<trackbot> Date: 05 May 2011

<pgroth> hmm, i can't get on the call

<pgroth> is anyone else dialed in?

<scribe> Scribe: luc

<dgarijo> hi

<dgarijo> not yet

<GK> I think [IPCaller] may be me ... Graham Klyne

(http://irc.w3.org/?channels=prov).

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.05

1 Admin

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-04-28

SubTopic: Minutes Approval

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

ACCEPTED: last week's minutes

SubTopic: Action Items

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Main_Page#Background

Actions ACTION-1 and ACTION-2 t be closed

SubTopic: Invited Experts

Sandro: still in progress

<paolo> I am in a similar situation: not officially joined yet

pgroth: mailing list will be updated once decisions made

SubTopic: email discussions

pgroth: we cannot do all our discussions in a single weekly call
... bring up all your comments on the mailing list (once registered!)

<dgarijo> how do you "raise" an issue?

<GK> Isn't this what the tracker is for?

pgroth: discuss it by email, and formal process will follow, in telcon or through tracker

sandro: there is flexibility. In tracker: it's create option. Chairs can upgrade by opening.

<dgarijo> ok thx

<jcheney> Does creating an issue automatically generate an email?

pgroth: we can do it by email or by the tracker

<jcheney> OK

sandro: yes it does, it makes a thread automatically. Email posted on initial creation.

SubTopic: Scribe

pgroth: we need people to volunteer
... let us know or update page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces

Provenance Task Forces

pgroth: get your feedback: are descriptions suitable?

<jcheney> +q

luc: this is an initial description, it will evolve over time probably

jcheney: would be good to know who goes to which TF?
... minor issues to discuss, but shouldn't delay approval

<jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Talk:ProvenanceTaskForces

jcheney: formal model vs formal semantics? what's the dividing line?

<GK> For the RDF work, the model and formal semantics were developed in parallel

jcheney: formal or informal first?
... i wanted to bring this up for the record

PROPOSED: to accept the structure of task forces

<satya> +1

<jcheney> +1

<jorn> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<iker> +1

<sandro> +1

<pgroth> +1

<JimMyers> +1

<paolo> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<abdn_uk> +1

<jun> +1

<frew> +1

<olaf> +1

<zednik> +1

<jcheney> -q

<Yogesh> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

+1

<VinhNguyen> +1

paulo: I don't fully understand dependencies
... some things can be done in parallel, but other tasks difficult without model

paolo: implementation TF: is toolkit in scope of charter?

paul: it's for people in this TF to discuss
... in WG we encourage people to implement the standard, we don't do it ourselves

<pgroth> luc: not the goal of the working group to directly implement the standard

<satya> I think implementations/tools is also a requirement for the W3C recommendation process

<pgroth> luc: encourage the implementation

<pgroth> luc: initial tasks for each task force that can be done in parrallel

<pgroth> luc: identify dependencies betweens task forces

paulo: this answers my question

ACCEPTED: structure of task forces

<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Apr/0012.html

Model Task Force

pgroth: outline of way of bootstrapping activities of Model Task Force

<dgarijo> The initial scenario: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1

pgroth: an example, illustrating concepts of charter, and then raising issues for discussion

<paolo> sorry that was dangling from earlier

paulo: most interesting discussions were about the concepts (in final report of incubator)
... reluctant to use mapping work for background of this group

<dgarijo> isn't that the actual starting point?

sound quality is very poor for me

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1

paulo: start from concepts of the final report

<jcheney> +q

pgroth: that's exactly what is proposed, the example illustrates concepts from the charter
... i think we propose what you are suggesting

jcheney: we seem to bootstrap model task force with example

<GK> +1 to using test cases to isolate issues

jcheney: when riasing issues, we should give concrete examples of what we are trying to achieve

<pgroth> luc: in the discussion now there is a lot of references to the work that incubator did

<pgroth> luc: half of the participants were not members of the incubator group

<pgroth> luc: continue the incubator group discussions around the concepts from the charter

<pgroth> luc: bootstrap the model task force and educate the whole working group

paulo: my only concern is to refer back to the mapping
... we shouldn't consider the list final
... e.g. versioning was put there as a placeholder

pgroth: that's the approach

I suggest we follow jcheney approach, to bring further examples which may indicate the need for further concepts

PROPOSED: discuss charter concepts initially, based on a given example

<jcheney> Concretely, it would help a lot of someone could add an example showing how to handle http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1 using PML.

<dgarijo> but why PML only and not OPM/Provenir/Provenance Vocabulary and others?

pgroth: all discussion public in the open

any other comment about this proposal?

<dgarijo> +1

<jcheney> certainly, having OPM/Provenir/Provenance Vocabulary examples would help even more!

<David_> +1

<frew> pls restate proposal concisely

PROPOSED: to accept the approach outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Apr/0012.html

<dgarijo> +q

paulo: we have languages, but we don't have semantics

<jorn> +1

pgroth: proposal is to iterate through informal definitions, until we agree on an English definition

<JimMyers> +1, I think the example is rich enough that it includes the concepts behind the differences in prior languages and adding issues/small point examples to capture anything missing will work

pgroth: the proposal is about the process, not the concrete example

paolo: people may be uncomfortable with the graph with strong opm flavor

yolanda: we had lots of scenarios in the incubator
... we selected concepts that were most relevant from these scenarios
... concern is we could go to deep on some concepts and not pay attention to others

pgroth: by driving by an example, would we be too specific?

satya: we shouldnt use the graph, but the plain text descriptions, and add further concepts if required

pgroth: remove the opm specific graph

jcheney: use other languages to describe the same scenario

jcheeny: would be good for comparison

<frew> +1 what jcheney said

paulo: issues are defined in opm terms
... name of sections are OPM terms
... meaning of the graph explained in plain english
... what is the true scenario in this example?
... we should not have pre-defined views of the world
... we are already embracing terms with predefined meanings

<paolo> (I will need to leave the building at the top of the hour, talk next week. I would appreciate getting on the list if possible!)

<satya> I agree with Paulo - maybe we should start with the "Outline" and "Processing steps" in the example?

<pgroth> luc: go back to the agenda

<pgroth> luc: mixing two different discussion

<pgroth> luc: agree on a process

<pgroth> luc: example driven

<pgroth> luc: discuss concepts of the charter

<pgroth> luc: discussing right now the content

<pgroth> luc: headings are terms from the charter

<pgroth> luc: these are not opm terms

<satya> +1 for example driven process

<GK> +1 for example driver

<JimMyers> +1 for process

<ericstephan_> +1

<dgarijo> +1 the example

<paulo> +1 to be example-driven

<David_> +1 for example-driven approach

<frew> +1 EDA

<jcheney> +1 for example-driven

<Yogesh> +1

<olaf> +1

<jorn> +1 to example driven approache

<abdn_uk> +1 for example driven approach

<LarsG> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1 for example driven

<Yogesh> +1 EDA

<zednik> +1 for EDA

<jun> +1

<jcheney> (can the minutes make the proposal clear?)

<jcheney> +q

ACCEPTED: example driven approach as a process

<jcheney> OK, good

pgroth: we'll end here but there is a lot to discuss on the example

<GK> @sandro still here in IRC?

<pgroth> will you take care of doing the notes?

trackbot, end telcon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: luc
Inferring ScribeNick: luc
Default Present: jorn, pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, paulo, SatyaSahoo, +49.302.093.aacc, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, sandro, olaf, +1.540.449.aaff, +1.646.389.aagg, jcheney, Yogesh, +1.518.276.aahh, VinhNguyen, +1.518.633.aaii, +1.646.389.aajj, +1.518.276.aakk, [IPcaller], YolandaGil, jun, LarsG, +1.860.995.aall, khalidbelhajjame
Present: jorn pgroth luc dgarijo GK paolo paulo SatyaSahoo +49.302.093.aacc +1.509.375.aadd Jeff_Pan sandro olaf +1.540.449.aaff +1.646.389.aagg jcheney Yogesh +1.518.276.aahh VinhNguyen +1.518.633.aaii +1.646.389.aajj +1.518.276.aakk [IPcaller] YolandaGil jun LarsG +1.860.995.aall khalidbelhajjame

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Simon_Dobson, Simon_Miles)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Helena, Deus

Regrets: Helena Deus
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.05
Found Date: 05 May 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: