Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference

16 Apr 2010


See also: IRC log


+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
Yolanda Gil


<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2010

<Yolanda> Meeting: prov-xg

<Yolanda> Paolo: the slides are too big to make it in the mailing list, so just post the URL

<Yolanda> I meant Paulo, sorry

<ppinheir2> PML presentation: http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.ppt

<ppinheir2> PML Presentation: http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.pdf (PDF version in case someone cannot open the PPT version)

<DeborahMcG> Hi

<DeborahMcG> I am hoping that the pml discussion can be the first of the 2 discussions planned today - will that work?

getting some tweets

<Paolo> it's also all over twitter :-)

I'll do it

<Paolo> ok I can do it

<Paolo> oh, ok

<ppinheir2> http://trust.utep.edu/2010/PMLProvenance.ppt

Discussion about PML

<Yolanda> scribe: pgroth

<Yolanda> scribenick: pgroth

<Yolanda> zakim: save agenda

Paulo: PML started in 2003 and was part of DAML
... pml emerged for explaining theorem prover results
... PML has expanded beyond theorem prover explanation generalized to provenance

Slide 3

Paulo: pml-p module meta-metadata: how do you annotate the trace with information
... pml-p is used for provenance

Slide 4

Paulo: important point that PML provenance (PML-P) can be used with any string
... not just logical sentences

Slide 5

Paulo: use terminology from proof theory, this may cause confusion
... inference rules represent any information transformation

Slide 6

Example of PML to describe provenance of a gif

Paulo: Justifications consist of multiple inference steps which contain information about the method applied to obtain results
... OPM or PML may not be causality graphs (left to another discussion)

Slide 7

Paulo: Provenance needs to capture everything

<Yolanda> Ivan: why does zakim not recognize the conference? we told him :)

Slide 8

Paulo: Provenance needs to also capture manual actions by people

Slide 9

Paulo: discussing Probe-It! PML provenance browser

Slide 10: Going through example

Paulo: By going through provenance, providing information that was lost to the user when looking at end products in this case an image

Slide 11

<jcheney> Can someone re-send the link to the slides? (I was late)


<jcheney> Thanks!

Pointers to examples and tools for PML


<DeborahMcG> from http://Inference-Web.org

<DeborahMcG> one can also get to the publication list including the ones paulo sent out

PML presentation done, questions on PML

paul: how can we align vocabularies given the misunderstanding with the logical proof vocabulary

paulo: writing a technical report with this mapping now. sees a benefit in aligning the vocabularies


deborah: requirements for pml come from a different community than opm
... alignment should be a priority for this group of pml plus opm
... bof meeting discussion about alignment

luc: likes the idea of the tech report
... were you able to do the mapping in pc3

paulo: yes with limited restrictions

luc: what about time? can you link dependencies and time?

<DeborahMcG> there were two independent efforts using PML in the PC3 and both had solutions to the issue

paulo: we do not enforce constraints but can specify it at different levels
... no restrictions on what you can write in pml, allow for inconsistencies

luc: consistency check for causality and time is in opm and is well defined

paulo: consistency check lies on top of pml, not within pml

yolanda: missing from PML an articulation from PML about requirements
... group would like to see requirements for inference from PML
... have not captured use cases that reflect requirements for inference
... PML group should share requirements
... requirements as use cases

paulo: should be consolidated as requirements

<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.

paulo: would nice to get some feedback from others

<DeborahMcG> i am willing to do co-do a use case or a few.

yolanda: justification and proof use cases would be nice

Second topic: planning the state of the art

yolanda: we've been going over technology
... has some ideas in organization
... task force idea from jun
... go around the group and get ideas for organization
... more linked to requirements document the better

going around the call getting ideas

<ppinheir2> I would like to thank the group for your feedback

and contributions

ssahoo2: agree with the proposal would like to be part of the management task force

paulo: concern about these task force integration
... but to get things moving agrees

paul: would like to see connection to technical and user requirements
... contribute to the use part

but what about requirements!


olaf: makes sense to me
... join the use task force

jun: how to organize the meetings, every subgroup have a meeting each week
... interested in management or use

<Yolanda> hi Coralie

<Yolanda> can you see the history of the thread?

<Yolanda> yes we still do

<Irini> +1 for james

jcheney: another suggestion, thought the state of the art report would come from experts
... what would it entail to be on management?

<Paolo> +1 for James' proposal

<ppinheir2> interested in joining the content task force

jcheney: divide content by expertise

yolanda: preference not to split the topics by technology

<Irini> +q

sam: ok with the task force division
... would be on the content or use task force


paolo: concerned that the task force structure to much splitting
... not sure he would want to commit to a particular group
... there are state of the art surveys already
... can we use those?

luc: i don't understand the split between three task forces
... what do we want to produce?
... agree with paolo problem with integration
... expertise in technologies and not in specific facets of provenance
... what would be useful is a matrix: technologies | requirements
... how does each technology match each requirements
... division in task force is not very useful until we identify what we produce

irini: agree with james, paolo and luc
... cannot understand how dividing the task force on the dimensions will help
... divide along expertise lines

christine it's bad...

<Christine> I'll type instead. Please continue conversation.

<Yolanda> ok thanks

<Yogesh> Wonder if I'm visible in the user list....got skipped when going round the table :)


Yolanda: worried about splitting the group

<Paolo> @yogesh -- you weren't until a little while ago -- shout! :-)

Yolanda: worried about not capturing the synergies

<ppinheir2> i have a proposal

Yolanda: structure along the requirements we had
... we have had a nice flow
... matrix technology vs. requirements

is a good idea

Yolanda: the reason to split the document is to divide the work
... we need to start writing and producing

<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.

<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

Can we not have both


So organize by dimensions: but have contributions from experts

<Paolo> hopefully we'll continue this on the list?


Yolanda: cover this topic next week

go with the mailing list I think

trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/04/16 16:08:29 $

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)

Found Scribe: pgroth
Found ScribeNick: pgroth

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: +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
Present: +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
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Apr/0011.html
Found Date: 16 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/16-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]