See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 18 October 2012
<pgroth> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 18 October 2012
<pgroth> scribe?
<pgroth> Scribe: Curt
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-10-11
<pgroth> Proposed Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Telecon
+1
<satya> +1
<smiles> +1
<ivan> +1
<hook> +1
<zednik> +1
<Paolo> 0 (not there)
<pgroth> accepted: Minutes of the October 11, 2012 Telecon
pgroth: review open action
items
... some action holders not present -- paul will follow up with
email
... scribes -- need them, please volunteer!
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/TimetableToRec
pgroth: reviewing timetable
^
... need to get issues closed to go to CR
... luc sending out a lot of responses, need group to try to
stay on top of them
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria
pgroth: incorporated some
feedback, put on list for review
... added explicit exit criteria for PROV-DM per james,
inherits from PROV-O and N
... some wording updated
<smiles> Apart from the "independent" comment Luc made by email, they looked good to me
Luc: PROV-O - what is independent
of what? it doesn't require independence between
producer/consumer
... suggested - independence between producer and
consumer
... similar to client/server, producer and consumer must be
independent to demonstrate interoperability
<pgroth> An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a
<pgroth> feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For
<pgroth> each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been
<pgroth> demonstrated to exist
<Luc> "An interoperability pair consists of an implementation generating a feature and an independent implementation consuming the feature. For each feature, at least two interoperability pairs will have been demonstrated to exist."
pgroth: This is stronger -- SKOS wasn't quite this strong. If group wants it, ok..
<khalidBelhajjame> Yes, it looks stronge, but I think what Luc is suggesting is what one would exepect when talking about interoperability
smiles: makes sense that they should be independent
<Paolo> it would be more convincing
pgroth: worried about making it stronger than it really needs to be
<Paolo> ... two pairs of independent producers and consumers...
Luc: are there concerns we wouldn't meet the stronger criteria?
pgroth: we could for PROV-O, not sure about PROV-N
Luc: an implementation includes a
dataset -- we do have some PROV-N datasets, this should be
workable
... as long as we have two consumers of that
pgroth: will update with the proposed new language
ivan: What Luc proposes is good, but Paul has the question -- "Can we make it?"
Luc: If we have two implmentations from the same organization, they may not be considered independent
pgroth: we were trying to keep
the threshold attainable
... but your language is better, just want to make sure we can
meet it
... trying to figure out the right language, and consider the
ramifications of that language on the exit criteria
ivan: the language may be a little vague, but should be ok with it the way it is
Luc: want to make sure the language reflects our intent
ivan: It's ok with me, it seems
satisfactory
... (in my view, not official w3c position)
pgroth: ok, going back to original language
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvCRExitCriteria
pgroth: we could have prov-n documents and two different implementations that could read/process them
Luc: will we have two independent consumers of prov-n?
<Paolo> sorry, what does it mean to "consume prov-n"? would this be an independently generated parser?
Luc: with my version, A producing and B consuming is one pair, B producing and A consuming is another pair, as long as A and B are independent
pgroth: thought consumption would
be easier than production
... still some concerns -- let's postpone final vote on
this
hook: if all features don't have independent pairs.
pgroth: each feature must be coverened, but given implementations don't have to cover every feature
ivan: it is considered to be an implementation for the features it covers
<ivan> s/implememmentation/implementation/
Paolo: what is a consumer? How about just a parser?
pgroth: yes, a parser would be
<smiles> yes
pgroth: interoperability pairs could be easier than the language we have now
<khalidBelhajjame> I think it makes more sense too
pgroth: I will rephrase the language and send it around for review by Tuesday next week
Luc: we can have an online vote
<pgroth> ACTION: Paul to revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Revise cr exit criteria, online vote next week [on Paul Groth - due 2012-10-25].
<pgroth> proposed: accept ISSUE-529 ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-499 ISSUE-518 as working group responses
<Dong> +1
<ivan> +1
<TomDN> +1
<khalidBelhajjame> +1
<dgarijo> +1
<zednik> +1
<satya> +1
Luc: 529 and 499 still have some comments
<smiles> +1
<pgroth> accepted: accept ISSUE-524 ISSUE-519 ISSUE-521 ISSUE-450 ISSUE-482 ISSUE-518 as working group responses
Luc: there is a question from
robert, a question about entity, and several comments from
ivan
... and the one on mention, still to address
... will tackle most of them on monday
pgroth: requested acknowledgement
from Robert on responses
... he is traveling
<pgroth> proposed: ISSUE-541 ISSUE-542 ISSUE-543 ISSUE-545 ISSUE-537 ISSUE-535 ISSUE-534 ISSUE-536 ISSUE-538 ISSUE-533 ISSUE-546 ISSUE-540 ISSUE-539 ISSUE-544 as working group responses
<TomDN> +1
<ivan> +1
<Dong> +1
<dgarijo> +1
<zednik> +1
<smiles> +1
<khalidBelhajjame> +1
<pgroth> accepted: ISSUE-541 ISSUE-542 ISSUE-543 ISSUE-545 ISSUE-537 ISSUE-535 ISSUE-534 ISSUE-536 ISSUE-538 ISSUE-533 ISSUE-546 ISSUE-540 ISSUE-539 ISSUE-544 as working group responses
pgroth: anything more to address with PROV-N?
Luc: should all be addressed
now
... need to align bundle language with constraints
<stephenc> I just joined
<ivan> issue-552?
<trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- Check subclass definitions in prov-o -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/552
pgroth: Tim not present, need to address issues
<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2012Sep/0000.html
pgroth: can someone address
552?
... is this a PROV-DM or PROV-O problem?
<MacTed> both...
ivan: Can it be turned into
subclasses?
... does PROV-DM support that?
<satya> I believe that is DM
Luc: Is this need from PROV-DM or PROV-O?
pgroth: DM definitions repeated into PROV-O, there aren't new definitions
<dgarijo> I can find it in the overview: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/Overview.html#Quotation
Luc: suggestion is to make quotation a type of derivation
MacTed: That still equates to a subclass
Luc: how is quotation expressed in PROV-O?
<MacTed> `The definition of Quotation includes "Quotation is a particular case of derivation.". However Quotation is not a subclass of Derivation, which is what the english would imply. A better wording, assuming I understand the current english would be: "Quotation is a kind of derivation".`
pgroth: there is a property and a class prov:quotation
MacTed: concern is that the
english says it is a subclass, but isn't explicit where it
should be
... it isn't consistent whether quotation is a subclass of
derivation
<satya> Atleast that is not in the OWL file of PROV-O
MacTed: it sounds like the missing language is in PROV-O
pgroth: can one of the PROV-O editors address this?
Luc: should action to Tim ask if this is a bug
<pgroth> ACTION: Tim check whether it is a bug or feature the lack of subclassing for Quotation and Derivation see ISSUE 552 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find Tim. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/users>.
MacTed: This is an example -- there may be other places where similar subclassing is missing
<MacTed> "lack of subclassing for, e.g., Quotation and Derivation"
pgroth: I'll revise the action and email Tim
<ivan> issue-568?
<trackbot> ISSUE-568 -- domain of prov:hadRole -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/568
Luc: domain includes influence, which would allow expression of some relationships that DM does not allow
<dgarijo> I'll check it out
<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/446
pgroth: dgarijo has open issue
dgarijo: I will check it out
Luc: what are the implications of changing the domain of hadrole?
<pgroth> q
Luc: for PROV-O last call, and on other documents
ivan: This is a bug, not a change in fundamental design, correct?
pgroth: need to confirm bug, but yes, not changing the design
ivan: If it is a real bug, there
isn't a problem with the last call
... last call asks if there questions about design, not
bugs
... If there are design changes, then we have to look at it
again
... not sure how this will affect other documents
Luc: If we have a second last call for PROV-O, do we have to do that with the others too?
ivan: no
Luc: would that delay CR?
ivan: we want them to go
together, so yes
... it would incur a minimum delay of three weeks
ivan: but we aren't there yet..
pgroth: dgarijo sent email update on PROV-DC
dgarijo: we still need to write formal responses for issues
pgroth: PROV-AQ, graham will work on that towards Novembers
^Novembers^November
pgroth: other priorities, will
delay PROV-AQ until November, thoughts about that?
... Needs a push to clean up final note, more important to work
on implementations for now
ivan: the note, or a draft at that point?
pgroth: publish draft then, then the note later
ivan: suggest publishing the note with the rest of the rec, publishing together would be better
pgroth: PROV-Dictionary, make
that into a note
... stain working on that
Paolo: we talked about this, we
made a plan, haven't heard updates since
... I will remind stain
<Dong> Sorry, I need to go
pgroth: I'll discuss with Luc how to address this
(I have to go)
<Paolo> have to run...
<khalidBelhajjame> bye
<TomDN> bye
<pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: s/implememmentation/implementation/ Succeeded: s/implemmentation/implementation/ Found Scribe: Curt Inferring ScribeNick: Curt Default Present: pgroth, +1.617.324.aaaa, Ivan, +44.238.059.aabb, Luc, [IPcaller], Curt_Tilmes, +1.661.382.aacc, CraigTrim, +1.818.731.aadd, jun, Satya_Sahoo, khalidBelhajjame, +329331aaee, TomDN, MacTed, dgarijo, stephenc Present: pgroth +1.617.324.aaaa Ivan +44.238.059.aabb Luc [IPcaller] Curt_Tilmes +1.661.382.aacc CraigTrim +1.818.731.aadd jun Satya_Sahoo khalidBelhajjame +329331aaee TomDN MacTed dgarijo stephenc Regrets: James Cheney Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.10.18 Found Date: 18 Oct 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/18-prov-minutes.html People with action items: paul tim WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]