CPOV WG Virtual Meeting: February 15, 2016

This document contains the agenda and meeting minutes of the CPOV Working Group meeting of February 15, 2016.


  • Time: Monday 15 February 2016 from 14:00 to 15:30 CET.
  • Web connectionhttp://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/cpov/

  • How to connect?
    Please refer to the Conncetion Manual or to the summary below:

    1. Go to http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/cpov/
    2. Click ‘Enter as a guest’, Fill in your name and click ‘Enter meeting’
    3 .Click ‘ok’ to agree with the Web Conferencing Disclaimer
    4. Answer ‘Start’ to the question: Would you like audio conferencing with this meeting?
    5. Choose ‘Dial-out’ and insert ‘your phone number’ to receive a call from the meeting. This option will only be available after the meeting host has arrived to the meeting.

    It is advised to use the "dial-out" option. Alternatively, if you would experience any problems, you can also manually dial in via
    Belgium: +3228081363
    France: +33182880967
    Germany: +498922061600
    Luxembourg: +35220880608
    United Kingdom: +442033189433

    MeetingOne Conference Room Number: 1323004
    URL to additional access numbers: http://www.meetingone.com/eu_eg/Access_Numbers

If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:
Test your connection: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html


Supporting materials

Draft 2 of the CPOV is available via https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/149287/.

Meeting Minutes

The meeting minutes are available via https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2016-02/2016-02-15_cpov_working_group_meeting_minutes_v0.05.pdf

Nature of documentation: Conference-seminar-meeting proceeding


Type of document
ISA Open Metadata Licence v1.1


Mon, 22/02/2016 - 21:58

"It was decided that prov:Activity should be used as basis for an event class, and two subclasses should be defined: Change Event and Foundation Event"


It did not seem to me that there was consensus on this point. While the above does address my concern about possible confusion among implementers in their interpretation of the term "ChangeEvent", several other WG members (particularly in the chat) argued against the above proposed solution to my concern, expressing that one class would be better than two in this case, considering the small semantic difference between the two. I tend to agree that the added complexity of additional classes is worse than the terminological confusion I raised. In short, I would be fine with no change (i.e. use prov:ChangeEvent as the only event class).

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.