14:46:29 RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:46:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-prov-irc 14:46:31 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:46:31 Zakim has joined #prov 14:46:33 Zakim, this will be 14:46:33 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:46:34 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:46:34 Date: 05 May 2011 14:47:49 Zakim, this will be SW_PROV 14:47:49 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, luc 14:48:04 Zakim, this will be PROV 14:48:04 ok, luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes 14:48:49 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.05 14:49:20 Chair: pgroth 14:49:25 dgarijo has joined #prov 14:49:26 hmm, i can't get on the call 14:49:33 is anyone else dialed in? 14:49:41 Scribe: luc 14:49:45 hi 14:49:47 not yet 14:50:11 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started 14:50:13 rrsagent, make logs public 14:50:19 +??P9 14:50:39 zakim, +??P9 is me 14:50:39 sorry, jorn, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9' 14:50:47 +??P0 14:50:53 zakim, ??P9 is me 14:50:53 +jorn; got it 14:51:01 zakim, ??P0 is me 14:51:01 +pgroth; got it 14:53:26 + +44.238.059.aaaa 14:54:02 zakim, who is here? 14:54:02 On the phone I see jorn, pgroth, +44.238.059.aaaa 14:54:03 On IRC I see dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, luc, pgroth, jorn, Luc_, sandro, trackbot 14:54:14 iker has joined #prov 14:54:35 +[IPcaller] 14:54:45 zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me 14:54:45 +luc; got it 14:55:01 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:55:01 +dgarijo; got it 14:55:15 -jorn 14:55:28 +[IPcaller] 14:56:04 Zakim, who is loud? 14:56:04 I don't understand your question, pgroth. 14:56:34 +??P18 14:56:36 +??P17 14:56:39 zakim, who is making noise? 14:56:49 luc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (50%), [IPcaller] (87%), ??P17 (24%) 14:57:05 GK has joined #prov 14:57:13 zakim, agenda? 14:57:13 I see nothing on the agenda 14:57:42 zakim, who's here? 14:57:42 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, [IPcaller], ??P18, ??P17 14:57:43 On IRC I see GK, iker, dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, luc, pgroth, jorn, Luc_, sandro, trackbot 14:57:49 + +1.915.603.aabb 14:57:55 paolo_ has joined #prov 14:57:55 Regrets: Simon Dobson, Simon Miles 14:58:20 paulo has joined #prov 14:58:30 I think [IPCaller] may be me ... Graham Klyne 14:58:38 Regrets: Helena Deus 14:58:45 q? 14:58:49 satya has joined #prov 14:58:57 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:58:57 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, [IPcaller], ??P18, ??P17, +1.915.603.aabb 14:59:28 olaf has joined #prov 14:59:30 zakim, [IPcaller] is GK 14:59:30 +GK; got it 14:59:39 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:39 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, ??P18, ??P17, +1.915.603.aabb 15:00:06 abdn_uk has joined #prov 15:00:19 zakim, ??P18 is me 15:00:20 zakim, +1.915.603.aabb is paulo 15:00:20 +paolo; got it 15:00:20 +paulo; got it 15:00:32 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:36 +SatyaSahoo 15:00:44 zednik has joined #prov 15:00:45 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo 15:00:59 zakim, +1.915.603.aabb is me 15:01:02 + +49.302.093.aacc 15:01:08 +??P33 15:01:13 sorry, paulo, I do not recognize a party named '+1.915.603.aabb' 15:01:14 + +1.509.375.aadd 15:01:18 +Jeff_Pan 15:01:20 +??P6 15:01:22 +??P11 15:01:24 +sandro 15:01:26 + +1.937.708.aaee 15:01:33 zakim, aacc is me 15:01:33 +olaf; got it 15:01:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:41 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo, olaf, ??P33, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, ??P6, ??P11, sandro, +1.937.708.aaee 15:01:41 jcheney has joined #prov 15:01:45 -??P33 15:01:51 + +1.540.449.aaff 15:02:00 Zakim, who is here 15:02:00 jcheney, you need to end that query with '?' 15:02:02 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:02:03 Zakim, who is here? 15:02:03 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo, olaf, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, ??P6, ??P11, sandro, +1.937.708.aaee, +1.540.449.aaff 15:02:06 On IRC I see khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, zednik, abdn_uk, olaf, satya, paulo, paolo, GK, iker, dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, luc, pgroth, jorn, Luc_, sandro, trackbot 15:02:08 + +1.646.389.aagg 15:02:13 -??P11 15:02:22 VinhNguyen has joined #prov 15:02:22 +??P30 15:02:37 zakim, ??P30 is me 15:02:37 +jorn; got it 15:02:42 Yogesh has joined #prov 15:02:47 Zakim, who is here? 15:02:47 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo, olaf, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, ??P6, sandro, +1.937.708.aaee, +1.540.449.aaff, +1.646.389.aagg, jorn 15:02:51 On IRC I see Yogesh, VinhNguyen, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, zednik, abdn_uk, olaf, satya, paulo, paolo, GK, iker, dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, luc, pgroth, jorn, Luc_, sandro, 15:02:54 ... trackbot 15:02:57 +??P33 15:03:09 zakim, ??P33 is me 15:03:09 +jcheney; got it 15:03:24 zakim, +1.540 is me 15:03:24 +Yogesh; got it 15:03:39 Zakim, who is here? 15:03:39 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo, olaf, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, ??P6, sandro, +1.937.708.aaee, Yogesh, +1.646.389.aagg, jorn, jcheney 15:03:42 On IRC I see Yogesh, VinhNguyen, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, zednik, abdn_uk, olaf, satya, paulo, paolo, GK, iker, dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, luc, pgroth, jorn, sandro, trackbot 15:03:51 + +1.518.276.aahh 15:04:18 zakim, +1.937.708.aaee is me 15:04:18 +VinhNguyen; got it 15:04:31 (http://irc.w3.org/?channels=prov). 15:04:39 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:04:40 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo, olaf, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, ??P6, sandro, VinhNguyen, Yogesh, +1.646.389.aagg, jorn, jcheney, 15:04:43 ... +1.518.276.aahh 15:04:45 ericstephan has joined #prov 15:05:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.05 15:05:16 TOPIC: 1 Admin 15:05:36 + +1.518.633.aaii 15:06:01 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-04-28 15:06:02 SubTopic: Minutes Approval 15:06:17 - +1.646.389.aagg 15:06:37 + +1.646.389.aajj 15:06:41 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 15:06:48 ACCEPTED: last week's minutes 15:06:57 SubTopic: Action Items 15:06:59 JimMyers has joined #prov 15:07:18 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Main_Page#Background 15:07:19 YolandaGil has joined #prov 15:08:11 David has joined #prov 15:08:13 + +1.518.276.aakk 15:08:35 +[ISI] 15:08:55 +[IPcaller] 15:09:03 Actions ACTION-1 and ACTION-2 t be closed 15:09:04 Zakim, +[ISI] is really me 15:09:04 sorry, YolandaGil, I do not recognize a party named '+[ISI]' 15:09:07 jun has joined #prov 15:09:15 Zakim, [ISI] is really me 15:09:15 +YolandaGil; got it 15:09:17 +[IPcaller.a] 15:09:18 SubTopic: Invited Experts 15:09:29 Sandro: still in progress 15:09:32 zakim, [IPcaller.a] is jun 15:09:32 +jun; got it 15:09:45 I am in a similar situation: not officially joined yet 15:10:01 pgroth: mailing list will be updated once decisions made 15:10:15 SubTopic: email discussions 15:10:34 pgroth: we cannot do all our discussions in a single weekly call 15:10:45 frew has joined #prov 15:10:45 DeborahMcG has joined #prov 15:10:59 ... bring up all your comments on the mailing list (once registered!) 15:11:15 q? 15:11:28 how do you "raise" an issue? 15:12:56 Isn't this what the tracker is for? 15:13:05 pgroth: discuss it by email, and formal process will follow, in telcon or through tracker 15:13:42 sandro: there is flexibility. In tracker: it's create option. Chairs can upgrade by opening. 15:14:03 ok thx 15:14:08 Does creating an issue automatically generate an email? 15:14:16 pgroth: we can do it by email or by the tracker 15:14:36 OK 15:14:44 sandro: yes it does, it makes a thread automatically. Email posted on initial creation. 15:15:05 SubTopic: Scribe 15:15:24 pgroth: we need people to volunteer 15:16:06 pgroth: let us know or update page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes 15:16:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces 15:16:17 Topic: Provenance Task Forces 15:17:16 LarsG has joined #prov 15:17:22 -jorn 15:17:34 pgroth: get your feedback: are descriptions suitable? 15:17:50 +q 15:17:52 +??P30 15:18:03 zakim, ??P30 is me 15:18:03 +jorn; got it 15:18:10 luc: this is an initial description, it will evolve over time probably 15:18:14 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:18:14 On the phone I see pgroth, luc, dgarijo, GK, paolo, ??P17, paulo, SatyaSahoo, olaf, +1.509.375.aadd, Jeff_Pan, ??P6, sandro, VinhNguyen, Yogesh, jcheney, +1.518.276.aahh, 15:18:18 ... +1.518.633.aaii, +1.646.389.aajj, +1.518.276.aakk, YolandaGil, [IPcaller], jun, jorn 15:18:29 +[IPcaller.a] 15:18:33 jcheney: would be good to know who goes to which TF? 15:18:59 Zakim, please mute me 15:18:59 LarsG should now be muted 15:19:07 jcheney: minor issues to discuss, but shouldn't delay approval 15:19:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Talk:ProvenanceTaskForces 15:19:55 jcheney: formal model vs formal semantics? what's the dividing line? 15:21:00 For the RDF work, the model and formal semantics were developed in parallel 15:21:12 jcheney: formal or informal first? 15:21:43 jcheney: i wanted to bring this up for the record 15:21:53 PROPOSED: to accept the structure of task forces 15:22:12 +1 15:22:14 +1 15:22:15 +1 15:22:16 +1 15:22:17 +1 15:22:17 +1 15:22:17 +1 15:22:18 +1 15:22:18 +1 15:22:18 +1 15:22:19 q+ 15:22:21 +1 15:22:22 +1 15:22:23 +1 15:22:25 +1 15:22:26 +1 15:22:28 -q 15:22:29 +1 15:22:29 +1 15:22:30 +1 15:22:56 +1 15:22:59 paulo: I don't fully understand dependencies 15:23:20 ... some things can be done in parallel, but other tasks difficult without model 15:23:27 q+ 15:24:26 paolo: implementation TF: is toolkit in scope of charter? 15:24:27 +??P41 15:24:39 -??P6 15:24:49 paul: it's for people in this TF to discuss 15:25:03 ericstephan_ has joined #prov 15:25:13 CarlOGC has joined #prov 15:25:18 ... in WG we encourage people to implement the standard, we don't do it ourselves 15:25:50 luc: not the goal of the working group to directly implement the standard 15:25:58 I think implementations/tools is also a requirement for the W3C recommendation process 15:26:16 +??P6 15:26:26 luc: encourage the implementation 15:26:50 luc: initial tasks for each task force that can be done in parrallel 15:26:53 zakim, +??P6 is really me 15:26:53 sorry, khalidbelhajjame, I do not recognize a party named '+??P6' 15:27:07 luc: identify dependencies betweens task forces 15:27:09 David_ has joined #prov 15:27:43 + +1.860.995.aall 15:27:45 zakim, ??P6 is really me 15:27:45 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:28:00 paulo: this answers my question 15:28:13 ACCEPTED: structure of task forces 15:28:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Apr/0012.html 15:28:28 Topic: Model Task Force 15:28:53 pgroth: outline of way of bootstrapping activities of Model Task Force 15:28:59 The initial scenario: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1 15:29:27 pgroth: an example, illustrating concepts of charter, and then raising issues for discussion 15:29:40 q+ 15:29:54 q- 15:30:07 sorry that was dangling from earlier 15:31:21 paulo: most interesting discussions were about the concepts (in final report of incubator) 15:31:46 paulo: reluctant to use mapping work for background of this group 15:32:32 isn't that the actual starting point? 15:33:07 -jorn 15:33:26 sound quality is very poor for me 15:33:41 +??P30 15:33:48 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1 15:33:49 paulo: start from concepts of the final report 15:33:53 zakim, ??P30 is me 15:33:53 +jorn; got it 15:34:10 +q 15:34:18 pgroth: that's exactly what is proposed, the example illustrates concepts from the charter 15:34:36 pgroth: i think we propose what you are suggesting 15:35:15 q- paulo 15:35:56 jcheney: we seem to bootstrap model task force with example 15:36:03 q+ 15:36:08 q+ 15:37:03 +1 to using test cases to isolate issues 15:37:04 jcheney: when riasing issues, we should give concrete examples of what we are trying to achieve 15:37:07 q- 15:37:09 q? 15:37:35 luc: in the discussion now there is a lot of references to the work that incubator did 15:37:49 luc: half of the participants were not members of the incubator group 15:38:05 luc: continue the incubator group discussions around the concepts from the charter 15:38:28 luc: bootstrap the model task force and educate the whole working group 15:38:37 q- 15:38:38 q+ 15:39:34 paulo: my only concern is to refer back to the mapping 15:40:01 paulo: we shouldn't consider the list final 15:40:36 ... e.g. versioning was put there as a placeholder 15:41:16 pgroth: that's the approach 15:41:41 I suggest we follow jcheney approach, to bring further examples which may indicate the need for further concepts 15:42:28 PROPOSED: discuss charter concepts initially, based on a given example 15:42:46 Concretely, it would help a lot of someone could add an example showing how to handle http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExampleAndConcept1 using PML. 15:43:30 but why PML only and not OPM/Provenir/Provenance Vocabulary and others? 15:43:38 pgroth: all discussion public in the open 15:44:00 any other comment about this proposal? 15:44:23 +1 15:44:24 certainly, having OPM/Provenir/Provenance Vocabulary examples would help even more! 15:44:25 +1 15:44:26 pls restate proposal concisely 15:44:57 q+ 15:45:14 PROPOSED: to accept the approach outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Apr/0012.html 15:45:50 +q 15:46:28 paulo: we have languages, but we don't have semantics 15:46:53 q+ 15:47:04 +1 15:47:12 pgroth: proposal is to iterate through informal definitions, until we agree on an English definition 15:47:15 +1, I think the example is rich enough that it includes the concepts behind the differences in prior languages and adding issues/small point examples to capture anything missing will work 15:47:59 q- 15:48:07 pgroth: the proposal is about the process, not the concrete example 15:48:40 paolo: people may be uncomfortable with the graph with strong opm flavor 15:48:47 q+ 15:48:50 q- 15:48:54 -jorn 15:49:02 ack paulo 15:49:13 yolanda: we had lots of scenarios in the incubator 15:49:32 ... we selected concepts that were most relevant from these scenarios 15:49:32 +??P3 15:49:50 zakim, ??P3 is me 15:49:50 +jorn; got it 15:49:59 ... concern is we could go to deep on some concepts and not pay attention to others 15:50:25 q+ 15:50:33 ack YolandaGil 15:50:52 pgroth: by driving by an example, would we be too specific? 15:51:28 satya: we shouldnt use the graph, but the plain text descriptions, and add further concepts if required 15:51:32 q- 15:52:15 q+ 15:52:37 pgroth: remove the opm specific graph 15:52:59 q+ 15:53:09 jcheney: use other languages to describe the same scenario 15:53:27 ack jcheney 15:53:29 q- 15:53:30 ack paulo 15:53:34 jcheeny: would be good for comparison 15:53:39 +1 what jcheney said 15:54:08 paulo: issues are defined in opm terms 15:54:34 paulo: name of sections are OPM terms 15:54:57 paulo: meaning of the graph explained in plain english 15:55:17 q+ 15:55:18 ericstephan_ has joined #prov 15:56:08 paulo: what is the true scenario in this example? 15:56:54 paulo: we should not have pre-defined views of the world 15:57:27 paulo: we are already embracing terms with predefined meanings 15:57:32 (I will need to leave the building at the top of the hour, talk next week. I would appreciate getting on the list if possible!) 15:57:37 I agree with Paulo - maybe we should start with the "Outline" and "Processing steps" in the example? 15:57:51 luc: go back to the agenda 15:57:59 luc: mixing two different discussion 15:58:04 luc: agree on a process 15:58:09 luc: example driven 15:58:24 luc: discuss concepts of the charter 15:58:49 luc: discussing right now the content 15:59:05 luc: headings are terms from the charter 15:59:12 luc: these are not opm terms 15:59:28 +1 for example driven process 15:59:41 +1 for example driver 15:59:51 +1 for process 15:59:52 +1 15:59:52 paolo has left #prov 15:59:53 +1 the example 16:00:08 +1 to be example-driven 16:00:13 -GK 16:00:14 +1 for example-driven approach 16:00:14 +1 EDA 16:00:19 +1 for example-driven 16:00:20 +1 16:00:21 +1 16:00:23 +1 to example driven approache 16:00:23 +1 for example driven approach 16:00:26 +1 16:00:26 +1 for example driven 16:00:27 +1 EDA 16:00:38 +1 for EDA 16:00:38 +1 16:00:42 (can the minutes make the proposal clear?) 16:01:03 +q 16:01:17 ack luc 16:01:20 ack jcheney 16:01:23 JimMcCusker has joined #prov 16:01:44 ACCEPTED: example driven approach as a process 16:01:55 OK, good 16:02:13 -YolandaGil 16:02:17 q- 16:02:25 q+ admin matter - to ask who is mailing list admin? 16:02:33 - +1.518.276.aahh 16:02:35 -SatyaSahoo 16:02:36 -Yogesh 16:02:36 -olaf 16:02:36 -khalidbelhajjame 16:02:37 pgroth: we'll end here but there is a lot to discuss on the example 16:02:38 -dgarijo 16:02:38 - +1.509.375.aadd 16:02:39 -??P41 16:02:42 -jun 16:02:43 Yogesh has left #prov 16:02:46 - +1.518.633.aaii 16:02:48 -VinhNguyen 16:02:50 -sandro 16:02:52 -jcheney 16:02:59 -paolo 16:03:01 - +1.518.276.aakk 16:03:04 - +1.646.389.aajj 16:03:26 -jorn 16:03:29 -LarsG 16:03:34 ericstephan_ has left #prov 16:03:35 -Jeff_Pan 16:03:37 -pgroth 16:03:39