Primer has a good start. Group is looking to finish the first draft by the end of the week. It may not be completely in sink with PROV-O as that is still changing, in particular, with respect to accounts.
Editors gave an overview of the updates. Editors believe it is ready to go to FPWD have asked for feedback before a vote next week.
PROV-O is mostly done. Needs some final details to be sorted out with the use of n-ary relations.
Discussed the need for PROV-XML. Clarified the role in the charter that prov-xml should be a "native" xml friendly serialization, not RDF/XML. James Cheney, Luc Moreau and Stephan Zednik would be interested in helping with it. Luc noted possible outside interest in prov-xml. The group showed interest in a possible native json serialization.
Discussion on role of prov-semantics. Two possible roles: 1) to have a well defined mathematical model underlying PROV-DM 2) to facilitate mapping between serializations and the PROV-DM. Support was shown for a mathematical model to help clarify PROV-DM semantics.
Approved a proposal to use a single notion of attribute-value pairs. Discussed various forums of derivation and how to simplify it in the data model.
15:47:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-prov-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-prov-irc ←
15:47:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:47:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be ←
15:47:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot ←
15:47:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
15:47:29 <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2011
15:47:38 <pgroth> Zakim, this will be PROV
Paul Groth: Zakim, this will be PROV ←
15:47:38 <Zakim> ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pgroth; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes ←
15:47:57 <pgroth> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.10
15:48:13 <pgroth> Chair: Paul Groth
15:48:41 <pgroth> Regrets: Christine Runnegar
15:49:12 <pgroth> rrsagent, make logs public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, make logs public ←
15:54:01 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started ←
15:54:08 <Zakim> +Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: +Curt_Tilmes ←
15:56:31 <pgroth> any volunteers for scribe?
Paul Groth: any volunteers for scribe? ←
15:56:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:56:55 <pgroth> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Paul Groth: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
15:56:55 <Zakim> +pgroth; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgroth; got it ←
15:58:19 <Zakim> +??P55
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P55 ←
15:58:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:58:48 <Zakim> +??P56
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P56 ←
16:00:07 <Paolo> zakim, ??P55 is me
Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P55 is me ←
16:00:07 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it ←
16:00:19 <pgroth> Scribe: Paolo
(Scribe set to Paolo Missier)
16:00:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←
16:00:41 <Zakim> +??P64
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P64 ←
16:00:48 <Zakim> +Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: +Satya_Sahoo ←
16:00:53 <jcheney> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
James Cheney: Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me ←
16:00:53 <Zakim> +jcheney; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +jcheney; got it ←
16:01:01 <Zakim> + +44.238.059.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.238.059.aaaa ←
16:01:17 <Zakim> + +1.315.330.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.315.330.aabb ←
16:01:20 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
Luc Moreau: zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me ←
16:01:20 <Zakim> +Luc; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Luc; got it ←
16:01:41 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P64 is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P64 is me ←
16:01:41 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:02:05 <Zakim> +[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[ISI] ←
16:02:19 <tlebo> zakim, who is on the phone?
Timothy Lebo: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, +1.315.330.aabb, [ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, khalidbelhajjame, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, +1.315.330.aabb, [ISI] ←
16:02:46 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←
16:02:49 <tlebo> Zakim, aabb is tlebo
Timothy Lebo: Zakim, aabb is tlebo ←
16:02:56 <Zakim> +tlebo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tlebo; got it ←
16:03:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←
16:03:22 <Zakim> +??P80
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P80 ←
16:03:29 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P80 is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P80 is me ←
16:03:29 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:03:57 <pgroth> Topic: Admin
Summary: Primer has a good start. Group is looking to finish the first draft by the end of the week. It may not be completely in sink with PROV-O as that is still changing, in particular, with respect to accounts.
16:04:02 <GK> zakim, who is on the phone?
Graham Klyne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:04:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], [IPcaller.a], khalidbelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], [IPcaller.a], khalidbelhajjame ←
16:04:12 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-03
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2011-11-03 ←
16:04:18 <pgroth> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 3 telecon
Paul Groth: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the Nov. 3 telecon ←
16:04:19 <saty> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:04:23 <smiles> +1
Simon Miles: +1 ←
16:04:29 <Curt> 0 (did not attend)
Curt Tilmes: 0 (did not attend) ←
16:04:30 <khalidbelhajjame> +0 (was not in last week)
Khalid Belhajjame: +0 (was not in last week) ←
16:04:30 <Paolo> +1
+1 ←
16:04:41 <tlebo> +1
Timothy Lebo: +1 ←
16:04:43 <GK> Khalid, are you sure ??PP80 is you?
Graham Klyne: Khalid, are you sure ??PP80 is you? ←
16:04:43 <StephenCresswell> +1
Stephen Cresswell: +1 ←
16:04:47 <jcheney> +1
James Cheney: +1 ←
16:04:56 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, not sure
Khalid Belhajjame: @Graham, not sure ←
16:05:07 <pgroth> ACCEPTED Nov 3. 2011 minutes
Paul Groth: ACCEPTED Nov 3. 2011 minutes ←
16:05:17 <pgroth> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
Paul Groth: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open ←
16:05:27 <khalidbelhajjame> @Graham, I will leave the call and come back and see
Khalid Belhajjame: @Graham, I will leave the call and come back and see ←
16:05:34 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller.a] ←
16:06:10 <Paolo> Tim's action presumably taken care of
Tim's action presumably taken care of ←
16:06:19 <Paolo> Paul completed his action (42)
Paul completed his action (42) ←
16:06:24 <Paolo> Tim's action was 41 -- closed
Tim's action was 41 -- closed ←
16:06:28 <Zakim> +Yogesh_Simmhan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Yogesh_Simmhan ←
16:06:32 <pgroth> Reminder F2F2 Poll: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/f2f2_options/
Paul Groth: Reminder F2F2 Poll: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46974/f2f2_options/ ←
16:06:49 <Zakim> +??P72
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P72 ←
16:06:49 <Paolo> we are skipping action 40 at this time
we are skipping ACTION-40 at this time ←
16:06:53 <GK> zakim, ??pp80 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, ??pp80 is me ←
16:06:53 <Zakim> sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named '??pp80'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named '??pp80' ←
16:07:06 <khalidbelhajjame> zakim, ??P72 is me
Khalid Belhajjame: zakim, ??P72 is me ←
16:07:06 <Zakim> +khalidbelhajjame; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +khalidbelhajjame; got it ←
16:07:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller.a] ←
16:07:13 <GK> zakim, pp80 is me
Graham Klyne: zakim, pp80 is me ←
16:07:13 <Zakim> sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named 'pp80'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, GK, I do not recognize a party named 'pp80' ←
16:07:25 <dgarijo> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
Daniel Garijo: Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me ←
16:07:25 <Zakim> +dgarijo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +dgarijo; got it ←
16:07:28 <GK> zakim, who is on the phone?
Graham Klyne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:07:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo ←
16:07:39 <Paolo> TOPIC PROV-PRIMER
TOPIC PROV-PRIMER ←
<pgroth> Summary: Primer has a good start. Group is looking to finish the first draft by the end of the week. It may not be completely in sink with PROV-O as that is still changing, in particular, with respect to accounts.
16:08:18 <Paolo> smiles: good contribs but still got gaps
Simon Miles: good contribs but still got gaps ←
16:08:35 <Paolo> smiles: Stephan , Paolo, Yolanda to contribute to a complete draft by this week
Simon Miles: Stephan , Paolo, Yolanda to contribute to a complete draft by this week ←
16:08:53 <Paolo> smiles: so that the WG can start commenting
Simon Miles: so that the WG can start commenting ←
16:09:02 <Paolo> smiles: Stephan creating turtle examples
Simon Miles: Stephan creating turtle examples ←
16:09:08 <Paolo> smiles: smiles to complete the intro
Simon Miles: smiles to complete the intro ←
16:09:11 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:09:18 <Paolo> smiles: Yolanda to give it a check
Simon Miles: Yolanda to give it a check ←
16:09:36 <Paolo> smiles: then Paolo to translate turtle -> ASN
Simon Miles: then Paolo to translate turtle -> ASN ←
16:09:59 <Paolo> smiles:: accounts still missing. That's because it hasn't settled in PROV-O
Simon Miles: : accounts still missing. That's because it hasn't settled in PROV-O ←
16:10:06 <khalidbelhajjame> +q
Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←
16:10:06 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:10:18 <pgroth> ack khalidbelhajjame
Paul Groth: ack khalidbelhajjame ←
16:10:19 <Zakim> + +1.518.633.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.633.aacc ←
16:10:32 <tlebo> Account will be defined :-)
Timothy Lebo: Account will be defined :-) ←
16:10:36 <Paolo> Khalid: on account. PROV-O will not have explicit account, as named graphs will be used
Khalid Belhajjame: on account. PROV-O will not have explicit account, as named graphs will be used ←
16:10:52 <tlebo> Account will be part of the ontology :-)
Timothy Lebo: Account will be part of the ontology :-) ←
16:11:12 <Paolo> smiles: still, some encoding of them is needed for the examples
Simon Miles: still, some encoding of them is needed for the examples ←
16:11:15 <GK> q+ to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph
Graham Klyne: q+ to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph ←
16:11:22 <Zakim> + +1.937.343.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.937.343.aadd ←
16:11:23 <pgroth> Zakim, who's loud?
Paul Groth: Zakim, who's loud? ←
16:11:24 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, pgroth.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, pgroth. ←
16:11:51 <Luc> zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me
Luc Moreau: zakim, +44.238.059.aaaa is me ←
16:11:52 <Zakim> sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+44.238.059.aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Luc, I do not recognize a party named '+44.238.059.aaaa' ←
16:11:53 <Paolo> Tim: wil use named grpahs, but also RDF to express accounts. So it's going to be both
Timothy Lebo: wil use named graphs, but also RDF to express accounts. So it's going to be both ←
16:12:04 <Luc> zakim, who is on the phone?
Luc Moreau: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:12:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo, Sandro,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Curt_Tilmes, pgroth, Paolo, ??P56, [IPcaller], jcheney, Satya_Sahoo, Luc, tlebo, [ISI], khalidbelhajjame, Yogesh_Simmhan, khalidbelhajjame.a, dgarijo, Sandro, ←
16:12:05 <Paolo> s/grpahs/graphs
16:12:07 <Zakim> ... +1.518.633.aacc, +1.937.343.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.518.633.aacc, +1.937.343.aadd ←
16:12:20 <Vinh> zakim, +1.937.343.aadd is me
Vinh Nguyen: zakim, +1.937.343.aadd is me ←
16:12:21 <Zakim> +Vinh; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Vinh; got it ←
16:12:43 <pgroth> ack gk
Paul Groth: ack gk ←
16:12:43 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to note that ORE uses trix graph as a base class for ORE resource map, which also is a named graph ←
16:12:43 <Luc> ... and also in prov-dm, accounts need to be finalized
Luc Moreau: ... and also in prov-dm, accounts need to be finalized ←
16:12:56 <Paolo> pgroth: fine, but work is still ongoing in PROV-O re: accounts, which explains why they are not in the primer at tis time
Paul Groth: fine, but work is still ongoing in PROV-O re: accounts, which explains why they are not in the primer at this time ←
16:13:01 <Paolo> s/tis/this
16:13:05 <tlebo> ORE - good pointer?
Timothy Lebo: ORE - good pointer? ←
16:13:11 <tlebo> thx!
Timothy Lebo: thx! ←
16:13:17 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:13:37 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:13:41 <Paolo> smiles: distribution of first draft expected by start of next week
Simon Miles: distribution of first draft expected by start of next week ←
16:13:42 <tlebo> A rough example of account modeling: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/3ba83e9ffa92/ontology/components/Account/different-accounts-can-include-the-same-entity.ttl
Timothy Lebo: A rough example of account modeling: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/3ba83e9ffa92/ontology/components/Account/different-accounts-can-include-the-same-entity.ttl ←
16:13:48 <pgroth> Topic: PAQ
Summary: Editors gave an overview of the updates. Editors believe it is ready to go to FPWD have asked for feedback before a vote next week.
<pgroth> Summary: Editors gave an overview of the updates. Editors believe it is ready to go to FPWD have asked for feedback before a vote next week.
16:13:56 <smiles> @Paolo shall I take over scribing now?
Simon Miles: @Paolo shall I take over scribing now? ←
16:14:10 <Paolo> @smiles: yes please, much appreciated :-)
@smiles: yes please, much appreciated :-) ←
16:14:14 <smiles> Scribe: smiles
(Scribe set to Simon Miles)
16:14:42 <Paolo> I will do my other half next time :-)
Paolo Missier: I will do my other half next time :-) ←
16:14:46 <smiles> GK: Updated PAQ, as agreed for FPWD
Graham Klyne: Updated PAQ, as agreed for FPWD ←
16:15:01 <smiles> GK: Note, not yet fully proof read
Graham Klyne: Note, not yet fully proof read ←
16:15:43 <smiles> pgroth: Big changes are to align the PAQ with the terminology in DM, e.g. entity
Paul Groth: Big changes are to align the PAQ with the terminology in DM, e.g. entity ←
16:16:06 <smiles> ... and a decision about the format of headers for retrieving provenance info for a resource
... and a decision about the format of headers for retrieving provenance info for a resource ←
16:16:29 <smiles> ... and added a section to deal with incremental access to large amounts of provenance
... and added a section to deal with incremental access to large amounts of provenance ←
16:16:46 <smiles> ... Also compacted things, referring to DM
... Also compacted things, referring to DM ←
16:16:55 <smiles> ... Everyone please look at the document
... Everyone please look at the document ←
16:17:12 <smiles> GK: Closed issue tags in document but not tracker
Graham Klyne: Closed issue tags in document but not tracker ←
16:17:44 <smiles> ... Comment from Yogesh about not guaranteed to get identifier of entity in provenance data, so added note on this
... Comment from Yogesh about not guaranteed to get identifier of entity in provenance data, so added note on this ←
16:17:49 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:18:05 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:18:27 <smiles> Luc: Decide in next telecon whether to release FPWD?
Luc Moreau: Decide in next telecon whether to release FPWD? ←
16:18:42 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:18:43 <smiles> pgroth: Yes, would be good to know if there are any show stoppers by next telecon
Paul Groth: Yes, would be good to know if there are any show stoppers by next telecon ←
16:18:44 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:18:48 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:18:56 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
16:19:02 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:19:16 <smiles> tlebo: Will predicate hasProvenance be encoded in Prov-O?
Timothy Lebo: Will predicate hasProvenance be encoded in Prov-O? ←
16:19:52 <smiles> GK: Was included for discussion, but yes need to agree with other task forces (namespace, name, inclusion in ontology)
Graham Klyne: Was included for discussion, but yes need to agree with other task forces (namespace, name, inclusion in ontology) ←
16:20:08 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:20:25 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:20:32 <smiles> tlebo: Will start developing inclusion of hasProvenance into ontology
Timothy Lebo: Will start developing inclusion of hasProvenance into ontology ←
16:20:42 <smiles> satya: What is domain and range?
Satya Sahoo: What is domain and range? ←
16:20:53 <tlebo> owl Thing.
Timothy Lebo: owl Thing. ←
16:20:58 <smiles> GK: Domain is entity, range to be decided (account?)
Graham Klyne: Domain is entity, range to be decided (account?) ←
16:21:08 <tlebo> ProvenanceContainer?
Timothy Lebo: ProvenanceContainer? ←
16:21:37 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:21:42 <smiles> satya: What provenance is may change across applications, need to assert about account or container itself
Satya Sahoo: What provenance is may change across applications, need to assert about account or container itself ←
16:21:46 <smiles> GK: Yes
Graham Klyne: Yes ←
16:22:00 <smiles> GK: Account or container is itself an entity
Graham Klyne: Account or container is itself an entity ←
16:22:00 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:22:00 <satya> @GK +1 for that point
Satya Sahoo: @GK +1 for that point ←
16:22:20 <dgarijo> @GK that sound good to me too
Daniel Garijo: @GK that sound good to me too ←
16:22:21 <pgroth> Topic: Update on PROV-O
Summary: PROV-O is mostly done. Needs some final details to be sorted out with the use of n-ary relations.
<pgroth> Summary: PROV-O is mostly done. Needs some final details to be sorted out with the use of n-ary relations.
16:22:56 <smiles> satya: Fleshed out details on how to add qualifier info to predicates, modelled under class QualifiedInvolvement
Satya Sahoo: Fleshed out details on how to add qualifier info to predicates, modelled under class QualifiedInvolvement ←
16:23:16 <smiles> satya: Outstanding issues: need good name for QI to entity link
Satya Sahoo: Outstanding issues: need good name for QI to entity link ←
16:23:41 <tlebo> (we have been running with prov:entity, but prov:entityInQualification was suggested and sounds reasonable)
Timothy Lebo: (we have been running with prov:entity, but prov:entityInQualification was suggested and sounds reasonable) ←
16:23:44 <Paolo> apologies for checking out now --
Paolo Missier: apologies for checking out now -- ←
16:23:46 <smiles> ... inference rules to apply to non-binary properties with new classes
... inference rules to apply to non-binary properties with new classes ←
16:24:03 <Zakim> -Paolo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←
16:24:24 <smiles> ... need clarifications on DM: can roles be associated with both entities and process executions?
... need clarifications on DM: can roles be associated with both entities and process executions? ←
16:24:35 <smiles> ... at the moment only one or the other
... at the moment only one or the other ←
16:25:03 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:25:05 <smiles> ... Moving forward, all terms except "entity in role" modelled, so working towards FPWD
... Moving forward, all terms except "entity in role" modelled, so working towards FPWD ←
16:25:06 <Luc> q?
Luc Moreau: q? ←
16:25:09 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:25:13 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:25:53 <tlebo> The proposal is at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O
Timothy Lebo: The proposal is at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Qualifed_Involvements_in_PROV-O ←
16:25:55 <smiles> satya: n-ary properties modelled as classes, can say 8 as denominator in division process
Satya Sahoo: n-ary properties modelled as classes, can say 8 as denominator in division process ←
16:26:05 <smiles> ... but cannot model role of process execution
... but cannot model role of process execution ←
16:26:15 <zednik> the process execution has a role (part or function) in itself?
Stephan Zednik: the process execution has a role (part or function) in itself? ←
16:26:19 <smiles> Luc: Please send an email explaining problem with example
Luc Moreau: Please send an email explaining problem with example ←
16:26:23 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:26:27 <GK> That ORE reference I mentioned for mentioning graphs in an ontology: http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/vocabulary.html#rem
Graham Klyne: That ORE reference I mentioned for mentioning graphs in an ontology: http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/vocabulary.html#rem ←
16:26:29 <smiles> satya: sure
Satya Sahoo: sure ←
16:26:32 <tlebo> Thanks!
Timothy Lebo: Thanks! ←
16:26:54 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-XML
Summary: Discussed the need for PROV-XML. Clarified the role in the charter that prov-xml should be a "native" xml friendly serialization, not RDF/XML. James Cheney, Luc Moreau and Stephan Zednik would be interested in helping with it. Luc noted possible outside interest in prov-xml. The group showed interest in a possible native json serialization.
<pgroth> Summary: Discussed the need for PROV-XML. Clarified the role in the charter that prov-xml should be a "native" xml friendly serialization, not RDF/XML. James Cheney, Luc Moreau and Stephan Zednik would be interested in helping with it. Luc noted possible outside interest in prov-xml. The group showed interest in a possible native json serialization.
16:27:16 <smiles> pgroth: In charter, have notion of natural XML serialisation of the DM
Paul Groth: In charter, have notion of natural XML serialisation of the DM ←
16:27:34 <smiles> ... due at 18 months, but can start thinking about now
... due at 18 months, but can start thinking about now ←
16:27:49 <smiles> ... want to know who is interested in starting to produce this serialisation
... want to know who is interested in starting to produce this serialisation ←
16:28:05 <pgroth> +q
Paul Groth: +q ←
16:28:08 <pgroth> ack pgroth
Paul Groth: ack pgroth ←
16:28:10 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:28:10 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:28:17 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:28:55 <smiles> jcheney: Some people previously said that RDF can be expressed in XML, but sounds like in charter going straight from DM to XML
James Cheney: Some people previously said that RDF can be expressed in XML, but sounds like in charter going straight from DM to XML ←
16:29:03 <smiles> ... would be interested in being involved in some way
... would be interested in being involved in some way ←
16:29:32 <smiles> pgroth: Yes, in charter, straight from DM to XML, RDF/XML is not pretty XML
Paul Groth: Yes, in charter, straight from DM to XML, RDF/XML is not pretty XML ←
16:29:44 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:29:58 <GK> Presumable, want something that plays well with XML tooling, which RDF/XML does not.
Graham Klyne: Presumable, want something that plays well with XML tooling, which RDF/XML does not. ←
16:30:06 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:30:11 <smiles> jcheney: We should agree that this is indeed what is intended
James Cheney: We should agree that this is indeed what is intended ←
16:30:17 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:31:09 <smiles> Luc: Interested in this, have had questions from users on OPM XML and interested in Prov XML schema, and they may be interested in contributing
Luc Moreau: Interested in this, have had questions from users on OPM XML and interested in Prov XML schema, and they may be interested in contributing ←
16:31:26 <smiles> ... Has very early attempt at XML schema
... Has very early attempt at XML schema ←
16:31:29 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:31:50 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:31:54 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:32:03 <smiles> pgroth: 2 people interested, maybe need to bring in other experts from outside
Paul Groth: 2 people interested, maybe need to bring in other experts from outside ←
16:32:15 <zednik> xml - I may be able to help, but will not be able to lead
Stephan Zednik: xml - I may be able to help, but will not be able to lead ←
16:32:32 <GK> I might be interested in JSON :)
Graham Klyne: I might be interested in JSON :) ←
16:32:47 <khalidbelhajjame> Me too Graham
Khalid Belhajjame: Me too Graham ←
16:32:52 <smiles> Luc: questionnaire circulated showed interest in many serialisations, so some may be able to help with XML
Luc Moreau: questionnaire circulated showed interest in many serialisations, so some may be able to help with XML ←
16:32:52 <Curt> +JSON
Curt Tilmes: +JSON ←
16:33:07 <smiles> zednik: Yes, users interested in XML
Stephan Zednik: Yes, users interested in XML ←
16:33:15 <smiles> ... close to that of RDF
... close to that of RDF ←
16:33:24 <GK> (Even Zakim is interested, apparently :) )
Graham Klyne: (Even Zakim is interested, apparently :) ) ←
16:33:25 <smiles> Luc: go back to those people?
Luc Moreau: go back to those people? ←
16:33:50 <smiles> Luc: First go back to those people for feedback
Luc Moreau: First go back to those people for feedback ←
16:33:51 <tlebo> @gk, could you write something at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts#Graham.27s_OBE_note ?
Timothy Lebo: @gk, could you write something at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts#Graham.27s_OBE_note ? ←
16:33:58 <smiles> zednik: will do so
Stephan Zednik: will do so ←
16:34:15 <smiles> Luc: may not be able to list on Wiki or email for privacy
Luc Moreau: may not be able to list on Wiki or email for privacy ←
16:34:38 <smiles> zednik: some users agreed to have feedback shared, can put document up on protected W3C site
Stephan Zednik: some users agreed to have feedback shared, can put document up on protected W3C site ←
16:34:43 <GK> @tlebo, sure
Graham Klyne: @tlebo, sure ←
16:35:00 <smiles> pgroth: Saw JSON interest on IRC, are people interest?
Paul Groth: Saw JSON interest on IRC, are people interest? ←
16:35:02 <pgroth> Interest in JSON note?
Paul Groth: Interest in JSON note? ←
16:35:15 <satya> +1
Satya Sahoo: +1 ←
16:35:16 <zednik> +1
Stephan Zednik: +1 ←
16:35:17 <khalidbelhajjame> +1
Khalid Belhajjame: +1 ←
16:35:21 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:35:23 <jcheney> +0.5 (what would we say exactly?)
James Cheney: +0.5 (what would we say exactly?) ←
16:35:23 <GK> +1 ... but not in a rush to do it
Graham Klyne: +1 ... but not in a rush to do it ←
16:35:25 <Curt> We use JSON internally, but I think RDF makes a better standard for interchange.
Curt Tilmes: We use JSON internally, but I think RDF makes a better standard for interchange. ←
16:35:27 <Curt> +1
Curt Tilmes: +1 ←
16:35:36 <dgarijo> +0
Daniel Garijo: +0 ←
16:35:52 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:36:01 <pgroth> Topic: PROV-Semantics
Summary: Discussion on role of prov-semantics. Two possible roles: 1) to have a well defined mathematical model underlying PROV-DM 2) to facilitate mapping between serializations and the PROV-DM. Support was shown for a mathematical model to help clarify PROV-DM semantics.
<pgroth> Summary: Discussion on role of prov-semantics. Two possible roles: 1) to have a well defined mathematical model underlying PROV-DM 2) to facilitate mapping between serializations and the PROV-DM. Support was shown for a mathematical model to help clarify PROV-DM semantics.
16:36:37 <smiles> pgroth: Deliverable on semantics in charter, but up to us to decide what is usable and interesting for standard
Paul Groth: Deliverable on semantics in charter, but up to us to decide what is usable and interesting for standard ←
16:36:54 <jcheney> Two possibilities (not mutually exclusive):
James Cheney: Two possibilities (not mutually exclusive): ←
16:36:59 <GK> q+ to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics
Graham Klyne: q+ to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics ←
16:37:11 <jcheney> 1. Developing a mathematical model of the "things", "entities", "processes", "events" and other relationships as in the PROV-DM, and explaining the PROV-DM statements in terms of this model. (current strawman)
James Cheney: 1. Developing a mathematical model of the "things", "entities", "processes", "events" and other relationships as in the PROV-DM, and explaining the PROV-DM statements in terms of this model. (current strawman) ←
16:38:17 <smiles> jcheney: Current strawman generated some discussion, but died down, also needs updating to current DM
James Cheney: Current strawman generated some discussion, but died down, also needs updating to current DM ←
16:38:52 <smiles> jcheney: Luc said was helpful, can provide some justifications for inferences
James Cheney: Luc said was helpful, can provide some justifications for inferences ←
16:39:33 <jcheney> 2. Defining the mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-O (and maybe "PROV-XML") formally, e.g. using a datalog or ML-like notation.
James Cheney: 2. Defining the mapping from PROV-DM to PROV-O (and maybe "PROV-XML") formally, e.g. using a datalog or ML-like notation. ←
16:40:04 <smiles> jcheney: We might not just want to specify data model and serialisations separately, but also formally how we map from DM to those representations, what it means to be a correct translation
James Cheney: We might not just want to specify data model and serialisations separately, but also formally how we map from DM to those representations, what it means to be a correct translation ←
16:40:49 <smiles> jcheney: Don't want to have multiple translators between each pair of serialisations, want to translate to Prov-DM and back
James Cheney: Don't want to have multiple translators between each pair of serialisations, want to translate to Prov-DM and back ←
16:41:07 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:41:12 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
16:41:12 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to say that I think there's some confusion around DM, ASN and semantics ←
16:42:14 <smiles> GK: Concerned that there is a confusion between the DM and the RDF representation (as James said, but focus more on concepts)
Graham Klyne: Concerned that there is a confusion between the DM and the RDF representation (as James said, but focus more on concepts) ←
16:42:49 <smiles> ... concerned about pushing RDF concepts into DM without RDF semantics, better for DM to be above the RDF structure
... concerned about pushing RDF concepts into DM without RDF semantics, better for DM to be above the RDF structure ←
16:42:56 <satya> @GK +1 for not conflating DM and RDF semantics'
Satya Sahoo: @GK +1 for not conflating DM and RDF semantics' ←
16:43:16 <smiles> ... formal semantics, independent from OWL, for DM could help with this
... formal semantics, independent from OWL, for DM could help with this ←
16:43:39 <smiles> ... then may be possible to prove that RDF semantics corresponds to abstract DM
... then may be possible to prove that RDF semantics corresponds to abstract DM ←
16:43:48 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:43:49 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:43:55 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:44:25 <tlebo> +1 for adding a DM semantics. Some of the inferences in the DM writeup are difficult to follow from its narrative.
Timothy Lebo: +1 for adding a DM semantics. Some of the inferences in the DM writeup are difficult to follow from its narrative. ←
16:44:41 <smiles> satya: Not clear how mapping is related to formal semantics, why not just translation
Satya Sahoo: Not clear how mapping is related to formal semantics, why not just translation ←
16:44:46 <GK> @satya - isn't this like prrof-theoretic and model-theoretic laters?
Graham Klyne: @satya - isn't this like prrof-theoretic and model-theoretic laters? ←
16:44:47 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:44:52 <Luc> q+
Luc Moreau: q+ ←
16:45:02 <pgroth> ack Luc
Paul Groth: ack Luc ←
16:45:26 <jcheney> q+
James Cheney: q+ ←
16:45:31 <pgroth> ack jcheney
Paul Groth: ack jcheney ←
16:45:32 <smiles> Luc: James' suggestion 2 is good from interoperability point of view, regardless of whether part of formal semantics activity
Luc Moreau: James' suggestion 2 is good from interoperability point of view, regardless of whether part of formal semantics activity ←
16:45:48 <tlebo> q+ to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON.
Timothy Lebo: q+ to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON. ←
16:46:14 <satya> @GK, I guess but not sure in context of DM and its semantics
Satya Sahoo: @GK, I guess but not sure in context of DM and its semantics ←
16:46:14 <GK> q+ to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms
Graham Klyne: q+ to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms ←
16:46:37 <smiles> jcheney: We already talk about how to translate ASN to Prov-O in Prov-O document, so thought useful to have more mathematically precise defn of that in formal semantics
James Cheney: We already talk about how to translate ASN to Prov-O in Prov-O document, so thought useful to have more mathematically precise defn of that in formal semantics ←
16:47:02 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
16:47:02 <Zakim> tlebo, you wanted to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON.
Zakim IRC Bot: tlebo, you wanted to ask about mechanics of a concrete language for DM, and it's mapping to XML and RDF and JSON. ←
16:47:03 <satya> @James - I think we need it
Satya Sahoo: @James - I think we need it ←
16:47:08 <smiles> ... if we have one deliverable of formalisation, then a formal mapping to serialisation should go there
... if we have one deliverable of formalisation, then a formal mapping to serialisation should go there ←
16:47:45 <smiles> tlebo: How does mechanics of formal semantics work? How different to, more precise than the serialisations?
Timothy Lebo: How does mechanics of formal semantics work? How different to, more precise than the serialisations? ←
16:48:17 <satya> @James - In addition, as WG we have the responsibility for defining the mappings between the different representations (DM, PROV-O, XML, JSON)
Satya Sahoo: @James - In addition, as WG we have the responsibility for defining the mappings between the different representations (DM, PROV-O, XML, JSON) ←
16:48:54 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
16:49:02 <smiles> jcheney: First thought of what goes in formal semantics is like RDF semantics, e.g. what you can write in the language
James Cheney: First thought of what goes in formal semantics is like RDF semantics, e.g. what you can write in the language ←
16:49:07 <Paolo> zakim, ??P2 is me
Paolo Missier: zakim, ??P2 is me ←
16:49:07 <Zakim> +Paolo; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Paolo; got it ←
16:49:30 <tlebo> what do you mean by "scope" :-)
Timothy Lebo: what do you mean by "scope" :-) ←
16:49:45 <tlebo> naming or account partitioning
Timothy Lebo: naming or account partitioning ←
16:50:02 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:50:34 <satya> q+
Satya Sahoo: q+ ←
16:50:44 <smiles> ... If we have semantics abstracts from what you have to write down, then can express self-consistency of scoping rules etc..
... If we have semantics abstracts from what you have to write down, then can express self-consistency of scoping rules etc.. ←
16:50:56 <pgroth> ack GK
Paul Groth: ack GK ←
16:50:56 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms
Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to respond to luc - I think there's a difference between interop and provable equivalence of representations/transforms ←
16:51:37 <smiles> GK: In SW area, model theoretic semantics maps OWL/RDF expressions to objects in domain of discourse (set theory)
Graham Klyne: In SW area, model theoretic semantics maps OWL/RDF expressions to objects in domain of discourse (set theory) ←
16:52:28 <smiles> GK: With regards to interoperability, difference between demonstrating interoperability and formally proving equivalence
Graham Klyne: With regards to interoperability, difference between demonstrating interoperability and formally proving equivalence ←
16:53:07 <smiles> ... Pat Hayes formal semantics of RDF is a useful intro to model theoretic semantics
... Pat Hayes formal semantics of RDF is a useful intro to model theoretic semantics ←
16:53:08 <pgroth> ack satya
Paul Groth: ack satya ←
16:54:14 <smiles> satya: Important to define mappings from DM to serialisations, but how necessary to define semantics of DM/ASN itself? Is outcome that we are defining a new language, ASN?
Satya Sahoo: Important to define mappings from DM to serialisations, but how necessary to define semantics of DM/ASN itself? Is outcome that we are defining a new language, ASN? ←
16:54:23 <Luc> we would give the semantics of DM not ASN!
Luc Moreau: we would give the semantics of DM not ASN! ←
16:54:29 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:55:08 <smiles> pgroth: Some agreement for a need for formal semantics of DM (suggestion 1 by James)
Paul Groth: Some agreement for a need for formal semantics of DM (suggestion 1 by James) ←
16:55:51 <Luc> we would give the semantics of DM not ASN!
Luc Moreau: we would give the semantics of DM not ASN! ←
16:55:51 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:56:07 <Paolo> @satya: the semantics is of the model not the language
Paolo Missier: @satya: the semantics is of the model not the language ←
16:56:27 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
16:56:59 <smiles> jcheney: To move forward, first need to catch up with DM and compare with strawman
James Cheney: To move forward, first need to catch up with DM and compare with strawman ←
16:57:25 <smiles> ... regardless of whether mapping is formal semantics or not, still clear it is useful and focus on first
... regardless of whether mapping is formal semantics or not, still clear it is useful and focus on first ←
16:57:55 <satya> @Paolo: I will reserve my comments (till we have more details of the formal semantics of DM means)
Satya Sahoo: @Paolo: I will reserve my comments (till we have more details of the formal semantics of DM means) ←
16:57:55 <GK> James mentioned a datalog approach: I think that could be used to build in formal semantics from FoL - for which there exists a model theory.
Graham Klyne: James mentioned a datalog approach: I think that could be used to build in formal semantics from FoL - for which there exists a model theory. ←
16:58:11 <satya> @GK, ok that makes sense
Satya Sahoo: @GK, ok that makes sense ←
16:58:22 <smiles> ... Also happy for anyone interested to be involved, starting with mapping from Prov-DM to Prov-O
... Also happy for anyone interested to be involved, starting with mapping from Prov-DM to Prov-O ←
16:58:22 <GK> There was a proposal by R V Guha and (I think) Pat Hayes, many years ago, to do something sikilar for RDF.
Graham Klyne: There was a proposal by R V Guha and (I think) Pat Hayes, many years ago, to do something sikilar for RDF. ←
16:58:22 <satya> @James - I can help you with that
Satya Sahoo: @James - I can help you with that ←
16:58:45 <pgroth> TOPIC: Prov-DM
Summary: Approved a proposal to use a single notion of attribute-value pairs. Discussed various forums of derivation and how to simplify it in the data model.
<pgroth> Summary: Approved a proposal to use a single notion of attribute-value pairs. Discussed various forums of derivation and how to simplify it in the data model.
16:59:06 <pgroth> Proposed: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production."
PROPOSED: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to characterize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production." ←
16:59:23 <Paolo> @satya: set-theoretical interpretation is usually what works with data models
Paolo Missier: @satya: set-theoretical interpretation is usually what works with data models ←
16:59:35 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0122.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0122.html ←
16:59:54 <GK> +1 (but have separate concern about the phrasing using "characterozation")
Graham Klyne: +1 (but have separate concern about the phrasing using "characterozation") ←
16:59:57 <tlebo> q+
Timothy Lebo: q+ ←
16:59:57 <smiles> pgroth: any objections?
Paul Groth: any objections? ←
16:59:57 <dgarijo> +1
Daniel Garijo: +1 ←
17:00:01 <Paolo> +1
Paolo Missier: +1 ←
17:00:04 <pgroth> q?
Paul Groth: q? ←
17:00:16 <pgroth> ack tlebo
Paul Groth: ack tlebo ←
17:00:16 <smiles> tlebo: what was the intent of the distinction?
Timothy Lebo: what was the intent of the distinction? ←
17:00:22 <jcheney> @satya, @paolo: The strawman is an attempt to map PROV-DM in terms of sets/functions.
James Cheney: @satya, @paolo: The strawman is an attempt to map PROV-DM in terms of sets/functions. ←
17:00:56 <Paolo> good, thanks
Paolo Missier: good, thanks ←
17:00:59 <smiles> Luc: Attributes were in context of entities, fixed in characterisation interval; relations did not have durations
Luc Moreau: Attributes were in context of entities, fixed in characterisation interval; relations did not have durations ←
17:01:00 <Zakim> -Yogesh_Simmhan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Yogesh_Simmhan ←
17:01:12 <jcheney> @GK: Yes, datalog is interpretable in terms of FO model theory; however, dealing with things that change over time seem hard to model this way. Still, datalog good as a lightweight formalism.
James Cheney: @GK: Yes, datalog is interpretable in terms of FO model theory; however, dealing with things that change over time seem hard to model this way. Still, datalog good as a lightweight formalism. ←
17:01:13 <smiles> ... but distinction did not bring much, so better to merge
... but distinction did not bring much, so better to merge ←
17:01:37 <GK> @jcheney if functions themselves are sets of pairs, that maybe starts to look like a model theory?
Graham Klyne: @jcheney if functions themselves are sets of pairs, that maybe starts to look like a model theory? ←
17:01:44 <pgroth> Accepted: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to character�ize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production.
RESOLVED: Use a single notion of attribute-value pairs to character�ize entities, activities, use and generation. As a result, drop the notion of qualifier and its associated production. ←
17:02:05 <pgroth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0087.html
Paul Groth: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Nov/0087.html ←
17:02:23 <tlebo> Tim's notes on Luc's response: attriubtes on entities (duration, characterization, etc) same for PEs. but for Relations (didn't have durations). ATTRIBUTE-values were for Entity+PEs, NAME-values were on Relations.
Timothy Lebo: Tim's notes on Luc's response: attriubtes on entities (duration, characterization, etc) same for PEs. but for Relations (didn't have durations). ATTRIBUTE-values were for Entity+PEs, NAME-values were on Relations. ←
17:02:26 <jcheney> @GK: Correct, using functions doesn't take us out of set theory/model theory semantics.
James Cheney: @GK: Correct, using functions doesn't take us out of set theory/model theory semantics. ←
17:02:52 <satya> @Paul: I also need additional clarification
Satya Sahoo: @Paul: I also need additional clarification ←
17:02:58 <smiles> pgroth: Fairly well accepted, except for Simon's objection
Paul Groth: Fairly well accepted, except for Simon's objection ←
17:03:05 <tlebo> q?
Timothy Lebo: q? ←
17:03:12 <satya> @Paul: I did not have time to respond to this issue
Satya Sahoo: @Paul: I did not have time to respond to this issue ←
17:03:15 <smiles> Luc: actually very few voted either way
Luc Moreau: actually very few voted either way ←
17:03:49 <smiles> Luc: we haven't got enough support yet to resolve here, need to understand what Simon is saying
Luc Moreau: we haven't got enough support yet to resolve here, need to understand what Simon is saying ←
17:04:01 <GK> I was unclear about dependedUpon/eventuallyDerivedFrom distinction.
Graham Klyne: I was unclear about dependedUpon/eventuallyDerivedFrom distinction. ←
17:04:04 <tlebo> I'm confused by the use of multiple proposals; will try to read and comment on email.
Timothy Lebo: I'm confused by the use of multiple proposals; will try to read and comment on email. ←
17:04:23 <tlebo> (but I did get the impression that much of those predicates were redundant)
Timothy Lebo: (but I did get the impression that much of those predicates were redundant) ←
17:04:37 <GK> I think the transitivity issue is a different one
Graham Klyne: I think the transitivity issue is a different one ←
17:04:38 <smiles> Luc: we need a notion of transitive derivation, good examples of non-transitive when linked to activities, but unclear on wasEventuallyDerivedFrom
Luc Moreau: we need a notion of transitive derivation, good examples of non-transitive when linked to activities, but unclear on wasEventuallyDerivedFrom ←
17:04:42 <Paolo> general proposal: in addition to recording objections on the list (which may have veto effect), keep an exact count of the people who vote on the list -- the support to a proposal
Paolo Missier: general proposal: in addition to recording objections on the list (which may have veto effect), keep an exact count of the people who vote on the list -- the support to a proposal ←
17:05:05 <GK> simplification is good!
Graham Klyne: simplification is good! ←
17:05:06 <smiles> pgroth: Goal is to simplify
Paul Groth: Goal is to simplify ←
17:05:10 <Zakim> -Satya_Sahoo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Satya_Sahoo ←
17:05:11 <Zakim> -tlebo
Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←
17:05:12 <Zakim> -[ISI]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[ISI] ←
17:05:13 <Zakim> -jcheney
Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←
17:05:15 <Zakim> -dgarijo
Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←
17:05:17 <Zakim> -Paolo
Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←
17:05:22 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.633.aacc ←
17:05:23 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
17:05:33 <Zakim> -Luc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←
17:05:35 <Zakim> -Curt_Tilmes
Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt_Tilmes ←
17:05:39 <Zakim> -??P56
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P56 ←
17:05:41 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame
Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←
17:05:52 <pgroth> rrsagent, set log public
Paul Groth: rrsagent, set log public ←
17:05:54 <Zakim> -pgroth
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←
17:05:57 <pgroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
Paul Groth: rrsagent, draft minutes ←
17:05:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-prov-minutes.html pgroth ←
17:06:00 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
17:06:04 <Zakim> -Vinh
Zakim IRC Bot: -Vinh ←
17:06:04 <pgroth> trackbot, end telecon
Paul Groth: trackbot, end telecon ←
17:06:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:06:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-prov-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:06:06 <Zakim> SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(PROV)11:00AM has ended ←
17:06:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:06:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#3) generated 2011-11-14 20:11:55 UTC by 'lmoreau', comments: None