is invalid ←
13:51:28 <pgroth> action Luc - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity
Paul Groth: action Luc - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity ←
13:51:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-122 - - add example of document/bundle to faq explaining validity [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16]. ←
13:51:30 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
13:51:34 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
13:51:45 <GK> q+ to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle
Graham Klyne: q+ to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle ←
13:52:07 <Curt> jcheney: agreed -- that's what we need to do.
James Cheney: agreed -- that's what we need to do. ←
13:52:14 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
13:52:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask about id used for bundle and entity within bundle ←
13:52:23 <Curt> Luc: we can close the issue now, with the coming action
Luc Moreau: we can close the issue now, with the coming action ←
13:52:56 <Curt> GK: you can have a bundle with an identifier, and use the identifier inside the bundle, to give provenance of the bundle itself. Is that ok?
Graham Klyne: you can have a bundle with an identifier, and use the identifier inside the bundle, to give provenance of the bundle itself. Is that ok? ←
13:53:12 <Curt> pgroth: that's a separate issue
Paul Groth: that's a separate issue ←
13:53:23 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
13:53:29 <Curt> pgroth: that wouldn't change the spec
Paul Groth: that wouldn't change the spec ←
13:53:42 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
13:53:42 <Curt> GK: I thought you (paul) thought that would be invalid
Graham Klyne: I thought you (paul) thought that would be invalid ←
13:53:49 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
13:53:50 <Curt> pgroth: delay considering that until later
Paul Groth: delay considering that until later ←
13:54:00 <Curt> Luc: that is perfectly valid, and has an example in the DM
Luc Moreau: that is perfectly valid, and has an example in the DM ←
13:54:00 <pgroth> ack zednik
Paul Groth: ack zednik ←
13:54:13 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
13:54:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, [IPcaller], +1.617.715.aaaa ←
13:54:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, Paolo, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, RRSAgent, pgroth, jcheney, Zakim, ivan, zednik, trackbot, stain ←
13:54:18 <Curt> zednik: the FAQ could attempt to address that
Stephan Zednik: the FAQ could attempt to address that ←
13:54:18 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
13:54:36 <Curt> pgroth: issue-569
13:54:38 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is Paolo
Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is Paolo ←
13:54:38 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it ←
13:54:44 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:54:48 <ivan> zakim, ??P0 is zednik
Ivan Herman: zakim, ??P0 is zednik ←
13:54:48 <Zakim> +zednik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik; got it ←
13:54:48 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
13:54:52 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
13:55:19 <Curt> Luc: pending review waiting for james' response, came back to simon yesterday. he is happy with the suggestion, can close now
Luc Moreau: pending review waiting for james' response, came back to simon yesterday. he is happy with the suggestion, can close now ←
13:55:37 <Curt> pgroth: issue-475, mention
Paul Groth: ISSUE-475, mention ←
13:55:45 <ivan> zakim, aaaa has laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain
Ivan Herman: zakim, aaaa has laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain ←
13:55:45 <Zakim> +laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain; got it ←
13:56:25 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
13:56:29 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
13:56:46 <Curt> pgroth: let's consider that (mention) at the end of this section so we can discuss it
Paul Groth: let's consider that (mention) at the end of this session so we can discuss it ←
13:57:06 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
13:57:24 <Curt> s/section/session/
13:57:29 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
13:57:51 <Curt> pgroth: editor review DM a final time for cleanliness/etc.
Paul Groth: editor review DM a final time for cleanliness/etc. ←
13:58:05 <Curt> Luc: how should we acknowledge reviewers?
Luc Moreau: how should we acknowledge reviewers? ←
13:58:25 <Curt> ivan: they will get listed as well as listing the working group
Ivan Herman: they will get listed as well as listing the working group ←
13:58:27 <Luc> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
13:58:52 <Curt> ivan: put the same list of reviewers in each document
Ivan Herman: put the same list of reviewers in each document ←
13:59:00 <pgroth> action: Luc editor check
ACTION: Luc editor check ←
13:59:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-123 - Editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16]. ←
13:59:30 <Curt> ivan: everything that needs to be changed has been changed?
Ivan Herman: everything that needs to be changed has been changed? ←
13:59:46 <Curt> Luc: yes, except for final review, it is ready to go
Luc Moreau: yes, except for final review, it is ready to go ←
14:01:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
14:01:51 <smiles> I'm trying to call in to the W3C bridge with code 7768 as said on the Wiki, but get "This pass code is not valid". Is there another code for today?
Simon Miles: I'm trying to call in to the W3C bridge with code 7768 as said on the Wiki, but get "This pass code is not valid". Is there another code for today? ←
14:02:05 <ivan> zakim, code?
Ivan Herman: zakim, code? ←
14:02:05 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan ←
14:02:39 <GK> @smiles - that often happens to me … but usually works if I try again (i.e. re-enter the passcode).
Graham Klyne: @smiles - that often happens to me … but usually works if I try again (i.e. re-enter the passcode). ←
14:02:41 <pgroth> we have now addressed all open issues (except mention) for prov-dm
Paul Groth: we have now addressed all open issues (except mention) for prov-dm ←
14:02:57 <pgroth> Topic: prov-n
Summary: The remaining outstanding issue (589) regarding scope of prefixes in prov-n was closed, following a check of changes made by Luc. The document is ready to go after a final editor's pass.
<luc>Summary: The remaining outstanding issue (589) regarding scope of prefixes in prov-n was closed, following a check of changes made by Luc. The document is ready to go after a final editor's pass.
14:03:06 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/11
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/11 ←
14:03:30 <smiles> * yes, I've tried a few times. not sure what the problem is, but will keep trying!
Simon Miles: * yes, I've tried a few times. not sure what the problem is, but will keep trying! ←
14:03:41 <Curt> Luc: last week, we agreed we would change scoping of prefixes, haven't received any feedback
Luc Moreau: last week, we agreed we would change scoping of prefixes, haven't received any feedback ←
14:04:22 <Curt> Luc: would be nice to have a few more examples
Luc Moreau: would be nice to have a few more examples ←
14:05:18 <pgroth> action: Luc prov-n editor check
ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check ←
14:05:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Prov-n editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-124 - Prov-n editor check [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16]. ←
14:05:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:06:36 <pgroth> smiles are you on
Paul Groth: smiles are you on ←
14:06:37 <pgroth> ?
Paul Groth: ? ←
14:06:50 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:06:52 <smiles> yes, but the sound keeps cutting in and out
Simon Miles: yes, but the sound keeps cutting in and out ←
14:06:55 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is smiles
Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is smiles ←
14:06:55 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it ←
14:07:20 <Curt> Luc: there is a typo in the current text
Luc Moreau: there is a typo in the current text ←
14:07:31 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:07:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:07:54 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
14:07:59 <ivan> zakim, [IPcaller] is khalidBelhajjame
Ivan Herman: zakim, [IPcaller] is khalidBelhajjame ←
14:07:59 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it ←
14:08:05 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
14:08:10 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller]is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller]is me ←
14:08:10 <Zakim> I don't understand '[IPcaller]is me', khalidBelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '[IPcaller]is me', khalidBelhajjame ←
14:08:16 <Curt> Luc: all documents cross-reference each other, which URL should we use
Luc Moreau: all documents cross-reference each other, which URL should we use ←
14:08:22 <Curt> ivan: the dated URL
Ivan Herman: the dated URL ←
14:08:23 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
14:08:23 <Zakim> sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' ←
14:08:38 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, +[IPcaller] is me ←
14:08:38 <Zakim> sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, khalidBelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' ←
14:09:10 <Curt> ivan: it is a real pain, but they must always reference by the dated URI
Ivan Herman: it is a real pain, but they must always reference by the dated URI ←
14:09:51 <Curt> ivan: a global search/replace should take care of it.
Ivan Herman: a global search/replace should take care of it. ←
14:10:52 <pgroth> action: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given)
ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given) ←
14:10:52 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find tlebo,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find tlebo,. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>. ←
14:10:54 <Curt> Luc: we can't refer to those until we get the publication date
Luc Moreau: we can't refer to those until we get the publication date ←
14:11:05 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:11:22 <Curt> Luc: is there a way to define the reference prefix up front and reuse it?
Luc Moreau: is there a way to define the reference prefix up front and reuse it? ←
14:11:40 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:11:47 <Curt> ivan: (redacted)
Ivan Herman: (redacted) ←
14:12:06 <pgroth> w?
Paul Groth: w? ←
14:12:07 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:12:19 <pgroth> note, we are happy with prov-n
Paul Groth: note, we are happy with prov-n ←
14:12:34 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-O
Summary: We reviewed outstanding issues for the PROV-O document/ontology. ISSUE-552 was closed (no response was received from the reviewer, but the changes made followed his suggestions). To address ISSUE-592, it was suggested that Tim should add a comments suggesting to use more specific relations, instead of wasInfluencedBy. The issue was then reassigned to the primer. It was agreed that ISSUE-461 was purely editorial (regarding the readability of the printed document). The editor may look to address it, as we go to Proposed Recommendation. ISSUE-593 will be addressed by adding an example of hadActivity to the document. ISSUE-479 is addressed by confirming that all examples are informative. A statement of normative/informative material is to be added to prov-o. It was agreed that ISSUE-566 was fully addressed and could be closed. It was agreed that ISSUE-491 could also be closed, after suitable change of wording (use with instead of use by).
<luc>Summary: We reviewed outstanding issues for the PROV-O document/ontology. ISSUE-552 was closed (no response was received from the reviewer, but the changes made followed his suggestions). To address ISSUE-592, it was suggested that Tim should add a comments suggesting to use more specific relations, instead of wasInfluencedBy. The issue was then reassigned to the primer. It was agreed that ISSUE-461 was purely editorial (regarding the readability of the printed document). The editor may look to address it, as we go to Proposed Recommendation. ISSUE-593 will be addressed by adding an example of hadActivity to the document. ISSUE-479 is addressed by confirming that all examples are informative. A statement of normative/informative material is to be added to prov-o. It was agreed that ISSUE-566 was fully addressed and could be closed. It was agreed that ISSUE-491 could also be closed, after suitable change of wording (use with instead of use by).
14:12:53 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/3 ←
14:12:58 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552 ←
14:13:15 <Curt> tlebo: issue-552, subclass, we did what they recommended
Timothy Lebo: ISSUE-552, subclass, we did what they recommended ←
14:13:27 <Curt> tlebo: haven't heard back
Timothy Lebo: haven't heard back ←
14:13:47 <Curt> tlebo: we asked for a response on tuesday
Timothy Lebo: we asked for a response on tuesday ←
14:14:01 <Curt> ivan: ok to close, we did what they suggested
Ivan Herman: ok to close, we did what they suggested ←
14:14:45 <pgroth> action: tlebo to add email link to the response page
ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page ←
14:14:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Add email link to the response page [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-125 - Add email link to the response page [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16]. ←
14:14:53 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:15:23 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/592
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/592 ←
14:15:51 <Curt> tlebo: he says terms are confusing, but his concern isn't clear
Timothy Lebo: he says terms are confusing, but his concern isn't clear ←
14:17:03 <Curt> tlebo: he expressed a concern, tim suggested an alternative approach, he hasn't responded to that
Timothy Lebo: he expressed a concern, tim suggested an alternative approach, he hasn't responded to that ←
14:18:28 <tlebo> q+ to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty ←
14:18:29 <Curt> ?: wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy can get confused, there may be a better way to describe/depict their relationship
Laurent Lefort: wasInfluencedBy and wasInformedBy can get confused, there may be a better way to describe/depict their relationship ←
14:18:37 <tlebo> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
14:19:10 <ivan> s/?:/laurent:/
14:19:14 <Curt> tlebo: in the HTML is isn't as obvious which is the superproperty?
Timothy Lebo: in the HTML is isn't as obvious which is the superproperty? ←
14:19:27 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:19:30 <Curt> laurent: yes, is isn't totally obvious in the HTML description of the ontology
Laurent Lefort: yes, is isn't totally obvious in the HTML description of the ontology ←
14:19:35 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
14:19:35 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask hwo to make it "more top level" - it is already a superproperoty ←
14:20:31 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
14:20:47 <Curt> Luc: we changed the superclass description in the DM since Ralph reviewed, it might be more clear now
Luc Moreau: we changed the superclass description in the DM since Ralph reviewed, it might be more clear now ←
14:21:09 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:21:11 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
14:21:14 <ivan> ack jcheney
Ivan Herman: ack jcheney ←
14:21:15 <Curt> Luc: Could revise the HTML description to clarify further
Luc Moreau: Could revise the HTML description to clarify further ←
14:21:58 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:22:06 <Curt> jcheney: agreed, it says what we want it to say, but we might want to make it clear right up front which is the superproperty for querying and that you ought to use the more specific terms if possible
James Cheney: agreed, it says what we want it to say, but we might want to make it clear right up front which is the superproperty for querying and that you ought to use the more specific terms if possible ←
14:22:08 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
14:22:11 <pgroth> ack ivan
Paul Groth: ack ivan ←
14:22:34 <Curt> ivan: might want to add the clarifying diagram
Ivan Herman: might want to add the clarifying diagram ←
14:23:15 <Curt> pgroth: the document is already large, we are talking about ways to better guide how people should use the standard, but not affecting the standard itself
Paul Groth: the document is already large, we are talking about ways to better guide how people should use the standard, but not affecting the standard itself ←
14:23:32 <Curt> pgroth: that sort of material, patterns, etc. should be in the FAQ
Paul Groth: that sort of material, patterns, etc. should be in the FAQ ←
14:23:59 <Curt> ivan: we need to make sure those clarifications aren't lost, maybe include in the primer? where would people want to find that sort of material
Ivan Herman: we need to make sure those clarifications aren't lost, maybe include in the primer? where would people want to find that sort of material ←
14:24:07 <Curt> pgroth: I'm happy to have that added to the primer
Paul Groth: I'm happy to have that added to the primer ←
14:24:08 <GK> q+ to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication
Graham Klyne: q+ to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication ←
14:24:35 <Curt> pgroth: that type of material -- I haven't seen that specific image or writeup
Paul Groth: that type of material -- I haven't seen that specific image or writeup ←
14:25:11 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:25:14 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
14:25:14 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say - adding to primer means its fixed onpublication ←
14:25:26 <Curt> Luc: tlebo should forward Laurent's material to the list to consider for adding to the primer
Luc Moreau: tlebo should forward Laurent's material to the list to consider for adding to the primer ←
14:25:54 <Curt> GK: the primer is fixed on publication, maybe link it to somewhere more dynamic
Graham Klyne: the primer is fixed on publication, maybe link it to somewhere more dynamic ←
14:26:03 <Curt> pgroth: I like the FAQ for this type of stuff
Paul Groth: I like the FAQ for this type of stuff ←
14:26:34 <Curt> ivan: For usage patterns, I agree with GK, they will change/evolve, but the diagram from Laurent is more fixed
Ivan Herman: For usage patterns, I agree with GK, they will change/evolve, but the diagram from Laurent is more fixed ←
14:26:50 <Curt> GK: agreed, the diagram is different
Graham Klyne: agreed, the diagram is different ←
14:28:16 <pgroth> action: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document
ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document ←
14:28:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Add a comment to use more specific things through document [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-126 - Add a comment to use more specific things through document [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16]. ←
14:29:08 <Curt> tlebo: reassigned issue 592 to the primer
Timothy Lebo: reassigned ISSUE-592 to the primer ←
14:29:21 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:29:33 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:29:48 <pgroth> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
Paul Groth: https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10 ←
14:29:55 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/461 ←
14:31:38 <Curt> GK: difficult to follow cross-references when the document is printed
Graham Klyne: difficult to follow cross-references when the document is printed ←
14:32:04 <Curt> Luc: in the DM, we numbered everything and refer by number instead of just the static link
Luc Moreau: in the DM, we numbered everything and refer by number instead of just the static link ←
14:32:12 <Curt> Luc: it was difficult to put in all those
Luc Moreau: it was difficult to put in all those ←
14:32:28 <Curt> tlebo: :-)
Timothy Lebo: :-) ←
14:32:50 <Curt> ivan: now is the time to make those sorts of changes
Ivan Herman: now is the time to make those sorts of changes ←
14:33:33 <Curt> tlebo: to address that, we would have a number for everything, and a table with all the numbers to index the terms
Timothy Lebo: to address that, we would have a number for everything, and a table with all the numbers to index the terms ←
14:33:48 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:33:48 <Curt> tlebo: it may be difficult to do all that and not break anything
Timothy Lebo: it may be difficult to do all that and not break anything ←
14:33:58 <Curt> tlebo: it is a purely editorial issue
Timothy Lebo: it is a purely editorial issue ←
14:34:38 <Curt> tlebo: if we can get through CR without that, then address it prior to next phase
Timothy Lebo: if we can get through CR without that, then address it prior to next phase ←
14:34:51 <Curt> GK: this may be just too much work to implement
Graham Klyne: this may be just too much work to implement ←
14:36:13 <pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-461 is editorial, the group agrees that this is ok to go ahead with CR and may look to address in the period of PR
RESOLVED: ISSUE-461 is editorial, the group agrees that this is ok to go ahead with CR and may look to address in the period of PR ←
14:36:23 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/593
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/593 ←
14:36:59 <Curt> tlebo: need to change TTL example to exercise hadActivity
Timothy Lebo: need to change TTL example to exercise hadActivity ←
14:37:16 <Curt> tlebo: examples are considered editorial?
Timothy Lebo: examples are considered editorial? ←
14:37:25 <Curt> ivan: yes, it is, but can it be done for CR?
Ivan Herman: yes, it is, but can it be done for CR? ←
14:37:30 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:38:29 <pgroth> action: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o
ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o ←
14:38:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Add hadActivity example to prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-127 - Add hadActivity example to prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16]. ←
14:38:48 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/479 ←
14:39:08 <Curt> pgroth: we removed all TrIG?
Paul Groth: we removed all TrIG? ←
14:39:16 <Curt> tlebo: there are a few remaining for 'mention'
Timothy Lebo: there are a few remaining for 'mention' ←
14:40:14 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:40:22 <Curt> tlebo: reduced amount of TriG, and cited/described use of TriG
Timothy Lebo: reduced amount of TriG, and cited/described use of TriG ←
14:40:43 <Curt> ivan: clarify that all examples are informative
Ivan Herman: clarify that all examples are informative ←
14:40:53 <Curt> ivan: must add that to the document
Ivan Herman: must add that to the document ←
14:41:06 <Curt> ivan: then you can use TriG in examples and note that
Ivan Herman: then you can use TriG in examples and note that ←
14:41:24 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:41:40 <Curt> ivan: there may be a document from RDF group about TriG, and we could reference that later as an editorial change
Ivan Herman: there may be a document from RDF group about TriG, and we could reference that later as an editorial change ←
14:41:56 <Curt> ivan: TriG reference must be informative, not normative
Ivan Herman: TriG reference must be informative, not normative ←
14:42:09 <Curt> ivan: it can reference it as a work in progress
Ivan Herman: it can reference it as a work in progress ←
14:42:35 <GK> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle -
Graham Klyne: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120724/#Bundle - ←
14:43:11 <tlebo> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o
Timothy Lebo: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o ←
14:43:40 <TomDN> http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#Bundle
Tom De Nies: http://aquarius.tw.rpi.edu/prov-wg/prov-o#Bundle ←
14:44:43 <Curt> pgroth: closing the issue, tim will clarify that examples are informative
Paul Groth: closing the issue, tim will clarify that examples are informative ←
14:44:48 <pgroth> action: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o
ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o ←
14:44:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-128 - Add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16]. ←
14:45:30 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/566
Timothy Lebo: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/566 ←
14:45:38 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:46:04 <Curt> tlebo: fully addressed, waiting for daniel to respond
Timothy Lebo: fully addressed, waiting for daniel to respond ←
14:46:24 <Curt> tlebo: closing issue-566
Timothy Lebo: closing ISSUE-566 ←
14:46:42 <ivan> issue-491?
14:46:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-491 -- [external] feedback on prov:agent explanation. -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-491 -- [external] feedback on prov:agent explanation. -- pending review ←
14:46:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/491 ←
14:48:03 <Curt> tlebo: made some changes, Patrice likes it even less
Timothy Lebo: made some changes, Patrice likes it even less ←
14:48:22 <Curt> tlebo: doesn't like colloquial use of some terms and phrases
Timothy Lebo: doesn't like colloquial use of some terms and phrases ←
14:48:44 <Curt> tlebo: wants things expressed in logic terms
Timothy Lebo: wants things expressed in logic terms ←
14:49:11 <Curt> pgroth: his phrasing would rewrite the document in a rule based form
Paul Groth: his phrasing would rewrite the document in a rule based form ←
14:49:33 <lebot> hello?
Timothy Lebo: hello? ←
14:49:44 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
14:50:52 <GK> q+ to suggest s/used by/used with/
Graham Klyne: q+ to suggest s/used by/used with/ ←
14:50:57 <Curt> ivan (and others): the proposed language is very convoluted for people to read, we shouldn't do it
ivan (and others): the proposed language is very convoluted for people to read, we shouldn't do it ←
14:51:01 <jcheney> sorry about the noise
James Cheney: sorry about the noise ←
14:51:27 <Curt> ivan: some of the wording could be better
Ivan Herman: some of the wording could be better ←
14:51:28 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
14:51:28 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest s/used by/used with/
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to suggest s/used by/used with/ ←
14:51:35 <Curt> GK: change "used by" to "used with"
Graham Klyne: change "used by" to "used with" ←
14:51:45 <Curt> ivan: yes, that may be a simple way to address some concerns
Ivan Herman: yes, that may be a simple way to address some concerns ←
14:52:10 <Curt> pgroth: are these in many places?
Paul Groth: are these in many places? ←
14:52:29 <Curt> tlebo: I removed some of the objectionable language
Timothy Lebo: I removed some of the objectionable language ←
14:52:38 <Curt> ivan: why was he even more upset?
Ivan Herman: why was he even more upset? ←
14:53:51 <Curt> tlebo: we were reusing prov:AgentInfluence, but we change our usage of that, with a better definition
Timothy Lebo: we were reusing prov:AgentInfluence, but we change our usage of that, with a better definition ←
14:54:08 <Curt> tlebo: we've addressed some of the expressed concerns
Timothy Lebo: we've addressed some of the expressed concerns ←
14:55:18 <Curt> tlebo: I think we've addressed it all
Timothy Lebo: I think we've addressed it all ←
14:55:47 <Curt> pgroth: we don't want to use the proposed phrasing, I think this has been adequately addressed
Paul Groth: we don't want to use the proposed phrasing, I think this has been adequately addressed ←
14:55:58 <Curt> tlebo: closing issue 491
Timothy Lebo: closing ISSUE-491 ←
14:57:39 <Curt> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/116
https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/116 ←
14:58:56 <Curt> Luc: Tim will address action 116 post-CR release, determine if it is doable
Luc Moreau: Tim will address ACTION-116 post-CR release, determine if it is doable ←
14:59:50 <Curt> pgroth: Tim will do an editor check of PROV-O
Paul Groth: Tim will do an editor check of PROV-O ←
14:59:59 <pgroth> action: tlebo editor check prov-o
ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o ←
14:59:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Editor check prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-129 - Editor check prov-o [on Timothy Lebo - due 2012-11-16]. ←
15:00:10 <pgroth> very happy with prov-o
Paul Groth: very happy with prov-o ←
15:00:20 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/12 ←
15:00:21 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Constraints
Summary: A sentence highlighting the goal of the spec should be added to the abstract "This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents". Text around equivalence should be revisited and normative SHOULD is to be removed. It was agreed that all outstanding issues can be closed. The document is ready to go after an editor's final pass.
<luc>Summary: A sentence highlighting the goal of the spec should be added to the abstract "This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents". Text around equivalence should be revisited and normative SHOULD is to be removed. It was agreed that all outstanding issues can be closed. The document is ready to go after an editor's final pass.
15:01:08 <Curt> pgroth: All issues have been addressed, sent back to reviewer
Paul Groth: All issues have been addressed, sent back to reviewer ←
15:01:24 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:01:25 <Curt> jcheney: he has had a week to consider our responses
James Cheney: he has had a week to consider our responses ←
15:01:36 <Curt> ivan: were any of the resolutions controversial?
Ivan Herman: were any of the resolutions controversial? ←
15:02:03 <Curt> jcheney: there were a few common themes, some were simply typo/rewording
James Cheney: there were a few common themes, some were simply typo/rewording ←
15:03:48 <pgroth> close ISSUE-587
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-587 ←
15:03:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-587 Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-587 Concerns about analogies to RDF blank nodes/semantics closed ←
15:04:19 <Curt> group (we like tracker!)
group (we like tracker!) ←
15:04:37 <pgroth> close ISSUE-586
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-586 ←
15:04:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-586 The description of 'toplevel bundle' as 'set of statements not appearing in a named bundle' is unclear closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-586 The description of 'toplevel bundle' as 'set of statements not appearing in a named bundle' is unclear closed ←
15:04:52 <pgroth> close ISSUE-582
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-582 ←
15:04:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-582 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.' closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-582 'of their respective documents.' should be '... of their respective instances.' closed ←
15:05:56 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:07:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:07:07 <Curt> jcheney: some of the suggestions might be more appropriately addressed in the semantics document
James Cheney: some of the suggestions might be more appropriately addressed in the semantics document ←
15:07:24 <Curt> jcheney: they didn't fit the nature of the the constraints goals
James Cheney: they didn't fit the nature of the the constraints goals ←
15:07:39 <Curt> ivan: maybe we didn't clarify the goals of the document?
Ivan Herman: maybe we didn't clarify the goals of the document? ←
15:08:08 <Curt> jcheney: I tried to elaborate purpose of document, that somewhat addresses that concern
James Cheney: I tried to elaborate purpose of document, that somewhat addresses that concern ←
15:08:43 <Curt> pgroth: current description of constraints document
Paul Groth: current description of constraints document ←
15:09:09 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:09:35 <TomDN> I think this sentence addresses a lot of his concerns as well: "Further discussion of the semantics of PROV statements, which justifies the definitions, inferences and constraints, and relates the procedural specification approach taken here to a declarative specification, can be found in the formal semantics [PROV-SEM]. "
Tom De Nies: I think this sentence addresses a lot of his concerns as well: "Further discussion of the semantics of PROV statements, which justifies the definitions, inferences and constraints, and relates the procedural specification approach taken here to a declarative specification, can be found in the formal semantics [PROV-SEM]. " ←
15:09:49 <Curt> Luc: message in document is fairly clear what we intend for the document
Luc Moreau: message in document is fairly clear what we intend for the document ←
15:10:19 <Curt> ivan: that description sounds ok, need to be clear that this is a precise way to check validity of PROV
Ivan Herman: that description sounds ok, need to be clear that this is a precise way to check validity of PROV ←
15:10:42 <Curt> ivan: Antoine may be looking for semantics -- that isn't the goal of this document
Ivan Herman: Antoine may be looking for semantics -- that isn't the goal of this document ←
15:10:54 <Curt> jcheney: that is how I have addressed the issues
James Cheney: that is how I have addressed the issues ←
15:11:30 <Curt> pgroth: add 1 sentence to description on constraints document -- this defines a precise way to validate provenance
Paul Groth: add 1 sentence to description on constraints document -- this defines a precise way to validate provenance ←
15:12:44 <pgroth> This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents.
Paul Groth: This document defines how to precisely validate provenance documents. ←
15:13:07 <Curt> jcheney: will add that sentence
James Cheney: will add that sentence ←
15:14:38 <Curt> pgroth: I read all the issue responses and thought they were good -- so did luc
Paul Groth: I read all the issue responses and thought they were good -- so did luc ←
15:16:18 <Curt> jcheney: issue-585, described why things are worded the way they are
James Cheney: ISSUE-585, described why things are worded the way they are ←
15:16:20 <pgroth> close ISSUE-585
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-585 ←
15:16:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-585 Suggestion to avoid discussing how to 'apply' constraints; clarify what it means to 'satisfy' constraints closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-585 Suggestion to avoid discussing how to 'apply' constraints; clarify what it means to 'satisfy' constraints closed ←
15:17:20 <Curt> issue 576, the term merging was replaced with unification that is more accurate
ISSUE-576, the term merging was replaced with unification that is more accurate ←
15:17:37 <pgroth> close ISSUE-584
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-584 ←
15:17:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-584 The nonstandard/procedurally defined 'merging' operation on terms closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-584 The nonstandard/procedurally defined 'merging' operation on terms closed ←
15:17:57 <Curt> ^576^584
^576^584 ←
15:18:49 <Curt> jcheney: issue 583, rewrote wording of equivalent instances
James Cheney: ISSUE-583, rewrote wording of equivalent instances ←
15:18:50 <pgroth> close ISSUE-583
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-583 ←
15:18:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-583 Questions concerning what it means for applications to treat equivalent instances 'in the same way', particularly in bundles. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-583 Questions concerning what it means for applications to treat equivalent instances 'in the same way', particularly in bundles. closed ←
15:22:28 <Curt> jcheney: issue 581 wording around normalization/equivalence
James Cheney: ISSUE-581 wording around normalization/equivalence ←
15:23:37 <Curt> GK: equivalence is really observed behavior -- given the same situation, you should get the same provenance
Graham Klyne: equivalence is really observed behavior -- given the same situation, you should get the same provenance ←
15:24:00 <Curt> jcheney: I'll reword some of this and circulate for comment
James Cheney: I'll reword some of this and circulate for comment ←
15:24:32 <pgroth> action: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD
ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD ←
15:24:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-130 - Add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16]. ←
15:24:33 <GK> ^^ Not "equivalence", but "treat in tghe same way" is what is observed/able behavious.
Graham Klyne: ^^ Not "equivalence", but "treat in tghe same way" is what is observed/able behavious. ←
15:25:44 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:26:04 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:27:22 <Curt> issue 581, we agree we are not specifying the algorithm, will clarify,
ISSUE-581, we agree we are not specifying the algorithm, will clarify, ←
15:27:27 <pgroth> close ISSUE-581
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-581 ←
15:27:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-581 Suggestion to avoid wording that 'almost requires' using normalization to implement constraints closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-581 Suggestion to avoid wording that 'almost requires' using normalization to implement constraints closed ←
15:28:42 <Curt> jcheney: issue 580, definitions for expanding compact language not needed; response -- yes, we do need to define how those things work
James Cheney: ISSUE-580, definitions for expanding compact language not needed; response -- yes, we do need to define how those things work ←
15:29:24 <pgroth> close ISSUE-580
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-580 ←
15:29:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-580 Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-580 Suggestion to drop definitions in section 4.1 since they are not needed if the semantics is defined more abstractly closed ←
15:31:09 <TomDN> issue-578?
15:31:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-578 -- Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-578 -- Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics -- pending review ←
15:31:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/578
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/578 ←
15:31:39 <Curt> jcheney: issue 578, we defined equivalence only on valid documents, not arbitrary documents
James Cheney: ISSUE-578, we defined equivalence only on valid documents, not arbitrary documents ←
15:33:37 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
15:33:54 <Curt> jcheney: we need to consider equivalence for other scenarios beyond validity
James Cheney: we need to consider equivalence for other scenarios beyond validity ←
15:33:57 <pgroth> close ISSUE-578
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-578 ←
15:33:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-578 Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-578 Use of "equivalent" incompatible with common uses of the term in logic/mathematics closed ←
15:34:21 <Curt> ivan: for the purpose of this document, our description is sufficient
Ivan Herman: for the purpose of this document, our description is sufficient ←
15:35:02 <Curt> jcheney: yes, once we clarify the purpose of our document, the concern becomes somewhat moot
James Cheney: yes, once we clarify the purpose of our document, the concern becomes somewhat moot ←
15:35:39 <TomDN> issue-577?
15:35:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-577 -- Terminology: valid vs. consistent -- pending review
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-577 -- Terminology: valid vs. consistent -- pending review ←
15:35:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/577
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/577 ←
15:36:19 <Curt> issue 577, we use the word "valid" where logic uses "consistent",
ISSUE-577, we use the word "valid" where logic uses "consistent", ←
15:36:28 <Curt> ivan: this document isn't meant for logicians
Ivan Herman: this document isn't meant for logicians ←
15:36:32 <pgroth> close ISSUE-577
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-577 ←
15:36:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-577 Terminology: valid vs. consistent closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-577 Terminology: valid vs. consistent closed ←
15:36:40 <Curt> jcheney: we are using the words appropriate for our purpose
James Cheney: we are using the words appropriate for our purpose ←
15:36:46 <pgroth> close ISSUE-576
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-576 ←
15:36:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-576 logical definition and comments on prov-constratins closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-576 logical definition and comments on prov-constratins closed ←
15:37:59 <Curt> issue 556, translating constraints to prov-o out of scope
ISSUE-556, translating constraints to prov-o out of scope ←
15:38:13 <Curt> pgroth: that is a concern of implementers
Paul Groth: that is a concern of implementers ←
15:38:54 <pgroth> close ISSUE-556
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-556 ←
15:38:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-556 public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-556 public comment: should qualfied and unqualified versions the same closed ←
15:40:04 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicComments ←
15:40:53 <pgroth> action: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints
ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints ←
15:40:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Editorial check on prov-constraints [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-131 - Editorial check on prov-constraints [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16]. ←
15:42:00 <pgroth> action: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page
ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page ←
15:42:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Add response email to responses to public comments page [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-132 - Add response email to responses to public comments page [on James Cheney - due 2012-11-16]. ←
15:42:58 <pgroth> we are happy with constraints
Paul Groth: we are happy with constraints ←
15:43:19 <pgroth> 15 minute break
Paul Groth: 15 minute break ←
15:43:22 <pgroth> start at 11
Paul Groth: start at 11 ←
15:43:23 <lebot> i added a comment to https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/125 can I close it?
Timothy Lebo: i added a comment to https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/125 can I close it? ←
15:43:27 <Zakim> -smiles
Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles ←
15:43:46 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame ←
15:59:26 <pgroth> Topic: Mention
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
Summary: The chair explained that it would be better to enter CR with a "clean slate", and ideally, we wouldn't want to have a feature-at-risk in the specifications. In particular, the notion of mention was at risk, not so much because it might be difficult to implement, but because the group had difficulty reaching consensus. Given this, the chair informally polled the group about the concept of Mention. Graham and Simon were against it, Tim, Tom, Hook, Curt were in favour of it. Arguments against it include lack of semantics, lack of clarity, potential redundancy with specialization. Arguments in favor include weak semantics (offering flexibility) and crucial functionality in environment where a consumer of provenance has to make reference to provenance produced by someone else. Ivan explained the notion of formal objection at W3C. He asked whether the "no-camp" would formally object to the inclusion of mention in the CR spec. Graham indicated he would. In response, Tim said he would consider a formal objection about dropping the construct. We broke for lunch, agreeing to discuss the issue over lunch.
<Luc>Summary: The chair explained that it would be better to enter CR with a "clean slate", and ideally, we wouldn't want to have a feature-at-risk in the specifications. In particular, the notion of mention was at risk, not so much because it might be difficult to implement, but because the group had difficulty reaching consensus. Given this, the chair informally polled the group about the concept of Mention. Graham and Simon were against it, Tim, Tom, Hook, Curt were in favour of it. Arguments against it include lack of semantics, lack of clarity, potential redundancy with specialization. Arguments in favor include weak semantics (offering flexibility) and crucial functionality in environment where a consumer of provenance has to make reference to provenance produced by someone else. Ivan explained the notion of formal objection at W3C. He asked whether the "no-camp" would formally object to the inclusion of mention in the CR spec. Graham indicated he would. In response, Tim said he would consider a formal objection about dropping the construct. We broke for lunch, agreeing to discuss the issue over lunch.
15:59:32 <pgroth> Scribe: lebot
(Scribe set to Timothy Lebo)
15:59:46 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
15:59:51 <pgroth> starting again
Paul Groth: starting again ←
16:00:17 <smiles> zakim, ??P11 is me
Simon Miles: zakim, ??P11 is me ←
16:00:17 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it ←
16:00:39 <ivan> zakim, mute smiles
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute smiles ←
16:00:39 <Zakim> smiles should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: smiles should now be muted ←
16:01:22 <lebot> paul: we came to a simple definition of mention, from many before it.
Paul Groth: we came to a simple definition of mention, from many before it. ←
16:01:38 <lebot> … connects Entity in one bundle to an Entity in another bundle. It's a kind of specialization
… connects Entity in one bundle to an Entity in another bundle. It's a kind of specialization ←
16:02:20 <lebot> … Luc's response to Graham's public comment
… Luc's response to Graham's public comment ←
16:02:33 <lebot> … "at risk" is not appropriate for mention.
… "at risk" is not appropriate for mention. ←
16:02:49 <lebot> … having "at risk" in CR - does not look good.
… having "at risk" in CR - does not look good. ←
16:03:01 <lebot> … need to settle it now. Make it lean.
… need to settle it now. Make it lean. ←
16:03:46 <lebot> ivan: at CR, "at risk" is one that the WG thinks it has an issue implementing. But mention is not an implementation issue, it's a design issue.
Ivan Herman: at CR, "at risk" is one that the WG thinks it has an issue implementing. But mention is not an implementation issue, it's a design issue. ←
16:03:55 <lebot> … if design, then it is an abuse of "at risk"
… if design, then it is an abuse of "at risk" ←
16:04:22 <lebot> pgroth: the chairs do not want to abuse "at risk".
Paul Groth: the chairs do not want to abuse "at risk". ←
16:04:28 <lebot> … thus, include or exclude now.
… thus, include or exclude now. ←
16:05:08 <Luc> @lebot: can you use pgroth as handle?
Luc Moreau: @lebot: can you use pgroth as handle? ←
16:05:14 <lebot> … we've spent a LOT of time on mention. we need to go from that work.
… we've spent a LOT of time on mention. we need to go from that work. ←
16:05:43 <lebot> pgroth: lets hear case against as it stands.
Paul Groth: lets hear case against as it stands. ←
16:05:50 <lebot> … does anybody want it in?
… does anybody want it in? ←
16:05:54 <lebot> … who wants it out?
… who wants it out? ←
16:06:03 <lebot> … we'll decide in or now today.
… we'll decide in or now today. ←
16:06:41 <lebot> GK: debate has been going on for long time.
Graham Klyne: debate has been going on for long time. ←
16:06:53 <lebot> … we can't conflate previous things with what it is now.
… we can't conflate previous things with what it is now. ←
16:07:10 <lebot> … feel there is an attempt to introduce something which cannot be specified in RDF.
… feel there is an attempt to introduce something which cannot be specified in RDF. ←
16:07:22 <lebot> … BUT the public objection is NOT ^^^
… BUT the public objection is NOT ^^^ ←
16:07:33 <lebot> … basically, I don't know what it is trying to say.
… basically, I don't know what it is trying to say. ←
16:07:40 <lebot> … what does it mean?
… what does it mean? ←
16:07:46 <lebot> … what is new beyond what we already have?
… what is new beyond what we already have? ←
16:07:50 <TomDN> (original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Aug/0001.html )
Tom De Nies: (original email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Aug/0001.html ) ←
16:08:03 <lebot> … my claim is that it does not add anything.
… my claim is that it does not add anything. ←
16:08:06 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:08:12 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:08:15 <lebot> pgroth: who wants, will use mention?
Paul Groth: who wants, will use mention? ←
16:08:15 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
16:08:37 <khalidBelhajjame> zakim, ??P5 is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
16:08:37 <Zakim> +khalidBelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidBelhajjame; got it ←
16:08:43 <lebot> jcheney: at last F2F we discussed this.
James Cheney: at last F2F we discussed this. ←
16:09:03 <lebot> … strong motivation in ontology to relate MentionOf relation two two entities.
… strong motivation in ontology to relate MentionOf relation two two entities. ←
16:09:10 <lebot> (asInBundle)
(asInBundle) ←
16:09:26 <lebot> … the idea is to translate mention of DM into two triples in RDF.
… the idea is to translate mention of DM into two triples in RDF. ←
16:09:38 <lebot> … how to convert when round tripping DM PROVO DM?
… how to convert when round tripping DM PROVO DM? ←
16:09:53 <lebot> … what if two mention triples?
… what if two mention triples? ←
16:10:08 <lebot> … you'll get confusion when coming back to DM.
… you'll get confusion when coming back to DM. ←
16:10:27 <lebot> (The "limitation" is that you an only be asInBundle to one bundle)
(The "limitation" is that you an only be asInBundle to one bundle) ←
16:10:34 <lebot> … seems like a misalignment in the serializations.
… seems like a misalignment in the serializations. ←
16:10:41 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:10:43 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:10:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#unique-mention
Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/#unique-mention ←
16:10:45 <lebot> … could be viewed as doing different things in PROVO and DM.
… could be viewed as doing different things in PROVO and DM. ←
16:10:48 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:11:02 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:11:03 <lebot> q+
q+ ←
16:11:27 <lebot> luc: we introduced the constraint the mention must be unique - so you can't have the confusion that jcheney suggests.
Luc Moreau: we introduced the constraint the mention must be unique - so you can't have the confusion that jcheney suggests. ←
16:12:05 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
16:12:29 <lebot> lebot: I'm happy with it.
Timothy Lebo: I'm happy with it. ←
16:13:37 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:13:39 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:13:51 <pgroth> ack ivan
Paul Groth: ack ivan ←
16:14:42 <Luc> specialization is not reflexive, so they must be different URIs
Luc Moreau: specialization is not reflexive, so they must be different URIs ←
16:14:47 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
16:14:53 <pgroth> ack Curt
Paul Groth: ack Curt ←
16:15:04 <TomDN> q+
Tom De Nies: q+ ←
16:15:04 <lebot> lebot: when we're trying to interconnect descriptions of entities in others' bundles, it's a natural thing to do.
Timothy Lebo: when we're trying to interconnect descriptions of entities in others' bundles, it's a natural thing to do. ←
16:15:11 <lebot> ivan: do you use the same URI?
Ivan Herman: do you use the same URI? ←
16:15:23 <lebot> lebot: you can do either, depending on what you want to do.
Timothy Lebo: you can do either, depending on what you want to do. ←
16:15:46 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:15:50 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
16:15:54 <lebot> Curt: mention is the only capability to reference into the bundle. You'll run into problems if you don't have it.
Curt Tilmes: mention is the only capability to reference into the bundle. You'll run into problems if you don't have it. ←
16:16:02 <lebot> TomDN: i support using mention of.
Tom De Nies: i support using mention of. ←
16:16:33 <lebot> … a lab with multiple documents and multiple people. You just want to mention it, not repeat the provenance.
… a lab with multiple documents and multiple people. You just want to mention it, not repeat the provenance. ←
16:17:07 <lebot> … it's interesting to provide your own view on the entity that you're using.
… it's interesting to provide your own view on the entity that you're using. ←
16:17:27 <lebot> pgroth: we have specialization and alternate of.
Paul Groth: we have specialization and alternate of. ←
16:17:56 <Luc> In view of implementation phase, can we see who will make use of the mention construct in their implementation?
Luc Moreau: In view of implementation phase, can we see who will make use of the mention construct in their implementation? ←
16:17:57 <lebot> … the key aspect of mention of is that you name the entity and the bundle in which the entity is described. The Bundle IS the specialization.
… the key aspect of mention of is that you name the entity and the bundle in which the entity is described. The Bundle IS the specialization. ←
16:18:25 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:18:30 <lebot> … without mention, you can still link the entities, but you lose the ability to mention the bundle.
… without mention, you can still link the entities, but you lose the ability to mention the bundle. ←
16:18:37 <lebot> +1
+1 ←
16:18:41 <lebot> +1
+1 ←
16:18:46 <lebot> +1
+1 ←
16:18:59 <hook> q+
16:19:10 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
16:19:11 <lebot> Luc: who will implement it?
Luc Moreau: who will implement it? ←
16:19:20 <lebot> TomDN: we will.
Tom De Nies: we will. ←
16:19:35 <lebot> hook: mentionOf, but used unique identifiers to link across. didn't use mentionof
Hook Hua: mentionOf, but used unique identifiers to link across. didn't use mentionof ←
16:20:01 <lebot> … trying to link bundles. it was easier to not use mentionOf.
… trying to link bundles. it was easier to not use mentionOf. ←
16:20:22 <lebot> q+ to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple
q+ to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple ←
16:20:35 <lebot> hook: KISS philosophy.
16:20:40 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
16:20:40 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple
Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to state that the system hook is using is one system, not multple ←
16:21:35 <lebot> lebot: mentionOf's power comes in when you don't have control over the entire system.
Timothy Lebo: mentionOf's power comes in when you don't have control over the entire system. ←
16:21:46 <Curt> +1 lebot
Curt Tilmes: +1 lebot ←
16:21:52 <lebot> hook: we should force people to use mentionOf to increase interoperability.
Hook Hua: we should force people to use mentionOf to increase interoperability. ←
16:22:08 <lebot> pgroth: we can't force people to use it (and shouldn't)
Paul Groth: we can't force people to use it (and shouldn't) ←
16:22:13 <lebot> … we should offer it for people to use.
… we should offer it for people to use. ←
16:22:13 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:22:35 <lebot> hook: sounds like it doesn't hurt to leave it in, helps to connect.
Hook Hua: sounds like it doesn't hurt to leave it in, helps to connect. ←
16:22:36 <lebot> +1 hood
+1 hook ←
16:22:36 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:22:41 <lebot> +1 hook
+1 hook ←
16:22:47 <lebot> s/hood/hook/
16:22:48 <pgroth> ack luc
Paul Groth: ack luc ←
16:23:21 <lebot> Luc: [not?] concerned with comments that Graham raises.
Luc Moreau: [not?] concerned with comments that Graham raises. ←
16:23:28 <lebot> … but the doubt is if it is really useful or not.
… but the doubt is if it is really useful or not. ←
16:23:40 <lebot> … believe in stitching histories.
… believe in stitching histories. ←
16:23:55 <lebot> … we need a construct for it.
… we need a construct for it. ←
16:24:06 <lebot> … BUT concerned if it is a subtype of specialization.
… BUT concerned if it is a subtype of specialization. ←
16:24:17 <lebot> … working to develop the use cases.
… working to develop the use cases. ←
16:24:36 <lebot> … as a sub property of specialization, the lifetimes are maintained.
… as a sub property of specialization, the lifetimes are maintained. ←
16:24:47 <lebot> … in the use case, the timeline constraint may not apply.
… in the use case, the timeline constraint may not apply. ←
16:25:13 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
16:25:24 <lebot> GK: not sure if it breaks specilization
Graham Klyne: not sure if it breaks specilization ←
16:25:28 <lebot> (+1 to GK)
(+1 to GK) ←
16:26:02 <lebot> luc: unsure about making it a type of specialization.
Luc Moreau: unsure about making it a type of specialization. ←
16:26:07 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:26:23 <lebot> … we're stuck with keeping mentionOf as specialization (and not alternate)
… we're stuck with keeping mentionOf as specialization (and not alternate) ←
16:26:42 <lebot> … if it's specialization, does it break?
… if it's specialization, does it break? ←
16:27:14 <lebot> (-1 that it's broken as specialization. It's inherently specialization)
(-1 that it's broken as specialization. It's inherently specialization) ←
16:27:24 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
16:27:30 <lebot> TomDN: how does it break as specialization?
Tom De Nies: how does it break as specialization? ←
16:27:41 <lebot> … did we want the validity over different bundles?
… did we want the validity over different bundles? ←
16:27:49 <lebot> … at what point do we make a new entity?
… at what point do we make a new entity? ←
16:27:53 <lebot> (+1 Tom)
(+1 Tom) ←
16:28:01 <Paolo> I missed all of Tom's comment -- low voice
Paolo Missier: I missed all of Tom's comment -- low voice ←
16:28:30 <lebot> ace paolo
ack paolo ←
16:28:35 <lebot> s/ace/ack/
16:28:47 <Paolo> ok thanks
Paolo Missier: ok thanks ←
16:28:47 <lebot> pgroth: the question: do we have validity over different bundles
Paul Groth: the question: do we have validity over different bundles ←
16:28:58 <lebot> TomDN: luc's problem goes away once the entity is in a different instance.
Tom De Nies: luc's problem goes away once the entity is in a different instance. ←
16:29:18 <lebot> … entity in a different instance, valid, same instance different bundle = invalid
… entity in a different instance, valid, same instance different bundle = invalid ←
16:29:33 <lebot> Luc: <example with e1 e2 and bundles>
Luc Moreau: <example with e1 e2 and bundles> ←
16:29:50 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
16:29:59 <lebot> … generation and invaliation of both entities, specialization applies and must have a lifetime.
… generation and invaliation of both entities, specialization applies and must have a lifetime. ←
16:30:23 <lebot> TomDN: impossible to make valid if repeating the mention?
Tom De Nies: impossible to make valid if repeating the mention? ←
16:30:26 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:30:34 <lebot> pgroth: it done'st make it invalid, but …. (?)
Paul Groth: it done'st make it invalid, but …. (?) ←
16:31:00 <lebot> jcheney: inférences on uniqueness are flagged as at risk.
James Cheney: inférences on uniqueness are flagged as at risk. ←
16:31:14 <lebot> … if something is at risk, we can decided to remove it w/o going to LC
… if something is at risk, we can decided to remove it w/o going to LC ←
16:31:49 <lebot> @luc, you're abusing mention of for the wrong use cases. (it appears)
@luc, you're abusing mention of for the wrong use cases. (it appears) ←
16:32:08 <lebot> jcheney: is it possible to take out parts of the at risk?
James Cheney: is it possible to take out parts of the at risk? ←
16:32:37 <lebot> ivan: mention is a design feature, defined [as specialization]. it is a design element.
Ivan Herman: mention is a design feature, defined [as specialization]. it is a design element. ←
16:32:43 <lebot> … it is all or nothing.
… it is all or nothing. ←
16:33:04 <lebot> jcheney: we can remove it all. If we change it, then it's a design change.
James Cheney: we can remove it all. If we change it, then it's a design change. ←
16:33:15 <lebot> q?
q? ←
16:33:34 <lebot> GK: can't you drop parts of the definition and not others, providing that the others are not changed?
Graham Klyne: can't you drop parts of the definition and not others, providing that the others are not changed? ←
16:33:42 <lebot> q?
q? ←
16:33:56 <lebot> ivan: feature at risk, feature defined. Remove or keep it.
Ivan Herman: feature at risk, feature defined. Remove or keep it. ←
16:34:07 <lebot> … splitting hairs is sticky.
… splitting hairs is sticky. ←
16:34:09 <pgroth> ack Curt
Paul Groth: ack Curt ←
16:34:25 <lebot> Curt: I don't follow the issue. It DOES fit into specialization.
Curt Tilmes: I don't follow the issue. It DOES fit into specialization. ←
16:34:47 <lebot> … as a primary producer, I wont' use mention of, but for anyone that wants to augment my Entiteis, they need mentionOf to do it.
… as a primary producer, I wont' use mention of, but for anyone that wants to augment my Entiteis, they need mentionOf to do it. ←
16:34:49 <Luc> @tlebo, can you clarify why i am abusing it?
Luc Moreau: @tlebo, can you clarify why i am abusing it? ←
16:35:10 <lebot> … the third party needs it.
… the third party needs it. ←
16:35:35 <lebot> @luc, I'm not clear on what you're trying to do, but it doesn't sound like mentionOf
@luc, I'm not clear on what you're trying to do, but it doesn't sound like mentionOf ←
16:35:44 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:35:54 <hook> q+
16:36:07 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:36:16 <lebot> Curt: when yoiu do your own provenance, you ond't need it, but metnionOf lets you "reach into" someone else's bundle.
Curt Tilmes: when yoiu do your own provenance, you ond't need it, but metnionOf lets you "reach into" someone else's bundle. ←
16:36:22 <lebot> jcheney: second order provenance and linking.
James Cheney: second order provenance and linking. ←
16:36:30 <lebot> … but it's also true for other things.
… but it's also true for other things. ←
16:36:39 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:36:44 <lebot> … are we solving a specific problem and not the more general?
… are we solving a specific problem and not the more general? ←
16:37:08 <lebot> … it's clear that there is a need, but is it justified?
… it's clear that there is a need, but is it justified? ←
16:37:16 <Curt> entity is pretty much our most general thing to refer to
Curt Tilmes: entity is pretty much our most general thing to refer to ←
16:37:19 <lebot> … I am still uncomfortable with mentionOf
… I am still uncomfortable with mentionOf ←
16:37:40 <lebot> … if it was lightweight with no inferences, then fine. But we might get into trouble later.
… if it was lightweight with no inferences, then fine. But we might get into trouble later. ←
16:38:12 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
16:38:14 <lebot> … as things are, it doesn't seem like we should kill it, but people might trip over it later.
… as things are, it doesn't seem like we should kill it, but people might trip over it later. ←
16:38:32 <lebot> hook: the linking of bundles should be in the model, we should not rely on a serialization
Hook Hua: the linking of bundles should be in the model, we should not rely on a serialization ←
16:38:38 <lebot> @hook how are they different?
@hook how are they different? ←
16:38:41 <lebot> q+
q+ ←
16:38:48 <ivan> ack pgroth
Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←
16:38:48 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
16:39:09 <lebot> pgroth: there are existing ways to annotate. Refer to things an annotate them.
Paul Groth: there are existing ways to annotate. Refer to things an annotate them. ←
16:39:20 <lebot> … open annotation
… open annotation ←
16:39:25 <lebot> … some let you point to named graphs.
… some let you point to named graphs. ←
16:39:30 <lebot> …. well out side of our scope.
…. well out side of our scope. ←
16:39:46 <lebot> … but those things are not for provenance.
… but those things are not for provenance. ←
16:40:18 <smiles> So mentionOf is just a way to reference a part of a document without reference to the serialisation format? Is mentionOf really to do with provenance apart from being arbitrarily restricted to PROV?
Simon Miles: So mentionOf is just a way to reference a part of a document without reference to the serialisation format? Is mentionOf really to do with provenance apart from being arbitrarily restricted to PROV? ←
16:40:20 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
16:40:22 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
16:40:23 <lebot> … open annotation is not a standard, but is in w3c
… open annotation is not a standard, but is in w3c ←
16:40:32 <pgroth> q+ TomDN
Paul Groth: q+ TomDN ←
16:41:22 <lebot> hook: having it formally in DM would uniformly manifest implementations in different encodigns. we're not relying on serializations to do the linking.
Hook Hua: having it formally in DM would uniformly manifest implementations in different encodigns. we're not relying on serializations to do the linking. ←
16:41:40 <lebot> pgroth: right now, you can use RDF linking.
Paul Groth: right now, you can use RDF linking. ←
16:42:28 <lebot> TomDN: should we drop it and put it into a note?
Tom De Nies: should we drop it and put it into a note? ←
16:42:39 <lebot> … here is how to link" in FAQ...
… here is how to link" in FAQ... ←
16:42:48 <lebot> … we can change as we see fit.
… we can change as we see fit. ←
16:43:02 <lebot> GK: in IETF, "experimental track", mention of is in this.
Graham Klyne: in IETF, "experimental track", mention of is in this. ←
16:43:09 <lebot> … best we can do is to put FAQ
… best we can do is to put FAQ ←
16:43:16 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
16:43:20 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
16:43:27 <hook> q+
16:43:31 <lebot> ivan: it is a nice idea.
Ivan Herman: it is a nice idea. ←
16:43:43 <lebot> … we have notes, we'd just be adding one more.
… we have notes, we'd just be adding one more. ←
16:44:01 <lebot> pgroth: if that's what we want to do, it'd go AQ
Paul Groth: if that's what we want to do, it'd go AQ ←
16:44:22 <lebot> … we can't start a new note
… we can't start a new note ←
16:44:44 <lebot> ivan: agree with graham that AQ is to locate provenance of a given resoruce.
Ivan Herman: agree with graham that AQ is to locate provenance of a given resoruce. ←
16:44:53 <lebot> … that's different than mentionOf
… that's different than mentionOf ←
16:44:57 <lebot> … it doesn't fit
… it doesn't fit ←
16:45:04 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
16:45:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:45:14 <lebot> hook: how many use cases involve mentionOf?
Hook Hua: how many use cases involve mentionOf? ←
16:45:29 <lebot> … for what we do, it would be useful.
… for what we do, it would be useful. ←
16:45:40 <Zakim> -Paolo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←
16:45:49 <lebot> Curt: the key is not provenance expression/represtionation, ti's for analysis.
Curt Tilmes: the key is not provenance expression/represtionation, ti's for analysis. ←
16:46:05 <lebot> GK: how important is interoperability at the analysis/
Graham Klyne: how important is interoperability at the analysis/ ←
16:46:06 <lebot> ?
? ←
16:46:11 <lebot> hook: it is very important.
Hook Hua: it is very important. ←
16:46:20 <lebot> … each bundle is handled by different institutions, gov entities.
… each bundle is handled by different institutions, gov entities. ←
16:46:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:46:30 <lebot> … interop is key here.
… interop is key here. ←
16:46:34 <pgroth> who just joined/
Paul Groth: who just joined/ ←
16:46:34 <pgroth> ?
Paul Groth: ? ←
16:46:43 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
16:46:47 <pgroth> ack Curt
Paul Groth: ack Curt ←
16:47:10 <lebot> Curt: we have a lot of cases where data is processed, then next org processes. each uses their own bundles.
Curt Tilmes: we have a lot of cases where data is processed, then next org processes. each uses their own bundles. ←
16:47:21 <lebot> … each needs a way to reference across those bundles.
… each needs a way to reference across those bundles. ←
16:47:37 <lebot> … seems that mentionOf provides a capability that will be needed at some point.
… seems that mentionOf provides a capability that will be needed at some point. ←
16:47:39 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:48:04 <lebot> Luc: jcheney, you'd be more comfortable to get rid of the inference?
Luc Moreau: jcheney, you'd be more comfortable to get rid of the inference? ←
16:48:52 <lebot> jcheney: uniqueness constraint makes to align with provo round tripping.
James Cheney: uniqueness constraint makes to align with provo round tripping. ←
16:49:00 <lebot> … it's not clear that it buys you much.
… it's not clear that it buys you much. ←
16:49:29 <lebot> … you could just state the specialization.
… you could just state the specialization. ←
16:49:52 <lebot> (I think the 'you don't get anything" assumes that you "have it all" and does not consider the practicality of the problem)
(I think the 'you don't get anything" assumes that you "have it all" and does not consider the practicality of the problem) ←
16:50:25 <lebot> jcheney: not hearing strong objections, but nobody is giving specific uses for it (?)
James Cheney: not hearing strong objections, but nobody is giving specific uses for it (?) ←
16:50:51 <Paolo> +1 for unlinking MentionOf from Specialization (if I understand James correcty)
Paolo Missier: +1 for unlinking MentionOf from Specialization (if I understand James correcty) ←
16:50:54 <lebot> jcheney: not worth rolling all of it back
James Cheney: not worth rolling all of it back ←
16:51:30 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:51:35 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:52:26 <lebot> Luc: we didn't want to make it a top-level, that's where we started.
Luc Moreau: we didn't want to make it a top-level, that's where we started. ←
16:52:34 <lebot> jcheney: not worth blowing the whole thing up over.
James Cheney: not worth blowing the whole thing up over. ←
16:52:42 <Luc> is there opposition to remove it?
Luc Moreau: is there opposition to remove it? ←
16:52:45 <SamCoppens> q+
Sam Coppens: q+ ←
16:52:51 <lebot> pgroth: straw poll on mentionOf
Paul Groth: straw poll on mentionOf ←
16:53:02 <lebot> (this will decide who I sit with at lunch, btw)
(this will decide who I sit with at lunch, btw) ←
16:53:29 <lebot> SamCoppens: selective removal okay?
Sam Coppens: selective removal okay? ←
16:53:37 <lebot> pgroth: no, since it changes the spec too much.
Paul Groth: no, since it changes the spec too much. ←
16:54:19 <pgroth> straw poll: who objects to keeping mentionOf?
Paul Groth: straw poll: who objects to keeping mentionOf? ←
16:54:24 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
16:54:27 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:54:40 <jcheney> 0
James Cheney: 0 ←
16:54:42 <Paolo> 0
Paolo Missier: 0 ←
16:54:44 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
16:55:00 <khalidBelhajjame> 0
16:55:16 <pgroth> straw poll: who objects to removing mentionOf?
Paul Groth: straw poll: who objects to removing mentionOf? ←
16:55:38 <jcheney> 0
James Cheney: 0 ←
16:55:41 <GK> 0
Graham Klyne: 0 ←
16:55:42 <khalidBelhajjame> 0
16:55:42 <lebot> :-(
:-( ←
16:55:53 <TomDN> 0
Tom De Nies: 0 ←
16:55:59 <zednik> 0
Stephan Zednik: 0 ←
16:56:01 <SamCoppens> 0
Sam Coppens: 0 ←
16:56:02 <hook> +1
16:56:12 <Paolo> 0
Paolo Missier: 0 ←
16:58:05 <lebot> GK: I would formally object in its current form.
Graham Klyne: I would formally object in its current form. ←
16:58:29 <smiles> I would not formally object. I was indicating that I think it is better not to be in the spec in the straw poll.
Simon Miles: I would not formally object. I was indicating that I think it is better not to be in the spec in the straw poll. ←
16:58:44 <lebot> Curt: I think it's valuable, but I won't formally object.
Curt Tilmes: I think it's valuable, but I won't formally object. ←
16:59:28 <GK> Longer response, in IRC for lack of time:
Graham Klyne: Longer response, in IRC for lack of time: ←
16:59:28 <GK> - yes, there are valid use cases, strong motivation
Graham Klyne: - yes, there are valid use cases, strong motivation ←
16:59:28 <GK> - I don't recognise them in the mentionOf as described (my complaint) in a way that can't be done without mentionOf
Graham Klyne: - I don't recognise them in the mentionOf as described (my complaint) in a way that can't be done without mentionOf ←
16:59:28 <GK> - some of those use-cases don't map to present-day RDF semantics - I worry about this, as we'd end up building on sand if we try to impose these semantics
Graham Klyne: - some of those use-cases don't map to present-day RDF semantics - I worry about this, as we'd end up building on sand if we try to impose these semantics ←
16:59:29 <GK> - not defining it now doesn't mean it can't be defined later
Graham Klyne: - not defining it now doesn't mean it can't be defined later ←
16:59:32 <lebot> q+
q+ ←
16:59:49 <Paolo> may be back later
Paolo Missier: may be back later ←
16:59:53 <Zakim> -zednik
Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik ←
16:59:56 <pgroth> ack SamCoppens
Paul Groth: ack SamCoppens ←
17:00:04 <khalidBelhajjame> I may be back later
Khalid Belhajjame: I may be back later ←
17:00:06 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
17:00:12 <Zakim> -khalidBelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidBelhajjame ←
17:01:32 <lebot> tlebo: If GK's formal objection is the thing to scare away this construct, then I'd be willing to bring RPI's formal objection to dropping it.
Timothy Lebo: If GK's formal objection is the thing to scare away this construct, then I'd be willing to bring RPI's formal objection to dropping it. ←
17:01:53 <lebot> … but this is weighted by the fact that I'm exhausted with supporting this construct.
… but this is weighted by the fact that I'm exhausted with supporting this construct. ←
17:02:53 <lebot> ivan: formal objection is a HUGE thing.
Ivan Herman: formal objection is a HUGE thing. ←
17:03:52 <pgroth> start again in one hour
Paul Groth: start again in one hour ←
17:03:55 <smiles> OK thanks
Simon Miles: OK thanks ←
17:04:04 <Zakim> -smiles
Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles ←
17:09:05 <Zakim> - +1.617.715.aaaa
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.617.715.aaaa ←
17:11:12 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:11:13 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
17:11:13 <Zakim> Attendees were Paolo, zednik, laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain, smiles, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Paolo, zednik, laurent, SamCoppens, TomDN, hook, GK, tlebo, Luc, Curt, pgroth, jcheney, ivan, stain, smiles, khalidBelhajjame, [IPcaller] ←
18:00:31 <ivan> zakim, code?
(No events recorded for 49 minutes)
Ivan Herman: zakim, code? ←
18:00:31 <Zakim> the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7768 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan ←
18:01:06 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has now started ←
18:01:13 <Zakim> +MIT531
Zakim IRC Bot: +MIT531 ←
18:02:08 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
18:02:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
18:02:24 <smiles> zakim, ??P3 is me
Simon Miles: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
18:02:24 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +smiles; got it ←
18:06:06 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←
18:06:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller] ←
18:06:26 <pgroth> Topic: mention of and CR
Summary: After lunch discussion, Graham thought that the problem may be fixable with a change of descriptive text. It was agreed that Graham would take an hour to draft a revised description. During this time, we would cover another topic.
<Luc>Summary: After lunch discussion, Graham thought that the problem may be fixable with a change of descriptive text. It was agreed that Graham would take an hour to draft a revised description. During this time, we would cover another topic.
18:07:18 <smiles> My objecytion was not formal
Simon Miles: My objecytion was not formal ←
18:07:53 <pgroth> scribe: James Cheney
(Scribe set to James Cheney)
18:07:54 <jcheney> pgroth: 30 minutes on mention
Paul Groth: 30 minutes on mention ←
18:08:04 <jcheney> ... have formal objections changed?
... have formal objections changed? ←
18:08:05 <ivan> scribenick: jcheney
18:08:19 <jcheney> GK: after lunch discusion with tlebo
Graham Klyne: after lunch discusion with tlebo ←
18:08:37 <jcheney> ... thinks problem may be fixable with changes to descriptive text, but not sure yet
... thinks problem may be fixable with changes to descriptive text, but not sure yet ←
18:08:51 <jcheney> ivan: can we do it now?
Ivan Herman: can we do it now? ←
18:08:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:09:00 <jcheney> gk: maybe not enough time
Graham Klyne: maybe not enough time ←
18:09:07 <jcheney> ... can we proceed on assumption it will be fine?
... can we proceed on assumption it will be fine? ←
18:09:14 <jcheney> luc: wants certainty
Luc Moreau: wants certainty ←
18:09:36 <jcheney> luc: can we take an hour and do it now?
Luc Moreau: can we take an hour and do it now? ←
18:09:43 <jcheney> GK: will look at it offline now.
Graham Klyne: will look at it offline now. ←
18:10:42 <jcheney> Topic: PROV-XML
Summary: The prov-xml document was reviewed during the week. Reviewers summarized their feedback. It was agreed that the document was a good first public working draft, and should be released synchronously with the CR specifications. A few suggestions were made to the editors: explain the design rationale for the schema, and mark, in the document, issues under consideration. We then discuss the order of the elements representing prov-dm attributes in the xml schema. For xpath and xquery queries, it was suggested that order was probably not a concern. The participants were unclear whether order affected Object-Relational Mapping (ORM). It was agreed that there was no need to make a decision now, but instead, the FPWD should explicitly seek feedback from reviewers. The issue of subtyping was also discussed: it was suggested that subtypes such as Person, Organization, Revision, etc should have an explicit element, instead of relying on prov:type. It was noted that substitution groups, if required, may become problematic. The editors will investigate a solution for this. Finally, the issue of identifiers was discussed. The questions is whether identifiers should be xsd:QName (as currently) or a more liberal form (qualified names as in prov-n). It was agreed that the issue should be flagged in the document, and feedback sought from outside the group.
18:11:31 <jcheney> pgroth: Graham will look at document for ~1hr, we move on to prov-xml, goal is to come back to CR vote today
Paul Groth: Graham will look at document for ~1hr, we move on to prov-xml, goal is to come back to CR vote today ←
18:11:40 <jcheney> [luc is chair]
[luc is chair] ←
<luc>Chair: Luc
<luc>Summary: The prov-xml document was reviewed during the week. Reviewers summarized their feedback. It was agreed that the document was a good first public working draft, and should be released synchronously with the CR specifications. A few suggestions were made to the editors: explain the design rationale for the schema, and mark, in the document, issues under consideration. We then discuss the order of the elements representing prov-dm attributes in the xml schema. For xpath and xquery queries, it was suggested that order was probably not a concern. The participants were unclear whether order affected Object-Relational Mapping (ORM). It was agreed that there was no need to make a decision now, but instead, the FPWD should explicitly seek feedback from reviewers. The issue of subtyping was also discussed: it was suggested that subtypes such as Person, Organization, Revision, etc should have an explicit element, instead of relying on prov:type. It was noted that substitution groups, if required, may become problematic. The editors will investigate a solution for this. Finally, the issue of identifiers was discussed. The questions is whether identifiers should be xsd:QName (as currently) or a more liberal form (qualified names as in prov-n). It was agreed that the issue should be flagged in the document, and feedback sought from outside the group.
18:12:04 <jcheney> Luc: prov-xml was reviewed over past week (James, Paul, Luc)
Luc Moreau: prov-xml was reviewed over past week (James, Paul, Luc) ←
18:12:20 <jcheney> would like to decide on release as fpwd
would like to decide on release as fpwd ←
18:12:31 <jcheney> ... would like to decide on release as fpwd
... would like to decide on release as fpwd ←
18:12:45 <jcheney> zednik: document mostly content complete, adding bundles today
Stephan Zednik: document mostly content complete, adding bundles today ←
18:12:56 <jcheney> ... should be finished in ~5min
... should be finished in ~5min ←
18:13:13 <jcheney> ... reviews identified typos & rephrasing, had some questions about design/descriptions
... reviews identified typos & rephrasing, had some questions about design/descriptions ←
18:13:26 <jcheney> ... discussion topic list to respond & discuss feedback
... discussion topic list to respond & discuss feedback ←
18:13:31 <jcheney> ... most feedback has been incorporated
... most feedback has been incorporated ←
18:13:40 <jcheney> ... all 3 said it was ok to proced to fpwd
... all 3 said it was ok to proced to fpwd ←
18:13:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:13:52 <jcheney> ... currently addressing more complex identifier issues
... currently addressing more complex identifier issues ←
18:14:05 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
18:14:09 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:14:35 <jcheney> curt: also thinks things are OK
Curt Tilmes: also thinks things are OK ←
18:14:45 <jcheney> smiles: wanted to point out comment that might have been missed
Simon Miles: wanted to point out comment that might have been missed ←
18:15:12 <jcheney> ... delegation element in prov-xml: schema description is different from actual schema
... delegation element in prov-xml: schema description is different from actual schema ←
18:15:23 <jcheney> ... but also agree document is ready for release
... but also agree document is ready for release ←
18:15:24 <ivan> ack sm
Ivan Herman: ack sm ←
18:15:24 <ivan> �
Ivan Herman: � ←
18:15:34 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:15:41 <ivan> ack pgroth
Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←
18:15:41 <jcheney> zednik: will double check
Stephan Zednik: will double check ←
18:16:00 <jcheney> pgroth: do we vote next or have content discussion?
Paul Groth: do we vote next or have content discussion? ←
18:16:12 <jcheney> Luc: discuss reviews and any tecnical issues first, then vote
Luc Moreau: discuss reviews and any tecnical issues first, then vote ←
18:16:26 <smiles> @zednik: the issue was that the activity was an option of actedOnBehalfOf in the schema, compulsory in the schema fragment in the HTML
Simon Miles: @zednik: the issue was that the activity was an option of actedOnBehalfOf in the schema, compulsory in the schema fragment in the HTML ←
18:16:30 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
18:16:33 <jcheney> pgroth: thinks its OK for FPWD, would like to discuss technical issues
Paul Groth: thinks its OK for FPWD, would like to discuss technical issues ←
18:16:39 <jcheney> curt: would like to discuss 572
Curt Tilmes: would like to discuss 572 ←
18:16:45 <TomDN> issue-572?
18:16:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised ←
18:16:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572 ←
18:16:56 <Luc> q-
Luc Moreau: q- ←
18:17:55 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:17:58 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
18:18:44 <jcheney> jcheney: mostly happy, can discuss offline
James Cheney: mostly happy, can discuss offline ←
18:18:47 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:19:01 <jcheney> pgroth: also wanted to suggest signposting/context, is this intended before fpwd?
Paul Groth: also wanted to suggest signposting/context, is this intended before fpwd? ←
18:19:35 <jcheney> ... meaning expanation of the style of schema being used (salami slice pattern, etc)
... meaning expanation of the style of schema being used (salami slice pattern, etc) ←
18:19:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:20:05 <jcheney> ivan: sounds good, helpful to reader
Ivan Herman: sounds good, helpful to reader ←
18:20:44 <jcheney> zednik: prov-xml group is discussing adding a design section, explain salami slice pattern, not sure if it will go in before fpwd
Stephan Zednik: prov-xml group is discussing adding a design section, explain salami slice pattern, not sure if it will go in before fpwd ←
18:20:44 <pgroth> i wouldn't want it to delay fpwd
Paul Groth: i wouldn't want it to delay fpwd ←
18:20:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:20:51 <Luc> ack ze
Luc Moreau: ack ze ←
18:21:13 <jcheney> Luc: confirm happy with document release, flagged some technical issues
Luc Moreau: confirm happy with document release, flagged some technical issues ←
18:21:34 <jcheney> ... need to catch up on mailing list traffic, but OK with flagging as outstanding issues in text as notes
... need to catch up on mailing list traffic, but OK with flagging as outstanding issues in text as notes ←
18:21:43 <jcheney> ... to avoid giving impression that it is a final design
... to avoid giving impression that it is a final design ←
18:22:02 <jcheney> ... design section sounds useful
... design section sounds useful ←
18:22:22 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:22:24 <jcheney> ... timetable to release: need not be ASAP, but would be good to sync with CR
... timetable to release: need not be ASAP, but would be good to sync with CR ←
18:22:34 <jcheney> ... to give time to write section
... to give time to write section ←
18:22:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:22:51 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
18:22:53 <TomDN> +1 for synchronous release
Tom De Nies: +1 for synchronous release ←
18:22:53 <jcheney> pgroth: would like it to be released synchronously with CR/primer, etc.
Paul Groth: would like it to be released synchronously with CR/primer, etc. ←
18:23:05 <jcheney> ... have gotten burned before by piecemeal release
... have gotten burned before by piecemeal release ←
18:23:08 <Paolo> zakim, ??P5 is me
Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
18:23:08 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it ←
18:23:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:23:18 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:23:19 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:23:22 <ivan> ack pgroth
Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←
18:23:26 <jcheney> ... prov is the family, would like releasing as such
... prov is the family, would like releasing as such ←
18:23:43 <jcheney> ... no rush to get xml out, but there are minor things we can do to improve accessibility
... no rush to get xml out, but there are minor things we can do to improve accessibility ←
18:24:00 <jcheney> ivan: we clearly don't have enough documents to publish, so let's add one
Ivan Herman: we clearly don't have enough documents to publish, so let's add one ←
18:24:14 <jcheney> ... owl WG had relatively short overview document published with rest
... owl WG had relatively short overview document published with rest ←
18:24:28 <jcheney> ... otherwise family of documents becomes messy
... otherwise family of documents becomes messy ←
18:24:46 <jcheney> Luc: not committed to it in charter extension, avoid overcommitment
Luc Moreau: not committed to it in charter extension, avoid overcommitment ←
18:24:56 <jcheney> ivan: together with CR release?
Ivan Herman: together with CR release? ←
18:25:07 <jcheney> Luc: not enough time
Luc Moreau: not enough time ←
18:25:12 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:25:12 <Curt> copy the intro from the DM
Curt Tilmes: copy the intro from the DM ←
18:25:24 <pgroth> action: pgroth to draft a first one page overview
ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview ←
18:25:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Draft a first one page overview [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-133 - Draft a first one page overview [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16]. ←
18:25:24 <Luc> ack ivan
Luc Moreau: ack ivan ←
18:25:37 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:25:58 <jcheney> pgroth: will try to draft 1 page, group will look at it. as curt says, this is already done in most documents
Paul Groth: will try to draft 1 page, group will look at it. as curt says, this is already done in most documents ←
18:26:22 <jcheney> luc: can reuse presentation tutorial materials.
Luc Moreau: can reuse presentation tutorial materials. ←
18:26:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:26:54 <jcheney> Luc: informal poll to gauge positions on fpwd
Luc Moreau: informal poll to gauge positions on fpwd ←
18:27:09 <jcheney> ... is ther opposition to prov-xml fpwd release?
... is ther opposition to prov-xml fpwd release? ←
18:27:16 <Paolo> no objection
Paolo Missier: no objection ←
18:27:21 <jcheney> [crickets chirping]
[crickets chirping] ←
18:27:22 <smiles> no objection
Simon Miles: no objection ←
18:27:28 <jcheney> sorry
sorry ←
18:27:51 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:27:54 <jcheney> Luc: what do we want to finalize before fpwd?
Luc Moreau: what do we want to finalize before fpwd? ←
18:28:29 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:28:30 <jcheney> pgroth: want 1 para about design + "warning, this is a fpwd, subject to change"
Paul Groth: want 1 para about design + "warning, this is a fpwd, subject to change" ←
18:28:31 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:28:53 <jcheney> Luc: any other input?
Luc Moreau: any other input? ←
18:29:05 <jcheney> ... can we confirm prov-xml as short name?
... can we confirm prov-xml as short name? ←
18:30:04 <Luc> proposed: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name
PROPOSED: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name ←
18:30:09 <TomDN> +1
Tom De Nies: +1 ←
18:30:10 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:30:12 <pgroth> +1
Paul Groth: +1 ←
18:30:14 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
18:30:15 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
18:30:16 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
18:30:18 <jcheney> +1 UoE
+1 UoE ←
18:30:20 <lebot> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
18:30:52 <Luc> accepted: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name
RESOLVED: To release prov-xml as a first public working draft, after adding design overview and sign-posting issues under consideration, with prov-xml as short-name ←
18:31:18 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
Ivan Herman: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
18:31:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html ivan
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html ivan ←
18:31:34 <jcheney> Luc: now have time to discuss technical issues
Luc Moreau: now have time to discuss technical issues ←
18:31:40 <TomDN> issue-572?
18:31:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised ←
18:31:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572 ←
18:31:41 <ivan> issue-572?
18:31:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-572 -- What constraints should we have on ordering of elements within the main complexTypes? -- raised ←
18:31:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572 ←
18:32:23 <jcheney> Curt: Mapping from PROV-N to PROV-DM into xml schema decided to keep same order of sub-elements as in prov-dm
Curt Tilmes: Mapping from PROV-N to PROV-DM into xml schema decided to keep same order of sub-elements as in prov-dm ←
18:32:42 <jcheney> ... Current rationale: atributes are ids
... Current rationale: atributes are ids ←
18:32:51 <jcheney> ... ordering of content is static matching prov-n
... ordering of content is static matching prov-n ←
18:33:00 <jcheney> ... except for optional attributes which are unordered
... except for optional attributes which are unordered ←
18:33:16 <pgroth> wonder why there's no issue about sub typing?
Paul Groth: wonder why there's no issue about sub typing? ←
18:33:20 <jcheney> ... could relax ordering, or require ordering of attributes
... could relax ordering, or require ordering of attributes ←
18:33:22 <jcheney> q+
q+ ←
18:33:52 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:34:22 <jcheney> ... Concern that ordering makes it easier for processing, but harder for generation
... Concern that ordering makes it easier for processing, but harder for generation ←
18:34:25 <jcheney> ... unlike prov-n
... unlike prov-n ←
18:35:17 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
18:35:30 <Luc> ack jcheney
Luc Moreau: ack jcheney ←
18:37:08 <jcheney> q-
q- ←
18:37:09 <Luc> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
18:37:22 <jcheney> jcheney: happy with wat it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize
James Cheney: happy with wat it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize ←
18:37:29 <jcheney> jcheney: happy with way it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize
James Cheney: happy with way it is, decreases tax on everyone to normalize ←
18:37:48 <jcheney> luc: had idea to require prov attributes to appear first, then non-prov
Luc Moreau: had idea to require prov attributes to appear first, then non-prov ←
18:38:02 <jcheney> ... use xsd:any for all the rest
... use xsd:any for all the rest ←
18:38:44 <jcheney> ... should make it easier to convert between xml and other PL embeddings
... should make it easier to convert between xml and other PL embeddings ←
18:39:04 <jcheney> ... with xml, thinking about serializations but also queries
... with xml, thinking about serializations but also queries ←
18:39:20 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
18:39:22 <jcheney> ... does order have impact?
... does order have impact? ←
18:40:34 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
18:40:56 <Luc> ack luc
Luc Moreau: ack luc ←
18:41:47 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:41:59 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
18:41:59 <jcheney> jcheney: probably XQuery with unordered xpath axes is enough, so order probably not a big issue for queries
James Cheney: probably XQuery with unordered xpath axes is enough, so order probably not a big issue for queries ←
18:42:20 <jcheney> pgroth: not sure of issue
Paul Groth: not sure of issue ←
18:42:57 <jcheney> luc: orm will want to be able to find prov:type
Luc Moreau: orm will want to be able to find prov:type ←
18:43:07 <jcheney> ... so mapping will be challenging
... so mapping will be challenging ←
18:43:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:43:46 <pgroth> q+ to say we should test
Paul Groth: q+ to say we should test ←
18:44:06 <jcheney> jcheney: we don't need to solve this now necessarily
James Cheney: we don't need to solve this now necessarily ←
18:44:15 <jcheney> ivan: can ask for feedback
Ivan Herman: can ask for feedback ←
18:44:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:44:32 <jcheney> pgroth: automated generation tools are a use case, we should flag this for asking for feedback
Paul Groth: automated generation tools are a use case, we should flag this for asking for feedback ←
18:44:37 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:44:37 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to say we should test
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to say we should test ←
18:45:16 <jcheney> luc: issue remains open, but will be signposted
Luc Moreau: issue remains open, but will be signposted ←
18:45:20 <pgroth> q+ to ask for about sub typing
Paul Groth: q+ to ask for about sub typing ←
18:45:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:45:49 <jcheney> pgroth: wants to discuss subtyping
Paul Groth: wants to discuss subtyping ←
18:45:51 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:45:51 <Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to ask for about sub typing
Zakim IRC Bot: pgroth, you wanted to ask for about sub typing ←
18:46:09 <jcheney> ... if you look at prov-xml, many subtypes are defined through use of prov:type
... if you look at prov-xml, many subtypes are defined through use of prov:type ←
18:46:20 <jcheney> ... in prov-o, a revision has a corresponding relation
... in prov-o, a revision has a corresponding relation ←
18:46:34 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
18:46:36 <jcheney> ... why can't xml / xsd do something similar
... why can't xml / xsd do something similar ←
18:47:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:47:10 <jcheney> curt: also would like to do this
Curt Tilmes: also would like to do this ←
18:47:15 <Luc> ack ze
Luc Moreau: ack ze ←
18:47:33 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:47:34 <jcheney> zednik: followed prov-n initially, but can explore and add in after fpwd. note in each section to explain this
Stephan Zednik: followed prov-n initially, but can explore and add in after fpwd. note in each section to explain this ←
18:47:43 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:47:44 <jcheney> pgroth: raise issue?
Paul Groth: raise issue? ←
18:48:11 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:48:18 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
18:48:22 <jcheney> zednik: did look at subtyping early, but mainly entity and agent and it didn't seem to gain a lot since these subtypes don't have additional elements/attributes
Stephan Zednik: did look at subtyping early, but mainly entity and agent and it didn't seem to gain a lot since these subtypes don't have additional elements/attributes ←
18:48:33 <jcheney> ... but relations may have a benefit
... but relations may have a benefit ←
18:48:36 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:48:39 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:49:05 <jcheney> pgroth: in xml, you see agent but not person etc.
Paul Groth: in xml, you see agent but not person etc. ←
18:49:18 <jcheney> ... writing xpath query to ask for people is easier if the element name is prov:person
... writing xpath query to ask for people is easier if the element name is prov:person ←
18:49:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:49:52 <jcheney> zednik: would have to specialize complex type and add new toplevel element referencing it
Stephan Zednik: would have to specialize complex type and add new toplevel element referencing it ←
18:50:17 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
18:50:18 <jcheney> ... this should work, but hasn't been tried yet. may work for entity and agent subtypes too.
... this should work, but hasn't been tried yet. may work for entity and agent subtypes too. ←
18:50:59 <jcheney> Luc: will have to add subtype and new elements. don't we want to allow use of person, etc. wherever an agent is allowed?
Luc Moreau: will have to add subtype and new elements. don't we want to allow use of person, etc. wherever an agent is allowed? ←
18:51:11 <Curt> q-
Curt Tilmes: q- ←
18:51:30 <jcheney> ... but then haven't you fixed all the subclasses of entity/agent, forbidding extensions?
... but then haven't you fixed all the subclasses of entity/agent, forbidding extensions? ←
18:51:33 <Luc> ack luc
Luc Moreau: ack luc ←
18:51:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:52:16 <jcheney> zednik: not familiar with extended types in xml, but should allow specialization / subtypes without using substitution groups
Stephan Zednik: not familiar with extended types in xml, but should allow specialization / subtypes without using substitution groups ←
18:52:40 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:52:40 <jcheney> Luc: something to keep in mind when looking at revised design.
Luc Moreau: something to keep in mind when looking at revised design. ←
18:52:43 <pgroth> did someone raise the issue?
Paul Groth: did someone raise the issue? ←
18:53:01 <jcheney> zednik: suggest we mark the terms that use prov:type for subtyping as something that might change
Stephan Zednik: suggest we mark the terms that use prov:type for subtyping as something that might change ←
18:53:26 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:53:35 <pgroth> issue: prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document
ISSUE: prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document ←
18:53:35 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-595 - Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/595/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-595 - Prov-xml subtyping needs to be marked in the document ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/595/edit . ←
18:53:43 <jcheney> pgroth: whoa!
Paul Groth: whoa! ←
18:54:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:54:18 <jcheney> luc: next issue, identifiers/qnames
Luc Moreau: next issue, identifiers/qnames ←
18:54:33 <Luc> entity(ex:0001)
Luc Moreau: entity(ex:0001) ←
18:54:46 <jcheney> ... can write entities like this
... can write entities like this ←
18:55:05 <jcheney> ivan: this is why rdfa does not use qnames
Ivan Herman: this is why rdfa does not use qnames ←
18:55:23 <jcheney> luc: grammar accepts qualified names but xml schema requires qnames
Luc Moreau: grammar accepts qualified names but xml schema requires qnames ←
18:55:32 <jcheney> ivan: [shrug] life sucks
Ivan Herman: [shrug] life sucks ←
18:55:39 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
18:56:08 <jcheney> luc: can define new type of strings that match this
Luc Moreau: can define new type of strings that match this ←
18:56:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:56:48 <jcheney> ... in prov toolbox, using in non validating mode so these recognize as qualified names but painful
... in prov toolbox, using in non validating mode so these recognize as qualified names but painful ←
18:56:49 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:57:09 <jcheney> zednik: should try to determine what is best for xml to use as identifier
Stephan Zednik: should try to determine what is best for xml to use as identifier ←
18:57:23 <jcheney> ... identifying scheme for prov-n makes sense in rdf, may not make sense in xml
... identifying scheme for prov-n makes sense in rdf, may not make sense in xml ←
18:57:32 <Curt> q+
Curt Tilmes: q+ ←
18:57:35 <jcheney> ... defining our own string subtype may not be best either
... defining our own string subtype may not be best either ←
18:57:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:57:43 <zednik> q-
Stephan Zednik: q- ←
18:57:43 <Luc> ack ze
Luc Moreau: ack ze ←
18:58:07 <jcheney> pgroth: agrees with stefan's approach. made prov-n open-ended for human consumtion
Paul Groth: agrees with stefan's approach. made prov-n open-ended for human consumtion ←
18:58:16 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
18:58:33 <jcheney> ... with xml, need to be more restrictive to remain compatble for tools, even if it constraints what you can use as ids
... with xml, need to be more restrictive to remain compatble for tools, even if it constraints what you can use as ids ←
18:58:49 <jcheney> tlebo: rdf/xml has same problem,
Timothy Lebo: rdf/xml has same problem, ←
18:58:51 <Luc> my concern is that people will generate xml that does not validate
Luc Moreau: my concern is that people will generate xml that does not validate ←
18:58:54 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
18:58:57 <jcheney> pgroth: design for tooling
Paul Groth: design for tooling ←
18:59:20 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
18:59:28 <Luc> ack Cu
Luc Moreau: ack Cu ←
18:59:31 <jcheney> ivan: it is a choice to allow more liberal strings, but will not work well with tools
Ivan Herman: it is a choice to allow more liberal strings, but will not work well with tools ←
18:59:46 <lebot> +1 pgroth and zednik on letting prov-xml constrain, c.f. prov-o's "type" must be a Resource and not Literals, as prov-n permits.
Timothy Lebo: +1 pgroth and zednik on letting prov-xml constrain, c.f. prov-o's "type" must be a Resource and not Literals, as prov-n permits. ←
18:59:58 <jcheney> pgroth: does qname resolve to uri? main serializations will be xml, rdf/turtle
Paul Groth: does qname resolve to uri? main serializations will be xml, rdf/turtle ←
19:00:33 <jcheney> ... we don't have to define in documents, but should say somewhere what subset of ids are interoperable across main formats.
... we don't have to define in documents, but should say somewhere what subset of ids are interoperable across main formats. ←
19:00:38 <jcheney> ... "don't do this"
... "don't do this" ←
19:00:39 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:00:47 <Luc> ack pgro
Luc Moreau: ack pgro ←
19:00:50 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
19:01:07 <jcheney> luc: concerned people will generate xml serializations that don't validate because of ids
Luc Moreau: concerned people will generate xml serializations that don't validate because of ids ←
19:01:34 <jcheney> luc: qnames are very restrictvie
Luc Moreau: qnames are very restrictvie ←
19:01:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:01:54 <jcheney> curt: seems ok to say "if you want to interoperate, do this"
Curt Tilmes: seems ok to say "if you want to interoperate, do this" ←
19:02:00 <jcheney> hook: no xlinking
19:02:20 <jcheney> pgroth: shouldn't define our own ids. do people use something other than qnames?
Paul Groth: shouldn't define our own ids. do people use something other than qnames? ←
19:02:23 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:02:33 <jcheney> q+
q+ ←
19:03:04 <jcheney> laurent: people used to use urn, now uri/url
Laurent Lefort: people used to use urn, now uri/url ←
19:03:08 <zednik> +1 pgroth for determining what is best for ids from xml community, and use that
Stephan Zednik: +1 pgroth for determining what is best for ids from xml community, and use that ←
19:03:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:03:31 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
19:04:01 <jcheney> ivan: there are organizations whose internal identification of items is similar, rdfa discussion began because news organization wanted to use similar names
Ivan Herman: there are organizations whose internal identification of items is similar, rdfa discussion began because news organization wanted to use similar names ←
19:04:08 <jcheney> ... rdfa avoided use of qnames
... rdfa avoided use of qnames ←
19:04:23 <jcheney> pgroth: also allowed in prov-o, prov-n
Paul Groth: also allowed in prov-o, prov-n ←
19:05:02 <jcheney> ivan: defining new id type worse because many xml tools assume id attribute is of a specific form (?)
Ivan Herman: defining new id type worse because many xml tools assume id attribute is of a specific form (?) ←
19:05:09 <jcheney> Luc: we use prov;id, not toplevel id
Luc Moreau: we use prov;id, not toplevel id ←
19:05:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:05:23 <jcheney> ivan: some tools recognize/exploit atributes declared
Ivan Herman: some tools recognize/exploit attributes declared ←
19:05:46 <ivan> s/atributes/attributes/
19:06:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:06:17 <jcheney> jcheney: will ask ht
James Cheney: will ask ht ←
19:06:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:06:56 <Curt> q+ This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too
Curt Tilmes: q+ This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too ←
19:07:04 <Luc> ack jch
Luc Moreau: ack jch ←
19:07:06 <Curt> This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too
Curt Tilmes: This could be an explicit question for FPWD review too ←
19:07:30 <jcheney> luc: prov-dm uses qualified names as shortcut for uri
Luc Moreau: prov-dm uses qualified names as shortcut for uri ←
19:07:36 <jcheney> ... can reconstruct full uri
... can reconstruct full uri ←
19:07:41 <jcheney> ... not done in xml by default
... not done in xml by default ←
19:07:52 <Paolo> I will have to go soon -- are you planning to discuss prov-dictionary next?
Paolo Missier: I will have to go soon -- are you planning to discuss prov-dictionary next? ←
19:07:54 <jcheney> ...we need to state the convention
...we need to state the convention ←
19:07:56 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:07:59 <Luc> ack Luc
Luc Moreau: ack Luc ←
19:08:22 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:08:53 <pgroth> @paolo yes
Paul Groth: @paolo yes ←
19:09:01 <jcheney> luc: plan: flag issue, have james ask henry thompson
Luc Moreau: plan: flag issue, have james ask henry thompson ←
19:09:16 <zednik> q+
Stephan Zednik: q+ ←
19:09:29 <Luc> ack zed
Luc Moreau: ack zed ←
19:09:39 <jcheney> zednik: wanted to add that we could put forth question + possible direction such as xsd:anyURI
Stephan Zednik: wanted to add that we could put forth question + possible direction such as xsd:anyURI ←
19:10:07 <jcheney> luc: may lose some benefit of xml?
Luc Moreau: may lose some benefit of xml? ←
19:10:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:10:21 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
19:10:24 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
19:10:32 <jcheney> luc: congratulations to prov-xml team
Luc Moreau: congratulations to prov-xml team ←
19:10:42 <Luc> topic: prov-dictionary
Summary: The document has been dormant since F2F3, when the dictionary material was "downgraded" to note status. It was unknown whether Stian would lead the effort. Paolo has little bandwidth before Xmas. Sam and Tom volunteered to help, and were going to draft a timetable for the next teleconference.
<luc>Summary: The document has been dormant since F2F3, when the dictionary material was "downgraded" to note status. It was unknown whether Stian would lead the effort. Paolo has little bandwidth before Xmas. Sam and Tom volunteered to help, and were going to draft a timetable for the next teleconference.
19:11:34 <jcheney> luc: renamed collections to dictionaries, then decided to remove from dm leaving lean collections
Luc Moreau: renamed collections to dictionaries, then decided to remove from dm leaving lean collections ←
19:11:59 <jcheney> ... decided to create note for dictionaries, starting with all text from older verisons of prov-dm/prov-o
... decided to create note for dictionaries, starting with all text from older verisons of prov-dm/prov-o ←
19:12:06 <jcheney> ... but some work is needed. who will work on it?
... but some work is needed. who will work on it? ←
19:12:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:12:47 <jcheney> ... comments?
... comments? ←
19:12:58 <TomDN> +q
Tom De Nies: +q ←
19:13:13 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
19:13:14 <Paolo> +q
Paolo Missier: +q ←
19:13:18 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
19:13:23 <jcheney> TomDN: what is timetable?
Tom De Nies: what is timetable? ←
19:13:26 <jcheney> luc: to be detemined
Luc Moreau: to be detemined ←
19:13:34 <jcheney> TomDN: synchronous release?
Tom De Nies: synchronous release? ←
19:13:41 <jcheney> Luc: no, later than cr release
Luc Moreau: no, later than cr release ←
19:13:47 <jcheney> ... but before end of wg
... but before end of wg ←
19:13:48 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
19:14:00 <jcheney> .... including time for iterations
.... including time for iterations ←
19:14:00 <Luc> ack tom
Luc Moreau: ack tom ←
19:14:29 <jcheney> Paolo: discussed earlier, and when we decided on note, ownership was assigned to stian with paolo agreeing to help
Paolo Missier: discussed earlier, and when we decided on note, ownership was assigned to stian with paolo agreeing to help ←
19:14:38 <jcheney> ... but was involved in other documents so did not have time
... but was involved in other documents so did not have time ←
19:14:43 <Luc> ack pao
Luc Moreau: ack pao ←
19:14:57 <jcheney> ... talked with stian and discussed timetable but this hasn't been realized
... talked with stian and discussed timetable but this hasn't been realized ←
19:15:29 <jcheney> ... plan to ask stian if interested, volunteer to help, otherwise try to pick up
... plan to ask stian if interested, volunteer to help, otherwise try to pick up ←
19:15:43 <jcheney> ... would still like to see it happen
... would still like to see it happen ←
19:16:00 <jcheney> ... should be able to start spending time on it after holidays
... should be able to start spending time on it after holidays ←
19:16:08 <jcheney> Luc: can you really do it?
Luc Moreau: can you really do it? ←
19:16:18 <jcheney> ... in terms of bandwidth
... in terms of bandwidth ←
19:16:30 <jcheney> Paolo: will have more in January, not before
Paolo Missier: will have more in January, not before ←
19:16:32 <lebot> @Paolo , we all have more bandwidth later. Until we don't ;-)
Timothy Lebo: @Paolo , we all have more bandwidth later. Until we don't ;-) ←
19:16:39 <jcheney> ... can make time for it
... can make time for it ←
19:16:57 <jcheney> ... don't think we're too far
... don't think we're too far ←
19:16:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:17:02 <SamCoppens> Tom and I would volunteer to help with the note
Sam Coppens: Tom and I would volunteer to help with the note ←
19:17:09 <lebot> good point, it was carried to Last Call drafts :-/
Timothy Lebo: good point, it was carried to Last Call drafts :-/ ←
19:17:17 <lebot> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
19:17:17 <jcheney> ... material in note is not starting from scratch
... material in note is not starting from scratch ←
19:17:32 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
19:17:58 <jcheney> pgroth: timetable would like to see fpwd or new release on notes before holidays for all documents
Paul Groth: timetable would like to see fpwd or new release on notes before holidays for all documents ←
19:18:09 <lebot> +1 to a FPWD for collections before xmas
Timothy Lebo: +1 to a FPWD for collections before xmas ←
19:18:10 <jcheney> ... there on most things already (prov-aq, prov-dc)
... there on most things already (prov-aq, prov-dc) ←
19:18:36 <jcheney> ... collections needs editorial work beyone existing content
... collections needs editorial work beyone existing content ←
19:18:38 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:19:19 <jcheney> Luc: at f2f3 took out of rec track document, no activity since then
Luc Moreau: at f2f3 took out of rec track document, no activity since then ←
19:19:54 <Paolo> q+
Paolo Missier: q+ ←
19:19:58 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
19:20:06 <jcheney> ... if someone volunteers to work on it before holidays, great, if not, we may not have time to finish it by march
... if someone volunteers to work on it before holidays, great, if not, we may not have time to finish it by march ←
19:20:21 <jcheney> tlebo: reinforcing paolo's comments: content is from pre-last call
Timothy Lebo: reinforcing paolo's comments: content is from pre-last call ←
19:20:25 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:20:30 <jcheney> ... can support with prov-o parts
... can support with prov-o parts ←
19:20:33 <lebot> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
19:21:08 <jcheney> paolo: will struggle between now and end of year but can try to make time
Paolo Missier: will struggle between now and end of year but can try to make time ←
19:21:21 <jcheney> ... spike in teaching activity now
... spike in teaching activity now ←
19:21:25 <pgroth> @paolo that's why we need something else
Paul Groth: @paolo that's why we need somebody else ←
19:21:33 <jcheney> ... unlikely to find more than 1-2 days
... unlikely to find more than 1-2 days ←
19:21:34 <pgroth> s/something/somebody
19:21:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:21:52 <Luc> ack paol
Luc Moreau: ack paol ←
19:21:56 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
19:22:06 <jcheney> ... was assigned to stian, so begin by checking whether he still plans to do this
... was assigned to stian, so begin by checking whether he still plans to do this ←
19:22:25 <jcheney> sam: tom and i will definitely help, could take lead if needed
Sam Coppens: tom and i will definitely help, could take lead if needed ←
19:22:36 <Paolo> excellent I would definitely help out
Paolo Missier: excellent I would definitely help out ←
19:22:40 <jcheney> luc: sounds good!
Luc Moreau: sounds good! ←
19:23:11 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:23:14 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
19:23:16 <ivan> ack pgroth
Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←
19:23:52 <jcheney> pgroth: stian may be busy, so extra help would be good; stian is a core implementor in taverna, & working with open annotation
Paul Groth: stian may be busy, so extra help would be good; stian is a core implementor in taverna, & working with open annotation ←
19:24:01 <jcheney> ... implementations more important
... implementations more important ←
19:24:04 <pgroth> ls
Paul Groth: ls ←
19:24:29 <lebot> +1 drink each to @SamCoppens and @TomDN this evening ;-)
Timothy Lebo: +1 drink each to @SamCoppens and @TomDN this evening ;-) ←
19:25:03 <jcheney> luc: NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away
Luc Moreau: NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away ←
19:25:20 <jcheney> (oops that was me) NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away
(oops that was me) NB: christmas is only ~6 weeks away ←
19:25:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:25:25 <lebot> @Paolo can we wrap our arms around the raw materials?
Timothy Lebo: @Paolo can we wrap our arms around the raw materials? ←
19:25:44 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:26:28 <Luc> action: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference
ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference ←
19:26:28 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find SamCoppens. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find SamCoppens. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>. ←
19:26:57 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:26:59 <jcheney> @tlebo http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dictionary.html
@tlebo http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dictionary.html ←
19:27:09 <Paolo> cool, have to go bye everyone
Paolo Missier: cool, have to go bye everyone ←
19:27:33 <jcheney> luc: completed prov-xml, prov-dictionary
Luc Moreau: completed prov-xml, prov-dictionary ←
19:27:36 <Zakim> -Paolo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←
19:27:51 <jcheney> ... allocate 30-minutes to prov-sem?
... allocate 30-minutes to prov-sem? ←
19:28:08 <Luc> scribe: TomDN
(Scribe set to Tom De Nies)
19:28:13 <Luc> topic: prov-sem
Summary: James summarized the recent work he did on the semantics. Typesetting of the document was discussed. It was agreed that James should proceed ahead, with the most convenient tool for the task, and that we would tackle the conversion into W3C note format afterwards. The objective is to produce a revised version of the document circa Xmas.
<Luc>Summary: James summarized the recent work he did on the semantics. Typesetting of the document was discussed. It was agreed that James should proceed ahead, with the most convenient tool for the task, and that we would tackle the conversion into W3C note format afterwards. The objective is to produce a revised version of the document circa Xmas.
19:28:14 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC ←
19:28:14 <pgroth> action: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference
ACTION: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference ←
19:28:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [on Tom De Nies - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-134 - draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [on Tom De Nies - due 2012-11-16]. ←
19:28:36 <TomDN> jcheney: Update on PROV-SEM.
James Cheney: Update on PROV-SEM. ←
19:29:00 <lebot> @SamCoppens http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl
Timothy Lebo: @SamCoppens http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/prov-dictionary.owl ←
19:29:16 <TomDN> ... Most of what's here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC is aligned with the LC docs
... Most of what's here: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC is aligned with the LC docs ←
19:30:19 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:30:25 <TomDN> ... With the CONSTRAINTS, we only enable people to track the constraints. But with SEM we could formalize all that more cleanly and acceptable for logics people
... With the CONSTRAINTS, we only enable people to track the constraints. But with SEM we could formalize all that more cleanly and acceptable for logics people ←
19:31:15 <TomDN> ... It's kinda hard to write that stuff down in HTML, instead of in for example LaTeX
... It's kinda hard to write that stuff down in HTML, instead of in for example LaTeX ←
19:31:49 <TomDN> ... There's an old Latex->HTML tool, but it's not conforming to the recent standards
... There's an old Latex->HTML tool, but it's not conforming to the recent standards ←
19:32:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:32:15 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
19:32:34 <TomDN> ... If I could write it as Latex, producing this note would be easier
... If I could write it as Latex, producing this note would be easier ←
19:33:54 <TomDN> Luc: What's your sense of timetable?
Luc Moreau: What's your sense of timetable? ←
19:34:10 <TomDN> ... And are there people who could help you?
... And are there people who could help you? ←
19:34:19 <TomDN> jcheney: Help would be good.
James Cheney: Help would be good. ←
19:34:49 <TomDN> ... Now is a good time for me to do it.
... Now is a good time for me to do it. ←
19:35:23 <TomDN> ... But time that I wanted to spend on this has gone to the constraints.
... But time that I wanted to spend on this has gone to the constraints. ←
19:36:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:36:55 <TomDN> ... I could definitely use people that can do the math markup
... I could definitely use people that can do the math markup ←
19:37:36 <TomDN> pgroth: Go ahead an focus on the content, and we can see if we can find people to make it look nice
Paul Groth: Go ahead an focus on the content, and we can see if we can find people to make it look nice ←
19:37:51 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:38:35 <TomDN> ivan: it could be on the wiki after the WG closes. Then it has a URI and is read-only
Ivan Herman: it could be on the wiki after the WG closes. Then it has a URI and is read-only ←
19:38:52 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
19:39:05 <TomDN> jcheney: But is that OK for a formal Note?
James Cheney: But is that OK for a formal Note? ←
19:39:08 <TomDN> ivan: no.
Ivan Herman: no. ←
19:39:41 <zednik> http://gva.noekeon.org/blahtexml/
Stephan Zednik: http://gva.noekeon.org/blahtexml/ ←
19:39:46 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:40:13 <TomDN> q+
q+ ←
19:40:15 <lebot> @zednik what a great name for a tool.
Timothy Lebo: @zednik what a great name for a tool. ←
19:40:44 <TomDN> Luc: Isn't there a tool at W3C to turn a wikipage into a note?
Luc Moreau: Isn't there a tool at W3C to turn a wikipage into a note? ←
19:41:05 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:41:16 <TomDN> ivan: Sandro had some python tools, but I don't know whether that would work. You'd have to ask Sandro.
Ivan Herman: Sandro had some python tools, but I don't know whether that would work. You'd have to ask Sandro. ←
19:41:24 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:41:33 <Luc> ack tom
Luc Moreau: ack tom ←
19:41:52 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
19:42:24 <TomDN> TomDN: I think the content is most important, to address comments about the semantics. let's focus on that first
Tom De Nies: I think the content is most important, to address comments about the semantics. let's focus on that first ←
19:42:50 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:43:30 <TomDN> jcheney: I think a lot of people thought it'd be nice to have this, so it's definitely worth doing. The feedback was useful, but not the main reason to produce the Note
James Cheney: I think a lot of people thought it'd be nice to have this, so it's definitely worth doing. The feedback was useful, but not the main reason to produce the Note ←
19:44:23 <TomDN> pgroth: Conclusion: James keeps working on this in the way that's easiest for him, and then someone looks at the presentation stuff later.
Paul Groth: Conclusion: James keeps working on this in the way that's easiest for him, and then someone looks at the presentation stuff later. ←
19:44:29 <TomDN> Luc: Timetable?
Luc Moreau: Timetable? ←
19:45:05 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
19:45:10 <TomDN> jcheney: I need about a week (continuous) work on this.
James Cheney: I need about a week (continuous) work on this. ←
19:45:16 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:45:23 <TomDN> ... The week of the holidays seems reasonable for a first draft
... The week of the holidays seems reasonable for a first draft ←
19:46:12 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC#Inferences
James Cheney: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/FormalSemanticsLC#Inferences ←
19:46:41 <TomDN> jcheney: If you look at the end of the document, you'll see that I've already converted most stuff into the subset of LateX that Wiki supports.
James Cheney: If you look at the end of the document, you'll see that I've already converted most stuff into the subset of LateX that Wiki supports. ←
19:47:28 <pgroth> 30 prov logic parsers
Paul Groth: 30 prov logic parsers ←
19:47:39 <pgroth> all independent implementations
Paul Groth: all independent implementations ←
19:47:50 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
19:48:32 <pgroth> we are happy
Paul Groth: we are happy ←
19:48:38 <TomDN> everyone\: We are all happy
everyone\: We are all happy ←
19:49:18 <Luc> zakim, who is on the call?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the call? ←
19:49:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, smiles, [IPcaller] ←
19:49:23 <TomDN> pgroth: Is there anyone on the phone that has comments on anything on the agenda?
Paul Groth: Is there anyone on the phone that has comments on anything on the agenda? ←
19:51:37 <TomDN> Topic: Mention (Resolution)
Summary: the discussion on mention was resumed when Graham rejoined the group. Graham proposed an explanatory change. The group reviewed the text, and discussed some aspects of the proposal. No consensus was emerging immediately, and we didn't want to leave the meeting with a pseudo-agreement on editorial change that would unravel after a week. So, it was decided that we would proceed with a vote on keeping the text as is. If there is opposition, then it means that consensus cannot be reached, and (following a policy agreed at F2F2), the concept should be dropped from Rec-track documents. There was opposition to keep the document as is, but the members were supportive (or not opposing) having a note on mention.
<luc>Summary: the discussion on mention was resumed when Graham rejoined the group. Graham proposed an explanatory change. The group reviewed the text, and discussed some aspects of the proposal. No consensus was emerging immediately, and we didn't want to leave the meeting with a pseudo-agreement on editorial change that would unravel after a week. So, it was decided that we would proceed with a vote on keeping the text as is. If there is opposition, then it means that consensus cannot be reached, and (following a policy agreed at F2F2), the concept should be dropped from Rec-track documents. There was opposition to keep the document as is, but the members were supportive (or not opposing) having a note on mention.
19:52:16 <TomDN> Luc: Graham has thought about Mention.
Luc Moreau: Graham has thought about Mention. ←
19:52:33 <TomDN> GK: I think I have an explanation of it that I'm OK with.
Graham Klyne: I think I have an explanation of it that I'm OK with. ←
19:52:56 <TomDN> ... I hope it aligns with what is meant in the document.
... I hope it aligns with what is meant in the document. ←
19:53:33 <TomDN> Luc: So you're not proposing a change of design, but a textual change?
Luc Moreau: So you're not proposing a change of design, but a textual change? ←
19:53:45 <TomDN> GK: Yes, it's an explanatory change.
Graham Klyne: Yes, it's an explanatory change. ←
19:55:39 <TomDN> (Taking a break until 3:15 )
(Taking a break until 3:15 ) ←
19:55:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
19:56:02 <smiles> OK, talk then
Simon Miles: OK, talk then ←
19:59:05 <laurent> @jcheney Instructions to export wiki pages to HTML used for SSN http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Publishing_Incubator_Group_Documents#Export_into_HTML_from_MediaWiki
Laurent Lefort: @jcheney Instructions to export wiki pages to HTML used for SSN http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Publishing_Incubator_Group_Documents#Export_into_HTML_from_MediaWiki ←
20:15:41 <TomDN> (and we're back ! )
(No events recorded for 16 minutes)
(and we're back ! ) ←
20:15:58 <TomDN> Zakim, who is on the call?
Zakim, who is on the call? ←
20:15:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, smiles
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, smiles ←
20:16:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
20:16:47 <TomDN> pgroth: Graham to propose editorial changes
Paul Groth: Graham to propose editorial changes ←
20:16:56 <GK> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne
Graham Klyne: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne ←
20:17:01 <TomDN> (who just joined? )
(who just joined? ) ←
20:17:27 <TomDN> GK: Please see the link for the text regarding my suggestions
Graham Klyne: Please see the link for the text regarding my suggestions ←
20:17:39 <jcheney> can someone resend link
James Cheney: can someone resend link ←
20:17:50 <TomDN> ... This is based on the description of Mention in PROV-DM
... This is based on the description of Mention in PROV-DM ←
20:17:54 <SamCoppens> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne
Sam Coppens: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/User:Gklyne ←
20:17:59 <jcheney> @Sam thanks!
James Cheney: @Sam thanks! ←
20:19:51 <TomDN> GK: I think this way, the examples could be done without TRiG
Graham Klyne: I think this way, the examples could be done without TRiG ←
20:20:18 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
20:20:24 <pgroth> ace Luc
Paul Groth: ace Luc ←
20:20:31 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
20:21:01 <TomDN> Luc: In your first 2 sentences, you talk about the same entity using the same name, but with different descriptions in different bundles
Luc Moreau: In your first 2 sentences, you talk about the same entity using the same name, but with different descriptions in different bundles ←
20:21:15 <TomDN> ... However, we can't have the same name
... However, we can't have the same name ←
20:21:57 <TomDN> ... Why do you have to indicate that they have the same name? Why not just the same entities with different descriptions?
... Why do you have to indicate that they have the same name? Why not just the same entities with different descriptions? ←
20:22:18 <TomDN> GK: Valid point, I was just working from a specific use case
Graham Klyne: Valid point, I was just working from a specific use case ←
20:22:38 <TomDN> ... It may not be necessary in the eventual descriptive text
... It may not be necessary in the eventual descriptive text ←
20:22:48 <TomDN> Luc: are you introducing a new inference?
Luc Moreau: are you introducing a new inference? ←
20:22:54 <TomDN> GK: I don't think so.
Graham Klyne: I don't think so. ←
20:23:09 <lebot> I pause on "the descriptions may be based on observations of different specializations "
Timothy Lebo: I pause on "the descriptions may be based on observations of different specializations " ←
20:23:46 <TomDN> GK: To be clear, these are my thoughts on the matter, not something that should go directly into the description
Graham Klyne: To be clear, these are my thoughts on the matter, not something that should go directly into the description ←
20:24:18 <lebot> it seems to impose a specialization of an entity every time someone attempts to fix an aspect of the entity.
Timothy Lebo: it seems to impose a specialization of an entity every time someone attempts to fix an aspect of the entity. ←
20:24:58 <TomDN> luc: Is "An application may have access to additional out of band information " there to explain the difference with /just/ a specialization?
Luc Moreau: Is "An application may have access to additional out of band information " there to explain the difference with /just/ a specialization? ←
20:25:02 <TomDN> GK: yes
Graham Klyne: yes ←
20:25:51 <lebot> I pause on "about the specialization of e1 that is described in bundle b" since a specialization is not asserted - e1 is itself!
Timothy Lebo: I pause on "about the specialization of e1 that is described in bundle b" since a specialization is not asserted - e1 is itself! ←
20:26:20 <TomDN> Luc: Example: ratings. If I rate something that lasts an hour fast, someone else might rate it differently
Luc Moreau: Example: ratings. If I rate something that lasts an hour fast, someone else might rate it differently ←
20:26:22 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:26:22 <lebot> I very much like "The mentionOf construct provides a way to introduce a new entity that is the basis for observations in a specified bundle"
Timothy Lebo: I very much like "The mentionOf construct provides a way to introduce a new entity that is the basis for observations in a specified bundle" ←
20:26:30 <TomDN> GK: I think we're talking about the same thing
Graham Klyne: I think we're talking about the same thing ←
20:27:06 <TomDN> Luc: Do you want to add these inferences to the document?
Luc Moreau: Do you want to add these inferences to the document? ←
20:27:19 <TomDN> GK: No, they are to help capture the essence of the text
Graham Klyne: No, they are to help capture the essence of the text ←
20:27:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:27:55 <TomDN> Luc: Does this mean that you are now happy with mention? (If we do these edits in the text)
Luc Moreau: Does this mean that you are now happy with mention? (If we do these edits in the text) ←
20:28:18 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:28:19 <TomDN> GK: I'd say yes, if my interpretation is what's meant in the document
Graham Klyne: I'd say yes, if my interpretation is what's meant in the document ←
20:28:44 <TomDN> Luc: Attempting to assess the changes to be made
Luc Moreau: Attempting to assess the changes to be made ←
20:28:50 <pgroth> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-mention
Paul Groth: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/prov-dm.html#term-mention ←
20:28:51 <lebot> I think the term "mentionedIn" is too broad from what we currently have: "asInBundle"
Timothy Lebo: I think the term "mentionedIn" is too broad from what we currently have: "asInBundle" ←
20:29:39 <jcheney> "introduce a new entity that is the basis" -> "relate an entity in the current instance to another one that is the basis..." ??
James Cheney: "introduce a new entity that is the basis" -> "relate an entity in the current instance to another one that is the basis..." ?? ←
20:29:49 <TomDN> GK: I had trouble with "Some applications may want to interpret this entity e1 with respect to the descriptions found in the bundle b it occurs in."
Graham Klyne: I had trouble with "Some applications may want to interpret this entity e1 with respect to the descriptions found in the bundle b it occurs in." ←
20:30:15 <TomDN> Luc: Yes, it looks liek we actually mean "The description of the entity in bundle b"
Luc Moreau: Yes, it looks like we actually mean "The description of the entity in bundle b" ←
20:30:21 <TomDN> s/liek/like
20:30:44 <TomDN> GK: also, "additional aspects"
Graham Klyne: also, "additional aspects" ←
20:31:34 <TomDN> tlebo: but "aspects" is central in the definitions of alternate and specialization
Timothy Lebo: but "aspects" is central in the definitions of alternate and specialization ←
20:31:40 <lebot> Central to mention: "The primary author did not see fit to specialize, but the secondary consumer/author *does* see fit to specialize the entity".
Timothy Lebo: Central to mention: "The primary author did not see fit to specialize, but the secondary consumer/author *does* see fit to specialize the entity". ←
20:31:59 <TomDN> Luc: We didn't want a formal definition of aspect
Luc Moreau: We didn't want a formal definition of aspect ←
20:32:53 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
20:33:11 <TomDN> tlebo: the term "additional aspect" just refers to the specifying of the bundle. After that you can add whatever you want
Timothy Lebo: the term "additional aspect" just refers to the specifying of the bundle. After that you can add whatever you want ←
20:33:35 <TomDN> GK: My problem is that it's focusing on the mention as the aspect
Graham Klyne: My problem is that it's focusing on the mention as the aspect ←
20:33:49 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
20:34:12 <TomDN> Luc: I want to know exactly which edits we want to make
Luc Moreau: I want to know exactly which edits we want to make ←
20:34:38 <TomDN> GK: I was treating this as trying to capture the same information as in the document
Graham Klyne: I was treating this as trying to capture the same information as in the document ←
20:34:42 <TomDN> ... as a replacement
... as a replacement ←
20:35:06 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
20:35:13 <TomDN> smiles: I personally find the original text clearer than Graham's
Simon Miles: I personally find the original text clearer than Graham's ←
20:35:35 <TomDN> ... To me, it doesn't seem to be about provenance, and not useful.
... To me, it doesn't seem to be about provenance, and not useful. ←
20:35:49 <TomDN> ... I wouldn't formally object, but I wouldn't use it
... I wouldn't formally object, but I wouldn't use it ←
20:36:12 <TomDN> ... everything else in the document describes things in the past. But this doesn't.
... everything else in the document describes things in the past. But this doesn't. ←
20:36:22 <TomDN> ... So it's not really provenance
... So it's not really provenance ←
20:36:48 <TomDN> +q
+q ←
20:36:59 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
20:37:30 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
20:38:17 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:38:24 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:38:29 <TomDN> ... I don't see a problem with it being at risk. But since we want it in or out now, I would vote for out
... I don't see a problem with it being at risk. But since we want it in or out now, I would vote for out ←
20:38:36 <Curt> It allows us to tie additional information to provenance information
Curt Tilmes: It allows us to tie additional information to provenance information ←
20:39:00 <TomDN> TomDN: But alternate and specialization technically don't describe things in the past, so why block mention for that reason?
Tom De Nies: But alternate and specialization technically don't describe things in the past, so why block mention for that reason? ←
20:39:27 <TomDN> smiles: because they do describe "this thing was alternate of this thing" in the past
Simon Miles: because they do describe "this thing was alternate of this thing" in the past ←
20:39:51 <TomDN> TomDN: I think mention does that as well, just with a different name...
Tom De Nies: I think mention does that as well, just with a different name... ←
20:40:30 <TomDN> pgroth: What I'm worried about is leaving here with a pseudo-agreement to have an editorial change, and then later someone objects to it
Paul Groth: What I'm worried about is leaving here with a pseudo-agreement to have an editorial change, and then later someone objects to it ←
20:40:36 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
20:41:09 <TomDN> ... What Graham wrote seems like a different concept than what we have
... What Graham wrote seems like a different concept than what we have ←
20:41:27 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
20:41:44 <TomDN> ... We need an answer from the WG to the question: "Is this construct worth delaying everything else?"
... We need an answer from the WG to the question: "Is this construct worth delaying everything else?" ←
20:42:24 <TomDN> Luc: I think it's different from what's in the document, but essentially, you didn't change the bullets, or did you?
Luc Moreau: I think it's different from what's in the document, but essentially, you didn't change the bullets, or did you? ←
20:42:39 <TomDN> GK: I reordered them
Graham Klyne: I reordered them ←
20:42:49 <TomDN> ... I said generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);
... I said generalEntity: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b); ←
20:43:09 <TomDN> ... whereas you said: generalEntity: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.
... whereas you said: generalEntity: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned. ←
20:43:27 <TomDN> ... and: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);
... and: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra); ←
20:43:39 <TomDN> ... instead of: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of an entity that is a specialization of (supra);
... instead of: specificEntity: an identifier (infra) of an entity that is a specialization of (supra); ←
20:44:39 <TomDN> GK: I couldn't understand the original description, but mine is what I made from it after discussion
Graham Klyne: I couldn't understand the original description, but mine is what I made from it after discussion ←
20:45:08 <TomDN> Luc: what about incompatibility with RDF semantics?
Luc Moreau: what about incompatibility with RDF semantics? ←
20:45:27 <TomDN> GK: that was part of the basis of my concern, but not the essence
Graham Klyne: that was part of the basis of my concern, but not the essence ←
20:45:56 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
20:46:38 <TomDN> GK: I'm checking whether I can make lighter changes with the same effect
Graham Klyne: I'm checking whether I can make lighter changes with the same effect ←
20:46:58 <lebot> prov-o's definition: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of prov:specializationOf whose subject presents as an aspect a particular prov:Bundle in which its more general Entity was described (prov:asInBundle is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned)."
Timothy Lebo: prov-o's definition: "prov:mentionOf is a special type of prov:specializationOf whose subject presents as an aspect a particular prov:Bundle in which its more general Entity was described (prov:asInBundle is used to cite the Bundle in which the generalization was mentioned)." ←
20:47:15 <lebot> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
20:47:27 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
20:47:56 <TomDN> tlebo: When we were comparing the bullets, I was thinking it would make sense to keep the current DM definition for bundle and specific entity, but use Graham's general entity
Timothy Lebo: When we were comparing the bullets, I was thinking it would make sense to keep the current DM definition for bundle and specific entity, but use Graham's general entity ←
20:48:28 <lebot> generalEntity\:an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);
Timothy Lebo: generalEntity\:an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b); ←
20:48:40 <TomDN> ... If we get rid of this word "mentioned", then we can avoid some confusion
... If we get rid of this word "mentioned", then we can avoid some confusion ←
20:48:41 <lebot> generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned.
Timothy Lebo: generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) of the entity that is being mentioned. ←
20:48:42 <lebot> bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.
Timothy Lebo: bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra. ←
20:49:27 <lebot> ^^ wipe that :-)
Timothy Lebo: ^^ wipe that :-) ←
20:49:46 <lebot> specificEntity\: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra);
Timothy Lebo: specificEntity\: an identifier (infra) of the entity that is a mention of the general entity (supra); ←
20:49:55 <lebot> generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b);
Timothy Lebo: generalEntity\: an identifier (supra) for an entity that that appears in bundle (b); ←
20:50:01 <lebot> bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra.
Timothy Lebo: bundle\: an identifier (b) of a bundle that contains a description of supra and further constitutes one additional aspect presented by infra. ←
20:50:09 <TomDN> Luc: I'm concerned that we're not progressing
Luc Moreau: I'm concerned that we're not progressing ←
20:51:27 <TomDN> ivan: I think the only way to move forward is to drop it from the spec
Ivan Herman: I think the only way to move forward is to drop it from the spec ←
20:51:33 <SamCoppens> q+
Sam Coppens: q+ ←
20:51:37 <TomDN> ... It's harsh, but realistic
... It's harsh, but realistic ←
20:51:49 <pgroth> ack SamCoppens
Paul Groth: ack SamCoppens ←
20:52:14 <TomDN> SamCoppens: This seems to be about interpretation. Can't we just leave the description as such, but explain using Graham's example?
Sam Coppens: This seems to be about interpretation. Can't we just leave the description as such, but explain using Graham's example? ←
20:52:28 <TomDN> ivan: We are at the last minute
Ivan Herman: We are at the last minute ←
20:52:30 <lebot> q+ to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today. ←
20:52:57 <TomDN> pgroth: We're not even arguing about a little bit of text. This is a substantial change
Paul Groth: We're not even arguing about a little bit of text. This is a substantial change ←
20:53:17 <TomDN> ... The goal of the DM was to have an intuitive, easy to understand model.
... The goal of the DM was to have an intuitive, easy to understand model. ←
20:53:30 <lebot> wasInfluencedBy is confusing with wasInformed
Timothy Lebo: wasInfluencedBy is confusing with wasInformed ←
20:53:31 <pgroth> ack lebot
Paul Groth: ack lebot ←
20:53:31 <Zakim> lebot, you wanted to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.
Zakim IRC Bot: lebot, you wanted to ask isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today. ←
20:53:32 <TomDN> ... Now, we agree on the structure, but not on the definition it seems
... Now, we agree on the structure, but not on the definition it seems ←
20:53:48 <TomDN> tlebo: isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today.
Timothy Lebo: isn't this what FAQs are for? That's how we addressed the issues earlier today. ←
20:54:19 <lebot> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
20:55:26 <TomDN> pgroth: But the commenter from earlier today wasn't a WG member, that had the chance to discuss with us for a long time
Paul Groth: But the commenter from earlier today wasn't a WG member, that had the chance to discuss with us for a long time ←
20:56:05 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
20:56:06 <TomDN> ... If it's not clear for Graham, how can we expect outsiders to get it?
... If it's not clear for Graham, how can we expect outsiders to get it? ←
20:57:01 <ivan> ack luc
Ivan Herman: ack luc ←
20:57:32 <TomDN> Luc: yesterday, it seemed to me like there was no support for the construct. But this morning it seemed there was.
Luc Moreau: yesterday, it seemed to me like there was no support for the construct. But this morning it seemed there was. ←
20:57:43 <TomDN> ... But now we have to move to CR.
... But now we have to move to CR. ←
20:58:25 <TomDN> GK: I will back down from making a formal objection, after discussing it today
Graham Klyne: I will back down from making a formal objection, after discussing it today ←
20:59:23 <TomDN> Luc: Still, at previous meetings, we agreed that if there's no consensus, we would drop it.
Luc Moreau: Still, at previous meetings, we agreed that if there's no consensus, we would drop it. ←
20:59:38 <TomDN> ... I say we just vote
... I say we just vote ←
21:01:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
21:01:16 <smiles> q+
Simon Miles: q+ ←
21:01:21 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
21:01:41 <TomDN> smiles: I wanted to ask: what is the negative consequence of it being removed?
Simon Miles: I wanted to ask: what is the negative consequence of it being removed? ←
21:01:48 <TomDN> pgroth: You can't use it
Paul Groth: You can't use it ←
21:02:01 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
21:02:02 <TomDN> ... we lose some interoperability
... we lose some interoperability ←
21:02:29 <Curt> we have a 6pm res
Curt Tilmes: we have a 6pm res ←
21:02:34 <pgroth> ack smiles
Paul Groth: ack smiles ←
21:02:47 <TomDN> jcheney: It might be good to state the pros and cons
James Cheney: It might be good to state the pros and cons ←
21:02:51 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
21:02:53 <TomDN> ... pro: clear use case
... pro: clear use case ←
21:03:08 <TomDN> ... con: it's been controversial
... con: it's been controversial ←
21:03:10 <TomDN> +q
+q ←
21:03:46 <hook> q+
21:03:57 <TomDN> ... pro of removing: covering our euphimisms
... pro of removing: covering our euphimisms ←
21:05:03 <pgroth> ack TomDN
Paul Groth: ack TomDN ←
21:06:15 <smiles> A note has the advantage that if a better way is found later, the DM would still stand complete without the note
Simon Miles: A note has the advantage that if a better way is found later, the DM would still stand complete without the note ←
21:06:22 <TomDN> tomDN: still in favor of creating a note. seems like the same amount of time, but without delaying CR
Tom De Nies: still in favor of creating a note. seems like the same amount of time, but without delaying CR ←
21:06:36 <TomDN> hook: Could we do something less strong than that?
Hook Hua: Could we do something less strong than that? ←
21:06:45 <TomDN> Luc: like a wiki
Luc Moreau: like a wiki ←
21:06:47 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
21:07:05 <TomDN> ivan: You could take what's there, and put it into an informative appendix
Ivan Herman: You could take what's there, and put it into an informative appendix ←
21:07:10 <TomDN> ... as a guideline.
... as a guideline. ←
21:07:13 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
21:07:21 <TomDN> ... But it wouldn't be in the standard ontology
... But it wouldn't be in the standard ontology ←
21:07:39 <Curt> similarly, we would have to leave it out of the XML schema
Curt Tilmes: similarly, we would have to leave it out of the XML schema ←
21:08:08 <TomDN> pgroth: My worry with that is that it's confusing.
Paul Groth: My worry with that is that it's confusing. ←
21:08:17 <TomDN> ... CR speaks with a clear voice
... CR speaks with a clear voice ←
21:08:26 <TomDN> ... An informative appendix does not
... An informative appendix does not ←
21:08:54 <TomDN> Hook: So do we provide ambiguous guidance or no guidance at all?
Hook Hua: So do we provide ambiguous guidance or no guidance at all? ←
21:09:11 <TomDN> pgroth: Either crystal clear or not at all
Paul Groth: Either crystal clear or not at all ←
21:09:54 <TomDN> ivan: Any member can do a member submission, but that's really the weakest form
Ivan Herman: Any member can do a member submission, but that's really the weakest form ←
21:10:39 <pgroth> proposed: Keep mentionOf as part of PROV as is and not at risk
PROPOSED: Keep mentionOf as part of PROV as is and not at risk ←
21:10:45 <smiles> -1
Simon Miles: -1 ←
21:10:46 <lebot> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
21:10:57 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
21:10:59 <jcheney> 0
James Cheney: 0 ←
21:11:08 <hook> +1
21:11:10 <GK> -1
Graham Klyne: -1 ←
21:11:16 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI) ←
21:11:20 <TomDN> +1
+1 ←
21:11:39 <SamCoppens> 0
Sam Coppens: 0 ←
21:12:29 <pgroth> resolved: mentionOf is removed from PROV rec track documents
RESOLVED: mentionOf is removed from PROV rec track documents ←
21:14:48 <TomDN> +q
+q ←
21:14:59 <ivan> ack pgroth
Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←
21:15:08 <Curt> as a note, what would be the effect on the OWL or XSD schema?
Curt Tilmes: as a note, what would be the effect on the OWL or XSD schema? ←
21:15:39 <TomDN> -q
-q ←
21:15:49 <smiles> @pgroth yes, exactly
Simon Miles: @pgroth yes, exactly ←
21:17:09 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:17:51 <TomDN> Luc: Simon, Graham, would you object to mention as is in a note?
Luc Moreau: Simon, Graham, would you object to mention as is in a note? ←
21:18:02 <TomDN> Graham: no, I'd go -0 or support it
Graham Klyne: no, I'd go -0 or support it ←
21:18:09 <TomDN> smiles: no, probably 0
Simon Miles: no, probably 0 ←
21:18:27 <TomDN> ivan: so timetable for this hypothetical note?
Ivan Herman: so timetable for this hypothetical note? ←
21:18:51 <TomDN> pgroth: not together with CR. It's a "new"note.
Paul Groth: not together with CR. It's a "new"note. ←
21:19:15 <TomDN> ... Who would do this?
... Who would do this? ←
21:19:34 <TomDN> Luc: As editors. we should take out the text from the recs, and put it into a document
Luc Moreau: As editors. we should take out the text from the recs, and put it into a document ←
21:19:43 <TomDN> ... I'll take on this
... I'll take on this ←
21:19:50 <hook> q+
21:20:10 <pgroth> action: luc create a mention of document
ACTION: luc create a mention of document ←
21:20:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Create a mention of document [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-135 - Create a mention of document [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16]. ←
21:20:37 <pgroth> ack hook
Paul Groth: ack hook ←
21:21:11 <TomDN> Hook: This will be a new note for the DM, but how far deep would the note go regarding the other documents?
Hook Hua: This will be a new note for the DM, but how far deep would the note go regarding the other documents? ←
21:21:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
21:21:20 <TomDN> Luc: A single, comprehensive document
Luc Moreau: A single, comprehensive document ←
21:21:56 <TomDN> ivan: What about the 2 extra terms in owl. Which namespace would that be?
Ivan Herman: What about the 2 extra terms in owl. Which namespace would that be? ←
21:22:00 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
21:22:02 <lebot> @hook, the "put it all together" approach is what we agreed to do for dictionary
Timothy Lebo: @hook, the "put it all together" approach is what we agreed to do for dictionary ←
21:22:04 <TomDN> Luc: same for XML
Luc Moreau: same question for for XML ←
21:22:16 <TomDN> s/same/same question for
21:22:23 <lebot> didn't we agree that the dictionary term URIs were "reserved" in our namespace?
Timothy Lebo: didn't we agree that the dictionary term URIs were "reserved" in our namespace? ←
21:22:57 <jcheney> q-
James Cheney: q- ←
21:22:58 <TomDN> pgroth: same solution as with the other notes
Paul Groth: same solution as with the other notes ←
21:23:53 <TomDN> ivan: has to be made clear that these are not standard properties
Ivan Herman: has to be made clear that these are not standard properties ←
21:24:39 <TomDN> pgroth: We have prov-aq.owl, prov-dc.owl, etc.
Paul Groth: We have prov-aq.owl, prov-dc.owl, etc. ←
21:25:12 <hook> @lebot, thanks for clarifying.
Hook Hua: @lebot, thanks for clarifying. ←
21:25:13 <TomDN> ... Eventually, we'll create a "super" owl file including everything, with clear commenting what is standard and what not
... Eventually, we'll create a "super" owl file including everything, with clear commenting what is standard and what not ←
21:25:46 <TomDN> ivan: So it'll all be in the same namespace. And I am happy with that
Ivan Herman: So it'll all be in the same namespace. And I am happy with that ←
21:27:17 <TomDN> Topic: Vote for CR
Summary: It was approved that prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed.
<Luc>Summary: It was approved that prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed.
21:27:25 <jcheney> should we formally close 475??
James Cheney: should we formally close 475?? ←
21:29:28 <pgroth> close ISSUE-475
Paul Groth: close ISSUE-475 ←
21:29:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-475 Request to drop "mention" and related elements closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-475 Request to drop "mention" and related elements closed ←
21:30:33 <pgroth> action: Luc to update public response on mention
ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention ←
21:30:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Update public response on mention [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-136 - Update public response on mention [on Luc Moreau - due 2012-11-16]. ←
21:30:42 <pgroth> proposed: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed
PROPOSED: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed ←
21:30:44 <jcheney> what is the record for number of issues?
James Cheney: what is the record for number of issues? ←
21:30:49 <TomDN> +1
+1 ←
21:30:52 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
21:30:55 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
21:30:58 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
21:30:58 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
21:30:59 <GK> +1
Graham Klyne: +1 ←
21:30:59 <hook> +1
21:30:59 <SamCoppens> +1
Sam Coppens: +1 ←
21:31:02 <lebot> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
21:31:04 <zednik> +1 (RPI)
Stephan Zednik: +1 (RPI) ←
21:31:26 <pgroth> +1 (VUA)
Paul Groth: +1 (VUA) ←
21:31:30 <Luc> +1 (Southampton)
Luc Moreau: +1 (Southampton) ←
21:31:44 <pgroth> accepted: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed
RESOLVED: prov-dm, prov-o, prov-constraints, prov-n to be submitted as candidate recommendations as soon as all editorial actions are completed ←
21:31:47 <smiles> Sorry, got to go now. Talk to you tomorrow
Simon Miles: Sorry, got to go now. Talk to you tomorrow ←
21:32:17 <Zakim> -smiles
Zakim IRC Bot: -smiles ←
21:33:56 <Curt> zakim, who is here
Curt Tilmes: zakim, who is here ←
21:33:56 <Zakim> Curt, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: Curt, you need to end that query with '?' ←
21:34:02 <Curt> zakim, who is here?
Curt Tilmes: zakim, who is here? ←
21:34:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT531, [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT531, [IPcaller] ←
21:34:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, hook, MacTed, lebot, laurent, TomDN, SamCoppens, ivan, Luc, pgroth, RRSAgent, Zakim, zednik, trackbot, stain
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Curt, jcheney, hook, MacTed, lebot, laurent, TomDN, SamCoppens, ivan, Luc, pgroth, RRSAgent, Zakim, zednik, trackbot, stain ←
21:34:37 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
21:39:51 <TomDN> Topic: PROV-AQ
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Summary: The document has been essentially dormant since last release, but last week, Graham started to process issues. He summarized the work he had done since. The issue of derenferencing bundle identifiers was discussed, with a view to decide whether it belongs to this document or not. It was noted that dereferencing a bundle identifier is not different than dereferencing an entity identifier. It was also noted that other working groups are addressing this issue. So, while the issue is not entirely out-of-scope, it was felt that a lightweight approach should be adopted by the editors.
<Luc>Summary: The document has been essentially dormant since last release, but last week, Graham started to process issues. He summarized the work he had done since. The issue of derenferencing bundle identifiers was discussed, with a view to decide whether it belongs to this document or not. It was noted that dereferencing a bundle identifier is not different than dereferencing an entity identifier. It was also noted that other working groups are addressing this issue. So, while the issue is not entirely out-of-scope, it was felt that a lightweight approach should be adopted by the editors.
21:40:06 <GK> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/12cd1aaa575a/paq/prov-aq.html
Graham Klyne: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/12cd1aaa575a/paq/prov-aq.html ←
21:40:11 <TomDN> Luc: It would be good to hear from the editors and set a time for a next release
Luc Moreau: It would be good to hear from the editors and set a time for a next release ←
21:40:23 <TomDN> GK: Until about a week ago there was no progress.
Graham Klyne: Until about a week ago there was no progress. ←
21:40:38 <TomDN> ... In the last week I started going through the issue list
... In the last week I started going through the issue list ←
21:40:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
21:40:46 <TomDN> ... 25 are pending review
... 25 are pending review ←
21:44:02 <TomDN> GK: There were 2 issues I'd like some feedback on
Graham Klyne: There were 2 issues I'd like some feedback on ←
21:44:17 <TomDN> ... One is link relations or full URIs
... One is link relations or full URIs ←
21:45:25 <TomDN> tlebo: If there's something I can edit in the document, I could settle my raised issues
Timothy Lebo: If there's something I can edit in the document, I could settle my raised issues ←
21:45:31 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:45:33 <TomDN> GK: Just let me know what the changes are
Graham Klyne: Just let me know what the changes are ←
21:47:05 <TomDN> ivan: rel="provenance" is something that isn't defined by HTML yet
Ivan Herman: rel="provenance" is something that isn't defined by HTML yet ←
21:47:19 <TomDN> ... if you use full URIs, you don't have that problem
... if you use full URIs, you don't have that problem ←
21:47:31 <TomDN> pgroth: can you use those in the header of an HTTP request?
Paul Groth: can you use those in the header of an HTTP request? ←
21:47:37 <TomDN> ivan: not sure
Ivan Herman: not sure ←
21:47:42 <TomDN> GK: I think it might work
Graham Klyne: I think it might work ←
21:47:52 <TomDN> ivan: Another option is RDFa
Ivan Herman: Another option is RDFa ←
21:48:01 <TomDN> ... prov:provenance
... prov:provenance ←
21:48:08 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:48:32 <Luc> ack iv
Luc Moreau: ack iv ←
21:48:51 <TomDN> ivan: Might be good to talk to the Linked Data Profile WG
Ivan Herman: Might be good to talk to the Linked Data Profile WG ←
21:49:17 <lebot> q+ to say I think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to say I think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML. ←
21:50:35 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:51:26 <TomDN> ... I am not familiar with all the details of their spec, but it makes sense to try and comply with their method
... I am not familiar with all the details of their spec, but it makes sense to try and comply with their method ←
21:51:39 <TomDN> ... Making it clear that we arent talking about a REC
... Making it clear that we arent talking about a REC ←
21:52:00 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
21:52:23 <TomDN> tlebo: think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML.
Timothy Lebo: think the proposed change (to put a full URI or prov: prefix in link/@rel) would actually fix the issue that I ran into in March when trying to use AQ in PROV-O HTML. ←
21:52:42 <TomDN> GK: So we basically agree to push ahead with URIs
Graham Klyne: So we basically agree to push ahead with URIs ←
21:52:48 <Luc> ack tleb
Luc Moreau: ack tleb ←
21:52:51 <lebot> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
21:53:52 <TomDN> GK: Paul raised an issue about introducing roles of consumer and publisher
Graham Klyne: Paul raised an issue about introducing roles of consumer and publisher ←
21:54:13 <TomDN> ... I've taken that on board in the discovery section, so you may want to review.
... I've taken that on board in the discovery section, so you may want to review. ←
21:54:33 <TomDN> pgroth: Locating provenance information section?
Paul Groth: Locating provenance information section? ←
21:54:36 <TomDN> GK: yes
Graham Klyne: yes ←
21:55:08 <TomDN> GK: We are also dropping the reference to POWDER
Graham Klyne: We are also dropping the reference to POWDER ←
21:55:47 <TomDN> pgroth: Do we still want best practice in this document?
Paul Groth: Do we still want best practice in this document? ←
21:56:49 <TomDN> ivan: This also might be interesting to discuss with the LDP WG
Ivan Herman: This also might be interesting to discuss with the LDP WG ←
21:58:05 <TomDN> Luc: Do want a discussion on bundle identifiers? And how we access their content?
Luc Moreau: Do want a discussion on bundle identifiers? And how we access their content? ←
21:59:16 <TomDN> ... When are we aiming for the next release?
... When are we aiming for the next release? ←
21:59:30 <TomDN> GK: last time I checked, by the end of this month
Graham Klyne: last time I checked, by the end of this month ←
22:00:00 <TomDN> .. at least with the outstanding issues resolved and ready for another round of review
.. at least with the outstanding issues resolved and ready for another round of review ←
22:00:12 <TomDN> Luc: So the end of the year would be feasible?
Luc Moreau: So the end of the year would be feasible? ←
22:00:29 <TomDN> ... And do we synchronize with the family of specs?
... And do we synchronize with the family of specs? ←
22:00:35 <TomDN> ivan: Absolutely
Ivan Herman: Absolutely ←
22:01:39 <TomDN> pgroth: I would like an implementation of AQ
Paul Groth: I would like an implementation of AQ ←
22:01:51 <TomDN> ... using the example corpus of provenance
... using the example corpus of provenance ←
22:02:05 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:02:08 <TomDN> ... Also, the document should be cleaner
... Also, the document should be cleaner ←
22:02:33 <TomDN> ... (e.g. best practices inside the document)
... (e.g. best practices inside the document) ←
22:02:49 <TomDN> ... smaller would also be good
... smaller would also be good ←
22:03:48 <TomDN> pgroth: We should aim for a release cycle by the end of the year
Paul Groth: We should aim for a release cycle by the end of the year ←
22:04:36 <TomDN> Luc: As we did with the DM, we can release an internal draft for review of specific people
Luc Moreau: As we did with the DM, we can release an internal draft for review of specific people ←
22:04:44 <TomDN> GK: I'll give it a shot
Graham Klyne: I'll give it a shot ←
22:04:53 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:05:15 <TomDN> GK: Question for the group: What do we do with the issues that have been there for a long time?
Graham Klyne: Question for the group: What do we do with the issues that have been there for a long time? ←
22:05:55 <TomDN> Luc: We should send out reminders
Luc Moreau: We should send out reminders ←
22:06:08 <TomDN> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5 ←
22:06:37 <TomDN> pgroth: I'll set a date for all the pending reviews
Paul Groth: I'll set a date for all the pending reviews ←
22:06:43 <TomDN> GK: sounds good
Graham Klyne: sounds good ←
22:07:14 <Luc> action: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review
ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review ←
22:07:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-137 - Organize closure of issues closed pending review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-137 - Organize closure of issues closed pending review [on Paul Groth - due 2012-11-16]. ←
22:07:58 <TomDN> Luc: We're trying to close the ones created before summer, specifically
Luc Moreau: We're trying to close the ones created before summer, specifically ←
22:09:07 <TomDN> Luc: Anything specific (technical) that you'd like to discuss now?
Luc Moreau: Anything specific (technical) that you'd like to discuss now? ←
22:09:15 <TomDN> GK: Not really
Graham Klyne: Not really ←
22:09:40 <TomDN> pgroth: I just need to respond to your responses
Paul Groth: I just need to respond to your responses ←
22:09:46 <lebot> q+ to ask, "aren't I 75% of the pending reviews?"
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask, "aren't I 75% of the pending reviews?" ←
22:10:35 <lebot> q-
Timothy Lebo: q- ←
22:11:27 <TomDN> Luc: Do we want to say something about dereferencing bundle identifiers to obtain the content of a bundle?
Luc Moreau: Do we want to say something about dereferencing bundle identifiers to obtain the content of a bundle? ←
22:11:48 <TomDN> ... Currently, we don't have a mechanism for that
... Currently, we don't have a mechanism for that ←
22:13:03 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:13:07 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
22:13:31 <TomDN> ivan: Intuitively, I'd say you GET a set of provenance statements
Ivan Herman: Intuitively, I'd say you GET a set of provenance statements ←
22:14:15 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
22:14:18 <TomDN> ... in some serialization
... in some serialization ←
22:14:34 <TomDN> ... depending on content negotation
... depending on content negotation ←
22:14:41 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:14:43 <TomDN> ... (RDF or XML)
... (RDF or XML) ←
22:14:46 <lebot> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
22:14:50 <lebot> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
22:14:55 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
22:15:01 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
22:15:24 <Curt> and PROV-JSON!
Curt Tilmes: and PROV-JSON! ←
22:15:40 <TomDN> jcheney: Naïvely, it seems that PROV-N and PROV-XML define what a PROV document is, and that has a name/identifier
James Cheney: Naïvely, it seems that PROV-N and PROV-XML define what a PROV document is, and that has a name/identifier ←
22:16:21 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:16:21 <TomDN> ... Are we saying that the URIs of the bundles in that document should be dereferencable?
... Are we saying that the URIs of the bundles in that document should be dereferencable? ←
22:16:24 <Luc> ack jc
Luc Moreau: ack jc ←
22:16:32 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
22:16:35 <ivan> ack jcheney
Ivan Herman: ack jcheney ←
22:17:14 <Luc> ack leb
Luc Moreau: ack leb ←
22:17:43 <TomDN> lebot: I propose an alternative HTTP response: at least one triple would come back, saying that the type is prov:bundle
Timothy Lebo: I propose an alternative HTTP response: at least one triple would come back, saying that the type is prov:bundle ←
22:17:44 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
22:18:00 <TomDN> @lebot: (is that about right, Tim?)
@lebot: (is that about right, Tim?) ←
22:18:07 <pgroth> that's actually how we do it the paq
Paul Groth: that's actually how we do it the paq ←
22:19:05 <TomDN> Luc: What if the bundle name is not a URL, so you can't dereference it
Luc Moreau: What if the bundle name is not a URL, so you can't dereference it ←
22:19:27 <TomDN> ... We may have UUIDs...
... We may have UUIDs... ←
22:19:53 <lebot> I think s/UUID/hash(graph)/ helps phrase the discussion better.
Timothy Lebo: I think s/hash(graph)/hash(graph)/ helps phrase the discussion better. ←
22:20:10 <TomDN> s/UUID/hash(graph)
22:20:25 <lebot> @TomDN No, @luc means UUID.
Timothy Lebo: @TomDN No, @luc means UUID. ←
22:20:36 <lebot> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
22:20:37 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:20:42 <Luc> ack lu
Luc Moreau: ack lu ←
22:20:49 <TomDN> Zakim, never minds that last s/
Zakim, never minds that last s/ ←
22:20:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'never minds that last s/', TomDN
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'never minds that last s/', TomDN ←
22:21:16 <lebot> VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with void:dataDump and dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL ]
Timothy Lebo: VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with void:dataDump and dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL ] ←
22:21:25 <GK> q+ to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where possible
Graham Klyne: q+ to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where possible ←
22:21:59 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:22:06 <Luc> ack ivan
Luc Moreau: ack ivan ←
22:22:09 <TomDN> ivan: Coming back to James's question. If we're talking about an ID, do we mean a document or a bundle?
Ivan Herman: Coming back to James's question. If we're talking about an ID, do we mean a document or a bundle? ←
22:23:10 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:23:17 <TomDN> ... The file containing the bundles is conceptually different from the bundles
... The file containing the bundles is conceptually different from the bundles ←
22:24:16 <TomDN> ... I'd like to get the bundle in 1 place
... I'd like to get the bundle in 1 place ←
22:24:34 <lebot> VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with ?bundle void:dataDump <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> and ?bundle dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> ] .
Timothy Lebo: VOID and DCAT handle this distinction with ?bundle void:dataDump <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> and ?bundle dcat:distribution [ dcat:accessURL <THE-PROV-ASSERTIONS> ] . ←
22:25:28 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:25:39 <Luc> ack pg
Luc Moreau: ack pg ←
22:25:47 <TomDN> pgroth: another way to put it is:How do you retrieve the description of an entity?
Paul Groth: another way to put it is:How do you retrieve the description of an entity? ←
22:25:52 <lebot> solve the problem for Entity, you've solved the problem for Bundle.
Timothy Lebo: solve the problem for Entity, you've solved the problem for Bundle. ←
22:26:14 <TomDN> ... It might be out of scope, but we have to look into that
... It might be out of scope, but we have to look into that ←
22:26:32 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:26:36 <TomDN> ... "Given the identifier of an entity, how do we get the provenance for that? "
... "Given the identifier of an entity, how do we get the provenance for that? " ←
22:27:15 <lebot> This sounds more difficult and less finished than "mention"...
Timothy Lebo: This sounds more difficult and less finished than "mention"... ←
22:27:33 <TomDN> ivan: My advice is to sit down with other WGs that specialize in that
Ivan Herman: My advice is to sit down with other WGs that specialize in that ←
22:27:35 <lebot> (but, not a CR...)
Timothy Lebo: (but, not a CR...) ←
22:28:20 <pgroth> q+
Paul Groth: q+ ←
22:28:26 <TomDN> GK: there are many things we /could/ specify. But we should focus on the simple stuff first
Graham Klyne: there are many things we /could/ specify. But we should focus on the simple stuff first ←
22:29:04 <TomDN> GK: So we start to sketch our own thoughts on the matter, and then go to other WGs
Graham Klyne: So we start to sketch our own thoughts on the matter, and then go to other WGs ←
22:29:04 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
22:29:09 <Luc> ack gk
Luc Moreau: ack gk ←
22:29:09 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say there are many things we *could* specify, but there'a a question of how much we *should* specify - we want to guide developers to easy, simple options where ←
22:29:12 <Zakim> ... possible
Zakim IRC Bot: ... possible ←
22:29:30 <TomDN> pgroth: To me, we should go and look what LDP does
Paul Groth: To me, we should go and look what LDP does ←
22:29:53 <TomDN> ... Because, in a linked data context, all that stuff is already defined
... Because, in a linked data context, all that stuff is already defined ←
22:30:10 <TomDN> ... Do we want interoperability in this space?
... Do we want interoperability in this space? ←
22:30:32 <TomDN> ... The linked data community is trying to tackle that, we don't have the manpower for it
... The linked data community is trying to tackle that, we don't have the manpower for it ←
22:31:02 <TomDN> ... I want to focus on "Is the way we do it, the best, simplest, correct way to do it?"
... I want to focus on "Is the way we do it, the best, simplest, correct way to do it?" ←
22:31:46 <TomDN> Luc: conclusion: this issue is out of scope?
Luc Moreau: conclusion: this issue is out of scope? ←
22:32:06 <TomDN> GK: We should just be careful about which route we go down on
Graham Klyne: We should just be careful about which route we go down on ←
22:32:41 <TomDN> Luc: So the editors will come up with a lightweight approach
Luc Moreau: So the editors will come up with a lightweight approach ←
22:33:56 <TomDN> pgroth: I think the best practice should be separate
Paul Groth: I think the best practice should be separate ←
22:34:31 <TomDN> ... That way the document becomes nice and small, and very clear
... That way the document becomes nice and small, and very clear ←
22:34:36 <TomDN> ... and easy to implement
... and easy to implement ←
22:34:49 <TomDN> ... and then all the bundle/SPARQL stuff separate
... and then all the bundle/SPARQL stuff separate ←
22:35:20 <Luc> proposed: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596
PROPOSED: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596 ←
22:35:48 <Luc> accepted: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596
RESOLVED: PAQ editors to provide a light weight answer to ISSUE-596 ←
22:36:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
22:36:34 <Zakim> SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
22:36:34 <Zakim> Attendees were MIT531, [IPcaller], smiles, Paolo
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were MIT531, [IPcaller], smiles, Paolo ←
22:37:19 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
22:37:28 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
22:37:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
22:37:45 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telcon ←
22:37:45 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
22:37:45 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
22:37:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
22:37:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
22:37:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 17 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-actions.rdf : ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc editor check [1]
ACTION: Luc editor check [1] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T13-59-00
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T13-59-00 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check [2]
ACTION: Luc prov-n editor check [2] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-05-18
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-05-18 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given) [3]
ACTION: tlebo, jcheney, luc - check to see that all references refer to the dated documents (after a publication date is given) [3] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-10-52
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-10-52 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page [4]
ACTION: tlebo to add email link to the response page [4] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-14-45
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-14-45 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document [5]
ACTION: tlebo add a comment to use more specific things through document [5] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-28-16
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-28-16 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o [6]
ACTION: tlebo to add hadActivity example to prov-o [6] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-38-29
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-38-29 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [7]
ACTION: tlebo to add a statement on informative and normative in prov-o [7] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-44-48
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-44-48 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o [8]
ACTION: tlebo editor check prov-o [8] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-59-59
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T14-59-59 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [9]
ACTION: jcheney to add a bit of text around equivalence and remove normative SHOULD [9] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-24-32
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-24-32 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints [10]
ACTION: jcheney editorial check on prov-constraints [10] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-40-53
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-40-53 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page [11]
ACTION: jcheney add response email to responses to public comments page [11] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-42-00
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T15-42-00 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview [12]
ACTION: pgroth to draft a first one page overview [12] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T18-25-24
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T18-25-24 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [13]
ACTION: SamCoppens to draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [13] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-26-28
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-26-28 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [14]
ACTION: TomDN draft a timetable for prov-dictionary for the next teleconference [14] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-28-14-1
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T19-28-14-1 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: luc create a mention of document [15]
ACTION: luc create a mention of document [15] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-20-10
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-20-10 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention [16]
ACTION: Luc to update public response on mention [16] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-30-33
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T21-30-33 ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review [17]
ACTION: pgroth to organize closure of issues closed pending review [17] ←
22:37:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T22-07-14
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/09-prov-irc#T22-07-14 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#5) generated 2012-11-20 23:16:21 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None