14:53:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov-xg
14:53:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/16-prov-xg-irc
14:53:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:03 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov-xg
14:53:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 98765
14:53:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference
14:53:06 <trackbot> Date: 16 April 2010
14:53:11 <Yolanda> Meeting: prov-xg
14:53:19 <Yolanda>  chair: Yolanda Gil
14:53:44 <ppinheir2> ppinheir2 has joined #prov-xg
14:53:49 <Yolanda> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Apr/0011.html
14:54:38 <Yolanda> Paolo: the slides are too big to make it in the mailing list, so just post the URL
14:54:45 <Yolanda> I meant Paulo, sorry 
14:55:29 <Yolanda> zakim, who is here?
14:55:29 <Zakim> INC_PROVXG()11:00AM has not yet started, Yolanda
14:55:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see ppinheir2, Zakim, RRSAgent, Yolanda, ivan, trackbot
14:56:06 <ppinheir2> PML presentation: http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.ppt
14:56:43 <ppinheir2> PML Presentation: http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.pdf (PDF version in case someone cannot open the PPT version)
14:58:15 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov-xg
14:58:30 <DeborahMcG> DeborahMcG has joined #prov-xg
14:58:48 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov-xg
14:59:13 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov-xg
14:59:18 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov-xg
14:59:32 <Irini> Irini has joined #prov-xg
14:59:40 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov-xg
14:59:51 <DeborahMcG> Hi
15:00:02 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov-xg
15:00:29 <DeborahMcG> I am hoping that the pml discussion can be the first of the 2 discussions planned today - will that work?
15:01:01 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov-xg
15:02:32 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov-xg
15:03:13 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:03:13 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:03:48 <pgroth> getting some tweets
15:03:56 <Paolo> it's also all over twitter :-)
15:04:15 <jun> jun has joined #prov-xg
15:06:00 <pgroth> I'll do it
15:06:01 <Paolo> ok I can do it
15:06:05 <Paolo> oh, ok
15:06:09 <ppinheir2> http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.ppt
15:06:18 <pgroth> Discussion about PML
15:06:20 <Yolanda> scribe: pgroth
15:06:42 <Yolanda> scribenick: pgroth
15:06:57 <Yolanda> zakim: save agenda
15:07:20 <Yolanda> zakim, who is here?
15:07:20 <Zakim> INC_PROVXG()11:00AM has not yet started, Yolanda
15:07:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see jun, Yogesh, Luc, Christine, olaf, Irini, Paolo, SamCoppens, pgroth, DeborahMcG, ppinheir2, Zakim, RRSAgent, Yolanda, ivan, trackbot
15:07:40 <pgroth> Paulo: PML started in 2003 and was part of DAML
15:08:31 <pgroth> Paulo: pml emerged for explaining theorem prover results
15:10:02 <pgroth> Paulo: PML has expanded beyond theorem prover explanation generalized to provenance
15:12:37 <pgroth> Slide 3
15:13:41 <pgroth> Paulo: pml-p module meta-metadata: how do you annotate the trace with information
15:14:00 <pgroth> Paulo: pml-p is used for provenance
15:14:12 <pgroth> Slide 4
15:14:46 <ssahoo2> ssahoo2 has joined #prov-xg
15:16:20 <pgroth> Paulo: important point that PML provenance (PML-P) can be used with any string
15:16:27 <pgroth> Paulo: not just logical sentences
15:16:34 <pgroth> Slide 5
15:16:57 <pgroth> Paulo: use terminology from proof theory, this may cause confusion
15:17:28 <pgroth> Paulo: inference rules represent any information transformation
15:17:55 <pgroth> Slide 6
15:18:28 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov-xg
15:18:36 <pgroth> Example of PML to describe provenance of a gif
15:20:03 <pgroth> Paulo: Justifications consist of multiple inference steps which contain information about the method applied to obtain results
15:20:42 <pgroth> Paulo: OPM or PML may not be causality graphs (left to another discussion)
15:20:47 <pgroth> Slide 7
15:21:08 <Yolanda> zakim, who is making noise?
15:21:08 <Zakim> sorry, Yolanda, I don't know what conference this is
15:21:28 <pgroth> Paulo: Provenance needs to capture everything
15:21:28 <Yolanda> Ivan: why does zakim not recognize the conference? we told him :)
15:21:39 <pgroth> Slide 8
15:21:55 <pgroth> Paulo: Provenance needs to also capture manual actions by people
15:22:50 <pgroth> Slide 9
15:23:05 <pgroth> Paulo: discussing Probe-It! PML provenance browser
15:23:50 <pgroth> Slide 10: Going through example
15:25:25 <pgroth> Paulo: By going through provenance, providing information that was lost to the user when looking at end products in this case an image
15:25:31 <pgroth> Slide 11
15:25:45 <jcheney> Can someone re-send the link to the slides? (I was late)
15:25:56 <pgroth>  http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.ppt
15:26:05 <jcheney> Thanks!
15:26:55 <pgroth> Pointers to examples and tools for PML
15:27:21 <pgroth> http://Inference-Web.org
15:27:26 <DeborahMcG> from http://Inference-Web.org
15:27:26 <DeborahMcG>   one can also get to the publication list including the ones paulo sent out
15:28:49 <pgroth> PML presentation done, questions on PML
15:29:05 <pgroth> q+
15:29:26 <DeborahMcG> q+
15:29:42 <Luc> q+
15:29:54 <Yolanda> q+
15:30:49 <pgroth> paul: how can we align vocabularies given the misunderstanding with the logical proof vocabulary
15:31:23 <pgroth> paulo: writing a technical report with this mapping now. sees a benefit in aligning the vocabularies
15:31:45 <pgroth> q-
15:31:45 <pgroth> q_
15:32:15 <pgroth> deborah: requirements for pml come from a different community than opm
15:32:44 <pgroth> deborah: alignment should be a priority for this group of pml plus opm
15:33:04 <pgroth> deborah: bof meeting discussion about alignment
15:33:42 <pgroth> luc: likes the idea of the tech report
15:34:00 <pgroth> luc: were you able to do the mapping in pc3
15:34:10 <pgroth> paulo: yes with limited restrictions
15:34:26 <pgroth> luc: what about time? can you link dependencies and time?
15:34:31 <DeborahMcG> there were two independent efforts using PML in the PC3 and both had solutions to the issue
15:35:18 <pgroth> paulo: we do not enforce constraints but can specify it at different levels
15:36:12 <pgroth> paulo: no restrictions on what you can write in pml, allow for inconsistencies 
15:36:59 <pgroth> luc: consistency check for causality and time is in opm and is well defined
15:37:21 <pgroth> paulo: consistency check lies on top of pml, not within pml
15:38:26 <pgroth> yolanda: missing from PML an articulation from PML about requirements
15:38:43 <pgroth> yolanda: group would like to see requirements for inference from PML
15:39:38 <pgroth> yolanda: have not captured use cases that reflect requirements for inference
15:39:54 <pgroth> yolanda: PML group should share requirements
15:40:21 <pgroth> yolanda: requirements as use cases
15:40:41 <pgroth> paulo: should be consolidated as requirements
15:40:47 <DeborahMcG> http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-04-03.html  was the first paper that described requirements - not in use case form though.
15:41:14 <pgroth> paulo: would nice to get some feedback from others
15:41:31 <DeborahMcG> i am willing to do co-do a use case or a few.
15:41:41 <pgroth> yolanda: justification and proof use cases would be nice
15:41:58 <pgroth> Second topic: planning the state of the art
15:42:20 <pgroth> yolanda: we've been going over technology
15:42:29 <pgroth> yolanda: has some ideas in organization
15:42:51 <pgroth> yolanda: task force idea from jun
15:43:07 <pgroth> yolanda: go around the group and get ideas for organization
15:43:32 <pgroth> yolanda: more linked to requirements document the better
15:43:43 <pgroth> going around the call getting ideas
15:43:51 <ppinheir2> I would like to thank the group for your feedback
15:44:33 <pgroth> and contributions
15:44:53 <pgroth> ssahoo2: agree with the proposal would like to be part of the management task force
15:45:19 <pgroth> paulo: concern about these task force integration
15:45:38 <pgroth> paulo: but to get things moving agrees
15:46:29 <SamCoppens> q+
15:47:35 <pgroth> paul: would like to see connection to technical and user requirements
15:47:58 <pgroth> paul: contribute to the use part
15:48:16 <pgroth> but what about requirements!
15:48:17 <pgroth> :-)
15:48:28 <pgroth> olaf: makes sense to me
15:48:35 <pgroth> olaf: join the use task force
15:49:15 <pgroth> jun: how to organize the meetings, every subgroup have a meeting each week
15:49:28 <koalie> koalie has joined #prov-xg
15:49:29 <pgroth> jun: interested in management or use
15:50:28 <Yolanda> hi Coralie
15:50:38 <Yolanda> can you see the history of the thread?
15:50:40 <Yolanda> yes we still do
15:51:03 <Irini> +1 for james
15:51:03 <koalie> Zakim, what conferences?
15:51:03 <Zakim> I see XML_SchemaWG()11:00AM, INC_PROVXG()11:00AM active
15:51:05 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are Team_(e-xs)13:30Z, Team_(cssf)14:57Z
15:51:05 <pgroth> jcheney: another suggestion, thought the state of the art report would come from experts
15:51:22 <pgroth> jcheney: what would it entail to be on management?
15:51:23 <Paolo> +1 for James' proposal
15:51:26 <koalie> Zakim, this is inc_provxg
15:51:26 <Zakim> ok, koalie; that matches INC_PROVXG()11:00AM
15:51:28 <ppinheir2>  interested in joining the  content task force
15:51:42 <pgroth> jcheney: divide content by expertise
15:51:56 <koalie> Zakim, who's making noise?
15:52:07 <Zakim> koalie, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:52:17 <pgroth> yolanda: preference not to split the topics by technology
15:53:04 <koalie> koalie has left #prov-xg
15:53:08 <Irini> +q
15:53:16 <pgroth> sam: ok with the task force division
15:53:27 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov-xg
15:53:35 <pgroth> sam: would be on the content or use task force
15:53:46 <pgroth> Paolo?
15:54:23 <pgroth> paolo: concerned that the task force structure to much splitting
15:54:38 <pgroth> paolo: not sure he would want to commit to a particular group
15:55:30 <pgroth> paolo: there are state of the art surveys already
15:55:34 <pgroth> paolo: can we use those?
15:56:03 <pgroth> luc: i don't understand the split between three task forces
15:56:09 <pgroth> luc: what do we want to produce?
15:56:23 <pgroth> luc: agree with paolo problem with integration
15:56:40 <pgroth> luc: expertise in technologies and not in specific facets of provenance
15:57:22 <pgroth> luc: what would be useful is a matrix: technologies | requirements
15:57:42 <pgroth> luc: how does each technology match each requirements
15:57:51 <ppinheir2> q+
15:58:12 <SamCoppens> q-
15:58:46 <pgroth> luc: division in task force is not very useful until we identify what we produce
15:58:58 <pgroth> irini: agree with james, paolo and luc
15:59:24 <pgroth> irini: cannot understand how dividing the task force on the dimensions will help
15:59:52 <pgroth> irini: divide along expertise lines
16:01:06 <pgroth> christine it's bad...
16:01:27 <Christine> I'll type instead. Please continue conversation.
16:01:43 <Yolanda> ok thanks
16:01:50 <Yogesh> Wonder if I'm visible in the user list....got skipped when going round the table :)
16:02:05 <pgroth> yogesh?
16:02:17 <pgroth> Yolanda: worried about splitting the group
16:02:29 <Paolo> @yogesh -- you weren't until a little while ago -- shout! :-)
16:02:41 <pgroth> Yolanda: worried about not capturing the synergies
16:02:52 <ppinheir2> i have a proposal
16:02:54 <pgroth> Yolanda: structure along the requirements we had
16:03:15 <pgroth> Yolanda: we have had a nice flow 
16:03:32 <pgroth> Yolanda: matrix technology vs. requirements 
16:03:38 <pgroth> is a good idea
16:04:14 <pgroth> Yolanda: the reason to split the document is to divide the work
16:04:21 <pgroth> Yolanda: we need to start writing and producing
16:04:36 <Christine> Given that my background is law/policy, I am probably most useful helping to ensure that the report is accessible to people outside the provenance field, particularly regarding provenance use; our definition of provenance etc. 
16:04:47 <Yogesh> I like the splitup of the topics...But I'd like to get a better idea or even outline of what the 'state of the art' looks like...feel I'd fit into the 'management' taskforce
16:05:08 <pgroth> Can we not have both
16:05:09 <pgroth> ?
16:05:36 <pgroth> So organize by dimensions: but have contributions from experts
16:06:09 <Paolo> hopefully we'll continue this on the list?
16:06:16 <pgroth> +1
16:06:32 <pgroth> Yolanda: cover this topic next week
16:07:01 <pgroth> go with the mailing list I think
16:07:24 <ivan> zakim, drop me
16:07:24 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
16:07:26 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:07:27 <Zakim> - +1.706.461.aahh
16:07:38 <Zakim> -Yolanda
16:07:40 <Zakim> - +1.915.747.aaaa
16:07:41 <Zakim> - +1.540.449.aaee
16:07:41 <Zakim> - +30281039aacc
16:07:42 <Zakim> -??P18
16:07:43 <Zakim> -Luc
16:07:44 <Zakim> - +49.308.937.aadd
16:07:45 <Zakim> - +41.22.807.aabb
16:07:45 <Zakim> -??P10
16:07:47 <Zakim> -??P14
16:07:49 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:08:03 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:08:10 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:08:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/16-prov-xg-minutes.html pgroth
16:08:22 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:08:22 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:08:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.915.747.aaaa, Yolanda, SamCoppens, +41.22.807.aabb, +30281039aacc, Luc, +49.308.937.aadd, +1.540.449.aaee, +1.518.763.aaff, Ivan,
16:08:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:08:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/16-prov-xg-minutes.html trackbot
16:08:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:08:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:08:26 <Zakim> ... +1.862.659.aagg, +1.706.461.aahh