15:54:20 RRSAgent has joined #prov 15:54:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc 15:54:21 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:54:23 Zakim, this will be 15:54:23 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:54:24 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 15:54:24 Date: 24 November 2011 15:54:27 Zakim, this will be PROV 15:54:27 ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 15:54:33 pgroth: I can scribe 15:54:43 thanks stain! 15:54:58 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.24 15:55:05 Chair: Paul Groth 15:55:12 Scribe: stain 15:55:21 rrsagent, make logs public 15:55:33 Regrets: Christian Runnegar 15:55:44 will you do the magic things for bumping to the next agendum 15:56:01 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 15:56:01 jcheney has joined #prov 15:56:08 +[IPcaller] 15:56:17 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:56:17 +pgroth; got it 15:56:28 i actually don't know how to do it 15:56:37 ok, I'll do it 15:56:48 I'll do the topics 15:57:12 that's what I meant :) 15:58:37 Luc has joined #prov 15:59:25 +Luc 15:59:31 +stain 16:00:12 can we add an agenda item to ask when we should do the xmas break? 16:00:24 ok 16:00:26 yes 16:00:39 dgarijo has joined #prov 16:00:42 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 16:01:02 GK has joined #prov 16:01:24 +??P10 16:01:30 +[IPcaller] 16:01:44 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:01:44 +dgarijo; got it 16:01:50 zakim, ??P10 is me 16:01:50 +jcheney; got it 16:01:53 +??P9 16:02:01 +[IPcaller] 16:02:14 well it looks like many people are on holiday today :) 16:02:39 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:02:39 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 16:03:08 +??P14 16:03:09 StephenCresswell has joined #prov 16:03:20 Topic: Admin 16:03:25 zakim, ??P14 is me 16:03:25 +GK; got it 16:03:27 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-17 16:03:34 short meeting today 16:03:34 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 17 telecon 16:03:37 +1 16:03:39 +1 16:03:40 +1 16:03:47 +1 16:03:59 dcorsar has joined #prov 16:04:02 +1 16:04:19 ACCEPTED Minutes of Nov 17 telecon 16:04:23 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 16:04:55 ACTION-43 - Pgroth organising now - just waiting for actual confirmation before sending out email - hopefully by end of tomorrow 16:05:06 ACTION-44 on Graham - we can come back to this when we talk about PAQ 16:05:12 Oops, that fell of my Radar 16:05:30 Stian asked about what we do over Christmas break 16:06:04 Luc: Propose to have last call just before Christmas, Thurs 22 - not call 29th - resume on 5th of Jan 16:06:09 (I'll be on holiday on 22 Dec) 16:06:13 (me too) 16:06:16 smiles has joined #prov 16:06:19 +[IPcaller] 16:06:34 pgroth: sounds reasonable - but if too many o vacation 22nd we'll cancel 16:06:36 I'll be on holidays, but I think I can make it 16:06:49 ACTION Pgroth: Send email about holiday break 16:06:50 Created ACTION-45 - Send email about holiday break [on Paul Groth - due 2011-12-01]. 16:06:58 Topic: PROV-O 16:07:20 (I can probably make it, I will be in EDT for once) 16:07:28 dgarijo: discussed Luc's issues on Monday, wrapping up 16:07:35 dgarijo: updated document - almost ready for release 16:07:50 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html 16:07:58 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html 16:08:07 I'll timestamp it 16:08:29 dcorsar has joined #prov 16:08:31 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html 16:08:38 pgroth: issues with (?) section - did you plan to address that? 16:09:02 +Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath 16:09:05 q+ 16:09:08 dgarijo: not aware about concerns over constraints. Planning to put it in an annex - but to put it in a different document 16:09:14 satya has joined #prov 16:09:30 zednik 16:09:31 ? 16:09:32 q? 16:10:06 +??P27 16:10:14 @Luc: Are we discussing the PROV-O? 16:10:16 Luc: dgarijo don't seem to be aware of comments on section 4 and 5, we said that they should not be part of the FPWD - instead they should be included in the (?) document 16:10:27 q+ 16:10:28 Luc, that wasn't discussed in the last telecon 16:10:51 q- 16:10:51 Luc: what is happening with section 4, 5 16:11:15 satya: had a discussion on section 4. In email to Luc and Paul, we think that extensibility of PROV-O is important to show - but we understand they are really long 16:11:27 satya: we are suggesting similar javascript buttons to hide/show RDF/XML 16:11:29 when did discussion happened? I was not aware :(. Sorry. 16:11:33 Monday 16:11:51 satya: also reviewing content of section 4 - but believe some content should be there in PROV-O 16:12:05 satya: on section 5.3 - they have moved to appendix - should improve readability 16:12:16 q+ 16:12:18 satya: can revisit these after issues in PROV-DM are propagated to PROV-O 16:12:38 (Annex: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints ) 16:13:05 Luc: believe sec 4 is not by the charter - we should be domain independent 16:13:43 Can then Section 4 be released as a note? 16:13:53 Luc: Section 4 explains how one can extend ontology for specific needs - how can this be normative? There are many different ways to extend it. Not by the charter - not what applications can do to represent provenance internally 16:13:58 q+ to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence 16:14:16 Luc: Focus on provenance exchange - not reached conclusion on how to represent provenance internally 16:14:35 Luc: now section 5 -> appendix - most issues that are closed are removed or no longer relevant as PROV-DM has changed completely in tis point of view 16:14:49 Luc: It does not show WG in a good light with raised issues flagged in document, when they have been closed 16:15:00 Luc: what is the message of all those issues? 16:15:16 Luc: For purpose of simplification of FPWD I would recommend to remove the whole section from the document 16:15:22 q? 16:15:30 ack luc 16:15:57 Satya: The issues raised in section 5 removed from PROV-DM happened after I raised - or wrongly stated. 16:16:15 satya: when we raise issues, and changes in PROV-DM - but we know propagating those changes in PROV-O will take time 16:17:00 satya: with section 4 - as GK mentioned in chat, 2 issues. Sec 4 is not normative, but we can make it even more explicitly clear. But we think it is important to show these examples to illustrate 16:17:04 what is the problem of releasing section 4 in a separate document? I don't see the issue there. 16:17:25 q- 16:17:25 satya: for instance if you did crime file example - how would you do it with existing concepts and wit extended concepts. And same for workflow. But we are not stating it is normative 16:17:36 ack zednik 16:17:48 I think we should say explicitly that it is non-normative, or put it into a non-normative document 16:18:04 GK: Agree with satya, don't think it violates charter to discuss extension mechanism. In fact charter invisions an extension mechanism. 16:18:12 q? 16:18:14 GK: so it *is* supported by charter 16:18:15 ack GK 16:18:15 GK, you wanted to say that I don't think explaining extension mechanisms violate the charter constraint of app independence 16:18:20 q+ 16:18:26 ack Luc 16:18:34 Could I propose to just make it clearer that it is non-normative 16:18:58 Luc: wit Workflow example, there were a number of.. domain-specific concepts 16:19:21 (but it's an example of a domain-specific approach?) 16:19:35 @Luc: wf:seenAtPort, wf:sawValue, etc. 16:19:58 Luc: could not see the corresponding PROV-O concepts. But that was problematic for interoperability exchange needs. Even if we make it non-normative there would be problems. 16:20:03 q? 16:20:05 q+ 16:20:50 q+ 16:20:57 ack stain 16:21:06 stain: is issue that the example customizes PROV-O to the point of customizing away from PROV-O so that you can only see the PROV-O statements using OWL reasoning? 16:21:08 q? 16:21:10 q+ 16:21:11 Luc: yes, that's what I meant 16:21:20 q+ to say I think Luc has a point... could include inferrable prov properties as well 16:21:40 satya: using standard mechanism should make it possible for semantic web applications - could you point out exactly what are the issues so we can address them? 16:21:49 satya: in particular if it prevents interoperability 16:22:14 Luc: (?) belongs to scientific workflow namespace 16:22:32 pgroth: I think we need to separate questions 16:22:53 pgroth: q1 is if showing example of expansion shows interoperability.. 16:22:56 pgroth: q2 is where this belongs 16:23:03 @paul - good intervention! 16:23:13 pgroth: in charter, extensibility is often done through best practices 16:23:26 pgroth: now where sould this extensibility description/example go? that's main question. 16:23:48 pgroth: Right now this is a very long piece of detailed description on how to extend, and should go in a best practice note 16:23:59 pgroth: and confuses the issue of PROv-O just because it is large/long 16:24:16 q? 16:24:16 q- 16:24:17 pgroth: technical issues can then be discussed after FPWD 16:24:23 q- 16:24:24 ack satya 16:24:25 +1 to Paul's comment 16:24:29 ack pgroth 16:24:29 q? 16:24:35 +1 to make a Best Practice document 16:25:04 Luc: not saying to bin examples, just to see them in a Best Practic document 16:25:14 q+ 16:25:51 what about releasing a fpwd of teh best practice containing thes examples? 16:25:53 ack stain 16:25:58 @satya - I still have sympathy for mentioning extension mechanism in prov-o, but maybe more briefly, and use best practice to provide the illustrative material? 16:26:04 q+ 16:26:05 stain: do we make a Best Practice document for the FPWD or just keep these on the shelf (remove from PROV-O) document for the first FPWD? 16:26:13 +1 to Lucs comment: The examples are already done, right? 16:26:15 ack satya 16:27:00 satya: did mention that we need to shorten the section - but should mention something - as PROV-O does not mention domain-specific - say you come for geospatial information - then we don't have that. If such a user comes to see what is the use for me 16:27:07 ... the extension mechanism used here is RDF specific, and prov-o is (in part) telling us how to use RDF to carry DM 16:27:14 satya: then section 4 should show that PROV-O can be specialised 16:27:42 satya: Stian's wf example is a good example of modelling provenance information - but we can move it to a Best Practice document and leave a small example in section 4 16:27:53 q? 16:27:53 satya: then it should not distract from the main point of PROV-O document 16:27:57 +q 16:28:54 q+ to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as non-normative? 16:29:04 khalidbelhajjame: there are other examples on how to specify relationships specified in PROV-DM 16:29:10 @GK +1 16:29:14 khalidbelhajjame: don't like this medium solution with smaller examples 16:29:20 +1 to Khalid's comment. Why not just add a reference to the best practice? 16:29:33 khalidbelhajjame: if this is not a good place, then they should all be removed and have an extension section only 16:29:36 q? 16:29:41 ack khalidbelhajjame 16:30:06 GK: difficult now as we don't have such a Best Practice document - would be easier to talk about and refactor it once we have that. 16:30:15 q+ 16:30:21 ack GK 16:30:21 GK, you wanted to tentatively suggest that we look to refactoring the text when we have a best practices document on the table. Meanwhile, just signal the current as 16:30:22 GK: suggestion is to recognize that it would happen - but for time being don't do it - just signal non-normative 16:30:24 ... non-normative? 16:30:25 +1 16:30:34 pgroth: issue is that it is a lot of material 16:30:45 pgroth: as a first public workflow draft it makes a particular impression 16:30:52 pgroth: different people have different impressions of FPWDs 16:31:13 pgroth: good start for a Best Practice document - .. but.. 16:31:18 q? 16:31:39 GK: if worried about first impression, could it be sufficient with a big flag to say explicitly that this material will go to a best-practice document? 16:31:52 +q 16:31:56 ack pgroth 16:31:57 pgroth: would prefer just to move it out for now 16:32:16 khalidbelhajjame: People don't always read the whole document to know they can skip it. They look at TOC and just jump down 16:32:19 Paolo has joined #prov 16:32:20 what's the issue with creating today a first draft of the best practice document? 16:32:36 khalidbelhajjame: and so tey might not see it is non-normative 16:32:43 q? 16:32:46 ack khalidbelhajjame 16:32:46 (So if readers don't go there, have they been given an adverse fiurst impression?) 16:32:53 Luc: OK, can do that :) 16:32:59 just copy and delete 16:33:11 @stian:+1 16:33:12 @stain, yes, plus a small intro 16:33:18 +??P29 16:33:30 q? 16:33:31 pgroth: two options a) Label Section 4 wit a big notice b) Just copy whole of section 4 and make it first draft of best practice document - and actually link to it 16:33:31 zakim, ??P29 is me 16:33:31 +Paolo; got it 16:33:48 option a 16:34:07 +1 16:34:15 +1 16:34:17 +1 16:34:31 option a) Keep 4 as it is - label with NON-NORMATIVE-and-will-go-to-best-practice 16:34:40 option B) Create new Best PRactice document - just section 4 moved there 16:34:40 (a) +0.5, (b) +0.5 16:34:47 +1 to b. 16:34:51 +1 to b 16:34:51 @GK :-) 16:34:59 +1 to b 16:35:09 +1 to b 16:35:12 +1 to b 16:35:16 +1 to b 16:35:24 I can take the action 16:35:30 Happy with either. 16:35:32 q+ 16:35:45 proposal: release both documents at the same time as fpwd 16:35:57 ACTION Stian: Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document 16:35:57 Created ACTION-46 - Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [on Stian Soiland-Reyes - due 2011-12-01]. 16:36:11 satya: so think we should keep a paragraph about extension and linking to best practice document 16:36:31 pgroth: so keeping first paragraph (before 4.1) on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#specializing-provenance-ontology-for-domain-specific-provenance-applications 16:36:39 satya: yes, and with link to examples in best practice 16:36:44 Luc: sounds reasonable 16:36:54 :-) 16:36:54 RESOLVED ..whatever we argued about :) 16:37:23 Resolved: keep roughly first paragraph of section 4, move rest of section 4 to best practice document 16:37:37 I heard: examples will be removed, but v brief descrioption of extension mechanism will remain 16:37:42 right 16:37:46 but that is the same 16:38:11 pgroth: Annex A Provenancespecific constraints to be removed - as it makes us look bad 16:38:14 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#provenance-specific-constraints 16:38:15 @Stian yes --- I was typing that before Paul's summary got in. 16:38:19 ;) 16:38:26 q? 16:38:29 ack satya 16:38:52 satya: what Luc/Pgroth wants is that those issues sould not be seen. Some of them have not gone away! But should not be seen in the document? 16:39:06 I think it should be in ere if PROV-DM and PROV-O is in kind of conflict 16:39:17 We need another button: Show Issues only to WG members :-) 16:39:31 @Khalid :) 16:39:32 pgroth: Keeping track of them.. PROV-DM changes that have not been reflected in PROV-O 16:39:42 pgroth: but we commented it out from the FPWD 16:40:02 satya: ok, we can comment it out [from the FPWD], but keep it in the document 16:40:08 pgroth: does that resolve it? 16:40:13 Luc: Believe so 16:40:23 (issues are public anyway, remember!) 16:40:34 q? 16:40:40 pgroth: then we should be ready to do an FPWD, right? 16:40:59 Luc: propose to vote on releasing both PROV-O and Primer FPWD [ at the same time ] 16:41:03 +1 to that 16:41:09 sorry 16:41:14 the Best PRactice document 16:41:19 (which does not yet exist! ;) ) 16:41:21 q+ to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet? 16:41:29 Is there anything else that should be added to Best Practice document other than Section 4 of prov-o document? 16:41:30 GK hang, on, I'll be quick in mercurial! 16:41:56 it will only be section 4 for now 16:42:16 pgroth: sould vote on FPWD on PROV-O with intention to vote on Best Practice FPWD next week 16:42:21 I agree with not voting on FPWD for best practices now. 16:42:29 can't we link to Best Practice doc in Mercurial ? 16:42:52 Luc: (?) that best practice doc will contain the examples in 4.1 and 4.2 of PROV-O 16:43:11 Proposed: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes 16:43:19 +1 16:43:20 +1 16:43:20 +1 16:43:20 +1 (witout the ] thing) 16:43:20 +1 16:43:22 +1 16:43:23 +1 16:43:23 +1 16:43:23 +1 16:43:54 (we're all waiting for Luc!) 16:44:23 Accepted: release PROV-O as first public working draft with above mentioned changes 16:44:24 Luc: supportive - but don't vote as a chair 16:44:36 pgroth: but I've been voting as a chair !! 16:44:38 @Paul :) 16:44:41 congrats everyone! 16:44:45 Hurray 16:44:52 pgroth: editors draft of best practice document which should be good to come along 16:44:56 congrats to the prov-o team! 16:45:04 :) 16:45:05 Topic: PROV-AQ 16:45:51 GK: moved issues to boxes - cleaned up - not much else 16:46:22 GK: happy to do remaining things - but if I had problems.. could pgroth pick up if GK drops the ball? 16:46:25 pgroth: happy to do the test 16:46:29 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html 16:47:08 GK: might not be available in the near future 16:47:17 q? 16:47:19 ack GK 16:47:19 GK, you wanted to say Can we really vote on a documen t that doesn't exist yet? 16:47:20 pgroth: getting close to FPWD 16:47:32 Topic: PROV-DM 16:47:39 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#changes-since-previous-version 16:47:49 lots of echo 16:47:57 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/cc338a6ccf28/model/ProvenanceModel.html 16:48:17 Luc: we voted on a number of proposals, those changes are being implemented 16:48:25 Luc: some questions on derivations 16:48:37 Luc: being edited as we speak 16:48:48 Luc: some proposal from Yolanda on agents.. and edits are in progress as well 16:49:03 Luc: still very much editors draft, bouncing Luc <> Paolo 16:49:09 Luc: you can have a look at it, but not yet ready for internal review 16:49:24 Luc: don't file issues on the actual current document yet 16:49:31 Luc: hoping to have feedback soon 16:49:40 Luc: and mke it availabile to WG for internal evaluation 16:49:52 Luc: hope is to have second working draft released as soon as possible 16:50:01 (You mean before christmas?) 16:50:14 @stain, yes, hopefully, 2 weeks time 16:50:20 Paolo: Question on please do not .. PROV-O alignment 16:50:27 Paolo: most changes would be simplifying 16:50:35 Paolo: and not throw everyting up in the air again 16:50:50 q? 16:50:54 @Luc btw - when did we resolve vote on Process Execution -> Account ? I remember voting -1 .. 16:51:13 Paolo: flurry of activity last weeks.. nice things with chain of responsibility 16:51:16 @Stian: you mean Activity, right? 16:51:21 @stain, what is this? PE -> account? 16:51:21 yes, sorry 16:51:25 Activity 16:51:31 q? 16:51:44 q? 16:51:52 so when do we get the internal review? 16:51:57 Topic: PROV-JSON 16:52:01 if second WD is in 2 weeks 16:52:07 @stain, hopefully, next week 16:52:26 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/ 16:52:49 pgroth: possilibity about note on doing PROV-JSON with some support. How would we proceed? 16:53:08 pgroth: Southampton have actually worked on this - a JSON serialisation of PROV-DM 16:53:19 pgroth: then discussion on how WG would like to proceed 16:53:29 pgroth: given time.. let us hear about it 16:53:50 DongHuynh: observing WG development 16:53:55 DongHuynh: first time in meeting 16:54:09 DongHuynh: in Southampton capture provenance in many applications 16:54:21 DongHuynh: to have a common format 16:54:29 DongHuynh: ow to represent in JSON? Here's our document showing thihs. 16:54:48 DongHuynh: when implementing this we wanted to ensure interoperability. Not just our 3 applications, but also future applications 16:54:54 DongHuynh: so stay close to PROV-DM 16:54:55 -Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath 16:55:11 DongHuynh: as it will likely widely adopted when it is a W3C recommendation. 16:55:31 DongHuynh: so also lightweight - like using JSON datatypes where possible - but witout loosing expressitivity like custom data types 16:55:54 DongHuynh: don't want to bother with complex configurations when not needed. 16:56:05 DongHuynh: introduced some [shortcuts?] 16:56:11 design rationale http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/tdh/json/#introduction 16:56:29 examples 16:56:37 https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-simple.json 16:57:07 DongHuynh: says that that Document you just saw was derived from a document int he Mercurial repository 16:57:22 DongHuynh: with a few examples they are all from PROV-DM - the PROV-DM namespace is the default 16:57:45 https://github.com/trungdong/w3-prov/blob/master/examples/ex-prefix.json 16:57:47 DongHuynh: second example exands 16:58:23 DongHuynh: introduces a prefix for applicatoin specific information 16:58:30 (line 35 is not valid JSON btw) 16:58:48 DongHuynh: in first level, prefix/entity/activity, etc.. PROV-DM level 16:58:53 DongHuynh: at next level is the entity 16:58:58 DongHuynh: at third level attribute value pairs 16:59:14 @stain, yes, looks like a typo 16:59:19 q? 16:59:23 +q 16:59:24 DongHuynh: questions? 16:59:31 GK: (skipping the queue!) 16:59:37 GK: JSON-LD? 16:59:52 GK: Providing possibility to link fairly well with RDF, but difficult to tell at first ga 16:59:55 glance 17:00:08 http://json-ld.org/ 17:00:24 ack khalidbelhajjame 17:00:24 DongHuynh: will look at JSON LD for hints/clues 17:00:34 khalidbelhajjame: in examples.. entity, agent.. 17:00:50 khalidbelhajjame: is there a mechanism for (?) actually is.. (?) 17:01:00 khalidbelhajjame: JSON schema? 17:01:09 khalidbelhajjame: to say how it can be serialised 17:01:10 q? 17:01:23 DongHuynh: could not hear very well.. 17:01:36 khalidbelhajjame: you specify how to specify PROV-DM assertions using JSON 17:01:53 khalidbelhajjame: if you have a JSON document.. is there a way to know that it is valid PROV-DM [PROV-JSON] ? 17:02:01 khalidbelhajjame: like using existing JSON Schema approaching 17:02:10 khalidbelhajjame: to say ow instances of PROV-DM looks like in JSON 17:02:27 DongHuynh: one rational is to maintain interoperability 17:02:37 DongHuynh: so we want a two-way mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-JSON 17:02:47 DongHuynh: no tool for checking conformity 17:02:51 DongHuynh: working on this 17:03:16 http://json-schema.org/ 17:03:23 DongHuynh: have workin progress wich can convert a PROV-DM record in PROV-ASN to PROV-JSON structure 17:03:34 DongHuynh: next step is the reverse to check semantics 17:03:45 DongHuynh: aware of JSON Schema 17:03:53 DongHuynh: could be good to describe what is now in the HTML 17:04:04 DongHuynh: not convinced about popularity of JSON Schema 17:04:11 DongHuynh: is it really used 17:04:31 DongHuynh: more useful to have a document that describe mapping by example 17:04:39 Thanks Dong 17:04:42 q? 17:04:44 DongHuynh: main readers would be developers, and examples should help to kickstart process 17:04:59 pgroth: we are running out of time now 17:05:03 pgroth: very interesting work 17:05:14 pgroth: would want to discuss this more on the mailing list on how we want to proceed 17:05:14 q+ 17:05:30 Luc: Is it possible to have a sense here now? 17:05:42 Luc: who would be interested in working on this spec? 17:05:54 +1 17:05:55 +0.5 (what exactly is the specification going to specify?) 17:06:00 +1 (I am far from being an expert but would like to participate) 17:06:18 Luc: not *this* specification - but A PROV-JSON specification from the WG 17:06:25 It depends on timing, and principles. I'd want us to see DM very stable first. 17:06:34 @GK +1 17:06:46 @GK perhaps this is a spring project 17:06:57 Yes, maybe in spring. 17:06:59 @GK - I also think this is lower priority and can happen later - otherwise we will have too many moving parts to sync 17:07:00 q? 17:07:05 I am fully loaded with PROV involvement at the moment 17:07:06 ack Luc 17:07:16 same with PROV-XML 17:07:16 @jcheney +1 17:07:20 @jcheney +1 17:07:34 pgroth: ok, as chairs we will look at scheduling this 17:07:37 -Paolo 17:07:37 thanks everybody! 17:07:38 bye 17:07:41 -khalidbelhajjame 17:07:42 -dgarijo 17:07:42 -jcheney 17:07:44 -[IPcaller] 17:07:48 rrsagent, set log public 17:07:50 happy thanksgiving 17:07:50 -??P27 17:07:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:07:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html pgroth 17:08:01 trackbot, end telcon 17:08:01 Zakim, list attendees 17:08:01 As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Luc, stain, dgarijo, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, [IPcaller], Bjorn_Bringert,Satish_Sampath, Paolo 17:08:02 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:08:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-minutes.html trackbot 17:08:03 RRSAgent, bye 17:08:03 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-actions.rdf : 17:08:03 ACTION: Pgroth to Send email about holiday break [1] 17:08:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-06-49 17:08:03 ACTION: Stian to Move section 4 of PROV-O to new best-practice document [2] 17:08:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/24-prov-irc#T16-35-57