14:44:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:44:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-prov-irc
14:44:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:44:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:44:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:44:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:44:24 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:44:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:44:24 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
14:44:24 <trackbot> Date: 25 August 2011
14:44:27 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:44:40 <Luc> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.08.25
14:44:50 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:44:58 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public
14:52:07 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:52:14 <Zakim> +??P48
14:52:26 <pgroth> zakim, ??P48 is me
14:52:26 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
14:55:54 <Zakim> +Luc
14:56:24 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
14:56:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc
14:56:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
14:57:03 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
14:57:18 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
14:57:25 <edoardo> edoardo has joined #prov
14:57:42 <dcorsar> dcorsar has left #prov
14:57:53 <GK_> GK_ has joined #prov
14:59:08 <Zakim> +Vinh
14:59:48 <Helena> Helena has joined #prov
15:00:14 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:00:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh
15:00:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:00:27 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
15:00:36 <Zakim> +??P57
15:00:40 <yogesh> yogesh has joined #prov
15:00:52 <Zakim> +Curt
15:01:35 <pgroth> scribe?
15:01:56 <satya> satya has joined #prov
15:02:17 <pgroth> Zakim, who is one the phone?
15:02:32 <Luc> scribe: pgroth
15:02:38 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
15:02:46 <pgroth> zakim, who is here?
15:02:54 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:03:00 <pgroth> Topic: Agenda
15:03:06 <pgroth> scribe: pgroth
15:03:11 <Zakim> +satya
15:03:16 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh, ??P57, Curt, satya
15:03:17 <pgroth> luc overviewing the agenda
15:03:28 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:03:30 <dcorsar> dcorsar has joined #prov
15:03:37 <Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Aug 18 telecon
15:03:42 <satya> +1
15:03:51 <Zakim> +??P64
15:03:52 <edoardo> +1
15:03:52 <Curt> +1
15:03:53 <Helena> +1
15:03:58 <dcorsar> +1
15:04:01 <Luc> TOPIC: admin
15:04:04 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:04:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:04:15 <smiles> +1
15:04:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see smiles, khalidbelhajjame, satya, yogesh, Curt, Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:04:44 <Luc>  Accepted: the minutes of Aug 18 telecon
15:05:01 <pgroth> reviewing the action items
15:05:08 <Zakim> +??P61
15:05:09 <pgroth> luc still has an open action
15:05:22 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P61 is me
15:05:23 <Zakim> +??P66
15:05:29 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa
15:05:30 <pgroth> luc: discussing a potential f2f
15:05:45 <pgroth> luc: initial discussions about f2f at iswc
15:05:47 <Zakim> +??P11
15:05:53 <Zakim> -??P61
15:05:59 <Luc> q?
15:06:10 <pgroth> luc: but probably not good because of current work on various drafts
15:06:11 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:06:21 <pgroth> luc: chairs will propose a time in the new year 2012
15:06:27 <Zakim> +??P6
15:06:38 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:06:38 <jorn> zakim, ??p6 is me
15:06:38 <pgroth> luc: discussing the name of the standard
15:06:39 <Zakim> I already had ??P61 as ??P61, khalidbelhajjame
15:06:41 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:06:41 <MacTed> zakim, mute me
15:06:48 <pgroth> luc: please update the suggestions
15:06:56 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:07:03 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:07:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, Vinh, ??P57, Curt, satya, ??P64, ??P66, +44.789.470.aaaa, ??P11, ??P6, OpenLink_Software, Yogesh, Yolanda
15:07:05 <Luc> q?
15:07:09 <pgroth> luc: agenda item next week on the name of the standard
15:07:24 <Zakim> +??P28
15:07:27 <Zakim> I already had ??P6 as ??P6, jorn
15:07:28 <pgroth> luc: please volunteer for scribing:
15:07:29 <Luc> Topic: Provenance Implementation and Test Cases  
15:07:33 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:07:37 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:07:49 <pgroth> luc: helena giving update on the questionnaire 
15:07:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see dcorsar, StephenCresswell, smiles, khalidbelhajjame, satya, Curt, Helena, GK_, edoardo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, Vinh, MacTed, jorn, sandro, edsu, stain, trackbot
15:08:02 <Christine> Christine has joined #prov
15:08:04 <pgroth> luc: are you ready to role out the questionnaire
15:08:07 <pgroth> helena: yes
15:08:18 <Zakim> +??P31
15:08:25 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aabb
15:08:30 <pgroth> luc: including already populating the questionnaire?
15:08:46 <pgroth> helena: happy with the current questionanaire
15:08:47 <Luc> Topic: Named graphs requirements
15:08:51 <Zakim> -Yogesh
15:09:02 <Zakim> +Yogesh
15:09:33 <pgroth> luc: paul and I were contacted by the co-chair of the w3c rdf working group
15:09:41 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aaaa
15:09:50 <pgroth> luc: ref wg would like to know what our requirements are in terms of named graphs
15:09:55 <pgroth> luc: setting up a telecon
15:09:57 <pgroth> 
15:10:18 <Paulo> Paulo has joined #prov
15:10:33 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aacc
15:10:34 <pgroth> luc: going over points from guus (in the agenda)
15:10:44 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
15:10:53 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#Provenance_Use_Cases
15:10:54 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:11:03 <Zakim> +??P14
15:11:06 <pgroth> luc: includes a link to the current thinking and use cases with respect to named graphs
15:11:10 <jcheney> zakim, ??p14 is me
15:11:10 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:11:24 <Zakim> + +1.915.603.aadd
15:11:39 <pgroth> luc: rdf-wg would really like to have specific requirements that the prov-wg has on named graphs
15:12:01 <pgroth> luc: this is a heads-up, who would be interested in getting involved in the discussion
15:12:26 <pgroth> luc: in particular people involved in representing the model in rdf
15:12:32 <Luc> q?
15:12:33 <satya> q+
15:12:39 <Luc> ack satya
15:13:05 <Paulo> zakim,  aadd is me
15:13:05 <Zakim> +Paulo; got it
15:13:20 <pgroth> satya: are they planning to extended existing work on rdf named graphs
15:13:25 <Luc> q?
15:14:21 <pgroth> satya: in terms of representing provenance in rdf. there are other approaches in terms of contextualization, is named graphs the only approach
15:14:27 <smiles> q+
15:14:34 <Paulo> q+
15:14:40 <pgroth> luc: rdf wg is chartered to do named graphs
15:15:15 <pgroth> satya: is it overall for rdf group, or just for named groups
15:15:23 <pgroth> luc: were approached only for named graphs
15:15:25 <pgroth> q+
15:15:26 <Luc> q?
15:15:29 <Luc> ack smil
15:15:29 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
15:15:47 <pgroth> smiles: suggest some requirements
15:16:02 <pgroth> smiles: give the provenance of rdf based data
15:16:15 <Zakim> +??P16
15:16:18 <pgroth> smiles: need to be able to say that two things have the same provenance
15:16:41 <Luc> q?
15:16:41 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P16 is me
15:16:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
15:16:46 <Luc> ack pau
15:17:25 <Luc> paulo, isn't there an outline of specification in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal?
15:17:26 <pgroth> paulo: in terms of formal specification, they are moving targets, even if they have one, we need more than one for the provenance solution
15:17:50 <pgroth> paulo: the fact that we want to work with named graphs are just one of the aspects of formalizing provenance
15:18:03 <khalidbelhajjame> One of the concepts we may need RDF graph for is Provenance Container. We have not really discussed this concept in details yet, though.
15:18:24 <Luc> q?
15:18:27 <Paulo> q+
15:18:28 <Luc> ack pgr
15:19:08 <Luc> ack pau
15:19:09 <satya> Paul: RDF WG is looking for requirements of named graphs - to help them identify their objectives
15:19:11 <Luc> q?
15:19:20 <pgroth> pgroth: shaping where the rdf-wg is going on named graphs
15:19:50 <pgroth> paulo: assumption is that the mapping to owl, and rdf is enough in terms of formalization
15:20:11 <Luc> q?
15:20:16 <pgroth> paulo: not enough for the formalization
15:20:52 <khalidbelhajjame> Paulo, we are investigating in the formal model task force on whether OWL is sifficient, or whether we need another language that we need to specify the semantics
15:21:05 <pgroth> luc: simon identified two requirements for named graphs, there's a third requirement coming from the provenance container (have asserter, maybe having signature)
15:21:18 <pgroth> luc: a possibility for provenance containers is to use named graphs
15:21:20 <Luc> q?
15:21:35 <pgroth> luc: potentially another requirement for the rdf wg
15:21:47 <pgroth> luc: start creating a wiki page for these requirements
15:21:50 <Zakim> -??P28
15:22:00 <satya> I will be happy to create the page
15:22:02 <Luc> q?
15:22:11 <Zakim> +??P15
15:22:16 <jorn> zakim, ??p15 is me
15:22:16 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:22:20 <smiles> yes, that's fine
15:22:22 <pgroth> luc: satya will create the page
15:22:25 <Luc> q?
15:22:32 <pgroth> luc: simon will write up his requirements on the page
15:22:39 <Luc> TOPIC: Adopting naming conventions  
15:23:24 <pgroth> luc: i had an action to poll the group on naming conventions
15:23:49 <pgroth> luc: seems to have consensus around naming conventions (see agenda)
15:23:55 <pgroth> luc: wants feed back
15:24:21 <pgroth> luc: go through these conventions one by one
15:24:39 <pgroth> luc: process, see whether there's objection or comments
15:24:40 <Luc> To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:25:14 <dgarijo> +1 (I think the ontology os already using this convention)
15:25:15 <Luc> q?
15:25:30 <Luc> PROPOSED: To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:25:36 <satya> +1
15:25:37 <smiles> +1
15:25:37 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:25:38 <dcorsar> +1
15:25:39 <jcheney> +1
15:25:40 <jorn> +1
15:25:40 <edoardo> +1
15:25:41 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:25:42 <MacTed> +1 
15:25:42 <dgarijo> +1
15:25:43 <Curt> +1
15:25:45 <Helena> +1
15:26:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: To adopt camel case notation. In OWL, classes begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case.
15:26:49 <pgroth> luc: moving on whether we want To express nodes in noun form
15:27:08 <smiles> q+
15:27:12 <pgroth> luc: we express edges in verbal form
15:27:15 <Luc> ack smi
15:27:26 <Zakim> -Paulo
15:27:50 <pgroth> simon: a process execution might be best described by a verb (i.e. publish), the node in a particular graph might be a verb
15:27:54 <YolandaGil> YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:28:08 <Luc> q?
15:28:13 <pgroth> luc: talking about the concepts in the model or classes defined in the ontology
15:28:14 <MacTed> hasPublisher ?
15:28:32 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:28:32 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:28:46 <Luc> q?
15:29:04 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:29:04 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:29:05 <pgroth> MacTed: depending on what the process execution may be, you can noun things
15:29:18 <Luc> PROPOSED: To express nodes in noun form
15:29:38 <satya> +1
15:29:38 <Curt> +1
15:29:38 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:29:40 <MacTed> +1
15:29:41 <smiles> +1
15:29:41 <edoardo> +1
15:29:41 <jcheney> +1
15:29:42 <dcorsar> +1
15:29:43 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:29:43 <Helena> +!
15:29:44 <jorn> +1
15:29:47 <dgarijo> +1
15:30:06 <Luc> ACCEPTED: To express nodes in noun form
15:30:19 <Luc> PROPOSED: To express edges in verbal form
15:30:21 <satya> +1
15:30:22 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:30:23 <edoardo> +1
15:30:27 <jorn> +1
15:30:27 <dcorsar> +1
15:30:28 <Curt> +1
15:30:28 <MacTed> +1
15:30:30 <Zakim> -Yolanda
15:30:32 <smiles> +1
15:30:35 <StephenCresswell> +1
15:30:35 <dgarijo> +1
15:30:37 <jcheney> +1
15:30:44 <Luc> ACCEPTED: To express edges in verbal form
15:30:53 <dgarijo> Luc, is Ralph here? He was the one that rose all the issues
15:31:12 <Zakim> +Yolanda
15:31:13 <dgarijo> ok
15:31:28 <pgroth> luc: ralph is not around but there's nothing we can do
15:32:00 <pgroth> luc: introducing the edge directionality
15:32:16 <Luc> q?
15:32:24 <pgroth> luc: this directionality may be best expressed by pointing towards the past
15:32:30 <pgroth> luc: asks for feedback
15:32:34 <dgarijo> +q
15:32:43 <pgroth> luc: asks satya specifically, are you happy?
15:33:16 <pgroth> luc: satya are you happy with your edges point towards the past
15:33:23 <pgroth> satya: what do you mean?
15:33:38 <khalidbelhajjame> entity <- uses--process execution
15:34:05 <jorn> example: e2 is derived from e1, then e2 is the most recent entity and e1 is older, so edge points to past
15:34:06 <pgroth> luc: giving examples of the possibilities
15:34:26 <MacTed> process takesInput foo
15:34:26 <MacTed> process hasOutput bar
15:35:05 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:35:05 <MacTed> q+
15:35:05 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:35:35 <pgroth> luc: not discussing ordering of events
15:35:58 <pgroth> luc: as designers of the model we have the choice of expressing the edges in different ways
15:36:03 <Zakim> +Paulo
15:36:05 <pgroth> luc: proposing to adopt a convention
15:36:07 <Luc> q?
15:36:30 <pgroth> satya: we had the discussion in the formal model task group
15:37:00 <pgroth> satya: from an ontology model perspective it doesn't matter, just a matter of style
15:37:38 <Zakim> -jorn
15:37:49 <Zakim> +??P15
15:37:54 <pgroth> dgarijo: happy with everything in the past
15:38:05 <Luc> ack dgar
15:38:19 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:38:54 <pgroth> luc: not all edges should point to the past
15:39:07 <pgroth> luc: only for edges that have an event ordering
15:39:17 <Luc> q?
15:39:24 <pgroth> luc: currently, definition of hasParticipant does not imply an event ordering
15:39:42 <Luc> ack mac
15:39:45 <StephenCresswell> The ontology can define the edges in both direction (pairs of mutually inverse properties), and let people use which they find natural in their application.
15:39:59 <pgroth> MacTed: is there a link to the event ordering definition
15:40:00 <satya> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
15:40:25 <Luc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-Use
15:40:26 <pgroth> MacTed: i'm not getting a firm understanding of what is meant by the proposal
15:41:01 <pgroth> Luc: explaining an example 
15:41:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Mac, he possibilities we are discussing are: entity <--uses---process execution and entity ---is used by --> process execution. In the first, the edges point to the past.
15:42:24 <pgroth> MacTed: there are two time frames, saying both of those is useful
15:42:38 <jorn> Luc's example: process generates output vs. output is generated by process
15:42:42 <pgroth> luc: only one of them is defined in the model
15:42:44 <smiles> I think the case for future-to-past directionality (as proposed) is clearest where provenance is distributed. If I have created a new entity, for example, then what I can link it to is other entities which already exist, but not to things which don't yet exist. So the new entity is the *subject* of what I'm asserting, the older entity is the *object*.
15:42:59 <pgroth> Luc: useful to have a convention
15:43:19 <pgroth> MacTed: this is a question for reasoning edges to deal with their inverse
15:44:10 <pgroth> MacTed: inverse properties are extremely important for modeling  
15:44:15 <Luc> q?
15:44:46 <pgroth> Satya: this can be done in the ontology
15:45:24 <pgroth> Luc: Ted would like to see the inverse properties expressed in the model as well
15:45:34 <Luc> q?
15:45:35 <pgroth> Luc: do we have consensus
15:45:38 <pgroth> q+
15:45:45 <Zakim> -Vinh
15:46:00 <MacTed> ISSUE: express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology
15:46:00 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-83 - Express inverse relationships in Provenance Model as well as ontology ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/83/edit .
15:46:16 <Luc> q?
15:46:21 <Luc> ack khal
15:46:39 <Luc> ack pg
15:46:51 <satya> As part of the formal model discussion, we are enumerating the list of possible properties - I invite Ted to add his proposal to the ontology wiki: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology
15:46:54 <Luc> why not define them as "short-cut/extensions"
15:48:10 <pgroth> luc: is it a set of properties defined in the model
15:48:35 <Luc> q?
15:48:44 <Zakim> -??P57
15:49:04 <Zakim> - +1.509.375.aabb
15:50:02 <Luc> proposed: make a set of edges consistent with respect to directionality
15:50:16 <jorn> q+ to mention that creating two ways of expressing one things always needs reasoning... problematic with masses of linked data
15:50:38 <Luc> q?
15:50:51 <Luc> ack jorn
15:50:51 <Zakim> jorn, you wanted to mention that creating two ways of expressing one things always needs reasoning... problematic with masses of linked data
15:51:19 <Luc> q?
15:51:20 <pgroth> jorn: maybe problematic because you would always have to turn on reasoning
15:51:38 <pgroth> MacTed: definitely not a should 
15:52:53 <pgroth> luc: it's important to right simple queries that let's us go into the past
15:53:02 <pgroth> MacTed: you're looking at the wrong place
15:53:10 <pgroth> MacTed: simple queries are not ruled out
15:53:17 <Zakim> -??P15
15:53:29 <Zakim> +??P15
15:53:29 <pgroth> MacTed: inverse properties are going to exisit
15:53:36 <jorn> zakim, ??p15 is me
15:53:36 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:54:06 <pgroth> Luc: what are the relations pointing to the future and to the past?
15:54:15 <pgroth> MacTed: you want both
15:55:12 <pgroth> Luc: moving on from these issue because there is no consensus
15:55:43 <pgroth> Luc: no stylistic constraints in how we write edge directions
15:55:50 <pgroth> Luc: dropped issue
15:56:16 <pgroth> Luc: moving on to the debate around past tense verses future tense
15:56:21 <Luc> q?
15:56:23 <pgroth> Luc: should be consistent
15:56:33 <Luc> q?
15:56:34 <pgroth> MacTed: missing temporality
15:56:40 <jcheney> q+
15:56:49 <smiles> q+
15:57:00 <dgarijo> +1 for past tense. Provenance is for describing things that have already happened
15:57:00 <pgroth> MacTed: all kinds of temporality that might be of interest
15:57:13 <jcheney> q-
15:57:21 <Luc> q?
15:57:22 <pgroth> Luc: we are only talking about things in the past
15:57:28 <Luc> ack smiles
15:57:29 <Luc> q?
15:57:39 <satya> q+
15:57:44 <pgroth> simon: don't want future tense
15:58:00 <pgroth> s/simon/smiles
15:58:08 <Luc> ack sat
15:58:25 <Luc> q?
15:58:56 <pgroth> satya: bringing of the issue of the current
15:59:28 <pgroth> satya: is it past perfect or continuous
15:59:37 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:59:49 <jorn> there's one such process: the extraction of DBpedia from wikipedia takes a long time
15:59:52 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
16:00:00 <Luc> q?
16:00:01 <pgroth> luc: are you talking bout the nodes or the edges (the process execution are the present) edges represent past actions
16:01:19 <Luc> q?
16:01:23 <khalidbelhajjame> Sorry, will need to leave, I have another telecon
16:01:25 <Zakim> - +44.789.470.aacc
16:01:26 <pgroth> satya: using past perfect might not be enough because of continuous things 
16:01:34 <Zakim> -??P6
16:01:56 <pgroth> q+
16:01:57 <smiles> @satya I think there are edge cases where assertions may be about things ongoing, but I argue consistent past tense just makes things simple and clear for general intended use
16:02:06 <satya> +1 for past tense (not sure about past perfect or continous)
16:02:47 <dgarijo> @satya: you are not sure about isGeneratedBy vs wasGeneratedBy, right?
16:03:01 <Curt> q+
16:03:07 <pgroth> ack pgroth
16:03:21 <Luc> ack curt
16:03:27 <satya> @Daniel:  no I vote for "was"
16:03:57 <Luc> q?
16:04:04 <pgroth> q+
16:04:11 <Luc> ack pgro
16:04:14 <MacTed> verbal expression does not require "to be"
16:04:25 <MacTed> (is, was, will be, has been)
16:04:32 <satya> q+
16:04:40 <Luc> ack satya
16:04:51 <jorn> isn't this about was generating vs. generated
16:05:04 <MacTed> Produces, isProducedBy
16:05:18 <jorn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_progressive
16:05:24 <MacTed> participation is linguistic
16:05:52 <Luc> e.g., uses, isControlledBy, isComplementOf 
16:05:53 <jorn> resp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense
16:06:13 <pgroth> but you put uses
16:06:18 <MacTed> isUsedBy ?
16:06:24 <pgroth> luc: do we need is, was in the names
16:06:38 <Luc> TOPIC: Provenance Ontology  
16:06:46 <pgroth> luc: update the status
16:06:52 <satya> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html
16:07:03 <pgroth> luc: is there anything in the model that is blocking progression?
16:07:08 <pgroth> satya: giving an update
16:07:18 <pgroth> satya: invites people to go through the encoding
16:08:06 <pgroth> satya: what's holding up is that we don't understand the definitions
16:08:25 <pgroth> satya: the scope is often not clear from the model
16:08:31 <Zakim> -Paulo
16:08:50 <pgroth> satya: there is a gap in understanding of some concepts in particular roles
16:08:57 <Zakim> -jorn
16:09:16 <Luc> satya, where is the example you referred to? in the document?
16:09:20 <pgroth> satya: need very well defined domains and ranges 
16:09:51 <pgroth> satya: the approach we are taking is updating the html document and leaving the owl file until later
16:10:56 <dgarijo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Visualization_of_the_RDF_graph
16:11:44 <Luc> q?
16:12:23 <Luc> TOPIC: Provenance Model Document
16:12:43 <pgroth> Luc: nothing specific to report on today
16:13:09 <Luc> q?
16:13:29 <Zakim> -Yolanda
16:13:31 <Zakim> -pgroth
16:13:31 <Zakim> -??P66
16:13:33 <Zakim> -satya
16:13:33 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:13:34 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:13:35 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:13:36 <Zakim> -Luc
16:13:37 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:13:43 <Zakim> -??P31
16:13:44 <Zakim> -??P11
16:13:47 <Zakim> -??P64
16:27:44 <Zakim> -Curt
16:27:45 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
16:27:47 <Zakim> Attendees were pgroth, Luc, Vinh, Curt, satya, +44.789.470.aaaa, Yogesh, Yolanda, MacTed, +1.509.375.aabb, +44.789.470.aacc, jcheney, +1.915.603.aadd, Paulo, dgarijo, jorn
19:00:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #prov