IRC log of prov on 2011-09-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:47:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:47:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:47:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:47:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:47:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:47:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:47:12 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:47:12 [trackbot]
Date: 15 September 2011
14:48:50 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
14:48:55 [pgroth]
14:49:01 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
14:49:16 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:50:44 [pgroth]
anybody up for scribing?
14:51:43 [Vinh]
Vinh has joined #prov
14:55:30 [pgroth]
can I get a scribe?
14:58:15 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
14:58:30 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:58:34 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
14:58:49 [rgolden]
rgolden has joined #prov
14:58:58 [pgroth]
can I get a scribe?
14:59:02 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
14:59:07 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
14:59:27 [stain]
I can scribe
14:59:35 [stain]
if people not on the queue remember to say their name ;)
14:59:42 [pgroth]
thanks stain
14:59:50 [pgroth]
Scribe: stain
15:00:52 [pgroth]
Topic: Admin
15:00:53 [Paolo]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:56 [Zakim]
sorry, Paolo, I don't know what conference this is
15:01:09 [tlebo]
Zakim, this is #prov
15:01:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see smiles, Paolo, rgolden, kai, Curt, tlebo, Vinh, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:01:25 [Zakim]
sorry, tlebo, I do not see a conference named '#prov' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:01:38 [MacTed]
Zakim, this is prov
15:01:38 [pgroth]
Zakim, this is prov
15:01:40 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
15:01:42 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:01:51 [Luc]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:01:53 [Zakim]
ok, MacTed; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM
15:01:59 [Zakim]
pgroth, this was already SW_(PROV)11:00AM
15:02:05 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM
15:02:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.524.aabb
15:02:08 [stain]
pgroth: Finish within 1h due to RDF provenance telcon afterwards
15:02:15 [pgroth]
15:02:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P14, Luc, Duncan, ??P45, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, ??P61, ??P65, Sandro, ??P5, +1.512.524.aabb
15:02:21 [pgroth]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 08 telecon
15:02:25 [smiles]
15:02:26 [stain]
15:02:27 [Curt]
15:02:28 [Paolo]
15:02:32 [kai]
15:02:35 [tlebo]
15:02:41 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:03:00 [pgroth]
Accepted Minutes of last weeks telecon
15:03:02 [Zakim]
15:03:12 [Zakim]
15:03:13 [pgroth]
15:03:14 [Zakim]
15:03:17 [stain]
pgroth: Action items to review
15:03:19 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:03:19 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:03:25 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P4 is me
15:03:25 [stain]
pgroth: no actions
15:03:30 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P4 is me
15:03:36 [khalidbelhajjame]
sorry Paolo
15:03:37 [pgroth]
15:03:44 [Paolo]
not sure who I am :-)
15:03:52 [Zakim]
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:04:02 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:04:07 [stain]
pgroth: Need more scribes, please sign up so we don't have to assign
15:04:10 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:04:16 [pgroth]
15:04:19 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:04:20 [dcorsar]
dcorsar has joined #prov
15:04:25 [stain]
ITEM Named graphs requirements
15:04:41 [Zakim]
15:04:51 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:04:53 [pgroth]
15:04:54 [stain]
pgroth: several people ave signed up for this telcon. Any comments on the requirements?
15:04:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.210.aacc
15:04:58 [Luc]
who will joing the call?
15:05:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.213.290.aadd
15:05:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P14, Luc, Duncan, khalidbelhajjame, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, ??P61, Sandro, ??P5, +1.512.524.aabb, MacTed (muted), Paolo, ??P15, Vinh, +1.858.210.aacc,
15:05:22 [Zakim]
... +1.213.290.aadd
15:05:27 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:05:28 [pgroth]
15:05:30 [Luc]
15:05:30 [kai]
15:05:32 [Paolo]
15:05:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dcorsar, khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh, smiles, Paolo, rgolden, kai, Curt, tlebo, Vinh, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:05:37 [stain]
pgroth: Say +1 if you are attending the call
15:05:40 [Luc]
15:05:52 [MacTed]
15:05:57 [Zakim]
15:06:00 [satya]
Hi Luc, I am here
15:06:04 [stain]
pgroth: the call is immediately following this call
15:06:07 [Luc]
will you join rdf call?
15:06:08 [pgroth]
15:06:16 [Luc]
15:06:17 [stain]
Thursday 15 Sep, 1215pm US Eastern time for 45-60 minutes 18:15 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 117:15 London)
15:06:18 [pgroth]
Call agenda:
15:06:55 [Yogesh]
zakim, +1.213.290 is me
15:06:56 [Zakim]
+Yogesh; got it
15:07:18 [tlebo]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:07:18 [satya]
Can we give examples from previous work?
15:07:18 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
15:07:20 [stain]
Luc: Concrete examples of where we need named graphs. We don't have concrete examples at this point in time. Wanted to ask members like Satya and members working with (?)
15:07:28 [Zakim]
15:07:32 [stain]
when would we have a serialisation to RDF where we can discuss the need for named graphs?
15:07:37 [stain]
^^ Luc
15:07:44 [stain]
satya: we can create a usecase for named graphs directly
15:08:01 [kai]
15:08:03 [stain]
satya: we have previous examples from biomedical domains, requiring named graphs to refer to a set of provenance assertions
15:08:06 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:08:10 [stain]
both examples can be given
15:08:33 [stain]
Luc: as a working group we need to decide that indeed this is the way we want to do things. We may need an internal discussion before telling the RDF WG
15:08:40 [stain]
Luc: to avoid misleading them
15:08:48 [stain]
satya: could we have an example on the provenance ontology wiki page?
15:08:53 [stain]
Luc: perhaps that, yes
15:08:57 [stain]
satya: will create that and put it up
15:09:09 [stain]
Luc: do this as agenda item for next week?
15:09:12 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
15:09:16 [Luc]
15:09:24 [stain]
ACTION Satya: Do named graph example on provenance ontology page
15:09:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-39 - Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-09-22].
15:09:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aaee
15:09:49 [stain]
kai: Dublin core metadata provenance group, comments on collective requirements.
15:10:00 [stain]
kai: Ability to retrieve the provenance of an RDF resource is required.
15:10:10 [stain]
kai: main thing about named graph is taht we can retrieve provenance about RDF statements
15:10:25 [stain]
kai: this can be misinterpreted as te provenance of the resource (given by the URI) which we can do directly with RDF
15:10:27 [Luc]
@kai, are your requirements explicit in the requirement page?
15:10:28 [stain]
15:10:43 [satya]
15:10:44 [tlebo]
Will we be adding the named graphs examples to ?
15:10:46 [pgroth]
ack kai
15:10:48 [Zakim]
15:10:51 [pgroth]
ack stain
15:11:14 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:11:27 [stain]
satya: Responding to Kai - on ability to refer to aprts of provenance
15:11:42 [stain]
satya: distinction to bring up, named graphs and reifications allow you to make assertion on statement level
15:12:03 [kai]
q+ to ask for an example
15:12:07 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:12:13 [stain]
satya: which would let you refer to provenance of RDF subject, predicate and resource level
15:12:22 [stain]
satya: named graph would only give you the granularity of statements
15:12:37 [tlebo]
+1, didn't quite follow Satya's distinction.
15:12:42 [stain]
kai: not sure when that granularity would be helpful
15:12:49 [stain]
satya: would explain tis on the wikipage
15:12:52 [tlebo]
difference between an RDF statement and its S, P, and O.
15:12:56 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
15:12:58 [stain]
satya: provenance context entity, google that - example scenario
15:13:22 [stain]
satya: need to explain the point of why..
15:13:28 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:13:28 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:13:30 [MacTed]
15:13:30 [stain]
?: about kai's requirement, could you put that there?
15:13:35 [stain]
Zakim: who is speaking?
15:13:36 [pgroth]
ack kai
15:13:37 [Zakim]
kai, you wanted to ask for an example
15:13:39 [pgroth]
ack MacTed
15:13:54 [Zakim]
15:14:05 [satya]
@Mac: I don't think there is a difference
15:14:06 [stain]
MacTed: what is the difference, if the resource is a building, brick, etc.. granularity requirement for an entity should be the same
15:14:09 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P49 is me
15:14:09 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
15:14:18 [kai]
15:14:23 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:14:28 [stain]
Zakim, who is speaking?
15:14:40 [Zakim]
stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 21 (14%), ??P14 (22%), MacTed (19%)
15:14:52 [pgroth]
ack kai
15:14:59 [stain]
pgroth: collection of smaller things
15:15:03 [Zakim]
15:15:22 [pgroth]
15:15:35 [stain]
kai: you want to describe provenance of something, at least you have a good possiblity to identify a set of RDF statements with named graphs. Reification, yes, but you can't directly talk about a set of statements because you can't identify them. But I don't see this to have antying to do with granuliaryt
15:15:52 [stain]
MacTed: should reword requirements 2 to "Ability to retrieve the provenance of a set of triples"
15:16:17 [pgroth]
15:16:20 [stain]
pgroth: Kai and Satya has different requirements - we might not understand Satya's reqs which he will clarify
15:16:27 [stain]
pgroth: we'll discuss this afterwards
15:16:44 [stain]
TOPIC Name for the standdar
15:16:50 [stain]
pgroth: Moving towards PROV - Luc can explain
15:16:51 [tlebo]
what about named graphs needs to be handled as something more than files in a directory?
15:17:07 [stain]
Luc: Last week's telcon there was strong support for the name "Prov"
15:17:27 [stain]
Luc: this was put out on email last Friday, but not received much feedback except from GK whi did not oppose it
15:18:06 [stain]
RESOLVED: Name was decided as Prov / PROV (casing not decided)
15:18:08 [sandro]
It's just a name; I wouldn't all-caps it.
15:18:19 [stain]
Agree - we said last week that it was not a acronym
15:18:49 [stain]
TOPIC: First working draft
15:19:11 [stain]
pgroth: Time table for this. GK is not on the phone.
15:19:17 [stain]
15:19:23 [pgroth]
15:19:26 [Luc]
15:19:29 [stain]
Yogesh: nothing to add
15:19:57 [stain]
Luc: In last weeks call, we are still aiming to release by end of month - to do this we need a resolution by the group that we are willing to release the document as working drafts
15:20:14 [stain]
Luc: would like to have the documents approved on the 29th in 2 weeks time
15:20:48 [stain]
Luc: to do so we will finish the model document this week, ontology document following soon. Wanted to know if PAQ document would follow same time table
15:21:02 [stain]
pgroth: hangup on PAQ document is dependent on conceptual model
15:21:21 [stain]
pgroth: GK has emailed that we need to have those terms clearly defined in conceptual model
15:21:40 [stain]
pgroth: don't know the details. Likely we can follow the same timeline, but a week later for PAQ
15:21:42 [pgroth]
15:21:45 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:21:45 [stain]
pgroth: Any other comments?
15:21:58 [stain]
TOPIC: Formal model document
15:22:14 [stain]
satya: discussion on role
15:22:24 [stain]
satya: call on Monday, discussing how to model roles and how to interpret them in our model
15:22:34 [stain]
pgroth: that's te next discussion point
15:22:39 [stain]
15:22:46 [stain]
pgroth: working on extensibility of prov ontology
15:22:50 [stain]
^^ Satya
15:23:06 [stain]
satya: how different domains can extend ontology, doing concrete examples
15:23:25 [stain]
satya: to see if we can make Taverna example as an other usecase to deminstrate extension with new classes and properties for scientific workflows
15:23:32 [pgroth]
15:23:40 [Luc]
15:23:40 [stain]
15:23:46 [Paolo]
+1 for using the Taverna example
15:23:50 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:24:07 [stain]
Luc: Is this document to become a normative document, is it then appropriate to have an example for specific technology like Taverna, or a more neutral example
15:24:26 [stain]
Luc: Perhaps don't specify this as part of the specs
15:24:36 [tlebo]
can we accumulate tool-specific concrete examples on the wiki?
15:24:37 [stain]
satya: take out Taverna specific details, but follow the scenario in a general way
15:24:47 [pgroth]
ack stain
15:25:05 [dgarijo]
I agree with Satya. It is just a Taverna workflow, but could be any scientific workflow system
15:25:41 [pgroth]
15:25:47 [stain]
stain: Would not include specific Taverna-details, but do a general simplified example for scientific workflows - good because one can also show a diagram of the abstract workflow
15:26:06 [stain]
pgroth: so build another example from the Taverna example, but do a general one?
15:26:08 [dgarijo]
@stain: +1
15:26:21 [stain]
satya: perhaps just a diagram on how Stian could hae extended the ontology, and some explanation
15:26:31 [stain]
ilkay: Could also try to validate this from the Kepler point of view
15:26:42 [stain]
satya: that would help a lot - you could work with Stian
15:27:08 [stain]
Ilkay: Will contact Stian
15:27:20 [stain]
Topic: Roles and times - how they can be associated with Used and Generated
15:27:23 [Luc]
15:27:37 [stain]
satya: could Luc bring up the initial issue?
15:27:42 [pgroth]
ace Luc
15:27:46 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:27:56 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:28:04 [stain]
Luc: Conceptual model defines a type of relationship, Process execution Used an Entity, or an Entity was Generated by an PE
15:28:32 [stain]
Luc: and there are some properties to those relations, like te notion of "role" which we just call a qualifier in the model, describing the type of interaction
15:28:38 [stain]
not just binary relation, an n-ary relation
15:28:40 [Paolo]
15:28:59 [stain]
Luc: Back some years ago in an early OPM serialisation, these n-ary relations was exposed as resources
15:29:13 [stain]
there were some comments that it was not a very natural RDFisation
15:29:26 [stain]
Luc: OPMV used RDF properties to express those relations
15:29:27 [Paolo]
15:29:30 [Zakim]
15:29:40 [stain]
Luc: Which is fine if you don't talk about roles and times together with Use/Generation
15:29:49 [stain]
Luc: But what if you want to do this, how would you do this in RDF
15:29:49 [GK1]
GK1 has joined #prov
15:30:02 [Zakim]
15:30:14 [stain]
satya: what we discussed was to specically have a class Role, we have been discussing how to model this
15:30:22 [GK1]
zakim, ??P38 is me
15:30:22 [Zakim]
+GK1; got it
15:30:30 [stain]
satya: we can use the approach of where a Role is a special type of Entity
15:30:56 [stain]
satya: in the example of Khalid - Khalid as a person, say as a researcher at Univ of Manchester
15:31:08 [stain]
satya: but Khalid at a restaurant is te role of Customer
15:31:16 [stain]
satya: or play football, where he assumes the role of a GoalKeeper
15:31:26 [stain]
satya: the specialisation that Luc described in a model perspective
15:31:39 [stain]
satya: we are then pushing the specialisation from the property to the entity itself
15:31:54 [stain]
satya: Khalid can assume these different roles
15:31:58 [Paolo]
15:32:07 [stain]
satya: we can relate entities to these roles - and on the role we can assert things like time, etc.
15:32:24 [stain]
Paolo: We had a brief discussion with Satya and the rest of the group
15:32:25 [GK1]
So what is he at a restaurant talking research with colleagues?
15:32:28 [tlebo]
I'm not sure we need to relate the Used entity with a distinct Role - Why not put the role directly on the Used Entity?
15:32:57 [pgroth]
15:32:59 [stain]
Paolo: not a relationship, but a persona, an Entity assumes this for the duration of this action
15:33:02 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:33:13 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:33:20 [stain]
Paolo: temporarily assocated to entities by way of specialisation, interesting, but departure from model
15:33:25 [dgarijo]
@tlebo: you could do that by specializing used, but the role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships
15:33:26 [satya]
@GK: Can you please clarify
15:33:30 [tlebo]
BTW, the notes from the OWL telecon are at
15:33:34 [pgroth]
15:33:50 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: agree with Paolo.
15:33:58 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: relationships we are describing are with relation to attributes
15:34:14 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: if we want to map this, we need to define the relationship in the contextual model as first class citizens
15:34:16 [Zakim]
15:34:28 [tlebo]
re "role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships" - that is fine and a Good Thing. But let's put the n-ary directly as the Entity that is used by the PE.
15:34:30 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: Luc said someone stated this as a bad idea.. but..
15:34:31 [GK1]
@Satya - I was thinking that it has been said that there can only be one role used - so if it's applied to the "person", which applies?
15:34:39 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: if we can't define the relationships as classes in OWL
15:34:40 [pgroth]
15:34:41 [Zakim]
15:34:46 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
15:34:48 [Luc]
15:34:54 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:34:58 [Luc]
wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1)
15:35:13 [satya]
@GK - no I meant multiple roles can be used
15:35:13 [dgarijo]
@tlebo: it is modeled that way already
15:35:18 [GK1]
(@Satya - being late joining, I may be missing the point.)
15:35:28 [stain]
@GK1 no, it should be possible to use it in different roles in same PE?
15:35:40 [smiles]
15:35:44 [stain]
Luc: Value of the entity at a given port - ordering
15:35:46 [GK1]
@Satya, @Stian: Ah, OK
15:35:51 [stain]
Luc: one example we want to support in the model
15:36:09 [stain]
@GK1 Multiple generation roles for same entity is more interesting :)
15:36:21 [stain]
Luc: Role might have been misunderstood - not like in role-based access controlled
15:36:32 [stain]
Luc: It is given information about the actual usage in the system
15:36:36 [Zakim]
- +1.858.210.aacc
15:36:38 [dgarijo]
@stain, I think that with this approach it is covered too
15:36:44 [stain]
Luc: not sure about satya's notion of Role as subclass of Entity
15:36:47 [pgroth]
15:36:50 [pgroth]
ack smiles
15:37:01 [stain]
@dgarijo I believe so too
15:37:09 [Paolo]
15:37:17 [satya]
@Luc: yes, we can model the qualifiers using roles as we discussed
15:37:25 [dgarijo]
@stain: they would be 2 roles used by the pe and assumed by the same entity
15:37:29 [stain]
smiles: about expressibility (???) - has relationships of roles and time information
15:37:32 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:37:37 [stain]
(could someone fill in first bit of smiles argument?)
15:38:15 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:38:20 [stain]
Paolo: supportive of example Luc gave, good on general req to codify this relationship which won't go away. smiles idea is sensible - two-layer approach where you can express this or not
15:38:56 [stain]
Paolo: interesting as Satya described it - for the duration of an activity, an entity assumes a persona/role - but I'm afraid..(?) this example. could Satya explain?
15:38:57 [smiles]
my argument was to have 2 ontology representations: one is intuitive, maybe relies on reasoning but lacks expressivity; the other allows expression of time on edges etc. but relies on "used" etc being classes
15:38:59 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
15:39:02 [pgroth]
15:39:03 [tlebo]
@stain - smiles' two layers?
15:39:19 [smiles]
(a la OPMV and OPMO)
15:39:30 [satya]
15:39:37 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: RDF simon of having two versions - like the notion of roles. If we want to do this properly will not appear in the simplified version, it qualifies the relationship
15:39:45 [tlebo]
I don't think it's about simple vs. complex, it's about whether the extra context (role, time) is asserted on the used Entity or not.
15:39:49 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:39:49 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: would it be sensible to have the simplified version in the ontology
15:40:00 [stain]
@tlebo that makes sense
15:40:10 [stain]
satya: not two versions of ontology, Role should be part of ontology
15:40:18 [stain]
satya: question is what the information we are trying to represent
15:40:31 [stain]
satya: statements on the entity or on the process execution
15:40:45 [tlebo]
satya: two distinct things: (I missed the intro)
15:40:51 [Paolo]
15:41:01 [tlebo]
qualifier on the relationship vs. qualifier on the entity.
15:41:08 [stain]
satya: say entity on port 1, ordering 1 - are these properties on the entity itself - qualifier on the entity, then modelling roles as entity allows us to say this
15:41:18 [stain]
satya: that entity was the first package on a port
15:41:31 [pgroth]
15:41:32 [Luc]
why is it a qualification of the entity? it's not an attribute of the entity?
15:41:33 [pgroth]
ack Paolo
15:41:55 [stain]
@Luc agree - and an entity can be used for multiple roles wit different properties
15:42:06 [stain]
like a hammer used both for hammering nails and pulling them out
15:42:06 [Luc]
@stain, indeed
15:42:33 [stain]
(but you could say those are two views of the hammer?)
15:42:43 [tlebo]
Does this work? :my_pe prov:used [ a prov:Entity; prov:actually :Khalid; a prov:Role, a restaurant:Customer, time:begin :t1, time:end :t2 ] ?
15:43:09 [stain]
Paolo: (?) complex bit you need to make explicit. that data was produced.. (?)
15:43:17 [stain]
@tlebo that is satya's proposal, yes
15:43:27 [stain]
@tlebo kind of like ORE proxies
15:43:46 [stain]
satya: (..) customer left the restaurant at this point in time, etc.
15:43:54 [stain]
Paolo: we don't have this in the abstract model
15:44:01 [stain]
satya: possiblt need to bring this up to the WG
15:44:12 [tlebo]
@stain, thanks, I agree with this approach. Before Monday's telecon with Luc, I conceived of Role and the used Entity as distinct (but I don't like that difference without a purpose).
15:44:12 [stain]
Paolo: like the idea of qualifying entities, bu tneed to bring this into the language and discuss this
15:44:40 [stain]
pgroth: no final agreement, but conversation! Need to move on on the agenda
15:44:57 [stain]
TOPIC How can we identify attributes of an entity
15:45:06 [stain]
Luc: Identify an entity and attribute (key-value pairs)
15:45:19 [stain]
Luc: these describe something constant int he world during the duration of the entity's existence
15:45:25 [dgarijo]
if anyone is interested to particiate, we have our ontology telecon on Mondays :)
15:45:31 [stain]
Luc: Need to know which attributes have been "stamped" on the entity to characterise it
15:45:41 [stain]
Luc: Don't know how to find these attributes with the OWL mapping
15:45:55 [stain]
Luc: Some examples were discussed, Stian had one proposal, but don't know if this has been incorporated
15:45:56 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:46:47 [GK]
@Stian, that sounds like reading too much into anonimiy of a node
15:46:52 [tlebo]
The entity need NOT be a bnode/anonymous. It can be named with a URI (the bnodes in examples are a shorthand).
15:47:12 [GK]
... you can assign a new URI a an anlymous node without changing the meaning
15:47:13 [tlebo]
*used Entity
15:48:10 [stain]
Stian suggested :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ]
15:48:12 [Luc]
we could use named graphs to "wrap" the attributes
15:48:47 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: to introduce Properties or Attributes into the formal model - or characterized-by, descibed-by
15:49:09 [pgroth]
15:49:12 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: then it can be instances of this - distinguish characterized attributes and other supplemental
15:49:15 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
15:49:36 [tlebo]
How would :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] handle :entity prov:?? <> . (MY _actual_ URI,not a description of me)
15:49:36 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: what is the scenario given - most of the time attributes on the entity will be part of characterizing it
15:49:37 [GK]
@Stian :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] ; [ :location "London" ; :color :blue ] . is also valid?
15:50:11 [stain]
@GK - no, it has granularity 1 so that those nodes would be merged
15:50:29 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: not quite clear yet..
15:50:38 [stain]
Luc: Might have a series of properties your thing has. Like a colour
15:50:41 [GK]
@stian quite - just clarifying.
15:50:42 [Zakim]
- +1.512.524.aabb
15:50:43 [stain]
Luc: (car colour example)
15:50:49 [stain]
@GK it is an important point
15:50:51 [tlebo]
:entity :charactizedBy [ owl:sameAs <> ] . # would fit, but is a bit indirect.
15:51:05 [stain]
Luc: It is an active assertion by the asserter to say that some attributes were constant.
15:51:15 [stain]
Luc: The asserter might not care about colour, but talk about registration of the car
15:51:30 [stain]
Luc: Although the colour is recorded, it might not be part oft he characterisation made by the asserter
15:51:51 [stain]
Luc: We want to distinguish what the asserter says characterizes an entity or other props
15:52:02 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: so someone else added the colour attribute?
15:52:03 [stain]
Luc: right
15:52:11 [stain]
pgroth: how to write this down in OWL.. given the time
15:52:13 [tlebo]
Luc's point about distinguishing between assertions of provenance maker and OTHER assertions about the same thing - this is handled by placing those attributess on the used :Entity, no?
15:52:23 [stain]
pgroth: we can keep discussing this on mailing list and move on to conceptual model agenda item
15:52:27 [pgroth]
15:52:33 [stain]
TOPIC: Conceptual Model
15:52:44 [GK]
Update recent?
15:52:52 [stain]
Paolo: moving forward with Luc
15:53:06 [stain]
Paolo: on track for internal release tomorrow
15:53:12 [Luc]
we should go for Monday release, realistically
15:53:27 [stain]
Paolo: few things in flux, a section on providing a high-level overview of model
15:53:30 [stain]
Paolo: working on that
15:53:45 [stain]
Paolo: adding a more precise description on what we mean by collections and relationships to support collection membership
15:54:03 [stain]
Luc: spent some time thinking about entities, following issues/emails by GK
15:54:12 [GK]
Good, I look forward to seeing the update.
15:54:21 [stain]
Luc: we came to a resolution here, a reasonable way to talk about entities
15:54:32 [stain]
Luc: Using them in the document
15:54:33 [GK]
"here" is earlier this telecon?
15:54:42 [stain]
(sorry I am not sure)
15:54:53 [stain]
Paolo: discussion on Account - coming along
15:55:16 [stain]
Paolo: shift in view from Roles and Attributes - perhaps most of the things you talk about can be qualified by attributes (key/values)
15:55:19 [stain]
Paolo: some extension point
15:55:31 [stain]
Paolo: one way to extend the model is to add attribute value/pairs to a profile for instance
15:55:38 [stain]
Paolo: define how those are used
15:55:46 [stain]
Paolo: one consequence is the discussion on wasGeneratedBy
15:55:51 [stain]
Paolo: also on Account
15:56:03 [stain]
Paolo: can be nested inside each other - scoping rules
15:56:19 [stain]
Paolo: getting complex.. giving ourselves a few more days
15:56:22 [pgroth]
15:56:24 [stain]
pgroth: any questions
15:56:25 [khalidbelhajjame]
15:56:26 [Luc]
"here" was "at our meeting Paolo and I"
15:56:39 [satya]
15:56:40 [GK]
@luc thanks
15:56:42 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: in two weeks time would like to have.. (? )
15:56:57 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: how would this work - we raise issues towards the doc in one week and other week..? We only have two weeks!
15:57:04 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: should plan how to manage issues
15:57:04 [Luc]
15:57:08 [stain]
khalidbelhajjame: to make it for the deadline
15:57:23 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
15:57:31 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:57:35 [stain]
Luc: to raise issues with the tracker
15:57:44 [stain]
Luc: realistically we will not address them all by end of Monday or the 29th
15:57:50 [stain]
Luc: there will still be work to be done
15:58:05 [stain]
Luc: want to have it in a state where we can say it is our first public working draft with clearly identified/marked issues
15:58:15 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:58:19 [stain]
satya: can we also have a (?)
15:58:29 [stain]
satya: if Luc/Paolo meets to have a telcon
15:58:38 [stain]
Luc: meeting Paolo in London next week
15:58:40 [stain]
Luc: rest by email
15:58:56 [stain]
Luc: can schedule a telecon if that is wanted
15:59:05 [stain]
satya: or just a skype call so we can listen in
15:59:13 [stain]
Paolo: we don't have a regular call, but can set one up
15:59:22 [stain]
Paolo: or join your ontology call on Mondays
15:59:25 [satya]
great thanks!
15:59:34 [stain]
pgroth: ok, need to end now for next telcon! (RDF WG)
15:59:36 [Zakim]
15:59:37 [Zakim]
15:59:38 [Zakim]
15:59:38 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has left #prov
15:59:39 [Zakim]
15:59:39 [Zakim]
15:59:40 [stain]
pgroth: see you all next week
15:59:40 [Zakim]
15:59:41 [Zakim]
15:59:41 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
15:59:42 [dgarijo]
15:59:43 [Zakim]
15:59:47 [Zakim]
- +1.518.633.aaee
15:59:48 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pgroth
15:59:49 [Zakim]
15:59:51 [Zakim]
15:59:52 [stain]
pgroth: will you do the magic bit of the wiki?
15:59:52 [Zakim]
15:59:55 [Zakim]
15:59:56 [sandro]
quick break before rdf/prov telecon!
16:00:04 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
16:00:04 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:00:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:00:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:00:06 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
16:00:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Satya to Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [1]
16:00:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:00:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Luc, Duncan, Curt_Tilmes, +1.315.330.aaaa, Sandro, +1.512.524.aabb, MacTed, Paolo, khalidbelhajjame, Vinh, +1.858.210.aacc,