14:35:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:35:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-prov-irc
14:35:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:35:31 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #prov
14:35:33 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
14:35:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:35:34 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:35:34 <trackbot> Date: 13 October 2011
14:35:35 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV 
14:35:35 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 25 minutes
14:35:49 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.13
14:36:02 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
14:36:10 <Luc> Scribe: Daniel Garijo
14:36:18 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public 
14:36:22 <Luc> Topic: Admin
14:44:19 <dgarijo> dgarijo has joined #prov
14:46:52 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
14:47:59 <Luc> @dgarijo, hi daniel, everything is set up for you
14:48:31 <dgarijo> Hi Luc, thanks a lot!
14:53:51 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:55:12 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:56:05 <satya> satya has joined #prov
14:56:06 <pgroth> pgroth has joined #prov
14:56:10 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
14:57:10 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:57:17 <Zakim> +??P4
14:57:20 <Zakim> +Luc
14:57:23 <Zakim> +??P6
14:57:29 <pgroth_> pgroth_ has joined #prov
14:57:30 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P4 is me
14:57:30 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
14:57:42 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P6 is me
14:57:42 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
14:58:18 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:58:22 <Curt> Curt has joined #prov
14:58:31 <pgroth_> Zkaim, +[IPCaller] is me
14:58:32 <smiles> smiles has joined #prov
14:58:47 <pgroth_> Zakim, [IPCaller] is me
14:58:47 <Zakim> +pgroth_; got it
14:58:48 <Zakim> +stain
14:59:04 <stain> finally recognized by the conference bridge!
14:59:12 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
14:59:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:59:53 <SamCoppens> SamCoppens has joined #prov
15:00:16 <Zakim> +bringert
15:00:21 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.13
15:00:24 <Paolo> Paolo has joined #prov
15:00:54 <Zakim> + +329331aaaa
15:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.509.375.aabb
15:01:02 <Zakim> +??P38
15:01:11 <Paolo> zakim ??P38 is me
15:01:20 <Luc> zakim, who is here?
15:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see khalidbelhajjame, Luc, dgarijo, pgroth_, stain, Curt_Tilmes, [IPcaller], bringert, +329331aaaa, +1.509.375.aabb, ??P38
15:01:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see Paolo, SamCoppens, smiles, Curt, pgroth_, khalidbelhajjame, satya, dgarijo, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:01:27 <SamCoppens> zakim, +329331aaaa is me
15:01:36 <Zakim> +SamCoppens; got it
15:01:52 <satya> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
15:02:03 <Zakim> +satya; got it
15:02:03 <dgarijo> Luc: look at the name of the formal model
15:02:31 <dgarijo> ... review of the agenda. Any other issues?
15:02:45 <Luc> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of Oct 06 telecon
15:02:48 <satya> +1
15:02:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:02:50 <dgarijo> +1
15:02:50 <Curt> +1
15:02:51 <SamCoppens> +1
15:02:56 <stain> +1
15:02:56 <Paolo> +1
15:03:24 <Luc> ACCEPTED: the minutes of Oct 06 telecon
15:03:45 <dgarijo> Luc: no actions to review in the tracker.
15:03:54 <dgarijo> ... scribes still needed.
15:03:58 <Luc> TOPIC: Name for 'ex-formal model' document
15:04:23 <dgarijo> ... formal name was confusing
15:04:42 <stain> q+
15:04:47 <dgarijo> ... what are the proposals of the ontology?
15:05:01 <Luc> q?
15:05:07 <JimMcCusker> JimMcCusker has joined #prov
15:05:09 <stain> PROV Ontology (PROV-O)
15:05:11 <Zakim> +??P11
15:05:12 <dgarijo> stain: prov-ontology
15:05:12 <khalidbelhajjame> Prov-O
15:05:25 <Yogesh> Yogesh has joined #prov
15:05:26 <Luc> ack stain
15:05:34 <JimMcCusker> Zakim, ??P11 is JimMcCusker
15:05:40 <pgroth_> +q
15:05:42 <stain> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/NameSuggestions lists current proposals
15:05:43 <dgarijo> Luc: any counterproposal?
15:05:51 <Zakim> +JimMcCusker; got it
15:05:55 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
15:06:07 <Luc> ack pgr
15:06:23 <dgarijo> paul: is prov-o general enough? (there could be other serializations not in owl).
15:06:25 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:06:39 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan
15:06:46 <dgarijo> ... for instance if we use riff.
15:06:52 <satya> @Paul: yes, I think that is a good point - hence we did not include OWL or OWL2 in name
15:07:02 <dgarijo> stian: should cover any technology in the future as well.
15:07:06 <Luc> q?
15:07:14 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
15:08:02 <Luc> q?
15:08:06 <pgroth_> ok seems fine to me
15:08:11 <dgarijo> satya: ontology should be enough to adress the technology issues.
15:08:12 <stain> @Satya +1  (sound is not too bad, btw)
15:08:14 <khalidbelhajjame> For other technologies to which we want to map the provennce model, we can use PROV-ASN
15:08:24 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-o-20111013/ does look slightly strange.. is it 0 or O? 
15:08:50 <dgarijo> Luc: comments: is ti 0 (zero) or O ?
15:08:55 <stain> or http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ for the latest version
15:08:58 <dgarijo> s/ti/it
15:09:19 <dgarijo> Luc: at some point we'll have to tackle named graphs.
15:09:28 <stain> Stian: Not particularly bothered by o/0 - just esthetics. 
15:09:30 <pgroth_> +q
15:09:35 <dgarijo> Luc: is it still right to talk about provenance ontology in that case?
15:10:03 <dgarijo> paul: by using "ontology" we could include everything under that
15:10:06 <Luc> ack pgr
15:10:07 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan
15:10:15 <Luc> sandro ??
15:10:48 <Luc> q?
15:11:05 <Paolo> prov-OM?
15:11:06 <dgarijo> Luc: if we decide this name, will we be able to change it in the future?
15:11:26 <dgarijo> ... prov-ONTO was also prpoposed
15:11:42 <pgroth_> +q
15:11:42 <dgarijo> stian: an ontology is already a model.
15:12:03 <dgarijo> stain: maybe the name should be similar to the paq document.
15:12:05 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:12:13 <satya> @Paolo PAM :)
15:12:49 <stain> @dgarijo - no, I meant that access-and-query is not a model, perhaps an architecture :) I meant that all 3 names won't match up with "model"
15:12:54 <Luc> q?
15:12:57 <Luc> ack pg
15:12:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:13:03 <dgarijo> paul: people on the mailing list say provenance ontology. prov-o captures it well. Maybe prov-sw, but is not a big issue
15:13:05 <Luc> PROPOSED: to adopt 'prov-o' as the short name for the PROV Ontology
15:13:12 <satya> +1
15:13:13 <JimMcCusker> +1
15:13:14 <dgarijo> +1
15:13:17 <Curt> +1
15:13:19 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
15:13:19 <SamCoppens> +1
15:13:20 <Paolo> +1
15:13:22 <stain> +1
15:13:22 <ericstephan> +1
15:13:28 <smiles> +1
15:13:35 <Luc> ACCEPTED: to adopt 'prov-o' as the short name for the PROV Ontology
15:13:49 <pgroth_> +q
15:13:55 <Luc> ack pg
15:14:01 <dgarijo> paul: how do we say it?
15:14:13 <satya> @Paul: like Bravo :)
15:14:17 <Curt> Rhymes with Bravo
15:14:26 <Luc> topic: PROV-DM FPWD
15:14:29 <satya> as Curt pointed out earlier ?
15:14:39 <dgarijo> Luc: date of release.
15:14:42 <kai> kai has joined #prov
15:14:55 <JimMcCusker> @Paul, I think that SKOS managed to avoid people knowing, I don't think it matters. I'm a skier, so I'll probably pronounce it like the city. :-)
15:14:58 <dgarijo> paolo: it is done. Have you got the url for it?
15:15:22 <Paolo> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html
15:15:52 <Paolo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/products/2
15:15:53 <dgarijo> ... the situation is that the document reflect the discussion on some of the issues (not all)
15:16:07 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-prov-dm-20111018/
15:16:46 <dgarijo> ... some of these received enough discussion that has not been reflected in the document, but working on it. Other discussion (as in event), does not map directly to some of the issues.
15:17:09 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:17:11 <dgarijo> ... what is going to happen next?
15:17:39 <dgarijo> Luc: try and prepare a timetable to see where we want to go in the next months
15:18:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:18:13 <dgarijo> ... bring proposals to vote for the next telecon, in order to be able to deliver the documents to the W3C on the dates
15:18:38 <dgarijo> paolo: where is the input is going to come from?
15:18:55 <pgroth_> the paq doesn't get to say anything ;-)
15:19:11 <dgarijo> ... already been interacting with other groups.
15:19:32 <Luc> q?
15:19:34 <satya> q+
15:19:43 <Luc> ack sat
15:20:14 <khalidbelhajjame> khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:20:27 <dgarijo> satya: regarding the issues that I was trying to raise: the role of constraints. We were trying to model the constraints in the ontology.
15:20:39 <dgarijo> ... suggest set of constraints as best practices.
15:20:42 <Luc> q?
15:21:26 <dgarijo> ... how should we consider this?
15:21:43 <Luc> q?
15:21:44 <satya> ok thanks
15:21:44 <dgarijo> Luc: we should not address this rigtht now (not the right time9
15:21:56 <dgarijo> s/9/)
15:22:53 <Luc> but this important, and we need to have this debate within the WG
15:23:06 <dgarijo> paul: we have an official statement that weill go out to get responses from the people. Divulgation of the report.
15:23:24 <Luc> q?
15:23:53 <dgarijo> Luc: connetion of the task force report.
15:24:55 <dgarijo> eric: drafted some text with kai. Share some of it with Paul. 
15:24:55 <khalidbelhajjame> would it be possible to share the text with everybody in the working group, just to see if ether are itmes that need to be discussed within the WG
15:25:08 <dgarijo> ... everyone is welcome to join the meeting
15:25:18 <Luc> q?
15:25:38 <kai> +1 (not on the phone today, just reading the minutes)
15:25:48 <Luc> topic: Towards prov-o document fpwd
15:25:51 <stain> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/ontology/Overview.html is current draft
15:26:42 <dgarijo> satya: update on the document. 2 directions: 1) to meet some of the syntatic requirements (most of it done)
15:26:42 <khalidbelhajjame> Items to report from the Formal model (or ontology) group
15:26:44 <khalidbelhajjame> - Working on validating and making the html document compliant with the requirements. 
15:26:46 <khalidbelhajjame> Satya identified the tasks need to be done for that purpose, and we assigned the list of tasks among ourselves.
15:26:48 <khalidbelhajjame> I believe that most of the issues has already been dealt with.
15:26:49 <khalidbelhajjame> - The OWL ontology was modified to be in line with the PROV-DM.
15:26:51 <khalidbelhajjame> - Similarily, the HTML document was updated to include classes and properties and be in line with the PROV-DM.
15:26:53 <khalidbelhajjame> - The Diagram representing the ontology was also updated. The diagrams representing the examples (Crime-File and workflow provenance) may still need to be modified to relect the new changes.
15:26:54 <khalidbelhajjame> - Satya is working on the constraints.
15:26:56 <khalidbelhajjame> - Any other thing Tim, Stian?
15:27:20 <dgarijo> stian: added namespaces and fixed images (relative paths vs external links to the wiki).
15:27:34 <dgarijo> ... did xhtml vs html4. We can do either.
15:27:36 <satya> @Khalid: nice documentation!
15:27:58 <Luc> q?
15:28:09 <dgarijo> satya: the second direction: we are aligned with the data model as much as possible.
15:28:22 <pgroth_> +q
15:28:29 <Luc> q?
15:28:33 <dgarijo> Luc: estimated release date?
15:29:07 <dgarijo> satya: last week we released one. We are continuing the process. 
15:29:36 <dgarijo> ... right now can be considered as a released document.
15:30:11 <dgarijo> paul: wondering on the status on putting all the concepts of the datamodel into the ontology model
15:30:42 <khalidbelhajjame> There is a section at the end of the document that identifies the concepts (relations) that are not considered in the ontology yet
15:30:43 <Luc> and vice-versa!
15:30:43 <dgarijo> ... you could give an idea of which concepts are NOT yet defined in the ontology.
15:31:00 <dgarijo> @khalid, did we add the shortcuts too?
15:31:14 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, not yet
15:31:43 <dgarijo> @khalid, then we should :) I'll give it a try afterwards.
15:31:50 <Luc> q?
15:31:53 <Luc> ack pg
15:32:00 <dgarijo> satya: will do that later
15:32:08 <khalidbelhajjame> @Daniel, yeas please go ahead, and we can discuss it in the next (Monday) telecon
15:32:38 <dgarijo> Luc: very important  point.
15:32:40 <Luc> This document is part of a set of specifications aiming to define the various aspects that are necessary to achieve the visition on inter-operable interchange of provenance information in heterogeneous environments such as the Web. This document defines the PROV-DM data model for provenance, accompanied with a notation to express instances of that data model for human consumption. Two other documents, to be released shortly, are: 1) a normative serialization of PRO
15:33:12 <Paolo> visition  -> vision :-)
15:33:15 <stain> : 1) a normative serialization of PROV-DM in RDF, specified by means of a mapping to the OWL2 Web Ontology Language; 2) the mechanisms for accessing and querying provenance.
15:33:16 <Luc> , specified by means of a mapping to the OWL2 Web Ontology Language; 2) the mechanisms for accessing and querying provenance.
15:33:45 <stain> @Paolo, I like visitations :) Kind of invitation-visits
15:34:14 <Luc> q?
15:34:24 <dgarijo> Luc: it should be clear to readers that all the concept on the data model document are taken in consideration in the ontology. And viceversa: if something is not on the datamodel, then it should be clear too
15:34:49 <dgarijo> satya: the owl ontology is modelling of the data model, not necesarilly a mapping.
15:35:18 <dgarijo> satya: Agrees with Luc, but some of the concepts may not be "encodable" in owl.
15:36:01 <dgarijo> ... we may not be able to map the model directly
15:36:07 <dgarijo> ... in to owl.
15:36:42 <Luc> q?
15:36:47 <dgarijo> Luc: we are going to serialize the model in RDF, that is the message sent to the semantic community.
15:37:23 <dgarijo> ... Ivan was raising is that the kind of the ontology. Is owl-dl? is it simpler?
15:37:31 <stain> I think it's OWL-Lite at the moment
15:37:50 <pgroth_> could you talk about that in the document
15:37:50 <stain> but depending on how much of the constraints we need to describe it might increase to DL
15:37:59 <dgarijo> satya: it should not be owl-full, since it is not decidable.
15:38:00 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:38:23 <Luc> is it OWL2-RL?
15:38:26 <dgarijo> we haven't found anything that constraint us to anything more that owl dl
15:39:02 <dgarijo> we haven't specified any specific constraints yet
15:39:09 <Zakim> +??P4
15:39:29 <stain> it's closer to RDFS, plus owl:IrreflexiveProperty, etc
15:39:34 <satya> PROV-O has DL expressivity of ALR+
15:39:37 <Luc> q?
15:39:38 <dgarijo> Luc: share the documents to get feedback from Sandro, Ivan and others.
15:39:42 <pgroth_> q+
15:40:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:40:30 <Luc> action on satya to ensure all terms of DM appear in prov-o document
15:40:30 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
15:41:08 <dgarijo> paul: sum up of what has been decided in the telecon
15:41:16 <satya> @Paul: lightweight?
15:41:41 <satya> q+
15:41:48 <Luc> action satya to ensure all terms of DM appear in prov-o document, to justify why other terms are introduced, and to explain lightweight nature of owl ontology
15:41:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Ensure all terms of DM appear in prov-o document, to justify why other terms are introduced, and to explain lightweight nature of owl ontology [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-10-20].
15:41:50 <pgroth_> q-
15:41:56 <StephenCresswell> StephenCresswell has joined #prov
15:42:00 <dgarijo> @Luc, thanks for recording it.
15:42:07 <pgroth_> q+
15:42:13 <Luc> ack sat
15:42:16 <dgarijo> satya: what do we mean by lightweight?
15:42:21 <satya> q-
15:42:45 <satya> @Paul :)
15:42:50 <Luc> ack pg
15:42:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:43:23 <dgarijo> pgroth: (too much noise) when we say it's the rdf community means that not doing any crazy modelling of the ontology. 
15:43:35 <Zakim> +??P8
15:43:57 <dgarijo> satya: stian has already demonstrated that we can use the ontology for some examples in different scenarios
15:44:03 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P8 is me
15:44:03 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:44:08 <stain> agree
15:44:22 <Luc> topic: Interoperability
15:44:24 <stain> to not scare away people who have been bitten by the massive-owl-full-ontologies
15:44:37 <pgroth_> @stain - exactly
15:44:50 <dgarijo> Luc: we will have to decide what we mean by interoperability
15:44:54 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Interoperability
15:45:00 <dgarijo> ... no answers yet
15:45:23 <dgarijo> ... document with some ideas to see if it makes sense.
15:46:10 <dgarijo> ... the document sumarizes the charter and certain aspects: define the data model independant of any toechnology and mapping to certain technologies.
15:46:30 <dgarijo> ... given this, what do we mean by interoperability? Ennumerated 3 types.
15:46:58 <dgarijo> ... it is not a complete set of types of interoperability. It is just to start the discussion.
15:47:31 <dgarijo> ... the first one: not loose any information when changing the representation.
15:47:56 <satya> q+
15:48:18 <dgarijo> second one: different representation with different forms of inference. What you inferr in one representation is desireable to be inferred in the other one.
15:49:05 <dgarijo> ... thir one: similar to the provenance challenge objective: different provenance systems recording provenance in different formats:  end to end interoperability through systems.
15:49:32 <dgarijo> ... terms in different vocaubaries: ns for the datamodel, ns for the ontology. Is it possible to reuse common urls?
15:49:58 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
15:49:59 <dgarijo> ... this might not be complete yet, but enough to initiate the debate.
15:50:05 <Luc> q?
15:50:08 <stain> what is declared in http://www.w3.org/ns/prov/ ? "role" and "type" only?
15:50:10 <dgarijo> ... opinions?
15:50:25 <dgarijo> satya: on what context are we discussing this?
15:50:37 <stain> s/prov/prov-dm/
15:51:23 <dgarijo> Luc: to reach the level of recommendation, we should have at least 2 different approaches that are interoperable
15:52:04 <ericstephan> ericstephan has joined #prov
15:52:32 <Luc> q?
15:52:36 <Luc> ack sat
15:52:43 <dgarijo> satya: data integration. If we are using RDF for the formato of data integration, are we saying that we are going to define a new set of technologies, or reuse the existant ones?
15:52:46 <satya> q-
15:53:06 <dgarijo> khalid: prov language as an interchange format
15:53:32 <Luc> q?
15:53:35 <dgarijo> ... what is expresable with our language that is not with other languages
15:53:37 <Luc> ack kha
15:53:46 <dgarijo> ... and what are our limitations?
15:53:55 <Luc> q?
15:54:05 <dgarijo> +q
15:54:17 <Luc> ack dg
15:54:30 <satya> sorry I have to leave now, will try to follow up on this discussion over mails
15:54:54 <Zakim> -bringert
15:55:10 <Luc> q?
15:55:32 <Zakim> -satya
15:55:51 <pgroth_> echo
15:55:53 <Paolo> q+
15:55:53 <stain> Zakim, who is making noise?
15:56:00 <pgroth_> no
15:56:01 <stain> mute please
15:56:04 <Zakim> stain, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Luc (46%), dgarijo (45%), ??P38 (49%)
15:56:20 <stain> dgarijo: could you put it on IRC as well what you said?
15:56:50 <Luc> q?
15:56:54 <Luc> ack pao
15:57:02 <pgroth_> q+
15:58:00 <dgarijo> dgarijo: we should not restrict ourselves to the vocabularies that model provenance , but also show examples with some tools (Taverna, wings, etc). We should look for potential clients that can adopt our model.
15:58:05 <Luc> ack pgro
15:58:34 <dgarijo> pgroth: what do we mean by interoperable between 2 serializations?
15:59:05 <dgarijo> pgroth: how do we check that one serialization has used correctly the other one?
15:59:09 <ericstephan> q+
15:59:12 <dgarijo> ... build test cases
15:59:23 <Luc> ack eri
16:00:16 <dgarijo> eric: how introperable are you?
16:00:36 <stain> convert testcase format a1->b1->a2->b2->a3  - compare a2 and a1 manually, automatically compare b2==b1 and a2==a3
16:01:04 <Paolo> the design of compliance test cases should be central to the interop effort
16:01:41 <dgarijo> eric: seeing R model in owl.
16:01:52 <dgarijo> eric: explain how we did the connections
16:02:00 <dgarijo> ... between 2 serializations.
16:02:22 <Luc> q?
16:02:29 <dgarijo> Luc:  the integration aspect is crucial, and potentially can be linked to some docs.
16:02:50 <pgroth_> we have a task force for this?
16:02:51 <pgroth_> no?
16:02:56 <dgarijo> Luc: paolo, do you have an idea of how the compliance test cases should look like?
16:02:58 <khalidbelhajjame> Is it just me who think that talking about interoperability between different serializations of the same model is unusual?
16:03:10 <pgroth_> so maybe we should we start to engage this task force
16:03:31 <stain> I don't think interoperabable X would need to express anything we have in PROV?
16:03:40 <dgarijo> paolo: how do you know that your serialization is compliant with the good one?
16:03:43 <Zakim> -JimMcCusker
16:03:51 <JimMcCusker> gotta run to another call, TTYL
16:03:56 <Luc> q?
16:04:11 <pgroth_> q+
16:04:19 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:04:25 <dgarijo> pgroth: task force on this?
16:05:06 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
16:05:09 <dgarijo> Luc: engage the user task force in this.
16:05:13 <Luc> ack pg
16:05:40 <dgarijo> paolo: is it realistic that we develop something to check compliance to the prov model?
16:05:41 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
16:05:54 <khalidbelhajjame> -q
16:05:56 <stain> could we have something similar to a validator?
16:05:57 <dgarijo> Luc: not our job to give certification of compliance.
16:06:00 <stain> it could check the constraints etc
16:06:08 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
16:07:06 <dgarijo> khalid: (too much noise) some ideas to check if a model is compliant?
16:07:28 <dgarijo> @khalid: can you summarize, please? I coulnd't hear you well.
16:08:13 <dgarijo> stian: check that something complies with a set of provenance assertions. It could be syntatic&semantic validation.
16:08:14 <khalidbelhajjame> I think it is not difficult to check the conformance to the model, but it is harder to check that the system use and use correctly the provenance
16:08:19 <Paolo> def need to go further than syntax validation
16:08:32 <dgarijo> @khalid: thanks!
16:08:40 <Luc> q?
16:08:52 <pgroth_> q+
16:09:35 <dgarijo> paul: those who have proposals of what interoperability should be, raise discussions on the mailing list
16:09:46 <Luc> or keep on editing the wiki page ...
16:10:05 <pgroth_> q-
16:10:27 <dgarijo> Luc: action on Paul and Luc to engage the user task force.
16:10:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Ok
16:10:50 <Luc> q?
16:10:55 <dgarijo> Luc: please edit the wiki page if you have further proposals.
16:11:04 <Zakim> -pgroth_
16:11:06 <Zakim> -??P38
16:11:07 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
16:11:07 <Luc> exit
16:11:09 <Zakim> -SamCoppens
16:11:09 <Luc> quit
16:11:10 <Zakim> -dgarijo
16:11:12 <Zakim> -stain
16:11:58 <Zakim> -??P4
16:12:45 <Luc> Luc has joined #prov
16:12:54 <dgarijo> Hi luc
16:13:10 <Luc> hi daniel, thanks for scribing, i'll deal with it from now 
16:13:10 <dgarijo> are you going to save the log?
16:13:18 <dgarijo> thanks
16:13:25 <dgarijo> see you !
16:13:29 <Luc> rrsagent, set log public 
16:13:41 <Luc> rrsagent, draft minutes 
16:13:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-prov-minutes.html Luc
16:13:42 <Luc> trackbot, end telcon 
16:13:42 <trackbot> Sorry, Luc, I don't understand 'trackbot, end telcon '. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
16:18:23 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #prov
16:25:27 <stain> trackbot, end telcon
16:25:27 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:25:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Luc, khalidbelhajjame, dgarijo, pgroth_, stain, Curt_Tilmes, bringert, +1.509.375.aabb, SamCoppens, satya, JimMcCusker, [IPcaller],
16:25:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:25:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-prov-minutes.html trackbot
16:25:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:25:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:25:31 <Zakim> ... Yogesh_Simmhan