See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 22 October 2010
<scribe> Scribe: Luc Moreau
<scribe> ScribeNick: Luc
<YolandaGil> thanks Luc!!
Yolanda: discuss goals for a WG recommendation
Paolo: swpm workshop coming soon Nov 7th(?)
yolanda: structure discussion in
... 1. goal, target, scope for WG
2yolanda: 2. specific deliverables
<YolandaGil> 1. What would be the objectives of the WG? a. define a provenance exchange language and protocol to publish and access provenance
<ssahoo2> SWPM Workshop at ISWC 2010: http://wiki.knoesis.org/index.php/SWPM-2010
<pgroth> there's lots of echos
<jcheney> seems better now...
<YolandaGil> b. the scope of this language will be any web resource, not be just semantic web objects
<YolandaGil> c. the exchange language should be accessible, therefore it should be simple
<YolandaGil> d. it should allow for extensions (ie, species/profiles, integration of other more expressive/complementary vocabularies/frameworks)
yolanda: accessible to people who
are not provenance experts
... be able to integrate more expressive frameworks
<YolandaGil> e. the WG should produce an early draft (in 8 mo?) and end within a few months (in 18 mo?)
yolanda: e.g. identity,
... these are the kinds of possible goals that have been brought up recently. Maybe there are others?
<smiles> i agree that those goals sound good
James: goals seem reasonable, we
should point out there may be other issues not in the remit of
this WG(e.g. deep web)
... accessibility: getting users (lifescience, bioinformatics, others) involved to leverage their experience
Paulo: in general agrees with the
... accessibility: make provenance ubiquitous
... beyond the provenance research community
... goal must include scalability
Paolo: strong focus on modeling provenance, not so much in engineering of provenance
Paolo: can we confirm engineering
is out of scope (despite being interesting problem)
... sees scope beyond Web resources, e.g. scientific data, not on the web
Paul: accessibility means "getting at the provenance", not "easy to understand"????
<ssahoo2> Agree with Paolo on broadening the scope to include all types of resources especially scientific data
Yolanda: does not require steep learning curve
Paul: accessibility is often understood as accessibility to disabled persons
<Paolo> @pgroth: I agree that it is out of scope -- although that's where the research is IMHO
Paul: we don't know enough about engineering, so we can't standardize it. So, out of scope.
Jun: provenance easy to learn,
easy to access
... why restrict to web resources, why not physical objects?
<ssahoo2> Jun: What about digital representation of physical objects?
Yolanda: should the framework be applicable to a warehouse not on the web for instance?
Jun: yes, it would be better to broaden up the scope
Yolanda: what is challenging for data create off the web?
Satya: maybe we can impose engineering constraint, e.g. having a URL/URI?
<Paolo> I'm not jumping in but my question is, is the web qualification necessary at all?
<jcheney> I think it would be good to keep a narrow focus, while leaving open the possibility of applications to non-Web artifacts, maybe via a vocabulary or extension...
Jun: there are cases of applications without web connectivity, without uri, etc, they could not use a provenance standard that focuses on provenance of data on the web.
<Paolo> @yolanda: yes
Jun: why did OPMers define artifacts to include physical objects?
<ssahoo2> Sorry I have to leave now
Paolo: can we simply just drop the word "Web" in "Web resource"?
Paulo: PDF, an example of something fairly complex, but universally usable. Are we going to promise simplicity? Risky
Paulo: concern about promising something easy to learn
YOlanda: easy to use (for
something easy), but may require complexity for complex
... low entry point
Paul: adoption, if "easy" to
... we should make it as simple as possible, for adoption
Daniel: the goals are OK
Irini: accessibility for broader
w3c public is important
... otherwise goals are fine
Christine: where possible, standards should be as simple as possible
Yloanda: can we talk about the timeline?
Ylolanda: should we try to put something out within a year? or instead, should we go for two years, and sort lots of things out
Yolanda: what can we realisatically do (this should take into consideration our availability and ability to contribute to a WG)?
Paul: we should aim at something
simple, as fast as possible
... 1 year pushing hard, 18 months max to get a standard out
Paul: people are waiting for somebody with authorithy
I was kicked out, dialing in!
Simon: publicize group as soon as early
Paolo: perception is
... there is core and extensions, others can work on extensions afterwards
<pgroth> there can be new working groups
<pgroth> not just one right
Paulo: my concern is setting an aggressive schedule, and we meet a roadblock
<Paolo> @paul -- yes if there is enough participation, but I'm not sure about W3C's attitude to a proliferation of groups on very similar topics
<pgroth> no but a follow on
<pgroth> instead of a 5 year thing
Paulo: how woudl the group recover from these roadblocks if we have such a tight schedule
<Paolo> yes I would just suggesting a model with milestones + overlap
Paulo: 2 years, but intermediate outcomes necessary
Yolanda: we need to ask Yvan about what would happen then, can we extend the lifetime?
<pgroth> 18 years--- yes :-)
Paulo: concern is that timetable presssure could lead to undesirable compromise
Luc: we need to know what the minimum timescale is for the W3C to push a document from FPWD to Rec (assuming no roadblock)
Luc: supportive of tight timetable, but also suggest what we will realistically do
<YolandaGil> Luc: can you mute yourself?
Jun: new members may join, and this may extent the lifetime. Hence 18months is a good compromise.
Yolanda: do you see a pressing need for the WG to produce something early?
James: we need to talk to people who have done this
<Paolo> in case we run out of time: a practical reason for urgency is that projects that have a provenance component in them and are beginning now, need to plan accurately where to direct their resources
James: WG for 2 years, does not mean no deliverables for 2 years
<Paolo> and a moving target doesn't help -- but a simple indication of a clear direction is enough, there is no need to wait for the W3C to put its stamp on it
Irini: W3C process involves public comments, which have to incorporated in new drafts
<smiles> @paolo i agree, though the goal (a) of the WG is for provenance *exchange* language - is that an answer to what these projects are looking for, or are they trying to encode provenance internally?
Irini: XQuery too 8 years!
<Paolo> @James: both, really -- we don't want to start encoding in a way that locks us in later...
yolanda would you be able to terminate the scribing?
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: Luc Moreau Found ScribeNick: Luc WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: Luc, YolandaGil, pgroth, Paolo, Irini, smiles, jcheney, +1.216.368.aacc, DGarijo, +1.216.368.aadd, Paulo, jun, [IPcaller] Present: Luc YolandaGil pgroth Paolo Irini smiles jcheney +1.216.368.aacc DGarijo +1.216.368.aadd Paulo jun [IPcaller] Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Oct/0003.html Found Date: 22 Oct 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/10/22-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]