14:51:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc
14:51:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:51:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:52:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:52:00 <trackbot> Date: 09 June 2011
14:52:15 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
14:52:25 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:25 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:48 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.09
14:52:50 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:53:05 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth
14:53:26 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:54:36 <Zakim> +??P3
14:54:52 <Luc> zakim, ??P3 is me
14:54:52 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
14:55:12 <Zakim> -Luc
14:55:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:55:27 <pgroth> Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
14:55:27 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
14:55:37 <pgroth> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:55:54 <pgroth> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:55:54 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:56:11 <Zakim> +??P3
14:56:13 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
14:56:49 <estephan> estephan has joined #prov
14:56:52 <Zakim> +??P5
14:57:01 <pgroth> would someone be willing to scribe?
14:57:32 <Zakim> -??P5
14:57:46 <Zakim> +??P5
14:57:52 <jorn> Zakim, ??p5 is me
14:57:52 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
14:58:14 <Lena> Lena has joined #prov
14:58:32 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:58:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:00 <Zakim> + +1.315.723.aaaa
14:59:05 <tlebo> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:05 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
14:59:16 <Zakim> +??P20
14:59:25 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, ??P3, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20
14:59:43 <frew> frew has joined #prov
14:59:50 <Zakim> + +1.509.554.aabb
14:59:51 <Luc> zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:52 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:02 <Zakim> +??P31
15:00:05 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:00:20 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
15:00:21 <Zakim> +??P36
15:00:24 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P31 is me
15:00:24 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:00:31 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:00:42 <Zakim> +??P38
15:01:00 <GK_> zakim, ??p38 is me
15:01:00 <Zakim> +GK_; got it
15:01:19 <Zakim> + +49.302.093.aacc
15:01:38 <olaf> zakim, aacc is me
15:01:38 <Zakim> +olaf; got it
15:01:45 <simoninireland> simoninireland has joined #prov
15:01:47 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:01:49 <Zakim> +??P21
15:01:56 <smiles> zakim, ??P21 is me
15:01:56 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
15:02:01 <GK_> (I need to leave promptly at the hour)
15:02:05 <jun> jun has joined #prov
15:02:08 <Zakim> + +1.832.386.aadd
15:02:17 <Zakim> +??P2
15:02:29 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:02:30 <Zakim> +??P6
15:02:33 <Zakim> -??P2
15:02:59 <Zakim> +??P1
15:03:02 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
15:03:15 <Zakim> +??P7
15:03:16 <jorn> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, jorn, [IPcaller], tlebo, ??P20, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, ??P36, GK_, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd, ??P6, ??P1, ??P7
15:03:23 <jcheney> zakim, ??P7 is me
15:03:23 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:03:31 <tlebo> :-)
15:03:34 <tlebo> scribe: tlebo
15:03:40 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aaee
15:03:40 <jcheney> AFK for a minute
15:03:51 <pgroth>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-02
15:03:59 <tlebo> topic: minutes from last week
15:04:02 <dgarijo> +1
15:04:03 <smiles> +1
15:04:06 <estephan> +1
15:04:06 <tlebo> proposed: accept minutes
15:04:09 <frew> +1
15:04:11 <olaf> +1
15:04:11 <GK_> +1
15:04:12 <simoninireland> +1
15:04:14 <zednik> +1
15:04:22 <jorn> +1
15:04:24 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:04:24 <tlebo> +1
15:04:44 <Zakim> + +329331aaff
15:04:45 <tlebo> accepted: minutes
15:04:53 <tlebo> topic: leaders of task forces
15:04:56 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:05:06 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aagg
15:05:14 <tlebo> access and query task force
15:05:17 <tlebo> connection task force
15:05:17 <Zakim> +??P11
15:05:34 <tlebo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceTaskForces
15:05:49 <Edoardo> Edoardo has joined #prov
15:06:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:06:02 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaff is me
15:06:02 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:06:04 <pgroth> In a first instance, to define the necessary concepts that allow us to express the provenance of an invariant view or perspective on a thing
15:06:20 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0096.html
15:06:26 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:06:30 <paolo_> paolo_ has joined #prov
15:06:31 <tlebo> topic: definition of Resource
15:06:39 <tlebo> issue: objections of definition?
15:06:39 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-20 - Objections of definition? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/20/edit .
15:06:49 <tlebo> oops
15:06:54 <JImM> JImM has joined #prov
15:07:05 <tlebo> accepted: definition for Resource
15:07:12 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:07:15 <tlebo> topic: open actions
15:07:26 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:07:33 <Luc> it's not so much a definition of resource, but the subject of provenance
15:07:43 <tlebo> there were actions for Resource
15:07:51 <dgarijo> @tlebo: definition for resource or agreement to use the IVPTs?
15:07:54 <tlebo> there were actions for the Task Forces - on way to being done.
15:07:55 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aahh
15:08:09 <tlebo> topic: invited experts have been invited.
15:08:22 <Zakim> + +1.540.449.aaii
15:08:36 <Zakim> +??P19
15:08:46 <Yogesh> zakim, + +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh
15:08:46 <Zakim> I don't understand '+ +1.540.449.aaii is Yogesh', Yogesh
15:08:48 <dgarijo> i get a lot of noise :(
15:08:49 <tlebo> invited expert #1. - (broken voice connection)
15:08:59 <Luc> generally, people who have joined recently may want to send an introduction to the mailing list
15:09:02 <paolo_> zakim, ??P19 is me
15:09:02 <Zakim> +paolo_; got it
15:09:12 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:09:14 <jorn> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:09:25 <Zakim> jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pgroth (9%), ??P36 (13%)
15:09:29 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.540.449 is Yogesh
15:09:29 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
15:09:36 <pgroth> Zakim, mute ??P36
15:09:36 <Zakim> ??P36 should now be muted
15:10:02 <Zakim> +??P24
15:10:07 <tlebo> any other intros on phone? please introduce yourselves on the mailing list.
15:10:19 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P24 is really me
15:10:19 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:10:22 <tlebo> topic: scribes
15:10:26 <tlebo> please sign up.
15:10:29 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes
15:11:02 <tlebo> topic: plans from Connection Task Force for Face-to-Face meeting
15:11:09 <Zakim> -jorn
15:11:18 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0068.html
15:11:24 <Zakim> +??P5
15:11:30 <jorn> Zakim, ??p5 is me
15:11:30 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:11:56 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal
15:12:07 <tlebo> simon: they proposed on mailing list, no objections yet. 2 questions - 1) identity and 2) location; how to obtain and embedding in HTML.
15:12:30 <tlebo> simon: inspired by incubator proposal in report.
15:12:39 <Zakim> -??P6
15:12:56 <tlebo> simon: want to start populating templates. feedback on templates welcome, too.
15:13:43 <tlebo> simon: want to discover issues in next week so we have them to discuss at F2F.
15:13:48 <Zakim> +??P6
15:13:49 <pgroth> q?
15:14:19 <tlebo> unknown: broken phone connection.
15:14:32 <paolo_> q+
15:14:54 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:14:57 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-powder-dr-20090901/#httplink
15:15:04 <satya> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
15:15:10 <tlebo> paolo_: what is powder? Can we have reference?
15:15:36 <tfrancart> tfrancart has joined #prov
15:15:44 <tlebo> paolo_: make sure powder link is obvious in the writeup.
15:16:06 <tlebo> pgroth: timetable?
15:16:45 <tlebo> simon: today - finish scope asap. by 23rd June finish questions. by 30tg draft for F2F.
15:16:59 <tlebo> action: simon to send timeline in mailing list.
15:16:59 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - simon
15:16:59 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)
15:17:31 <olaf> I will
15:17:43 <paolo_> q?
15:17:43 <GK_> I intend to continue to help with proposals
15:17:46 <paolo_> ack
15:17:49 <tlebo> proposed: people self-select to provide proposals.
15:17:53 <Yogesh> q+
15:17:56 <satya> volunteer
15:17:56 <Luc> I will point to the web protocol defined by sparql group as a way to access provenance
15:18:00 <paolo_> q?
15:18:03 <paolo_> q-
15:18:04 <pgroth> ack paolo_
15:18:07 <pgroth> ack Yogesh
15:18:29 <tlebo> []: please separate proposals into different sections based on who proposed them.
15:18:33 <Yogesh> q-
15:18:48 <SamCoppens> volunteer
15:19:15 <olaf> q+
15:19:23 <pgroth> ack olaf
15:19:49 <Luc> graham, why do you need a reference to the powder profile here? isn't it that <link/> is part of html and not POWDER?  
15:20:11 <tlebo> olaf: proposals first phase, THEN issues raised against proposal. what do issues mean? issues of proposals themselves or that are found when considering them.
15:20:21 <GK_> q+ 
15:20:23 <tlebo> simon: the former is intended.
15:20:24 <olaf> q-
15:20:52 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:20:53 <GK_> q-
15:21:03 <tlebo> simon: we should distinguish between out of scope for F2F but sill within scope of prov-wg.
15:22:32 <tlebo> GK_: re POWDER. want to make distinction from access vs. determinign the URIs for access. not sure how to make that clear in current writeup sections.
15:22:36 <Zakim> +[LC]
15:22:52 <edsu> zakim, [LC] is edsu 
15:22:52 <Zakim> +edsu; got it
15:23:27 <tlebo> provenance of document vs. its identity
15:23:54 <tlebo> topic: connection Task Force plan at Face-to-face meeting
15:24:05 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Connection_Proposal
15:25:04 <Luc> yogesh and simon, could you add the timeline to the wiki page?
15:25:35 <tlebo> ericstephan: for proposal, not timeline yet. Have initial proposed scope. Basing from incubator group; existing vocabularies. Domain-specific conventions need to be considered. 3) complementary concepts relating to provenance.
15:25:53 <tlebo> ericstephan: e.g. visual analytics group interested in provenance.
15:26:25 <tlebo> ericstephan: considering scope; what to exclude/include.
15:26:42 <GK_> q+ to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention
15:26:46 <Zakim> -jorn
15:26:49 <tlebo> ericstephan: CHI has example template to use when gathering connections.
15:27:02 <tlebo> s/CHI/??/
15:27:14 <dgarijo> i think he refers to Kai
15:27:15 <satya> @Eric - please clarify "complementary concepts relating to provenance"
15:27:31 <Zakim> +??P5
15:27:31 <Luc> s/CHI/Kai/
15:27:40 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me
15:27:40 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:28:13 <satya> thanks!
15:28:19 <tlebo> ericstephan: w.r.t. data quality, uncertainty quantification. a lot of work in "knowledge provenance layer". -- what means by "complementary concepts"
15:28:23 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:28:23 <Zakim> GK_, you wanted to ask if there is a good example of a domain specific convention
15:28:34 <tlebo> GK_: examples for domain-specific conventions.
15:29:09 <Yogesh> @Luc, F2F1 Access and Query Proposal plan has been posted to wiki
15:29:29 <tlebo> ericstephan: currently trying to integrate disparate models with earth simulation, agriculture, power grid models. They want to capture and identify uncertainties from those results.
15:29:42 <Luc> @Yogesh, thanks!
15:29:51 <Luc> q+
15:29:51 <tlebo> ericstephan: this will need provenance to address the uncertainties.
15:30:07 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:30:20 <pgroth> luc?
15:30:32 <tlebo> luc: broken phone.
15:30:32 <Luc> it looks like you can't here me, i'll type my comments
15:31:03 <tlebo> pgroth: please add timeline soon for connection.
15:31:07 <Luc> the scenario that Eric described looks more like an application, doesn't this belong to the last task force?
15:31:16 <ericstephan> okay
15:31:29 <tlebo> proposed: people help with connection task force.
15:31:37 <simoninireland> I'd be interested
15:31:44 <Luc> For this task force, will we investigate opportunities for connecting with DC, Identity, Life Science, ....
15:31:45 <simoninireland> Sorry, keyboard malfunction :-)
15:31:47 <ericstephan> Several people volunteered yesterday in email
15:31:50 <Lena> i am interested
15:32:02 <tlebo> pgroth: this is about connecting to existing provenance standards and domains and their use cases
15:32:04 <ericstephan> I believe Carl Reed?
15:32:13 <Christine> IApologies. It is difficult for me to hear. But very happy to help progress this work.
15:32:15 <edsu> i would be willing to try to help outreach w/ digital preservation community
15:32:20 <ericstephan> Thank you
15:32:23 <GK_> @luc @ericstephan I'm *guessing* that there's a reference here to provenence that's implicit in existing applications, and if there are conventions we can connect to.  But that's just my guess.
15:32:26 <frew> very interested in connections to climate/earth science but will be offline for next ~3 weeks so can't help w/ F2F1
15:32:35 <tlebo> topic: implementation and test case Task Force
15:32:44 <Luc> @ercistephan, will you also write the timetable on the wiki?
15:32:47 <zednik> wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Unit_Test_Proposal
15:33:16 <tlebo> lena: identified scope on wiki. listing series of deliverables.
15:33:30 <ericstephan> @Luc yes I will meet with Kai on the timeline and get this out asap
15:33:44 <tlebo> lena: engaging with stakeholders and connecting with other task forces. contacting those with provenance problems, so they can give overview and how it would be used.
15:33:59 <Luc> q+
15:34:28 <tlebo> GK_: wiki page indicates stakeholder-oriented. lower level test cases to help clarify details? e.g. RDF working group had small test cases.
15:34:44 <satya> @Lena/Stephan: would like to point to the use cases created by the Provenance XG, for example: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Analysis_of_Disease_Outbreak_Scenario 
15:34:47 <dgarijo> +q
15:34:53 <tlebo> lena: develop use cases from interviewing stakeholders.
15:36:02 <tlebo> luc: to Helena, going to talk to stakeholders outside of working group or inside?
15:36:32 <tlebo> lena:  Ideally outside. e.g. Stephan's Australia and Helena's. Invite them to present to us.
15:36:58 <tlebo> luc: remember those in working group. Would help to focus with them.
15:37:22 <tlebo> luc: members of group interested in implementing standards.
15:37:43 <jun> q+
15:37:46 <tlebo> lena: by F2F, clarifying use cases and detailing them.
15:37:47 <smiles> q+
15:37:55 <Luc> q-
15:37:59 <Zakim> -jorn
15:38:03 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Cases#Original_Use_Cases_Proposed
15:38:13 <Zakim> +??P2
15:38:16 <tlebo> dgarijo: in incubator group, 50 use cases. some of those can be reused.
15:38:22 <jorn> zakim, ??p2 is me
15:38:22 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:38:29 <pgroth> q?
15:38:31 <tlebo> lena: started with those
15:38:35 <pgroth> ack dgarijo
15:38:46 <tlebo> dgarijo: please add link to those from the wiki page
15:38:53 <pgroth> ack jun
15:39:08 <tlebo> action: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases
15:39:08 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - use
15:39:57 <satya> +1 for Jun's point
15:40:07 <dgarijo> yep, I agree too.
15:40:26 <tlebo> jun: worried about implementation vs. use cases - out of scope? 2) what to do with requirements? expand model based on use cases?
15:41:02 <Luc> q+
15:41:03 <tlebo> lena: idea is to help identify the requirements for the use cases and make sure it has a target audience.
15:41:16 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:41:21 <GK_> q+ to say but we are not (as a WG) creating a s/w implementation
15:41:23 <tlebo> jun: suggest to restate the wiki page to reflect this.
15:41:56 <tlebo> smiles: objectives for F2F preparations?
15:42:03 <dgarijo> @GK_ but we should at least provide some examples/guidelines if we want people to use the PIL
15:42:24 <tlebo> lena: identification of stakeholders both at F2F and outside.
15:42:36 <GK_> @dgariji yes, no prob there, but ware of scope
15:42:45 <GK_> s/ware/wary/
15:42:54 <tlebo> zednik: still establishing scope for task force.
15:42:59 <pgroth> q?
15:43:03 <VinhNguyen> VinhNguyen has joined #prov
15:43:07 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:43:42 <tlebo> luc: concerned for amount of work. only 4 weeks to F2F. 
15:43:48 <Zakim> + +1.937.708.aajj
15:43:57 <tlebo> zednik: we are not doing work, but establishing scope of what TF will be doing.
15:44:54 <tlebo> lena: scope of TF
15:45:03 <tlebo> luc: we need 2 independent implementations that interoperate.
15:45:17 <tlebo> luc: we need to define what it means to interoperate.
15:45:53 <tlebo> luc: we need to find someone with a provenance problem willing to implement the standards.
15:46:37 <tlebo> lena: TF will review the charter.
15:46:37 <SamCoppens> I am volunteer for reference impl
15:46:40 <GK_> q?
15:47:51 <tlebo> lena: identification of stakeholders is primary objective for F2F.
15:48:18 <tlebo> luc: what kind of information to do want to obtain from stakeholders.
15:48:37 <Zakim> -??P1
15:48:58 <tlebo> pgroth: table to mailing list.
15:49:10 <Luc> +1
15:49:35 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:49:48 <dgarijo> I think it would be nice to try to model at least the news example with the current concepts.
15:50:38 <tlebo> GK_: regarding wg's role in implementations and applications. That's not what's happening.
15:51:04 <tlebo> zednik: TF to coordinate implementation, but who would be DOING it?
15:51:09 <paolo_> @GK I think this is clear enough from the charter?
15:51:19 <tlebo> pgroth: we find groups that are willing to adopt our standard - we don't do it ourselves.
15:51:40 <tlebo> zednik: we should provide documentation that allows another group to implement the recommendation.
15:51:42 <dgarijo> +1 to the portotypes.
15:51:51 <GK_> @paolo, indeed.  http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter makes no reference to ref implementation.
15:52:01 <tlebo> pgroth: more than one organization develops our recommendations.
15:52:10 <estephan> it would seem like there is a relationship between the implementation and connection task force that we should explore at the f2f
15:52:11 <paolo_> q+
15:52:19 <GK_> q-
15:52:22 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:52:25 <pgroth> ack paolo_
15:52:37 <satya> @GK - for the proposal of the WG to be a W3C recommendation, we need couple of example/prototype implementations 
15:53:03 <tlebo> paolo_: for modeling language vs. tooling. Implementation is not in scope, but tools need to support the new model.
15:53:17 <GK_> @satya - sure we do, but the *implementation* itself isn't from the WG.  Convincing toolmakers is.
15:53:31 <paolo_> q-
15:53:36 <Zakim> -jorn
15:53:43 <GK_> The point is to prove that NON-WG-MEMBERS can implement it.
15:53:49 <tlebo> accepted: scope of wg is not to create implementation, but to convince others to adopt it.
15:53:57 <Zakim> +??P1
15:54:01 <jorn> zakim, ??p1 is me
15:54:01 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:54:10 <satya> @GK - agree, I think Paolo put it precisely - example tools
15:54:17 <pgroth> proposed
15:54:18 <pgroth> there is a distinction between process execution and process specification/definition
15:54:18 <pgroth> process specification/definition is referred to as recipe in the charter and is out of sope for this WG
15:54:18 <pgroth> terminology (for process specification/definition, process execution, recipe) needs to be agreed on, if appropriate
15:54:29 <tlebo> topic: concepts discussions - process execution and process specification.
15:54:46 <khalidbelhajjame> How easy to convince people/organization that are non members of the WG to implement a model that they did not specify?
15:55:03 <tlebo> pgroth: process specification equates to "recipe" in prov-xg. we are not creating a specification language.
15:55:05 <satya> q+
15:55:18 <tlebo> proposed: creating process specification language is out of scope.
15:55:21 <dgarijo> @khalid: true
15:55:44 <satya> q-
15:55:57 <satya> +1 
15:55:57 <smiles> +1
15:55:58 <JImM> +1
15:55:58 <jcheney> +1
15:55:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:55:59 <dgarijo> +1
15:55:59 <Yogesh> +1
15:56:00 <GK_> +1 agree with distinction
15:56:00 <jun> +1
15:56:00 <Edoardo> +1
15:56:00 <olaf> +1
15:56:01 <estephan> +1
15:56:01 <frew> +1
15:56:01 <dcorsar> +1
15:56:03 <paolo_> +1
15:56:06 <zednik> +1
15:56:07 <tlebo> satya: we need to distinguish, but we are not defining what is actually used.
15:56:08 <tlebo> +1
15:56:09 <GK_> -1 link to specific language
15:56:11 <tlebo> (group can link to them, but are not defining them)
15:56:12 <jcheney> and we could point to other such languages (XProc, BPEL, ...)
15:56:15 <tfrancart> +1
15:56:24 <SamCoppens> +1
15:56:29 <tlebo> action: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page
15:56:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - add
15:56:31 <satya> @James - agree
15:56:41 <VinhNguyen> +1
15:57:02 <tlebo> GK_: recognizing that there may be languages and they can be implemented
15:57:17 <JImM> the only model question I have is whether we need process which has executions and a recipe or just the link between process execution and process recipe (w/o an independent thing called process)
15:57:18 <jcheney> "including, but not limited to language 1, language 2, language 3, ..."
15:57:21 <Lena> +1
15:57:37 <tlebo> accepted: we are not defining process specification.
15:57:45 <tlebo> topic: process execution
15:57:48 <pgroth> A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval
15:57:55 <tlebo> pgroth: process execution has time interval.
15:57:58 <satya> +1
15:57:59 <GK_> q+ to ask if the past constraint is necessary
15:58:04 <dgarijo> +1
15:58:17 <satya> q+
15:58:18 <Christine> Apologies all. I will need to leave the call.
15:58:21 <Luc> q+
15:58:25 <Zakim> -??P6
15:58:25 <tlebo> GK_: does anything break if we don't require start of execution to be in past?
15:59:05 <tlebo> satya: it is important that process has started in past. provenance metadata is w.r.t history. it is a defining criteria for provenance.
15:59:08 <smiles> q+
15:59:13 <satya> q-
15:59:14 <pgroth> ack GK_
15:59:15 <Zakim> GK_, you wanted to ask if the past constraint is necessary
15:59:16 <GK_> q-
15:59:20 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:59:28 <paolo_> @GK provenance is based on observations... so yes, the process exec should have started before we can observe what it does 
15:59:39 <tlebo> luc: +1 satya, we are not defining what will happen in future or predicting. not about specifying things in future. describing what has happened in the past.
15:59:41 <pgroth> ack smiles
15:59:45 <JImM> anticipated provenance is workflow :-)
16:00:08 <GK_> (I'm trying to think of examples ... best I can do is fiction)
16:00:20 <GK_> What Simon said
16:00:35 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:00:44 <pgroth> proposed: process execution has a duration and A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of a process execution is always in the past.
16:00:45 <paolo_> q+
16:00:45 <JImM> has a duration or can have a duration?
16:00:57 <paolo_> duration?
16:01:00 <Luc> q+
16:01:05 <tlebo> proposed: process execution has a duration and is in the past.
16:01:17 <Zakim> -GK_
16:01:42 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
16:01:47 <pgroth> ack paolo_
16:01:47 <JImM> in OPM, time was 'optional'...
16:01:58 <zednik> q+
16:02:00 <satya> @khalid - the definition of process incorporates time dimension
16:02:08 <smiles> 'non-instantaneous'?
16:02:08 <tlebo> paolo_: starting time is enough to talk about provenance. no more is needed. duration may be ongoing. not necessary to get into it.
16:02:09 <paolo_> q-
16:02:30 <pgroth> ack Luc
16:03:39 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:03:45 <paolo_> q+
16:03:51 <tlebo> luc: disagrees with paolo. should merge proposals. Modeling language to help us describe what is happening in the past. We _could_ describe everything as being instantaneous. They don't have to have a duration, but there is a start time and end time.
16:04:00 <pgroth> ack zednik
16:04:13 <tlebo> zednik: agrees, but is time a required property or optional?
16:04:32 <tlebo> pgroth: it has a duration, not that you have to specify it. (open world?)
16:04:41 <satya> @Stephan - without time dimension, process cannot be distinguished from notion of resource
16:04:43 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
16:05:04 <Luc> how long did it last?
16:05:18 <Zakim> -smiles
16:05:23 <pgroth> ack paolo_
16:05:28 <zednik> @Satya - not sure what you mean, perhaps follow-up in email
16:05:51 <JImM> OPM considered time stamps as a way to verify/challenge the processing claims (evidence that you should trust the provenance)
16:06:06 <pgroth> proposed: A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval
16:06:10 <tlebo> paolo_: useful to have start time so can reason about events. end time is less important.
16:06:13 <dgarijo> +1
16:06:14 <satya> +1
16:06:14 <JImM> +1
16:06:16 <frew> +1
16:06:17 <paolo_> q-
16:06:17 <StephenCresswell> +1
16:06:17 <zednik> +1
16:06:18 <paolo_> +1
16:06:20 <jcheney> +1
16:06:21 <olaf> +1 to duration
16:06:21 <SamCoppens> +1
16:06:24 <dcorsar> +1
16:06:25 <estephan> +1
16:06:25 <Edoardo> +1
16:06:29 <jun> 0
16:06:33 <Yogesh> +1
16:06:34 <khalidbelhajjame> 0
16:06:37 <jorn> +1 even though duration can be incredibly short
16:06:37 <Lena> -1 to making duration a requirement
16:06:39 <tlebo> 0
16:06:58 <paolo_> it's not that end time is less important, rather that process executions may not have a known end time
16:06:59 <zednik> -1 to make duration a requirement
16:07:27 <estephan> agreed with Stephan
16:07:28 <tlebo> (open world can help us here, no?)
16:07:41 <zednik> @tlebo - agreed
16:07:43 <JImM> process executions are not constrained to be instantaneous...
16:07:45 <paolo_> "process executions have a temporal characterisation" sounds trivially true...
16:07:59 <satya> q+
16:08:20 <tlebo> pgroth: we need to finish this up on mailing list.
16:08:49 <tlebo> satya: philosophy. execution occurs over time - essential. can be instantaneous or over time (depending on granularity).
16:08:57 <tlebo> satya: does not need to be explicitly noted, but is essential aspect.
16:08:58 <satya> q-
16:09:24 <Zakim> -jorn
16:09:24 <tlebo> issue: group to finish up process execution.
16:09:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-21 - Group to finish up process execution. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/21/edit .
16:09:31 <estephan> bye
16:09:31 <Zakim> - +1.216.368.aagg
16:09:32 <Zakim> -paolo_
16:09:33 <Zakim> -edsu
16:09:34 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:09:34 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:09:34 <tlebo> SCRIBE HELP
16:09:35 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:09:36 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:09:36 <Zakim> - +1.509.554.aabb
16:09:37 <paolo_> paolo_ has left #prov
16:09:38 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:09:40 <Zakim> -olaf
16:09:42 <Zakim> - +1.937.708.aajj
16:09:43 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has left #prov
16:09:44 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:09:46 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
16:09:48 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh
16:09:50 <Zakim> -??P20
16:09:52 <Zakim> +??P0
16:09:52 <tlebo> rrsagent, set log public
16:09:54 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaee
16:09:56 <Zakim> - +1.832.386.aadd
16:09:58 <Zakim> -??P11
16:09:58 <tlebo> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:09:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-minutes.html tlebo
16:10:00 <Zakim> -??P36
16:10:02 <Zakim> -Luc
16:10:04 <Zakim> -??P0
16:10:12 <pgroth> Regrets: Yolanda Gil
16:10:53 <tlebo> trackbot, end telcon
16:10:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:10:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, pgroth, jorn, [IPcaller], +1.315.723.aaaa, tlebo, +1.509.554.aabb, dgarijo, GK_, +49.302.093.aacc, olaf, smiles, +1.832.386.aadd,
16:10:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:10:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:10:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:10:55 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-actions.rdf :
16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: simon to send timeline in mailing list. [1]
16:10:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc#T15-16-59
16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: use case wiki page point to the incubator use cases [2]
16:10:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc#T15-39-08
16:10:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: add xproc and BPEL to wiki page [3]
16:10:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-prov-irc#T15-56-29
16:10:57 <Zakim> ... jcheney, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.216.368.aagg, SamCoppens, +1.518.276.aahh, +1.540.449.aaii, paolo_, Yogesh, khalidbelhajjame, edsu, +1.937.708.aajj
16:11:09 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:11:10 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:11:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended