IRC log of prov on 2011-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

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