Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference

09 Apr 2010

See also: IRC log




<Yolanda> thanks Simon!!

<trackbot> Date: 09 April 2010

<Yogesh> who's on the phone?

<Paolo> looks like the phone is not monitored

Paul: We've cleaned up user requirements document, addressed comments (see talk section on requirements clean page)
... This version can be passed around and published - let us know good possible venues
... Three scenarios collated from use cases, then how affects requirements by provenance dimension

Yolanda: if acknowledgements do not reflect your contributions, let us know

<pgroth> This is at: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements

Yolanda: Best way to disseminate it?

Ivan: Can produce document to put on Wiki, but in final format
... Can publish at end of XG as part of report, but could formally publish now also

Yolanda: Advantage of waiting would be to allow updates, but wouldn't get early feedback on anything missing

Ivan: Can put on activity blog on its availability

<pgroth> I'm happy with that

Paul: Wants to add figures, do not want to freeze it yet

Yolanda: Next item: RDF Next Steps workshop paper

Jun: 2 weeks ago talked about submitting group paper to this workshop, had telecon to brainstorm

<jun> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~zool0770/papers/RDFNextStep_ProvXG-v10.pdf

Jun: Draft, almost final, paper ready - to submit Sunday
... Sorry was not possible to get everyone involved: too hard to coordinate larger group (contact me if something missed out)
... Target audience is Next Gen RDF working group
... Brief intro on incubator group; use case, requirement gathering process; articulate RDF-relevant provenance requirements; two short messages: need good mechanism in RDF to ID artifacts and graphs in provenance, need standard pattern/practice for provenance of RDF graphs
... Good to get feedback from group on messages
... Not thorough state of the art report, just try to list many technologies and link to Wiki page - if something missing, please say

<pgroth> +q

<Luc> +q

Jun: Feedback needed today, no major revisions at weekend


Paul: Why does standard pattern/practice relate to RDF group?

Jun: Expression, vocabulary of provenance of RDF graph - lots of different attempts exist - doesn't rule out contribution of our group not specific to technology

Luc: Currently RDF has no notion of provenance; in user reqs we did not refer to provenance coz trying to justify need for provenance
... Same applies: requirements on RDF should not be expressed in terms of provenance
... Not within RDF (WG) to provide mechanism for provenance, as RDF does not include provenance, for provenance group

Chris: Need from RDF WG is to represent metainformation about RDF data, to allow provenance, defined by provenance group, as one application of this

Luc: Current paper does not really explain why this metadata is required from a provenance perspective explicitly enough
... With OPM, encountered need for metadata on RDF graphs with more concrete requirements

<DeborahMcG> +1 to luc's comments

Luc: In context of OPM, could see RDF encoding prov graph, requirements from scoping, annotating graphs; also from wanting provenance of triples

<DeborahMcG> I need also to encode provenance graphs, need provenance of triples, and need provenance of provenance - all of this is not from the opm perspective but from the pml perspective

<Irini> +q

Jun: Tried to express these in paper need for identifying, annotating graphs

<DeborahMcG> yes - i need annotation of annotations.

Luc: Cannot be as precise without specific provenance model; no agreement on provenance as graphs

<ssahoo> agree with Chris on this point

Chris: Did not propose or judge mechanism, but listed mechanisms; only a short position paper; clearly make statement that work needs to be done, not actually do the work

<pgroth> give examples

Yolanda: Could be more specific on our own experiences with state of art

<DeborahMcG> sorry i am about to drop audio. i agree that judging proposals is hopeless. we might just say that the working group is willing to provide examples of challenges with at least some of our extensive provenance efforts(but not include them in this document)

Jun: Would be good to include everyone's experiences but no time or space

Irini: RDF is solely a data model, to add provenance could add such metainformation but then requires provenance of query results: not part of RDF group's work

Jun: Agree specific techs for provenance is in prov group not RDF group

Irini: Need to include discussion of how to express provenance of query of results; maybe too much focus on workflow provenance

Jun: Mention requirements on querying provenance in paper, but outside scope

Irini: Not about querying provenance, but provenance of query results

Jun: Not much further comment on this, may be relevant to SPARQL WG

Ivan: (as chair of workshop) Workshop looking for position paper, identifying requirements on RDF, RDF environments, not solutions to all problems
... At the moment, do not have RDF WG, provenance WG; workshop to identify what work W3C should do
... an RDF WG would not come up with patterns, practice; but identify where W3C would coordinate where such patterns collected (e.g. XG Wiki)

Paolo: workshop already achieved some of its goals in this group by triggering thinking about what activity needs to take place and where; position paper not 50 page report, we will follow with more mature document to inform future activity; this exercise should not bind us

<Paolo> ack

Yolanda: Agrees with Paolo, hard enough to get this paper out, but clear in purpose
... Discuss state of art in next telecon
... F2F meeting: Most who will attend can be there Sunday, some continue on Monday

<pgroth> planning for technical requirements

Yolanda: Possibility to join by telecon, but cheaper if no one will - will send message
... One topic is to converge on working definition on provenance
... Another to create concept map of existing provenance systems
... Patterns for provenance for user
... What is the object of provenance (what is it the provenance of)?

<pgroth> the definition will take the whole day

<pgroth> :-)

<jun> +1

Yolanda: Next week, presentation on PML
... Then planning state of the art

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/04/09 16:01:51 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: smiles
Inferring Scribes: smiles

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Chris Christine DeborahMcG Irini Ivan Luc Paolo Paul SamCoppens Yogesh Yolanda jcheney joined jun pgroth prov-xg raphael smiles ssahoo trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 09 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/09-prov-xg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]