14:51:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/21-prov-irc
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> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.07.21
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> +??P2
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> yes
14:55:22 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:55:38 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
14:55:50 <Zakim> +??P8
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> +??P14
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> +??P18
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> +Kingsley_Idehen
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> +??P36
15:00:47 <Zakim> +??P28
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> +??P55
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> +Ronald
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> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2011/07/16/results_of_the_provenance_wg_first_f2f_m
15:03:23 <Yogesh> scribe: yogesh
15:03:57 <Luc>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-06
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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-07
15:04:21 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:04:23 <Paolo> +1
15:04:25 <jcheney> +1
15:04:28 <Helena> +1
15:04:30 <Yogesh> Luc: support for minutes
15:04:30 <satya> +1
15:04:30 <rgolden> +1
15:04:36 <olaf> olaf has joined #prov
15:04:38 <tlebo> zakim, I am aacc
15:04:40 <Yogesh> +1
15:04:42 <olaf> +1
15:04:45 <tlebo> +1
15:04:45 <stain> 0: Didn't attend day 2
15:05:02 <zednik> +1
15:05:10 <Zakim> +??P5
15:05:12 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:05:14 <Zakim> +??P6
15:05:15 <tlebo> zakim, aacc is tlebo
15:05:16 <Edoardo> +1
15:05:18 <GK> 0 (only there part time)
15:05:29 <dcorsar> +1
15:05:34 <Luc> Approved: minutes of F2F1
15:05:45 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-07-14
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> -??P5
15:06:02 <Paolo> +1
15:06:03 <satya> +1
15:06:03 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:06:04 <Zakim> sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named '+1.315.330'
15:06:04 <tlebo> +1
15:06:07 <Yogesh> Subtopic: accept the minutes of 14 Jul telecon
15:06:08 <olaf> +1
15:06:08 <Yogesh> +1
15:06:09 <stain> 0 (away)
15:06:11 <jcheney> +1
15:06:16 <Zakim> +??P5
15:06:19 <Helena> +1
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> +1
15:06:37 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:06:38 <dcorsar> +1
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> +??P12
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: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.07.21
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> +??P9
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> +Sandro
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> q+
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> q-
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> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Implementation_Stakeholder_Questionnaire_Response_Report
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> s/gowing/going/
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> q+
15:12:47 <Yogesh> Helen: sah people who are willing to implement and the language
15:12:57 <zednik> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Implementation_Stakeholder_Questionnaire_Response_Report
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> q?
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> +q
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> q+
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> q?
15:17:08 <MacTed> was there any assurance of privacy *given* in the questionnaire?
15:17:20 <Helena> no
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> q?
15:18:10 <MacTed> q-
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> q?
15:19:02 <rgolden> q+
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> q?
15:20:13 <pgroth> q+
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> q?
15:22:50 <Zakim> +??P35
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
15:27:28 <pgroth> q+
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> q-
15:27:58 <rgolden> q+
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> q+
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> q?
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> +??P39
15:31:41 <stain> Zakim: ??P39 is me
15:31:44 <Luc> q?
15:31:47 <stain> Zakim, ??P39 is me
15:31:47 <Zakim> +stain; got it
15:31:49 <satya> ok
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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/provenance-access.html
15:32:24 <GK> Announcement: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jul/0162.html
15:32:39 <Yogesh> GK: has put draft at W3C mercurial wiki
15:32:58 <Luc> Pointers to working drafts from WG page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/WorkingDrafts
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> q?
15:34:24 <Yogesh> q+
15:34:37 <Yogesh> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario
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> q+
15:35:53 <Yogesh> Paul: we agreed line by line
15:36:03 <Yogesh> q+
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> -jorn
15:38:20 <pgroth> everything?
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> q?
15:38:47 <sandro> q+ to talk about previous topic for a moment (deleting wiki page)
15:38:49 <GK> q-
15:39:00 <Zakim> +??P35
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> +??P48
15:39:53 <Luc> q?
15:39:59 <satya> q+
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> q?
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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html
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> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
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> q?
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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/note.txt
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> q+
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> s/test/text/
15:49:16 <Luc> q?
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> q?
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> +q
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> q+
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> -q
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> s/archoce/archive/
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> ack 
15:54:11 <Luc> we identified contributors/authors last week
15:54:26 <Zakim> -??P35
15:54:26 <GK> I expect any WG member can raise an issue against any document.
15:54:40 <pgroth> q-
15:54:41 <Yogesh> Paul: draft editors can ask for significant contributions from TF members.
15:54:42 <Zakim> +??P35
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> q+
15:56:21 <Yogesh> Luc: it can just be owl file in repos and check it out thru web/mercurial
15:56:42 <Yogesh> ...do 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> q+
15:56:51 <Yogesh> Satya: by next Thu
15:57:04 <Luc> q?
15:57:09 <tlebo> is the owl file on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov ?
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> q-
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> q?
15:58:26 <Yogesh> satya: will craete module instead of new branch
15:58:40 <Yogesh> s/craete/create/
15:58:42 <Luc> q?
15:58:48 <Paolo> @Yogesh:  paOOOOOOOOlo :-)
15:58:50 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:58:54 <Luc> q?
15:58:57 <Luc> ack kha
15:59:16 <Yogesh> @Paolo sorry :)
15:59:29 <pgroth> there could be
15:59:45 <Luc> q?
15:59:51 <stain> I guess there could be syntactic arguments :)
16:00:06 <Luc> subtopic: Formal Semantics
16:00:25 <jcheney> http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jcheney/pilformalsemantics.pdf
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> -??P35
16:10:21 <Yogesh> ...can end up putting lot of effort that may not eventually make it
16:10:35 <Luc> q?
16:10:38 <Yogesh> ...Happy to talk about it with others
16:10:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
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> ...as 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> q-
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> q?
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> q?
16:15:33 <Luc> q?
16:15:43 <Paolo> q+
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> q?
16:16:47 <Yogesh> ...e.g. IVP Of, Bob, that are still being discussed
16:17:13 <pgroth> q+
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> q+
16:18:38 <pgroth> q-
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> q?
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> -tlebo
16:23:59 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:24:00 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:24:00 <Zakim> - +1.860.673.aajj
16:24:01 <Zakim> - +1.512.524.aaee
16:24:01 <Zakim> -??P9
16:24:02 <Yogesh> meeting concluded
16:24:03 <Zakim> -Luc
16:24:04 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:24:06 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:24:11 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:24:12 <Zakim> -Curt
16:24:12 <Zakim> - +1.714.454.aaii
16:24:19 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aagg
16:24:21 <Zakim> -??P6
16:24:23 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:24:26 <Zakim> -??P8
16:24:32 <Zakim> -stain
16:24:35 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:24:56 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:25:02 <Zakim> -Ronald
16:25:07 <Yogesh> Yogesh has left #prov
16:39:11 <zednik> zednik has joined #prov
18:12:10 <Zakim> -GK