15:45:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov-xg
15:45:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/26-prov-xg-irc
15:45:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:45:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov-xg
15:45:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 98765
15:45:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
15:45:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Incubator Group Teleconference
15:45:14 <trackbot> Date: 26 November 2010
15:45:32 <Luc> Zakim, this will be inc_provxg
15:45:32 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see INC_PROVXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
15:46:20 <Luc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-prov/2010Nov/0041.html
15:46:34 <Luc> chair: Yolanda Gil
15:46:47 <Luc> Scribe: Luc Moreau
15:47:01 <Luc> ScribeNick: Luc
15:47:08 <Luc>  rrsagent, make logs public
15:48:37 <Irini> Irini has joined #prov-xg
15:52:37 <Zakim> INC_PROVXG()11:00AM has now started
15:52:44 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:53:29 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov-xg
15:53:52 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov-xg
15:53:55 <YolandaGil> hi Irini, it's great to "see" you!
15:56:40 <Zakim> +??P1
15:57:00 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov-xg
15:59:38 <Zakim> +Luc
16:00:25 <jun> jun has joined #prov-xg
16:00:51 <Zakim> + +30281076aaaa
16:01:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:01:04 <Irini> Zakim, +302810 is Irini
16:01:05 <Zakim> +Irini; got it
16:01:15 <Irini> Irini has left #prov-xg
16:01:15 <Zakim> +??P5
16:01:21 <DGarijo> DGarijo has joined #prov-xg
16:01:23 <jun> zakim, ??p5 is jun
16:01:23 <Zakim> +jun; got it
16:02:00 <Irini_> Irini_ has joined #prov-xg
16:02:08 <SamCoppens> Zakim, [IPcaller] is SamCoppens
16:02:08 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
16:02:22 <Zakim> +??P6
16:04:04 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov-xg
16:04:30 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov-xg
16:05:10 <Luc> Yolanda: rule of engagement. No reference to specific languages.
16:05:46 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aabb
16:05:47 <Luc> ... discussion should be at conceptual level, rather than specific level
16:06:06 <Luc> Yolanda: examples to be discussed should be from our flagship scenarios
16:06:19 <Jose_> Jose_ has joined #prov-xg
16:06:27 <Zakim> +??P8
16:06:40 <jcheney> zakim, ??P8 is me
16:06:40 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
16:06:53 <DGarijo> zakim, ??P6 is probably me
16:06:53 <Zakim> +DGarijo?; got it
16:07:02 <YolandaGil> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Recommendations_for_scenarios
16:07:12 <Luc> Yolanda: OK, we have agreement.
16:08:32 <Luc> Yolanda: we should keep in mind those requirements/recommendations
16:08:54 <Luc>  A formal thank you to Yolanda for her amazing chairing of the incubator.
16:09:39 <Zakim> + +49.166.4.aacc
16:09:46 <pgroth> clap!
16:09:50 <jun> +1
16:10:02 <DGarijo> yeah, thanks!
16:10:15 <Jose_> +1!
16:10:26 <SamCoppens> +1
16:10:30 <Irini_> +1
16:11:12 <Zakim> + +1.706.461.aadd
16:11:58 <Luc> Paul: I tried to group the set of suggested concepts
16:12:00 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Suggested_Concepts
16:13:09 <Luc> Paul: proposal, go through the list of concepts, identify issues with grouping, identify missing concepts
16:13:41 <Luc> Paul: then go through timeline.  Feedback from Yvan to be discussed
16:14:03 <DGarijo> yes
16:14:23 <Zakim> -Luc
16:14:23 <ssahoo2> ssahoo2 has joined #prov-xg
16:15:17 <Zakim> +Luc
16:15:19 <Luc> Paul: concept 1
16:18:01 <Luc> Paul: concept 2: Process
16:19:00 <Irini_> q+
16:19:09 <Luc> Paulo: qualification: do you talk about an execution of experience, or a process that can be repeated agian, and again?
16:19:16 <Luc> what about unix process?
16:19:24 <jun> but as long as the definition is clear, I dont' see that as a problem
16:19:26 <Luc> it's an execution
16:19:32 <ssahoo2> q+
16:19:38 <DGarijo> i agree with jun
16:19:54 <Irini_> what about a query?
16:20:30 <Jose_> q+
16:20:35 <Luc> Paul: it's an execution we talk about, an instance of execution
16:20:41 <Irini_> q-
16:20:41 <ssahoo2> In DL - the process is a concept and the execution of a process is a instance of the process
16:20:55 <ssahoo2> TBox vs. ABox
16:21:38 <DGarijo> i agree
16:21:42 <Luc> Paul: by process, we mean execution of a program or execution of workflow
16:22:04 <Jose_> I agree wiyh Paul's definition
16:22:25 <Luc> Paul: the next concept is recipe, which is a program to be executed
16:23:01 <Zakim> + +1.217.417.aaee
16:23:18 <ssahoo2> q-
16:23:22 <jun> I agree with Paul, as long as we mean Process refers to an execution, I am fine with it
16:23:29 <ssahoo2> I agree
16:23:31 <Luc> Paul: i agree there is a difference between a program and an execution. Concept 2 is an execution.
16:23:38 <Jose_> q-
16:23:38 <SamCoppens> +1
16:23:46 <Luc> Paul: are we fine with a notion of execution?
16:24:00 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov-xg
16:24:16 <YolandaGil> q+
16:24:25 <Luc> Paul: concept 3: recipe, is a program, a workflow, a set of rules. Something that can be executed.
16:24:30 <jun> why is that not just a Resource?
16:24:46 <JimM> +q
16:25:00 <Luc> Yolanda: i would be concenred to add this to a charter of a WG
16:25:06 <jcheney> zakim, who is noisy
16:25:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney
16:25:25 <Luc> Yolanda: it's difficult to reach consensus on this
16:25:48 <ssahoo2> q+
16:26:17 <Luc> Yolanda: it's very important, but I would suggest the group to drop this one
16:26:34 <Luc> Paul: what is needed is a link to a recipe, not a recipe itself.
16:26:50 <YolandaGil> q-
16:26:52 <Luc> Jim: agreement with Paul, we don't want to standardize on recipes.
16:27:00 <JimM> q-
16:27:01 <Luc> Yolanda: OK
16:27:11 <Paulo> q+
16:27:14 <jun> q+
16:27:44 <Luc> reminder: rules of engagement!!! No ref to vocabularies!
16:27:47 <ssahoo2> q-
16:28:26 <Jose_> +1 to jun's point
16:28:26 <Luc> I could understand you Paulo, can you write what you said?
16:28:28 <jun> q-
16:28:35 <ssahoo2> so, I think both the notions of "recipe" and "execution of a recipe" are needed
16:29:15 <Luc> Paul: we talk about an execution of a process, and it would be useful to refer to what is  being executed, i.e. recipe
16:29:48 <Luc> Paul: do we agreement we need a concept "Recipe Link", i.e. a pointer to a recipe
16:29:56 <JimM> +1
16:29:56 <DGarijo> +1
16:29:59 <jun> Paul: do we need a propety call recipelink, we don't standardize the concept recipe
16:29:59 <Luc> +1 to Paul
16:30:00 <ssahoo2> no, it is necessary to explicitly model a process, since a process itself can have properties
16:30:02 <SamCoppens> +1 for the link
16:30:06 <jun> +1
16:30:38 <jun> re @ssahoo2, I think that should be done by a specific community, to build their own extensions for that purpose
16:31:03 <Luc> Paul: OK, we have support for  Recipe Link
16:31:26 <Luc> Paul: standardizing recipes would be totally out of scope
16:32:21 <Luc> Paul, OK, let's move on to next concept
16:32:57 <Luc> Paul: concept 4: agent. In most case, it is a person.
16:32:58 <ssahoo2> I agree
16:32:58 <DGarijo> +1
16:33:01 <Luc> q+
16:33:20 <YolandaGil> q+
16:33:43 <JimM> yes - agent in the broad sense (corporations as legal persons, etc.)
16:34:43 <Luc> PLuc: should we leverage existing notions of agents (e.g. foaf)?
16:35:10 <Paulo> q+
16:35:44 <Luc> Paul: do we recognize the need for agents, if so we should recognize it here, and leave to the WG to decide how to standardize it (inc. reusing a definition out there)
16:36:17 <Luc> Yolanda: notion of responsibility
16:36:31 <Luc> Paul: let's leave it to the end
16:36:55 <Luc> Paul: is agent = source?
16:37:10 <JimM> source might be the concept of responsible agent...
16:37:17 <SamCoppens> I see source as a specialization of agent
16:37:36 <ssahoo2> +1 @Sam
16:37:38 <Luc> Paul: is source a specialization of agent?
16:37:40 <JimM> though sources such as documents don't seem to be agents
16:37:45 <Jose_> q+
16:37:46 <Luc> i thought a source could be a database?
16:38:48 <Luc> Paul: do we need a concept to mark that something acts as a source?
16:38:59 <ssahoo2> No, source is just a specialization of agent
16:39:33 <Luc> Paul: some say that a document can be source
16:39:37 <ssahoo2> In that case, source will be a specialization of "Resource"
16:39:55 <Luc> Paul: suggestion to remove Source altogether
16:40:05 <ssahoo2> and the information derived from the document
16:40:18 <YolandaGil> source is now gone, just refresh the page.  i added a note that the agent can be a creator or a contributor
16:40:25 <Luc> Paulo: need a concept that is actionable, capable of making assertions
16:41:40 <Luc> Paulo: is provenance container something that knows something?
16:41:55 <JimM> +q
16:42:02 <Luc> Paulo: we need a knowledge container 
16:42:08 <Jose_> q-
16:42:36 <Luc> Jim: we need to be able to say something comes from a person or from a database
16:42:52 <Jose_> +1 to Jim's point
16:42:57 <Luc> Jim: do we decide now, or we leave it to the WG
16:43:43 <Luc> Paulo: source is a connection between a resource and an agent
16:44:07 <Luc> Paulo: do you mean an agent says? or an agent is responsible for?
16:44:27 <JimM> -q
16:44:40 <YolandaGil> q-
16:44:59 <YolandaGil> q- Paulo
16:45:03 <YolandaGil> q- Luc
16:45:05 <Zakim> -Luc
16:45:25 <ssahoo2> Yolanda: Why are we removing the other examples from the grouping page for the agreed on terms?
16:46:05 <ssahoo2> q+
16:46:06 <SamCoppens> +1
16:46:10 <DGarijo> +1
16:46:41 <Zakim> +Luc
16:46:57 <Luc> what was the resolution? I dropped off the call.
16:47:20 <ssahoo2> q-
16:47:45 <jun> we agreed to keep the agent and removed source
16:47:47 <YolandaGil> resolution was to use agent and drop source since it meant contributor etc
16:48:12 <Luc> Paul: Role, we need this notion, even if in a given realisation (e.g. DL) we drop it, maybe because we encode it differently
16:48:20 <YolandaGil> this notion of query seems strange to me
16:49:02 <JimM> user query is a type of recipe?
16:49:11 <JimM> and then out of scope since we don't type recipes
16:49:11 <Luc> Paul: Query: i dont' see why we need this for a general provenance model
16:49:55 <Luc> Paulo: you can get an answer, but not for the question that was asked
16:50:19 <Luc> q+
16:50:24 <JimM> or is it just a type of input (role = query)?
16:51:17 <JimM> +q
16:54:04 <YolandaGil> +1 go away
16:54:06 <Luc> Jim: user query can be seen as role, each community could define the kind of roles they consider important
16:54:14 <SamCoppens> +1
16:54:32 <Paulo> -1
16:54:49 <Luc> 0
16:55:17 <DGarijo> i'm not sure, it query could be seen as a justification... 0
16:55:32 <Luc> we are not suggesting to standardize on what queries are here? right?
16:55:50 <jun> I don't understand what this concept does, so I can't vote
16:56:22 <Jose_> an example is necessary to illustrate his concept
16:56:40 <Luc>      isn't a query a kind of artifact?
16:56:55 <ssahoo2> yes @Luc
16:57:02 <DGarijo> could we make an exception and let Paulo put an example that is not from the scenarios?
16:57:08 <ssahoo2> I think we should explicitly put it under Resource
16:57:19 <ssahoo2> instead of completely reoving it
16:57:25 <ssahoo2> removing
16:57:44 <Luc> Paul: to move on, let's leave it there for now
16:57:55 <Jose_> it will need to be revised...
16:58:22 <Luc> Paul: can we modify the page, and indicate it could be subclass of resource or role
16:58:55 <Paulo> q+
16:58:57 <Luc> Paul: next concept: Location. There are many ontologies for location.  
16:59:01 <ssahoo2> The notion here refers to a property
16:59:06 <jcheney> +1 for not reinventing wheel...
16:59:44 <ssahoo2> q+
16:59:44 <Luc> Jim: location is not universal, and is specific to domains
16:59:46 <YolandaGil> +1 for leaving it out of the core
16:59:49 <Jose_> location does not look core to me either
17:00:51 <Luc> Satya: it's just a link to location, rather than location itself, we need
17:01:16 <Luc> but isn't this already defined in location ontologies?
17:01:27 <DGarijo> i agree with satya. It's not reinventing the wheel, just pointing to other ontologies...
17:01:58 <Jose_> if it's pointing out, then it's not core
17:02:17 <YolandaGil> is there an example of location use in the 3 flagship scenario?
17:02:17 <Luc> Satya: there exists a notion of locationOf
17:02:55 <Luc> where disease was declared maybe?
17:03:04 <ssahoo2> yes
17:03:16 <DGarijo> yolanda, yes: if the sensor is a buoy, in the disease outbreak scenario, then it's important to know where was it produced
17:03:19 <JimM> -q
17:03:27 <Luc> q-
17:03:36 <ssahoo2> q-
17:04:02 <Luc> Paulo: Location is a property of a concept
17:04:45 <Jose_> sorry, I have to run. will catch up with the minutes
17:04:49 <Zakim> - +49.166.4.aacc
17:05:31 <YolandaGil> why would the location where the disease was declared deserve a special treatment more than other entities?
17:05:50 <Luc> I think this discussion is very OWL specific concept/property!!
17:06:27 <jun> given that our disease scenario shows a need for location expression, I am prone to have a notion of location in the core
17:06:37 <Luc> i agree with you Yolanda, we could talk about color, too!
17:06:37 <YolandaGil> why location and not "consumable resource"?
17:07:16 <Luc> Paul: we need to move on, turn location into a link, which must point to another ontology
17:07:27 <DGarijo> +1
17:07:34 <Luc> Paul: like we did for recipe lonk
17:07:37 <ssahoo2> yes, it is a link
17:07:45 <ssahoo2> +1 for link
17:07:54 <jun> +1
17:07:57 <SamCoppens> +1
17:08:15 <DGarijo> +1 for derivation
17:08:18 <Luc> Paul: next: derivation
17:08:22 <YolandaGil> +1
17:08:28 <jun> +1
17:08:31 <ssahoo2> +1
17:08:33 <Luc> +1
17:08:34 <SamCoppens> +1
17:08:36 <Paulo> q+
17:09:20 <Luc> Paulo: it is not minimal, it can be derived from processes
17:10:06 <DGarijo> agnostic aproach?
17:11:02 <Luc> q+
17:11:53 <jun> I don't agree. It's a very important shortcut, when people don't want to express the image copying process in details
17:12:11 <JimM> +1 as a shortcut
17:12:39 <Luc> +1, this is a dataflow view ... we may not know the process
17:12:53 <YolandaGil> I think there are a lot of +1
17:13:15 <Luc> Paul: there is majority of people for keeping it
17:14:16 <ssahoo2> q+
17:14:23 <Luc> Paul Use and Generation
17:14:36 <Luc> +1 to both of them
17:15:13 <ssahoo2> 9, 10, 13
17:15:17 <Luc> Satya: participation could be combined with them too
17:15:54 <Luc> i thought participation was like agent control
17:16:00 <jun> I think they are quite different, as seen from the examples
17:16:41 <jun> I think the sub-classing should be done by the WG
17:16:54 <Luc> I don't think we should group Use and Generation
17:17:00 <DGarijo> nope
17:17:12 <Luc> Paul: OK, agreement
17:17:37 <Luc> Paul: ordering of process
17:17:52 <JimM> +1 - links from processes to inputs(used), outputs(generated), and things that participate
17:18:11 <YolandaGil> it seems that derivation, generation, use, and participation are all shortcuts, they will be particularly useful when the provenance is incomplete
17:18:36 <Luc> Paul: useful for a control view of the world
17:18:42 <Luc> Paul: OK agreement
17:18:52 <YolandaGil> same for ordering
17:19:00 <DGarijo> +1 For control
17:19:06 <Luc> Paul: notion of Control (11)
17:19:13 <YolandaGil> does control releate to the notion of responsibility
17:19:24 <Luc> Paul: no objection
17:19:31 <JimM> and subtype of participation...
17:19:49 <DGarijo> to be the agent responsible of an object couldn't be a role?
17:20:04 <Luc> Paul: notion of versioning
17:20:26 <Luc> Paul: we would want some "lightweight" solution
17:20:46 <JimM> +1 for a link
17:20:48 <DGarijo> +1 for versioning, but could be grouped with derivation
17:20:50 <Luc> Paul: otherwise, standardizing a versioning system could be scary
17:20:50 <ssahoo2> I think notion of versioning is important
17:20:54 <ssahoo2> +1
17:20:55 <jcheney> maybe it can be made optional/experimental?
17:21:08 <Irini_> +1 for jcheney
17:21:30 <DGarijo> +1 for link
17:21:41 <Luc> Paul: we should not it should be a link, so rather lightweight/optional
17:21:51 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:22:00 <Luc> +q
17:22:02 <Paulo> q+
17:22:07 <ssahoo2> q-
17:22:32 <Luc> Paulo: i cant' see the difference between participation and control
17:22:37 <Zakim> +??P8
17:22:38 <Zakim> -??P8
17:22:45 <ssahoo2> :) good example
17:23:18 <JimM> participant maps to dc:contributor versus dc:creator for control - broader than control/own
17:23:19 <Zakim> +??P8
17:23:24 <jcheney> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:23:24 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
17:24:06 <Luc> Satya: it's not a control link, but indicates the presence
17:24:12 <ssahoo2> yes, presence
17:24:48 <Luc> Paulo: does it have influence?
17:24:55 <JimM> participation is a link between a mutable resource and a process that is part of its lifecycle
17:24:58 <Zakim> -jcheney
17:25:27 <jcheney> I keep getting dropped
17:25:38 <Luc> why is this core?
17:25:53 <JimM> a web server participates in providing a response but does not control it...
17:26:27 <Luc> ... but if the web server wasn't there there wouldn't be any response
17:27:32 <jcheney> Wanted to ask whether there is redundancy between provenance containers, accounts, and more general collections. 
17:27:56 <jcheney> E.g. an account could be viewed as a subcollection of provenance statements.
17:28:37 <Zakim> +??P8
17:28:44 <jcheney> zakim, ??P8 is me
17:28:44 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
17:28:53 <Luc> Paul: participating has influence on something
17:29:04 <ssahoo2> I agree @Paul
17:29:09 <Luc> Paul: Control is subclass of participation
17:30:06 <ssahoo2> q+
17:30:13 <Luc> Paul: we should not the relationship between participation and control, and the fact they influence processes
17:30:15 <Paulo> q+
17:30:34 <ssahoo2> q-
17:30:37 <Luc> Paul:  container
17:30:38 <YolandaGil> I noted on the wiki that Control is a subclass of participation, and put Control after Participation in the list
17:30:42 <DGarijo> +q
17:30:50 <Luc> q+
17:31:33 <Luc> Satya: is provenance container a resource?, same for collection
17:33:34 <Luc> Paulo: why not use named graph?
17:35:11 <Luc> Paulo: i don't see the provenance container as a kind of source 
17:35:32 <Luc> who said resource is not mutable? on the web, they definitely are!
17:36:32 <ssahoo2> Resource (from provenir:data perspective) is definitely mutable, although opm:Artifact definition is for immutable
17:36:48 <JimM> w.r.t., the processes being described
17:37:06 <ssahoo2> I think we should discuss it in WG
17:37:26 <jun> +1 to ssahoo2
17:37:32 <JimM> companies can go through mergers to create new companies
17:37:47 <Luc> may i suggest we expand provenance container to containing provenance assertions
17:38:11 <JimM> +1 on the larger topic - I think account is needed and there is a need to be able to treat them as resources with their own provenance
17:38:35 <ssahoo2> yes, @Paul provenir:data is for both mutable and immutable
17:39:21 <Luc> for Resource, can we add a line that we need to distinguish the Resource and its States
17:40:29 <JimM> +q
17:40:42 <jun> it's a complex problem that cannot be solved in one telcom
17:40:51 <Irini_> +1 for jum
17:40:51 <DGarijo> -q
17:40:58 <Irini_> s/jum/sun
17:41:05 <Irini_> s/jumjun
17:41:07 <JimM> mutability is a role relative to a set of processes and one resource may be immutable relative to some and mutable relative to others
17:42:00 <Luc> Paul: add the distinction of  mutable and immutable resources under concept 1
17:42:20 <jun> yes. we need both. and IMO the WG should decide how to separate them
17:42:29 <JimM> -q
17:43:09 <YolandaGil> q- Paulo
17:43:12 <YolandaGil> q- Luc
17:43:27 <Luc> Paul: we agree we want a provenance container (which could end up being a named graph)
17:43:39 <DGarijo> +q
17:43:43 <ssahoo2> q+
17:43:50 <Luc> Oaul: view/account
17:44:02 <Paulo> q+
17:44:06 <ssahoo2> exactly @Daniel
17:44:10 <DGarijo> q-
17:44:14 <Luc> Daniel: can they be seen as provenance container?
17:44:30 <YolandaGil> Satya: what was your example of "Participation"
17:44:50 <YolandaGil> q- ssahoo
17:44:55 <YolandaGil> q- Paulo
17:44:59 <ssahoo2> Other than what is listed on the wiki?
17:45:15 <Luc> q+
17:45:27 <YolandaGil> yes, i'd like a good example that refers to one of the 3 flagship scenarios
17:46:29 <Zakim> -Luc
17:46:46 <Luc> Luc: accounts are conceptually different from provenance containers
17:46:53 <Luc> I dropped off again
17:46:59 <ssahoo2> I will have to re-read the 3 flagship scenarios
17:47:14 <ssahoo2> I can send you by mail later?
17:47:30 <YolandaGil> yes!
17:48:03 <Luc> I can't dial in anymore
17:48:22 <YolandaGil> I think it is good to keep both
17:48:51 <YolandaGil> +1 for time
17:48:53 <ssahoo2> Paul: Both accounts and containers are retained
17:48:53 <DGarijo> +1 for time
17:49:09 <SamCoppens> +1
17:49:13 <jun> +1
17:49:17 <JimM> +1
17:49:18 <Luc> +1 for time 
17:49:20 <ssahoo2> Paul: Agreement on keeping Time
17:49:58 <ssahoo2> Paul: Next concept Collection
17:49:59 <Luc> it seems I can't call in anymore at this time :-(
17:50:12 <ssahoo2> q+
17:50:22 <jcheney> my take: save collections for 2.0 - probably not enough consensus
17:50:26 <YolandaGil> Sorry Luc :-(  we'll transcribe
17:50:36 <Luc> As I can't talk, I would like to say that collections would be a very big chunk to standardize on
17:50:44 <Luc> We can't do it in two years.
17:50:52 <YolandaGil> Satya points out we should have it as a link, not as a concept
17:50:59 <ssahoo2> Paul: Collections is a difficult to model
17:51:00 <Luc> Defintely useful, but this is not mature yet for standardization
17:51:12 <YolandaGil> Paul mentions this would be very hard to do and should be left for the future
17:51:16 <jun> +1 to Satya
17:51:52 <YolandaGil> Satya says it is a containment relationship
17:52:46 <JimM> perhaps all that's needed is the idea of extraction (source) - one resource is something came from a larger resource
17:53:12 <JimM> you created a doc, I edited a chapter, the chapter came from your doc
17:53:14 <Luc> That's not the issue, who do collections evolve when being transformed. It's complex to describe.
17:53:24 <YolandaGil> q+
17:53:28 <JimM> trying to keep that out of scope
17:53:30 <ssahoo2> q-
17:54:25 <ssahoo2> Yolanda: Can consider modeling collection subclass of Resource
17:54:42 <JimM> +q
17:54:47 <jun> Yolanda: we should model Collection as a specific type of Resource. Would that be sufficient?
17:55:07 <YolandaGil> q- YolandaGil
17:55:15 <YolandaGil> q- Luc
17:55:19 <YolandaGil> q- JimM
17:56:18 <ssahoo2> Jim: Important to represent information that is source-oriented
17:57:07 <ssahoo2> Paul: We will not model concept of collection in WG and is a specific type of resource
17:57:12 <DGarijo> +1 for option 1
17:57:14 <ssahoo2> +1 for option 2
17:57:15 <YolandaGil> option 1: a collection is a type of resource
17:57:19 <jun> +1 for option 2
17:57:28 <YolandaGil> option 2: we keep it as a very lightweight notion
17:57:31 <jcheney> +1 for option 2, more minimalistic for now
17:57:32 <YolandaGil> +1 for option 1
17:57:33 <JimM> +1 on 2
17:57:42 <SamCoppens> +1 for option2
17:58:03 <Luc> i don't know what we vote on, but, please make it small!
17:58:09 <Irini_> +1 for option 2
17:58:19 <ssahoo2> Paul: Include notion of containment as a property
17:58:35 <pgroth> Paul: but it must be a lightweight notion
17:59:38 <ssahoo2> Paul: Yolanda to include notion of responsibility
18:00:06 <jcheney> is this the same as attribution?
18:00:08 <jun> is that more specific or broader than controlled by?
18:00:58 <ssahoo2> Jim: Seems to be closer to notion of source
18:01:33 <jcheney> I think control does not imply responsibility and vice versa...
18:01:37 <DGarijo> the controller, or the role played by the controller?
18:02:28 <Irini_> very close to attribution I think
18:02:29 <JimM> +1 for something to manage responsibility
18:02:36 <SamCoppens> +1
18:02:38 <ssahoo2> Paul: Include term for responsibility
18:02:40 <DGarijo> yes, +1
18:02:49 <jcheney> +q
18:03:06 <jun> i think we can list responsibility on the list, and maybe mention it's related to controlled by
18:03:16 <ssahoo2> Yolanda: Responsibility is distinct from control
18:04:19 <ssahoo2> James: Are there existing terms for modeling responsibility?
18:04:47 <SamCoppens> a piece of information can be derived from a process, but an agent can digitally sign the information taking responsibility for the generated information. That is why it should be seperated with controlled by
18:05:11 <ssahoo2> James: Similar to trust, responsibility can be derived from provenance
18:05:15 <Luc> I see responsibility as something not primitive. We can imagine a process that allocates responsibility to a user, all this controlled by some agent.  So with the basic terms, we ahve we can model responsibility.
18:05:49 <JimM> +q
18:06:27 <jcheney> q-
18:06:44 <Zakim> -Irini
18:06:58 <ssahoo2> James: Need to proper to differentiate between responsibility and endorsement
18:07:48 <jcheney> +1 for useful shortcut
18:07:54 <ssahoo2> Paul: Agreement to keep Responsibility as a note
18:08:27 <ssahoo2> Paul: Any missing terms?
18:08:37 <JimM> no :-)
18:08:46 <Luc> it's not a new term, but what do we say about security
18:09:20 <Luc> is it in scope of the WG do define ways of signing provenance graphs?
18:09:33 <pgroth> i think we don't time
18:09:39 <jcheney> should wrap up
18:09:50 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov-xg
18:10:29 <jcheney> thanks Paul
18:10:42 <jun> thanks Paul
18:10:50 <DGarijo> yeah, thanks!
18:10:52 <Luc> great Paul!
18:11:22 <ssahoo2> good work Paul!
18:11:31 <Zakim> -??P1
18:11:33 <Zakim> - +1.217.417.aaee
18:11:41 <Zakim> - +1.706.461.aadd
18:11:42 <SamCoppens> thanks everybody
18:11:44 <Zakim> -Yolanda
18:11:46 <Zakim> -jcheney
18:11:47 <Zakim> -jun
18:11:48 <Zakim> -DGarijo?
18:11:49 <Zakim> - +1.915.603.aabb
18:11:51 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
18:11:53 <Zakim> INC_PROVXG()11:00AM has ended
18:11:55 <Zakim> Attendees were Yolanda, Luc, +30281076aaaa, Irini, jun, SamCoppens, +1.915.603.aabb, jcheney, DGarijo?, +49.166.4.aacc, +1.706.461.aadd, +1.217.417.aaee
18:12:17 <YolandaGil> Ok, I transcribed everything at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Suggested_Concepts
18:12:29 <YolandaGil> let me know if I missed anything from today's discussion
18:13:16 <YolandaGil> rrsagent, set log public
18:13:28 <YolandaGil> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:13:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/26-prov-xg-minutes.html YolandaGil
18:13:38 <Luc> thanks yolanda
18:13:49 <Luc> i think the entry is ready on the wiki page, just check it
18:13:51 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov-xg
18:13:51 <YolandaGil> did you miss anything Luc?
18:14:11 <Luc> am on skype with Paul now
18:14:36 <YolandaGil> great!!  i have 15 people waiting for me, so i'll let Paul catch you up.  THANK YOU!!!!
20:39:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov-xg