14:47:07 RRSAgent has joined #prov 14:47:07 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-irc 14:47:09 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:47:09 Zakim has joined #prov 14:47:11 Zakim, this will be 14:47:11 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:47:12 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference 14:47:12 Date: 15 September 2011 14:48:50 Luc has joined #prov 14:48:55 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.15 14:49:01 Chair: Paul Groth 14:49:16 rrsagent, make logs public 14:50:44 anybody up for scribing? 14:51:43 Vinh has joined #prov 14:55:30 can I get a scribe? 14:58:15 tlebo has joined #prov 14:58:30 Curt has joined #prov 14:58:34 kai has joined #prov 14:58:49 rgolden has joined #prov 14:58:58 can I get a scribe? 14:59:02 Paolo has joined #prov 14:59:07 smiles has joined #prov 14:59:27 I can scribe 14:59:35 if people not on the queue remember to say their name ;) 14:59:42 thanks stain 14:59:50 Scribe: stain 15:00:52 Topic: Admin 15:00:53 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:56 sorry, Paolo, I don't know what conference this is 15:01:09 Zakim, this is #prov 15:01:10 On IRC I see smiles, Paolo, rgolden, kai, Curt, tlebo, Vinh, Luc, Zakim, RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro 15:01:25 sorry, tlebo, I do not see a conference named '#prov' in progress or scheduled at this time 15:01:38 Zakim, this is prov 15:01:38 Zakim, this is prov 15:01:40 Yogesh has joined #prov 15:01:42 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov 15:01:51 zakim, who is on the call? 15:01:53 ok, MacTed; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM 15:01:59 pgroth, this was already SW_(PROV)11:00AM 15:02:05 ok, pgroth; that matches SW_(PROV)11:00AM 15:02:07 + +1.512.524.aabb 15:02:08 pgroth: Finish within 1h due to RDF provenance telcon afterwards 15:02:15 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-08 15:02:17 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 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 08 telecon 15:02:25 +1 15:02:26 +1 15:02:27 +1 15:02:28 +1 15:02:32 +1 15:02:35 +1 15:02:41 +1 15:03:00 Accepted Minutes of last weeks telecon 15:03:02 +OpenLink_Software 15:03:12 -??P65 15:03:13 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open 15:03:14 +??P4 15:03:17 pgroth: Action items to review 15:03:19 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:03:19 Zakim, mute me 15:03:25 zakim, ??P4 is me 15:03:25 pgroth: no actions 15:03:30 zakim, ??P4 is me 15:03:36 sorry Paolo 15:03:37 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes 15:03:44 not sure who I am :-) 15:03:52 +??P15 15:04:00 +MacTed; got it 15:04:02 MacTed should now be muted 15:04:07 pgroth: Need more scribes, please sign up so we don't have to assign 15:04:10 +Paolo; got it 15:04:16 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph 15:04:19 +khalidbelhajjame; got it 15:04:20 dcorsar has joined #prov 15:04:25 ITEM Named graphs requirements 15:04:41 +Vinh 15:04:51 Zakim, who's here? 15:04:53 q? 15:04:54 pgroth: several people ave signed up for this telcon. Any comments on the requirements? 15:04:57 + +1.858.210.aacc 15:04:58 who will joing the call? 15:05:05 + +1.213.290.aadd 15:05:17 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 ... +1.213.290.aadd 15:05:27 satya has joined #prov 15:05:28 +1 15:05:30 +1 15:05:30 +1 15:05:32 +1 15:05:36 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 pgroth: Say +1 if you are attending the call 15:05:40 satya? 15:05:52 +1 15:05:57 +Satya_Sahoo 15:06:00 Hi Luc, I am here 15:06:04 pgroth: the call is immediately following this call 15:06:07 will you join rdf call? 15:06:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0073.html 15:06:16 q+ 15:06:17 Thursday 15 Sep, 1215pm US Eastern time for 45-60 minutes 18:15 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 117:15 London) 15:06:18 Call agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.15 15:06:55 zakim, +1.213.290 is me 15:06:56 +Yogesh; got it 15:07:18 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:07:18 Can we give examples from previous work? 15:07:18 +tlebo; got it 15:07:20 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 +??P46 15:07:32 when would we have a serialisation to RDF where we can discuss the need for named graphs? 15:07:37 ^^ Luc 15:07:44 satya: we can create a usecase for named graphs directly 15:08:01 q+ 15:08:03 satya: we have previous examples from biomedical domains, requiring named graphs to refer to a set of provenance assertions 15:08:06 ack Luc 15:08:10 both examples can be given 15:08:33 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 Luc: to avoid misleading them 15:08:48 satya: could we have an example on the provenance ontology wiki page? 15:08:53 Luc: perhaps that, yes 15:08:57 satya: will create that and put it up 15:09:09 Luc: do this as agenda item for next week? 15:09:12 zednik has joined #prov 15:09:16 q- 15:09:24 ACTION Satya: Do named graph example on provenance ontology page 15:09:25 Created ACTION-39 - Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-09-22]. 15:09:40 + +1.518.633.aaee 15:09:49 kai: Dublin core metadata provenance group, comments on collective requirements. 15:10:00 kai: Ability to retrieve the provenance of an RDF resource is required. 15:10:10 kai: main thing about named graph is taht we can retrieve provenance about RDF statements 15:10:25 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 @kai, are your requirements explicit in the requirement page? 15:10:28 q+ 15:10:43 q+ 15:10:44 Will we be adding the named graphs examples to http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph ? 15:10:46 ack kai 15:10:48 +Yolanda 15:10:51 ack stain 15:11:14 ack satya 15:11:27 satya: Responding to Kai - on ability to refer to aprts of provenance 15:11:42 satya: distinction to bring up, named graphs and reifications allow you to make assertion on statement level 15:12:03 q+ to ask for an example 15:12:07 StephenCresswell has joined #prov 15:12:13 satya: which would let you refer to provenance of RDF subject, predicate and resource level 15:12:22 satya: named graph would only give you the granularity of statements 15:12:37 +1, didn't quite follow Satya's distinction. 15:12:42 kai: not sure when that granularity would be helpful 15:12:49 satya: would explain tis on the wikipage 15:12:52 difference between an RDF statement and its S, P, and O. 15:12:56 dgarijo has joined #prov 15:12:58 satya: provenance context entity, google that - example scenario 15:13:22 satya: need to explain the point of why.. 15:13:28 Zakim, unmute me 15:13:28 MacTed should no longer be muted 15:13:30 q+ 15:13:30 ?: about kai's requirement, could you put that there? 15:13:35 Zakim: who is speaking? 15:13:36 ack kai 15:13:37 kai, you wanted to ask for an example 15:13:39 ack MacTed 15:13:54 +??P49 15:14:05 @Mac: I don't think there is a difference 15:14:06 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 Zakim, ??P49 is me 15:14:09 +dgarijo; got it 15:14:18 q+ 15:14:23 jcheney has joined #prov 15:14:28 Zakim, who is speaking? 15:14:40 stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 21 (14%), ??P14 (22%), MacTed (19%) 15:14:52 ack kai 15:14:59 pgroth: collection of smaller things 15:15:03 +??P0 15:15:22 q? 15:15:35 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 MacTed: should reword requirements 2 to "Ability to retrieve the provenance of a set of triples" 15:16:17 q? 15:16:20 pgroth: Kai and Satya has different requirements - we might not understand Satya's reqs which he will clarify 15:16:27 pgroth: we'll discuss this afterwards 15:16:44 TOPIC Name for the standdar 15:16:50 pgroth: Moving towards PROV - Luc can explain 15:16:51 what about named graphs needs to be handled as something more than files in a directory? 15:17:07 Luc: Last week's telcon there was strong support for the name "Prov" 15:17:27 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 RESOLVED: Name was decided as Prov / PROV (casing not decided) 15:18:08 It's just a name; I wouldn't all-caps it. 15:18:19 Agree - we said last week that it was not a acronym 15:18:49 TOPIC: First working draft 15:19:11 pgroth: Time table for this. GK is not on the phone. 15:19:17 (who?) 15:19:23 Yogesh 15:19:26 q+ 15:19:29 Yogesh: nothing to add 15:19:57 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 Luc: would like to have the documents approved on the 29th in 2 weeks time 15:20:48 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 pgroth: hangup on PAQ document is dependent on conceptual model 15:21:21 pgroth: GK has emailed that we need to have those terms clearly defined in conceptual model 15:21:40 pgroth: don't know the details. Likely we can follow the same timeline, but a week later for PAQ 15:21:42 q? 15:21:45 ack Luc 15:21:45 pgroth: Any other comments? 15:21:58 TOPIC: Formal model document 15:22:14 satya: discussion on role 15:22:24 satya: call on Monday, discussing how to model roles and how to interpret them in our model 15:22:34 pgroth: that's te next discussion point 15:22:39 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.15 15:22:46 pgroth: working on extensibility of prov ontology 15:22:50 ^^ Satya 15:23:06 satya: how different domains can extend ontology, doing concrete examples 15:23:25 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 q? 15:23:40 q+ 15:23:40 q+ 15:23:46 +1 for using the Taverna example 15:23:50 ack Luc 15:24:07 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 Luc: Perhaps don't specify this as part of the specs 15:24:36 can we accumulate tool-specific concrete examples on the wiki? 15:24:37 satya: take out Taverna specific details, but follow the scenario in a general way 15:24:47 ack stain 15:25:05 I agree with Satya. It is just a Taverna workflow, but could be any scientific workflow system 15:25:41 q? 15:25:47 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 pgroth: so build another example from the Taverna example, but do a general one? 15:26:08 @stain: +1 15:26:21 satya: perhaps just a diagram on how Stian could hae extended the ontology, and some explanation 15:26:31 ilkay: Could also try to validate this from the Kepler point of view 15:26:42 satya: that would help a lot - you could work with Stian 15:27:08 Ilkay: Will contact Stian 15:27:20 Topic: Roles and times - how they can be associated with Used and Generated 15:27:23 q+ 15:27:37 satya: could Luc bring up the initial issue? 15:27:42 ace Luc 15:27:46 ack Luc 15:27:56 GK has joined #prov 15:28:04 Luc: Conceptual model defines a type of relationship, Process execution Used an Entity, or an Entity was Generated by an PE 15:28:32 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 not just binary relation, an n-ary relation 15:28:40 q+ 15:28:59 Luc: Back some years ago in an early OPM serialisation, these n-ary relations was exposed as resources 15:29:13 there were some comments that it was not a very natural RDFisation 15:29:26 Luc: OPMV used RDF properties to express those relations 15:29:27 q- 15:29:30 +??P38 15:29:40 Luc: Which is fine if you don't talk about roles and times together with Use/Generation 15:29:49 Luc: But what if you want to do this, how would you do this in RDF 15:29:49 GK1 has joined #prov 15:30:02 -??P46 15:30:14 satya: what we discussed was to specically have a class Role, we have been discussing how to model this 15:30:22 zakim, ??P38 is me 15:30:22 +GK1; got it 15:30:30 satya: we can use the approach of where a Role is a special type of Entity 15:30:56 satya: in the example of Khalid - Khalid as a person, say as a researcher at Univ of Manchester 15:31:08 satya: but Khalid at a restaurant is te role of Customer 15:31:16 satya: or play football, where he assumes the role of a GoalKeeper 15:31:26 satya: the specialisation that Luc described in a model perspective 15:31:39 satya: we are then pushing the specialisation from the property to the entity itself 15:31:54 satya: Khalid can assume these different roles 15:31:58 q+ 15:32:07 satya: we can relate entities to these roles - and on the role we can assert things like time, etc. 15:32:24 Paolo: We had a brief discussion with Satya and the rest of the group 15:32:25 So what is he at a restaurant talking research with colleagues? 15:32:28 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 q? 15:32:59 Paolo: not a relationship, but a persona, an Entity assumes this for the duration of this action 15:33:02 ack Paolo 15:33:13 +q 15:33:20 Paolo: temporarily assocated to entities by way of specialisation, interesting, but departure from model 15:33:25 @tlebo: you could do that by specializing used, but the role is a trick to model the n-ary relationships 15:33:26 @GK: Can you please clarify 15:33:30 BTW, the notes from the OWL telecon are at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-09-12 15:33:34 q? 15:33:50 khalidbelhajjame: agree with Paolo. 15:33:58 khalidbelhajjame: relationships we are describing are with relation to attributes 15:34:14 khalidbelhajjame: if we want to map this, we need to define the relationship in the contextual model as first class citizens 15:34:16 -Yogesh 15:34:28 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 khalidbelhajjame: Luc said someone stated this as a bad idea.. but.. 15:34:31 @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 khalidbelhajjame: if we can't define the relationships as classes in OWL 15:34:40 q? 15:34:41 +Yogesh 15:34:46 ack khalidbelhajjame 15:34:48 q+ 15:34:54 ack Luc 15:34:58 wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1) 15:35:13 @GK - no I meant multiple roles can be used 15:35:13 @tlebo: it is modeled that way already 15:35:18 (@Satya - being late joining, I may be missing the point.) 15:35:28 @GK1 no, it should be possible to use it in different roles in same PE? 15:35:40 q+ 15:35:44 Luc: Value of the entity at a given port - ordering 15:35:46 @Satya, @Stian: Ah, OK 15:35:51 Luc: one example we want to support in the model 15:36:09 @GK1 Multiple generation roles for same entity is more interesting :) 15:36:21 Luc: Role might have been misunderstood - not like in role-based access controlled 15:36:32 Luc: It is given information about the actual usage in the system 15:36:36 - +1.858.210.aacc 15:36:38 @stain, I think that with this approach it is covered too 15:36:44 Luc: not sure about satya's notion of Role as subclass of Entity 15:36:47 q? 15:36:50 ack smiles 15:37:01 @dgarijo I believe so too 15:37:09 q+ 15:37:17 @Luc: yes, we can model the qualifiers using roles as we discussed 15:37:25 @stain: they would be 2 roles used by the pe and assumed by the same entity 15:37:29 smiles: about expressibility (???) - has relationships of roles and time information 15:37:32 ack Paolo 15:37:37 (could someone fill in first bit of smiles argument?) 15:38:15 +q 15:38:20 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 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 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 ack khalidbelhajjame 15:39:02 q? 15:39:03 @stain - smiles' two layers? 15:39:19 (a la OPMV and OPMO) 15:39:30 q+ 15:39:37 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 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 ack satya 15:39:49 khalidbelhajjame: would it be sensible to have the simplified version in the ontology 15:40:00 @tlebo that makes sense 15:40:10 satya: not two versions of ontology, Role should be part of ontology 15:40:18 satya: question is what the information we are trying to represent 15:40:31 satya: statements on the entity or on the process execution 15:40:45 satya: two distinct things: (I missed the intro) 15:40:51 q+ 15:41:01 qualifier on the relationship vs. qualifier on the entity. 15:41:08 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 satya: that entity was the first package on a port 15:41:31 q? 15:41:32 why is it a qualification of the entity? it's not an attribute of the entity? 15:41:33 ack Paolo 15:41:55 @Luc agree - and an entity can be used for multiple roles wit different properties 15:42:06 like a hammer used both for hammering nails and pulling them out 15:42:06 @stain, indeed 15:42:33 (but you could say those are two views of the hammer?) 15:42:43 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 Paolo: (?) complex bit you need to make explicit. that data was produced.. (?) 15:43:17 @tlebo that is satya's proposal, yes 15:43:27 @tlebo kind of like ORE proxies 15:43:46 satya: (..) customer left the restaurant at this point in time, etc. 15:43:54 Paolo: we don't have this in the abstract model 15:44:01 satya: possiblt need to bring this up to the WG 15:44:12 @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 Paolo: like the idea of qualifying entities, bu tneed to bring this into the language and discuss this 15:44:40 pgroth: no final agreement, but conversation! Need to move on on the agenda 15:44:57 TOPIC How can we identify attributes of an entity 15:45:06 Luc: Identify an entity and attribute (key-value pairs) 15:45:19 Luc: these describe something constant int he world during the duration of the entity's existence 15:45:25 if anyone is interested to particiate, we have our ontology telecon on Mondays :) 15:45:31 Luc: Need to know which attributes have been "stamped" on the entity to characterise it 15:45:41 Luc: Don't know how to find these attributes with the OWL mapping 15:45:55 Luc: Some examples were discussed, Stian had one proposal, but don't know if this has been incorporated 15:45:56 +q 15:46:47 @Stian, that sounds like reading too much into anonimiy of a node 15:46:52 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 ... you can assign a new URI a an anlymous node without changing the meaning 15:47:13 *used Entity 15:48:10 Stian suggested :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] 15:48:12 we could use named graphs to "wrap" the attributes 15:48:47 khalidbelhajjame: to introduce Properties or Attributes into the formal model - or characterized-by, descibed-by 15:49:09 q? 15:49:12 khalidbelhajjame: then it can be instances of this - distinguish characterized attributes and other supplemental 15:49:15 ack khalidbelhajjame 15:49:36 How would :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] handle :entity prov:?? . (MY _actual_ URI,not a description of me) 15:49:36 khalidbelhajjame: what is the scenario given - most of the time attributes on the entity will be part of characterizing it 15:49:37 @Stian :entity :charactizedBy [ :location "Manchester", :colour :red ] ; [ :location "London" ; :color :blue ] . is also valid? 15:50:11 @GK - no, it has granularity 1 so that those nodes would be merged 15:50:29 khalidbelhajjame: not quite clear yet.. 15:50:38 Luc: Might have a series of properties your thing has. Like a colour 15:50:41 @stian quite - just clarifying. 15:50:42 - +1.512.524.aabb 15:50:43 Luc: (car colour example) 15:50:49 @GK it is an important point 15:50:51 :entity :charactizedBy [ owl:sameAs ] . # would fit, but is a bit indirect. 15:51:05 Luc: It is an active assertion by the asserter to say that some attributes were constant. 15:51:15 Luc: The asserter might not care about colour, but talk about registration of the car 15:51:30 Luc: Although the colour is recorded, it might not be part oft he characterisation made by the asserter 15:51:51 Luc: We want to distinguish what the asserter says characterizes an entity or other props 15:52:02 khalidbelhajjame: so someone else added the colour attribute? 15:52:03 Luc: right 15:52:11 pgroth: how to write this down in OWL.. given the time 15:52:13 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 pgroth: we can keep discussing this on mailing list and move on to conceptual model agenda item 15:52:27 q? 15:52:33 TOPIC: Conceptual Model 15:52:44 Update recent? 15:52:52 Paolo: moving forward with Luc 15:53:06 Paolo: on track for internal release tomorrow 15:53:12 we should go for Monday release, realistically 15:53:27 Paolo: few things in flux, a section on providing a high-level overview of model 15:53:30 Paolo: working on that 15:53:45 Paolo: adding a more precise description on what we mean by collections and relationships to support collection membership 15:54:03 Luc: spent some time thinking about entities, following issues/emails by GK 15:54:12 Good, I look forward to seeing the update. 15:54:21 Luc: we came to a resolution here, a reasonable way to talk about entities 15:54:32 Luc: Using them in the document 15:54:33 "here" is earlier this telecon? 15:54:42 (sorry I am not sure) 15:54:53 Paolo: discussion on Account - coming along 15:55:16 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 Paolo: some extension point 15:55:31 Paolo: one way to extend the model is to add attribute value/pairs to a profile for instance 15:55:38 Paolo: define how those are used 15:55:46 Paolo: one consequence is the discussion on wasGeneratedBy 15:55:51 Paolo: also on Account 15:56:03 Paolo: can be nested inside each other - scoping rules 15:56:19 Paolo: getting complex.. giving ourselves a few more days 15:56:22 q? 15:56:24 pgroth: any questions 15:56:25 +q 15:56:26 "here" was "at our meeting Paolo and I" 15:56:39 q+ 15:56:40 @luc thanks 15:56:42 khalidbelhajjame: in two weeks time would like to have.. (? ) 15:56:57 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 khalidbelhajjame: should plan how to manage issues 15:57:04 q+ 15:57:08 khalidbelhajjame: to make it for the deadline 15:57:23 ack khalidbelhajjame 15:57:31 ack Luc 15:57:35 Luc: to raise issues with the tracker 15:57:44 Luc: realistically we will not address them all by end of Monday or the 29th 15:57:50 Luc: there will still be work to be done 15:58:05 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 ack satya 15:58:19 satya: can we also have a (?) 15:58:29 satya: if Luc/Paolo meets to have a telcon 15:58:38 Luc: meeting Paolo in London next week 15:58:40 Luc: rest by email 15:58:56 Luc: can schedule a telecon if that is wanted 15:59:05 satya: or just a skype call so we can listen in 15:59:13 Paolo: we don't have a regular call, but can set one up 15:59:22 Paolo: or join your ontology call on Mondays 15:59:25 great thanks! 15:59:34 pgroth: ok, need to end now for next telcon! (RDF WG) 15:59:36 -dgarijo 15:59:37 -tlebo 15:59:38 -Satya_Sahoo 15:59:38 Yogesh has left #prov 15:59:39 -??P61 15:59:39 -Luc 15:59:40 pgroth: see you all next week 15:59:40 -??P0 15:59:41 -Sandro 15:59:41 rrsagent, set log public 15:59:42 goodbye! 15:59:43 -??P15 15:59:47 - +1.518.633.aaee 15:59:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:59:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-minutes.html pgroth 15:59:49 -Vinh 15:59:51 -Yogesh 15:59:52 pgroth: will you do the magic bit of the wiki? 15:59:52 -??P14 15:59:55 -Curt_Tilmes 15:59:56 quick break before rdf/prov telecon! 16:00:04 trackbot, end telcon 16:00:04 Zakim, list attendees 16:00:05 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:00:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-minutes.html trackbot 16:00:06 RRSAgent, bye 16:00:06 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-actions.rdf : 16:00:06 ACTION: Satya to Do named graph example on provenance ontology page [1] 16:00:06 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-prov-irc#T15-09-24 16:00:07 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,