Prov F2F1 Day 2

Minutes of 07 July 2011

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable
Seen
Daniel Garijo, Deborah McGuinness, Ed Summers, Eric Stephan, Graham Klyne, Ilkay Altintas, James McCusker, James Cheney, Khalid Belhajjame, Luc Moreau, Olaf Hartig, Paolo Missier, Paul Groth, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva, Ryan Golden, Sam Coppens, Sandro Hawke, Satya Sahoo, Simon Miles, Stephan Zednik, Stephen Cresswell, Timothy Lebo, Vinh Nguyen, Yogesh Simmhan, Yolanda Gil
Chair
Paul Groth, Luc Moreau
Scribe
Paolo Missier, Sam Coppens, Satya Sahoo
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources link
  2. The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all. link
  3. The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a BOB may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all. link
  4. Assertions about time are useful but are optional link
  5. To use http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario as a scenario to compare various proposals link
  6. use owl for the schema deliverable but with the reminders to try to have "lightweight" owl and to make it "natural rdf" link
Topics
  1. Session 5: PAQ TF

    An overview of the current status of the PAQ TF was given by Simon Miles. The discussions focused on the access of provenance. A number of high level issues were resolved related to the expectations on provenance access. New terminology referring to the different URIs with respect to provenance access was introduced and was adopted during the discussion. The group endorsed limiting the scope of the first draft of the access document.

  2. Session 6: Model Task Force

    The definitions of concepts "time", "agent", and "ivp of" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).

    1. Time

    2. Agent

    3. IVP of

  3. Session 7: PAQ TF

    In this session, a plan for developing an access document was developed and a mechanism for helping to decide upon proposals was agreed upon. It was agreed to start with Graham's document as a starting point and to raise issues against that document once it was transferred to the W3C version control system. In order to evaluate various proposals, a use case scenario at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario was agreed upon.

  4. Session 8: Planning

    Plans for each of the Task Forces were confirmed from other sessions. For the Model Task Force and PAQ Task Force the following process is adopted: each task force will create a draft document in W3C style, issues will then be raised against those documents, those issues will then be iteratively resolved until the public working drafts are due. The documents being produced are the conceptual model, formal model (i.e. owl ontology), and an initial provenance access document. Additionally, in this session it was decided that the formal model would take the form of a light weight OWL ontology that also is "natural rdf". Finally, it was discussed that we need better connections to the RDF working group to ensure that Named Graphs are properly supported. Sandro will initiate this discussion and we aim to find a member that participates in both working groups to actively convey the Provenance WG's point-of-view in the RDF Working Group.

12:41:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-prov-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-prov-irc

12:41:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

12:41:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be

12:41:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

12:42:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
12:42:00 <trackbot> Date: 07 July 2011
12:42:13 <Luc> Zakim, this will be PROV

Luc Moreau: Zakim, this will be PROV

12:42:13 <Zakim> ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 42 minutes ago

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV1)8:00AM scheduled to start 42 minutes ago

12:42:40 <Luc> Chair: Paul Groth
12:42:59 <Luc> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:F2F1Timetable
12:43:23 <Luc> rrsagent, make logs public

Luc Moreau: rrsagent, make logs public

12:43:45 <Luc> Scribe: Paolo Missier

(Scribe set to Paolo Missier)

12:49:18 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 5: PAQ TF

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

1. Session 5: PAQ TF

Summary: An overview of the current status of the PAQ TF was given by Simon Miles. The discussions focused on the access of provenance. A number of high level issues were resolved related to the expectations on provenance access. New terminology referring to the different URIs with respect to provenance access was introduced and was adopted during the discussion. The group endorsed limiting the scope of the first draft of the access document.

<pgroth> Summary: An overview of the current status of the PAQ TF was given by Simon Miles. The discussions focused on the access of provenance. A number of high level issues were resolved related to the expectations on provenance access. New terminology referring to the different URIs with respect to provenance access was introduced and was adopted during the discussion. The group endorsed limiting the scope of the first draft of the access document.
12:58:49 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has now started

12:58:55 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room

Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room

13:01:56 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

13:01:56 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-prov-irc#T13-01-56

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-prov-irc#T13-01-56

13:02:04 <sandro> rrsagent, make logs public

Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, make logs public

13:02:55 <sandro> meeting: Prov F2F1 Day 2
13:03:17 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT:  77681# (note the "1")  Webcam: http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam

Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: PROV F2F1 - Conference Code is DIFFERENT: 77681# (note the "1") Webcam: http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam

13:04:17 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

13:06:40 <Paolo> Scribe: Paolo
13:06:41 <smiles> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

Simon Miles: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

13:07:26 <pgroth> going through the slides

Paul Groth: going through the slides

13:07:28 <pgroth> slide 1

Paul Groth: slide 1

13:08:42 <Paolo> slide 2

slide 2

13:09:39 <JimMcCusker> Can someone re-post the link to the slides?

James McCusker: Can someone re-post the link to the slides?

13:09:41 <Paolo> 3

3

13:09:50 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

13:09:51 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

13:09:52 <Paolo> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

13:10:02 <GK> zakim, ??p1 is me

Graham Klyne: zakim, ??p1 is me

13:10:02 <Zakim> +GK; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +GK; got it

13:10:12 <JimMcCusker> thanks

James McCusker: thanks

13:10:31 <Paolo> 4

4

13:11:01 <Paolo> slide 5

slide 5

13:11:13 <RyanGolden> can you post the URL to the slides again?

Ryan Golden: can you post the URL to the slides again?

13:11:35 <Paolo>  http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

13:12:07 <Paolo> slide 6

slide 6

13:13:47 <pgroth> pausing for the projector...

Paul Groth: pausing for the projector...

13:14:22 <Paolo> (third option is proposal from Luc)

(third option is proposal from Luc)

13:14:28 <Paolo> on this slide

on this slide

13:14:38 <Zakim> +olaf

Zakim IRC Bot: +olaf

13:14:48 <Paolo> 4 was a proposal from GK

4 was a proposal from GK

13:15:06 <Paolo> bullet 5 was proposed by Stian

bullet 5 was proposed by Stian

13:15:50 <Paolo> so slide 6 summarize proposals on first question

so slide 6 summarize proposals on first question

13:16:07 <Paolo> that was "Given information regarding where to access data on the provenance of a resource state representation, what form does that information take and how do we obtain the provenance data? "

that was "Given information regarding where to access data on the provenance of a resource state representation, what form does that information take and how do we obtain the provenance data? "

13:16:41 <Paolo> slide 7

slide 7

13:17:05 <Paolo> proposals for Q2, embedding provenance into an HTML doc: "How can a browser find the information on where to access provenance data, referred to above, for an HTML document that was downloaded, so that its provenance may be retrieved? "

proposals for Q2, embedding provenance into an HTML doc: "How can a browser find the information on where to access provenance data, referred to above, for an HTML document that was downloaded, so that its provenance may be retrieved? "

13:17:24 <Paolo> bullet entry 1 from GK

bullet entry 1 from GK

13:17:31 <Paolo> bullet 2 from Luc

bullet 2 from Luc

13:18:02 <Paolo> 3 also proposed by Luc

3 also proposed by Luc

13:18:21 <olaf> is that the slideset Simon sent on Tuesday?

Olaf Hartig: is that the slideset Simon sent on Tuesday?

13:18:30 <pgroth> no it's from today

Paul Groth: no it's from today

13:18:30 <Paolo> bullet 4: from Khalid

bullet 4: from Khalid

13:18:36 <pgroth> can someone paste the url again

Paul Groth: can someone paste the url again

13:18:50 <Paolo> @olaf: this is the set: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

@olaf: this is the set: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/images/1/1d/Paqtf_status.pptx

13:19:05 <olaf> thanks!

Olaf Hartig: thanks!

13:19:06 <Paolo> slide 8

slide 8

13:20:04 <GK> That's pretty close to what I meant

Graham Klyne: That's pretty close to what I meant

13:20:11 <Paolo> GK: remember KISS :-)

Graham Klyne: remember KISS :-)

13:20:25 <GK> :)

Graham Klyne: :)

13:20:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

13:21:15 <Paolo> slide 9: hopefully uncontroversial suggestions for decisions

slide 9: hopefully uncontroversial suggestions for decisions

13:21:27 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:21:37 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:21:50 <sandro> "There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible from multiple sources."

Sandro Hawke: "There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible from multiple sources."

13:22:18 <Paolo> item 1 -- there may be multiple services providing provenance, or multiple prov URIs for an entity state

item 1 -- there may be multiple services providing provenance, or multiple prov URIs for an entity state

13:22:39 <Paolo> this has implications for access

this has implications for access

13:23:12 <sandro> smiles: not the intent to suggest the data is the same.

Simon Miles: not the intent to suggest the data is the same. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

13:23:23 <GK> Different provenance from different sources could be different, even inconsistent.  IMO.

Graham Klyne: Different provenance from different sources could be different, even inconsistent. IMO.

13:24:00 <pgroth> Proposal: Provenance of a thing can be found at multiple sources

PROPOSED: Provenance of a thing can be found at multiple sources

13:24:13 <olaf> +1 to "There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible from multiple sources." (and this provenance information may differ)

Olaf Hartig: +1 to "There may be data regarding the provenance of a thing accessible from multiple sources." (and this provenance information may differ)

13:27:58 <Paolo> Tim: can we just state provenance without referring "of ...(Bob etc)"?

Timothy Lebo: can we just state provenance without referring "of ...(Bob etc)"?

13:28:30 <Paolo> Tim: main point is multiplicity

Timothy Lebo: main point is multiplicity

13:28:53 <GK> I would say that (provenance data) is a web *resource* - the state representation is what is actually transferred.

Graham Klyne: I would say that (provenance data) is a web *resource* - the state representation is what is actually transferred.

13:29:04 <zednik> provenance metadata may be available from many sources and need not be globaly consistent?

Stephan Zednik: provenance metadata may be available from many sources and need not be globaly consistent?

13:29:29 <pgroth> Proposal: Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources

PROPOSED: Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources

13:29:36 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

13:29:45 <Satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

13:29:46 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

13:29:49 <olaf> +1

Olaf Hartig: +1

13:29:49 <JimMcCusker> +1

James McCusker: +1

13:29:50 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1

13:29:50 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1

13:29:50 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

13:29:52 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

13:29:54 <RyanGolden> +1

Ryan Golden: +1

13:29:54 <IlkayAltintas> +1

Ilkay Altintas: +1

13:29:56 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

13:29:58 <StephenCresswell> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1

13:30:02 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

13:30:15 <Paolo> +1

+1

13:30:22 <tlebo> -1 : should be "provenance of EntityState" OR we remove terms from the model.

Timothy Lebo: -1 : should be "provenance of EntityState" OR we remove terms from the model.

13:30:27 <zednik> I redact the use of consistent in the earlier comment

Stephan Zednik: I redact the use of consistent in the earlier comment

13:30:44 <Paolo> this is about location. the point of consistency to be addressed later

this is about location. the point of consistency to be addressed later

13:31:22 <tlebo> I retract (we are not talking about the model)

Timothy Lebo: I retract (we are not talking about the model)

13:31:31 <tlebo> 0

Timothy Lebo: 0

13:31:44 <Paulo> is this source in the "real world" or it does not matter?

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: is this source in the "real world" or it does not matter?

13:32:10 <Luc> accepted: Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources

RESOLVED: Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources

13:32:44 <Paolo> Smiles: we are not discussing nature of source just now

Simon Miles: we are not discussing nature of source just now

13:33:05 <GK> Anyone can say anything about anything... including provenance.

Graham Klyne: Anyone can say anything about anything... including provenance.

13:33:25 <JimMcCusker> +1 to AAAP

James McCusker: +1 to AAAP

<pgroth> ACCEPTED Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources

Paul Groth: ACCEPTED Provenance of a "bob" can be found at multiple sources

13:34:43 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:34:54 <GK> Remember KISS: start with easy cases, then address identified gaps.

Graham Klyne: Remember KISS: start with easy cases, then address identified gaps.

13:35:31 <Paolo> Paulo: whatever the solution to provenance encoding, it should be non intrusive wrt the underlying data

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: whatever the solution to provenance encoding, it should be non intrusive wrt the underlying data

13:35:49 <tlebo> paulo: not changing a bit of a BOB while still being able express provenance of a BOB.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: not changing a bit of a BOB while still being able express provenance of a BOB. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

13:36:09 <Paolo> smiles: we are agnostic, some encodings may be intrusive

Simon Miles: we are agnostic, some encodings may be intrusive

13:36:26 <Paolo> Paulo: at least one encoding should not be intrusive

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: at least one encoding should not be intrusive

13:36:39 <Paolo> smiles: the opposite may also be true

Simon Miles: the opposite may also be true

13:36:54 <smiles> Proposed: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.

PROPOSED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.

13:36:59 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

13:37:01 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1

13:37:03 <olaf> +1

Olaf Hartig: +1

13:37:06 <Satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

13:37:07 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

13:37:09 <SamCoppens> +1

Sam Coppens: +1

13:37:11 <GK> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

13:37:13 <IlkayAltintas> +1

Ilkay Altintas: +1

13:37:16 <Paulo> +1

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: +1

13:37:16 <StephenCresswell> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1

13:37:17 <Paolo> +1

+1

13:37:18 <RyanGolden> +1

Ryan Golden: +1

13:37:23 <Deborah> +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

13:37:28 <JimMcCusker> +1

James McCusker: +1

13:37:29 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

13:37:38 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

13:37:59 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.

RESOLVED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a thing may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.

13:39:49 <Paolo> Ilkay: change "thing" in previously accepted point

Ilkay Altintas: change "thing" in previously accepted point

13:40:00 <olaf> q+

Olaf Hartig: q+

13:40:15 <tlebo> q+ protocols that allow third parties to submit pointers to provenance of a BOB.

Timothy Lebo: q+ protocols that allow third parties to submit pointers to provenance of a BOB.

13:40:24 <Luc> PROPOSED: The WG effort will concern how the provider of a BOB can supply information required to obtain access to some provenance of that BOB (which may, as a side effect, include recommendations on how others can do the same).

PROPOSED: The WG effort will concern how the provider of a BOB can supply information required to obtain access to some provenance of that BOB (which may, as a side effect, include recommendations on how others can do the same).

13:41:10 <Paolo> on third point

on third point

13:41:40 <Luc> ACCEPTED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a BOB may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.

RESOLVED: The information required to obtain access to some provenance of a BOB may be supplied in many different ways, and we do not aim to enumerate them all.

13:42:01 <Paolo> olaf: this is focused on apporaches to provide provenance, but it is also important to allow provider to associate provenance /as part of the "thing"/

Olaf Hartig: this is focused on apporaches to provide provenance, but it is also important to allow provider to associate provenance /as part of the "thing"/

13:43:05 <Paolo> pgroth: propose to replace supply with obtain

Paul Groth: propose to replace supply with obtain

13:43:16 <Paolo> luc: or "embed"?

Luc Moreau: or "embed"?

13:44:31 <tlebo> pgroth: first-party ONLY providing access. OUT OF SCOPE: third party providing information about accessing provenance.

Paul Groth: first-party ONLY providing access. OUT OF SCOPE: third party providing information about accessing provenance. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

13:44:38 <Paolo> pgroth: example: WG is concerned with how a /data provider/ supplies provenance about it

Paul Groth: example: WG is concerned with how a /data provider/ supplies provenance about it

13:44:48 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:44:49 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

13:45:16 <Satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

13:45:22 <tlebo> q+ to ask about third parties submitting pointers to first parties (which first parties can choose to include in their access descriptions)

Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask about third parties submitting pointers to first parties (which first parties can choose to include in their access descriptions)

13:45:28 <Paolo> smiles: alternative is not to restrict on who supplies provenance, but that's too broad

Simon Miles: alternative is not to restrict on who supplies provenance, but that's too broad

13:46:01 <pgroth> ack loaf

Paul Groth: ack loaf

13:46:07 <pgroth> ack ola

Paul Groth: ack ola

13:46:08 <olaf> q-

Olaf Hartig: q-

13:46:26 <tlebo> (e.g. First Party is New York Times that makes article)

Timothy Lebo: (e.g. First Party is New York Times that makes article)

13:46:44 <Paolo> satya: do we need a distinction between first party and third parties (as in ex. above)

Satya Sahoo: do we need a distinction between first party and third parties (as in ex. above)

13:47:39 <tlebo> are we failing to support "down stream" provenance of a BOB created?

Timothy Lebo: are we failing to support "down stream" provenance of a BOB created?

13:48:04 <Paolo> satya: eg embedded HTML link may not be from first party -- distinction may be difficult to make in practice

Satya Sahoo: eg embedded HTML link may not be from first party -- distinction may be difficult to make in practice

13:48:17 <tlebo> luc: provider vs author.

Luc Moreau: provider vs author. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

13:48:19 <GK> Third party provenance: NYT vs blogger not distinguished - trust is an orthogonal issue.  The resource provider has privileged access for indicating provenance sources - I think that's unavoidable.

Graham Klyne: Third party provenance: NYT vs blogger not distinguished - trust is an orthogonal issue. The resource provider has privileged access for indicating provenance sources - I think that's unavoidable.

13:48:26 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:48:27 <tlebo> satya: "first party" gets blurry

Satya Sahoo: "first party" gets blurry [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

13:48:42 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

13:48:42 <pgroth> ack Satya

Paul Groth: ack Satya

13:48:42 <Satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q-

13:48:44 <Paolo> satya: need to clarify "author", "first party", third party, "provider" as they may get blurred

Satya Sahoo: need to clarify "author", "first party", third party, "provider" as they may get blurred

13:48:48 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

13:48:48 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about third parties submitting pointers to first parties (which first parties can choose to include in their access descriptions)

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask about third parties submitting pointers to first parties (which first parties can choose to include in their access descriptions)

13:49:06 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

13:49:31 <Paolo> tlebo: WG effort seems to be focused on first parties -- does this allow us to accept third party provenance of Bob's?

Timothy Lebo: WG effort seems to be focused on first parties -- does this allow us to accept third party provenance of Bob's?

13:49:34 <GK> The point of the scope is to simplify things: so initially, make choices that simplify.  Later consider alternatives.

Graham Klyne: The point of the scope is to simplify things: so initially, make choices that simplify. Later consider alternatives.

13:50:20 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

13:50:29 <Paolo> tlebo: a provider should be able to accept additional provenance of its Bob from a third party. this is key to establish a web of provenance

Timothy Lebo: a provider should be able to accept additional provenance of its Bob from a third party. this is key to establish a web of provenance

13:50:46 <GK> It's not up to the provider to "accept" third party provenance assertions.  The web allows anybody to say...

Graham Klyne: It's not up to the provider to "accept" third party provenance assertions. The web allows anybody to say...

13:50:49 <Satya> How is defining the scope of the user affecting the workload of the PAQTF?

Satya Sahoo: How is defining the scope of the user affecting the workload of the PAQTF?

13:51:06 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

13:51:22 <GK> It avoids having to initially consider problems of third party discovery.

Graham Klyne: It avoids having to initially consider problems of third party discovery.

13:51:30 <GK> ^^ @satya

Graham Klyne: ^^ @satya

13:51:54 <Satya> @GK How? What are the problems of third party discovery?

Satya Sahoo: @GK How? What are the problems of third party discovery?

13:52:09 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:52:15 <pgroth> ack Yog

Paul Groth: ack Yog

13:52:22 <tlebo> smiles: first party provenance-of-BOB publishers accepting third party provenance-of-BOBs and choosing to include them is NOT out of scope.

Simon Miles: first party provenance-of-BOB publishers accepting third party provenance-of-BOBs and choosing to include them is NOT out of scope. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

13:52:24 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

13:52:38 <tlebo> q+

Timothy Lebo: q+

13:52:40 <GK> @Satya:  I have a resource without provenance.  You publish provenance about that resource.  How does someone else discover that provenance?

Graham Klyne: @Satya: I have a resource without provenance. You publish provenance about that resource. How does someone else discover that provenance?

13:52:58 <Paolo> Luc, smiles: w elmit the scope for the first draft only

Luc, smiles: we limit the scope for the first draft only

13:53:15 <Paolo> s/w elmit/we limit
13:53:40 <GK> Sure, first draft only.

Graham Klyne: Sure, first draft only.

13:53:56 <Satya> @GK They either query the resource itslef (for embedded link) or they "llok it up on the web"

Satya Sahoo: @GK They either query the resource itslef (for embedded link) or they "llok it up on the web"

13:54:08 <Satya> itslef> itself

Satya Sahoo: itslef> itself

13:54:09 <tlebo> "letting third parties do what they want" is insufficient, because we are failing to support DISCOVERABILITY (which is part of ACCESS).

Timothy Lebo: "letting third parties do what they want" is insufficient, because we are failing to support DISCOVERABILITY (which is part of ACCESS).

13:54:30 <GK> @Satya:  first approach requires provider to cooperate.  Latter is default - what more to specify?

Graham Klyne: @Satya: first approach requires provider to cooperate. Latter is default - what more to specify?

13:54:38 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

13:55:05 <Paolo> yogesh: starting point for discovering provenance is the provider

Yogesh Simmhan: starting point for discovering provenance is the provider

13:55:19 <pgroth> ack tl

Paul Groth: ack tl

13:55:45 <Satya> @GK why as a WG we are mandating "bob" providers to give access to the provenance of "bob"?

Satya Sahoo: @GK why as a WG we are mandating "bob" providers to give access to the provenance of "bob"?

13:56:32 <GK> @Satya, we're not.  Just focusing first on those that want to.

Graham Klyne: @Satya, we're not. Just focusing first on those that want to.

13:56:44 <Paolo> tlebo: NYT should be able to supply provenance of its own image, but also of new versions of that image that may have been manipulated by somebody else

Timothy Lebo: NYT should be able to supply provenance of its own image, but also of new versions of that image that may have been manipulated by somebody else

13:56:50 <SamCoppens> q+

Sam Coppens: q+

13:57:28 <tlebo> q-

Timothy Lebo: q-

13:57:29 <Paolo> pgroth: the example is orthogonal to this proposal

Paul Groth: the example is orthogonal to this proposal

13:57:49 <GK> Nothing is being excluded as an eventual possibility...

Graham Klyne: Nothing is being excluded as an eventual possibility...

13:58:03 <Paolo> provenance being downstream etc is not the point here

provenance being downstream etc is not the point here

13:58:08 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

13:58:08 <Satya> @GK Anybody may want to - why should we discriminate between "first", "second" etc. providers?

Satya Sahoo: @GK Anybody may want to - why should we discriminate between "first", "second" etc. providers?

13:58:14 <GK> ... my view (an experience) is that when a simple solution is on the table, it's much easier to see how tio engibneer more advanced solutions.

Graham Klyne: ... my view (an experience) is that when a simple solution is on the table, it's much easier to see how tio engibneer more advanced solutions.

13:58:30 <GK> @SDatya.  Who said anything about disciminating.

Graham Klyne: @SDatya. Who said anything about disciminating.

13:59:26 <Paolo> Luc: should the draft editors be free to decide, as per previous point just accepted

Luc Moreau: should the draft editors be free to decide, as per previous point just accepted

13:59:50 <Satya> @GK We are trying to categorize "bob" providers as first, second, etc parties

Satya Sahoo: @GK We are trying to categorize "bob" providers as first, second, etc parties

13:59:54 <GK> We rule out nothing in the longer term.

Graham Klyne: We rule out nothing in the longer term.

14:00:27 <sandro> [[ Apologies, I need to step out for ~60 minutes, with my laptop, so no webcams either.   Very sorry. ]]

Sandro Hawke: [[ Apologies, I need to step out for ~60 minutes, with my laptop, so no webcams either. Very sorry. ]]

14:00:55 <GK> @Satya - I think one must recognize that the provider of a resource has control over metadata that accompanies that provision.  I see that is a given.  Beyond that, not attempting to categorize.

Graham Klyne: @Satya - I think one must recognize that the provider of a resource has control over metadata that accompanies that provision. I see that is a given. Beyond that, not attempting to categorize.

14:01:30 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:01:35 <Satya> @GK ok - then we don't have to specify this explicitly since it is open/implicit anyway

Satya Sahoo: @GK ok - then we don't have to specify this explicitly since it is open/implicit anyway

14:01:38 <SamCoppens> q-

Sam Coppens: q-

14:01:38 <Paolo> just moving on from here

just moving on from here

14:01:40 <GK> Moive on?

Graham Klyne: Moive on?

14:01:48 <Paolo> slide 10

slide 10

14:03:44 <Paolo> point 1: 3 options

point 1: 3 options

14:03:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

14:03:56 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

14:03:57 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

14:04:06 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

14:04:51 <GK> I think you meant to say "How do you find what it is provenance _of_"?

Graham Klyne: I think you meant to say "How do you find what it is provenance _of_"?

14:05:00 <Paolo> is this for this TF? the model has a notion of "prov container"

is this for this TF? the model has a notion of "prov container"

14:05:41 <Paolo> smiles: question is, what do you need (I,L, etc.) to gain access to provenance

Simon Miles: question is, what do you need (I,L, etc.) to gain access to provenance

14:05:48 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:06:56 <GK> @paolo - I agree it's a model issue, but I think it's highly desirable that retrieved provenance data identifies what it is referring to.

Graham Klyne: @paolo - I agree it's a model issue, but I think it's highly desirable that retrieved provenance data identifies what it is referring to.

14:07:04 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

Paul Groth: ack Yogesh

14:07:07 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

14:07:53 <Paolo> satya: is the question how you associate P and I?

Satya Sahoo: is the question how you associate P and I?

14:08:45 <GK> That is an assumption.

Graham Klyne: That is an assumption.

14:09:14 <Paolo> satya: realistic scenario is that you don't start from provenance, you start from the data (entity state)

Satya Sahoo: realistic scenario is that you don't start from provenance, you start from the data (entity state)

14:10:43 <GK> One could imagine doing a web search to provide the most accurate available instance of some some data:  in this case one might find provenance first, then use that lo locate the resource.

Graham Klyne: One could imagine doing a web search to provide the most accurate available instance of some some data: in this case one might find provenance first, then use that lo locate the resource.

14:10:59 <Paolo> clarification is needed: I is the URI (reference to) an entity state, not the entity state itself

clarification is needed: I is the URI (reference to) an entity state, not the entity state itself

14:11:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

14:11:44 <JimMcCusker> I think we've found another Bob...

James McCusker: I think we've found another Bob...

14:12:02 <Paolo> satya: not clear how we identify entity states in the first place

Satya Sahoo: not clear how we identify entity states in the first place

14:12:08 <GK> My assumption is that BOBs have URIs (or may have URIs)

Graham Klyne: My assumption is that BOBs have URIs (or may have URIs)

14:12:50 <GK> For a genuinely static resource, it's possible R == I (resource URI == BOBN URI)

Graham Klyne: For a genuinely static resource, it's possible R == I (resource URI == BOBN URI)

14:13:39 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

14:13:40 <Paolo> GK maybe you should get in the queue?

GK maybe you should get in the queue?

14:14:14 <Satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

14:14:19 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

14:15:44 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

14:16:18 <GK> (I'd get on the queue, but the conversation seems to keep jumping around - not sure what I really want to respond to.)

Graham Klyne: (I'd get on the queue, but the conversation seems to keep jumping around - not sure what I really want to respond to.)

14:16:27 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

14:17:00 <pgroth> zakim, close the queue

Paul Groth: zakim, close the queue

14:17:00 <Zakim> ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth, the speaker queue is closed

14:17:00 <Paolo> yogesh: difference b/w options a) and b) seems to be one of granularity

Yogesh Simmhan: difference b/w options a) and b) seems to be one of granularity

14:17:39 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

14:17:40 <Paolo> q?

q?

14:18:43 <Paolo> satya: are we assuming we have a "provenance container" with a single URI P for a set of provenance assertions?

Satya Sahoo: are we assuming we have a "provenance container" with a single URI P for a set of provenance assertions?

14:19:44 <GK> My default position is that provenance is on the web, and as such may be a resource, and as such may (and often should) have a URI.  That deals (IMO) with 80-90% of the access mechanism.

Graham Klyne: My default position is that provenance is on the web, and as such may be a resource, and as such may (and often should) have a URI. That deals (IMO) with 80-90% of the access mechanism.

14:20:21 <Paolo> smiles: either you need the ID (I) of a specific Bob, or the association is apparent and that's not needed

Simon Miles: either you need the ID (I) of a specific Bob, or the association is apparent and that's not needed

14:20:47 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

14:21:15 <Paolo> pgroth: we seem to be discussing the phrasing of the issue, rather than any specific solution

Paul Groth: we seem to be discussing the phrasing of the issue, rather than any specific solution

14:21:27 <Luc> ack satya

Luc Moreau: ack satya

14:21:44 <Luc> i think the problem is important but not well posed

Luc Moreau: i think the problem is important but not well posed

14:22:11 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

14:22:21 <Paolo> satya: don't think we should get into the "inverse relationship" P -> I

Satya Sahoo: don't think we should get into the "inverse relationship" P -> I

14:23:21 <GK> I would say that for the purpose of provenance *interchange*, it should be explicit what the provenance is about, even if it's implicit in its original form.

Graham Klyne: I would say that for the purpose of provenance *interchange*, it should be explicit what the provenance is about, even if it's implicit in its original form.

14:25:09 <Paolo> pgroth: it must be an issue, cannot just be ignored.

Paul Groth: it must be an issue, cannot just be ignored.

14:25:34 <GK> I can easily imagine a single RDF graph (provenance resource) that actually contains provenance of several BOBs.

Graham Klyne: I can easily imagine a single RDF graph (provenance resource) that actually contains provenance of several BOBs.

14:26:01 <GK> Ah, it's not about saying the resource is about one subject *only*...

Graham Klyne: Ah, it's not about saying the resource is about one subject *only*...

14:26:27 <tlebo> what slide is option B on?

Timothy Lebo: what slide is option B on?

14:26:31 <GK> ... just requiring that any given provenance information is explicit about what it's about.

Graham Klyne: ... just requiring that any given provenance information is explicit about what it's about.

14:26:37 <pgroth> slide 10

Paul Groth: slide 10

14:26:48 <pgroth> @tlebo slide 10

Paul Groth: @tlebo slide 10

14:27:01 <GK> The problem with (a) is the "single"

Graham Klyne: The problem with (a) is the "single"

14:27:28 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

14:28:17 <GK> Drop the *only*

Graham Klyne: Drop the *only*

14:28:32 <GK> Yes, it is many-to-many

Graham Klyne: Yes, it is many-to-many

14:29:21 <Paolo> thanks GK :-)

thanks GK :-)

14:29:42 <GK> (Actually, solutions that solve single issues cleanly often scale up very well.)

Graham Klyne: (Actually, solutions that solve single issues cleanly often scale up very well.)

14:29:58 <Paolo> paolo: Bob-to-provenance is a M-M relataionship and we need a mechanism to traverse it in both directions

Paolo Missier: Bob-to-provenance is a M-M relationship and we need a mechanism to traverse it in both directions

14:30:16 <Paolo> s/relataionship/relationship
14:30:48 <Paolo> satya: Bob->provenance is the only direction we can hope to traverse it

Satya Sahoo: Bob->provenance is the only direction we can hope to traverse it

14:30:49 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

14:30:54 <jcheney> q-

James Cheney: q-

14:31:04 <pgroth> sorry james

Paul Groth: sorry james

14:31:44 <JimMcCusker> q-

James McCusker: q-

14:32:49 <Paolo> (break)

(break)

14:32:56 <Zakim> -olaf

Zakim IRC Bot: -olaf

14:33:30 <pgroth> back in 15 minutes

Paul Groth: back in 15 minutes

14:34:14 <GK> @smiles: your slide 10, bullet 1, (a), suggest rephrase "(a) It is apparent from the data itself what thing(s) it describes the provenance of"

Graham Klyne: @smiles: your slide 10, bullet 1, (a), suggest rephrase "(a) It is apparent from the data itself what thing(s) it describes the provenance of"

14:35:00 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

14:45:05 <olaf> @GK , @smiles I like that rephrase

(No events recorded for 10 minutes)

Olaf Hartig: @GK , @smiles I like that rephrase

14:45:39 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

14:45:51 <olaf> I have to go now; will try to tune in later again.

Olaf Hartig: I have to go now; will try to tune in later again.

14:49:53 <SamCoppens> topic: Session 6: Model Task Force

2. Session 6: Model Task Force

Summary: The definitions of concepts "time", "agent", and "ivp of" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).

<luc>Summary: The definitions of concepts "time", "agent", and "ivp of" in the consolidated document were reviewed and revised according to the new terminology adopted in previous sessions. Issues for discussion that were identified in the consolidated document were discussed. Either issues were resolved, dropped, or raised in the tracker for future resolution (some comments were also added on the discussion page of the consolidated document).
<luc>subtopic: Time

2.1. Time

14:50:42 <SamCoppens> Scribe: SamCoppens

(Scribe set to Sam Coppens)

14:51:34 <Luc> PROPOSED: assertions about time are useful but are optional

PROPOSED: assertions about time are useful but are optional

14:52:10 <JimMcCusker> +1

James McCusker: +1

14:52:12 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

14:52:14 <tlebo> +1

Timothy Lebo: +1

14:52:16 <smiles> +1

Simon Miles: +1

14:52:17 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

14:52:18 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

14:52:18 <SamCoppens> +1

+1

14:52:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

14:52:23 <IlkayAltintas> 0

Ilkay Altintas: 0

14:52:25 <Deborah> +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

14:52:31 <GK2> +1

Graham Klyne: +1

14:53:03 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1

14:53:10 <Yogesh> +1

Yogesh Simmhan: +1

14:53:12 <StephenCresswell> +1

Stephen Cresswell: +1

14:53:23 <Vinh> +1

Vinh Nguyen: +1

14:53:36 <RyanGolden> +1

Ryan Golden: +1

14:53:49 <edsu> +1

Ed Summers: +1

14:53:51 <Satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

14:53:53 <Paulo> +1

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: +1

14:54:06 <Paolo_> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

14:54:21 <Luc> ACCEPTED:  Assertions about time are useful but are optional

RESOLVED: Assertions about time are useful but are optional

14:55:32 <SamCoppens> luc: Ordering of events

Luc Moreau: Ordering of events

14:56:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

14:56:47 <SamCoppens> Paolo: it is important to have an understanding of the ordering of events, but it may be left out of the provenance

Paolo Missier: it is important to have an understanding of the ordering of events, but it may be left out of the provenance

14:57:09 <Paolo_> S/paolo/Paulo

Paolo Missier: S/paolo/Paulo

14:58:44 <GK> (Saying that a resource is used before it is generated is not the same as saying nothing about ordering.)

Graham Klyne: (Saying that a resource is used before it is generated is not the same as saying nothing about ordering.)

14:58:59 <Luc> PROPOSED: separate Time from (Event) Ordering

PROPOSED: separate Time from (Event) Ordering

14:59:59 <SamCoppens> SimonM: what is the reason to include Ordering

Simon Miles: what is the reason to include Ordering

14:59:59 <IlkayAltintas> +q

Ilkay Altintas: +q

15:00:24 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

15:00:28 <Luc> zakim, open the queue

Luc Moreau: zakim, open the queue

15:00:35 <Zakim> ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open

15:00:42 <Luc> Chair: Luc Moreau
15:00:47 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

15:00:47 <Luc> zakim, open the queue

Luc Moreau: zakim, open the queue

15:01:01 <Deborah> q?

Deborah McGuinness: q?

15:01:07 <IlkayAltintas> +q

Ilkay Altintas: +q

15:01:15 <Zakim> ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Luc, the speaker queue is open

15:01:16 <SamCoppens> Luc: it is explanatory

Luc Moreau: it is explanatory

15:01:45 <pgroth> akk Paulo

Paul Groth: akk Paulo

15:01:50 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:03:18 <GK> Yes. Not all metadata is provenance (but may still be useful, and provenance should not exclude non-provenance information)

Graham Klyne: Yes. Not all metadata is provenance (but may still be useful, and provenance should not exclude non-provenance information)

15:03:24 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:03:38 <Satya> time dimension is the only criteria differentiating provenance and non-provenance metadata (my 2cs)

Satya Sahoo: time dimension is the only criteria differentiating provenance and non-provenance metadata (my 2cs)

15:04:10 <Luc> ack Paulo

Luc Moreau: ack Paulo

15:04:14 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

15:04:21 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:04:31 <IlkayAltintas> -q

Ilkay Altintas: -q

15:04:50 <IlkayAltintas> q-\

Ilkay Altintas: q-\

15:04:52 <IlkayAltintas> q-

Ilkay Altintas: q-

15:05:32 <SamCoppens> Luc: will ordering of events be considered

Luc Moreau: will ordering of events be considered

15:05:33 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:05:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:06:09 <Luc> ack smi

Luc Moreau: ack smi

15:06:55 <SamCoppens> SimonM: is this explanatory or a constraint

Simon Miles: is this explanatory or a constraint

15:06:56 <Satya> @SimonM It needs to be a constraint

Satya Sahoo: @SimonM It needs to be a constraint

15:07:24 <Paulo> time issue 6 would lead us to talk about ccs, csp, temporal logics and dynamic logics among others.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: time ISSUE-6 would lead us to talk about ccs, csp, temporal logics and dynamic logics among others.

15:07:36 <smiles> @Satya oh, does it now?

Simon Miles: @Satya oh, does it now?

15:09:45 <Satya> @SimonM ;)

Satya Sahoo: @SimonM ;)

15:09:51 <Luc> Issue: consider ordering of event in model and semantics

ISSUE: consider ordering of event in model and semantics

15:09:51 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-27 - Consider ordering of event in model and semantics ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/27/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-27 - Consider ordering of event in model and semantics ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/27/edit .

15:10:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:10:40 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:10:42 <SamCoppens> Agent definition

Agent definition

15:10:49 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

15:10:53 <Luc> Subtopic: Agent

2.2. Agent

15:10:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:10:58 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

15:11:06 <Luc> ack pgroth

Luc Moreau: ack pgroth

15:11:07 <Paolo_> q+

Paolo Missier: q+

15:11:42 <Satya> q+ respond to Paul

Satya Sahoo: q+ respond to Paul

15:11:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:11:56 <Deborah> +1 to paul's view- agents should be able to stand alone

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to paul's view- agents should be able to stand alone

15:12:02 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agents just being able to exist in provenance description. Agents should be able to stand alone

Paul Groth: Agents just being able to exist in provenance description. Agents should be able to stand alone

15:13:10 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agents should not always be bound to process execution

Paul Groth: Agents should not always be bound to process execution

15:13:13 <Luc> ack Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim

15:13:44 <SamCoppens> JimMc: Agent is entity that can perform activity, but they must not be bound to activity

James McCusker: Agent is entity that can perform activity, but they must not be bound to activity

15:14:01 <Luc> ack zed

Luc Moreau: ack zed

15:14:51 <Luc> ack paolo

Luc Moreau: ack paolo

15:14:51 <Satya> @Stephan, JimMc: "Capable of action" is provenance? - hypothetical scenario?

Satya Sahoo: @Stephan, JimMc: "Capable of action" is provenance? - hypothetical scenario?

15:15:02 <JimMcCusker> "An Agent is an Entity that can perform activities. Agency can be inferred from the performance of an activity, but is not necessary."

James McCusker: "An Agent is an Entity that can perform activities. Agency can be inferred from the performance of an activity, but is not necessary."

15:15:17 <Zakim> +[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI]

15:15:54 <SamCoppens> Paolo: Agents do not depend on processes. If process execution includes participants, then you could have agents with a specific role related to a process execution

Paolo Missier: Agents do not depend on processes. If process execution includes participants, then you could have agents with a specific role related to a process execution

15:15:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:16:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:16:42 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

15:16:53 <Deborah> so this is just an optional property - that they can but are not required to perform anything.....   so in something like an OWL encoding, there would not be any constraint in the ontology - it would just have a min cardinality 0 on any role associated with hasActivity or something like it

Deborah McGuinness: so this is just an optional property - that they can but are not required to perform anything..... so in something like an OWL encoding, there would not be any constraint in the ontology - it would just have a min cardinality 0 on any role associated with hasActivity or something like it

15:17:55 <Deborah> +q

Deborah McGuinness: +q

15:17:56 <JimMcCusker> "Capable of action" simply means that they can participate in a process execution. This isn't provenance, but is used in provenance.

James McCusker: "Capable of action" simply means that they can participate in a process execution. This isn't provenance, but is used in provenance.

15:18:05 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

15:18:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:18:48 <Luc> ack respond

Luc Moreau: ack respond

15:18:48 <Zakim> respond, you wanted to Paul

Zakim IRC Bot: respond, you wanted to Paul

15:19:00 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

15:19:17 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

15:19:23 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:20:11 <SamCoppens> Satya: agent is defined in respect to process execution

Satya Sahoo: agent is defined in respect to process execution

15:20:18 <tlebo> Isn't "Paul" and "Paul at MIT" just Entities being described in a BOB?

Timothy Lebo: Isn't "Paul" and "Paul at MIT" just Entities being described in a BOB?

15:20:22 <zednik> What do we gain from differentiating paul the agent from paul the person?

Stephan Zednik: What do we gain from differentiating paul the agent from paul the person?

15:20:23 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:21:10 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

15:21:53 <SamCoppens> Khalid: is Agent entity or Bob

Khalid Belhajjame: is Agent entity or Bob

15:22:31 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:22:44 <Luc> ack khal

Luc Moreau: ack khal

15:23:11 <Luc> ack Debo

Luc Moreau: ack Debo

15:23:15 <Deborah> Agent is a class One can be stated to be an agent COMPLETELY independent of performing any action or participating in any activity.  (supporting Paul’s statement). Independently there may be potentially multiple sufficient conditions for membership in the class  agent. One such example of a sufficient condition for membership in the class agent:  If something performs an particular kinds of activities (such as a process execution), then it will be inferred to

Deborah McGuinness: Agent is a class One can be stated to be an agent COMPLETELY independent of performing any action or participating in any activity. (supporting Paul’s statement). Independently there may be potentially multiple sufficient conditions for membership in the class agent. One such example of a sufficient condition for membership in the class agent: If something performs an particular kinds of activities (such as a process execution), then it will be inferred to

15:23:15 <JimMcCusker> Do you lose agency when you finish a process execution?

James McCusker: Do you lose agency when you finish a process execution?

15:24:29 <GK> To the extent that an agent/agency is part of the provenance record, I think its "agency" (with respect to a given BOB) should be enduring.

Graham Klyne: To the extent that an agent/agency is part of the provenance record, I think its "agency" (with respect to a given BOB) should be enduring.

15:24:39 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:25:04 <SamCoppens> Deborah: agents can be inferred from a process execution, but they can also exist on their own

Deborah McGuinness: agents can be inferred from a process execution, but they can also exist on their own

15:25:09 <Luc> ack paulo

Luc Moreau: ack paulo

15:25:16 <JimMcCusker> +1 to deborah's proposal

James McCusker: +1 to deborah's proposal

15:26:35 <Paolo_> +1 to deb's def

Paolo Missier: +1 to deb's def

15:26:57 <zednik> EntityState could be valid for an interval

Stephan Zednik: EntityState could be valid for an interval

15:26:59 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:27:00 <JimMcCusker> Isn't an assertion (verb) a kind of action? I don't see how you can assert an action, except to state that it happened.

James McCusker: Isn't an assertion (verb) a kind of action? I don't see how you can assert an action, except to state that it happened.

15:27:50 <SamCoppens> Paulo: Agent a something that can assert things, asserting being an action.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Agent a something that can assert things, asserting being an action.

15:27:54 <Luc> ack zedn

Luc Moreau: ack zedn

15:28:19 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:28:21 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

15:28:38 <tlebo> +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.

Timothy Lebo: +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.

15:28:51 <JimMcCusker> +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.

James McCusker: +1 EntityState spans interval, NOT instant in time.

15:29:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

15:29:19 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

15:29:33 <SamCoppens> StephanZ: Agent is an entity state

Stephan Zednik: Agent is an entity state

15:29:34 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

15:29:39 <Luc> ack Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim

15:31:02 <zednik> clarification \: if agent status is dependent on process execution, then agent would seem (to me) to be an entity state - BUT most communities have not taken this path in using the term agent

Stephan Zednik: clarification \: if agent status is dependent on process execution, then agent would seem (to me) to be an entity state - BUT most communities have not taken this path in using the term agent

15:31:37 <zednik> clarification \: so I think for clarity and synergy with existing terminologies it would be easier to use Deborah's definition of agent

Stephan Zednik: clarification \: so I think for clarity and synergy with existing terminologies it would be easier to use Deborah's definition of agent

15:31:51 <tlebo> +1 assertion is an event that produces a BOB

Timothy Lebo: +1 assertion is an event that produces a BOB

15:32:06 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

15:32:53 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro

15:33:13 <Satya> @PaulG: is an asserter an agent?

Satya Sahoo: @PaulG: is an asserter an agent?

15:34:31 <zednik> if an agent is an entity than it would naturally have an entitystate

Stephan Zednik: if an agent is an entity than it would naturally have an entitystate

15:34:48 <Luc> ack smil

Luc Moreau: ack smil

15:35:09 <SamCoppens> PaulG: agent is an entity capable of activity, it can be asserted to be an agent or it can be inferred from a process exectution. Introducing Agent State

Paul Groth: agent is an entity capable of activity, it can be asserted to be an agent or it can be inferred from a process exectution. Introducing Agent State

15:35:59 <SamCoppens> SimonM: Agent is Entity state, with invariant properties

Simon Miles: Agent is Entity state, with invariant properties

15:36:22 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:36:43 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:36:48 <IlkayAltintas> +q

Ilkay Altintas: +q

15:36:51 <SamCoppens> SimonM: must Agent be included into the model

Simon Miles: must Agent be included into the model

15:36:58 <Satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

15:37:17 <zednik> audio is very quiet

Stephan Zednik: audio is very quiet

15:37:28 <SamCoppens> SimonM: defining Agent in the model, can make it problematic to link to e.g. foaf:Agent, dcterms:Agent

Simon Miles: defining Agent in the model, can make it problematic to link to e.g. foaf:Agent, dcterms:Agent

15:38:25 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:38:26 <SamCoppens> Khalid: Agent can be involved in multiple process exections, which can be exectuted in overlapping time intervals

Khalid Belhajjame: Agent can be involved in multiple process exections, which can be exectuted in overlapping time intervals

15:38:29 <Luc> ack khal

Luc Moreau: ack khal

15:38:35 <pgroth> I think I've been convinced that agent = entity state

Paul Groth: I think I've been convinced that agent = entity state

15:38:54 <pgroth> the point is that state keeps having this connotation of moment

Paul Groth: the point is that state keeps having this connotation of moment

15:38:59 <SamCoppens> Khalid: this would entity states with overlapping time intervals

Khalid Belhajjame: this would entity states with overlapping time intervals

15:39:02 <pgroth> which clearly it's not

Paul Groth: which clearly it's not

15:39:35 <JimMcCusker> Still not convinced that agent = entity state. State is not the thing itself.

James McCusker: Still not convinced that agent = entity state. State is not the thing itself.

15:39:38 <Luc> ack paulo

Luc Moreau: ack paulo

15:40:21 <pgroth> @Jim - but you agree that agents have a fixed property right? (their being an agent)

Paul Groth: @Jim - but you agree that agents have a fixed property right? (their being an agent)

15:40:37 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:41:15 <JimMcCusker> @Paul, yes, but a description of that state is not the entity itself.

James McCusker: @Paul, yes, but a description of that state is not the entity itself.

15:41:46 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:41:51 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg

15:41:53 <SamCoppens> Paulo: Agent as en entity because e.g. trust is related to entities (agent) not entity states (agent states)

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Agent as en entity because e.g. trust is related to entities (agent) not entity states (agent states)

15:42:22 <zednik> @Jim, so how do (or should) we say that an entity is an agent for a given interval associated to an entity state?

Stephan Zednik: @Jim, so how do (or should) we say that an entity is an agent for a given interval associated to an entity state?

15:42:32 <JimMcCusker> And as Paulo is discussing, it would be important to be able to say that my FOAF identity is me, and then the AgentState is the reference to my identity PLUS contextualization.

James McCusker: And as Paulo is discussing, it would be important to be able to say that my FOAF identity is me, and then the AgentState is the reference to my identity PLUS contextualization.

15:42:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:42:34 <Deborah> one of paulo's points was that if we have an agent as a subclass of entity state rather than entity, it is problematic to model a number of things including reputation

Deborah McGuinness: one of paulo's points was that if we have an agent as a subclass of entity state rather than entity, it is problematic to model a number of things including reputation

15:42:40 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

15:43:35 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Agent is bob, but it does not mean it cannot have a lifetime

Paul Groth: Agent is bob, but it does not mean it cannot have a lifetime

15:43:37 <Luc> ack Ilk

Luc Moreau: ack Ilk

15:43:59 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

15:44:24 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

15:44:31 <SamCoppens> Ilkay: Agent in the context of bob is a role

Ilkay Altintas: Agent in the context of bob is a role

15:44:37 <smiles> q-

Simon Miles: q-

15:45:06 <SamCoppens> Ilkay: Agents as an entity, its roles as a bob in the context of provenance

Ilkay Altintas: Agents as an entity, its roles as a bob in the context of provenance

15:45:15 <Luc> ack Sat

Luc Moreau: ack Sat

15:45:53 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

15:49:17 <YolandaGil> I am wondering why we need to state that a participant in a process is an agent.  Why do we need to distinguish other participants from the "agents" in a process?  I think we only care if we want to ask for accoutability, if so we should have that term in the definition of agent.

Yolanda Gil: I am wondering why we need to state that a participant in a process is an agent. Why do we need to distinguish other participants from the "agents" in a process? I think we only care if we want to ask for accoutability, if so we should have that term in the definition of agent.

15:50:08 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

15:51:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:52:25 <Luc> ack  Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim

15:54:44 <Luc> PROPOSED: An agent is a SOMETHING (TBD) capable of activity.  It can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred  to be an agent by involvement in a process execution.

PROPOSED: An agent is a SOMETHING (TBD) capable of activity. It can be asserted to be an agent or can be inferred to be an agent by involvement in a process execution.

15:54:52 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:54:55 <JimMcCusker> +1

James McCusker: +1

15:55:04 <smiles> 0 (if we have to define it, this is good; I still believe it will lead less problems to exclude it from the model and let others use their own agency concepts)

Simon Miles: 0 (if we have to define it, this is good; I still believe it will lead less problems to exclude it from the model and let others use their own agency concepts)

15:55:31 <YolandaGil> I agree with Simon's comment!

Yolanda Gil: I agree with Simon's comment!

15:56:19 <SamCoppens> Paulo: is *asserting* a process execution? If so, asserters are agents, otherwise not.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: is *asserting* a process execution? If so, asserters are agents, otherwise not.

15:56:49 <Satya> +1

Satya Sahoo: +1

15:56:53 <khalidbelhajjame> +1

Khalid Belhajjame: +1

15:57:02 <RyanGolden> +1

Ryan Golden: +1

15:57:06 <Paulo> -1

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: -1

15:57:07 <SamCoppens> +1

+1

15:57:07 <ericstephan> +1

Eric Stephan: +1

15:57:09 <IlkayAltintas> +1

Ilkay Altintas: +1

15:57:09 <JimMcCusker> @smiles: If we push "Agent" off of BOB to something else, then we can express agency indirectly and let other ontologies address it.

James McCusker: @smiles: If we push "Agent" off of BOB to something else, then we can express agency indirectly and let other ontologies address it.

15:57:18 <jcheney> +1

James Cheney: +1

15:57:25 <Paolo_> +1

Paolo Missier: +1

15:57:26 <Deborah> possibly at least 2 things need to be addressed in followon to this - what is something ?  should we refine "involvement in a process execution"?  and is it related to assertion?

Deborah McGuinness: possibly at least 2 things need to be addressed in followon to this - what is something ? should we refine "involvement in a process execution"? and is it related to assertion?

15:57:39 <zednik> +1

Stephan Zednik: +1

15:57:43 <tlebo> 0 concern about "involvement" not being "agency enough"

Timothy Lebo: 0 concern about "involvement" not being "agency enough"

15:57:56 <YolandaGil> 0 for the same reason as Simon

Yolanda Gil: 0 for the same reason as Simon

15:58:06 <zednik> involvement -> participation?

Stephan Zednik: involvement -> participation?

15:58:16 <GK2> +0.5 (I think I agree, but don't know enough to be sure)

Graham Klyne: +0.5 (I think I agree, but don't know enough to be sure)

15:58:26 <JimMcCusker> @tlebo: involvement can be role-based, which would clarify what kind of agency.

James McCusker: @tlebo: involvement can be role-based, which would clarify what kind of agency.

15:58:26 <tlebo> (paulo hit me, we're both involved but Paulo was the agent and not me)

Timothy Lebo: (paulo hit me, we're both involved but Paulo was the agent and not me)

15:58:28 <Deborah> 0 also because we may want more refinement on "involvement"

Deborah McGuinness: 0 also because we may want more refinement on "involvement"

15:58:42 <zednik> change vote to 0 for same reasons as tim and deborah

Stephan Zednik: change vote to 0 for same reasons as tim and deborah

15:58:51 <Satya> +1 for involvement -> participation

Satya Sahoo: +1 for involvement -> participation

15:59:07 <GK2> I'm assuming it will be useful in provenance record to say things like "Dr Spock collected this dataset"

Graham Klyne: I'm assuming it will be useful in provenance record to say things like "Dr Spock collected this dataset"

15:59:28 <GK2> (My experience w/scientists suggests this is v important to them)

Graham Klyne: (My experience w/scientists suggests this is v important to them)

15:59:33 <JimMcCusker> Actually, @tlebo, I think @Paulo was the only agent. You had your BOB changed to a new one. He hit you in your BOB.

James McCusker: Actually, @tlebo, I think @Paulo was the only agent. You had your BOB changed to a new one. He hit you in your BOB.

15:59:54 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

15:59:55 <JimMcCusker> +1 for involvement -> participation

James McCusker: +1 for involvement -> participation

15:59:58 <Paulo> An agent can be involved with a process execution and if the process execution is an assertion that the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: An agent can be involved with a process execution and if the process execution is an assertion that the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.

16:00:09 <smiles> q-

Simon Miles: q-

16:02:18 <Deborah> discussion point - is an assertion a type of process execution?

Deborah McGuinness: discussion point - is an assertion a type of process execution?

16:02:25 <Luc> if the process execution is an assertion, then  the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.

Luc Moreau: if the process execution is an assertion, then the agent is the asserter of any output of the process execution.

16:02:49 <GK2> @Paolo, who do you suggest this cannot be incorprated later?

Graham Klyne: @Paolo, why do you suggest this cannot be incorprated later?

16:02:55 <GK2> s/who/why/
16:03:01 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:03:21 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q-

16:03:25 <tlebo> roled involvements in a process execution: Tim is punch victim, Paulo is puncher (in another example: Paulo is asserter)

Timothy Lebo: roled involvements in a process execution: Tim is punch victim, Paulo is puncher (in another example: Paulo is asserter)

16:05:21 <Luc> Action to smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent

Luc Moreau: Action to smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent

16:05:21 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to

16:05:53 <Luc> Action: smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent

ACTION: smiles to explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent

16:05:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-17 - Explain how data journalism example works without a concept of agent [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

16:06:28 <Luc> Action: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter

ACTION: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter

16:06:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-18 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].

16:07:18 <Luc> Action: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter

ACTION: paulo to formulate a proposal for agent and asserter

16:07:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-19 - Formulate a proposal for agent and asserter [on Paulo Pinheiro da Silva - due 2011-07-14].

16:07:53 <Luc> action: zednik to reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement

ACTION: zednik to reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement

16:07:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-20 - Reformulate definition of agent with participation instead of involvement [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].

16:07:54 <YolandaGil> @tlebo: Remember our process is generating a bob, so we already implicitly identifying one of the participants as having a special status.  Your example I find is right but agency there is domain specific.  I'd rather keep the model as lean as possible.

Yolanda Gil: @tlebo: Remember our process is generating a bob, so we already implicitly identifying one of the participants as having a special status. Your example I find is right but agency there is domain specific. I'd rather keep the model as lean as possible.

16:08:31 <Luc> action: jimmckcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmckcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:08:31 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmckcusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmckcusker

16:08:46 <Luc> action: jimmcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmcusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:08:46 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmcusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmcusker

16:09:00 <Luc> action: jimmccusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmccusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:09:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmccusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmccusker

16:09:21 <JimMcCusker> <- This is my handle

James McCusker: <- This is my handle

16:09:33 <Luc> action:  JimMcCusker  to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: JimMcCusker to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:09:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JimMcCusker

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - JimMcCusker

16:09:48 <sandro> trackbot, list users

Sandro Hawke: trackbot, list users

16:09:48 <trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

16:10:03 <sandro> action: Jim  to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:10:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim

16:10:11 <sandro> action: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: Jim to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:10:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - Jim

16:10:20 <Luc> action:  smiles  to provide justification for why agent is entity state

ACTION: smiles to provide justification for why agent is entity state

16:10:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 -  to provide justification for why agent is entity state [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-21 - to provide justification for why agent is entity state [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

16:10:38 <Luc> subtopic: IVP of

2.3. IVP of

16:10:57 <sandro> action: James to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: James to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:10:57 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - James

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - James

16:10:57 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jcheney, jmyers4, jfrew, jmccuske)

Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jcheney, jmyers4, jfrew, jmccuske)

16:11:28 <sandro> action: jmccuske to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jmccuske to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:11:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Provide justification for why agent is entity [on James McCusker - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-22 - Provide justification for why agent is entity [on James McCusker - due 2011-07-14].

16:12:32 <sandro> action: jimmc to provide justification for why agent is entity

ACTION: jimmc to provide justification for why agent is entity

16:12:32 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmc

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jimmc

16:13:49 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

16:13:51 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:14:01 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:14:02 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

16:14:07 <Luc> ack Paulo

Luc Moreau: ack Paulo

16:14:11 <Luc> ack smiles

Luc Moreau: ack smiles

16:14:16 <GK2> Is there anything I can look at online to see this reviewed definition?

Graham Klyne: Is there anything I can look at online to see this reviewed definition?

16:14:47 <GK2> Ah, the webcam's back :)

Graham Klyne: Ah, the webcam's back :)

16:15:20 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:15:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:16:17 <jcheney> @GK2: revised defn is at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions#IVP_of

James Cheney: @GK2: revised defn is at: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/F2F1ConceptDefinitions#IVP_of

16:16:18 <GK2> I'm uncomfortable about defining invariant perspective in terms of properties... I suppose it works from a DL perspective, but I think of it more like a contextual constraint.

Graham Klyne: I'm uncomfortable about defining invariant perspective in terms of properties... I suppose it works from a DL perspective, but I think of it more like a contextual constraint.

16:17:14 <JimMcCusker> For reference:

James McCusker: For reference:

16:17:45 <JimMcCusker> Sorry, for reference http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9752413/abstractionInProvenance.pdf

James McCusker: Sorry, for reference http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9752413/abstractionInProvenance.pdf

16:18:29 <Satya> Khalid: The two points regarding properties of IVP entities is not enough for ensuring consistency

Khalid Belhajjame: The two points regarding properties of IVP entities is not enough for ensuring consistency [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ]

16:18:43 <Zakim> -[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI]

16:19:20 <Satya> Luc: Consistency is responsibility of asserter (outside PIL scope)

Luc Moreau: Consistency is responsibility of asserter (outside PIL scope) [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ]

16:19:24 <Paulo> @JimMcCusker: thanks

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: @JimMcCusker: thanks

16:20:08 <JimMcCusker> One change from previous discussions: Work in FRBR (I think) corresponds to Entity in PIL.

James McCusker: One change from previous discussions: Work in FRBR (I think) corresponds to Entity in PIL.

16:20:40 <GK2> I don't think FRBR patterns help here

Graham Klyne: I don't think FRBR patterns help here

16:20:57 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:20:59 <zednik> @Jim, I think FRBR:Entity corresponds to PIL:Entity

Stephan Zednik: @Jim, I think FRBR:Entity corresponds to PIL:Entity

16:21:54 <Paulo> @JimMcCusker: One issue with your last statement is that it may be a work of God

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: @JimMcCusker: One issue with your last statement is that it may be a work of God

16:22:33 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

16:22:39 <Luc> ack khali

Luc Moreau: ack khali

16:23:23 <GK> I don't  agree that BOBs are manifestations/expressions to resource/subject as Work

Graham Klyne: I don't agree that BOBs are manifestations/expressions to resource/subject as Work

16:23:27 <Satya> JimMc: current definition of IVP satisfies scenario in FRBR

James McCusker: current definition of IVP satisfies scenario in FRBR [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ]

16:23:32 <SamCoppens> JimMc: referenced document justifies the proposed definition

James McCusker: referenced document justifies the proposed definition

16:23:39 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

16:23:56 <Luc> ack Jim

Luc Moreau: ack Jim

16:24:08 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro

16:24:40 <GK> I think a BOB is essentially the same kind of thing as the original resource, but constrained in some way so that certain assertions are enduringly true where they would not be so for the original.  E.g. in a particular period or place.

Graham Klyne: I think a BOB is essentially the same kind of thing as the original resource, but constrained in some way so that certain assertions are enduringly true where they would not be so for the original. E.g. in a particular period or place.

16:25:04 <zednik> @GK, I agree, think ownership of a physical object

Stephan Zednik: @GK, I agree, think ownership of a physical object

16:25:05 <Satya> PaulG: Why should two entities participating in IVP need to share properties (?)

Paul Groth: Why should two entities participating in IVP need to share properties (?) [ Scribe Assist by Satya Sahoo ]

16:25:12 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:25:21 <smiles> q+

Simon Miles: q+

16:25:32 <khalidbelhajjame> +1 I agree with Paul

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 I agree with Paul

16:25:32 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Role of IVP is to relate entity states, declaring they are the same

Paul Groth: Role of IVP is to relate entity states, declaring they are the same

16:25:58 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:26:01 <SamCoppens> PaulG: Why need additional contraints

Paul Groth: Why need additional contraints

16:26:04 <Luc> ack zednik

Luc Moreau: ack zednik

16:26:06 <JimMcCusker> +1 to @pgroth's point.

James McCusker: +1 to @pgroth's point.

16:26:55 <GK> Nice example.

Graham Klyne: Nice example.

16:27:04 <SamCoppens> Stephen: disagree with Work in FRBR corresponds to Entity in PIL

Stephen Cresswell: disagree with Work in FRBR corresponds to Entity in PIL

16:27:06 <Deborah> +1 for paul's comment - about 1 - why do we need to require the additional constraints  and 2 I would like to be able to say that A and B can replace each other (possibly for a given context)

Deborah McGuinness: +1 for paul's comment - about 1 - why do we need to require the additional constraints and 2 I would like to be able to say that A and B can replace each other (possibly for a given context)

16:27:21 <tlebo> zednik: the owner history of a book. The book is an Entity. The book owned by different owners over time are different EntityStates.

Stephan Zednik: the owner history of a book. The book is an Entity. The book owned by different owners over time are different EntityStates. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

16:27:22 <GK> (Nice example = book changing ownership.)

Graham Klyne: (Nice example = book changing ownership.)

16:27:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:27:59 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

16:28:09 <Luc> ack jcheney

Luc Moreau: ack jcheney

16:28:34 <Satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+

16:28:53 <JimMcCusker> I guess any level in FRBR can be considered an Entity in itself, and then there are IPV relations between any if their entity states.

James McCusker: I guess any level in FRBR can be considered an Entity in itself, and then there are IPV relations between any if their entity states.

16:29:06 <zednik> @Jim - I agree

Stephan Zednik: @Jim - I agree

16:29:17 <GK> @jim +1

Graham Klyne: @jim +1

16:29:22 <JimMcCusker> Good thing I didn't change the PDF, then. :-)

James McCusker: Good thing I didn't change the PDF, then. :-)

16:29:29 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:30:09 <Luc> ack smiles

Luc Moreau: ack smiles

16:30:38 <GK> @smiles +1 entities (turtles) all the way down

Graham Klyne: @smiles +1 entities (turtles) all the way down

16:31:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

16:32:32 <JimMcCusker> Deborah, Tim, and I all represent RPI. :-)

James McCusker: Deborah, Tim, and I all represent RPI. :-)

16:33:03 <Luc> ack pgro

Luc Moreau: ack pgro

16:34:24 <Luc> issue: we need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity

ISSUE: we need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity

16:34:24 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-28 - We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-28 - We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28/edit .

16:34:40 <Deborah> and do we want to refine that for a particular purpose?

Deborah McGuinness: and do we want to refine that for a particular purpose?

16:35:33 <GK> When A is an IVP of B, assertions that are enduringly true of B are also enduringly true of A.  Further there may be some additional assertions  that are only transiently true of B  but are enduringly true of A.

Graham Klyne: When A is an IVP of B, assertions that are enduringly true of B are also enduringly true of A. Further there may be some additional assertions that are only transiently true of B but are enduringly true of A.

16:35:48 <pgroth> @GK you like enduring truth don't you :-)

Paul Groth: @GK you like enduring truth don't you :-)

16:36:02 <Luc> action: zednik to formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book)

ACTION: zednik to formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book)

16:36:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-23 - Formulate your definition of ivp of (including example of book) [on Stephan Zednik - due 2011-07-14].

16:36:29 <GK> @pgroth - I suppose :)  -- I think it is (close to) something that is key to provenance vs other metadata.

Graham Klyne: @pgroth - I suppose :) -- I think it is (close to) something that is key to provenance vs other metadata.

16:37:03 <smiles> @GK definitely agreed - coz what has happened has happened

Simon Miles: @GK definitely agreed - coz what has happened has happened

16:37:52 <Luc> action: smiles to clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities)

ACTION: smiles to clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities)

16:37:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities) [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-24 - Clarify ivp of, emphasis on invariant (and not sameness of entities) [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

16:38:22 <zednik> do we have a distinction between IVP and EntityState?

Stephan Zednik: do we have a distinction between IVP and EntityState?

16:38:28 <tlebo> @smiles, if it's not about sameness of entities, what is IVP about?

Timothy Lebo: @smiles, if it's not about sameness of entities, what is IVP about?

16:39:04 <Luc> action to pgroth to formulate a mechanism for issue-28

Luc Moreau: action to pgroth to formulate a mechanism for ISSUE-28

16:39:04 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to

16:39:18 <JimMcCusker> action pgroth to formulate a mechanism for issue-28

James McCusker: action pgroth to formulate a mechanism for ISSUE-28

16:39:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Formulate a mechanism for issue-28 [on Paul Groth - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-25 - Formulate a mechanism for ISSUE-28 [on Paul Groth - due 2011-07-14].

16:39:22 <smiles> @tlebo it is about relation between what is invariant about one bob and what is invariant about another - specifically that if one is the subset of another, then the provenance of one includes the provenance of another

Simon Miles: @tlebo it is about relation between what is invariant about one bob and what is invariant about another - specifically that if one is the subset of another, then the provenance of one includes the provenance of another

16:39:43 <GK> (Maybe "enduring truth" -> "invariant truth")

Graham Klyne: (Maybe "enduring truth" -> "invariant truth")

16:39:44 <Satya> @zednick - exactly the question I wanted to ask

Satya Sahoo: @zednick - exactly the question I wanted to ask

16:40:20 <GK> "tlebo - problem is that sameness can be hard to pin down, so appealing to it creates problem.  At some intuitive level, there is a degree of sameness.

Graham Klyne: "tlebo - problem is that sameness can be hard to pin down, so appealing to it creates problem. At some intuitive level, there is a degree of sameness.

16:41:05 <pgroth> @zednick @Satya - yes absolutely, entity state is just a way to identify entities through some invariant properties, no?

Paul Groth: @zednick @Satya - yes absolutely, entity state is just a way to identify entities through some invariant properties, no?

16:41:06 <GK> "corerespondence" assumes discrete properties to refer to.  This is why I prefer definition in terms of assertions rather than interms of properties.

Graham Klyne: "corerespondence" assumes discrete properties to refer to. This is why I prefer definition in terms of assertions rather than interms of properties.

16:41:14 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:42:00 <GK> @pgroth the way we use it, yes, but I worry about implications of "state"

Graham Klyne: @pgroth the way we use it, yes, but I worry about implications of "state"

16:42:04 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:42:08 <Luc> ack satya

Luc Moreau: ack satya

16:42:47 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

16:42:51 <GK> For example, some models of "state" are strictly sequential, and invariants are not necessarily sequentially related.

Graham Klyne: For example, some models of "state" are strictly sequential, and invariants are not necessarily sequentially related.

16:43:30 <smiles> @GK I find a problem with defining in terms of assertions - in that it is not the assertions which need invariance. I agree that properties are invariant to some perspective/for some asserter.

Simon Miles: @GK I find a problem with defining in terms of assertions - in that it is not the assertions which need invariance. I agree that properties are invariant to some perspective/for some asserter.

16:44:42 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

16:45:23 <Satya> q-

Satya Sahoo: q-

16:45:27 <tlebo> what does IVP provide that doesn't fall out of overlapping descriptions of multiple EntityStates?

Timothy Lebo: what does IVP provide that doesn't fall out of overlapping descriptions of multiple EntityStates?

16:45:32 <Luc> action: satya to comment on future definitions of ivp of

ACTION: satya to comment on future definitions of ivp of

16:45:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-26 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Satya Sahoo - due 2011-07-14].

16:45:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

16:45:48 <GK> @smiles, I can live with properties, as that's what we generally deal with in Web descriptions.  But philosophically, I feel assertions are more fundamental.  (I think Quine wrote something about this.)

Graham Klyne: @smiles, I can live with properties, as that's what we generally deal with in Web descriptions. But philosophically, I feel assertions are more fundamental. (I think Quine wrote something about this.)

16:46:17 <zednik> @tlebo agreed, is there a constraint that an entity may only have one defined entitystate at a time?

Stephan Zednik: @tlebo agreed, is there a constraint that an entity may only have one defined entitystate at a time?

16:46:41 <tlebo> to be continue :-)

Timothy Lebo: to be continue :-)

16:46:44 <pgroth> @zednik I don't think so --- well it doesn't say it

Paul Groth: @zednik I don't think so --- well it doesn't say it

16:46:45 <zednik> :)

Stephan Zednik: :)

16:46:45 <tlebo> d

Timothy Lebo: d

16:46:49 <Luc> action: khalid to comment on future definitions of ivp of

ACTION: khalid to comment on future definitions of ivp of

16:46:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Khalid Belhajjame - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-27 - Comment on future definitions of ivp of [on Khalid Belhajjame - due 2011-07-14].

16:46:53 <pgroth> anyway, lunch time!

Paul Groth: anyway, lunch time!

16:47:01 <GK> OK -- that's me done here for the day.  I need to be elsewhere very soon, so good luck with the rest of the meeting.

Graham Klyne: OK -- that's me done here for the day. I need to be elsewhere very soon, so good luck with the rest of the meeting.

16:47:02 <pgroth> back at 1:30pm EST

Paul Groth: back at 1:30pm EST

16:47:09 <pgroth> Thanks GK!!

Paul Groth: Thanks GK!!

16:47:21 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

16:47:41 <Luc> action: jamesM to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1

ACTION: jamesM to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1

16:47:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jamesM

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - jamesM

16:47:57 <Luc> action: myers to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1

ACTION: myers to revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1

16:47:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 [on James Myers - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-28 - Revisit the definition of ivp of in the light of the new terminology adopted at F2F1 [on James Myers - due 2011-07-14].

16:48:54 <GK> (Watching Luc stretch on webcam is amusing - looks a bit robo-pop)

Graham Klyne: (Watching Luc stretch on webcam is amusing - looks a bit robo-pop)

16:50:23 <Zakim> -GK

Zakim IRC Bot: -GK

17:32:01 <pgroth> Chair: pgroth, luc
17:33:36 <Zakim> +??P3

(No events recorded for 43 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

17:33:48 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

17:33:49 <dgarijo> Zakim, ??P3 is me

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, ??P3 is me

17:33:49 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it

17:35:21 <dgarijo> Zakim, who is here?

Daniel Garijo: Zakim, who is here?

17:35:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, dgarijo, zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, dgarijo, zednik

17:35:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, IlkayAltintas, Yogesh, edsu, zednik, Satya, Paulo, GK2, JimMcCusker, Vinh, smiles, jcheney, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see dgarijo, olaf, IlkayAltintas, Yogesh, edsu, zednik, Satya, Paulo, GK2, JimMcCusker, Vinh, smiles, jcheney, tlebo, khalidbelhajjame, pgroth, GK, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc,

17:35:24 <Zakim> ... ericP, stain, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... ericP, stain, sandro, trackbot

17:36:34 <Luc> Scribe: Satya Sahoo

(Scribe set to Satya Sahoo)

12:49:18 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 7: PAQ TF

3. Session 7: PAQ TF

Summary: In this session, a plan for developing an access document was developed and a mechanism for helping to decide upon proposals was agreed upon. It was agreed to start with Graham's document as a starting point and to raise issues against that document once it was transferred to the W3C version control system. In order to evaluate various proposals, a use case scenario at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario was agreed upon.

<pgroth> Summary: In this session, a plan for developing an access document was developed and a mechanism for helping to decide upon proposals was agreed upon. It was agreed to start with Graham's document as a starting point and to raise issues against that document once it was transferred to the W3C version control system. In order to evaluate various proposals, a use case scenario at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario was agreed upon.
17:38:01 <Satya> SimonM: Reconcile the PAQTF proposals - review and document the issues

(No events recorded for 288 minutes)

Simon Miles: Reconcile the PAQTF proposals - review and document the issues

17:38:44 <tlebo> smiles: will need to enumerate requirements.

Simon Miles: will need to enumerate requirements. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

17:39:02 <Satya> SimonM: Requirements for the proposals should include reasons

Simon Miles: Requirements for the proposals should include reasons

17:39:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:39:30 <tlebo> smiles: 1) plan for document and 2) proposals stating their requirements and why important.

Simon Miles: 1) plan for document and 2) proposals stating their requirements and why important. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

17:39:33 <khalidbelhajjame> -q

Khalid Belhajjame: -q

17:40:21 <Satya> Yogesh: Need to discuss the metrics or guidelines for defining the proposals and the reasons associated with the proposals

Yogesh Simmhan: Need to discuss the metrics or guidelines for defining the proposals and the reasons associated with the proposals

17:40:41 <tlebo> yogesh: metrics would be used to evaluate each proposal.

Yogesh Simmhan: metrics would be used to evaluate each proposal. [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

17:40:45 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

17:40:57 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

17:41:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:41:58 <Satya> Luc: Consider a scenario to identify the requirements

Luc Moreau: Consider a scenario to identify the requirements

17:42:07 <tlebo> luc: example scenarios to support. e.g. getting something over email and browsing the web

Luc Moreau: example scenarios to support. e.g. getting something over email and browsing the web [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

17:43:41 <Satya> PaulG: The proposals are not too distinct and can be reconciled easily

Paul Groth: The proposals are not too distinct and can be reconciled easily

17:44:21 <Satya> PaulG: Disagreements demonstrated with specific examples for given proposal

Paul Groth: Disagreements demonstrated with specific examples for given proposal

17:45:50 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:45:53 <Satya> PaulG: Should start requirement gathering

Paul Groth: Should start requirement gathering

17:46:05 <Satya> Should > should not

Should > should not

17:46:31 <Satya> SimonM: requirement gathering is in specific context of proposal

Simon Miles: requirement gathering is in specific context of proposal

17:46:43 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

17:46:54 <Satya> Sandro: focus should be on use cases, which lead to indentification of requirements

Sandro Hawke: focus should be on use cases, which lead to indentification of requirements

17:46:59 <Satya> q+

q+

17:47:08 <dgarijo> don't we have already a lot of requirements from the incubator?

Daniel Garijo: don't we have already a lot of requirements from the incubator?

17:48:13 <SamCoppens> @dgarijo indeed and they were gathered from the use cases

Sam Coppens: @dgarijo indeed and they were gathered from the use cases

17:49:21 <Luc> Consider the following scenario. A user gains access to an online resource through browsing the web and downloading it, by receiving by email, transferring it via FTP, or by some other protocol. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the resource will be retrieved and displayed. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and w

Luc Moreau: Consider the following scenario. A user gains access to an online resource through browsing the web and downloading it, by receiving by email, transferring it via FTP, or by some other protocol. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the resource will be retrieved and displayed. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and w

17:49:34 <Satya> q-

q-

17:51:02 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:52:39 <Satya> PaulG: A document is created that receives comments/raise issue against the document

Paul Groth: A document is created that receives comments/raise issue against the document

17:52:57 <Satya> SimonM: Graham has already created such a document

Simon Miles: Graham has already created such a document

17:53:51 <Satya> Yogesh: Should the document include all proposals or one proposal?

Yogesh Simmhan: Should the document include all proposals or one proposal?

17:54:12 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:54:55 <Luc> q+ can we agree to on the scenario to support

Luc Moreau: q+ can we agree to on the scenario to support

17:55:22 <Satya> Paul/SimonM: Graham's proposal may be used as starting point

Paul/SimonM: Graham's proposal may be used as starting point

17:55:36 <Satya> Luc: Define a scenario today?

Luc Moreau: Define a scenario today?

17:56:23 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

17:56:48 <Luc> A user obtains an html document. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the document will be retrieved and displayed. Provenance is retrieved from the provider site of the document and from a third-party site. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and where does that information come from?  We should consider that the htm

Luc Moreau: A user obtains an html document. The client software (browser, email client etc.) offers an "Oh yeah?" button, by which the provenance of the document will be retrieved and displayed. Provenance is retrieved from the provider site of the document and from a third-party site. What does the client do on the button being clicked, what information does it need in order to perform the retrieval, and where does that information come from? We should consider that the htm

17:57:28 <GK2> I really have to go soon, but I notuce Simon mentioned something I drafted as an example: http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html

Graham Klyne: I really have to go soon, but I notuce Simon mentioned something I drafted as an example: http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2011/provenance/ReSpec/provenance-access.html

17:57:42 <dgarijo> @GK2 thanks!

Daniel Garijo: @GK2 thanks!

17:57:56 <Luc> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

Luc Moreau: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

17:58:00 <GK2> The point was to use something like this as a focus for discussion, throw out stuff we don't want, add stuff we need, etc.

Graham Klyne: The point was to use something like this as a focus for discussion, throw out stuff we don't want, add stuff we need, etc.

17:58:05 <Satya> Try and agree on a scenario for use by the PAQ TF

Try and agree on a scenario for use by the PAQ TF

17:58:43 <GK2> (It uses ReSpec - seems to require browser console to fully geberate ToC -- dunno why)

Graham Klyne: (It uses ReSpec - seems to require browser console to fully geberate ToC -- dunno why)

17:59:39 <Satya> Luc: A specific example initially - html document

Luc Moreau: A specific example initially - html document

18:00:15 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:00:19 <IlkayAltintas> q+

Ilkay Altintas: q+

18:00:30 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

18:00:33 <Satya> Luc: Describes the provenance access scenario

Luc Moreau: Describes the provenance access scenario

18:01:18 <Satya> SimonM: If link is embedded in the html page, may not have to cover http-related issues (?)

Simon Miles: If link is embedded in the html page, may not have to cover http-related issues (?)

18:01:43 <Satya> Ilkay: Is the content public or requires consideration of access control

Ilkay Altintas: Is the content public or requires consideration of access control

18:01:59 <zednik> q+

Stephan Zednik: q+

18:02:43 <pgroth> ack Ilkay

Paul Groth: ack Ilkay

18:02:52 <Satya> SimonM: Mention that provenance available in multiple format

Simon Miles: Mention that provenance available in multiple format

18:03:44 <Satya> Sandro: The scenario should be described without using the term "provenance"

Sandro Hawke: The scenario should be described without using the term "provenance"

18:03:53 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:03:53 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

18:04:01 <pgroth> ack sandro

Paul Groth: ack sandro

18:04:45 <Satya> StephanZ: If we are using http get, then we don't need to explicitly mention access control

Stephan Zednik: If we are using http get, then we don't need to explicitly mention access control

18:04:48 <sandro> sandro: It would be very nice, some day, to have this scenario given, without deference to the word "provenance", to explain why this WG is doing such cool stuff.

Sandro Hawke: It would be very nice, some day, to have this scenario given, without deference to the word "provenance", to explain why this WG is doing such cool stuff. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:04:52 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

18:05:22 <zednik> q-

Stephan Zednik: q-

18:05:26 <Satya> simonM: We want consider only proposals and not specific solutions

Simon Miles: We want consider only proposals and not specific solutions

18:05:41 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:05:45 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

Paul Groth: ack Yogesh

18:05:56 <Satya> Yogesh: Is this provenance w.r.t entire document or parts of the document?

Yogesh Simmhan: Is this provenance w.r.t entire document or parts of the document?

18:06:11 <Satya> SimonM: Will it have impact on the access mechanism?

Simon Miles: Will it have impact on the access mechanism?

18:06:18 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:06:43 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:06:55 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

18:07:02 <Satya> q+

q+

18:07:09 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

18:07:37 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

18:07:47 <IlkayAltintas> q+

Ilkay Altintas: q+

18:07:56 <sandro> q-

Sandro Hawke: q-

18:08:00 <jcheney> q+

James Cheney: q+

18:08:01 <Satya> Luc: We should review the scenario bullet points and leave the issues for later discussion

Luc Moreau: We should review the scenario bullet points and leave the issues for later discussion

18:08:30 <pgroth> ack Paulo

Paul Groth: ack Paulo

18:08:58 <Deborah> +1 to allowing more flexibility on document type

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to allowing more flexibility on document type

18:09:05 <Satya> Paulo: Consider issue related to visualization of the provenance

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Consider issue related to visualization of the provenance

18:09:27 <Satya> Paulo: Provenance visualization is not part of "access"

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Provenance visualization is not part of "access"

18:09:29 <Deborah> +1 to allowing "oh yeah" functionality BUT not including display of it as part of the scope

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to allowing "oh yeah" functionality BUT not including display of it as part of the scope

18:09:54 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:10:27 <Satya> Luc: We consider only access and not visualization etc.

Luc Moreau: We consider only access and not visualization etc.

18:11:05 <Satya> Deborah: Replace "oh yeah" button with "oh yeah" functionality

Deborah McGuinness: Replace "oh yeah" button with "oh yeah" functionality

18:11:15 <JimMcCusker> http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2008-12-24/orly.jpeg

James McCusker: http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2008-12-24/orly.jpeg

18:11:19 <Satya> Luc: Modified scenario

Luc Moreau: Modified scenario

18:11:26 <dgarijo> :D

Daniel Garijo: :D

18:11:36 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:11:47 <pgroth> ack Satya

Paul Groth: ack Satya

18:12:16 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:12:28 <khalidbelhajjame> Satya: Does access have to reconcile information from multiple sources

Satya Sahoo: Does access have to reconcile information from multiple sources [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ]

18:12:36 <khalidbelhajjame> luc: outside of scope

Luc Moreau: outside of scope [ Scribe Assist by Khalid Belhajjame ]

18:13:06 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

18:14:20 <tlebo> smiles: secure access and formats are "allowed"

Simon Miles: secure access and formats are "allowed" [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

18:14:21 <pgroth> ack Ilka

Paul Groth: ack Ilka

18:14:25 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

18:14:33 <zednik> +1 detailing access control is out of scope

Stephan Zednik: +1 detailing access control is out of scope

18:14:54 <tlebo> ilkayaltintas: is provenance of document different from the scientific data? perhaps same scenario for two different usages?

Ilkay Altintas: is provenance of document different from the scientific data? perhaps same scenario for two different usages? [ Scribe Assist by Timothy Lebo ]

18:15:20 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:15:22 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

18:15:34 <dgarijo> I'm just wondering... Why would you want to publish provenance if you are going to restrict the access to it?

Daniel Garijo: I'm just wondering... Why would you want to publish provenance if you are going to restrict the access to it?

18:15:38 <Deborah> +1 to keeping acces control out of scope of this working group

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to keeping acces control out of scope of this working group

18:15:56 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

18:16:07 <Luc> @dgarijo because you may want to have a paying service

Luc Moreau: @dgarijo because you may want to have a paying service

18:16:36 <Satya> SimonM: Don't have make it domain specific

Simon Miles: Don't have make it domain specific

18:16:49 <dgarijo> @Luc true.

Daniel Garijo: @Luc true.

18:17:09 <Satya> q+ to respond to Ilkay

q+ to respond to Ilkay

18:17:25 <pgroth> ack jcheney

Paul Groth: ack jcheney

18:17:36 <Deborah> what if we change "html document" to web-based document minimally...... i would prefer to have no modifier on document though

Deborah McGuinness: what if we change "html document" to web-based document minimally...... i would prefer to have no modifier on document though

18:17:45 <Satya> @ILkay HTML pages and data (on the web) are not necessarily distinct

@ILkay HTML pages and data (on the web) are not necessarily distinct

18:17:53 <tlebo> Can http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario pick up from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample by having it s/A user obtains an html document. /A user obtains an html encoding of art1/ ?

Timothy Lebo: Can http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario pick up from http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceExample by having it s/A user obtains an html document. /A user obtains an html encoding of art1/ ?

18:18:26 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:18:27 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:18:37 <pgroth> ack Paulo

Paul Groth: ack Paulo

18:18:38 <tlebo> newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1)

Timothy Lebo: newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1)

18:18:48 <Satya> James Cheney: We can replace html document with only document

James Cheney: We can replace html document with only document

18:19:06 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:20:31 <tlebo> q+ to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))

Timothy Lebo: q+ to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))

18:20:40 <IlkayAltintas> @satya Agreed

Ilkay Altintas: @satya Agreed

18:21:21 <dgarijo> +1 to tlebo's proposal. It would be nice to see how the current approaches adapt to the proposed example.

Daniel Garijo: +1 to tlebo's proposal. It would be nice to see how the current approaches adapt to the proposed example.

18:21:54 <Satya> Paulo: Order of provenance documents to be retrieved should be out of scope of WG

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: Order of provenance documents to be retrieved should be out of scope of WG

18:21:59 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

Paul Groth: ack Yogesh

18:22:16 <Satya> +1 to tlebo proposal

+1 to tlebo proposal

18:22:54 <tlebo> q?

Timothy Lebo: q?

18:23:08 <pgroth> ack tlebo

Paul Groth: ack tlebo

18:23:08 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart

Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to propose the "document" that the access scenario "obtains" is the Data Journalism Example's "art1" (newspaper (news) publishes the incidence map (map1), chart

18:23:11 <Zakim> ... (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))

Zakim IRC Bot: ... (c1) and the image (img1) within a document (art1) written by (joe) using license (li2))

18:23:38 <Satya> Tim: Can we reuse specific entity from journalism example - chart, document, report

Timothy Lebo: Can we reuse specific entity from journalism example - chart, document, report

18:24:30 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:24:38 <Satya> q-

q-

18:25:34 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

18:25:46 <Satya> Luc: Agrees with Tim, but is concerned that this will require embedding provenance link in the document

Luc Moreau: Agrees with Tim, but is concerned that this will require embedding provenance link in the document

18:26:17 <sandro> +1 luc Lets focus on "html document" for now.

Sandro Hawke: +1 luc Lets focus on "html document" for now.

18:26:29 <Satya> Luc: Taking the deadline for first document prepared by end of month, need to keep scenario as simple

Luc Moreau: Taking the deadline for first document prepared by end of month, need to keep scenario as simple

18:26:39 <Deborah> what if we modify it to "the user obtains a document.  The initial scenario will focus on an html document"

Deborah McGuinness: what if we modify it to "the user obtains a document. The initial scenario will focus on an html document"

18:27:23 <Satya> Tim: We can pick a single entity from the journalism example

Timothy Lebo: We can pick a single entity from the journalism example

18:27:33 <sandro> Maybe restrict HTML in this example to not be using script or img or object.

Sandro Hawke: Maybe restrict HTML in this example to not be using script or img or object.

18:27:43 <Deborah> q+

Deborah McGuinness: q+

18:27:48 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

18:28:18 <sandro> +1 deborah, "initial scenario is html"

Sandro Hawke: +1 deborah, "initial scenario is html"

18:28:33 <Satya> Deborah: What if we modify scenario to "document" from "html document"

Deborah McGuinness: What if we modify scenario to "document" from "html document"

18:28:57 <pgroth> ack sandro

Paul Groth: ack sandro

18:29:00 <pgroth> ack Debo

Paul Groth: ack Debo

18:29:10 <Satya> Sandro: We don't consider anything to be embedded in the html document

Sandro Hawke: We don't consider anything to be embedded in the html document

18:30:05 <Satya> Luc: Clarified that this is initial scenario and documented on wiki page

Luc Moreau: Clarified that this is initial scenario and documented on wiki page

18:30:07 <dgarijo> @Sandro and what about the proposals which propose to embedd provenance in the html?

Daniel Garijo: @Sandro and what about the proposals which propose to embedd provenance in the html?

18:30:19 <dgarijo> +q

Daniel Garijo: +q

18:30:58 <pgroth> ack dgarijo

Paul Groth: ack dgarijo

18:31:32 <Satya> DanielG: Are we going to extend the initial example?

Daniel Garijo: Are we going to extend the initial example?

18:31:56 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:32:18 <Satya> PaulG: First point of the scenario is accepted

Paul Groth: First point of the scenario is accepted

18:33:45 <Satya> Yogesh: Add retrieval to access (for second point in example)

Yogesh Simmhan: Add retrieval to access (for second point in example)

18:35:22 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:35:55 <Satya> PaulG: Second point accepted with modification

Paul Groth: Second point accepted with modification

18:36:15 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:36:52 <Deborah> what about  Provenance may be accessed from the document provider as well as from third-parties.

Deborah McGuinness: what about Provenance may be accessed from the document provider as well as from third-parties.

18:37:19 <Deborah> q+

Deborah McGuinness: q+

18:37:49 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

18:38:43 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

18:38:47 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

18:38:55 <pgroth> ack Deborah

Paul Groth: ack Deborah

18:39:13 <Satya> Deborah: Modification to acessibility from multiple sources

Deborah McGuinness: Modification to acessibility from multiple sources

18:39:17 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

Paul Groth: ack Yogesh

18:39:24 <pgroth> ack Paulo

Paul Groth: ack Paulo

18:39:43 <Satya> Yogesh: Defer issue of partial access to after publication of first draft

Yogesh Simmhan: Defer issue of partial access to after publication of first draft

18:41:45 <Satya> PaulG: Third point is accepted

Paul Groth: Third point is accepted

18:42:35 <Paulo> provenance may be represented as a distributed graph and accessing the graph may imply accessing the graph fully or partially

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: provenance may be represented as a distributed graph and accessing the graph may imply accessing the graph fully or partially

18:43:08 <Paulo> ... and accessing the provenance my imply accessing the graph...

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: ... and accessing the provenance my imply accessing the graph...

18:43:17 <Satya> q+

q+

18:44:08 <pgroth> ack Saty

Paul Groth: ack Saty

18:44:11 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

18:44:58 <IlkayAltintas> q+

Ilkay Altintas: q+

18:45:11 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

Paul Groth: ack Yogesh

18:47:35 <Yogesh> q+

Yogesh Simmhan: q+

18:47:42 <pgroth> ack Ilkay

Paul Groth: ack Ilkay

18:49:29 <pgroth> action: Yogesh to rephrase into user scenario and questions about access

ACTION: Yogesh to rephrase into user scenario and questions about access

18:49:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Rephrase into user scenario and questions about access [on Yogesh Simmhan - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-29 - Rephrase into user scenario and questions about access [on Yogesh Simmhan - due 2011-07-14].

18:49:33 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:50:41 <Deborah> +1 to satya's point - where it comes from is not part of the access task force.   the form of the query to get the information should be but not where it is from

Deborah McGuinness: +1 to satya's point - where it comes from is not part of the access task force. the form of the query to get the information should be but not where it is from

18:51:27 <pgroth> ack Yogesh

Paul Groth: ack Yogesh

18:52:29 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:54:35 <Satya> PaulG: Point 4 accepted

Paul Groth: Point 4 accepted

18:54:49 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

18:55:30 <Satya> Ilkay: Document can be received in multiple ways

Ilkay Altintas: Document can be received in multiple ways

18:56:10 <dgarijo> @Satya. Has it been rephrased finally? (sorry, the quality of the sound isn't pretty good)

Daniel Garijo: @Satya. Has it been rephrased finally? (sorry, the quality of the sound isn't pretty good)

18:56:45 <Zakim> +[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI]

18:57:05 <Satya> @DanielG - the fourth point?

@DanielG - the fourth point?

18:57:14 <dgarijo> @Staya yes

Daniel Garijo: @Staya yes

18:57:27 <dgarijo> *Satya

Daniel Garijo: *Satya

18:57:42 <Satya> yes, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

yes, http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

18:57:58 <Satya> @DanielG - we now have two sub points

@DanielG - we now have two sub points

18:58:38 <dgarijo> @Satya thanks!

Daniel Garijo: @Satya thanks!

19:00:12 <Satya> SimonM: The method of obtaining the document has implication for access

Simon Miles: The method of obtaining the document has implication for access

19:00:42 <Satya> Sandro: email based mechanism to obtain document illustrates that document may not have stable URL

Sandro Hawke: email based mechanism to obtain document illustrates that document may not have stable URL

19:01:05 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:01:53 <Satya> PaulG: point 5 is accepted

Paul Groth: point 5 is accepted

19:02:33 <Satya> Sandro: Email method for obtaining document does not include URL, but may have metadata

Sandro Hawke: Email method for obtaining document does not include URL, but may have metadata

19:12:55 <pgroth> q?

(No events recorded for 10 minutes)

Paul Groth: q?

19:13:15 <Satya> PaulG: We should consider that provenance providers can make provenance available in different formats

Paul Groth: We should consider that provenance providers can make provenance available in different formats

19:13:28 <sandro> maybe...  "Provenance information might, potentially, be allowed to be published/consumed using various different formats and protocols"

Sandro Hawke: maybe... "Provenance information might, potentially, be allowed to be published/consumed using various different formats and protocols"

19:14:24 <sandro> Paul wants us to consider that the provenance might be provided in a Word Document, identified by content type.

Sandro Hawke: Paul wants us to consider that the provenance might be provided in a Word Document, identified by content type.

19:14:34 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:14:43 <sandro> (that is, that the same mechanism can be used in many ways.(

Sandro Hawke: (that is, that the same mechanism can be used in many ways.(

19:15:20 <Satya> point 6 modified: "Multiple formats for provenance may be available from the provider or third parties. The "Oh yeah?" feature may want to select which format to retrieve. "

point 6 modified: "Multiple formats for provenance may be available from the provider or third parties. The "Oh yeah?" feature may want to select which format to retrieve. "

19:15:33 <Satya> PaulG: point 6 accepted

Paul Groth: point 6 accepted

<pgroth> ACCEPTED: To use http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario as a scenario to compare various proposals

RESOLVED: To use http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario as a scenario to compare various proposals

19:15:46 <dgarijo> I have to leave. See you!

Daniel Garijo: I have to leave. See you!

19:15:53 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo

19:16:01 <Zakim> -[ISI]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI]

19:16:06 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

19:35:25 <Zakim> +zednik

(No events recorded for 19 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

19:36:16 <Yogesh> smiles: start with GK's document as starting point

Simon Miles: start with GK's document as starting point [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:36:45 <Yogesh> identify ibg issues to resolve. Others who have given proposals to pick holes in it.

Yogesh Simmhan: identify ibg issues to resolve. Others who have given proposals to pick holes in it.

19:37:06 <Yogesh> GK's document not in wiki.

Yogesh Simmhan: GK's document not in wiki.

19:37:27 <pgroth> action: GK to move his paq document to the w3c site

ACTION: GK to move his paq document to the w3c site

19:37:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14].

19:38:20 <pgroth> action: smiles to enact the plan for the paq

ACTION: smiles to enact the plan for the paq

19:38:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Enact the plan for the paq  [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-31 - Enact the plan for the paq [on Simon Miles - due 2011-07-14].

19:38:53 <Yogesh> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

Yogesh Simmhan: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceAccessScenario

14:49:11 <Luc> TOPIC: Session 8: Planning

4. Session 8: Planning

Summary: Plans for each of the Task Forces were confirmed from other sessions. For the Model Task Force and PAQ Task Force the following process is adopted: each task force will create a draft document in W3C style, issues will then be raised against those documents, those issues will then be iteratively resolved until the public working drafts are due. The documents being produced are the conceptual model, formal model (i.e. owl ontology), and an initial provenance access document. Additionally, in this session it was decided that the formal model would take the form of a light weight OWL ontology that also is "natural rdf". Finally, it was discussed that we need better connections to the RDF working group to ensure that Named Graphs are properly supported. Sandro will initiate this discussion and we aim to find a member that participates in both working groups to actively convey the Provenance WG's point-of-view in the RDF Working Group.

<pgroth> Summary: Plans for each of the Task Forces were confirmed from other sessions. For the Model Task Force and PAQ Task Force the following process is adopted: each task force will create a draft document in W3C style, issues will then be raised against those documents, those issues will then be iteratively resolved until the public working drafts are due. The documents being produced are  the conceptual model, formal model (i.e. owl ontology), and an initial provenance access document. Additionally, in this session it was decided that the formal model would take the form of a light weight OWL ontology that also is "natural rdf". Finally, it was discussed that we need better connections to the RDF working group to ensure that Named Graphs are properly supported. Sandro will initiate this discussion and we aim to find a member that participates in both working groups to actively convey the Provenance WG's point-of-view in the RDF Working Group.
19:40:08 <Yogesh> pgroth: Model TF document put in W3C style. All open issues to be raised against it.

(No events recorded for 290 minutes)

Paul Groth: Model TF document put in W3C style. All open issues to be raised against it. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:40:38 <pgroth> action: Paolo to make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style

ACTION: Paolo to make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style

19:40:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style [on Paolo Missier - due 2011-07-14].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-32 - Make consolidated concepts + updates from F2F into w3c style [on Paolo Missier - due 2011-07-14].

19:41:17 <Yogesh> Luc: To start writing a schema. Included as part of Model TF effort.

Luc Moreau: To start writing a schema. Included as part of Model TF effort. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:41:44 <Yogesh> PaulG: other two TF's identified their plan yesterday

Paul Groth: other two TF's identified their plan yesterday [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:42:22 <jcheney> (Following on IRC from airport; can't get through on Skype.)

James Cheney: (Following on IRC from airport; can't get through on Skype.)

19:42:45 <Deborah> I would like to do one in OWL

Deborah McGuinness: I would like to do one in OWL

19:43:00 <Yogesh> pgroth: Not yet talked about designing schema. People responsible for working on schema need to consider rfds, riff, etc. To decide an initial schema language

Paul Groth: Not yet talked about designing schema. People responsible for working on schema need to consider rfds, riff, etc. To decide an initial schema language [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:43:00 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:43:02 <Deborah> +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

19:43:36 <Yogesh> smiles: any real objection to using owl?

Simon Miles: any real objection to using owl? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:44:11 <Yogesh> sandro: only reason is that there is some "anti-owl".

Sandro Hawke: only reason is that there is some "anti-owl". [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:44:38 <Yogesh> Deborah: start with a smaller profile of owl. Not require reasoner. No rule extensions.

Deborah McGuinness: start with a smaller profile of owl. Not require reasoner. No rule extensions. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:45:30 <jcheney> As someone who is not anti-OWL but also not familiar with OWL, I hope we can minimize the amount that I (and people with similar background) have to learn...

James Cheney: As someone who is not anti-OWL but also not familiar with OWL, I hope we can minimize the amount that I (and people with similar background) have to learn...

19:45:39 <Yogesh> pgroth: can we do this in owl and have an rdf-s schema?

Paul Groth: can we do this in owl and have an rdf-s schema? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:47:15 <Yogesh> Deborah: start in owl to ensure ontology modeling mindset. But try and use only parts that can map to RDF-S and flag those portions that do not map.

Deborah McGuinness: start in owl to ensure ontology modeling mindset. But try and use only parts that can map to RDF-S and flag those portions that do not map. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:47:27 <Yogesh> sandro: is there a tool to flag this difference automatically?

Sandro Hawke: is there a tool to flag this difference automatically? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:48:35 <Yogesh> sandro: we could have full interchange between owl and rdf-s

Sandro Hawke: we could have full interchange between owl and rdf-s [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:50:26 <Yogesh> pgroth: is there lite weight owl? owl-lite!

Paul Groth: is there lite weight owl? owl-lite! [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:50:49 <Yogesh> Deborah: write owl-lite in sleep

Deborah McGuinness: write owl-lite in sleep [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:51:37 <Yogesh> Paulo: have been collecting provenance examples. not much reasoning happening.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: have been collecting provenance examples. not much reasoning happening. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:51:44 <sandro> sandro: We can do a big OWL ontology, and people can still use our Provenance Vocab that know and care nothing about that ontology.

Sandro Hawke: We can do a big OWL ontology, and people can still use our Provenance Vocab that know and care nothing about that ontology. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:52:54 <Yogesh> Paulo: most work on pmhas been on cardinalty constraints aand alue restriction

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: most work on pmhas been on cardinalty constraints aand alue restriction [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:53:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: concern about 3 months time constraint

Paul Groth: concern about 3 months time constraint [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:53:58 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: scoff has ambiguity

James McCusker: skos has ambiguity [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:54:27 <Luc> s/scoff/skos
19:54:54 <Yogesh> Paulo: enough expertise in the table. learning curve can be addressed.

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: enough expertise in the table. learning curve can be addressed. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:55:04 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q

19:55:13 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

19:55:31 <Yogesh> Deborah: can work on own encoding for initial terminology. attempt to no go beyond owl-lite and simple profilkes of owl2

Deborah McGuinness: can work on own encoding for initial terminology. attempt to no go beyond owl-lite and simple profilkes of owl2 [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:56:12 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: can we start from concepts rather than language? what is the expresiveness required for these concepts?

Khalid Belhajjame: can we start from concepts rather than language? what is the expresiveness required for these concepts? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:56:44 <Deborah> good point from khalid - from what i have heard, i think we need subclass, subrole, cardinality restrictions, value restrictions

Deborah McGuinness: good point from khalid - from what i have heard, i think we need subclass, subrole, cardinality restrictions, value restrictions

19:56:51 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: even owl may not end up being expressive enough. e.g. specifying mapping, correspondence betwen properties of different entity states

Khalid Belhajjame: even owl may not end up being expressive enough. e.g. specifying mapping, correspondence betwen properties of different entity states [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:56:57 <pgroth> q?

Paul Groth: q?

19:57:10 <pgroth> ack kh

Paul Groth: ack kh

19:57:21 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

19:57:31 <Deborah> agree that ivp may not have all of its constraints (and I am not sure I understand the nuances of ivp)

Deborah McGuinness: agree that ivp may not have all of its constraints (and I am not sure I understand the nuances of ivp)

19:57:45 <Yogesh> Luc: stephen is user of provenance for data.gov.uk. does he have requirement for owl/rdf as a user?

Luc Moreau: stephen is user of provenance for data.gov.uk. does he have requirement for owl/rdf as a user? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:58:43 <Yogesh> Stephen: would like to use inference. had to add restrictions into opm.

Stephen Cresswell: would like to use inference. had to add restrictions into opm. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:59:27 <Yogesh> Luc: is Stephen happy with owl lite profile as a user?

Luc Moreau: is Stephen happy with owl lite profile as a user? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

19:59:38 <Paulo> q+

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: q+

19:59:48 <Yogesh> Stephen: if it allows us to make the inferences we make, but doubt it will

Stephen Cresswell: if it allows us to make the inferences we make, but doubt it will [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:00:16 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: some things best described using swrl rules

James McCusker: some things best described using swrl rules [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:00:28 <Yogesh> Satya: swrl superceeded by rif

Satya Sahoo: swrl superceeded by rif [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:00:59 <Yogesh> Stephen: dont expect end user to make inferences.

Stephen Cresswell: dont expect end user to make inferences. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:01:16 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:01:17 <pgroth> ack Paulo

Paul Groth: ack Paulo

20:01:36 <Luc> q-

Luc Moreau: q-

20:01:39 <Yogesh> Paulo: learnt that its difficult to generate consistent provenance

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: learnt that its difficult to generate consistent provenance [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:02:02 <JimMcCusker> Q=

James McCusker: Q=

20:02:04 <Yogesh> Paulo: using just triple store to avoid breaking provenance

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: using just triple store to avoid breaking provenance [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:02:04 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

20:02:35 <JimMcCusker> q?

James McCusker: q?

20:02:53 <Yogesh> Paulo: nice to have consistent view, but enforcing can cause problems on how provenance is captured and stored

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: nice to have consistent view, but enforcing can cause problems on how provenance is captured and stored [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:03:02 <Yogesh> Satya: ths is about logical consistency

Satya Sahoo: ths is about logical consistency [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:03:43 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: catch things that may be wrong vs. expand realm of what is known

James McCusker: catch things that may be wrong vs. expand realm of what is known [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:03:56 <Deborah> Jim mcc tries not to focus on catching inconsistencies but instead on "expanding the realm" using things like hasValue

Deborah McGuinness: Jim mcc tries not to focus on catching inconsistencies but instead on "expanding the realm" using things like hasValue

20:04:11 <Deborah> +q

Deborah McGuinness: +q

20:04:18 <pgroth> ack Ji

Paul Groth: ack Ji

20:04:33 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+

20:04:37 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: should focus on expanding knowledge than constraining it

James McCusker: should focus on expanding knowledge than constraining it [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:05:24 <Yogesh> Deborah: focus on maximizing reuse. minimize restrictions, use more general value restrictions. Were using restrictions in our owl model over time.

Deborah McGuinness: focus on maximizing reuse. minimize restrictions, use more general value restrictions. Were using restrictions in our owl model over time. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:05:45 <Deborah> I also focus on maximizing reuse in my modeling style - thus i err on the side of having weaker restrictions rather than tighter restrictions

Deborah McGuinness: I also focus on maximizing reuse in my modeling style - thus i err on the side of having weaker restrictions rather than tighter restrictions

20:06:30 <Yogesh> pgroth: only concern is to ensure that when we release first draft in the sem web and linked data groups, the modeling using predicate/objects will be more natural

Paul Groth: only concern is to ensure that when we release first draft in the sem web and linked data groups, the modeling using predicate/objects will be more natural [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:06:33 <Satya> q+

q+

20:06:54 <pgroth> ack Deborah

Paul Groth: ack Deborah

20:06:56 <Deborah> ? was the "unnaturalness of the RDF serialization" due to the modeling or just the use of RDF?

Deborah McGuinness: ? was the "unnaturalness of the RDF serialization" due to the modeling or just the use of RDF?

20:06:57 <Yogesh> pgroth: make things simple to drive adoption

Paul Groth: make things simple to drive adoption [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:07:00 <pgroth> ack pgroth

Paul Groth: ack pgroth

20:07:10 <JimMcCusker> q+

James McCusker: q+

20:07:14 <GK> [Reviewing] I notice Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14], which I'm happy to accept.  But will need help, as I *really* want the document source to be version-controlled.  I believe W3C site has SCM facilities, but I'd need to know what they are and how to use them.  I have a definite preference for Hg/Git over Svn.   @sandro, can you help with details.

Graham Klyne: [Reviewing] I notice Created ACTION-30 - Move his paq document to the w3c site [on Graham Klyne - due 2011-07-14], which I'm happy to accept. But will need help, as I *really* want the document source to be version-controlled. I believe W3C site has SCM facilities, but I'd need to know what they are and how to use them. I have a definite preference for Hg/Git over Svn. @sandro, can you help with details.

20:07:42 <Yogesh> Luc: i wrote owl, so it seemed unnatural

Luc Moreau: i wrote owl, so it seemed unnatural [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:08:45 <Yogesh> Luc: owl that was not readable by humans. Had to reconcile opm-v and opm-o.

Luc Moreau: owl that was not readable by humans. Had to reconcile opm-v and opm-o. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:09:06 <StephenCresswell> +q

Stephen Cresswell: +q

20:09:12 <pgroth> ack Sat

Paul Groth: ack Sat

20:09:48 <Yogesh> Satya: issue was not about how the owl representation looks like. graph to owl causes n-ary relationships.

Satya Sahoo: issue was not about how the owl representation looks like. graph to owl causes n-ary relationships. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:10:23 <Yogesh> Satya: jun interepreted n-ary relationships as binary to make it compatible with owl

Satya Sahoo: jun interepreted n-ary relationships as binary to make it compatible with owl [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:10:49 <pgroth> ack Jim

Paul Groth: ack Jim

20:11:34 <Yogesh> JimMcCusker: n-ary relationships show everywhere i go. But owl2 seems to be able to add annotations to statements (Deborah: yes).

James McCusker: n-ary relationships show everywhere i go. But owl2 seems to be able to add annotations to statements (Deborah: yes). [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:11:50 <Yogesh> Satya: no verification in owl2

Satya Sahoo: no verification in owl2 [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:12:05 <Yogesh> reification

Yogesh Simmhan: reification

20:12:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q?

20:12:08 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:12:19 <pgroth> ack Step

Paul Groth: ack Step

20:12:57 <Yogesh> StephenCresswell: opm-o was not readable to humans, but opm-v was. Also, some inferences were more easily doable.

Stephen Cresswell: opm-o was not readable to humans, but opm-v was. Also, some inferences were more easily doable. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:13:28 <pgroth> ack Luc

Paul Groth: ack Luc

20:13:56 <Yogesh> Luc: we will want named graphs in provenance serialization. will owl route help?

Luc Moreau: we will want named graphs in provenance serialization. will owl route help? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:14:05 <Yogesh> sandro: we dont need graphs, but graph literals

Sandro Hawke: we dont need graphs, but graph literals [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:14:19 <Yogesh> sandro: we dont need *named* graphs, but graph literals

Sandro Hawke: we dont need *named* graphs, but graph literals [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:14:47 <Yogesh> pgroth: tried to make a persuasive case before. can i come to that call again?

Paul Groth: tried to make a persuasive case before. can i come to that call again? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:15:08 <Yogesh> Luc: need to come up with a usecase for named graphs to convince them

Luc Moreau: need to come up with a usecase for named graphs to convince them [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:15:40 <Yogesh> sandro: groups will review each others drafts. it will be clunky. human overlap between the two groups will be more smooth.

Sandro Hawke: groups will review each others drafts. it will be clunky. human overlap between the two groups will be more smooth. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:16:20 <Yogesh> pgroth: Pat Hayes from rdf WG is an invited expert to facilitate coordination with our group

Paul Groth: Pat Hayes from rdf WG is an invited expert to facilitate coordination with our group [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:16:45 <Yogesh> sandro: have a joint task force beween two groups?

Sandro Hawke: have a joint task force beween two groups? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:17:04 <Yogesh> Luc: can bring issue up to coord WG as co-chairs

Luc Moreau: can bring issue up to coord WG as co-chairs [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:17:16 <Yogesh> sandro: quite WGs get ignored

Sandro Hawke: quite WGs get ignored [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:17:52 <Yogesh> sandro: will take writeup to rdf WG and will call for backup if i cannot convince

Sandro Hawke: will take writeup to rdf WG and will call for backup if i cannot convince [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:18:24 <Yogesh> pgroth: make decision in interest of time?

Paul Groth: make decision in interest of time? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:18:47 <Luc> q+

Luc Moreau: q+

20:19:20 <Yogesh> pgroth: attempt a light weight, usable, natural RDF, easy to write sparql queries?

Paul Groth: attempt a light weight, usable, natural RDF, easy to write sparql queries? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:20:04 <Yogesh> Satya: linked open data do not follow schema.

Satya Sahoo: linked open data do not follow schema. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:20:14 <Yogesh> pgroth: we cant ignore them

Paul Groth: we cant ignore them [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:20:48 <Deborah> I have a clear picture of what lightweight OWL is.  I understand layering issues with respect to reasoning.  I do not have a clear operationalization of what "natural RDF is or easy to write sparql" is

Deborah McGuinness: I have a clear picture of what lightweight OWL is. I understand layering issues with respect to reasoning. I do not have a clear operationalization of what "natural RDF is or easy to write sparql" is

20:21:00 <Yogesh> pgroth: design schema with a thought to the instance data being simple

Paul Groth: design schema with a thought to the instance data being simple [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:21:08 <Luc> q+ to document provenance feature requirements in terms of OWL profiles

Luc Moreau: q+ to document provenance feature requirements in terms of OWL profiles

20:22:03 <Yogesh> Luc: provenance features: reasoning over transitive closure, event order, time, prov statements being compatible, etc. People working on schema need to document these features

Luc Moreau: provenance features: reasoning over transitive closure, event order, time, prov statements being compatible, etc. People working on schema need to document these features [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:22:39 <Yogesh> Tim: can help with readability

Timothy Lebo: can help with readability [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:23:16 <Yogesh> Stephen: natural => graph on whiteboard is same as rdf graph

Stephen Cresswell: natural => graph on whiteboard is same as rdf graph [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:23:19 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

20:23:23 <Deborah> +1

Deborah McGuinness: +1

20:23:58 <Zakim> +zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: +zednik

20:24:23 <Yogesh> Luc: point raised before. need to discuss for 5mins. model has to be described in natural language and illustrated graphically. Not abt graphical notation.

Luc Moreau: point raised before. need to discuss for 5mins. model has to be described in natural language and illustrated graphically. Not abt graphical notation. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:24:54 <Yogesh> Luc: this requirement is in the charter. do we still need it?

Luc Moreau: this requirement is in the charter. do we still need it? [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:25:06 <Yogesh> All in the group responded Yes

Yogesh Simmhan: All in the group responded Yes

20:25:23 <Yogesh> Luc: will start using graphical notation to illustrate examples

Luc Moreau: will start using graphical notation to illustrate examples [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:25:39 <pgroth> ACCEPTED: use owl for the schema deliverable but with the reminders to try to have  "lightweight" owl and to make it "natural rdf"

RESOLVED: use owl for the schema deliverable but with the reminders to try to have "lightweight" owl and to make it "natural rdf"

20:25:42 <Yogesh> Paulo: have graphical tool that will help with opm-like illustration

Paulo Pinheiro da Silva: have graphical tool that will help with opm-like illustration [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:26:34 <Yogesh> Luc: can we define a minimal set of conventions? e.g. edges for derivation, process are boxes,  entity states are ellipses, etc.

Luc Moreau: can we define a minimal set of conventions? e.g. edges for derivation, process are boxes, entity states are ellipses, etc. [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:26:47 <Yogesh> pgroth: *illustrations* better than notation

Paul Groth: *illustrations* better than notation [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:27:11 <Yogesh> Luc: not a "full language" since there are too many things

Luc Moreau: not a "full language" since there are too many things [ Scribe Assist by Yogesh Simmhan ]

20:28:15 <pgroth> no a full language

Paul Groth: no a full language

20:28:20 <pgroth> not a full language

Paul Groth: not a full language

20:28:49 <zednik> *clap clap clap*

Stephan Zednik: *clap clap clap*

20:30:17 <Zakim> -zednik

Zakim IRC Bot: -zednik

20:35:55 <Zakim> SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has ended

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV1)8:00AM has ended

20:35:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Meeting_Room, zednik, GK, olaf, [ISI], dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Meeting_Room, zednik, GK, olaf, [ISI], dgarijo



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#8) generated 2011-07-15 11:55:21 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'fixed minor typos'