16:00:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov-xg
16:00:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/29-prov-xg-irc
16:00:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov-xg
16:00:27 <ivan> ivan has joined #prov-xg
16:00:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 98765
16:00:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
16:00:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference
16:00:29 <trackbot> Date: 29 January 2010
16:01:04 <ssahoo2> ssahoo2 has joined #prov-xg
16:01:21 <Yolanda> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Jan/0018.html
16:01:38 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov-xg
16:01:43 <Yolanda> satya: i started the trackbot already, can you scribe
16:02:16 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:02:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:02:17 <lkagal> lkagal has joined #prov-xg
16:02:20 <JoseManuel> JoseManuel has joined #prov-xg
16:02:20 <ssahoo2> yes yolanda
16:03:15 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov-xg
16:04:37 <ssahoo2> yolanda: paul groth discusses the requirements document
16:05:04 <Oleksiy> Oleksiy has joined #prov-xg
16:05:21 <ssahoo2> paul: discuss three of the requirements: justification, dissemination, and accountability
16:06:07 <JoseManuel> q+
16:06:10 <ssahoo2> requirements document: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Requirements 
16:07:36 <ssahoo2> paul: user requirement is distinct from technical requirement
16:07:56 <Yolanda> q+
16:08:12 <ssahoo2> paul: for process - provenance graph is a technical requirement
16:08:16 <JimM> q+
16:08:59 <ssahoo2> yolanda: process should be reproducible from provenance
16:09:21 <Yolanda> q-
16:09:34 <Yolanda> ack JoseManuel
16:09:57 <Luc> q+
16:10:02 <ssahoo2> jose: agent is not a technical requirement
16:10:31 <Yolanda> ack JimM
16:10:31 <Oleksiy> Oleksiy has joined #prov-xg
16:10:32 <michaelp> "Agent" in the process requirement does not mean "user agent"
16:10:54 <ssahoo2> jim: technical requirement repeats user requirement for process requirement
16:12:12 <ssahoo2> luc: UR3 for process requirement needs to be refined
16:12:15 <Yolanda> I think "agent" is more accurate than "people", since it includes software entities that do a process
16:13:54 <ssahoo2> yolanda: TR 2.1 is too broad?
16:14:01 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov-xg
16:14:39 <Deborah> Deborah McGuinness and Jim McCusker joined in both chat and phone (phone starting with 518276)
16:14:54 <JoseManuel> q+
16:14:55 <Luc> q+
16:15:35 <mccuskej> mccuskej has joined #prov-xg
16:15:52 <JoseManuel> q+
16:15:59 <JimM> q+
16:16:36 <Yolanda> ack Luc
16:16:38 <ssahoo2> luc: TR2.1 is a user requirement
16:16:45 <Yolanda> ack JoseManuel
16:17:18 <ssahoo2> jose: TR2.1 reflects the reasoning with process 
16:17:46 <ssahoo2> jose: not from exemplar use case
16:18:16 <Luc> UR2: this is not a user requirement on provenance but on processes 
16:18:56 <Yolanda> I think UR2 falls out of the scope of our use cases and we should not include it
16:19:01 <Deborah> +1 on jim's points.  i need this on much of my work
16:19:31 <ssahoo2> jim: description of process as provenance
16:19:37 <afreitas> afreitas has joined #prov-xg
16:19:41 <Deborah> is there a url we should be reviewing now?  (sorry joined late)
16:19:53 <Luc> I don't think we can enumerate all the possible kinds of reasoning/inferences we can make with provenance
16:19:54 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Requirements
16:19:54 <JoseManuel> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Requirements
16:20:46 <ssahoo2> yolanda: TR2.1 is a specific solution and may not be added to the process requirement
16:22:00 <ssahoo2> jim: UR in accountability may be modified to include derivation instead of provenance
16:22:38 <ssahoo2> jim: UR 2 and UR 3 in accountability requirement
16:24:23 <ssahoo2> paul: TR.2.1 to be removed from process requirement
16:24:50 <ivan> no...
16:24:52 <ivan> :-)
16:25:22 <JimM> maybe some requirements are for 'larger systems' including a provenance component
16:25:27 <ssahoo2> yolanda: technical requirement do not have to include existing solution
16:25:27 <JimM> versus provenance requirements
16:25:38 <Luc> q+
16:25:45 <JimM> q-
16:26:34 <ssahoo2> yolanda: provenance should be "factorizable"
16:27:10 <ssahoo2> luc: TR should be requirement with respect to provenance
16:27:22 <ssahoo2> q+
16:27:33 <JimM> q+
16:27:38 <Luc> q-
16:27:55 <Yolanda> ack ssahoo
16:28:42 <JoseManuel> The QR thing in TR2.1 is just an example not a requirement itself
16:28:50 <lkagal> +1 for Luc's point of reqs identifying what elements need to be available in provenance
16:29:55 <jun> +1 to Paul's summary
16:30:19 <ssahoo2> pual: moving to justification requirement
16:30:24 <jcheney> me neither
16:31:11 <jcheney> +q
16:31:24 <Deborah> why on ur1 does it need to be just sociological studies?  maybe just results need to justified by linking to source and intermediate data
16:32:06 <ssahoo2> james: TR should be independent of particluar domain
16:32:23 <JimM> q-
16:35:16 <ssahoo2> paul: members can help define TR for UR in justification requirement
16:35:47 <jcheney> q-
16:35:57 <ssahoo2> paul: moving to dissemination requirement
16:36:10 <Yolanda> i like the "SEE ALSO" note at the end of Justification.  Seems very useful to cross link requirements across dimensions
16:36:25 <dlm> dlm has joined #prov-xg
16:36:55 <ssahoo2> paul: good set of UR and TR for dissemination requirement
16:37:27 <Luc> I don't want to interrupt the flow of the presentation.  But I have a question. Sometimes, it's not obvious why a TR addresses a UR.  Or alternatively, there could be alternative design to address the requirement.  So the question is: how do we justify TRs?
16:37:30 <JimM> q+
16:37:31 <ssahoo2> paul: discussing accountability requirement
16:38:10 <lkagal> +q
16:39:56 <ssahoo2> jim: accountability requirement for attributing, closure on provenance information, sign statements on provenance
16:40:26 <lkagal> q-
16:40:29 <ssahoo2> jim: semantics of entities enhanced by provenance
16:40:33 <JimM> q-
16:41:32 <ssahoo2> paul: create a UR for different perspective of a process
16:41:57 <Luc> what is the notion of accounts here? OPM's?
16:42:02 <Yolanda> q+
16:42:19 <dlm> general question on how specific the urs are to be.   for example, should ur1 have the general statement of something like "allow users to verify that work meets previous agreements" and then add something like for example, verify that work is compliant with a previously signed contract
16:42:52 <ssahoo2> paul: meta provenance from contract use case
16:43:38 <ssahoo2> yolanda: talk about license in this requirement
16:43:55 <lkagal> maybe we could replace license with usage/privacy policy ?
16:44:11 <ssahoo2> jim: UR5 refers to license
16:44:24 <dlm> +1 to this point in general of how general the URs are to be.  possibly the template is write the general statement and then write a for example with respect to use case xxx, and then do the more specific statement
16:45:44 <ssahoo2> paul: need to have general statements and then specific statement with respect to use case
16:45:48 <dlm> ps.  dlm is deborah (had irc problems)
16:45:51 <JimM> Acct-UR5 tries to give the general case of which license is one example
16:46:03 <JimM> q-
16:46:09 <Yolanda> q-
16:47:15 <ssahoo2> paul: requirements to be completed by thursday next week
16:47:26 <Luc>  I wonder whether Acct-UR3 is realistic as such? Can this be decided?
16:47:52 <ssahoo2> yolanda: jim suggested for unique identifier for requirements
16:48:46 <ssahoo2> yolanda: connect with other W3C groups
16:49:45 <ssahoo2> yolanda: W3C RDB2RDF group contacted to work with this group
16:49:51 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/LinkedDataAspects
16:50:16 <JimM> yes
16:50:33 <ssahoo2> yolanda: provenance in RDB to RDF conversion process
16:50:45 <jcheney> q+
16:52:32 <dlm> I am also happy to help as a secondary
16:52:33 <ivan> s/ediburgh/edinburgh/
16:52:44 <ssahoo2> james: volunteer to liason with RDB2RDF working group
16:52:58 <dlm> I am co-organizing Linked Data meets AI along with Harry - sss meeting at stanford in march
16:53:46 <pgroth> please no :-)
16:53:50 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/ ws announcement
16:54:05 <JimM> re: Acct-UR3: I'll rephrase and we can then discuss - it doesn't mean to me now what I meant when I wrote it :-)
16:54:44 <ssahoo2> ivan: new version of RDF, workshop in june
16:55:19 <ssahoo2> ivan: issues including named graphs for provenance tracking in RDF
16:56:10 <ssahoo2> ivan: additional features in new version of RDF to address some of the TRs in the requirement document
16:56:33 <pgroth> i think we could do something
16:56:39 <pgroth> as a summary of use cases?
16:57:04 <dlm> +q
16:57:25 <ssahoo2> ivan: end of march for submission of position paper to the workshop on new version of RDF
16:57:28 <jcheney> q-
16:58:09 <pgroth> could be possible...
16:58:40 <ssahoo2> ivan: use some of the TR from the requirement document as input to the workshop
16:58:40 <JoseManuel> +1 on the synthesis of the TRs and selection
16:59:43 <JimM> a position paper could cite a req. or two that suggest a need for RDF work with a promise to talk about more...
17:00:29 <ssahoo2> deborah: requirements for provenance in linked data being presented in AAAI spring symposium
17:01:47 <ssahoo2> ivan: feedback from prov-xg on the new SPARQL document
17:03:46 <ssahoo2> ivan: couple of members create a draft for discussion in the group meeting
17:04:20 <lkagal> bye
17:04:26 <jun> bye
17:04:28 <jun> exit
17:04:35 <afreitas> exit
17:04:38 <ssahoo2> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:04:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/29-prov-xg-minutes.html ssahoo2
17:04:40 <afreitas> afreitas has left #prov-xg
17:04:40 <JoseManuel> quit
17:04:45 <michaelp> michaelp has left #prov-xg
17:05:26 <ssahoo2> yolanda - do I need to do anything else?
17:20:24 <Yolanda> other than put an entry into "past telecons on the wiki" i think that is it Satya, thanks very very much!!
17:41:47 <lkagal> lkagal has left #prov-xg
19:41:20 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov-xg
21:08:24 <mccuskej> mccuskej has left #prov-xg