15:13:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov-xg
15:13:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/10-prov-xg-irc
15:13:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:13:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov-xg
15:13:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 98765
15:13:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start 13 minutes ago
15:13:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference
15:13:38 <trackbot> Date: 10 September 2010
15:13:46 <YolandaGil> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Telecons#Scribing_for_the_Provenance_XG_Group
15:13:57 <Paolo> +q
15:14:40 <Paolo> Pgroth: lots of places where finding commonalities would help -- 
15:15:24 <Paolo> the starting place is to find a common model
15:15:24 <Luc> +q
15:15:45 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov-xg
15:15:52 <Paolo> that's smt where we can produce very quickly 
15:15:58 <Paulo> +q
15:16:08 <Paolo> Yolanda: "we" is just the members of this group
15:16:29 <Paolo> so should a group be formed focused on a model
15:17:19 <ssahoo2> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings
15:17:31 <pgroth> but there's more we could recommend than a model?
15:17:33 <pgroth> no
15:17:50 <ssahoo2> maybe with this work?
15:17:54 <Paolo> Paolo: what's the starting point for a common {model,...}
15:18:33 <Paolo> YG: W3C more likely to be keen if we nmake a case where the goal can be accomplished realistically
15:18:34 <jun> i think this is still quite broad and general. we probably need to be more specific
15:18:47 <ssahoo2> and the use cases as motivation
15:18:54 <jun> s/this/Paul's
15:19:14 <pgroth> I'm happy to be more specific
15:19:18 <pgroth> :-(
15:19:21 <pgroth> =:-)
15:19:33 <JimM> q?
15:19:50 <Paolo> Luc: in support of Paul's idea: there are many types of provenance
15:19:52 <Paolo> ack
15:20:21 <Paolo> LM: would like to see a common data model to describe provenance for complex information flows (web)
15:20:39 <Paolo> so need to qualify the type / scope of provenance we are addressing
15:20:47 <Paolo> q?
15:20:53 <Paolo> q-
15:21:46 <Paolo> LM: we have identified many models in this space. Starting from scratch would not be wise
15:21:57 <JimM> q+
15:22:09 <Paolo> let's instead start from an existing model that can be mapped to others
15:22:38 <Paolo> OPM could be a suitable starting point for (i) data model (ii) ways to access provenance -- on a realistic timeline
15:23:43 <jcheney> I have to go in a minute, but just wanted to suggest something:
15:23:48 <Paolo> YG: efforts to define common models at W3C take time to reach consensus -- 
15:24:04 <Paolo> would additional industry input give us more focus?
15:24:34 <Paolo> what would the goal be? is integration/interxchange our core goal? 
15:24:38 <ssahoo2> q+
15:24:45 <jcheney> There's "data model" for provenance (where there are several possibilities already), and there are "access" and interchange issues which could be relatively independent of the data model used.  Would a working group focus on one or both?
15:24:50 <jcheney> Sorry, got to go.
15:25:57 <Paolo> Paul: good outcome of our work so far is convergence towards a common terminology -- used to define some of the reqs and elements of the various models we looked at
15:26:24 <pgroth> +q
15:26:33 <Paolo> focusing on terminology may be a more efficient use of our time
15:27:02 <Paolo> s/Paul/Paulo
15:28:43 <Paolo> Paulo: outcome would be dictionary/ thesaurus etc. -- e.g. terms we have used for our reqs. need formalising
15:29:03 <YolandaGil> ack Luc
15:29:07 <YolandaGil> ack Paulo
15:29:13 <Paolo> Paulo: look at the DC example 
15:29:31 <JimM> provenance is critical missing infrastructure
15:29:33 <JimM> in science, business, SOA interactions, social trust, ...
15:29:46 <JimM> provenance is first and foremost about causal connections, but it is critical that it interoperate with descriptive metadata - provenance definitions often differ by how much descriptive metadata is in scope
15:30:16 <Paolo> JimM: (scribing his own verbal contribution :-) )
15:30:32 <JimM> provenance has roots in several domains - workflow, electronic records, arts, library science
15:30:54 <JimM> ProvenanceCC (causal core) - things processed through events under the control of agents within a descriptive context - the nature of processes and things differ by domain...
15:30:58 <ssahoo2> I would beg to differ with Jim here :) - provenance involves relationships beyond causal properties only
15:31:36 <JimM> provenance has network effects - provenance across systems has more value than provenance within a system
15:32:00 <ssahoo2> we have several such examples in biomedicine, sensors etc. - this was the driving reason for including more than causal relationships in the Provenir ontology
15:32:04 <JimM> there are aspects of provenance that are ready for standardization, as well as implications and extensions that will require significant research - many research aspects overlap strongly with other domains (e.g. semantic web, trust, social networking, ...)
15:33:08 <YolandaGil> ack ssahoo
15:33:14 <YolandaGil> ack JimM
15:33:32 <Paolo> ssahoo2: like the idea of starting from a common terminology, a model could be too ambitious
15:34:11 <Paolo> SS: Luc suggests Web focus, but Web is so pervasive, it would not help us focus at all 
15:34:38 <Paolo> SS: agree that OPM can be a starting point for a terminology rather than a data model
15:35:19 <Paolo> SS: causal relations are not all that there is to provenance -- we can take terms from multiple models, organised around an OPM core
15:36:00 <Paolo> YG: why hasn't this common terminology emerged so far?
15:36:10 <JimM> what is part of a data model that is not defined by terminology (what are we trying to leave out by arguing for terminology?)
15:36:45 <Paolo> SS: mapping activity is a good starting point (data, process, agent)
15:37:20 <Paolo> SS: one's (provenance) metadata is another's data
15:37:43 <Paolo> SS: so the def is necessarily app-specific
15:38:19 <Paulo> +q
15:38:59 <Paolo> SS: maybe it's just a matter of time  -- with more time a good term. would have been created
15:39:03 <ssahoo2> q-
15:39:54 <Paolo> Paul (PG): we can recommend ways to access provenance information
15:40:06 <Paolo> irrespective of how provenance is represented
15:40:09 <Paolo> q+
15:40:10 <jun> as well as the publication of provenance inforation
15:41:02 <Paolo> we need to act quickly on this or somebody else will come in with concrete proposals, which may not be as well thought out
15:41:35 <jun> it's quite urgent to have a guide about how to publish and access provenance information on the Web, NOW. but are we ready to jump over the task for creating the common data model?
15:41:54 <pgroth> I think minimum publish + access
15:41:59 <JimM> q?
15:42:01 <Paolo> YG: multiple recommendations are ok 
15:42:04 <pgroth> ack 
15:42:11 <pgroth> q-
15:42:26 <DGarijo> what about pointing to models until we find a common terminology?
15:42:41 <pgroth> but we have opm.... so why not use it?
15:42:46 <Paolo> YG: look at the RDF example: simple and quick to specify
15:42:49 <DGarijo> yeah, I agree
15:42:51 <pgroth> i mean it's not perfect but it's there
15:43:20 <YolandaGil> ack pgroth
15:43:47 <Luc> Has W3C defined terminologies before, independently of protocols or data models
15:43:59 <Luc> ?
15:44:03 <pgroth> i don't think so...
15:44:38 <Paolo> Paulo: example of terminology: OPM has its def. of causality relations, others may have a different understanding of causal relationships
15:46:09 <Paolo> Paulo: the def of causal relationship is still controversial
15:46:20 <pgroth> in general the w3c recommendations are:
15:46:24 <pgroth> 1) guidance
15:46:27 <pgroth> 2) languages
15:46:36 <pgroth> 3) apis
15:46:43 <JimM> re:causality - I think the issues are more about the types of processes being modeled versus the concept of causality
15:47:03 <JimM> OPM examples are computation/physical process heavy
15:47:23 <Paolo> Paulo: we have now come to have terms where we now better understand each other 
15:47:36 <DGarijo> I think that the intention could be represented by the role of the agent baking the cake..
15:47:48 <Paolo> and we need to make accommodations -- for the sake of being able to move on
15:47:58 <Luc> I think that Paulo is in fact making the case that a vocabulary should NOT be defined independently of  a data model. 
15:48:40 <JimM> q+
15:49:04 <Paolo> YG: focusing on big research topics such as the notion of causality may be too ambitious
15:49:28 <Luc> I agree with Yolanda. If we decide to standardize a data model, we do not have to talk about causality if we feel this not appropriate.
15:49:33 <Paolo> YG: research interests should be kept separate from practical issues of Web users
15:49:54 <JimM> there are financial causes, mental causes, physical causes ...
15:50:05 <pgroth> he just said that he didn't care
15:50:08 <ssahoo2> Properties in OPM are not adequate for expressing relationhsips in many application domains - hence I had suggested to Luc that we can take the OPM classes and add  the named relationships from Provenir ontology
15:50:31 <Paolo> Paulo: avoid using controversial terms/concepts, but choose ones that we agree on, and move on 
15:51:32 <pgroth> bio people
15:51:54 <pgroth> see youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVEPdV_warU&feature=player_embedded
15:51:59 <pgroth> :-)
15:52:11 <pgroth> what did we do with all those use cases?
15:52:33 <ssahoo2> exactly - we should have the use cases as motivation
15:53:08 <ssahoo2> a concrete use case: http://wiki.knoesis.org/index.php/Biomedical_Sciences
15:53:45 <Paolo> Paolo: think in terms of priorities
15:53:52 <pgroth> not one of us: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/06/27/the-importance-of-provenance/
15:53:57 <Paolo> of the use cases, reqs. et.c
15:55:00 <Paulo> we should indeed avoid controversial terms but we also need to know that certain terms are controversial (and this is something that people may have been silent about)
15:55:11 <YolandaGil> ack Paulo
15:55:14 <YolandaGil> ack Paolo
15:55:16 <Paolo> q-
15:55:17 <YolandaGil> ack Jim
15:55:22 <jun> we are coming up with something quick and dirty from data.gov.uk
15:56:08 <pgroth> jun: but if that's good, then if everybody used it, the better
15:56:11 <YolandaGil> Jun: do you have a description of that?  perhaps that could be considered a candidate starting point?
15:56:16 <Paolo> JM: on causality: there is a form of cause that is common to many of our processes -- mental, financial, computational....
15:56:34 <Paolo> JM: we just need to find a commonality across these
15:57:30 <Luc> q+
15:57:37 <Paolo> Paolo: practical criteria for prioritising: what's the most likely aspect of provenance that will be addressed by others if we don't ?
15:58:20 <Paolo> PG: the use cases are our valid starting point. We need to have something that gets use although not perfect. A very simple access model, for example
16:00:17 <Paolo> LM: a point on causality: it's diverting the discussion in a not useful direction -- the open process through which OPM went never criticised the term "causality", this is only recent
16:01:05 <Paolo> LM: one can give a technical answer, but to avoid controversy we can revise OPM
16:01:48 <JimM> speaking of wording: I think I've been convinced that event would be better than process...
16:02:17 <jun> sounds like a good plan
16:02:20 <Paolo> YG: what aspects of our scenarios would we want to have a common model for?
16:02:22 <pgroth> would circulating drafts help?
16:02:35 <Paolo> YG: leaving it for next call
16:03:03 <ssahoo2> would the scenarios reflect the use cases we have?
16:04:20 <Paolo> YG: what aspects of each scenario would be covered by a common model?
16:05:12 <DGarijo> thanks all, bye
16:05:19 <YolandaGil> Scribe: Paolo
16:05:21 <pgroth> luc, you got a sec?
16:05:21 <michaelp> bye
16:05:25 <YolandaGil> Chair: YolandaGil
16:05:32 <YolandaGil> rrsagent, make logs public
16:05:46 <michaelp> michaelp has left #prov-xg
16:06:09 <YolandaGil> Next week we should analyze our 3 flagship scenarios and see what aspects we should focus on for our recommendations
16:06:30 <YolandaGil> See what aspects would benefit from a common model, what terminology is diverse and needs to be defined, etc.
16:06:39 <YolandaGil> rrsagent, set log public
16:06:46 <YolandaGil> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/09/10-prov-xg-minutes.html YolandaGil
16:14:47 <YolandaGil> trackbot, end telcon
16:14:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:14:47 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:14:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:14:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/09/10-prov-xg-minutes.html trackbot
16:14:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:14:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items