IRC log of prov on 2011-07-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:51:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:51:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:51:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:30 [trackbot]
Date: 21 July 2011
14:51:34 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:51:36 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:51:44 [Luc]
14:51:54 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
14:52:22 [Luc]
Scribe: Yogesh Simmhan
14:52:31 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:52:36 [Luc]
Topic: Admin
14:52:45 [Luc]
Regrets: Eric Stephan
14:52:49 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:53:16 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:53:23 [Zakim]
14:53:25 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the call?
14:53:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P2
14:53:35 [pgroth]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
14:53:36 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:54:01 [pgroth]
Luc have you set up the call?
14:54:33 [Luc]
14:55:22 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
14:55:38 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aaaa
14:55:50 [Zakim]
14:55:52 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
14:55:56 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:55:56 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
14:56:01 [Zakim]
14:56:10 [Luc]
yogesh, everything is set up for scribin
14:56:29 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P14 is me
14:56:29 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
14:56:45 [Paolo]
zakim, mute me
14:56:45 [Zakim]
Paolo should now be muted
14:57:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.987.aabb
14:57:29 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:57:32 [Zakim]
14:57:39 [stain]
Zakim: ??P18 is me
14:57:47 [stain]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
14:57:47 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
14:58:30 [stain]
Zakim, who is noisy?
14:58:41 [Zakim]
stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (38%)
14:58:56 [stain]
(I'm just never sure if I get my mute button the right way around!)
14:59:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aacc
14:59:23 [Helena]
Helena has joined #prov
14:59:24 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
14:59:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.449.aadd
14:59:49 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:00:06 [Zakim]
15:00:09 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:00:19 [MacTed]
Zakim, Kingsley_Idehen is OpenLink_Software
15:00:19 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software; got it
15:00:24 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:25 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:25 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:00:30 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:30 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:00:34 [Yogesh]
zakim, +1.540.449 is me
15:00:34 [Zakim]
+Yogesh; got it
15:00:41 [Zakim]
15:00:47 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [jcheney]
Zakin, ??P36 is me
15:00:56 [jcheney]
Zakim, ??P36 is me
15:00:56 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:00:59 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:01:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo (muted), +1.443.987.aabb, stain, +1.315.330.aacc, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, ??P28
15:01:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya, Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot
15:01:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.524.aaee
15:01:23 [Helena]
Zakim, ??P28 is Helena
15:01:23 [Zakim]
+Helena; got it
15:01:31 [Zakim]
15:01:39 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
15:01:50 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P55 is me
15:01:54 [rgolden]
rgolden has joined #prov
15:01:55 [Yogesh]
zakim, i am scribe
15:01:59 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:02:02 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:02:03 [Zakim]
sorry, Yogesh, I do not see a party named 'scribe'
15:02:17 [Zakim]
15:02:27 [Yogesh]
Luc: agenda for today
15:02:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aaff
15:02:41 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:02:48 [Yogesh]
Helena: Stephan is almost done with report. Discuss what is there is wiki.
15:02:51 [Edoardo]
Edoardo has joined #prov
15:03:04 [Yogesh]
Luc: will review future plans. its on agenda.
15:03:15 [Zakim]
+ +49.302.093.aagg
15:03:16 [pgroth]
15:03:23 [Yogesh]
scribe: yogesh
15:03:57 [Luc]
15:03:57 [Yogesh]
Paul: plese advertise activities of the group. URL is in irc
15:03:59 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:04:04 [Luc]
15:04:21 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:04:23 [Paolo]
15:04:25 [jcheney]
15:04:28 [Helena]
15:04:30 [Yogesh]
Luc: support for minutes
15:04:30 [satya]
15:04:30 [rgolden]
15:04:36 [olaf]
olaf has joined #prov
15:04:38 [tlebo]
zakim, I am aacc
15:04:40 [Yogesh]
15:04:42 [olaf]
15:04:45 [tlebo]
15:04:45 [stain]
0: Didn't attend day 2
15:05:02 [zednik]
15:05:10 [Zakim]
15:05:12 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
15:05:14 [Zakim]
15:05:15 [tlebo]
zakim, aacc is tlebo
15:05:16 [Edoardo]
15:05:18 [GK]
0 (only there part time)
15:05:29 [dcorsar]
15:05:34 [Luc]
Approved: minutes of F2F1
15:05:45 [Luc]
15:05:47 [Zakim]
sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
15:05:48 [Yogesh]
Topic: Admin
15:05:49 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:05:50 [tlebo]
zakim, +1.315.330 is me
15:05:56 [Zakim]
15:06:02 [Paolo]
15:06:03 [satya]
15:06:03 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:06:04 [Zakim]
sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named '+1.315.330'
15:06:04 [tlebo]
15:06:07 [Yogesh]
Subtopic: accept the minutes of 14 Jul telecon
15:06:08 [olaf]
15:06:08 [Yogesh]
15:06:09 [stain]
0 (away)
15:06:11 [jcheney]
15:06:16 [Zakim]
15:06:19 [Helena]
15:06:19 [GK]
Zakim is being very slow/temperamental today
15:06:25 [zednik]
0 (Did not attend last week)
15:06:28 [GK]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
15:06:30 [rgolden]
15:06:37 [Zakim]
+GK; got it
15:06:38 [dcorsar]
15:06:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aahh
15:06:38 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:06:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo (muted), +1.443.987.aabb, stain, tlebo, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, Helena, +1.512.524.aaee, khalidbelhajjame, Ronald,
15:06:47 [Luc]
Approved: last week's teleconference minutes
15:06:48 [Zakim]
... +1.518.633.aaff, +49.302.093.aagg, ??P6, GK, +1.518.276.aahh
15:06:49 [Zakim]
15:06:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, zednik, Edoardo, dcorsar, GK, rgolden, GK1, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya, Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed,
15:06:54 [Yogesh]
RESOLVED: minutes approved
15:06:58 [Zakim]
... stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot
15:07:08 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
15:07:08 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:07:10 [GK]
I'm not seeing an agenda for today in the wiki
15:07:10 [Yogesh]
Luc: need scribes for future. please volunteer
15:07:14 [JimM]
JimM has joined #prov
15:07:22 [pgroth]
agenda is at:
15:07:22 [Luc]
Topic: Discuss Plans for Connection Task Force
15:07:29 [Yogesh]
topic: Discuss Plans for Connection Task Force
15:07:34 [Zakim]
15:07:48 [Curt]
Zakim, +1.443.987.aabb is me
15:07:50 [jorn]
jorn has joined #prov
15:07:51 [Yogesh]
Paul: Eric left note that eric, yolanda and kai are away
15:07:55 [Zakim]
+Curt; got it
15:07:59 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:08:11 [Zakim]
15:08:14 [GK]
The date in the agenda is incorrect
15:08:27 [Yogesh]
Luc: Eric asked if we could identify who can work on the conection task force report for Sep
15:08:47 [pgroth]
15:09:24 [Luc]
ack pgroth
15:09:29 [Yogesh]
Paul: we did this last week. several has said yes. Those who signed up last week should put their names on the wiki
15:09:34 [pgroth]
15:09:38 [jcheney]
We had volunteers for model and impl task forces only...
15:09:42 [MacTed]
GK - I fixed the agenda date
15:10:02 [Luc]
Topic: Discuss Plans for Implementation Task Force
15:10:04 [Yogesh]
Paul: will extract those who signed up last week from the minutes and send to Eric
15:10:09 [GK]
@MacTed thanks - was confusing me :)
15:10:15 [Yogesh]
topic: Discuss Plans for Implementation Task Force
15:10:38 [Helena]
15:10:55 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:11:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.454.aaii
15:11:26 [Yogesh]
Helena: We may not be gowing as detailed in the report. Should add more details. What are the expectations. Hope the survey will help.
15:11:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.860.673.aajj
15:11:46 [Yogesh]
15:11:49 [JimMcCusker]
JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:12:05 [Reza_BFar]
Reza_BFar has joined #prov
15:12:25 [Yogesh]
Helena: list of orgs that answered survey and the role/field of people
15:12:27 [pgroth]
15:12:47 [Yogesh]
Helen: sah people who are willing to implement and the language
15:12:57 [zednik]
15:12:59 [Reza_BFar_]
Reza_BFar_ has joined #prov
15:13:41 [Yogesh]
Helena: members to add/edit the wiki table to address their concerns
15:13:50 [Luc]
15:13:56 [Yogesh]
...Excel spreadsheet with freetext responses is available
15:14:28 [Luc]
ack pgroth
15:14:31 [rgolden]
Have a concern about privacy also
15:14:35 [Yogesh]
Paul: did questionaire say the responses will be made public?
15:14:48 [Yogesh]
Helena: We assumed people will not mind.
15:14:58 [rgolden]
It is easy to identify the person from the organization and organization field
15:15:00 [dgarijo]
15:15:34 [Christine]
My concern would be that at least some of the information may be personal data
15:15:44 [Yogesh]
Paul: best thing may be to contact stakeholders to ask if they mind, esp. the freetext response. We can try to make this report members-only in the meanwhile.
15:15:44 [MacTed]
15:15:55 [Yogesh]
Helena: will contact the stakeholders
15:16:05 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:16:05 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:16:09 [Yogesh]
Luc: can we make a wiki document members-only?
15:16:48 [Yogesh]
Sandro: not on the wiki. is possible in w3c site. may not be a way to remove wiki page from history even if deleted.
15:17:08 [Luc]
15:17:08 [MacTed]
was there any assurance of privacy *given* in the questionnaire?
15:17:20 [Helena]
15:17:37 [Yogesh]
Sandro: we can delete wiki page in good faith while we get responses, and figure out other options.
15:17:57 [pgroth]
and the organization information
15:17:57 [pgroth]
15:18:01 [jcheney]
the page will still be recoverable in the wiki history...
15:18:06 [Luc]
15:18:10 [MacTed]
15:18:11 [Luc]
ack dgarijo
15:18:16 [jcheney]
but if we delete now it won't get indexed by search engines
15:18:29 [GK]
Copy+keep the wiki-markup content deleted!
15:18:51 [Yogesh]
Helena: gathered info from outsiders to help modeling group see if we address requirements
15:18:52 [Luc]
15:19:02 [rgolden]
15:19:11 [Luc]
ack rgolden
15:19:36 [Yogesh]
Ryan: should ensure that there is no personally identifiable info.
15:19:38 [Christine]
+1 to ryan's comment
15:20:00 [sandro]
15:20:13 [pgroth]
15:20:14 [Yogesh]
...also add disclaimer on how we use personally id info
15:20:31 [Luc]
ack pg
15:20:44 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:20:45 [Yogesh]
Paul: be clear about how we use it.
15:20:59 [pgroth]
but very cool
15:21:03 [Yogesh]
Helena: can delete current page and put back info once we have ack from stakeholders
15:21:10 [pgroth]
very cool report
15:21:23 [Yogesh]
Luc: is there a clear plan for the task force?
15:21:49 [Yogesh]
Luc: is there a clear plan for the task force?
15:21:54 [Yogesh]
Helena: no lined up plan yet. need to identify who understands the model and can help us go over the list to see what is being addressed.
15:22:03 [Yogesh]
Luc: can we put that as an agenda for next week?
15:22:18 [Luc]
action: helena to produce plan for implementation task force
15:22:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-33 - Produce plan for implementation task force [on Helena Deus - due 2011-07-28].
15:22:20 [Luc]
15:22:50 [Zakim]
15:22:51 [Yogesh]
Luc: intent was to identify gaps in model, act as requirements. What is mechanism?
15:23:06 [jorn]
zakim, ??p35 is me
15:23:06 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:23:14 [Luc]
15:23:36 [Yogesh]
Helena: use them to improve use cases. See whats in the model that can be used by stakeholders. Test cases
15:23:54 [Yogesh]
Luc: is this after the first working draft, when we go back to stakeholders?
15:23:58 [Yogesh]
Helena: yes
15:24:16 [Luc]
15:24:17 [Yogesh]
...will put this in the plan, even if this is done after Sep
15:24:25 [pgroth]
Fantastic work Helena and Stephan
15:24:38 [Yogesh]
Luc: +1
15:24:38 [Luc]
topic: Towards first public working drafts
15:25:10 [MacTed]
is there a closing date on response submissions? should perhaps note that on the questionnaire, if nowhere else
15:25:33 [Yogesh]
Luc: 2 public working drafts: prov models and formalization/ontology
15:26:01 [Yogesh]
Luc: agreed at F2F1 that accessing provenance will also be available in Sep
15:26:32 [Yogesh]
Luc: GK has produced first draft for PAQ, Luc and Paulo done same for model
15:26:49 [Yogesh]
Luc: please identify concern with the draft and ideally make counter proposal
15:27:09 [Yogesh]
Luc: document will evolve as issues come up in email and discuss over phone call
15:27:16 [pgroth]
also please mention the issue number in your emails
15:27:21 [Luc]
15:27:28 [pgroth]
15:27:29 [GK]
q+ to note that we can make agreements in email too
15:27:39 [stain]
+1 - specially due to holidays
15:27:43 [Yogesh]
Luc: any process question?
15:27:52 [pgroth]
15:27:58 [rgolden]
15:28:09 [Luc]
ack pgroth
15:28:11 [Yogesh]
Luc: please raise issue using tracker that will generate issue number
15:28:41 [Yogesh]
GK: preference for resolving things by emails rather than telecon
15:29:02 [Luc]
ack GK
15:29:02 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to note that we can make agreements in email too
15:29:03 [Yogesh]
Luc: will have to reach consensus as group. if it emerges from email, we should try and get approval on email.
15:29:29 [Yogesh]
Luc: chairs and editors will curate issues as they are raised
15:29:31 [satya]
15:29:36 [Luc]
ack rgo
15:29:53 [Yogesh]
rgolden: was graphical language in the specification?
15:30:12 [Yogesh]
Luc: (yes) will talk about it in model task force plans when paulo reports
15:30:17 [Luc]
15:30:22 [Luc]
ack saty
15:30:52 [Yogesh]
satya: there was a vote on some definitions over email, but we seem to revisit them
15:31:17 [GK]
I think the repeating definition threads will get easier once we focus on the actual draft documents
15:31:20 [Zakim]
15:31:41 [stain]
Zakim: ??P39 is me
15:31:44 [Luc]
15:31:47 [stain]
Zakim, ??P39 is me
15:31:47 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
15:31:49 [satya]
15:31:51 [Yogesh]
Luc: nature of standardization WG. new people or those who were not present. Unvoidable. Will potentially have people from outside group raise issues once we publish the drafts
15:31:54 [satya]
yes thanks!
15:32:06 [Luc]
topic: Discuss Plans for Provenance Access and Query Task Force
15:32:24 [GK]
PAQ document on W3C site:
15:32:24 [GK]
15:32:39 [Yogesh]
GK: has put draft at W3C mercurial wiki
15:32:58 [Luc]
Pointers to working drafts from WG page:
15:33:19 [Yogesh]
GK: changes status to editors draft and tidied up things since the last version
15:33:46 [Paolo]
zakim, unmute me
15:33:46 [Zakim]
Paolo should no longer be muted
15:34:05 [Yogesh]
Luc: members should identify aspects of doc that do not support scenario or is out of scope
15:34:06 [Luc]
15:34:24 [Yogesh]
15:34:37 [Yogesh]
15:34:59 [pgroth]
ack Yogesh
15:35:25 [Yogesh]
want to make sure there are no concerns with the scenario itself
15:35:26 [pgroth]
15:35:53 [Yogesh]
Paul: we agreed line by line
15:36:03 [Yogesh]
15:36:04 [GK]
q+ to note that not every part of the functionality in the scenario is necessarily addressed directly by PAQ (e.g. "Oh yeah" button)
15:36:16 [pgroth]
ack pgroth
15:36:39 [pgroth]
ah ok
15:36:52 [Yogesh]
was only refering to concrete scenario
15:36:59 [Luc]
ack yo
15:37:03 [Yogesh]
not to the abstract that was agreed upon
15:37:32 [Yogesh]
GK: draft may not have exact solutions for all parts of the scenario
15:38:05 [Yogesh]
Helena: we should consider feedback from survey
15:38:17 [Zakim]
15:38:20 [pgroth]
15:38:25 [Yogesh]
Luc: not refering to model, but to PAQ
15:38:42 [Yogesh]
GK: model and scenario are connected
15:38:43 [Luc]
15:38:47 [sandro]
q+ to talk about previous topic for a moment (deleting wiki page)
15:38:49 [GK]
15:39:00 [Zakim]
15:39:01 [Luc]
ack sand
15:39:01 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to talk about previous topic for a moment (deleting wiki page)
15:39:42 [Yogesh]
sandro: has made backup copy of wiki and deleted entry. was easier than expected.
15:39:50 [Zakim]
15:39:53 [Luc]
15:39:59 [satya]
15:39:59 [Yogesh]
Helena: spreadsheet with raw text should also be access controlled. will send to sandro.
15:40:22 [Yogesh]
topic: Discuss Plans for Model Task Force
15:40:35 [Luc]
15:41:24 [pgroth]
what you just said
15:41:24 [Yogesh]
satya: we have prov example scenario for model concepts. understanding was PAQ example was to be a subset of journalism. how are they related?
15:41:36 [GK]
Provenance model draft at:
15:41:43 [Luc]
Topic: Discuss Plans for Model Task Force
15:42:06 [Luc]
Subtopic: Model progress review
15:42:21 [Yogesh]
Paul: it is considered as a subset of journalism example. Concrete scenario should show this relationship.
15:42:45 [Yogesh]
Satya: shoudl constrain ourselves to the scenario for first draft.
15:42:49 [Paolo]
15:43:14 [Yogesh]
Paolo: link to latest version of draft. Link should stay current.
15:43:34 [Yogesh]
...Have worked with Luc to consolidate discussion.
15:43:37 [Luc]
15:43:41 [Luc]
ack satya
15:43:53 [Yogesh]
...Baseline wiki page from F2F1 and additional discussion from emails since then.
15:44:07 [GK]
+1 not the union of all proposals!
15:44:19 [Yogesh]
...Spirit has been to not disrupt agreements but ensure coherent document for discussion.
15:44:49 [Luc]
A few comments are available from:
15:45:14 [Yogesh]
...Process: open to entire group for contributions to discussion.
15:45:31 [Yogesh]
...List of constructs that should be part of language.
15:45:47 [Yogesh]
...Intro e.g. is a simplified version of journalism
15:46:08 [Yogesh]
...No official syntax proposal, anything else is ok too.
15:46:39 [Luc]
currently, graphical notation is not explained ... but hopefully it is understandable
15:46:41 [Yogesh]
...Sec 3.3 graphical proposal comes out naturally. Made iup, no pretense of being eventual graphical lang.
15:47:23 [GK]
I would like to eliminate "bob"s from the specification... I'll try and formulate a proposal.
15:47:24 [Yogesh]
...each construct has definition and e.g.
15:47:27 [satya]
@Paolo: like the graphical notation since it seems to be compatible with OWL/RDFS syntax
15:47:49 [Yogesh]
...There was discussion of IVP Of
15:47:54 [pgroth]
15:47:54 [Luc]
@GK, we have noted that too
15:48:23 [Yogesh]
Luc: bob"
15:48:25 [pgroth]
I like it :-)
15:48:29 [Yogesh]
...looks bad
15:48:52 [Yogesh]
Paulo: do not want to arbitrarilly choose terms till we have consensus
15:48:54 [GK]
@Luc: fine... having a document to talk about makes it easier to make constructive suggestions. I'd like to *eliminate* bob, not rename.
15:49:08 [Yogesh]
Luc: it would be useful to have readable test by replcing "bob"
15:49:14 [GK]
Bits and bobs?
15:49:14 [Yogesh]
15:49:16 [Luc]
15:49:54 [Luc]
ack pgr
15:49:55 [Yogesh]
Paolo: has been discussed in length, need to come up with something dignified.
15:50:28 [Yogesh]
Pau: question on process. Had number of model "actions". Should we eliminate them and redo them?
15:51:06 [GK]
+1 replace actions with issues against documents, as appropriate
15:51:07 [Yogesh]
Luc: should review actions and contact relevant people
15:51:20 [Luc]
15:51:55 [Yogesh]
GK: action 30 should be marked complete
15:51:57 [pgroth]
will go through the actions
15:52:01 [Yogesh]
Luc: will do.
15:52:05 [GK]
15:52:27 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:52:31 [Yogesh]
Luc: read document and raise issues. will discuss over email.
15:52:58 [Yogesh]
khalidbelhajjame: raise issue for even minor things? Typo?
15:53:11 [Paolo]
15:53:20 [Luc]
ack ka
15:53:21 [Yogesh]
Luc: can be done thru mailing list so we get an archive
15:53:22 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:53:23 [Luc]
ack kh
15:53:23 [GK]
Khalid: +1 don't necessarily raise issue for non-substantive changes if note in archoce without objection.
15:53:29 [pgroth]
also it's a mecurial repository
15:53:29 [Luc]
ack pa
15:53:36 [GK]
15:53:49 [pgroth]
q+ to respond
15:53:54 [Yogesh]
Paolo: what is relationship between task force members and other WG members on commenting on doc?
15:54:04 [Paolo]
15:54:11 [Luc]
we identified contributors/authors last week
15:54:26 [Zakim]
15:54:26 [GK]
I expect any WG member can raise an issue against any document.
15:54:40 [pgroth]
15:54:41 [Yogesh]
Paul: draft editors can ask for significant contributions from TF members.
15:54:42 [Zakim]
15:54:55 [Luc]
subtopic: OWL Ontology progress review
15:55:43 [Yogesh]
Satya: there are two ontology doc. not sure how to merge. Description of ontology and actual owl file.
15:55:55 [Paolo]
15:56:21 [Yogesh]
Luc: it can just be owl file in repos and check it out thru web/mercurial
15:56:42 [Yogesh] we have an estimate on when we it will be ready?
15:56:44 [Paolo]
@Satya: why did you do a branch rather than a module? if that makes sense
15:56:50 [GK]
15:56:51 [Yogesh]
Satya: by next Thu
15:57:04 [Luc]
15:57:09 [tlebo]
is the owl file on ?
15:57:10 [Luc]
ack paolo
15:57:12 [GK]
q+ to ask about use of branch in repo for ontol
15:57:16 [GK]
15:57:27 [tlebo]
+1 paolo's no branch request
15:57:28 [Yogesh]
Paulo: why do a repos branch than a module under model?
15:57:58 [Yogesh]
satya: interpreted Luc's email as need to create branch.
15:58:08 [tlebo]
+1 having a module for ontology without a new branch.
15:58:16 [Yogesh]
paulo: branch is hard to merge.
15:58:25 [Luc]
15:58:26 [Yogesh]
satya: will craete module instead of new branch
15:58:40 [Yogesh]
15:58:42 [Luc]
15:58:48 [Paolo]
@Yogesh: paOOOOOOOOlo :-)
15:58:50 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:58:54 [Luc]
15:58:57 [Luc]
ack kha
15:59:16 [Yogesh]
@Paolo sorry :)
15:59:29 [pgroth]
there could be
15:59:45 [Luc]
15:59:51 [stain]
I guess there could be syntactic arguments :)
16:00:06 [Luc]
subtopic: Formal Semantics
16:00:25 [jcheney]
16:01:07 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
16:01:08 [Yogesh]
jcheney: slide 2: wy formal semantics is important
16:01:08 [stain]
I love the romantic music
16:01:17 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 27 (61%), +1.518.276.aahh (40%), MacTed (65%), jcheney (96%)
16:01:31 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:01:31 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:01:41 [Yogesh]
jcheney: smaller core languages for java
16:02:01 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute 27
16:02:02 [Zakim]
sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to 27
16:02:06 [Yogesh]
...description logic semantics, 1st order logic
16:02:08 [GK]
DL, OWL, FoL, RDF all underpinned by model theory
16:02:19 [pgroth]
Zakim, mute +1.518.276.aahh
16:02:19 [Zakim]
+1.518.276.aahh should now be muted
16:02:23 [Paolo]
Zakim, mute ??27
16:02:24 [Zakim]
sorry, Paolo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??27
16:02:25 [satya]
@GK: agree
16:02:31 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
16:02:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo, Curt, stain, tlebo, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, Helena, +1.512.524.aaee, khalidbelhajjame, Ronald, +1.518.633.aaff,
16:02:34 [Zakim]
... +49.302.093.aagg, ??P6, GK, +1.518.276.aahh (muted), dgarijo, ??P9, Sandro, +1.714.454.aaii, +1.860.673.aajj, stain.a, ??P48, ??P35
16:02:40 [Yogesh]
...Not same sematics as "semantic web" but in representing human knowledge
16:02:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Reza_BFar_, JimMcCusker, StephenCresswell, Christine, jorn, JimM, dgarijo, olaf, zednik, Edoardo, dcorsar, GK, rgolden, GK1, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya,
16:02:47 [Zakim]
... Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot
16:03:10 [Yogesh]
...Slide 3; not like a prog language. So why bother?
16:03:38 [Yogesh]
...identify which are individual entities
16:03:42 [GK]
To some extent, if we have OWL definition we have some formal semantics automatically. Certainly, use of model MUST NOT conflict with OWL or RDF formal semantics.
16:03:49 [Yogesh]
...formal basis for design decisions
16:03:57 [Yogesh]
...common starting point for users.
16:04:11 [Yogesh]
...not confusing like english language
16:04:33 [stain]
@GK, but a formal model can better deal with use/generation time, IVPs etc
16:04:46 [Yogesh]
...people can make use of provenance without knowing how your system works
16:04:53 [GK]
+1 start with _lightweight_ formal semantics (slide 7)
16:05:17 [Yogesh]
...avoid heavyweight
16:05:42 [Yogesh]
...inspiration from math model for data preservation
16:05:47 [Zakim]
- +1.518.276.aahh
16:06:12 [Yogesh]
...Slide 4;
16:06:37 [GK]
q+ to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)?
16:06:53 [Yogesh]
...two MS documents in different formats represent same information
16:06:56 [satya]
@james: I agree with your points on formal semantics, but I am confused how does what you have in proposal 1, 2, 3 relate to OWL/RDFS semantics
16:06:57 [Reza_BFar_]
IMO, this is excellent. This type of formalism will probably answer some of the concerns I have regarding the model.
16:07:05 [Yogesh]
...Slide 5;
16:07:11 [Reza_BFar_]
The formalism will at least drive at exact definitions.
16:07:28 [Yogesh]
...information content has not changed even if preservation method has changed
16:07:40 [Reza_BFar_]
How do we tie this type of formalism to the Model?
16:07:56 [Yogesh]
...Slide 6; asking informally for agree, disagree, nont want to answer
16:08:24 [Yogesh]
...its in the charter but we need not *have* to do it
16:09:17 [Yogesh]
...Slide 7; develop formalism along with model/schema
16:09:54 [Yogesh]
...Slide 8; proposal 3 is for lightweight first version
16:10:09 [Zakim]
16:10:21 [Yogesh]
...can end up putting lot of effort that may not eventually make it
16:10:35 [Luc]
16:10:38 [Yogesh]
...Happy to talk about it with others
16:10:49 [khalidbelhajjame]
16:10:55 [Luc]
ack gk
16:10:55 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)?
16:11:05 [Yogesh]
GK: fan of formal semantics, but not too much. do not want to exclude
16:11:15 [Yogesh] a result of formalism
16:11:39 [Yogesh]
...Is it a new framework? May cause problems for adoption.
16:11:58 [pgroth]
q+ to respond to GK
16:12:00 [Yogesh]
...Cant we just use owl ontology that is in framework of web semantics?
16:12:18 [Yogesh]
jcheney: not owl expert
16:12:44 [pgroth]
16:12:47 [satya]
@james: capability of OWL (tractable fragment) is "sameAs" description logic
16:12:48 [Yogesh]
...Did not want to take things too far to make them redundant with existing schemas
16:13:37 [Yogesh]
...describe properties and relationships between artifacts. help with model interpretation.
16:14:05 [GK]
I think that sounds like something that OWL described very naturally
16:14:18 [Luc]
16:14:26 [Yogesh]
Luc: charter has something that said that formalism should capture math properties that cannot be captured in owl
16:14:29 [satya]
@Luc: Would those properties be expressed in RIF?
16:14:47 [Luc]
ack khal
16:14:51 [Yogesh]
GK: we can see if owl can do job or not if we start simple
16:14:53 [Luc]
16:15:33 [Luc]
16:15:43 [Paolo]
16:15:54 [Yogesh]
khalidbelhajjame: why do we need formal model? will be helpful for public, but will also be helpful for model TF members to gain understanding and precise definition
16:16:16 [GK]
Khalid: +1 attempting a formal model helps to clarify ideas
16:16:17 [Yogesh]
...dont have lot of time. so light weight formal definition.
16:16:42 [Luc]
16:16:47 [Yogesh]
...e.g. IVP Of, Bob, that are still being discussed
16:17:13 [pgroth]
16:17:19 [pgroth]
to respond
16:17:21 [Luc]
ack paolo
16:17:22 [Yogesh]
Paolo: if we choose owl for semantics for data model, what is difference between formalism and @satya's owl efforts?
16:17:33 [Luc]
ack pg
16:17:49 [Yogesh]
Paul: owl ontology trying to represent conceptual model in sematic web language
16:17:58 [Yogesh]
...formalism is math description
16:18:04 [Reza_BFar_]
As an implementer, specially given the approach of the majority of folks is to err on the generic direction, I think the formalism will be very helpful. The formalism will be much more clear than OWL in form of things like boundary conditions for the implementers.
16:18:08 [GK]
@Paolo: if OWL can capture the semantics, then there is no (necessary) difference, IMO,
16:18:14 [Yogesh]
...If we choose description logic for math, it will map to owl easily
16:18:15 [satya]
16:18:38 [pgroth]
16:18:42 [Yogesh]
...Math gives different way for representing formal model constraints
16:18:52 [Yogesh]
Paolo: not fully convinced
16:19:10 [Yogesh]
...owl DL was not for designed for semantics of programming language
16:19:13 [GK]
OWL *is* a DL language; mapping DL to OWL is misleading, IMO
16:19:24 [Reza_BFar_]
Please remember that implementers will need to tie Query and Model together with some implementation (implement search algorithms, etc.) and having a formal Model provides boundary conditions (for example, what search algorithms may not be admissible, etc. based on the mathematical formalism)
16:19:41 [Paolo]
@GK I know, thanks
16:19:48 [Yogesh]
Paul: difference between formulas and owl
16:20:15 [Yogesh]
satya: @GK is echoing similar concerns
16:20:45 [Yogesh]
...if there are things we cannot model in owl, we can go to owl full and RIF
16:20:56 [satya]
@Reza: That is exactly what encoding in OWL will do
16:21:14 [Yogesh]
Luc: cannot resolve today. @jcheney, howshould we proceed?
16:21:25 [Yogesh]
jcheney: wanted to start discussion.
16:21:42 [Yogesh]
...Know about DL and first order logic, not owl
16:21:44 [khalidbelhajjame]
I like prolog :-)
16:21:49 [Paolo]
+1 for the P-word (= Prolog)
16:21:50 [satya]
@james: yes about RIF
16:22:01 [Yogesh]
...Several views on what formal semantics is.
16:22:17 [Yogesh]
...Need not do things two ways if owl is sufficient
16:22:27 [dgarijo]
RIF is compatible with Owl, right?
16:22:37 [Yogesh]
...Can come back to topics in 1-2 weeks when I come back with writeup
16:22:51 [Reza_BFar_]
I guess I'm just unsure that OWL can capture exact boundary conditions, etc. Perhaps we can use the formalism that James wants as a test case to see if the ideas can or cannot be expressed in OWL.
16:22:55 [GK]
@jcheyney: if you write something down, there are ppl here who can help with expressing in OWL, if possible
16:23:06 [Luc]
16:23:09 [Yogesh]
Luc: satya will release first version of owl ontology in 1 week. we can schedule formalism discussion after that is done.
16:23:15 [Luc]
ack satya
16:23:17 [pgroth]
exactly, that's the point
16:23:31 [Yogesh]
Satya: is scheduling telecon with Deborah. @jcheney is welcome to join
16:23:35 [pgroth]
we shouldn't be artifically constrainted by owl
16:23:51 [pgroth]
agree wiht Reza
16:23:54 [Yogesh]
Luc: will work with jcheney to schedule call later
16:23:58 [Zakim]
- +1.518.633.aaff
16:23:59 [Zakim]
16:23:59 [Zakim]
16:24:00 [Zakim]
16:24:00 [Zakim]
- +1.860.673.aajj
16:24:01 [Zakim]
- +1.512.524.aaee
16:24:01 [Zakim]
16:24:02 [Yogesh]
meeting concluded
16:24:03 [Zakim]
16:24:04 [Zakim]
16:24:06 [Zakim]
16:24:11 [Zakim]
16:24:12 [Zakim]
16:24:12 [Zakim]
- +1.714.454.aaii
16:24:19 [Zakim]
- +49.302.093.aagg
16:24:21 [Zakim]
16:24:23 [Zakim]
16:24:26 [Zakim]
16:24:32 [Zakim]
16:24:35 [Zakim]
16:24:56 [Zakim]
16:25:02 [Zakim]
16:25:07 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has left #prov
16:39:11 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
18:12:10 [Zakim]