Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference

02 Jul 2010


See also: IRC log


+1.619.223.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.238.059.aabb, +49.302.093.aacc, +30281039aadd, jcheney, kai, olaf
Yolanda Gil
James Cheney


<trackbot> Date: 02 July 2010

no prob


<YolandaGil> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_Disease_Outbreak_Scenario

<pgroth> james?

<pgroth> you on the phone?

i just hung up accidentally

<YolandaGil> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_Disease_Outbreak_Scenario

James: no progress on scenario #2

Yolanda: nest topic: tagging

(oops: nest/next)

<scribe> Scribe: James Cheney

<scribe> ScribeNick: jcheney

Yolanda: goal is to identify major tags for research / state of art categorization

<YolandaGil> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Bibliography_Tags#Provenance_dimensions

Yolanda: placed notes/tags in wiki page
... organize by application areas (or link to them)

<pgroth> +q

Yolanda: stable set of tags over next few weeks

Paul: Can have as many tags as we want (multi-words)
... for mapping to specific technical requirements, identify which requirements satisfied by which techniques
... use "names" of TRs/URs as tags?

Yolanda: Prefer human-readable tags

Paul: Can have both (by linking tags to useful descriptions)

<YolandaGil> ack

<Christine> No comments as yet

Yolanda: Will ask everyone for comments on tags

Daniel: Wondering who will do the tagging

Yolanda: Everyone (anyone)

Irini: Happy with both human readable and other tags

<pgroth> +1

James: might try a little tagging first to get a feel for what we really need

Jim: try using existing list organically and adapt

<Irini> +1 for James

Kai: prefer human readable tags (?)

<kai> if i had to choose, yes

Olaf: Use provenance dimensions for general level, then add specific tags

<pgroth> +1

Paul: Clarify that people can tag however they want to get started
... Can use both "compact" (C-ATTR-TR1) tags and high-level word tags

Sam: Agree with Olaf's suggestion

Yolanda: OK, let's go with flexible tagging (up to each person), 2 levels rather than 3
... How to situate work/organize collection? Useful to have papers organized along dimensions (content, use, management)

<olaf> +1

Yolanda: minimal tags will help focus/prepare report

<Dgarijo> yes

Yolanda: Start by tagging each with one of content, management, use?

<olaf> +q

Olaf: Tagging with dimensions OK, but tagging by scenarios seems hard to do

Yolanda: Why difficult?

Olaf: Scenarios may not be portable to other groups, future efforts

<pgroth> but the point is that you can tag anything

Yolanda: Main use is for us in preparing report

<pgroth> well, is it that hard?

Yolanda: Are people happy with minimal tags?

<Christine> Not sure yet

<jun> agree with not mentioning scenarios in the tag

<Christine> I wonder whether tagging a couple of particular aspects of the scenarios might be useful for people who are looking for info in particular areas, rather than the scenario itself

james: tag dimensions and (orthogonal) research areas?

Jim: Scenario tagging seems harder/noisier

Jun: does it make sense to tag based on area (web, database, workflow)?

Yolanda: Should research area be part of minimal tags?

Kai: Would rather use dimensions, but it's tagging, can be flexible

Olaf: Research areas need not be required, but suggest we do have some minimal required tags

<Jim> have to drop off early - have a good weekend!

Paul: Dimensions minimal, but hope that people will add more. Why look at the paper twice?

Sam: agree on dimensions as minimum required tags, for categorization

Irini: research tags: differences between data and wf provenance, between different models within areas, which already have standard terminology

<pgroth> a bit much?

Irini: propose terminology for other areas?

Yolanda: Who has mendelay account? What do we do?

Paul: If you have account, Mendelay desktop,
... subscribe to provenance xg collection
... each paper has a tags field

<olaf> is it Free Software?

Yolanda: Do tags have author provenance?

Paul: they don't

Yolanda: Instructions on wiki page for people who aren't here?

<pgroth> they do

<pgroth> the software is free

<pgroth> (not open source) but free

<jun> http://www.slideshare.net/junzhao/2010-06-rdfnext

Yolanda: Jun will give report on rdf workshop

Jun: During workshop, people teased out/classified requirements (core or not)
... Our identity / named graph requirements have been accepted as "core"
... others as "infrastructure"
... requirements were well received; discussed what needs to be done for RDF core in future
... annotation framework for provenance a core topic for second day
... other groups had strong requirements for named graphs, annotations

<jun> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Charter_2010

Jun: ours stood out as clear for community

<jun> http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table

Jun: Posted results of workshop to list (URL above)
... Shows core charter for vote to w3c members
... Second shows vote among workshop attendees
... showing identity, named graphs important to many
... so may happen sooner
... Would people be interested in contributing/redrafting charter?
... Standardization of JSON, subject literals
... No one quite understands why/why not, hopes someone else will resolve
... Extend RDF semantics, keep compatible?
... Workshop not married to current RDF, but don't want to break SPARQL

<pgroth> olaf

zakim who is noisy

<pgroth> ?

scribe: What kind of querying do we (prov-xg) need from RDF?

<olaf> Sorry - it must be the US bridge

scribe: Good outcomes in that named graphs increased in priority

<pgroth> +q

Yolanda: Any questions?

Paul: Any other issues besides named graphs that looked interesting to us (prov-xg)?

Jun: Blank nodes were discussed, but may be more of an implementation issue
... A few papers we should add to state of the art report, about annotations of rdf graphs
... RDF community does not view annotation as a core issue.
... Want to do named graphs, syntax, semantics right.
... Relies on someone to write best practices for provenance/annotation

Yolanda: Noticed there were other papers talking about provenance. Did they bring up new issues/requirements?

Jun: Other papers agreed on named graphs/identity
... Paper on changeset: Wasn't clear what they want to do, but want to model changes/updates to graphs
... Another paper proposed annotation framework, need named graphs and explicit semantics

<pgroth> ack

Yolanda: That's it for today. Topics for next week?

<pgroth> who is writing the state of the art?

<jun> the vocabulary mapping work?

<pgroth> probably not

<Christine> Someone may have to show me what to do

James: suggest everyone try to tag 2-3 papers

trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/07/02 16:09:13 $

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: James Cheney
Found ScribeNick: jcheney

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: +1.619.223.aaaa, [IPcaller], +44.238.059.aabb, +49.302.093.aacc, +30281039aadd, jcheney, kai, olaf
Present: +1.619.223.aaaa [IPcaller] +44.238.059.aabb +49.302.093.aacc +30281039aadd jcheney kai olaf
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Jul/
Found Date: 02 Jul 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-prov-xg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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]