<trackbot> Date: 22 October 2010

<scribe> Scribe: Luc Moreau

<scribe> ScribeNick: Luc

<YolandaGil> thanks Luc!!

hi yolanda

Yolanda: discuss goals for a WG recommendation

Paolo: swpm workshop coming soon Nov 7th(?)

yolanda: structure discussion in two topics
... 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

<pgroth> echo

<jcheney> seems better now...

<pgroth> yeah

<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, signatures
... these are the kinds of possible goals that have been brought up recently. Maybe there are others?

<jcheney> +q

<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 goals
... 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

<pgroth> +q

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

<pgroth> +q

Paulo: concern about promising something easy to learn

YOlanda: easy to use (for something easy), but may require complexity for complex issues
... low entry point

Paul: adoption, if "easy" to use
... 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

<pgroth> +q

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

<Christine> +1

<DGarijo> +1

Paul: people are waiting for somebody with authorithy

I was kicked out, dialing in!

back

Simon: publicize group as soon as early

Paolo: perception is important
... 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> +q

<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)

<DGarijo> +q

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