IRC log of prov on 2011-06-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

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