14:53:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:53:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-irc
14:53:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:53:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:53:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:53:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:53:24 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2011
14:53:28 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
14:53:28 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:29 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:53:36 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:53:40 <Curt> I will scribe
14:53:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22
14:54:08 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
14:54:14 <pgroth> Scribe: Curt Tilmes
14:54:25 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:31 <pgroth> there you go Curt
14:54:35 <pgroth> thanks for stepping up
14:55:46 <Zakim> +??P7
14:55:59 <Zakim> + +44.789.470.aaaa
14:56:06 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:56:15 <stain> Zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me
14:56:15 <Zakim> +stain; got it
14:56:54 <pgroth> Regrets: Helena Deus, Stephan Zednik, Christine Runnegar
14:57:59 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
14:58:11 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:58:30 <Zakim> +??P48
14:58:41 <Paolo> zakim, ??P48 is me
14:58:41 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
14:58:48 <JimM> JimM has joined #prov
14:59:11 <Zakim> +??P49
14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P53
14:59:34 <Zakim> +??P8
14:59:41 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb
14:59:44 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P8 is me
14:59:44 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:59:50 <Zakim> -??P49
14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P17
14:59:51 <Vinh> Vinh has joined #prov
14:59:59 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
15:00:08 <Zakim> +??P29
15:00:08 <Luc> zaim, ??P17 is me
15:00:12 <JimM> Zakim, +1.518.276.aabb is me
15:00:12 <Zakim> +JimM; got it
15:00:18 <GK> zakim, ??p29 is me
15:00:18 <Zakim> +GK; got it
15:00:18 <Luc> zakim, ??P17 is me
15:00:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
15:00:41 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:00:59 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aacc
15:01:15 <Vinh> zakim, +1.937.343.aacc is me
15:01:15 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it
15:01:19 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:01:44 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:45 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd
15:02:03 <Zakim> +??P12
15:02:12 <tlebo> zakim, aadd is me
15:02:12 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
15:02:54 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
15:02:58 <pgroth>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-15
15:03:04 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 15 telecon
15:03:06 <satya> +1
15:03:08 <Curt> +1
15:03:09 <Paolo> +1
15:03:11 <tlebo> +1
15:03:14 <stain> +1
15:03:14 <StephenCresswell_> StephenCresswell_ has joined #prov
15:03:15 <JimM> +1
15:03:18 <dgarijo> +1
15:03:47 <JimMcCusker> 0 (did not attend)
15:03:52 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:03:58 <pgroth>    http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:04:16 <Zakim> +??P36
15:04:36 <Curt> pgroth: action on Satya superceded by Sandro's work we'll cover later -- close it
15:04:44 <khalidbelhajjame> zkim, ??P36 is me
15:04:51 <pgroth> Reviews for RDB2RDF working group specs
15:05:08 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Provenance WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/ -- 2011-09-22 telecon agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.09.22
15:05:09 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF working group has released 2 documents
15:05:21 <Curt> ... may be of interest to this group
15:05:42 <Luc> q?
15:06:03 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P36 is me
15:06:03 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:06:05 <Curt> Luc: do they want us to look at a specific section?
15:06:15 <khalidbelhajjame> what is RDB2RFF?
15:06:28 <khalidbelhajjame> RDB2RDF
15:06:32 <jcheney> jcheney has joined #prov
15:06:38 <Curt> pgroth: RDB2RDF is working on relational databases
15:06:45 <Curt> ... not sure which sections we might be interested in
15:06:50 <Paolo> @khalid: mapping from Relational to RDF
15:06:57 <Curt> ... follow up to mailing list
15:06:58 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes
15:07:08 <Curt> ... need scribes, please sign up
15:07:11 <satya> I was part of the RDB2RDF incubator group and worked on a survey - may have mentioned about provenance in that, I will try to review it
15:07:27 <Zakim> +??P16
15:07:38 <jcheney> zakim, ??P16 is me
15:07:38 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
15:07:46 <pgroth> q?
15:07:55 <pgroth> Topic: Report on RDF Named Graph Discussion
15:08:01 <Curt> pgroth: sandro to summarize RDF discussion
15:08:11 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-15
15:08:32 <Curt> sandro: last week we had a common meeting with RDF group, many from both groups
15:08:51 <Curt> ... didn't get as far as we wanted, missing some common language
15:09:13 <Curt> ... trying to determine what is needed in RDF to support provenance requirements
15:09:24 <Curt> ... where will we need RDF to support provenance
15:09:34 <Curt> ... provenance of RDF is needed by both groups
15:09:41 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
15:09:51 <Curt> ... sandro took action item to develop use case
15:09:52 <Zakim> +??P24
15:10:00 <Curt> ... which was sent to both groups 
15:10:24 <Curt> ... unifying use case combining multiple inputs to determine trust
15:10:46 <Curt> ... use case of restaurant reviews is a simple stand in for overall use case
15:11:07 <Curt> ... didn't schedule next telecon, but follow up on mailing list rdf-prov
15:11:22 <pgroth> q?
15:11:27 <Curt> ... hopefully make progress on addressing issues from both groups
15:11:28 <pgroth> q?
15:11:57 <Curt> pgroth: is it clear what this group needs to provide?
15:11:57 <tlebo> what was the rdf + prov list address?
15:11:58 <pgroth> q?
15:12:06 <Curt> ... what is the path forward?
15:12:20 <Curt> sandro: we haven't decided on a path forward yet
15:12:28 <Curt> ... still waiting on responses to use case
15:12:47 <jcheney> +q
15:12:53 <Curt> ... would be good to hear comments, either that is right, or here's how to change it
15:13:04 <GK> (Seems to me that we need to understand each others' language and expectations before charting a route forwards)
15:13:22 <Curt> ... please comment and feed back to sandro
15:13:41 <pgroth> ack jcheney 
15:13:57 <tlebo> public-rdf-prov@w3.org
15:14:09 <Curt> jcheney: didn't attend telecon, use case reminded of incubator use cases
15:14:23 <Curt> ... someone familiar with incubator use cases may want to take a look
15:14:42 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/User_Requirements
15:14:43 <Curt> ... incubator had a short paper on named graphs for RDF that could help
15:14:53 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/
15:14:55 <GK> @Sandro: one reason you may not get responses is the requirement to participate in yet another mailing list
15:15:09 <Curt> sandro: please summarize large documents, since people won't read the large docs.
15:15:19 <pgroth> q?
15:15:29 <jcheney> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/images/3/3f/RDFNextStep_ProvXG-submitted.pdf
15:15:46 <Curt> pgroth: another issue - our conceptual model has different versions/serializations
15:16:09 <Curt> ... we could figure out how to convert our stuff into current RDF 
15:16:24 <Curt> ... it is hard to determine how RDF might change
15:16:30 <GK> @pgroth +1
15:16:39 <GK> q+ to disagree with sandro
15:17:05 <Curt> sandro: RDF lacks mechanism to express endorsement of triples
15:17:09 <JimMcCusker> q+
15:17:36 <Curt> GK: disagree - there are ways to express those things
15:17:47 <Curt> ... RDF has those mechanisms, maybe complicated, but possible
15:18:12 <Curt> ... could develop simpler mechanisms to handle them
15:18:21 <tlebo> graph literals?
15:18:24 <Curt> ... what should we call them instead of named graphs?
15:18:29 <Curt> ... just 'graphs'?
15:18:31 <pgroth> ack GK
15:18:31 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to disagree with sandro
15:18:38 <satya> graph literal is interpreted differently from named graph
15:18:41 <pgroth> ack JimM  
15:18:44 <pgroth> q?
15:18:47 <sandro> (it's possible to do this in RDF if you define your own vocab, but there's no standard/interoperability)
15:19:13 <Curt> JimM: could use graph hashes to handle referring to the graph
15:19:16 <satya> q+
15:19:22 <Curt> JimM: there are solutions out there
15:19:26 <GK> @JimM - sounds like a possibility I had in mind...
15:19:29 <pgroth> ack satya 
15:19:32 <Curt> satya: we are conflating two issues
15:19:53 <sandro> JimM, please suggest them to public-rdf-prov?
15:19:57 <Curt> ... when you refer to a URL, the reponse you get today is different from tomorrow
15:20:11 <Curt> ... if the application needs the version, that can be modeled
15:20:25 <Curt> ... it is a modeling issue
15:20:33 <sandro> (it can be modeled, but we need a standard for how to model it, otherwise there is no interop.)
15:20:33 <GK> @satya +1
15:20:34 <Curt> ... don't mix up that with changes needed to RDF model
15:20:41 <pgroth> q?
15:20:45 <JimMcCusker> https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/wiki/frbr:mccusker2012parallel
15:20:52 <tlebo> I'm wondering how "provenance of contents in named graphs" differs from "provenance of contents in files on disk".
15:21:01 <Curt> pgroth: thanks sandro -- we'll try to help
15:21:04 <sandro> tlebo, I'm not sure it does.
15:21:06 <pgroth> Topic: Mapping the Conceptual Model to the Formal Model
15:21:07 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, use the purl: http://purl.org/twc/pub/mccusker2012parallel
15:21:24 <GK> @tlebo: at some level I don't think it does differ
15:21:26 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:21:28 <JimM> One of the things I think we need from 'named graphs' is to be able to sign the statement "<I> <assert> <this graph>" - without some scoping besides files we have the graph in one file, the statement before in another and the ,thisstatement><hasSignature><X> in a third - gets messy...
15:21:33 <sandro> tlebo, maybe the tools are different.   n3 has nice syntax for it.
15:22:04 <Curt> paolo: summarize two way process mapping conceptual model to formal model
15:22:14 <Curt> ... conceptual model will drive formal model
15:22:16 <JimMcCusker> sandro, I can take that as an action.
15:22:35 <Curt> ... if OWL2 falls short, we can address
15:22:55 <Zakim> + +1.213.290.aaee
15:23:09 <Curt> ... there are ways to model roles in OWL2, but that might stray from our model
15:23:21 <smiles> zakim, ??24 is me
15:23:21 <Zakim> sorry, smiles, I do not recognize a party named '??24'
15:23:22 <Curt> ... mapping onto OWL2 might not be as smooth as we might like
15:23:27 <Curt> ... consider other direction
15:23:29 <pgroth> q?
15:23:30 <smiles> zakim, ??P24 is me
15:23:30 <Zakim> +smiles; got it
15:23:58 <Curt> ... there are fragments of the concepual model that might not be part of OWL model
15:24:21 <Curt> satya: issue of how we model roles is not specific to OWL
15:24:37 <Curt> ... there are some modeling approaches in some large ontology communities
15:24:45 <Curt> ... they have proposed ways to model information
15:24:56 <Curt> ... most of the modeling realizations are in OWL2, but there
15:25:03 <Curt> ... are subtle differences
15:25:30 <Curt> paolo: some things won't map into OWL2 easily
15:25:34 <Yogesh> zakim, +1.213 is me
15:25:34 <Zakim> +Yogesh; got it
15:25:38 <Luc> q+ to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies
15:25:46 <pgroth> q?
15:25:58 <Curt> satya: WG should decide what we will use -- different approaches have different advantages
15:26:11 <GK> @satya - maybe, but I think we should prefer approaches that can use existing stack ... which is what I think you're saying just now
15:26:18 <Curt> ... if we decide to use something, we should follow constraints of specification
15:26:43 <Curt> ... if we are to follow semantic web stack, we should stick to it
15:26:57 <jorn> jorn has joined #prov
15:27:08 <GK> q+ to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack
15:27:11 <Curt> paolo: if we decide to use semantic web stack, can the conceptual model be expressed?
15:27:30 <khalidbelhajjame> The problem as I see it is that there are many possible way of translating the conceptual model to OWL, and the problem is really which way is the "best"
15:27:50 <Curt> ... whatever model we decide on needs to be expressible in the semantic web stack
15:28:20 <GK> @khalid - mostly true, I think, but there might be some semantic gaps in using just OWL
15:28:31 <Paolo> Q?
15:28:39 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, agreed
15:29:06 <Curt> satya: more important than OWL2 constraints, there are certain things we need to clarify first
15:29:08 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:29:08 <Zakim> Luc, you wanted to raise the issue on interoperability across technologies
15:29:14 <Curt> ... then we'll address OWL2 representation
15:29:23 <pgroth> can't hear you well
15:29:30 <GK> @satya +1 need to be clear about consensus on concepts
15:29:32 <Curt> Luc: <breaking up>
15:29:44 <stain> Luc - we can't hear you well
15:29:49 <Paolo> Luc going dalek...
15:29:56 <Zakim> -GK
15:29:59 <Curt> Luc: provenance ... something ...
15:30:59 <Curt> pgroth: (summarize Luc): one issue is interoperability across multiple technologies
15:31:17 <Curt> ... what we are doing with conceptual model must maintain interoperability across 
15:31:24 <Luc> thanks paul
15:31:50 <pgroth> q?
15:31:54 <Paolo> q+
15:32:21 <Luc> my point is that the WG should make a statement about what it means about interoperability
15:32:32 <Curt> satya: interoperability is important and valid concern, but we are most concerned with using
15:32:49 <Curt> ... semantic web stack which will enable interoperability with e.g. XML stack
15:32:52 <pgroth> graham you on the phone?
15:33:02 <Curt> ... it may not be possible to please every technology
15:33:33 <Curt> paolo: are we constrained by expressivitity of semantic web stack?
15:33:44 <Curt> paolo: that can affect our design choices
15:33:56 <pgroth> q?
15:33:59 <GK> GK has joined #prov
15:34:01 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:34:11 <Curt> satya: agreed, there are semantic web constraints
15:34:34 <khalidbelhajjame> Paolo, I think that in most cases there is no problem of translating the conceptual model to OWL, the probelm is that the mappings between the two model is not a 1 to 1 mapping, and may lead in some cases to ugly mappings if we are not careful
15:35:00 <Curt> ... how we are interpreting concepts needs clarification prior to getting to representation
15:35:32 <Curt> paolo: formal model informing conceptual model is a valuable realtity check
15:35:35 <pgroth> q?
15:35:39 <pgroth> ack GK
15:35:39 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if there is any question that we will use the semweb technology stack
15:35:40 <stain> and perhaps OWL would allow many other things that is not considered in the conceptual model - like role class inheritance or what kind of identifiers we are talking about
15:35:47 <Zakim> +??P6
15:35:48 <dgarijo> @khalid: I think you're right
15:36:38 <Curt> GK: is there a question about building provenance specification that works with semantic web stack?
15:36:39 <pgroth> q?
15:37:03 <Luc> as the ONLY stack supported?
15:37:11 <Curt> pgroth: paolo is asking how we are constrained by things like OWL2
15:37:28 <Curt> satya: semantic web = RDF, OWL, SPARQL, all together
15:37:59 <Curt> pgroth: that is a clear direction in our charter -- we need to address those technologies
15:38:12 <GK> @Luc:  as the _primary_ stack, not to exclude others.
15:38:22 <satya> @GK +!
15:38:24 <satya> +1
15:38:35 <Curt> ... is that the only stack: broadly no, but how are we constrained to best work with semantic web technologies
15:38:36 <Luc> from charter:
15:38:38 <Luc> The idea that a single way of representing and collecting provenance could be adopted internally by all systems does not seem to be realistic today.  
15:39:05 <Curt> paolo: once we iron out some ambiguities, may not be as big a concern
15:39:12 <satya> q+
15:39:14 <tlebo> btw, we can Get This Done with JUST RDF; OWL should only come into play when it provides a clear value.
15:39:18 <pgroth> ack satya
15:39:32 <Curt> satya: ideally we should just support semantic web
15:39:48 <Curt> ... but they are standards that define certain things, that may end up excluding other things
15:39:57 <Luc> why do we have a conceptual model then?
15:39:59 <Curt> ... we should keep that in mind
15:40:10 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:40:14 <tlebo> @luc, regarding "just RDF"?
15:40:20 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
15:40:24 <pgroth> q?
15:40:39 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: semantic web doesn't exclude other technologies
15:40:59 <pgroth> q?
15:41:03 <Curt> ... conceptual model is needed to address mapping to other technologies
15:41:12 <Luc> thanks khalid
15:41:28 <Curt> pgroth: not clear how conceptual model might violate any semantic web constraints
15:41:50 <GK> @pgroth +1 (but we may want to think about engineering issues too)
15:41:53 <Curt> ... some things may be harder with semantic web, but it isn't clear yet what might break
15:41:53 <Paolo> q+
15:41:59 <stain> but we can't depend too much on various OWL mechanisms that would be difficult to express in other formats like JSON. I think we should have some kind of nicely degradation to those formats, where everything expressed by PROV is retained, but other attributes are lost
15:41:59 <pgroth> ack Paolo
15:42:13 <Curt> paolo: modeling of roles still needs work
15:42:30 <Curt> ... if we model it as a subclass of entity, it makes sense to me
15:42:56 <Curt> ... we are still working on role modeling we need to think about implications 
15:42:59 <pgroth> q?
15:42:59 <GK> @stian: I see the role (sic) of OWL as something roughly like a schema and formal semantics spec for proveance exchanged as RDF
15:42:59 <Luc> if roles are the only problem, can we solve everything else, and then revisit roles both in conceptual model and owl ontology?
15:43:33 <satya> @GK +1
15:43:38 <Curt> pgroth: we need to see where things are hard to represent
15:43:48 <khalidbelhajjame> @GK +1
15:44:02 <Curt> ... we may need to make things ugly to handle conceptual mode
15:44:12 <Zakim> +stain.a
15:44:20 <Curt> paolo: it is an ongoing process, 
15:44:24 <pgroth> q?
15:44:25 <Zakim> -stain
15:44:49 <pgroth> q?
15:44:53 <Curt> satya: what about trying to represent in OWL/SPARQL, just trying to guage feeling of group
15:44:54 <Luc> q+
15:45:15 <Curt> Luc: how do we progress?
15:45:35 <Curt> pgroth: conceptual model needs feedback from formal model
15:45:38 <Luc> proposal: park roles for now, and move on
15:45:57 <Curt> ... if group likes conceptual model, then goal of formal model to represent that
15:45:57 <pgroth> q?
15:46:03 <Luc> ack
15:46:05 <pgroth> ack Luc
15:46:33 <Curt> satya: if we have a clear view of notions in conceptual model, formal model is easy
15:46:51 <Curt> ... problem is defining conceptual model enough to develop formal model
15:46:58 <Luc> why not rename 'role' in conceputal model into 'function'?
15:47:00 <GK> @satya: +1
15:47:01 <Curt> ... some terms aren't clear enough to drive formal model
15:47:09 <Curt> ... iterative feedback to make them match
15:47:29 <Curt> satya: roles is one issues, there are others
15:47:51 <Curt> satya: e.g. versioning perspectives
15:47:52 <GK> q+ to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier
15:48:07 <Zakim> +??P5
15:48:09 <Luc> saty, for versioning, you have not raised any issue against conceptual document
15:48:12 <jorn> zakim, ??p5 is me
15:48:12 <Zakim> +jorn; got it
15:48:17 <pgroth> ack GK
15:48:17 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think the latest prov model doc will make this discussion easier
15:48:42 <Curt> GK: difficulty is in coming to understanding.  latest version of the model has helped clarify some things
15:48:48 <satya> sorry Luc, I am still reviewing - I will start posting issues on a section-wise basis
15:48:57 <Curt> ... recent direction has helped discussion progress
15:49:00 <khalidbelhajjame> GK: I agree, the last version is much clearer
15:49:21 <dgarijo> I think we also should do some "cleaning" in the owl documents and html. I don't think they are currently synchronized, and could lead to confussion.
15:49:26 <Curt> pgroth: raise issues out of formal model with conceptual model to clarify them
15:49:39 <pgroth> Topic: Conceptual Model
15:49:49 <satya> @Daniel: Agree, working on it now :)
15:49:51 <Curt> paolo: New iteration released for discussion
15:49:58 <Curt> paolo: few comments so far.  
15:50:09 <Curt> ... that version has many improvements that address issues
15:50:15 <dgarijo> @Satya :)
15:50:19 <Curt> ... several things resolved pending review
15:50:45 <Curt> ... addressing Khalid's comments
15:50:53 <Curt> ... process is converging
15:51:11 <Curt> ... some issues open, some are old and will be closed soon
15:51:20 <Curt> ... will F2F with Luc to resolve some things
15:51:34 <Curt> ... planning to address remaining issues
15:51:35 <GK> +1 paolo: "if the process is convergent, no need to over-fromalize the process" :)
15:52:08 <Curt> ... good input on several issues, some have more discussion than others
15:52:09 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are they issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.
15:52:23 <Luc> the key question at this stage is are there issues that would block the release as FPWD. We need to prioritize them.
15:52:26 <satya> @Tim, Jim - can you please share your work on RDF named graph - maybe as a technical report?
15:52:33 <Curt> ... when issues don't get a lot of input, little guiidance to resolve them, we do what we can
15:52:34 <pgroth> q?
15:52:49 <Curt> ... issue 89, 99 need work
15:52:54 <Zakim> -Vinh
15:53:01 <GK> Ideally, an issue will have a proposed resolution that the editors can accept or discuss
15:53:11 <pgroth> q?
15:53:41 <Curt> pgroth: next week we will vote on whether to release public working draft?
15:53:47 <Curt> Luc: Yes, correct
15:54:12 <Curt> Luc: We need to flag outstanding issues and prioritize and address them prior to release
15:54:13 <GK> q+ to check that FPWD doesn have to imply group consensus
15:54:23 <Curt> pgroth: please raise major blocks asap
15:54:40 <Curt> GK: a public working draft doesn't need complete consensus, some things can remain open
15:54:47 <satya> @GK - I agree
15:54:51 <Curt> pgroth: correct
15:54:53 <sandro> agreed.    wd does not need to be consensus.
15:54:55 <Luc> i am very happy to write in document issues still to be addressed
15:55:18 <sandro> but it's very good to point out in the draft wherever there is still an open issue.
15:55:20 <Curt> pgroth: some issues may be open, that's ok and need discussion, but if there are major blockers, 
15:55:27 <Curt> ... prior to release to public, raise them now
15:55:55 <Curt> GK: are we ready to release and ask for public comment. 
15:56:08 <Curt> paolo: are there showstoppers we need to be aware of?
15:56:33 <Curt> paolo: please raise them asap, we are meeting tomorrow, please let us know right away about any red flags
15:56:55 <Luc> @GK, you mention by email you had issues you wanted to raise, can you give us a preview for us to work on?
15:56:56 <GK> I don't mind doc going FPWD if I'm still allowed to disagree with bits :)
15:57:10 <pgroth> Topic: Formal Model
15:57:13 <GK> @luc I'll try
15:57:32 <Luc> @GK, thanks, if you want we can also have quick call tomorrow
15:57:38 <Curt> satya: formal model has been updated with help 
15:57:58 <Curt> ... some parts missing, diagrams, taking longer than we had hoped
15:58:11 <Curt> ... pre-release to this group soon
15:58:39 <Curt> ... changes illustrating how to extend to handle domain specific may be helpful
15:58:57 <Curt> ... scientific workflow extension to be included
15:59:08 <Zakim> -Luc
15:59:25 <Curt> ... New concepts in conceptual model not yet in formal model
15:59:35 <Curt> ... still need to digest new additions to conceptual model
16:00:01 <Curt> ... some gaps need clarifications to map notions from conceptual model to formal model
16:00:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +q to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model
16:00:13 <Curt> ... some continuous updates will happen as conceptual model changes
16:00:17 <Curt> ... iterative process
16:00:27 <Paolo> Q?
16:00:29 <GK> q-
16:00:34 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame 
16:00:34 <Zakim> khalidbelhajjame, you wanted to ask if the OWL ontology should include all the concepts in the conceptual model
16:00:48 <JimMcCusker> @satya, regarding content identity and named graphs, we will talk to our co-authors to see if we can do that.
16:00:52 <pgroth> q?
16:00:57 <Curt> khalidbelhajjame: will every concept in conceptual model need to be in formal model, or a subset?
16:01:18 <satya> @Jim - thanks
16:01:22 <Curt> pgroth: a correct set is more important than to be complete
16:01:32 <pgroth> q?
16:01:33 <khalidbelhajjame> @Paul, thanks
16:01:35 <satya> @Paul: thanks
16:01:38 <pgroth> q?
16:01:43 <dgarijo> @khalid: I thought the formal model was supposed to be a lightweight notion of the conceptual model.
16:02:03 <satya> @Daniel: no
16:02:07 <Curt> pgroth: please get comments on everything in
16:02:12 <Curt> ... need to vote on public releases
16:02:13 <Zakim> -tlebo
16:02:15 <Zakim> -smiles
16:02:16 <Zakim> -Paolo
16:02:18 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
16:02:20 <Zakim> -Yogesh
16:02:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:24 <Zakim> -jcheney
16:02:26 <Zakim> -stain.a
16:02:26 <jorn> jorn has left #prov
16:02:28 <Zakim> -JimM
16:02:30 <Zakim> -jorn
16:02:31 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:02:40 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html pgroth
16:02:42 <Zakim> -??P6
16:02:47 <pgroth> trackbot, end telcon
16:02:47 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:48 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:02:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items