14:43:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:43:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-irc
14:43:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:43:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:43:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:43:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:43:41 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:43:41 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011
14:43:54 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:43:54 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
14:44:11 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02
14:44:19 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:26 <Luc> Scribe: Paolo Missier
14:44:36 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:44:50 <Luc> Regrets: Olaf Hartig, Eric Stephan
14:45:26 <paolo> paolo has joined #prov
14:45:53 <paolo> trackbot, start telcon
14:45:54 <Luc> paolo, it's all  set up
14:45:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:45:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:45:58 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:45:58 <paolo> ok
14:45:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:45:59 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011
14:46:15 <paolo> do I need to do anything at all now?
14:46:33 <Luc> nothing, we just need to wait for start of call
14:46:42 <paolo> sweet
14:48:30 <paolo> paolo has joined #prov
14:52:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:12 <GK> GK has joined #prov
14:52:14 <Zakim> +luc
14:53:00 <frew> frew has joined #prov
14:53:08 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov
14:54:17 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:55:44 <Zakim> +??P13
14:55:52 <JimMyers> JimMyers has joined #prov
14:55:58 <smiles> zakim, ??P13 is me
14:55:58 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
14:55:59 <Zakim> +frew
14:57:24 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:57:33 <Zakim> +??P16
14:57:50 <paolo> zakim, ??P16 is me
14:57:50 <Zakim> +paolo; got it
14:57:52 <Zakim> +??P17
14:57:52 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:58:09 <GK> zakim, ??p17 is me
14:58:09 <Zakim> +GK; got it
14:58:11 <Luc> Hi Stephen, welcome!
14:58:53 <Zakim> +??P20
14:59:04 <kai> kai has joined #prov
14:59:16 <Zakim> +??P22
14:59:19 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa
14:59:25 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P20 is me
14:59:25 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:59:28 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:59:42 <Zakim> +Yogesh
14:59:48 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
14:59:58 <tlebo> what is the phone listing command?
15:00:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:12 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see luc, smiles, frew, paolo, GK, dgarijo, ??P22, +1.518.276.aaaa, Yogesh, [IPcaller]
15:00:24 <kai> Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me.
15:00:24 <Zakim> sorry, kai, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
15:00:30 <kai> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me.
15:00:30 <Zakim> +kai; got it
15:00:39 <Zakim> +??P9
15:01:22 <Zakim> + +44.207.394.aabb
15:01:24 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov
15:01:42 <Zakim> -??P22
15:01:42 <tlebo> Zakim, aaaa is tlebo
15:01:43 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:01:59 <Zakim> +??P22
15:02:04 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:02:09 <Zakim> +[ISI]
15:02:10 <jorn> Zakim, ??P22 is me
15:02:10 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:02:23 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov
15:02:29 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:02:30 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:02:40 <Zakim> +??P34
15:02:46 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc
15:02:48 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.02
15:02:54 <iker> iker has joined #prov
15:03:18 <Zakim> +DavidSchaengold
15:03:20 <DavidSchaengold> DavidSchaengold has joined #prov
15:03:33 <frew> +1 minutes
15:03:34 <paolo> Luc: accept minutes from previous confcall?
15:03:36 <dgarijo> +1
15:03:37 <paolo> +1
15:03:39 <DavidSchaengold> +1
15:03:39 <tlebo> +1
15:03:39 <dcorsar> +1
15:03:40 <kai> +1
15:03:41 <Yogesh> +
15:03:44 <iker> +1
15:03:46 <Edoardo> +1
15:03:48 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:53 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:03:59 <jorn> +1
15:03:59 <GK> abstain (was present but not in audio)
15:04:09 <zednik> +1
15:04:10 <Zakim> +??P7
15:04:13 <JimMyers> +1
15:04:22 <smiles> +1
15:04:32 <Zakim> +zednik
15:04:33 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P7 i really me
15:04:34 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P7 i really me', khalidbelhajjame
15:04:45 <paolo> Luc: minutes accepted
15:04:48 <Zakim> +??P38
15:04:49 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P7 is really me
15:04:51 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:04:56 <jcheney> Zakim, ??P38 is really me
15:04:59 <paolo> topic: review of actions
15:05:00 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:05:11 <Zakim> +??P18
15:05:47 <stain> stain has joined #prov
15:05:55 <Zakim> +??P5
15:05:57 <Zakim> +SatyaSahoo
15:05:58 <paolo> Luc: invited experts  -- not all experts on board yet
15:06:11 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:06:13 <jun> zakim, ??P5 is jun
15:06:13 <Zakim> +jun; got it
15:06:14 <jcheney> Zakim, who is noisy
15:06:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', jcheney
15:06:15 <paolo> Luc: calling for Sandro but he's not responding
15:06:27 <paolo> Luc: apologies for delay
15:06:35 <frew> someone keyboard is drowning out the speakers
15:06:42 <jorn> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:06:45 <paolo> Topic: F2F1
15:06:47 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1
15:06:52 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: luc (89%), paolo (25%)
15:07:03 <jorn> Zakim, please mute paolo
15:07:03 <Zakim> paolo should now be muted
15:07:08 <stain> Zakim, who is still on the phone?
15:07:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see luc, smiles, frew, paolo (muted), GK, dgarijo, tlebo, Yogesh, kai, ??P9, +44.207.394.aabb, jorn, [ISI], ??P34, +1.518.276.aacc, DavidSchaengold,
15:07:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:07:12 <Zakim> ... khalidbelhajjame, zednik, jcheney, ??P18, jun, SatyaSahoo
15:07:23 <paolo> Luc: please signal whether you can attend
15:07:40 <paolo> Luc: meeting objectives are set, docs will be produced and posted to the wiki
15:07:48 <Luc> q?
15:07:50 <dgarijo> I'll attend online to the f2f
15:08:10 <Luc> q?
15:08:23 <paolo> Luc: also indicate whether you will attend online
15:09:17 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces
15:09:21 <paolo> Luc: invited people to sign up to Task forces, some have not yet done so
15:09:50 <Zakim> +paulo
15:10:01 <paulo> paulo has joined #prov
15:10:18 <paolo> Luc: Model task force: Jun, Satya, Khalid, Paolo have started adding their definitions on the wiki
15:10:22 <Zakim> -DavidSchaengold
15:10:23 <paolo> Luc: others please contribute
15:10:41 <GK> q+ to ask what it means to be a member of a TF beyond being member of this WG
15:10:46 <paolo> Luc: provenance access and query TF: Yogesh, Simon Miles have agreed to be coordinators
15:11:09 <paolo> Luc: Connection TF: Eric, Stephen, Kai coordinate
15:11:32 <Luc> q?
15:11:32 <paolo> Luc: Implementation TF: still looking for confirmed coordinators
15:11:37 <tlebo> are the coordinators listed someplace other than http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces ?
15:11:54 <kai> Its Eric Stephan, not Eric and Stephen
15:12:21 <paolo> Graham: what does it mean to be a TF member wrt membership of group at large?
15:12:51 <paolo> Luc: TF membership involves active contributions + autyhor/review docs
15:14:16 <kai> q+ to desperately ask for more contributers to the connection TF.
15:14:27 <GK> q-
15:14:28 <Luc> ack GK
15:14:30 <paolo> Luc: roles and activities within a TF may vary, people can choose. This is to understand who the coordinators can expect to interact with
15:14:34 <Luc> ack kai
15:14:34 <Zakim> kai, you wanted to desperately ask for more contributers to the connection TF.
15:14:59 <paolo> Kai: need more contributors to the connection TF
15:15:49 <VinhNguyen> VinhNguyen has joined #prov
15:15:50 <paolo> Luc: TF3/4 -- possible model is: template to be produced by coordinators, contributors to fill in the template
15:16:25 <Luc> q?
15:16:28 <paolo> Luc: means that for these TF workload is expected to be very distributed
15:16:39 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:16:45 <Zakim> +VinhNguyen
15:16:52 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:16:56 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:17:04 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:17:19 <Zakim> -jorn
15:17:32 <paolo> Luc: coordinators expected to propose a doc structure in the short term in view of the F2F. Outlines to be discussed in next week's telecon
15:17:32 <frew> frew has joined #prov
15:17:59 <Luc> q?
15:18:21 <paolo> Yogesh: will work with Simon to get something ready for next week
15:18:29 <Zakim> +??P43
15:18:36 <jorn> Zakim, ??P43 is me
15:18:36 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:19:02 <paolo> Luc: natural deadline is F2F meeting date, however one week review time would be good. This means end of June effective deadline
15:19:21 <Luc> q?
15:19:26 <paolo> Luc: actions will be created on each coordinator for doc outlines to be created
15:19:26 <tlebo> q+
15:20:02 <jorn> already italized coords of TF3
15:20:15 <paolo> tlebo: are coordinators listed on the TF page?
15:20:24 <paolo> Luc: not yet, will do
15:21:05 <Luc> q?
15:21:09 <Luc> ack tlebo
15:21:17 <GK> @tlebo TF wiki page has space for coordinators: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces
15:21:22 <paolo> Topic: model task force
15:22:02 <paolo> Luc: need provenance about the definitions that are added to wiki! :-)
15:23:19 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:23:21 <paolo> Luc: at SW coordination teleconf: debate on Web architecture takes majority of time and resources W3C-wide. We need to have time bounds
15:24:13 <paolo> Luc: Luc and Paul identified few key points on which consensus is critically needed
15:24:47 <paolo> Luc: following 5 proposals identified in the agenda
15:25:36 <Luc> q?
15:25:38 <paolo> Luc: discussions on provenance model and provenance in the Web architecture are best kept separate at this time
15:25:40 <JimMyers> +1 - is the mapping to web arch part of the access task force? or still model?
15:26:09 <Luc> q?
15:26:21 <paolo> Luc: soliciting comments on this
15:26:27 <Luc> q?
15:27:02 <paolo> GK: concerned that we may end up with different views that may be hard to reconcile at a later time
15:27:33 <paolo> Luc: possibly so, but at least we will have made progress on both
15:27:33 <Luc> q?
15:27:55 <satya> I tend to agree with GK
15:28:16 <jcheney> q+
15:28:21 <paolo> GK: sees common thread emerging
15:28:21 <Luc> q?
15:28:30 <Zakim> -VinhNguyen
15:28:54 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:29:11 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:29:28 <JimMyers> +q
15:29:37 <Luc> ack jcheney
15:30:02 <paolo> jcheney: we many not need to resolve all divergences in the group, let's keep working with provisional definitions, try to be cohesive on each of the two threads separately (?)
15:30:03 <GK> Agree with @jcheney's thrust - don't get hung up on perfect definitions, say something and make progress, review later
15:30:06 <jcheney> q-
15:30:27 <smiles> q+
15:30:40 <paolo> Luc: separation of model/arch to continue only up to F2F, at which point we will reassess
15:31:05 <satya> q+
15:31:06 <Luc> q?
15:31:17 <Luc> ack JimMyers
15:31:27 <paolo> Luc: use of term "resource" not helpful in the context of the model (?)
15:32:07 <frew> frew has joined #prov
15:32:11 <JimMyers> -q
15:32:16 <paolo> Luc: first define concepts, worry about mapping of model onto Web arch later
15:32:17 <Luc> q?
15:32:22 <Luc> ack smiles
15:33:07 <Zakim> -jorn
15:33:09 <paolo> smiles: given this separation: def for resource is just "what is the subject of provenance"?
15:33:24 <Zakim> +??P43
15:33:29 <jorn> Zakim, ??p43 isme
15:33:29 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p43 isme', jorn
15:33:36 <jorn> Zakim, ??p43 is me
15:33:36 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:33:39 <Luc> q?
15:33:44 <Luc> ack satya
15:33:54 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" may not be adequate for the model on its own
15:33:57 <GK> Listening to this discussion: I would move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.
15:34:20 <stain> GK, yup, sounds like the resource discussion is on again.. :)
15:34:31 <GK> q+ to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.
15:34:40 <dgarijo> +1 to what satya said
15:34:42 <paolo> satya: use journalism example to ground a concrete def. for resource, and then expand from there. Model and arch view may be reconciled in the context of the example
15:35:18 <paolo> Luc: in practice issues have emerged recently precisely in the context of the example
15:35:39 <zednik> +1 for separation of concept model from mapping to web architecture (access)
15:35:44 <Zakim> +paulo.a
15:36:09 <jorn> q+ to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?
15:36:22 <paolo> satya: start with "resource" has anything we want to describe the provenance of (check?)
15:37:08 <Luc> q?
15:37:10 <paolo> Luc: not yet clear what we mean by "provenance of a resource". leads to "mutable thing" vs "immutable thing" 
15:37:39 <Luc> q?
15:37:44 <Luc> ack GK
15:37:44 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to move to accept the proposal for now, but review in 2 weeks.
15:37:46 <paolo> satya: use "what should be a resource" in the context of the journalism example
15:38:40 <Luc> q?
15:39:02 <paolo> GK: propose to accept proposal 1 with option to review in case a divergence is evident
15:39:23 <Luc> q?
15:40:04 <zednik> +1 for renaming resource
15:40:12 <paolo> jorn: term "resource" seems overloaded. should also rename "resource" as part of this proposal
15:40:34 <Luc> q?
15:40:40 <Luc> ack jorn
15:40:40 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to propose to rename "provenance resource" so it isn't confused with web resource all the time?
15:40:47 <paolo> Luc: agree. need a good term to refer to "the thing that doesn't change"
15:41:05 <smiles> +1
15:41:07 <dgarijo> +1
15:41:13 <paolo> Luc: propose to accept proposal 1 and review it in 2 weeks
15:41:17 <dcorsar> +1
15:41:17 <GK> +1
15:41:18 <Edoardo> +1
15:41:18 <dgarijo> +1
15:41:21 <jun> +1
15:41:21 <stain> +1
15:41:21 <kai> +1
15:41:22 <Yogesh> +1
15:41:23 <Luc> propose: to define provenance-related concepts independently of the web architecture in a first instance, and review it in two weeks
15:41:24 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:41:24 <zednik> +1
15:41:24 <iker> +1
15:41:27 <jcheney> +1
15:41:27 <JimMyers> +1
15:41:28 <paolo> +1
15:41:28 <jorn> +1
15:41:32 <tlebo> +1
15:41:52 <frew> q+
15:41:53 <Zakim> -paulo.a
15:42:24 <Yogesh> +1 
15:42:31 <tlebo> w3.org is great from Troy, NY
15:42:34 <Yogesh> I have issues fro Los Anlges too
15:42:40 <jun> no problem here
15:43:04 <paolo> satya: agrees with proposal 1
15:43:29 <Luc> q?
15:43:32 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:43:32 <paolo> correct: satya agrees with Luc's proposal above 
15:43:48 <Luc> ack frew
15:43:51 <paolo> subtopic: proposal 2: the subject of provenance
15:44:39 <Luc> q?
15:44:40 <paolo> frew: if the model TF agreed with the OPM definitions at this time, would the TF be done?
15:44:40 <Zakim> +paulo.a
15:44:44 <GK> q+
15:44:50 <Luc> ack GK
15:45:37 <paolo> GK: not having been involved in OPM or other prior initiatives, position is not to simply adopt one of those models
15:46:18 <paulo> who is on the call?
15:46:49 <paulo> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:46:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see luc, smiles, frew, paolo (muted), GK, dgarijo, tlebo, kai, ??P9, +44.207.394.aabb, [ISI], ??P34, +1.518.276.aacc, khalidbelhajjame, zednik, jcheney, ??P18, jun,
15:46:53 <Zakim> ... SatyaSahoo, paulo, Yogesh, jorn, paulo.a
15:47:08 <paolo> Luc: not all is good in OPM. So even coming from there, do not think it should be adopted as is. Community will want to evolve the model anyways
15:47:16 <Luc> q?
15:47:17 <Zakim> -frew
15:47:32 <Luc> q?
15:47:37 <Luc> q?
15:47:38 <satya> agree 
15:47:43 <smiles> yes
15:47:49 <paolo> Luc: proposal 2 from agenda: "the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise"
15:47:50 <GK> waiting for proposal in IRC...
15:47:51 <Zakim> +frew
15:47:53 <jcheney> +1
15:47:54 <GK> +1
15:47:56 <zednik> +1
15:47:57 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:47:59 <stain> +1
15:48:02 <smiles> +1
15:48:04 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, or otherwise
15:48:07 <dgarijo> +1
15:48:07 <Edoardo> +1
15:48:07 <dcorsar> +1
15:48:08 <satya> +1
15:48:08 <kai> +1
15:48:08 <JimMyers> agent was a special case (like PML:source) to capture the idea of a resource that could participate in processes (along the lines of my emails and wiki entries) - agent just couldn't be an artifact if they are completely immutable
15:48:09 <jun> +1
15:48:10 <tlebo> +1
15:48:11 <jorn> +1
15:48:12 <JimMyers> +1
15:48:13 <paolo> +1
15:48:15 <stain> +1
15:48:16 <Zakim> -paulo
15:48:28 <Luc> q?
15:48:35 <YolandaGil> I wonder what category is "otherwise"
15:49:11 <JimMyers> conceptual, logical
15:49:38 <GK> I wouldn't prohibit imaginary, conceptual at this time
15:49:45 <paolo> YolandaGil: is the subject of provenance anything that we can refer to?
15:50:35 <tlebo> anything to which one may want to refer.
15:50:53 <zednik> mutable?
15:50:56 <GK> Yes, point taken about "can refer to" - maybe the TF can tighten up the definition?
15:51:00 <paulo> in PML, we use the  identifiedThing cncept (something that we can refer to)
15:51:03 <paolo> YolandaGil: correct as "physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise"?
15:51:13 <Luc> proposed: the subject of provenance may be anything, whether physical, digital, conceptual or otherwise
15:51:16 <JimMyers> +1
15:51:22 <GK> +1
15:51:23 <satya> +!
15:51:24 <Yogesh> +1
15:51:25 <kai> +1
15:51:25 <stain> +1
15:51:26 <Edoardo> +1
15:51:26 <tlebo> +100
15:51:26 <dcorsar> +1
15:51:27 <paolo> +q
15:51:28 <smiles> +1
15:51:29 <frew> +1
15:51:29 <dgarijo> +1
15:51:29 <jorn> +1
15:51:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:51:31 <jcheney> +1
15:51:31 <zednik> +1
15:51:33 <YolandaGil> +1
15:51:38 <jun> +1
15:52:04 <paolo> Luc: accepted
15:52:24 <paulo> if it is anything, can it be a thing that we cannot refer to?
15:52:25 <paolo> -q
15:52:47 <GK> q+ to say I think its fine to focus on immutable resources but not to arbitrarily exclude mutable ones
15:52:51 <satya> +q
15:53:04 <paolo> Luc: mutability seems to get in the way. Provenance of immutable things is a low hanging fruit. A few people made proposals
15:53:14 <JimMyers> +q
15:53:15 <jorn> q+ to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)
15:53:22 <paolo> q+
15:53:32 <Luc> q?
15:53:39 <paolo> Luc: leading to proposal 3: "in a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of a thing that does not change"
15:54:12 <paolo> GK: fine to focus on immutable resources initially. but not make immutability an a priori requirement
15:54:24 <GK> q-
15:54:26 <satya> +1 for GK's point
15:54:31 <Luc> q?
15:54:38 <Luc> ack satya
15:54:56 <paolo> satya: what do we mean by immutable things?
15:55:36 <GK> @satya Good question: it's kind of why I don't want to exclude the mutable.
15:55:44 <Zakim> -[ISI]
15:55:53 <Luc> q?
15:56:34 <Luc> ack JimMyers
15:56:35 <paolo> satya: use journalism example and understand what is required regardless of mutable/immutable
15:56:45 <GK> @satya, agree, focus on what's required
15:56:56 <Luc> q?
15:57:28 <paolo> JimMyers: mutability leads to a number of special cases
15:57:37 <Luc> ack jorn
15:57:37 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to say we can't hinder people from issuing provenance about things which are mutable (web is a distributed system)
15:57:40 <JimMyers> -q
15:57:57 <GK> q+ to ask @JimMeyers what he meant by can't do one after the ther
15:58:41 <Luc> q?
15:58:43 <smiles> q+
15:58:57 <tlebo> is there anything that is universally immutable? Roles seems to be a good approach.
15:59:19 <satya> good point @jorn (good point on owl:sameAs)
15:59:39 <paolo> jorn: if we restrict certain things to be immutable, that may be an artificial constraint that may not work for whoever uses the model
15:59:44 <JimMyers> I don't know how to explain except in the context of my proposed 'solution' - mutability is a role of a resource w.r.t. a process - if that's a good model, I don't see how we could discuss immutability first and then change the definition of resource in some way to address mutability
16:00:11 <Luc> q?
16:00:14 <tlebo> must go. apologies.
16:00:17 <GK> q-
16:00:18 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:00:21 <Zakim> -??P34
16:00:55 <Luc> q?
16:01:07 <paolo> still muted...
16:01:12 <Luc> ack paolo
16:01:40 <GK> I think everyone is basically agreeing... focus on the case of immutable resource example, but don't assume immutability unless we really have to
16:02:04 <Luc> q?
16:02:06 <paolo> q-
16:02:15 <Luc> ack smiles
16:02:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:02:46 <Luc> q?
16:02:50 <paolo> smiles: immutability may not be the issue
16:03:03 <Luc> ack khalidbelhajjame
16:03:10 <Luc> q?
16:03:19 <Zakim> -jorn
16:03:32 <Zakim> +??P24
16:03:40 <jorn> Zakim, ??p24
16:03:41 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p24', jorn
16:03:45 <jorn> Zakim, ??p24 is me
16:03:45 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
16:03:49 <GK> @smiles like your phrasing "insofar as it's immutable we can talk about its provenance"
16:04:19 <paolo> khalidbelhajjame: if we tackle mutability at a later time, that may lead to revisiting many other definitions
16:04:37 <JimMyers> if the question is whether we should have a way other than resources to describe changes in state - +1 - there's a role for mutable resources but we don't need a mechanism to define state changes of mutable resources separt from defining immutable resources that encapsulate that state (but are just resources) 
16:04:52 <Luc> q?
16:05:26 <Luc> q?
16:05:31 <paolo> paolo: isn't that the case that things that do not change only have a provenance if they have changed in the past? I am confused
16:05:43 <frew> "WORM" resource?
16:05:52 <satya> I think we need more discussion - over mailing list?
16:05:55 <GK> Agree in principle with wjhat we discussed
16:05:59 <paolo> Luc: is there a consensus? 
16:06:09 <JimMyers> -1 - I'd like to discuss things together...
16:06:17 <jcheney> what's the formal proposal now?
16:07:04 <satya> Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object
16:07:19 <zednik> +q statement about mutability
16:07:37 <kai> I think we have too many mutable resources out there so I would try to deal with them from the beginning.
16:07:45 <paolo> satya: a few things not clear, but we can go with mutability/immutability in the context of the running example
16:07:49 <Luc> Q?
16:08:03 <Luc> q?
16:08:25 <GK> @satya broadly agree with "Proposal: we do not make assumption about mutability/immutability of object" but would add "unless the use-case requires us to"
16:08:59 <paolo> JimMyers: the distinction is significant in the context of (relative to) processes. possibly this pov gives us a way forward in the discussion
16:09:00 <Luc> would it help if we said state of a thing
16:09:12 <Luc> instead of a thing that does not change
16:09:12 <dgarijo> even the example has "mutable things", so it will be difficult to leave them out of the discussion
16:09:16 <satya> @GK agree, if required for use case
16:10:32 <paolo> action: JimMyers, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week
16:10:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JimMyers,
16:10:34 <JimMyers> I put a 'definition' of resource on the wiki page just before the call - that's my proposal for a model
16:10:54 <JimMyers> Perhaps I could try to apply that to the use case to make it clearer...
16:11:28 <jorn> subject ?
16:11:34 <satya> entity?
16:11:37 <zednik> entity
16:11:42 <paolo> Luc: term "resource" not useful here as too loaded as architectural term
16:11:43 <kai> +1 for entity
16:11:51 <GK> "Subject of provenance" (Luc's phrase from an earlier proposal)?
16:12:07 <paulo> q+
16:12:24 <Luc> q?
16:12:26 <paolo> +1 for >	"Subject of provenance" (SoP)
16:12:46 <dgarijo> +1 for Subject of Provenance
16:13:10 <paolo> paulo: connection b/w mut/immut and phyisical/digital
16:13:18 <paolo> (missed the rest)
16:13:20 <Luc> q?
16:13:58 <frew> frew has left #prov
16:14:13 <Zakim> -frew
16:14:25 <Zakim> -GK
16:14:59 <paolo> paulo: other topic to discuss is how to refer to things, either mutable or immutable
16:14:59 <Luc> q?
16:15:07 <paolo> Luc: true, but not current topic
16:15:09 <stain> mutability is very related to identifiable - depending on how you identify it might be mutable or immutable
16:15:39 <kai> Maybe it would be doable to restrict provenance to immutable subjects and provide ways to see mutable subjects as immutable, e.g. by adding a version or a timestamp.
16:15:55 <paolo> Luc: reminder - provXG summary presentation by Yolanda tomorrow
16:16:01 <Edoardo> Bye
16:16:02 <Zakim> -??P18
16:16:03 <Zakim> -paulo.a
16:16:03 <Zakim> -SatyaSahoo
16:16:05 <dcorsar> bye
16:16:05 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:16:05 <Zakim> -smiles
16:16:06 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:16:06 <Zakim> -jorn
16:16:08 <Zakim> -kai
16:16:08 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
16:16:09 <Zakim> -luc
16:16:11 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:16:13 <Zakim> - +44.207.394.aabb
16:16:16 <Zakim> -zednik
16:16:20 <Zakim> -??P9
16:16:21 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:16:22 <Zakim> -jun
16:16:23 <stain> I am wondering if some kind of "observation" is needed
16:16:24 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has left #prov
16:16:36 <Luc> paolo, I will just to the magic incantation to have the irc log in the wiki for you to edit
16:16:42 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aacc
16:16:50 <paolo> ok go ahead
16:17:16 <kai> @stain yes, thats what I mean. Will keep it in mind.
16:17:24 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public
16:17:34 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:17:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-minutes.html Luc
16:17:41 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 
16:17:41 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:18:27 <paolo> trackbot, end meeting
16:18:27 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:18:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been luc, smiles, frew, paolo, GK, +1.518.276.aaaa, dgarijo, Yogesh, kai, +44.207.394.aabb, tlebo, [ISI], jorn, +1.518.276.aacc,
16:18:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:18:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:18:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:18:29 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-actions.rdf :
16:18:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JimMyers, satya to formulate proposals that we can vote on next week [1]
16:18:29 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-prov-irc#T16-10-32
16:18:31 <Zakim> ... DavidSchaengold, zednik, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, SatyaSahoo, jun, paulo, VinhNguyen