Provenance Working Group Teleconference

08 Sep 2011


See also: IRC log


paolo, Curt, Luc, +1.540.449.aabb, Yogesh, stain, +1.315.723.aadd, Vinh, tlebo, MacTed, [ISI], Sandro, jcheney, +1.518.633.aaff
Luc Moreau
Paolo Missier


<trackbot> Date: 08 September 2011

<Luc> Scribe: Paolo Missier


<Luc> @paolo, everything is set up for you, thanks for scribing


<stain> (as I told you last week)

<stain> perhaps wait 1 more minute, I was thrown off the conference bridge twice

Stian, how about sip? works fine for me

<stain> paolo: I got in the third time nicely. :-) Using Skype. It threw me out after saying hello..

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-01

<Luc> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 01 telecon

<stain> +1

<Curt> +1


<Edoardo> +1

<Lena> +1

<tlebo> +1

<smiles> +1

<Luc> RESOLVED the minutes of Sep 01 telecon

Named graphs requirements

<Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph

<Luc> satya?

<stain> Satya joined at 15:41 - but not on phone it seems

no comments on requirements

satya: reqs are completed, wiki page updated as of yesterday

<YolandaGil> There are requirements from the XG that were written at: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/images/3/3f/RDFNextStep_ProvXG-submitted.pdf

<stain> paolo, are you scribing..?

yolanda: mentions reqs from the XG work, and those do not seem to have been included in the current iwki page

Luc: Yolanda invited to update the reqs page with content from the XG doc

name for the standard

Luc: shortlist of 3 identified last week
... are there negative blockers amongst those?

<jcheney> +q

<YolandaGil> I know PIF as http://ccs.mit.edu/pif/: The Process Interchange Format

<stain> that's a kind of blocker, yes

<tlebo> "This page was modified last by Jintae Lee on Nov. 17 '99 "

<stain> just realised: PAST is difficult to Google

<sandro> "PLEASE NOTE: The PIF Project has been merged with the PSL (Process Specification Language) Project at NIST."

James: someone (Deb?) proposed avoiding names that are existing words, because it makes it harder to search for them

<MacTed> PIL sounds like a pill, which often has negative connotation. has 130MM results on Google.

<MacTed> PIF is a scoffing sound in American English, if not elsewhere. has 18MM results on Google.

<MacTed> PAST is a common word, which is itself problematic...

<tlebo> difficulty to search for the standard, e.g. "past" is already a word.

<JimMcCusker> PAS, then?

<stain> (but PASTm, PASTl etc. would be quite unique)

<stain> JimMcCusker: french word

<JimMcCusker> true.

<MacTed> http://www.acronymfinder.com/PIF.html

<MacTed> http://www.acronymfinder.com/PIL.html

<MacTed> http://www.acronymfinder.com/PAST.html

<stain> yes, w3 has very high google rating

Tim: Deb concerned that existing words would make google searches less effective

satya: neg blocker for PIL: what we have is more than just a language

<stain> sandro, agree, and "prov:" is a good prefix as well

<stain> prov:Entity for instance

<MacTed> I also prefer PROV overall...

<JimMcCusker> What does PROV expand to?

<sandro> "provenance"

<stain> JimMcCusker, that's the problem! But we could say Provenance Standard

Ted: all 3 of them have overlaps with existing names/acronyms. large number of results on google for all of them

<zednik> I also like PROV

Ted: name needs not be an acronym

<tlebo> google; Prov (TM) Exam services

<zednik> PROVenance standard?

<stain> +1 that name does not need to be an acronym

+1 for Ted -- no need to agonize over acronyms

<JimMcCusker> PROvenance Vocabulary (with apologies to Olaf)

<stain> take the red PIL

<MacTed> of course... PROV gets 93MM Google results

Simon: "L" can stand for smt else than 'language" if we like the acronym


<stain> perhaps the problem is that we voted for both short and long name at the same time.

<stain> For instane WSDL is fairly recognizable on the internets - does not mean anything on its own, and pronounciation is something you learn at conferences

<tlebo> let's hire some marketers :-)

JimMcCusker would have voted for PROV

<sandro> sandro: suggests doing +/- on each one.

<MacTed> ProvVoc - 21 results on Google. not an acronym.

<MacTed> :-)

<MacTed> pronounced "provoke"

<sandro> i'm sure we'll get to the top of google with PIF or PROV, but not PAST, maybe not PIL.

Luc: how do we vote

sandro: vote for/against until we get somewhere -- min the negatives

<Luc> Votes for PIL

<sandro> (and PIV has some real strong negatives.)

<JimMcCusker> -1

<tlebo> -1

<Lena> -1

<Edoardo> -1

<Curt> -1

<MacTed> -1

<dcorsar> -1

<Yogesh> -1

<stain> 0

<smiles> +1

<sandro> 0


<jorn> 0

<zednik> -1

<YolandaGil> 0

satya: -1

<Luc> Votes for PAST


<sandro> -1 (google problems)

<tlebo> +1

<YolandaGil> -1

<smiles> 0

<Curt> +1

<Yogesh> -1

<stain> +1

<JimMcCusker> 0

<zednik> 0

<Edoardo> 0

<jcheney> -1 (word)

<Lena> +1

<dcorsar> 0

<MacTed> -1

<jorn> -1

<Luc> Votes for PIF

<JimMcCusker> -1

<Yogesh> +1

<YolandaGil> +1

<smiles> +1

<stain> 0

<tlebo> +1

<zednik> -1

<dcorsar> +1

satya: +1

<Curt> 0

<Lena> +1

<sandro> 0

<Edoardo> +1

<jorn> 0

<MacTed> 0


<jcheney> 0

<Luc> Votes for PROV

<JimMcCusker> +1

<sandro> +1

<jorn> +1

<stain> +1

<Vinh> +1

<zednik> +1

<Curt> +1

<smiles> -1

<Lena> +1

<Yogesh> 0

<jcheney> 0

<MacTed> +1

<dcorsar> +1

<YolandaGil> +1


<tlebo> +1

<stain> wow

Luc: strong support for PROV


Luc: concern: mixup with providence...

<jorn> maybe we should call it PROV IL?

<stain> I don't get the providence mixup

<YolandaGil> I don't understand what is the problem with providence

<stain> would that not be the problem with any of the P* names?

<JimMcCusker> Yeah, I use that as a joke when I give provenance talks...

<YolandaGil> I don't see a problem, Luc!

<MacTed> jorn - IL stands for?

<jorn> Interchange Language :)

Luc: vote on PROV alone to see if there any negs

<stain> what kind of trademark does http://www.provexam.com/ have for 'prov' ?

Luc: how would this name be used in documents?


<JimMcCusker> foobar a prov:Entity

<jorn> PROV IDM

<tlebo> Provenance Description and Interchange Framework?

<stain> +1 paolo

<sandro> "The Prov Data Model"

<sandro> "The Prov Data Model for Provenance Interchange"

Luc: Simon still has a formal objection?

<jorn> Zakim: ??p19 is me

<stain> "Provenance Rules On VVeb"

smiles: mostly on aesthetic grounds...
... wouldn't formally object though

<jorn> +1

<JimMcCusker> +1

<stain> +1

<MacTed> +1

<smiles> +1

action to emails the WG announcing that PROV is the proposed name

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

<zednik> +1

Primer Document

<Luc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0042.html

<stain> http://media.zibb.com/trademark/prov/30725511 should not be in conflict - "Education and entertainment"

<stain> (how exams are entertainment is beyond me)

smiles: primer should be released alongside the model doc
... would generate better feedback to us
... as the model is still evolving, the primer would not be complete at the time of release
... would be good to have a "webby" example, doc-based like the jou example, to align well with the W3C setting where the doc belongs

ted: a "webby" example is good, but important also to have a completely non-webby example. Science domains, or others

<stain> smiles' proposal sounds reasonable, agree to not restrict to data journalism example

smiles: ok, but the initial release needs to appeal to people who will provide early feedback

ted: agree, but that puts people in the web mindset and that may form a bias

Stephan: agree with Ted: danger to be perceived as provenance /of/ the web rather than /on/ the web

<stain> +1 ted - some simple science (high school chemistry experiment?) example should be good

<zednik> how about a simple scenario of the provenance of a physical object? example from library community?

Luc: primer not starte yet. too ambitious to release by the end of month? some authors are busy on all other docs at the same time

smiles: yes, timing is tight. delayed release is a plausible option

Luc @Sandro: can docs be released without primer?

sandro: early drafts of model docs without primer is fine if for limited time

<stain> what if we do some third party blog posts or something?

<stain> paolo: that people who would be writing the primer can instead focus on filling in a complete example and challenge our model

Luc: would be nice to see the ASN in use in the example

smiles: primer needs to be understandeable -- ASN may possibly make it harder?
... there prior comments on going bottom up with small examples rather than a large big one example from the start

<stain> I like the flow of how instance how http://www.openannotation.org/spec/beta/ starts very simple

<Lena> +1

<YolandaGil> I am interested Luc

<stain> I would not mind joining

<satya> after the release of the model document?

Luc: who would contribute to the primer?

<tlebo> +1

<satya> +1

Paolo after model / ontology doc

<MacTed> +1 with limited available time

<zednik> I am willing to contribute (+1)

<stain> should not have more than say 3 authors

<ericstephan> +1 after the connection informal report

@stian: few editors, but no hard limit on authors...?

<stain> agree

smiles: will put a structure up on the wiki then contact interested people

<tlebo> The diagrams at http://www.openannotation.org/spec/beta/ are very nice

First Public Working Drafts

Luc @sandro: formal reqs prior to releasing docs as drafts:?

sandro: there's a page for that, but: need to get a persistent URL from W3C

<satya> @Tim: agree, can we try to use similar diagram format for the formal model draft?

sandro: doc needs to be validated for format / HTML -- respec should make that easy

luc: any editorial control?

<stain> I raised the question on namespace as well for the ontology - do we know what would make sense for now?

sandro: status of specs: a very briefly explanation of what the draft is about

<tlebo> @satya: very much so. I'll use it to base the diagrams I am doing for model documetn

Sandro: need a group resolution to publish, and need to point to it when requesting release

<sandro> Here's the check list for publication: http://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions

<Lena> +q

Paolo: release timetable as agreed: Sept 16th then Sept 29 for approval

satya: requesting sept 19th, then feedback cycle, then Sept 29th for approval

Lena: should we include security elements (authz) in the model/ontology?
... scope of model should be clear, i.e., authz out of scope

<tlebo> lena: conneg and authorization; survey results show people confuse provenance and authorization

smiles @lena: the authz issue is on whether we trust what happened in the past, may not be out of scope after all

luc: first working draft offers a first look at our work, so this can be raised as a missing element that should be added

satya: important not to go into the derivation part of provenance in this group

Formal Model document

satya: updates will be made this week, only a few people attended previous meeting.
... entailments and extension mechanisms will be addressed next

<tlebo> (should Stian work from the main branch in mercuruial?)

satya: soliciting feedback at this stage, as Stian provided.
... need to get the RDF encoding for the file crime scenario right as it is normative

<stain> I just asked was if I should edit directly on the head branch or a sepearate feature branch

<satya> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology

<satya> Monday US 12pm ET

<tlebo> @stain, I think that is a weak "yes", join the head branch.

satya: that was the time for the regular ontology call (skype)
... no complete agreement on how to express entities.

what is the id criteria to distinguish entities? (ref to the cars example)

satya: what are the distinguishing attributes for different entities that refer to the same characterized thing

luc: there may be different perspectives about the "same car". each of them is asserted as an entity

<MacTed> +1

paolo @satya: long ago the URI used to be called a "surrogate key"...

<stain> satya, I'll push my changes to the OWL file if that's OK. I've fixed the verbs and labels.

<stain> not touched the HTML but can do a search replace

<satya> @Stian, thanks!

<stain> satya: do you agree on making hadParticipant super-property of used and wasControlledBy ?

luc @smiles: would the car example be suitable for the primar?

smiles: potentially yes, to explain what we mean by entity etc, identifying attributes, etc.

<stain> satya: that does not cover the case of compliments - some OWL expert can figure that out

<satya> @Stian: I had asserted that earlier, but some members want further discussion about it - so they are not related

<Luc> paolo, i will do the necessary incantation here

ok thanks

<stain> @Satya - ok, will leave that out

<stain> bye

<Luc> thanks for scribing

<ericstephan> bye

<Luc> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/09/08 16:13:26 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: paolo
Found Scribe: Paolo Missier
Default Present: paolo, Curt, Luc, +1.540.449.aabb, Yogesh, stain, +1.315.723.aadd, Vinh, tlebo, MacTed, [ISI], Sandro, jcheney, +1.518.633.aaff
Present: paolo Curt Luc +1.540.449.aabb Yogesh stain +1.315.723.aadd Vinh tlebo MacTed [ISI] Sandro jcheney +1.518.633.aaff
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.08
Found Date: 08 Sep 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-prov-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]