IRC log of prov on 2011-09-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:39:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:39:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:39:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:39:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:39:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:39:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:39:21 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:39:21 [trackbot]
Date: 29 September 2011
14:39:26 [Luc]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:39:26 [Zakim]
ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 21 minutes
14:39:39 [Luc]
14:39:48 [Luc]
Chair: Luc Moreau
14:39:58 [Luc]
Scribe: Yogesh Simmhan
14:40:36 [Luc]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:41:48 [Vinh]
Vinh has joined #prov
14:44:32 [pgroth]
pgroth has joined #prov
14:56:06 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
14:56:12 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:56:17 [Zakim]
14:56:20 [ericstephan]
ericstephan has joined #prov
14:56:26 [Zakim]
14:56:27 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:57:14 [dgarijo]
dgarijo has joined #prov
14:57:19 [Luc]
Hi Yogesh, everything setup for you
14:57:27 [Yogesh]
Thanks Luc
14:57:42 [Zakim]
14:57:55 [Zakim]
14:58:16 [Zakim]
+ +44.238.059.aaaa
14:58:28 [dgarijo]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
14:58:28 [Zakim]
+dgarijo; got it
14:58:30 [Luc]
zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
14:58:30 [Zakim]
+Luc; got it
14:58:39 [dgarijo]
Hi everyone
14:58:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.967.aabb
15:00:01 [smiles]
smiles has joined #prov
15:00:19 [Zakim]
15:01:09 [Zakim]
15:01:48 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:02:06 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:02:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aacc
15:02:24 [Paolo]
Paolo has joined #prov
15:02:35 [Yogesh]
Luc: admin issues, release of 1st public working draft, hearing from eric about connection task force report, Simon give primer, and satya formal doc
15:02:36 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:02:47 [Yogesh]
Luc: any other issues? No.
15:02:49 [Luc]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 22 telecon
15:02:58 [Zakim]
15:02:59 [Luc]
15:03:04 [satya]
15:03:07 [GK]
GK has joined #prov
15:03:09 [Yogesh]
15:03:10 [ericstephan]
15:03:11 [Curt]
15:03:12 [dgarijo]
15:03:14 [dgarijo]
15:03:15 [tlebo]
15:03:16 [dgarijo]
15:03:23 [StephenCresswell]
15:03:32 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:03:44 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: minutes of Sep 22 telecon
15:03:53 [Luc]
15:04:16 [Zakim]
15:04:16 [Yogesh]
Luc: action assigned to satya on doing named graph e.g.
15:04:28 [GK]
zakin, ??P46 is me
15:04:35 [Yogesh]
satya: paolo closed it last week.
15:04:49 [pgroth]
i think that action was closed
15:04:53 [Luc]
TOPIC: First Public Working Drafts
15:05:22 [Yogesh]
luc: data model doc to be released this week as FPWD
15:05:28 [Luc]
15:05:30 [satya]
15:05:35 [Yogesh]
luc: feedback from participants and is it ok to release?
15:05:54 [Zakim]
15:05:56 [Zakim]
15:05:59 [Yogesh]
satya: has been raising issues. Do we address issues and continue working on doc after its released?
15:06:08 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P10 is me
15:06:10 [GK]
@Luc: I do *not* regard my comments today as blockers for release as FPWD
15:06:16 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:06:30 [Yogesh]
luc: first draft that is publicly released. Keep working on doc. To decide if there is anything blocking release.
15:06:47 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:06:57 [Yogesh]
satya: is ok with releasing it.
15:07:21 [Yogesh]
luc: keep adding comments so readers know it is a work in progress.
15:07:23 [Luc]
15:07:29 [Luc]
ack satya
15:07:29 [Zakim]
15:07:36 [jcheney]
zakim, ??P15 is me
15:07:36 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:07:39 [smiles]
I take a similar position to Graham - none of my comments blockers
15:07:46 [Zakim]
15:08:17 [Yogesh]
luc: need to vote formally on release. this is the first docs being released by group. Need to contact W3C director and point to the resolution.
15:08:25 [Luc]
proposed: release the data model document as a FPWD
15:08:40 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
15:08:58 [ericstephan]
+1 (PNNL)
15:08:58 [satya]
+1 (IE)
15:08:59 [khalidbelhajjame]
+1 (University of Manchester)
15:08:59 [smiles]
+1 (IE)
15:09:00 [Yogesh]
+1 (IE)
15:09:02 [pgroth]
+1 (VUA)
15:09:02 [GK]
+1 (Oxford U)
15:09:03 [Curt]
+1 (NASA)
15:09:09 [jcheney]
+1 (U Edinburgh)
15:09:16 [Paolo]
Hi everybody I'm on IRC but not phone - call overlap
15:09:26 [Yogesh]
sandro: please add affiliation in parantheses after +1. Invited experts to say IE
15:09:28 [dgarijo]
15:09:38 [sandro]
Yolanda: +1 (IE)
15:09:42 [dgarijo]
15:10:11 [dgarijo]
yea, sorry about that :(
15:10:23 [Luc]
ACCEPTED: release the data model document as a FPWD
15:10:41 [Zakim]
15:10:49 [pgroth]
15:10:56 [Yogesh]
sandro: need to send email to a list of people about this. will send link.
15:11:15 [GK]
q+, to say: need to use ReSpect features to generate the HTML
15:11:16 [Yogesh]
sandro: editors need to check all links are good, valid CSS/html, etc.
15:11:20 [Luc]
15:11:53 [Yogesh]
GK: need to use ReSpect features to generate the HTML. If so, output should be compliant (but not broken links)
15:12:00 [Luc]
15:12:27 [Yogesh]
luc: editors of other two docs, whats the timetable?
15:12:51 [Yogesh]
GK: Paul will make a call
15:12:56 [sandro]
Here are the full publication rules for a First Public Working Draft:
15:13:02 [GK]
15:13:11 [pgroth]
i think we need some more time before the paq is ready
15:13:20 [pgroth]
maybe 1 week or so
15:13:28 [Yogesh]
Luc: issue with entities that was postponed. has dustr settled?
15:13:56 [sandro]
Luc, the steps for publication approval are:
15:14:10 [Luc]
Thanks Sandro
15:14:11 [Yogesh]
GK: has enough info to draft the changes to entities. Will be away for 2 weeks after this week. Did not expect to do substantial work on it after this point.
15:14:34 [Yogesh]
GK: the doc can go out without the extra drafting, but will defer to Paul's call
15:14:46 [Yogesh]
luc: will talk 1:1 with Paul to understand issue.
15:15:06 [pgroth]
15:15:37 [Yogesh]
satya: formal model substantial work done , thanks to stian, khalid, daniel.
15:15:51 [Yogesh]
satya: will have a call nect Monday, but will be able to release before that
15:16:02 [jorn]
jorn has joined #prov
15:16:10 [Yogesh]
satya: will send mail to luc, paul and sandro to see if its ready to release
15:16:16 [Yogesh]
luc: decision has to be made by group
15:16:34 [Yogesh]
luc: WG should have time to go through it before decision is made
15:16:45 [Luc]
15:16:47 [Yogesh]
satya: wull send link to WG and we can vote on next week's call
15:16:48 [pgroth]
q+ to ask whether we should go for
15:17:00 [GK]
@pgroth - I wanted to draft a section discussing contexts and Entities, and the that provenance assertions *could* be applicable to multiple Entities. Setting this out would make it easier to address some of the issues about contexts and anchors.
15:17:12 [Luc]
ack pgroth
15:17:12 [Zakim]
pgroth, you wanted to ask whether we should go for
15:17:21 [Luc]
paul, what did you want say?
15:17:28 [pgroth]
I'm not on the phone, but just wanted to ask whether we should wait for the ontology before releasing the conceptual model
15:17:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.524.aadd
15:17:53 [khalidbelhajjame]
I don't think we should wait
15:17:57 [Luc]
15:18:03 [smiles]
depends how long it takes to agree the formal model...
15:18:04 [dgarijo]
me neither. The ontology has to be still tested
15:18:18 [GK]
That's a good question: AFAICT, developers (@stain?) are working from the ontology doc.
15:18:26 [ericstephan]
don't wait
15:18:32 [Yogesh]
luc: doesnt see a sense that we should wait
15:18:44 [pgroth]
15:18:50 [tlebo]
comments on the conceptual model from the public will facilitate the OWL development.
15:19:09 [pgroth]
seems like there is consensus to release on the irc
15:19:13 [Yogesh]
GK: unclear about this. Stian has been doing prototyping based on ontology, not conceptual. There may be complementary info. But should not unecessarily hold things up.
15:19:30 [Yogesh]
luc: stian was implementing in OWL to inform the OWL design
15:19:38 [Yogesh]
luc: stian, do you have comments?
15:19:56 [Yogesh]
who is here?
15:19:59 [Yogesh]
zakim, who is here?
15:19:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vinh, Yogesh, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, Luc, +1.509.967.aabb, ??P8, ??P4, +1.315.330.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, ??P46, khalidbelhajjame, Sandro, jcheney, Yolanda, ??P25,
15:20:03 [Zakim]
... +1.512.524.aadd
15:20:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jorn, jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, GK, tlebo, Paolo, StephenCresswell, satya, smiles, dgarijo, Curt, ericstephan, Yogesh, pgroth, Vinh, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, trackbot,
15:20:06 [Zakim]
... stain, sandro
15:20:36 [Yogesh]
luc: will take a few days before it is released. there will be an announcement that other docs will follow. we can proceed wth conceptual model and OWL spec will be ready soon
15:20:42 [dgarijo]
@GK: @stain used the ontology to test it, yes. But he made also based on the definitions of the conceptual model, to help us improve it :)
15:20:44 [Luc]
Topic: Connection Task Force
15:21:04 [Luc]
15:21:21 [Yogesh]
ericstephan: 1st F2F meeting had preliminary thoughts.
15:21:52 [Yogesh]
ericstephan: several suggestions on other communities, standards bodies inside W3C and other special interest areas
15:22:31 [Yogesh]
...Agreed that will develop a report and provide connections.
15:22:32 [Yogesh]
...Link is available online that shows the degrees of connections.
15:22:38 [Luc]
15:22:40 [Yogesh]
...Please thae a look and give feedback.
15:22:54 [Yogesh]
15:23:21 [Yogesh]
luc: Nice to see potential impact on other commnities. What was rationale?
15:23:56 [Yogesh]
ericstephan: "Connectivity Approaches to Community " summarizes ratonale. 1 star means we know them, but they dont know us.
15:24:20 [Yogesh]
...4 stars means we know a name/person who writes a section for us.
15:24:23 [Luc]
15:24:23 [GK]
q+ to ask if you are looking for additional help to build more definite links with lower star ratings; more generally, what are the specific actions you asosciate with different ratings?
15:24:28 [Luc]
ack gk
15:24:28 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask if you are looking for additional help to build more definite links with lower star ratings; more generally, what are the specific actions you asosciate with
15:24:31 [Zakim]
... different ratings?
15:25:05 [Yogesh]
GK: are you looking to strengthen the connections for low stars?
15:25:21 [smiles]
15:25:57 [Zakim]
15:26:11 [Yogesh]
ericstephan: stars are access to community. Completed the report after F2F but this is living doc that will add connections and increase stars.
15:26:28 [Zakim]
15:26:32 [jorn]
zakim, ??p25 is me
15:26:32 [Zakim]
+jorn; got it
15:26:51 [Luc]
15:26:55 [Yogesh]
Kai has been collaborating to get info
15:28:12 [Yogesh]
eGovenment group has an interest in provenance.
15:28:55 [Yogesh]
stephen: have been on their conference call. They are interested in recommending an approach.
15:29:56 [Luc]
ack smiles
15:30:05 [Zakim]
15:30:14 [Zakim]
15:31:50 [Luc]
15:32:13 [Zakim]
15:32:31 [Paolo]
zakim, ??P40 is me
15:32:31 [Zakim]
+Paolo; got it
15:32:39 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has joined #prov
15:32:58 [Zakim]
- +1.512.524.aadd
15:33:23 [Yogesh]
sorry, my IRC has been giving problems
15:33:54 [Luc]
15:34:12 [Luc]
Topic: primer
15:34:32 [Yogesh]
Simon: put the skeleton together
15:34:37 [smiles]
15:34:53 [Yogesh]
looking for comments. Yolanda will coedit the primer. Will be talking tomorrow.
15:35:11 [Yogesh]
...Yolanda suggested starting points for people from different perspectives.
15:35:36 [Yogesh]
...Others can volunteer next week to contribute to primer.
15:35:47 [Yogesh]
...Will set out well defined actvities for them.
15:36:05 [GK]
@smiles: might want to copy overview diagram from the model doc? I think it bears repeating :)
15:36:06 [Yogesh]
..Expect a primer by end of Oct as a draft for WG to consider.
15:36:12 [Luc]
15:36:16 [Yogesh]
Luc: Will have primer agenda for next week.
15:36:39 [Yogesh]
Simaon: May not be able to make it next week. Will check if Yolanda can make it. Will send email.
15:36:39 [Luc]
15:36:50 [Yogesh]
Yolanda: will be able to join next week.
15:36:56 [Luc]
topic: formal model document
15:37:04 [satya]
I guess the current structure of the Primer is initial version - so will comment later
15:37:59 [Yogesh]
satya: had feedback. Luc raised an issue. satya has 2 sections to look into: extension section and formal semantics
15:38:23 [Yogesh]
...will send email on Monday for WG to review
15:38:26 [Luc]
15:39:36 [Yogesh]
satya: Will try to release a first version that may change based on feedback
15:40:13 [dgarijo]
15:40:30 [Yogesh]
...Discusssions on provenance container and entity and subclasses has led to changes. But cant provide a timeline for fixed ontology till a formal conceptual model is in place.
15:40:33 [Luc]
ack d
15:40:34 [GK]
q+ to ask if there's a criterion for deciding what subclasses to define
15:40:56 [Yogesh]
Daniel: Converging to stablility. Testing usecases.
15:41:00 [Luc]
ack gk
15:41:00 [Zakim]
GK, you wanted to ask if there's a criterion for deciding what subclasses to define
15:41:55 [Zakim]
15:42:05 [Zakim]
15:42:21 [Luc]
yogesh, are you still here?
15:42:32 [Yogesh]
satya: agrees with GK. If we do not assert subclass of relationship, then we have limit entailments. Tradeoff.
15:42:45 [Luc]
15:42:46 [Yogesh]
...We can keep all of them for now without asserting subclass of relationship.
15:43:40 [Yogesh]
satya: Have been discussing the use of roles. Associating qualifiers wth relationships, or with Process executions was discussed.
15:44:32 [Yogesh]
...For now, agreed to use roles until there are clear cases highlighting its shortcomings.
15:44:54 [Yogesh]
...Similarly, time of process start and stop are assertions or qualifiers on the process entities, not relationships.
15:45:29 [Yogesh]
luc: Someone mentioned usecases being built. Is there a catalog? All cant go into fomal doc but may be useful to test interop.
15:45:47 [Yogesh]
sayta: Using crime scene scenario and the one stain has done.
15:45:51 [tlebo]
15:46:18 [Yogesh]
Luc: Is there something even smaller? Entity between two process executions with roles
15:46:35 [Luc]
15:46:36 [tlebo] is collecting the individual OWL axioms and collects examples
15:46:40 [Luc]
ack tl
15:46:43 [khalidbelhajjame]
Stian has already encode the workflow provenance example.
15:46:43 [Yogesh]
satya: Corolla car example would be useful
15:46:48 [khalidbelhajjame]
It is in the mercurial
15:47:02 [Luc]
15:47:33 [Yogesh]
Luc: can you put this link in the top level page?
15:47:37 [GK]
I can see the readme
15:47:40 [Luc]
15:48:12 [Yogesh]
Luc: postponed discussions on accounts?
15:48:36 [Yogesh]
satya: Still some discussion between account, provenance collections and containers.
15:48:50 [Yogesh]
...Can definitely model container right now. Are accounts distinct?
15:48:56 [Yogesh]
Luc: Yes, in the conceptual model.
15:49:28 [Paolo]
Accounts can be nested, for example
15:49:38 [dgarijo]
I saw accounts as something more specific than a prov container.
15:49:43 [Yogesh]
satya: can we rename container as something else?
15:50:03 [dgarijo]
so a container could, for instance, contain several accounts
15:50:21 [Yogesh]
Luc: named graphs are scoping construct for triples with metadata associated. But construct is not there is OWL.
15:50:26 [tlebo]
named graphs can be described in OWL using
15:50:35 [khalidbelhajjame]
I would suggest to keep them separate, while ProvenanceContainer is a (Random) bundle of assertions, accounts should be used when there is scoping. So, although structurally they are similar, semantically they are not.
15:50:43 [Yogesh]
...How can we express accounts without named graphs in OWL?
15:50:52 [Yogesh]
satya: we'll need a class for that in OWL.
15:50:54 [dgarijo]
@khalid: +1
15:51:11 [Yogesh]
...Containers are similar to scoping in named graphs.
15:51:34 [dgarijo]
@khalid: but they are not disjoint. A container can be an account.
15:51:40 [GK]
I think it will depend very much on how the RDF group introduce named graphs...
15:51:42 [Yogesh]
...Containers bundle assertions and we can associate metadata with the cotainers.
15:51:48 [khalidbelhajjame]
@daniel, yes
15:51:56 [tlebo]
15:52:10 [Luc]
15:52:13 [Yogesh]
Luc: How will container class be instantiated into named graphs in RDF?
15:52:15 [tlebo] describes named graphs
15:52:18 [GK]
... is as literals, then they can appear ibn OWL datatype properties, but the embedded RDF semantics may be opaque
15:52:38 [tlebo]
naming named graphs within a SPARQL endpoint (an approach):
15:52:46 [dgarijo]
we can allways avoid usinog named graphs in owl: create class account and a relationship of containment to each of the other concepts.
15:53:00 [GK]
... if datasets (ala SPARQL) then I'm not sure how that would carry over.
15:53:29 [dgarijo]
15:53:32 [Luc]
15:53:33 [Yogesh]
satya: no construct for provenance assertion in model. Should we model it in ontology?
15:53:40 [Luc]
ack tl
15:54:01 [khalidbelhajjame]
Ok, I see your point Satya. In that case, we can just explain that in the HTML document without adding explicit classes in the OWL ontology
15:54:03 [GK]
Yes: "Provenance assertion" is an ASN construct; representation in RDF is just an RDF assertion, I think.
15:54:10 [Yogesh]
tlebo: Variety of work is in draft, like sparql endpoint
15:54:21 [Yogesh]
...We can extend this vocabulary.
15:54:46 [Yogesh]
Luc: will you have a proposal on accounts and containers by the time the doc is released as FPWD?
15:54:54 [satya]
@Khalid, GK: +1
15:54:55 [Luc]
15:55:01 [Yogesh]
tleb: Will have a first draft on it.
15:55:02 [Luc]
ack dg
15:55:22 [tlebo]
daniel: make prov:Account (don't use named graphs)
15:55:46 [Luc]
15:55:57 [Yogesh]
Daniel: Named graphs are not yet standarized. Not helpful to reply on it.
15:56:06 [tlebo]
sd:NamedGraph will need to be a subclass prov:Account - since accounts can be sitting elsewhere.
15:56:10 [tlebo]
15:56:52 [GK]
Ah... with named graphs, can use owl:import?
15:56:55 [satya]
15:57:00 [tlebo]
15:57:01 [Luc]
ack tl
15:57:21 [Yogesh]
satya: defers to ntology telecon, but what does sitting "elsewhere" mean?
15:57:33 [Zakim]
15:57:50 [Luc]
15:57:55 [Luc]
ack saty
15:57:58 [tlebo]
satya: can you capture your question?
15:58:57 [Yogesh]
Luc: Will be good to see a proposal for named graphs and go to RDF group and ask if they can support this
15:59:08 [Luc]
15:59:28 [Zakim]
15:59:28 [Yogesh]
list attendees
15:59:29 [Zakim]
- +1.315.330.aacc
15:59:29 [Zakim]
15:59:30 [Zakim]
15:59:31 [Zakim]
15:59:32 [Zakim]
15:59:32 [Zakim]
- +1.509.967.aabb
15:59:33 [Zakim]
15:59:40 [satya]
Tm, What is the construct that we can use for set of provenance assertions other than named graphs
15:59:42 [Luc]
yogesh, i ll do the necessary incantations from here
15:59:47 [Yogesh]
thanks luc
15:59:49 [satya]
15:59:51 [Zakim]
15:59:53 [Zakim]
15:59:55 [Zakim]
15:59:56 [Zakim]
15:59:59 [Zakim]
16:00:00 [Zakim]
16:00:01 [Luc]
rrsagent, set log public
16:00:07 [Luc]
thanks for scribing, yogesh
16:00:14 [Luc]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Luc
16:00:14 [Yogesh]
zakim, part
16:00:17 [Yogesh]
Yogesh has left #prov
16:00:19 [Zakim]
16:00:25 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Vinh, Yogesh, Curt_Tilmes, dgarijo, Luc, +1.509.967.aabb, +1.315.330.aacc, Satya_Sahoo, Sandro, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, Yolanda,
16:00:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #prov
16:00:30 [Zakim]
... +1.512.524.aadd, jorn, Paolo
16:00:30 [Luc]
trackbot, end telcon
16:00:46 [GK]
GK has left #prov
16:03:33 [stain]
uhm.. I'm in a wrong time zone :-((
16:03:42 [sandro]
16:03:44 [stain]
that's what insurance company does to your head
16:03:53 [stain]
I've spent the morning on the phone with them..
16:04:10 [stain]
ok, I hope everyting was decided now then :)
16:19:41 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #prov
17:01:33 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
18:01:32 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #prov