Provenance Working Group Teleconference -- 16 Jun 2011

<trackbot> Date: 16 June 2011

<Luc> scribe: dgarijo

Admin

<stain> Zakim: +??P38 is me

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.16

<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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-09

Luc: accept the minutes of last week's telecon

<ericstephan> +1

<smiles> +1

<zednik> +1

<jun> +1

<satya> Luc: Accept the minutes for last telcon

<tlebo> +1

<olaf> +1

<dcorsar> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<ilkayaltintas> +1

<Luc> ACCEPTED: minutes of last week's teleconference

<jorn> +1

<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

<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0244.html

<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

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Connection_Proposal

ericstephan: meeting yesterday
... 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 contributors
... ?
... have you an online template already?

ericstephan if anybody has one possible connection please contact the connection task force

<pgroth> +q

pgroth: there is a template on the proposal page

<jorn> note: irc being very laggy atm

YolandaGil: just wondering where to put the contributions?

<pgroth> +q

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
... too

ericstephan: yes, we'll be sensitive to that

<pgroth> +q

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 ideas/areas/interests
... if anyone is interested, you don't have to belong to the tf to participate or provide pointers

Luc: Implementation & test cases Task Force
... situation?

stephan: yet to have a call.
... to focus the direction/test cases / requirements

<pgroth> +q

<ericstephan> +q

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

PAQ TF Plan to F2F1

simon: no comments about the template
... 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

<pgroth> yogesh?

<jun> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Access_and_Query_Proposal

Luc: wiki or on the mailing list?

<pgroth> +q

simon: wiki, but no objections to mailing list

Model TF Plan to F2F1

Luc: everybody can comment even if it is not on your tf
... Model TF

<jun> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1_Model_Proposal

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 do
... ?

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

<khalidbelhajjame> Ok,

Luc: where to put these comments is up to you :)

Model Task Force

<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 vote
... 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

<Christine> +q

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

Luc: agrees

<Christine> -q

<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

Luc: why?

<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

<pgroth> absolutely

<satya> ...from the time instant any assertion is made about it

satya: small modification to de definition
... 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 rhodgson@topquadrant.com

Luc: vote on this proposal

<satya> +1

<jun> +1

<jorn> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<stain> 0

<jcheney> +1

<olaf> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<dcorsar> +1

<smiles> +1 (though probably could still be phrased better)

<tlebo> +1

<Edoardo> +1

<ilkayaltintas> +1

<zednik> +1

<tfrancart> 0

<JimM> +1 - provenance is past tense

<YolandaGil> +1

<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
... arch/model

<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

<pgroth> christine

Christine: what is identity in this context?

<jorn> s/whta/what/

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

<ralphtq> DOLCE

<pgroth> +q

<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 def today
... 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 endurants/perdurants
... 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 cases.
... 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

<smiles> +1

<zednik> +1

<khalidbelhajjame> +1

Luc: proposes to use the notion of thing on the wiki

<stain> +1

<jcheney> +1

<JimM> +1

<tfrancart> +1

<Edoardo> +1

<olaf> +1

<SamCoppens> +1

<ericstephan> +1

<Yogesh> +1

<jun> +1

<ilkayaltintas> +1

<satya> 0

<ralphtq> +1

<Christine> 0

<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 unanimity
... 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

<ralphtq> yes

<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?

- DRAFT -

Provenance Working Group Teleconference

16 Jun 2011

Attendees

Contents

Admin

PAQ TF Plan to F2F1

Model TF Plan to F2F1

Model Task Force

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output