IRC log of prov on 2011-06-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:47:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:47:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:47:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:47:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:47:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:47:19 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:47:19 [trackbot]
Date: 23 June 2011
14:47:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:59 [pgroth]
Zakim, list conferences
14:47:59 [Zakim]
I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM, UW_POI(POIWG)10:00AM, Team_Comm()10:30AM active
14:48:01 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are INC_LLDXG()10:00AM, INC_(DecisionXG)10:00AM, Team_Global(review)8:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM, WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM, XML_PMWG()10:00AM,
14:48:05 [Zakim]
... WAI_RDWG()11:00AM, VB_VBWG(CCXML)11:00AM, Team_(test)14:20Z, Styl_XSL-FO-()11:00AM, Math_IG()10:00AM, Team_(audio-webrtc)14:00Z, MM_MMI(EMMA)10:00AM, SW_(PROV)11:00AM,
14:48:08 [Zakim]
... SW_HCLS(TMO)11:00AM, WF_TF()9:00AM, WAI_PFWG(AAPI)10:00AM, I18N_WG(MLW)11:00AM
14:48:34 [pgroth]
Zakim, this is SW_(PROV)
14:48:34 [Zakim]
pgroth, I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be SW_(PROV)".
14:48:49 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be SW_(PROV)
14:48:49 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:49:47 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:49:53 [Zakim]
14:50:03 [jorn]
Zakim, ??p2 is me
14:50:03 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
14:50:15 [pgroth]
Chair: pgroth
14:50:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.312.348.aaaa
14:51:12 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:51:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa
14:52:24 [pgroth]
+1.312.348.aaaa is me
14:52:44 [Zakim]
- +1.312.348.aaaa
14:53:02 [jorn]
Zakim, aaaa is pgroth
14:53:02 [Zakim]
sorry, jorn, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:53:13 [Zakim]
14:53:22 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:53:22 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:53:39 [pgroth]
Scribe: Satya Sahoo
14:55:13 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
14:56:26 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
14:57:36 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
14:58:04 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
14:58:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.213.290.aabb
14:58:42 [Zakim]
14:58:47 [JimM]
JimM has joined #prov
14:58:48 [stain]
Zakim: +??P4 is me
14:59:01 [Zakim]
14:59:02 [Yogesh]
zakim, +1.213 is me
14:59:02 [Zakim]
+Yogesh; got it
14:59:06 [jorn]
zakim, ??p4 is stain
14:59:06 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
14:59:25 [GK]
zakim, ??p0 is me
14:59:25 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
14:59:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aacc
14:59:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.832.386.aadd
14:59:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aaee
14:59:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.375.aaff
14:59:58 [Lena]
Lena has joined #prov
15:00:05 [JimM]
zakim, +1.518 is me
15:00:05 [Zakim]
sorry, JimM, I do not recognize a party named '+1.518'
15:00:28 [JimM]
zakim, +1.518.276.aacc is me
15:00:28 [Zakim]
+JimM; got it
15:00:33 [stain]
I can't find as linked to in the agenda
15:00:47 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:00:57 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:00:59 [pgroth]
15:00:59 [Zakim]
15:01:09 [tfrancart]
tfrancart has joined #prov
15:01:15 [pgroth]
stain, you're right
15:01:29 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [pgroth]
Sandro, can you check
15:01:46 [Zakim]
15:01:59 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:01:59 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:02:00 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P12 is me
15:02:00 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:02:05 [pgroth]
here are the minutes from last week
15:02:07 [jorn]
15:02:09 [GK]
Previous minutes link in agenda at seems to be broken...
15:02:42 [stain]
GK: it was just magically fixed
15:02:44 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:02:59 [Zakim]
- +1.509.375.aaff
15:03:04 [Zakim]
15:03:04 [stain]
where's our Luc!
15:03:20 [stain]
oh wait, it's pgroth chairing today
15:03:33 [jorn]
zakim, who is speaking?
15:03:39 [pgroth]
Regrets: Luc Moreau
15:03:42 [Paolo]
very noisy. can't hear a thing
15:03:44 [jorn]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:03:45 [Zakim]
jorn, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:03:55 [Zakim]
jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: GK (73%), Yogesh (31%)
15:04:01 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:04:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.375.aagg
15:04:15 [Zakim]
15:04:32 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:04:45 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:04:46 [Paolo]
can the people who are typing please mute themselves
15:04:46 [GK]
@stain Yeah... by the time I got there with a fix it was fixed
15:04:59 [stain]
Zakim: whois noisy?
15:05:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.216.368.aahh
15:05:04 [dgarijo]
satya, are you in the call yet?
15:05:07 [stain]
Zakim: who is noisy?
15:05:10 [jorn]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:05:17 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:05:21 [Zakim]
jorn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: GK (33%), Yogesh (34%), pgroth (16%), +1.832.386.aadd (9%), +1.509.375.aagg (16%), +1.216.368.aahh (42%)
15:05:23 [dgarijo]
15:05:27 [Zakim]
15:05:46 [pgroth]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 16 Jun telecon
15:05:51 [dgarijo]
there is a lot of noise ...
15:05:52 [Yogesh]
zakim, mute Yogesh
15:05:52 [Zakim]
Yogesh should now be muted
15:06:08 [pgroth]
15:06:13 [Zakim]
15:06:18 [dgarijo]
15:06:20 [Yogesh]
15:06:21 [zednik]
15:06:21 [smiles]
15:06:23 [dcorsar]
15:06:28 [SamCoppens]
15:06:30 [Paolo]
(I was not there)
15:06:31 [StephenCresswell]
15:06:32 [tfrancart]
15:06:34 [JimM]
15:06:37 [stain]
15:06:40 [jorn]
15:06:45 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is noisy?
15:06:52 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:06:56 [Zakim]
pgroth, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.832.386.aadd (37%)
15:07:13 [satya]
Paul:Minutes of Jun 16 meeting approved
15:07:16 [pgroth]
15:07:30 [Zakim]
15:08:06 [satya]
Paul: Scribes needed for next week's telcon, please volunteer
15:08:43 [satya]
Paul: Update on the connection task force for the first F2F
15:08:47 [Zakim]
15:08:48 [edoardo]
edoardo has joined #prov
15:08:58 [pgroth]
15:08:59 [Zakim]
15:09:00 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P12 is me
15:09:00 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:09:10 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P29 is me
15:09:10 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:09:23 [pgroth]
15:09:44 [satya]
Kai: Feedback invited for the catalogs created by the connection task force
15:09:51 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
15:09:55 [pgroth]
Kai = Eric
15:09:58 [pgroth]
15:10:21 [Zakim]
15:10:29 [Zakim]
15:10:36 [stain]
Zakim: +??P31 is me
15:10:41 [Zakim]
15:10:44 [pgroth]
Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1
15:10:47 [satya]
Paul: Update on the implementation and test task force
15:11:03 [Lena]
15:11:26 [satya]
Lena: Created forms to elicit feedback from provenance users and stakeholders
15:12:15 [satya]
Lena: Forms will be used to understand needs of provenance users
15:12:19 [jcheney]
15:12:41 [iker]
iker has joined #prov
15:12:45 [pgroth]
ack jcheney
15:13:12 [jcheney]
15:13:18 [jcheney]
15:13:33 [satya]
James: Attended a workshop describing users requirements for provenance use in computing trust
15:14:01 [Paolo]
the paper James just referred to:,
15:14:06 [satya]
Paul: Update on the Access and Query task force
15:14:15 [Paolo]
(I think!)
15:15:06 [satya]
Simon: Several proposals and still no agreement on any one of them
15:15:45 [dgarijo]
15:15:50 [Yogesh]
15:15:55 [Yogesh]
zakim, unmute me
15:15:55 [Zakim]
Yogesh should no longer be muted
15:16:08 [satya]
Simon: Curate the draft for the F2F and create a concrete set of points for further discussion
15:16:48 [Yogesh]
zakim, mute me
15:16:48 [Zakim]
Yogesh should now be muted
15:17:46 [GK]
(My comment: not *necessarily* a separate service. SImple case is just use URI for provemamce)
15:18:12 [satya]
Yogesh: Scope for provenance access service needs to be defined
15:19:05 [satya]
Simon: Close to consensus on the technical points in the draft, but there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved
15:19:36 [dgarijo]
15:19:43 [pgroth]
ack Yogesh
15:19:44 [Zakim]
15:19:53 [Paolo]
15:19:53 [stain]
find a set of agreed principles
15:20:00 [Zakim]
15:20:03 [Yogesh]
zakim, mute me
15:20:03 [Zakim]
Yogesh should now be muted
15:20:06 [jorn]
zakim, ??p2 is me
15:20:06 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:20:43 [pgroth]
ACTION Simon to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus
15:20:43 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Simon
15:20:43 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)
15:20:44 [satya]
Simon: Additional points can be added to the access and query task force draft for discussion in the F2F
15:20:58 [pgroth]
ACTION smiles to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus
15:20:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-12 - Create a proposal for a set of points of consensus [on Simon Miles - due 2011-06-30].
15:21:13 [Yogesh]
15:22:06 [satya]
Daniel: Will the issues related to provenance from multiple sources (?) be discussed in the F2F?
15:22:07 [dgarijo]
15:22:07 [stain]
I guess those are the kind of thing we'll have to extract as general principles
15:22:22 [GK]
q+ to suggest first nailing down points about which consensus is easy - then move on
15:22:37 [Yogesh]
zakim, unmute me
15:22:37 [Zakim]
Yogesh should no longer be muted
15:23:38 [dgarijo]
@satya I meant multiple sources describing the provenance of a resource.
15:23:41 [Yogesh]
zakim, mute me
15:23:41 [Zakim]
Yogesh should now be muted
15:23:43 [pgroth]
ack Yogesh
15:23:54 [Yogesh]
zakim, mute me
15:23:54 [Zakim]
Yogesh should now be muted
15:23:58 [Paolo]
@satya who is reporting on the Model TF?
15:24:03 [pgroth]
ack GK
15:24:03 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to suggest first nailing down points about which consensus is easy - then move on
15:24:19 [satya]
GK: Contentious points can be deferred
15:24:37 [satya]
@Daniel: thanks for clarifying
15:25:24 [satya]
Simon: Prioritize issues that can be discussed and resolved in the F2F
15:26:10 [satya]
Paul: Update on Model task force
15:26:33 [dgarijo]
15:26:40 [satya]
Paolo: Three step plan, (a) cleaning up the provenance concept definitions
15:27:02 [dgarijo]
15:27:14 [satya]
Paolo: Conference call tomorrow to discuss the F2F draft
15:27:35 [satya]
Paolo: (b) Create draft by end of June
15:27:57 [satya]
Paolo: (c) Put the draft for discussion during F2F
15:28:48 [satya]
Paul: Definitions derived from CS will make it more complex
15:28:51 [JimM]
15:29:17 [satya]
Paolo: We can use existing modeling work to define the provenance terms
15:29:56 [satya]
Paolo: There are inconsistencies in the provenance concept terms
15:31:02 [satya]
Jim: The definitions are consistent but specific parameters associated with terms are not very clear (?)
15:31:04 [smiles]
15:31:28 [JimM]
15:32:04 [satya]
Paolo: Will try to reconcile the different descriptions
15:32:41 [satya]
Paul: Agreed to derive common sense definitions
15:33:13 [satya]
Paul: Agreed on the definition of "thing"
15:33:36 [satya]
15:34:07 [satya]
Paolo: Tomorrow's Model task force telcon can help in reconciling the different definitions
15:34:59 [satya]
Simon: The primer of the WG will help users to understand the provenance concept definitions
15:35:41 [stain]
@paolo +10
15:35:49 [smiles]
15:36:52 [satya]
15:37:01 [GK]
q+ to note a common WG principle is that consensus can be reviewed *iff* there is new information.
15:37:58 [satya]
Paul: We need to move forward after a consensus is reached
15:38:08 [stain]
.. almost like a court case
15:38:58 [GK]
15:39:38 [satya]
Paolo: Model task force participants will be present at F2F
15:40:52 [Paolo]
@satya: agree
15:41:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aaii
15:41:37 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:41:40 [satya]
Paul: Discussion on temporal properties
15:41:50 [pgroth]
Temporal Property: Thing proposed Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times
15:42:15 [stain]
15:42:16 [jcheney]
15:42:20 [tfrancart]
15:42:21 [GK]
15:42:22 [satya]
Paul: Should we discuss about temporal properties now?
15:42:27 [dgarijo]
15:42:29 [Paolo]
-1 : none seems controversial to me
15:42:29 [satya]
15:42:30 [Lena]
15:42:31 [JimM]
15:42:32 [iker]
15:42:33 [zednik]
15:42:35 [Yogesh]
15:42:41 [dcorsar]
15:42:44 [smiles]
15:42:50 [kai]
15:42:55 [tlebo]
15:43:39 [pgroth]
Proposed: Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times
15:43:51 [zednik]
15:43:52 [stain]
15:43:53 [stain]
15:44:03 [satya]
Paul: Agreement over the proposed definition?
15:44:21 [Paolo]
15:44:31 [smiles]
15:44:37 [Zakim]
15:44:47 [tlebo]
15:45:10 [satya]
Zednik: We should be careful about setting restrictions about measurement of the time associated with a thing
15:45:37 [Zakim]
15:45:37 [GK]
Agree with not saying too much ... part of more general problem: do we assume provenance is always 100% correct?
15:45:43 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P29 is me
15:45:43 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:45:47 [satya]
Stain: Agrees with stephan zednik
15:46:34 [satya]
Stain and Paolo: Measurement of time especially in distributed systems may be problematic
15:46:44 [tlebo]
15:46:50 [zednik]
15:46:51 [pgroth]
ack zednik
15:46:55 [pgroth]
ack stain
15:46:59 [pgroth]
acd Paolo
15:47:02 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:47:05 [Paolo]
@Stian: I can't believe you just brought relativity into the scope of provenance observations :-))
15:47:08 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:47:15 [tlebo]
15:47:18 [tlebo]
q+ (for Paulo)
15:47:22 [Paolo]
15:47:23 [tlebo]
15:47:25 [satya]
Simon: Agrees with past three speakers, seems to be unnecessary
15:47:33 [smiles]
15:47:37 [satya]
simon: Discussing about this
15:47:39 [tlebo]
15:47:43 [tlebo]
15:47:45 [stain]
@Paolo - well - if you send a probe on a one-way mission to outer space provenance of its data might be quite important! :)
15:47:48 [tlebo]
15:48:06 [tlebo]
q- (for Paulo)
15:48:08 [satya]
Paulo: What kind of time is being discussed - when measurement was done or provenance was recorded
15:48:23 [dgarijo]
@stain: that's a nice point.
15:48:50 [GK]
@stian, @dgarijo +1
15:49:29 [satya]
Paulo: We need to understand the context of the notion of time
15:49:31 [JimM]
15:49:55 [Zakim]
15:50:09 [GK]
Ah, yes, pseudo-time?
15:50:26 [stain]
@JimM - but what about compound accounts? Can you not combine provenances without sorting out the clocks?
15:50:32 [satya]
Jim: Timestamp is associated with an OPM account
15:50:56 [smiles]
15:50:59 [stain]
15:50:59 [Paolo]
@Paul: yes
15:51:00 [zednik]
15:51:03 [tlebo]
15:51:06 [GK]
q+ I think we *can* have provenance without time
15:51:08 [satya]
Paul: Can we have discussion about provenance without discussing time
15:51:09 [Lena]
15:51:14 [GK]
I think we *can* have provenance without time
15:51:15 [JimM]
@stain: a judge would have to decide how to synchronize clocks
15:51:23 [JimM]
15:51:27 [stain]
15:51:29 [Zakim]
15:51:33 [satya]
GK: We can have provenance time
15:51:33 [jorn]
zakim, ??p2 is me
15:51:33 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:51:41 [dgarijo]
I agree with GK. We can but for some domains it is necessary.
15:51:58 [JimM]
yes - prov w/o time is OK, time is a nice annotation...useful evidence supporting provenance
15:52:00 [GK]
@dgarijo, agreed.
15:52:09 [satya]
Stian: Likes to have notion of profile
15:52:13 [satya]
15:52:16 [smiles]
@stain completely agree
15:52:20 [pgroth]
ack stain
15:52:24 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:52:40 [stain]
Stian: Also that you can have provenance without Time (Taverna workflow system has that in current OPM export - but the provenance still makes sense)
15:52:45 [Paolo]
better say: as long as timestamps on events are not used for reasoning, that's fine
15:52:49 [tlebo]
15:53:20 [smiles]
15:53:22 [stain]
and such a common order might not even exist
15:53:52 [JimM]
would common order matter if there were no hidden dependencies?
15:53:57 [GK]
Sometimes, you just don't know. If time info is available that that can help.
15:54:24 [satya]
Tim: When two provenance accounts are being combined, we need to use time
15:54:24 [stain]
@GK exactly.. it's very useful information - but might not have that luxury or it might be giving wrong indications
15:54:27 [Paolo]
indeed you may not be able to synchronize different accounts that are obtained using different clocks
15:54:36 [stain]
so you need provenance of the timestamps!
15:55:20 [Paolo]
@Stian knowledge of which clocks you've used is not necessarily sufficient for this
15:55:56 [Zakim]
15:56:00 [satya]
@Stian: you need provenance of timestamps is your application requires it - it is not a universal requirement
15:56:22 [stain]
say account1 is a probe orbiting the sun and reporting solar spots. Account2 is the same, but from a telescope at earth. If they also look at some astronomical event, they might not even going to agree on temporal ordering.
15:56:22 [GK]
For me, this important/interesting thing about this discussion is how to reconcile conflicting provenance accounts; provenance for provenance may help, and may include time and other factors (e.g. trust)
15:56:33 [satya]
Paul: Is there a need for temporal ordering
15:56:56 [SamCoppens]
SamCoppens has left #prov
15:57:15 [satya]
GK: It may make sense to talk about provenance without temporal information
15:57:24 [Paolo]
if your provenance inferences/assertions do depend on time, you are in trouble
15:57:25 [stain]
GK: +1 - so we can make time important to the model, but not required
15:57:35 [Zakim]
15:57:54 [stain]
if we don't have a model of time, then "traditional provenance" (ie. a lab book) would not be matching our mdoel
15:58:16 [JimM]
timestamps are useful and potentially independent evidence for/against provenance assertions
15:58:19 [stain]
15:58:20 [GK]
q+ to add a qualification if consensus can be found
15:58:22 [Yogesh]
15:58:27 [smiles]
15:58:27 [zednik]
+1 : time stamps addressed, but not required
15:58:31 [satya]
Paul: Timestamp should be catered for by the model but not required by it
15:58:33 [Zakim]
15:58:35 [jcheney]
+1 to allowing time without over-constraining its semantics
15:58:38 [JimM]
15:58:40 [iker]
iker has left #prov
15:58:43 [smiles]
ack smiles
15:58:47 [tlebo]
15:58:54 [Zakim]
15:59:21 [JimM]
15:59:26 [pgroth]
ack GK
15:59:26 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to add a qualification if consensus can be found
15:59:30 [pgroth]
ack JimM
15:59:31 [Lena]
is it in the scope of this WG to define what is "required" and what is not?
15:59:32 [GK]
+1, (subject to consensus qualification)
15:59:56 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has left #prov
16:00:14 [Lena]
or should we focus on representing what can be useful for representing provenance?
16:00:22 [satya]
Jim: Time is important parameter of provenance descriptions
16:00:53 [GK]
(Bruce schneier did some work on secure logs that might eb an alternative approach - but don't want to discuss that)
16:01:05 [satya]
Jim: Time also helps in computing trust of provenance description
16:01:24 [Zakim]
16:01:27 [Zakim]
- +1.315.330.aaii
16:01:30 [Zakim]
- +1.509.375.aagg
16:01:31 [pgroth]
zakim, bye
16:01:37 [jorn]
16:01:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #prov
16:01:40 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were jorn, +1.312.348.aaaa, pgroth, +1.213.290.aabb, Yogesh, stain, GK, +1.832.386.aadd, +1.518.633.aaee, +1.509.375.aaff, JimM, dgarijo,
16:01:40 [JimM]
time is not core to provenance, but it is good evidence
16:01:43 [Zakim]
... Paolo, +1.509.375.aagg, [IPcaller], +1.216.368.aahh, Yolanda, jcheney, kai, +1.315.330.aaii
16:01:48 [pgroth]
zakim, make log public
16:01:51 [Paolo]
Paolo has left #prov
16:02:02 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make log public
16:02:11 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
16:03:13 [pgroth]
16:04:54 [pgroth]
pgroth has left #prov
16:13:02 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
16:13:42 [GK1]
Trying to configure alternative IRC client on this channel
16:14:58 [GK1]
GK1 has left #prov
16:15:01 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
16:15:08 [GK1]
GK1 has left #prov
16:56:13 [tfrancart]
tfrancart has joined #prov
16:56:28 [tfrancart]
tfrancart has left #prov