15:51:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov-xg
15:51:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/19-prov-xg-irc
15:51:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:51:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov-xg
15:51:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 98765
15:51:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
15:51:49 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference
15:51:49 <trackbot> Date: 19 November 2010
15:51:55 <YolandaGil> Zakim, this will be inc_provxg
15:51:55 <Zakim> ok, YolandaGil; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
15:52:14 <YolandaGil> chair: Yolanda Gil
15:52:39 <YolandaGil> rrsagent, make logs public
15:55:00 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov-xg
15:55:17 <Luc> trackbot, start telcon
15:55:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:55:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 98765
15:55:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference
15:55:23 <trackbot> Date: 19 November 2010
15:55:30 <Luc> Zakim, this will be inc_provxg
15:55:31 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:56:39 <Luc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Nov/0020.html
15:56:45 <Luc> chair Yolanda Gil
15:56:50 <Luc> Scribe: Luc Moreau
15:56:52 <ssahoo2> ssahoo2 has joined #prov-xg
15:56:56 <Luc> ScribeNick: Luc
15:56:57 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov-xg
15:57:03 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:18 <Zakim> INC_PROVXG()11:00AM has now started
15:57:25 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:57:52 <Zakim> +??P1
15:57:53 <Zakim> +jeff_
15:57:55 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov-xg
15:58:27 <Zakim> +[ISI]
15:59:03 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aaaa
15:59:17 <YolandaGil> Zakim, [ISI] is really me
15:59:17 <Zakim> +YolandaGil; got it
15:59:24 <Paolo> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], ??P1 (muted), jeff_, YolandaGil, +1.216.368.aaaa
15:59:36 <YolandaGil> thanks Luc!!
15:59:38 <Paolo> ??P1 is me
15:59:51 <Paolo> zakim, ??P1 is really me
15:59:51 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
16:00:04 <YolandaGil> Luc: do you really want to lead the discussion and scribe at the same time?
16:00:17 <pgroth> I'll lead the discussion
16:00:21 <ssahoo2> zakim, +1.216.368.aaa is really me
16:00:21 <Zakim> +ssahoo2; got it
16:00:38 <DeborahMcG> DeborahMcG has joined #prov-xg
16:00:45 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aabb
16:01:05 <Luc> zakim, aabb is really me
16:01:05 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
16:01:18 <Luc> who's on the phone
16:01:32 <Luc> zakim, who's on the phone
16:01:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Luc
16:01:46 <DGarijo> DGarijo has joined #prov-xg
16:01:53 <Luc> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:01:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], Paolo (muted), jeff_, YolandaGil, ssahoo2, Luc
16:02:10 <Zakim> + +1.217.417.aacc
16:02:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:02:40 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov-xg
16:03:08 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov-xg
16:03:10 <Luc> Paul: 1. try to agree on set of deliverables
16:03:18 <DGarijo> zakim,  IPcaller.a is me
16:03:18 <Zakim> +DGarijo; got it
16:03:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:03:22 <Luc> Paul: 2. Discuss the scope of the language
16:03:43 <Luc> Paul: three common deliverables in the three proposed charters
16:03:59 <Zakim> +??P9
16:04:05 <Luc> Paul: primer, best practice cookbook, inter operability guideline
16:04:21 <Luc> Paul: is there agreement?
16:04:49 <Luc> simon: what is the diff between primer and best practice?
16:05:05 <Luc> Paul: primer: educational/outreach purpose
16:05:23 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd
16:05:31 <Paolo> no objections on D3-D6
16:05:33 <Luc> Paul: best practice: how does it link to dublin core, creative commons, and other ontologies out there
16:05:37 <pgroth> Best Practice Cookbook (W3C Note). This document includes a limited set of best practice profiles that link with other relevant models, such as Dublin Core provenance-related concepts, licensing in Creative Commons, and the OpenId identity mechanism for people. 
16:05:45 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #prov-xg
16:05:46 <jun> jun has joined #prov-xg
16:05:51 <Paolo> (but where is D4?)
16:05:53 <pgroth> XG Primer (W3C Note) Educational/outreach material aimed at users of provenance. 
16:05:56 <Zakim> +??P11
16:06:08 <jun> zakim, ??P11 is jun
16:06:08 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:06:40 <Luc> Paul: it looks people are happy with these deliverables. Let's discuss the others.
16:06:42 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aaee
16:07:03 <SamCoppens> zakim, ??P9 is SamCoppens
16:07:03 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:07:03 <Luc> Paul: The notion of abstract model
16:07:05 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov-xg
16:07:23 <Luc> Paul: ... needs to be clarified
16:07:24 <pgroth> is document includes includes the data model and permitted inferences.
16:07:35 <pgroth> his document includes includes the data model and permitted inferences using OWL and Semantic Web technologies.
16:07:39 <Luc> ... data model and set of permitted inferences
16:07:45 <pgroth> his document includes the syntax and the conceptual model  
16:08:03 <Luc> ... data model and inferences in semantic technolgies
16:08:52 <Luc> Paul: abstract model is definition in english + nice pictures, without being tied to any technology
16:09:10 <Paolo> q+
16:09:39 <Luc> Satya: we need a syntax to express what we're are proposing, to avoid ambiguity
16:10:29 <Deborah> q+
16:10:43 <Luc> Paulo: there are languages (formal) to use and express this (doesn't have to be owl).
16:10:46 <pgroth> ack paolo
16:10:58 <Paolo> q-
16:11:01 <Luc> Paolo, which one do you think about?
16:11:13 <Luc> Deborah: supports the same statement
16:11:26 <Paulo> q+
16:11:28 <Luc> q+
16:11:55 <Luc> Deborah: just english,  i can't leave with!
16:12:02 <Paolo> q?
16:12:25 <Luc> Paulo: why need of something less formal?
16:12:43 <Luc> Paul: why xml?
16:13:54 <Paolo> q+
16:15:21 <ssahoo2> Without first deciding on the syntax to represent our abstract model, we will not know whether what we express in English can be expressed in a given formal language
16:16:56 <pgroth> ack Deborah
16:17:03 <pgroth> ack Paulo
16:17:06 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:17:07 <Deborah> Does that mean that we might generated 3 things: 1 - a description in English, 2 - a description in some graphical notation (is there an example?  is cmap an example), 3 - a description in a formal language (e.g., OWL, but other examples are SCL)
16:17:37 <Luc> Luc: important to be able to express ideas indpendently of a technology. It is complementary to a schema/ontology.
16:17:43 <SamCoppens> +1 for a data dictionary + formalised representations in line with it (XML, OWL, ...)
16:18:18 <Luc> fror me, two things: 1 english+illusration  2 owl ontology 
16:18:31 <Paulo> q+
16:18:52 <Luc> Paul, can you repeat?
16:19:18 <Luc> Paul: 1. Reference model (or data dictionary): english language definition
16:19:38 <Luc> 2. Formal definition of model
16:19:44 <Paolo> q?
16:20:10 <Paolo> q-
16:20:54 <Luc> Paulo: for communication purpose, it's nice to  have english description
16:20:57 <ssahoo2> I don't think is whether to have 1 or 2 - its the ordering I am concerned about
16:21:06 <Deborah> I suggest we use a phrase other than reference model for the Natural Language description plus illustration)
16:21:26 <Luc> Paulo: ... so that people who are not familiar with formal notation can still understand the model
16:21:43 <Luc> deb, do you have a suggestion?
16:22:06 <ssahoo2> q+
16:22:24 <pgroth> ack
16:22:42 <Luc> Paul: do we have consensus for: Reference model in NL  and formal model?
16:24:15 <Luc> Satya: definition in English should be compatible with what we express formally, since each notation may have its limitation
16:24:18 <Deborah> For the moment, I am happy with your earlier description;  two things :  1.  English language description with some graphical illustrations and 2. a formal description possibly using OWL.  
16:24:20 <Deborah> +q
16:24:23 <Paolo> +1 for the ref / formal model distinction
16:24:26 <ssahoo2> ack ssahoo
16:24:26 <Luc> +1 with Satya
16:24:51 <Luc> q+
16:24:56 <ssahoo2> conceptual model
16:25:18 <jun> +1 yes, it's more like a conceptual model to me
16:25:34 <Luc> Deborah and Paul: we need a proper term to describe the reference model + NL + illustration
16:25:41 <ssahoo2> yes
16:25:53 <Luc> why not name them Deliverable 1 and D2?
16:26:07 <Paolo> somebody very noisy
16:26:33 <Luc> Paul: the other deliverable for which we may have disagrement, is formal semantics
16:26:36 <Luc> q+
16:26:42 <pgroth> ack paulo
16:26:44 <Deborah> q-
16:26:46 <pgroth> ack deborah
16:27:36 <ssahoo2> +q
16:27:40 <Deborah> q+
16:27:40 <pgroth> ack luc
16:27:52 <Luc> Luc: it should be optional, we may not have critical mass to do that work
16:28:01 <Paolo> q+
16:28:03 <Luc> Satya: semantics important, 
16:28:09 <Luc> Satya: non optional
16:28:15 <Luc> Deborah: non optional
16:28:42 <Luc> Deborah: we don't want different interpretation. It's important for inter-operability
16:28:42 <DGarijo> +1 to what deborah said.
16:29:06 <Luc> Paolo: obligation to be as formal as possible. We need to find the people to do that.
16:29:51 <ssahoo2> I agree with Paolo that both 1.2 and 2.1 are overlapping 
16:29:51 <Luc> Paul: it seems we all want formal semantics deliverable. 
16:29:56 <jun> the term mapping exercise has shown it's vital to have a clear semantics
16:30:19 <SamCoppens> +1 for semantics
16:30:22 <Luc> Paul: agreement on a required formal semantics deliverable
16:30:30 <Zakim> -Luc
16:30:46 <Luc> i droped from the call, can someone minute, I am dialing in
16:31:00 <DGarijo> Paul: accesing and delivering provenance
16:31:30 <Paolo> which Del is that in the proposed charter?
16:31:35 <Zakim> +Luc
16:31:36 <DGarijo> Paul: we agree we need the deliverable
16:31:37 <Paolo> access/delier provenance
16:31:41 <Luc> back, thanks
16:31:43 <YolandaGil> Paul: we have agreement that a deliverable will be semantics of the model (not optional)
16:31:49 <ssahoo2> is it accessing and delivering or accessing and querying?
16:32:09 <Paolo> is delivery a serialisation model?
16:32:22 <Luc> Paul: should we have an xml serialization? what serialization?
16:32:35 <Paolo> @Satya serialization not query
16:32:43 <ssahoo2> ok
16:33:02 <ssahoo2> yes 
16:33:05 <DGarijo> yes
16:33:08 <Luc> Paul: agreement we want the model in rdf and owl
16:33:12 <SamCoppens> +1 for owl
16:33:14 <Deborah> +1 to RDF/OWL
16:33:18 <Luc> Paul: what about an xml version?
16:33:19 <smiles> +1 for OWL
16:33:26 <Paolo>  +1 to RDF/OWL
16:33:36 <Luc> +1 for xml, for reaching out beyond semantic web community
16:33:42 <DGarijo> +1 to RDF/OWL
16:33:43 <ssahoo2> can we consider RDF/XML as XML?
16:34:00 <Luc> i don't think so
16:34:18 <Paolo> @satya -- not really
16:34:33 <smiles> q+
16:34:37 <Luc> Paul: the goal is too have an XML that looks like real XML
16:34:40 <Paolo> q-
16:34:42 <ssahoo2> for provenance exchange language specific XML serialization we will need to define our schema
16:34:44 <Deborah> q-
16:34:44 <pgroth> ack ssahoo
16:35:55 <Luc> Simon: given time pressure, shouldn't we go for 1 serialization?
16:36:04 <__a> __a has joined #prov-xg
16:37:08 <Paulo> q+
16:37:21 <pgroth> ack smiles
16:37:55 <Paolo> @Luc can we get members of the XML data community involved to contribute to that part
16:38:02 <ssahoo2> I think XML serialization is needed, but we should be mindful that we will need to define a schema (which may end up looking like RDF schema)
16:39:13 <Luc> Luc: xml serialization is low hanging fruit, which we can get out of the door quickly
16:41:38 <Luc> Paulo: waste of time to go with XML, + lack of semantics
16:42:08 <Luc> why is it that owl2 has got xml serialization and rdf serialization?
16:42:53 <Luc> Paul: we have agreement for rdf serialization. Do we want xml serialization?
16:43:38 <Paolo> q?
16:44:31 <Luc> Jim, do it as part of the best practice/primer guide?
16:44:47 <ssahoo2> +1 for XML + schema (suspect that the schema will end up as RDF/XML :)) 
16:46:10 <Paolo> @satya I suspect the schema will be nothing like RDF/XML :-) just like OPM/XML is not but I support the idea of a mapping to an XML schema
16:46:11 <SamCoppens> Provenance will end up using XML and OWL instances, so those two must be interchangeable, +1 for XML
16:46:34 <Luc> Paul: the xml schema is a separate deliverable, developed in the context of best practice
16:46:55 <Luc> Paul: OK, we seem to have agreement  
16:47:28 <Luc> Paul: the formal model, what formalism to use? should do it offline, or now?
16:47:50 <Luc> q+
16:47:59 <pgroth> ack paulo
16:49:13 <Paolo> agree that formal and "narrative" models should proceed in parallel
16:49:17 <Deborah> +1 OWL
16:49:20 <DGarijo> +1 to OWL
16:49:21 <ssahoo2> +1
16:49:21 <Paolo> q+
16:49:23 <SamCoppens> +1
16:50:12 <Luc> Luc: reasoning may be challenging to express in owl, we should be open to consider other semantic technologies, e..g rule based
16:50:27 <Luc> Paolo: how do we know OWL is expressive enough?
16:50:41 <ssahoo2> q+
16:51:35 <Luc> why not be open, and suggest Semantic Web technologies, e.g. OWL, ...
16:52:11 <DGarijo> so first decide the inferences and then the language?
16:52:39 <Luc> Satya: if we adopt OWL, we can leverage the tools out there
16:53:10 <Deborah> What if we say we will deliver an encoding in a formal language, most likely beginning with OWL
16:53:12 <Paulo> q+
16:53:12 <Luc> BTW, this is the very reason why a NL language description is crucial! Technologies may be limiting.
16:53:27 <ssahoo2> ack ssahoo
16:53:33 <Deborah> +1
16:53:42 <ssahoo2> +1
16:53:50 <smiles> +1
16:54:03 <Luc> Paul: formalization will be in using Web Semantic technologies, beginning with OWL.
16:54:10 <Luc> Paolo: we shouldn't use the word technologies
16:54:11 <pgroth> ack luc
16:54:14 <pgroth> ack paolo
16:54:14 <Paolo> q-
16:54:15 <DGarijo> swrl rules could also help in the inferences...
16:54:32 <Paolo> @daniel good point
16:55:55 <Luc> Paul: last thing to decide is order
16:56:16 <Luc> Paul: do we do english first, formal second, or vice versa??
16:56:30 <Luc> Paul: alternatively, simultaneously?
16:56:50 <ssahoo2> +1 for Jim
16:56:53 <Luc> Jim: yes, working them in parallel makes sense
16:56:57 <Luc> +1
16:57:00 <Deborah> +1 to simultaneous
16:57:01 <smiles> +1
16:57:01 <Paolo> +1
16:57:03 <DGarijo> looks fine to me too
16:57:14 <SamCoppens> 1+ for parallel
16:57:17 <Paolo> minor note: in Satya's version D4 has disappeared but it is still in the timetable on last page
16:57:19 <Luc> Paul: good, we have some consensus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16:58:00 <Luc> Paul: hhow precise should the charter be about what the WG will do?
16:58:10 <ssahoo2> sorry typo - I think since we are going for RDF/OWL we can just leverage SPARQL
16:58:30 <Luc> Paul: first proposal is to identify a set of terms to work with, terms defined in various vocabularies out there
16:58:52 <Luc> Paul: second proposal is to leave this scoping exercise to the  WG
16:59:11 <ssahoo2> I can too
16:59:15 <jun> me too
16:59:16 <Paolo> not sure this is fair to people who have to go
16:59:21 <DGarijo> me too
16:59:21 <Deborah> i have to go to a meeting at noon. i can be a few minutes late but that is it.  sorry
16:59:30 <ssahoo2> @Paolo has a point
16:59:41 <ssahoo2> can we have a one-off meeting early next week?
17:00:51 <Luc> Paul: proposal 1 was in fact a suggestion by TBL
17:01:19 <Luc> Paul: ... list the terms (and not just from OPM!)
17:01:57 <Luc> Jim: objects against the word 'term'. Would be better to talk about concepts.
17:02:13 <Luc> Paul: OK, a set of concepts
17:02:23 <ssahoo2> I dont think we can do it now - so should be part of WG (second option)
17:03:29 <ssahoo2> @Paulo: exactly, we need time to discuss and come to consensus 
17:03:39 <Luc> Paulo: need to go through examples to identify terms
17:04:24 <ssahoo2> +1 for procedure
17:04:29 <Luc> Paul: agree on a procedure to list concepts and examples
17:04:43 <ssahoo2> yes
17:05:03 <Luc> Paul: procedure is: list concept, and identify an example
17:05:22 <Luc> Paul: this procedure is what we do *now* as an incubator, as an input to the charter
17:05:45 <Luc> Yolanda: can we use our scenarios?
17:06:05 <Luc> Paulo: the scenarios may be too complicated
17:06:27 <Luc> Jim: lots of use cases illustrate the concepts.
17:07:03 <Luc> Paul: agreement is to list concepts with small examples, drawing on scenarios and use cases 
17:07:19 <Luc> Paul: what is the timeline?
17:07:47 <Luc> Yolanda: hard deadline is Nov 30th
17:07:48 <ssahoo2> with Thanksgiving holidays it seems daunting
17:07:58 <Luc> Paul: can we have this by tuesday or wednesday next week?
17:08:04 <Paolo> no thanksgiving in EU so it's fine :-)
17:08:13 <SamCoppens> +1
17:08:24 <jun> do you want a list from all possible vocabularies?
17:08:24 <Luc> Yolanda: we don't have much choice
17:08:29 <Paolo> Tue/Wed is fine
17:09:02 <Luc> Yolanda: we should be mindful that we shouldn't blow up the scope, otherwise 2 years will be too short
17:09:17 <Luc> Yolanda: we need to prioritize (mandatory/optional)
17:10:02 <Luc> Paul: can be from any vocabulary
17:10:16 <ssahoo2> I would also suggest members to look at list of terms on the mapping wiki
17:10:20 <Luc> Paul: action: send a note later!
17:10:59 <Zakim> -ssahoo2
17:11:01 <Zakim> -YolandaGil
17:11:01 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aadd
17:11:02 <Zakim> -Paolo
17:11:02 <Zakim> -jeff_
17:11:03 <Zakim> - +1.217.417.aacc
17:11:03 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:11:05 <Zakim> - +1.915.603.aaee
17:11:07 <Zakim> -DGarijo
17:11:08 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
17:11:11 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
17:11:13 <Zakim> -Luc
17:11:15 <Zakim> -jun
17:11:15 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
17:11:17 <Zakim> INC_PROVXG()11:00AM has ended
17:11:19 <Zakim> Attendees were [IPcaller], jeff_, +1.216.368.aaaa, YolandaGil, Paolo, ssahoo2, +44.238.059.aabb, Luc, +1.217.417.aacc, DGarijo, +1.518.276.aadd, jun, +1.915.603.aaee, SamCoppens
17:11:42 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:11:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/19-prov-xg-minutes.html Luc
17:12:21 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon
17:12:21 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:12:21 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:12:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:12:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/19-prov-xg-minutes.html trackbot
17:12:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:12:23 <RRSAgent> I see no action items