12:50:33 RRSAgent has joined #prov 12:50:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/06-prov-irc 12:50:35 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:50:35 Zakim has joined #prov 12:50:37 Zakim, this will be 12:50:37 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 12:50:38 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 12:50:38 Date: 06 July 2011 12:50:55 Zakim, this will be PROV 12:50:55 ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 50 minutes ago 12:51:17 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable 12:51:18 SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started 12:51:25 + +1.617.715.aaaa 12:52:28 Chair: Luc Moreau 12:52:35 Scribe: Simon Miles 12:52:39 rrsagent, make logs public 12:54:27 conference code 77681# 12:54:46 zakim, this is prov1 12:54:46 sandro, this was already SW_(PROV1)8:00AM 12:54:47 ok, sandro; that matches SW_(PROV1)8:00AM 12:55:42 zakim, who is here? 12:55:42 On the phone I see +1.617.715.aaaa 12:55:44 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot 12:55:46 sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 12:56:04 zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room 12:56:05 +Meeting_Room; got it 12:57:24 sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT: 77681# (note the "1") 12:59:46 pgroth has joined #prov 13:01:54 zednik has joined #prov 13:02:36 zakim, who is here? 13:02:36 On the phone I see Meeting_Room 13:02:37 On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot 13:03:06 mr. conference is not listening to my code 13:03:28 it's restricted at this time 13:03:29 what code is it? 13:03:50 hmm, it should be the same one, right? 13:04:12 conference code 77681# 13:04:18 ah.. with a 1 in the end 13:04:31 no, it's not valid 13:05:10 The conference is restricted at this time for 7768# - not valid for 77681# 13:05:13 + +1.518.633.aabb 13:05:34 I just got on with 77681# 13:06:03 + +44.789.470.aacc 13:06:06 hurray 13:06:19 Zakim: +44.789.470.aacc is me 13:06:32 (and my mobile number recognized from Skype) 13:06:39 is there a ppt or video link? 13:08:17 +??P9 13:08:26 Zakim: +??P9 is me 13:09:43 zakim, who is here? 13:09:43 On the phone I see Meeting_Room, +1.518.633.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, ??P9 13:09:45 On IRC I see zednik, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, stain, sandro, trackbot 13:09:47 will there be any screen sharing? webex or gotomeeting? 13:10:21 + +1.518.633.aabb 13:10:31 smiles has joined #prov 13:10:32 tlebo has joined #prov 13:10:37 jcheney has joined #prov 13:10:41 Zakim: +1.518.633.aabb is me 13:10:46 pgroth has joined #prov 13:11:03 zakim, +??P9 is me 13:11:03 sorry, stain, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9' 13:11:13 Zakim: ??P9 is me 13:11:21 Zakim, ??P9 is me 13:11:21 +stain; got it 13:11:28 zakim, +44.789.470.aacc is me 13:11:28 +stain; got it 13:11:55 Zakim, +1.518.633.aabb is me 13:11:55 +zednik; got it 13:12:01 Luc: a round of introductions... 13:12:12 Luc: I am a co-chair of the WG 13:12:33 we only hear fragments as the conference telephone is muting you too eagerly 13:13:01 SamCoppens has joined #prov 13:13:12 zakim, who is on the call? 13:13:12 On the phone I see Meeting_Room, zednik, stain.a, stain 13:13:25 we will be louder 13:13:59 Vinh has joined #prov 13:14:16 StephenCresswell has joined #prov 13:14:25 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 13:14:30 All: introduce themselves 13:15:00 Luc: 4 sessions today, 4 today; finish 5pm on dot tomorrow, maybe later today 13:15:00 Paolo has joined #prov 13:15:14 IlkayAltintas has joined #prov 13:15:28 qwebirc856316 has joined #prov 13:15:33 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of 30 Jun telecon 13:15:41 +1 13:15:42 +1 13:15:43 +1 13:15:51 +1 13:16:01 ericstephan has joined #prov 13:16:04 ACCEPTED minutes of 30 Jun telecon 13:16:21 +1 13:16:31 Luc: Action review - no actions 13:16:37 ryan has joined #prov 13:16:56 Luc: Meeting objectives: slides available from agenda page 13:16:56 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf 13:17:16 Luc: 7 deliverables and timetable to produce them are in the charter 13:17:39 ... first draft of conceptual and formal models due in 3 months time 13:18:31 ... What would we like to release by 6 months deadline? 13:18:36 zednik: are you able to hear this..? 13:19:10 ... aspire to define *core* concepts and resolve most issues for these concepts 13:19:11 both my skype and voip connection are fragmenting a lot.. "that's the minimal. We need the inspir... ahsl ... got some agreements 13:19:39 Deborah: Are which are core concepts documented somewhere? 13:19:50 GK has joined #prov 13:20:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceConcepts 13:20:37 Luc: for formal model first draft, have lightweight model using semweb technologies, have resolved issues related to that model 13:20:51 stain: the audio is quiet but followable for me 13:21:17 Luc: access and query TF, could aim to produce draft regarding access only by 6 months deadline 13:21:38 ... issues related to the proposals resolved by first draft 13:21:57 Luc: any comments on first draft aims? 13:22:01 q? 13:22:16 +??P10 13:22:23 q? 13:22:32 zakim, ??P10 is me 13:22:32 +GK; got it 13:23:19 zakim, who is talking? 13:23:20 Paulo: in incubator group, we identified core concepts which we now use in WG, but can see some redundancy and overlapping in them 13:23:31 GK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (52%) 13:23:46 so the ProvenanceConcepts link above by khalidbelhajjame i think is a set of proposed core ; is there a similar list for other concepts that may or may not be included? 13:23:58 Luc: agreed that need to avoid overlap/ambiguity 13:24:18 (sorry - qwebirc856316 is Deborah - i named myself but irc did not take it) 13:24:20 +q 13:24:36 ... shows slide proposing process for next 3 months 13:24:49 GK, the sound might drop if the meeting goes quiet - as long as someone keeps making noise or talking it's OK :) 13:25:04 ... aspiration to define all the core concepts in the charter as identified by model TF 13:25:06 GK: we're on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/File:F2FObjectives.pdf 13:25:11 qwebirc413501 has joined #prov 13:25:22 WEBCAM IS UP. http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam 13:25:37 (Sorry for low contrast on slides... the room is fairly bright.) 13:25:58 sandro: thanks, it's quite allright 13:26:06 ... as soon as F2F1 over, want to produce draft of deliverables in W3C style, including schema (formal model) 13:26:11 @sandro, looks pretty useful, tx 13:26:52 ... then review period, using W3C tools; it is here that we raise issues of overlap, redundancy etc. 13:27:19 ... use telecons to discuss and resolve, prioritised by how much traffic on mailing list 13:27:28 Paulo has joined #prov 13:27:57 ... iterate for each issue, resolve by vote; last 2 weeks to finalise documents 13:28:39 @smiles, ReSpec makes it v. easy to make W3C style docs - http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html 13:28:49 Khalid: two deliverables are due at same time, but D2 (formal model) dependent on D1 (conceptual model) 13:29:17 Luc: have to do in parallel, co-evolve; people will be working on both 13:29:27 Ilkay: confusion between formal model and formal semantics 13:30:05 Paul: formal model is instantiation of model in semweb technology; (formal model is bad name); formal semantics is mathematical definition 13:30:20 StephenCresswell has joined #prov 13:30:53 q? 13:30:59 ack 13:31:02 q? 13:31:06 q- 13:31:14 ack IlkayAltintas 13:31:15 very quiet right now 13:31:20 perhaps we should use another name rather than formal model - i think it is confusing - perhaps schema model 13:31:29 q+ 13:31:30 q? 13:31:32 jcheney: ambiguity in term formalisation, could mean mathematics or schema 13:31:43 Paolo: note that D3 (formal semantics) is optional 13:32:12 q? 13:32:13 Luc: specified optional because we weren't sure if there would be critical in mass in WG; it seems that there is 13:32:48 Deborah: terms may confuse readers 13:32:54 I think there is a danger that formal semantics makes a spec *less* useful if it's over-specfified / over-constrained. 13:33:04 Paul: mean "schema" 13:33:26 Deborah: we need 1 schema 13:33:40 I'm not speaking against formal semantics, but think it needs to be approached lightly. 13:34:06 q? 13:34:07 Luc: for first draft, we are suggesting lightweight (e.g. RDFS) schema 13:34:25 ack qwebirc 13:34:28 q? 13:34:35 (note for minuting: qwebirc = Deborah) 13:34:49 Luc: objectives for this meeting: 13:35:01 ... gain further agreement on concept definitions 13:35:10 GK1 has joined #prov 13:35:20 ... solve some issues in concept definitions; some will be left to those defining schema 13:35:30 ... describe journalism example using concepts 13:35:41 ... discuss possible graphical notation 13:35:59 Just for the record, I would like to get an RDFS as well as an OWL encoding (luc thought an owl encoding may take too much time - I think we can get a lightweight one out) 13:36:02 q? 13:36:14 ... gain agreement on provenance access, decide document structure, decide tech, resolve some issues 13:36:50 ... for other two TFs, decide where we are going to go next, what test cases are and what we will do with them; identify responsibilities, ownership of documents 13:36:57 Luc: anything else? 13:37:07 Paolo: are we happy with the journalism example? 13:37:22 pgroth: example can change, but agreed as that as basis 13:37:54 Luc: good to adapt to expose problems of change 13:38:31 jcheney: need other examples also so that others see connection with their domains 13:38:41 pgroth: for illustration purposes, nice to have one 13:39:03 Luc: Move onto next topic: Model TF 13:40:40 is it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/att-0017/ModelTaskForce_F2F1.pptx ? 13:40:46 Paolo: introduces TF members 13:41:10 Paolo: overall objective of TF to define provenance model 13:41:27 ... starting points: incubator group report, journalism example 13:42:07 ... initially articulate concepts independently of semweb, then connect and define schema after and provide semantics 13:43:00 ... for F2F1, tried to consolidate effort on mailing list, Wiki around key concepts discussed 13:43:30 ... these are the consolidated concepts 13:43:45 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts 13:44:17 ... some came up recently (e.g. time) so not discussed much prior but considered important by WG 13:44:43 Khalid: some can be seen as "concepts", some "relations between concepts" 13:45:51 Paolo: looking at Thing definition, we have definition, examples in journalism use cases plus others 13:46:34 BTW, I'm tagging the wiki with categories http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Category:Discussed_at_F2F1 13:46:43 ... followed by issues for discussion, these are from the WG mailing list/telecon discussions 13:47:27 ... we need to finalise definitions, evolve towards the deliverable document 13:48:26 pgroth: in consolidated concepts, there are links to concepts that have been discussed, but there are others identified in charter but not discussed (e.g. collection) 13:49:02 q? 13:49:09 Paolo: also need to coordinate with access and query TF, to say how you obtain assertions in model 13:50:13 ... as a WG, we have agreed on some points (see slides/Wiki for exact wording of points) 13:50:41 +q 13:51:50 ... there are outstanding issues which need to be addressed 13:52:13 q? 13:52:33 ... next steps: formalise prioritised provenance concepts, map to journalism example and extend to account for agreed concepts 13:53:04 ... example comes with some sample queries, which we need to try to express these using our concepts 13:53:08 q? 13:53:29 ... also need a primer in natural language for those outside WG 13:53:38 Deborah: primer also has examples of use? 13:53:40 Paolo: yes 13:54:07 pgroth: there is a separate primer for all of WG, but this comes later 13:54:48 q? 13:55:20 ack pgroth 13:55:20 Paolo: being able to express example queries and write primer are tests of model 13:55:27 Paulo_ has joined #prov 13:55:32 pgroth: over dinner, ask us to come up with better names than PIL 13:55:48 Luc: questions on Paolo presentation? 13:56:12 Paulo: Was derivation dicsussed in a telecon? 13:56:17 Luc: yes 13:56:26 Paulo: do we need this concept at all? 13:56:40 where is the page listing suggested names for PIL? 13:56:49 Luc: Derivation will be discussed in one of the F2F1 sessions 13:57:47 Paulo: we will eventually need a "theory of provenance", founded on the model, combining formal semantics and model 13:58:05 This talk of *a* theory of provenance makes me feel deeply uneasy. I think we need to put some vocabulary out there that developers can use. 13:58:22 Also, there may be different theories applicable to different situations. 13:59:04 q? 13:59:04 ... looking at current discussions, looks like provenance theory would be based partially on proof theory, part on assertion theory 14:00:42 ... would like WG to connect model with proof theory, as part of activity on formal semantics 14:01:33 Luc: not yet discussed how formal semantics will be developed, happy for Paulo to put forward suggestions 14:01:42 q? 14:02:36 This is a standardization working group, not an academic research project. It's fair to note that there may be existing theories, and point them out, but I would worry if our work is committed to one that isn't *widely* recognized - and I'm not aware that such a thing exists. 14:02:41 Paolo: see it as, if we can formalise model in, for example, proof theory, then this is welcome 14:04:07 q? 14:04:22 jcheney: waiting for informal definition process to converge before formalising 14:05:20 Luc: it is clear that at this table there are those keen to provide formal semantics; want to get started after F2F1, but focus now is on natural language definitions 14:05:47 JimMcCusker has joined #prov 14:06:16 +1 to getting a formalization discussion going (and acknowledge that it follows at least some consensus on some core from the model task force) 14:06:29 Luc: we spent a long time talking about resources before we made some decisions - separate model from web architecture, then find some adequate definitions (thing, IPV of) 14:06:52 We may have stopped talking about "resources", but IFAICT, a "thing" is described as exactly what is called a "resource" in web architecture. 14:07:05 Luc: now want open discussion on these two concepts: thing and IPVT 14:07:17 now looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConsolidatedConcepts#Thing 14:08:30 Paolo: we now have "stuff", "state of stuff", "thing", "properties" 14:09:19 Paolo: thing as defined has identity, invariant properties, mutable properties 14:09:39 -zednik 14:10:33 do we also have a distinction between stuff and thing? i am not sure of the need for "stuff" 14:11:01 Paolo interesting example of ICE -> sculpture -> pool of water. 14:11:06 zednik has joined #prov 14:11:07 ... talk about identity, and what changes mean a change in identity 14:11:44 ... invariance is relative to a context/scope 14:12:03 I agree that invariance is relative. 14:12:08 q+ 14:12:16 +zednik 14:12:32 ... therefore, mutable is also relative 14:12:39 +1 that invariance is relative. 14:13:27 Luc: Sandro came new to this; yesterday Paul and Luc discussed 14:13:36 +1 as well 14:14:55 qwebirc413501: I did previously suggest 'turtles all the way' so that there are no 'stuff' - but I guess the stuff is useful because it's the real thing behind a certain thing (which is just an interpretation) 14:14:57 Sandro: first problem had was "thing", as assumed subject of provenance, but actually characterisation of that subject 14:15:14 but it's still outside our vocabulary - we're not going to say anything about the stuff 14:16:12 ... saw no place for variant properties 14:16:23 q? 14:17:24 ack Paulo 14:17:28 Khalid: from provenance point of view, only describing invariant properties 14:18:22 Paulo: may be more abstract or concrete things (e.g. sculpture vs water) 14:19:07 q+ 14:19:23 I don't see more or less abstraction in sculpture vs water. 14:19:31 GK: I agree 14:20:01 q? 14:20:59 ... don't think variance (IVP of) and abstraction are the same thing 14:21:15 Q+ 14:21:29 q? 14:22:30 ack zednik 14:22:31 Paolo: agreed that abstractions give different assertions of provenance of same thing, but all boils down to properties 14:22:34 q? 14:23:16 q+ 14:23:34 q- 14:23:48 zednik: can get into morass when talking about abstraction; all we talk about are abstractions 14:23:58 +1 to not including more or less mutable or more less abstract 14:24:16 q+ 14:24:20 +q (deborah) 14:24:40 @zednik: +1. I'm thinking that this talk of "invariance" is really constraining to a context, such that provenance assertions we can make *are* invariant within that context. 14:25:07 @GK: I completely agree 14:25:13 Paolo: need to know scope to know what invariance is relative to 14:25:27 @Paolo: Very good description 14:25:33 smiles: the identity of the thing could be the scope 14:25:55 q? 14:25:59 +q 14:27:24 you can have abstract properties such as "the materials that make out the shape of a shirt" 14:27:33 it doesn't have to be a measurement 14:27:42 q? 14:28:28 ack paulo 14:29:00 Paulo: by abstract/concrete, see thing as concept over which reason, provenance as metadata to concept 14:29:02 q+ 14:29:10 Luc: WG agreed that this is an assertion language 14:29:23 q? 14:29:26 +q 14:29:47 Paulo: it is "description of thing" we care about 14:29:50 ack SamCoppens 14:30:33 SamCoppens: need to distinguish information resource and physical resource 14:31:04 Luc: do not use the word "resource" 14:31:21 ack deborah 14:31:28 ack (deborah) 14:31:35 @deborah: please speak louder 14:32:09 @samcoppens: I don't think distinguishing physical and info resources is helpful 14:32:13 Deborah: don't think "stuff" is a good thing to introduce 14:32:23 q+ 14:32:38 ... also not sure need to distinguish invariant and variant 14:33:08 Luc: what is meant by not using "stuff"? 14:34:35 Luc: "thing" is what is in assertion language, "stuff" is what it refers to in the world 14:34:37 Re. Deborah's comment, I think provenance is (mainly) intended to describe instances, not classes 14:35:26 (I think that's part of what the "in the past" discussion is trying to nail.) 14:35:49 q? 14:36:19 deb: PML used "IdentifiedThing" 14:36:42 Deborah: in PML, stuff is merely the instance of the IdentifiedThing 14:37:34 Luc: it is not just stuff identified, but state of stuff 14:37:47 Paolo-2 has joined #prov 14:37:56 ack IlkayAltintas 14:37:56 Q? 14:37:58 thing is state of stuff? 14:38:03 Q? 14:38:18 cannot hear current speaker 14:38:21 I would argue that in what we're talking about, thing is an observation of stuff. 14:38:52 q? 14:38:56 Ilkay: if when you change some property of a thing and it becomes a different thing, then it is an invariant property 14:39:03 still cannot follow speaker 14:39:05 FWIW, in Web Arch, a "resource" is something that *can be* identified. To the extent that "state of stuff" can be identified, it's also a resource in that sense. 14:39:18 q? 14:39:23 q+ 14:39:31 ack zednik 14:40:14 zednik: distinction between abstract and concrete not important or strong, what matters is what we can assert about 14:40:27 @zednik: +1 14:40:35 Luc has joined #prov 14:40:42 q? 14:41:14 @zednik: +1 14:41:16 close the queue 14:41:18 ack JimMcCusker 14:41:31 zakim, close the queue 14:41:31 ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed 14:41:53 "observation" for "thing" 14:42:08 JimMcCusker: if a thing is a set of properties observed/asserted, then call invariant properties "observations" 14:42:32 luc: but some things are not observed, thus "characterization". 14:42:36 Luc: but also want to talk about things not observer 14:42:38 q? 14:42:40 then the subjects of two disparate "observations" can or cannot be inferred to be identical. 14:42:42 I'm not fully convionced by ovservations and things. Consider a stock ticker: a reasonable provenance asseryion is that it's 15 minutes later than the "real" market data, IMO. 14:42:43 (I wonder about "fingerprint") 14:43:07 ack Paulo 14:43:12 That's an invariant that survives any single observation. 14:43:14 fingerprint fits well with Jim's "observation". 14:44:09 the asserter might not just observe, also interpret, reason and.. guess 14:44:37 q? 14:44:55 Paulo: in response to Deborah, distinction between invariant and variant is often of interest; for example, in versions what we care about is what has changed versus the stable identity 14:45:07 True. I guess "Assertion" would be the most general, with a particular plan/recipe/whatever that describes how the assertion is being made. 14:45:51 Paulo: Provenance implies continuity and observation 14:46:10 s/paulo/paolo/ 14:46:42 Paolo: more important that observed change than that change happened, and infer that process occurred to make that change 14:46:47 paolo: process is also a key to provenance 14:46:59 An assertion that has a creator who has the observer role is considered an observation. 14:47:57 (I'm thinking it's not about mutablity, but about chaining from one snapshot to the next.) 14:48:06 Luc: close this session for a break 14:48:07 hi all were breaking 15 minutes 14:48:12 restart at 11:05 15:06:04 Chair: Paul Groth 15:06:30 scribe: ericstephan 15:06:59 zakim, open the queue 15:06:59 ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is open 15:07:08 q? 15:07:29 Paul - talk about some of the other concepts 15:08:38 Luc - we can raise issues but we also need to be pragmatic in terms of our time. Agreeing to disagree. 15:09:58 ericstephan, us ":" after person's name 15:10:09 Jim - If we say what we are calling a thing, is an observation or assertion (or composite of assertions). It is an information artifact about a thing in the world. The assertion is something that is invariant. 15:10:54 StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:11:16 ? shall we mention states in this discussion? 15:11:31 Jim - the state of the thing in the world changes through time. If we assume that any worldly thing is variant and the assertion is invariant. We can make the distinction between the two concepts 15:12:53 Paul: Suggest we propose definitions like Jim's and modify them. 15:14:27 Looks like we are going to project the irc window here so we are all on the same page regardless of location 15:14:39 SamCoppens has joined #prov 15:15:50 A thing is an information artifact about a subject in the world. 15:16:04 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptThing 15:16:04 Thing: "things" represent real-world stuffs and have properties modeling aspects of stuff states. Things have: an identity, a set of invariant (== immutable) properties, a set of mutable properties 15:16:20 For reference, above is the current proposal for thing 15:17:21 q? 15:17:32 q- 15:17:34 It seems to me that the "invariance" is captured by saying that we can make certain enduring assertions about it. 15:17:34 StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:17:47 Observer, ObservationalContext, SubjectOfObservation ? 15:17:52 Jim: The assertion describes the state as asserted by a particular entity. 15:18:25 the characterization of a thing in a provenance assertion is invariant for the scope of the provenance assertion 15:18:32 Jim: The subject that is being described is always variant. The description stays the same at a particular point by a particular entity. 15:19:11 Tim: Descriptions of subjects do not exist outside an observation? 15:19:51 Luc: Its in the modeling that you talk about particular properties 15:20:04 q? 15:20:05 Observations renamed to Descriptions. 15:20:15 Subjects are the things described by Descriptions. 15:20:46 Luc: I'd like to come back to the word description. When we had the word thing. the process execution used things. If you replace the word thing by description... 15:20:57 satya has joined #prov 15:21:35 What about Characterization? 15:22:05 Paul - it sounds like you need to do all of this in terms of description. Something in the world describes a particular state. 15:22:11 State of a Subject is captured within its Description. 15:23:40 Satya: How do you describe the characteristics of a process? 15:24:04 Jim: A process is a kind of thing therefore it is an entity in the world. 15:24:58 Satya: need to Distinguish between Occurrence and Continual 15:25:04