Chatlog 2013-03-07

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

15:45:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
15:45:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/07-prov-irc
15:45:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:45:04 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
15:45:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:45:06 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
15:45:07 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:45:07 <trackbot> Date: 07 March 2013
15:48:38 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
15:48:50 <Luc> trackbot, start telcon
15:48:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:48:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:48:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
15:48:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:48:56 <trackbot> Date: 07 March 2013
15:49:00 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
15:49:00 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:49:30 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.07
15:50:00 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:50:09 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:50:26 <Luc> Hi, I am looking for a scribe
15:50:29 <dgarijo> Luc, I see no scribe volunteer. I can scribe if needed.
15:50:51 <dgarijo> :)
15:53:44 <Luc> thank you daniel, it's very appreciated!
15:54:29 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:54:41 <Luc> scribe dgarijo
15:54:45 <Luc> scribe: dgarijo
15:58:15 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
15:58:23 <Zakim> +??P9
15:58:37 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P9 is me
15:58:37 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:59:07 <Luc> topic: admin
15:59:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:59 <jun> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:59:59 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:00:20 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
16:00:25 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #prov
16:00:35 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
16:00:57 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aabb
16:01:08 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
16:01:08 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
16:01:15 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
16:01:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see dgarijo, jun, Luc, +1.818.731.aabb
16:01:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see TallTed, Curt, Paolo, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, gk1, jun, dgarijo, stain, trackbot
16:01:24 <hook> hook has joined #prov
16:01:25 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
16:01:27 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:01:28 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:01:28 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:01:37 <Zakim> - +1.818.731.aabb
16:01:40 <Zakim> + +44.131.467.aacc
16:01:40 <ivan> zakim, mute me
16:01:41 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
16:01:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:01 <Zakim> + +1.818.731.aadd
16:02:15 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.07
16:02:43 <Luc> ```http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2013-02-28
16:02:43 <dgarijo> Luc: update to proposed recommendation, we'll have a look to the timetable and the date of the end of the wg.
16:02:51 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
16:02:53 <Luc> proposed: to accept the minutes of Feb 28, 2013
16:02:55 <dgarijo> +1
16:03:00 <ivan> +1
16:03:01 <Curt> +1
16:03:07 <hook> +1
16:03:22 <gk1> Oops,  just seen the time.  Connecting.
16:03:22 <Paolo> +1
16:03:39 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
16:03:40 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:03:47 <Luc> resolved:  the minutes of Feb 28, 2013
16:03:48 <jcheney> just joined, irc was slow
16:04:14 <dgarijo> Luc: pending action on me, I will look at the faq.
16:04:15 <Luc> topic: PR update
<lUC>Summary: Congratulations to all note editors for staging notes. Publication request for all our documents was sent on March 5.  Transition teleconference with W3C directors is to take place on March 8th. Issue 610 was outstanding in the tracker. We discussed the nature of the group response. Simon drafted it on the wiki, and the group endorsed this response. Luc to contact the reviewer with the group response. 
16:04:30 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PublicationRequestMarch12
16:04:41 <dgarijo> ... the first news is that we sent a publication request for all publications
16:04:51 <ivan> no
16:04:52 <dgarijo> ... haven't heard from the webmaster yet
16:04:56 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
16:04:58 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
16:05:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:05:02 <dgarijo> ... ivan, are you still in MIT?
16:05:04 <dgarijo> Ivan: no
16:05:08 <TomDN> TomDN has joined #prov
16:05:33 <satya> satya has joined #prov
16:05:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:05:48 <dgarijo> Luc: we have the transition teleconference this week where we will say whether we are ok to progress.
16:06:01 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
16:06:04 <dgarijo> Ivan: remind me tomorrow about the media type stuff
16:06:08 <Zakim> +??P19
16:06:09 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
16:06:10 <Zakim> +??P20
16:06:12 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
16:06:31 <Christine> Zakim, ??P19 is Christine
16:06:31 <Zakim> +Christine; got it
16:06:34 <TomDN> Zakim, ?P20 is probably me
16:06:34 <Zakim> sorry, TomDN, I do not understand your question
16:06:41 <dgarijo> Luc: I looked at the tracker and no outstanding issues against prov dm, constraints, notes, prov-o html
16:06:44 <GK> GK has joined #prov
16:06:46 <TomDN> Zakim, ??P20 is probably me
16:06:46 <Zakim> +TomDN?; got it
16:06:49 <Zakim> +??P26
16:07:00 <dgarijo> ... Issue 116 is an issue against prov-o
16:07:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/10
16:07:15 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/610
16:07:36 <dgarijo> ivan: having an issue for proposed rec is not good.
16:07:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I think it's more related to prov-aq than prov-o
16:08:44 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
16:08:51 <dgarijo> Luc: are you talking about domain specific specializations of prov-o
16:09:14 <dgarijo> GK: No, just about query profiling. I don't think it has to do with queries.
16:09:27 <dgarijo> ivan: I don't remember this having been discussed.
16:09:52 <Zakim> + +329331aaee
16:10:03 <jcheney> this seems like it could be handled in a faq/best practice doc
16:10:09 <dgarijo> ... it suggests to define subsets of prov-o with different ontologies, etc. I'm not saying that I fully understand, but I don't think we've got to do that.
16:10:14 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaee is me
16:10:14 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:10:15 <dgarijo> ... it's not an aq thing
16:11:02 <dgarijo> Luc: what I would've liked is a formal response from the group
16:11:15 <dgarijo> ... because we can't go on the call with this issue
16:11:28 <satya> The primary issue of different models for "statements, named graphs, resources" does not make sense - there is no distinction between these terms
16:11:40 <dgarijo> GK: the sense that I'm getting is the concern about interoperability of applications
16:13:11 <satya> sort of - from RDF perspective they do not entail different "ontologies"
16:13:51 <ivan> it would serve your effort greatly,
16:13:52 <ivan> if you would add to the standard clear specifications for the
16:13:52 <dgarijo> Ivan: I think it's going a bit beyond that and I don't think we want to do that
16:13:53 <ivan> ontology subset and the interpretation to be applied to the
16:13:54 <ivan> respective terms for certain known use cases for rdf stores and
16:13:55 <ivan> sparql services.
16:14:32 <dgarijo> ... defining subsets for various use cases. We should not do that, but we should have answered.
16:15:12 <dgarijo> ... We already had a categorization of the terms in prov-o. Not along the lines they propose, but along the lines of complexity.
16:15:27 <dgarijo> ... They are very clearly defined subparts of prov-o and others.
16:15:53 <dgarijo> ... so my answer would be that we already have sort of profiles, even though we don't call them that way
16:16:02 <GK> @ivan, where did your quote come from?
16:16:21 <dgarijo> ... the quote comes from the original mail
16:16:31 <dgarijo> (issue 610)
16:16:32 <satya> @Ivan, agree - rdf stores and sparql services are not "use cases" for creating prov-o profiles
16:16:53 <dgarijo> ... we have profiles, just not the ones he proposes.
16:17:29 <dgarijo> ... sparql services are not use cases, satya is right.
16:17:42 <dgarijo> ...  we should add an apology, because we overlooked this.
16:18:24 <dgarijo> Luc: the challenge is that there have been a discussion on whether this should be assigned.
16:18:51 <dgarijo> ivan: well, in reality is kind of a DM issue. PROV-O is just a serialization.
16:19:12 <dgarijo> Luc: we would need someone to spend a little of time so we can respond today to the reviewer.
16:19:24 <dgarijo> ... I can't do it before several hours.
16:19:56 <dgarijo> ... is there a volunteer who could draft a response shortly after the end of this call?
16:20:10 <dgarijo> Ivan: I have another call right after this.
16:20:23 <dgarijo> Luc: simon?
16:20:44 <dgarijo> smiles: I have a meeting after this one, but I can try to draft something
16:20:54 <dgarijo> ---too much echo ---
16:20:56 <TomDN> Zakim, who is noisy
16:20:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', TomDN
16:21:02 <TomDN> Zakim, who is noisy?
16:21:12 <Zakim> TomDN, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P26 (29%)
16:21:47 <dgarijo> ivan: simon, if you look at the irc where everything is summarized.
16:21:58 <dgarijo> smiles: I'll try to do this now.
16:22:40 <dgarijo> Luc: In PROV we don't talk about profiles ---echo---
16:23:13 <Luc> q?
16:23:17 <dgarijo> Luc: is that ok?
16:23:23 <dgarijo> smiles: I'll gove it a go.
16:23:50 <dgarijo> Luc: ivan, did you submit a response to ?aena?
16:24:14 <dgarijo> Luc: it needs to be done.
16:24:34 <Luc> topic: Timetable to Recommendations and Notes
<luc>Summary: Ivan summarized the W3C process after publication of Proposed Recommendation. The end of the voting period for W3C membership is 9 April (4 weeks after publication of PR).  We agreed to aim for a publication of recommendations on April 30th. Therefore *ALL* documents need to be staged in their final form by April 23rd. All editors are invited to produce a schedule of work, ensuring that documents are ready for internal reviews, reviewed, and finally revised by April 23rd.
16:25:00 <dgarijo> Luc: what is going to happen after the 12th?
16:25:16 <dgarijo> ivan: the documents that are in a recommendation track are done.
16:25:35 <dgarijo> ... the documents are not under the control of the group
16:25:56 <dgarijo> ... if you guys find spelling mistakes that can be adressed.
16:26:23 <SamCoppens> zakim, mute me
16:26:23 <Zakim> SamCoppens should now be muted
16:27:00 <dgarijo> ... if we have a company that doesn't vote, then it's not right.
16:27:16 <dgarijo> ... if someone opposes then we have to go back, although it's not usual.
16:27:31 <dgarijo> ... there is a transition call, but that happens just if we have a problem
16:28:06 <dgarijo> ... we also have to finish the notes, but that is another issue.
16:28:18 <dgarijo> Luc: what is the date for recommendations?
16:28:33 <dgarijo> ivan: we had a date in the documents themselves.
16:28:49 <dgarijo> Luc: the 9th of April
16:29:52 <dgarijo> ivan: on the 9th the vote closes, on the 10th we check everything is fine, and we send the request to the editor for publication and then finding a date with the web master.
16:30:03 <dgarijo> ... the problem is that the 9th I'm in Beijing
16:30:35 <dgarijo> ... The week of the first I'm at home, so we can prepare the mail that has to be sent to the director.
16:30:48 <dgarijo> ... otherwise we have to wait until the week of the 15th
16:31:00 <dgarijo> Luc: week of the 15th I'm not available.
16:31:29 <dgarijo> ... we can send the email 9th or 10th, that is not a problem.
16:32:08 <dgarijo> ivan: the question comes back to you. The email is easy. The question is what is the realistic publication date after the 9th?
16:32:43 <dgarijo> ... i have the impression that it's going to be either the 25th or the 13th of the next month
16:33:02 <dgarijo> Luc: then it would have to be staged on th 12th.
16:33:18 <dgarijo> s/13th/30th
16:33:39 <dgarijo> ivan: we can leave it for the 30th.
16:33:56 <dgarijo> Luc: 23rd of April is when all documents must be staged
16:34:05 <GK> FWIW, I shall be away from mid-April until mid-May, with very intermittent Internet access
16:34:13 <dgarijo> ... 30th is the publication date.
16:34:42 <dgarijo> ivan: Luc, please ping me the week when I'm in Beijing so we can deal with this.
16:35:50 <Luc> q?
16:35:58 <smiles> yes
16:35:58 <dgarijo> Luc: I'd like all editors to come up with that time table to produce the final version of their documents for internal review before the final vote and "camera ready version" of the 23
16:36:00 <dgarijo> yes
16:36:27 <GK> (Works for me, as long as there aren't last-minute changes.)
16:37:10 <dgarijo> Luc: I will circulate a wikipage so you can circulate your proposed time tables
16:37:53 <dgarijo> Luc: Tom raised a number of issues in the tracker. Please start the discussion there and try to get resolution.
16:37:54 <TomDN> that's the plan!
16:37:54 <Luc> q?
16:38:04 <dgarijo> Luc: anything else?
16:38:11 <Luc> topic: End of Provenance Working Group
<luc>Summary: We then discussed the end of the Provenance Working Group. While it is recognized that the group can exist till the end of summer, once all our documents are published, there is very little left to do. Given that attendance and energy is reducing week by week, it is desirable to terminate the group activities shortly after publication of documents. Outstanding tasks to undertake include finishing the namespace, html pages, and provenance of documents (ideally, these should be complete at REC publication time), and also tidying the Wiki and FAQ.
16:38:30 <dgarijo> Luc: When do we finish the activities of PROV?
16:39:11 <Luc> q?
16:39:12 <dgarijo> ... there are a number of activities that remain to be done before finishing the wg
16:39:31 <Curt> Can we move the FAQ to a place we can still edit after the working group formally ends?
16:39:36 <dgarijo> ivan: formally speaking the charter goes by end of summer. It's our choice
16:40:16 <dgarijo> ... only one thing: the namespace documents, it would be nice if those docs where finalized.
16:40:31 <GK> (+1 final NS with published docs)
16:40:53 <dgarijo> ... the provenance metadata can be postponed. It's not a big deal. But the namespace docs should be finished.
16:41:18 <dgarijo> Luc: Paul is also keen to have that done by the end of the group.
16:41:32 <dgarijo> ... we should start to organize that from next week
16:41:52 <dgarijo> Ivan: when the group stops eventually the wikipages become read-onñy
16:42:07 <GK> I think the FAQ is likely to be an ongoing thing.  Maybe needs a new home?
16:42:08 <dgarijo> s/onñy/only
16:42:19 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV
16:42:39 <dgarijo> ivan: that link^^ continued to be a living page
16:42:53 <dgarijo> ... it should be mantained after the group is over
16:43:14 <dgarijo> ... it would be nice if the implementations were added to the core wikipage
16:43:15 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools
16:44:08 <dgarijo> ivan: in the previous link it would be good to add those tools part of the implementation. It's not related to the wg formally but it would be good if that was done at some point
16:44:59 <Luc> q?
16:45:09 <dgarijo> Luc: it seems to me that is pointless to keep the wg just for completing the provenance of docs an filling wiki pages, so I would recommend to finish the activities after we are done with the publication
16:45:10 <GK> 4-6 weeks after publication seems reasonable
16:45:20 <jcheney> q+
16:45:55 <Luc> q?
16:46:06 <dgarijo> ... the energy dedicated to the group is reduced every week, so it would be nice to end everything now.
16:46:29 <dgarijo> jcheney: is there potential for an update of the notes after CR?
16:46:51 <ivan> s/CR/PR/
16:46:59 <smiles> OK, I've written a proposed response to the PROV-O issue:
16:47:01 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-610_.28query_profiles_and_use_cases_not_normative.29
16:47:35 <dgarijo> ivan: for semantics the final publication is when we publish the rec, not the pr
16:48:09 <dgarijo> ... formally for a note the group can issue as many reviews as the user considers necessary while the group exists.
16:48:11 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
16:48:40 <dgarijo> ...but we have agreed to stop the activity shortly after publication, so this will not be the case.
16:49:12 <dgarijo> jcheney: whaving a littte bit of time would be great, but I'm not going to be pushing this forward.
16:49:32 <dgarijo> s/whaving/having
16:49:52 <dgarijo> jcheney:  ok, now i know what is the deadline.
#16:50:06 <Luc> Topic: PROV-AQ
16:50:51 <dgarijo> ivan: simon's review is more important, lets' handle that
16:50:54 <dgarijo> Luc: ok
16:51:19 <GK> q+ to ask if its worth noting that we plan to create an FAQ
16:52:25 <satya> * sorry have to leave
16:52:28 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:52:44 <Luc> q?
16:52:47 <dgarijo> ivan: I think the bullet point about extensions makes it more complicated. Let's just remove it.
16:52:50 <jcheney> q-
16:52:50 <dgarijo> smiles: ok
16:53:09 <Luc> ack jch
16:53:11 <Luc> q?
16:53:49 <Luc> q?
16:54:08 <dgarijo> GK: the response looks good (some comments about the third bullet, I could not log them)
16:54:24 <Luc> proposed: take http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-610_.28query_profiles_and_use_cases_not_normative.29 as the group response to issue 610
16:54:36 <GK> My comment was to include reference to the FAQ for covering best practice related matters
16:54:46 <dgarijo> @GK: thx.
16:54:52 <TomDN> +1
16:54:54 <ivan> +1
16:54:55 <SamCoppens> +1
16:54:55 <Curt> +1
16:54:57 <dgarijo> Luc, ivan: looks good to me
16:54:58 <smiles> +1 :)
16:54:59 <dgarijo> +1
16:55:03 <GK> +1
16:55:06 <hook> +1
16:55:10 <jcheney> +1
16:55:15 <Luc> Accepted: take http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ResponsesToPublicCommentsCR#ISSUE-610_.28query_profiles_and_use_cases_not_normative.29 as the group response to issue 610
16:55:18 <dgarijo> Luc: I'll send the email today.
16:55:35 <Luc> Topic: PROV-AQ
<luc>Summary: As we were short of time before publication of the previous prov-aq WD, the chair was keen to give sufficient attention to this document, to ensure proper review before final publication. Graham made a few suggestions to progress. We agree to close all issues closed "pending reviews". All reviews, internal and external, will be responded to. Finally, Graham will, by email, put proposals forward, seeking group endorsement: if consensus cannot be reached by email, we will resolve them at the next teleconference.  This should allow the document to be finalized before the final review.
16:56:01 <gk1> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/5
16:56:40 <dgarijo> Luc: I'm keen to not repeat the review process for final publication. There are still a lot of outstanding issues. Paul proposed next steps. GK, what do you think?
16:57:18 <dgarijo> GK: there were quite a lot of issues pending review since last year, so those are going to be closed (no objection).
16:57:28 <pgroth> i was proposing another round of review
16:58:07 <dgarijo> ... Unless there are any disagreements, we are in pretty good shape. I'm going to push the "open" issues. Also I have repsonses to the review comments.
16:58:40 <dgarijo> ... I'll try to reach agreement in the outstanding issues.
16:59:19 <pgroth> @GK1 I'm still keen on having another round review
16:59:19 <dgarijo> Luc: to make progress I'd like to support your decission of closing the issues pending review. Is the group satisfied with this?
16:59:27 <Luc> resolved: close issues marked "pending review" for prov-aq
17:00:06 <dgarijo> ... the second item, to look at the open issues and have reslutions on them. You plan to propose resolutions and vote, right?
17:00:21 <dgarijo> GK: the resolutions are there, I'll just ask the group.
17:00:26 <dgarijo> ... by mail.
17:01:17 <dgarijo> Luc: I'd suggest then that you put forward a proposal and ask if the group is supportive plus a vote (3 days). If there is no agreement then we can discuss it at the telecon
17:01:28 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:01:57 <Luc> q?
17:02:07 <Luc> ack gk
17:02:07 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if its worth noting that we plan to create an FAQ
17:02:11 <dgarijo> GK: I'd like to have this done by the end of the month
17:02:18 <GK> q-
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000283