See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 16 June 2011
<Luc> scribe: dgarijo
<stain> Zakim: +??P38 is me
<scribe> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.16
<jorn> Zakim: ??p41 is me
<stain> (SIP on Android actually working)
<ilkayaltintas> i'm calling via Skype so I don't know what my area code is
Luc: Welcome and review the tf drafts
Luc: accept the minutes of last week's telecon
<satya> Luc: Accept the minutes for last telcon
<Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of last week's teleconference
<Luc> A process execution has a duration, i.e. it spans a time interval. Statements denoting this duration are optional.
Luc: record the votes that took place during the week
<stain> I didn't vote as I was not here last week - but neither was ilkayaltintas :)
Luc: on the mailing list
... review actions
... 2 actions for the coordinators of tf
... were completed during the week
... the last item is that we are still need scribe volunteers
... Connection Task Force
Eric: update on the Connection TF & time table
... developed a timetible
... for the next 2 weeks we are going to gather info about ppossible connections
... using the template provided by kai
... search possible "clients" to use the PIL
Luc: have you identified
... have you an online template already?
ericstephan if anybody has one possible connection please contact the connection task force
pgroth: there is a template on the proposal page
<jorn> note: irc being very laggy atm
YolandaGil: just wondering where to put the contributions?
ericstephan: want to do a catalogue with one page per possible connection
Luc: add the entrypoints to the
page, so anyone can contribute
... as a wg, we want to see how our model relates to other initievives (DC, etc). Are we going to start that work?
ericstephan: the model is evolving right now, so for now we will focus on possible collaborators
Luc: that work would tell us
which properties should the PIL tackle to
ericstephan: yes, we'll be sensitive to that
ericstephan: to the needs of other communities
Luc: it doesn't have to be a detailed analysys
pgroth: in the template there are already fields in the line of work proposed by Luc
ericstephan: Kai has already tracked that
Luc: who is going to contribute to what?
ericstephan: 5 people
contributing to the call yesterday, with different
... if anyone is interested, you don't have to belong to the tf to participate or provide pointers
Luc: Implementation & test
cases Task Force
stephan: yet to have a
... to focus the direction/test cases / requirements
pgroth: be able to identify
provenance systems that already use provenance.
... Implementor: somebody that would include our model in the system
zednic: aka user
eric: some of the work of the
connection tf is connected to the use cases
... maybe it is useful to detect potential clients
zednik: we can do this, but it is not a big task.
Luc: it would be useful info to gather
zednik: create a list of user who would be able to oncorpore the spec
Luc: there is a bit of overlap
between tf, but it is not necessarily a concern
... next Item. Provenance access & query TF
simon: no comments about the
... GK and Luc have added some proposals to the TF
... we need comments for the proposals
... are they clear/not clear? please comment on them
... send comments also to the mailing list
<stain> Zakim: +??P8 is me
Luc: wiki or on the mailing list?
simon: wiki, but no objections to mailing list
Luc: everybody can comment even
if it is not on your tf
... Model TF
satya: there were discussions on
the mailing list
... people can comment on the wiki pages
... or send an email to the mailing list
Luc: the curation process. It
would be nice to have some comments as to why we are not
adopting a definition. Is something you are planning to
khalid: group concepts that people have agreed on
satya: for the f2f try to constraint the journalist example & the concepts that model the example
<stain> Zakim: +??P60 is me
Luc: khalid proposed a definition of derivation. It would be useful to add comments why this def has been revised in terms of IVPT
Luc: where to put these comments is up to you :)
<pgroth> +1 yes thank you coordinators
Luc: properties to gather consensus
<Luc> 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.
Luc: paul sent a proposal to
... it would be nice to reach consensus here
... suggestion by Simon to add additional info to the definition
<Luc> 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, from the position of any assertion made about it.
Luc: should it be rephrased?
jcheney: if we approve this now
is it going to be definitive or just agreeing on terminology as
a starting point
... maybe it will contraint us later
<Zakim> pgroth, you wanted to respond to that
pgroth: to get a set of terminology to agree in the beggining. Doesn't mean that we can't change it later, but just to understand us right now
<YolandaGil> Why don't you make these plans explicit, ie, say somewhere when will you allow a cycle of revisions to the model
Christine: might be more useful to separate process execution in the past from the one is now occurring
<pgroth> Yolanda, good point
Christine: it would make it easier to understand by the community.
introduction of Ralph Hudson? a new memeber for the group.
<pgroth> welcome, ralph
has not joined yet
<satya> ...from the time instant any assertion is made about it
satya: small modification to de
... simon's definition
Luc: anyone has any problems with that?
satya: time dimension is always involved
<smiles> 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.
simon: posts a suggestion to the definition
<stain> what is 'the past' ?
<Luc> PROPOSED: 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.
<ralphtq> I am the person that asked about joining the call
<ralphtq> my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Luc: vote on this proposal
<smiles> +1 (though probably could still be phrased better)
<JimM> +1 - provenance is past tense
<Christine> Christine: not voting (the definition would benefit from some rephrasing for clarity)
<Luc> ACCEPTED: 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, from the instant referred to by any assertion made about it.
Luc: discussion on resources and IVPT
<Luc> 1. We began definitions using resources, but were not progressing, because there is no universal definition of resource, and challenge with dealing with stateful resources 2. Two weeks ago, we decided to separate web architecture discussions from model discussions 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist. Hence, we introduced the
Luc: would like to paste a small
summary of the discussions from the mailing list
... 1 duscussion on resources, but got stuck
<ralphtq> my work is on the web as VOAG - Vocabulary of Attribution and Governance (this currently includes some Provenance concepts) - see http://www.linkedmodels.org/doc/voag/1.0
Luc: there is no universal
agreement on resource, and the state of the resources.
... then we separated the discussions
<Luc> 3. We recognized that from a provenance viewpoint, we needed something that was stable/invariant/immutable, though we recognized that absolute immutability didn't really exist. Hence, we introduced the idea of "Invariant View or Perspective on Thing" (IVPT)
Luc: we recognised that we needed to have something immutable to assert provenance
<ralphtq> I finish my introduction with this link to my web page - I am the second person listed - http://www.topquadrant.com/company/mgmt.html
<Luc> 4. Last WE's discussions between Jim and I were about whether IVPT was a type on its own, distinct from other things
Luc: idea of IVPT. Generation in
terms of IVPT
... IVPT as a new concept, different than anything that we had
<Luc> 5. I was convinced by Jim's argument that there is only a concept of "thing" with properties that are stable with respect to other things. So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between types.
<Luc> but a relationship between things.
Luc: So IVPT is not a separate type, but a relationship between things
<Luc> 6. We came up with the definition http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29
Luc: have alookat this definition
and provide feedback
... it is my perspective
<Christine> What do you mean by "identity" in this context?
Luc: using invariant properties
and mutable properties
... first definition of thing
... relationship between things
<ralphtq> I raise my hand to speak about SBFI and distinctions between Perspective, Viewpoint and Aspect
Luc: a thing can be invariant from another
Christine: what is identity in this context?
Luc: to me, it's the ability to distinguish 2 entities
<ralphtq> SBFI stands for Structure, Behavior, Function adn Interface/Interaction - dimensions that characterize a system + BDI - Beliefs, Desires and Intentions
Christine: identity is diferent from identification
<Luc> he collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known:
<ralphtq> DOCLE ontology defines endurants and perdurants - are you wanting to be that deep about the nature of the world?
Luc: identity: the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known
<satya> @Christine: Can we limit the scope of the definition to the journalism example for now?
pgroth: reasonable, but concerned that it might be to deepas a definitio.
<Christine> Paul, understand the need to reach consensus on language for definition
Luc: not trying to get a final
... but process exectution, generation, etc will refer to thing
<Christine> Perhaps we just need to briefly explain "identity" as it is used here
Luc: we should get agreement asap, but not necessarily today
ralph: entity/thing. The DOLCE
ontology has concepts to model some of the concepts
... viewpoints helps with the notion of identity
... because it is driven by context.
<satya> @ralph: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) has similar concepts called continuants/occurrent
ralph: desires to have a lightweight notion for provenance
<pgroth> thanks ralph
JimM: we have the use cases and
we are looking for the lightweight notion to cover the user
... been trying to put consitent defs of all the concepts.
satya: +1 to a lightweight notion to cover the use cases
(+1 to that too)
<Luc> Proposed: to use a notion of thing (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29) as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts
Luc: proposes to use the notion of thing on the wiki
<Luc> accepted: Proposed: to use a notion of thing (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29) as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts
<Luc> accepted: to use a notion of thing (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptInvariantViewOnThing#Definition_by_Jim_and_Luc_v2_.28in_progress.29) as an initial definition to allow definitions of other concepts
Luc: we don't have
... we really should back to this def once we have a consistent set of definitions
... now we can revise the other defs according to this one. Look forwardto see your contributions
<Luc> daniel, i can do the necessary incantations and have it for you to edit on the wiki
<ralphtq> zakim - did you want to ask me something?
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) Succeeded: s/ Luc /look/ Succeeded: s/whta/what/ FAILED: s/whta/what/ Found Scribe: dgarijo Inferring ScribeNick: dgarijo WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Christine Edoardo IPcaller JimM LC Luc P0 P1 P10 P13 P21 P24 P29 P34 P38 P39 P40 P41 P60 P7 P8 P9 PROPOSED SamCoppens Yogesh Yolanda YolandaGil aaaa aabb aacc aadd aaee aagg aahh aaii aajj aakk accepted altintas dcorsar dgarijo edsu eric ericstephan ilkayaltintas jcheney joined jorn jun khalid khalidbelhajjame note olaf paulo pgroth prov ralph ralphtq sandro satya simon smiles stain stephan stephen tfrancart tlebo trackbot zednic zednik You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Paolo_Missier Kai_Eckert Graham Klyne Helena Deus Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.16 Found Date: 16 Jun 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-prov-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]