See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 24 September 2010
I can scribe.
But please do all the technical things for me.
<smiles> I'm afraid I will have to leave the call early: 4.30pm
<YolandaGil> Scribe: Christine
Yolanda; Will discuss putting together the final report and the defn of provenance.
<pgroth> did you see that mendeley came out with public sharing
Yolanda: Paolo has been working on importing Mendelay collection to B (?)
Paolo: Need a protocol to keep updated.
<Paolo> @Paul does that mean the 10 mmbers limit is gone?
<Paolo> @Paul will read that again later
Simon: Looked a scenario for core
recommendations different to news aggregator - 2 different
aspects - a procedure that has been enacted so can compare with
requirements - perhaps need a standard whay to represent a
procedure that has been enacted.
... the second one - commonlaity of derivation of two sources - do 2 things come from the same source?
... Some aspects re management of provenance might go beyond what we want to recommend - but some things like selective disclosure
... also guaranteed usability of provenance
? Some comments to provided by email. 2nd scenario provenance of provenance but 3rd scenario might lead to a recommendation - usable as a record
Yolanda: Provenance as a record - not using that exact terminology - need to be able to express the provenance of provenance - maybe refine this
Is selective disclosure a recommendation?
Yolanda: propose as a separate
... See recommendation 3 - I thought we agreed - 1st scenario core requirements, 2nd adds to that and 3rd adds to that - assume if in 1st scenario will be relevant to the others
Discussing mechanism to show provenance has not changed
Immutability vs, non-repudiation of provenance
Signable provenance for non-repudiation
Conclusion? - the 3 management points are already covered by recommendations 2 and 3?
Yolanda: yes, 2, 3 ,4
Yolanda: Re disease outbreak
scenario - those 2 recommendations were the major ones
... We did not discuss last week - the use of policies mentioned in the scenario
... This scenario highlights more data aggregation (from different sources) - should we have an item that specifically states this - provenance may be more detailed - more vocabulary may be needed?
Irini: For disease outbreak scenario - important to mention data integration - database area there has been a lot of work re provenance at different levels of granularity - queries - we should look at the work done for relational databases
Yolanda: We have not highlighted time or the issue of handling different versions of information as it changes over time - wonder if it should be captured somewhere
? question about time - time of artefact may not match the time you record the provenance
Yolanda: in the 2nd
recommendation we mention time
... we need to be more specific which time
Paolo: Need to have the distinction to work in different ways
? May be captured by recommendation 4
Yolanda: We will make that more explicit
Paul: related to time is the
notion of versioning
... Does it come up in the business case scenario?
Yolanda: yes - in the last paragraph of the disease outbreak scenario
Paul: recommendation 5 is very specific but 1-3 recommendations (coarse grained provenance) then there is versioning
Yolanda: Maybe useful to have something about versioning
Paul: or mention versioning in the explanation of recommendation 5
? in the OPM profile space - would argue should go out to standard ontologies
? business contract scenario raise versioning
<ssahoo2> Is there is a connection between granurality of provenance and versioning?
Paul: Need to resolve what we are going to say re versioning
<smiles> sorry, but i'd better go. thanks, simon
<ssahoo2> I think we should mention versioning explicitly in the recommendation
Yolanda: If look at
recommendations as they are now - we need a theme and all these
would be themes - maybe provenance is important for the web and
recommend pursue provenance in these ways ...
... Different priorities for recommendations?
<Paolo> +1 for attaching priorities
Yolanda: Core of provenance representations for the web? and maybe extensions
<ssahoo2> I think recommendation 1,2,3, and 7 have higher priority than others
Satya: how to represent the provenance information (1) and (2) how to access provenance and (7)
Sam: Like the idea of versioning - might be good to keep manageable by prioritising them
Paul: Priority 1 is rec 3 then 1 then 2
Paulo: we need to revisit some of the foundations
Yolanda: perhaps an email to the list with details
<Paolo> I just got temp disconnected
<Paolo> but have been on the phone
Luc: broadly in agreement with Paul re priorities - but need to do at a higher level - provenance is very broad - solve core but not everything
Yolanda: which items would be more amenable to be part of the core?
Luc: agreed with Paul's prioritization
<SamCoppens> I would suggest 1, 3, 2 for the core
Jun: rec 4 - 7 seem to be quite specific - before we can do that we don't have the foundation for the semantic web community - standardisation of representation of provenance info - 3 and 1 are my priorities
<pgroth> 3 isn't query, it's access
Paolo: rec 1, 2, 3 are the baseline/foundation - placeholders 1 for data model, 2 .. 3 being open to other models - they are the baseline
<pgroth> would hate to specify a query mechanism
<Jose_> IMO 1,3,2 first, then 5,6,4,7
<JimM> core, integration with DC, versions, metadata, records, access control
Jim: generally agree that there
is some core of things going through processes - integration
with external metadata needs to be there - records is something
we have not addressed a lot and is a key thing (particularly
... some things around reasoning and granularity
<JimM> what's out for standardization - reasoning between witnesses, assessing reproducable research, inference over granularity
Irini: agree with Luc and Paolo - priorities are different for different contexts - e.g. 5 then 3 for linked data SPARQL
Yolanda: clear focus of the group 1, 2 ,3 in different orders - Paolo summarised quite well - data model, query model and open model
Yolanda: other areas require more work, more research
<Luc> is it query model or query language?
<Luc> designing a query language is a hard task!
Paul: a query model/approach - I
though the recommendation was about access or making
information available - prefer not to call query
... difference between access and query language
<ssahoo2> access vs. retrieval mechanism?
Paolo: access is too broad - there should be an element of selectivity - to be able to specify what you want - query too specific
Irini: explaining previous comment ... sparql language can be used for queries to produce provenance information - want fined grained so I can reproduce my results...
Yolanda: pls write a paragraph to illustrate that different recommendations may be relevant for different circumstances
Yolanda: useful call - discuss provenance defn next time - we have a page on the website (see agenda) - it has a few definitions - question is whether we will be able to come up with one defn as a group
Christine: for outside the provenance community it would be helpful to have one definition
Yolanda: we will discuss this
next week - also look at what provenance is not
... thank you
<YolandaGil> Christine: i'll take on from here, many many thanks for scribing!!
<YolandaGil> ScribeNick: Christine
<YolandaGil> trackbot, end telcon
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: Christine Inferring ScribeNick: Christine Found ScribeNick: Christine WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Christine> ... WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: smiles, JimM, Paolo, [IPcaller], krp, YolandaGil, +1.216.368.aaaa, jun, +1.915.603.aabb, +188.8.131.52.aacc, +30281039aadd, +1.915.747.aaee Present: smiles JimM Paolo [IPcaller] krp YolandaGil +1.216.368.aaaa jun +1.915.603.aabb +184.108.40.206.aacc +30281039aadd +1.915.747.aaee Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Sep/0019.html Found Date: 24 Sep 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/24-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]