See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 June 2011
<pgroth> +1.312.348.aaaa is me
<pgroth> Scribe: Satya Sahoo
<stain> Zakim: +??P4 is me
<stain> I can't find http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-16-06 as linked to in the agenda
<pgroth> stain, you're right
<pgroth> Sandro, can you check
<pgroth> here are the minutes from last week http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-06-16
<GK> Previous minutes link in agenda at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.23 seems to be broken...
<stain> GK: it was just magically fixed
<stain> where's our Luc!
<stain> oh wait, it's pgroth chairing today
<Paolo> very noisy. can't hear a thing
<Paolo> can the people who are typing please mute themselves
<GK> @stain Yeah... by the time I got there with a fix it was fixed
<stain> Zakim: whois noisy?
<dgarijo> satya, are you in the call yet?
<stain> Zakim: who is noisy?
<pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 16 Jun telecon
<dgarijo> there is a lot of noise ...
<Paolo> (I was not there)
Paul: Minutes of Jun 16 meeting approved
Paul: Scribes needed for next
week's telcon, please volunteer
... Update on the connection task force for the first F2F
<pgroth> catalog: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Connections_Template_Catalog
Kai: Feedback invited for the catalogs created by the connection task force
<pgroth> Kai = Eric
<stain> Zakim: +??P31 is me
<pgroth> Implementation and Test Cases TF Plan to F2F1
Paul: Update on the implementation and test task force
Lena: Created forms to elicit
feedback from provenance users and stakeholders
... Forms will be used to understand needs of provenance users
James: Attended a workshop describing users requirements for provenance use in computing trust
<Paolo> the paper James just referred to: http://www.ics.forth.gr/~gregkar/tapp/papers/Day%202%20-%20Session%205%20-%20Do%20people%20want%20provenance%20and%20are%20they%20prepared%20to%20pay%20for%20it/Provenance,%20End-User%20Trust%20and%20Reuse%20An%20Empirical%20Investigation%20-%20Donaldson%20et.al.pdf
Paul: Update on the Access and Query task force
<Paolo> (I think!)
Simon: Several proposals and still no agreement on any one of them
Simon: Curate the draft for the F2F and create a concrete set of points for further discussion
<GK> (My comment: not *necessarily* a separate service. SImple case is just use URI for provemamce)
Yogesh: Scope for provenance access service needs to be defined
Simon: Close to consensus on the technical points in the draft, but there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved
<stain> find a set of agreed principles
<pgroth> ACTION Simon to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Simon
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. smiles, sdobson2)
Simon: Additional points can be added to the access and query task force draft for discussion in the F2F
<pgroth> ACTION smiles to create a proposal for a set of points of consensus
<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Create a proposal for a set of points of consensus [on Simon Miles - due 2011-06-30].
Daniel: Will the issues related to provenance from multiple sources (?) be discussed in the F2F?
<stain> I guess those are the kind of thing we'll have to extract as general principles
<dgarijo> @satya I meant multiple sources describing the provenance of a resource.
<Paolo> @satya who is reporting on the Model TF?
<Zakim> GK, you wanted to suggest first nailing down points about which consensus is easy - then move on
GK: Contentious points can be deferred
@Daniel: thanks for clarifying
Simon: Prioritize issues that can be discussed and resolved in the F2F
Paul: Update on Model task force
Paolo: Three step plan, (a) cleaning up the provenance concept definitions
Paolo: Conference call tomorrow
to discuss the F2F draft
... (b) Create draft by end of June
... (c) Put the draft for discussion during F2F
Paul: Definitions derived from CS will make it more complex
Paolo: We can use existing
modeling work to define the provenance terms
... There are inconsistencies in the provenance concept terms
Jim: The definitions are consistent but specific parameters associated with terms are not very clear (?)
Paolo: Will try to reconcile the different descriptions
Paul: Agreed to derive common
... Agreed on the definition of "thing"
Paolo: Tomorrow's Model task force telcon can help in reconciling the different definitions
Simon: The primer of the WG will help users to understand the provenance concept definitions
<stain> @paolo +10
Paul: We need to move forward after a consensus is reached
<stain> .. almost like a court case
Paolo: Model task force participants will be present at F2F
<Paolo> @satya: agree
Paul: Discussion on temporal properties
<pgroth> Temporal Property: Thing proposed Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times
Paul: Should we discuss about temporal properties now?
<Paolo> -1 : none seems controversial to me
<pgroth> Proposed: Creation time of a thing precedes any of its use times
Paul: Agreement over the proposed definition?
Zednik: We should be careful about setting restrictions about measurement of the time associated with a thing
<GK> Agree with not saying too much ... part of more general problem: do we assume provenance is always 100% correct?
Stain: Agrees with stephan zednik
Stain and Paolo: Measurement of time especially in distributed systems may be problematic
<pgroth> acd Paolo
<Paolo> @Stian: I can't believe you just brought relativity into the scope of provenance observations :-))
Simon: Agrees with past three
speakers, seems to be unnecessary
... Discussing about this
<stain> @Paolo - well - if you send a probe on a one-way mission to outer space provenance of its data might be quite important! :)
Paulo: What kind of time is being discussed - when measurement was done or provenance was recorded
<dgarijo> @stain: that's a nice point.
<GK> @stian, @dgarijo +1
Paulo: We need to understand the context of the notion of time
<GK> Ah, yes, pseudo-time?
<stain> @JimM - but what about compound accounts? Can you not combine provenances without sorting out the clocks?
Jim: Timestamp is associated with an OPM account
<Paolo> @Paul: yes
Paul: Can we have discussion about provenance without discussing time
<GK> I think we *can* have provenance without time
<JimM> @stain: a judge would have to decide how to synchronize clocks
GK: We can have provenance time
<dgarijo> I agree with GK. We can but for some domains it is necessary.
<JimM> yes - prov w/o time is OK, time is a nice annotation...useful evidence supporting provenance
<GK> @dgarijo, agreed.
Stian: Likes to have notion of profile
<smiles> @stain completely agree
<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)
<Paolo> better say: as long as timestamps on events are not used for reasoning, that's fine
<stain> and such a common order might not even exist
<JimM> would common order matter if there were no hidden dependencies?
<GK> Sometimes, you just don't know. If time info is available that that can help.
Tim: When two provenance accounts are being combined, we need to use time
<stain> @GK exactly.. it's very useful information - but might not have that luxury or it might be giving wrong indications
<Paolo> indeed you may not be able to synchronize different accounts that are obtained using different clocks
<stain> so you need provenance of the timestamps!
<Paolo> @Stian knowledge of which clocks you've used is not necessarily sufficient for this
@Stian: you need provenance of timestamps is your application requires it - it is not a universal requirement
<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.
<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)
Paul: Is there a need for temporal ordering
GK: It may make sense to talk about provenance without temporal information
<Paolo> if your provenance inferences/assertions do depend on time, you are in trouble
<stain> GK: +1 - so we can make time important to the model, but not required
<stain> if we don't have a model of time, then "traditional provenance" (ie. a lab book) would not be matching our mdoel
<JimM> timestamps are useful and potentially independent evidence for/against provenance assertions
<zednik> +1 : time stamps addressed, but not required
Paul: Timestamp should be catered for by the model but not required by it
<jcheney> +1 to allowing time without over-constraining its semantics
<Zakim> GK, you wanted to add a qualification if consensus can be found
<Lena> is it in the scope of this WG to define what is "required" and what is not?
<GK> +1, (subject to consensus qualification)
<Lena> or should we focus on representing what can be useful for representing provenance?
Jim: Time is important parameter of provenance descriptions
<GK> (Bruce schneier did some work on secure logs that might eb an alternative approach - but don't want to discuss that)
Jim: Time also helps in computing trust of provenance description
<JimM> time is not core to provenance, but it is good evidence
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: satya Found Scribe: Satya Sahoo WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: 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, Paolo, +1.509.375.aagg, [IPcaller], +1.216.368.aahh, Yolanda, jcheney, kai, +1.315.330.aaii Present: 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 Paolo +1.509.375.aagg [IPcaller] +1.216.368.aahh Yolanda jcheney kai +1.315.330.aaii Regrets: Luc Moreau Found Date: 23 Jun 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-prov-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]