<trackbot> Date: 19 May 2011

<luc> Scribe: smiles

<tlebo> What command do I use to associate my irc handle to my phone?

<pgroth> \me Zakim blah is blah

<jorn> Zakim: ??P30 is me

<tlebo> \me Zakim P22 is tlebo

<tlebo> Zakim P22 is tlebo

<luc> Guest: Paolo (paolo_) Missier

<luc> Guest: Satya Sahoo

<luc> Guest: Yogesh Simmhan

<frew> I am +1.805.893.aacc

<zednik> I am +1.518.633.aadd

<Christine> Hi. Sorry everyone. I'm not sure how to assign myself. Calling using VOIP. (Thanks Luc, you did send instructions.)

<frew> +q

<dgarijo> Type: "Zakim, <YOUR id> is me"

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.19

<scribe> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.19

<CarlOGC> zakim skype carl.n.reed CarlOGC

<GK> +??P44

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-05-12

<luc> Guest: Yolanda Gil

Admin

<pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 12 May telecon

<simoninireland> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<satya> +1

<DavidSchaengold> +1

+1

<frew> +1

<jcheney> +1

<jorn> +1

<tlebo> +1

<Edoardo_and_David> +1

<GK> +1

<olaf> +1

<iker> +1

<jun> +1

<pgroth> minutes accepted

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open

<SamCoppens> thanks

pgroth: action to add links to examples (active topics from front Wiki page) has been done
... encourage all to add links when new active topics
... slowly resolving issues getting everyone on group, mailing list

satya: how soon will invited expert issues be resolved?

pgroth: don't know, for W3C

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes

pgroth: we need scribes for the next weeks - please add you names, else will pick on people

<luc> see instructions http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/HowToSetUp

<luc> we can help set up before meeting

pgroth: responsibilities of scribes are to write summaries of what people say, and commands are available on the link luc just sent

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample

data journalism example

pgroth: we decided to take an example-based approach, comments were received, are there any more?

<khalidbelhajjame> there is noise on the line

YolandaG: liked example, but where we illustrate what a provenance container is, need to be clear that not all provenance may be in that container - may need to access other areas

<tlebo> yolanda: should consider situation where not all provenance is in the same "container", and would need to go fetch additional provenance for that resource.

<jun> +1 to YolandaG

<pgroth> can people use the queue

<luc> ???: multiple sources are not represented yet in the example

<luc> carlOGC: to send a few words to incorporate map

CarlOGC: asks about incorporating a map into the example

<tlebo> would the group mind expanding the variables used in the scenario? (e.g. lcp1)

<tlebo> +1 to continuing with example.

pgroth: can we proceed with example as is, and expand as we go along - nice to move on to discussing concepts

<GK> +1 to moving on, update example as needed.

<khalidbelhajjame> +1 for continuing to change the example along instead of trying to get right now

<pgroth> proposal: continue updating example, but use the data journalism example as it currently stands

<YogeshSimmhan> +1

<jorn> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<satya> I agree, we should start with the example and let it evolve

<tlebo> +1

<olaf> +1 to moving on

+1

<Edoardo_and_David> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<paolo> +1

<jun> +1

<iker> +1 moving on

<zednik> +1

<simoninireland> +1

<jcheney> +1

<VinhNguyen> +1

<GK> +1

<frew> if you are in a public place then please mute

<pgroth> proposal accepted

<tlebo> +q

<DavidSchaengold> +1

tlebo: what are the next steps beyond making tweaks to scenario?

<dgarijo> +q

pgroth: proceed as we have been doing by email to discuss example

<tlebo> pgroth: how to proceed with current example: continue to discuss via email.

dgarijo: proposal to add another example(s) on mailing list

<tlebo> []: do we create a new example to capture scientific domain.

<pgroth> i droped

<pgroth> can you take over luc

<luc> yes

<dgarijo> finally!

<tlebo> proposal: create an additional example for scientific domain.

luc: agreed last time to start with first example for discussing concepts, bring other examples when need found

<tlebo> luc: we agreed to start with this example to discuss concepts. When this scenario does not capture the concepts of sci prov, we develop new example.

<tlebo> +1 working with the example as is.

pgroth: we need to move on discussing concepts, but can keep iterating

provenance access and query task force

<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011May/0071.html

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Access_and_Query_Task_Force

pgroth: discussion of architecture on mailing list, any comments on how to get tf started?

olaf: we agreed on a set of objectives for F2F
... including draft for access and query architecture

<iker> +1 olaf proposal

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/XGR-prov/

<khalidbelhajjame> +1 for Olaf's proposal

PROPOSED: base draft architecture on XG report linked above

<dgarijo> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

GK: not clear from XG report what the problem trying to be solved is

<tlebo> []: we need a clear problem statement for PAQ-TF.

GK: will send thoughts to mailing list on this

satya: agree with Olaf, but in XG report did not discuss query mechanism only access
... will we discuss query separately?

pgroth: olaf's proposal was around access, fit into web architecture

<tlebo> paulo: we need questions for the provenance example.

paulo: we have scenario with list of questions which could be posed, but should have queries which motivate problem - design for answering questions asked

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample#Provenance_Questions

luc: discussions on access task force were good, and discussion of XG report was positively received
... we were pointed to POWDER as something to consider
... queries are in scope of this WG, but not intent of WG to design a query language for provenance

<GK> +1 not designing a query language

pgroth: two proposals to proceed: use incubator group report section to build up from

<YogeshSimmhan> +1 to olaf proposal to use XG report as starting point

pgroth: second, crisply define the problems we are trying to solve first

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

+1

<SamCoppens> +1

<jcheney> +1 for starting point

<simoninireland> +1

<olaf> +1

<jorn> +1

<dgarijo> +1

<tlebo> +1

<d3a303> +1

<DavidSchaengold> +1

<jun> +1 for starting point

<GK> +1 (taking into account resevrations noted in email)

<satya> I also propose that we rename PAQ task force as provenance access task force

<Edoardo_and_David> +1

<satya> +1

<dgarijo> also, +1 to not designing a new query language.

<khalidbelhajjame> +q

<d3a303> d3a303 - is ericstephan - btw :-)

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say not opposing use of XG doc

khalid: with regard to query language being outside scope of WG, we should be clear that only access

RESOLUTION: use incubator report access architecture as starting point for access and query task force F2F draft

<luc> It is still the case that we may want to explain how to use, say SPARQL, to query provenance

pgroth: could rename access and query task force to access only, but also have reference to sparql endpoints etc in charter

satya: not proposing new query language, but say how existing languages to fit into architecture

GK: maybe in scope how to make use of existing query languages, mechanisms

concepts illustration

<pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011May/0018.html

<pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/CharterConceptsIllustration

pgroth: asked people to discuss how example can be used to illustrate concepts from charter
... used scenario to propose examples for concepts - not many comments yet - are they reasonable?

<Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that identifying mechanisms to use existing QL is OK

paulo: maybe limiting that example is so focused on a process
... use of process may blind us to cover all aspects we need

pgroth: we want to define the set of concepts we want to use, need a process for this activity
... (process for wg, not in model)

<luc> paul: explain what an issue is

<pgroth> What term do we adopt for concept 'xxx' and how do we define it?"

<luc> paul, please explain what an issue is

pgroth: raise an issue for each concept in the charter of form above

<tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/

pgroth: an issue is something which can be raised in the tracker for discussion until resolution

<pgroth> eric?

<ericstephan> lost connection getting back on

pgroth: initial set from charter, and if new concepts people can raise them as issues

<jcheney> "issue" is just the name for something the tracker tracks...

paulo: consider questions we have to be answered with model, as we may have concepts which are not answering any question

<luc> paulo has got a point, we have a list of queries associated with the example

<luc> a "w3c issue" is like a bug in bugzilla

<jcheney> some of them might be uncontroversial and so "resolved" immediately.

luc: paulo is right that we do not want concepts not used in any queries, so we need to show how they are used to answer queries
... we have a list and need to extend it over time

PROPOSED: raise issue for discussing each concept

<satya> for raising issue?

<simoninireland> +1

<tlebo> +1 using tracker

<dgarijo> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<satya> +1

<jorn> +1

<jcheney> +1

+1

<GK> +1

<jun> +1

<DavidSchaengold> +1

<zednik> +1

<Altintas> +1

<frew> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<Edoardo_and_David> +1

<olaf> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<YogeshSimmhan> +1

eric: can connection task force use these concepts to identify which groups they may pertain to?

jcheney: when using issue tracker, there is a formal process for asking for comments from outside
... guidance says good to have examples to illustrate disagreements

<jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address

RESOLUTION: use issue tracking to discuss concept definitions

<tlebo> wiki?

pgroth: how to suggest definitions?

<luc> a wiki page per concept?

<tlebo> +1

<zednik> +1

<luc> i don't think so

<Edoardo_and_David> +1 a wiki page per concept

<ericstephan> +1 luc's idea

<jorn> +1

pgroth: once we have a wiki page per concept, then what?

<satya> +1 for wiki page

<luc> so, when we raise an issue, we also create the corresponding wiki page

<olaf> +1

<satya> Create a definition for the concept

<jun> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

tlebo: use wiki to represent current definition, have wiki link as part of the tracker (issue)

<dgarijo> +1

<jorn> there are history links in the wiki, aren't they? so use them in emails?

<Altintas> +1

<satya> from the XG final report?

pgroth: how to get first set of definitions?

GK: maybe more productive for someone familiar with W3C tooling put something initial together

luc: proposal of inviting submitting definitions is good, but some definitions may be mutually dependent, so need mechanism to cross-ref definitions

<satya> a note on the wiki page of the concept to cross-reference?

PROPOSED: idea is everyone allowed to submit own definitions, then merge

<luc> or is better to put one proposal, which get discussed?

<tlebo> concept references within a definition can link via wiki link.

GK: in asking people to submit, could ask that grounded in example?

<dgarijo> +1

pgroth: (agree with GK, add to proposal above)

<satya> + 1 for proposal 1

pgroth: alternative proposal to start with one definition, and edit (based on example)

<luc> ... or prposed alternative definition

<tlebo> multiple working definitions could be placed onto the same concept's wiki page

<tlebo> what percentage of the working group can edit the wiki?

GK: just suggesting that whatever process used, ground in example

<jcheney> +q

luc: maybe difficult to come up with initial definitions - instead paraphrase something rather than formal definition

jcheney: formal or informal definitions?

<zednik> +1 informal

<jorn> +1 for informal first...

<dgarijo> +1 to informal

<tlebo> re: formality, have both rdfs/owl statements and inform descriptions on same wiki page for the concept?

paulo: agree on distinction between informal and formal definitions (are informal definitions actually definitions?)

luc: half of wg did not belong to incubator, we are first trying to build a shared vocabulary

<GK> +1 to building shared vocabulary

<zednik> +1 to building shared vocabularly

luc: starting with a formal definition is not helping, informal definition using paraphrasing, examples, graphical notation is better

<olaf> +1 for proposal 1 with informal definitions

<jun> + informal

<dgarijo> +1

<jcheney> +1

<jorn> +1

<zednik> +1

<tlebo> +1 formal +1 informal

<ericstephan> +1

<frew> +1

<satya> +1 for informal

<Edoardo_and_David> +1

<pgroth> proposal for information to start

pgroth: informal definitions to start?

+1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<paolo> +1 informal

<dgarijo> +1 informal

<DavidSchaengold> +1 for informal

<GK> +1 start informal, build shared vocab

<CarlOGC> +1

<YogeshSimmhan> +1

<Altintas> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<Altintas> or informal

pgroth: will set up web pages for concepts, task for defining concepts

<ericstephan> Yes Zakim?

<luc> thanks simon

trackbot, end telcon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: smiles
Inferring ScribeNick: smiles
Default Present: pgroth, luc, smiles, +1.518.276.aaaa, DavidSchaengold, +1.858.210.aabb, jorn, tlebo, +1.805.893.aacc, dgarijo, SatyaSahoo, paolo_, olaf
Present: pgroth luc smiles +1.518.276.aaaa DavidSchaengold +1.858.210.aabb jorn tlebo +1.805.893.aacc dgarijo SatyaSahoo paolo_ olaf
Regrets: Kai Eckert
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.19
Found Date: 19 May 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/19-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: