See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 August 2012
<pgroth> Scribe: Daniel Garijo
<tlebo> I'll scribe
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-07-26
<tlebo> scribe: tlebo
<pgroth> Minutes of the July 26, 2012 Telecon
<smiles> +1
<TomDN> +1
<Curt> +1
<zednik> +1
proposal: accept minutes
<jun> +1
<hook> +1
<SamCoppens> +1
+1
<stain> +1
<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the July 26, 2012 Telecon
paul: is still working on his
action
... Ivan is joining the WG as W3C POC
ivan: hi!
... sandro will be doing a bit in Aug, but Ivan will be around
and back from vacation
... working through all of our documents now.
paul: please sign up for
scribes
... aob?
ivan: get unknowns identified
paul: who is P8?
<smiles> or me
<jun> not me
<stain> he knew me last week!
818 is san fran
jcheney: read reviews as they came in. They seem to identify things that we can fix easily.
<pgroth> james?
jcheney: not sig technical changes.
<pgroth> i lost my connection..
go ahead, James
<dgarijo> is there a scribe? I can scribe.
@dgarijo you take scribe
<scribe> scribe: dgarijo
ok
<stain> I am almost finished today
james: waiting for 1 outstanding review from stian
<stain> typing in my evil email..
james: plan is review things
early next week in order to be able to have a vote next
meeting
... and just worry about minor stuff from there
<tlebo> so, we're voting on this next Thus?
tlebo: are we voting on this next thursday?
pgroth: yes
tlebo: ok, I'll look for
responses next week.
... I'll be looking for those
pgroth: in my review there were no blockers
<tlebo> @jcheney they're mini blockers :-)
<stain> I think my review has a tiny blocker .. :-/
<stain> but editorial
pgroth: Issue 458
<ivan> issue-458?
<trackbot> ISSUE-458 -- wasInfluencedBy is not irreflexive -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/458
pgroth: is influence reflexive or not
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/458
<pgroth> yes
<tlebo> I was the biggest proponent of irreflexive, and I'm no longer protesting to removing it.
<smiles> I agree with removing the constraint
james: does anybody objects to removing that constraint?
<tlebo> (so it's all good)
james: OK, closed
<tlebo> @dgarijo "accepted" is the keyword for a resolution
@tlebo, thanks.
<pgroth> Agent(ex:Luc,[prov;type='prov:Person']) Activity(ex:Luc)
<TomDN> +q
pgroth: the other issue was agent being an activity as well. Should we allow that in the constraints?
<stain> would that imply also Activity(ex:Luc,[prov:type='prov:Person'])
tom: I haven't followed the email about it, but agent can also be an entity.
pgroth: if you assert that Luc is an entity, it can't be an activity.
james: I'm agnostic. It won't break anything to allow people to say that.
<tlebo> from the hip, I think we shouldn't add this.
<stain> agent(ex:workflowEngine, [prov:type='prov:SoftwareAgent']) activity(ex:workflowEngine) would probably make more sense in some cases
simon: I agree with what Tom says. If an agent is a person, then we can infer it's a person.
pgroth: that will imply that all persons are entities.
<TomDN> it could be an inference, and normalization would always produce agent(Luc, [prov:Person]) -> entity(Luc)
<stain> used(food, ex:Luc) wasAssociatedWith(ex:cooking, ex:Luc) wasGeneratedBy(ex:food, ex:cooking)
pgroth: if we want it, then we could add that inference.
tlebo: surprised of the proposal. Is it an issue that went through the list
?
<stain> yes, should be a proper issue!
pgroth: we can discuss it on the list, but I was wondering if we could just drop it or discuss it a bit here.
<stain> can animals be activities? lifeforms?
<TomDN> machines shouldn't be activities either...
<satya> @TomDN, assuming that machines are "hardware"
<tlebo> why single out Person? Why are Organizations allowed to be Activities?
<stain> a human is in some sense just a system of biological activities working together
jcheney: we should be removing things as much as possible.
<Curt> There was a use case of something like a "working group" which is both an agent and an activity (I disagree with that)
pgroth: even if we don't include
something like that I don't know if we can add this after last
call.
... Ivan, can we do that.
Ivan: that would be a technical change.
<stain> Curt: but then this all falls back to "are there *any* agents that can be activities?"
Ivan: but constraints is not in last call.
<stain> @Curt
pgroth: so I think james is right. This is going to open up a lot of discussion and given our time line, we should not add it yet.
<Curt> +1 pgroth
<smiles> +1
<tlebo> @pgroth that's a good response: add the explicit type Entity
<stain> I think it would not cause any problems to not say something rather than to say something. It does not affect anything else in the constraints if the prov:Person is an activity or not, and PROV-Constraints is not attempting to model the world, just how processes and things are modelled in a sane way
<TomDN> @pgroth: +1, could we add that as a remark?
pgroth: if anybody wants to assert that persons are not activities, then they can assert it.
+1 to pgroth.
james: I will review questions. I don't have anything more specific
<Curt> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aon9DSj-WtGqdHJocGtPRGp5MTItbEhLX09sN1NxVVE#gid=0
stephan: We are going to try to
have xml examples by august 15th.
... hopefully next week.
pgroth: any additional help?
stephan: I'll be able to say next week, when I've taken a stab at it
<Curt> (anyone who wants the doc, just request it through google docs and stephan will approve)
<pgroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/6b795ed2e6c9/dc-note/Overview.html
<ivan> (Curt, I did it)
<tlebo> dgarijo: releaed it last week into hg
<tlebo> ... asking those to reviewed last time to see if they agree to the changes.
<tlebo> .. please raise issues
<tlebo> ... document is not long.
<tlebo> pgroth: reviewers?
<SamCoppens> I will
<smiles> I will review it
<TomDN> I started on a review
thanks!!
<ivan> I will also look at it
<tlebo> ivan: turtle file to put into /ns?
<tlebo> dgarijo: the turtle files is in hg, will send the link.
<tlebo> pgroth: add link to turtle file?
<tlebo> ivan: where to put final version of turtle file?
daniel: I will add the links to the turtel files of each example in the repository. They are there but not linked in the document.
<tlebo> pgroth: the WG also needs to make the full concat for prov.owl with prov-o in it.
<tlebo> @pgroth me too :-)
pgroth: we discussed last week
how to handle public comments
... there was a question about what is a technical
comment
... ivan and sandro talked to thomas and have an update.
ivan: the general point is to
remind that the last call means that the design is done.
Renaming is an editorial change.
... I don't see any problem in this particular case.
... if this change came when we were in CR it would be more
problematic.
<tlebo> ivan: changing property name is an editorial change. sees no problem with this. Will need to be more cautious as we go further. name change in CR is impossible b/c it breaks implementations.
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Tracking_Public_Comments
pgroth: the idea behind this wiki
page is that we will create a new issue for each comment we
receive, to keep good track of them.
... add the issues in the wikipage as well. Is that good
enough?
ivan: that will work. Each group decides how to handle this themselves: raise a separate product to deal with comments, to mantain a single table in the wiki, etc.
<tlebo> having a new product seems to make sense, the "dm/o/paq" distinctions are less important now.
<tlebo> Including a link to their email approving our response is a good idea.
pgroth: a new product is fine, but having a last call product for each deliverable would make a busy tracker.
ivan: i don't have a strong opinion, but what you say is right,.
<stain> other trackers have 'versions' for that particular problem
ivan: one more thing: If I look
at the wiki page right now I still have to go to each
individual issue to see if they are closed or not.
... add for each entry whether the issue is closed in the wiki
page.
<stain> I think it should be managable
I agree with Stian.
<jun> whatever works for you, Paul. Fine with either way
not to create a product for each deliverable, it's too much IMO.
pgroth: AOB?
<tlebo> bye!
<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/naame/name/ Found Scribe: Daniel Garijo Found Scribe: tlebo Inferring ScribeNick: tlebo Found Scribe: dgarijo Inferring ScribeNick: dgarijo Scribes: Daniel Garijo, tlebo, dgarijo ScribeNicks: tlebo, dgarijo Default Present: pgroth, +329331aaaa, Curt_Tilmes, jun, +1.818.731.aabb, TomDN, +1.315.330.aadd, SamCoppens, tlebo, Ivan, +44.131.467.aaee, jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, stain, smiles?, dgarijo Present: pgroth +329331aaaa Curt_Tilmes jun +1.818.731.aabb TomDN +1.315.330.aadd SamCoppens tlebo Ivan +44.131.467.aaee jcheney Satya_Sahoo stain smiles? dgarijo Regrets: Luc Moreau Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.08.02 Found Date: 02 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-prov-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]