IRC log of prov on 2011-10-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:51:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-prov-irc
14:51:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #prov
14:51:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
14:51:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:51:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:51:40 [trackbot]
Date: 06 October 2011
14:51:53 [pgroth]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.06
14:52:02 [pgroth]
Chair: Paul Groth
14:52:12 [pgroth]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:52:29 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is here?
14:52:29 [Zakim]
sorry, pgroth, I don't know what conference this is
14:52:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:52:42 [pgroth]
Zakim, this will be PROV
14:52:54 [Zakim]
ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:53:06 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is here?
14:53:14 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, pgroth
14:53:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, pgroth, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:53:39 [stain_]
stain_ has joined #prov
14:53:50 [stain_]
two of me!
14:55:18 [zednik]
zednik has joined #prov
14:55:39 [Zakim]
SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:55:46 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:55:48 [pgroth]
Zakim, who is on the call?
14:55:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller]
14:56:06 [pgroth]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:56:06 [Zakim]
+pgroth; got it
14:56:19 [pgroth]
does anyone want to scribe?
14:57:12 [Luc]
Luc has joined #prov
14:57:15 [Curt]
Curt has joined #prov
14:57:56 [pgroth]
Regrets: Paolo Missier
14:58:00 [Zakim]
+Curt_Tilmes
14:58:58 [Zakim]
+ +44.789.470.aaaa
14:59:05 [Zakim]
+Luc
14:59:14 [stain]
Zakim, +44.789.470.aaaa is me
14:59:14 [Zakim]
+stain; got it
14:59:16 [pgroth]
Stephan can you scribe?
14:59:27 [ericstephan]
ericstephan has joined #prov
14:59:45 [jcheney]
jcheney has joined #prov
15:00:14 [Zakim]
+??P64
15:00:19 [jcheney]
zakim, ??p64 is me
15:00:31 [Zakim]
+??P65
15:00:44 [Zakim]
+jcheney; got it
15:00:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.509.967.aabb
15:00:49 [satya]
satya has joined #prov
15:00:51 [pgroth]
scribe anybody?
15:00:53 [khalidbelhajjame]
khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:00:58 [Christine]
Christine has joined #prov
15:01:05 [Zakim]
+??P73
15:01:11 [tlebo]
tlebo has joined #prov
15:01:15 [Zakim]
+Satya_Sahoo
15:01:17 [YolandaGil]
YolandaGil has joined #prov
15:01:32 [kai]
kai has joined #prov
15:01:42 [tlebo]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.315.330.aacc
15:02:03 [tlebo]
zakim, aac is lebot
15:02:06 [stain]
yes, Satya would be talking a bit today ;)
15:02:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pgroth, Curt_Tilmes, stain, Luc, jcheney, ??P65, +1.509.967.aabb, ??P73, Satya_Sahoo, +1.315.330.aacc
15:02:10 [tlebo]
zakim, 315 is me
15:02:25 [tlebo]
zakim, aacc is tlebo
15:02:30 [Zakim]
+??P48
15:02:31 [Zakim]
sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named 'aac'
15:02:36 [kai]
zakim, ??P48 is probably me.
15:02:37 [tlebo]
zakim, just know what I mean!
15:02:47 [Zakim]
sorry, tlebo, I do not recognize a party named '315'
15:02:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.633.aadd
15:02:55 [Zakim]
+??P84
15:02:57 [Zakim]
+tlebo; got it
15:02:59 [Zakim]
+kai?; got it
15:03:01 [pgroth]
pgroth: ask for scribes
15:03:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'just know what I mean!', tlebo
15:03:20 [pgroth]
Scribe: ericstephan
15:03:30 [Zakim]
+Sandro
15:03:49 [StephenCresswell]
StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:03:54 [pgroth]
Minutes
15:03:55 [pgroth]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-09-29
15:04:02 [Zakim]
+??P55
15:04:03 [pgroth]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of Sep 29 telecon
15:04:05 [satya]
+1
15:04:07 [stain]
Zakim never recognizes me.. on http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3 exactly what do I need to fill in? stain or ssoiland or Stian Soiland-Reyes? +44....aaa or with the real digits?
15:04:08 [ericstephan]
pgroth: proposal to accept minutes
15:04:09 [jcheney]
+1
15:04:09 [Curt]
+1
15:04:10 [kai]
+1
15:04:11 [khalidbelhajjame]
+1
15:04:11 [ericstephan]
+1
15:04:18 [stain]
+1
15:04:19 [tlebo]
+1
15:04:24 [stain]
I was not there, but you represented me well ;)
15:04:31 [khalidbelhajjame]
zakim, ??P84 is me
15:04:39 [pgroth]
ACCEPTED minutes from last week
15:04:55 [ericstephan]
pgroth: no action items to review
15:05:02 [pgroth]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Scribes
15:05:19 [ericstephan]
pgroth: reminder we need scribes in advance. Please sign up.
15:05:30 [pgroth]
TOPIC: Primer
15:05:34 [Zakim]
+khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:05:56 [ericstephan]
yolanda: discussing Primer
15:06:08 [YolandaGil]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html
15:06:16 [ericstephan]
yolanda: Initial plan was developed last Friday
15:06:34 [ericstephan]
yolanda: two major sections...
15:06:51 [ericstephan]
yolanda: Intro to provenance concepts...informal
15:07:05 [ericstephan]
yolanda: Second half worked out examples
15:07:34 [ericstephan]
yolanda: wants to use examples based on ths same general scenario
15:08:25 [tlebo]
+q to mention http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples
15:08:27 [ericstephan]
yolanda: Simon created skeleton doc.
15:09:34 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: For each example section Yolanda/Simon asked for people to fill out each part
15:10:08 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: Having the doc ready in 3-4 weeks sufficient?
15:10:49 [tlebo]
3-4 weeks is reasonable goal.
15:10:49 [Luc]
it's ambitious, I believe
15:11:00 [tlebo]
(emphasis on "goal")
15:11:17 [stain]
Is that 3-4 weeks for first public draft of the primer, or to be ready for in-group review?
15:11:23 [pgroth]
q?
15:11:26 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: 2 weeks the group would work out examples. 2 weeks would be reviewed by the group overall
15:11:46 [YolandaGil]
first in group review Stian
15:11:50 [ericstephan]
Tim: Has been collecting examples in the wiki that could be drawn upon
15:11:55 [pgroth]
q?
15:11:55 [Luc]
q+
15:11:56 [satya]
+1 for including the examples by Tim
15:11:57 [stain]
that's very helpful, tlebo
15:11:59 [pgroth]
ack tlebo
15:11:59 [Zakim]
tlebo, you wanted to mention http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples
15:12:01 [satya]
q+
15:12:02 [tlebo]
q-
15:12:17 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:12:18 [khalidbelhajjame]
+q
15:12:42 [ericstephan]
Luc: Very ambitious, it would be good to have this within the month for the overall group
15:13:34 [stain]
I've done my examples both in TTL and PROV-ASN - but manually, of course
15:13:39 [satya]
Luc is mentioning this: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/#OWL_Syntaxes
15:13:47 [ericstephan]
Luc: If the examples could be organized so that they could be expressed in different ways this would be nice
15:14:22 [pgroth]
q?
15:14:24 [ericstephan]
Luc: We want to make sure the Primer stays insync with the schemas as they emerge. Script checks would be nice
15:14:52 [stain]
many JS-experts who know how to do that include-thingie?
15:15:07 [tlebo]
automated verification of examples "stuck in HTML" is a great idea. I'm willing to take lead on that.
15:15:08 [ericstephan]
Luc: Within the context of the primer, the ontology group should be able to give you guidance
15:15:10 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:15:13 [stain]
alternatively an XHTML-extraction-tool could try to dump out everything say <pre class="example">
15:15:25 [tlebo]
+1 @stian
15:15:34 [Luc]
respect.js allows for inclusion of files ...
15:15:45 [ericstephan]
Satya: Overview comments...the primer should cover the modeling aspects, but also the querying aspects
15:16:20 [ericstephan]
Satya: It would be helpful with a scenario like the data model group
15:16:26 [Luc]
respec.js allows for inclusion of files ...
15:16:42 [pgroth]
q?
15:16:46 [Luc]
q+
15:16:52 [ericstephan]
Satya: After the scenario bring out these capabiltieis
15:17:31 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: Simon and I talked about bringing out three different perspectives of provenance
15:17:55 [Luc]
q-
15:18:05 [stain]
<div data-include='myDatatypes.xsd'></div>
15:18:09 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: Document, process, and other perspectives views might be helpful
15:18:16 [Luc]
q+ to ask if primer is just about model or also about PAQ
15:18:24 [satya]
@Yolanda +1
15:18:28 [pgroth]
ack khalidbelhajjame
15:19:09 [ericstephan]
Khalid: My only worry is hitting the relationship between concepts...could we give concepts in relationship to importance so that the reader could follow it?
15:19:26 [tlebo]
+1 daniel, deemphasizing the focus on the concepts might make it more approachable.
15:19:30 [pgroth]
q?
15:19:39 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: It would definitely make the primer more usable.
15:19:45 [pgroth]
ack luc
15:19:45 [Zakim]
Luc, you wanted to ask if primer is just about model or also about PAQ
15:19:56 [stain]
@khalidbelhajjame +1 - the other two documents are already "sequential" by class/property, so a non-sequential prioritised example would help
15:20:26 [ericstephan]
Luc: Two questions...It feels like the primer is just about the provenance ontology, what about the provenance of (sorry couldn't hear)
15:20:50 [stain]
Luc: ... provenance access and query document
15:21:20 [ericstephan]
Luc: Second point a number of common relations in the data model not listed here...its important that they are addressed.
15:22:08 [ericstephan]
Yolanda: I think it would be good to have a first draft to see what needs to be improved...to show what is shown in primer vs practice
15:22:11 [tlebo]
pushing shortcut aspects to Best Practices makes sense.
15:22:14 [pgroth]
q?
15:23:03 [tlebo]
Primer: some reads a couple of times, then moves to regularly reference the Best Practices for design solutions to apply to their problems.
15:23:04 [ericstephan]
Luc: For now the primer will focus on the core concpets of the model, but extensions addressed later...
15:23:10 [tlebo]
*someone
15:23:31 [pgroth]
q?
15:23:34 [ericstephan]
pgroth: I'd like to discuss more, perhaps later will raise issue later
15:23:55 [tlebo]
retweet: someone reads the Primer a couple of times, then moves to regularly reference the Best Practices Document to get design solutions and apply them to their problems.
15:24:11 [pgroth]
TOPIC: Renaming Deliverables
15:24:50 [pgroth]
Proposed: Drop 'formel model' name for referring to the semantic web ontology
15:25:04 [ericstephan]
pgroth: comments on this?
15:25:15 [satya]
briefly discussed during ontology call
15:25:29 [jcheney]
+1
15:25:29 [khalidbelhajjame]
+1
15:25:30 [stain]
+1
15:25:30 [Curt]
+1
15:25:30 [satya]
+1
15:25:32 [zednik]
+1
15:25:32 [tlebo]
+1 x10^5; I suggest renaming it to "PROV OWL Encoding"
15:25:33 [ericstephan]
+1
15:25:40 [kai]
+1
15:25:40 [YolandaGil]
+1
15:25:57 [pgroth]
APPROVED: Drop 'formel model' name for referring to the semantic web ontology
15:25:59 [satya]
q+
15:26:01 [ericstephan]
pgroth: approved
15:26:17 [satya]
PROV Ontology Model (also PROV ontology)
15:26:44 [satya]
q-
15:26:47 [khalidbelhajjame]
Paolo isn't on the call, but he was suggesting PROV-Onto
15:26:51 [ericstephan]
pgroth: Put suggested name on the mailing list vote next week
15:27:05 [pgroth]
q?
15:27:30 [pgroth]
TOPIC: OWL Ontology
15:27:42 [tlebo]
does anyone know which issue the formal renaming is?
15:27:52 [ericstephan]
pgroth: satya review of ontology
15:28:10 [stain]
I don't think there is an official issue yet for the name
15:28:13 [ericstephan]
Satya: requested reviews, feedback and comments yesterday
15:28:45 [ericstephan]
Satya: Covered all sections we planned to do, lots of editing ahead, ready for review from end to end.
15:29:17 [ericstephan]
Satya: Jcheney acting as user perpsective reviewer
15:29:59 [tlebo]
(what is the subject of the email proposing the Formal Model rename? It's buried :-)
15:30:19 [ericstephan]
Satya: need to formalize concepts in OWL framework and explain how it can be used by another ontology
15:30:35 [pgroth]
q?
15:30:37 [ericstephan]
Satya: Describe the inferences given that its an OWL ontology
15:30:46 [pgroth]
q?
15:30:55 [khalidbelhajjame]
Tim, here is the subject "proposal: drop 'formal model' terminology"
15:31:15 [ericstephan]
pgroth: what do you think needs to be done before making the owl ontology a first public working draft
15:31:36 [Luc]
@tlebo, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0338.html
15:31:49 [ericstephan]
satya: currently making edits over the next week and doing the preliminary review as described earlier
15:31:59 [pgroth]
q?
15:32:30 [ericstephan]
pgroth: a couple of issues making sure ontology is integrated with model...issue of ACCOUNT
15:32:32 [tlebo]
(created issues on http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/120)
15:32:45 [tlebo]
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts
15:33:01 [zednik]
q+
15:33:02 [ericstephan]
tlebo: discussion starts with named graphs...
15:33:26 [ericstephan]
tlebo: named graphs are just by reference not value
15:33:35 [zednik]
q-
15:33:58 [ericstephan]
tlebo: shows how named graphs are represented and model provenance accounts using named graphs
15:34:26 [ericstephan]
tlebo: named metagraphs are pairs of graphs, not commonly practiced in the rdf community
15:35:01 [ericstephan]
tlebo: One graph naming another, draw distinction where these graphs are (metagraphs)
15:35:39 [ericstephan]
tlebo: example uses: cache a graph off the web storing it in your local graph
15:36:28 [ericstephan]
tlebo: important distinction from traditional named graph communities, is that it is part of RDF as well as a SPARQL endpoint
15:37:04 [pgroth]
q?
15:37:05 [Luc]
q+
15:37:12 [ericstephan]
tlebo: let me know if you have any comments or suggestions
15:37:34 [ericstephan]
Luc: It looks very clear, what is the implication of this in the ontology?
15:37:52 [ericstephan]
Tlebo: Needs to be an assertion process execution
15:38:11 [ericstephan]
Tlebo: subclasses within classes of ontology
15:38:59 [ericstephan]
Luc: in the abstract model have assertions made by two entities that are complements of each other. How would it work in this context? Is it only available at the RDF level?
15:39:56 [ericstephan]
Luc: Would there be any constructs any assertions belong to a given account?
15:40:24 [satya]
That overlaps with notion of a container structure containing a set of assertions, hence belonging to the container
15:40:39 [khalidbelhajjame]
I think the short answer to Luc's question is no.
15:40:43 [pgroth]
q?
15:40:47 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:41:16 [satya]
@Tim: Right - which is also supported by SPARQL
15:41:17 [ericstephan]
Tlebo: there would be a way of specifying a named graph that was asserted.
15:41:25 [khalidbelhajjame]
Luc, you are right
15:41:30 [ericstephan]
Luc: The account isn't at the owl level?
15:41:31 [pgroth]
but they will be
15:41:41 [pgroth]
q?
15:41:50 [ericstephan]
Tlebo: writing up at the owl level
15:42:05 [ericstephan]
sandro: (hard to hear)
15:42:43 [ericstephan]
sandro: is the notion of named graphs also assuming nothing is changed?
15:43:01 [ericstephan]
tlebo: quite the opposite changing all the time
15:43:19 [ericstephan]
tlebo: account asserted at a particular time.
15:44:14 [ericstephan]
tlebo: these things can move, they don't have to
15:44:46 [ericstephan]
tlebo: you can serialize that named graph and make it an annotation for your account., you don't have to for that account assertion
15:44:56 [ericstephan]
sandro: formal definition of named graph?
15:45:13 [ericstephan]
tlebo: specification of a subset of an RDF named graph
15:45:41 [ericstephan]
tlebo: location is important here, it is a location, and the constant can change at any time
15:46:02 [pgroth]
q?
15:46:03 [ericstephan]
sandro: (can't hear)
15:46:12 [pgroth]
ack Sandro
15:46:39 [ericstephan]
pgroth: working with Richard and working through this notion in the provenance rdf list
15:46:41 [Luc]
q+
15:47:02 [ericstephan]
Luc: Tim, have you seen that in the data model accounts they can be hierarchical?
15:47:25 [satya]
No, containment relation for nested accounts
15:47:28 [pgroth]
q?
15:47:28 [ericstephan]
Tlebo: I wasn't aware of the hierarchy, but will make sure nesting is accounted for
15:47:29 [satya]
in RDF
15:47:35 [pgroth]
ack LUc
15:47:35 [satya]
q+
15:48:13 [Luc]
q+
15:48:17 [ericstephan]
satya: Luc and Tim if you read account, talks about scoping the identities and semantic constraints. They have global context cannot scope
15:48:19 [pgroth]
ack satya
15:48:35 [ericstephan]
Tlebo: Because we are using URI we control what we are talking about
15:48:48 [ericstephan]
Satya: WIll point Tim to existing work...
15:49:46 [pgroth]
q?
15:49:51 [pgroth]
ack Luc
15:49:54 [ericstephan]
Luc: we need to be careful when we say we can't scope identifiers. What we are scoping is saying one thing about another resource...
15:50:11 [ericstephan]
Satya: I'll defer this to email...
15:51:06 [ericstephan]
Luc: We need to be careful when we refer to entity or resources.., please flag any unclear sentences
15:51:07 [pgroth]
q?
15:51:13 [Luc]
@tlebo, it's nice work indeed, thanks
15:51:39 [stain]
I'll poke Daniel
15:52:34 [khalidbelhajjame]
Also, we added a class Recipe
15:52:52 [ericstephan]
ericstephan: (sorry scribe was distracted Satya)
15:52:59 [pgroth]
q?
15:53:08 [pgroth]
First Public Working Drafts
15:53:16 [Luc]
@satya: there is an attribute location
15:53:38 [tlebo]
satya: we need a property to associate Entity to Location, so we are gearing up to propose prov:hadLocation domain Entity range Location .
15:54:20 [ericstephan]
pgroth: we need to get people interested in and get feedback..releasing ontology and model at the same time...whats the schedule?
15:55:27 [Luc]
@satya: ... and the qualifiers are in the DM
15:55:41 [ericstephan]
pgroth; volunteers for promoting first public working draft?
15:56:00 [satya]
@Luc: as Tim said, we need two terms - a term for location and a property for linking to location (maybe that is covered by notion of qualifier)
15:56:05 [ericstephan]
pgroth: blog posts or illustrative blog posts
15:56:06 [khalidbelhajjame]
Yes, I ll be interested in doing so
15:56:38 [satya]
@Luc: From Account current description: "Account expressions constitue a scope for identifiers" where identifiers I interpret to be URI
15:56:41 [ericstephan]
Yes I agree Paul
15:56:49 [stain]
I would be willing to promote as well
15:56:51 [Christine]
I agree too
15:56:56 [ericstephan]
pgroth: status of questionaire?
15:57:01 [stain]
excuse to wake up ye old blog..
15:57:38 [ericstephan]
zednik: should have a large influx from responses...getting it out there havent assessed feedback.
15:57:47 [stain]
we can just tweet it
15:57:50 [jcheney]
I'd be happy to send survey/FPWD announcment to research data management and DCC mailing lists.
15:58:04 [pgroth]
q?
15:58:20 [Zakim]
-??P55
15:58:21 [Luc]
thanks all, bye
15:58:21 [Zakim]
-Satya_Sahoo
15:58:22 [Zakim]
-tlebo
15:58:23 [Zakim]
-??P65
15:58:23 [Zakim]
-??P73
15:58:23 [Zakim]
-jcheney
15:58:24 [Zakim]
-stain
15:58:27 [Zakim]
-Sandro
15:58:28 [Zakim]
-Luc
15:58:31 [Zakim]
-Curt_Tilmes
15:58:34 [Zakim]
-kai?
15:58:35 [ericstephan]
any follow up duties for scribe?
15:58:52 [pgroth]
rrsagent, set log public
15:58:59 [pgroth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-prov-minutes.html pgroth
15:59:08 [pgroth]
trackbot, end telcon
15:59:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:59:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been pgroth, Curt_Tilmes, Luc, stain, jcheney, +1.509.967.aabb, Satya_Sahoo, +1.315.330.aacc, +1.518.633.aadd, tlebo, kai?, Sandro,
15:59:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:59:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-prov-minutes.html trackbot
15:59:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:59:10 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
15:59:12 [Zakim]
... khalidbelhajjame